4.6 Review

A Review of Blast Loading in the Urban Environment

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app13095349

Keywords

numerical modelling; urban blasts; shock wave propagation; peak overpressure; scaled impulse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban blasts pose significant challenges due to interactions between blast waves and urban environment. This review discusses commonly agreed-upon concepts and behaviors, such as channelling and shielding, that describe urban shock wave propagation. It also explores urban characterisation metrics for predicting effects of urban blasts on global blast loading. The review highlights discrepancies and contradictions, indicating areas that require further research and clarification. Various numerical modelling programs are identified as validation and preliminary testing tools. The findings aim to inform future research decisions and topics.
Urban blasts have become a significant concern in recent years. Whilst free-field blasts are well understood, the introduction of an urban setting (or any complex geometry) gives rise to multiple blast wave interactions and unique flow complexities, significantly increasing the difficulty of loading predictions. This review identifies commonly agreed-upon concepts or behaviours that are utilised to describe urban shock wave propagation, such as channelling and shielding, in conjunction with exploring urban characterisation metrics that aim to predict the effects on global blast loading for an urban blast. Likewise, discrepancies and contradictions are highlighted to promote key areas that require further work and clarification. Multiple numerical modelling programmes are acknowledged to showcase their ability to act as a means of validation and a preliminary testing tool. The findings contained within this review aim to inform future research decisions and topics better.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available