Evaluation of RC Beam-Column Retrofitting Methods

against Near-Field Blast Loading

Gholamreza Nouri 1; Abolfazl Yoosefpoor Avandari 2; and Jamal Barmah 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study numerically evaluated the retrofitting of RC columns using different transverse rebar arrangements and retrofitting
methods using European standard I-section profile (IPE) and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) coatings. The degree of deformation, failure
pattern of the element, and residual axial strength of the RC columns after exposure to a blast were the performance criteria. Fifteen different
models were evaluated to determine the effect of spacing and arrangement of rebars and the effect of FRP and IPE retrofitting. The results
indicated that the RC element with transverse rebars with branches showed the least amount of deformation. Furthermore, the damage and
deformation of the structure against blast loading decreased by 25% and 20%, respectively, when applying I-shaped profiles and RC columns
with FRP coating. The residual capacity of the columns was highest in the models retrofitted with FRP and IPE. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.0001562. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Near-field blast; Concrete column; Transverse rebar; Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) retrofitting; Composite
column.

Introduction columns (Wu et al. 2011b). The use of transverse rebars in RC can
also significantly affect the rate of failure due to blast loads
An increase in the occurrence of blasts of various types in urban (Fujikake and Aemlaor 2013).
areas has prompted performance assessment of the structural safety RC components that combine different types of fibers have been
of buildings against blast loading. Previous studies indicated that tested to evaluate the possibility of an increase in strength against
proper design for seismic loading can reduce damage caused by blast loads (Razaqpur et al. 2007; Pantelides et al. 2014). Parisi
blast loading as well as the likelihood of progressive collapse obtained explosive failure levels and probable pressure-impact
(Parisi and Augenti 2012; Shayanfar and Javidan 2017). However, diagrams in multiple limit states by experimentally testing struc-
it is necessary to consider the protection of buildings by retrofitting tures subjected to blasts (Parisi 2015). Zhang et al. (2013) evalu-
nonstructural components, such as perimeter walls, or retrofitting ated the failure levels of RC beams under near-field blasts and
structural components, such as columns, beams, and ceilings. proposed experimental equations for midbeam deviation. Table 1
Progressive collapse is a chain effect triggered by the initial failure summarizes the results of some experimental studies under blast
of a member and can eventually lead to the total or partial collapse loads.
of a structure (Javidan et al. 2018; Javidan and Kim 2019; Nica Transverse rebars can have different spacing and arrangements
et al. 2018). This phenomenon has been extensively studied in in RC columns. The spacing may be uniform throughout the
the past decade in response to accidental or human-caused inci- column or be shorter near the column supports. In a near-field
dents, such as the truck-bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building blast, a reduction in the spacing of transverse rebars can improve
in Oklahoma. In this case, three columns supporting a girder col- the performance of a column, but it has little effect in far-field
lapsed and caused the girder to fail, which led to the total collapse blasts (Kyei and Braimah 2017). Qualitative examination of dam-
of the building (Osteraas 2006). In some studies, innovative age to steel columns caused by a blast load revealed that the per-
discontinuum-based micromodeling methods were used to study centage of transverse reinforcement in the RC was the major
the potential failure mechanisms of Moradni Bridge in Italy factor in determining the extent of damage to the column (Yan
(Malomo et al. 2020; Calvi et al. 2019). 2018).
There are different ways to retrofit RC beam-columns against The use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) is another method of
blast loading. Increasing the column depth and the shear modulus retrofitting a RC column. In recent years, the application of FRP
of the concrete can increase the shear and flexural strength of fibers has been shown to be a good solution for retrofitting existing
structural components where blast loads have not been considered
1
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi Univ., Tehran during the initial design and implementation (Ahmed et al. 2017).
15719-14911, Iran (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000 The presence of FRP in concrete components can delay the crack-
-0002-2936-599X. Email: [email protected] ing time of the concrete, effectively reduce cracking, and change
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi Univ., Tehran the type of damage from scaling and cracking to rupture and frac-
15719-14911, Iran. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4037-7991. ture of the FRP. Tests on a FRP-reinforced RC slab subjected to
Email: [email protected] blast loading indicated that the steel stress and maximum dis-
3
Graduate Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi
placement of the slab decreased by 50% and 24%, respectively
Univ., Tehran 15719-14911, Iran. Email: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 12, 2020; approved on
(Kong et al. 2018). The static strength of a slab reinforced with FRP
September 29, 2020; published online on December 31, 2020. Discussion after a blast was 75% higher than for a slab without reinforcement
period open until May 31, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for (Razaqpur et al. 2009).
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of In this paper, the effect of a transverse reinforcement arrange-
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828. ment on the deformation and failure patterns of columns under blast

© ASCE 04020150-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

 Table 1. Summary of experimental studies under blast loads
Researcher Subject Results
Yan et al. (2015) Failure mechanism of RC components under explosion Poisson’s coefficient is the reason for expanding cracks in
transverse direction
Wu et al. (2011b) Residual compressive strength of column after explosion More transverse reinforcement leads to more flexural
capacity and less failure
Bao and Li (2010) Residual compressive strength after explosion Good seismic design leads to good blast performance
Parisi (2015) Monte Carlo experiment to obtain failure levels of explosion Presentation of pressure-impact diagrams for limit states
El-Dakhakhni et al. (2009) RC column under blast load Pressure-impact diagrams to assess vulnerability and
capacity of column
Zhang et al. (2013) Failure of RC beam under blast load Experimental equations for midbeam deviation
Fujikake and Aemlaor (2013) Failure of RC column under blast load Effect of shear reinforcement on failure rate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Roller et al. (2013) Evaluation of type of structural retrofitting under blast load Strength under blast load affected by retrofitting type
Tu and Lu (2009) Evaluation of specific hydrocode parameters Obtaining appropriate erosion for concrete modeling

loads was evaluated after modeling an experimental test, validating Blast analysis methods include single-degree-of-freedom
the modeling approach, and determining the analysis parameters of systems (Astarlioglu et al. 2013), two-step methods, condensed
the blast load. To evaluate the effect of transverse reinforcement on models, two-step methods combined with dynamic condensa-
structures under blast loads, 13 columns with different transverse tion (Li and Hao 2014), and complex numerical modeling in hy-
reinforcement percentages and arrangements of transverse rebars drocodes (Wang et al. 2013; Li et al. 2015; Tu and Lu 2009;
were modeled. An explicit nonlinear finite-element (FE) method Codina et al. 2016; Codina and Ambrosini 2019; Rajkumar
was applied in AUTODYN-3D version 15, and the responses were et al. 2020).
compared under blast loading. The models also were designed and
analyzed for the European standard I-section profile (IPE) and FRP
reinforcements. Material Models
The formability, hardness, and strength of concrete increase as con-
Analysis of Nature of Blast Loading finement progresses, and the compressive strength may be 15 times
higher than the uniaxial compressive strength at very high lateral
Following a blast, a large amount of energy is released as light and pressures (Leppänen 2004). For high dynamic tensile loading, the
heat, along with shock waves. Fig. 1 shows how the load reaches multiaxial ultimate tensile strength may be five to seven times
maximum pressure Ps0 þ from atmospheric pressure P0 in a very higher than the static tensile strength (Weerheijm and Doormaal
short interval of a few milliseconds and then returns to atmos- 2007). It has been shown that cracking energy is related to strain
pheric pressure in a few hundred seconds. After loading, negative rate (Brara and Klepaczko 2007). To determine the effect of an
pressure Ps0 − is created and then eliminated within tens of sec- increase in the strength of materials having a high strain rate, an
onds. The maximum pressure decreases significantly as it moves increase in the dynamic coefficient was applied to static strength
away from the center of the blast; however, an increase occurs values, which depend on the nature of the stress. The strain rate
over the duration of the impact of the blast load on the structure for tensile and compressive stress in steel and RC components is
(Hu et al. 2018). lower than in the flexural state; thus, they have a lower dynamic
The following factors are important when determining the effect coefficient of increase. The increases for the coefficients of strength
of a blast load and blast on a structure (Li et al. 2019): of up to fourfold for pressure and for tension of up to sixfold
• Magnitude of blast at equivalent scale of trinitrotoluene (TNT) have been reported for strain rates of 102 –103 s−1 (Grote et al.
explosive. 2001).
• Distance of blast center to structure. The type of structural response depends upon the loading rate,
• Geometric and structural system of structure. position of the element relative to the direction of the blast wave,
• Angle of structure in direction of wave along ground. and boundary conditions. The geometrical environment of blast
wave propagation also has a direct effect on the overpressure rate
(Xie et al. 2010). The effects of blast loading on structural compo-
nents may have both a local and an overall response depending on
the failure mode. Failure modes associated with blast loading can
be flexural, direct, or punching shear. Generally, local responses are
the effects of near-field blasts, while general responses relate to
flexural failure (Zhang et al. 2019).

Concrete
The most suitable material model for reliable simulation is of
the critical state of RC. For this purpose, a model that incorpo-
rates a large number of parameters relating to the concrete should
be used, including the equation of state (EOS) and the Riedel,
Hiermaier, and Thoma (RHT) resistance equation (Riedel et al.
Fig. 1. Time history of blast pressure.
1999).

© ASCE 04020150-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

 Table 2. Properties of steel and concrete Table 4. Properties of air for Johnson–Cook model
Properties (MPa) ϒ 1.4
Material f c0 ft Ec fy Es Eh ρ (g=cm3 ) 0.001225
J/kg K 717.6
Concrete 30 0.1fc0 2.5 × 104 — — — e (kJ=m3 ) 20.68 × 105
Steel — — — 300 2.1 × 105 0.01Es

Table 5. Properties of TNT

Table 3. Johnson–Cook material parameters
ρ (kg=cm3 ) 1.63
8.18 × 104
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

G (MPa)
A (MPa) 3.7377 × 102
f y (MPa) 4.0 × 102 B (MPa) 3.7471 × 102
B (MPa) 5.1 × 102 R1 4.15
ns 2.6 × 10−1 R2 0.90
Cs 1.4 × 10−2 ω 0.35
ms 1.03
T melt (K) 1.793 × 103

internal energy is simply proportional to the heat. The EOS for gas
is written for uniform initial conditions as
The concrete model developed by Riedel et al. (2009) was origi-
nally implemented in AUTODYN, which introduced the RHT
equation of resistance and fracture to model the behavior of con- p ¼ ðγ − 1Þρe ð3Þ
crete under blast loading and simulate the failure and detachment of
grains accurately. The RHT concrete strength and failure model can
predict damage and fracture with good approximation (Codina R
γ ¼1þ ð4Þ
et al. 2016). The modified RHT model introduced by Tu and CV
Lu (2009) can simulate the maximum displacement, total damage
to a member, and fracture pattern. This model is able to express the where p = hydrostatic pressure; ρ = air density; e = internal energy;
thermodynamic behavior of concrete at high pressure as well as a γ = constant defined as adiabatic power; R = universal gas constant;
rational description of the material compression behavior in the and CV = specific heat at constant volume. The air parameters are
low-pressure range. listed in Table 4.

Steel TNT Model

The Johnson–Cook material model was employed as a numerical For explosive material, the EOS of the Jones, Wilkins, and Lee
model for the behavior of steel. The dynamic flow stress (σy ) is (JWL) equation was applied (Lee and Tarver 1980). This equation
expressed as a function of strain, strain rate, and temperature as defines a postblast gas expansion as
σy ¼ ½σ0 þ Bs ðεp Þns ½1 þ Cs Logε̇p ½1 − T ms
H  ð1Þ


ω ω ωe
p P¼A 1− e−R1 v þ B 1 − e−R1 v þ ð5Þ
where σ0 = initial yield stress; ε = plastic strain; = plastic ε̇p R1 v R2 v v
strain rate; Bs and ns = strain hardening parameters; Cs and
ms = material constants; and T H = homologous temperature,
where P = hydrostatic pressure; v ¼ 1=ρ = specific volume; and A,
which is expressed as
R1 , B, R2 , and ω (adiabatic constant) = constants. The values of the
T − T room constants were obtained from dynamic experiments and are acces-
TH ¼ ð2Þ sible for normal blasts in most sources. The TNT specifications are
T melt − T room
listed in Table 5.
where T = material temperature; and T melt and T room = melting and
room temperatures, respectively. The steel and concrete properties
and Johnson–Cook material parameters used in this study are Erosion
shown in Tables 2 and 3. Erosion is the elimination of elements that have broken down or
undergone deformation. To simulate the physical breakdown of
concrete, such as delamination and crushing, under a blast, an al-
Air Model
gorithm for erosion or the coefficient of grain separation was used.
The EOS of air as an ideal gas was used. For an ideal gas, the in- Erosion in the geometric strain range is calculated when the instan-
ternal energy is a function of temperature. For a polytropic gas, the taneous geometric strain limit equals

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
εinst ¼ ððε211 þ ε222 þ ε233 Þ þ 5ðε11 ε22 þ ε22 ε33 þ ε33 ε11 Þ − 3ðε212 þ ε223 þ ε231 Þ ð6Þ
3

© ASCE 04020150-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

 Table 6. Mechanical and elastic properties of CFRP (MPa)
Direction
Properties 11 22 33 12 23 31
6 4 4
Young’s modulus (MPa) 1.948 × 10 1.7989 × 10 1.7989 × 10 — — —
Poisson’s ratio — — — 0.08 0.075 0.698
Shear modulus — — — 2.25 × 102 1.857 × 103 2.23 × 102
Tensile failure stress 1.2 × 103 1.85 × 103 1.85 × 103 — — —
Maximum shear stress — — — 5.43 × 102 7.7 × 101 5.43 × 102
Tensile failure strain 0.02 0.06 0.06 — — —
Maximum shear strain — — — 101 101 101
Source: Data from Kollar and Springer (2003).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FRP Properties • The FE modeling methods used were the Lagrange method for
concrete, the multimaterial Euler method for air and explosive
The model reinforced with FRP used carbon fiber-reinforced poly-
material, and the beam element method for longitudinal and
mer (CFRP) with epoxy as the resin and T300 carbon fiber (Kollar
transverse steel.
and Springer 2003) as the composite material. The density of the
• The Eulerian–Lagrangian interaction was defined between the
CFRP was 1,650 kg=m3 . Table 6 lists the other mechanical proper-
concrete part (Lagrangian material) and the air part and TNT
ties and material strength of CFRP.
(Eulerian material). This interaction is actually between the
solid mass of the concrete and the fluid. If this interaction failed
to occur, the model was not considered to be valid.
Verification • The outflow boundary condition were applied to the boundaries
of the air environment. Because the software is incapable of
The experimental models introduced by Wu et al. (2011a, b) were
resolving infinite environments, such as air, and semi-infinite
used to verify the numerical modeling parameters and to simulate
environments, such as soil, the proper boundary conditions
the 15 models, including a composite model and a FRP reinforced
should be applied.
model. Concrete blocks placed at the ends of each member, part of
• The blast load was applied by the JWL model.
which is in the ground, prevented its rotation; thus, the ends were
• The analysis time on the different models varied between 80 and
considered to be completely anchored. The column had a cross sec-
about 100 ms.
tion of 400 × 400 mm and a length of 2,400 mm. The test was con-
• No axial forces were applied on the component before applying
ducted by placing a charge equivalent to 25 kg of TNT above the
the blast loads.
column specimens at stand-off distances of 200 mm from the face
• Concrete and rebars were joined at node points.
of the column and 900 mm along the axial direction from the col-
umn foundation.
Comparison of the failure and deformation diagrams showed a Models Description
slight difference between the results for the experimental and simu-
lated numerical models, especially in the maximum displacement The geometry of the modeled columns was similar to those in the
region. The maximum displacement of the simulated FE model was validation models of Wu et al. (2011a, b). That is, concrete blocks
195 mm and for the experimental model was 200 mm (Fig. 2). were placed at the beginning and end of the member. The blocks
The RC beam-column was modeled based on Wu et al. (2011a). were bounded by horizontal and vertical displacement.
In this model, the steel reinforcement beam was H200 × 200 × A square stirrup with a diameter of 14 mm was used in Model 1,
8 × 12. The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement rebars were a square and branched stirrup with a diameter of 12 mm was used in
16 and 6 mm in diameter, respectively. The 25 kg of TNT was Model 2, and a square and rhomboid stirrup with a diameter of
placed 900 mm from the left side of the structure in the composite 10 mm was used in Model 3. The total weights of stirrup Models
model. For the composite model, the comparison criteria were 2 ,1, and 3 were equal to allow evaluation of the effect of the stirrup
quantitative for deformation and qualitative for failure. Fig. 3 arrangement while keeping the reinforcement value constant. The
shows the deformation of the simulated model and the results of difference between Models A, B, C, and D lies in the spacing of
numerical analysis for the composite model, which are in good their stirrups. The spacing of stirrups in Model A was 200 mm, in
agreement with the results of Wu et al. (2011a). Model B it was 160 mm, in model C it was 120 mm, and in Model
D it was 80 mm. Fig. 4 shows the specification of the mentioned
models.
Results and Discussion of Numerical Simulation Model E-1 used a simple stirrup and an antenna with a 12-mm
diameter. The spacing of the stirrups in the near support area was
Following analysis of the validation models and convergence of the 80 mm and at midspan it was 160 mm. The E-2 model differed from
results, the following simulation results were obtained for use in the the other models in terms of its steel profile. In addition to rebars, a
main models: steel IPE (H200 × 200 × 8 × 12) was buried in the concrete. The
• The mesh sizes for concrete, steel, and air were 25, 25, and distance from the beginning to the end of the profile inside the
40 mm, respectively. blocks was 320 mm. The steel specifications of the profile, includ-
• The value of the numerical algorithm for erosion was equal ing EOS, resistance, and breakdown, were the same as for the steel
to 0.12. of the rebars. For Model E-3, Model A-1 was selected as the weak-
• The modeling approaches for the material used in the simulation est model and FRP reinforcing material was added to it. Two CFRP
are those presented in the “Material Models” section. layers, each having a thickness of 1.5 mm, were used.

© ASCE 04020150-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Failure rate and displacement values for experimental and numerical models of RC column: (a) numerical modeling of members; (b) numerical
model of failure rate and mode; and (c) simulated displacement versus experimental model. (Data from Wu et al. 2011a.)

The 15 models were then evaluated to determine the effect of

spacing and arrangement of rebars, as well as the effect of FRP
retrofitting and steel profiles, on the deformation and failure of
RC members under blast loading. Fig. 5 summarizes the specifica-
tions of the models.
The amount of TNT (25 kg) and its distance from the structure
(500 mm) and from the support (900 mm) were the same for all
models. The other model specifications, including the number and
diameter of longitudinal rebars, the weight of the explosive material
and its distance from the structure, the structure dimensions and
boundary conditions, material behavioral models (resistance, break-
down, and EOS), and the interaction between fluid and structure
were also the same for all models.

Results of Failure and Deformation

The analysis results for the concrete beam-column under blast load-
ing in quantitative and qualitative terms were described using the
Fig. 3. Failure rates of experimental and numerical models of RC
maximum column displacement and failure rate of the models, re-
column: (a) numerical model; and (b) failure rate and mode in numer-
spectively. A summary of the results for the maximum and time his-
ical model.
tory deformations for Models A–E are presented in Figs. 6 and 7,

© ASCE 04020150-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Specifications of transvers rebars and spacing of stirrups.

Fig. 5. Specifications of models (dimensions in millimeters).

© ASCE 04020150-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Maximum transverse deformation along columns for different

models.

Fig. 7. Time history of deformation at midspan of columns in different

models.
Fig. 8. Summary of failure in some models.

respectively. As shown, the maximum deformation decreased as the

amount of reinforcement of the stirrup increased and the spacing
of the stirrups decreased. The model having a simple stirrup and reinforcement. In Model C-2, failure occurred in the right support,
branches showed less displacement than the models having a fixed but was almost eliminated in the left support. In Model D-2, which
amount of reinforcement. In general, flexible structures performed had a simple stirrup with branches, there was no failure because
better against the explosive events. the distance between stirrups was small. The deformation of the
Fig. 8 shows examples of the failure of some models. As shown, member was about 26 mm, which was less than the amount for all
the failure rate of the A-1 model was relatively high, and the col- of the previous models.
umn partially collapsed. The maximum deformation of the member Although less steel was used in Model E-1 than in some other
was 65 mm. Comparison of the failure rates for Models A-2 and models, it performed better against blast loading because the dis-
A-1 showed the failure rate decreased for the model with fixed rein- tance between stirrups was greater in the middle part compared to
forcements and the one in which the square stirrup was changed to the support area, which seems appropriate when the failure and de-
a diamond stirrup with branches. Although this member also par- formations were mostly related to shear. Model E-2 differed from
tially collapsed, the amount of deformation was less. the previous models due to its steel profile. In this case, a plate
The results indicate that the failure rate decreased with the use of girder was buried in the concrete in addition to reinforcements.
diamond stirrups in Model A-3, especially near the right support. Failure did not occur in this member, and the deformation was
The failure of the left support was high, but the amount of defor- about 10 mm. This type of retrofitting is suitable for the middle
mation was insignificant. Model B-1, which had a higher number columns of the first floor because this floor is more likely to be
of stirrups compared to Model A-1, showed a decrease in the failure exposed to blast loading in a high-rise building.
rate and amount of deformation. The failure rate remained high in Model A-1, as the weakest model, was remodeled and ana-
the left support. The results of the B-2 model in comparison with lyzed following the addition of FRP retrofitting materials. The
those of the previous models showed a slight decrease in the results of Model E-3 indicated that the FRP retrofitting method
amount of deformation and in the failure rate of the left support. was suitable and no failure occurred when the buried-girder
In Model B-3, the failure rate and deformation were greater than reinforcement method was used. This model had a deformation
for Model B-2. It appears that the simple stirrup with branches of approximately 10 mm, which was significantly lower than that
performed better than the models with fixed amounts of shear of the RC models.

© ASCE 04020150-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Residual capacity index from displacement of midspan ratio of columns.

Residual Column Resistance elimination of the constraints of models, the following results
were obtained:
To simplify the blast calculations, a method was presented to de- • An increase in the number of reinforcement stirrups and the
scribe the residual strength of the postblast column based on the corresponding decrease in the distance between the stirrups re-
ratio of the column center deviation to the column height (Parisi duced deformation caused by a blast load. In fact, the average
2015). Bao, using regression from the numerical results, presented deformation of the models decreased from Models A to D.
a formula for analysis of the capacity of postblast RC columns. This For a fixed amount of reinforcement, the section with simple
formula is based on the parameters of the ratio of displacement of stirrups and branches showed less deformation compared to
the column at midspan (yr =L), percentage of transverse reinforce- simple stirrups alone and simple stirrups with branches. The
ment (ρv ), and percentage of longitudinal reinforcement (ρg ) (Bao section with branches performed better than the section with
and Li 2010) as diamond stirrups because of the decrease in the amount of
shear in the rebar cross sections (Av ), which was related to
v ¼ ½73.65ρv þ 8.465ρg − 0.020879ðL=bÞ the decrease in the diameter of the bar in the section with dia-
0
þ 0.104e½89284ρv −1308.6ρg −9.68ðL=bÞ−382.1ðyr =LÞðPL =fc Ag Þ ð7Þ mond stirrups.
• The results for Model E-1 versus those of previous models, the
where yr = fling step of column postblast; L = column length; Ag = failure of all models in the support area, and the absence of dam-
column cross section; b = column width; and v = residual axial age at midspan of the structure indicates that it is not necessary
resistance ratio. to use a large amount of reinforcement at midspan for blasts
To better understand the residual resistance values of the col- occurring near the structure.
umns, they are shown using the residual capacity index, which is • The failure rate and deformation of the structure decreased
defined as considerably in Model E-2, which was a composite model.
This option appears to be the best method for retrofitting the
v ¼ ðPr − PL Þ=ðPmax − PL Þ ð8Þ lower floors of a high-rise building that may be subject to blast
loading.
where Pmax = axial capacity of undamaged column; Pr = residual • Comparison of the two simulation models and the main models
axial capacity of damaged columns; and PL = long-term axial load. showed that the distance of the explosive from the structure
Fig. 9 shows the values of the residual capacity index (RCI) of the had a significant effect on its failure. In the composite model
columns versus the displacement ratio at midspan of the column. subjected to a contact blast, the concrete disintegrated. Damage
The RCI equals Pr =Pmax . The residual capacity of the columns was was significantly lower in the main composite and RC models
highest in the E-2 and E-3 models. for explosives placed in the distance of 500 and 200 mm. Com-
plete destruction was less likely to occur.

Conclusions
Data Availability Statement
The performance of concrete beam-columns with different stirrup
arrangements and IPE and FRP retrofitting was studied in a con- All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
text of near-field blast loading. After analysis, simulation, and appear in the published article.

© ASCE 04020150-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

 References Li, Z., X. Zhang, Y. Shi, and Q. Xu. 2019. “Experimental studies on mit-
igating local damage and fragments of unreinforced masonry wall under
Ahmed, S., H. El-Sokkary, and K. Galal. 2017. “Numerical simulation of close-in explosions.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 33 (2): 04019009.
FRP sandwich panels under blast effects.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001272.
31 (1): 04016077. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000934. Malomo, D., N. Scattarreggia, A. Orgnoni, R. Pinho, M. Moratti, and G. M.
Astarlioglu, S., T. Krauthammer, D. Morency, and T. P. Tran. 2013. Calvi. 2020. “Numerical study on the collapse of the Morandi Bridge.”
“Behavior of reinforced concrete columns under combined effects J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 34 (4): 04020044. https://doi.org/10.1061
of axial and blast-induced transverse loads.” Eng. Struct. 55 (Oct): /(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001428.
26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.12.040. Nica, G., M. Lupoae, F. Pavel, and C. Baciu. 2018. “Numerical analysis of
Bao, X., and B. Li. 2010. “Residual strength of blast damaged reinforced RC column failure due to blast and collapse scenarios for an irregular
concrete columns.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 37 (3): 295–308. https://doi.org RC-framed structure.” Int. J. Civ. Eng. 16 (9): 1125–1136. https://doi
/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.04.003. .org/10.1007/s40999-017-0265-9.
Brara, A., and J. R. Klepaczko. 2007. “Fracture energy of concrete at high Osteraas, J. D. 2006. “Murrah Building bombing revisited: A qualitative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

loading rates in tension.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 34 (3): 424–435. https://doi assessment of blast damage and collapse patterns.” J. Perform. Constr.
.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2005.10.004. Facil. 20 (4): 330–335. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828
Calvi, G. M., M. Moratti, G. J. O’Reilly, N. Scattarreggia, R. Monteiro, D. (2006)20:4(330).
Malomo, P. M. Calvi, and R. Pinho. 2019. “Once upon a time in Italy: Pantelides, C. P., T. T. Garfield, W. D. Richins, T. K. Larson, and J. E.
The tale of the Morandi Bridge.” Struct. Eng. Int. 29 (2): 198–217. Blakeley. 2014. “Reinforced concrete and fiber reinforced concrete panels
https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2018.1558033. subjected to blast detonations and post-blast static tests.” Eng. Struct.
Codina, R., and D. Ambrosini. 2019. “Numerical and analytical study of 76 (Oct): 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.040.
overpressures and impulses inside a masonry box subjected to external Parisi, F. 2015. “Blast fragility and performance-based pressure–impulse
blast loading.” Int. J. Prot. Struct. 10 (3): 270–288. https://doi.org/10 diagrams of European reinforced concrete columns.” Eng. Struct.
.1177/2041419619843636. 103 (Nov): 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.09.019.
Codina, R., D. Ambrosini, and F. D. Borbón. 2016. “Experimental and Parisi, F., and N. Augenti. 2012. “Influence of seismic design criteria on
numerical study of a RC member under a close-in blast loading.” blast resistance of RC framed buildings: A case study.” Eng. Struct.
Eng. Struct. 127 (Nov): 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct 44 (Nov): 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.046.
.2016.08.035. Rajkumar, D., R. Senthil, B. Bala Murali Kumar, K. AkshayaGomathi, and S.
El-Dakhakhni, W. W., W. F. Mekky, and S. H. Changiz-Rezaei. 2009. Mahesh Velan. 2020. “Numerical study on parametric analysis of reinforced
“Vulnerability screening and capacity assessment of reinforced concrete concrete column under blast loading.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 34 (1):
columns subjected to blast.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 23 (5): 353–365. 04019102. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001382.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000015. Razaqpur, A. G., E. Contestabile, and A. Tolba. 2009. “Experimental study
Fujikake, K., and P. Aemlaor. 2013. “Damage of reinforced concrete of the strength and deformations of carbon fibre reinforced polymer
columns under demolition blasting.” Eng. Struct. 55 (Oct): 116–125. (CFRP) retrofitted reinforced concrete slabs under blast load.” Can. J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.08.038. Civ. Eng. 36 (8): 1366–1377. https://doi.org/10.1139/L09-002.
Grote, D., S. Park, and M. Zhou. 2001. “Dynamic behaviour of concrete at Razaqpur, A. G., A. Tolba, and E. Contestabile. 2007. “Blast loading re-
high strain rates and pressures.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 25 (9): 869–886. sponse of reinforced concrete panels reinforced with externally bonded
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(01)00020-3. GFRP laminates.” Composites, Part B 38 (5–6): 535–546. https://doi
Hu, Y., L. Chen, Q. Fang, and H. Xiang. 2018. “Blast loading model of the .org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.06.016.
RC column under close-in explosion induced by the double-end-initiation Riedel, W., N. Kawai, and K. Kondo. 2009. “Numerical assessment for
explosive cylinder.” Eng. Struct. 175 (Aug): 304–321. https://doi.org/10 impact strength measurements in concrete materials.” Int. J. Impact Eng.
.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.013. 36 (2): 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.12.012.
Javidan, M. M., H. Kang, D. Isobe, and J. Kim. 2018. “Computationally Riedel, W., K. Thoma, and S. Hiermaier. 1999. “Penetration of reinforced
efficient framework for probabilistic collapse analysis of structures concrete by BETA-B-500 numerical analysis using a new macroscopic
under extreme actions.” Eng. Struct. 172 (Jun): 440–452. https://doi concrete model for hydrocodes.” In Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on the Effects
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.022. of Munitions with Structures, 315–322. Berlin: Bundesrepublik
Javidan, M. M., and J. Kim. 2019. “Variance-based global sensitivity analy- Deutschland.
sis for fuzzy random structural systems.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infra- Roller, C., C. Mayrhofer, W. Riedel, and K. Thoma. 2013. “Residual load
struct. Eng. 34 (7): 602–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12436. capacity of exposed and hardened concrete columns under explosion
Kollar, L. P., and G. S. Springer. 2003. Mechanics of composite structures. loads.” Eng. Struct. 55 (Oct): 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. .2011.12.004.
Kong, X., X. Qi, Y. Gu, I. A. Lawan, and Y. Qu. 2018. “Numerical evalu- Shayanfar, M. A., and M. M. Javidan. 2017. “Progressive collapse-resisting
ation of blast resistance of RC slab strengthened with AFRP.” Constr. mechanisms and robustness of RC frame–shear wall structures.” J. Per-
Build. Mater. 178 (May): 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat form. Constr. Facil. 31 (5): 04017045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
.2018.05.081. CF.1943-5509.0001012.
Kyei, C., and A. Braimah. 2017. “Effects of transverse reinforcement spac- Tu, Z., and Y. Lu. 2009. “Evaluation of typical concrete material models
ing on the response of reinforced concrete columns subjected to blast used in hydrocodes for high dynamic response simulations.” Int. J.
loading.” Eng. Struct. 142 (Apr): 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Impact Eng. 36 (1): 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007
.engstruct.2017.03.044. .12.010.
Lee, E., and C. Tarver. 1980. “Phenomenological model of shock initiation Wang, W., D. Zhang, F. Lu, S. C. Wang, and F. Tang. 2013. “Experimental
in heterogeneous explosives.” Phys. Fluids 23 (12): 2362–2372. https:// study and numerical simulation of the damage mode of a square rein-
doi.org/10.1063/1.862940. forced concrete slab under close-in explosion.” Eng. Fail. Anal.
Leppänen, J. 2004. “Concrete structures subjected to fragment impacts, 27 (Jan): 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.07.010.
dynamic behaviour and material modelling.” Doctoral thesis, Dept. of Weerheijm, J., and J. V. Doormaal. 2007. “Tensile failure of concrete at
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Chalmers Univ. of Technology. high loading rates: New test data on strength and fracture energy from
Li, J., and H. Hao. 2014. “A simplified numerical method for blast induced instrumented spalling tests.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 34 (3): 609–626. https://
structural response analysis.” Int. J. Prot. Struct. 5 (3): 323–348. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.01.005.
doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.5.3.323. Wu, K. C., B. Li, and K. C. Tsai. 2011a. “The effects of explosive mass
Li, J., C. Wu, and H. G. Hao. 2015. “Residual loading capacity of ultra-high ratio on residual compressive capacity of contact blast damaged
performance concrete columns after blast loads.” Int. J. Prot. Struct. composite columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (4): 602–612. https://doi
6 (4): 649–669. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.6.4.649. .org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.001.

© ASCE 04020150-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150

 Wu, K.-C., B. Li, and K.-C. Tsai. 2011b. “Residual axial compres- Yan, Q. S. 2018. “Damage Assessment of subway station columns sub-
sion capacity of localized blast-damaged RC columns.” Int. J. jected to blast loadings.” Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 18 (3): 1850034.
Impact Eng. 38 (1): 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455418500347.
.09.002. Zhang, C., G. Gholipour, and A. A. Mousavi. 2019. “Nonlinear dynamic
Xie, X., R. Wang, and Y. Yang. 2010. “Numerical simulation of dynamic behavior of simply-supported RC beams subjected to combined impact-
response of operating metro tunnel induced by ground explosion.” J. blast loading.” Eng. Struct. 181 (Dec): 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1016
Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2 (4): 373–384. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP /j.engstruct.2018.12.014.
.J.1235.2010.00373. Zhang, D., S. Yao, F. Lu, X. Chen, G. Lin, W. Wang, and Y. Lin. 2013.
Yan, B., F. Liu, D. Y. Song, and Z. G. Jiang. 2015. “Numerical study on “Experimental study on scaling of RC beams under close-in blast load-
damage mechanism of RC beams under close-in blast loading.” Eng. Fail. ing.” Eng. Fail. Anal. 33 (Oct): 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Anal. 51 (May): 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.02.007. .engfailanal.2013.06.020.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 09/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE 04020150-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(2): 04020150