Minimization of Blast Effects Damage on

Critical Buildings
By John E. Crawford and Chunlin Liu

Karagozian & Case

2550 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 500, Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: 818-240-1919, Fax: 818-240-4966

P-07-2
Global Security Asia 2007 Conference, March 27, 2007

MINIMIZATION OF BLAST EFFECTS DAMAGE ON CRITICAL BUILDINGS

John E. Crawford, and Chunlin Liu
Prepared for Global Security Asia 2007 Conference
March 27, 2007
1.0

INTRODUCTION

Predicting the risks associated with the damage caused to buildings by blast effects loads requires
addressing a complex set of factors. These factors are evident in Figure 1, where the complexity of the building
framing systems and the responses to blast loading shown illustrate some of the complexity and problems of
predicting blast effects risks for actual buildings. Determining what steps to take to effectively evaluate and address
the risks from blast effects for critical buildings for both new and existing facilities requires a sophisticated
assessment and analysis of these factors. This would also include (1) evaluating the effectiveness of risk mitigation
measures in reducing blast effects related building damage and occupant injuries, (2) preventing progressive and
other collapse modes, and (3) development of concepts and methodologies suitable for implementing blast resistant
designs. A checklist for what decision makers need to know to determine whether protection is needed and to
properly provide protection is given in Table 1. Answering this simple list of questions is taxing, to say the least,
and illustrates some of the complexity associated with minimization of blast effects damage.

Table 1. What decisions makers need to know.

The U.S. approach has three aspects. The first
aspect is related to prevention of progressive collapse
and enforcing standoff design guidance. The second
Protection from what?
Threat
aspect involves perimeter control, which is achieved
using bollards and other anti-ram devices at the
Am I in trouble?
Vulnerability Assessment
perimeter. The third aspect is related to minimizing
injuries caused by debris and reducing its volume,
How much trouble?
Risk
especially for windows. Inherent uncertainties and the
difficulty of performing blast effects analyses make it
What can I do?
Countermeasures
difficult to determine the existing level of blast
resistance, and whether the actual resistance thought
What should I do first?
Priorities
provided by the protective technologies implemented
was achieved. Moreover, since it is difficult to make
Funding process.
Action
design methods prescriptive (i.e., as compared to
performance based), protective technologies of most
relevance are likely to require the use of high-fidelity physics-based (HFPB) finite element models.

What needs protection?

2.0

Asset

ADDRESSING COLLAPSE CONCERNS

For some facilities the design process has been changed to include concerns related to progressive collapse,
which are commonly addressed with requirements for minimum tie forces and alternate load paths (e.g., a missing
column strategy), use of better analysis tools, and development of best practices and guidelines. Review authorities
probably need still more, such as revised and enhanced training and skills to more effectively fulfill their function.
Its also likely that the design process itself needs to be modified to include blast effects engineers in the planning
and design process.
The early stage of the design process provides the best opportunity to incorporate blast protection features
in a project. In addition, this encourages the avoiding of problems by designing/planning away from them, by such
means as adding standoff, hardening key members, etc. One of the important concerns here is not to make the
situation worse due to a lack of expertise or planning, or in situations where the blast loading is greater than design
basis threat. Moreover, since it is difficult for the client to vet the capability of blast consultants and the efficacy of
their work, this is all the more reason to pick up on the problems early so simpler design solutions can be made and
less organizational resistance generated.

2.1

ABILITY TO PREDICT FAILURE MODES

One of the most important concerns in achieving a protective design is ensuring that the buildings columns
maintain their integrity and that important potential failure modes for columns are not overlooked. The failure
modes that need to be examined include the classic modes such as flexure failure (including compression
membrane) and diagonal shear failure (Figure 3a/b). They also include a non-classic, but very important mode
relating to a lack of confinement, which could result in rebar buckling (or axial crush) failure, as depicted in Figure
3c. There is also a rare failure mode related to direct shear failure, which is of concern mostly for retrofitted
columns.
2.2

HOW TO ACHIEVE RESILIENT DESIGN

To produce resilient designs will require developing concepts for components, connections, and systems
that have inherent strength and ductility, for example, as demonstrated by the buildings shown in Figure 4. This can
be partially achieved by revising design guides and enhancing engineers skills, for example, requiring that ties are
closely spaced to ensure sufficient confinement and recognizing that the end of the ties (e.g., as shown in Figure 5)
must be turned in because a blast load is likely to remove the cover. Also, validation testing of concepts and
verification of design tools is another important step in ensuring success in protective design.
3.0

PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION

The variety of structural systems in use exacerbates many of the issues related to minimizing blast effects.
Almost every building framing system has unique concerns pertaining to blast damage/resistance, which sometimes
must be addressed in excruciating detail. The gravity support supplied by the framing system, which is composed of
a combination of components may have behaviors that are quite complex and difficult to predict without resorting to
HFPB models.
One example of this is the progressive collapse analysis shown in Figures 6 to 8. Here a portion of the
framing of a building subjected to a nearby vehicle bomb of 4,000 lb TNT (Figure 6) is modeled (Figure 7) using
LS-DYNA. Results indicating the effect on the framing nearest the bomb are shown in Figure 8. While the
structure system did well, to determine this required using a HFPB model, which would deter most from performing
this analysis.
Another example illustrating the importance of a progressive collapse analysis is given by the difference in
collapse behavior depicted by the two buildings shown in Figure 9, with the implication that it is important to have
sufficient sophistication in the analyses to be able to distinguish between these two type of events. In other words,
to spend money enhancing the blast resistance of the structural framing only if it is needed.
One of the retrofit schemes for enhancing column strength is shown in Figure 10. Here FRP is wrapped
around a column to improve its confinement. Its capability is demonstrated in the side by side comparison shown in
Figure 10. The design for this retrofit is developed using a code developed by K&C for designing wrap, which is
shown in Figure 11.
4.0

SUMMARY

In summary, several technologies are available for managing blast effect damage, however, the skill and
expertise required to use them may be daunting.

Figure 1. The Problem: predicting the risk of collapse and understanding the responses and
failure modes of conventionally designed buildings.

Murrah

Structure

Murrah Building

Figure 2. Example where design contributed to collapse: Use of a transfer girder not designed to
survive loss of support.

(a) Diagonal shear failure

(b) Flexure-membrane response,

which for good designs, does not
manifest a brittle failure
response.

(c) Rebar buckling failure due to

lack of concrete confinement.

Figure 3. Photos of response/failure modes.

Framing System: Precast RC panels attached with cables.

Figure 4. Examples of conventional design that demonstrated inherent resilience.

Columns missing over

several floors

Framing system damage of building adjacent to WTC: Impact damage from WTC steel debris.
Figure 4. Examples of conventional design that demonstrated inherent resilience (continued)

Ties

Turn in toward core to avoid

unraveling

Figure 5. Tie spacing critical for achieving blast resilient RC columns - ending ties within the core
important for blast loads, while may strip the cover from a column.

Figure 6. Progressive collapse analysis for steel frame building

Framing

Model

First Story
Column G3

First story
column G3

Figure 7. Use sub-system model of structural framing at west end of building.

Figure 8. System response to blast load.

(a) Collapse.

(b) No collapse.

Figure 9. RC framed building: Retrofit needed, yes/no.

(a) Existing column fails quickly under blast load.

(b) 3-6 layers of CFRP prevents failure.

Figure 10. Retrofit of reinforced concrete column provides nearly elastic response to same blast
load.

Figure 11. GUI developed by K&C for designing FRP wrap.