TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

Equivalent Static Blast Load for Preliminary Design of

Offshore Living Quarter

D1 20/05/10 Approved for Design Yasseri

Rev Date Reason for Issue Prepared Checked Approved Prepared Reviewed Approved

Notes: Disc. Disc. Contr.

Author Disc SPA
Eng. Lead Rep

Category Code Description

Location Code Production Platform

Document Type Preliminary Report

System Number General

Location Doc. Sequence

Company Disc Rev.
Code Type No.

UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Page 1 of

27
Revision History
Rev. Ref.
Date Detailed Description of Change
No. Section
20/05/10 D1 Approved for design none

Hold Record
Ref.
Hold Ref. Description / Reason for Hold
Section
None

Page 2 of 27
 Table of Contents
1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................ 4
1.3.1 Abbreviations............................................................................................................................ 4
Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 5
2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 6

3 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................... 7

4 ESTIMATION OF LIVING QUARTER DUCTILITY...................................................................................8

5 EQUIVALENT BLAST PULSE................................................................................................................. 9

6 STATIC EQUIVALENT OF THE BLAST LOAD......................................................................................11

A. ESTIMATION OF DUCTILITY................................................................................................................ 12

B. STATIC EQUIVALENT OF BLAST LOAD.............................................................................................. 20

C. Seismic Load Reduction Factor in Codes............................................................................................... 26

List of Figures

FIGURE 4.1 IDEALISATION OF THE LQ STRUCTURE..............................................................................8

FIGURE 6.1 FIRST METHOD OF APPLYING THE BLAST LOAD HISTORY............................................10

FIGURE 6.2 NET BLAST PRESSURE ON THE LQ...................................................................................11

FIGURE 6.3 RE-PLOT OF NET BLAST PRESSURE OF FIGURE 6.2. ON THIS FIGURE THE
APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENT NET BLAST IS SUPERIMPOSED...............................................................11

FIGURE 6.4 IDEALISED EFFECTIVE NET PRESSURE ON THE FRONT FACE OF THE LQ..................11

Figure 7.1 Mean Response Spectrum for All Phase 2 Tests..................................................................12

Page 3 of 27
1 General

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is the derivation of equivalent quasi-static blast loads for the preliminary
design of the Living Quarters (LQ) by the LQ Contractor.

These loads are intended to simplify the design approach by replacing the time history pulse loads
with quasi-static blast loads.

Care must be taken in the use of these design loads, however, to ensure that the actual complete
structure, designed and fabricated, is detailed and verified by calculation to allow transmission of
the loads in the structure via the loading mechanisms assumed.

1.2 References
Document Number Document Title
Astaneh, Abolhassan; Zhao, Quihong. “Cyclic Test of Steel Shear
Walls – Final Report.” Department of Civil and Environmental
1 N/A
Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at
Berkeley. August 2002.
Steve Walker, Brian Corr, Vincent Tam and Murray Shearer,
2 OTC 17242 ‘Response Spectra for Explosion Loading and Response’,
Houston May 2005.
‘Explosion loading on topsides equipment Part 2 – Determination
3 ISBN 1 85942 078 8
of explosion loading on offshore equipment using FLACS’
‘Explosion loading on topsides equipment Part 2 – Determination
4 OTO 1999 047
of explosion loading on offshore equipment using FLACS’
Walker, S. M., Tam, V., Corr, B. Shahsavar, R., Response Spectra
5 OMAE2006-92512
for Explosion Resistant design and Assessment

1.3 Abbreviations and Definitions

1.3.1 Abbreviations

Abbreviation/
Description
Acronym
DLF Dynamic Load Factor
LQ Living Quarters
SLB Strength Level Blast
WSD Working Stress Design

Page 4 of 27
Summary
This report has derived an equivalent quasi-static blast load which may be considered by the LQ
Contractor for the global SLB blast design. This is summarised as follows:

 The blast load time history on the front and back walls of the LQ (described in Figure 6.2)
can be replaced with an equivalent static blast load of 15.34 KPa, which should be applied
to the front face of the LQ. This is a static substitute for the prescribed dynamic blast loads
on the LQ.

 This load should be applied together with all gravity loads (i.e. live and dead loads). There
is no need to apply the wind loads alongside this load.

 For the code check all load and material factors may be set to unity. If a WSD method is
used then enhance the code allowable stresses by 1.67, which gives the allowable stress
for a “yielding member” equal to the material guaranteed yield.

 The material yield can be enhanced by a factor 1.15 to account for the dynamic yield. No
other relaxation of design parameters is allowed.

The proposed substitute load is based on sound engineering mechanic principles, but some
significant assumptions were made regarding the system ductility and the quality of design and
fabrication.

To ensure validity of this loading, the actual designed/built structure must mirror the analysis model
correctly; especially with respect to the connections between the LQ’s building blocks.

It should also be confirmed by the LQ Contractor that the assumption with respect to the use of the
corrugated plate is accurate.

It is therefore the responsibility of the LQ Contractor to ensure that adequate detailing with respect
to connectivity is provided between the elements of the LQ structure and to ensure that the loads
applied using this methodology may be resisted in the way assumed.

The system ductility depends on the quality of joints and prevention of premature buckling, which
cannot be accurately ascertained by the data submitted to date. Though, all assumptions made
here are on the conservative side, it may be prudent to perform a non-linear time domain
verification analysis in the future, to identify weakness in the system (if any).

It should be noted that the derived loading is applicable to the global LQ analysis only. Design of
local elements directly resisting blast loads, such as external wall panels, should consider the time
history loading of 0.25 bar with a duration of 200 ms.

Page 5 of 27
2 Introduction

Design for blast is not controlled by strength, but by the ductility. This means that there is no need
to control stress levels but the system must be able to undergo (large) ductile deformation. The
ability of LQ to withstand large deformation without collapse is a major assumption. The system
behaviour is discussed Section 3.

Section 4 establishes the effective ductility factor, which is estimated to be no less than   2.67
for the LQ. The implication of this level of ductility is the maximum expected deformation at the roof
level for the project blast load is less than 240mm.

The blast load idealisation is discussed in Section 5. The loading is dynamic and hence not only its
peak value but also its duration and shape are important. It is shown that the net blast load on the
LQ can be approximated with a rightangled triangle with a height of 26 KPa and base of
t d  0.127 seconds.

Section 6 discusses the static equivalent load for the specified blast load. In principle, the response
to a dynamic load depends on its modes of vibration. In a simple approximation, it is assumed the
first fundamental mode of vibration is the only contributor to the energy. For the case of blast
loading, this is a safe assumption. All other natural periods are very much shorter (and are
associated with local effects) and hence are less sensitive to the current blast loads. It is estimated
that the first fundamental period is about T  0.25 second. This is a safe assumption because as
the system deforms plastically the natural period becomes larger, and hence the LQ becomes less
sensitive to the current blast load (blast load duration is t d  0.127 seconds: t d T may be used
as a measure of sensitivity to the blast load)

A relation is established between the peak blast load and equivalent static blast load as a function
t d T and  in Appendix B.

The ratio of peak blast load and equivalent static is known as the Dynamic Load Factor (DLF). For
the COP LQ t d T  0.5 and   2.67 which gives DLF=0.59, leading to 26KPax0.59=15.34 KPa;
Section 6 describes this calculation.

There are three appendices.

Appendix A reviews the ductility issue, Appendix B discusses the DLF and Appendix C explains the
concept of force reduction factor as used in codes for the seismic design.

Page 6 of 27
3 Structural System
The LQ is designed and constructed using stressed skin structure technology. The mini modules
when erected onto the deck of the topsides form external and internal bulkheads and decks to
create a five storey LQ box structure.

The external LQ walls, the roof and the Level 1 deck are made continuous using site welded
connections details. The individual mini modules consist of corrugated plate panels welded on their
perimeter to box beams and columns.

Stressed skin structures under blast loading rely on the ability to deform globally without buckling.
The structural components must therefore be detailed such that plastic deformation is possible.

The mini modules and the interconnection details form a ductile structure. The West wall must
resist the out-of-plane loading whilst the transverse bulkheads resist the blast loads as in-plane
loading. The structural system of the LQ is a box with fully welded external faces (including bottom
and top) with internal walls and floors tying the sides of the box together and mainly keeping the
shape of box’s cross section.

As such, the LQ is of a shear wall type construction. In such buildings, the system stability depends
on the ability of the steel shear wall to withstand lateral load and hence such a wall must be
continuous along its height.

The most effective location of these shear walls is at the perimeter of the building, provided the
floor diaphragms are stiff enough. However, their location at extremity of building gives some
advantage (Figure 4.1). Steel shear walls are commonly used in tall building in the seismic areas.

Figure 4.1 Idealisation of the LQ Structure

Page 7 of 27
It is required that all external walls are to be continuous, but there is no need for the internal walls
to be fully welded as they transmit their loads by direct contact and rely on the external walls for
their lateral stability. Such construction is not dissimilar to masonry building with the advantage that
units are not small and the external walls are fully welded. Due to its height and plan dimension,
the LQ acts as a shear building as shown in Figure 4.1. This means that the floors deform almost
horizontally under the lateral loads.

It is further assumed that the strength of all external connections is adequate to allow membrane
action to develop in out-of-plane loading and can deform in-plane without fracture, however, their
buckling is not an issue as lateral supports for the external walls are provided by the floor
diaphragms.

The beneficial effect of structural hierarchy in absorbing the blast load in the external walls is
conservatively neglected in this work (see Ref. [B12] of Appendix B).

4 Estimation of Living Quarter Ductility

Specific data is not available for the calculation of ductility of the LQ structure, as notified by LQ
Contractor. Every system possesses some ductility, although this may not be very high for
materials such as masonry or members under buckling. The minimum ductility that one could
expect, even for members under compression designed according to the current design codes, is
in the range of 1.7 to 1.9.

Even relatively thin steel plates (0.7 to 1 mm thick) have excellent post-buckling capacity. Their
behaviour is much superior to an ordinary braced frame. Research performed on the Steel Plate
Shear Wall system indicates that (see References of Appendix A) the system can survive up to 4%
drift without experiencing significant damage. The 4% drift gives 640 mm deformation at the LQ
roof level (LQ is assumed to be 16m high).

According to data, the maximum deformation at the roof level for 15Kpa is about 59 mm. This gives
a ductility factor of 10.8.

The structural system of the LQ consists of the outer shell which is assumed to be fully welded
together [i.e. all four external walls, the roof panel and the Level 1 floor deck] with intermediate,
effectively rigid floor diaphragms. This is the shear wall building according to UBC definition. The
force reduction factor (which is the ductility ratio, see Appendix C) is about 6 for steel shear wall
structures. For a masonry structure UBC allows a force reduction of 4.5 (Over strength factor=2.8).
For non-building the maximum force reduction is 3.6 (Over strength factor=2). Most Codes permits
the elastic seismic forces to be reduced at least by a factor of R = 2.5 (See Appendix III for the
definition of force reduction factor). This reduction factor indicates the inelastic action and ductility
that can occur in a wall loaded in-plane. This discussion shows that the ductility of LQ is not less
than 2.5.

It is recommended to use a ductility factor,   4 , together with an over-strength factor assumed to

be   1.5 . This gives an effective ductility of eff  4 / 1.5  2.67 .

An effective ductility of 2.67 will be used in this study. A more realistic estimate of the ductility is
  4 , but due to lack of reliable data the safe estimate of 2.67 will be used in this study.

More detail discussion of the ductility of steel shear walls is given in Appendix A.

Page 8 of 27
5 Equivalent Blast Pulse
Due to the presence of interconnected, effectively rigid floor diaphragms, the blast loading on
opposite faces of the LQ can be combined and applied on the front face only, as shown in Figure
6.1.

Blast load history as

shown in Figure 6.2
(Take difference in
ordinate of dashed &
solid lines).
LQ
(Plan
view)

Figure 6.1 First Method of Applying the Blast Load History

The project net blast pressure on the front face of the LQ is given in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2 Net Blast Pressure on the LQ

Page 9 of 27
The net blast pressure of Figure 6.2 is re-plotted in Figure 6.3. On this figure, the approximate
equivalent net blast is also superimposed.

26 KPa

0.127S

Figure 6.3 Re-Plot of Net Blast Pressure of Figure 6.2. On This Figure, the Approximate Equivalent
Net Blast Is Superimposed
The effective net blast pressure is then modelled as a rightangled triangle for clarity, as shown in
Figure 6.4

Figure 6.4 Idealised effective net pressure on the front face of the LQ

Page 10 of 27
6 Static Equivalent of the Blast Load
As shown in Appendix B, the dynamic load factor for the entire range of ductility, natural period and
the blast duration can be approximated by:

S
Pmax T 1  1 (2 )
  2  1  (Equation 9 of Appendix B)
RS
 td 1  2T ( t d )

Using  eff  2.67 and t d T  0.127 0.25  0.5 , we get

S
Pmax 0.25 1  1 (2  2.66)
  2  2.66  1   1.695
RS
  0.127 1  2  0.25 (  0.127)
Hence the effective equivalent static load is

RS  0.59  26  15.34 KPa

Figure 7.1 is taken from Walker (Ref. [5]), which shows the response spectrum determined using
results of a series of tests performed by SCI.

Using the current parameter Figure 7.1 gives DLF=0.54 which is lower than recommended here.

Figure 7.1 Mean Response Spectrum for All Phase 2 Tests- from Walker (Ref. [5]),

Page 11 of 27
 Appendix
A

A. Estimation of Ductility

A1. Preamble
Determining the actual ductility of the LQ requires an accurate model, which is not available. A
lower bound on the ductility ratio can be determined using the data available to date. In the
following section, several approximate methods will be used to establish the likely level of the
ductility factor. These figures will be compared with published research results as well as
recommendations by codes of practice.

A2. A Simplified Approach for Determining Lateral Displacement at Collapse

The inelastic force displacement curve is generally simplified by a b-linear curve. In turn, it is
possible to convert the bilinear inelastic response of a given member to an idealized linear elastic
response, as shown in Figure A.1.

Figure A.1 Substitute Structure Model

According to this procedure the entire inelastic force-displacement response is described by an

idealized linear elastic system with an equivalent stiffness, K eff , such that the following holds true:
F
K eff  a (1)
a

In assessment conditions the yield deflection is easily computed and the selected displacement,
 a , can b obtained based on the selected performance level or ductility,  , with:

 a   Y (2)

where  Y is the yield displacement.

Based on the substitute structure shown in Figure A.1, the capacity, Fa , at a given μ and for a
given post-yield stiffness, r, can be derived based on the relation:

Fa  [r    1  1]FY (3)

These three equations were used to describe completely the load deformation response for the
substitute structure. This method of converting the structural performance into a simplified
response is often designated as the substitute structure approach (Priestley et al., Ref. [A15]).

Page 12 of 27
 rKI

510 MPa

355 MPa

KI

ε 10ε

Figure A.2: Stress-Strain relationship

An estimation of r (Figure A.1) must be made. Using the idealized presentation of Figure A.2, we
have

355
KI  , and (4)

510  355
rK I  (5)
10
Hence

rK I 510  355
r   0.044 (6)
KI 10  355

The value for r reported in literature ranges from 0.02 to 0.05 for mild steel.

Note that the maximum plastic strain is limited to 10% as buckling may intervene before formation
of plastic hinges.

Using Equation 3, the maximum ductility factor can be obtained

510
 0.044(   1)  1 (7)
355

 9

This is an approximate estimate of ductility which is within the range reported in research papers.

A3. Ductility According to design Data

The maximum stress at the foot of the LQ is 192MPa for a 15KPa lateral load.

If the lateral load is increased until the maximum stress reaches 510Mpa, then the lateral load
must be multiplied by the following factor:

510
 1.2  1.6  5.1
190

Page 13 of 27
1.2 is an allowance for the dynamic yield and 1.6 is the shape factor. This calculation indicates that
the ductility factor is about 5.1

A4. Research Results Reported in the Technical Literature

There are large experimental results in technical journals. Some of these are summarised below:

A4.1 Tests Performed at the University of Alberta

Two multi-story steel plate shear walls were tested in University of Alberta. In the first one, a four-
story steel plate shear wall was tested under cyclic loading [Ref A11, A12]. The mechanical
characteristics and dimensions of this shear wall can be seen in Table A.1 and Figure A.2.

As it can be seen, the specimen sustains the loading, with a displacement of 8.5 δy in one
direction, followed by a displacement in the other direction of 5.2 δy.

Therefore, the ductility factor of this shear wall according to ATC-24 protocol and Popov’s definition
is equal to 8.5 and 13.7, respectively.

Table A.1 Mechanical Characteristics of Four-Story Steel Plate Shear Wall SPSW

Page 14 of 27
 Figure A.2 Schematic and photograph of the four-story steel plate shear wall
(Driver et al. Ref. [A11])

Figure A.3 Hysteresis loops and bilinear curve of the first floor of specimen SPSW
Driver et al. Ref. [A11])

A4.2 Test Performed at the University of Buffalo

The other test which was considered for assigning the ductility factor, was the one-story steel plate
shear wall (S2), which was studied at the University at Buffalo (Ref. [A14]).

The specifications of the wall are explained in Table A.2 and Figure A.4.

Table A.2 Test performed at the University of Buffalo

Page 15 of 27
 Figure A.4: Test performed at the University of Buffalo

Figure A.5 Hysteresis Loops and Bilinear Curve of Specimen S2 (Vian And Bruneau, Ref.
[A14])
In this test, the width of the shear wall was taken much bigger than its height and for the panel
plate low strength steel was used. The results show that the specimen could sustain the loading,
with a displacement of 6.4 δ y in both directions, (see Figure A.5).

Therefore, the ductility factor according to ATC-24 protocol and Popov’s definition is equal to 6.4
and 12.8, respectively.

As it can be seen in Figure A.5 the hysteresis loops of the shear wall stood stable, and its energy
absorbing increased in each of the cycles.

A4.3 Tests Performed at the University of British Columbia

Two specimens of one-storey ductile steel plate shear walls (DSW-1 and DSW-2) were studied at
the University of British Columbia (Ref. [A15]).

The specifications of them are given in Table A.3.

Page 16 of 27
Table 3 Mechanical characteristics of one-storey steel plate shear walls DSW-1 and DSW-2

Figure A.6 Schematic and photograph of specimens DSW-1 and DSW-2

(Kharrazi, Ref. [A15])

For the specimen DSW-1 the results show that the specimen could sustain the loading, with a
displacement of 7.4 δ y2 in one direction, followed by a displacement in the other direction of 5.8 δ
y2.

Therefore, the ductility factor according to ATC-24 protocol and Popov’s definition is equal to 7.4
and 13.2, respectively, as shown in Figure A.7.

Page 17 of 27
 Figure A.7 Hysteresis Loops, Bilinear and Trilinear Curves of Specimen DSW-1
(Kharrazi, Ref. [A15])

In addition, Figure A.8 shows that the specimen DSW-2 could sustain the loading, with a
displacement of 8.3 δ y2 in one direction, followed by a displacement in the other direction of 7.8 δ
y2.

Therefore, the ductility factor according to ATC-24 protocol and Popov’s definitions is equal to 8.3
and 16.1, respectively.

Figure A.8 Hysteresis Loops, Bilinear and Trilinear Curves of Specimen DSW-2
(Kharrazi Ref. [A15])

These results show that steel shear wall posses a ductility factor 6 to 12.

References (for Appendix A)

Page 18 of 27
A1. Sabouri-Ghomi S, Ventura CE, Kharrazi MHK. Shear analysis and design of ductile steel
plate shear walls, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(2005), 878-89.

A2. Kharrazi MHK, Ventura CE, Prion HGL, Sabouri-Ghomi S. Bending and shear analysis and
design of ductile steel plate shear walls, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver. B.C. Canada, Paper No. 77, 1-6 August 2004.

A3. Roberts TM, Sabouri-Ghomi S. Hysteretic characteristics of un stiffened plate shear panels,
Journal of Thin-Walled Structures, 12(1991)145-62.

A4. Roberts TM, Sabouri-Ghomi S. Hysteretic characteristics of unstiffened perforated steel

plate shear panels, Journal of Thin-walled Structures, 14(1992) 139-51.

A5. Sabouri-Ghomi S, Roberts TM. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of thin steel plate shear walls,
Journal of Computers and Structures, 39(1991) 121-7.

A6. Sabouri-Ghomi S, Roberts TM. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel plate shear walls
including shear and bending deformations, Journal of Engineering Structures, 14(1992)
309-17.

A7. ATC, Guidelines for Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures, Applied
Technology Council, Report 24, 1992.

A8. Popov EP, Seismic behavior of structural sub-assemblages, ASCE Journal of the Structural
Division, 106(1980)1451-74.

A9. Sabouri-Ghomi S, Gholhaki M. Cyclic test on two specimens of three-story ductile steel
plate shear wall, Report Submitted to Building and Housing Research Cente (BHRC), 2006,
167 pages.

A10. S. Sabouri-Ghomi and M. Gholhaki 166 shear wall, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, 124(1998) 112-30.

A11. Driver RG, Kulak GL, Elwi AE, Kennedy DJL. FE and simplified models of steel
plate shear wall, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(1999)121-30.

A12. Behbahanifard MR. Cyclic behavior of un stiffened steel plate shear walls, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Alberta, 2003, 227 pages.

A13. Vian D, Bruneau M. Testing of special lys steel plate shear walls, Proceedings of the
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 978, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, August 1-6, 2004.

A14. Kharrazi MHK, Rational method for analysis and design of steel plate shear walls,
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Colombia, 2005, 217 pages.

A15. Priestley, M.J.N. (2000), Performance Based Seismic Design, Proceedings of the
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000, State of
the Art Paper No. 2831, pp. 325-346.

Page 19 of 27
 Appendix
B

B. Static Equivalent of Blast Load

Note – The following is partly taken from Ref. [B12]

B1. Introduction
Certain concepts used in blast resistant design are different from those used in design for normal
(operational and non-operational) loads. The main departure from conventional design is the
acceptance of un-recoverable (permanent) deformations.

This energy absorbing capacity of the structure is used to contain blast effects. Well-engineered
structures are capable of absorbing energy before eventually falling apart and disintegrating. The
acceptable level of deformation depends on the repair cost as well as the effect of large
deformation on pipework and equipment.

Generally, every precaution is taken to prevent, control and mitigate the explosion. As a result, an
explosion, which occurs despite all these safeguards, large enough to affect the structural integrity,
should have a very low probability of occurrence.

For such abnormal loads with a low probability of occurrence, it is reasonable to accept some level
of damage while containing its catastrophic effect. The acceptable deformation for any part of a
structure depends on the importance of that part, to the integrity of the total structure and likely
future cost of repair.

If parts of a structure can be classified as less or more important, then a level of acceptable
deformation can be decided for each class.

B2. Hierarchy of Structural Systems and Load Path

Blast loads first impinge on the plating (i.e. deck, claddings and blast walls), and then pass through
stringers and primary members to reach the foundation. In general, a simple load path cannot be
identified as all structural members are interacting, but on a macro scale, the load path can be
divided into the following components:

The Curtain Walls: This group of elements that see the blast load first are called the level one
sub-system (or the secondary system) in the hierarchy of structural sub-systems. This group of
level one sub-system could undergo large deformation without endangering the integrity. In fact, it
is advantageous to let them deform to dissipate energy.

As a result, the rest of the energy, which is passed to the next level sub-system(s), would be
smaller and may not be large enough to cause catastrophic collapse. Level-one sub-systems
mainly transmit their load by bending and membrane action, which means that column buckling,
would not limit their ability to deform. However, other restrictions such as the ability of joints to
transmit reactions, would limit the maximum deformations. Some of these sub-systems would also
function as a lateral support to the higher level sub-systems; consequently, their total loss might
not be acceptable.

Primary Structure: This group of elements, which have blast loads transmitted to them from the
level one sub-system, are called the level two sub-systems in the hierarchy of structural sub-
systems. For instance, the primary framing of a topside structure can be thought of as a level two
sub-system.

Page 20 of 27
Such grouping of the structural elements, namely dividing the structure into its building blocks or
sub-systems, enables each subsystem/group to be studied in isolation. The success of this sub-
division depends on the level of dynamic coupling between sub-systems.

The dynamic coupling is a function of the natural period of each sub-system, which in turn depends
on their relative stiffness. The dynamic coupling determines the amount of energy transmitted
through the boundaries between two connected sub-systems. Such boundaries may be ‘quiet’ but
not totally silent, thus ignoring interaction at the boundary conditions for a sub-system will trap the
energy within that sub-system.

System Response
For material with elastic-plastic behaviour, the stiffness is constant in the elastic range, and Figure
B.1 shows a reasonable approximation for resistance versus deformation for such behaviour. This
is a simplification of the overall behaviour. This type of behaviour can be expected in simple
structures such as beams and plates.

R  

R

e
Figure B.1 Deflection-Resistant Curve for the Level One Sub-System

 
 = I M , the kinetic energy transmitted to the system instantly is:
Under impulse I  0
2
1 I
 F d  2 M 2M
0  (3)
where F and  are force and displacement respectively, and dot refers to differentiation with
respect to time.

At the time of maximum displacement, all the above kinetic energy is changed into elastic strain
energy and plastic dissipation. Thus,

I2 1  2 max 
 R e   1 (4)
2M 2  
 e 

where R is the resistance function.

If a simple structure can be idealised as a single degree of freedom system with mass M and
stiffness K , the equation of motion for free undamped vibration is given by:

  K   0
M
   2   0
or,  (5)

where  2  K M is the circular frequency of the system.

Page 21 of 27
Introducing    max  e as the ductility factor, and substituting M  K  2 into Equation (4) gives:

R 1
 (6)
I 2  1

For a linear system,   1, the required strength, Re , can be calculated from Equation (6):

Re  I  I  2  T (7)

The above relation can be used to determine the reduced load to be used in an elastic design
method provided the ductility factor is  . Thus

S
Pmax 1

2 2  1 (8)
I
T

If the pressure lasts for a short period of time t d , then the impulse of the pressure is 0.5 Pm t d , then,
Equation (8) becomes:

RS  td 1
S
  (9)
Pmax T 2  1

For the above derivation, it is assumed that the pressure duration is very short; if the pressure is of
infinitely long duration, the external work done is equal to the internal energy absorbed at
maximum deflection. Then

 1 
S
Pmax  max  R S  max 1   (10)
 2  
RS 1

S
Pmax  1  (11)
1  
 2  

Equation (9) applies when t d , is very small and Equation (10) when t d , is very long. The following
empirical equation is generally applicable for all ranges of t d ,.

S
Pmax T 1  1 (2 )
  2  1  (12)
RS
 td 1  2T ( t d )

This equation was first derived by Newmark. This equation errs less than 10% over the whole
range of values of t d , from zero to infinity and  from 1 to infinity. The error is less than 5% for the
practical range of  <12.

In using the above equation for calculating the load transmitted to the primary sub-system, a
ductility factor of 3 to 6 for plates and secondary beams that transmit loads mainly in bending is
achievable.

Values above 2 would lead to a substantial deformation of the secondary system. Beams at high
ductility transmit their loads mainly by membrane action. Support restraints should be adequate for
such membrane action to develop. Generally, simply supported conditions, unless specifically
designed for high ductility, should be able to offer at least a ductility factor of 1.7 to 2.

Page 22 of 27
 Figure B.2 Response Spectrum from Biggs Curves

Equation (12) was determined using to two limiting cases. This equation represents a single
degree elasto-plastic oscillator subjected to blast for the entire range of  and t d T .

Biggs used a numerical method to derive a response of a single degree freedom system with
elasto-plastic behaviour subjected to triangular blast load. His results are shown in Figure B.2,
which are in good agreement with Equation (9).

Walker used the Bigg’s approach but he used a blast pressure signature from Phase 2 tests.
Walker’s DLF is slightly more conservative than Bigg’s method. This is due to the shape of the
blast signature. The results are shown in Figure B.3.

Walker also used simulated blast signature (determined using FALCS) to determine DLF, shown in
Figure B.4.

This gives a higher DLF.

Page 23 of 27
 Figure B.3 Mean Response Spectrum for all Phase 2 Tests

Figure B.4 Mean Response Spectra for all Phase 2 FLACS Simulations

References (for Appendix B)

Page 24 of 27
B1. Walker S, Corr B, Tam V and Shearer M, OTC 17242, ‘Response Spectra for Explosion
Loading and Response’, Houston May 2005.

B2. J. M. Nau, W. J. Hall, 1982, “An Evaluation of Scaling Methods for Earthquake Response
Spectra”, Department Civil Engineering of University of Illinois, US.

B3. Biggs J.M., “Introduction to Structural Dynamics”, McGraw Hill, 1964.

B4. Shearer M J, Tam V Y H, Corr B, “Analysis of results from large scale hydrocarbon gas
explosions”, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 13, 167-173, 2000.

B5. Shearer, M.J., Tam, V.H.Y., Corr, B., 1998, “Analysis of Results from Large Scale
Hydrocarbon Explosion”, 7th Conference on Offshore: Fire and Explosion Engineering,

B6. Shearer, M.J., “Analysis of Large Scale Gas Explosion Tests and Assessment of Potential
Impact on Structures”, PhD Thesis, University of Surrey, 2003.

B7. Selby C A, Burgan B A, ‘Blast and Fire Engineering for Topside Structures – Phase 2, Final
Summary Report’, Steel Construction Institute, ISBN 1 85942 078 8, 1998

B8. Design of structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. US Department of the
Army Technical Manual, TM5-1300, Washington, DC, 1990.

B9. Baker WE, Cox PA, Westine PS, Kulesz JJ, Strehlow RA. Explosion hazards and
evaluation. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1983.

B10. Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake

engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2001.

B11. Steve Walker, Rashid Shahnagar, Brian Corr and Vincent Tam, HSE BOOKS
RR484, Response spectra for explosion resistant design and assessment, Crown copyright
2006 First published 2006

B12. Yasseri, S., An Approximate Method for Blast Resistant Design, FABIG Newsletter.

Page 25 of 27
 Appendix
C

C. Seismic Load Reduction Factor in Codes

Note – Taken from FEMA 450 -2003 Edition, “Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures”, Part 2)

Codes of practice allow the seismic loads to be reduced by a reduction factor. This reduction factor
reflects the ductility of lateral load bearing system. The maximum reduction is allowed for special
moment resisting frames and the smallest reduction factor is prescribed for systems with no
special detailing provision for the seismic effect. Pin jointed framework and masonry systems fall
into the categories of systems with least ductility.

Codes expect a system to be able to undergo “significant yield”. The term “significant yield” is not
the point where first yield occurs in any member but, rather, is defined as that level causing
complete plastification of at least the most critical region of the structure (such as formation of a
first plastic hinge in the structure).

A structural system is assumed to reach this point when a “plastic hinge” develops in the most
highly stressed member. This requirement contemplates that the design includes a seismic-force-
resisting system with redundant characteristics wherein significant structural overstrength above
the level of significant yield can be obtained by plastification at other points in the structure prior to
the formation of a complete mechanism.

For example, Figure C.1 shows the at the most heavily loaded element in the structure, shown as
the lowest yield hinge on the load-deflection diagram. With increased loading, causing the
formation of additional plastic hinges, the capacity increases (following the solid curve) until a
maximum is reached. The overstrength capacity obtained by this continued inelastic action
provides the reserve strength necessary for the structure to resist the extreme motions. It should
be noted that the structural overstrength described above results from the development of
sequential plastic hinging in a properly designed, redundant structure.

Figure C.1 Inelastic Force-Deformation Curve

Page 26 of 27
Several other sources will further increase structural overstrength.

 Firstly, material overstrength (that is, actual material strengths higher than the nominal
material strengths specified in the design) may increase the structural overstrength
significantly. For example, a recent survey shows that the mean yield strength of mild steel
is about 30 to 40 percent higher than the minimum specified strength, which is used in
design calculations.

 Secondly, member design strengths usually incorporate a strength reduction (or resistance)
factor, φ, to ensure a low probability of failure under design loading.

 Thirdly, designers themselves introduce additional overstrength by selecting sections or

specifying reinforcing patterns that exceed those required by the computations. Similar
situations occur when minimum requirements of the Provisions, for example, minimum
reinforcement ratios, control the design.

 Finally, the design of many flexible structural systems, such as moment resisting frames,
are often controlled by the drift rather than strength limitations of the Provisions, with
sections selected to control lateral deformations rather than provide the specified strength.

The result is that structures typically have a much higher lateral resistance than specified as a
minimum by the Provisions and first actual significant yielding of structures may occur at lateral
load levels that are 30 to 100 percent higher than the prescribed design seismic forces. If provided
with adequate ductile detailing, redundancy, and regularity, full yielding of structures may occur at
load levels that are two to four times the prescribed design force levels.

Page 27 of 27