ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

Finite element analysis of steel beam to column connections

subjected to blast loads
Tapan Sabuwala, Daniel Linzell*, Theodor Krauthammer
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802, USA
Received 28 August 2003; received in revised form 20 April 2004; accepted 23 April 2004
Available online 26 June 2004

Abstract

The behavior of fully restrained steel connections subjected to blast loads was examined using finite
element analysis. Two connections that were tested as part of the AISC Northridge Moment Connection
Test Program (Report for AISC, 1994) were studied using ABAQUS. Models were validated by comparing
numerical results against AISC Program experimental data. Validated models were then subjected to
simulated blast loads and their efficiency against those blast loads was verified based on criteria specified in
TM5-1300 (Department of the Army, Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, 1990).
Adequacy of TM5-1300 criteria was investigated and critical zones in the connection details were identified.
Based on the results of the study, recommendations for modifications to TM5-1300 criteria were made and
the effectiveness of the chosen connection details under blast loads was summarized. The results showed
that the TM5-1300 criteria for steel connections subjected to blast loads are inadequate. Also the
unreinforced (pre-Northridge) connection detail performed poorly under blast loads with excessive
deflections and above yield stresses in the connection region while the reinforced connection detail showed
improved resistance against blast loads and this connection may be an option when detailing steel framed
connections to resist blast loads.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Blast loads; Finite element modeling; Steel connections

1. Introduction

The study of steel connections subjected to dynamic loads was initiated in the 1960s by Popov
[1] wherein tests were conducted to study the cyclic behavior of steel moment-resisting

*Corresponding author. Fax: +1-814-863-7304.

E-mail address: dlinzell@engr.psu.edu (D. Linzell).

0734-743X/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.04.013
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

862 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

connections. Since these early studies, investigations have generally focused on their behavior
under cyclic loads, such as those generated during an earthquake. However, since September 11th,
there is rising concern in the United States over the safety of building structures subjected to blast
loads. When a structural steel frame is subjected to blast loads, the beam-to-column connections,
which are responsible for load transfer between different members within the frame, play a major
role in structural response. Thus, a better understanding of the behavior of structural steel
connections under blast loads is of prime importance. However, few studies have been conducted
which analyze the interaction of blast loads and structural components of building structures.
Case studies based on past attack on buildings subjected to blast loads have been presented such
as by Caldwell [2] which focus on the pattern and severity of blast damage sustained by the
structure. Most of these studies however take a macro view of the situation and analyze the effect
of blast loads on the buildings as a whole instead of identifying the behavior individual structural
components of the building structure under such loads. No experimental studies have been
reported that analyze the behavior of steel connections under blast loads. Only one theoretical
study [3] and one numerical study [4] investigating steel connection behavior under blast loads has
been reported.
While some general publications, as that published by Conrath et al. [5], dealing with the design
of structural systems to resist blast loadings exist, there are only a limited number of code
documents that exist related to blast design. The principal code currently used for the design of
structures in the United States to resist blast loads is TM5-1300, Structures to resist the effects of
accidental explosions [6]. This document provides guidelines for the safe design of structural
elements subjected to short duration dynamic loads (i.e. blast loads) and criteria contained within
TM5-1300 are oriented toward industrial building applications common to ammunition
manufacturing and storage facilities, (i.e., relatively low, single-story, multi-bay structures). The
approach presented in TM5-1300 is centered on the response of structures and structural elements
that are idealized as equivalent lumped-mass single degree of freedom systems. While general
criteria for proportioning low-rise framed military structures to resist blast loads are provided,
this publication does not provide specific design guidelines or performance criteria for steel
connections under blast loads. Hence the performance of a steel connection has to be judged
based on the performance of the steel frame. However, the adequacy and effectiveness of criteria
given in TM5-1300 for steel frames is not well understood due to limited research. Hence, given
the absence of specific criteria governing connection behavior under blast loads, this study aimed
at verifying the adequacy of criteria presented in TM5-1300 for steel frames containing select
connection details. Moreover due to the lack of research and specific design guidelines for blast-
loaded steel connections, existing connection details proven to be effective against dynamic loads
were selected in order to obtain an initial understanding of their effectiveness and behavior under
blast loads which can then be used as a stepping stone for future studies in this area.

2. Experimental program

Connections selected for the current study were tested as part of the AISC Northridge Moment
Connection Test Program. The study was conducted by Engelhardt et al. [7] immediately after the
Northridge earthquake to provide insight into causes of steel connection failures and to provide
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876 863

Fig. 1. Experimental setup (Engelhardt et al. [7]).

preliminary guidelines regarding retrofitting any connections to increase their effectiveness against
induced seismic loads. The behavior of eight fully restrained connection details was examined
experimentally at full-scale under cyclic loads (Fig. 1).
Based on tests of unreinforced, pre-Northridge shear tab connections, modifications were made
to the connection details to attempt to improve their efficiency against seismic loads. It was
demonstrated by Engelhardt et al. [7] that the cover plate retrofitted connection detail in Fig. 2b
demonstrated improved performance against cyclic loads by providing higher values of beam
plastic rotation, energy dissipation and ductile failure modes when compared to the original
connection details. Connections selected for the current study included an unreinforced
connection (Fig. 2a) and the reinforced connection (Fig. 2b). Analytically examining these two
connections permitted studying the effects of the additional structural elements used for the
reinforced connection on blast load behavior.

3. Analytical approach

The general purpose ABAQUS finite element code was selected for the current study.
Information from previous studies indicated that, for high rate dynamic loads, ABAQUS
performed better than other commercially available finite element codes as per a study conducted
by Krauthammer [8]. Finite element models were validated by comparing results to experimental
data from the AISC Northridge Test Program.
Due to small time durations and high pressure loads required for the current study, the finite
element models were created using 8-noded continuum (brick) elements with reduced integration
(C3D8R). Wedge elements (C3D6) were used to model curved regions of the beam, which
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

864 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

Fig. 2. (a) Unreinforced connection (Engelhardt et al. [7]). (b) Reinforced connection (Engelhardt et al. [7]).

included weld access holes at the top and bottom of the web, and the welds. An isometric view of
the finite element models is shown in Fig. 3. Numerical models for certain connection components
are shown in Fig. 4.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876 865

Fig. 3. Numerical study models: (a) Numerical model for validation studies (unreinforced). (b) Numerical model for
blast studies (unreinforced).

Elasto-plastic material properties with isotropic hardening were selected to simulate material
behavior of all components in the finite element model except the welds, which were assigned an
elasto-plastic material model with perfect plasticity as a brittle material model for steel was
unavailable in ABAQUS Explicit.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

866 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

Fig. 4. Overview of components of numerical model.

Member constituent relationships for model validation were based on test data from the AISC
Northridge Test Program. Since design and analysis procedures presented in TM5-1300 are based
on nominal material properties, blast studies that followed the validation process utilized nominal
properties from the Structural Welding Code [9] for the welds and from other sources [10] for
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876 867

Table 1
Connection component yield stresses and tensile strengths for FE models under blast loads
Connection Yield stress (w/o Yield stress (w/o Ultimate tensile
component dynamic increase dynamic increase strength (MPa)
factor) (MPa) factor) (MPa)
Beam 248.2 352.3 399.9
Column 344.7 424.7 482.6
Shear tabs 248.2 352.3 399.9
Bolts 586.0 721.9 722.0
Nuts 586.0 721.9 722.0
Weld 482.6 594.3 594.6
Cover plates 248.2 352.3 399.9

various components of the connection details. In addition, nominal yield stresses were
increased using dynamic increase factors as required by TM5-1300 to account for the
influence of high strain rates from the blast loads on the mechanical properties of steel. These
increase factors were 1.12 and 1.29 for Grade 50 and Grade 36 steels, respectively. Material
properties used for the finite element model for the blast load phase of the study are illustrated in
Table 1.
Surface-to-surface contact interaction capabilities available in ABAQUS were used to account
for the various forces generated between interacting parts of the model. A tied contact
formulation was used for the welds and a small sliding formulation was used for the other
interacting parts such as bolts–bolt holes, bolt–tabs, tabs–beam, and cover plates–beam.
For validation, the loads and boundary conditions applied to the numerical model replicated
the experimental setup. The column for the numerical model was fixed at the ends and at the base
as in the experimental setup (Fig. 3). The beam was cantilevered from the column. Cyclic loads
corresponding to those used during the experimental tests were applied to the free end of the
beam. The primary response quantity used for model calibration was the displacement time-
history of the beam tip. Predicted and measured displacement time-histories as obtained from the
numerical model and corresponding experimental values for the selected connection details are
illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Maximum differences between the numerical and
experimental results are also shown.
Figs. 5 and 6 indicate that good numerical prediction of the behavior existed for both
connections. The peak differences between numerical and experimental tip displacements were
9.9% for the unreinforced connection and 6.1% for the reinforced connection.
The main aim of this study was to analyze the behavior of the selected connection details under
blast loads and benchmark their performance against criteria from TM5-1300. As per TM5-1300,
for blast-resistant design only the peak response, from the first cycle, of the structure is important.
This first response cycle is minimally affected by damping in the system and damping effects are
subsequently neglected in the theoretical procedure given in TM5-1300 for evaluating blast load
response [6]. Thus, damping was not included in the numerical models. Analyses were carried out
over a time duration which would produce one cycle of structural response. Peak displacements
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

868 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

Fig. 5. Numerical vs. experimental beam tip displacements (unreinforced connection).

and rotations of structural members were subsequently judged based on their response during this
first cycle. Blast pressures were applied as uniformly distributed loads to the inner faces of the
beam and column flanges (Fig. 3) and are summarized in Table 2.

4. Theoretical/empirical load development and response prediction

Simulated blast pressures were generated using procedures outlined in TM5-1300, in

conjunction with the SHOCK and FRANG computer codes [11] and [12] respectively and
loading functions corresponding to these blast pressures were applied to the numerical models.
Theoretical estimates of the behavior of the studied steel connection details under these blast loads
were obtained.
The procedure outlined in TM5-1300 to estimate an explosive charge size provides blast
pressure for walls of containment structures or cubicles due to an internal or external explosion.
Hence, it was necessary to consider the connection details as part of a hypothetical room within
which the explosion occurred. Considering this, a simple one-story steel frame structure as shown
in Fig. 7 was employed as the theoretical room model. One side of the room was considered to be
a frangible panel having a surface weight of 0.96 MPa [6] that would provide realistic venting of
the explosive gases.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876 869

Fig. 6. Numerical vs. experimental beam tip displacements (reinforced connection).

Table 2
Numerical blast pressures
Specimen Member Load (MPa) Time (ms)
Unreinf. Beam 3.2 0.0
2.0 3.4
0.0 48.2
Column 8.6 0.0
1.5 1.8
0.0 48.2

Reinf. Beam 3.2 0.0

2.0 3.3
0.0 48.1
Column 8.8 0.0
1.5 1.8
0.0 48.1

Only part of the representative room was considered for the numerical model by taking
advantage of symmetry conditions with planes of symmetry located at mid-height of the column
and mid-length of the beam (Fig. 7).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

870 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

Fig. 7. Theoretical room used for blast study.

Fig. 8. Theoretical model failure mechanisms.

Theoretical values for the pressures were determined based on the plastic moment capacity of
the beam and column for each chosen connection detail. TM5-1300 provides different methods
for calculating the plastic moment capacity from structural members of a frame based on the type
of anticipated collapse mechanism. The present study considered two typical failure mechanisms
as shown in Fig. 8.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876 871

Fig. 9. Unreinforced connection side wall load.

A representative pressure time-history for the connection details is graphically depicted in

Fig. 9. For the numerical model, an effective pressure time-history as depicted by solid line in
Fig. 9 is used. This time-history shows shock and gas pressures acting on a side wall of the
hypothetical room. These pressures are then transferred to the column considering the tributary
area of the side wall. A similar procedure is used for the roof and the pressures are then
transferred to the beam using the effective tributary area. These transferred loads on the beam and
the column are distributed over their flanges and these resultant pressures as applied to the
numerical model are summarized in Table 2.

5. Performance evaluation

In addition to estimating blast load response using ABAQUS, additional estimates were
obtained using TM5-1300 procedures for comparative purposes. Response was characterized in
terms of the maximum deflection at mid-span, Xm, and the corresponding rotational deformation
at the member end, y. Design charts from TM5-1300 that related dynamic properties of the
structural elements, such as the natural period of vibration (TN), resistance (R), and deflection
(X), to those of the blast overpressures that consisted of the load (P) and time duration (T) were
used. A ductility ratio, m, associated with the ratios T/TN and P/Ru, can be obtained from these
design charts. Table 3 summarizes values of maximum deflection, Xm, ductility ratio, m and
rotational deformation, y, for structural elements of the studied connection details along with the
safety limit for rotation as specified in TM5-1300. These theoretical estimations indicated that
the representative room could withstand the loads from the explosive charge according to the
TM5-1300 limiting criteria.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

872 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

Table 3
Blast load response from TM5-1300
Connection Member Max. deflection Ductility Rotation y Rotational limit
detail Xm (mm) ratio (m) (deg) ylimit (deg)
Unreinf. Beam 15.7 2.0 0.3 2>0.3
Column 72.1 1.7 1.3 2>1.3

Reinf. Beam 17.3 2.2 0.3 2>0.33

Column 69.9 1.8 1.3 2>1.3

Table 4
Predicted displacements and rotations
Spec. Member Response Peak Peak theoretical % Limiting
quantity numerical value (TM5- Difference criteria (deg)
value 1300)
Unreinf. Beam Rotation (y) 0.2 0.3 38.3 2>0.3
Displacement 9.8 mm 15.7 mm 38.3 —
(X)
Column Rotation (y) 0.1 1.3 94 2>1.3
Displacement 4.2 mm 72.1 mm 94 —
(X)

Reinf. Beam Rotation (y) 0.1 0.3 55.5 2>0.3

Displacement 7.7 mm 17.2 mm 55.5 —
(X)
Column Rotation (y) 0.1 1.3 92.8 2>0.3
Displacement 5.0 mm 69.8 mm 92.8 —
(X)

6. Results and discussion

6.1. Unreinforced connection

Beam response was evaluated based on end rotation, end displacement, and Von Mises stresses.
Numerical model displacements and rotations for both the reinforced and unreinforced
connections under the prescribed blast pressures are summarized and compared to theoretical
predictions from TM5-1300 in Table 4.
As shown in the table, numerical model beam rotation for the unreinforced connection was well
within deformation criteria specified by TM5-1300 and hence it is considered as safe under the
applied blast loads based upon these criteria. However, TM5-1300 predicted values are 38%
higher than those predicted by the numerical model and hence the beam was over-designed for the
applied blast loads according to TM5-1300.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876 873

Table 5
Observed stress summary
Specimen Component Stress concentration Maximum Dynamic yield Comment
region stress (MPa) stress (MPa)
Unreinf. Beam Lower weld access hole 365.0 352.3 Local yielding
Column Upper and lower 124.1 424.7 —
connection point with
shear tabs
Shear tabs Around bolt holes 248.2 352.3 —
Bolts Bolt shank 262.0 722.0 —
Welds Bottom groove weld 587.4 594.3 Near failure

Reinf. Beam Beam flange at end of 379.2 352.3 Local yielding

top cover plate
Column Lower connection 151.7 424.7 —
point with shear tabs
Shear tabs Around bolt holes 248.2 352.3 —
Bolts Bolt shank 262.0 721.9 —
Welds Bottom groove weld 358.5 594.3 —
Cover plates Tip of top cover plate 358.5 352.3 Local yielding

Stress contour plots of the numerical model indicated that the highest stresses were generated
near the weld access hole at the bottom of the beam web due to the reduced area of the web at that
location. The observed peak stress in this region was 364 MPa, which was marginally higher than
the dynamic yield stress for the beam (352.2 MPa), indicating initiation of local yielding at this
location. Column response under simulated blast loads was elastic with low stresses and
deformations.
Table 5, which summarizes stresses for the reinforced and unreinforced connections under the
prescribed blast pressures, indicates that under the simulated blast loads, stresses in the bottom
groove welds between the beam and column flange reached a maximum value of 587.4 MPa,
which was marginally smaller than the weld dynamic yield stress of 594.6 MPa. These results
showed that localized weld failure may occur at these locations.

6.2. Reinforced connection

Table 4 indicates that predicted values for beam response in terms of the tip rotation and
displacement were overestimated for the reinforced connection. Moreover, differences between
predicted and theoretical response quantities for the beam were 55% higher than corresponding
differences for the unreinforced connection. Increased discrepancies between TM5-1300
predictions and those from the ABAQUS model were caused by additional stiffness provided
to the reinforced connection from the cover plates that were not addressed by TM5-1300 criteria.
Thus, as expected, the reinforced connection was more efficient than the unreinforced connection
for limiting deflections of the beam and the column under blast loads.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

874 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

Table 5 indicates that stresses generated in the beam for this connection were lower when
compared to those in the unreinforced connection. They were concentrated in the beam flange at
the end of the top cover plate with the maximum stress being 379.2 MPa, which indicated the
formation of a yielding zone at that point. This behavior corresponds with the design philosophy
of the reinforced connection for seismic loads whereby cover plates were utilized to position
plastic hinges in the beam away from the connection zone. Beam stresses in the connection region
ranged between 103.4 and 124.1 MPa, which was approximately 65% lower than the peak stress
observed for the unreinforced connection. As in the unreinforced connection, the column
remained elastic.
One of the key problems identified with the unreinforced pre-Northridge connections was the
concentration of stresses at the groove welds. The cover plates added to the reinforced connection
aimed at reducing this stress concentration for induced seismic loads. Response of the reinforced
connection under simulated blast loads indicated that adding cover plates to reduce weld stress
concentration can be effectively used for blast loads. Reinforced connection groove weld stress
concentrations were significantly reduced, with peak stresses (358.5 MPa) being 33% less than
peak stresses observed in the unreinforced connection (Table 5). Moreover, stresses on the other
weld components were also reduced to a maximum of 255.1 MPa.
The cover plates were subjected to high stresses at their tips under blast loads with maximum
358.5 MPa at the top cover plate tip, which indicated local yielding. Lower stresses occurred for
the bottom cover plate. The reason for the difference in stress was caused by the blast load
application procedure, which initially deformed the beam upwards with high pressures. The top
cover plate attempted to resist this motion leading to stress concentrations at its tip.

7. Conclusions

Based on the results obtained from the numerical models the following conclusions were made
regarding connection performance and adequacy of the TM5-1300 criteria.

1. According to the TM5-1300 criteria, structural members were over-designed for the blast loads
as peak values of displacements and rotations from the numerical models were lower than the
limiting criteria given in TM5-1300.
2. The reinforced connection performed better than the unreinforced connection under blast
loads, exhibiting lower displacements, rotations and stresses.
3. The bottom groove weld was an area of concern for the unreinforced connection as it was
subjected to high stresses exceeding its dynamic yield stress. This behavior matches
observations made during testing of this connection detail under cyclic loads for the AISC
Northridge Test Program [7] where the connection detail failed due to localized fracture of the
bottom groove welds.
4. Flange cover plates added to the reinforced connection were efficient in reducing the stress
concentrations on the groove welds.
5. The formation of plastic hinges in the reinforced connection would occur away from the
connection zone at the end of the cover plate as indicated by initiation of yielding of the beam
flange at this point.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876 875

6. Failure of the unreinforced connection would appear to occur in the connection zone as
indicated by local yielding of the region near the bottom weld access hole and failure of the
bottom groove welds.

These conclusions appear to indicate that criteria presented in TM5-1300 used to judge the
adequacy of a steel frame based purely on rotations of the structural members is not adequate and
should be revised. The studied connection details satisfied these criteria but were shown to be
subjected to high localized stresses that were indicative of failure. Thus, it would be advantageous
to incorporate a strength based criterion into the TM5-1300 document that would augment
existing serviceability criteria to evaluate steel frame performance under blast loads. In addition,
any strength criteria added to TM5-1300 should account for contributions to the connection
strength and stiffness, and the subsequent increase in blast resistance, which results from the
addition of cover plates and column stiffeners to the connection region.
It is also recommended that unreinforced connection details similar to those included in this
study should not be used for blast-resistant structures as they show undesirable failures within the
connection zone near the column face. The studied reinforced connection details, which included
cover plates for the beam flanges and stiffeners for the column web, showed improved
performance under blast loads with reduced stresses in the connection region and indication of
plastic hinge formation in the beam away from the connection.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by The US Army Corps of Engineers through a project with the
Protective Technology Center (PTC) at Penn State University entitled ‘‘Protective Technology
Research, Development and Implementation in Support of DoD Force Protection Needs.’’ The
assistance of PTC personnel and personnel at the US Army Corps of Engineers ERDC is
gratefully acknowledged. In addition, data and background information provided by Dr. Michael
D. Engelhardt at the University of Texas was invaluable to this investigation.

References

[1] Popov EP. Seismic moment connections for moment-resisting steel frames. Report No. UCB/EERC-83/02,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA; 1983.
[2] Caldwell T. Bomb blast damage to a concrete-framed office building Ceylinco House - Columbo, Sri Lanka.
Proceedings of Structures Congress, New Orleans, LA; 1999.
[3] Krauthammer T. Structural concrete and steel connections for blast resistant design. Int J Impact Eng 1999;
22(9–10):887–910.
[4] Krauthammer T, Oh GJ. Blast resistant structural concrete and steel connections. Int J Impact Eng 1999;22:
887–910.
[5] Conrath EJ, Krauthammer T, Marchand KA, Mlakar PF. Structural design for physical security. State of the
practice report, American Society of Civil Engineers. 1999.
[6] Department of the Army. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, TM5-1300. 1990.
[7] Engelhardt MD, Sabol TA, Aboutaha RS, Frank KH. AISC Northridge moment connection test program. Report
for AISC, 1994.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

876 T. Sabuwala et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 31 (2005) 861–876

[8] Krauthammer T, Lim J, Oh GJ. Findings from three computer code validations with precision impact test data.
Proceedings of the 29th Department of Defense Explosive Safety Seminar, New Orleans, LA; 2000. p. 18–20.
[9] American Welding Society. Structural Welding Code for Steel/ANSI/AWS Dl.1–94. 1994.
[10] Salmon GC, Johnson EJ. Steel structures: design and behavior, emphasizing load and resistance factor design.
New York: HarperCollins College Publishers; 1994.
[11] Wager P, Connett J. SHOCK User’s Manual, Naval Engineering Lab, Port Hueneme, CA; 1989.
[12] Wager P, Connett J. FRANG User’s Manual, Naval Engineering Lab, Port Hueneme, CA; 1989.