Procedure for Predicting Blast Loads Acting

on Bridge Columns
G. Daniel Williams1 and Eric B. Williamson, P.E., M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Historical data show that terrorist attacks against transportation assets have increased in recent years and that the vast majority of
these attacks have been bombings. As such, there is growing interest in protecting highway infrastructure from blast loads. To address this
concern, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) sponsored a project to investigate the performance of highway
bridges subjected to the nearby detonation of an explosive, and this paper presents research that advances the understanding of blast loads
acting on bridge columns. Unlike large wall panels for which much of the existing knowledge about blast effects against structures has been
established, the research presented in this paper focuses on slender structural components in which the effects of cross-sectional geometry,
engulfment of blast pressures, and clearing effects strongly influence loading history. Based on the findings obtained from this study,
a simplified procedure for predicting blast loads acting against bridge columns is proposed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000265. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Blast loads; Bridges; Columns; Computer models; Terrorism; Predictions.
Author keywords: Blast loads; Bridges; Computational modeling; Terrorism.

Introduction components, including cable-stayed bridges, suspension bridges,

In 2003, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security
(2003), organized through a joint effort of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), released a
report that included recommendations for both near-term and
long-range research priorities in the area of transportation security.
This panel was formed shortly after the attacks on September 11,
2001 against the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon
in Washington, D.C., out of concern for the vulnerability of our
transportation infrastructure. Consistent with the recommendations
of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security, data
collected by Jenkins and Gersten (2001) of the Mineta Transpor-
tation Institute demonstrate that transportation assets have been
frequently targeted by terrorists in the past, and findings from this
study suggest that this trend will continue into the future. In their
report, Jenkins and Gersten (2001) indicate that at least 53 terrorist
attacks worldwide specifically targeted bridges between 1980 and
2001, and 60% of those attacks were bombings. Other researchers
have obtained similar findings (Boyd and Sullivan 2000), showing
that attacks on transportation assets have increased in recent
years and that bridges are the most frequently attacked transporta-
tion structure. Importantly, historical data show that signature
bridges (i.e., unique bridges composed of nontypical structural
1
Post-Doctoral Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
78712. E-mail: gdwilliams@mail.utexas.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental
Engineering, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 (correspond-
ing author). E-mail: ewilliamson@mail.utexas.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 13, 2010; approved
on May 2, 2011; published online on May 5, 2011. Discussion period open
until October 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 3, May 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2012/3-490–
499/$25.00.
and many arch bridges) are not the only transportation structures
targeted by terrorists. In their study, Jenkins and Gersten (2001)
indicate that between 1980 and 2006, 58% of the attacks world-
wide—and 35% of the attacks in industrialized countries—were
against highway bridges other than signature bridges. Thus, the
development of a national standard to design blast-resistant high-
way bridges is imperative, as bridge engineers need guidelines to
analyze, design, and detail bridges to resist the effects of a terrorist
attack.
Several researchers have proposed methods to design and ana-
lyze bridge columns subjected to nearby explosions (Holland 2008;
Fujikura et al. 2008). To utilize these procedures, it is necessary to
compute the blast loads that act on a column for a presumed threat
scenario. The research presented in the current manuscript utilizes
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models of airblast scenarios
to enhance the work presented by Holland and Fujikura et al. The
results are used to formulate equations to account for the reduced
load experienced by slender circular and square members
(i.e., bridge columns) relative to that of a flat wall.
Background
Several texts, military manuals, and computer programs include
various forms of equations and curves [Dept. of Defense (DoD)
2008, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2001] that
can be used to calculate blast loads on flat surfaces. Some of these
available procedures include consideration of multiple reflections
and pressure magnification, while not strictly employing computa-
tional fluid mechanics principles. BlastX [Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) 2001] is one of the most widely
recognized applications in this group, and Bridge Explosion Load-
ing (BEL) (USACE 2000) is a program developed and supported
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that incorporates BlastX and
includes a bridge-specific graphical user interface.
Existing methods for computing blast loads are based on many
years of research and test data collected from blast tests against

490 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499

 structures, and, as a result, they provide accurate representations of
overpressure waveforms when “clearing” effects are not a concern
(Rickman and Murrell 2007), where clearing is defined as the
process by which a high reflected pressure seeks relief toward
lower pressure regions (free edges) through a rarefaction (or relief)
wave that propagates from the low-pressure to the high-pressure
regions (DoD 2008). Because the data with which existing blast
load prediction methods have been developed are from blast tests
on flat panel structures, they are not capable of modeling round
geometries such as bridge columns, nor are they able to character-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ize blast loads on slender members because they lack the ability to
accurately characterize phenomena associated with the relief wave
that travels from the free edges toward the center of a component
(Rickman and Murrell 2007).
Several researchers have addressed the issue of shock waves
interacting with circular members in recent years. Ofengin and
Drikakais (1997) studied the diffraction of shock waves over a cyl-
inder for three planar blast waves with short-term, long-term, and
infinite durations. These loads were applied through a high-
pressure layer similar to the sudden rupture of a membrane within
a shock tube. The results provided by the authors qualitatively char-
acterized the various shock phenomena over a cylinder, and they
also demonstrated that blast wave duration significantly influences
the pressure variation acting over a cylinder. The findings presented
by the authors agree well with expected results; however, they are
not provided in a format useful for engineering applications,
especially the results for blasts of infinite duration.
Shi et al. (2007) used Autodyn 3D to model semispherical sur-
face detonations in air and the resulting shock interaction with re-
inforced concrete square and circular columns at a 10-m standoff.
The model was validated using results from a blast test reported in
the literature, and the researchers then conducted a parameter study
to investigate the influence of five parameters on column-shock
interaction: (1) Scaled distance (Z)—defined as the distance from
the center of detonation to the target point of interest (ft. or m)
divided by the charge weight (lbs. or kg) raised to the 1∕3 power
(i.e., Z ¼ R∕W 1∕3 ); (2) Ratio of supported mass to column mass;
(3) The stiffness of the column; (4) The dimension of the column;
and (5) The geometry of the column. The results showed that the
column mass ratio, the column stiffness, and the column deflection
had no significant effect on the loading. The scaled distance and the
column dimension, however, were shown to significantly influence
reflected pressure and impulse on the columns, where impulse is
defined as the area under the pressure-time loading curve. These
findings are consistent with the research results reported later in
this paper.
Shi et al. (2007) then developed factors to account for shape
effects when calculating reflected pressure and impulse on the front
and back centerlines of a column using the positive incident pres-
sure and the positive incident impulse along with the column shape
and dimension. While these equations and factors provide insight
into the interaction of blast loads on columns, they have limited
application for the design and analysis of bridge columns because
they are restricted to a standoff distance of 10 m and they only
consider the loads acting on the centerline of the column. Research
findings presented later in this manuscript and by others have
shown a significant reduction in net impulse across the entire
cross-section of a column due to shape and slenderness effects
(Williams 2009; Fujikura et al. 2008).
Rickman and Murrell (2007) conducted a series of small-scale
experiments to characterize the relief wave form, the clearing time,
and the resulting loads on walls. This effort was in response to a
recognition of the following errors in existing methods used to
calculate reflected pressures and impulses on walls: approximation
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 491
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499
of the reflected pressure wave form as having a linear rather than
exponential decay from the peak value; application of the relief
wave beginning at the time of incident shock arrival; and a
simplified determination of the clearing time. Contrary to the
assumptions that have been used historically, Rickman and Murrell
(2007) demonstrated that the measured reflected pressure rapidly
decreases to below the stagnation pressure, and the relief wave sig-
nificantly shortens the duration of the positive reflected pressure
phase, causing the late-time portion of the wave form to have a
negative value even as Conventional Weapons Effects (CONWEP)
(USACE 2001), a computer program developed and supported by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that can be used to predict blast
loads on flat surfaces, indicates a positive pressure. Rickman and
Murrell then developed an equation and associated constants for a
relief function to subtract the CONWEP wave form from the mea-
sured wave form beginning at the time of arrival of the
relief wave. They also formulated a mathematical expression for
the arrival time of the relief wave. Both were combined into a com-
puter program to calculate reflected impulse curves, and predicted
results compared favorably to both small-scale and large-scale
experimental tests.
For the specific case of blast loads acting against highway
bridges, Agrawal and Yi (2009) presented the results of detailed
finite element simulations for three levels of blast loads (low,
medium, and large). While finite element programs such as
LS-DYNA offer the ability to simulate shock wave propagation
through a medium (e.g., air), such models can be computationally
intensive and require significant time to run. Therefore, rather than
directly modeling detonation effects in their simulations, Agrawal
and Yi (2009) proposed a method for generating loads in their finite
element models by using results computed from CONWEP. The
CONWEP-generated loads were then transmitted through an air
medium to structural components, thereby making the load simu-
lation phase of the analysis more efficient than directly modeling
detonation effects. This approach was adopted by Agrawal and Yi
(2009) for use in very detailed finite element models that were used
to parametrically evaluate the effects of various design variables
(e.g., concrete strength, seismic detailing) on the performance of
blast-loaded bridge components. The work presented in the current
paper extends the results reported by Agrawal and Li (2009) in two
significant ways. First, Agrawal and Li (2009) focused their sim-
ulations on a bridge that comprised square columns, whereas the
current work considers the effects of column cross-sectional shape
on the loads that must be resisted in a blast event. Second, the focus
of the current study is on the development of simplified load
prediction methods that can be used for design purposes rather than
detailed finite element simulations. Thus, while the research
presented in the current manuscript utilizes detailed finite element
simulations, the emphasis is on interpreting the results so that they
can be readily implemented in the blast-resistant design of bridge
columns.
Of most interest to the current work, researchers at the State
University of New York investigated a design alternative and ana-
lytical approach for blast-resistant bridge columns (Fujikura et al.
2008). The design utilized a concrete-filled steel tube anchored into
the foundation with steel plates linked to concrete-embedded
C-channel shapes. One-fourth-scale prototypes of the concrete-
filled steel tube columns were tested experimentally. The research-
ers also developed an analytical method to calculate the response of
the bridge columns using an equation-based single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) method. The energy imparted to the structural
system by the blast loads was considered to be an impulsive loading
in this research because the blast load duration was much shorter
than the natural period of the columns that were tested, which is
 typical for many blast-resistant design applications. The research-
ers presented Eq. (1) to calculate impulse in their analytical
method:
I eq ¼ βDieq ð1Þ
where β = reduction factor to account for the circular shape of the
column; D = diameter of the column; and ieq = calculated impulse.
The researchers used their predictions of column response and the
experimental results to back-calculate a β factor of 0.45 to account
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for shape and slenderness effects. They found this value more
appropriate than the 0.80 value previously reported in the literature
(Winget et al. 2005). Interestingly, as documented later in this
manuscript, a value of 0.45 for β is shown to correspond extremely
well to the equations independently developed in the current
research to account for shape and slenderness effects on bridge
columns.
While each of the research efforts described above has signifi-
cantly advanced the understanding of shock wave interaction with
columns, no comprehensive procedure has been developed for use
by design engineers to calculate blast loads acting on slender square
and circular bridge columns. The purpose of the research presented
in this manuscript is to develop such a procedure utilizing computa-
tional fluid dynamics (CFD) airblast models. The computational
models, the experimental tests used to validate these models,
and the resulting expressions that account for column shape and
slenderness are presented herein.
Parametric Study to Characterize Blast Loads on
Slender Members
A numerical parameter study was carried out to investigate the
influence of charge weight (W), standoff distance (R), and column
diameter (D) on the loads experienced by square and circular
columns subjected to the nearby detonation of a high explosive.
The study included 16 sets of three analyses—one square column,
one circular column, and one wall—and each analysis in a set had
the same charge weight and standoff distance. Furthermore, the
modeling parameters, including mesh density, geometry of the ex-
plosive, and so on, were exactly the same for each analysis set.
Multiple mesh densities were considered for each set of analyses,
and though the mesh density varied from one set to the next, the
maximum mesh density computationally viable for each model was
used to maximize accuracy based on recommendations reported in
the literature (Luccioni et al. 2006; Alia and Souli 2006). Models
utilized in this study included over 950,000 elements, and the
height and length of each air mesh was selected to be at least twice
the column height or the standoff distance, whichever was greatest,
to allow the shock front to propagate completely past the top of the
column before reaching the boundary of the mesh. In addition, all
models contained at least 16 elements along the length of the ex-
plosive region, as this minimum number of elements is required to
adequately burn the explosive material and build the detonation
pressure (Alia and Souli 2006). The analyses containing square
and circular columns characterized the loads acting on those mem-
bers, and the wall analyses provided load data on a flat surface at
the same charge weights and standoff distances as the columns.
This technique was selected because analysts can use several
widely accepted methods to calculate accurate blast loads on flat
panel structures when clearing is not a concern (Rickman and
Murrell 2007), and the blast engineering community has high con-
fidence in these methods because they are based on extensive data
gathered from many decades of blast tests.
492 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499
The parameter study was conducted in conjunction with
NCHRP Project 12-72 (Williamson et al. 2010). While the charge
weights and standoff distances used during those tests are of inter-
est for design and research purposes, disclosure of that information
would provide a link to the damage results in the final report for
NCHRP 12-72, and it would be irresponsible to distribute that
information publicly. Therefore, the charge weights and standoff
distances are shown in Table 1 only in terms of the variables w
and z, respectively. This approach is consistent with that of other
researchers reporting such data (e.g., Fujikura et al. 2008). The ma-
jority of the charge weights and standoff distances evaluated during
this parameter study fell within or just outside the limits of design
Category C, as proposed in the final report for NCHRP 12-72
(Williamson et al. 2010). Category C threats are defined as those
having a scaled standoff less than 1:5 ft∕lbs1∕3 (0:6 m∕kg1∕3 ), and
this design category is the only one for which a load prediction
technique is needed and for which a dynamic response analysis
must be conducted.
Numerical Modeling of Airblast and Shock Propagation
Numerically modeling high-explosive burn and shock propagation
requires an equation-of-state to govern the expansion of gaseous
detonation products from a high-pressure, high-density condition
immediately after an explosion to a normal (i.e., ambient) pressure
and density that exists after an explosion has occurred. The Jones-
Wilkins-Lee (JWL) equation-of-state was utilized in this research
because it is commonly used and widely accepted for airblast
modeling (Sućeska 1999; Alia and Souli 2006). Eq. (2) shows
the most basic formulation of the JWL equation-of-state used in
this research, and Table 2 shows the input values selected for
use with this equation.
   
ϖ ϖ E
P¼A 1
e
R1 V þ B 1
e
R2 V þ ϖ o ð2Þ
R1 V R2 V V
where P = pressure of the gaseous detonation products; V = relative
specific volume (ν∕ν o ) of the gaseous detonation products; ν = cur-
rent specific volume (V t ∕M) of the gaseous detonation products;
ν o = reference specific volume (V o ∕M) of the gaseous detonation
products; V t = current volume of the gaseous detonation products;
V o = initial volume of the gaseous detonation products; M = mass
of the gaseous detonation products; Eo = initial internal energy of
the explosive; A, B, R1 , R2 , and ϖ are specified constants unique to
each explosive.
The linear polynomial equation-of-state was selected for use in
this research among several possible alternatives for modeling the
response of air, and one form of this equation is shown in Eq. (3).
The linear polynomial equation-of-state enforces a linear relation-
ship between pressure and internal energy and can be reduced to a
form that represents the ideal gas law. This reduction is shown
below using Eqs. (3) and (4), and the properties of air used in this
research are shown in Table 2.
P ¼ C 0 þ C 1 μ þ C 2 μ2 þ C 3 μ3 þ ðC4 þ C 5 μ þ C 6 μ2 ÞE ð3Þ
where
ρ
μ¼
1 ð4Þ
ρo
and C 0
C 6 are constants, E = internal energy per unit
reference volume, ρ = current density of air, ρo = initial density
of air.
Fig. 1 shows an arbitrarily selected airblast model example for
which the dimensions have been adjusted intentionally to prevent
scaling of the charge size and standoff distance. All analyses
 Table 1. Air Blast Models for Parameter Study Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Models
Column Column Several experimental blast tests were conducted for NCHRP 12-72
Charge diameter height Column in conjunction with the research presented in this manuscript, and
Column ID weight Standoff [m (ft)] [m(ft)] type
some of the airblast models presented in Table 1 represent columns
1.4w 1.0z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular from that experimental test program. The objective of modeling the
Set 1 1.4w 1.0z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square experimental blast tests was to validate the numerical models prior
1.4w 1.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall to conducting a series of parameter studies for both loading and
1.4w 1.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular response. The pressure-time histories derived from the CFD models
described previously were applied to numerical models of rein-
Set 2 1.4w 1.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square
forced concrete columns, and the response was compared qualita-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.4w 1.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall

tively and quantitatively to the results of the experimental blast
1.4w 1.0z 1.22 (4.0) 3.43 (11.25) Circular tests. Due to length restrictions, a detailed discussion of the exper-
Set 3 1.4w 1.0z 1.22 (4.0) 3.43 (11.25) Square imental blast tests and corresponding test results is beyond the
1.4w 1.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall scope of the current paper, and only a brief description is provided
1.4w 2.0z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular to show the procedure by which the CFD models were validated.
Set 4 1.4w 2.0z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square Readers are directed to Holland (2008), Williams (2009), and
1.4w 2.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall Williamson et al. (2010) for further information on the experimen-
1.4w 2.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular tal tests and validation procedure.
Set 5 1.4w 2.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square
Experimental Test Setup
1.4w 2.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall
1.4w 2.0z 1.22 (4.0) 3.43 (11.25) Circular The research program included the evaluation of large-scale rein-
Set 6 1.4w 2.0z 1.22 (4.0) 3.43 (11.25) Square forced concrete bridge columns subjected to severe (i.e., close-in)
1.4w 2.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall threat scenarios. The boundary conditions used in the test program
1.4w 3.0z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular were those of a propped cantilever. These boundary conditions
Set 7 1.4w 3.0z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square modeled a scenario in which the location of an explosion is directly
beneath the deck and directly to the side of a column, assuming the
1.4w 3.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall
superstructure provides lateral restraint. Axial loads experienced by
1.4w 3.9z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular
bridge columns in service typically do not exceed the balanced
Set 8 1.4w 3.9z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square failure point, and any applied axial load tends to increase the
1.4w 3.9z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall strength and resistance of a column (Williamson et al. 2010). Thus,
1.4w 3.9z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular testing specimens as propped-cantilevers with no applied axial load
Set 9 1.4w 3.9z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square was conservative and logistically desirable. Furthermore, reflected
1.4w 3.9z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall loads from the deck occur sufficiently late in time so as to have
1.4w 3.9z 1.22 (4.0) 3.43 (11.25) Circular limited impact on peak column displacement in most cases (Winget
Set 10 1.4w 3.9z 1.22 (4.0) 3.43 (11.25) Square et al. 2005), and therefore testing a column as shown in Fig. 2
1.4w 3.9z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall provides a convenient and effective setup for evaluating bridge
2.9w 2.8z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular column performance under severe blast loads.
Set 11 2.9w 2.8z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square
Numerical Models of Experimentally Tested Reinforced
2.9w 2.8z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall Concrete Columns
2.9w 3.1z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular
Set 12 2.9w 3.1z 0.46 (1.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square Each of the computational models representing column response
2.9w 3.1z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall
had multiple analyses that evaluated the effectiveness of different
mesh sizes and modeling approximations for the transverse
4.3w 2.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular
reinforcement, and two of the final models employed erosion tech-
Set 13 4.3w 2.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square
niques to visually represent spalling of cover concrete. The adequacy
4.3w 2.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall of the models was evaluated using the peak residual displacements,
8.6w 4.1z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular shapes of global response, and cracking and damage patterns.
Set 14 8.6w 4.1z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square Accurate finite element modeling of concrete requires a com-
8.6w 4.1z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall plex constitutive model that accurately represents the nonlinear
9.8w 3.1z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular behavior of concrete. The Karagozian and Case concrete model
Set 15 9.8w 3.1z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square used in this research is a three-invariant model that includes
9.8w 3.1z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall confinement effects, strain-rate effects, and brittle and/or ductile
23.0w 5.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Circular damage (LSTC 2007; Schwer and Malvar 2005; Malvar et al.
Set 16 23.0w 5.0z 0.76 (2.5) 3.43 (11.25) Square
2000; Williams 2009). The Simplified Johnson-Cook material
model (LSTC 2007) was selected as the constitutive model for
23.0w 5.0z Wall 3.43 (11.25) Wall
the reinforcing steel in this research (Williams 2009).
All column analyses utilized one-half symmetry along the
longitudinal centerline to reduce computational demand.
Constant-stress solid elements and multiple mesh densities were
assumed the detonation point was at the center of the explosive. considered to ensure computational efficiency. The models utilized
Pressure-time histories were recorded at 220 and 240 intervals truss elements to represent the longitudinal and transverse
along the height and width of the circular and square columns, reinforcement in order to maintain displacement compatibility with
respectively, on both the front and back faces. the solid elements. The truss elements that were used to model the

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 493

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499

 Table 2. Equation-of-State Input Parameters for Air and TNT
Material A (MPa) B (MPa) R1 R2 Eo (MPa) Ω V d (cm∕m sec) pCJ (MPa) ρo (g∕cm3 ) γ
TNT 371,200 3,230 4.15 0.95 7,000 0.30 0.693 21,000 1.630 —
Air — — — — 0.25 — — — 1:293 × 10
3 1.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Example of numerical air blast models

reinforcing steel shared nodes with the concrete elements, and as
such the model did not explicitly consider bar slip. This approxi-
mation was acceptable because highly distorted concrete elements
could be eroded from the model, and as such rebar elements did not
necessarily remain connected to concrete elements for the entire
analysis duration, allowing them to move independently from
the concrete elements under large deformations when rebar slip
is most pronounced. All nodal translational displacements were
constrained at the base of the model to be consistent with the fixed
boundary condition provided by the column foundation and reac-
tion structure. The models in which spalling occurred had only
vertical base constraints (i.e., no horizontal base constraints in ei-
ther direction) on base nodes outside the transverse reinforcement
(i.e., in the region of cover concrete) to allow erosion of cover con-
crete. The pressure-time histories applied to the numerical models
of the blast-tested columns were computed using the computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) numerical techniques discussed above
(Williams 2009). Readers are directed to Williams (2009) for addi-
tional information on the finite element models used to simulate the
experimental blast tests carried out under NCHRP 12-72.
Validation Efforts

The experimental blast tests on reinforced concrete columns pro-

vided important data to verify the fidelity of the simulation models
both qualitatively and quantitatively. Strain gauges were employed
during the tests; however, only one strain gauge data set out of eight
tests survived with sufficient data to compare to the strains recorded
from the numerical models, and one data set does not provide a
statistically significant comparison for eight total tests. Therefore,
the experimental data available for validating the computational
models were limited to photographs, hand-drawn cracking dia-
grams, and hand-measured residual displacements. Using that data,
the qualitative performance of the numerical column models was
assessed using the global response shapes, the observed damage
patterns, and the recorded cracking patterns, and the quantitative
performance of the numerical column models was assessed using
peak residual displacements. The use of peak residual displacement
as a means of evaluating computational model accuracy for col-
umns subjected to blast loads has been utilized previously by other
researchers (Fujikura et al. 2008). Because of the extensive quantity
Fig. 2. Experimental test setup
of numerical data collected during these verification analyses, it is

494 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499

 Table 3. Numerical Column Model Performance Criteria pressure-time histories calculated from the CFD models, represent
Experimental Computational the cracking and damage patterns quite well, as shown in Fig. 3.
Column ID displacement mm (in) displacement mm (in) The performance of all final column models was judged based
on peak residual displacement, response shape, and damage and
1A-2 127 (5.0) 109 (4.3) cracking patterns. The response shape and cracking patterns of each
1B 19.1 (0.75) 25.4 (1.0) numerical column model were assessed qualitatively relative to the
2A-2 12.7 (0.5) 12.7 (0.5) other columns modeled during the research program. Table 3 com-
2B 6.35 (0.25) 2.54 (0.1) pares the recorded and computed residual displacements. It is
2-Seismic 5.08 (0.2) 2.54 (0.1) notable that the numerical models for the three columns that sus-
2-Blast 12.7 (0.5) 10.2 (0.4) tained the most displacement and damage—Columns 1A-2, 3A,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3A 76.2 (3.0) 66.0 (2.6)
3-Blast 114 (4.5) 78.7 (3.1)
not practical to provide a detailed discussion of each individual
numerical column model used to validate the CFD models. The
results of all models are summarized in Table 3, and one numerical
column model is briefly presented herein.
Fig. 3 shows both the experimental and numerical damage and
cracking patterns for Column 3A. The damage is shown using a
normalized scale of 0 to 2. A value of 1 indicates that the material
has just reached its peak strength, and a value between 1 and 2
indicates that the material has passed its peak strength and is soft-
ening. Accordingly, for tension, values close to 2 indicate that the
concrete is cracking, and for compression, such values indicate that
the concrete is crushing (i.e., softening) and nearing failure (or per-
haps has already reached failure). The appearance of failure on the
compression side of the column must be evaluated carefully, as an
indication of large plastic strains in the numerical models do not
always correlate to similar damage in the experimental models
due to limitations in the constitutive models used to represent
the concrete behavior [as described further below and in Williams
(2009)]. Overall, the numerical models, which were loaded using
and 3Blast—generated slightly lower displacements relative to
the experimental results. The main contributor to the small pre-
dicted displacement for these columns is the inability of the con-
crete constitutive model to accurately represent degradation of
concrete in compression and shear. Stress versus strain curves from
single element stress analyses of unconfined axial compression
tests at various loading rates using the Karagozian and Case con-
crete model showed that the material model exhibits an unrealisti-
cally long unloading phase after reaching the peak concrete
compressive strength with a strain well beyond 0.008, which is sig-
nificantly larger than the typical range of 0.003 to 0.004
(MacGregor 1997). Concrete constitutive modeling of blast-loaded
structures remains a computational challenge (DoD 2002), and this
field continues to be an active area of research. Despite this limi-
tation, the numerical models used in this study performed quite well
with the pressure-time history data derived from the CFD analyses
described above.
Characterization of Reflected Impulse on Columns
Eqs. (5) and (6) were employed to compute the net resultant im-
pulse (i.e., the difference in impulse between the front and back
faces) at a given cross-section using the pressure-time history data
and the tributary areas shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 3. Comparison of response shapes and damage patterns for Column 3A: (a) cracking and damage pattern from analytical model; (b) analytical
model with overlay of real cracking pattern; and (c) real cracking and damage pattern

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 495

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499

 ðT1
T11Þ þ 2ðT2
T10Þ þ 2ðT3
T9Þ þ 2ðT4
T8Þ þ 2ðT5
T7Þ þ ðT6
T6Þ
I nr:circular ¼
10
ðT1
T12Þ þ 2ðT2
T11Þ þ 2ðT3
T10Þ þ 2ðT4
T9Þ þ 2ðT5
T8Þ þ ðT6
T7Þ
I nr:square ¼
10
The designation T# in Eqs. (5) and (6) represents numerically
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
generated pressure-time history data from the locations labeled
by the corresponding numbers in Fig. 4. For example, considering
the first term in the numerator of Eq. (6), Fig. 4 shows that locations
“1” and “12” are directly opposite each other, and it is the differ-
ence in loading between these locations that is used to compute the
net resultant impulse. Impulse values are considered to be the most
important load parameter for this study because the net resultant
impulse typically governs the global response of blast-loaded mem-
bers when the duration of loading is much less than the natural
period of the structure being analyzed (Biggs 1964; DoD 2008;
Fujikura et al. 2008), which was the case for all scenarios
considered during this research program. Curves that indicate
how blast intensity varies with position along the height of a
column were developed based on the net resultant impulse values
computed at 20 equally spaced cross-sections along the height of
each column.
Because the numerical CFD parameter study included a variety
of charge sizes and standoff distances, actual pressures and
impulses acting on the analyzed columns varied considerably.
To allow for consistency in interpreting the computed results, nor-
malized net resultant impulse curves (termed “load curves” in this
paper) were developed by calculating and plotting the net resultant
impulse at various vertical locations along the height of the col-
umns and normalizing those values to the computed peak net result-
ant impulse value for each column (Fig. 5). This figure is difficult to
understand with the numerous curves shown on the plot, but all
curves are shown to allow a detailed independent investigation
of the results if desired. The peak reflected impulse on each column
was chosen as the basis for normalization because peak reflected
impulse can be readily calculated with high confidence using
several widely accepted methods (e.g., USACE 2000; DoD
2008). The curves in Fig. 5 show a higher net resultant impulse
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Tributary areas for net resultant impulse and geometric differ-
ences between circular and square column blast cases: (a) circular
column; and (b) square column
496 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499
ð5Þ
ð6Þ
at a position above the ground than at the base of the column.
Shi et al. (2007) reported similar findings for small scaled distan-
ces, albeit at a slightly higher position along the column. This phe-
nomenon is likely due to pressure magnification from reflections of
the shock wave off the ground, the nature of which is a function of
standoff, charge size, and shape.
Several attempts were made to normalize these data into equa-
tions that could be used to calculate equivalent uniform impulse
values acting against circular and square columns for blast-resistant
design purposes. In this context, an equivalent loading that has a
uniform distribution rather than one that varies along the column
height can be derived using principles of work and energy conser-
vation, and this approach is used in various existing software pack-
ages that compute blast loads, including CONWEP (USACE 2001)
and BEL (USACE 2000). Given the uncertainty associated with
potential threat scenarios, an approach that utilizes an equivalent
uniform load is often preferred to simplify the design process
(DOD 2008; Conrath et al. 1999). The effort to develop equivalent
uniform impulse values encountered significant difficulty because
of the highly nonlinear nature of shock propagation and the
complex interaction between a shock wave and a column. The best
solution yielded results that could differ up to 35% from the results
of the numerical models. Thus, this approach was abandoned in
favor of an alternative method for computing equivalent blast
impulse acting on a column.
Methods already exist to calculate pressure wave forms and the
resulting impulses acting against flat panel structures (DoD 2008;
USACE 2001; SAIC 2001; USACE 2000), and recent research
confirms their applicability and accuracy when clearing from free
edges is not a concern (Rickman and Murrell 2007). Therefore, a
revised method was developed for computing equivalent uniform
impulse values for use in analyzing blast-loaded bridge columns.
The proposed method utilizes existing procedures for computing
equivalent uniform impulse values against flat panels (USACE
2001; SAIC 2001; USACE 2000), coupled with column shape
factors that account for the effects of cross-sectional shape and
slenderness on load history. The procedure used to develop the
column shape factors for slender circular and square members
subjected to blast loads is described in the following section. After-
ward, a simplified design procedure based on these factors is
presented.
Shape Factors to Account for Column Shape and
Slenderness
Several factors contribute to the fact that a circular column will
experience less impulse than a similarly sized square column.
Reflected pressures, and more importantly reflected impulses, de-
pend upon the peak incident overpressure and the angle of inci-
dence of a shock front’s direction of travel relative to the target
it impacts. The angle of incidence at a given location around the
front face of a circular column is greater than that of a similar
position along the front face of a square column (i.e., locations with
the same horizontal distance from the column centerline), as shown
 1.0
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 1.5 ft; circular
All charges are on ground. W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 1.5 ft; square
W = 1.4w sph.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 2.5 ft; circular
0.9 W = 1.4w sph.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 2.5 ft; square
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 2.5 ft; square
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 4.0 ft; circular
0.8
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 1.0z; Z = 0.9; D = 4.0 ft; square
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 1.5 ft; circular
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 1.5 ft; square
0.7 W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 2.5 ft; square
Column Location, y/Lo

W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 4.0 ft; square

W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 4.0 ft; circular
0.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.1z; Z = 2.7; D = 1.5 ft; circular

W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.1z; Z = 2.7; D = 1.5 ft; square
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.9z; Z = 3.5; D = 1.5 ft; circular
0.5 W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.9z; Z = 3.5; D = 1.5 ft; square
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.9z; Z = 3.5; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.9z; Z = 3.5; D = 2.5 ft; square
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.9z; Z = 3.5; D = 4.0 ft; circular
0.4
W = 1.4w cyl.; R = 3.9z; Z = 3.5; D = 4.0 ft; square
W = 2.9w cyl.; R = 2.8z; Z = 2.0; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 2.9w cyl.; R = 2.8z; Z = 2.0; D = 2.5 ft; square
0.3 W = 2.9w cyl.; R = 3.1z; Z = 2.2; D = 1.5 ft; circular
W = 2.9w cyl.; R = 3.1z; Z = 2.2; D = 1.5 ft; square
W = 2.9w cyl.; R = 4.7z; Z = 3.3; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 4.3w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.2; D = 2.5 ft; square
0.2
W = 4.3w cyl.; R = 2.0z; Z = 1.2; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 8.6w cyl.; R = 4.1z; Z = 2.0; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 8.6w cyl.; R = 4.1z; Z = 2.0; D = 2.5 ft; square
0.1 W = 9.8w cyl.; R = 3.1z; Z = 1.5; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 9.8w cyl.; R = 3.1z; Z = 1.5; D = 2.5 ft; square
W = 23.0w cyl.; R = 5.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 2.5 ft; circular
W = 23.0w cyl.; R = 5.0z; Z = 1.7; D = 2.5 ft; square
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Normalized Impulse, Ir/Ir.peak

Fig. 5. Normalized impulse curves for cylindrical bursts against bridge columns

in Fig. 4. Moreover, the peak incident overpressure is less at a given other factors contribute to the nonlinearity of the data, including
location around the circumference of a circular column than at a varying charge weights, charge sizes, standoff distances, column
similar position along the face of a square column due to the sizes, clearing times, angles of incidence, heights-of-burst, and
increased standoff distance to the position on the circular column ground reflections. Therefore, rather than normalizing the data,
relative to that on a square column. Both an increase in angle of it is more appropriate for design purposes to determine suitable
incidence and a decrease in peak incident overpressure individually upper bounds as shown in Fig. 6. The column shape factors are
produce reduced reflected pressures and impulses, and thus with found using Eq. (7) for a square column and Eq. (8) for a circular
the combination of the two a circular column will experience less column:
net load than a square column. Furthermore, it is important to note  
that load clearing around circular columns is different than around R
Ss ¼ 0:013 þ 0:49 ð7Þ
square columns. Shock waves engulf circular columns more easily D
than square columns, making the resultant impulse on the back face
of circular columns greater than that on the back face of similarly
sized square columns, further reducing the net resultant load a
circular column must resist relative to a square column. This find- 0.60
ing is consistent with those of Shi et al. (2007) as described above.
Fig. 6 shows the column shape factors derived from the airblast 0.55
models analyzed for this research. These values were determined
0.50
Column Shape Factor, S

by normalizing the net reflected impulse on each column to the

peak reflected impulse acting on a wall with the same charge 0.45
weight and standoff distance. As described previously, blast loads
acting on large, flat walls have been studied extensively in the past, 0.40
allowing peak reflected impulses and pressures to be readily calcu- 0.35
lated for these components (USACE 2001; SAIC 2001; USACE
Square Column Shape Factors
2000). Thus, blast loading parameters computed for a flat wall 0.30
Circular Column Shape Factors
provide a convenient basis for normalizing the loads acting on slen-
0.25 Square Upper Bound
der circular and square columns of finite width. The numerical data Circular Upper Bound
clearly show that circular columns experience less net resultant 0.20
impulse than similarly sized square columns; however, there is 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
noticeable scatter in the data. Scatter in the computed results exists Standoff Distance/Column Diameter, R /D (ft./ft.)
because of the highly nonlinear relationship between scaled stand-
Fig. 6. Column shape factors as a function of the ratio of the standoff
off and peak reflected impulse, which are only two of the factors
distance to the column diameter
that contribute to the net resultant impulse (DoD 2008). Multiple

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 497

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499

  
R that occurs relative to a large, flat surface for slender structural
SC ¼ 0:019 þ 0:39 ð8Þ
D
where SS = column shape factor for a square column (unitless);
SC = column shape factor for a circular column (unitless);
R = standoff distance (ft. or m); D = column diameter or edge width
(ft. or m).
These upper-bound equations are valid for R∕D ratios less than
4.5. Most importantly, the numerical models used to generate the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
data on which these equations are based use scaled standoffs that
correspond to Blast Design Category C, as outlined by Williamson
et al. (2010). As described earlier in this paper, Blast Design
Category C is the only category that requires a dynamic analysis,
and thus these equations are valid over the range of scaled standoffs
for which they will be used for design. Eqs. (7) and (8) may over-
estimate the net resultant impulses for some scenarios because they
are upper bounds, but they provide much more accurate and less
conservative loads than those predicted using experimental data
from blasts against flat walls, which is the method currently
employed by software used to predict blast loads acting on bridge
columns (USACE 2000).
It is notable that the values calculated by these equations com-
pare extremely well to the value of 0.45 presented for the load
reduction factor β by Fujikura et al. (2008). The intent of the β
factor in that work was the same as the column shape factors in
the current research; the constant value of 0.45 was an average
of several values found using a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
response analysis and the results of experimental blast tests on
concrete-filled steel tube columns. While the values computed
using Eqs. (7) and (8) compare favorably to the work reported
by Fujikura et al. (2008), it is important to recognize that the
approach taken to arrive at these values for the current study is quite
different from that of Fujikura et al. In their research, a load reduc-
tion factor was computed based on response analyses using an
SDOF model, while the values obtained from the current study
have been computed solely from CFD analyses of loads and thus
do not depend on the subsequent column response. Although the
exact standoffs used by Fujikura et al. are undisclosed for security
purposes, the column and blast scenarios presented appear to have
R∕D ratios ranging from 1.7 to 5.0. These R∕D ratios yield column
shape factors calculated by Eq. (8) that range from 0.423 to 0.485.
These values are consistent with the range of 0.417 to 0.472 for β as
back-calculated by Fujikura et al. (2008) based on experimental
data. Furthermore, the actual data presented for β do show a general
increase as the standoff increases, confirming the results and
equations presented in this paper. Therefore, Eqs. (7) and (8) cal-
culate column shape factors validated both by computational fluid
dynamics and experimental data.
Load Prediction Method
The column shape factors can be used with any method that
calculates load variation along the height of a column based on
the ideal reflected impulse. For the present discussion, one example
procedure is provided to demonstrate how the column shape factors
can be used in the analysis and design of bridge columns subjected
to blast loads when an equivalent uniform loading is desired.
Because the column shape factors are based only on shock inter-
action with columns, they are applicable to design procedures that
utilize SDOF methods as well as more complex methods, such as
multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) analyses. Thus, the proposed
column shape factors simply account for the reduction in loading
498 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499
members of finite width.
The first step in the load prediction procedure is the calculation
of the peak equivalent uniform pressure and an equivalent uniform
impulse acting along the centerline of the column being analyzed.
This calculation can be achieved by assuming an ideal reflected
pressure wave form utilizing widely accepted software for comput-
ing blast loads on flat panel surfaces, such as CONWEP (USACE
2001), BlastX (SAIC 2001), or BEL (USACE 2000). The second
step in the proposed load prediction procedure is the calculation of
a column shape factor, SS or SC , using Eq. (7) for square columns
and Eq. (8) for circular columns. The final step in the proposed
procedure to predict blast loads on bridge columns is the determi-
nation of the load duration, t d . This value is determined using
Eq. (9).
2Sie
td ¼ ð9Þ
pe
where pe = peak equivalent uniform pressure on the column (lbs∕in
or kN∕m); S = appropriate column shape factor found by Eq. (7)
or (8) (unitless); ie = equivalent uniform impulse (psi-msec or
kPa-msec); t d = duration of the positive phase of blast
loading (msec).
Eq. (9) preserves the total equivalent uniform impulse on a col-
umn for an assumed linear variation in the blast pressure as a func-
tion of time, which is a common assumption for blast-resistant
design (e.g., DoD 2008). The peak equivalent uniform pressure
leads to a resultant load for an SDOF analysis by multiplying
by the height and dimension (i.e., edge width or diameter) of
the column being analyzed. The resultant load, and the duration
of the positive phase, td , are the parameters typically needed to
define an idealized triangular blast pulse (i.e., one that varies lin-
early in time) for an SDOF dynamic analysis. The procedure
described in this section does not compute the resultant load di-
rectly to allow bridge designers to use the peak equivalent uniform
load with a different analysis procedure if desired (i.e., frame
analysis).
Evaluation of Simplified Load Prediction Method
Table 4 shows a comparison among the impulse values computed
using the column shape factors, the method currently employed by
existing blast-prediction software such as BEL (USACE 2000)
(i.e., no adjustment for column shape and slenderness), and a
computational fluid dynamics model. Percentage difference values
are computed assuming the CFD solution is the correct result. The
proposed method generates a load value for design that is only 7%
different than the value assumed to be correct, whereas the method
currently used in existing software drastically overpredicts the
loads on the slender circular member by 120%. While the proposed
method does calculate a slightly unconservative value compared to
the numerical airblast model, this level of inaccuracy is considered
to be acceptable given the high amount of uncertainty typically
Table 4. Final Comparison of Impulse Values
Impulse load Percent
value ðN∕mmÞ-msec difference (%)
Proposed method 3,424.6
7:3
Regular method 8,153.9 120.7
LS-DYNA 3,694.8 0
 associated with potential blast threats. Most often, the exact charge
weight, shape, size, and standoff distances are unknown, and only a
general level of blast-resistance can be provided based on a reason-
able estimate of the loads. The proposed method provides an
acceptably accurate estimate of the loads on a bridge column
due to airblast and provides a significant advancement over the
loads computed by currently available methods.
Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar" on 08/07/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This paper presents research results obtained from computational
fluid dynamics models of blast loads acting against circular and
square bridge columns, although the findings apply in general to
slender structural members directly exposed to airblast. The com-
putational models developed for this research were validated using
data from experimental blast tests and results reported in the liter-
ature. The numerical results gathered from the computational
models showed the influence of column cross-sectional shape
on net resultant impulse, and this information was used to develop
equations for column shape factors that accurately account for the
reduced impulses experienced by slender square and circular
members relative to those acting on a wall subjected to the same
threat scenario. These equations can be combined with an SDOF
analysis model, which provides a simple method for predicting
response, to ensure that bridge columns have adequate capacity
to resist blast loads.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program for providing the finan-
cial resources that made this project possible. The authors also wish
to thank the Southwest Research Institute and Protection Engineer-
ing Consultants for their assistance in completing the experimental
tests. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor.
References
Agrawal, A. K., and Yi, Z. (2009). “Blast load effects on highway bridges.”
Univ. Transportation Research Center, City College of New York, NY.
〈http://www.utrc2.org/research/assets/123/FR_Blast_bridge1.pdf〉
(Apr. 3, 2012).
Alia, A., and Souli, M. (2006). “High explosive simulation using
multi-material formulations.” Appl. Therm. Eng., 26(10), 1032–1042.
Biggs, J. M. (1964). Introduction to structural dynamics, McGraw-Hill,
Inc, New York.
The Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security (BRPBTS). (2003).
“Recommendations for bridge and tunnel security.” Special report
prepared for FHWA and AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Boyd, A., and Sullivan, J. P. (2000). “Emergency preparedness for transit
terrorism.” TR News. No. 208. 12–17. 〈 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/trnews/trnews208_transit_security.pdf〉 (Apr. 6, 2012).
Conrath, E. J., Krauthammer, T., Marchand, K. A., and Mlakar, P. F. (1999).
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 499
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 490-499
Structural design for physical security: State of practice, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Dept. of Defense (DoD). (2002). Design and analysis of hardened struc-
tures to conventional weapons effects, unified facilities criteria (UFC)
3-340-01, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Dept. of Defense (DoD). (2008). Structures to resist the effects of acciden-
tal explosions, UFC 3-340-02, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Fujikura, S., Bruneau, M., and Lopez-Garcia, D. (2008). “Experimental
investigation of multihazard resistant bridge piers having concrete-filled
steel tube under blast loading.” J. Bridge Eng., 13(6), 586–594.
Holland, C. E. (2008). “Blast-resistant design of highway bridge columns.”
Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engi-
neering at the Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Jenkins, B. M., and Gersten, L. N. (2001). “Protecting public surface
transportation against terrorism and serious crime.” MTI Report
01-14, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC). (2007). LS-DYNA
keyword user’s manual, version 971, LSTC, Livermore, CA.
Luccioni, B., Ambrosini, D., and Danesi, R. (2006). “Blast load assessment
using hydrocodes.” Eng. Struct., 28(12), 1736–1744.
MacGregor, J. G. (1997). Reinforced concrete: Mechanics and design, 3rd
Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Malvar, L. J., Crawford, J. E., and Morrill, K. B. (2000). “K&C concrete
material model release III—automated generation of material model
input.” Karagozian and Case Report TR-99-24.3, Karagozian & Case
Structural Engineers, Burbank, CA.
Ofengein, D. K., and Drikakais, D. (1997). “Simulation of blast wave
propagation over a cylinder.” Shock Waves, 7(5), 305–317.
Rickman, D. D., and Murrell, D. W. (2007). “Development of an improved
methodology for predicting airblast pressure relief on a directly loaded
wall.” J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 129(1), 195–204.
Schwer, L. E., and Malvar, L. J. (2005). “Simplified concrete modeling
with *MAT_concrete_damage_REL3.” JRI LS−DYNA USER WEEK
2005, Karagozian & Case Structural Engineers, Burbank, CA.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). (2001). BlastX
version 4.2.3.0, Science Applications International Corporation. San
Diego, CA.
Shi, Y., Hao, H., and Li, Z. (2007). “Numerical simulation of blast wave
interaction with structure columns.” Shock Waves, 17(1–2), 113–133.
Sućeska, M. (1999). “Evaluation of detonation energy from EXPLO5 com-
puter code results.” Propellants Explos. Pyrotech., 24(5), 280–285.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2000). Bridge Explosive
Loading (BEL), version 1.1.0.3, Engineer Research and Development
Center. Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2001). CONWEP, Version
2.0.6.0, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Williams, G. D. (2009). “Analysis and response mechanisms of
blast-resistant bridge columns.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil, Arch.
and Env. Eng., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Williamson, E. B. et al. (2010). “Blast-resistant highway bridges: Design
and detailing guidelines.” National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 645, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Winget, D. G., Marchand, K. A., and Williamson, E. B. (2005). “Analysis
and design of critical bridges subjected to blast loads.” J. Struct. Eng.,
131(8), 1243–1255.