See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322163811

Blast protection in urban areas using protective plants

Article  in  International Journal of Protective Structures · December 2017

DOI: 10.1177/2041419617746007

CITATIONS READS

0 146

3 authors:

Norbert Gebbeken Paul Warnstedt

Universität der Bundeswehr München Universität der Bundeswehr München
180 PUBLICATIONS   728 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lars Rüdiger
Universität der Bundeswehr München
23 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lebenszyklusbegleitende Nutzbarkeit digitaler Bauwerksinformationen - Nachhaltiges Informationsmanagement durch Standards View

project

FloodEvac: Vulnerability of Transportation Structures, Warning and Evacuation in Case of Major Inland Flooding View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Norbert Gebbeken on 02 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

746007
research-article2017
PRS0010.1177/2041419617746007International Journal of Protective StructuresGebbeken et al.

Article

International Journal of Protective

Blast protection in urban areas Structures

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2017
using protective plants Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2041419617746007
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041419617746007
journals.sagepub.com/home/prs

Norbert Gebbeken, Paul Warnstedt

and Lars Rüdiger

Abstract
The increased threats by terroristic actions require the protection of urban areas. The protective potential
of currently available protective systems is often recognizable, which may therefore raise the perceived
threat. This is acceptable for temporary solutions but in the long-term contrary to the idea of a modern
and open society. For permanent use, new solutions, which are not recognized as protective elements and
deploy their protective potential inconspicuously, should be considered. Among them, there are elements
of city furniture and landscape architecture. This article addresses theoretical, numerical, and experimental
research towards protection capabilities of plants against blast. The research shows that plants of certain
characteristics reduce the blast pressure by up to 60% compared to unimpeded blast wave propagation.
These first studies pose specific questions that need to be answered in further research.

Keywords
blast, explosion, plants, protection, experiment

Introduction
Recent terrorist attacks were mostly oriented against so-called soft targets like festivals, concerts,
fairs, or any other kind of large gatherings of people. This strategy aims to cause high casualty rates
with minimal effort and tries to undermine the fundamental values of a free society. Unlike certain
critical infrastructures, ‘soft targets’ are not hardened against these kinds of threats. This leads to the
following question: ‘What can be done to minimize casualties and damages due to such attacks and
to increase the sense of security?’ It is obviously impossible to harden urban areas in the same way
critical infrastructures are protected. Any attempt would lead to tremendous costs and – even worse
– would permanently illustrate the danger of an attack and cause insecurity within the society.
Forensic examinations of casualties of terrorist attacks conducted with explosives show that
most (deadly) injuries are caused by the overpressure that is induced by the blast wave, fragments,
debris, and other rapidly accelerated surrounding objects. Innovative solutions for blast protection

Research Center RISK, University of the Bundeswehr Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

Corresponding author:
Norbert Gebbeken, Research Center RISK, University of the Bundeswehr Munich, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, 85577
Neubiberg, Germany.
Email: norbert.gebbeken@unibw.de
2 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

should therefore focus on specific elements of city furniture and landscape architecture that are not
immediately recognized as protective elements but still provide protection against the different
types of impacts caused by explosions. For this purpose, the Federal Office of Civil Protection and
Disaster Assistance assigned to the Federal Ministry of the Interior commissioned a study at the
University of the Bundeswehr Munich (UniBwM).

Risk minimization
In August 2016, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior published a Civil Defence Concep
(BMI, 2016) that addresses the field of structural protection. The hardening of residential and com-
mercial buildings against blast loads is recommended in order to ensure the functionality of life- or
defence-important facilities and to protect cultural heritage. After the September 11 attacks, the struc-
tures of several private and public buildings were hardened, even though they do not necessarily
belong to the critical infrastructure. This might be useful, but protective measures involving the
nearby surrounding might be equally effective and make hardening unnecessary. Specific types of
barriers such as bollards, plantings, and benches can prevent attackers from transporting larger explo-
sive charges near the target and should therefore be taken into consideration as alternative options.
Protective structures can limit the effects of terrorist attacks but it is impossible to completely
avoid them, even by exhausting all possibilities of security measures and preventive measures.
Time, location, and other conditions of an attack remain uncertainties. Terrorists operate in close
coordination, combine different kinds of weapons, use unconventional methods (e.g. lorries, as
seen in Nice and Berlin in 2016), and conduct suicide attacks. In addition, tactics have been refined
and new technologies such as remote-controlled drones broaden the spectrum of possibilities for
terrorists. Citizens of a modern society need to accept a residual risk as part of their daily life.
It is however possible to limit the impact of terrorist attacks with structural solutions. Three dif-
ferent levels of protection can be distinguished. The first one describes the hardening of a structural
installation, for example, using laminated safety glass for facades or windows. This expensive way
is sensible for critical infrastructure with a high threat level, but unnecessary for most parts of the
society, due to the lower threat level. The second way is to increase the distance between possible
locations of an explosion and the target, which reduces the peak overpressure and the impulse
caused by an explosion tremendously (Gebbeken and Döge, 2009, 2010). Third, intelligent and
innovative protection systems can provide different obvious and unobvious functions. Elements of
such systems – the authors recommend the term ‘furnishing of the city’ – could be plants, plant
containers, walls, hills, streets lamps, benches, newsstands, and so on. which need to be specifi-
cally designed for this purpose or arranged in a certain way to unfold their protective potential. On
one hand, they fulfil their obvious purposes and can even improve quality of life and urban ecol-
ogy. On the other hand, they act as barriers against vehicle-borne (improvised) explosive devices,
intersect public places to create protected spaces, and provide cover or dissipate energy from blast
waves. Those hidden functions do not affect the sense of security in a negative way.
All three levels of protection can be combined to develop an optimal solution. Plants, especially
hedges, are usable for the second and third mentioned level. This article will focus on their blast
mitigating effects.

Current state of research

Hedges, bushes, and trees are effectively used for noise reduction as shown by Späh et al. (2011).
Research on the following subjects concerning plants can be found: trees subjected to wind loading
(e.g. James, 2010; Sellier and Fourcaud, 2009), structural behaviour of trees (e.g. Jonsson et al.,
Gebbeken et al. 3

Figure 1.  Wall design with planted gabion elements (photo: L. Rüdiger).

2007; Peltola, 2006) and energy absorption of trees subject to rock fall (Lundstrom et al., 2009).
Research on blast damage to trees caused by atomic explosions was done in the 1950s (Brown,
1953). The authors are not aware of any other published research on the blast mitigation potential
of plants then their own. First approaches to this topic were made 10 years ago. A numerical model
was created and simulations of hedges under blast loads were made in 2009 (Gebbeken and Döge,
2010). First scientific experiments concerning the blast mitigating effect of hedges were performed
in 2015.

Blast protection through plants

The integration of plants in buildings and structures is common practice. An example for designing
a protective structure under ecological aspects is given in Figure 1, which shows a wall between a
bus station and a nursery. The structure consists of a reinforced concrete wall with a front-mounted
layer of gabions filled with granulate material and plantings. From the perspective of protection,
this wall is a multi-layered protective element. Its main function is to protect the children from
traffic noise. The integrated plants make the wall more architectural appealing and provide a rug-
ged surface, which increases the noise insulating effect. Furthermore, they offer a habitat for birds
and insects, reduce carbon dioxide, and contribute to a balanced microclimate. The shown con-
struction is also a hard protection barrier in case of a traffic accident, for example, loss of control
over a car. The protective effect of the wall against blast and fragments caused by an explosion is
an additional property.

Requirements for protective plants

This raises the question whether plants alone can provide blast protection. While in the so-called
far field, sound waves and blast waves can physically be treated similar, the scientific findings
from sound insulation might be useful in terms of blast protection. Noise reduction of hedges was
investigated and demonstrated in Späh et al. (2011). It was shown that evergreen plants with large
and mostly round shaped leaves can effectively be used as noise barriers. The orientation of the
leaves should be mostly perpendicular towards the sound source. Noise reducing hedges need to
have a dense surface foliage and should be almost opaque. While sound insulation requires a reduc-
tion of the noise level (measured in dBA), blast protection requires a reduction of the overpressure
(measured e.g. in kPa). The impact on plants is therefore different, because in contrast to blast
4 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

pressure, the sound pressure causes almost no mechanical stresses. The larger surface of leaves
favourable for noise reduction may be disadvantageous for blast protection. As the leafstalk has to
carry all loads applied to the leaf to the branch, a larger surface causes more drag, larger forces and
higher stresses. If the maximum load capacity of the leafstalk or the connection between leaf and
branch is exceeded, the leaves are teared off. Despite this, the following principle requirements for
blast protection plants can be formulated:

1. Evergreen,
2. Large amount of biomass,
3. Opaque,
4. Non-brittle behaviour.

Evergreen plants provide year-round protection; the amount of biomass increases inertia and the
resistance against blast. Opaque plants ensure the existence of biomass in each possible direction
towards an explosion. Non-brittle behaviour enables the plant to withstand large deflections with-
out sustaining vital damage. Plastic deformations, which are favourable for mechanical energy
dissipation, were not observed during the first tests, even at large deflections. Further research, for
example, on the mechanical behaviour of plants under blast loads is required. The use of compara-
tively brittle behaving groves is therefore currently not recommended. Additional or optional qual-
ities might be

•• Suitability for the site,

•• Easy to care,
•• Cutting compatible,
•• Frost-hardy,
•• Nontoxic.

Preselection of plants with protective potential against blast

While deciduous trees are recommended for noise reduction, coniferous trees should be taken into
account for blast protection. The smaller surface of needles in comparison to leaves seems to posi-
tively influence their effectiveness to withstand and mitigate blast pressure. According to the height
of a natural blast protection barrier, bushes hedges or trees are required. All plants given in Table 1
meet the first principle requirement and should be taken into account.
All coniferous trees given in Table 1 can be grown as hedges. Ivy is the only deciduous tree in
this list that needs climbing support, for which other types of barriers like expanded metal mesh
sheets or metal ring meshes can be used. This combination can also provide protection against
trespassing or accelerated fragments. One species of each type of trees was selected for further

Table 1.  Evergreen plants with possible suitability for blast protection.

Type of trees Species/subspecies

Deciduous trees Bamboo, box tree, ivy, ilex, cherry laurel, privet,
firethorn, rhododendron
Coniferous trees Arbor vitae, yew tree, junipers, hemlock, Serbian
spruce, pine tree, cypress
Gebbeken et al. 5

Figure 2.  Sketch of the simulated scenario (modified from Gebbeken and Döge (2010)).

investigations, cherry laurel and thuja (also known as arbor vitae). Both are often used as hedges
and meet the first three requirements if they are appropriately trimmed and arranged.
The amount of biomass needs to be quantified in order to assess the resistance of the hedges and
to prepare a first numerical model. Further parameters will be discussed later. The biomass above
ground, which is of particular interest, consists of the stem, the branches, and the leaves or needles.
The amount of biomass per volume unit, described as bulk density or vegetation density (Späh et
al., 2011), scatters significantly for different hedges, even within one species. Two examples given
in Späh et al. (2011) are blood-red dogwood with bulk densities varying from 8.7 to 17.4 kg/m3 and
red honeysuckle with bulk densities varying from 17.4 to 28.2 kg/m3. Bulk densities of 28.2 kg/m3
are considered as rare for natural growth according to Späh et al. (2011) and are therefore taken as
an upper limit. Using the bulk density, the volume fraction of biomass to the total volume can be
estimated. With estimated densities for leaves and wood of about 400–700 kg/m3, the volume frac-
tion of organic material of a hedge can be calculated to approximately 1%–7%. The major amount
of volume within a hedge is filled with air. For the first numerical pre-studies, hedges with biomass
volume fractions of 1% and 5% were analysed.

Modelling and numerical simulation of plants under blast loads

Due to the fact that initially no funding for research on protective plants was available and no
experiments could be executed, a self-financed study for numerical preliminary investigations was
conducted at the Institute of Engineering Mechanics & Structural Analysis at the University of the
Bundeswehr Munich (Gebbeken and Döge, 2010). The simulated scenario is the explosion of 5 kg
Trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent in a distance of 4 m to a building (Figure 2). The hedge is 1 m
wide and 1 m high and is placed at a distance of 1 m to the building and 2 m to the explosive.

Modelling strategies for plants under blast loads

Hedges are complex entities from the perspective of structural mechanics. The very inhomogene-
ous structure comprises stems, branches, and leaves. The material properties vary and cannot be
derived easily for all parts of the plant. It is therefore currently impossible to model the geometrical
and mechanical complexity for numerical simulations of hedges under high dynamic loads. The
interaction of the plant and airflow additionally requires the implementation of fluid–structure
interactions (FSI) and detailed meshing of the structure and the surrounding fluid, which increases
the computational effort. Light or flexible structures, such as membranes, can influence the over-
pressure phase of a blast wave (Gebbeken and Döge, 2009; Teich and Gebbeken, 2010), which
6 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Figure 3.  Numerical Autodyn model for different amounts of biomass and distribution of peak pressure
(modified from Gebbeken and Döge (2010)): (a) 0% biomass volume fraction, (b) 1% biomass volume
fraction, and (c) 5% biomass volume fraction.

means that the detailed examination of the leaves or needles behaviour under blast loads requires
FSI. For this first approximation the hedge is modelled as a “cloud” of small rigid cubes and the
influence of FSI is neglected. This approach assumes that the movement of the structure caused by
the blast wave occurs delayed due to inertia.
The idea for an initial numerical approach was to develop a model that allows representing dif-
ferent bulk densities and enables perfusion, reflection, refraction, and diffraction but disregards
FSI. Therefore, a quasi-rigid mechanical model was chosen in which stems, leaves, and branches
do not move during perfusion. Due to the flow simulation, an Euler discretization method was
implemented. The numerical modelling and simulation were performed with the hydrocode
ANSYS, Inc (2013) Autodyn. Specifics and verification of the numerical modelling are discussed
in Gebbeken and Döge (2010).
The modelling strategy uses randomly distributed fixed rigid cubical volume elements – so-
called unused blocks – within the area of the hedge to represent the volume fraction of biomass
(Figure 3). As it hits these volume elements, the blast wave is directly reflected, multiply reflected,
refracted, and diffracted, which influences the airflow and converts energy. The assumption that no
movement of the plant is enabled needs to be accepted for this first assessment of the protective
capacity. Two different bulk densities (1% and 5%) were simulated.

Results of the numerical simulations

For the evaluation of the protective capacity of a structure, the pressure–time history and the impulse
in comparison to the unimpeded propagation of the blast wave are of particular interest. As the abso-
lute pressure also includes the barometric pressure, only the overpressure needs to be considered. As
long as the overpressure streams past, the side-on overpressure needs to be regarded and in case of a
reflection (e.g. on a façade), the reflected overpressure is decisive (Gebbeken and Döge, 2006, 2009).
For the evaluation of the protective capacity of plants, both overpressure values are important, as the
side-on overpressure is considered to determine the damage to humans (Larcher et al., 2011).
The results given in Figure 3 (qualitative) and in Table 2 (quantitative) show that the reflected
peak overpressure on the façade of the building was reduced for both hedges in comparison to the
model without hedge. For the scenario without hedge, the most heavily loaded point is located in
the middle of the façade right above the ground. Table 2 lists the values for peak reflected overpres-
sure pro and maximum impulse Imax at that point. The hedge decreases the blast load on the façade
(reflected overpressure) up to 39% in case of 5% biomass volume.
Gebbeken et al. 7

Table 2.  Reduction of peak overpressure and impulse for numerically simulated hedges.

Model pro (kPa) Reduction Imax (Pa s) Reduction

No hedge 627 – 537 –
1% hedge 570 9.09% 503 6.33%
5% hedge 381 39.23% 404 24.77%

This relatively simple model with randomly distributed fixed rigid volume elements already
shows that plants, especially hedges, are able to reduce loads (overpressure and impulse) caused by
explosions. The results also spell out the need for further numerical and experimental studies on
this field to verify and validate these first tendencies.

Experimental tests of plants under blast loads

In order to validate the results of the first numerical study, experimental tests with plants under
blast loads were conducted in 2015 at the Bundeswehr Technical Center for Protective and Special
Technologies (WTD 52) in cooperation with the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster
Assistance (BBK). Unfortunately, only a small number of tests could be realized. Therefore, these
tests focused on finding a suitable test setup for a realistic scenario in order to gain first experiences
for plants used as blast protection elements. Thuja and cherry laurel hedges, which are often used
at public places or to demarcate properties, were used for testing.

Test setup and parameter of the tested hedges

The proving ground is located at an altitude of approximately 1600 m above mean sea level. Other
types of protective structures were also tested during this campaign and are arranged circularly around
the explosive as an arena setup (Figures 4 and 7). The results for the other tested structures will be
published separately and will not be further discussed within this article. It should however be men-
tioned that the thuja hedge showed the best performance in terms of pressure reduction. The protec-
tion capacity of the other tested structures where in the range of the cherry laurel hedges or below.
For each test, a charge of 3.9 kg Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) (5 kg TNT equivalent) was
detonated. The centre of gravity of the explosive was located 0.4 m above ground. This causes the
formation of a Mach stem with increased overpressures. The height of the Mach stem can rise up to
the height of the origin of the explosion (Gebbeken and Döge, 2009). The charge had a cuboid shape.
Therefore, the blast wave needs a certain time of propagation to form a smooth dome-shaped shock
front. The effect is visible in the high-speed camera recordings. This initial phase seems to be com-
pleted as the shock front hits the barriers, but it might influence the results of the first pressure gauge
in front of the barrier at a distance of 4.0 m from the explosive (Figure 5). Due to the limited number
of pressure gauges, no final statement about the influence of the initial phase can be made. A spheri-
cally shaped charge is recommended for further experiments to minimize these effects.
The test setup is derived from a possible real scenario, which could happen at any public place.
One person can carry the used explosive charge within a bag or a backpack. The vertical position of
the charge is the approximate height of a carried bag. The tested protective structures (barriers) have
a distance of 5 m to the centre of gravity of the explosive. Figures 5 and 6 show the general test setup
with all distances between explosive, barriers, and the gabion walls that represent a façade. The
pressure–time history was recorded with 12 pressure gauges (three in each axis) and all other rele-
vant blast wave parameters (overpressure, peak overpressure, duration of positive overpressure and
8 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Figure 4.  Test site, general test setup (photo: WTD 52 / UniBw).

Figure 5.  Side view of test setup with explosive and pressure gauges (modified from Lenhart (2015)).

Figure 6.  Plan view of the arena test setup with explosive and pressure gauges.

impulse) were derived from these results. The positions of the gauges are marked with green dots
for side-on pressure ps(t) and red dots for reflected pressure pr(t) in Figures 5 and 6.
The arena setup allows simultaneous testing of four protective structures or hedges (generally
denoted as ‘barriers’) using one charge of explosive. The reflections of the blast wave on the tested
barriers in one axis might influence the pressure–time histories in the adjacent and opposing axes
to some extent. Due to the longer travelling distance of those reflected waves in comparison to the
initial blast wave in a certain axis, this effect occurs after the peak overpressure, which is therefore
not influenced. Diffracted waves from the top and the sides of the barrier also influence the pres-
sure–time history, especially at the gauges right behind the barrier. Visualizing this effect would
require Schlieren recordings. Diffraction needs to be considered in the numerical simulations by
Gebbeken et al. 9

Figure 7.  Test setup with pressure gauges, gabion wall, and high-speed camera (photo: WTD 52 / UniBw).

providing enough air volume beside and above the barrier to enable the blast wave to flow over and
around it.
High-speed cameras (1000 fps) as shown in Figure 7 were used for visual evaluation of the
plants behaviour under blast loads. Figure 7 also shows a side-on pressure gauge and reflected
pressure gauge. Both are mounted on metal support plates. The gabion wall behind the reflected
pressure gauge represents a façade. The dashed white line marks the line of sight along the pressure
gauges.
The thuja hedge consisted of 13 plants arranged in two rows (seven towards the explosion and
six offset towards the façade). It had a width of 2.0 m, a thickness of 0.55 m and an average height
of 1.09 m (0.77–1.41 m). The root balls were buried approximately 0.35 m below ground and the
soil was compacted with boots. The results prove that naturally grown roots are not required for
blast protection. The thuja used for these experiments (Thuja occidentalis ‘Smaragd’) has a narrow
conical shape, almost vertical growing branches and is compact and opaque. This type of thuja
reaches heights of 5–7 m and widths of 1–1.8 m. The annual growth amounts about 10 cm in height
and 4 cm in width depending on the habitat (Baumschule Horstmann GmbH & Co. KG, n.d.-a).
The needles are tightly imbricated scales, as shown in Figure 8(a).
The cherry laurel hedge consisted of 15 plants that were also arranged in two rows (eight towards
the explosion and seven offset towards the façade). It had a width of 1.8 m, a thickness of 0.55 m,
and an average height of 0.94 m. The root balls were buried approximately 0.40 m below ground and
the soil was compacted with boots as well. Cherry laurel reaches heights of up to 5 m and widths of
3–4 m. The annual growth amounts up to 50 cm in height (Baumschule Horstmann GmbH & Co.
KG, n.d.-b). The leaves are of elongated shape with a leathery and glossy surface (Figure 8(b)).
Further information on the specific characteristics of the plants can be gathered at various tree nurs-
eries. Figure 9 shows the condition of both hedges before testing and Table 3 summarizes the details
of the tested hedges. The dimensions of the hedges are not given precisely, due to their naturally
grown shape. They were young and untrimmed, because it was impossible to install a full-grown
hedge at the proving ground. To calculate the biomass of the hedges, they need to be weighed with
the root balls. The weight of the root balls needs to be determined after testing and subtracted to find
the weight of the biomass above ground. Hence, the root balls need to be wrapped during testing, to
ensure that their mass stays constant. This procedure is only applicable if the hedges are implanted
for a short time. Otherwise, all parts of the hedges that were wrenched off during the tests have to
be collected and weighed together with the remaining parts above ground.
10 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Figure 8.  Thuja needles (a) and cherry laurel leaf (b) (photos: P. Warnstedt).

Figure 9.  Thuja hedge (a) and cherry laurel hedge (b) before testing (photo: WTD 52 / UniBw).

Table 3.  Details of the tested hedges.

Hedge Material Biomass (kg) Height (m) Width (m) Thickness (m)
Cherry laurel Wood, leaves ~13.0 ~0.65 … 1.23 ~1.8 ~0.40
Thuja Wood, needles ~32.0 ~0.77 … 1.41 ~2.0 ~0.55

Test evaluation and results

The visual evaluation (qualitative evaluation) of the experiments by means of the high-speed cam-
era recordings and observations after testing will be mentioned first in order to draw conclusions
about suitability and prove the principle requirements for protective plants formulated in section
‘Requirements for protective plants’. The results are then evaluated regarding the measured pres-
sure–time histories (quantitative evaluation) in comparison to the results of the numerical
simulations.

Visual evaluation.  Figure 10 shows the behaviour of the thuja hedge at different time steps after the
explosion. Due to the frame rate of the high-speed camera (1000 s−1), time steps of whole millisec-
onds are displayed. The yellow arrows mark the direction of movement of the plants. Figure 10(a)
shows the first frame right after initiation of the explosive. At t ≈ 6.0 ms (Figure 10(b)), the shock
front (indicated as dashed red line) reaches the plants. Assuming a hemispherical blast wave propa-
gation for an explosion of 5 kg TNT equivalent, the arrival time of the blast wave at a distance of
5.0 m (position of the plants) can be calculated to ta ≈ 5.8 ms using the formulas given by Kingery
and Bulmash (1984). At the same distance, the overpressure phase td lasts approximately 4.7 ms
and ends at t ≈ 10.5 ms (Figure 10(c) shows the corresponding frame at t = 11 ms). The largest
Gebbeken et al. 11

Figure 10.  Movement of the thuja hedge at different time steps ((a) to (f)) after the explosion (yellow
arrows mark the direction of movement; red dashed line indicates the shock front; high-speed camera
recordings: WTD 52).

plants of the hedge reach their maximum positive deflection (to the right) at t ≈ 160.0 ms (Figure
10(d)). Then the direction of movement changes. The plants pass their initial position at t ≈ 260.0
ms (Figure 10(e)) and the maximum negative deflection (to the left) occurs at t ≈ 390.0 ms (Figure
10(f)). The movement–time history of the plants shows their delayed reaction in comparison to the
propagation of the blast wave. Due to inertia, the maximum positive deflections occur more than
100 ms after the end of the overpressure phase.
Figure 11 shows both plants after the experiment. The young and mostly elastic behaving thuja
hedge tolerated the large deflections quite well and visually no crucial damage could be observed.
Only a few needles and branches were wrenched off (Figure 11(a)). No plastic deformations could
be noticed either and the 13 plants were upright with no significant changes of their outer shape
after each of the four test runs. Due to this unexpected good performance, the same thuja hedge was
used for all four experiments. The wood of the stems and branches might have suffered structural
damages on the microscopic scale, which could not be studied within this campaign. Unfortunately,
it was impossible to leave the hedges implanted at the proving ground to examine the effect of
internal damages on the further growth behaviour. The recorded pressure–time histories at the
12 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Figure 11.  Thuja hedge (a) and cherry laurel hedge (b) after testing (photo: WTD 52 / UniBw).

gauges behind the thuja hedges (Figure 15) do not show noticeable differences that could be asso-
ciated with damages of the wooden structure. The highest reduction of peak overpressure (Table 5)
was achieved in the third test (V3) and all four tests (V1–V4) show similar results, so that no mate-
rial degradation could be observed.
The two tested cherry laurel hedges reacted entirely different (Figure 11(b)). Although they also
consisted of young plants, most of the leaves were wrenched off whereas the needles of the thuja
visually seemed to be in good condition. This can have several reasons, for example, the larger
blast loaded surface of the leaves leads to higher stresses and the connecting point between leaf-
stalk and branch can be a weak point. Because of their larger surface, the cherry laurel leaves are
more vulnerable for flying debris. Plenty broken leaves and some penetrated leaves were observed
during the visual evaluation. These aspects show that the thuja hedge seems to be more suitable as
a protective element, especially in case of multiple hit scenarios.
The cherry laurel hedge lost the first three principle requirements for protective plants mentioned
in section ‘Requirements for protective plants’ and needs to be replaced. As well as other protective
structures, plants do not necessarily need to be intact after being subjected to high dynamic loads.
Damage is acceptable as long as the structure or element provides its protective function during the
particular incident and can be replaced afterwards. For plants, damages are expected in case of near-
field explosions, but they do not need to occur in case of far-field explosions, as the thuja hedge
proved. The capability to withstand multiple hit scenarios is therefore a positive aspect for the selec-
tion of protective plants. Regarding the potential risk of secondary attacks, this quality becomes
more important. These kinds of attacks are conducted e.g. after the arrival of rescue forces or emer-
gency-response personnel and were observed in military operations. This tactic might also be
applied for terrorist attacks in an urban environment. The pressure reduction will be mentioned in
connection with the results of the numerical simulations in section ‘Quantitative evaluation’.

Numerical simulation of the experiments.  The setup of the experiment was simulated with an adapted
numerical model using LS-DYNA (2016). The main reasons for switching to LS-DYNA are the
possibility to compare two different modelling approaches, as described below, on one hand and
the solving performance on the other hand. With the available resources, the calculation with
ANSYS Autodyn can only be paralyzed on eight CPUs, while the calculation with LS-DYNA can
be performed with up to 256 CPUs. Regarding the larger size of the simulated area compared to the
model described in section ‘Modelling strategies for plants under blast loads’, this becomes more
important. The Autodyn model contains 2 million elements compared to more than 6 million ele-
ments in the adapted LS-DYNA model. All elements are hexagonal and the time step was chosen
automatically based on the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy criterion. The scale was 1:1.
Gebbeken et al. 13

Figure 12.  Approaches for the numerical simulation of the experiments in LS-DYNA: (a) ALE and (b)
ConWep/ALE (modified from Gebbeken et al. (2015)).

Figure 12 displays the geometry of the simulated area with air volume, hedge, ground, and the
façade of a building. It also illustrates the two compared approaches used for the simulation of the
experiments. The first approach (Figure 12(a)) simulates the blast wave propagation in the whole
area from the explosive charge to the façade with the arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) method,
which combines the advantages of the Lagrangian description for solids with the Eulerian descrip-
tion for fluid behaviour. This approach considers the vertical position of the charge and is therefore
more accurate than the second one. The second approach (Figure 12(b)) reduces the computational
effort and the size of the model by assuming a hemispherical blast wave propagation. The air vol-
ume starts at a distance of 3.0 m from the origin of the explosion (left boundary of the air volume).
The pressure–time history for a hemispherical blast wave propagation at this point is generated
with a module integrated in LS-DYNA. Similar to ConWep (n.d.), this module uses peak overpres-
sure, impulse, and duration of positive overpressure calculated with the polynomial formulas given
by Kingery and Bulmash (1984) to generate a pressure–time curve (Friedlander’s (1939) curve).
This pressure–time curve is then defined as the boundary condition at the y–z plane. From this
point, the blast wave propagation is modelled with the ALE method. In contrast to the first approach,
the shock front is plane until it reaches the hedge body and the vertical position of the charge is
neglected.
The air volume is modelled with an Euler mesh with the highest resolution around the charge
and the hedge body (element size of 2 cm in each direction). The resolution was reduced in the
upper and outer area of the model to a maximum element size of 4 cm in each direction. The charge
is modelled with the command *INITIAL_VOLUME_FRACTION_GEOMETRY as a hemi-
sphere with a higher resolution and taking advantage of the symmetry conditions. Pressure–time
histories are recorded in the numerical model at the same positions of the gauges as in the real test
setup. The lateral and upper boundaries are set as ‘flow out’ to not reflect the blast wave. The
14 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Figure 13.  Modelling strategy for the hedge body in LS-DYNA (modified from Gebbeken et al. (2015)).

ground and the façade are modelled as solid surfaces. Their rigid behaviour causes ideal reflections
of the blast wave and therefore differs from the real materials. In reality, the ground is a compound
of gravelly material and in situ soil and the real façade was built up with gabions which have a
rugged and partly open-pored surface (e.g. Figure 4). As a result, the reflections in the numerical
model are to some extent stronger than the real ones. The parameters required to model the materi-
als more realistically, especially the ground, cannot be quantified with reasonable effort and are
therefore neglected within the simulations. The resulting effects were however addressed with
reference measurements during the experiments.
The modelling strategy for the hedge body was the same as described in section ‘Modelling strate-
gies for plants under blast loads’. It is modelled as a rectangular block of volume elements (Figure
13) with the same overall dimensions as the tested hedges given in Table 3. The height of this block
was scaled to the average height of the real hedges (1.09 m for the thuja hedge and 0.94 m for the
cherry laurel hedge). From this block (labelled as ‘100 vol.-% biomass’ in Figure 13) the amount of
elements equalling the volume fraction of air within the hedge is deleted. The elements to be deleted
are chosen randomly, which causes a random spatial distribution of the remaining elements. The
remaining elements represent the volume fraction of biomass within the hedge (labelled as ‘remain-
ing vol.-% biomass’ in Figure 13). [optional: For example, from a block of 250,000 elements 12,500
elements have to be deleted to model as hedge with a biomass volume fraction of 5 %.]. Since the
volume elements of the hedge body are fixed and no inertia is activated, they do not have to represent
the biomass but the volume occupied by the biomass. The remaining elements behave as small solid
blocks. As the blast wave flows through the hedge, it hits these elements and parts of its energy are
converted due to direct reflections, multiple reflections, refractions, and diffractions.
The modelling was verified for the case of a free field blast wave propagation (without hedge)
with ConWep, the experimental data, and results from the hydrocode ANSYS Autodyn. The mod-
elling of the impeded blast wave propagation (with hedge) was verified using the experimental
data. The following subsection compares the results of the experiments and the numerical simula-
tions with the first approach (ALE), since it is more appropriate to the simulated scenario. The
second approach is however suitable for the development and refinement of a more accurate
numerical model for plants under blast loads but will not be further discussed in this article.

Quantitative evaluation.  In order to validate the measured pressure–time histories, the peak overpres-
sure values were compared to results gained with the semi-empirical formulas from Kingery and
Bulmash (1984) and with results from numerical simulations conducted with ANSYS Autodyn and
LS-DYNA. The formulas from Kingery and Bulmash (1984) only apply for (hemi-)spherical blast
wave propagations and normal reflections and can therefore only be used to evaluate the measured
pressure–time histories in case of a free field blast wave propagation.
Gebbeken et al. 15

Table 4.  Peak overpressures at the position of pressure gauges according to Kingery and Bulmash (1984)
in comparison to LS-DYNA and reference measurements.

No. Model Position 1 Position 2 Position 3

(R = 4.0 m) (R = 5.5 m) (R = 10.0 m)

pso (kPa) pso (kPa) pro (kPa)

1 K&B spherical (min) 137.9 70.9 52.7
2 K&B hemispherical 198.9 100.0 74.7
3 K&B spherical Mach 206.9 88.6 60.6
4 K&B hemispherical Mach (max) 328.2 137.5 112.1
5 LS-DYNA 176.1 92.7 73.1
6 Reference test (mean value) 267.5 101.0 77.3

Since the charge was detonated 0.4 m above ground, the propagation of the blast wave is neither
pure hemispherical nor pure spherical. Until the blast wave is initially reflected on the ground, it
propagates spherically. The reflection on the ground causes a Mach stem with increased pressures
which theoretically reaches a height of 0.4 m, as already mentioned in connection with the descrip-
tion of the test setup. The amount of increase furthermore depends on the surface condition of the
ground. The subject matter experts of the WTD 52 quantify the reduction to less than 5% in compari-
son to an ideal rigid reflection, which is within the tolerance range of the pressure gauges. The influ-
ence of the Mach stem on one hand can be estimated with empirical formulas or on the other hand be
calculated numerically using hydrocodes.
This leads to theoretical values for the peak overpressures at the positions of the pressure gauges
as given in rows 1–4 in Table 4. Row 5 lists the results of the numerical simulation without barrier.
Side-on overpressures are denoted as pso and reflected overpressures as pro. These values describe
the case of an unimpeded blast wave propagation (without hedge) and enable a plausibility check
for the reference values listed in row 6. A spherical blast wave propagation (row 1) produces the
lowest overpressures values. Knowing that the real blast wave propagation is not spherical and
reflections on the ground occur, the measured peak overpressure values are expected to be higher.
Hence, the case of a spherical blast wave propagation can be regarded as the theoretical lower
boundary for valid measured peak overpressure values.
To find the theoretical upper boundary for measured overpressure values, the Mach stem effect was
estimated with a simplified approach. Using the graphs for the reflection coefficient depending on angle
of incidence and peak side-on overpressure (Figure 14) given in US Army Corps of Engineers (1990)
and Department of Defense (2008), the relation between the minimal reflection coefficient cr,min and the
reflection coefficient according to a given overpressure cr,i can be found. Regarding the minimum inci-
dent angle for transition from oblique reflection to Mach stem formation of approximately 39.2°
(according to Kinney and Graham (1985)), Figure 14 illustrates the procedure exemplarily for a peak
incident overpressure of 140 kPa. It must be pointed out that this procedure does not deliver the over-
pressure value within the Mach stem, but enables the estimation of its upper limit. The highest theoreti-
cal overpressure values are calculated for a hemispherical blast wave propagation with the influence of
the Mach stem (row 4 in Table 4) and are therefore regarded as the upper boundary for valid measured
values. Peak overpressure values derived from the experiments that are beyond the range of the calcu-
lated lower and upper boundary (denoted as min and max in Table 4) can be treated as outliers.
The peak overpressure values measured in the reference test and derived from the numerical
simulation without hedge are expected to be within the estimated boundaries (between 137.9 and
328.2 kPa at position 1, between 70.9 and 137.5 kPa at position 2, and between 52.7 and 112.1 kPa
at position 3). During the four tests, pressure–time histories were recorded at three positions in
16 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Figure 14.  Reflection coefficient depending on angle of incidence and peak side-on overpressure (based
on US Army Corps of Engineers (1990) and Department of Defense (2008); modified from Gebbeken and
Döge (2010)).

each of the four axes (Figure 6). Since the pressure gauges at position 1 are located 1 m in front of
the barriers, the first measured peak overpressure is not affected by any kind of interaction with the
obstacles and can be regarded as a reference value, which leads to 16 reference values at position 1.
To obtain reference values at positions 2 and 3, a reference test in an undisturbed field was per-
formed in one of the four axes during test V4. The measured overpressures at positions 2 and 3
were within the expected range and close to the calculated values of a hemispherical blast wave
propagation. At position 1, which is closest to the explosive, one of the sixteen measured overpres-
sure values was above and four were below the expected range. These values are therefore disre-
garded for further evaluations. Possible reasons for the values beyond the expected range are
inadequate calibration of the gauges or slightly distorted support plates (e.g. Figure 11) which
might either shield the pressure gauge or cause partly reflected pressures. The influence of dis-
torted support plates on the measured overpressure values will be investigated in numerical studies
and future tests. The peak side-on and reflected overpressures of the reference test are listed in
Table 4. The value at position 1 is the mean of the 11 remaining values after the plausibility check
and the values at positions 2 and 3 are ones obtained during test V4. The peak overpressure values
at positions 2 and 3 are very close to a hemispherical blast wave propagation and the ‘height of
burst effect’ is almost subsided. The overpressure histories at these positions are plotted as refer-
ence (dashed grey lines) in Figure 15 to show the pressure reduction caused by the hedges.
The recorded overpressure histories at positions 2 and 3 are shown in Figure 15 and Table 5
summarizes the results of all experiments (V1–V4). During the experiments V1–V3, the thuja
hedge was tested together with other barrier types (Figure 4). In experiment V4, the three remain-
ing axes of the arena setup were used to test two different cherry laurel hedges (denoted as V4 (A)
and V4 (B)) and to gain the reference overpressure values (denoted as V4 (R)) at positions 2 and 3
by measuring pressure values in the absence of a barrier. The listed side-on overpressures pso and
the reflected overpressures pro are given for the pressure gauges behind the hedges at position 2
(R = 5.5 m) and position 3 (R = 10.0 m), which are shown in Figures 5 and 6. These positions are
the important ones for the evaluation of blast mitigating effects. The columns ‘reduction’ list the
Gebbeken et al. 17

Figure 15.  Experimental overpressure histories at positions 2 and 3 for thuja hedges ((a) and (b)) and
cherry laurel hedges ((c) and (d)).

percentage reduction of the peak overpressures derived from each experiment in comparison to the
values of the reference test V4 (R).
The overpressure histories confirm the visual evaluation described in section ‘Visual evalua-
tion’ and show the differences between the thuja and the cherry laurel hedge. Whereas the thuja
hedge cuts off the peak of the incident blast wave and reduces the overpressure significantly, the
cherry laurel hedges cause less reduction. The plateau of relatively constant overpressure is also
characteristic for the thuja hedge. The slender and flexible structure seems to work like an aerator
and slightly decelerates the blast wave. The noticeable secondary peaks in the overpressure histo-
ries at position 2 (Figure 15(a) and (c)) at around 11 ms are caused by the reflection of the blast
wave at the barrier in the opposing axis. It therefore does not occur at V4 (B) (Figure 15(c)) where
the reference test was arranged in the opposing axis. To calculate the overpressure reduction, the
highest overpressure values before the first clear decline of the pressure curves (not the first peak
values) were regarded as peak values.
The results for the thuja hedges show an average reduction of the side-on overpressure (0.5 m
behind the hedge, R = 5.5 m) of 61.8% within the experiments. The reflected overpressure (5.0 m
behind the hedge, R = 10.0 m) was averagely reduced by 35.7%. The reduction of the overpressure
18 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Table 5.  Results of experiments and pressure reduction in comparison to reference test.

Test no. Position 2 (R = 5.5 m) Position 3 (R = 10.0 m)

  pso (kPa) Reduction pro (kPa) Reduction

Reference test V4 (R) 101.0 – 77.3 –
Thuja V1 38.9 61.5% 48.0 37.9%
V2 40.5 59.9% 54.9 29.0%
V3 34.8 65.5% 46.0 40.5%
V4 40.0 60.4% 50.0 35.3%
Mean 38.6 61.8% 49.7 35.7%
Standard deviation 2.24 (5.8%) 2.22 (3.6%) 3.31 (6.7%) 4.28 (12.0%)
Cherry laurel V4 (A) 56.0 44.6% 51.5 33.4%
V4 (B) 84.0 16.8% 82.0 −6.1%
Mean 70.0 30.7% 66.8 13.6%
Standard deviation 14.00 (20.0%) 13.86 (45.1%) 15.25 (22.8%) 19.73 (145.1%)

decreases with increasing distance, as the blast wave flows over and around the hedge. The Mach
stem possibly influences the results as well, since the vertical position of the pressure gauges is just
around 0.13 m above its maximum theoretical height and the ground is not perfectly even. The
mean and standard deviation prove the reliability of the results and the potential of thuja hedges as
protective elements. More experiments with different configurations and a tighter pressure gauge
cluster are still required for a final assessment.
The experimental results for the cherry laurel hedge are less satisfying. The average reduction of
peak side-on overpressure by 30.7% and reflected overpressure by 13.6% is not meaningful, as the
results for both tested hedges spread widely. The standard deviation is inacceptable and two tests do
therefore not allow any valid quantitative assessment towards the protective potential of cherry laurel.
The lower measured peak overpressure reduction quantitatively proves the lower protection capacity
for cherry laurel hedges compared to thuja hedges. This also corresponds to the visual evaluation.
The experiments were simulated numerically with the model described in section ‘Numerical simu-
lation of the experiments’ with a biomass volume of 5.0% for the thuja hedge and 3.5% for the cherry
laurel hedge. The derived overpressure histories are shown in Figure 16 and the results are summarized
in Table 6. Only positions 2 and 3 (behind the hedge) are mentioned, as no reduction occurs in front.
The computed overpressure histories at position 2 (Figure 16(a)) are similar to the ones from the
experiments in terms of arrival time, peak overpressure, and pressure reduction. Even the plateau in
case of the thuja hedge is discernible, although it is not as pronounced. The curves for the 3.5% hedge
(cherry laurel) correspond to the experimental results of test V4 (A). The reason for the higher over-
pressure values in test V4 (B) remains uncertain. The overpressure phases in the experiments last
longer, especially at position 3, which can be caused by multiple reflections that are not considered in
the numerical simulation, as only one axis of the arena setup is simulated. Hence, the minimal over-
pressure in the simulations is lower than in the experiments. The results show that the rigid numerical
model is suitable for an estimation of the pressure reduction but a more accurate and flexible model for
the hedges is required to obtain reliable results for the whole overpressure history and the impulse.
The row ‘no hedge (reference)’ in Table 6 lists the reference values for the calculation of pres-
sure reduction, which are derived from a simulation of the test setup without any kind of barrier.
For the thuja hedge, the average experimental results (Table 5) correspond widely to the numerical
Gebbeken et al. 19

Figure 16.  Numerically derived overpressure histories at (a) position 2 and (b) position 3.

results (Table 6). The peak side-on overpressures at position 2 were reduced by 56.3% in the simu-
lation and by average 61.8% in the experiments. The peak reflected overpressures at position 3
were reduced by 32.0% in the simulation and by average 35.7% in the experiments. This justifies
the assumptions made for the numerical model and proves its suitability for a coarse evaluation on
the blast protection potential of plants, although it neglects any kind of FSI.
Considering the well corresponding numerical and experimental results for the thuja hedges, the
similar experimental and numerical results for the cherry laurel hedge in test V4 (A) might indicate
faulty measurements in test V4 (B). The calculated unrealistic negative reduction (increase) of the
peak reflected overpressure by −6.1% in this case also leads to this assumption, but no closer
examination was possible during this campaign.

Summarizing evaluation
The experimental results clearly demonstrate the protective potential of carefully selected plants
against blast waves and underline the principle requirements for protective plants formulated in
section ‘Requirements for protective plants’. The well corresponding results of the numerical sim-
ulations show the suitability of the numerical model for a coarse evaluation of blast mitigation by
plants. The experiences derived from the experiments also provide valuable hints for following
investigations and reveal potential sources of error.
The comparison of the overpressure reduction caused by the thuja hedge and the cherry laurel
hedges clearly shows that the biomass density above ground is the governing parameter for blast
wave mitigation. A higher biomass density causes the activation of inertia, which converts energy.
It also provides a larger surface to reflect the blast wave. Besides this expectable result, the experi-
ments also illustrate that other parameters significantly influence the behaviour of the plants.
Larger leaves, which are favourable for noise reduction, lead to damages and make the plants more
vulnerable, especially against small parts of debris. In comparison to large leaves, narrow needles
offer a much smaller surface, which reduces the stresses within the structure. Even small flying
objects cause no crucial damage to the plant. The blast wave is still effectively mitigated due to the
sheer number of needles. Coniferous trees and deciduous trees with small leaves, such as box tree,
therefore tend to be more suitable as protective plants. The low capability of plants to slow down
or impede fragments can be compensated by combining other barriers (e.g. expanded metal mesh
sheets or metal ring meshes).
20 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Table 6.  Results of the numerical simulations with LS-DYNA.

Model Position 2 (R = 5.5 m) Position 3 (R = 10.0 m)

pso (kPa) Reduction pro (kPa) Reduction

No hedge 92.70 – 73.10 –
(reference)
5.0% hedge (thuja) 40.50 56.3% 49.70 32.0%
3.5% hedge (cherry 56.90 38.6% 52.20 28.6%
laurel)

The blast mitigation in relation to the height of the plants and the distance behind the plants will
be investigated in future experiments. This requires a tighter cluster of pressure gauges, which also
allows the evaluation of the Mach stem influence. The support plates for the pressure gauges might
have been slightly distorted and the assumed effect on the measured overpressure will be investi-
gated numerically and experimentally in comparison to analytic approaches. To assure steadily
propagating blast waves, spherically shaped explosive charges are recommended.
It is remarked that the results for reduction of blast wave–induced overpressure, shown in this
article, are not generally valid. They are only applicable for the described scenario. To develop a
general-purpose result, further research with experiments and simulations is necessary. A general
result depends on additional parameters like the mass, position, and distance of the explosive
charge as well as the geometric details of a hedge (height, width, shape, arrangement, distribution
of biomass within the hedge) and various other aspects (e.g. pre-existing defects).

Conclusion and outlook

Regarding the results of the shown experiments and simulations, the assumed protective potential
of plants (Gebbeken and Döge, 2010; Rüdiger and Steyerer, 2016) has been confirmed for the first
time. A significant reduction of the peak side-on and peak reflected overpressure of blast waves
induced by explosions is possible. Reductions of up to 60% are remarkable and exceed previous
expectations. The thuja hedge withstood several blast loads with almost no damage, while the
cherry laurel was largely defoliated and lost its protective potential after the first hit. Plants with
small leaves or needles will therefore be considered for further research. These aspects will be
helpful for qualitative and quantitative risk analyses for explosion scenarios considering plants.
Further tests with a wider variety of distances, charge masses, and different plants are necessary
to establish general-purpose statements about blast mitigation. Additional interesting aspects for
the assessment of the protective potential of plants might be the behaviour of hedges during multi-
hit scenarios, the quality of cultivation or the influence of ageing effects. The biomass distribution
within the hedge is also of interest as full-grown hedges tend to have a dense surface of leaves or
needles but a thinned out inner structure.
The presented modelling strategy for plants shows promising results for the numerical simula-
tion of blast scenarios concerning the assessment of their blast mitigating capabilities. The model
does however not enable any prediction of damages on the plant caused by blast loads. Considering
the complex mechanical structure of plants and the endlessly varying characteristics of such a natu-
ral product, this will be a challenge for further research.
The proved performance of plants like thuja hedges for protection against blast loads guides
the way towards numerous possibilities and encourages further research on this particular field
of protective structures and elements. The combination with various other types of soft or solid
Gebbeken et al. 21

barriers is conceivable, to enhance their protective potential. Plants are also applicable as mov-
able or temporary barriers. ‘Green instead of grey’ could become the premise for innovative
intelligent barriers.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the WTD 52 for conducting the experiments and Weifang Xiao for conducting the
numerical simulations. Parts of the topic were already published in the BAU-Protect-Proceedings 2016.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: Parts of this work were supported by the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster
Assistance, Department II.5 – Structural Protection, Emergency Preparedness (Water), Bonn, Germany.

References
ANSYS, Inc. (2013) ANSYS Autodyn User’s Manual (Release 15.0). Canonsburg, PA: ANSYS, Inc.
Baumschule Horstmann GmbH & Co. KG (2017) Lebensbaum ‘smaragd’. Available at: https://www.baum-
schule-horstmann.de/shop/exec/product/22/174/Lebensbaum-Smaragd.html (accessed 9 December
2017).
Baumschule Horstmann GmbH & Co. KG (2017) Kirschlorbeer / lorbeerkirsche ‘reynvaanii’. Available at:
https://www.baumschule-horstmann.de/shop/exec/product/736/12189/Kirschlorbeer-Lorbeerkirsche-
Reynvaanii.html (accessed 9 December 2017).
BMI (2016) Civil Defence Concept, German Federal Ministry of the Interior. Berlin: BMI.
Brown AA (ed.) (1953) Blast Damage to Trees – Isolated Conifers. Defense Nuclear Agency: Washington,
DC.
ConWep (2010) USAE Engineer Research & Development Center (Release 2.1.1.1). Vicksburg, MS:
ConWep.
Department of Defense (2008) UFC 3-340-02 structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions.
Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-3-340-02
Friedlander FG (1939) Note on the diffraction of blast waves by a wall. RC(A) Report, UK Home Office ARP
Dept, New York, July.
Gebbeken N and Döge T (2006) Der refexionsfaktor bei der senkrechten reflexion von luftstoßwellen an star-
ren und an nachgiebigen materialien. Bauingenieur 81(11): 496–503.
Gebbeken N and Döge T (2009) From explosions to the design load. In: Wu C and Lok T (eds) Shock and
Impact Loads on Structures. CI-Premier: Singapore, 2009, pp. 25–36.
Gebbeken N and Döge T (2010) Explosion protection – architectural design, urban planning and landscape
planning. International Journal of Protective Structures 1(1): 1–21.
Gebbeken N, Greenspun B and Xiao W (2015) Baulicher Bevölkerungsschutz UGABE, AP6 Physische
Erprobungen – Gebäude und Barrieren, Teil I. Interim Report, University of the Bundeswehr Munich,
Munich.
James KR (2010) A dynamic structural analysis of trees subject to wind loading. PhD Thesis, The University
of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Jonsson MJ, Foetzki A, Kalberer M, et al. (2007) Natural frequencies and damping ratios of Norway spruce
(Picea abies (L.) Karst) growing on subalpine forested slopes. Trees 21(5): 541–548.
Kingery C and Bulmash G (ed.) (1984) Air blast parameters from TNT spherical air burst and hemispherical
surface burst. Technical Report, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, MD.
Kinney GF and Graham KJ (1985) Explosive Shocks in Air. Berlin: Springer.
22 International Journal of Protective Structures 00(0)

Larcher M, Casadei F, Giannopoulos G, et al. (2011) Determination of the risk due to explosions in railway
systems. P I Mech Eng F: J Rai 4(225): 373–382.
Lenhart L-M (ed.) (2015) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Thema „Weiche Straßenbegleitbarrieren“.
Report, Schneizlreuth: WTD 52.
LS-DYNA (2016) LSTC: LS-DYNA 971 (Release 8.0). Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Technology
Corp.
Lundstrom T, Jonsson MJ, Volkwein A, et al. (2009) Reactions and energy absorption of trees subject to
rockfall: a detailed assessment using a new experimental method. Tree Physiology 29(3): 345–359.
Peltola HM (2006) Mechanical stability of trees under static loads. American Journal of Botany 93(10):
1501–1511.
Rüdiger L and Steyerer M (2016) Schutz urbaner Räume mittels Barrieren. In: Hiermaier S, Gebbeken N, Klaus
M, et al. (eds) 7. Workshop BAU-PROTECT „Gefährdung, dynamische Analyse und Schutzkonzepte für
bauliche Strukturen“. Freiburg: Fraunhofer EMI, pp. 335–368.
Sellier D and Fourcaud T (2009) Crown structure and wood properties: influence on tree sway and response
to high winds. American Journal of Botany 96(5): 885–896.
Späh M, Weber L, Oesterreicher T, et al. (ed.) (2011) Schallschutzpflanzen – Optimierung der Abschirmwirkung
von Hecken und Gehölzen. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-Institut für Bauphysik IBP.
Teich M and Gebbeken N (2010) The influence of the underpressure phase on the dynamic response of struc-
tures subjected to blast loads. International Journal of Protective Structures 1(2): 219–233.
US Army Corps of Engineers (1990) TM 5-1300, Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions.
Arlington County, VA: US Department of the Army.

View publication stats