## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Introduction

This report will investigate the blast loading capability of a simple supported one – way spanning carbon fibre reinforced plastic panel. Units of KPa (kN / m2), kN, kg, meters, and seconds will be used thru the report. The properties for this material are: Yield Strength 205000 KPa Shear Strength 118000 KPa Density 1612 kg/m3 Elastic Modulus 111 x 106 KPa

Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic is a high yield stress, relatively high stiff material, which exhibits little or no ductility. Therefore, for the analysis, the material will be assumed to behave fully elastically, and will assumed to fail in a brittle way. The investigation will be made on beam of a section of depth of 0.42 meters, and width of 0.27 meters, spanning 8.97 meters which is simply supported at both ends.

**Fundamentals of Blast Waves
**

An explosion can be defined as a large – scale, rapid and sudden release of energy. The detonation of a high explosive generates a large amount of energy. The energy expands forcing out the volume it occupies, and as a result of this a layer of compressed air (blast waves) forms. When these blast waves reach to a surface, they apply pressure for a period of time. As these blast waves expand, they lose their density, i.e. their pressure value; however, they tend to act on the structure for a longer time. Because the blast waves expand in a circle way in 3 dimensions, they act on surfaces in different ways depending on distance between the explosion point and the structures surface. When the surface is too close to the explosion point, the radius is very low, so the blast waves in the middle reach the surface first, and in time the surrounding waves hit the surface. When the distance is too long, the radius gets bigger, so the perimeter, so it is assumed that the waves act at the same time on the surface. This is called far – field blast loading and will be considered for this report as well for simplicity.

**Blast Waves Pressure on Structures
**

Blast waves increase to a value of pressure above the ambient pressure. This is referred to as the side – on overpressure that decays as the shock wave expands outward from the explosion source. After a short time, the pressure behind the front may drop below the ambient pressure. During such a negative phase, a partial vacuum is created and air is sucked in. This can be shown like the figure at the left hand side. The exponential decay is called the freidlander decay. When dealing with far – field blast loading, the exponential part can be idealized as a reverse ramp load, with the same overall impulse, which gives the total load acting on the structure = total area under the pressure – time graph, and the negative part is neglected.

**Static Failure Loading and the Failure Deflection
**

Now that the magnitude of the loading and the shape of the loading are assumed, the failure mode will be derived for static loading case, and then will be used for help for analysis of dynamical loading case, which is the blast type of loading. The assumed loading, since far – field blast loading analysis is being made, is uniformly distributed on the structure. If this loading was to act on the structure as a statically load; the maximum moment acting on the beam would be given by well known formula = q × l2 / 8. The ultimate uniformly distributed that this beam can resist can be found by equating the ultimate bending moment to the resistance of the material and the section. For the given material and the section, by applying simple knowledge from mechanics of structures, for static loading conditions, the ultimate moment resistance is found to be 1627.3 kN.m. And assuming perfectly elastic behavior, for the given geometric and loading conditions the deflection that this beam makes at failure state is found to be 0.072 meters. The shear resistance of the given material is 118000 KPa. The loading that causes the maximum moment value is generated by a uniformly distributed 161.8 kN / m. This value causes a shear value of 725.7 kN at the supports, and a shear stress of 6399.23 KPa in the cross section, which means the failure is happens by flexure before shear in static load case. However, as can be seen in the following pages, the shear check will be considered for dynamic analysis as well.

**Dynamic Loading Analysis
**

When static analysis is made, it is assumed that inertial force of the structure is not important. However, in dynamic analysis, when a great load is applied to a structure in a very short duration, the inertial force also becomes important.

In reality, structures have distributed mass, loading and resistance. But when doing blast analysis, a simplified method is used. The properties that have been mentioned are transformed, or assumed to be lumped at a single point. The factors for the given situation can be seen in the table below:

Method of Solution

The simplest way for blast wave solutions is free vibration solutions. Basically, the beam has been reduced to a single degree of freedom structure with equivalent factors, and the (assumed) uniformly distributed blast loading will be now assumed to be concatenated on this assumed lumped SDOF freedom, that is assumed to deform (and fail) in the first mode of (which is given by the statically deformed shape) deformed shape / vibration. After the simplifications are made, dynamic analysis can be done depending on the properties of the SDOF model, and the loading properties, namely the maximum loading value, and the duration of the loading. Depending on the maximum deflection and comparing with the static analysis deflection, a judgment can be made if this beam will fail or not; in flexural failure. (Shear failure has not been discussed yet.)

The solution will be done by an iterative method. Dynamic SDOF analysis will be run for various equivalent loads, on the equivalent system the assuming reverse ramp load situations, to find out for how long that loading must be applied to make the beam fail. One example is shown below: Using the factors given in the table in the previous page; Equivalent stiffness = 12601.35 kN / m Equivalent mass = 819.9 kg Equivalent systems natural period: 0.05 seconds By trying, it is found that when 3242.67 kPa of pressure is loaded on the structure for 0.00293 seconds, the first half cycle of the response of the structure is found to be: (maximum deflection is equal to the maximum deflection that is calculated for static analysis – which stands for flexural fail.)

There are few comments that can be done at this moment. This beam can resist a pressure of 3242.67 KPa, if the pressure is applied only for 0.00293 seconds, which is only 5% of natural period of the structure. This loading also corresponds to an impulse value of = 3242.67 × 0.00293 / 2 = 4.75 kPA.sec. (reminder: divided by 2 – reverse ramp loading assumption) As can be seen, when the natural period of the beam is greater than the duration of the load, the beam is able to resist a very high pressure. This type of loading is called: impulsive loading. ( td / tstructure < 0.4). In this instance the load is applied so rapidly that the structure has not enough time to respond, which means, the load has been released before the structure has time to do peak deflections. In this instance, the load that can be resisted can be higher than if it was statically loaded. Opposite to this, when the loading is applied for a long duration, ( td / tstructure > 4), this is called a quasi – static loading. In this instance, when structure makes the peak deflection due to instant loading, there is still loading acting on the structure. When this is the case, the structure can resist less loading compared to static loading case. In between two cases lies the dynamic realm.

**Pressure – Impulse Diagram
**

As exampled in the previous page, by trial and error method, for different values of pressure, the loading duration, meaning that the impulse can be found that will cause the failure deflection. This diagram can be seen above, called the pressure – impulse diagram. This line in this pressure – impulse diagram shows failure deflection of the beam. The vertical asymptote gives the impulse failure limit and the horizontal line gives the pressure. The shaded area with gray shows the “failure states” of the beam when the deflections, therefore the flexural failure are considered.

**Dynamic Reactions - Failure Condition when the Shear Force Reaction is Considered
**

In addition to calculating structural deflections, the determination of reaction forces is required when designing structures to resist dynamic loading. The simplified formula for checking the shear failure is 0.39 R + 0.11 F where Rmaks = 8 × Mm / l = 1451.32 kN F is given by the applied pressure times the surface area of the beam. The shear failure value of the beam is given by = 118000 × cross area of the beam = 13381.2 kN. The loading conditions that are going to give us shear failure values can be found by taking the Rmin by zero and thus finding the shear failure zones. The shear failure values will be found to be between: 13381.2 = 2 × 0.11 F, thus F = 60822.73 which gives a pressure value of: 23393.60 KPa. Where R is 1451.32 kN, the shear failure pressure will be 9450.40 KPa. These values are in a zone much more higher than the moment curvature zone. This only concludes us that, the limiting impulse value by flexural failure mode is not usable anymore, meaning that below the value of the impulse of 5, the pressure cannot be up to infinity as it is found by the flexural fail mode, but will be limited to 23393.60 KPa by shear failure, but even convservatively thinking, 9450.40 Kpa.

**Minimum Safe Stand – Off Distance
**

In this part of the report, the minimum safe standoff distance for this beam will be investigated under a blast incident of 1000 kg of TNT. To find out the pressure and the impulse value from a detonation these two formulas are used, depending on many experimental data:

log( prSCALED ) 3.69 2.89Log ( z) 0.335Log ( z) 2 1.15Log ( z)3 0.036Log ( z) 4 0.214Log ( z)5 log( irSCALED ) 2.75 1.31Log( z) 0.222Log( z)2 0.064Log( z)3 0.0003Log( z)4 0.00015Log ( z)5

Where z is given by = w / s, where s is the standoff and w is 10001/3 for this instance. For different values it is found that the Pressure and Impulse values change as in this figure: (Only flexural failure mode is investigated because the limiting shear failure is much higher)

The value that is in the circle is for a standoff value of 11 meters. The node on the Stand – Off line at top is for 10 meters. All the nodes go in 1 meters each. As it can be seen, when the bomb is detonated at 11 meters, the beam is ok. However, as it gets closer, its damage ability gets much higher and the beams fails in flexure.

Conclusions

In this report, the blast resistance of a particular beam has been tried to investigated, and tried to be made clear for a person who knows nothing about blast loading, and the safe stand – off distance has been derived for a detonation of 1000 kgs of TNT bomb. Thru the report, all the assumptions have been written in italics, and for a very quick summary only the parts in bold can be read. Blast loading is a very complex area of loading. There are many simplifications and assumptions. Perhaps the biggest assumption that has been made is the far field loading assumption. This actually varies with the distance of the detonation point and the surface of the object. Also, when assuming reverse ramp loading, due to trying to get the same impulse value, the duration of the loading is being modified. Also, there is a very big simplification when the properties of the structure are lumped to a SDOF system. In more complex scenarios, Finite Element Modeling of structures can be done, and the behavior of the structure can be investigated in very small time steps, either in 2D or 3D. Also in the last part, it is assumed that the bomb is detonated in free air, and there is no other surface close to our structure. However in real life, waves can reflect from different surfaces causing much more complex loading variations on the structure. And also it is assumed that, when getting the flexural fail mode, the beam was deforming same where it is loaded statically. However the beam clearly has more than one natural deforming shapes, and can be triggered by different blast loading conditions, which makes this way of solving very questionable. For a more detailed analysis, finite elements models should be investigated.

For blast loading, there is only one thing that is clear: as can be seen from the last diagram, as the bomb gets away, the loading decreases.

So for blast safety: get away from the bomb. As the structure is unable to move clearly, do not let the bomb explode close to you: design your structure with a perimeter where the bomb cannot pass thru.

This will also help making the far – field loading assumption correct, and so that being in the safe side will be more likely.

- Gate Test Series Som 1
- Effect of Caging and Swimmer Bars on Flexural Response of RC Deep Beams
- g k 3211811190
- TM 9-2330-390-13P
- 1
- Beams Designs
- Blast resistant Building.ppt
- chapter 2 - shear design sp 17 - 09-07
- 5377-68-23
- Rect Beam
- Splice and Shear
- Mat Chapter 31
- ACI BEAM
- N8_Fires
- An Overview of Blast Phenomena and its Effect on Building
- 0132859297 SoftArchive.net
- is.5302.1969
- EN VS VDI
- Discussions
- 102-s89
- B.ARCH syllabus
- The Bending of Beams Report
- Bearing Pad Design Example
- Bia Report 13-97
- Deflection
- Attachment (1)
- Azam Group
- B.arch. I to X Curriculum and Syllabus
- Fires, Explosions and Related Incidents at Work 1992 1993
- Finite Elements Analysis of Castellated Steel Beam

Skip carousel

- Deserant v. Cerillos Coal R. Co., 178 U.S. 409 (1900)
- HOUSE HEARING, 111TH CONGRESS - EXAMINING THE TRAGIC EXPLOSION AT THE KLEEN ENERGY POWER PLANT IN MIDDLETOWN, CT
- Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.S. 521 (1925)
- tmpEBF2
- Secretary of Labor v. Consolidation Coal, 4th Cir. (1999)
- Marion Collins v. N-Ren Corporation, 604 F.2d 659, 10th Cir. (1979)
- Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 74 U.S. 44 (1869)
- Ryan v. Adam Scheidt Brewing Co, 197 F.2d 614, 3rd Cir. (1952)
- Trinity Site
- United States v. George Dan Poulos, 667 F.2d 939, 10th Cir. (1982)
- PrintArticleTerrorThreatCouldDwarf9-11
- Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U.S. 126 (1878)
- Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. James R. Schlesinger No. A-483, 404 U.S. 917 (1971)
- United States v. William Phillip Cataldo, 47 F.3d 1178, 10th Cir. (1995)
- Peak v. Central Tank Coatings, 10th Cir. (2015)
- SENATE HEARING, 112TH CONGRESS - PIPELINE SAFETY SINCE SAN BRUNO AND OTHER INCIDENTS
- War surgery
- Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and Bankers Trust Company v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Maryland Corporation, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, a Connecticut Corporation, and Royal Insurance Company, Limited, a Body Corporate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, 269 F.2d 138, 4th Cir. (1959)
- Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 (1882)
- Wanda Lee Jones, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of Thomas Frederick Jones and Stephen Lewis Jones, Minors v. Donald A. Chubb, Doing Business as Neon Tube Light Company, 216 F.2d 869, 10th Cir. (1954)
- 20120626_PSC_ORDER
- tmpB12F.tmp
- PressRelease-3
- Coast Artillery Journal - Feb 1947
- Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company v. The Farmers Union Cooperative Elevator and Shipping Association, Kirwin, Kansas, the Farmers Union Cooperative Elevator and Shipping Association, Kirwin, Kansas v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company, 377 F.2d 672, 10th Cir. (1967)
- Cranston Print Works Company, a Corporation v. Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc., 291 F.2d 638, 4th Cir. (1961)
- AL Solutions, Inc. Metal Dust Explosion and Fire
- Anti-Aircraft Journal - Jun 1953
- City of Richmond v. Atlantic Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Georgia, Trading and Doing Business in the City of Richmond, Virginia, as Merchants Ice and Cold Storage Company, 273 F.2d 902, 4th Cir. (1960)
- Scientific American Supplement, No. 288, July 9, 1881 by Various

- Kayıt Açma Kapatma
- Betonarme Kolonlarda Korozyon
- SWE 514 Boun Computer Systems Midterm Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Software Engineering MSc Masters Oğuz Tosun
- SWE 514 Boun Computer Systems Midterm Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Software Engineering MSc Masters Oğuz Tosun
- Design of Earthquake Resistance Structures Course Work
- SWE 514 Boun Computer Systems Midterm Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Software Engineering MSc Masters Oğuz Tosun
- Deprem Yönetmeligi (2007)
- TS 500 - Betonarme Yapım Kuralları
- Computer Systems Boun Bogazici University Software Engineering MSc, SWE 514
- Betonarme Kolonlarda Korozyon
- Conference Paper
- TS 498 - Yükler
- Stiffness Matrix Method
- University Of Sheffield - Structural Engineering Masters - Vibration Engineering Coursework 1 Questions
- University Of Sheffield - Structural Engineering Masters - Vibration Engineering Coursework 1 Solutions
- University Of Sheffield - Structural Engineering Masters - Vibration Engineering Coursework 2 Questions Alex Pavic Multiple Degree of Freedom Systems
- Structrual Concrete Design to Eurocode 2 University Of Sheffield Structural Engineering Masters
- Msc Dissertation Final
- University Of Sheffield - Structural Engineering Masters - Vibration Engineering Coursework 2 Solutions Alex Pavic Multiple Degree of Freedom Systems
- World Earthquake Map
- Friction Devices Presentation
- Finite Elements Method
- University Of Sheffield - Structural Engineering Masters - Vibration Engineering Coursework 3 Solutions Alex Pavic Vibration Serviceability of Floors
- Steel Design To Eurocode 3 - University Of Sheffield Structural Engineering Masters
- University Of Sheffield - Structural Engineering Masters - Vibration Engineering Coursework 3 Questions Alex Pavic Vibration Serviceability of Floors

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulRead Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading