You are on page 1of 17

Blast Loading and Its

Effects on Structures

May 20, 2019

[Amr Mansour Muhammad Rashad]
[Minia University]
[Prof. Ahmed El Badawy]
Blast Loading and Its Effects on Structures
The study of blast effects on structures has been an area of formal
technical investigation for over 60 years. A bomb 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.

Strategies for blast protection have become an important consideration

for structural designers as global terrorist attacks continue at an alarming
rate. Conventional structures normally are not designed to resist blast
loads and because the magnitudes of design loads are significantly lower
than those produced by most explosions, conventional structures are
susceptible to damage from explosions. No civilian buildings can be
designed to withstand the kind of extreme attack that happened to the
World Trade Centre in USA. Building owners and design professionals
alike, however, can take steps to better understand the potential threats
and protect the occupants and assets in an uncertain environment. With
this in mind, developers, architects and engineers increasingly are
seeking solutions for potential blast situations, to protect building
occupants and the structures.

Review of Literature
In the past, few decades considerable emphasis has been given to
problems of blast and earthquake. The earthquake problem is rather old,
but most of the knowledge on this subject has been accumulated during
the past fifty years. The blast problem is rather new; information about
the development in this field is made available mostly through publication
of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
and other governmental office and public institutes.

Much of the work is done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

The University of Illinois, and other leading educational institutions and
engineering firms. Due to different accidental or intentional events, the
behavior of structural components subjected to blast loading has been
the subject of considerable research effort in recent years. Conventional
structures are not designed to resist blast loads; and because the
magnitudes of design loads are significantly lower than those produced
by most explosions. Further, often conventional structures are
susceptible to damage from explosions. With this in mind, developers,
architects and engineers increasingly are seeking solutions for potential
blast situations, to protect building occupants and the structures.

This study is very much useful for design the buildings constructed for
industries where chemical process is the main activity. An increasing
number of research programs on the sources of these impact loads a
dynamic analysis and preventive measures are being undertaken. Just in
design some areas takes into account the effects of earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornadoes and extremes snow loads, likewise even explosive
or blast loads has to be taken into design consideration. This does not
mean design and consideration of special shelter facilities but simply the
application of appropriate design techniques to ordinary buildings, so that
one can achieve some degree of safety from sudden attacks.

Philip Esper in 2003, after the Four major bombing incidents took place
in Mainland UK within the last ten years; the 1992 St Mary's Axe, the 1993
Bishops gate, the 1996 Docklands and Manchester bombs the author
was involved in the investigation of damage and reinstatement of
numerous commercial buildings, and in providing advice to building
owners and occupiers on blast protection measures for both existing and
proposed buildings. These detonation devices were estimated as 450 kg,
850 kg, 500 kg and 750 kg of TNT equivalent, respectively. As a result,
the author was involved in the investigation of damage and reinstatement
of numerous commercial buildings, and in providing advice to building
owners and occupiers on blast protection measures for both existing and
proposed buildings. Numerical modeling as well as laboratory and on-site
testing were used in the investigation of damage and assessing the
dynamic response of these buildings and their floor slabs to blast loading.
The finite element (FE) analysis technique used in this investigation is
described, and the correlation between the results of the FE analysis and
laboratory and on-site testing is highlighted. It was concluded that the
ductility and natural period of vibration of a structure governs its response
to an explosion. Ductile elements, such as steel and reinforced concrete,
can absorb significant amount of strain energy, whereas brittle elements,
such as timber, masonry, and monolithic glass, fail abruptly.

LUCCIONI et al in 2005 , studied the effects of mesh size on pressure

and impulse distribution of blast loads with the aid of hydro codes. A
computational dynamic analysis using AUTODYN-3D was carried out
over the congested urban environment that corresponds to the opposite
rows of buildings of a block, in the same street. The results obtained for
different positions of the explosive charge are presented and compared.
The effect of mesh size for different boundary conditions is also
addressed. It is concluded that the accuracy of numerical results is
strongly dependent on the mesh size used for the analysis. On the other
side the mesh size is also limited by the dimensions of the model and the
computer capacity. One of the major features in the numerical simulation
of blast wave propagation in large urban environments is the use of an
adequate mesh size.

The accuracy of numerical results is strongly dependent on the mesh size

used for the analysis. A 10 cm mesh is accurate enough for the analysis
of wave propagation in urban ambient. Nevertheless, it may be too
expensive to model a complete block with this mesh size. Alternatively, a
coarser mesh can be used in order to obtain qualitative results for the
comparison of the loads produced by different hypothetical blast events.
Even coarse meshes, up to 50 cm of side, give a good estimation of the
effects of moving the location of the explosive charges.

Ghani Razaqpur et al in 2006, investigated the behavior of reinforced

concrete panels, or slabs, retrofitted with glass fiber reinforced polymer
(GFRP) composite, and subjected to blast load Eight 1000 x 1000 x 70
mm panels were made of 40 MPa concrete and reinforced with top and
bottom steel meshes. Five of the panels were used as control while the
remaining four were retrofitted with adhesively bonded 500 mm wide
GFRP laminate strips on both faces, one in each direction parallel to the
panel edges. The panels were subjected to blast loads generated by the
detonation of either 22.4 kg or 33.4 kg ANFO explosive charge located at
a 3-m standoff. Blast wave characteristics, including incident and
reflected pressures and impulses, as well as panel central deflection and
strain in steel and on concrete/FRP surfaces were measured. The post-
blast damage and mode of failure of each panel was observed, and those
panels that were not completely damaged by the blast were subsequently
statically tested to find their residual strength. It was determined that the
reflected blast pressure and impulse measured at the same location
during different shots using the same charge size and standoff distance
were generally reasonably close, but in some cases significant deviation
occurred. The results of this study indicate that the GFRP retrofit may not
be suitable in every situation and that quantifying its strengthening effects
will need more actual blast testing rather than merely theoretical modeling
or pseudo-dynamic testing.

Ray Singh Meena in 2009, focused on the design techniques for the
loading on roof structures and the resistance of open web steel joists, a
common roof component. Blast loads are dynamic, impulsive and non-
simultaneous over the length of a roof.
To design against explosions, a procedure has been developed to devise
a uniform dynamic load on a roof that matches the response from blast
loads. The objective of this research was to test and compare its results
to the deflections from blast loads using FEM of analysis and to compare
them to equivalent loading response. It is recommended that additional
research is to be done on the prediction of blast pressures on roofs and
on the development of an equivalent uniform dynamic load. It is also
recommended that an analytical resistance function for open web steel
joists be clearly defined, which includes all failure limit states.

Ngo ET AL in 2007 , carried an analytical study on RC column subjected

to blast loading and progressive collapse analysis of a mulit-storied
building were carried out. The 3D model of the column was analyzed
using the nonlinear explicit code LS-Dyna 3D (2002) which takes into
account both material nonlinearity and geometric nonlinearity. It was
observed that the increase in flexural strength was greater than that of
shear strength. Thus, the increase in the material strengths under
dynamic conditions may lead to a shift from a ductile flexural failure to a
brittle shear failure mode. In the progressive collapse analysis study
which is based on the local damage assessment due to bomb blast at
ground level, progressive collapse analyses was performed on the
example building. The structural stability and integrity of the building were
assessed by considering the effects of the failure of some perimeter
columns, spandrel beams and floor slabs due to blast overpressure or
aircraft impact. In addition to material and geometric nonlinearities, the
analyses considered membrane action, inertia effects, and other
influencing factors. The results show that the ultimate capacity of the floor
slab is approximately 16.5kPa which is 2.75 times the total floor load
(dead load plus 0.4 live load).

Alok Goyal in 2008 , discussed through an overview to quantify blast

loads as high pressure, short duration shock loading for the building as a
whole and on each individual structural component. The study concluded
that the most difficult part of the blast-resistance design is to define the
blast wave parameters with acceptable probability of exceedance, and to
quantify desired performance parameters in terms of crack widths,
rotations, ductility factor capacities of elements or story drifts.
Considerable efforts and skill is required to numerically predict the blast
induced pressure field and highly non-linear response. Even then, the
results may be meaningless due to modeling limitations and uncertainties
associated with blast loads. The developed systems therefore should be
tested in field and the data collected should be used to improve the
design and the mathematical model.
Blast Loading and Its Behavior

Explosion Science
An explosion is a rapid release of stored energy characterized by a bright
flash and an audible blast. Part of the energy is released as thermal
radiation (flash); and part is coupled into the air as airblast and into the
soil (ground) as ground shock, both as radially expanding shock waves.
To be an explosive, the material will have the following characteristics.

1. Must contain a substance or mixture of substances that remains

unchanged under ordinary conditions, but undergoes a fast
chemical change upon stimulation.
2. This reaction must yield gases whose volume—under normal
pressure, but at the high temperature resulting from an explosion—
is much greater than that of the original substance.
3. The change must be exothermic in order to heat the products of
the reaction and thus to increase their pressure. Common types of
explosions include construction blasting to break up rock or to
demolish buildings and their foundations, and accidental
explosions resulting from natural gas leaks or other
chemical/explosive materials.

Shock Waves or Blast Waves

Figure 1: Blast wave propagation

The rapid expansion of hot gases resulting from the detonation of an

explosive charge gives rise to a compression wave called a shock wave
(Fig1), which propagates through the air. The front of the shock wave can
be considered infinitely steep, for all practical purposes. That is, the time
required for compression of the undisturbed air just ahead of the wave to
full pressure just behind the wave is essentially zero. From the figure 1 it
can be concluded that if the explosive source is spherical, the resulting
shock wave will be spherical, since its surface is continually increasing,
the energy per unit area continually decreases. Consequently, as the
shock wave travels outward from the charge, the pressure in the front of
the wave, called the peak pressure, steadily decreases. At great
distances from the charge, the peak pressure is infinitesimal, and the
wave can be treated as a sound wave. Behind the shock wave front, the
pressure in the wave decreases from its initial peak value. At some
distance from the charge, the pressure behind the shock front falls to a
value below that of the atmosphere and then rises again to a steady value
equal to that of the atmosphere. The part of the shock wave in which the
pressure is greater than that of the atmosphere is called the positive
phase and, immediately following it, the part in which the pressure is less
than that of the atmosphere is called the negative or suction phase.

Figure 2: Generalized Blast Pressure History

The rapid oxidation of fuel elements develops chemical explosions. This

reaction releases heat and produces gas, which expands. Low-end
explosives create quasi static loads. High explosives (chemical and
nuclear) in a surrounding medium, such as air or water, cause shock
waves in the medium. The blast releases high-pressure gases at high
tempera- tures.
These gases naturally expand, and the surrounding medium is
consequently compressed. The compressed medium, or for the specific
case of air, forms a shock front. The shock front travels in a radial
As the explosive gases cool and slow their movement, the amount of
"overpressure" the shock front carries decreases. The gases release
energy to reach equilibrium towards the atmospheric pressure.
However, due to the high pressure and mass of the gases, more
expansion is necessary to actually reach equilibrium.
This causes the pressure in the shock wave to drop below the
atmospheric pressure. After sufficient "under pressure" is expended, the
state returns to the atmospheric pressure. The air behind the shock front
also places a load, a drag force, on objects encountered .The general
shape of a pulse shape is shown in Figure 2.
Important factors pertinent to burst pressures include the peak pressure,
the duration, the air density behind the shock front, the velocity of the
shock front, and the impulse of the blast pressure.
Dynamic Loadings

Figure 3: Blast loads on buildings

Drag exerted by the blast winds required to form the blast wave. These
winds push, tumble and tear objects. Blast pressure can create loads on
buildings that are many times greater than normal design loads (Fig 3),
and blast winds can be much more severe than hurricanes. Buildings with
relatively weak curtain walls and interior partitions would probably be
gutted very early during the blast phase, even at low over pressures.
Dynamic pressures would then continue to cause drag loads on the
structural frames that is left standing. Slabs over closed basements would
experience the downward thrust of over pressure, which would be
transmitted to supporting beams girders and columns. Foundation would
experience blast induced vertical and overturning forces. Failure would
occur unless the structural system was designed to resist these large
quickly applied loads. Structures with load bearing walls or curtain walls
that not blowout easily could be completely demolished or toppled by
blast loads. Such structures would experience the combined loading
conditions caused by the incident overpressure, the dynamic and highly
transient reflected pressure that develop when the shock waves strikes a
surface of the structure. People in the basement shelters who are
protected against catastrophic structural collapse, high pressure and
flying objects would have the greatest possibility of surviving the blast

Effects on Structures
Blast effects on building structures can be classified as primary effects
and secondary effects. 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 which
are thrown into the air at high velocity (for example wall fragments
of an exploded gas tank). Secondary effects can be fragments
hitting 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-

Blast loading on structures can be explained by three main loading

conditions (figure4)

Figure 4: Blast Pressure Effects on a Structure

 In the first type a relatively large shock wave reaches a structure

relatively small enough that the blast wave encloses the entire
structure. The shock wave effectively acts on the entire structure
simultaneously. Additionally, there is a drag force from the rapidly
moving wind behind the blast wave. The structure is, however,
massive enough to resist translation.
 The second condition also involves a relatively large shock wave
and a target much smaller than the previous case. The same
phenomena happen during this case, but the target is sufficiently
small enough to be moved by the dynamic, drag pressure.
 In the final case, the shock burst is too small to surround the
structure simultaneously and the structure is too large to be shifted.
Instead of simultaneous loading, each component is affected in
succession. For a typical building, the front face is loaded with a
reflected overpressure.
Structural Response or Analysis to Blast Loading
Blast loading is a short duration load also called impulsive loading.
Mathematically blast loading is treated as triangular loading. The ductility
and natural period of vibration of a structure governs its response to an

Ductile elements, such as steel and reinforced concrete, can absorb

significant amount of strain energy, whereas brittle elements, such as
timber, masonry, and monolithic glass, fail abruptly. In the investigation
of the dynamic response of a building structure to bomb blast, the
following procedures are followed

Figure 5: (a) SDOF system (b) Blast loading

(a) The characteristics of the blast wave must be determined; (b) the
natural period of response of the structure (or the structural element)
must be determined; (c) The positive phase duration of the blast wave is
then compared with the natural period of response of the structure. Based
on (c) above, the response of the structure can be defined as follows:

i. If the positive phase duration of the blast pressure is shorter than

the natural period of vibration of the structure, the response is
described as impulsive. In this case, most of the deformation of the
structure will occur after the blast loading has diminished.
ii. If the positive phase duration of the blast pressure is longer than
the natural period of vibration of the structure, the response is
defined as quasi-static. In this case, the blast will cause the
structure to deform whilst the loading is still being applied.
iii. If the positive phase duration of the blast pressure is close to the
natural period of vibration of the structure, then the response of the
structure is referred to as dynamic. In this case, the deformation of
the structure is a function of time and the response is determined
by solving the equation of motion of the structural system.
Equation of motion for a undamped forced system is given by

MŸ(t) + KÝ(t) = F(t)- - - - - - - - - - (a)

The force is given by

F(t) = F0 (1- T / td ) - - - - - - - - - - (b)

Initial conditions for triangular pulse is Y0=0, V0= 0

The total displacement of an un-damped SDOF system is given by [6].

Y(t) = Y0 cosωt + (V0 /ω) sinωt + 1/mω∫t0 F(t) sinω (t-T) dt- - - - - - (c)


Y(t)= Fm/K(1-cosωt)+ Fm/ktd ((sinωt/ω) –t) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(d)


Ý(t)=dy/dt= Fm/K[ωsinωt+1/td (cosωt-1)] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(e)

In which ω is the natural circular frequency of vibration of the structure

and T is the natural period of vibration of the structure which is given by

ω = 2π/T √=K/M - - - - - - - - - - - -(f)

The maximum response is defined by the maximum dynamic deflection

Ym which occurs at time tm. The maximum dynamic deflection Ym can be
evaluated by setting dy/dt in Equation (c) equal to zero, i.e. when the
structural velocity is zero. The dynamic load factor, DLF, is defined as
the ratio of the maximum dynamic deflection Ym to the static deflection
Yst which would have resulted from the static application of the peak
load Fm, which is shown as follows:

DLF=Ym / Yst - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (g)

DLF=1/(2πtd/T) { sin2π (t/T) - sin2π (t/T - td/T) } - cos2π t/T - - - - - -(h)

The dynamic load factor of blast loading is given by equation (h) to be

considered in evaluating the correctness of evaluating the dynamic
Case Studies
Column Subjected to Blast Loading

Figure 6: Simplified blast loading

A ground floor column of a multi-storey building was analyzed. The

parameters considered were the concrete strength (40MPa for NSC
column and 80 MPa HSC column) and spacing of ligatures (400mm for
ordinary detailing-OMRF (ordinary moment resisting frame) and 100mm
for special seismic detailing-SMRF (seismic moment resisting frame)). It
has been found that with increasing concrete compressive strength, the
column size can be effectively reduced. In this case the column size was
reduced from 500 x 900 mm for the NSC column down to 350 x 750 for
the HSC column. While the axial load capacities of the two columns are
still the same.
The blast load was calculated based on data from the Oklahoma
bombing report (ASCE 1996) with a standoff distance of 11.2m. The
simplified triangle shape of the blast load profile was used (fig 6). The
duration of the positive phase of the blast is 1.3 milliseconds. The 3D
model of the column was analyzed using the nonlinear explicit code LS-
Dyna 3D (fig 7) (2002) which takes into account both material nonlinearity
and geometric nonlinearity. The strain rate- dependent constitutive model
proposed in the previous section was adopted. The effects of the blast
loading were modeled in the dynamic analysis to obtain the deflection
time history of the column.

Figure 7: 3D model of the column using explicit code LS-Dyna

From this case study on the response of HSC and NSC columns
subjected to bomb blast a strain-rate dependent constitutive model for
concrete is proposed which is applicable to both normal strength and high
strength concretes. It was found that shear failure was the dominant
modes of failures for close-range explosion. HSC columns were shown
to perform better than NCS columns (with the same axial load capacity)
when subjected to extreme impulsive loading, they also had higher
energy absorption capacity. Results from the study concluded that the
impulsive loading is very different from the static loading in terms of the
dynamic inertia effect and structural response.

Reinforced Concrete Panels

In this case study eight 1000x1000x70 mm reinforced concrete panels
were doubly reinforced with welded steel mesh of designation MW 25.8,
which has bar cross-section area of 25.8 mm2, mass per unit area of
2.91kg/m2 and center-to-center spacing of 152mm in each direction. The
bar yielded stress and ultimate strength are 480MPa and 600MPa
respectively. The concrete had an average 28day compressive strength
at the age of testing the panels being 42MPa.

Figure 8: Test specimen geometry and reinforcement details (all

dimensions in mm)
The test set-up was commenced by burying the steel box in the ground,
with its top being level with the ground surface. Two cables connected
the explosion source to the instrumentation bunker located 150 m away.
Rubber pads of the same width and length as the steel angle legs were
placed between the angles and the test specimen bottom to ensure
uniform support conditions. Similar pads were used between the test
specimens and the clamps used to prevent the uplift. Subsequently, the
tripod holding the charge was centered above the center of the panel and
the charge was hung with a wire.
The explosive used was ANFO, comprising 5.7% fuel oil and 94.3%
ammonium nitrate, shaped into an approximately spherical form. The
explosive energy of ANFO is 3717 kJ/kg, which is 82% of the energy of
one kilogram of TNT. Fig. 4 shows the test specimen in place and the
tripod holding the charge.
The blast tests were conducted on a Canadian Armed Forces Base. The
following procedure was typically followed for each test. The test panel
was placed in top of the box and the instrumentation was connected. The
ground around the specimen was leveled and compacted. The wooden
tripod supporting the explosive charge was erected, ensuring a standoff
distance of 3 m. Locations of the incident pressure gauges from the
charge center were measured and recorded (fig 9).
All personnel were evacuated to a safe distance and the explosive
charge was initiated at 1.5 km away from ground zero. After the operator
called the area clear, the state of the specimen was observed and
recorded. Panels CS4 and GSS1 were subjected to the blast load due to
the detonation of 22.4 kg of ANFO while the remaining five panels, i.e.
CS2, CS3, GSS2, GSS3 and GSS4 were subjected to the load generated
by the detonation of 33.4 kg of ANFO. In each case the distance from the
center of the charge to the center of the test panel was 3.0 m.

Figure 9: Locations of the reinforcement and concrete/GFRP surface

strain gauges:
(a) Reinforcement strain gauges (6 mm length);
(b) strain gauges on the bottom surface (30mm);
(c) strain gauges on the top surface (30 mm).

The present testing program and its result indicate that assessing the
blast response and resistance of reinforced concrete elements by using
actual explosives is a complex task. It is well-known that sometimes
minor changes in material properties, test set-up and the surrounding
environment could produce significantly different responses at close
range. Although in this study replicate specimens were used to assess
the effect of such variability's, based on the quantitative and qualitative
results, it is not possible to arrive at general conclusions regarding the
effectiveness of GFRP for blast mitigation.
Theoretically, the blast resistance of structures that are loaded in the
impulse realm can be effectively increased by increasing their ductility
rather than their strength. Since the addition of FRP increases the
strength of flexural members, but not their ductility, the case for the use
of FRP in such cases is not obvious.
On the other hand, structures that are loaded in the pressure realm would
benefit most from an increase in strength rather than ductility. The loading
realm is determined by the ratio of the positive phase duration to the
natural period of the structure.
In the current testing program for nominally similar blast scenarios,
noticeably different positive phase durations were measured. One of the
reasons for the scatter in the results for the larger charge size may be
that the selected charge size of 33.4 kg at 3.1 m standoff is too high even
for the retrofitted panels to resist. Hence, if the pressure-impulse
combination produced by this charge exceeds the resistance of both the
control and the retrofitted panels, then it would not be possible to use the
results of the test to assess the effectiveness of the GFRP in mitigating
blast damage. The results of tests under the smaller charge size indicate
that the retrofitted panel performed very well because it suffered only light
damage and had a residual strength that was 75% higher than that of the
companion control panel. Note that the smaller charge caused noticeable
damage in the control panel, including a 2 mm permanent deformation,
but the same did not happen in the retrofitted panel.

Reinforced Concrete Slabs

A series of square RC slabs with nominal dimensions of 1200 x 1200 x

90mm were chosen for the experimental and analytical investigation.
Different materials and upgrade schemes were investigated against out-
of-plane blast loads. Five RC slabs were built and strengthened with
different schemes and different materials such as CFRP or SRP. With the
exception of the control slab , two slabs (2A and 2B) were strengthened
with CFRP laminates, and the other two (3A and 3B), were strengthened
with SRP laminates.

The experimental specimens were tested at the experimental mine at the

University of Missouri-Rolla. As shown in Figure 10a, it can be seen that
the distance from the test specimen to the mine walls and ceiling are far
enough apart that open air design methods are applicable within a
reasonable degree of accuracy. As shown in Figure 10b, the test
specimens were simply supported on steel box beams. The charge was
suspended above the test specimens to the specific standoff distance by
a wire, which was also used as the circuit to detonate the charge. Each
charge was composed of desensitized RDX high explosive.

Figure 10: (a) UMR mine test site (b) Test setup.

In this work, the blast charge weights and the standoff distances to
impose a desired displacement ductility level were estimated based on
the modified DBD method to account for blast effects. The results of field
test for the control slab showed that the achieved displacement ductility
levels matched closely with the predicted values. Therefore, a primary
conclusion drawn from the experimental results is that the charge weight
and standoff distance to generate blast loads can be effectively estimated
by the DBD method. Furthermore, slabs retrofitted on the bottom side
only were severely damaged irrespective of the strengthening material.
However, slabs retrofitted on both sides were adequate in resisting the
given threat level; but, failure due to the insufficient shear capacity was
observed. By comparing the test results of slabs strengthened on the
bottom side and on both sides, the main conclusion was that slabs may
require retrofitting on both sides in order to make these slabs resistant to
blast loads.

It is not economical to design all buildings for blast loading. Public
buildings, tall structures and city centers have to be designed against
terrorists' attacks and sudden explosions. It is recommended that
guidelines on abnormal load cases and provisions on progressive
collapse prevention should be included in the current Building
Regulations and Design Standards. Requirements on ductility levels will
also helps to improve the building performance under severe load
conditions. Evaluation of DLF resulting due to blast loading under several
conditions have to be included in the design procedure to get into the
correct evaluation of the stress characteristics of the material under

 A.Ghani Razaqpur, Ahmed Tolba and Ettore Constestabile, Blast
loaing response of reinforced concrete panels reinforced with
externally bonded GFRP laminates. Science direct, Composites:
Part B 38 (2007) 535-546.
 Alok Goyal, Blast resistant design: Critical issues, proceedings of
the sixth structural engineering convection, pp IPXI-1-10, Dec
 Anatol Longinow A, and Mniszewski KR., "Protecting buildings
against vehicle bomb attacks," Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction, ASCE, New York, pp. 51-54, 1996.
 B. Lu, P. Silva, A. Nanni, and J. Baird, Retrofit for Blast-Resistant
RC Slabs with Composite Materials, University of Missouri–Rolla,
 B.M. Luccioni1, R. D. Ambrosini & R.F. Danesi1, Assessment of
blast loads on structures, WIT Transactions on Engineering
Sciences, Vol 49, 2005
 Mario Paz, Structural dynamics, second edition, CBS publishers
and distributors, 2004.
 Philip Esper, investigation of damage to buildings under blast
loading and recommended protection measures, 9th International
Structural Engineering Conference, Abu Dhabi, November 2003
 Ray Singh Meena, BE thesis report, National Institute of
Technology, Rourkela (2009)
 Smith and Hetherington (1994) Blast and ballistic loading of
structures, Oxford Butterworth-Heinemann.
 T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta & J. Ramsay, "Blast Loading and
Blast Effects on Structures – An Overview", The University of
Melbourne, Australia, EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures
 T.D. Ngo, P.A. Mendis, & G. Kusuma, "Behavior of high-strength
concrete columns subjected to blast loading, The University of
Melbourne, Australia (2002).