A

REPORT

ON

Studies on Blast Response of Steel-Concrete

Composite Panels Using Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics (SPH) method

BY

RAVI KIRAN PUVVALA 2007A2PS586P

Under the guidance of

MRS.N.ANANDAVALLI

Scientist, CSIR-SERC

AT

CSIR-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTRE

CSIR Campus, Chennai, India

Practice School II station

OF

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI

(March, 2011)
 BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE, Pilani (Rajasthan)
Practice School Division

REPORT

ON

Studies on Blast Response of Steel-Concrete

Composite Panels Using Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics (SPH) method

BY

RAVI KIRAN PUVVALA 2007A2PS586P

Prepared in partial fulfillment of the

Practice School II Course

AT

CSIR-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTRE.

Chennai, India

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI

(March, 2011)
 Page | 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

It gives me pride to profusely and gratefully render sincere thanks to my project guide
Mrs.N.Anandavalli, Scientist,CSIR- SERC, for her valuable guidance in doing this project.

I thank Dr. Nagesh Iyer, Director, SERC and our project incharge, Dr. S Arunachalam, Advisor
to Management , CSIR-SERC for giving us this opportunity to work at this premier institute,
thereby, enabling us to gain insight into the latest research areas and build research perspective.

Finally, I thank my PS II Instructor, Dr. K Venkataraman, for his encouragement and moral
support during the course of the project.

3
 Page | 4

Station: CSIR-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTRE Centre: CHENNAI

Duration: 6 months Date of Start: 5th January 2011

Date of Submission: 25th March 2011

Title Of The Project: Studies on Blast Response of Steel-Concrete Composite Panels Using
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method

NAME OF THE STUDENT ID .No. Discipline

Ravi Kiran Puvvala 2007A2PS586P B.E (hons) Civil Engineering

NAME(s) & DESIGNATION(s) OF THE EXPERT

Mrs.N. Anandavalli , Scientist, CSIR-SERC

NAME OF THE PS FACULTY: Dr. K Venkataraman

PROJECT AREAS: Numerical Simulation techniques , Structural Dynamics, Smoothed

Particle Hydrodynamics method, Blast effects on building, AUTODYN software.

ABSTRACT:
4
 Page | 5

An explosion within or immediately nearby a building can cause catastrophic damage on the
building's external and internal structural frames, collapsing of walls, blowing out of large
expanses of windows, and shutting down of critical life-safety systems. Loss of life and injuries
to occupants can result from many causes, including direct blast-effects, structural collapse,
debris impact, fire, and smoke. The indirect effects can combine to inhibit or prevent timely
evacuation, thereby contributing to additional casualties. In addition, major catastrophes
resulting from gas-chemical explosions result in large dynamic loads, greater than the original
design loads, of many structures. Due to the threat from such extreme loading conditions, efforts
have been made during the past three decades to develop methods of structural analysis and
design to resist blast loads. The analysis and design of structures subjected to blast loads require
a detailed understanding of blast phenomena and the dynamic response of various structures.
This report presents a comprehensive overview of the effects of explosion on structures from the
basics concepts involved in it. An explanation of the nature of explosions and the mechanism of
blast waves in free air is also given. This report also introduces methods to estimate blast loads
and structural response. The method we emphasis mainly on is the SMOOTHED PARTICLE
HYDRODYNAMICS method, a meshfree Lagrangian analysis with discussing its edge over
other simulating methods.

SIGNATURE OF THE STUDENTS SIGNATURE OF PS FACULTY

DATE: DATE:

5
 Page | 6

CONTENTS

Structural dynamics

Numerical simulation

SPH method

Blast effects on buildings

Autodyn modeling and analysis

6
 Page | 7

1. Structural Dynamics

 Introduction:

Structural dynamics is the topic of the 21st century. It took almost the entire 20th century to
bring the civil engineering profession to the point where buildings and other structures can be
analyzed with a reasonable degree of confidence to evaluate their performance to real civil
engineering types of forcing functions. The load that act upon structures received special
attention starting in the 1970s with the aid of modern data recording and acquisition systems.
For example, San Fernando Earthquake. A significant number of recordings (acceleration
versus time histories) were taken for the first time. Gradually, more and increasingly
accurate records of ground and building motions during earthquakes have been produced.
Therefore, Structural Dynamics has entered with this foundation of good and improved
analysis methods and records.

 Definition:

Structural dynamics is a subset of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures
subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic loading includes people, wind, waves, traffic,
earthquakes and blasts.

 Dynamic Analysis:

Any structure can be subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic analysis can be used to find
dynamic displacements, time history, and modal analysis. A static load does not vary with
time. A dynamic load is one which changes with time. If it changes slowly, the structure’s
response may be determined with static analysis, but if it varies quickly (relative to the
structure’s ability to respond), the response must be determined with a dynamic analysis.
Dynamic analysis for simple structures can be carried out manually, but for complex
structures finite element analysis can be used to calculate the mode shapes and frequencies.

 Time History Analysis

A full time history will give the response of a structure over time during and after the
application of a load. To find the full time history of a structure’s response the structure’s
equation of motions has to be solved. There are two kinds of analysis:
i) linear
ii) non-linear.
We focus more on the linear analysis in the initial stages of study.

7
 Page | 8

 Single-Degree-of-Freedom Linear Oscillator (SDOF)

The interdependence of the properties of the structure and the time history of ground motion
is best demonstrated using an SDOF system. Also, many building code equations are based
on the response of an SDOF system.
For many dynamic systems the relationship between restoring force and deflection is
approximately linear for small deviations about some reference. If the system is complex
(e.g., a building that requires numerous variables to describe its properties) it is possible to
transform it (using the normal modes of the system) into a number of simple 1- dimensional
linear oscillator problems (SDOF).
An SDOF system can be represented in many different forms as shown in Fig 1.1 and 1.2

Fig 1.1: SDOF System Fig 1.2: SDOF System

Consider the SDOF system as shown in Fig 1.3 which is subjected to a ground acceleration. Four
types of forces are acting on the mass

1.stiffness force ( F s=−kx )

2.damping force ¿ ¿)

3.external force ¿ ¿) here it is the ground acceleration

4.inertial force

8
 Page | 9

Fig 1.3 Structure subjected to a ground acceleration

For any SDOF system we have,

∑ F= F s+ F d+ F e= -kx - c ẋ+ F e= m ẍ (1.1)

Rearranging the terms in Eq. 1.1gives

m ẍ ( t )+ c ẋ +kx ( t ) =F e (t) (1.2)

This is called the Dynamic equilibrium equation and is often called the equation of motion for
the system. As it is a second order linear differential equation, it requires two initial conditions to
define its response. These initial conditions are generally the initial displacement of the mas, x(0)
= x 0 and the initial velocity of the mass, ẋ ( 0 )= x˙o
The solution involves two parts: the homogeneous solution, x h ( t ) , and the particular solution,
x p (t ).

System response, x(t) is calculated from these basic newton’s laws and solving the above
differential equation, as in 1.2.

9
 Page | 10

2. Numerical Simulation:
 Introduction
Role of numerical simulation is increasingly become a very important approach for solving
complex practical problems in engineering and science. It translates important aspects of a
physical problem into a discrete form of mathematical description, recreates and solves the
problem on the computer and reveals phenomena virtually according to the requirements of
the analysts. It acts as a bridge between experimental models and theoretical predictions

 Solution procedure of general numerical simulations

Physical phenomenamathematical modeldomain

discretizationnumerical algorithmcoding & implementationnumerical
simulation
 ODEs and PDEs are established in mathematical modeling.
 Domain discretization techniques may be different for different numerical methods. It
basically refers to representing a continuum problem domain with finite number of
components, which form the computational frame for the numerical approximation. it
may be a set of mesh or grid, which consists of a lattice of points or grid nodes to
approximate the geometry of the problem domain. The grid nodes are the locations where
field variables are evaluated, and their relations are defined by some nodal connectivity.
Accuracy of the numerical approximation is closely related to the mesh cell size and the
mesh patterns.

 Fundamental frames for describing physical governing equations are:

I. Eulerian description:
A spacial description, represented by finite difference method (FDM)

II. Lagrangian description:

A material description, represented by finite element method (FEM)

 Lagrangian grid: Fixed to or attached on the material in the entire computational process
and therefore it moves with the material
 Eulerian grid: Fixed on the space in which the simulated object is located and moves
across fixed mesh shells in the grid

10
 Page | 11

 Combined Lagrangian and Eulerian grids: This resulted in devolpment of coupled

Eulerian Lagrangian(CEL)
 Limitations of the grid/mesh-based methods: constructing a regular grid/mesh for
irregular or complex geometry has been a difficult task.It usually requires special
technique like rezoning which is a tedious and time consuming process.

 Meshfree methods:

They are different in the means of function approximation and implementation process.
Smoothened particle hydrodynamics(SPH), as a meshfree and particle method was originally
invented for modeling astrophysical phenomena and later widely extended for applications to
problems of continuum solid and fluid mechanics.

 Advantages of meshfree particle methods

I. In MPMs, the problem domain is discretized with particles without a fixed connectivity.
Treatment of large deformation is relatively much easier.
II. Discretization of complex geometry for MPMs is relatively simpler as only an initial
discretization is required.
III. Refinement of particles is expected much easier to perform than the mesh refinement
IV. Easy to obtain features of entire physical system through tracing the motion of particles
and easy identifying free surfaces, deformable boundaries and time history of field
variables

 Solution strategy of MPMs

I. Governing eqns with boundary conditions(BC) and/or initial conditions(IC)

II. Domain discretization technique for creating particles
III. Numerical discretization techinique
IV. Numerical technique to solve resultant ODE.

In computational mechanics an intense research activity is constantly conducted aiming to

propose and improve numerical methods and procedures, to simulate particular mechanics
conditions, such as high dynamic loading conditions, large displacements or rapid
deformations. Indeed, these conditions can represent severe criticalities for classical
numerical methods, such as Finite Element Methods (FEM) or Boundary Element Methods
(BEM). Mesh distortion and stress concentration, in particular, represent two of the main
issues that researchers try to overcome, introducing new numerical procedures. In case of
seismic engineering, particularly complex analyses, especially for severe seismic excitations,
can be subjected to such undesirable lacks of accuracy and consequently can need to be
conducted via particular numerical procedures. Some of the most interesting numerical
methods for severe dynamic conditions are the so-called meshless methods. This expression

11
 Page | 12

indicates a number of numerical methods that, using different approaches, do not need a
mesh discretization of the continuum, as intended in the classical FEM approach.
Alternatively, a number of points are defined, where all the variables and equations are
evaluated. In this way, points, classically referred to as “particles”, can be considered as
degrees of freedom, whose displacements do not introduce any mesh distortion and
consequently numerical instabilities are avoided. On the contrary, meshless methods often
suffer of lack of accuracy close to the boundary, which leads to the necessity of particular
procedures, trying to enforce convergence of numerical solutions in every point of the
domain.

12
 Page | 13

3. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics

(SPH)
 Introduction

In SPH method, the state of system is represented by a set of particles which posses
individual material properties and move according to the governing conservation equations.
It is a mesh free lagrangian particle method which is adaptive. This adaptability of SPH is
achieved at the very early stage of the field variable approximation that is performed at each
time step based on a current local set of arbitrarily distributed particles

SPH (Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics) method was first introduced by Lucy (1977) and
Gingold and Monaghan (1977) to address astrophysics problems. Then the method was used
in a number of applications, mainly in fluid-dynamics; then it was successful introduced in
mechanics and structural dynamics.

SPH as it is commonly attributed in literature to a group of meshless methods, sharing the

same basic approach. Indeed, in all SPH procedures, aiming to approximate a function A(x),
the following expression is considered as in equation 2.1

A (x) =∫A (x) δ(x) dΩ (Equation 3.1)

where δ(x) is the Dirac function and D is the domain of A(x); hence, a first
approximation is introduced, through the following expression 2.2
A (x) = ∫A( x) W( x) dΩ
(Equation 3.2)

where W(x), called kernel function, is substituted to approximate the Dirac function.
Common kernel functions are Gaussian-like functions, whose expressions can be exactly
that of Gaussian functions or also polynomial functions.

 Method

I. The problem domain is represented by a set of arbitrarily distributed particles,if it is not

yet in that form. No connectivity for them is needed
II. Integral representation function is used for field function approximation.
III. The kernel approximation is then further approximated using particles.This is turned as
particle approximation in SPH
IV. Particle approximation is done at every time step to all terms related to field functions in
PDE to get ODE in discretised form

V. ODEs are solved using an explicit integration algorithm.

13
 Page | 14

 Formulation of SPH

The formulation of the SPH is often divided into two key steps.

I. Integral representation of a function

The first step is integral representation or the so-called Kernel approximation of field
functions. In this step integration of the multiplication of an arbitrary function and a
smoothing kernel function gives the kernel approximation in the form of integral
representation of the function

II. Particle approximation

The second step is the particle approximation. The integral representation obtained is
then approximated by summing up the values of the nearest neighbor particles, which
yields the particle approximation of the function at a discrete point or particle.

The concept of integral representation of a function f(x) used in the SPH starts from the
following identity.
f ( x )=∫ f ( x ' ) δ ( x −x' ) dx ' (Equation 3.3)

Where f is a function of 3 dimensional position vector x, and δ is the Dirac Delta function
given by
δ ( x −x' ) =1 for x=x '¿ 0 for x ≠ x '
(Equation 3.4)

If the Delta function is replaced by smoothing function W ( x−x ' ,h ), the integral
representation is given by

f ( x ) ≜ f ( x ' ) W ( x−x ' , h ) dx ' (Equation 3.5)

Where W is so-called smoothing Kernel function. In the smoothing function, h is the

smoothing length defining the influence area of the smoothing function W.

In SPH convention, the Kernel approximation is marked by the angle bracket < > and
therefore the above equation is rewritten as

¿ f ( x )≥∫ f ( x' ) W ( x−x ' , h ) dx ' (Equation 3.6)

 Kernel function & its properties

In order to correctly reproduce the Dirac and in order to guarantee the convergence of the
approximation method, the following properties are commonly requested to kernel functions

I. Positive in its domain

14
 Page | 15

II. Unitary area within its domain

III. Delta function property
IV. Defined in a compact support (Compact condition)

Normalization condition / the unitary condition states that

∫ W ( x −x' , h ) d x ' =1 (equation 3.7)

Delta function property is observed when the ‘h’ tends to ZERO

lim W ( x−x ' , h ) =δ (x −x' ) (equation 3.7)

h→ 0

Compact condition gives

W ( x−x ' ,h )=0 when|x−x '|>kh (equation 3.8)

where k is a constant related to smoothing function for point at x.

Hence, a second approximation is introduced, substituting previous equation with its

discrete expression:

A(x) = Σ A( x) W( x) ΔΩ (equation 3.9)

where a partition of D has been introduced through a finite number N of spaces ΔΩ,
whose centroids are the so called “particles”

 APPROXIMATION OF DERIVATIVES

In order to obtain an approximated expression of derivatives of function A(x), a number of

approaches has been developed and proposed. Classical one, applying Green formula and
neglecting border contributions, expresses the first derivative of A(x) as

∇A x ≅ ∫{A( x) – A( x)}∇W (x) dx (equation 3.10)

And in discrete form as:

∇A x =Σ[A( x) – A( x)]∇W (x) dΩ (equation 3.11)

Further derivatives, according to classical approach, are then evaluated reiterating the procedure

∇2A(x) =Σ[∇A(x) −∇A(x)]∇W(x) ΔΩ (equation 3.12)

15
 Page | 16

In order to overcome lack of convergence, in particular occurring close to boundaries, different

procedures have been proposed in literature. Starting from Taylor series expansion, Chen and
Beraun (2000), proposed a generalized formulation leading to the following expressions for first
and second derivatives:

∑ [ A ( x j )− A ( x i ) ] ∇ W i ( x j ) ∆ Ω j
∇ A ( xi ) = j=1 N

∑ ( x j−x i )∇ W i ( x j ) ∆ Ω j
j=1

N N

∑ [ A ( x j )− A ( x i ) ] ∇ W i ( x j ) ∆ Ω j−∇ A ( x i ) ∑ (x j −xi )W i ( x j ) ∆ Ω j
∇ 2 A ( x i ) = j=1 j=1
N
1 2
Such a procedure, deriving from Taylor ∑ x j−x i) expansion
( series W i ( x j ) ∆ Ω up
j to the first order, guarantees
2 j=1
everywhere in the domain, even close to the boundary, a h order of convergence to the exact
solution, where h represents the size of the particle discretization. In this case, no specific
constraints are introduced for the kernel function. On the contrary, different approaches, also
focusing on Taylor series expansion, aiming to manage the convergence error, indicate particular
expressions for kernel functions. It is the case of Reproducing Kernel Particle Method (RKPM)
from Liu and coworkers (1995) and Kulasegaram and Bonet (2000), where, forcing to zero n-th
order momenti of kernel function, it is aimed to achieve higher order errors. However, boundary
deficiencies in these cases are not completely eliminated and particular local procedures become
necessary. To overcome such problems and obtain a second order error in approximation of
derivatives, authors are currently working on an original formulation, which starts from a basic
idea of Liu et al. (2005) and Zhang and Batra (2004). In this procedure Taylor series expansion
up to the second order is projected against a kernel function an its derivative, obtaining the
following linear system, providing the first and the second derivatives of the function A(x):

( B11 B12 ∇ A ( x i )
)(
B21 B22 ∇2 A ( xi )

Where
=
) ( ∫ [ A ( x )−A ( x i) ] W i ( x ) dx
D

∫ [ A ( x )− A(x i )] ∇ W i ( x ) dx
D
)
[
B11= ∫ [ x−x i ] W i ( x ) dx
D
]
16
 Page | 17

B12=
1
2 [∫ D
2
( x−x i ) W i ( x ) dx ]
[
B21= ∫ [ x−x i ] ∇ W i ( x ) dx
D
]
B22=
1
∫
2 D
( [ 2
x−x i ) ∇ W i ( x ) dx
]
Hence, properly choosing kernel function, enforcing for each particle that specific momenti of
the kernel function and of its derivative are null, the error is moved to h2 order, even for particles
close to the boundary. In order to appreciate the enhancement introduced with this formulation,
the method was used to solve in one dimension the following problem
u” = − f

defined in the domain D [0;1], where u is an unknown function and f is equal to:
f = sin(πx) x)

 NUMERICAL SPECTRA

In order to appreciate the capability of the investigated methods in reproducing high dynamic
problems, it is useful to evaluate how higher vibration modes of a dynamic system are
reproduced through the numerical approximations. A uniaxial elastic element is considered,
of length L, longitudinal elastic stiffness E A , and longitudinal density ρ L. Dirichlet boundary
conditions are applied. The governing equation is

δ2x δ2 x
EA + ρ L =0
δ X2 δ t2

where X and x are the initial and the actual configuration of the element, respectively.
Introducing the celerity c as

EA
c=
√2
2 δ x
ρL
δ2 x
c + =0
δ X 2 δ t2

In a stationary problem the following equation holds:

δ2 x 2
2
=ω x
δt

17
 Page | 18

where ω is the frequency of vibration of the element; hence, equation can be rewritten
as:

2 δ2 x 2
c 2
+ ω x=0
δX

The solution of this differential equation is given by:

x = sin(α x)

 SPH for simulating explosions

The combination of adaptive, meshfree and lagrangian nature of the SPH plus an explicit
algorithm make the SPH method very attractive in treating highly dynamic phenomena with
large deformations and large in-homogeneneties that occur in the extremely transient HE
explosion process. The SPH formulation is performed based on the Euler equations, as the
explosion is an extremely fast phenomenon. The JWL equation of state for high explosives is
incorporated into the SPH equations.

Parameters before and after detonation shock

D−U =V √( p−P)/(V −v )

U −U=(V −v) √ (P− p)/(V −v)

e−E=1/2( p+ P)(V −v)

Euler equations

dl
= −( 1/e)∇ p.v
dt

dv
= -(1/e ¿ ∇ p
dt

Pressure of the explosion gas is given by

'
−R −R
n n
P= A ( 1−w ) e + B ( 1−w ) e +wnpe

Simplifies usage

18
 Page | 19

P= (Ɣ −1 ) l e

This is called the Gamma law for ideal gas

SPH formulations are then applied on the pressure equations and then solution is obtained using
the algorithm.

High dynamic problems represent a critical aspect of structural dynamics, which is currently
attracting the efforts of many researchers of numerical community. In this field, meshless
methods seem to be able to overcome the problems related to mesh distortions and numerical
instabilities, which affect classical FEM, if employed under particular loading conditions.I’ve
presented the basic idea of SPH method and summarized its basic formulations; in particular, the
attention is focused on derivatives expressions, which play a fundamental role in deriving
numerical framework to simulate dynamic structural systems. In this case, given the lack of
accuracy occurring close to the boundary, different improvements have been proposed in
literature and some of them are here cited. Then, the derivation of an original formulation is
described. The approach here proposed appears to exhibit good results both in the direct
approximation of derivatives, tested via a numerical problem, and in the derivation of the
numerical spectrum. In particular, this also reveals that existing SPH formulations lose
completely accuracy in predicting higher vibration frequencies. On the contrary, the proposed
formulation, presented in two variants, is able to better reproduce higher modes(especially in
case of the second formulation), providing results comparable with those of FEM in case of
linear shape functions, without the classical deficiencies characterizing FEM method in high
dynamic analyses. Authors are currently working on differences between proposed formulations
and other existing SPH procedures in order to investigate the numerical spectra, conducting
further numerical tests, and extending the formulations to multidimensional cases.

19
 Page | 20

4. Blast effects on buildings

 Explosive loading

Explosion effects on building structures can be divided into primary and secondary effects.

The primary effects include:

1. Air blast
The blast wave causes a pressure increase of the air surrounding a building structure
and also a blast wind.

2. Direct ground shock

An explosive which is buried completely or partly below the ground surface, will
cause a ground shock. This is a horizontal (and vertical, depending on the location of
the explosion with regard to the structural foundation) vibration of the ground, similar
to an earthquake but with a different frequency.

3. Heat
A part of the explosive energy is converted to heat. Building materials are weakened
at increased temperature. Heat can cause fire if the temperature is high enough.

4. Primary fragments
Fragments from the explosive source are thrown into the air at high velocity (for
example wall fragments of an exploded gas tank). Fragments can hit people or
buildings near the explosion. They are not a direct threat to the bearing structure of
the building, which is usually covered by a facade. However, they may destroy
windows and glass facades and cause victims among inhabitants and passers-by.

An overview of the explosion effects on buildings, summarized, is given in figure 4.1 below.
Secondary explosion effects, such as secondary fragments and blast induced ground shock
are not considered.

20
 Page | 21

 Blast loading

During an explosion an oxidation reaction occurs that is called combustion. When explosive
materials decompose at a rate below the speed of sound (subsonic), the combustion process is
called deflagration. Gas and dust explosions are of this type. Under specific conditions a
deflagration to detonation transition can occur. Detonation is the other form of reaction
which produces a high intensity shock wave. The reaction rate is 4-25 times faster than the
speed of sound (supersonic). An explosion of TNT is an example of a detonation. The two
types of explosions have significantly different pressure-time profiles and will therefore be
treated separately in this report.

Fig 4.1: Explosion effects on structures

 Pressure time profile

The meaning of a few important blast parameters can be seen in figure 4.2. In this figure, t a is
the arrival time of the blast, t d is the positive (overpressure) phase duration of the blast,t d , n is
the negative (under-pressure i.e. negative overpressure) phase duration of the blast, p0 is the
21
 Page | 22

ambient pressure, pm is the peak static overpressure, pn , m is the maximum value of under-
pressure, i is the impulse of the positive phase of the pressure-time curve and in is the
impulse of the negative phase of the pressure-time curve. The pressure-time profile in the
figure is that of a detonation. The deflagration pressure-time profile is different as can be
seen in figure 4.3. The deflagration pressure-time profile will transform to a detonation
profile if the peak-static overpressure exceeds the value of approximately 3kPa (pm > 3 kPa).

Fig 4.2: Blast wave pressure time

profile

Fig 4.3: Detonation and deflagration pressure time

history

 Scaled distance

An important parameter for determination of air-blast pressure and impulse is the scaled
distance z, which is dependent of the distance r from the charge center in meters and the
charge mass M TNT expressed in kilograms of TNT:

22
 Page | 23

Other blast parameters can conveniently be plotted against the scaled distance. In figure
4.4 the peak static overpressure p, impulse i, time of blast arrival t a and positive phase
duration t d are shown depending on the scaled distance z.

Fig 4.4: Blast parameters for TNT equivalent

explosions

 Dynamic blast pressure

Apart from a static overpressure p, there is also a dynamic pressure q (i.e. blast wind)
associated with a blast wave. This dynamic pressure is higher than the static overpressure for
small scaled distance and lower than the static overpressure for large scaled distance. The
positive phase duration of the dynamic pressure t dq and static overpressure t dp is also
different, but in this report it will be assumed that both durations are equal. In figure 4.5 the
static overpressure p and the dynamic pressure q are displayed versus the scaled distance z.

23
 Page | 24

Fig 4.5: Static overpressure (p) vs Dynamic overpressure (q)

 Blast-structure interaction

Blast parameters are found for TNT blasts in free space (free-air burst) or half space (surface
burst). In case of a surface burst, parameters for free-air bursts should be multiplied by a
reflection factor of 1.8. Theoretically this factor should equal 2, but some energy is dissipated
in the deformation of the surface. A reflection factor of 1.8 gives good agreement with
experimental results.

 Blast waves on an infinite rigid plane

If a blast wave with a certain (time dependent) static overpressure p(t), dynamic pressure q(t)
and impulse i(t) encounters an infinite, rigid plane, it is reflected. Because the incident wave
and the reflected wave coincide, the pressure on the rigid plane is higher than the pressure of
the incident wave and is denoted by pr (t ), reflected overpressure. The reflected impulse
associated with the reflected overpressure is denoted by i r (t)

The reflected overpressure and impulse are dependent on the angle of incidence ∝i of the
blast wave, which is the angle between the blast wavefront and the target surface. The
reflection coefficient C r is defined as the ratio of the reflected overpressure and the incident
overpressure (overpressure if the wave were not obstructed, sum of static overpressure p(t)
and dynamic pressure q(t)). If the angle of incidence is 90deg, the blast wave travels
alongside the plane and the overpressure is equal to the static overpressure, which is also
referred to in as side-on overpressure. The dynamic pressure q(t) works in this case only in
the direction parallel to the plane and is therefore (almost) not obstructed. The friction
between the moving air and the rigid plane is negligible. For all ∝ibetween 0 – 90 deg, the
reflected pressure pr ( t )is dependent on the static overpressure p(t) and the dynamic pressure

24
 Page | 25

q(t). The reflection coefficient C ris shown versus the angle of incidence ∝i in figure 4.6 for a
detonation. As the figure points out, the reflection coefficient is dependent on the static
overpressure p(t). The reflection coefficient also depends on the type of explosion, detonation
or deflagration.

Fig 4.6: Reflection coefficient vs angle of incidence for a detonation

Starting at an angle of incidence ∝i of approximately 40deg, depending on the static

overpressure, the reflection coefficient C rincreases and has a local maximum which is
sometimes higher than the reflection coefficient at ∝i = 0 deg. This is due to Mach
reflection, which occurs when the reflected wave catches up and fuses with the incident
wave at some point above the reflecting surface to produce a third wavefront called the Mach
stem. These local peak values are the result of theoretical derivations that could not be
verified by experiments. Therefore it is suggested that these peak values are flattened for
simple calculations.

 Blast waves on a building

If a blast wave encounters a building, the building is loaded by a pressure, which is a

summation of two parts. The first part is due to the static overpressure and the second part is
due to the dynamic pressure or blast wind. These pressures are shown in figure 4.7. Both
static overpressure and dynamic pressure are a function of time, and also of the unobstructed
distance to the charge center. Time and distance are coupled by the velocity at which the
blast wave is propagating, although this velocity is not constant. Due to the coupling of time
and distance, the part of translational pressure ptrans (t)which is due to the static overpressure
p(t) depends on the size of the building (or other object) compared to the positive phase
25
 Page | 26

duration of the blast t d. The translation pressure is defined as the net pressure due to blast
loading.

Fig 4.7(a): Static overpressure Fig 4.7(b): Dynamic overpressure

If the building is very small in one direction (width or height), the overpressure on the front
and the back of the building is approximately equal and hence the translational pressure is
approximately zero (figure 4.8a, overpressure).

If the building is larger (width or height) compared to the blast duration and the angle of
incidence is 0 deg, the front of the building is loaded with the reflected static overpressure
pr ; st (t).

The sides are loaded with the static overpressure. However, this pressure works in opposite
direction on both sides and does not result in translational pressure. The pressure in the blast
wave traveling along the sides equals the static overpressure (dynamic pressure is considered
further on). This pressure is lower than the reflected static overpressure, which causes large
local pressure differences. These pressure differences cause the blast wave to diffract around
the building. When the diffraction from the front to the sides of the building is completed, the
static pressure on the front is decreased from the reflected static overpressure to the static
overpressure. Similarly, pressure differences cause the blast wave to diffract from the sides to
the back of the building, once the blast wave front passes by the back of the building.

Translational pressure resulting from diffraction is significant only when the time to diffract
around the building is approximately equal to or larger than the positive phase duration of the
blast. For this type of building and blast, the building is called a diffraction target. If the
positive phase duration of the blast is much smaller than the time to diffract around the
building, the building is loaded sequentially. A sequentially loaded building feels a pressure
from the blast wave either at the front, at the sides or at the back, but not at the same time.

Summarizing the effects of static overpressure on a building, three essentially different

types can be distinguished:

26
 Page | 27

 No translational pressure (long positive phase duration compared to time of

diffraction).

 Translational pressure due to difference between overpressure on front and back

(positive phase duration approximately equal to or larger than the time of
diffraction).

 Translational pressure due to local overpressure only (small positive phase

duration compared to time of diffraction).

The effects of static overpressure determine the translational pressure on a building together
with effects of the dynamic pressure or blast wind. Whereas the static overpressure is caused
by an increased density of the air, the dynamic pressure is the result of the movement of air
away from the blast source. Similar to ordinary wind, the blast wind causes a pressure on the
front of a building and a negative pressure (suction) at the back of a building. Both pressures
are translational in the same direction. Because of their translational nature, these pressure
are called drag pressures. The drag pressure on a building or object is equal to the dynamic
pressure multiplied by a drag factor C d. The drag coefficient for suction at the back of the
object is smaller and negative (C d= −0.3 for a boxed-shape object and ∝i = 0deg).

The dynamic pressure on the front is reflected similar to the static overpressure. In literature,
the reflected overpressure pr (t )includes both the reflected static overpressure pr : st (t ) and the
reflected dynamic pressure q r (t). This is rather confusing and leads to mistakes where the
drag force is superimposed on the force from the reflected overpressure. If a building is small
(height or width), the pushing and sucking drag pressures on front and back are applied at
approximately the same time. Because of the small dimensions of the front face, no reflection
occurs (figure 4.8a, dynamic pressure).

For the other types of buildings, the behavior is similar as for static overpressure (figure
4.8b-4.8c, dynamic pressure), except for the direction of the pressure on the back of the
building, which is opposite of the direction of static overpressure. The reason for this
similarity is found in the similarity of the pressure-time history of static overpressure and
dynamic pressure.

Summarizing the effects of both static overpressure and dynamic pressure, the target
(building with respect to blast) can be divided into three categories:

 Drag target: translational pressure from dynamic pressure, crushing from static
overpressure (long positive phase duration compared to time of diffraction). See
figure 4.8a.

27
 Page | 28

Fig 4.8(a): Drag Target

 Diffraction target: translational pressure due to both dynamic pressure and static
overpressure (positive phase duration approximately equal to or larger than time of
diffraction).

Fig 4.8(b): Diffraction Target

 Sequentially loaded target: translational pressure due to both dynamic pressure and
static overpressure, but only local (positive phase duration (much) smaller than time
of diffraction). See figure c)

Fig 4.8(c): Sequentially loaded target

28
 Page | 29

Other objects near the blast source as well as inequalities in the surface all influence the blast
pressure-time history. It can be concluded that a lot of information is needed about the
explosive and its location, the geometry of the target and its surroundings to be able to
quantify the pressure-time history. In complex built environments, a lot of reflections can
occur, leading to a complex pressure-time history. It is impossible to calculate all reflections
and possible re-reflections under different angles of incidence as well as the influence of the
geometry of the target and surrounding structures on the reflected overpressure analytically.
In this case it is necessary to do experiments or to use CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamics,
to simulate the blast. In uncoupled CFD buildings are modeled as rigid objects. In coupled
CFD the influence of movement and failure of building elements on the blast wave
propagation is also considered. However, a lot of input is required by the user as well as
expertise in finite element modeling.

 Blast distribution

Using the knowledge from the previous sections and the methods from literature to obtain
quantitative information about the translational pressure and impulse on a building, the
distribution of pressure and impulse over the facade of the building has not been taken into
account. For blasts at large range, the distribution is approximately uniform. At shorter
ranges, this assumption is not valid, since the blast propagation from a surface burst is
hemispherical. At close range, the range (and scaled distance) to different heights on the
facade is significantly unequal.

29
 Page | 30

5. AUTODYN
This part describes how 2D and 3D numerical analysis can be applied to the simulation of high
explosives. The capabilities of AUTODYN-2D & AUTODYN-3D hydrocodes are described,
with emphasis on the modeling of blast and explosive events. The results of a number of
example analyses are presented, to illustrate the application of various modeling techniques to
high explosive events. These examples describe the analysis of channeling of air blast down a
street, structural response due to an explosion in a munitions store, an explosively formed
penetrator, a shaped charge and a fragmenting warhead.

 Introduction

 Overview of analysis techniques

The objective is to show examples where 2-D and 3D numerical analysis software tools
have been used in the simulation of high explosives. This part of report will concentrate
on 5 particular case studies associated with explosion and blast problems, including the
analysis of loading and response

High explosive loading and response problems involve highly non-linear transient
phenomena. A great range of physical processes must be taken into account to enable
accurate characterization of such events. It is the responsibility of the
engineer/scientist/designer/assessor to consider these complex interacting phenomena
using a range of appropriate techniques. Thera are 4 basic techniques that can be applied,
together with more general skills such as experience and judgement, and these are
outlined below. Firstly hand calculations can be applied; however, only the simplest
highly idealized problems are practically solvable. More complex analytical techniques
which are usually computer based or involve the use of look-up graphs and charts, are
very useful in enabling consideration of many different cases relatively quickly. By their
very nature analytical techniques are only applicable to a narrow range of problems; this
is because they are based on a limited set of experimental data or particular gross
simplifying assumptions. Difficulties in modeling highly non-linear phenomena mean
that physical experiments play a vital role in the charaterisation of such problems.
However, these experiments can be very costly, and are often difficult to instrument and
interpretation of results is rarely straightforward.

 Numerical software

This offers an alternative approach to high explosive blast and explosion phenomena.
Their advantage is that they attempt to model the full physics of the phenomena. In other

30
 Page | 31

words, they are designed to solve from first principles the governing conservation
equations that describe the behavior of the system. By their nature numerical techniques
are suitable for solving a wider range of problems than a particular technique. They
enable great savings to be made in the costs of investigative physical experiments and
allow the analyst to look at ‘perfectly instrumented numerical eperiments’. Thus
parameters that are virtually impossible to measure in physical experiments can be
examined in detail.

In reality, numerical techniques for these highly non-linear phenomena are not able to
model the complete physics and often the sub-models, which exist in all state-of-the art
tools, are empirically based or require data which must be obtained through experimental
validation. For example, equation of state parameter for HE are often determined using
data from so called cylinder tests where the motion of the wall of a copper cylinder filled
with explosive is measured. There are 2 major general problems to be faced in the
numerical analysis of the types of events described in this report. Firstly, for problems of
solid dynamics (example: Structural response) the chief problem is material
characterization in terms of the models that are used and the data required for them. For
fluid dynamics (example: The expansion of the high explosive products and blast) the
chief problem is the lack of numerical resolution available for solving such problems.
Much of the current research and development work related to numerical codes is
concerned with better overcoming these 2 major issues.

Despite the computational requirements of numerical analysis, the increased power and
availability of computers has led to the wide-spread use of numerical software tools for
solving highly non-linear dynamic events. The barriers between experimentalists,
analysts and designers are gradually breaking down as such tools become more widely
used. Indeed, problems are most efficiently and effectively solved when a combined
approach involving physical experimentation, analytical and numerical techniques are
taken.

A more general problem faced by all techniques, but which becomes particularly
apparent when developing numerical techniques, is that many areas of non-linear
response are poorly understood; two notable examples are the details of dynamic material
fracture and turbulent fluid flow. This poor understanding does not mean that modeling
techniques are rendered useless, indeed numerical modeling is a major vehicle in
developing our understanding of these complex phenomena.

The report will start by reviewing the current status of the AUTODYN numerical
software used in the analyses illustrated here. Following this each of the applications will
be described together with sample results from the analyses.
 AUTODYN-2D & 3D
31
 Page | 32

The special features and capabilities of AUTODYN-2D & 3D are described below.
Importantly, they both include all the required functions for model generation, analysis
and display of the results in a single graphical menu-driven package. The codes can be
run, with the same functionality albeit at varying speeds, on personal computers and
engineering workstations through to mainframes and supercomputers. The codes are
written in ANSI standard FORTRAN and C for portability. These codes are under
constant and active development through industrial and academic research and
development. Such developments are to a great extent driven by the feedback obtained
from users of the codes

AUTODYN-2D & 3D are fully integrated engineering analysis codes specifically

designed for non-linear dynamic problems. They are particularly suited to the modeling
of impact, penetration, blast and explosion events. AUTODYN-2D & 3D are explicit
numerical analysis codes, sometimes referred to as “hydrocodes” where the equations of
mass, momentum and energy conservation coupled with materials descriptions are
solved. Finite difference, finite volume, finite element and meshless methods are used
depending on the solution technique (or processor ) being used.
Alternative numerical processors are available and can be selectively used to model
different regions of a problem. The currently available processors include Lanrange,
typically used for modeling solid continua and structures, and Euler for modeling gases,
fluids and the large distortion of solids. The Euler capacity allows for multi-material flow
and material strength to be included. A fast single material high resolution Euler FCT
processor in both 2D and 3D has also been developed, to more efficiently address which
can be used to provide automatic rezoning of distorted grids; ALE rezoning algorithms
can range from Langrangian (i.e. grid moves with material) to Eulerian (i.e. grid fixed in
space). A Shell processor is available for modeling thin structures and both codes include
an erosion algorithm that enhances the ability of the lagrange and shell processor to
simulate impact problems where large deformations occur. Coupling between the
processor types is available so that the best processor type for each region of a problem
can be used. Various techniques, such as remapping which uses an initial explosion
calculation to set up the initial conditions for a subsequent calculation stage, can be used
to improve computational efficiency and solution accuracy.

The lagrange processor, in which the grid distorts with the material, has the advantage of
being computationally fast and gives good definition of material interfaces. The Euler
processor, which uses a fixed grid through which material flows, is computationally more
expensive but is often better suited to modeling larger deformations and fluid flow.
An SPH (Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics) processor is also available in the codes. SPH
method is explained in the earlier parts. At present, SPH capability is best suited to the
modeling of impact/penetration problems, although the rapid evolution of the SPH
32
 Page | 33

technique is likely to lead to a much wider range of applications for which SPH is a good
choice. A description of the SPH technique and examples of impact and penetration
simulations are also given below.

A large range of material equations (EOS) and constitutive models are available and the
user can incorporate further options through the provided user-subroutine facilities. High
explosives are usually modeled using the Jones Wilkins and Lee. This is an empirical
material model with parameter typically derived from cylinder test data. The explosive is
initiated at points or planes and a detonation wave propagates away from the ignite ion
locations into the material at the detonation velocity. This process converts the explosive
to high pressure detonation products. Alternatively, the Lee Tarver ignition and growth
model can be used for more detailed explosive initiation studies

 Application Examples

Numerical analysis methods can be used to simulate a wide range of explosive

applications:

 Explosions in air, underground, underwater and in other materials

 Shaped charges for the military, demolition and oil well perforation
 Materials forming, welding, cutting and powder compaction
 Other types of warhead such as explosively formed projectiles or fragmentation
 Numerical analyses of few example applications are described in this section

Example 1:
GOAL:
Model the explosive demolition of a concrete slab. The materials to be used are AIR,
CONC-35MPA, TNT. The principal stress for tensile failure of CONC-35MPA is 5.0e3,
take fracture energy=100.Take Internal energy of AIR=2.068e5≡ 1 atmosphere.
Dimensions of the Structure are 500x1000.

Modelling:

33
 Page | 34

Fig 5.1 Model of the Problem

Final picture after the RUN

Fig 5.1: After the detonation

34
 Page | 35

Fig 5.2: The 3D view of the PRESSURE DISRTIBUTION over the entire model after the
detonation.

Fig 5.3 When the number of cells are HALFED

Fig 5.4: When the number of cells are DOUBLED

Example 2:

SHAPED CHARGE JET FORMATION

Shaped charge warheads are fundamental to many weapons systems, as well as to civilian
applications such as rock fracturing for oil drilling and demolition. Over the past four
decades, enormous amounts of effort have been invested in attempting to maximise the
performance of these warheads and to understanding the effects of material properties
and manufacturing tolerances. Extensive experimental programmes have helped to
identify the crucial factors in charge design, allowing geometries and dimensions to be
optimised. Sophisticated measurement techniques have similarly given an understanding
of the processes involved in the jet formation. This development has been well supported
by the availability of 2D and 3D numerical models capable of accepting readily available
design data and generating simulations of shaped charge operation which allow

35
 Page | 36

visualisation of the jetting and penetration process. The information produced can be
validated experimentally. The jet formation process within a shaped charge involves
extremely high pressures, deformations and strain rates in the liner material at the jetting
point and in the early stages of jet formation. For this reason, the numerical modelling of
the jetting process is commonly carried out using the Euler processor. An alternative
approach available in AUTODYN-2D is a combined numerical / analytical method where
the liner is modelled using a Shell subgrid coupled to an Euler grid containing the
explosive charge. The acceleration and deformation of the liner are calculated
numerically until the liner reaches the symmetry axis. An analytical calculation is then
used to predict the resulting jet and slug behaviour.
The following example illustrates the application of the AUTODYN-2D Euler processor
to analysis of a 90mm diameter precision shaped charge. The charge configuration is
shown below, consisting of an Octol explosive fill and an OFHC copper liner. A single
Euler grid of about 100,000 nodes (equivalent to a grid size of approximately 0.5mm) is
used. The warhead configuration and resultant jet at 50 microseconds are shown in
Figures 5.5 & 5.6

Fig 5.5 Shaped Charge Warhead

36
 Page | 37

Fig 5.6: Shaped Charge Jet at 50µs

Example 3:

Street channeled Air Blast

In recent years high explosive bomb attacks have been increasingly directed agains civil
structures by various terrorist organizations. This has encouraged structural designers to
look for new and improved methods of protecting civil structures without resorting to
military style massive reinforced concrete construction[]. Such improved designs must ne
based on design blast loads with an appropriate degree of accuracy. For conceptual
design studies it is possible to use simple analysis methods such as analytical or 1 or 2
dimentional numerical methods. For detailed design of a protection system, better
accuracy design loads are required, and for the typical complex geometries found in
congestes urban environments this means that a 3D analysis tool must be used. However, if
such a tool is to be used, it must first be validated to show that it can reproduce the complex
effects associated with blast waves propagating and interacting with multiple obstracles.
Whatever method is used to generate the blast loading predictions it must be capable of predicting
load time histories on entire building facades and on structural components such as individual
panels in a building facade

In order to validate the 3D blast calculations conducted using the Euler-FCT processor, and the
remapping facilities in AUTODYN-2D & 3D, results from a series of numerical calculations
were compared with results from a small scale experiment. The Pressure-Time history is shown
in Fig 5.7. The plan of the experimental rigis shown in Figure 5.9. The test is 1/50 th scale and
therefore represents a 1000kg TNT charge detonating at the centre of a typical street geometry.

37
 Page | 38

As shown, a pressure guage was placed on one of the building faces opposite the end of the street.
The experiments were conducted by the Royal Military College of science
Figure 5.8 shows the numerical mesh used to model the experiment. This model used 2 symmetry
planes to reduce the size of the numerical mesh and hence the calculation time, and with a cell
size of 10mm within the street it contained approximately 360000 cells.

Pressure Time histories on the front face of the building opposite the end of the street are shown
in the below figure. A 2D approximation of the street geometry results in a significant over-
prediction of the peak pressure, while the full 3D calculation agrees well with the experimental
results. The Conwep time history shows the effects of using a simple analytical calculation that
neglects the channeling of the blast wave down the street.
These calculations show that for a complex geometry with the blast wave channeled down a street
only 3D numerical analysis that incorporated all the 3D geometry of the problem gave good
agreement with experimental results. Comparison of blast wave predictions made using the
Conwep program with the experimental results showed that neglecting the effects of channeling
the blast wave along the street caused severe under prediction of the blast wave peak pressure and
impulse. A protection system based on these blast loads would be very unsafe.The records we get
are also shown below.

200mm

300mm Concrete
Concrete Block
block 150mm

240mm Building
300mm Street Building

Charge 8g TNT equivalent

Guage Location

Fig 5.9: Plan of Experimental geometry

38
 Page | 39

Fig 5.7: Street channeled blast pressure time

histories on front face of the building

Fig 5.8: 3D Street Channelled Blast

model

39
 Page | 40

REFERENCES:

[1] Gary C Hart, Kevin Wong (2000) “Structural Dynamics for structural engineers”, John Wiley
& Sons

[2] John M Biggs “Strcutural Dynamics”, McGraw-Hill (1964)

[3] Baker, W.E., Cox, P.A., Westine, P.S., Kulesz, J.J. and Strehlow, R.A., Explosion hazards
and evaluation, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, 1983.

[4] Brode, H.L., “Numerical solution of spherical blast waves”, Journal of Applied Physics,
American Institute of Physics, Ney York, 1955.

[5] The initial velocities of fragments from bombs, shells, granades BRL Report 405

[6] CONDAT GmbH and century Dynamics “Split-X user manual 1995”

[7] Dobratz, B.M and Crawford, P.C., "LLNL Explosives Handbook"

[8] Nitesh, N., Moon. (2009)" Prediction of Blast Loading and Its Impact on Buildings ",
M.T.thesis, National Institute of Technology, Roukema.

[9] Khadid et al. (2007), “Blast loaded stiffened plates” Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Vol. 2(2) pp. 456-461.

[10] Alexander M. Remennikov, (2003) “A review of methods for predicting bomb blast effects
on buildings”, Journal of battlefield technology, Vol 6, no 3. pp 155-161.

[11] TM 5-1300(UFC 3-340-02) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1990), “Structures to Resist the
Effects of Accidental Explosions”, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

[12] A.K. Pandey et al. (2006) “Non-linear response of reinforced concrete containment structure
under blast loading” Nuclear Engineering and design 236. pp.993-1002.

[13] T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta & J. Ramsay, (2007)," Blast Loading and Blast Effects on
Structures", Int., J. Struc Eng., Australia, pp.76-91.

[14] Clough, Ray.W., and Penzien, J., Dynamics of Structures, Volume 2, McGraw Hill, New
York,N.Y., 2003.

[15] Ansys Autodyn Workshop Manual

[16] www.ansys.com

40
 Page | 41

[17] www.nptel.iitm.ac.in (structural dynamics)

[18] G R Liu, M B Liu, “Smoothened Particle Hydrodynamics”

[19] W.Benz., E.Asphaug “Simulations of Brittle Solids using SPH”

[20] J.Bonet, S.Kulasegaram “Correction and stabilization of SPH method with applications in
metal forming simulations”

[21] J K Chen, J E Beraun “A generalized SPH method for nonlinear dynamic problems”

[22] W K Liu,S jun, S Li “Reproducing kernel particle methods for structural dynamics”

41