Available online

Available online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering
Procedia Engineering 00
00 (2017)
(2017) 000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2445–2450

X International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2017

Alternatives to prevent progressive collapse protecting reinforced

concrete columns subjected to near field blast loading
a,b a,b a,b
Ramon Codinaa,b, Daniel Ambrosinia,b*, Fernanda de Borbona,b
aaUniversityof Cuyo,
Cuyo, Mendoza
Mendoza 5500,
5500, Argentina
Argentina
University of
bbCONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina
CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Abstract
Abstract

Extensive research
Extensive research activities
activities in
in the
the field
field of
of blast
blast loads
loads have
have taken
taken place
place in
in the
the last
last few
few decades.
decades. Explosive
Explosive blast
blast research
research isis
important not
important not only
only for
for the
the understanding
understanding of of damage
damage caused
caused by
by explosions
explosions but
but also
also for
for predicting
predicting vulnerability
vulnerability of of structures
structures and
and
human to
human to blast
blast and
and for
for the
the development
development of of blast-resistant
blast-resistant materials
materials and
and protective
protective elements.
elements. InIn this
this sense,
sense, the
the façade
façade columns
columns inin
buildings are key elements to protect in order to avoid progressive
buildings are key elements to protect in order to avoid progressive collapse. collapse.
In this
In this paper,
paper, aa numerical-experimental
numerical-experimental study study ofof the
the dynamic
dynamic response
response ofof reinforced
reinforced concrete
concrete (RC)
(RC) columns
columns withwith different
different
sacrificial layers
sacrificial layers of
of protection
protection isis presented.
presented. Different
Different alternatives
alternatives ofof protection
protection of of RC
RC columns
columns are
are designed
designed and
and studied,
studied, from
from
classical steel
classical steel jacketing
jacketing toto crushable
crushable materials.
materials. The
The mitigation
mitigation of
of shock
shock and
and absorption
absorption of of energy
energy under
under blast
blast loading
loading conditions
conditions isis
studied by numerical and experimental methods. For comparison purposes, a RC column without
studied by numerical and experimental methods. For comparison purposes, a RC column without protection is also tested andprotection is also tested and
studied.
studied.
The obtained
The obtained results
results are
are useful
useful to
to explore
explore new
new alternatives
alternatives of
of protection
protection ofof RC
RC columns
columns as as well
well as
as to
to calibrate
calibrate numerical
numerical codes.
codes.
© 2017
© 2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility
Peer-review responsibility of thethe organizing committee
committee of of EURODYN
EURODYN 2017.
Peer-review under
under responsibility of of the organizing
organizing committee of EURODYN 2017. 2017.
Keywords: Near
Keywords: Near field
field explosions,
explosions, progressive
progressive collapse,
collapse, sacrificial
sacrificial cladding
cladding layers,
layers, energy
energy dissipation
dissipation

1. Introduction
1. Introduction

Blast incidents
Blast incidents in
in recent
recent years
years show
show that
that most
most of
of the
the terrorist
terrorist attacks
attacks on
on public
public structures
structures were
were explosions
explosions within
within
short standoff
short standoff distances.
distances. In
In this
this context,
context, columns
columns are
are the
the most
most vulnerable
vulnerable structural
structural components
components and
and their
their failure
failure is
is
the primary
the primary cause
cause for
for progressive
progressive collapse
collapse in
in framed
framed structures.
structures. On
On the
the other
other hand,
hand, many
many of
of the
the research
research efforts
efforts in
in

** Corresponding
Corresponding author.
author. Tel.:
Tel.: +54-9-260-4559947;
+54-9-260-4559947; fax:
fax: +54-261-4380120
+54-261-4380120
E-mail address:
E-mail address: dambrosini@uncu.edu.ar
dambrosini@uncu.edu.ar

1877-7058 ©
1877-7058 © 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
Peer-review under
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the organizing
organizing committee
committee of
of EURODYN
EURODYN 2017.
2017.

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.380
2446 Ramon Codina et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2445–2450
2 Codina, Ambrosini, de Borbón/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

this field have been devoted to the effects of far-field explosions on structural elements. The effects of near-field
explosions on structural elements, especially columns, have not been widely investigated [1].
The three basic strategies for protecting columns and preventing a possible collapse are: 1) Establishing a secure
perimeter by placing physical barriers that prevent a near field explosion. However, this alternative is not always
possible due to limited space or functionality, 2) Reinforcing the columns by increasing their strength and ductility
and 3) Absorbing blast energy received by the column with sacrificial cladding layers.
The steel jacketing is the most common retrofit technique, within the second strategy mentioned above [2]. It
usually involves wrapping steel plates, steel strips or steel bars in the transverse direction. On the other hand, steel
jacketing is not the only method that improves the response of the columns. Increasing the residual strength of the
column itself is another option. Alternative materials and constructions from the field of protective structures, like
polymer concrete or high-performance fiber concrete can be used [3]. Other alternative consisting of columns made
with ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete is presented in [4].
The blast mitigation strategy is the use of sacrificial cladding as a shock attenuator. It is well known that
sandwich panels with the appropriate distribution of mass between the front and back faces and the core exhibit
superior bending stiffness and strength compared to monolithic plates of the same mass per unit area. The use of
cellular sandwich cores such as metal foam [5,6], partially pre-crushed honeycombs [7] and certain lattice structures
[8] are of particular interest at present. These sandwich cores must be capable of a large volume decrease at an
essentially constant pressure. A previous paper presented by the authors [9] proposed reinforced polyurethane bricks
as an alternative protection system, which can be considered within this group.
In this paper, a numerical-experimental study of the dynamic response of reinforced concrete (RC) columns with
different sacrificial layers of protection is presented. Different alternatives of protection of RC columns are designed
and studied, from classical steel jacketing to crushable materials. The mitigation of shock and absorption of energy
under blast loading conditions is studied by numerical and experimental methods. For comparison purposes, a RC
column without protection is also tested and studied.

2. Experimental results

2.1. Test setup

Five reinforced concrete specimens were built to be subjected to blast loads. The specimens had a square section
of 230mm x 230mm and a free span of 2.44m. Semi – buried concrete blocks at the end of the specimens were used
as fixed support for the members in order to avoid rotation. Hence, the members were assumed to be fully clamped.
The concrete strength was fc = 30MPa and the yield stress of the steel bars was fy = 420MPa. Transverse
reinforcement was densified at the ends of the specimen within the plastic hinge region to avoid shear failure.
Geometry and characteristics of the reinforcement can be seen in [9]. The experimental set up can be seen in Figure
1. The type of explosive used in the tests was Gelamón VF65, a NG based gelatinous explosive theoretically
equivalent in mass to 65% TNT. It should be pointed out that the equivalency of TNT was verified with tests in open
air for which the overpressures a various distances were measured. All explosive charges were detonated using an
electric initiation system with a detonator that was inserted at the top of the charge.
For all the tests, 8kg of equivalent TNT was used as explosive charge. The load was cylindrically molded with
17.5 cm of height and 24.5 cm of diameter, and a wood framed structure was built as support. The vertical standoff
distance was 60cm, measured from the center of the TNT charge to the top surface of the nude specimen. This
standoff distance was determined after previous tests on the fifth RC member, trying to obtain significant damage
but no collapse. Hence, the scaled distance Z was 0.3m/kg1/3, for which the tests were performed in the near field
range. The final vertical deflection of the member was measured in the gauge points 1-3 labeled in Fig. 1.

2.2. Steel jacketing

Steel # 1/8" (3.25mm of thickness) was used to build the jacketing of the concrete member. A system of bolts
3/8” in the back of the specimen allowed the jacketing to be removed and to study the damage on the concrete after
the blast (Figure 2).
 Ramon Codina et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2445–2450 2447
Codina, Ambrosini, de Borbón/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Fig. 1. Experimental setup

a) b)

Fig. 2. a) RC Section b) Steel jacketing

2.3. Reinforced polyurethane bricks

A new cladding of reinforced polyurethane bricks was built as an alternative protection. The dimensions of the
bricks were 23cm x 24cm x 14.5cm. The reinforcement was a fabric of seven layers of galvanized steel and mild
steel #14. The idea of the proposal of this new protection was that the buckling of the vertical steel bars can dissipate
energy; while, at the same time, the crushing of the polyurethane foam dissipates a certain amount of energy. The
bricks of polyurethane without the reinforcement had a density of 165kg/m3 and are shown in Figure 3.

2.4. Reinforced resin panels with insulation layer

A new sacrificial cladding system of reinforced resin panels with an insulation layer was built as an alternative
protection (Fig. 4). The polyester resin plates are reinforced with a pre-tensioned wire mesh. The resin panels were
stacked one on top of the other. This assembly is separated from the RC member by a lightweight foam panel
(expanded polystyrene) that ensures that the assembly of panels comminutes limiting the load transfer to the
structure due to the insulation layer.
2448 Ramon Codina et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2445–2450
4 Codina, Ambrosini, de Borbón/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Fig. 3. Reinforced polyurethane bricks on the RC member

Fig. 4. Reinforced resin panels and insulation layer on the RC member

2.5. Test results

After the blast, the final gauge point positions were compared with the reference level. The measured vertical
deflections of the columns are presented in Figure 5. The compared systems have similar surface masses.

3. Numerical model and results

With the objective to obtain modelling guidelines for RC columns subjected to near-field blast loading, a
numerical model using the hydrocode AUTODYN [10] was built. The ideal gas equation of state was used for the
air. The explosive is modelled using the “Jones-Wilkins-Lee” (JWL) equations of state. The RHT model with a P-
alpha [10] equation of state is used for concrete. The steel is modelled as isotropic, linear elastic and strain
hardening, rate dependent and thermally softenable plastic material.
 Codina, Ambrosini, de Borbón/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5
Ramon Codina et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2445–2450 2449

Fig. 5. Final vertical deflection measured in gauge points

3.1. Model description

A numerical model of 2.6m x 0.4m x 1m was built reproducing the experimental test of the nude column. First,
the explosion was modelled in a 2D axial symmetric model of 2mm cells and then was remapped to a 3D model. An
Euler FCT mesh was used for the air and a finite element mesh was used for the concrete and the reinforcement steel
bars were discretized into beam elements. The mesh size of the concrete, steel bars and the air was 10mm. A study
of the mesh sensitivity was performed previously in order to validate the size element. Given that in the
experimental test the concrete blocks not suffered any displacement or rotation, the blocks were partially modelled
and velocity 0 was imposed at the ends of the blocks as boundary condition clamping the member. The symmetry of
the problem also allowed modelling a half of the RC member. The boundary condition of the air was set as flow out
boundary condition and the ground was rigid and allowed wave reflection.

3.2. Numerical results

First, the numerical model was carried out with the default parameters of RHT model. The damage contours are
presented in Fig. 6.b). Besides, with the default values of AUTODYN the final displacement of the point near the
explosion (point 3) was 21% lower. In order to improve the model response, a new parameter setting was proposed
based on the modification of the residual strength and the strength degradation. The results are presented in Fig. 6.c).
It is observed that the crack patterns and the damage contour are improved and they resemble the ones observed in
the experimental test. The variation of the parameters and more details about numerical results can be found in [11].

4. Conclusions

The proposed reinforced and insulated resin panels presented and excellent behavior, inclusive better than steel
jacketing. It reduced the maximum final deflection by more than 66%. The damage in the member was also
significantly reduced.
As expected, the steel jacketing protection presents excellent behavior and shows the best results. The maximum
final deflection was lowered by almost 60%. Consequently, there was less damage to the member and obviously, it
can be inferred that this member has a higher residual capacity, preventing progressive collapse.
2450 Ramon Codina et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2445–2450
6 Codina, Ambrosini, de Borbón/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Finally, the proposed reinforced polyurethane protection presented reasonably good behavior. It reduced the
maximum final deflection by more than 20%. The damage in the member was also significantly reduced.

Fig. 6. Damage in RC concrete member. a) Experimental test. b) Contours using the default RHT-model parameters, c) Contours using the
modified RHT-model parameters

Acknowledgements

The financial support of CONICET and SECTYP (University of Cuyo) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Abladey L, Braimah A. Near-field Explosion Effects on the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Columns: A Numerical Investigation.
International Journal of Protective Structures (2014); 5: 475-500.
[2] Tan S, Poon J, Chan R, Chng D. Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column via Steel Jackets against Close-in Detonation. 12th
International LS-Dyna Users Conference, (2012).
[3] Ghani Razaqpur A, Tolba A, Contestabile E. Blast loading response of reinforced concrete panels reinforced with externally bonded GFRP
laminates. Compos. Part B; (2007); 38: 535-546.
[4] Astarlioglu S, Krauthammer T. Response of normal-strength and ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete columns to idealized blast
loads, Engn. Structures (2014); 61: 1–12.
[5] C. Wu, L. Yu, Y. Zhou, Numerical Analysis of Metallic Foam using Microstructure Model, Int. J. Prot. Struct. 2 (2011) 499–514.
[6] H. Liu, Z.K. Cao, G.C. Yao, H.J. Luo, G.Y. Zu, Performance of aluminum foam–steel panel sandwich composites subjected to blast loading,
Mater. Des. 47 (2013) 483–488.
[7] Y. Xia, C. Wu, F. Zhang, Z.-X. Li, T. Bennett, Numerical Analysis of Foam-Protected RC Members Under Blast Loads, Int. J. Prot. Struct. 5
(2014) 367–390.
[8] T. Tancogne-Dejean, A.B. Spierings, D. Mohr, Additively-manufactured metallic micro-lattice materials for high specific energy absorption
under static and dynamic loading, Acta Mater. 116 (2016) 14–28.
[9] R. Codina, D. Ambrosini, F. de Borbón, Alternatives to prevent the failure of RC members under close-in blast loadings, Eng. Fail. Anal. 60
(2016) 96–106.
[10] ANSYS-AUTODYN. Interactive Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis Software, Version 12.1.0, User´s Manual. Century Dynamics Inc, 2009.
[11] R. Codina, D. Ambrosini, F. de Borbón, Experimental and numerical study of a RC member under a close-in blast loading, Engn. Structures
127 (2016) 145–158.