Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Reinforce Concrete Structures Under Blast and Seismic Load: A Review

Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Reinforce Concrete Structures Under Blast and Seismic Load: A Review

Babagana Mustapha

PGA/23/05/03/08802

Surpervised By:

Engr. Prof. Kachalla Mohammed Engr. Dr. Nura Muazu

Being a non-thesis submitted to the department of civil and Water resource engineering, university of maiduguri, in Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Masters degree (m. Eng) in structural engineering

ABSTRACT

This review presents a comparative analysis of the behavior and performance of reinforced concrete (RC) structures under blast and seismic loading conditions. Both types of loads are dynamic and impose significant demands on structural integrity of the structure, yet they differ markedly in nature, duration, frequency, and failure mechanisms. While seismic loads are characterized by low-frequency, prolonged ground motions, blast loads involve high-intensity, short-duration shock waves that result in localized damage. The study examines key design considerations, including material selection, energy dissipation strategies, modeling techniques, and applicable design codes such as ACI 376 -12: This standard provides guidance on designing structures for blast resistance, particularly for nuclear facilities, UFC 3- 340-02: This document offers detailed recommendations on designing structures to resist blast effects, including design criteria for reinforced concrete buildings in military and civilian settings and BS EN 1991 -1-7:2006, which addresses the effects of accidental actions like explosions on buildings and infrastructure for blast load while ASCE/SEI 7 -22- S03-928, Eurocode 8: EN 1998-1-2004 and IS 1893-1:2016 address the seismic load. Findings reveal that seismic resistance emphasizes on ductility and global deformation capacity, whereas blast resistance focuses on stiffness, localized reinforcement, and energy absorption. Despite progress in both areas, current practices often address these hazards independently, leading to fragmented design approaches. One of the most significant challenges identified is the lack of integrated design codes and frameworks that address both blast and seismic resistance within a unified approach. While seismic design is well supported by national and international standards, blast resistance is often guided by military or specialized standards, making civilian application more complex. This disconnects leads to potentially suboptimal structural systems that may perform well under one hazard but poorly under another, particularly in regions vulnerable to both earthquakes and human-made explosions.

Keywords: Reinforced Concrete, Blast & Seismic Load, Localize Damage, Global deformation

1. Background of the Study

   CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

   In the field of structural engineering, understanding the dynamic behavior of buildings and infrastructure is vital for ensuring safety, serviceability, and resilience against various transient loads. Dynamic analysis, a critical approach in structural evaluation, involves the study of how structures respond to time-dependent forces such as wind, earthquakes, and explosions. Unlike static analysis, dynamic analysis incorporates the effects of inertia, damping, and stiffness, which are especially significant in high-rise and complex structures. Modern simulation tools like ETABS, ABAQUS, and ANSYS have enabled engineers to model and analyze these complex behaviors more accurately. These tools support both linear and nonlinear analyses, allowing engineers to simulate real-world conditions with greater precision. The integration of performance-based design has further enhanced the reliability of dynamic analyses, enabling designers to evaluate structural behavior under various loading scenarios and optimize structural configurations accordingly (Memon, Ali, Saleem, Khan, & Farooq, 2023).

   One of the most extreme forms of dynamic loading comes from blast events, which are characterized by high- intensity and short-duration shock waves. These events may result from accidental industrial explosions or deliberate terrorist attacks. The analysis of blast loads requires a nonlinear dynamic approach due to the complex and abrupt nature of the loading. Structures exposed to blast waves experience extreme pressure fluctuations, which can lead to catastrophic failures if not properly designed. As such, blast-resistant design has gained prominence, especially in high-security facilities and critical infrastructure. Recent advancements in this area focus on using high-performance materials such as Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) and Fiber- Reinforced Polymers (FRP), which provide enhanced ductility and energy absorption capabilities. Furthermore, Energy Absorbing Systems (EAS) are being integrated into structural components to mitigate the destructive effects of blast loads (Zhou, Li, Wang, Chen, & Zhang, 2022). These innovations mark a shift from purely reactive design approaches to proactive, preventive design strategies aimed at minimizing loss of life and property.

   Similarly, the analysis of seismic loads and the design of earthquake-resistant structures have become a cornerstone of structural engineering, especially in seismically active regions. Earthquakes produce oscillatory ground motions that impose significant lateral and vertical inertia forces on buildings. Seismic design requires an in-depth understanding of ground motion characteristics, building mass distribution, and structural ductility. Engineers utilize various methods, including the equivalent static force method, response spectrum analysis, and nonlinear time-history analysis, to predict structural responses during earthquakes. Seismic resistance strategies are aimed at enhancing the energy dissipation capacity of structures through devices such as fluid viscous dampers, base isolation systems, and shear walls. Recent research emphasizes resilience-based seismic design, which not only focuses on life safety but also considers rapid post-event recovery and functional continuity. The incorporation of smart materials like Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs) further contributes to the adaptability and robustness of seismic-resistant systems (Khoshnoudian, Rezaei, Tafakhori, Azizi, & Moradi, 2024).

   Despite their different origins and nature, blast and seismic loads share a common requirement: the need for structures to absorb and dissipate energy efficiently while maintaining structural integrity. Both types of loading conditions involve highly dynamic and unpredictable forces that require sophisticated analysis tools and design philosophies. The convergence of dynamic analysis methods, advanced materials, and resilient design principles represents the future of structural engineering. Understanding and comparing the behavior of structures under blast and seismic loads through dynamic analysis enables engineers to develop comprehensive mitigation strategies tailored to specific risks. This study thus provides a comparative foundation for exploring how modern engineering techniques can enhance structural resilience against both man-made and natural dynamic hazards.

2. Statement of the Problem

   Modern structures are increasingly exposed to dynamic loads arising from both natural events, such as earthquakes, and man-made hazards, including explosions. These loads impose significant challenges to structural stability, safety, and serviceability. While advancements in dynamic analysis have enabled more accurate modeling of structural behavior under such conditions, there remains a critical gap in the integrated understanding and application of blast load resistance and seismic load resistance within unified design frameworks.

   The unpredictable nature of blast loadscharacterized by rapid pressure surgesand seismic loadsmarked by oscillatory ground motionnecessitates the use of complex, nonlinear dynamic models, high-performance materials, and sophisticated energy dissipation systems. Despite progress in these areas, many existing structures still lack the resilience required to withstand such dynamic events effectively. Moreover, current design practices often treat blast and seismic resistance separately, without adequately exploring their comparative demands, shared principles, and potential for unified mitigation strategies.

   This fragmented approach results in suboptimal designs that may perform well under one type of loading but fail under another. Furthermore, in regions prone to both seismic activity and security threats, the lack of comprehensive comparative studies on structural response to these distinct yet dynamically similar forces creates vulnerabilities in infrastructure planning and safety assurance.

   Therefore, there is a pressing need to critically compare and analyze the response mechanisms, design principles, and material behaviors associated with blast and seismic loads through the lens of modern dynamic analysis. Addressing this gap will not only enhance the robustness of structural systems but also inform the development of multi-hazard resilient design frameworks.

3. Objectives of the Study

The main aim of this work is to summarise the existing research on the blast load and seismic loads effects on reinforce concrete structures. This aim can be achieved through the following objectives;

1. Compare the extents and application of design codes to RC structures in blast and seismic loads

2. To examine the various methodologies and analytical techniques used in assessing blast and seismic loads on reinforced concrete structures.

   1. Dynamic Analysis

      CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

      Dynamic analysis is an essential method in structural engineering used to predict how structures respond to time- varying loads such as wind, earthquakes, traffic, and blasts. Unlike static analysis, which assumes loads are applied slowly and steadily, dynamic analysis incorporates the influence of inertia forces, damping mechanisms, and varying stiffness, all of which significantly affect the structural performance under real-world conditions (Chopra, 2020). This approach is critical for the design and safety evaluation of tall buildings, bridges, towers, offshore platforms, and other complex infrastructure subjected to transient or cyclic forces.

      There are several methods of dynamic analysis, broadly categorized into linear and nonlinear analysis. Linear dynamic analysis includes modal analysis, response spectrum analysis, and linear time-history analysis, which assume small deformations and linear material behavior. On the other hand, nonlinear dynamic analysis accounts for large deformations, plasticity, and changing boundary conditions, making it more suitable for critical structures or extreme loading scenarios like earthquakes or blasts (Chopra, 2020; Clough & Penzien, 2015).

      Advancements in Finite Element Modeling (FEM) have revolutionized dynamic analysis. These techniques, supported by powerful simulation tools such as ETABS, SAP2000, ABAQUS, and ANSYS, enable engineers to build accurate models that simulate real-life structural responses. FEM allows for meshing complex geometries and capturing stress concentrations and failure mechanisms that are otherwise difficult to analyze through classical methods (Bathe, 2006).

      Furthermore, the evolution of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) and time-domain simulations has allowed for more realistic evaluations of structural performance. PBEE, as developed by researchers such as Moehle (2015), integrates probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear structural modeling to estimate damage and economic losses. This shift from prescriptive to performance-based codes reflects the growing recognition of the uncertainties in dynamic loading and material behavior.

      Dynamic analysis also plays a central role in multi-hazard engineering, where structures are evaluated for their response to combined or sequential loads, such as earthquake followed by blast, or wind followed by impact. Recent studies by Zhang et al. (2022) emphasize the need to unify dynamic analysis frameworks to ensure buildings designed for seismic safety are also evaluated for other transient loads that could compromise their integrity.

      Finally, the incorporation of smart materials and real-time structural health monitoring (SHM) systems has further enhanced dynamic analysis. Sensors embedded in structures can capture vibration data, detect damage early, and update computational models for predictive maintenance and real-time response evaluation (Spencer & Nagayama, 2006). Dynamic analysis has grown from a theoretical domain to a practical, indispensable tool in modern structural engineering. Its importance continues to expand with the advent of new technologies, computing power, and the need for resilient infrastructure in the face of growing environmental and security challenges.

   2. Theory of Blast

      When a condensed and highly compressed explosive detonates, the resulting pressure can reach up to 300 kilobars, while temperatures may rise to 30004000°C (Woolford, 2024). Initially, the explosion wave rapidly expands, exceeding the surrounding atmospheric pressure. Shortly after, this high pressure drops below ambient atmospheric levels, creating a partial vacuum that causes air to be drawn back in (Pn, 2023). This negative phase, combined with the strong vacuum wind, can result in debris being pulled back toward the explosion site. Equally when a high order explosion is initiated, a very rapid exothermic chemical reaction occurs. As the reaction progresses, the solid or liquid explosive material is converted to very hot, dense, high-pressure gas. The explosion products initially expand at very high velocities in an attempt to reach equilibrium with the surrounding air, causing a shock wave. A shock wave consists of highly compressed air, traveling radially outward from the source at supersonic velocities Gaitonde, (2023). Only one-third of the chemical energy available in most high explosives is released in the detonation process. The remaining two-thirds is released more slowly as the detonation products mix with air and burn. This afterburning process has little effect on the initial blast wave because it occurs much slower than the original detonation. However, later stages of the blast wave can be affected by the afterburning, particularly for explosions in confined spaces. As the shock wave expands, pressures decrease rapidly (with the cube of the distance) because of geometric divergence and the dissipation of energy in heating the air. Pressures also decay rapidly over time (i.e., exponentially) and have a very brief span of existence, measured typically in thousandths of a second, or milliseconds. An explosion can be visualized as a bubble of highly compressed air that expands until reaching equilibrium with the surrounding air (Liu, 2023).

      Explosive detonations create an incident blast wave, characterized by an almost instantaneous rise from atmospheric pressure to a peak overpressure. As the shock front expands pressure decays back to ambient pressure, a negative pressure phase occurs that is usually longer in duration than the positive phase (Isaac et al., 2023). When the incident pressure wave impinges on a structure that is not parallel to the direction of the waves travel, it is reflected and reinforced, producing what is known as reflected pressure. The reflected pressure is always greater than te incident pressure at the same distance from the explosion. The reflected pressure varies with the angle of incidence of the shock wave. When the shock wave impinges on a surface that is perpendicular to the direction it is traveling, the point of impact will experience the maximum reflected pressure (Baskaran & Muruganandam, 2024). When the reflecting surface is parallel to the blast wave, the minimum reflected pressure or incident pressure will be experienced. In addition to the angle of incidence, the magnitude of the peak reflected pressure is dependent on the peak incident pressure, which is a function of the net explosive weight and distance from the detonation (Almustafa & Nehdi, 2024).

      1. Cube Root Scaling Law

         The calculation of blast load values is primarily determined by two key parameters: distance from the explosion and explosive mass. These parameters are combined into a single scaling factor, forming the basis of the "Cube Root Scaling Law," introduced by Hopkinson-Cranz. This law provides a standardized approach for assessing blast effects, and most research relies on the scaled distance (Z) derived from this theorem, expressed mathematically as: (Goel, 2015).

         where:

         • Z = Scaled Distance (m/kg-3)

           = 3

         • R = Distance between the explosive and the structure (m)

         • W = Charge mass of the explosive (TNT, kg)

           TNT is the standard reference explosive for determining scaled distance values. If a different explosive is used, it must be converted to its TNT equivalent mass using appropriate conversion coefficients to ensure accurate calculations. This principle is widely applied in blast analysis and structural impact assessments.

      2. Design Principles

         As a rule, failure of a limited part of the structure may be admitted in the structure design process providing that no crucial elements are included in such a part on which the stability of the entire structure depends. When calculating building or technological structures, two procedures can be applied in principle. Either maximum possible simplifications are used in the structure analysis in terms of explosion effects, both as regards the load itself and the analyzed structure, or the structure is analyzed in a way so that this analysis describes with the highest accuracy possible the actual state of the structure and its explosion load (Goswami et al., 2022)

      3. Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Blast Loads

         Reinforced concrete structures under blast loads typically exhibit nonlinear and dynamic behavior (Fatima et al., 2023). The primary modes of response include:

         Deformation: Blast forces cause structural components to deform, leading to bending, shear failure, or punching shear failure.

         Cracking: Concrete is particularly susceptible to cracking under high blast pressures, especially if the blast is sustained or the reinforcement is inadequate.

         Failure Modes: Depending on the intensity of the blast, reinforced concrete structures may experience progressive collapse, or localized failure, such as column or wall punching shear failure, spalling, or debonding of reinforcement.

      4. Modeling and Simulation Techniques

         Analytical Methods: Several analytical techniques have been developed to assess the blast resistance of reinforced concrete structures. These methods typically use simplified models to predict the behavior of structural components under blast loads. Common approaches include finite element analysis (FEA), lumped mass models, and plastic hinge models.

         Finite Element Analysis (FEA): FEA is one of the most widely used methods for simulating the dynamic response of structures under blast loads. Advanced FEA software can model the nonlinear behavior of both concrete and reinforcement under dynamic loading. This approach allows for detailed simulations of blast effects, capturing localized deformations, crack propagation, and failure modes (Wang et al., 2021).

         Simplified Approaches: For less complex structures or preliminary designs, engineers may use simplified approaches like the equivalent static load method, where the blast load is converted into an equivalent static force for ease of analysis. However, these methods often lack accuracy in predicting complex behaviors under extreme loading conditions (Yalçn et al., 2022)

      5. Design Guidelines and Standards

         Several design codes and guidelines have been developed to help engineers design reinforced concrete structures

         capable of withstanding blast loads (Kangda, 2022).:

         American Concrete Institute (ACI) 376-12: This standard provides guidance on designing structures for blast resistance, particularly for nuclear facilities.

         U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) UFC 3-340-02: This document offers detailed recommendations on designing structures to resist blast effects, including design criteria for reinforced concrete buildings in military and civilian settings.

         British Standards: The UK offers guidelines such as the BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, which addresses the effects of accidental actions like explosions on buildings and infrastructure.

   3. Blast Load Resistance

      Blast load resistance refers to a structures capacity to withstand the extremely rapid and high-intensity pressure waves generated by explosions. Unlike other dynamic loads, blast loads involve very short-duration impulses with high peak pressures, which makes them uniquely destructive. The response of a structure to a blast is highly nonlinear, involving localized failures such as spalling, scabbing, and breaching, as well as global effects like collapse. Thus, blast-resistant design is both a complex and vital aspect of structural and protective engineering (Ngo et al., 2007).

      The design of blast-resistant structures begins with understanding the characteristics of blast waves, which are typically described by Friedlanders equation. These pressure-time profiles inform the loading conditions used in numerical models and help determine the magnitude of structural response. The response is usually governed by impulse rather than peak pressure, especially for flexible structures, emphasizing the need for precise time- dependent analysis (UFC 3-340-02, 2008).

      Materials and detailing play a critical role in enhancing blast resistance. Traditional reinforced concrete and structural steel, while commonly used, may not offer sufficient ductility or energy absorption under high strain rates. Therefore, high-performance materials such as Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC), Fiber- Reinforced Concrete (FRC), and composite laminates are increasingly used in blast-resistant applications. These materials can absorb large amounts of energy and delay failure, thereby preventing catastrophic collapse (Silva & Lu, 2009; Nair & Cai, 2021).

      In addition to material selection, structural configuration and retrofitting techniques significantly affect blast performance. For instance, symmetrical and compact layouts reduce stress concentrations and promote load redistribution during explosions. Moreover, retrofitting measures such as steel jacketing, FRP wrapping, and energy-absorbing panels have proven effective in upgrading existing structures for blast resistance. Zhang and Hao (2019) demonstrated how steel-plate retrofitting could increase the blast capacity of RC slabs by more than 50%.

      Advanced numerical modeling tools such as LS-DYNA, AUTODYN, and ABAQUS allow for high-fidelity simulations of blast impacts on structures. These tools simulate shock wave propagation, material behavior under high strain rates, and the formation of cracks and failure patterns. Combined with empirical blast testing and field data, they provide a robust platform for validating blast-resitant designs (Luccioni et al., 2004; Zhou et al., 2022). The field has also witnessed the rise of Protective Design Engineering, an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates elements of architecture, materials science, and threat assessment to design buildings that can resist terrorist attacks or accidental explosions. For example, progressive collapse prevention, stand-off distance planning, and the use of blast-resistant glazing are now common in critical infrastructure and military facilities. In recent years, scholars have also called for multi-hazard design frameworks that integrate blast resistance with seismic, wind, and impact loads. Since structural solutions for one hazard may worsen performance under another, a holistic perspective is essential. This is especially crucial for critical structures like embassies, airports, petrochemical facilities, and power plants that face multiple threat scenarios (Zhou et al., 2022).

      In summary, blast load resistance is a multifaceted engineering challenge requiring detailed knowledge of blast physics, material response under high strain rates, and nonlinear dynamic behavior. As urban security and infrastructure resilience gain global attention, the development of blast-resistant systems remains a top priority in structural and civil engineering research.

      Figure 1: Effect of Blast Loading (research gate, 2025).

      Figure 2: Blast pressure on building (research gate, 2025).

   4. Seismic Load Resistance

      Seismic load resistance refers to a structure's ability to withstand and dissipate the energy released during an earthquake without experiencing catastrophic failure or significant structural damage. Earthquake loads originate from ground shaking due to sudden tectonic displacements and propagate upward through a structure's foundation. Designing for seismic resistance has become a critical component of structural engineering, especially in seismically active zones across the globe (Chopra, 2020).

      1. Nature of Seismic Loads and Structural Dynamics

         Seismic loads are inherently dynamic and multidirectional, consisting of horizontal and vertical ground accelerations. Unlike static loads, they induce vibratory motion, which causes a structure to sway, deform, and develop internal forces. These motions typically last from a few seconds to over a minute, depending on the magnitude and duration of the seismic event. The structural response depends on the natural period, damping ratio, and mode shapes of the system (Moehle, 2015; Kramer, 1996).

      2. Design Philosophy and Objectives

         The fundamental goal of seismic-resistant design is to ensure life safety, property protection, and post-event functionality. This is achieved through:

         • Elastic response under minor tremors,

         • Controlled inelastic behavior during moderate earthquakes, and

         • Collapse prevention during severe events (Priestley et al., 2007).

           Modern seismic design follows a performance-based approach, where buildings are evaluated for different performance levels (e.g., Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, Collapse Prevention) under increasing intensity of earthquakes (ATC-58, 2012).

      3. Structural Systems and Components

         Seismic load resistance is highly dependent on the structural configuration, materials, and detailing. Structures with regular geometry, continuous load paths, and symmetric stiffness distributions perform better during earthquakes. Common systems used to resist seismic loads include:

         • Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls

         • Moment-Resisting Frames (Steel or RC)

         • Braced Frames

         • Base Isolation Systems

         • Energy Dissipation Devices such as fluid viscous dampers or metallic yield dampers

           These systems are designed to provide strength, stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation (Khoshnoudian et al., 2024; Islam et al., 2011).

      4. Ductility and Energy Dissipation

         One of the key principles in seismic design is ductility, which allows a structure to undergo large plastic deformations without failure. Ductile detailing, particularly at beam-column joints, ensures that energy is dissipated through controlled yielding rather than brittle fracture. For reinforced concrete, ductility is enhanced through confinement of concrete, adequate lap splices, and strong columnweak beam design philosophy (Moehle, 2015).

      5. Seismic Codes and Standards

         Seismic design is governed by rigorous codes and guidelines, such as:

         • ASCE 7 (USA)

         • Eurocode 8 (Europe)

         • IS 1893 (India)

         • NBCC (Canada) These standards define design spectra, load combinations, and detailing requirements based on seismic zoning, building importance, and site class. Recent updates to these codes emphasize performance- based seismic design (PBSD), soil-structure interaction, and non-structural component safety (FEMA P-1050, 2020).

      6. Modeling and Analysis Techniques

         Advanced analysis methods such as response spectrum analysis, pushover analysis, and nonlinear time-history analysis allow engineers to assess seismic performance under various intensity levels. Software tools like ETABS, SAP2000, OpenSees, and Abaqus support sophisticated modeling of nonlinearities, material degradation, and hysteretic energy dissipation (Chopra, 2020; Paz & Leigh, 2004). Recent Research and Innovations

         Emerging research in seismic engineering focuses on:

         • Base-isolated and self-centering systems to minimize residual displacements (Mokha et al., 1991)

         • Seismic resilience and recovery time as design metrics

         • Smart materials and adaptive systems that adjust to seismic intensity

         • Retrofitting of existing buildings using FRP wraps, steel braces, and dampers (Islam et al., 2011; Nair & Cai, 2021)

           In earthquake-prone regions like Japan, California, and Turkey, these innovations have helped reduce casualties and improve structural survivability during large earthquakes (Zhang et al., 2022).

      7. Dynamic Load Analysis

         Dynamic load analysis evaluates the behavior of structures subjected to time-dependent loads such as earthquakes. This derivation is based on the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system subjected to seismic excitation. The governing differential equation of motion for an SDOF system is given as:

         m * ü(t) + c * (t) + k * x(t) = -m * üg(t) (1)

         Where:

         m = Mass of the system (kg)

         c = Damping coefficient (N·s/m) k = Stiffness of the system (N/m)

         x(t) = Relative displacement of mass with respect to ground (m) ü(t) = Relative acceleration (m/s²)

         (t) = Relative velocity (m/s)

         üg(t) = Ground acceleration due to seismic activity (m/s²)

         The term on the right-hand side, -m * üg(t), represents the inertial force due to ground motion. Solving this differential equation using methods such as the Duhamel Integral or numerical time-stepping methods provides the dynamic response (displacement, velocity, and acceleration) of the structure over time.

      8. Seismic Load Equations

         This part provides the fundamental equations used in seismic analysis for displacement, base shear, overturning moment, story drift, and time period of a structure. These equations are essential in structural engineering to ensure buildings perform adequately during seismic events.

         1. Seismc Displacement ()

            = (V × h) / (K × g) (2)

            Where:

            = Displacement (m)

            V = Seismic base shear (N)

            h = Height of the building (m)

            K = Lateral stiffness of the structure (N/m) g = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²)

         2. Seismic Base Shear (V)

            V = Cs × W (3)

            Where:

            V = Base shear (N)

            Cs = Seismic response coefficient

            W = Total seismic weight of the building (N)

         3. Overturning Moment (M)

            M = V × h (4)

            Where:

            M = Overturning moment at the base (Nm) V = Seismic base shear (N)

            h = Height from base to the center of mass (m)

         4. Story Drift (s)

            s = n – n-1 (5)

            Where:

            s = Story drift (m)

            n = Lateral displacement at level n (m)

            n-1 = Lateral displacement at level n-1 (m)

         5. Time Period (T)

            T = 2 × (m / k) (6)

            Where:

            T = Natural time period (s)

            m = Mass of the structure (kg)

            k = Stiffness of the structure (N/m)

   5. Comparison Between Blast Load Resistance and Seismic Load Resistance

      While both blast load resistance and seismic load resistance fall under the broader category of structural response to dynamic loads, the nature, duration, frequency content, and damage mechanisms of these loads differ significantly. As such, understanding their comparative behavior is critical to the development of unified and efficient multi-hazard design strategies for structures exposed to either or both threats.

      Figure 3: Rcc Structure Subjected to Blast & Seismic Load (sciencedirect, 2025).

      1. Nature and Characteristics of Loads:

         Seismic loads arise from tectonic ground motions that transmit energy into the structure through its foundation. These motions are relatively low in amplitude but prolonged and include cyclic reversals of loading. In contrast, blast loads result from instantaneous energy release, usually due to chemical explosions, producing high-intensity, short-duration shock waves. These load types differ greatly in terms of their loading rates and pressure-time histories (Chopra, 2020; Ngo et al., 2007).

      2. Frequency Content and Structural Response:

         Seismic forces typically excite low-frequency modes of the structure due to their longer duration and ground displacement characteristics. On the other hand, blast loads excite high-frequency modes, causing more localized responses, especially in the vicinity of the explosion (Luccioni et al., 2004). Consequently, structural members that are effective in resisting seismic forces, such as moment-resisting frames, may not perform well under blast conditions without additional reinforcement (Silva & Lu, 2009).

      3. Energy Dissipation and Structural Mechanisms:

         Both load types require significant energy dissipation capacity. Seismic-resistant systems rely on ductile behavior, allowing structures to undergo large inelastic deformations without collapsing. This is typically achieved using shear walls, moment-resisting frames, braced frames, and dampers (Khoshnoudian et al., 2024). Blast-resistant structures, however, emphasize initial stiffness and energy absorption over ductility to mitigate the effects of shock waves. Strategies include the use of sacrificial elements, energy-absorbing panels, and composite retrofitting systems (Zhang & Hao, 2019).

      4. Design Codes and Methodologies:

         Seismic design is well codified in most countries through standards such as ASCE 7, Eurocode 8, and IS 1893, which provide detailed procedures based on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (Moehle, 2015). In contrast, blast design is often governed by military or proprietary standards, such as UFC 3-340-02 and ASTM blast guidelines, due to the sensitive and varied nature of blast threats. This lack of harmonized civilian codes makes comparative design efforts more challenging (UFC, 2008).

      5. Failure Modes and Damage Patterns:

         Seismic damage tends to be distributed, involving plastic hinge formation, foundation rocking, and overall lateral displacement. Blast damage, however, is usually localized, with immediate failure of critical elements near the explosion sitesuch as walls, windows, and columnspotentially leading to progressive collapse (Luccioni et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2022). Thus, blast-resistant design often requires redundant load paths and detailing to prevent disproportionate failure.

      6. Retrofit and Rehabilitation Approaches:

         Both seismic and blast retrofitting rely on improving energy dissipation and increasing structural robustness. However, methods differ in emphasis. Seismic retrofitting focuses on base isolation, bracing, and energy dissipation devices (e.g., viscous dampers), while blast retrofitting emphasizes local strengthening, composite wrapping, and shock mitigation layers (Nair & Cai, 2021). Some methods, such as Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) jacketing, are effective against both hazards, making them attractive for multi-hazard retrofits.

      7. Cost and Design Complexity:

         Blast-resistant design tends to be more cost-intensive, requiring specialized analysis, materials, and detailing due to the extreme nature of the loading. Seismic design, though complex, benefits from extensive code development, modeling tools, and decades of implementation, making it more standardized and accessible (Chopra, 2020). In multi-hazard environments (e.g., embassies or industrial facilities in seismic zones), engineers must carefully balance the cost-benefit tradeoffs of designing for both events, while both seismic and blast resistance aim to protect structures from dynamic threats, their differing load characteristics and damage mechanisms require distinctbut sometimes overlappingdesign philosophies. An integrated approach combining insights from both domains can significantly enhance the resilience of modern infrastructure, especially in multi-hazard-prone regions.

   6. Discussions

      The comparative analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) structures under blast and seismic loading conditions reveals that, while both are categorized as dynamic loads, their characteristics, structural demands, and response mechanisms are markedly different. These differences significantly influence the design, analysis, and retrofitting strategies for RC structures.

      1. Nature of Dynamic Loads

         Seismic loads, primarily resulting from tectonic ground motion, are typically low in frequency but prolonged in duration. They induce oscillatory displacements, requiring the structure to accommodate repeated lateral and vertical inertial forces (Chopra, 2020; Moehle, 2015). In contrast, blast loads are high-frequency, impulsive events

         with very short durations, often in the millisecond range, and cause extreme localized overpressures (Ngo et al., 2007; Gaitonde, 2023). The impulsive nature of blast loads leads to immediate structural failures, often without warning, necessitating highly robust and energy-absorbing structural elements (Zhou et al., 2022).

      2. Structural Response Mechanisms

         Seismic-resistant design typically prioritizes ductility and energy dissipation through global mechanisms like shear walls, base isolators, and energy dissipation devices (Khoshnoudian et al., 2024). RC structures under seismic loads are expected to deform plastically without collapse, thereby ensuring life safety even under strong ground motion (Priestley et al., 2007). Conversely, blast-resistant design focuses more on initial stiffness, local reinforcement, and the capacity to absorb shock without catastrophic rupture (Fatima et al., 2023). The structure must be ble to survive extremely high pressures over a very short time, often with the help of sacrificial elements and high-performance materials like Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) and Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) (Silva & Lu, 2009).

      3. Design Approaches and Codes

         Seismic design has evolved under well-established, performance-based codes such as ASCE 7, Eurocode 8, and IS 1893, which provide comprehensive frameworks for life safety and functional performance under various earthquake intensities (Moehle, 2015). On the other hand, blast-resistant design is governed largely by military or proprietary standards, including UFC 3-340-02, with less consistency across civilian applications (UFC, 2008). This disparity presents challenges in multi-hazard design, where a structure may be subjected to both types of loading within its service life, particularly in high-threat or seismically active regions.

      4. Modeling and Simulation Tools

         Modern structural analysis for both seismic and blast loads has benefited from advancements in finite element modeling (FEM) and nonlinear dynamic simulations. Tools like ABAQUS, LS-DYNA, and ANSYS have enabled accurate simulation of complex load paths, material nonlinearity, and failure mechanisms (Bathe, 2006; Wang et al., 2022). Additionally, machine learning (ML) models are emerging as efficient alternatives or complements to traditional simulations, particularly in blast response prediction (Almustafa & Nehdi, 2022), though these still depend heavily on the availability of comprehensive datasets and validation studies.

      5. Retrofitting Strategies

         Retrofitting strategies for seismic and blast threats, while sharing some overlap, have distinct emphases. Seismic retrofitting commonly involves global structural enhancementslike bracing, base isolation, or energy dissipation systemsaimed at improving the overall building response (Nair & Cai, 2021). Blast retrofitting focuses on localized strengthening, such as steel plate jacketing and FRP wrapping of critical elements, to resist high-pressure shock waves and prevent progressive collapse (Zhang & Hao, 2019).

      6. Need for Integrated Design Frameworks

Despite growing research in both fields, current design philosophies largely treat blast and seismic resistance in isolation. This fragmented approach could result in vulnerabilities, especially in multi-hazard environments such as embassies, petrochemical facilities, or power plants situated in seismically active regions. A unified, resilience- based design framework is thus essential, one that balances stiffness, ductility, redundancy, and energy absorption to address both blast and seismic demands concurrently (Zhang et al., 2022).

Table 2.1: Key Comparative Summary

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

1. Data and Inclusion Criteria

   Blast and seismic loads analysis on RC structures were typed on the Scopus website and 95 documents were displayed. Out of the documents, 60 representing 63 percent were used in the review while 35 documents representing 37 percent were excluded because their abstracts do not reflect the subject topic being queried.

2. Scope

   The 28 documents (articles) considered only the blast seismic loads analysis on RC structures

3. Data Organization and Presentation

The data are organized based on six types; author and year, title, the aim, methodology, major findings and critics of the surveyed articles, Attempts were made to find the perceived research gap which are presented in the subsequent sections.

CHAPTER FOUR RESENTATION OF PAPERS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the reviewed paper in tabular with Author(s) and Year, Title/Study Focus, Objective/Research Focus, Methodology, Key Findings and Critics as the column subheadings.

1. Reviewed Literatures

   Author(s) and Year	Title/Study Focus	Objective/Research Focus	Methodology	Key Findings	Critics
   Gholipour et al. (2020)	Numerical analysis of axially loaded RC columns subjected to the combination of impact and blast loads	Study on failure behaviors and dynamic responses of RC columns under combined impact and blast loads	Numerical simulations in LS- DYNA; multi-step loading methodology	Impact loading before explosion causes more severe failures; loading sequence, axial load ratio, and impact velocity significantly affect column vulnerability	Absence of real-world testing for validation
   Rajkumar et al. (2020)	Numerical study on parametric analysis of reinforced concrete column under blast loading	Effect of geometry on RC columns under blast loading	FEM-based LS- DYNA simulations; parametric analysis	Reinforcement ratio, seismic detailing, and scaled distance significantly affect blast performance	Limited validation with experimental studies
   Anas et al. (2023)	Reinforced cement concrete (RCC) shelter and prediction of its blast loads capacity	Evaluation of blast resistance of RCC blast shelters under different detonation scenarios	ABAQUS/Explicit simulations; parametric study with concrete damage plasticity model	RCC shelters withstand up to 4.98 MPa (SAD) and 0.93 MPa (HSD); safe standoff distances determined	Focused only on specific shelter configuration
   Almustafa & Nehdi (2022)	Machine learning model for predicting structural response of RC columns subjected to blast loading	Development of an ML model to predict maximum displacement of RC columns under blast loading	Ensemble tree-based ML algorithms; dataset of 420 cases; statistical validation	High prediction accuracy (R2 = 97.4%); effective identification of critical parameters	Dependence on existing datasets; lacks real-world experimental validation
   Kumar et al. (2020)	Experimental and numerical investigation of reinfoced concrete slabs under blast loading	Investigation of damage resistance of RC slabs to blast loading	Experimental tests and ABAQUS/Explicit simulations	Higher TNT charges increase damage; greater standoff distances reduce impact	Focuses on slabs rather than columns; limited variation in material properties

   Author(s) and Year	Title/Study Focus	Objective/Research Focus	Methodology	Key Findings	Critics
   Jin et al. (2020)	Predicting the response of locally resonant concrete structure under blast load	Study of ternary locally resonant concrete (LRC) performance under blast loading	Analytical derivation and numerical modeling	LRC reduces stress wave propagation and structural damage under blasts	Needs experimental validation for real-world applications
   Wu et al. (2020)	Numerical simulation of reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast loading and structural damage assessment	Establishment of relationships between explosion conditions and RC slab damage levels	3D FEM with fluid- structure coupling algorithm; TNT air- blast modeling	Simulation results align with Henrys Formula; damage levels categorized	Model limited to specific TNT masses and distances
   Almustafa & Nehdi (2020)	Machine learning model for predicting structural response of RC slabs exposed to blast loading	Development of an ML model to predict maximum displacement of RC slabs under blast loading	Random Forests algorithm; dataset of 150 cases; statistical validation	High prediction accuracy (R2 = 96.2%); computationally efficient	Limited dataset size; lacks experimental validation
   Wang et al. (2022)	Blast resistance of reinforced concrete slabs based on residual load- bearing capacity	Study on blast- loading experiments and numerical simulations of RC slabs	Experimental testing and finite element modeling	Increased reinforcement ratio reduces residual displacement and enhances load- bearing capacity	Limited to two reinforcement ratios
   Yan et al. (2020)	Experimental and numerical analysis of CFRP strengthened RC columns subjected to close-in blast loading	Examination of CFRP retrofitting on RC columns for improved blast resistance	Experimental testing and finite element analysis	CFRP enhances blast resistance and reduces displacement	Influence of strengthening methods on failure modes needs further study
   Sevim & Toy (2020)	Blasting response of a two-storey RC building under different charge weight of TNT explosives	Investigation of structural response under various TNT explosive charges	ANSYS Workbench and AUTODYN numerical simulations	Higher TNT charge weight significantly increases structural damage	Limited to numerical modeling; lacks experimental validation
   Kristoffersen et al. (2021)	Experimental and numerical studies of	Examination of blast effects on tubular concrete structures	Live explosive testing and finite element simulations	Internal blasts cause more severe damage;	Requires further real-

   Author(s) and Year			Title/Study Focus	Objective/Research Focus	Methodology	Key Findings	Critics
   			tubular concrete structures subjected to blast loading			reinforcement increases blast resistance	world case studies
   Fang	et	al.	A rate-sensitive	Investigation of strain-rate effects on RC beams under blast loads	Timoshenko beam theory and nonlinear material modeling	Rate-sensitive	Limited
   (2024)			analysis of R/C			analysis improves	experimental
   			beams			blast load	validation
   			subjected to			predictions
   			blast loads
   Ahmadi et al.			Blast	Analysis of design	ABAQUS/Explicit	Reinforcement	Model lacks
   (2022)			performance of	parameters affecting	finite element	ratio, concrete	full-scale
   			RCC slab and	RCC slab	simulations	cover, and	validation
   			influence of its	performance under		material strength
   			design	blast loads		influence blast
   			parameters			resistance
   Talaat	et	al.	Finite element	Investigate blast effects on RC buildings with different structural systems	Finite element analysis using ABAQUS (Flat slab & Solid slab systems)	Flat slab system	Limited range
   (2022)			analysis of RC			suffers damage in	of TNT mass
   			buildings			columns; solid	considered;
   			subjected to			slab system in	Real-world
   			blast loading			beams. Double	validation
   						reinforcement	needed
   						improves blast
   						resistance
   Guo	et	al.	RC shear wall buildings under internal TNT explosions	Study blast amplification due to confined explosions	Field tests on scaled models; LS-DYNA numerical validation	Internal	Limited to
   (2024)						explosions cause	small-scale
   						more severe	tests; needs
   						damage than free	real-life
   						air explosions;	structure
   						Overpressures &	validation
   						blast loads
   						significantly
   						amplified
   Toy & Sevim (2022)			Structural response of multi-story building subjected blast load	a to	Examine how blast loads impact different building elements	3D finite element modeling using ANSYS AUTODYN	Localized damage to load-bearing elements; blast duration affects response	No comparative study with real-life explosions
   Altuniik et al.			Blast response of brick walls subjected to TNT	Assess brick wall behavior under different TNT weights	Experimental tests;	Increased TNT	Needs larger-
   (2021)					ANSYS simulation	weight results in	scale testing;
   						higher pressures	only brick
   						& displacements;	walls
   						Empirical	considered
   						formulas
   						validated
   Jasmine et al. (2022)			Blast loads and their effects on structures	Review past research & identify gaps in blast-resistant design	Literature review	No standard blast load code in structural design;	Lacks empirical validation;

   Author(s) and Year	Title/Study Focus	Objective/Research Focus	Methodology	Key Findings	Critics
   				blast loads should be incorporated in high-rise design	purely theoretical
   Abebe & Mohammed (2022)	RC frame performance under close-in blast loading	Assess close-range blast effects on seismic-resistant RC frames	Finite element analysis using ANSYS AUTODYN	Reduced scaled distance increases plastic strain & damage index	No real-world testing; limited to low-rise structures
   Xiao et al. (2020)	TNT equivalence concept for blast-resistant design	Develop empirical formulas for TNT equivalence in different blast scenarios	Numerical curve fitting for TNT equivalence factors	Near-field TNT equivalence varies significantly; far- field equivalence is stable	No experimental validation of numerical results
   Alogla et al. (2020)	Critical structure protection using metallic panels	Evaluate protective panels for blast mitigation	Finite element modeling (ANSYS AUTODYN) of protective panels	Optimized metallic panels minimize deformation and blast effects	Limited structural types tested; focus only on metallic panels
   Xu et al. (2024)	Successive explosions and blast effects on RC beams	Investigate repeated explosion effects on RC beams	Finite element modeling of successive TNT blasts	Successive explosions increase local damage but reduce overall displacement accumulation	Limited to small-scale beams; real- world applicability unclear
   Karmakar & Shaw (2021)	Response of RC plates under blast loading using FEM- SPH coupled method	Investigate the response of RC plates under blast loads using a hybrid FEM- SPH approach	Numerical simulations with FEM-SPH hybrid discretization, considering different blast event idealizations (LBE, MM_ALE, Coupled LBE & MM_ALE)	Showed effects of standoff distance and boundary conditions on RC plates' response	The study lacks experimental validation for the proposed hybrid methodology
   Almustafa & Nehdi (2021)	Machine learning prediction of structural response for FRP retrofitted RC slabs subjected to blast loading	Develop a machine learning model to predict maximum displacement of FRP- strengthened RC slabs under blast loading	Gaussian process regression algorithm and Tabular Generative Adversarial Network (TGAN) for synthetic data generation	The ML model achieved high prediction accuracy and provided a simplified, cost- effective approach for design	Limited by the availability of real-world blast response data for training
   Shishegaran et al. (2020)	Computational predictions for estimating maximum deflection of	Predict the maximum deflection of RC panels subjected to blast loading using	Nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) combined with gene expression programming	MLnER was identified as the best model for predicting RC panel deflection;	The study focuses only on numerical modeling, without

   Author(s) and Year	Title/Study Focus	Objective/Research Focus	Methodology	Key Findings	Critics
   	RC panels under blast load	different regression models	(GEP), multiple linear regression (MLR), and multiple Ln equation regression (MLnER)	key parameters influencing response include panel thickness and concrete compressive strength	experimental validation
   AbdElNabi et al. (2023)	Numerical analysis of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to blast load	Investigate blast- induced damage in RC buildings with and without shear walls	3D nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA) using the Coupled Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL) method in Abaqus	Shear walls significantly reduce damage from blasts; small TNT charges at >10m standoff distances have minimal impact, while large charges at <10m cause catastrophic damage	The study is limited to a specific type of building and does not explore other reinforcement techniques
   Altunk et al. (2021)	Effects of concrete strength and openings in infill walls on blasting responses of RC buildings subjected to TNT explosive	Evaluate how concrete strength and infill wall openings affect blast resistance of RC buildings	Experimental tests on a small-scale specimen followed by numerical analyses in ANSYS Workbench and AUTODYN	Increasing concrete strength reduces peak pressures by 22.50% and maximum displacements by 32.16%; openings in infill walls affect blast response by 8.16%-13.92%	The study does not consider retrofitting techniques for blast mitigation
   Chopra, A. K. (2020)	Dynamics of Structures (5th ed.)	To provide comprehensive understanding of structural dynamics under seismic loads.	Theoretical analysis and dynamic modeling of structures under seismic excitations.	Explained the role of ground motion characteristics in seismic response; importance of damping and natural period in seismic design.	No detailed coverage of emerging technologies in seismic resistance, focusin more on traditional methods.
   Moehle, J. P. (2015)	Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings	To explore reinforced concrete buildings' response to seismic forces and methods for designing seismic- resistant buildings.	Experimental and analytical studies, including numerical simulations and real earthquake data analysis.	Discussed various seismic-resistant systems, including shear walls, braced frames, and energy dissipation devices.	Lacks focus on innovative materials and advanced seismic technologies such as smart materials.
   Khoshnoudian et al. (2024)	Resilience and Energy	To review modern seismic energy	Analytical modeling of energy dissipation	Identified that energy-	Focuses mainly on

   Author(s) and Year	Title/Study Focus	Objective/Research Focus	Methodology	Key Findings	Critics
   	Dissipation Mechanisms in Seismic Design	dissipation systems and their role in enhancing building resilience during earthquakes.	and real-world case studies on buildings with dampers and isolation systems.	dissipating systems like viscous dampers improve post- earthquake building functionality.	energy dissipation, not structural integrity or the impact of extreme seismic events.
   Nair & Cai (2021)	Review of Seismic Retrofitting Techniques Using Fiber- Reinforced Polymers	To evaluate the effectiveness of FRP in retrofitting buildings to improve seismic load resistance.	Experimental study on the application of FRP wraps for strengthening concrete structures under seismic loading.	FRP wraps significantly improve the lateral load resistance and deformation capacity of concrete structures.	Lacks real- world case studies to verify the long-term performance of FRP retrofits in seismic zones.
   Zhang, W., Li, C., & Sun, Y. (2022)	Integrated Dynamic Analysis for Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment of Building Structures	To integrate seismic loads with other dynamic hazards in a unified risk assessment framework.	Nonlinear dynamic analysis combining seismic and wind load assessments in multi-hazard zones.	Developed a multi-hazard risk analysis approach, highlighting the need for integrated seismic and blast- resistance strategies.	Limited discussion on how to effectively design multi- hazard- resistant structures across varying risk profiles.
   Mokha et al. (1991)	Teflon Bearings in Base Isolation for Seismic Resistance	To evaluate the use of Teflon bearings in base-isolated buildings for seismic load mitigation.	Experimental testing of base-isolated models using Teflon bearings for dynamic load response under earthquakes.	Found that base- isolated structures with Teflon bearings significantly reduce seismic- induced building motion.	Base isolation systems, while effective, are expensive and may not be feasible for all building types.

2. Major Findings

Blast loads are characterized by high-intensity, short-duration pressure waves resulting from explosions. Seismic loads involve low-frequency, long-duration ground motions caused by tectonic activity. These differing characteristics significantly influence structural response and failure modes.

Blast loading primarily results in localized damage, such as spalling, scabbing, and punching shear, often leading to progressive collapse. Seismic loading typically causes global deformation, forming plastic hinges and involving significant lateral displacements and cyclic loading effects.

Blast-resistant structures benefit from high-performance materials (e.g., UHPC, FRC, composite retrofits), energy absorption, and sacrificial elements. Seismic-resistant structures require ductile detailing, energy dissipation systems (e.g., dampers, base isolators), and regular structural geometry.

Both load types necessitate nonlinear dynamic analysis, often supported by finite element modeling (e.g., LS- DYNA, ABAQUS). Advanced modeling techniques and machine learning tools are increasingly used, especially in blast response prediction.

Seismic design is governed by codified national and international standards (e.g., ASCE 7, Eurocode 8). Blast design often relies on military or proprietary guidelines (e.g., UFC 3-340-02), with fewer standardized civil engineering codes.

Retrofitting for seismic and blast resistance shares common techniques (e.g., FRP wrapping, steel jacketing), but blast retrofitting emphasizes local reinforcement, while seismic retrofitting targets global system improvements. There is a lack of integrated design frameworks that account for both seismic and blast loads. A unified, multi- hazard resilience-based design approach is essential, especially for critical infrastructure in high-risk zones.

1. Conclusion

   CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

   1. Though both loads are dynamic and time-dependent, they differ significantly in duration, frequency, damage mechanisms, and structural response.

   2. Seismic loads are long-duration and low-frequency, impacting entire structures and requiring high ductility and energy dissipation unlike blast loads.

   3. Shared design elements like Fiber-Reinforced Polymers and nonlinear dynamic analysis can enhance resilience to both seismic and blast threats.

   4. While seismic codes are standardized, blast resistance guidelines are often military-based, complicating their use in civilian structures.

   5. To improve safety, future designs should adopt multi-hazard approaches with integrated principles, hybrid tools, and cost-effective retrofitting strategies.

2. Recommendations for Further Studies

1. Investigate the effectiveness of combining materials such as Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) and Ultra-High- Performance Concrete (UHPC) in enhancing resilience to both seismic and blast effects.

2. Perform case studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of retrofitting strategies tailored for blast load resilience.

3. Explore the possibility of integrating seismic and blast-resistant design principles into a unified, civilian- accessible code.

REFERENCES

AbdElNabi, E., ElHelloty, A., & Summra, A. (2023). Numerical analysis of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to blast load. Structural Concrete, 24(3), 3727-3743.

Abebe, S., & Mohammed, T. A. (2022). Performance Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Frame under CloseIn Blast Loading. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022(1), 3979195.

Ahmadi, E., Alam, M., & Anas, S. M. (2022). Blast performance of RCC slab and influence of its design parameters. In Resilient Infrastructure: Select Proceedings of VCDRR 2021 (pp. 389-402). Springer Singapore.

Almustafa, M. K., & Nehdi, M. L. (2020). Machine learning model for predicting structural response of RC slabs exposed to blast loading. Engineering Structures, 221, 111109.

Almustafa, M. K., & Nehdi, M. L. (2021). Machine learning prediction of structural response for FRP retrofitted RC slabs subjected to blast loading. Engineering Structures, 244, 112752.

Almustafa, . K., & Nehdi, M. L. (2022). Machine learning model for predicting structural response of RC columns subjected to blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 162, 104145.

Almustafa, M. K., & Nehdi, M. L. (2024). Decay behavior and internal interactions of regularly reflected spherical blast waves. Physics of Fluids, 36(2).

Alogla, A., Helal, M., ElShafey, M. M., & Fathallah, E. (2020). Numerical analysis for critical structures protection against blast loading using metallic panels. Applied Sciences, 10(6), 2121.

Altunk, A. C., Önalan, F., & Sunca, F. (2021). Effects of concrete strength and openings in infill walls on blasting responses of RC buildings subjected to TNT explosive. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 45(4), 2525-2554.

ALTUNIIK, A., ONALAN, F., & Sunca, F. (2021). Experimental, numerical and analytical investigation on blast response of brick walls subjected to TNT explosive. Journal of Structural Engineering & Applied Mechanics (Online), 4(1).

Anas, S. M., Alam, M., & Umair, M. (2023). Reinforced cement concrete (RCC) shelter and prediction of its blast loads capacity. Materials Today: Proceedings, 74, 547-568.

Baskaran, S. P., & Muruganandam, T. M. (2024). A study on shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction with varying flow deflection angle. Physics of Fluids, 36(5).

Bathe, K. J. (2006). Finite Element Procedures. Prentice Hall.

Bell, J., Redmond, L., Carpenter, K., & de la Croix, J. P. (2024). Finite Element Modeling of Rigid-Flex Printed-Circuit-Board Origami Robotics Subjected to Large-Scale Deformations. Aiaa Journal, 62(4), 1264-1280.

Chopra, A. K. (2020). Dynamics of Structures (5th ed.). Pearson.

Chopra, A. K. (2020). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering (5th ed.). Pearson Education. Clough, R. W., & Penzien, J. (2015). Dynamics of Structures. Computers & Structures, Inc.

Fang, Q., Qian, Q. H., & Shi, Y. L. (2024). A rate-sensitive analysis of R/C beams subjected to blast loads. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 25.

Fatima, A., Sangi, A. J., Mohammad, A. F., & Joohi, M. (2023). Global response of reinforced concrete framed building under varying blast load pulse shapes. In Structures (Vol. 50, pp. 482-493). Elsevier.

Gaitonde, D. V., & Adler, M. C. (2023). Dynamics of three-dimensional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 55(1), 291-321.

Gholipour, G., Zhang, C., & Mousavi, A. A. (2020). Numerical analysis of axially loaded RC columns subjected to the combination of impact and blast loads. Engineering Structures, 219, 110924.

Goel, M. D. (2015). Blast: Characteristics, loading and computationAn overview. Advances in Structural Engineering: Mechanics, Volume One, 417-434.

Goswami, A., Ganesh, T., & Adhikary, S. D. (2022). RC structures subjected to combined blast and fragment impact loading: A state-of-the- art review on the present and the future outlook. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 170, 104355.

Guo, X., Li, Y., McCrum, D. P., Hu, Y., Bai, Z., Zhang, H., … & Wang, X. (2024). A reinforced concrete shear wall building structure subjected to internal TNT explosions: Test results and numerical validation. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 190, 104950.

Isaac, O. S., Alshammari, O. G., Pickering, E. G., Clarke, S. D., & Rigby, S. E. (2023). Blast wave interaction with structur esAn overview. International Journal of Protective Structures, 14(4), 584-630.

Jain, S., Tiwari, R., Chakraborty, T., & Matsagar, V. (2015). Dynamic response of reinforced concrete wall under blast loading. Indian Concr J, 89(27), 27-41.

Jasmine, G. V., Ponnada, M. R., & Mishra, S. P. (2022). Blast Loads and Their Effects on Structures. In Advances in Construction Management: Select Proceedings of ACMM 2021 (pp. 167-178). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Jin, H., Hao, H., Hao, Y., & Chen, W. (2020). Predicting the response of locally resonant concrete structure under blast load. Construction and Building Materials, 252, 118920.

Kangda, M. Z. (2022). Blast protection techniques: a review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 29(5), 3509-3529.

Karmakar, S., & Shaw, A. (2021). Response of RC plates under blast loading using FEM-SPH coupled method. Engineering Failure Analysis, 125, 105409.

Khoshnoudian, F., Rezaei, M., Tafakhori, P., Azizi, M., & Moradi, M. (2024). Resilience and energy dissipation mechanisms in seismic design: A state-of-the-art review. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 173, 107510.

Kristoffersen, M., Hauge, K. O., Minoretti, A., & Børvik, T. (2021). Experimental and numerical studies of tubular concrete structures subjected to blast loading. Engineering Structures, 233, 111543.

Kumar, V., Kartik, K. V., & Iqbal, M. A. (2020). Experimental and numerical investigation of reinforced concrete slabs under blast loading. Engineering Structures, 206, 110125.

Liu, T. (2023). Explosion physics. In Explosive Blast Injuries: Principles and Practices (pp. 15-61). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Luccioni, B. M., Ambrosini, D., & Danesi, R. F. (2004). Analysis of building collapse under blast loads. Engineering Structures, 26(1), 63 71.

Luccioni, B. M., Ambrosini, D., & Danesi, R. F. (2004). Analysis of building collapse under blast loads. Engineering Structures, 26(1), 63

71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.08.008

Meena, A., Jethoo, A. S., & Ramana, P. V. (2021). Impact of blast loading over reinforced concrete without infill structure. Materials Today: Proceedings, 46, 8783-8789.

Moehle, J. P. (2015). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. McGraw-Hill.

Moehle, J. P. (2015). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. McGraw-Hill Education.

Nair, A., & Cai, C. S. (2021). Review of blast-resistant materials and structural retrofitting techniques. Structures, 33, 24202436.

Nair, A., & Cai, C. S. (2021). Review of blast-resistant materials and structural retrofitting techniques. Structures, 33, 24202436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.072

Ngo, T., Mendis, P., Gupta, A., & Ramsay, J. (2007). Blast loading and blast effects on structures An overview. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 7, 7691.

Ngo, T., Mendis, P., Gupta, A., & Ramsay, J. (2007). Blast loading and blast effects on structures An overview. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 7, 7691.

Pn, P. (2023). Daltons Law (Law of Partial Pressure). Patient Transport: Principles and Practice-E-Book, 52.

Rajkumar, D., Senthil, R., Bala Murali Kumar, B., AkshayaGomathi, K., & Mahesh Velan, S. (2020). Numerical study on parametric analysis of reinforced concrete column under blast loading. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 34(1), 04019102.

Sevim, B., & Toy, A. T. (2020). Blasting response of a two-storey RC building under different charge weight of TNT explosives. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 44(2), 565-577.

Shishegaran, A., Khalili, M. R., Karami, B., Rabczuk, T., & Shishegaran, A. (2020). Computational predictions for estimating the maximum deflection of reinforced concrete panels subjected to the blast load. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 139, 103527.

Silva, P., & Lu, Y. (2009). Material models for high strain rate applications in LS-DYNA. Computers & Structures, 87(1112), 827834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.01.004

Spencer Jr, B. F., & Nagayama, T. (2006). Smart sensor technology: A new paradigm for structural health monitoring. Proceedings of the Asia- Pacific Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Yokohama, Japan.

Talaat, M., Yehia, E., Mazek, S. A., Genidi, M. M., & Sherif, A. G. (2022). inite element analysis of RC buildings subjected to blast loading. Ain Shams engineering journal, 13(4), 101689.

Toy, A. T., & Sevim, B. (2022). Structural response of multi-story building subjected to blast load. J. Struct. Eng. Appl. Mech., 5(1), 13-21.

UFC 3-340-02. (2008). Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions. U.S. Department of Defense.

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-340-02. (2008). Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Department of Defense, United States.

Wang, L., Cheng, S., Liao, Z., Yin, W., Liu, K., Ma, L., … & Zhang, D. (2022). Blast resistance of reinforced concrete slabs based on residual load-bearing capacity. Materials, 15(18), 6449.

Wang, Z., Wang, H., Wang, J., & Tian, N. (2021). Finite element analyses of constitutive models performance in the simulation of blast- induced rock cracks. Computers and Geotechnics, 135, 104172.

Woolford, S. (2024). Mechanisms of Confined Explosions and The Effects of AfterburnThe Consistency of Experimental Measurement and Thermochemical Prediction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield).

Wu, J., Zhou, Y., Zhang, R., Liu, C., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Numerical simulation of reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast loading and the structural damage assessment. Engineering Failure Analysis, 118, 104926.

Xiao, W., Andrae, M., & Gebbeken, N. (2020). Air blast TNT equivalence concept for blast-resistant design. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 185, 105871.

Xu, Y., Liu, Y., Huang, F., Yan, J., Bai, F., Li, X., & Wang, H. (2024). Effect of load details of the successive explosions on the blast behaviors of reinforced concrete beams. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 33(1), e2061.

Yalçn, C., Dindar, A. A., Yüksel, E., Özkaynak, H., & Büyüköztürk, O. (2021). Seismic design of RC frame structures based on energy- balance method. Engineering Structures, 237, 112220.

Yan, J., Liu, Y., Xu, Z., Li, Z., & Huang, F. (2020). Experimental and numerical analysis of CFRP strengthened RC columns subjected to close-in blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 146, 103720.

Zhang, W., Li, C., & Sun, Y. (2022). Integrated dynamic analysis for multi-hazard risk assessment of building structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 148(5), 04022045.

Zhang, W., Li, C., & Sun, Y. (2022). Integrated dynamic analysis for multi-hazard risk assessment of building structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 148(5), 04022045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003150

Zhang, Y., & Hao, H. (2019). Experimental and numerical study of retrofitted RC slabs under close-in blast loads. Engineering Structures, 197, 109352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109352

Zhou, X., Li, H., Wang, Y., Chen, Q., & Zhang, L. (2022). Advances in blast-resistant design of structures using high-performance materials. Engineering Structures, 265, 114561.

Zhou, X., Li, H., Wang, Y., Chen, Q., & Zhang, L. (2022). Advances in blast-resistant design of structures using high-performance materials. Engineering Structures, 265, 114561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114561