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

net/publication/382062770

Design of Structures Subjected to Blast Loads: Analysis and Design Review

Article in Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences · July 2024

DOI: 10.61263/mjes.v3i1.70

CITATIONS READS

0 549

2 authors:

Mustafa Al-Bazoon Jasbir Singh Arora

University of Misan University of Iowa
15 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS 326 PUBLICATIONS 19,105 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Al-Bazoon on 07 July 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Design of Structures Subjected to Blast Loads: Analysis and

Design Review
Mustafa Al-Bazoon1*, Jasbir S. Arora2
1Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Misan, Maysan, 62001, Iraq
2Iowa Technology Institute, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
*Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

(Received 12 Feb, Revised 18 April, Accepted 22 April)

Abstract: When designing structures to withstand explosions, the main goals are to minimize the number and extent
of occupant injuries and to reduce the chance of catastrophic damage to structures. Although there is uncertainty in the
source, extent, and location of explosions, the assessment of blast loading and structural performance is important when
designing blast-resistant structures. This study is a review of the literature on the prediction of blast loads, structural
modeling and analysis, and design criteria for structures to resist explosions. The paper provides in one concise
document the general guidelines, references, and tools that structural engineers and researchers need to analyze and
design structures subjected to blast loading. References on the topics discussed in this work are provided for more detail.

Keywords: Blast loads; Blast-resistant structures; Structural analysis; Blast design criteria

1. Introduction
Interest in the behavior of structures subjected to blast loading has increased over the last few decades
as terrorist attacks have increased around the globe. Attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City
in 1993 and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 showed the great damage that could
happen due to a blast. In both attacks, structural failure caused more casualties and injuries than the blast
wave itself [1]. Normally, conventional structures (many are moment-resisting frames) are not designed
to tolerate blast loads, which are very high compared to service loads and happen in less than a second.
For instance, 4.53 kg (10 lbs) of trinitrotoluene (TNT) at a distance of 15.24 m (50 ft) causes a peak
pressure of roughly 17.24 kPa (360 psf) over a very short duration compared to the natural period of the
structure. In comparison, the design snow load in the Midwest ranges from 0.24 kPa (5 psf) to 2.39 kPa
(50 psf) [2]. Thus, a small-charge explosion could cause catastrophic local or global failure of the
structure. Analysis and design of blast-resistant structures requires good knowledge of the blast
phenomena, dynamic response of structures, and design requirements. However, threats cannot be
predicted accurately, and it is not possible to design a fully protected structure. Thus, acceptable damage
to the structure is expected according to a predefined level of protection [3].
The purpose of this paper is to review the literature and provide the reader with a concise reference
for the analysis and design of structures for blast resistance. It provides basic considerations for blast load
calculation, structural modeling and analysis, and design criteria. This study is limited to surface bursts
where the explosive charge is detonated close to ground level and the structure is regularly shaped.
The paper is organized into eight sections. Following this introduction, Section 2 provides an overview of
the literature. Section 3 discusses the blast phenomena and ways to assess blast load and its duration, and
Section 4 provides a review of material strength under a high strain rate condition. Section 5 discusses
stress increase and reduction factors, and Section 6 discusses modeling and analysis of structural
components and systems subjected to blast loads. In Section 7, design criteria for structural components
and systems are discussed, and Section 8 provides a definition of progressive collapse that designers
should be aware of. References on all topics are provided for more detail.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.61263/mjes.v3i1.70
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

2. Literature Overview
The subject areas of blast load prediction and blast-resistant design are quite broad. In this review,
many references have been used to collect information on these subject areas and provide the reader with
a concise document. This section provides a brief overview of the key references used in this study along
with some information discussed in each reference. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) publication
[4] provides a manual for evaluating blast loads and design criteria for members and structural systems. It
is considered one of the most important references for blast-resistant design. The American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) [5] prepared a report to provide guidance for blast resistance of petrochemical
facilities. Pape et al. [6] published a three-part paper on the blast phenomena and its effect on structures.
The work provides a practical overview of types of explosions, prediction of explosion effects, and
methods for analysis under blast conditions. The ASCE also wrote a standard [7] that provides planning,
design, construction, and assessment requirements for existing and new structures subjected to blast
loading. Draganić, H., Sigmund [8] discuss the challenges in defining blast loads, and investigates
vulnerability assessment and risk mitigation using standard structural analysis software. The study
focuses on utilizing conventional software like SAP2000 for simulating blast effects on structures,
employing pressure-time history records derived from literature calculations. In this research, a numerical
example is studied. Gilsanz et al. [9] wrote a guide published by the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) that focuses on blast resistance and progressive collapse mitigation of steel
structures. It provides a few detailed design examples. In light of the rising number of terrorist acts,
Jamakhandi and Vanakudre [10] tackle the important topic of blast loads on buildings. It highlights the
need for blast loads to be considered as dynamic forces in structure design, similar to winds and
earthquakes. The study emphasizes the significance of comprehending these components for efficient
blast-resistant design by elucidating explosives and explosion processes. It outlines methods from an
architectural and structural standpoint for improving building security against explosives. The structural
reaction is greatly impacted by increased charge weight and decreased standoff distance, according to the
results, which suggests regular frame models for the best blast resistance and economical design. Cheng
et al. [11] provides an extensive overview of the dynamic response, damage assessment, and mitigation
strategies for tunnels under explosion loads. It highlights the critical role of road tunnels in transportation
networks and the potential risks they face from terrorist attacks, accidental explosions, and construction
activities. The review covers various explosion scenarios, blast wave characteristics, tunnel response
analysis methods, damage assessment criteria, and mitigation measures. Key findings include the need
for improved prediction methods, studies on tunnel response in different media, exploration of damage
modes, assessment methods, and development of cost-effective mitigation measures. Goel and Matsagar
[3] discussed different strategies for blast mitigation and the mechanics of sacrificial blast walls using
different materials. Books by Smith and Hetherington [12], Bangash and Bangash [13], Cormie et al. [1],
and Dusenberry [14] provide detailed information on the analysis and design of buildings subjected to
blast conditions. This paper summarizes the most important analysis and design information provided in
these references and others with a MATLAB code to predict blast loads based on the method described
by the DoD [4].
(https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/70105matlab_code_blast_load_dod_2008).

3. Prediction of Blast Loading

This section provides the necessary background and references to calculate external blast loading.
Although there is uncertainty in predicting the size, type, and location of the explosive, calculation of
blast loads is essential in the design of blast-resistant structures.

3.1 Blast Phenomena

The explosion generates hot gas that can be at a pressure of 10000-30000 MPa (1450-4351 ksi) and a
temperature of 3000-4000℃ [12]. If a blast happens in the air, the high-temperature gas that is produced

17
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

by an explosive charge expands spherically to take up the available space. In other words, the violent
expansion forces the surrounding air out of its occupied space. Simultaneously, the air around the
explosion expands and its molecules pile up. What is known as a blast wave occurs next, and it carries a
large amount of energy. As the wavefront moves away from the source of the explosion, its pressure
decreases at an exponential rate until it falls to the normal atmospheric pressure; this is called the positive
phase. After that, it decreases to less than the atmosphere pressure (negative phase) and finally back to
the ambient value (see Fig. 1). Thus, the blast pressure is a time history loading. In Fig. 1, 𝑃𝑠𝑜 is the
−
peak overpressure or the incident pressure, 𝑃𝑜 is the ambient pressure, 𝑃𝑠𝑜 is the minimum negative
pressure, 𝑃𝑟 is the reflected pressure, 𝑃𝑟− is the minimum negative reflected pressure, 𝑡𝑎 is the arrival
time, 𝑡𝑜 is the positive phase duration, 𝑡𝑜− is the negative phase duration, 𝑖𝑠 is the positive reflected
impulse, and 𝑖𝑠− is the negative incident impulse. When the blast wave travels parallel to a surface and is
unimpeded by any object, free-field (side-on or incident) pressure is applied to the surface (see Fig. 1 (a)).
When a surface is struck by a blast wave perpendicularly or at an angle, reflected pressure is applied to
the surface.
Friedlander’s exponential equation is usually used to describe the pressure-time history of a blast
wave [1]:
𝑡
𝑃𝑠 (t) = 𝑃𝑠𝑜 (1 − ) 𝑒 −𝑏𝑡/𝑡0 (1)
𝑡𝑜
where 𝑏 is the decay coefficient of the waveform (calculated through a nonlinear fitting of an

Fig. 1. Idealized pressure-time profile for the blast wave: (a) free-field pressure,
(b) reflected pressure (modified from [4])
experimental pressure time curve over its positive phase).
There are three techniques to calculate blast loads [1]:

18
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

First principle methods: These are the most accurate methods that involve solving partial differential
equations based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The CFD models determine a numerical
solution to fluid (air) flow equations. These equations are based on the principles of conservation of mass,
momentum, and energy. The reader is referred to the work of Cormie et al. [1] and Zienkiewicz et al. [15]
for more details on this topic. There are many computer codes available for modeling the detonation of
explosives, such as LS-DYNA [14], ABAQUS [17], and Air3d [18]. The blast loads calculated with CFD
are used to compute the structural response. However, when the structure is expected to move
significantly due to the blast event, the blast wave and the structural response could be coupled to obtain
more accurate results [8].
Semi-empirical or phenomenological methods: These are simplified methods that represent the essential
physical phenomena of the explosion.
Empirical methods: These are based on an analysis of the experimental data [3]. Scaling Law is the most
common empirical method used in the analysis and design of blast-resistant structures. Blast parameters
such as incident and reflected pressures are functions of the scaled distance (𝑍). Report UFC 3-340-02
developed by the DoD [4] provides guidelines to predict blast loads using the empirical method. ConWep
[19] and ATBlast are examples of computer programs that are widely used to determine blast wave
parameters. They are an implementation of the method described by the DoD [4]. This method is widely
used in analysis and design of strctures subjected to blast loading. The selection of an analysis method
depends on the project requirements and the type of components to be designed [7]. Blast load decreases
rapidly with distance. Therefore, based on the distance from the source of the blast and the angle of the
incident, blast loads and their durations can change considerably over the surface of the structure. The
common approach is to divide the surface into a grid and then calculate blast loads and their durations at
the center of each section of the grid.

3.2 Scaling Law

The distance of the structure from the detonation point is an important parameter in calculating the
blast loads. The Hopkinson-Cranz scaling approach (cube-root scaling) is the most widely used approach
for blast wave analysis for spherical explosions. The scaling distance is defined as follows:
𝑅
𝑍= 3 (2)
√𝑊
where 𝑍 is the scaled distance, 𝑅 is the distance from the detonation source to the point of interest
expressed in meter (m), and 𝑊 is the charge mass expressed in kilograms (kg) of TNT.
There are many types of explosives. TNT was chosen to be the blast parameter, so an equivalent TNT
weight needs to be computed in order to use Eq. (2). Equation (3) below is used to find the equivalent
weight of TNT, and Table 1 shows the conversion factors for some explosives [4].
𝑑
𝐻𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑊𝑒 = 𝑊𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑑 (3)
𝐻𝑇𝑁𝑇
𝑑
where 𝑊𝑒 is the equivalent TNT weight, 𝑊𝑒𝑥𝑝 is the weight of the explosive, 𝐻𝑒𝑥𝑝 is the heat of
𝑑
detonation of the explosive, and 𝐻𝑇𝑁𝑇 is the heat of detonation of the TNT.
Identifying explosive size is an important part of the threat assessment process. Table 2 shows the
estimated ranges of explosives. Bangash and Bangash [13] categorize explosives as small, medium, large,
and very large (Table 3).
Table 1. Heat of detonation for some explosives [4].
Explosive name Heat of detonation, m-kg/kg (ft-lb/lb)
TNT 0.600 E+06 (1.97 E+06)
Composition B 0.655 E+06 (2.15 E+06)
Composition C4 0.677 E+06 (2.22 E+06)
RDX 0.692 E+06 (2.27 E+06)

19
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

HMX 0.692 E+06 (2.27 E+06)

Table 2. Estimated Quantities of Explosive [20]

Type Charge weight
Luggage 4.54-45.36 kg (10-100 lb) TNT
Automobile 45.36-204.12 kg (100-450 lb) TNT
Van 204.12-1814.37 kg (450-4,000 lb) TNT
Truck 1814.37-45359.24 kg (4,000-100,000 lb) TNT

Table 3. Size of Explosive [13].

Type Charge weight
Small Up to 5 kg (11 lb) TNT
Medium Up to 20 kg (44 lb) TNT
Large Up to 100 kg (220 lb) TNT
Very large Up to 2500 kg (5512 lb) TNT

3.3 Explosion and Blast-Loading Types

There are three types of explosions, as shown in Fig. 2:
i- Free-air bursts: In this case, the charge is detonated in the air away from any reflecting surface. The
blast waves can be characterized by a spherical wave that moves outward from the source and impinges
directly onto the structure.
ii- Air bursts: The explosive charge is detonated in the air. The blast waves propagate spherically outward
from and impinge on the structure after having interacted first with the ground. What is called Mach
reflection might occur because of the interaction of the blast wave and the reflected wave.
iii- Surface bursts: The explosive charge is detonated near the ground surface. The blast waves
immediately interact locally with the ground and then propagate hemispherically outwards, impinging on
the structure.

Fig. 2. Types of explosions: (a) free-air burst, (b) air burst, (c) surface burst (modified from [21].

3.4 Blast Wave Reflection

The blast waves will reflect when they impact an object made of a medium denser than that carrying
the wave. In this case, the pressure acting on the structure is not the same as the incident peak pressure
(𝑃𝑠𝑜 ). In fact, the reflected pressure could be several times greater than the incident pressure, as shown in
Fig. 1 [1].
In the discussion above, the angle of the incident (𝛼) is taken as zero. When 𝛼 = 90𝑜 , the blast wave
travels parallel to the surface. That is, there is no reflection, and the structure is loaded with side-on
20
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

pressure that is equal to the incident overpressure. If 𝛼 is between 0𝑜 and 90𝑜 , either regular or Mach
𝑃
reflection happens. The effect of the angle of the incident on the reflection coefficient (𝐶𝑟𝛼 = 𝑃 𝑟 ) is
𝑠𝑜
shown in Fig. 3 [21]. The influence of the angle of incident can be ignored for the large pressure, and the
structure can be studied under a normal reflected pressure, which is a conservative approach. In general,
one can use Fig. 3 to determine the reflection coefficient. The mach reflection is a complex process.
When the reflected wave catches up with the incident wave, the so-called Mach stem occurs. This is the
reason for the jump in the angle of the incident-reflected pressure curves shown in Fig. 3. Conventionally,
facades are assumed to be perfectly rigid so that they perfectly reflect the blast wave front. In reality,
however, facades displace when the blast wave impinges on them. This displacement reduces the
effectiveness of the reflected pressure.

Fig. 3. Influence of angle of incident on the reflection pressure (modified from [4]).

3.5 Surface Burst and Loading

When the explosive charge is placed close to the ground, a modification must be made to the charge
weight. The incident wave is reflected immediately from the ground and interacts with the blast wave.
This is called a hemispherical burst. Practically, due to the creation of a crater, some energy absorption
takes place from the ground. Figs. 4 and 5 show the blast wave parameters of a hemispherical wave of
TNT charge for the positive and negative phases, respectively. The wave parameters are presented on the
y-axis while the x-axis represents the scaled distance (𝑍).
In Fig. 4, 𝑊 is the weight of the charge, 𝑃𝑠𝑜 is the incident peak overpressure, 𝑃𝑟 is the reflected
pressure, 𝑖𝑟 is the positive reflected impulse, 𝑖𝑠 is the positive incident impulse, 𝑡𝑎 is the arrival time,
𝑡𝑜 is the positive duration, 𝑈 is the wave speed, and 𝐿𝑤 is the wavelength. They are presented on the y-
axis, while the x-axis represents the scaled distance 𝑍. In Fig. 5, the superscript “−” refers to the
negative phase.
After calculating the scaled distance for a specified distance and charge weight, Figs. 4 and 5 can be
21
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

used to determine the positive and negative parameters to plot the equivalent pressure time history for the
front, roof, and side and rear walls (Fig 6). Numerical examples showing all the steps to find the
equivalent load time history are available in the work of the DoD [4], Gilsanz et al. [7], and Karlos et al.
[21]. A MATLAB code that follows the methods presented by DoD [4] is provided. The code can be used
to plot the triangular shape of the pressure time history (like those shown in Fig. 6). Note that the scaled
distance must be within the range of Figs. 4 and 5. For close-in explosions, this simplified approach is
not allowed. CFD or test data should be used to find the blast loading, and explicit nonlinear dynamic
analysis should be performed to consider breach, diagonal tension, direct shear, and spall failure mode.
Fig. 6 shows the simplification of the pressure-time history profile of the blast wave (Fig. 1). In Fig.
6, 𝑤 is the width of the front wall and the back wall, 𝐻 is the height of all walls, 𝐿 is the le
ngth of the side wall, 𝑃𝑟 is the reflected pressure, 𝑃𝑠𝑜 is the incident peak, 𝐶𝐷 is the drag coeff
icient (𝐶𝐷 is 1 for the front wall), 𝑞𝑜 is the incident dynamic pressure, 𝑖𝑟 is the total reflected
pressure impulse, 𝑡𝑟𝑓 is the duration of the reflected pressure, 𝑡𝑐 is the clearing time, 𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑓 is the
actual positive phase duration, and 𝑡𝑜 is the positive phase duration. In the roof and side wall l
oading figure, 𝐿𝑤 is the wavelength, 𝐶𝐸𝑓 is the equivalent load factor, 𝑃𝑠𝑜𝑓 is the incident press
ure, 𝐶𝐷𝑓 is the drag coefficient at point f, 𝑞𝑜𝑓 is the dynamic pressure, 𝑡𝑓 is the time when the
blast wave reaches the point f, 𝑡𝑑𝑓 is the time when the peak equivalent uniform pressure is rea
ched, 𝑡𝑜𝑓 is the actual positive phase duration, and 𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑓 is the positive phase duration. In the r
ear wall loading figure, the notations are similar to the roof and side wall loading figure, except that
point b is used instead of point f. The superscript “−” refers to the negative phase.

22
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Fig. 4. The positive phase parameters of the hemispherical wave of TNT charges (modified from [4])

23
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Fig. 5. The negative phase parameters of the hemispherical wave of TNT charges [21].

Fig. 6. Triangular assumption of pressure time history on the (a) front wall loading, (b) roof and side wall loading,
(c) rear wall loading (modified from [4]).

24
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

3.6 Negative Phases

Compared with the positive phase, the negative wave has a longer duration and a lower pressure
magnitude, as shown in Fig. 1. It reduces the effect of the peak response, and it is usually ignored in
design because the main structural damage results from the positive phase loads [21]. However, its effect
should be examined for members that have a shorter fundamental period in comparison with negative
load duration [7].

3.7 Internal Pressure

In the previous sections, blast pressure has been discussed with the assumption that there are no
openings in the walls. Structures, however, have windows and doors that may leak pressure into the
building, causing a reduction in the effective new load on the external walls. Internal pressure is
important in evaluating the effects on personnel and the internal damage. The internal pressure effect is
usually ignored when the openings are small [7]. The DoD [4] provides a procedure to evaluate internal
pressure.

4 Material Design Strength

Steel and reinforced concrete are the most commonly used materials in the construction of blast-
resistant structures, but masonry and timber are permitted. For a close and high-impulse blast event,
concrete structures are generally used to provide protection against fragments and to limit deformation
[4][6].
The ductility of members (or general structures) is an essential factor in blast design: the greater the
ductility, the greater the members’ resistance to failure. Low-carbon steel and properly reinforced
concrete are suitable for blast-resistant design because they can deform beyond the elastic limit without
rupturing [5].
The mechanical properties of material under high strain rate loadings such as blast loads are different
from low rate and static loads. Generally, materials become stiffer under high-rate loadings, which leads
to an improvement in their mechanical properties. Also, in blast design, it is allowable to use the expected
actual strength of the material instead of the minimum specified values.

4.1 Material Properties of Steel

The effects of high strain rate on some of the mechanical properties of steel are summarized as
follows:
i- The modulus of elasticity (𝐸𝑠 ) remains the same. The yield strength (𝑓𝑦 ) and ultimate tensile strength
(𝑓𝑢 ) increase the dynamic yield strength (𝑓𝑑𝑦 ) and the dynamic ultimate strength (𝑓𝑑𝑢 ), respectively. Fig.
7 shows the effect of increasing strain rate on steel.
ii- Dynamic increase factors (𝐷𝐼𝐹) are used to modify the static strength due to high-rate dynamic loads.
Table 4 presents the values of 𝐷𝐼𝐹 for different types of steel and different strain rates.
The average yield stress of steel of grades 50 or less is about 10% higher than the stress value specified
by ASTM. Thus, for blast-resistant design, the yield stress is 1.1 times the minimum yield stress. This
factor is called the strength increase factor (𝑆𝐼𝐹) or the average strength factor (𝐴𝑆𝐹). The 𝑆𝐼𝐹 should
not be used with high-strength steels [7].

25
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Fig. 7. The effect of high strain rate on the mechanical properties of steel (modified from[4]).

Table 4. Dynamic Increasing Factor (DIF) for Yield Stress and Ultimate Stress for Structural Steel [4].
Yield DIF
Bending Tension or compression
Ultimate stress
Steel type Low Pressure
High Pressure Low Pressure High Pressure DIF
(ε =
̇ 0.1
(ε ̇=0.3) (ε ̇=0.02) (ε ̇=0.05)
mm/mm/sec)
A36 1.29 1.36 1.19 1.24 1.10
A588 1.19 1.24 1.12 1.26 1.05
A514 1.09 1.12 1.05 1.07 1.00

4.2 Material Properties for Reinforced Concrete

Similar to steel, reinforced concrete shows improvements in its mechanical properties when it is
subjected to blast loadings. The effect of high strain rates on reinforced steel and concrete are shown in
Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Table 5 provides the 𝐷𝐼𝐹 values of reinforced steel and concrete. The 𝑆𝐼𝐹
of reinforced steel is discussed in Section 4.1, and the 𝑆𝐼𝐹 for the compressive strength of concrete is
1.1 [6].

26
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Fig. 8. The effect of high strain rate on the mechanical properties of concrete (modified from [4])

Table 5. Dynamic Increase Factor for Reinforced Concrete Design [4].

Reinforced bars
Type of stress Concrete
Yield stress Ultimate stress
Bending 1.17 1.05 1.19
Diagonal tension 1.00 - 1.00
Compression 1.10 - 1.12

4.3 Plastic Hinge

In designing for blast loading, some members are allowed to have plastic behavior to achieve an
economical design. Therefore, it is important to understand the local performance of members and the
global performance of the structure when one or more plastic hinges start to form. Also, the locations and
modeling of the plastic hinges are important. To allow a plastic hinge to form in a component, lateral
supports must be provided to prevent premature buckling. It is good practice to design columns to remain
elastic to prevent extended structural failure [7]. This is the “strong column, weak beam” approach. That
is, beams are forced to fail before columns.
A plastic hinge is formed at the point of maximum stress. It starts when the outer fiber reaches the
material yield limit. Then, the interior of the section starts to yield gradually as the load increases and the
stress-strain relationship becomes nonlinear. At other locations, the resistance continues to increase as the
load increases. That is, some points respond plastically while others respond elastically, and elastic-
plastic conditions occur [5].
Modeling the nonlinear behavior of sections depends on the material to be used and the internal force
in the section. For example, an ideal elastic-plastic behavior is accepted in the design of a single-degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) system. Fig. 9 shows the idealized resistance-deflection curve, where 𝑅𝑚 is the
ultimate dynamic resistance, 𝑋𝐸 is the deflection at the limit of the elastic range, 𝐾𝑒 is the elastic
stiffness, and 𝑋𝑚 is the maximum allowed deflection corresponding to the ductility ratio (𝑢) or rotation
(𝜃) given in Section 5. In more complex scenarios such as a steel member subjected to tension and
compression, a plastic hinge can be modeled using FEMA 356 [22], as shown in Fig. 10 and Table 6,
where a, b, and c are hinge parameters that are functions of the elongation, 𝑃𝑛 is the tensile strength, 𝐹𝑐𝑟
is the critical buckling load, 𝑇 refers to axial deformation at tensile yield load, and 𝐶 refers to axial
deformation at bucking yield load.
When there are axial force and bending moments in one or two directions, the plastic hinge may be
represented using a P-M-M yield surface [23]. Here, P is the axial force, and M-M refers to the minor and
27
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

major bending moments.

The yield surface defines the strength of the material under biaxial stress. Any elastic-plastic material
has a yield surface. When the stress point is on the yield surface, the material has yielded, and its
behavior is elastic-plastic. But when the stress point is inside the yield surface, the material is elastic.
Stress points outside the yield surface are not allowed. Software such SAP2000 [24] implements what is
called Parametric P-M2-M3 based on the P-M-M yield surface method [25].

Fig. 9. Idealized resistance-deflection curve (modified from [1]).

Fig. 10. Tension-compression hinge properties (modified from [22] and [7]).

Table 6. Tension-Compression Hinge Parameters [22][7].

Loading a b c
Tension 11T 14T 0.8P n
Compression 0.5C 4.1C 0.3Fcr

28
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

5 Strength Reduction Factors and Load Combination

Because of the nature of the blast load and to achieve economical design, plastic deformations are
allowed in the design of structures subjected to blast loads. Also, it is permissible to use the nominal
strength without a strength reduction factor (i.e., 𝜙 = 1) for all modes of failure [6]. Blast loads are not
combined with loads that are not expected to be present when the blast happens. That is, wind,
earthquake, part or all the live loads are not combined with blast loads; the basic load combination for all
construction materials is as follows [5]:
1.0 𝐷𝐿 + 1.0 𝐿𝐿 + 1.0 𝐵𝐿 (4)
where DL is the dead load, LL is the live load, and BL is the blast load. In the absence of other governing
criteria, [7] allow the following load combination:
1.0 𝐷𝐿 + 0.25 𝐿𝐿 + 1.0 𝐵𝐿 (5)
6 Blast Load and Structure Interaction (Structural Response)
For an isolated building, as the blast wave propagates, its front engulfs the structure. Therefore, all
faces of the structure are subjected to positive and negative pressure at different times and for different
durations. The structure resists the kinetic energy of moving components by converting it to strain energy
in the resisting elements [14]. Due to high strain rates, nonlinear inelastic material behavior, time-
dependent deformation, and uncertainties of blast load and location, the structural dynamic response is
complex [26]. Depending on the predicted structural failure mechanism, designers can select the best
analytical method to compute the structural response. Pressure-impulse (P-I) charts, single element
response analysis, and detailed finite element analyses are the most common approaches to computing
structural response [6]. Designers must select an appropriate analytical approach based on expected
failure mechanisms.

6.1- Pressure-Impulse Charts

Pressure-impulse or iso-damage curves are based on analytical or experimental data where the peak
pressure and impulse represent the explosive loading on the P-I curve to check the performance condition
of a target member. This simple method can be used to design secondary elements but not primary
elements, and it is limited to flexural modes in response to blast loads [6]. Fig. 11 shows a typical P-I
diagram for an elastic SDOF component, where 𝐹 is the impulse force, 𝐾 is the member stiffness, 𝑀
is the total mass of the member, I is the impulse (I=peak blast load×duration of idealized triangular blast
load/2), 𝑢 is the displacement, and 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum dynamic response.
Once the maximum response is specified (damage criterion), Fig. 9 can be used to find the impulse and
the load that causes failure or to check whether the section to be designed is damaged. That is, when the
combinations of impulse and pressure fall to the right and above, the curve will result in failure; when the
2𝐹
combinations fall to the left and below, the curve will not induce failure. Note that axes 𝑢 𝐾 and
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐼
𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 √𝑀𝐾
represent pressure and impulse, respectively, and they have no physical units. Smith and
Hetherington [12] discussed this approach with numerical examples.

29
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Fig. 11. Pressure-impulse diagram for the elastic SDOF component (modified from [12]).

6.2 The Single-Element Analysis Method

This method involves analyzing and designing individual members subjected to blast loading. This is
either an SDOF or multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system with elastic or inelastic dynamic analysis.
The SDOF approach is the most common, and its accuracy depends on selecting a model that ade
quately represents the failure mechanism. In this approach, the member’s mass is concentrated at one
point and is allowed to move along a single axis by assuming one response mode. The linear equation of
motion for SDOF is:
𝑀𝑢̈ (𝑡) + 𝐶𝑢̇ + 𝐾𝑢(𝑡) = 𝑓(𝑡) (6)
where 𝑀 is the total mass of the member, 𝐶 is viscous damping, 𝐾 is the member stiffness, 𝑢 is
displacement, 𝑢̇ is velocity, and 𝑢̈ is the acceleration at time 𝑡. Equation (6) can be solved by
numerical integration using structural analysis software programs such as ABAQUS [15], ANSYS [25],
LS-DYNA [16], and SAP2000 [25-26]. This model can be simplified further by considering an elastic
undamped SDOF system subjected to a triangular pulse load (just the equivalent positive phase). Thus,
Eq. (6) becomes [1]:
𝑡
𝑀𝑢̈ (𝑡) + 𝐾𝑢(𝑡) = 𝐹(1 − ) (7)
𝑡𝑑
where 𝐹 is peak force and 𝑡𝑑 is positive phase duration. To solve Eqs. (6) and (7), the time increment
should not be greater than 1/20 of the natural period of the member or 1/20 of the pulse duration 𝑡𝑑 to
provide numerical stability [7]. The reader is referred to UFC 3-340-02 [4] and the works of ASCE [5]
and Gilsanz et al. [7] for more details.
In Eq. (6), the damping effects are commonly ignored because the blast load duration is short and energy
dissipates through inelastic deformation [5]. However, it is allowable to include the damping effect when
the response is nearly elastic [6].

30
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

The MDOF approach, described in the next section, is more accurate than the SDOF approach because
all potential modes of failure can be represented, especially when nonlinear finite element analysis is
carried out with geometric nonlinearity.

6.3 Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Finite Element System

The single-element modeling discussed above does not represent the actual boundary conditions, nor
does it consider the interaction between elements and the phasing of their response or the dissipation of
the energy of the whole structure [6]. On the other hand, MDOF modeling of structural systems does not
ignore these important parameters. Moreover, the distribution of the mass and stiffness can be modeled
throughout the structure instead of for only one member. In this approach, the linear or nonlinear time-
history analysis methods can be used to determine the entire structural response. The complexity of the
model depends on the type of element used in finite element analysis, where the spring element is the
simplest and the solid element is the most complex.
Discrete System: In this type of structural modeling, a beam element can be used. Depending on the
symmetry of the structure and the loading, and the model can be two- or three-dimensional. The relative
flexibility and strength of the connected elements are considered. Moreover, this structural system
analysis considers the phasing of the responses between structural elements [6]. Structural analysis
outputs that include nodal and element displacements and plastic hinge(s) rotations (when material
nonlinearity is considered) can be used directly to check the design criteria.
Implicit or Explicit Linear or Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis: This approach is necessary for complex
structures and to obtain more accurate results. Linear or nonlinear plate/shell elements and solid elements
can be used. Implicit, explicit, or mixed-hybrid modeling can be carried out [13]. The implicit method
involves a numerical solver to invert the stiffness matrix to directly find the displacement vector. Thus,
the implicit scheme is not a function of time. This method is unconditionally stable, but it is
computationally expensive when the structure is large. Implicit methods are used in software such as
ABAQUS and ANSYS. An explicit scheme is a function of time since it involves solving for velocity and
acceleration as well as the inverse of the mass matrix (diagonal matrix), but the inverse of the stiffness
matrix is not needed. This approach is conditionally stable. That is, small time steps should be used to
obtain accurate results. The explicit method is a good choice for large models and blast load problems
because the propagation of the blast load through the structure requires small time steps [16]. The explicit
method is used in software such as LS-DYNA and ABAQUS.
For both approaches, the interaction between the primary structural system and the nonstructural
components can be considered to avoid any possible local failure. ASCE [6] recommends not directly
connecting vertical load-carrying elements to exterior envelope components unless they are designed to
have greater strength than the exterior envelope components they are to be connected to. Also, one-way
walls without backing elements can be designed to transfer loads directly into floor diaphragms.

6.4 Equivalent Static Method

In this method, the blast load is transferred to its equivalent static load, and then the structural static
analysis is carried out. This method does not represent the actual response because dynamic parameters
such as stain rate, mass, plastic deformation, and time-varying load are ignored. However, when the blast
source is far from the structure, the blast loading can be represented as an “equivalent wind” [5].
Another way to transfer the blast load to its equivalent static load is by using the Equivalent Static Loads
Method (ESLM) [28-31]. This method is based on the displacement field obtained using dynamic
analysis of the structure. In other words, several comparable static load sets are created from the dynamic
load. The linear static response optimization procedure then takes into account the equivalent static loads
(ESLs) as numerous loading circumstances.
7 Criteria for Responses (Response Limits)
In static design philosophy (the working stress, ultimate load, and limit state methods), the level of

31
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

stress in components and deflection are typically the criteria to define failure. In blast design (similar to
seismic design), it is expected that some of the components will experience a substantial nonlinear
response because designing them to remain elastic is usually uneconomical. However, when a structure is
required to be reused following a blast, it must be designed to remain elastic [5]. That is, in designing
blast-resistant structures, the maximum dynamic deflection and rotation are the criteria to prevent
component failure. The performance of the entire structure is defined by life safety, functionality, and
reusability [14]. Moreover, designers must check that the failure of key members will not cause any
progressive collapse by providing sufficient redundancy (alternate load paths). The level of protection
(LOP) (see Table 7) for the structure or component, the type of component, and the material to be used
define the design criteria [5]. For example, the response limit of individual elements is less than the
allowable response of individual frame elements because frames have higher redundancy. Also, for
structural components (such as beams and columns), the response limits are less than nonstructural
components (such as purlins).
There are several sources for response limits, including UFC 3-340-02 [4], Design of Blast-Resistant
Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities [5], FEMA 356 [22], and the New York City Building Code [32].
Although all these sources define the criteria based on deformation, the limiting values are different, so
the designer may need to review these limits. This review, however, is limited to a portion of what is
provided in Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities [5]. Before defining the
response limit values, three important terminologies are defined:
1. Ductility ratio (𝜇): This is the ratio between the total displacement, 𝑋𝑚 , and the elastic displacement,
𝑋𝐸 , as follows:
𝜇 = 𝑋𝑚 ⁄ 𝑋𝐸 (8)
where displacement is the elongation of components subjected to axial load or the deflection of
components subjected to bending, as shown in Fig. 12 [6]. Ductility is a measure of how much a
component can carry beyond the elastic range before it drops the load.
2. Rotation (𝜃): This is the tangent angle at the support caused by the maximum deflection. Figs. 10 and
11 show the rotation of a single element and a frame, respectively. Note that plastic hinges can happen
not just at the mid-span of a member but also at other locations. This criterion indicates the degree of
stability in a component.
3. Side-sway deflection or lateral drift (𝛿): This is the movement of a vertical member relative to its
bottom (Fig. 13). Side-sway limits allow framed structures to minimize the P-delta effects on columns
and the chance of progressive collapse [5]. Side-sway deflection limit can be defined as follows:
𝛿 ≤ 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 (9)
where the response limit is story height 𝐻 divided by some factor.
Similar to the modeling and analysis methods discussed in Section 2, there are two types of criteria: one
for elements that are modeled and analyzed as SODF, and one for MDOF systems such as framed
structures [4].

Fig. 12. Member (beam, slab, or panel) support rotations (modified from [4]).

32
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Fig. 13. Frame support rotations and side-sway deflection (modified from [4]).

Table 7. Damage and Response Level [5].

Damage Response
Description Description
level level
Localized component damage. The
Component has none to slight visible
Low structure can be utilized, but it needs Low
permanent damage.
repairing. Total cost of repairs is moderate.
Component has some permanent deflection.
Widespread component damage. Building
It is generally repairable, if necessary,
Medium should not be occupied until repaired. Medium
although replacement may be more
Total cost of repairs is significant.
economical and aesthetic.
Component has some permanent
Component has not failed, but it has
deflection. It is generally repairable, if
High High significant permanent deflections causing it
necessary, although replacement may be
to be unrepairable.
more economical and aesthetic.

7.1 Design Criteria for Individual Elements

Most of the design criteria are provided for individual components. Table 8 shows the response
criteria for some steel components for different levels of response.
In Table 8, component response refers to the level of damage. Low response means there is no or only
slight visible damage. Medium response refers to some permanent damage to the component that can be
repaired. A component with high response has not failed, but it has experienced permanent damage that
cannot be repaired.

33
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

Table 8. Response Limits for Different Components* [5].

Component response
Component Low Medium High
μ θ μ θ μ θ
Steel Primary Frame Members
1.5 1 2 1.5 3 2
(with significant compression)**
Steel Primary Frame Members
1.5 1 3 2 6 4
(without significant compression)
R/C Beams, Slabs, & Wall Panels (no shear reinforcement) - 1 - 2 - 5
* Response limits are for components responding primarily in flexure
** Significant compression is when the axial compressive load is more than 20% of the dynamic axial capacity of
the member.

7.2 Design Criteria for a Structural System

The ductility ratio criteria concept for individual members is intractable in the design of frame
structures because of the wide range and time-varying nature of the end conditions of components [4].
That is, in addition to the support rotation criteria, the side-sway limits should be checked for framed
structures. Table 9 presents side-sway deflection limits for different levels of response for steel-frame
structures.
Table 9. Side-Sway Limits for Steel Frame Structures (ASCE, 2010)
Response Low Response Medium Response High Response
𝛿 𝐻/50 𝐻/35 𝐻/25
8 Progressive Collapse
ASCE [5] defines progressive collapse as the “chain-reaction failure of a building’s structural system
or elements as a result of, and to an extent disproportionate to, initial localized damage, such as that
caused by an explosion.”
As a result of a blast loading, structural components may fail, and their loads may be distributed to
neighboring members. If the surrounding members cannot tolerate this extra load, failure can propagate
vertically or horizontally. The entire structural system should be evaluated when a blast is expected to
cause local failure or plastic hinges of structural components. In blast-resistant design, local damage is
expected, but the whole structural system should be stable.
To prevent progressive collapse, the primary members or key elements must be strengthened, and/or
the global structural redundancy should be increased so that only local failures are permitted.
The DoD [33] requires that buildings of three or more stories must comply with progressive collapse
standards. The reader is referred to work by the DoD [33] and Marchand and Alfawakhiri [34] for further
details.
9 Concluding Remarks
In this review paper, an overview of topics related to the design of blast-resistant structures is
provided. Three methods to predict blast loading are discussed, and the modeling of structural response
and material behavior under blast loading is reviewed. Design philosophies and criteria are explained,
and basic concepts related to the blast-resistant design field are summarized. References on each topic are
provided for further details.
In the area of blast design of structures, there are few practical design examples available in the literature.
Therefore, as future research, formulations need to be developed for an efficient design of structures
subjected to blast loading.
Author Contributions: The authors contributed to all parts of the current study.
Funding: This study received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest
34
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

References
[1] Cormie, D., Mays, G., and Smith, P. (2009). Blast effects on buildings, Thomas Telford Ltd., London.
[2] Longinow, A., and Alfawakhiri, F. (2003). “Blast resistant design with structural steel.” Modern Steel
Construction, 43(10), 61-66.
[3] Goel, M. D., and Matsagar, V. A. (2014). “Blast-resistant design of structures.” Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, 19(2). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000188.
[4] U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2008). Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions,
with change 2 (Report No. UFC 3-340-02). Retrieved from http://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-
facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-3-340-02.
[5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Task Committee on Blast-Resistant Design. (2010).
Design of blast-resistant buildings in petrochemical facilities (2nd ed), American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
[6] Pape, R., Mniszewski, K. R., Longinow, A., and Kenner, M. (2010). “Explosion phenomena and
effects of explosions on structures. III: Methods of analysis (explosion damage to structures) and
example cases.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 15(2), 153-169.
[7] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2011). Blast protection of buildings: Standard
ASCE/SEI 59-11, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
[8] Draganić, H., Sigmund, V. (2012). Blast Loading on Structures. Tech. vjesn., Croatia.
[9] Gilsanz, R., Hamburger, R., Barker, D., Smith, J., and Rahimian, A. (2013). Design guide 26: Design
of blast resistant structures, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
[10] Jamakhandi, U., & Vanakudre, S. B. (2015). Design and analysis of blast load on structures.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2(7), 745-747.
[11] Cheng, R., Chen, W., Hao, H., & Li, J. (2021). A state-of-the-art review of road tunnel subjected to
blast loads. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 112, 103911.
[12] Smith, P. D., and Hetherington J. G. (1994). Blast and ballistic loading of structures, Butterworth-
Heinemann Ltd., Oxford.
[13] Bangash, T., and Bangash, M. (2006). Explosion-resistant buildings: Design, analysis, and case
studies, Springer Berlin Heielberg New York.
[14] Dusenberry, D. O. (2010). Handbook for blast-resistant design of buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, NJ.
[15] Zienkiewicz O.C., Taylor R. L., and Nithiarasu, P. (2006). The finite element method for fluid
dynamics (6th Ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
[16] LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual, Volume 1 (version 971). (2007), Livermore Software
Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA.

35
Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

[17] ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.14 User’s Manual. (2014). Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.,
Providence, RI, USA.
[18] Rose, T.A. (2001). An approach to the evaluation of blast loads on finite and semi-infinite structures,
PhD thesis, Engineering Systems Department, Cranfield University, Royal Military College of Science,
Shrivenham, UK.
[19] Hyde, D. (1992). ConWep - Application of TM 5-855-1. Fundamentals of protective design for
conventional weapons. Structural Mechanics Division, Structures Laboratory, USACE Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
[20] United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2003). Reference manual to
mitigate potential terrorist attacks against buildings (FEMA 426). Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
[21] Karlos, V., Solomos, G., and Viaccoz, B. (2013). Calculation of blast loads for application to
structural components, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg.
[22] American Society of Civil Engineers and United States Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356), American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
[23] El-Tawil, S., and Deierlein, G. (2001). “Nonlinear analysis of mixed steel-concrete frames. I:
element formulation.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(6).
[24] Computer and Structures Inc. (CSI). (2017). Analysis Reference Manual.
[25] Computer and Structures Inc. (CSI). (2016). Technical Note: Parametric P-M2-M3 Hinge Model.
[26] Ngo, T., Mendis, P., Gupta, A., and Ramsay, J. (2007). “Blast loading and blast effects on structures–
an overview.” Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 7(S1), 76-91.
[27] Ansys, Inc., Version 15.0 User’s Manual. (2013). Canonsburg, PA, USA.
[28] Park, G. J., & Kang, B. S. (2003). Validation of a structural optimization algorithm transforming
dynamic loads into equivalent static loads. Journal of optimization theory and applications, 118, 191-200.
[29] Park, G. J. (2011). Technical overview of the equivalent static loads method for non-linear static
response structural optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 43, 319-337.
[30] Al-Bazoon, M., & Arora, J. S. (2022). Discrete variable optimization of structures subjected to
dynamic loads using equivalent static loads and metaheuristic algorithms. Optimization and Engineering,
1-44.
[31] Al-Bazoon, M., & Arora, J. S. (2023). Optimization of framed structures subjected to blast loading
using equivalent static loads method. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1-14.
[32] NYCBC (New York City Building Code) (2008). Building Code of the City of New York, New York,

36
 Misan Journal of Engineering Sciences ISSN: 2957-4250
Vol. 3, No. 1, July 2024 ISSN-E: 2957-4242

NY.
[33] U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2016). Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, with
change 3 (Report No. UFC 4-023-03). Retrieved from https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-
criteria-ufc/ufc-4-023-03
[34] Marchand, K. A., and Alfawakhiri, F. (2005). Facts for steel buildings number 2 - Blast and
progressive collapse, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

37

View publication stats