You are on page 1of 7

Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Resist Blast


[ I I
by John E. Crawford, L. Javier Malvar, James W. Wesevich, Joseph Valancius, and Aaron D.

Analyses were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of jacketing col- RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
umns of existing reinforced concrete multistory buildings to improve their Recent events have emphasized the vulnerability of con-
survivability to attacks by explosives. Dtrerent standoff distances, charge ventional multistory buildings to blast loads. This paper as-
sizes, and steel and composite jackets were considered. Two building
sesses simple retrofit techniques in typical multistory
designs were analyzed: one in which the building members were designed
reinforced concrete buildings to improve their blast load re-
primarily for gravity loads (UBC seismic zone I) and one in which the
members were designed to resist seismic loads (UBC seismic zone 4). sistance. The retrofit designs considered focus on jacketing
Structural response predictions were perjotvned with the three-dimensional, concepts which have been widely applied in the mitigation
LagrangianJinite element code DYNA3D. using a concrete material model of earthquake hazards for highway bridges, mostly by the
especially designed to predict nonlinear concrete responses to explosive California Department of Transportation.2~4 For seismic
loads. The results indicate that jacketing can be an effective means to retro- zone 4 these retrofit techniques could then have dual appli-
fit an existing facility to lessen its vulnerability to blast loads. cation. Also, the effect of standoff is evaluated as a way of
reducing the blast load on the structural elements.
Keywords blast effects; reinforced concrete; steel jacket; composites; FRE!


INTRODUCTION To illustrate the issues involved, the response of a multi-
Preliminary numerical analyses of conventional rein- story building composed of reinforced concrete columns and
forced concrete multistory buildings confirmed their vulner- floor slabs is shown in Figure 1. For this situation, a 2000
ability to attacks by explosives. The focus of these analyses pound (909 Kg) ANFO bomb was placed at a standoff of
was the response of the perimeter columns of a typical build- 20 feet (6.1 m), a burst height of 6 feet (1.83 m), and centered
ing to blast loads. Two building designs were analyzed: one on an exterior building column. To simplify the problem, the
in which the building members were designed mainly for ‘loading applied consists of only airblast (i.e., fragment and
gravity loads (UBC seismic zone 1) and one in which the debris effects are ignored). The airblast was generated sepa-
members were designed to resist seismic loads (UBC seis- rately (e.g. see reference 5). The pressures reflected off the
mic zone 4). Both cases were considered since the zone 4 de- exterior surfaces are predicted with relatively high fidelity
sign includes significantly higher lateral reinforcement (for (in contrast to, the pressure field inside the building, which is
confinement purposes) which enhances the resistance to complex and difficult to predict). The results indicate that the
shear. The numerical analyses showed that structural col: exterior perimeter columns on the first and second floors are
lapse of the building as a whole was typically started by the blown out at an early time, failing in shear near the supports.
failure of perimeter columns on the first and second floors. Failure of just a few perimeter columns results in a partial or
complete collapse of the structure (Figure 1). ConsequeMly,
Retrofit techniques consisting of strengthening the columns
the retrofit techniques analyzed concentrated on the upgrade
with round steel jackets or composite wraps were assessed.
of the perimeter columns on the first and second floors.
Structural response predictions were completed with the
three-dimensional Lagrangian finite element code
DYNA3D,’ using a concrete material model especially de-
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 4, July-August 1997.
signed to predict nonlinear concrete responses to explosive Received September 29, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
loads. The study also includes the use of different charge siz- Copyright 6 1997, Amencan Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from tbe copyright proprietors. Perti-
es and standoffs so that architectural considerations that limit nent discussion will be published in the May-June 1998 ACI Structural Journal if
received by January 1.1998.
the threat (e.g., increasing standoff) can be evaluated.
John Cmwford is a principal engineer at Karagozian and Case, Stmctuml Engi- some failure mechanisms, such as direct or punching shear
neers. His nzsearch is prbnarily n&ted to the analysis and foilun-assessment for failure, can only be approximated.
structural and mechanical systems with particular emphasis on the effects of blast and
shock on such systems..Research interests include numerical and theoretical struc-
tural analysis techniques pertaining to nonlinearity and failure, meosued response Modeling with coktlnuum’ elements
especially at high mtes of loading, and so@arr developments, particularly related to In contrast, continuum models may be very general and
contact surfaces and constitutive models.
can idealize much of the actual physics. However, they are
AC1 member L Javier M&or is a senior rcsedrch engineer with Kamgozian and
Case, Structural Engineers. He has conducted research on desig4 analysis, testing,
and numerical modeling of concrete and reinforced concrete structures subjected to time
static, dynamic, and blast loads.

Jamn Wesevich is a senior engineer with Kamgozian and Case, Structural Engi-
neers. He performs comprehensive.structuml dynamics research primarily involving
the nonlinear prediction of conventional weapons effects on various structuml com-
ponents. A signijkant amount of his research use3 DYNA3D, which now includes a
more robust formulation of concrete material model as a result of this research.

Joseph VMancius is president of Karagozian and Case, Structuml Engineers. He is

responsible for the stmctuml design of commerctal, industrial, and institutional
buildings as well as blast hamletted sturctures.

Aaron Reynolds was an engineer at Karagozion and Case, Structuml Engineers.

The modeling of buildings for predicting their response to

blast loads may include an array of techniques.from simple
single-degree-of-freedom models6 to full 3-D nonlinear con-
tinuum models, some of which are described this paper, An
extended discussion of the various tradeoffs involved in
model selection is beyond the scope of this paper (e.g. see
reference 7), however some of the significant features which
distinguish these types of first principle calculations are the
importance of including the effect of confinement on the disp. scale factor -e .600E+0d
concrete strength and ductility, the effect of strain rate (i.e.,
apparent material strengthening due to rapid loading), the Fig. I-Example of building modeled with structural ele-
possibility of direct shear responses (i.e., dynamic shear ments at 0.5 set
failuresT9), and the difficulty of determining the loading for
many of the structural members. A major issue in computing
a finite element response is related to the disparity between
the modeling required to capture localized shear and bending
failure mechanisms immediately after the detonation, which
usually occur over tens of milliseconds, and the modeling
needed to capture the global failure mechanisms associated
with the collapse of the structure, which occur over times on
the order of seconds. The requirement for these relatively
long calculation times (i.e., for global collapse) is largely
caused by the time needed to include gravity effects, as the
structure attempts to redistribute the gravity load, following
any localized failure of the structural elements.
To represent the structure within a finite element context,
two basic modeling approaches are available, based on the
use of either structural or continuum elements. ~

Mbdeling with structural elements

Models composed of structural elements, e.g., beam and
shell elements, are very efficient. The model shown in
Figure 1 used beams to represent the columns and shells to
represent the floors. This allowed the model to be run for
several seconds. However, these models require some sim-
plifications in the physical component idealization, and
some a priori knowledge from the analyst of the structural
response. In the case of beam and shell element models, Fig. 2-Ekample of bunker modeled with continuum ele-
~ ACI Structural Journal / July-August 1997
Table l-Characteristics of airblast loads applied
to the first story
Peakreflected reflected
Load case Charge size, Standoff, pressure, impulse,
number lb (kg) ft(ml psi (MPa) psi-s (KPa-s)
1 10 (3.05) 8100 (55.9) ;.; if;.;;
1500 20 (6.10) 2500 (17.2)
: (682) 40 (12.2) 420 (2.9) 6.9 (6.2)
4 10 (3.05) 12,000 (82.7) 6.9 (47.6)
20 (6.10) 4400 (30.3) 3.2 (22.1)
(E) 840 (5.8) 1.6 (11.0)
2 40 (12.2)
Note Height of burst was 6 ft (I .83 m)

much more difficult to generate, more costly to run, and re-

quire a level of expertise not readily available, particularly
when they involve nonlinear computations. As an example,
Figure 2 depicts a continuum model response of a portion of
a munitions bunker wall to the detonation of a nearby muni-
Modeling with continuum and structural elements Fig. j-overview of multistory building used in evaluation
Hybrid models having both continuum and structural ele-
ments provide an opportunity to develop accurate numerical
predictions in the regions of most importance and efficient THE RETROFITS
calculations in the remainder of the structure. A hybrid mod-
el was used in this study, where the perimeter columns use Conventional multistory design
continuum elements for the concrete (to capture any shear To measure the effectiveness of the various retrofit de-
response) and beam elements for the steel reinforcing bars, signs, a baseline design for a multistory building was gener-
while in areas of less importance structural shell elements ated, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Two designs were
were used to model the floor joists and slabs. developed: one in which the columns and beams were de-
signed mainly for gravity loads (i.e., consistent with UBC
VALIDATION OF RESPONSE PREDICTIONS seismic zone 1) and one in which the columns and beams
There is not much experimental data in the open literature were designed to resist seismic loads (i.e., consistent with
by which to evaluate the accuracy and applicability of the UBC seismic zone 4). This allows the evaluation to include
models used to predict the effects of blasts on structures. the effects of the increased ductility and ultimate strengths
Most test data is either compromised because of its incom- associated with a building designed for a highly active seis-
pleteness (e.g., lack of complete material characterization), mic zone.
ill-defined boundary conditions (e.g., as often occurs in tests
involving single structural members, such as slabs and Portion of building used for analysis
beams), or is derived from weapons effects programs and is To reduce computational demands, only a single bay from
not widely disseminated. One validation study that is avail- the bottom three stories of the building is used for the re-
able for models similar to the ones shown in this paper is pre- sponse predictions (Figure 5). Symmetry is assumed along
sented in reference 10. That paper studied the response of the east-west edges of this section. While this is an approxi-
substantial dividing walls to close-in charges (Figure 2). The mation, it does produce a model of reasonable accuracy and
metric for validation was the velocity of the debris, which size for evaluating the effects of jacketing. To keep the mod-
were predicted within 10 percent of the test data. el simple with little compromise to the column response, the

Table 2-Maximum displacement for first floor perimeter column

Maximum midspan displacement, in (cm)
Zone 1 Zone 4
Standoff, TNT yield, I
ftCm) lb (kg) No jacket Steel jacket FRP jacket No jacket Steel jacket 1 PRPjack.:et
1500 (682) 1 7 (A?\ A? I l l II\
10 (3.05)
3000 (1364) 5.2 (13.2) failure failure safe 14 (35.3)
1500 (682) 0 . 3 (0.7) 0 . 7 (1.8) 0.96 (2.4) 0 . 3 (0.7) 0 . 5 (1.3)
20 (6.10) .
3000 (1364) failure 1.0 (2.5) 3.’i 03.81
\_., f&lllrp
Ill&&U11 1.1 (2.8) 2 . 9 (7.4)
1500 (682) 0.17 (0.4) safe safe safe safe safe
40 (12.2)
3000 (1364) 0.79 (2.0) safe safe safe I safe safe
Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 lb = 0.454 kg
For the cases where similar calculations indicated that no failure would occur the column was deemed safe.

ACI Structural Journal / July-August 1997 373


&-#I0 VERJ. -
#3 018’bc stirrups

/ 8-#9 TOP ST1

(*I li*ti seimcm

Fig. S-Sections modeled in the analysis

( a ) S e c t i o n f o r UBC zone 1 b u i l d i n g (b) Section for IJEX zone 4 building

Fig. I-Typical details associated with the building for a

north-south section

south edge of the bay floor and girders are fixed at the loca-
tion of the first interior column.

Airblasts at three different ranges were calculated for two
different ANFO charge sizes. The peak reflected pressure
and impulse at the mid-height of the first floor column are
given in Table 1. The gravity load is applied to each finite el-
ement within the mesh; the gravity load from the upper sto-
ries is applied as a pressure load over the top of the column,
as shown in Figure 5. Separate pressure histories are applied 2 7500 \‘MPa
to the exterior faces of the first and second story columns.
Jacket concepts Li 5000
The main benefit of jacketing is gained from the effect that 2 Unconfined
increased confinement has on the strength and ductility of IS 2500 - MODEL
concrete, as shown in Figure 6. As a secondary benefit, the
jacket offers protection from fragment damage and a shape
that can more readily deflect fragments. In this application 00
the jacket will be most useful in mitigating direct shear fail- 0 12 3 4 5 6 7
urep but it can also provide increased axial and bending ca- AXIALSTRAIN
pacities. The steel jacket seams are typically welded, and
the gap between the jacket and the existing column is filled Fig. 6-Fit of material model to experimental data for concrete
with grout. Composite or fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) jack-
ets can also be used. Figure 7 depicts the jacket designs used energy based localization limiter to prevent any spurious
in this study for the columns on the first and second floors of mesh sensitivity. The concrete material model includes a ra-
the building shown in Figure 3. This type of column jacket- dial strain rate enhancement in the principal stress difference
ing has been shown to significantly increase the column duc- versus pressure plane which is valid for uniaxial, biaxial and
tility, typically from a ductility of 1.5 to 1O.3V4 As a triaxial tension, as well as uniaxial and biaxial compression.
consequence this type of column retrofit (using either steel
For the analyses, an ASTM A 615 Grade 60 steel was used
or FRP jackets) has been extensively applied in California
for reinforcement, ,with a rupture strain of 13 percent. The
for highway bridge columns.*
concrete had a nominal strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa). For
Material models this particular study a relatively weak carbon wrap was used
The material models for the concrete and steel reinforce- with a thickness of 0.019 inch (0.5 mm) per layer, a strength
ment include elastic-plastic behavior, rate effects, and frac- of 54 ksi (372 MPa) and a stiffness of 7600 ksi (52 GPa).
ture. The new concrete material model implemented in Only six layers of the composite were applied (additional
DYNA3D”*‘* includes softening together with a fracture- layers would further stiffen the structural member and re-


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0:8

12-#I I VERT. STRAIN (%)

Fig. lO--Numerical model versus test results of cylinder

compression tests

Fig. 7-Jacket designs for zones 1 and 4


g 0.8
g 0.4
E 0.2
tn +Transverse
-0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
Fig. 1 l-Mesh for the portion of the building studied

Fig. a-Numerical model strains for a uniaxial uncon-

jined compression test

F” 0.8
pc 0.6
g 0.4

g 0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
POISSON RATIO (a) cawtiolvl (b) h&ad

Fig. 9-Poisson’s ratio variation in the numerical Fig. I2-Response of zone 1 jirstjloor column for a 20-
model foot standoff and 3000 lb charge
g 1.6-
!ii IA-
Y 12-
2 1:0-
8 0.8 -
g 0.6- - - - -


(a) c!.mvmtiond '**'*...STEEL JACKET
m JacLaad \
0.0 I 111 I I , , I I / / / , I , / / , , / ,
Fig. I3-Response of zone 4jrstfloor column for a 20 -ft
0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14
standofand 3000 lb charge

duce the deflections). Figure 6 depicts some of the behaviors Fig. 14-Midspan displacemkntforfour column types (I
modeled for the concrete. Material data and details for the in. = 2.54 cm)
material models are given in references 11 through 15.
The column jacketing system is dependent on the lateral ior, are used to model the floors and floor joists. The mesh
dilation of the concrete for development of the confining ac- for the unjacketed columns is shown in Figure 11.
tion. Concrete in uniaxial unconfined compression exhibits a
constant Poisson ratio of about 0.2 until approximately 75 EFFECT OF RETROFITS
percent of the compressive strength, corresponding to a vol- The response of the building section for the steel jacket
umetric compression phase. At that point extensive internal retrofit design is illustrated by plots of the deformed shape of
cracking starts developing and the apparent Poisson ratio the first floor perimeter column, which are shown in
starts increasing to 0.5, where there is no further volume Figures 12 and 13 for various charge sizes, standoffs, and de-
variation. For increasing compression the apparent Poisson sign configurations. The corresponding response for an un-
ratio keeps increasing until the overall volumetric strain be- jacketed column is also included for comparison. As can be
comes zero, then becomes positive (net volume increase).16 seen from the results, a jacket can have a substantial benefi-
The ability of the numerical material model to reproduce the cial effect on the performance of the columns and prevent
volumetric expansion phase is the key to the proper repre- structural failure of the building as a whole.
sentation of the jacketing confinement effect. Figure 8 shows Figure 14 compares the response time history of four types
the corresponding output from the new concrete material
of columns: the original 30-inch (76 cm) square column, a
model for a single concrete element in uniaxial unconfined
44inch (112 cm) diameter circular column (resulting from
compression. The predicted variation of the apparent Pois-
rounding the square column), and the circular column with
son ratio as a function of the load is shown in Figure 9.
either a steel jacket or a composite wrap. This comparison is
ASTM C39 compression tests carried out on 6-inch (15.2
for the case of a 20-ft (6.1 m) standoff and a 1500-lb (682
cm) diameter concrete cylinders jacketed with two layers of
Kg) charge. As the confinement on the original square col-
a carbon composite resulted in a strength increase of 20 per-
umn increases the peak midspan deflection decreases. In the
cent at a peak strain of about 0.005. Figure 10 shows the test
case of the composite wrap the response could be further de-
results for plain and jacketed concrete cylinders. Figure 10
creased by increasing the number of wraps.
also shows the DYNA3D predictions for both cases. It is ap-
parent that the material model is able to properly represent T Table 2 provides a summary of the midspan deflection for
the jacketing effects. the various column designs considered. For a small standoff
With respect to the composite material, although carbon of 10 feet (3.05 m), the unjacketed column fails for both
(or graphite) and glass fibers have typically been used for charges, but a steel or composite jacket can prevent this fail-
column retrofits,* aramid fibers (e.g. Kevlar) would actually ure. For a standoff of 40 feet (12.2 m), no failure is predicted.
be more appropriate for blast loads, due to their impact resis- Zone 4 columns are somewhat more resistant to shearing.
tance. This is more apparent when the FRP jacket displacements
are compared. The relative thickness used in the composite
Mesh wrap made it less effective than the steel jacket, but similar
The concrete portions of the columns and girders are mod- improvements could be obtained by increasing the number
eled with three-dimensional eight-node brick elements; the of wraps.
reinforcement is explicitly modeled with truss elements. It should be noted, however, that while structural collapse
Shell elements, which replicate the nonlinear flexural behav- may be prevented, this is only a partial solution for the build-
ing occupants as it does not prevent the propagation of high tural Journal, Sept.-Oct. 1994, pp. 537-551.
pressures or debris within the building. 5. Major Hazards Assessment Panel Overpressure Working Party, Explo-
sions in the Process Industries, Major Hazards Monograph, Institution of
CONCLUSIONS Chemical Engineers, Rugby, U.K., 1994,74 pp.
The effects of standoff and column jacketing on enhancing 6 . Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill,

the blast resistance. of conventional reinforced concrete 1964.

structures were analyzed. It was shown first that structural 7. Crawford, J. E., and Karagozian, J., “Behavior and Design for Struc-
tural Components to Resist Blast Loadings,” Technical Report TR-95-25,
collapse appears to result from the shearing of first and sec-
Karagozian & Case, Glendale, CA, August 1995.
ond floor perimeter columns. Jacketing the columns with a
8. Crawford, J. E.; Holland, T. J.; Mendoza P. J.; and Murtha R.,“A Fail-
steel or composite jacket prevents collapse for most of the ure Methodology Based on Shear Deformation,” Fourth ASCE Engineer-
cases studied. Although a weak composite wrap system was ing Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, Purdue University,
used in this analysis, similar responses can be obtained for Lafayette, May 1983.
steel and FRP jackets provided that enough wraps are ap- 9. Slawson, T. R., “Dynamic Shear Failure of Shallow-Buried Flat-
plied. Increasing the standoff distance, whenever possible, Roofed Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Blast Loading,” Tech-
appears as a simple solution. Further work should be per- nical Report SL-84-7, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
formed to develop additional retrofit designs to enhance the MS, Apr. 1984.
floors, reduce debris production, and channel high pressures 10. Bogosian, D., “Parametric Analysis of 12-Inch Substantial Dividing
away from building occupants. Walls,” Technical Report TR-94-20, Karagozian & Case, Glendale, Oct.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 11. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford J. E.; and Wesevich J. W., “A Concrete Mate-
While the results presented in this paper were privately funded, the au- rial Model for DYNA3D,” Proceedings of the 10th ASCE Engineering
thors would like to acknowledge the support of the Defense Nuclear Agency Mechanics Conference, Boulder, May 1995.
in developing the basic work associated with predicting and validating the 12. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford J. E.; and Wesevich J. W., “A New Concrete
response of reinforced concrete structures td airblast loadings. Material Model for DYNA3D,” Technical Reporr TR-94-14, Karagozian &
Case, Glendale, Dec. 1994.
REFERENCES 13. U.S. Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Structures to
1. Whirley, R. G., and Engelmann, B. E., “DYNA3D: A Nonlinear Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,” NAVFAC P-397 Design Man-
Explicit Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid and Structural
Mechanics,” User Manual, Report UCRL-MA-107254 Rev. 1, Lawrence ual, Alexandria, 1991 (also Army TM5-1300 and Air Force AFM 88-22).
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, November 1993. 14. Ross, C. A.; Thompson, P Y.; and Tedesco, J. W., “Split-Hopkinson
2. “GRP Wraps up Bridge Repairs,” Reinforced Plastics, Vol. 39, No. 7- Pressure-Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression,”
8, July-August 1995, pp. 30-32. AC1 Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp. 475-481.
3. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, E; and Fyfe, E., “Column Seismic Retrofit 15. Malvar, L. J., and Simons, D., “Concrete Material Modeling in
Using Fibreglass Epoxy Jackets,” Advanced Composite Materials in Explicit Computations,” Proceedings, Workshop on Recent Advances in
Bridges and Structures, First International Conference, Sherbrooke, Que- Computational Structural Dynamics and High Performance Computing,
bec, Canada, 1992, pp. 287-298.
4. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; Xiao, Y.; and Verma, R., “Steel Jacket USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Apr. 1996.
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Enhanced Shear 16. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley
Strength--Part 2: Test Results and Comparison with Theory,” AC1 Struc- & Sons, NY, 1975,769 pp.