computation

Article
Modified Equation of Shock Wave Parameters
DooJin Jeon ID
, KiTae Kim ID
and SangEul Han * ID

Department of Architectural Engineering, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Korea;

jdoooj@gmail.com (D.J.); 22171634@inha.edu (K.K.)
* Correspondence: hsang@inha.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-032-860-7592

Received: 11 August 2017; Accepted: 16 September 2017; Published: 18 September 2017

Abstract: Among the various blast load equations, the Kingery-Bulmash equation is applicable to
both a free-air burst and a surface burst that enables calculations of the parameters of a pressure-time
history curve. On the other hand, this equation is quite complicated. This paper proposes a modified
equation that may replace the conventional Kingery-Bulmash equation. The proposed modified
equation, which was constructed by performing curve-fitting of this equation, requires a brief
calculation process with a simpler equation compared to the original equation. The modified equation
is also applicable to both types of bursts and has the same calculable scaled distance range as the
conventional equation. The calculation results obtained using the modified equation were similar to
the results obtained from the original equation with a less than 1% difference.

Keywords: blast load; shock wave parameter; Kingery-Bulmash equation; modified equation

1. Introduction
Owing to the increasing damage to structures and human life due to blasts, such as terrorist attacks
and gas explosion accidents, social concerns regarding abnormal loads, such as impacts and bursts,
is increasing. Accordingly, many studies have assessed the effects of abnormal loads worldwide [1–3].
In addition, the need for blast resistance design is increasing due to recent international terrorist attacks
and their threat.
The blast load can be estimated using a blast load equation and numerical analysis. The former
method employs an equation established based on the experimental data of various bursts [4].
The method using a blast load equation allows the easy and rapid calculation of a blast load, but it
is applicable only to cases where a blast wave strikes an object directly. The latter method is used to
analyze the behavior of a fluid after a burst and estimates the resulting pressure [5]. This method is
applicable to various cases using a range of numerical analysis models, but requires a long time for the
load calculation. The most extensively used numerical analysis method employs a blast load equation;
these equations are used for explosion-proof design of structures and exterior materials [6–8].
Many studies have been conducted to establish blast load equations in the past. Because blast
loading is challenging to deal with by a theoretical approach, empirical formulae based on experimental
data have been suggested [9–14]. The Kingery-Bulmash equation, which is the most widely used
equation, has been applied to UFC 3-340-02 [15], a manual published by the U.S. Department of
Defense, and Conwep [16], a blast load estimation software developed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. On the other hand, the Kingery-Bulmash equation includes complicated calculation
processes, which makes a direct calculation of a blast load difficult. Swisdak proposed a simplified
Kingery-Bulmash equation [17], but the application of the equation was limited to a surface burst.
This paper briefly introduces the characteristics of blast loading and various equations for a blast load
estimation, and proposes a modified equation.

Computation 2017, 5, 41; doi:10.3390/computation5030041 www.mdpi.com/journal/computation

Computation 2017, 5, 41 2 of 14
Computation 2017, 5, 41 2 of 14

2.
2. Characteristics
Characteristics of of Blast
Blast Load
Load
Bursts canbebeclassified
Bursts can classified as free-air
as free-air bursts,
bursts, and surface
and surface bursts according
bursts according to theofposition
to the position of
detonation.
detonation. A free-air burst refers to a burst in the air at a position far away from the ground
A free-air burst refers to a burst in the air at a position far away from the ground surface, as shown surface,
as
in shown
Figure in
1a.Figure
In the1a. In the
case of acase of a free-air
free-air burst, theburst, thewave
shock shockgenerated
wave generated
from thefrom the center
center of theof the
burst
burst position
position is propagated
is propagated spherically
spherically and strikes
and strikes a structure
a structure directlydirectly
withoutwithout amplification
amplification in the
in the process
process of propagation. A surface burst refers to a burst that occurs on the ground
of propagation. A surface burst refers to a burst that occurs on the ground surface, as shown in surface, as shown
in Figure
Figure 1b.1b. In this
In this case,
case, the shock
the shock wavewave is amplified
is amplified from
from the the position
burst burst position by reflection
by reflection on the
on the ground
ground surface [15].
surface [15].
A shock wave generated by a burst applies air pressure to a structure, and the load by the
A shock wave generated by a burst applies air pressure to a structure, and the load by the pressure
pressure may be represented by a pressure-time history curve, as shown in Figure 2.
may be represented by a pressure-time history curve, as shown in Figure 2.

(a)

(b)
Figure 1. Classification of burst according to the position of detonation [15]: (a) Free-air burst; (b)
Figure 1. Classification of burst according to the position of detonation [15]: (a) Free-air burst;
Surface burst.
(b) Surface burst.
Computation 2017, 5, 41 3 of 14
Computation 2017, 5, 41 3 of 14

Figure 2. Pressure-time
Figure 2. Pressure-time curve
curve of
of aa blast
blast load
load [15].
[15].

The maximum pressure is found found instantaneously

instantaneously at the moment when the shock shock wave
wave reaches
reaches
then the
an object, and then the pressure
pressure is
is decreased
decreased rapidly
rapidly (positive
(positive pressure
pressure phase).
phase). A negative
negative pressure
that is lower
lower than
than atmospheric
atmospheric pressure
pressure is
is generated
generated andand then
then converges
converges gradually
gradually to
to atmospheric
atmospheric
pressure (negative
pressure (negative pressure
pressurephase).
phase). On
On the
the other
other hand, only the positive pressure phase is considered
compared to the
in most burst analyses because the effect of the negative pressure phase is negligible compared
positive pressure phase.
positive pressure phase.
As shown
As shown in Figure
Figure 2, a pressure-time history curve
pressure-time history curve ofof a blast load may be represented by several
parameters. The following parameters
parameters. parameters were
were used
used to
to estimate
estimate the
the blast
blast load:
load:

Ps :: Maximum
Maximum incident
incident blast
blast overpressure;
overpressure;
: Maximum reflected blast overpressure;
Pr : Maximum reflected blast overpressure;
: Impulse by the incident blast overpressure;
Is : Impulse by the incident blast overpressure;
: Impulse by the reflected blast overpressure;
Ir : Impulse by the reflected blast overpressure;
: Arrival time of the shock wave;
Ta : Arrival time of the shock wave;
: Duration of the positive pressure phase;
To:: Velocity
Durationofofthe
theshock
positive
wavepressure phase;
at arrival.
U: Velocity of the shock wave at arrival.
The UFC 3-340-02 provides diagrams of these parameters depending on the scaled distance for
The UFC
a free-air burst3-340-02 provides
and a surface diagrams
burst (Figureof
3)these
[15]. parameters depending on the scaled distance for a
free-air burst and a surface burst (Figure 3) [15].
Computation 2017, 5, 41 4 of 14
Computation 2017, 5, 41 4 of 14

(a)

(b)
Figure 3. Positive phase shock wave parameters [15]: (a) Free-air burst; (b) Surface burst.
Figure 3. Positive phase shock wave parameters [15]: (a) Free-air burst; (b) Surface burst.
Computation 2017, 5, 41 5 of 14

3. Equations of a Blast Load

Various equations for estimating the blast loads have been suggested. These equations, which have
various forms, are empirical equations built on experimental data, because the blast loads are difficult
to deal with through a theoretical approach, such as the Sadovsky equation, the Brode equation,
the Kingery-Bulmash equation, etc. [9–14]. Most equations commonly employ a scaled distance as a
parameter, which is calculated using Equation (1):

Z = R/W 1/3 (1)

where, Z: Scaled distance; R: Distance to the burst position; W: TNT weight.

Kingery and Bulmash provided equations for calculating all the parameters together for a
free-air burst or a surface burst in addition to the maximum incident blast overpressure, as shown in
Equations (2a) and (2b) [14]:
U = K0 + K1 × log Z (2a)
2 +···+C N)
Y = 10(C0 +C1 ×U +C2 ×U N ×U (2b)

where, Y: Shock wave parameters (Ps , Pr , Is /W 1/3 , Ir /W 1/3 , Ta /W 1/3 , To /W 1/3 , U); K: Constants.
The Kingery-Bulmash equation enables calculations of the free-air burst parameters in a scaled
distance range of 0.05 to 40 m/kg1/3 (0.132 to 100 ft/lb1/3 ) and the surface burst parameters in a scaled
distance range of 0.06 to 40 m/kg1/3 (0.167 to 100 ft/lb1/3 ). The constants, K and C, are dependent
on the type of burst, the range of scaled distance, and the parameters to be calculated. The number
of the constant K is 2, while that of the constant C ranges from 4 to 15. For example, Table 1 lists the
constants K and C used to calculate the maximum incident overpressure in a free-air burst.

Table 1. Constants for the Incident Peak Overpressure (Kingery-Bulmash Equation for a
Free-Air Burst) [14,18].

Incident Peak Overpressure, Ps (Unit: kPa(psi))

Z K0 K1 K2
−0.214362789151 1.35034249993
(−0.756579301809) (1.35034249993)
C0 C1 C2
2.661368669 −1.69012801396 0.00804973591951
0.05~40
(1.77284970457) (−1.69012801396) (0.00804973591951)
(0.132~100)
(Unit: m/kg1/3 C3 C4 C5
(ft/lb1/3 )) 0.336743114941 −0.00516226351334 −0.0809228619888
(0.336743114941) (−0.00516226351334) (−0.0809228619888)
C6 C7 C8
−0.00478507266747 0.00793030472242 0.0007684469735
(−0.00478507266747) (0.00793030472242) (0.0007684469735)

In addition, the simplified Kingery equation for an air-blast calculation suggested by Swisdak
(hereinafter called Swisdak equation) is expressed in Equation (3) [17]:
2
+···+G×(ln Z )6 )
Y = e(A+B×ln Z+C×(ln Z) (3)

This Swisdak equation, which built on the Kingery-Bulmash equation, includes two to seven
constants. The error rate of the equation compared to the conventional equation is less than 1%,
indicating that the Swisdak equation is considerably accurate. On the other hand, this equation is
applicable only to a surface burst, and the range of scaled distances that can be calculated using this
Computation 2017, 5, 41 6 of 14

equation does not incorporate the range of conventional equations. For example, Table 2 lists the
constants used to calculate the maximum incident overpressure.

Table 2. Constants for the Incident Peak Overpressure (Swisdak Equation) [17].

Incident Peak Overpressure, Ps (Unit: kPa(psi))

Z A B C D E F G
0.2~2.9 7.2106 −2.1069 −0.3229 0.1117 0.0685
0 (0) 0 (0)
(0.5~7.25) (6.9137) (−1.4398) (−0.2815) (−0.1416) (0.0685)
2.9~23.8 7.5938 −3.0523 0.40977 0.0261 −0.01267
0 (0) 0 (0)
(7.25~60) (8.8035) (−3.7001) (0.2709) (0.0733) (−0.0127)
23.8~198.5 6.0536 −1.4066
0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
(60~500) (5.4233) (−1.4066)

4. Modified Equation of the Blast Load

As described above, the Kingery-Bulmash equation is applicable to both a free-air burst and a
surface burst and enables calculations of all the parameters of the pressure-time history curve of a blast
load. In addition, this equation is the most widely used as it has been applied to UFC 3-340-02, a manual
published by the U.S. Department of Defense, and Conwep, blast load estimation software developed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (commercial software programs used frequently for explosion
analysis, including Abaqus [19], Autodyn [20], and LS-Dyna [21], are equipped with the Conwep
model for a blast load estimation). On the other hand, the equation has a long calculation process
including three stages. In addition, it is complicated and requires many constants for calculations.
Therefore, the present article proposes a modified equation based on the Kingery-Bulmash equation.
The following conditions were established for the modified equation:

1. The modified equation should be based on the Kingery-Bulmash equation.

2. The modified equation should incorporate the entire range of scaled distances provided in the
conventional equation. (The range of scaled distances is 0.05 to 40 m/kg1/3 for a free-air burst
and 0.06 to 40 m/kg1/3 for a surface burst).
3. The calculation of the variable, U, included in the conventional equation should be omitted.
4. The basic form of the function should be an exponential function, and the exponent should be
expressed as a polynomial using the common logarithm of scaled distance (log Z) as a variable.
5. The number of constants used for the modified equation should be less than or equal to five,
and the constants should have five significant figures.
6. The error rate with the conventional equation should be less than or equal to 1% over the entire
range of scaled distance.

According to the conditions described above, the calculation process of the modified equation
was established as follows:
Step 1. Calculate the scaled distance, Z
Step 2. Calculate the parameters
2
+C3 ×(log Z )3 +C4 ×(log Z )4 )
Y = 10(C0 +C1 ×log Z+C2 ×(log Z) (4)

The curve fitting algorithm based on the values of the original equation was used to determine the
constant, C, of the modified equation. The curve fitting algorithm was used by Levenberg-Marquardt,
and it enables relatively stable and rapid convergence to the solution [22,23]. This method, which is
a representative method of solving a nonlinear least square problem, combines the Gauss-Newton
method and the gradient descent method. Tables 3 and 4 present the constant, C, determined by curve
fitting for a free-air burst and a surface burst, respectively.
Computation 2017, 5, 41 7 of 14

Table 3. Constant of the Modified Equation for Free-Air Burst.

Units
Z Ps , Pr Is /W1/3 , Ir /W1/3 Ta /W1/3 , To /W1/3 U
1/3 1/3
m/kg MPa MPa·ms/kg ms/kg1/3 m/ms
(ft/lb1/3 ) (psi) (psi·ms/lb1/3 ) (ms/lb1/3 ) (ft/ms)
Peak Incident Overpressure, Ps
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.05~0.67 −6.6628 × 10−2 −2.5691 −1.4213 −5.0355 × 10−1 −9.4865 × 10−2
(0.132~1.69) (2.9274) (−1.6466) (−9.0652 × 10−1 ) (−3.5118 × 10−1 ) (−9.4865 × 10−2 )
0.67~10 −2.8310 × 10−2 −2.2324 −4.3379 × 10−1 1.1615 −4.2023 × 10−1
(1.69~25.21) (2.8735) (−1.2134) (−2.2395) (1.8364) (−4.2023 × 10−1 )
10~40 −1.0569 × 10−1 −4.1582 × 10−1 −6.1361 × 10−1 1.2882
(25.21~100) (1.1642) (1.3928 × 10−1 ) (−7.6880 × 10−1 ) (1.2882)
Peak Reflected Overpressure, Pr
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.05~1.05 6.9758 × 10−1 −2.9928 −1.3840 −2.5645 × 10−1
(0.132~2.64) (3.8543) (−2.0054) (−1.0750) (−2.5645 × 10−1 )
1.05~10 6.9699 × 10−1 −2.8246 −1.1613 2.8654 −1.2088
(2.64~25.21) (3.5885) (−1.9300 × 10−1 ) (−5.7824) (4.8069) (−1.2088)
10~40 −2.4954 × 10−1 −1.3806
(25.21~100) (2.4663) (−1.3806)
Incident Impulse, Is /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.05~0.79 −5.8967 × 10−1 1.2467 7.2584 × 10−1 −2.1542 −1.1542
(0.132~1.99) (1.1833) (−7.9338 × 10−2 ) (2.2043) (−3.0039 × 10−1 ) (−1.1542)
0.79~3.99 −7.5978 × 10−1 −7.4416 × 10−1 −1.4680 3.8777 −3.1385
(1.99~10.07) (1.0167) (3.1232) (−9.1754) (8.9187) (−3.1385)
3.99~40 −7.7508 × 10−1 −8.4083 × 10−1 −5.8847 × 10−2
(10.07~100) (1.6001) (−7.9357 × 10−1 ) (−5.8847 × 10−2 )
Reflected Impulse, Ir /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.05~40 −2.5256 × 10−1 −1.3067 2.2166 × 10−1 −6.3474 × 10−2
(0.132~100) (2.3590) (−1.5154) (2.9812 × 10−1 ) (−6.3474 × 10−2 )
Arrival Time, Ta /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.05~0.71 −2.4704 × 10−1 2.1318 9.9500 × 10−1 6.1033 × 10−1 1.8836 × 10−1
(0.132~1.79) (−1.0917) (1.5792) (4.4200 × 10−1 ) (3.0779 × 10−1 ) (1.8836 × 10−1 )
0.71~10 −2.7471 × 10−1 1.8687 1.9437 × 10−1 −6.7341 × 10−1 2.4074 × 10−1
(1.79~25.21) (−1.0583) (1.3245) (1.2385) (−1.0601) (2.4074 × 10−1 )
10~40 6.9208 × 10−2 1.3812 −9.3519 × 10−2
(25.21~100) (−6.1494 × 10−1 ) (1.4563) (−9.3519 × 10−2 )
Positive Phase Duration, To /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.14~0.75 6.6547 × 10−1 6.0191 8.2785 3.5900
(0.37~1.89) (−7.6352 × 10−1 ) (1.1073) (3.9538) (3.5900)
0.75~1.15 2.5418 × 10−1 2.4840 × 10−1 −5.3442 55.310
(1.89~2.9) (−4.4026) (31.294) (−71.972) (55.310)
1.15~2.93 2.3966 × 10−1 8.4271 × 10−1 −11.795 45.212 −47.224
(2.9~7.4) (−6.2696) (44.413) (−111.94) (121.06) (−47.224)
2.93~40 8.4367 × 10−2 1.0610 −9.2091 × 10−1 5.0765 × 10−1 −1.0921 × 10−1
(7.4~100) (−6.4031 × 10−1 ) (2.0744) (−1.6381) (6.8306 × 10−1 ) (−1.0921 × 10−1 )
Shock Velocity, U
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.05~1.16 5.2658 × 10−3 −1.0266 −2.3754 × 10−1 1.4415 × 10−1 7.3166 × 10−2
(0.132~2.94) (8.8776 × 10−1 ) (−7.8511 × 10−1 ) (−3.4040 × 10−1 ) (2.6631 × 10−2 ) (7.3166 × 10−2 )
1.16~10 1.1060 × 10−2 −1.0765 5.0854 × 10−1 4.8259 × 10−1 −3.7621 × 10−1
(2.94~25.21) (1.0003) (−1.1540) (−4.3675 × 10−1 ) (1.0868) (−3.7621 × 10−1 )
10~40 −4.2546 × 10−1 −2.5850 × 10−2
(25.21~100) (1.0090 × 10−1 ) (−2.5850 × 10−2 )
Computation 2017, 5, 41 8 of 14

Table 4. Constant of Modified Equation for a Surface Burst.

Peak Incident Overpressure, Ps

Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.06~1.13 1.3295 × 10−1 −2.1712 −1.3878 −1.0401 −3.7148 × 10−1
(0.167~2.84) (3.0002) (−1.4636) (−4.9427 × 10−1 ) (−4.4345 × 10−1 ) (−3.7148 × 10−1 )
1.13~10 1.3067 × 10−1 −2.0672 −1.1750 2.1159 −8.3460 × 10−1
(2.84~25.21) (2.7741) (1.1608 × 10−1 ) (−4.5313) (3.4564) (−8.3460 × 10−1 )
10~40 7.8363 × 10−1 −4.5738 2.6834 −7.2311 × 10−1
(25.21~100) (5.2611) (−7.0786) (3.5545) (−7.2311 × 10−1 )
Peak Reflected Overpressure, Pr
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.06~0.42 1.3953 3.0058 × 10−1 4.8121 4.7833 1.5439
(0.167~1.05) (3.9425) (−1.6500) (5.4353 × 10−1 ) (2.3036) (1.5439)
0.42~3.45 9.0962 × 10−1 −2.6898 −1.2237 8.5625 × 10−1 1.4957
(1.05~8.70) (3.9373) (−1.6802) (−8.0819 × 10−1 ) (−1.5461) (1.4957)
3.45~40 1.2511 −4.7950 2.7741 −7.3282 × 10−1
(8.70~100) (5.8327) (−7.3773) (3.6569) (−7.3282 × 10−1 )
Incident Impulse, Is /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.06~0.95 −6.0247 × 10−1 1.1143 1.3760 −1.5534 −1.0651
(0.167~2.40) (1.2919) (−4.6629 × 10−1 ) (2.2169) (1.5728 × 10−1 ) (−1.0651)
0.95~5.97 −6.3226 × 10−1 −4.1419 × 10−1 −2.2475 3.8761 −2.2190
(2.40~15.04) (9.1008 × 10−1 ) (3.8403) (−9.0634) (7.4402) (−2.2190)
5.97~40 −6.0392 × 10−1 −8.4947 × 10−1 −5.5334 × 10−2
(15.04~100) (1.7753) (−8.0503 × 10−1 ) (−5.5334 × 10−2 )
Reflected Impulse, Ir /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.06~40 −5.3169 × 10−2 −1.3466 2.3258 × 10−1 −5.9534 × 10−2
(0.167~100) (2.5759) (−1.5622) (3.0429 × 10−1 ) (−5.9534 × 10−2 )
Arrival Time, Ta /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.06~1.46 −3.3217 × 10−1 1.8061 4.3653 × 10−1 2.6277 × 10−1 1.5906 × 10−1
(0.167~3.68) (−1.1143) (1.5414) (2.7387 × 10−1 ) (7.2986 × 10−3 ) (1.5906 × 10−1 )
1.46~10 −3.5217 × 10−1 1.9914 −1.3049 × 10−1 −1.7628 × 10−1
(3.68~25.21) (−1.2759) (2.0109) (8.1866 × 10−2 ) (−1.7628 × 10−1 )
10~40 −7.4315 × 10−2 1.5680 −1.5812 × 10−1
(25.21~100) (−8.4388 × 10−1 ) (1.6950) (−1.5812 × 10−1 )
Positive Phase Duration, To /W1/3
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.17~0.69 4.3227 × 10−1 6.1103 12.418 11.021 3.8670
(0.45~1.73) (−7.4649 × 10−1 ) (4.6710 × 10−1 ) (2.8829) (4.8098) (3.8670)
0.69~1.00 2.4242 × 10−1 3.6673 2.6397
(1.73~2.52) (−9.1900 × 10−1 ) (1.5475) (2.6397)
1.00~2.88 2.4255 × 10−1 2.1849 −14.917 35.106 −23.852
(2.52~7.25) (−6.0473) (37.322) (−80.281) (73.416) (−23.852)
2.88~10 −3.2552 × 10−1 2.7174 −2.7949 1.0846
(7.25~25.21) (−2.0520) (5.4865) (−4.1014) (1.0846)
10~40 2.7214 × 10−1 4.8449 × 10−1 −7.6501 × 10−2
(25.21~100) (−4.9182 × 10−2 ) (5.4593 × 10−1 ) (−7.6501 × 10−2 )
Shock Velocity, U
Z C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.06~1.28 7.9911 × 10−2 −9.7917 × 10−1 −5.3612 × 10−1 −3.9288 × 10−1 −1.4662 × 10−1
(0.167~3.23) (9.2426 × 10−1 ) (−7.0069 × 10−1 ) (−2.0469 × 10−1 ) (−1.5738 × 10−1 ) (−1.4662 × 10−1 )
1.28~10 8.9984 × 10−2 −1.1228 3.1104 × 10−1 7.3402 × 10−1 −4.5634 × 10−1
(3.23~25.21) (1.0476) (−8.9939 × 10−1 ) (−1.0146) (1.4670) (−4.5634 × 10−1 )
10~40 −4.1168 × 10−1 −3.4073 × 10−2
(25.21~100) (1.1798 × 10−1 ) (−3.4073 × 10−2 )
Computation 2017, 5, 41 9 of 14

To compare the modified equation proposed in the present article and the conventional Kingery-
Bulmash equation, the error between the two equations was calculated at 500 points with respect to
the entire 2017,
Computation range of scaled distances (Tables 5 and 6). The results showed that the maximum error
5, 41 rate
9 of 14
is less than or equal to 1% and the mean error rate is less than or equal to 0.3%, indicating that the
modified equation proposed in the present article is consistent with the conventional equation
To compare the modified equation proposed in the present article and the conventional
(Figure 4).
Kingery-Bulmash equation, the error between the two equations was calculated at 500 points with
respect to the entire range
Tableof5.scaled
Error ofdistances
Modified(Tables
Equation5 for
andFree-Air
6). TheBurst
results showed
(Unit: %). that the maximum
error rate is less than or equal to 1% and the mean error rate is less than or equal to 0.3%, indicating that
the modified equation proposed in the present / / article /is consistent
/
/with/ the conventional
/ / equation
0.05
(Figure 4). 1.0000 −0.6233 −0.0173 0.0094 −0.9737 - 0.7402
0.0507 0.8495 −0.3839 −0.0171 0.0094 −0.8162 - 0.6219
0.0514 0.7015
Table 5.−0.1752 −0.0170
Error of Modified Equation 0.0093 −0.6707
for Free-Air Burst (Unit: %). - 0.5143
︙ ︙ ︙ ︙ ︙ ︙ ︙ ︙
Z Ps Pr Is /W1/3 Ir /W1/3 Ta /W1/3 T /W1/3 U
38.9426 −0.5361 −0.4636 0.3466 −0.0100 0.3874 o −0.1778 −0.4767
0.05 1.0000 −0.6233 −0.0173 0.0094 −0.9737 - 0.7402
39.4678 0.0507 −0.70380.8495 −0.5553
−0.3839 0.4245
−0.0171 −0.0100
0.0094 0.4875 - −0.2451
−0.8162 0.6219 −0.5038
40 0.0514 −0.1752
−0.88950.7015 −0.6500 −0.0170
0.5116 0.0093
−0.0101 −0.6707
0.5976 - −0.3224 0.5143 −0.5274
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Max . 1.0000 . 0.7570 . 0.7789. 0.0094
. . 0.7212 . 0.8797 . 0.7402
38.9426 −0.5361 −0.4636 0.3466 −0.0100 0.3874 −0.1778 −0.4767
Min −0.8895 −0.9505 −0.5554 −0.0101 −0.9737 −0.9885 −0.8507
39.4678 −0.7038 −0.5553 0.4245 −0.0100 0.4875 −0.2451 −0.5038
Average 40 0.2010−0.8895 0.2890 −0.6500 0.0817
0.5116 0.0050
−0.0101 0.59760.1454−0.3224 0.2257
−0.5274 0.1750
Max 1.0000 0.7570 0.7789 0.0094 0.7212 0.8797 0.7402
Min −0.8895 −0.9505 −0.5554 −0.0101 −0.9737 −0.9885 −0.8507
Table 6. Error of Modified Equation for Surface Burst (Unit: %).
Average 0.2010 0.2890 0.0817 0.0050 0.1454 0.2257 0.1750
/ / / / / / / /

0.06 −0.92708 0.0770 −0.0113 −0.0041 0.3295

Table 6. Error of Modified Equation for Surface Burst (Unit: %). - −0.0534
0.0608 −0.7746 −0.0300 −0.0110 −0.0041 0.2186 - −0.0583
0.0616 Z −0.6314 Ps Pr
−0.1094 Is /W1/3
−0.0108 1/3
−0.0041
Ir /W Ta /W1/3
0.1214To /W1/3 - U −0.0653
︙ 0.0608 ︙ −0.7746 ︙ ︙ ︙ 0.2186 ︙ ︙−0.0583 ︙
0.06 −0.92708 0.0770 −0.0113 −0.0041 0.3295 - −0.0534
−0.0300 −0.0110 −0.0041 -
38.9710 0.0616 −0.6314
−0.4031 −0.1094
−0.2315 − 0.0108
0.3666 −0.0041
0.0088 0.12140.0459 - −0.0653
−0.3395 −0.4721
.. . .. .. .. .. .. .
39.4822 . −0.5827 .. −0.3792 . 0.3885
. 0.0089
. . 0.0522 . −0.4155.. −0.5101
−0.4031 −0.2315
40 38.9710−0.7908 −0.5575 0.3666
0.4079 0.0088
0.0089 0.0459
0.0578−0.3395 −0.4982
−0.4721
−0.5540
39.4822 −0.5827 −0.3792 0.3885 0.0089 0.0522 −0.4155 −0.5101
Max 40 0.4894 −0.7908 0.9687
−0.5575 0.9954
0.4079 0.0089
0.0089 0.05780.8658−0.4982 0.9571
−0.5540 0.4769
Min Max−0.99040.4894 −0.5806
0.9687 −0.8132
0.9954 −0.0041 0.8658
0.0089 −0.60570.9571 −0.9520
0.4769 −0.8051
Min −0.9904 −0.5806 −0.8132 −0.0041 −0.6057 −0.9520 −0.8051
Average 0.1737 0.2279 0.1208 0.0033 0.1867 0.1872 0.1985
Average 0.1737 0.2279 0.1208 0.0033 0.1867 0.1872 0.1985

(a)

Figure 4. Cont.
Computation 2017, 5, 41 10 of 14
Computation 2017, 5, 41 10 of 14
Computation 2017, 5, 41 10 of 14

(b)
(b)
Figure 4.
Figure
Figure 4. Error
4. Error of modified
Error of
of modified equation
modified equation (box
(box plot):
plot): (a)
(a) Free-air
(a) Free-air burst;
Free-air burst; (b)
(b) Surface
Surface burst.
burst.

5. Verification
5. Verification of
of the
the Modified
Modified Equation
Equation
Verification of the Modified Equation
In order
In order to
to verify the
the modified equation,
equation, two types
types of simple
simple plate
plate models
models with
with properties
properties as
as
order to verify
verify themodified
modified equation,two two typesofof simple plate models with properties
shown
shown in Table
in in
Table 7 were
7 were set up, and the residual displacements were compared by applying the
as shown Table 7 weresetsetup,
up,and
andthe
theresidual
residualdisplacements
displacementswere
were compared
compared by
by applying
applying the
Kingery-Bulmash equation and the modified
Kingery-Bulmash equation and the modified equation. equation.

Table 7. Properties of Plate Models.

Table
Table 7. Properties of Plate Models.
Burst
Burst Plate Model
Plate Model Size Young’s Modulus,
Modulus, Yield Stress,
Stress,
Burst Plate ModelSize
Size Young’s
Young’s Modulus, E Yield
Yield Stress, F y
Free-air
Free-air 10 m ×
10 m × 10 m
10 m ×× mm
mm
Free-air 10 m × 10 m × t mm 200,000 MPa
200,000 MPa 400 MPa
400 MPa
Surface
Surface
Surface 10 m
10 m ××5 m
10 m× 5 m ×× tmm
5 m× mm
mm
200, 000 MPa 400 MPa

The location
The location ofof the
the explosion
explosion isis shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 5;
5; both
both the
the free-air
free-air burst
burst and
and the
the surface
surface burst
burst
The
are locatedlocation
located 55 m of
m from the
from the explosion
the surface
surface ofis shown
of the in
the plate. Figure
plate. The 5; both
The thickness the
thickness (( )) offree-air
of the burst
the plate
plate was and
was set the surface
set differently burst
differently for are
for each
each
are
located 5 m from the surface of the plate. The thickness (t) of the plate was set differently for each blast
blast load
blast load case
case to
to compare
compare thethe residual
residual displacements
displacements after
after plastic
plastic deformation.
deformation.
load case to compare the residual displacements after plastic deformation.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 5. Plate
Figure Plate models for
for simulations: (a)
(a) Free-air burst;
burst; (b) Surface
Surface burst.
Figure 5.
5. Plate models
models for simulations:
simulations: (a) Free-air
Free-air burst; (b)
(b) Surface burst.
burst.
Table 88 presents
Table presents the
the conditions
conditions of
of the
the blast
blast load.
load.
Computation 2017, 5, 41 11 of 14

Computation
Table2017, 5, 41
8 presents the conditions of the blast load. 11 of 14

Table
Table 8.
8. Blast
Blast Load
Load Conditions
Conditions for
for Simulations.
Simulations.

Case Distance, TNT Weight, Scaled Distance, Plate Thickness,

Case Distance, R TNT Weight, W Scaled Distance, Z Plate Thickness, t
/
1 10,000 kg 0.2321 m/kg 100 mm
1 10, 000 kg 0.2321 m/kg1/3 100 mm
2 55mm 1000 kg 0.5 m/kg / 20 mm
2 1000 kg 0.5 m/kg1/3 20 mm
/
3 3 100 kg
100 kg 1.0772
1.0772 m/kg
m/kg 1/3 4 mm4 mm

The simulations were conducted by LS-Dyna, which is a typical commercial software used for
The simulations were conducted by LS-Dyna, which is a typical commercial software used for
blast analysis (Figure 6). After the analysis, the residual displacements were measured at a point
blast analysis (Figure 6). After the analysis, the residual displacements were measured at a point every
every 1 m from the center of the model for free-air burst simulations, and from a height of 0.5 m above
1 m from the center of the model for free-air burst simulations, and from a height of 0.5 m above the
the bottom of the plate for surface burst simulations.
bottom of the plate for surface burst simulations.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Residual
Residualdisplacement
displacementof
of plates
plates (case
(case 1):
1): (a)
(a)Free-air
Free-air burst;
burst; (b)
(b) Surface
Surface burst.
burst.

Tables 9 and 10 show the simulation results by two equations. They show that the results of the
Tables 9 and 10 show the simulation results by two equations. They show that the results of the
modified equation are very similar to those of the Kingery-Bulmash equation.
modified equation are very similar to those of the Kingery-Bulmash equation.
Computation 2017, 5, 41 12 of 14

Table 9. Results of Free-Air Burst Simulations.

Residual Displacement at the Points (mm)

Case Equation
Center 1m 2m 3m 4m
Kingery-Bulmash 1146.2 1115.9 938.51 675.26 363.08
1 Modified 1144.2 1115.9 940.19 677.3 364.58
(Error, %) (−0.1745) (0.0000) (0.1790) (0.3021) (0.4131)
Kingery-Bulmash 892.7 861.37 724.72 518.21 263.94
2 Modified 872.18 854.01 722.17 515.63 267.59
(Error, %) (−2.2986) (−0.8545) (−0.3519) (−0.4979) (1.3829)
Kingery-Bulmash 747.02 726.7 495.26 295.32 211.81
3 Modified 748.09 724.43 491.51 294.19 215.09
(Error, %) (0.1432) (−0.3124) (−0.7572) (−0.3826) (1.5486)

Table 10. Results of Surface Burst Simulations.

Residual Displacement at the Points (mm)

Case Equation
0.5 m 1.5 m 2.5 m 3.5 m 4.5 m
Kingery-Bulmash 1146.2 1115.9 938.51 675.26 363.08
1 Modified 1144.2 1115.9 940.19 677.3 364.58
(Error, %) (−0.1745) (0.0000) (0.1790) (0.3021) (0.4131)
Kingery-Bulmash 892.7 861.37 724.72 518.21 263.94
2 Modified 872.18 854.01 722.17 515.63 267.59
(Error, %) (−2.2986) (−0.8545) (−0.3519) (−0.4979) (1.3829)
Kingery-Bulmash 747.02 726.7 495.26 295.32 211.81
3 Modified 748.09 724.43 491.51 294.19 215.09
(Error, %) (0.1432) (−0.3124) (−0.7572) (−0.3826) (1.5486)

6. Conclusions
Among the various blast load equations, the Kingery-Bulmash equation is applicable to both a
free-air burst and a surface burst and enables calculations of the parameters of a pressure-time history
curve. In addition, this equation is the most widely used equation and is applied to the UFC 3-340-02
and the Conwep model. On the other hand, the calculation using the Kingery-Bulmash equation is
complicated. To simplify the process, Swisdak proposed a simplified version of the equation but the
Swisdak equation is applicable only to a surface burst. Moreover, the range of scaled distances that
may be calculated by using the Swisdak equation does not incorporate the range of conventional
equation. To solve these problems, the present article proposes a modified equation.
The modified equation proposed in this article is applicable to both types of bursts, as is the case
of the Kingery-Bulmash equation. In addition, the range of scaled distance that may be calculated
using the modified equation is the same as that of the original equation. The modified equation
proposed in the present article has a shorter calculation process because the unnecessary calculation
procedures included in the conventional equation are omitted. Moreover, the number of constants has
been reduced to five or less to make the equation simpler. The error rate of the calculation was less than
1% compared to the results calculated from the conventional Kingery-Bulmash equation. Two types of
plate models were simulated by applying the Kingery-Bulmash equation and the modified equation.
As a result, the modified equation has a very similar effect to the Kingery-Bulmash equation.
On the other hand, the modified equation has two limitations. First, the derivation of the modified
equation does not have sufficient theoretical background; this problem is shared by other empirical
equations built on experimental data. Second, the data used to establish the modified equation are
not experimental data but the values calculated using the conventional Kingery-Bulmash equation.
The use of actual experimental data would be better for establishing an equation, but there is insufficient
Computation 2017, 5, 41 13 of 14

experimental data available. Because the purpose of the present study was not to derive a new equation
but rather to develop an equation for simpler calculations that produce similar results to those of
the Kingery-Bulmash equation, the calculation results obtained using the conventional equation may
be used.
Therefore, the modified equation proposed in this article, which can provide the same calculation
results through a simpler calculation process, may supplement or even replace the Kingery-Bulmash
equation if used for appropriate situations with an understanding of the limitations described above.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a grant (17AUDP-B100343-03) from Architecture & Urban
Development Research Program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government.
Author Contributions: This paper were done by D.J. under the supervision of S.H.; D.J. and S.H. established the
equation; D.J. performed the simulations; K.K. analyzed the data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Astarlioglu, S.; Krauthammer, T.; Morency, D.; Tran, T.P. Behavior of reinforced concrete columns under
combined effects of axial and blast-induced transverse loads. Eng. Struct. 2013, 55, 26–34. [CrossRef]
2. Lee, K.; Kim, T.; Kim, J. Local response of W-shaped steel columns under blast loading. Struct. Eng. Mech.
2009, 31, 25–38. [CrossRef]
3. Wu, C.; Oehlers, D.J.; Rebentrost, M.; Leach, J.; Whittaker, A.S. Blast testing of ultra-high performance fibre
and FRP-retrofitted concrete slabs. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 2060–2069. [CrossRef]
4. Nyström, U.; Gylltoft, K. Numerical studies of the combined effects of blast and fragment loading. Int. J.
Impact Eng. 2009, 36, 995–1005. [CrossRef]
5. Carriere, M.; Heffernan, P.J.; Wight, R.G.; Braimah, A. Behaviour of steel reinforced polymer (SRP)
strengthened RC members under blast load. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2009, 36, 1356–1365. [CrossRef]
6. Larcher, M.; Arrigoni, M.; Bedon, C.; Van Doormaal, J.C.A.M.; Haberacker, C.; Hüsken, G.; Millon, O.;
Saarenheimo, A.; Solomos, G.; Thamie, L.; et al. Design of blast-loaded glazing windows and facades:
A review of essential requirements towards standardization. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2016, 2016, 2604232. [CrossRef]
7. Jayasooriya, R.; Thambiratnam, D.P.; Perera, N.J. Blast response and safety evaluation of a composite column
for use as key element in structural systems. Eng. Struct. 2014, 61, 31–43. [CrossRef]
8. Yuen, S.C.K.; Langdon, G.S.; Nurick, G.N.; Pickering, E.G.; Balden, V.H. Response of V-shape plates to
localised blast load: Experiments and numerical simulation. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2012, 46, 97–109. [CrossRef]
9. Sadovskii, M.A. The Mechanical Effect of Blast Waves in Air with Respect to Data from Experimental Studies;
Physics Explosions, Collection No. 1; Nauk SSSR: Moscow, Russia, 1952; pp. 20–111.
10. Brode, H.L. Numerical solutions of spherical blast waves. J. Appl. Phys. 1955, 26, 766–775. [CrossRef]
11. Gilbert, F.K.; Kenneth, J.G. Explosive Shocks in Air, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
12. Newmark, N.M.; Hansen, R.J. Design of blast resistant structures. In Shock and Vibration Handbook;
McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1961; Volume 3.
13. Mills, C.A. The design of concrete structure to resist explosions and weapon effects. In Proceedings of the
1st International Conference on Concrete for Hazard Protections, Edinburgh, UK, 27–30 September 1987;
pp. 61–73.
14. Kingery, C.N.; Bulmash, G. Air Blast Parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface Burst;
Ballistic Research Laboratories: Aberdeen, MD, USA, 1984.
15. United States Department of Defense (U.S DoD). Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions;
Report to Army Armament Research and Development Command; United States Department of Defense:
Arlington County, VA, USA, 2008; Volume 4.
16. Hyde, D.W. Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons; CONWEP (Conventional Weapons
Effects), TM 5-855, 1; United States Department of the Army: Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
17. Swisdak, M.M., Jr. Simplified Kingery Airblast Calculations; NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER INDIAN
HEAD DIV MD: Indian Head, MD, USA, 1994.
Computation 2017, 5, 41 14 of 14

18. International Ammunition Technical Guideline. Formulae for Ammunition Management 01.80.
Available online: https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/convarms/
Ammunition/IATG/docs/IATG01.80.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2017).
19. ABAQUS. Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual; Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation: Providence, RI, USA, 2011.
20. AUTODYN. Theory Manual Revision 4.3; Century Dynamics: Concord, CA, USA, 2005.
21. LS-DYNA. Keyword User’s Manual; Livermore Software Technology Corporation: Troy, MI, USA, 2007.
22. Levenberg, K. A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares. Q. Appl. Math. 1944,
2, 164–168. [CrossRef]
23. Marquardt, D.W. An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math.
1963, 11, 431–441. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).