Abstract
In this paper, a new method is developed to find the ductility ratio in blast walls, resulted by hydrocarbon explosions. In this method, only the explosion energy and distance from the centre of explosion are required to find the damage by using simple predictive models in terms of empirical‐type formulas. The explosion model herein is a TNO multiphysic method. This provides the maximum overpressure and pulse duration in terms of the explosion length and distance from explosion centre. Thereafter, the obtained results are combined with the SDOF model of the blast wall to determine the ductility ratio and the damage. By using advanced optimisation techniques, two types of predictive models are found. In the first model, the formula is found in terms of 2 parameters of explosion length and distance from explosion centre. However, the 2nd model has 3 parameters of explosion length, distance, and also the natural period of the blast wall. These predictive models are then used to find explosion damages and ductility ratio. The results are compared with FEM analysis and pressure‐impulse (P‐I) method. It is shown that both types of models fit well with the outputs of the simulation. Moreover, results of both models are close to FEM analysis. The comparison tables provided in this paper show that, in the asymptotic region of P‐I diagrams, results are not accurate. Therefore, this new method is superior to classical pressure‐impulse (P‐I) diagrams in the literature. Advantage of the new method is the easy damage assessment by using simple empirical‐type formulas. Therefore, the researchers can use the method in this paper, for damage assessment in other types of blast resistive structures.
Highlights
Blast walls are sacrificial barriers to protect offshore structures when subjected to hydrocarbon explosions
The dominant approach is a single degree Of freedom (SDOF) method [1,2,3] and leads to some design curves known as Bigg’s chart. ey appeared first in a well-known book [8] but originated from the initial attempt by Newmark [9]. is SDOF method enables the famous pressure-impulse (P-I) diagrams which was first introduced in [9] to be constructed [1,2,3]
It is shown that batch finite element simulations [14] cannot lead to P-I diagram unless preliminary information regarding SDOF parameters is available
Summary
Blast walls are sacrificial barriers to protect offshore structures when subjected to hydrocarbon explosions. Ese P-I diagrams strongly depend on pressure versus time expression (pulse shape) of the explosion [10], and together with SDOF modelling, they are used to find the blast response of complex of structures, such as cablesupported facades [11]. Both SDOF-type model [12] and continuous beam model [13] are used for developing P-I diagrams. It is shown that batch finite element simulations [14] cannot lead to P-I diagram unless preliminary information regarding SDOF parameters is available. In the asymptotic region of the P-I diagram, it is shown that, while P-I provides inaccurate results, this method leads to accurate results, when it is compared with FEM simulation of the blast wall. erefore, the approach can be extended to other types of structures in future to replace P-I diagrams (or FEM) for predicting the damage
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
