Abstract
Accurate predictions of peak pressure and impulse values of explosively-generated shock waves within a structure are both of interest to structural engineers and are difficult to generate analytically. On one hand, rudimentary scoping programs, such as BlastX, are simple to use and obtain general pressure-impulse predictions for a given scenario. The primary drawback to such programs is their lack of detail and their inability to account for any complexity within a structure. On the other hand, existing advanced hydrocodes, such as CTH, are capable of accurately modeling blast-wave characteristics in a very detailed environment. The tradeoff in this instance is that CTH requires advanced training, tools, and resources that are often not readily available. As a result, the structural engineer is often required to determine whether a simple “scoping” of the blast environment is sufficient, or whether the additional resources and expenditures are justified in providing a more accurate model. The focus of this paper is to evaluate the analytical and computational predictive methods described above—including the required simplifying assumptions, strengths, and limitations of each—by comparing the results of their respective analyses of the same target structure and comparing their results to data gathered from a 1/8-scale experiment of the structure in question.