Wall case studies

Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Riskdriven fragility evaluation of reinforced concrete block walls

subjected to blast hazard

M. Campidelli1 W.W. El-Dakhakhni1 M.J. Tait1 W. Mekky2

1
Institute for MultiHazard Systemic Risk Studies
McMaster University, Hamilton ON, Canada
2
AMEC Foster Wheeler Nuclear, Toronto ON, Canada

16th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference

Padua, June 29, 2016

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 1 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Outline

Steel strength DIFs

1 Wall case studies Rebar position
Test specimens and setup 3 Structural response
Geometry Forcing function
Masonry prism mechanical Crosssectional analysis
properties Loaddeflection analysis
Steel bar mechanical SDOF modeling
properties 4 Wall fragility
2 Random variables Stochastic SDOF model
Masonry compressive Fragility curves
strength DIF 5 Conclusions

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 2 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Objective, scope, and significance

Objective and scope
Fragility of RC block walls (RCBWs) under outofplane blast pressure
Previous work
Reliability of unreinforced brick masonry (UbM) walls with normally and Weibull
distributed brick and mortar mechanical properties and bond strength; outofplane blast
load (Al-Habahbeh & Stewart 2015, 2010)
Reliability of unreinforced clay block masonry (UcBM) walls with lognormal distribution of
joint thickness; concentric load (Mojsilovic & Stewart 2015)
Outofplane flexural strength of UbM walls dependent on unittounit spatial variability
of flexural bond strength (Li et al. 2014)
Effect of model error on reliability index associated with the shear capacity of RCBWs
(Zhai et al. 2012)
Reliability of RC slabs; variability in concrete/steel properties and blast wavefront
parameters (Low & Hao 2002, 2001)
Fragility and reliability of annealed and toughened glass lites (Stewart & Netherton 2008)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 3 / 38
 Table 3 shows the statistics for the sample data grouped in sites
Wall
S1S4,case studies
where S4 is the research laboratory. The total number of
7.3. Reliability of the masonry subjected to concentric compression Random variables
the
measurements, quality of work
n, the sample mean, on
 all sites,
x, sample including
standard the research laboratory
deviation,
Structural response
s, and sample
was coefcient of variation, COV are shown in Table 3.
unsatisfactory and shows rather poor workmanship.
Table
Wall3 also shows the probability distribution parameters for
fragility
Tables 7 and 8 give also the values of the failure probability and (l andArlog-normal
normalConclusions ) and log-normaldistribution could be recommended
(k and f) distributions. These for describing
reliability index for the case where the bed joint thickness was parametersthewereprobability
estimated from distribution
the maximumof both bed
likelihood and head joint thickness.
method.
considered as a deterministic value, namely for the standard (de- The two probability distributions,
Inspecting using parameters
the spatial distributionfrom ofTable
the3, mortar joint thickness

Previous work
sign) thickness of 10 mm and for the range limits of 8 and
12 mm given by the Swiss code [2]. It is clear from Table 8, that
Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of the bed joint thickness for wall W1 at site S1.
have been tted to the sample data. Figs. 6 and 7 show, typically,
within the single wall, anomalies typical for each building site,
histograms and log-normal ts for the bed joint thickness distribu-
such
tion (site S1) andasforthe
headgreater thickness
joint thickness of the bed
distribution joints towards the top of
(site S3),
thinner joints are correlated to higher reliability indices, i.e., lower the wall, as well as a smaller thickness in the lower part of the wall,
respectively.
failure probabilities, see also Fig. 14, which shows the dependencyIn orderwere to determine
observed.the goodness
Sometimesof the ts of log-normal
excessive
790 and
thickness of the head joint to-
Spatial (lognormal) distribution of
of the failure probability on the (deterministic) bed joint thickness
the joint thickness
normal probability distributions to Spatial
the measured(truncated
set of data, the
wards the side ends of the wall was also observed. These anomalies
normal) distribution ofJ. the
Li et al. / Engineering Structures 59 (2014) 787
bond strength
well-known KolmogorovSmirnov test was employed, which tests
(using limit state function g2). It seems that it could be recom- should be taken into account
the hypothesis if the theoretical model is substantiated bywhen designing
7 the test load-bearing ma- 7
mended to reduce the design value or the range limits for mortar sonry
data at some walls. level [25]. For this purpose, both(a)the
signicance COV=0.1 Spatial (a)
cumulative distribution functions (CDF) for the above-mentioned 6 under compression showed Non-spatial 6
joint thickness. However, other limit states should be checked A reliability analysis of the masonry
theoretical distributions and the sample cumulative frequency
(shear and bending) and other, non-structural aspects shouldobtained be that probabilistic
test data were modelling
constructed of forbedthejoint thickness results in higher

Probability density
Probability density
from bed
5 joint 5
also considered (workability of the mortar, maximum sizethickness of reliability
at indices,
site S2. In this compared
case, the signicanceto theof reliability
level 0.05 has index obtained for
aggregate in the mixture, aesthetics aspects, etc.). There is clearly been chosenthe and for the total number
deterministic valueofof measurements
the bed joint of
4 nthickness.
= 582 Further, the level 4
from the tabled values one obtains 0.056 for the critical value. Com-
a balance between safety, construction practices and costs. of the reliability, i.e., safety is different at different sites and the
thinner joints are correlated to higher 3 reliability indices. 3
The spatial correlation of the joint thickness is an area that mer- 2
8. Summary and conclusions 2
its future research.
1 1
Data on the thickness of the mortar joints in clay block masonry
walls were collected from four different sites in Switzerland. Acknowledgment 0
0 0
Considering a coefcient of variation of the joint thickness as a 0 1 2 3 4 5
measure for the quality of work at the site it may be concluded that The assistance of student Ms. Maja Mojsilovic in data acquiring
Mid-height cracking load (kPa)
Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of the head joint thickness for wall W3 at site S1. is gratefully acknowledged.
7 7
(b) COV=0.3 Spatial (b)
of the bed joints towards the top of the wall, as well as a smaller 6
thickness in the lower part of the wall, i.e., in the courses just above
Appendix A. Supplementary data Fig.
6 11. Typical crack pattern [34]. Non-spatial
the oor concrete slab. Sometimes excessive thickness of the head

Probability density
Probability density
5 this article can be found, in 5
joint towards the side ends of the wall was also observed. Supplementary data associated with
Fig. 5 shows that the spatial distribution of the head joint thick-
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.02. 4
ness for wall W3 at site S1 was much less uniform and sometimes 4
excessive thickness towards the side ends of the wall was ob- 005.
Fig. 6. Histogram and log-normal t for bed joint thickness at site S1.
3 3

Table 3 realisations of failure behavioursReferences classied by the crack 2 opening weaker units in the bottom course 2
Site statistics and maximum likelihood estimators for normal and lognormal distributions.
width, ignoring widths below 0.002
Site and joint n Sample statistics mm.
[1] Francis Normal distribution 1
begin to crack, see Fig. 10(b) s1.
AJ, Horman CB, Jerrems LE. The effects of joint thickness and other
Log-normal distribution
factors on the compressive strength of brickwork. In: Proceedings of the

S1 LF
Examining a propped cantilever
536

x (mm)
9.99
s (mm)
2.32
l
in
COV (%)
linear
second
23.25
r
beam
(mm)
international
9.99
brick theory,
(mm)
the bend-
masonry conference.
2.32 0
British Masonry Society, At the pressure load of 2.06
k (mm)
2.27
f (mm)
0.23 0
Stoke-on-Trent; 1981. p. 317.
0 1 2 3 4 5 0
S1
S2
SF
LF ing moment at the xed end (the base
536
582
12.9
9.78
3.73
3.47
28.91
in the
[2] SIA 266:2003.
35.49
12.9
current
Structural
9.78
Architects; 2003.
3.72
case)
masonry.
3.46
Zurich: is greater
Swiss Society of Engineersstrength
2.52
2.23
and in the extreme tensile b
0.27
0.3
Mid-height cracking load (kPa)
S2 SF 582 12.11 3.96 32.69 12.11 3.95 2.45 0.27
S3 LF than the
600 bending 7 moment 2.03 in
Fig. 14. Failure probability-bed joint thickness relationship for limit state function
S3 SF 600 11.22 2.63
the[3]middle
29.01 7 area.
EN 1996-1-1:2005. DesignTherefore,
2.03 when
of masonry structures1.9 a
Part 1-1: common
reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. Brussels: European
23.39 11.22 2.62 2.4
wall,
rules for the strongest
0.31
0.2
joint in the bas
Campidelli et al. RC block wall2005.
fragility under blast 7 7
4 / 38
g . S4 LF 138 8.75 1.68 19.21 8.75 1.67
Committee for 2.14
Standardization; 0.24 Spatial
 Wall case studies
Test specimens (a)
and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

Test specimens PN5

Wing
07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wall

Masonry
PN3 specimen PN4
Bunker
Explosive

(b) (c)

(a)
Reaction frame top beam

PM5
Wing
Displacement
wall Concrete 0.60 sensors
block
wall
PN5
PM4
PM3 0.60 0.60
0.60 Wing
wall
Reaction frame bottom beam

(a) (d) (b) (e)

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 5 / 38
 wall Concrete 0.60 Wall case studies
sensors Test specimens and setup
block Random variables
wall Geometry
Structural response
PM4 Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
PM3 0.60 0.60 Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
0.60
Test specimen H30 (30 kg at 5 m) Reaction frame bottom beam
Explosive

(a) (b)
(a)
Reaction frame top beam
Round bar
PN5

Wing

05/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wall

Masonry
PN3 specimen PN4

Steel
Top channels
clearance
(b)
Residual
deflection

(c) (d) (e) (d)

Campidelli
Test setup (data from Hayman 2014): (a) view of the specimen side facing et al. charge
the explosive RC and
blocksteel
wall wing
fragility under
walls blast
designed to support 6 / 38
 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

Test matrix

Specimen designation Trial No. Charge mass (kg) Height of burst (m)

L6 3 5 0.40
H6 4 5 0.40
L12 7 10 0.40
H12 8 10 0.40
L30 9 25 0.50
H30 10 25 0.50
Pentex D (TNT eq. ' 1.2)

Instrumentation
3 pressure transducers (faceon)
3 displacement sensor at mid and quarterspan

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 7 / 38

 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

Geometry

Third scale: 1000 1000 63 mm

Simply supported, no arching
Fully grouted CMU, 1/2 running bond
TypeL: v = 0.62%
TypeH: v = 1.07% 0.1

Probability density function

Data
Vertical bar position: d = 32 4.4 mm, 0.08 Normal
(pvalue = 6.2%, n=46)
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
20 25 30 35 40
Bar position d (mm)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 8 / 38
 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
the stressstrain relationships of masonry prism and mid and quarterspan of the leeward side
steel reinforcement as well as the position of the re- (Campidelli et al. 2015a, Hayman 2014).
Mechanical properties: Masonry prism
inforcing bars. Direct Monte Carlo sampling The specimens were set in an upright position and
(Melchers 1999) is used to determine fragility subjected to the pressure generated by the detonation
curves under the assumption of a Friedlanderlike of explosive charges positioned in front of the wall
Modified Thorenfeldt
pressureformulation
profile (Baker et al. 1983). center, at a standoff distance of 5.0 m. Each wall
type was tested with 5, 10, and 25 kg charges of
m Pentolite explosive, which features a TNT equiva-
2n DIF0
MASONRY WALL CASE STUDIES lency factor approximately equal to 1.2 (Campidelli
fm = DIFfm0 
m
n et al. 2015a).
m
n 1The
+ data
DIF0used in the current investigation are drawn
m
from the test results of actual specimens subjected to Table 1. Masonry prism mechanical properties.
______________________________________________
the
m blast overpressure generated by live explosives.
n DIF fm
Prism # ____ m
_______ n
____ 2
____ L
____
fm = DIF The material properties and dimensions referred MPa mm/mm
______________________________________________
m n


n 1 +henceforth
DIF are pertinent to two masonry wall types 01 22.92 2.20E-03 2.40 1.13 0.93
having the following characteristics (Hayman 2014): 02 18.86 1.95E-03 2.93 1.13 0.72
1, 0 m Thirdscale
1 construction, in compliance with 03 23.31 2.15E-03 3.00 1.13 0.70
= 1wellestablished similitude requirements, in 04 20.82 1.65E-03 4.12 1.13 0.47
L + m 2 +
terms1 of ,geometry,
m > 1material properties, and load- 08
10
21.98 2.01E-03
21.32 2.40E-03
3.10
2.09
1.13
1.17
0.67
1.15
2 L
ingconditions (Harris & Sabnis 1999). 12 17.72 1.65E-03 4.62 0.80 0.47
Dimensions:
DIF = 1 under static loading 1,0001,00063 mm (width 13 19.29 1.72E-03 3.84 0.90 0.57
_____________________________________________
height depth).
Under dynamic loading: CEB (1990) + uncertainty. . . Mean 20.78 1.97E-03 3.26 1.07 0.71
Simply supported boundary conditions (pinroller Sd. Dev. 02.00 2.78E-04 0.86 0.14 0.23
_____________________________________________
supports) inducing oneway bending and no ver-
tical restraints, in order to prevent arching action. Table 2. blast
D4 reinforcing bar mechanical properties.
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under
______________________________________________ 9 / 38
 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

Prism stressstrain relationship

25.0

Strain-1
20.0
Strain-2
Mod. Thorenfeldt
Stress (MPa)

15.0 Data fitting

Ascending branch: Easy
10.0 Descending branch:
Not so much (poor
n 3.10
data)
5.0

0.0
0.00E+00 2.00E-03 4.00E-03 6.00E-03 8.00E-03 1.00E-02
Strain (mm/mm)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 10 / 38
 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

Stressstrain relationship: 2 asymptotes

2.30
m L 0.22 Test data
2.10
Curve fit
1.90
V-asymptote
1 decreases monotonically as
1.70 H-asymptote
the strain increases
has a lower bound:
-factor

1.50 2

1.30
o 1.13 lim fm = 0
1.10 m
nm
0.90 lim =0
L 0.68 n 1 + n
m m
0.70
1
0.50
>
-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
n
Normalized strain (m /'m )
3 In case of poor data, Banting
Data
  Fitted hyperbola (2013) suggests fm ' 0.2 when
ln n fm n + 1 1 m ' 5
=
m = L +
n ln m m + L
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 11 / 38
 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

Stressstrain relationship: 1 asymptote

100% 100%
Banting (2013)
2 = (m = 2) ' 1

Normalized stress ( fm/f 'm )

Normalized stress ( fm / f 'm )

75% Norm. stress = 75% (1.13 for n = 3.1)

0.100.25
5 = (m = 5)
50% 50%
5


ln n 0.2 n+1
=
25% 25% n ln 5
ln(24n + 1)
=
0% 0% n ln 5
0.00% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% ' 0.87 (n = 3.1)
Strain m (mm/mm) Strain m (mm/mm)

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 12 / 38

 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

Stressstrain relationship: 1 asymptote

Horizontal asymptote
" s  #
1 2
5 2
L = (5 + 2 ) (5 + 2 ) 4 + 5 2 ' 0.68
2 52

What about the vertical asymptote?

1 1 1
= L + 2 = L + L = 2 ' 0.22
m + L 2 + L 2 L

Final formulation
1
(m ) = L +
m 1
0
2+
m 2 L
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 13 / 38
 Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions

DIF of masonry prism in compression

5 10
Malvar & Ross (1998)
Mortar (Hao & Tarasov 2008)
DIF (peak compression)

Brick prism (Wei & Hao 2009)

4 0
Concrete (CEB 1993)
CMU walls (Eamon et al. 2004)

Stress (MPa)
3 -10

2 -20
S-rate = 0.00/s
1 -30 S-rate = 0.01/s
S-rate = 0.10/s
CEB (1990) S-rate = 1.00/s
0 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -40
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -10 -5 0 5
Strain rate (1/s) Strain (mm/mm) x 10
-3

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 14 / 38

xplosives. MPaCarlo mm/mm
sampling (Melchers 1999)Wall
______________________________________________ is used to determine jected to the pressure generated by the detonation of
case studies
onsidered 01 fragility
22.92 curves under
2.20E-03 2.40 the1.13
assumption
0.93 of a Friedland-
Random variables
Test specimens and setup charges positioned in front of the wall cen-
explosive
Geometry
wall types 02 erlike1.95E-03
18.86 pressure profile 1.13 Structural
2.93 (Baker et al.Wall
0.72 response
1983). ter,mechanical
Masonry prism at a standoff
properties distance of 5.0 m. Each wall type
fragility
n 2014): 03 23.31 2.15E-03 3.00 1.13 0.70 Conclusions Steel bar mechanical properties
was tested with 5, 10, and 25 kg charges of Pentolite
nce with 04 20.82 1.65E-03 4.12 1.13 0.47
08 21.98 2.01E-03 3.10 1.13 0.67
explosive, which features a TNT equivalency factor
Mechanical properties: Rebars
, in terms
d loading 10 2 MASONRY
21.32 2.40E-03 WALL 2.09 CASE
1.17 STUDIES
1.15 approximately equal to 1.2 (Campidelli et al. 2015a).
12 17.72 1.65E-03 4.62 0.80 0.47
13 The data
19.29 used in 3.84
1.72E-03 the current
0.90 investigation
0.57 are drawn Table 1. Masonry prism mechanical properties.
______________________________________________
_____________________________________________
h height 600
Mean from the
20.78 test results
1.97E-03 3.26of actual
1.07 specimens
0.71 subjected to Prism700# f n____ ____ ____
____
m _______
m o L
Sd. Dev. 02.00the blast overpressure
2.78E-04 0.86 generated
0.14 0.23by live explosives. Malvar (1998)
_____________________________________________
500 600 MPa mm/mm
______________________________________________
pinroller The material properties and dimensions considered 01 22.92 2.20E-03 2.40 1.13 0.93
d no verti- 400 2. D4 henceforth are pertinentproperties.
to two masonry wall types 02 500 18.86 1.95E-03
Stress (MPa)

Table reinforcing bar mechanical

______________________________________________ 2.93 1.13 0.72

Stress (MPa)
action.
Bar300# fy having______
____ Esthe following
fu
____
characteristics
u
_______
(Hayman 2014): 03 400 23.31 2.15E-03 3.00 1.13 0.70
MUs), as- Thirdscale construction, in compliance with 04 20.82 1.65E-03 4.12 1.13 0.47
ith 3 mm MPa MPa MPa mm/mm
______________________________________________ 08 300 21.98 2.01E-03 3.10 1.13 0.67
200 wellestablished similitude requirements, in terms
Specimen 1
meters de- 1 481.7 202080 514.6 4.01E-02 10 21.32 2.40E-03 2.09S-rate1.17
= 0.00/s1.15
2 100
of geometry, material
473.5 262413 516.8 9.39E-02
properties,
Specimen 2 and loading 12 200 17.72 1.65E-03 4.62S-rate0.80
= 0.01/s0.47
e masonry
473.6conditions
179376 (Harris
519.5 &
3_____________________________________________ Sabnis 31999).
6.13E-02
Specimen 13 100 19.29 1.72E-03 3.84S-rate0.90
_____________________________________________ = 0.10/s0.57
ed in Ta- Dimensions: 1,0001,00063 mm (width height
gth fm, the Mean 0 476.3 214623 517.0 6.51E-02 Mean 20.78 1.97E-03 3.26S-rate1.07
= 1.00/s0.71
St. Dev. 2.00% depth).
0.00%0 004.7 4.00%
042916 6.00% 002.58.00% 10.00% 12.00%
2.71E-02 Sd. Dev.0 0 02.00 0.02 2.78E-040.04 0.86 0.060.14 0.08 0.23
itting fac- _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Simply supported boundary conditions (pinroller
Strain (mm/mm) Strain (mm/mm)
. supports) inducing oneway bending and no verti-
ratio = Table 3. D7 reinforcing D7barBars
mechanical properties.
______________________________________________ Table 2. D4 reinforcing D4barBars
mechanical properties.
______________________________________________
cal restraints, in order to prevent arching action.
deformed Bar # fy Es fu u Bar # f____
y E
______
s f____
u _______
u
Fully
____ grouted
______ ____concrete masonry units (CMUs), as-
_______
. The pa- MPa MPa MPa mm/mm
sembled in halfblock running bond with 3 mm
______________________________________________ MPa MPa MPa
______________________________________________ mm/mm
onship ob- 1 462.8thick mortar536.9
257580 bed/head joints. The parameters de-
6.62E-02 1 481.7 202080 514.6 4.01E-02
ported in 2 502.8fining
215968 553.8 1.01E-01
the stressstrain relationship of the masonry 2 473.5 262413 516.8 9.39E-02
stic mod- 3_____________________________________________
486.3 217634 548.1 1.12E-01 3_____________________________________________
473.6 179376 519.5 6.13E-02
prism in uniaxial compression are reported in Ta-
train u. Mean 484.0ble230394 546.3 the
1including 9.29E-02
compressive strength fm, the Mean 476.3 214623 517.0 6.51E-02
3
ratio = St. Dev. 020.1 023558 008.6 2.38E-02 St. Dev. 0 004.7 042916 002.5 2.71E-02
_____________________________________________
strain at peak stress m, and the three fitting fac-
_____________________________________________
deformed tors n, o, and L used in Eqs. (1) and (2).
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 15 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Random variables

Material Variable Name

Probability distribution

Dummy var.
t locationscale distribution
 
Masonry prism 0 DIF
fm tls -6.25E-01 8.74E-01 4.94E+00 ln
DIFtest 1
DIFmodel 1 +1

"  2 #( +1
2 )
0
fm normal 2.08E+01 2.00E+00 N/A N/A
1 2 x
0m normal 1.97E-03 2.78E-04 N/A N/A
f (x) =

1+
n normal 3.26E+00 8.64E-01 N/A N/A
2
2 normal 1.07E+00 1.36E-01 N/A N/A
L normal 7.09E-01 2.31E-01 N/A N/A
x
Students t distribution with
 
DIFtest 1
Steel bar fy DIF tls 6.40E-02 1.93E-01 1.53E+00 ln
 DIFmodel 1 
fu DIF tls 1.10E-01 5.73E-01 2.04E+00 ln
DIFtest 1 DoFs
DIFmodel 1 
(dh/2)
d normal 3.08E-02 3.60E-01 N/A tan
hc = location parameter
D4 bar fy normal 4.76E+02 4.73E+00 N/A N/A
Es normal 2.15E+05 4.29E+04 N/A N/A = scale parameter
fu normal 5.17E+02 2.45E+00 N/A N/A
u normal 6.51E-02 2.71E-02 N/A N/A = shape parameter
D7 bar fy normal 4.84E+02 2.01E+01 N/A N/A
Es normal 2.30E+05 2.36E+04 N/A N/A Mean =
fu normal 5.46E+02 8.62E+00 N/A N/A

u normal 9.29E-02 2.38E-02 N/A N/A Variance = 2 2

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 16 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Masonry compressive strength DIF

3.50 CEB (1990) - f'c =15 MPa
CEB (1990) - f'c = 75 MPa
Bischoff & Perry (1991)
DIF - compressive strength

Watstein (1953)
3.00 Atchley & Furr (1967)
Cotsovos & Pavlovic (2008)
Sparks & Menzies (1973)

2.50 Hughes & Watson (1978)

Dilger et al (1984)
Malvern et al (1985)
2.00 Ross et al (1989)
Ross et al (1993)

1.50 Ross et al (1995)

Bischoff & Perry (1995)
Gary & Bailly (1998)
1.00 Grote et al (2001)
Hughes and Gregory (1972)
Popp (1977)
0.50
Takeda & Tachikawa (1959, 1962)
1.0E-07 1.0E-05 1.0E-03 1.0E-01 1.0E+01 1.0E+03
Cowel (1966)
Strain rate (1/s) Evans (1942)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 17 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Standardized concrete cylinder test: Inference of fc0

CEB-FIP (1990): DIF = fcd0 /fc0
7.0


1.026

21 MPa

  0
5+9 fc /10MPa
6.0 35 MPa
c


, |c | 30/s
3 105 /s

48 MPa

DIF (CEB 1990)

DIF = 5.0

62 MPa
6.156


2


0  1 4.0
10 5+9 fc /10MPa

c 3
, |c | > 30/s
3 105 /s 3.0

2.0
150 300 mm cylinders, water cured at
20 2 C, tested at 1 MPa/s,. . . 1.0

Concrete strength from the literature 0.0

need be corrected for shape , size , and 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03

aspect ratio Strain rate (1/s)

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 18 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Standardized concrete cylinder test: Correction factors

UNESCO (1971)

CEB-FIP (1990) CSA A23.2-14C

Specimen Correction
90 1.02
Cylinder strength (MPa)

80
y = 0.0017x2 + 0.7378x y = 0.08x + 0.84 dimensions factor
R = 0.9995 1.00 R = 1

Correction factor
70 0.98 15 30 cm 1.00
60
0.96 10 20 cm 0.97
50
0.94 25 50 cm 1.05
40
0.92 fc<=70 MPa 15 15 45 cm 1.05
30
0.90 fc>70 MPa
20 20 20 60 cm 1.05
CEB (1990) Poly. (fc<=70 MPa)
10 0.88 10 10 10 cm 0.80
Poly. (CEB (1990)) Linear (fc>70 MPa)
0 0.86 15 15 15 cm 0.80
0 50 100 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
20 20 20 cm 0.83
Cube strength (MPa) L/D
30 30 30 cm 0.90

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 19 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Dummy variable for the model error

DIFtest
1 Truncated PDF for DIFmodel

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 20 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Dummy variable for the model error

DIFtest
1 Truncated PDF for DIFmodel

DIFtest 1
2 PDF(x 0) for DIFmodel 1

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 20 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Dummy variable for the model error

DIFtest
1 Truncated PDF for DIFmodel

DIFtest 1

3 Any suitable PDF for ln DIFmodel 1

DIFtest 1
2 PDF(x 0) for DIFmodel 1
Normal
t locationscale (tls)
Extreme value, generalized extreme value
Lognormal, Gamma, Weibull, Rayleigh
(x 0)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 20 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Data pruning
5

ln(DIFtest -1)/ (DIFmodel -1)

2.0
0
-1) -1) DIFtest/DIFmodel

1.5
-5
1.0

0.5 -10
5
0.0 -15
40 0 100 200 300 400
model

0
30 -20
model
(DIF

20 0 100 200 300 400

-5
(DIF

10 Data point No.

test -1)/

0.4
-10
0
test -1)/

Probability density
-10 0.3
ln(DIF

-15
-20
(DIF

0.2 Reject data 1 Reject data

-30
-20 P=1
00 100 200 300 400 0.1 2N
100 200 300 400
Data point No. 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Random variable
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 21 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Data pruning
= 3.226, = 0.933
RAW SEL

Chauvenets criterion (t distribution) 40

Kept (n=363)
Discarded (j=10)
Expected No. of points , in a sample of size N, at a 20

(DIF-1) ratio
distance from the mean :
0

= 2CDFt ()N -20

What is the distance o from the mean beyond which no -40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
points are expected? Data point No.

  = 1.410, = 1.110
o 1 RAW SEL
o = CDF1t , o = , 1 5
2N 2
0

ln[(DIF-1) ratio]
Problems -5

Chauvenets should not be used iteratively -10

Choice of shape parameter ? -15 Kept (n=321)

Discarded (j=2)
Match empirical exclusion of worst outliers -20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Data point No.
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 22 / 38
 0.2 0.25

Probab
Wall case studies

Pr
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF 0.1
Structural response Steel strength DIFs 0.05
Wall fragility Rebar position 0.1
Conclusions 0.01
0.00
0
Probabilistic model -5 0
ln[(DIF-1) ratio]
5

0.5 1
Data 0.995

Cumulative probability
0.99
Normal
Probability density

0.4 0.95 0.8

tls 0.9

Probability
0.3 0.75 0.6
0.5
0.2 0.25 0.4
0.1 Data Data
0.1 0.05
Normal 0.2 Normal
0.01 tls tls
0.005
0 0
-5 0 5 -4 -2 0 2 4 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
ln[(DIF-1) ratio] ln[(DIF-1) ratio] ln[(DIF-1) ratio]
DIF percentile
1 p : = 0.625, = 0.874, = 4.941
umulative probability

0.8
  pvalue = 94%
DIFp () = 1+exp CDF1 ( p |, , ) [DIFmodel () 1]
0.6 Dataset: n = 321
CDF = t locationscale distribution Data purged: j = 2, [o ( = 3) = 8.8]
0.4
Data
0.2 Normal Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 23 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Steel yield stress DIF

1.7 Malvar (1998) - fy=42.68 ksi
Malvar (1998) - fy=103.1 ksi
Malvar (1998) Keenan (1960) - fy=42.73 ksi
1.6
Keenan (1960) - fy=47.68 ksi
42.68 ksi = 294 MPa Keenan (1960) - fy=49.13 ksi
DIF - yield stress

1.5 Cowell (1965) - fy=59.70 ksi

103.1 ksi = 711 MPa Seabold (1970) - fy=81.50 ksi
1.4 Cowell (1965) - fy=59.20 ksi
Cowell (1965) - fy=87.10 ksi
Wood (1956) - fy=54.76
1.3 Wood (1956) - fy=46.90 ksi
Wood (1956) - fy=51.4 ksi
1.2 Flathau (1971) - fy=54.76 ksi
Flathau (1971) - R - fy=66.45 ksi

1.1 Flathau (1971) - M - fy=66.45 ksi

Flathau (1971) - B - fy=66.45 ksi
Flathau (1971) - T - fy=66.45 ksi
1.0 Falthau (1971) - fy=87.00 ksi
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 Cowell 1962 - fy=95.9 ksi

Strain rate (1/s) Cowell (1965) - fy=103.1 ksi

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 24 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Steel tensile strength DIF

1.25 Malvar (1998):
Malvar (1998) - fy=59.20 ksi

Malvar (1998) - fy=66.73 ksi

DIF = fdy /fy or DIF = fdu /fu
1.20 Malvar (1998) - fy=87.10 ksi
DIF - tensile strength

 
Cowell (1965) - fy=59.20 ksi
DIF =
Gran & Klopp (1997) - fy=66.73 ksi 104
1.15
Cowell (1965) - fy=87.10 ksi

fy

fy = 0.074 0.040

1.10
= 400 MPa
= 0.019 0.009
fy
fu
1.05 400 MPa

59.20 ksi = 408 MPa

1.00
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 66.73 ksi = 460 MPa
Strain rate (1/s) 87.10 ksi = 601 MPa
8
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 25 / 38
 0.25

Pr
Wall case studies

Probabilit
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF 0.1
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
0.5 0.05
Wall fragility Rebar position 0.01
Conclusions 0.005
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 -3
Probabilistic model for yield stress Ln[(DIFy-1) ratio]

2 1
Probability density function

Data 0.995

Cumulative probability
0.99
Normal 0.95 0.8
1.5 0.9
tls

Probability
EV 0.75 0.6
1 GEV 0.5 Data
0.25 Data 0.4 Normal
Normal
0.1 tls
0.5 0.05 tls
EV 0.2 EV
0.01 GEV GEV
0.005
0 0
-2 -1 0 1 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Ln[(DIFy-1) ratio] Ln[(DIFy-1) ratio] Ln[(DIF -1) ratio]
y
= 1.051, = 0.520
RAW SEL
1 10

ln[(DIF -1) ratio]

= 0.064, = 0.193, = 1.525
Cumulative probability

Kept (n=225)
0.8 Discarded (j=4)
pvalue = 0.41% 0

y
0.6
Dataset: n = 225 Data
0.4 Normal -10
Data purged: j = 4, [
tls o ( = 3) = 7.8] 0 50 100 150 200 250
Data point No.
0.2 EV
GEV
0 Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 26 / 38
 0.25

Pr
Probabilit
Wall case studies
0.1
Random variables 0.2
Masonry compressive strength DIF
0.05
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position 0.01
Conclusions 0.005
0
-5 0 5
Probabilistic model for tensile strenght Ln[(DIF -1) ratio]
u

0.8 1
Probability density function

Data 0.995

Cumulative probability
0.99
tls 0.95 0.8
0.6 0.9
EV

Probability
0.75 0.6
0.4 0.5
0.25 0.4
0.1 Data
0.2 0.05 Data
tls 0.2 tls
0.01 EV EV
0.005
0 0
-5 0 5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -4 -2 0 2
Ln[(DIF -1) ratio] Ln[(DIF -1) ratio] Ln[(DIF -1) ratio]
u u u
= 1.485, = 1.091
RAW SEL
1 5

ln[(DIF -1) ratio]

= 0.110, = 0.573, = 2.042
Cumulative probability

0.8 0
pvalue = 36%

u
0.6 -5 Kept (n=39)
Dataset: n = 39 Discarded (j=2)
0.4 -10
Data purged: j = 2, [oData
( = 5) = 3.1] 0 10 20 30 40
Data point No.
0.2 tls
EV Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 27 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions

Vertical reinforcement position

1.5
Data 0.99
0.9
Dummy variables Normal

Probability density
tls 0.9
EV 0

Probability
1 GEV
x = d h/2 0.7
h hc 0
 
x 0.5
0.2
y1 = tan d 0
hc 0.0
0.0
x 0.00
hc 0
y2 =   30 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
1 y1 y2 y3(=4)
 hxc  Bar position (y1)
 
2 20
Dummy variables
  
x 1 10 1
y3 = N 1 +  0, Distribution p value

Cumulative probability
hc 2 0
0.8
-10 Normal 0.89
Bar position percentile p 0.6 tls 0.76
-20 EV 0.38 Data
0.4 Normal
h hc -30 GEV 0.72
dp = + arctan[CDF1 ( p )] -0.5 0 0.5
tls
2 x/hc 0.2 = 0.031, = 0.360
EV
GEV
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 0 28 / 38
 Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions

Forcing function
PN5
450
Specimen perimeter 415
Uniform pressure on the exposed side: 0.6 0.6
F (t) = P(t)L2 0.4 410 0.4 445

y (m)

y (m)
PN3 PN4
Modified Friedlander equation for 0.2 0.2

m
405
pressurehistory (MPa) 0 P 0 I 440

-0.2 400 -0.2

   
-0.4 -0.4 435
t ta tta
-0.5 0 0.5 -0.5 0 0.5
P(t) = Pm 1 e t 0
x (m) x (m)
t0
Gauge PE3
Specific impulse I (MPa.ms) Gauge PN4
Cumulative impulse
600
Gauge PE4
800 Friedlander fit function

Pressure (kPa)
Gauge PB3

Pressure (kPa)
Z ta +t0  
e +1 600 K-B model Peak
400 Gauge PB4
I = P(t)dt = Pm t0
2 Gauge PK4
ta 400 Pm
Gauge PN4
t0 200
Pressure profile for impulsecontrolled 200 ta td
structures 0
  ! 0
t ta tta
2
 
I
t0 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3
P(t) = 1 e Time (ms) Time (ms)
t0 t0 e +1
[W = 6 kg-TNT, Hb = 0.4 m, Rg = 5 m, i = 7.22 , Z = 2.77 m/kg1/3 ]

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 29 / 38

 Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions

1314 Crosssectional analysis

1315
1316 b
1317 Depth of neutral axis c
1318 bi y = yi i i fmi
1319 Z h
1320 c
b(y )fm [m (y , c), m (y , c)] dy +
1321 0
1322 Neutral axis
1323 h
fs
+ fs [m (c), m (c)] As = 0
1324
1325
h Nf
m = (h c y ), s = (d c)
1326 As
1327 m = (h c y ), s = (d c)
1328 y
1329 Simpsons 1/3 integration rule (wi = ith weight)
1330
1360
1331 Crosssection(a) Strain Strain rate Stress
(b) 2Nf +1
1361
1332 6 h X
1333 Steel yielding
5 No tension wi bi fm (yi , c, , ) + fs (c, , )As = 0
Bending moment (kN.m)

Nf i=1
Bending moment (kN.m)

1334 Figure Mas. tensile strength No tension stiffening

5 MR3. Fiber model of a wall crosssection.
Mas. tensile failure Mod. Thorenfeldt
1335 Mas. comp. strength 4
1336 4 Mas. comp. failure
1337 3
Moment resistance MR
3
1338
1339 2
2Nf +1
1340
2 h X
MR (, ) = wi bi fm (yi , c, , )yi +
1341 1 1 Nf i=1
1342
1343 0 0
1344
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 + fs (c, , )As (h d)
Curvature (mm-1) Curvature (mm-1)
-4 -4
1362 x 10 x 10
1345
1363 Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 30 / 38
 Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions

1314 Crosssectional analysis

1315
1316 b
1360
1317
1361
(a) (b) Depth of neutral axis c
1318 bi y = yi i i fmi
6
1319 Steel yielding
5 No tension Z h
Bending moment (kN.m)

c strength

Bending moment (kN.m)

Mas. tensile No tension stiffening
1320 5 MR
Mas. tensile failure
4
Mod. Thorenfeldt b(y )fm [m (y , c), m (y , c)] dy +
1321 4
Mas. comp. strength
0
1322 Mas. comp. failure Neutral axis
3
1323 h3 + fs [m (c), m (c)] As = 0
1324 fs
2
1325 2 m = (h c y ), s = (d c)
h Nf
1326 1 As 1
1327 m = (h c y ), s = (d c)
1328 0 0 y
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
1329 Simpsons 1/3 integration rule (wi = ith weight)
Curvature (mm-1) Curvature (mm-1)
-4 -4
1362 x 10 x 10
1330
1363
1331 Crosssection Strain Strain rate Stress
1364 (c) (d) 2Nf +1
1332 7 h X
1333 Type-L wall wi bi fm (yi , c, , ) + fs (c, , )As = 0
1334 Figure
40 3. Fiber model of a wall crosssection.
6 Type-H wall Nf i=1
Bending moment (kN.m)

1335
Bending moment (kN.m)

C. rate = 0/(mm.s)
C. rate = 0.1/(mm.s) 5
1336
1337
30 C. rate = 1/(mm.s)
C. rate = 10/(mm.s) 4 Moment resistance MR
1338 3
20 2Nf +1
1339 h X
1340 2
10 MR (, ) = wi bi fm (yi , c, , )yi +
1341 1 Nf i=1
1342
1343 0 0
1344
0 2 4 6 4 86 8 0 2 + fs (c, , )As (h d)
Curvature (mm-1)
-4
Curvature (mm-1)
-4
x 10 x 10
1365
1345
1366 Figure 4. Moment curvature diagram: (a) Diagram of a typeL wall under static load; (b)
Campidelli etEffect
al. RC block wall fragility under blast 30 / 38
 Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions

382 Loaddeflection analysis

383 (a) (b)
60 0.8
Masonry cracking Given average curvature rate:
Plastic plateau
50 0.78

0.76
1 Array of pressure values
Plastic plateau

Load-mass factor
40
Load (pressure area)
Load (kN)

0.74 2
MR @ midspan
30 MR @ midspan (masonry crushing)
(masonry crushing) 0.72 3 Bending moment (200 sections)
Type-L wall
20 Type-L (BRASS)
Masonry 0.7 Type-H wall
cracking
Type-H (BRASS)
Elastic limit
4 Curvature distribution
10 Type-L (CSA) 0.68 Plastic limit
Type-H (CSA) Plastic plateau 5 Deflection curve
416 0 0.66
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
417
Z zj Z s 
Mid-span deflection (mm) Mid-span (b)
deflection (mm)
384
418 (a) v (zj ) = (r )dr ds
385 Figure
60 5. Static loaddeflection analysis of test walls:
0.8(a) Resistance functions (CSA predictions 0 0
386 are for maximum resistance only); (b) Loadmass factors versus midspan deflection.
0.78 zj
Z L Z s 
387 50
388 (r )dr ds
0.76 L
Load-mass factor

389 40 0 0
Load (kN)

390 0.74
30 6 Deformed shape = v /vmax
391 0.72 C. rate = 0/(mm.s)
392 20 C. rate = 2E-5/(mm.s)
393 0.7 C. rate = 2E-2/(mm.s)
7 Loadmass factor
C. rate = 0/(mm.s)
394 10 C. rate = 2E-5/(mm.s) 0.68
Elastic limit RL 2
395 C. rate = 2E-2/(mm.s)
Plastic limit (z)dz
396 0 0.66 KLM = R0 L
0 (z)dz
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
397 Mid-span deflection (mm)
419 Mid-span deflection (mm)
398
420 Figure 6. Effect of the average curvature rate on typeL wall: (a) Resistance
Campidelli etfunction;
al. (b)
RC Load
block wall fragility under blast 31 / 38
 Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions

SDOF modeling
Time integration scheme

h i
KLMi mi+1 + Ri + ki (i+1 i ) = Fi + Fi (ti+1 ti ) Ui
Ri+1 Ri
ki = , Ui = Unbalanced forces
i+1 i

R Solution (ki > 0)

Fi Fi Ui Ri
i+1 =i + (ti+1 ti ) + [1 cos i (ti+1 ti )] +
ki ki
Equation of motion 22 !
1 Fi
+ i sin i (ti+1 ti )
i ki
KLM m(t) + R((t)) = F (t)
Solution (ki = 0)
Circular frequency Fi Ui Ri
i+1 =i + i (ti+1 ti ) + (ti+1 ti )2 +
r 2KLMi m
k
= , k = tan. stiff. Fi
KLM m + (ti+1 ti )3
2KLMi m
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 32 / 38
 Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions

Strain & strain rate histories (wall L12)

1000 35 Strain
Strain
Strain
Strain ---ttt-==t=0.12
=0.12
0.12
0.12ms
msms
ms -5 Strainrate
Strain rate(1/s)
(1/s) - tt ==0.12
0.12ms
ms
x 10
0 1.5 0 0.2
900 30
0.15
800 1
25 200 200 0.1
700
0.5
Wall span (mm)
0.05

Wall span (mm)

20
600 400 400
15 0
500 0
-0.05
400 10 600 600
-0.5 -0.1
300 5
800 800 -0.15
200 -1
0
-0.2
100
-5 1000 -1.5 1000
0 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
0 50 Wall depth (mm) Wall depth (mm)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 33 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables
Stochastic SDOF model
Structural response
Fragility curves
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Stochastic SDOF model

0.05
Assumptions Data
Normal

Probability density
0.04 tls
Bilinear resistance function Lognormal
Gamma
0.03 EV
Elastic stiffness JAV = 0.75Jcr + 0.25Jg GEV
Weibull
Plastic plateau moment resistance 0.02 Rayleigh

Constant strain rate = 10 /s 0.01

Completion of the set of Mvariates: {Mj } = [w]{Mi } 0

0 20 40 60 80 100
Max displacement (mm)
80
Monte C. Wall L12
Probability density

Displacement (mm)
0.4 tls
60
0.3
Field test tls( = 4.96 , = 0.92 , =
2.87) 40
0.2
0.1
St. dev. = 1.67
20
Data
0 95% conf. int. = 1.96 7.97
0 5 10 0
Support rotation (deg.) Measurement: 4.28 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (ms)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 34 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables
Stochastic SDOF model
Structural response
Fragility curves
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Fragility curves
Fragility: Probability of limit state violation Type-L Type-H Impulsive reg. upp. bound 1

Fragility (Pf|impulse)
conditional on the occurrence of a specific 0.16
0.8
0.14
load parameter (specific impulse) 0.12
0.10
0.6

t0 / T
Pf = P[ lim |I ] 0.08
0.06
0.4 > 0.7
0.04 > 2.0
0.02 0.2 > 8.0
Limit states: ductility ratios and support 0.00 > 15.0
rotations associated with 4 damage states 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 0
500 1000 1500 2000
(superficial, moderate, heavy, hazardous) Scaled distance (m/kg1/3) Specific impulse (KPa.ms)
1 1
Fragility curves or surfaces?

Probability of failure
Superficial

Fragility (Pf|impulse)
0.8 0.8
Moderate
Impulsecontrolled response when
0.6 Heavy 0.6
t0 /T < 0.1 Hazardous
0.4 0.4
Pressure profiles: I = 200 2000 kPa.ms, > 1.0
t0 = 2.0 ms, = 2.2 0.2 Pf(%) = 99.2 | 98.6 | 4.9 | 0.0 0.2 > 2.0
> 8.0
> 15.0
Monte Carlo simulation: 3000 variates 0 0
500 1000 1500 2000
24
0 1000 2000 3000
No. of variates Specific impulse (KPa.ms)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 35 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables
Stochastic SDOF model
Structural response
Fragility curves
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Fragility curves
Fragility: Probability of limit state violation
conditional on the occurrence of a specific
load parameter (specific impulse)
Table 5. Observed damage states (measured peak rotations)
Pf = P[ lim |I ] versus predicted probabilities of failure.
_______________________________________________
Wall Impulse _______
_______ Rotation __________________
Pr[ lim]
Limit states: ductility ratios and support designation kPa.ms deg. 2 8 15
_______________________________________________
1
rotations associated with 4 damage states L6 0451 01.8 99% 43% 00% 00%
(superficial, moderate, heavy, hazardous) L12 0748 04.3 99% 99% 04% 00%
Fragility curves or surfaces? L30 1480 19.2 99% 99% 98% 88%
H6 0451 01.6 97% 18% 00% 00%
Impulsecontrolled response when H12 0748 02.1 99% 99% 02% 00%
t0 /T < 0.1 H30 1480 05.8 99% 99% 98% 40%
_______________________________________________
Pressure profiles: I = 200 2000 kPa.ms,
t0 = 2.0 ms, = 2.2
Monte Carlo simulation: 3000 variates 6 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis carried out in the present study in-

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 35 / 38
 Wall case studies
Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Conclusions

Suitable PDFs for geometry and mechanical properties

Normal: Bar position (89%), masonry prism and steel stressstrain rel.
tls: DIF dummy variables for masonry (94%), steel yield stress (0.41%), steel tensile
strength (36%)
Other?
Variability (95% CI) found in structural response is significant
Predicted Pf in substantial agreement with observations (except H30)
Other variables (e.g. spatial variability of joint thickness and bond strength)
Software robustness (other dummy variables, truncated PDFs)
Parametric analysis on dominant random variables

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 36 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Funding organizations:
NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
CCMPA (Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association)
CMDC (Canada Masonry Design Centre)
CEDS (Centre for Effective Design of Structures, McMaster University)
MRI (Ministry of Research and Innovation of Ontario)
Special thanks:
CERL (Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory)
Canadian Forces
Dr. Demetrios Cotsovos, Imperial College London

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 37 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Funding organizations:
NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
CCMPA (Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association)
CMDC (Canada Masonry Design Centre)
CEDS (Centre for Effective Design of Structures, McMaster University)
MRI (Ministry of Research and Innovation of Ontario)
Special thanks:
CERL (Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory)
Canadian Forces
Dr. Demetrios Cotsovos, Imperial College London

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 37 / 38

 Wall case studies
Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions

Question time!

Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 38 / 38