Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Analysis of Multi-Storey RC Building Subjected to

Blast Load using Time History Method
Megha S. Mahaladkar1, Ramya K2
1
MTech Student, Structural Engineering, Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management, Mangalore, India
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management, Mangalore, India

Abstract:- The impact of the blast load on the structure explosion based on the standoff distances as Air Blast, Free
due to the increase of terrorist activities is a serious Air Blast and Surface Air Blast.
issue causing failure of the buildings and loss of life.
Depending upon the location of blast within or nearby M.T.R Jayasinghe et al. (2010) studied the non-linear
buildings the structure undergoes ravaging failure due dynamic response of the tall buildings with and without
to explosion. In the present study, G+5 storeyed setbacks. The 20 storey buildings is considered for the
building is subjected to 200, 400 and 600 kg charge study which is designed for imposed load, dead load and
weight of the blast load with a standoff distance of 20, wind load. Time history analysis is carried out using SAP
40 and 60m. IS:4991 – 1968 is used to determine the 2000 for the buildings with 500kg charge weight of the
blast parameters. The time history analysis is carried blast. Storey drift, peak deflection, acceleration and
out using ETABS 2016 software. The response of the bending moments are obtained. Great variations are
structure is determined in terms of displacement v/s observed in the response near the setback storey level due
time, velocity v/s time and acceleration v/s time, storey to the blast load. Placement of the shear wall in the face of
drift, column forces and storey displacement. the building effecting by the blast load improves the
Depending on the source of the blast load and the strength of the building decreasing the damage of the
charge weight of the explosive, response of the building structure. Aditya C. Bhatt et al. (2013) have conducted a
and safe standoff distance is found. To make the comparative study of four storey building subjected to both
building more resistible for blast load, various blast load and earthquake load using ETABS software.
structural systems like shear wall and steel bracings are Linear time history method is carried out for the analysis.
implemented. Displacement of the structure subjected to blast load is very
high due to high intensity of blast load compared to the
Keywords:- Blast load; Standoff distance; Charge Weight; earthquake load and very high variation in different storeys.
ETABS 2016. In case of structures subjected to earthquake load,
displacement proportionally increases. Quantity of concrete
I. INTRODUCTION used for EQ resisting building is 40% less than blast
resisting building. Safe standoff distance and charge
Due to the increase in terrorist and explosion explosive for earthquake resistant RC building is obtained
activities and even the natural activities, their effect on the using trial and error method. Helen Santhi.M et al. (2013)
structure has become a serious issue which leads to damage have investigated the dynamic response of the space
of the structures, death of people and economical loss as framed structure due to blast load. A type of fibre
well. An explosion is a chemical response that releases reinforced concrete (FRC) with high fibre content is used
large amount of energy and hot gases consisting of loud as an alternative of RCC which is SIFCON (Slurry
sound and a bright flash. It occurs within a few seconds of Infiltrated Fibre Reinforced Concrete) having high strength,
duration resulting in release of high temperature and ductility and energy absorbing capacity. Using SAP2000
pressure. In many countries, considering blast effects in the software the models are developed and time history
structural analysis and other techniques are initiated in analysis is carried out for blast load. The displacement time
order to protect the structures and build environment. An history response of the model with SIFCON and RCC was
explosion, depending on the occurrence of blast i.e., near or compared and the capacity of the SIFCON frame was
far from the structure, can cause ruinous damage to the observed to be better than RCC frame under blast load with
internal or external frames of the structure. Thus, special the reduction in displacement of about 25 to 30%. A.V.
care should be taken in designing the structures considering Kulkarni and Sambireddy G, (2014) studied the response of
the blast load effect. the high rise building subjected to blast load. SAP 2000
software was used for the modelling of the building and to
 The classification of blast loads is done based on the know the lateral stability of the building due to blast load.
confinement of explosives as two types; Two different charge weights of around 400kg and 800kg
Confined Explosion and Unconfined Explosion. The were considered with 5m and 10m standoff distances. Non-
confined explosion is further classified into three types linear modal analysis was carried out to know the response
depending on the area of confinement as Fully vented of the building. The primary parameters obtained were total
explosion, Partially vented or confined explosion and Fully drift and inter-storey drift. The standoff distance and blast
confined explosion. There are three types of unconfined source point was the important parameter in the study. The

IJISRT19JU555 www.ijisrt.com 556

Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

building with irregular geometry showed maximum drift

than the regular infill frame building. Jiji Madonna et al.
(2016) have carried out the analysis of the high rise RCC
building subjected to blast load. Both regular and irregular
buildings are considered for the analysis with two different
standoff distances and charge weight. The blast parameters
are obtained using ATBlast software and the results are
compared by using ETABS software. It is observed that the
storey drift increases with the decrease in the standoff
distance. The effect of the blast load is more in the lower
storeys when compared to higher level storeys. The
response of regular buildings is better than the irregular
building against the blast load.

II. BLAST LOAD PHENOMENA AND Fig. 1:- Blast Wave Propagation
INTERACTION
A blast wave generated during an explosion spreads
When the blast occurs at a location there will be a through the surrounding air and due to which a shock front or
huge amount of hot gases released which is the compresses wave is created. This shock wave created surround the entire
the surrounding gases and travels away from the blast building subjected to blast pressure.
source with higher velocity. The distance between the blast
source point and the structure is called as the standoff The factors affecting the blast load are the material type,
distance. As the blast wave travels away from the blast weight of the explosive, amount of the energy released during
source the pressure or the intensity of the wave goes on the blast, distance between the detonation point and the structure
reducing and due to this the effect on the building with called as standoff distance and intensity of the pressure released.
higher standoff distance will be less and the time duration The Fig.2 below shows the interaction of blast wave with the
required to reach the building is reduced. The Fig.1 shows building.
the blast wave propagation curves depending on the
pressure and distance from the explosion or the blast source.

Fig. 2:- Interaction of blast wave with building

2.1 Typical Blast wave Pressure-Time history curve in the standoff distance from the blast source. And this
Fig. 3 shows the typical blast wave pressure-time eventually becomes equal to the ambient pressure with time
history curve. Initially, when the explosion takes place duration (tA + to + to) which is called as negative phase
during the arrival time of the blast wave, the pressure duration which is longer than the positive phase duration.
present in the surrounding is equivalent to the Ambient During this negative phase duration, the building or the
pressure (Po) and then it suddenly rises to Peak pressure structure is subjected to suction forces which results in
(Pso) in the fraction of second which is in the time (tA) failure of façade of the building such as glass segments or
when blast wave reaches the structure. To achieve the peak windows lying outside the building. This negative phase of
pressure the time required is very small and thus it is taken the curve is neglected during the design as its effect on the
as zero during the design. This peak pressure is also called structure is less when compared to the positive phase of the
as side-on overpressure and it decreases with the increase pressure time history.

IJISRT19JU555 www.ijisrt.com 557

Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig. 3:- Pressure-Time History Curve

III. METHODOLOGY marginal error of 2.02% which is acceptable. Thus, the

further work of the project is carried out using ETABS
In the present study, six storey RCC building is 2016 software.
considered and is subjected to surface blast of 200kg,
400kg and 600kg charge weight of explosive. The building Fig. 4 and 5 below shows the 3D view and plan
is having a plan dimension of 14 x 14 m with bottom storey respectively of the building considered for the study.
height as 3.5m and typical storey height of 3m each. It is
analyzed using ETABS software for different standoff
distances of 20m, 40m and 60m from the front face of the
building. The peak reflected overpressure obtained from
IS:4991-1968 is multiplied with the tributary area and this
blast load is applied as the joint load on the joints of the
front face of the building in the ‘x’ direction and time
history method is carried out. The safe standoff distance is
determined at which the effect of blast reduces by trial and
error method. The response of the building with blast
source of varying distances is determined by creating
different models to obtain efficient blast resistant system.

Model: X and Y direction = 4 bays, 2 bays spaced 4m and

other 2 spaced 3m
Material Properties: Density of concrete = 25 kN/m3,
Density of steel = 78.5 kN/m3
Grade of concrete = M30, Grade of rebar (steel) = Fe500 Fig. 4:- 3D view of building
Sectional Properties: Beam = 300mm × 450mm, Column =
450mm × 450mm and Slab = 150mm
General loading: Live load (IS 875, part 2) = 3 kN/m2
(floor) and 1.5 kN/m2 (roof)
Floor finish load = 1 kN/m2, Water
proofing (roof) = 1.5 kN/m2

The validation of the ETABS software is been carried

by doing seismic analysis of the G+5 storey building taken
for the study. The storey shear and base shear obtained by
the end of the analysis in the software is compared with the
values obtained by manual calculation and table it is seen
that the ETABS software values of base shear and storey
shear agree with the theoretical values with a slight
Fig. 5:- Plan of building

IJISRT19JU555 www.ijisrt.com 558

Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

P P P F
Joint F.L Z (20m) Z (40m) Z (60m) A m2 F (20m) F (60m)
(20m) (40m) (60m) (40m)
1 34.2 68.4 102.6 317 73 38.8 7.00 2219 511 271.6
2 & 4 GL 34.9 68.7 102.8 300 72.5 38.7 6.13 1839 444.4 237.2
3 & 5 36.2 69.4 103.3 271.8 71.3 38.5 2.63 714.8 187.5 101.3
1 34.7 68.7 102.8 305 72.5 38.7 13.0 3965 942.5 503.1
2 & 4 1 35.4 68.9 102.9 289 72.2 38.7 11.38 3288.8 821.6 440.4
3 & 5 36.7 69.7 103.5 264 70.8 38.5 4.88 1288.3 345.5 187.9
1 36.0 69.3 103.2 275 71.5 38.6 12.0 3300 858 463.2
2 & 4 2 36.6 69.6 103.4 265.6 71 38.5 10.5 2788.8 745.5 404.3
3 & 5 37.9 70.3 103.8 245 69.8 38.4 4.50 1102.5 314.1 172.8
1 37.9 70.3 103.8 245 69.8 38.4 12.0 2940 837.6 460.8
2 & 4 3 38.5 70.6 104.1 235.8 69.3 38.3 10.5 2475.9 727.7 402.2
3 & 5 39.7 71.3 104.6 220.7 68.1 38.1 4.50 993.15 306.5 171.5
1 40.3 71.6 104.8 214.5 67.6 38.1 12.0 2574 811.2 457.2
2 & 4 4 40.9 71.9 105.0 208.3 67.2 38.0 10.5 2187.2 705.6 399
3 & 5 42.1 72.7 105.5 195.9 65.8 37.8 4.50 881.55 296.1 170.1
1 43.3 73.4 105.9 183.5 64.6 37.7 12.0 2202 775.2 452.4
2 & 4 5 43.8 73.7 106.2 178.4 64.1 37.6 10.5 1873.2 673.1 394.8
3 & 5 44.9 74.3 106.6 167 63.1 37.5 4.50 751.5 284.0 168.8
1 46.6 75.4 107.4 155.3 61.4 37.2 6.00 931.8 368.4 223.2
2 & 4 6 47.1 75.7 107.6 152 61.0 37.1 5.25 798 320.3 194.8
3 & 5 48.1 76.3 108.0 145.4 60.2 37.0 2.25 327.2 135.5 83.3
Table 1:- Pressure and Joint load acting on the front face of the building due to explosive weight of 200kg at 20m, 40m and 60m
standoff distance

P P P F
Joint F.L Z (20m) Z (40m) Z (60m) A m2 F (20m) F (60m)
(20m) (40m) (60m) (40m)
1 27.14 54.3 81.4 573 112.7 54.7 7.00 4011 788.9 382.9
2 & 4 GL 27.7 54.6 81.6 543.4 111.4 54.6 6.13 3331 682.9 334.7
3 & 5 28.8 55.1 82.0 484.4 109.2 54.3 2.63 1274 287.2 142.8
1 27.6 54.5 81.6 548.8 111.8 54.6 13.0 7134.4 1453 709.8
2 & 4 1 28.1 54.8 81.7 521.9 110.5 54.5 11.38 5939.2 1257 620.2
3 & 5 29.1 55.3 82.1 468.3 108.4 54.2 4.88 2285.3 528.9 264.5
1 28.9 55.0 82.0 479 109.6 54.3 12.0 5748 1315 651.6
2 & 4 2 29.1 55.3 82.1 468.3 108.4 54.2 10.5 4917.2 1138 569.1
3 & 5 30.1 55.8 82.5 417.5 106.2 54 4.50 1878.8 477.9 243
1 30.0 55.8 82.5 420 106.2 54 12.0 5040 1274 648
2 & 4 3 30.5 56.1 82.6 407.5 104.9 53.9 10.5 4278.8 1101 565.9
3 & 5 31.5 56.6 83.0 382.5 102.7 53.6 4.50 1721.3 462.1 241.2
1 32.0 56.9 83.2 370 101.4 53.5 12.0 4440 1216 522
2 & 4 4 32.5 57.1 83.4 357.5 100.7 53.4 10.5 3753.8 1057 560.7
3 & 5 33.4 57.7 83.7 335.6 99.1 53.2 4.50 1510.2 445.9 239.4
1 34.3 58.2 84.1 314.6 97.8 52.9 12.0 3775.2 1173 634.8
2 & 4 5 34.8 58.5 84.3 303 97 52.7 10.5 3181.5 1018 553.4
3 & 5 35.6 59.0 84.6 284.3 95.6 52.4 4.50 1279.4 430.2 235.8
1 37.0 59.8 85.2 259.3 93.5 51.8 6.00 1555.8 561 310.8
2 & 4 6 37.4 60.1 85.4 253 92.7 51.6 5.25 1328.3 486.6 270.9
3 & 5 38.2 60.6 85.7 240.5 91.4 51.3 2.25 541.2 205.6 115.4
Table 2:- Pressure and Joint load acting on the front face of the building due to explosive weight of 400kg at 20m, 40m and 60m
standoff distance

IJISRT19JU555 www.ijisrt.com 559

Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Similarly, Joint load, F acting on the building is The response of the building in terms of joint
calculated for charge weight of 600kg with 20m, 40m and displacement, velocity and acceleration is obtained when
60m standoff distances. the building is subjected to the blast load of different
charge weight with varying standoff distances. The
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION following Figures 8, 9 and 10 represents the plot of joint
displacement (mm) verses time (sec), joint velocity (m/sec)
The behavior of the building subjected to blast load verses time (sec) and joint acceleration (m/sec2) verses time
acting on the front face of the building with various charge (sec) respectively.
weight and standoff distances is discussed in this chapter.
The response of the building is obtained as storey
displacement, storey drift, joint displacement v/s time, joint
velocity v/s time, joint acceleration v/s time and column
forces. These results extracted are tabulated and discussed
as shown below.

From Fig. 6 it is observed that when the blast source

is nearer to the building the displacement is more. Thus, as
the blast source point or standoff distance decreases and
charge weight increases, the storey displacement in the
building also increases.

Fig. 7 of storey drift, it is seen that the drift increases

when blast source is closer to the building. Thus, it can be Fig. 8:- Joint Displacement(mm) v/s time(sec) plot
said that the drift is inversely proportional to the standoff
distance and directly proportional to the charge weight of
the blast. And it is noticed that drift is greater in lower
storeys when compared to the higher storeys.

Fig. 9:- Joint Velocity(m/s) v/s time(sec) plot

Fig. 6:- Displacement of the building along the storey

Fig. 10:- Joint Acceleration(m/s2) v/s time(sec) plot

The following table 3 shows the comparison of the

above three graphs of joint displacement, velocity and
acceleration with respect to time.
Fig. 7:- Drift of the building along the storey in 10-3

IJISRT19JU555 www.ijisrt.com 560

Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

200kg 400kg 600kg

Response
20m 40m 60m 20m 40m 60m 20m 40m 60m

Displacement in mm 452.158 192.994 136.067 611.232 256.298 160.144 771.334 308.268 188.441

Velocity in m/s 3.94 1.75 1.24 5.47 2.32 1.46 6.9 2.78 1.71

Acceleration in m/s2 96.55 43.45 30.27 139.52 57.83 36.08 176.87 69.77 42.43
Table 3:- Comparison of joint displacement, velocity and acceleration of the building subjected to various charge weight and
standoff distances

In order to make the building as blast resisting when compared with bare frame building and the building
structure, various structural system such as shear wall and with corner X steel bracings reduces displacement and drift
steel bracings are provided at the corner periphery of the by 23.6% and 13% respectively when compared with bare
building. frame building.
Thus, it can be concluded that implementation of
shear wall is more effective in the building against blast
load when compared with bare frame building and corner X
steel bracing building.

V. CONCLUSIONS

 From the results obtained of the buildings subjected to

blast load with various charge weight and standoff
distances, it shows that the storey displacement, storey
drift and column forces are high when blast source point
is at 20m distance from front face of the building.
 The response of the building in terms of displacement
and drift is more when standoff distance and charge
Fig. 11:- Storey displacement of bare frame building, weight of blast is less. Thus, it can be said that the
building with corner shear wall and steel bracings response is inversely proportional to the standoff
distance and charge weight.
 The safe standoff distance for the building is chosen as
60m.
 Implementation of shear wall at the corner periphery of
the building reduces the storey displacement and drift
by 53.51% and 30.04% respectively compared to bare
frame building.
 Implementation of X steel bracings at the corner
periphery of the building reduces the storey
displacement and drift by 23.6% and 13% respectively
compared to bare frame building.
 Thus, the building is more resistible for the blast load
with shear wall and steel bracing implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Fig. 12:- Storey Drift of bare frame building, building with
corner shear wall and steel bracings The authors thank Professor and Head, Dr. Nalini
Elizebeth Rebello, Department of Civil Engineering and Dr.
From Fig.11 and 12, it is observed that the R Srinivasa Rao Kunte, Principal, Sahyadri College of
displacement and drift in the building with shear wall and Engineering and Management, Mangalore for their support
steel bracings is less than conventional bare frame building. and advise in carrying out this research as a part of M.Tech
project.
The building with corner shear wall reduces the
displacement and drift by 53.51% and 30.04% respectively

IJISRT19JU555 www.ijisrt.com 561

Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

REFERENCES

[1]. Charan L and S B Devaraju (2018), “The study of

effect of Blast load on multi-storey building by using
Time History method”, International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology, 05(06),
1082-1089.
[2]. Ganavi S, P S Ramesh, Dr. V Devaraj and Yogish C
B (2017), “Behavior of framed structure subjected to
explosion on the ground”, International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology, 04(05),
3527-3532.
[3]. Aditya C Bhatt, Snehal V Mevada and Sumant B
Patel (2016), “Comparative study of response of
structures subjected to blast and earthquake loading”,
International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications, 6(5), 62-66.
[4]. A V Kulkarni and Sambireddy G (2014), “Analysis of
Blast Loading effect on High rise buildings”, Civil
and Environmental Research, 6(10), 86-90.
[5]. Jiji Madonna, Mrs. Vijaya G S and Er. Kirankumar K
L (2016), “Analysis of High Rise RCC building
subjected to Blast load”, International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology, 03(08),
1934-1938.
[6]. Jayashree S M, R Rakul Bharatwaj and Helen Santhi
M (2013), “Dynamic response of a space framed
structure subjected to blast load”, International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 4(1), 98-
105, doi: 10.6088/ijcser.201304010010.
[7]. Thejashwini S and Dr. M N Hegde (2018), “Effects
of Blast load on Multistoried RCC Building”,
International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 05(07), 1856-1861.
[8]. Priyanka and Dr. Vijaya G S (2018), “Effect of
Surface blast load on the RC structures”,
International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 05(06), 1780-1744.
[9]. Mohammed Hasil and Dr. Abhay Sharma (2016),
“Response of RC structure exposed to explosion”,
International Journal of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 4(4), 557-562.
[10]. M T R Jayasinghe, I N Jayatilake, W P S Dias and D
P Thambiratnam (2010), “Response of tall buildings
with symmetric setbacks under blast loading”,
Journal of National Science Foundation, 38(2), 115-
123.

IJISRT19JU555 www.ijisrt.com 562