Protection of structures against

airblast using barriers of limited

robustness
T. A. Rose, BSc, P. D. Smith, MA, MSc, PhD, CEng, MICE and G. C. Mays, BSc,
PhD, CEng, FICE, MIStructE, MIHT
j A programme of research was conducted at
approximately one-tenth scale to make
measurements of the blast environment
behind a vertical blast wall when spherical
charges were detonated at different stand-off
distances from the wall. In contrast to the
types of wall that are generally provided for
protective purposes, the structures deployed
in this study were only sufficiently robust to
remain in place while blast wave interaction
occurred. They are described as partially
failing, meaning that they suffered damage as
a consequence of the loading they received.
Walls were constructed from a range of
materials, including plain sand monoliths of
different thickness, sand enclosed in scaled
geotextile materials, wood, expanded foam
plastic and water. Some experiments were
conducted using sand enclosed in geotextile
material but with the wall being zig-zagged in
plan (rather than straight) in order to increase
overall stability. Peak overpressures and
specific impulses obtained from the pressure
time histories were compared with the results
from earlier investigations involving
undeforming plane steel cantilever walls. In
almost every case the reduction in blast
resultants was at least as good as for the
undeforming walls. A relationship between the
degree of attenuation and the areal density of the
wall structure was apparent. The results indicate
that, for the rapid provision of protection,
non-permanent structures can provide a
high degree of blast wave attenuation.
Keywords: dynamics; failures; geotextiles,
membranes & geogrids; military engineering;
safety & hazards
Notation
d
F
H
M
R
R(x)
t
x

wall thickness
blast load force
wall height
mass of single degree of freedom system
distance behind wall
resistance of blast-loaded system
time
displacement of single degree of freedom
system

Introduction
The protection of structures, facilities and
personnel from blast waves produced by the

proximate detonation of high explosive devices

by means of robust walls constructed around the
perimeter of a vulnerable system is a wellestablished technique. The use of such blast
walls has been the subject of a number of studies.1,2 More recently, Rose et al.3,4 have
reported on the effectiveness of non-deforming
plane cantilever walls in attenuating blast waves
produced by a range of explosive threats detonated at different distances in front of the walls.
The overpressures and impulses measured in
these experimental investigations, which were
conducted at approximately one-tenth scale,
were presented in terms of scaled wall height,
charge stand-off, horizontal distance behind the
wall and height above the ground. The data were
then recast to allow their representation in the
form of design charts in which peak side-on
overpressure and scaled specific impulse could
be determined for a wide range of geometries.
These charts were complemented by a computer program DESIGN, which automated the
evaluation process.
2. The present paper is concerned with the
blast attenuative performance of walls that are
far less robust than those used in previous
investigations. The motivation for such a study
is the need for the rapid erection of protective
structures in out of area and urban operations
where there may not be the resources, and certainly not the time, available to construct a
permanent structure or even a conventional
sandbag barrier. In such circumstances,
damage to the wall may well be acceptable provided that blast resultants behind the wall are
attenuated and, in sustaining damage and possibly partially failing, such response is not
hazardous to facilities and personnel in the
protected zone behind the wall.

Proc. Instn Civ.

Engrs Structs &
Bldgs, 1998, 128,
May, 167176
Paper 11476
Written discussion
closes 28 August
1998

T. A. Rose,
Research Officer, Department
of Civil and Mechanical
Systems Engineering, School
of Engineering and Applied
Science, Cranfield University,
Royal Military College of
Science, Shrivenham

P. D. Smith,
Senior Lecturer, Department of
Civil and Mechanical Systems
Engineering, School of
Engineering and Applied
Science, Cranfield University,
Royal Military College of
Science, Shrivenham

Experimental programme
3. The experiments were conducted on a
specially prepared site approximately 3 m long
and 15 m wide. Levelled concrete slabs were
laid both behind and in front of the various wall
structures to provide a good reflecting surface.
Charges were detonated on a steel plate laid
flush with the slabs in front of the wall. Pressure
measurements were made at ground level
behind the wall using piezoelectric pressure
transducers (Kistler Type 603B). These were
mounted in an inverted steel U-channel with

G. C. Mays,
Professor, Department of Civil
and Mechanical Systems
Engineering, School of
Engineering and Applied
Science, Cranfield University,
Royal Military College of
Science, Shrivenham

167

ROSE ET AL.

Charge

Wall
Transducers

Steel plate

Elevation
U-channel

Plan

Fig. 1. Experimental
configuration

Fig. 2. Purely inertial

walls: (a) plain sand;
(b) water

168

PROTECTION OF
STRUCTURES AGAINST
AIRBLAST

Fig. 3. Lightweight
purely inertial plastic
wall

Fig. 4. Combined
inertial and strength
walls: (a) planar;
(b) zig-zag

169

ROSE ET AL.
Table 1. Experimental configurations
Sample

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Material

Geometry

Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand Fibrefleece
Sand Fibrefleece Wyretex
Sand Fibrefleece Wyretex
Sand Fibrefleece Wyretex
Sand Fibrefleece Wyretex
Sand Fibrefleece Wyretex
Sand Fibrefleece Wyretex
Sand Fibrefleece Wyretex
Balsa wood
Balsa wood
Polystyrene
Polythene
Revetting fabric
Water
Water
Ice
Ice

Plane
Plane
Plane
Plane, gauges at 300 mm above ground
Plane, gauges at 600 mm above ground
Plane, gauges at 900 mm above ground
Plane
Plane
Plane, staked
Plane, trenched
Plane, staked, trenched
Plane, trenched, goalposts
Zig-zag, trenched
Zig-zag, staked, trenched
Plane, ends restrained by loose-laid bricks
Plane, ends restrained by loose-laid bricks
Plane, ends restrained by loose-laid bricks
Plane, goalposts
Plane, goalposts
Plane, cardboard former
Plane, goalposts
Plane, staked
Plane, staked

their diaphragms flush with the top of the

channel, which itself was flush with the top of
the slab. Fig. 1 illustrates the configuration
employed.
4. A structure loaded by a blast wave is often
converted to a so-called single degree of freedom equivalent system5 which is described by
the following equation of motion:
M x Rx Ft

Wall
height,
H: mm

Wall
thickness,
d: mm

350
350
350
400
400
400
300
300
300
250
250
250
250
250
305
305
280
300
300
300
280
350
350

50
100
150
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2
8
50
,1
2
60
10
60
30

where the first term represents the inertial

resistance of the structure, the second is the
resistance associated with the geometry, design
and materials from which the structure is built
(structural strength), and the term on the righthand side is the blast load applied to the structure. The materials used for the walls were
selected so that the contribution of the inertial
component of resistance of a particular wall
configuration could be investigated. Purely

120
No wall
Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm
Plane steel wall, H = 380 mm

100

Peak pressure: kPa

Sand wall, d = 50 mm, H = 350 mm

Sand wall, d = 100 mm, H = 350 mm
80

Sand wall, d = 150 mm, H = 350 mm

60

40

20
12

170

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

17

18

19

20

Fig. 5. Plot of peak

pressure against distance
behind plane sand walls

PROTECTION OF
STRUCTURES AGAINST
AIRBLAST
No wall
80
Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm
Plane steel wall, H = 380 mm

Peak scaled impulse: kPa ms/kg1/3

Sand wall, d = 50 mm, H = 350 mm

Sand wall, d = 100 mm, H = 350 mm
Sand wall, d = 150 mm, H = 350 mm

60

40

20
12

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

inertial walls were built of plain sand (Fig. 2(a))

or water (Fig. 2(b)). Lighter weight systems
were built of materials such as wood, plastic
(Fig. 3) or tough revetting material. Walls that
combined inertial and strength characteristics
were built from sand/geotextile combinations
and were either planar (Fig. 4(a)) or of a zigzagged profile (Fig. 4(b)).
5. Table 1 summarizes the experimental
configurations. In all cases a 57 g spherical
charge of Demex explosive (equivalent to 75 g

17

18

19

20

Fig. 6. Plot of peak scaled

impulse against distance
behind plane sand walls

TNT) was detonated at a distance of 138 mm in

front of the wall at 109 mm above the ground.
Pressure measurements were made at ground
level, except in the case of samples 46 (see
below).
6. Sand walls were prepared in specially
designed wooden moulds in the laboratory.
Fibrefleece is a proprietary brand of non-woven
needle-punched polypropylene geotextile used
in horticulture. Wyretex is a mesh (hole size
about 10 mm) made of 037 mm diameter steel

No wall

80

Plane steel wall, H = 380 mm

Sand wall, d = 50 mm, H = 400 mm

Peak pressure: kPa

60

40

20

0
12

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

17

18

19

20

Fig. 7. Plot of peak

pressure against distance
(measured 900 mm
above ground)

171

ROSE ET AL.
80
No wall

Peak scaled impulse: kPa ms/kg1/3

Plane steel wall, H = 380 mm

Sand wall, d = 50 mm, H = 400 mm

60

40

20

0
12

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

wire twisted together with polypropylene tape,

and is used in this form (and in a range of other
variants) in soil stabilization applications. When
constructing sand walls encased in Fibrefleece
and Wyretex a system of brailing was developed where, using a long needle
carrying nylon thread, the front face of the wall
was connected to the back wall. This was done in
order to improve the stability of the unreinforced sand and increase the likelihood of constructive interaction between the inertia and
strength components of the wall by simulating
the interlacing found in conventional gabion

17

18

19

20

Fig. 8. Plot of peak scaled

impulse against distance
(measured 900 mm
above ground)

structures. The revetting material was a Wyretex finer mesh variant covered with PVC to
make an impermeable fabric. Water walls were
either polythene bags held in a cardboard former or polythene bags, as used in a freezer for
making ice cubes. Ice walls were made in steel
moulds in a laboratory freezer. The term
staked means that the wall was firmly fixed at
each end to 10 mm diameter steel pickets driven
into the ground. Trenched means that the
bottom of the wall was placed in a shallow
(approximately 50 mm deep) trench dug in front
of the concrete slabs; the purpose of the trench
No wall

120
Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm
Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (trenched)
Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (stacked and trenched)
100
Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (goalposts and trenched)

Peak pressure: kPa

Zig-zag, Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (trenched)

Zig-zag, Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (stacked and
trenched)

80

60

40

20
12

172

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

17

18

19

20

Fig. 9. Plot of peak

pressure against distance
for sand/geotextile walls

PROTECTION OF
STRUCTURES AGAINST
AIRBLAST
No wall

100

Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm

Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (trenched)

Peak scaled impulse: kPa ms/kg1/3

Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (stacked and trenched)

80

Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (goalposts and trenched)

Zig-zag, Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (trenched)
Zig-zag, Wyretex No. 8, sand wall (stacked and trenched)

60

40

20
12

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

was to reduce the tendency of some walls to be

set in translatory motion by the blast and to
prevent any blast from leaking under the base
of the wall. When goalposts were used the wall
was attached to steel pickets at its end and to a
crossbar running the length of and above the
wall. In the zig-zag configuration, the distance
from a front apex to the rear apex was
approximately 150 mm.
7. The pressure transducers were located
flush with the ground at distances of 135, 15,
165 and 18 m behind the rear face of the wall,
except in the case of samples 46 where the
transducers were located at heights of 300, 600
and 900 mm, respectively, above the ground.
Transducers were kept at relatively long range

17

18

19

20

Fig. 10. Plot of peak

scaled impulse against
distance for sand/
geotextile walls

to reduce the risk of damage from debris from

the failing walls.
8. In addition to pressure measurements, a
high-speed video camera was used in conjunction with an array of lightweight flags made of
balsa wood placed in two rows behind the wall.
The closest flag was about 300 mm from the wall
and the furthest was at about 1500 mm.

Results
9. Each experiment was recorded on video
running at 5 ms/frame. When replayed in slow
motion it was possible to see the initiation of the
detonation and the accompanying fireball. This
was followed almost immediately by the movement of the balsa wood flags placed behind the

Fig. 11. Staked and

trenched zig-zag wall
after blast

173

ROSE ET AL.
120
No wall
Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm
100

Balsa wood (thin), H = 305 mm

Peak pressure: kPa

Balsa wood (thick), H = 305 mm

Polystyrene, H = 280 mm
80

Polythene sheet, H = 300 mm

Revetting material, H = 300 mm

60

40

20
12

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

walls as the blast wave from the explosion

interacted with them. In every case (except for
the lightest structures) the motion of the flags
preceded significant movement of the wall. For
the various plain sand and sand/geotextile
assemblies, flags were toppled before the collapse, toppling or disintegration of the walls
occurred. Similar performance was evident in
the case of the water barriers. For the other,
generally lightweight materials, although less
easy to discern on the film, there was evidence
of the same motion. This observation is important because it indicates that even the flimsiest

17

18

19

20

Fig. 12. Plot of peak

pressure against distance
for wood and plastic
walls

of barriers is able to survive sufficiently long to

allow some interaction with the blast wave. If
this interaction does occur while the barrier is
effectively in place (even though failing rapidly)
it might be expected that there would be a beneficial effect behind the barrier and that blast
resultants would be reduced.
10. The evidence of the transducer pressuretime histories bears this out. Figs 5 and 6
show the variation of peak overpressure and
peak scaled impulse at the four ground-mounted
pressure tranducers for the three plane sand
walls of increasing thickness. These results are

No wall
80

Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm

Balsa wood (thin), H = 305 mm

Peak scaled impulse kPa: ms/kg1/3

Balsa wood (thick), H = 305 mm

Polystyrene, H = 280 mm
Polythene sheet, H = 300 mm
Revetting material, H = 300 mm
60

40
12

174

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

17

18

19

20

Fig. 13. Plot of peak

scaled impulse against
distance for wood and
plastic walls

PROTECTION OF
STRUCTURES AGAINST
AIRBLAST
120
No wall
Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm
Water-filled wall, d = 60 mm, H = 300 mm

100

Water-bag wall, d = 10 mm, H = 280 mm

Peak pressure: kPa

Ice wall, d = 60 mm, H = 350 mm

Ice wall, d = 30 mm, H = 350 mm

80

60

40

20
12

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

compared with measurements made in the

absence of a wall and with an undeforming steel
wall (data extracted from Rose et al.4). The clear
reduction compared with the no wall situation
is obvious. The sand walls always produce as
much attenuation as an undeforming steel wall
(even though the steel wall was a little higher)
and, as the thickness of the sand wall increases
(and thus the areal density increases), the blast
resultants are generally reduced below the steel
wall values. In all cases the sand wall failed at
least partially; the end result was a pile of sand,

17

18

19

20

Fig. 14. Plot of peak

pressure against distance
for water and ice walls

some of which had been moved away from the

site of the detonation. The plots in Figs 7 and 8
provide confirmation that the use of partially
failing sand walls produces blast attenuation in
all significant regions behind the wall. These
graphs compare no wall, steel wall and sand
wall peak overpressures and the corresponding
scaled impulses at four locations behind the wall
at a height of 900 mm above the ground.
11. In the case of the sand/geotextile walls,
the same performance is evident. Figs 9 and 10
show similar comparisons as previously. Again

No wall
Plane steel wall, H = 300 mm

80

Water-filled wall, d = 60 mm, H = 300 mm

Water-bag wall, d = 10 mm, H = 280 mm

Peak scaled impulse: kPa ms/kg1/3

Ice wall, d = 60 mm, H = 350 mm

Ice wall, d = 30 mm, H = 350 mm
60

40

20
12

13

14

15

16
Distance, R : m

17

18

19

20

Fig. 15. Plot of peak

scaled impulse against
distance for water and ice
walls

175

ROSE ET AL.
the sand walls perform at least as well as the
undeforming steel wall. In particular, the staked
and trenched zig-zag walls, with their high
inertia and design aimed at taking advantage of
both the strength of the component materials
and the method of installation, perform best of
all (Fig. 11).
12. The performance of the wood and plastic
walls is summarized in Figs 12 and 13. Here the
performance of these lightweight systems is not
as dramatic as for the walls of higher inertia. In
the case of peak overpressures, all materials
produce some degree of attenuation when compared with the no wall case and the thicker
balsa, the polystyrene and the revetting material
produce greater reductions than the steel wall.
The picture is less clear with regard to impulse.
The thin balsa and polythene sheet do not
appear to produce any impulse reduction, but the
other three materials do achieve a significant
reduction, although never as much as a steel
structure. There appears to be a correlation
between areal densities and attenuation performance: the bigger the areal density, the greater
the degree of attenuation.
13. The performance of the water and ice
walls is encouraging, as evidenced by Figs 14
and 15: all four walls investigated perform at
least as well as a steel wall. The added advantage
of the water wall is that, in failing, no potentially
injurious fragments are generated. This is an
important consideration for those personnel and
sensitive facilities deriving protection from the
wall.

176

fragments as might be the case for other partially failing systems.

15. It could be argued that this paper has
merely made out a case for the use of sandbags
as blast walls. Certainly, the use of sand with
some confining/constraining medium has a lot
of merit. However, this investigation demonstrates that, when the model-scale systems
studied here are converted to full-size installations, the amount of material that would be
needed to provide adequate protection against a
range of threats would be significantly less than
if protection were to be derived from stacked
conventional sandbags. The savings in manpower and time in the erection of what could
be described as a hi-tech sandbag could be
significant. Also, the development of a rapidly
deployed water-fillable system could be even
more beneficial: the water containment structure could be carried flat to where it is to be
deployed. Erection and filling with only a
modest volume of water could be swift. If subjected to a blast, fragment generation would not
be a problem.
16. In summary, the paper has demonstrated that walls that might intuitively be
thought of as very inadequate for the task of
blast wave attenuation can, none the less,
provide an impressive level of protection.

Acknowledgements
17. This work was carried out with the support of the Defence Evaluation and Research
Agency, Chertsey, an executive agency of the
Ministry of Defence.

Comments and conclusions

References

14. This study has shown that it is not always

necessary to construct walls designed for blast
wave attenuation that remain essentially undeformed when loaded. It would seem that, as long
as the wall remains in place while the blast wave
is interacting with it and diffracting over it, the
blast wave resultants in the protected zone
behind the wall will be reduced. The amount of
this reduction will differ depending on the
nature of the wall. Heavy walls that derive their
resistance from their inertia generally perform
better than the lighter weight systems, the
resistance of which is derived from their
inherent strength. A combination of inertial
resistance and containment as provided by the
sand/geotextile combinations seems to have
merit. The use of a water wall has the added
advantage of not producing hazardous

1. JONES P. S., VITAYA-UDOM K. P. and WATT J. M. Design of

Structures to Resist Terrorist Attack. Report 1: 1/10th
Scale Perimeter Wall Tests. Structures Laboratory,
Waterways Experiment Station, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, 1987, Technical Report SL-87-13.
2. BEYER M. E. Blast loads behind vertical walls. In 22nd
Explosives Safety Seminar. Department of Defense
Explosives Safety Board, Anaheim, 1986.
3. ROSE T. A., SMITH P. D. and MAYS G. C. The effectiveness
of walls designed for the protection of structures
against airblast from high explosives. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, 1995, 110, 7885.
4. ROSE T. A., SMITH P. D. and MAYS G. C. Design charts
relating to protection of structures against airblast
from high explosives. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, 1997, 123,
186192.
5. BIGGS J. M. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. MacGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.