You are on page 1of 11

1023

ARTICLE
State of the art for enhancing the blast resistance of reinforced
concrete columns with ber-reinforced plastic1
John E. Crawford
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14

Abstract: Protective design has become a chief concern in the design of some bridges and buildings, particularly related to the
requirement that such facilities offer protection from accidental or malicious explosions. In this paper, the enhancement of the
blast-resistance capability of reinforced concrete columns using FRP (ber-reinforced plastic) is examined as a key element in
upgrading the protective design of existing buildings and bridges. In this paper, the basic behaviors that need to be considered
in blast effects analysis of RC columns for vehicle bomb threats are described. The ability of FRP to address these sorts of risks
is shown through the analysis and test results presented. Three crucial points are made: (1) FRP offers a remarkable capability to
enhance the blast resistance of existing RC columns, (2) assessing the residual capacity of large columns struck by a blast loading
involves consideration of the effects of material damage, and (3) physics-based material models are often needed to capture the
concrete behaviors engendered by intense blast loads.

Key words: protective design, blast effects, reinforced concrete columns, ber-reinforced plastic (FRP).

Rsum : La conception des protections est devenue un lment cl de la conception de certains ponts et immeubles, particu-
lirement en ce qui a trait aux exigences que de telles installations offrent une protection contre les explosions accidentelles ou
malveillantes. Dans cet article, l'amlioration de la capacit de rsistance aux soufes d'explosion des colonnes en bton arm
renforces par du PRF (plastique renforc de bres) est tudie en tant qu'lment cl de la mise a niveau de la protection des
For personal use only.

btiments et immeubles existants. Les comportements de base a tudier lors de l'analyse des effets d'un soufe d'explosion,
gnr par un vhicule pig, sur des colonnes en bton arm sont dcrits. La capacit du PRF a rsister a ce genre de risque est
dmontre par l'analyse et les rsultats des essais prsents. Trois conclusions importantes en sont tires : (1) le PRF possde une
capacit remarquable a amliorer la rsistance des colonnes en bton arm existantes contre le soufe d'explosion, (2)
l'valuation de la capacit rsiduelle des colonnes larges frappes par une charge de soufe demande de tenir compte des effets
des dommages matriels et (3) des modles de matriaux, bass sur la physique, sont souvent requis pour saisir les comporte-
ments du bton sous des charges de soufe intense. [Traduit par la Rdaction]

Mots-cls : conception de protections, effet du soufe d'une explosion, colonnes en bton arm, plastique renforc de bres (PRF).

Protective design City, Oklahoma, which led to the failure of one or more main
Protective design has become a key consideration in the design load-bearing columns, ultimately leading to the collapse of about
of the structural system of some bridges and buildings, particu- half of the building's structure. This event resulted in a large
larly as it relates to the requirement that such facilities offer number of fatalities, where over 85% of the people killed were in
protection from accidental or malicious explosions. Protective the collapsed portion. One of the conclusions that may be gleaned
design in contrast to the sorts of conventional design intended from such an event is that preventing catastrophic damage (i.e.,
to address the loads generated by wind, gravity, and seismic collapse) of the structural system is paramount in preventing fa-
activity is intended to address extreme loads, which by deni- talities, and as such the performance of the columns of the struc-
tion are not well dened. This paper focuses on the use of FRP tural system is crucial.
(ber-reinforced plastic) to enhance the blast resistance of rein-
forced concrete (RC) columns of existing structures. Background
The blast-resistance capability afforded by an RC column is of- FRP materials have been used to upgrade RC structures since
ten of crucial concern in mitigating the risks brought forth by the mid-1980s in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the United States. In
blast loads to the framing system of a structure. In blast effects particular, FRP wrapping (as well as steel jacketing) of RC columns
tests conducted by Karagozian and Case (K&C) over the last decade is now a proven method of retrotting structures to resist earth-
(Crawford et al. 2001, 2010; Malvar et al. 1999, 2007), FRP has quakes.
shown itself to provide an effective and easily deployable means The retrot of RC columns using FRP composites to resist explo-
to upgrade the blast protection of existing buildings and bridges. sions is more recent, having started around 1995 (Crawford
The capability afforded by FRP is particularly important be- et al. 1995, 1996). Around this time, it was shown numerically
cause some RC columns are quite susceptible to being damaged by that the columns of the Murrah building could have been up-
blast. This vulnerability and its importance in exacerbating the graded using a steel jacket or composite wraps to enhance their
risks of disproportionate collapse is exemplied by the 1995 blast resistance, limit their lateral deection, and prevent
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma building collapse.

Received 30 November 2012. Accepted 29 April 2013.


J.E. Crawford. Karagozian and Case, 700 N. Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, CA 91203-3215, USA.
E-mail for correspondence: crawford@kcse.com.
1This paper is one of a selection of papers in this special issue to honour the 20th anniversary of the Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures Conference Series.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 40: 10231033 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0510 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 2 May 2013.
1024 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 1. Results from blast tests of an actual (full-scale) building structure. Response shown for the (a) Test 6 blast test, (b) nonretrotted
column (Test 6), (c) steel-jacketed column (Test 7), and (d) FRP-wrapped column (Test 8). (Photos courtesy of DTRA.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

As part of a multiyear anti-terrorist program, under the aus- Development of analysis tools that can effectively evaluate the
pices of the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) and the performance of RC columns and existing columns retrotted
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a series of full-scale with FRP to a full range of blast threats.
blast tests were conducted to quantify the effects of terrorist ex- Development of comprehensive design tools that can address
plosions on conventional buildings and structural components all the important response and failure modes associated with
and to demonstrate the capability of these retrot methodologies. the behaviors of RC columns struck by blast loads, especially
A retrot design procedure developed by K&C using steel jackets those emanating from near-contact explosives.
and FRP wraps was shown to successfully prevent column damage
and building collapse, even for square and rectangular columns These are, in essence, the aspects of the research and develop-
(Malvar et al. 1999; Morrill et al. 1999, 2000, 2001). ment work (Malvar et al. 2004, 2007; Crawford et al. 2001, 2003;
To successfully enhance the blast resistance of existing RC col- Crawford and Lan 2005; Crawford 2010) that K&C has conducted
umns with FRP, several facets of the problem need to be addressed over the last 15 years. These endeavors have included full-scale
and well understood. These include the following: blast effects and quasi-static tests, a few of which are highlighted
in this paper (Crawford et al. 2001; Crawford 2010; Morrill et al.
Characterization of the blast effects loads. 2001); development of high-delity physics-based analysis tools
Clear understanding of the behaviors and failure modes of RC (Malvar et al. 1997; Crawford et al. 1995; Crawford 2011); genera-
columns caused by blast loads. tion of design tools (Malvar et al. 1999; Crawford et al. 2003); and
Development and validation of design concepts (in this case, validation studies pertaining to design and analysis tools for using
using FRP) to lessen the penchant for brittle failure modes to FRP to enhance RC column blast resistance (Malvar et al. 2007;
occur as well as to enhance a column's blast resistance. Crawford 2011).

Published by NRC Research Press


Crawford 1025

Fig. 2. Close-up of the shear failure observed in Test 6. (Photo same blast load and column (except for the retrot) was used in all
courtesy of DTRA.) three tests. These tests produced what are the two most likely
behaviors resulting from a VBIED blast namely, brittle diagonal
shear failure and ductile exure response. The intent in showing
these tests and the other failure modes described below is to
demonstrate that there are a broad set of circumstances and be-
haviors that must be addressed to effectively enhance the blast
resistance of RC columns. These response modes must also be
incorporated into design and analysis tools for them to provide an
effective means to design blast-resistant RC columns. These and
subsequent blast tests also aptly demonstrated the capability af-
forded by FRP to prevent diagonal shear failure and realize ductile
exure responses.
These tests also demonstrated the importance of developing
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14

appropriate specimens and test protocols in studying the re-


sponses of RC column components by themselves (e.g., as shown
in Figs. 3, 4) so that the responses that occur are similar in nature
to those that would occur were the column part of an actual
framing system. In this regard, the design of an appropriate
means to support the column in the test xture, use of full-scale
specimens, and the application of the gravity load as part of the
test are all quite important to obtaining responses representative
of those occurring when the column is part of an actual framing
system. In the many column component tests conducted by K&C
(e.g., as shown in Figs. 3, 4), results quite similar to those shown in
Figs. 1, 2 were obtained, which indicates that such column com-
ponent tests can reliably capture the responses that would be
observed if such a column test included the full framing system.
These tests have also demonstrated that except in relatively
For personal use only.

Blast effects responses of RC columns rare circumstances (e.g., as shown in Fig. 6), response at the col-
RC columns are typically not well designed to resist blast loads, umn's supports are of secondary interest in predicting the blast-
which makes them particularly vulnerable to threats from vehicle- resistant capacity of RC columns.
borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs). These threats, al-
though often considered global in nature, can be quite localized if Failure modes for VBIEDs
the standoff is signicantly less than the column's height or the Examples of various responses and failure modes for RC col-
blast load is sufciently intense to damage the column's concrete umns are described in this section, using results from blast and
core. This is important because such localized responses are difcult quasi-static loadings. The most common failure mode for an RC
to analytically capture without using high-delity physics-based column is likely to be diagonal shear failure (Fig. 2). Probably less
(HFPB) analytic models. Given the importance of understanding the likely is a failure mode associated with a ductile exure response,
challenges presented to RC columns by VBIED blast loads, a brief because columns are not commonly designed to perform this way.
summary of the response and failure modes that have been observed In this instance, the ductile exure type of response (not a failure
in tests is presented. mode per se) is exemplied by the performances shown in Figs. 1c,
1d, 3, 4 and by the highly ductile P type of failure, where
Responses caused for VBIED threats eventually with increasing lateral deection, the axial resis-
Examples of bomb scenarios and response data illustrative of tance of the column gradually decreases enough to fall below
key response behaviors and failure modes for RC columns are the axial demand.
presented in Figs. 110. These gures depict the kinds of blast Results from a series of quasi-static tests of RC columns (like the
events and responses that may be associated with VBIED threats. one shown in Fig. 4a) demonstrating this type of P response are
The responses shown in Figs. 18 are indicative of the RC column presented in Fig. 5. These results were produced from a series of
response data gathered by K&C in terms of full-scale blast and tests of identical RC columns under the same loading conditions,
quasi-static tests of RC columns. They in general reect that RC where differing amounts of carbon-FRP hoop wrap were used to
column behaviors are dictated by the capability afforded by the retrot the columns, as indicated in Table 1. Such results indicate
column's concrete core (e.g., the failure due to diagonal shear the highly ductile nature of the compression-membrane response
shown in Fig. 2 and loss of axial resistance shown in Fig. 7). In of a well-designed RC column (i.e., in this case realized using FRP)
particular, the rubblization of the concrete core, as exemplied and the kind of P behavior exhibited with increasing lateral
by the response shown in Fig. 7 for a seismic load, can also be deection. The P behaviors are of particular interest in that they
generated by the kinds of intense shock waves that a nearby ex- demonstrate that such columns, if retrotted with sufcient FRP
plosion might generate. Such a situation is exhibited in Fig. 8, hoop wrap, show only a gradual diminution in the column's axial
where the concrete rubble shown was generated by a blast wave load capacity, even at quite large values of (i.e., mid-span deec-
striking a conventionally designed RC column. Such rubblization tions on the order of the column's width for the columns shown).
of the core can be expected to cause a catastrophic loss of axial These results also show the importance of selecting a sufcient
resistance if insufcient reinforcement is present. Conversely, if a number of hoop wraps so as to prevent the FRP's failure.
sufcient amount of FRP hoop wrap is provided (e.g., as shown in Other less common brittle failure modes (i.e., as compared
Fig. 3b), cracking is inhibited and axial resistance is preserved, with the diagonal shear type of brittle failure mode, Fig. 2) include
although perhaps degraded. those failures related to direct shear and a form of design error.
The results presented in Fig. 1 from three separate blast tests of The direct shear response is a rarely considered (or observed) fail-
a typical non-seismic RC column show the importance of the re- ure mode for a column. However, such modes are likely to be of
inforcement design in creating RC columns that resist blast. The more concern, as the possibility of this form of failure is better

Published by NRC Research Press


1026 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 3. Blast effects test of RC column components. The specimens and support xture shown are intended to mimic the support conditions
and responses observed were the column part of an actual framing system (e.g., as shown in Fig. 1). (a) RC column test specimen design.
1' = 30.48 cm; 1" = 2.54 cm. (Photo courtesy of K&C.) (b) Bending response. (c) Shear failure. (Photos courtesy of DTRA.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press


Crawford 1027

Fig. 4. Examples exhibiting the sort of ductile exure response mode achievable using FRP hoop wrap. Without the FRP, the columns would
fail in diagonal shear, as shown in Fig. 2. (a) Lab test of square column showing the large amount of bending possible for well-conned
concrete (here, accomplished with only carbon FRP hoop wrap). (b) View after removal from test xture. A good example of the quite large
deformations that may occur before P effects cause a signicant loss of axial capacity. (Photos courtesy of K&C).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

Fig. 5. Loaddeection data obtained from quasi-static lab tests Fig. 6. Example of a direct shear failure for an RC column caused
(e.g., as shown in Fig. 4a). Lateral loads are presented in the upper by a blast load. Such failures are generally due to a lack of vertical
half of the plot, whereas axial loads are presented in the lower half. steel passed into the support. In this case, the steel jacket retrot
(Photo courtesy of K&C.) was inappropriate for retrotting such a small RC column. (Photo
courtesy of DTRA.)

appreciated. Such a failure mode is likely to be of more concern


for RC columns of larger size, for various architectural layouts
featuring large exposed columns, and for existing columns retro-
tted with steel jackets. A rare example of direct shear failure
obtained in a blast test is depicted in Fig. 6. Here, the failure is
related to the behavior induced by the steel jacket, which was membrane enhancement of the exure resistance could result in
used to retrot a relatively small existing column. a gross underestimate of the shear demand.
Another more subtle failure concern arises when the enhanced Finally, of special concern is a failure mode involving the sud-
lateral resistance afforded by compression-membrane behavior is den loss of the column's axial capacity caused by the extensive
not correctly considered (i.e., a design error). This error is likely to cracking of the column's concrete core owing to an intense blast.
be quite common for RC columns of high-rise buildings subjected This phenomenon is another major form of brittle failure (i.e.,
to a blast. This omission would enhance the risk of the occurrence besides diagonal shear), which presents a potentially quite serious
of diagonal shear failure because ignoring the compression- risk resulting from the catastrophic loss of axial capacity caused

Published by NRC Research Press


1028 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 7. Example of a loss of connement failure for an RC column, Fig. 9. Blast-related failure mode of most concern for large columns
here caused by a seismic loading (a calculated example of such a involves a loss of axial strength even though the lateral deection
failure is shown in Fig. 10). (Photo courtesy of NOAA/NGDC, imparted by the blast is minimal. (a) Two VBIED threat scenarios
M. Celebi, U.S. Geological Survey.) (A, B) are considered, as shown from a horizontal section above a
loading dock. (b) Column properties. (Photos courtesy of K&C.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14

Fig. 8. Example of the form of rubblized concrete that is generated


by intense blast loads, which may lead to a loss of axial load-
carrying capacity, as shown in Fig. 9. (Photo courtesy of DTRA.)
For personal use only.

by the cracking of the column's concrete core by the blast pulse.


Of particular concern are large columns, which under a blast load
are likely to move little laterally but experience nevertheless a
catastrophic loss of axial strength.
This form of blast-related failure is similar to the kinds of
failures observed in large columns in earthquakes (e.g., Fig. 7)
and is illustrated analytically for the blast scenario depicted in
Fig. 9. Here, two load cases are depicted: Case A represents a
VBIED placed beside the column, and Case B a VBIED placed
such that two column faces are loaded. Key aspects of the anal-
yses conducted in such situations (i.e., involving large columns
relatively close to explosions) include application of the gravity
load throughout the blast effects analysis and the use of a
physics-based analysis model that can capture the inuence of
the damage imparted to the concrete core on the column's axial
capacity. The inuence of applying the gravity load to a column
damage to the concrete core is exemplied by the concrete debris
at the outset of the analysis, as compared with just applying the
shown in Fig. 8, which fell out of a column's core as a result of the
blast loading by itself, is demonstrated by the HFPB nite ele-
ment (FE) analysis results shown in Fig. 10. As alluded to by the effects of an intense blast. Responses to blast load Cases A and B,
results shown, even though little lateral deection occurs as a which are shown in Fig. 10, were computed without the gravity
result of the blast, the vertical response to the gravity load after load; here, little in the way of damage is indicated because the
application of the blast load indicates catastrophic failure. lateral deections are so small. In contrast, the results for a third
Application of the gravity load and use of an HFPB FE model that case shown, which are for the Case A blast load plus gravity,
can capture the blast damage imparted to the concrete core of the present an entirely different picture. This situation reveals that
column are paramount in providing assurance that the column's the blast load imparted was intense enough to cause the con-
residual capacity is sufcient, which primarily depends on the crete core to fracture (e.g., as demonstrated in Fig. 8), resulting
extent of damage imparted to the core concrete by the shock front in the kinds of catastrophic loss of axial resistance indicated in
of the blast (i.e., not related to a diagonal shear response). Such Figs. 10b, 10d.

Published by NRC Research Press


Crawford 1029

Fig. 10. Response of a large RC column to damage imparted by a blast load to the concrete core. Even though little lateral deection is
imparted by the blast, the vertical response to the gravity load after application of the blast load is catastrophic: (a) Lateral response up to
20 ms, (b) vertical response to gravity load, (c) response at t = 27 ms, and (d) response at t = 30 ms. (Photos courtesy of K&C.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14

Table 1. Properties of RC columns tested un- Table 2. Key features required of concrete models intended to be used
der quasi-static loads (Morrill et al. 2001). with HFPB FE models.
For personal use only.

Number of Initial Key features Capability provided


wraps with axial load Axial
Three-invariant Pressure dependent
Test carbon FRP (kips) restraint Differences in triaxial extension and
2 2 100 Fixed compression
3 6 100 Fixed Effects of Concrete compressive strength signicantly
4 0 100 Fixed connement enhanced by connement
5 0 0 Free Modeling effects of stirrups, FRP wrap, steel
10 4 100 Fixed jackets, decient connement allowed
Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN. Nonlinearity Elastic, plastic with hardening and softening
(or damage)
Damage metric used in K&C model to gauge
Design and analysis models the evolution
As a companion effort to the testing just described, HFPB FE Rate effects Important for blast loads where strength
models were constructed to evaluate their capability to predict more than doubled
blast and quasi-static response of nonretrotted RC columns and Differentiate between tensile and
ones retrotted with FRP. This FE effort involved extensive work compression rate effects
in developing a concrete material model that could capture the Fracture energy Key to modeling components up to failure
key concrete material behaviors involved in such situations. Rate effects on fracture energy related to
These behaviors are listed in Table 2. square of rate effect
The concrete material model developed by K&C (Malvar et al. Shear-dilatancy Concrete's expansion upon cracking providing
1997, 2004) is based on plasticity theory and uses a damage func- increased strength and ductility where
tion to model the requisite hardening and softening behaviors of connement is adequate
concrete and compute the effects of connement. The capability
afforded by the material model is crucial to the ability of the
analysis model to appropriately capture RC column behaviors
for example, to capture the enhanced ductility afforded by FRP were used to simulate the responses obtained from conned tri-
hoop wrap (e.g., exhibited in Figs. 4, 5) and the load causing the axial compression tests. These results were generated using a sin-
wrap to fail. gle cubic solid element having a set of boundary conditions that
In this regard, the ability afforded by the concrete material mimic those of the actual triaxial test. Such a model provides an
models provided by LS-DYNA (LSTC 2007) were examined. Results explicit means to exercise the material model over a given set of
for four of the LS-DYNA concrete material models (LSTC 2011) were stressstrain paths. Five levels of connement (i.e., 0, 7, 14, 20, and
examined, including models MAT072 (K&C concrete model), 34 MPa) were used; results are plotted in Figs. 11, 12.
MAT084 (Winfrith model), MAT159 (Continuous Smooth Cap model), In specifying the parameters for these material models, the
and MAT272 (RHT model). same concrete strength (fc= = 6580 psi or 45.4 MPa) was specied
for each, and otherwise the default parameters specied by LS-DYNA
Material modeling were used. Such results are important in validating the physics-
Results from different concrete material models were gener- based models used to assess the performance of columns retrot-
ated as a means of evaluating the basic capabilities afforded by ted with FRP in this instance, evaluating the model's ability to
then. For this study, the concrete models provided in LS-DYNA predict shear dilatancy and the effects of connement.

Published by NRC Research Press


1030 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 11. Analytic results from triaxial compression tests conducted using four of LS-DYNA's concrete models (LSTC 2009, 2011) K&C model
(072), Winfrith model (084), continuous smooth cap model (159), and RHT model (272): (a) Model MAT072, (b) Model MAT084, (c) Model
MAT159, and (d) Model MAT272. (Photos courtesy of K&C.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

As shown, the K&C concrete model (MAT072) avoids the serious Quasi-static tests
deciencies apparent in the results produced by the other The capability afforded by the K&C concrete model is further
concrete models offered by LS-DYNA for example, the lack of demonstrated in the responses predicted for the series of tests of
shear-dilation behavior exhibited by the RHT, Cap, and Winfrith FRP-wrapped RC columns shown in Fig. 5; the setup for these tests
models depicted in Fig. 12. Shear-dilation behavior is of particular is depicted in Fig. 4. The LS-DYNA model used is described in
Fig. 13. This model employs over 40 000 solids to model the con-
concern in modeling the blast response of RC columns that em-
crete, whereas the reinforcement is modeled explicitly with beam
ploy FRP hoop wrap because this provides the principal means by
elements. These sorts of HFPB FE models have been used hun-
which the FRP is tensioned and high levels of connement are dreds of times at K&C to generate results for RC columns sub-
imparted to the concrete. This phenomenon also plays a key role jected to quasi-static and blast loads. Such models have been
in predicting when the FRP wrap fails (e.g., as shown in the test validated on numerous occasions against test results like those
results presented in Fig. 5). shown in Figs. 16.
One of the models the Winfrith (Fig. 11b) model seems to Plots of lateral force versus lateral deection and axial force
have a particular difculty capturing the effects of connement versus lateral deection computed for the tests listed in Table 1
on concrete response. Other results for different material tests are shown in Fig. 14. Early on in the response (i.e., for deections
have also been generated by K&C (Crawford 2011, Crawford et al. from around 1030 mm) the process of concrete cracking and the
2012) for both single-element models and structural models of the ensuing enhanced connement due to the FRP is exhibited in the
actual test specimen (e.g., standard cylindrical specimens mod- plot. Also shown is the ability of the K&C concrete model to effec-
tively capture the deection at which the FRP fails owing to ten-
eled with many solid elements), which produce results consis-
sion (i.e., as demonstrated by comparing the responses shown in
tent with those shown in Figs. 11, 12, indicating that most of the
Figs. 5, 14).
LS-DYNA have serious model problems capturing important The results computed using two other concrete models pro-
concrete phenomena. This nding is reinforced by the results vided by LS-DYNA are shown in Fig. 15. As may be observed, these
reported in the next section pertaining to the inuence of con- other models are unable to effectively predict the failure of the
crete model selection on the responses computed for wrapped FRP observed in the tests (Fig. 5). Moreover, the RHT appears not to
RC columns. capture the effects of connement at all (Fig. 15b), which is con-

Published by NRC Research Press


Crawford 1031

Fig. 12. Analytic results from triaxial compression tests computed for shear dilation behaviors: (a) Model MAT072, (b) Model MAT084,
(c) Model MAT159, and (d) Model MAT272. (Photos courtesy of K&C.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

Fig. 13. LS-DYNA model used to compute RC column responses. Fig. 14. Response curves generated by MAT072 for lateral force
1" = 2.54 cm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN. (Photo courtesy of K&C.) versus lateral deection (upper curves) and axial force versus lateral
deection (lower curves) for quasi-static tests of RC columns (TI);
compare these responses to the test results shown in Fig. 5. (Photo
courtesy of K&C.)

Published by NRC Research Press


1032 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 15. Results for quasi-static tests of RC columns (refer to Fig 5) computed for other concrete models provided by LS-DYNA: (a) Model
MAT159 and (b) Model MAT272. (Photos courtesy of K&C.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

sistent with the results observed in the single-element analyses damage is exhibited by the column's concrete core (see Fig. 16).
(Figs. 11, 12). This outcome is related primarily to the effects of added conne-
ment and the enhanced shear strength induced in the concrete by
Blast effects analyses of columns retrotted with FRP
it, which is manifested by the presence of the FRP. For the nonret-
Results for a wrapped and bare RC column of the sort shown in
rotted column (Fig. 16a), the axial residual capacity is severely
Fig. 1b are presented in Fig. 16. These plots are presented in the
form of the deformed shapes resulting from a blast load, on which degraded owing to shear failure; this type of failure is common to
fringes of concrete damage generated by the K&C concrete model many forms of blast threat scenarios (e.g., as shown in Figs. 1, 3). In
are shown. The number of the fringe indicates the extent of contrast, the same column under the same blast load remains
damage: 0, no damage; 1, initiation of softening behavior; 1.9, only nearly undamaged. These benets have been validated in actual
10% of the concrete's residual shear strength remaining; 2.0, no blast tests (e.g., by the side-by-side comparisons of responses
shear strength remaining. These plots indicate the fundamental shown in Figs. 1b, 3c for identical columns (except for the FRP
benet of FRP hoop wrap, which is that a much-reduced level of hoop wrap) subjected to the same blast loads.

Published by NRC Research Press


Crawford 1033

Fig. 16. Comparison of blast response of FRP-wrapped and bare RC columns. (a) Bare column, (b) column with FRP hoop wrap retrot, (c) hoop
and vertical FRP reinforcement used. (Photos courtesy of K&C.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.

Summary structures to blast effects. Proceedings, 66th Shock and Vibration Sympo-
sium, Biloxi, MS, 30 October 2 November 1995.
In this very brief paper (for the topic covered), the basic behaviors Crawford, J.E., Malvar, L.J., Dunn, B.W., and Gee, D.J. 1996. Retrot of reinforced
that need to be considered in blast effects analysis of RC columns for concrete columns using composite wraps to resist blast effects. Proceedings
VBIED threats were described. The ability of FRP to address some of of the 27th Department of Defense Explosive Safety Seminar, Las Vegas, NV,
1922 August 1996.
these risks was shown through the analysis and test results pre- Crawford, J.E., Malvar, L.J., Morrill, K.B., and Ferritto, J.M. 2001. Composite ret-
sented. Four crucial points were addressed in this paper: (1) assessing rots to increase the blast resistance of reinforced concrete buildings.
the residual capacity of large columns struck by a nearby VBIED blast Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Interaction of the Ef-
loading involves consideration of the effects that material damage fects of Munitions with Structures, San Diego, CA, May 2001.
Crawford, J.E., Malvar, L.J., Ferritto, J.M., Morrill, K.B., Dunn, B.W., and Bong, P.
may have in reducing the strength of the concrete; (2) FRP offers a 2003. Description of Design Software for Retrotting Reinforced Concrete
remarkable capability to enhance the blast resistance of existing RC Columns to Improve Their Resistance to Blast. Report TR-01-16.2. Karagozian
columns; (3) HFPB FE models are necessary to capture some forms of and Case, Burbank, CA. Limited distribution.
blast response, particularly where the concrete experiences exten- Crawford, J.E., Wu, Y., Magallanes, J.M., and Lan, S. 2012. Modeling of concrete
materials under extreme loads, Chapter 1. In Advances in Protective Struc-
sive cracking; and (4) it is important that the selection of a concrete
tures Research. Edited by H. Hao and Z.-X. Li. CRC Press/Balkema, London, UK.
material model for the HFPB FE model be done with care because pp. 132.
some models do not incorporate some of the basic behaviors exhib- LSTC. 2009. LS-DYNA, Version 971 Revision 65543, Livermore Software Technology
ited by concrete or show disconcerting modes of response. Corporation, Livermore, CA., USA.
In addition, the key RC column behaviors engendered by blast LSTC. 2011. LS-DYNA Keyword Manual Volume II Material Models Version
971, Revision: 949, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore,
loads were shown. These include two classic forms of response CA., USA.
and failure modes: diagonal shear modes and a combination of Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., Wesevich, J.W., and Simons, D. 1997. A plasticity
modes representing exure and compression-membrane behaviors. concrete material model for DYNA3D. International Journal of Impact Engi-
Two other forms were also shown, which are peculiar to blast neering, 19(9/10): 847873. doi:10.1016/S0734-743X(97)00023-7.
Malvar, L.J., Morrill, K.B., and Crawford, J.E. 1999. CTS-1 Retrot Designs: For
loading: (1) direct shear behavior, manifested as a horizontal fail- Reducing the Vulnerability of an Ofce Building to Airblast, Report TR-98-
ure plane at the base of a column, and (2) a mode in which the 39.2. Karagozian & Case, Burbank, CA.
shock wave propagated through the concrete is sufciently in- Malvar, L.J., Morrill, K.B., and Crawford, J.E. 2004. Numerical modeling of con-
tense to cause extensive cracking of the column's concrete core, crete conned by ber reinforced composites. Journal of Composites for
Construction, 8(4): 315322. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:4(315).
resulting in a catastrophic loss of strength in the concrete.
Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., and Morrill, K.B. 2007. Use of composites to resist
blast. Journal of Composites for Construction, 11(6): 601610. doi:10.1061/
References (ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:6(601).
Crawford, J.E. 2010. Retrot of Structural Components and Systems, Chapter 17. Morrill, K.B., Malvar, L.J., and Crawford, J.E. 1999. Retrot design procedure for
In Handbook for Blast-resistant Design of Buildings. Edited by D.O. Dusenberry. existing RC buildings to increase their resistance to terrorist bombs. Proceed-
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ings of the 9th International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of
Crawford, J.E. 2011. Users Manual and Documentation for Release III of the K&C Munitions with Structures (IEMS), Berlin, Germany. 37 May 1999.
Concrete Material Model in LS-DYNA. (TR-11-36.1). Karagozian & Case, Bur- Morrill, K.B., Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., and Attaway, S.W. 2000. RC column and
bank, CA. slab retro-ts to survive blast loads. Proceedings of the ASCE Structures
Crawford, J.E., and Lan, S. 2005. Design and implementation of protection tech- Congress, Philadelphia, PA. 810 May 2000.
nologies for improving blast resistance of buildings. Presented at the Enhanc- Morrill, K.B., Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., Hegemier, G., and Seible, F. 2001. Full-
ing Building Security Seminar, Singapore, March 2005. scale testing of reinforced concrete column retrots to resist blast loads.
Crawford, J.E., Wesevich, J., Valancius, J., and Reynolds, A. 1995. Evaluation of Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Interaction of the Ef-
jacketed columns as a means to improve the resistance of conventional fects of Munitions with Structures, San Diego, CA. May 2001.

Published by NRC Research Press