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
Protective design has become a key consideration in the design
of the structural system of some bridges and buildings, particu-
larly as it relates to the requirement that such facilities offer
protection from accidental or malicious explosions. Protective
design in contrast to the sorts of conventional design intended
to address the loads generated by wind, gravity, and seismic
activity is intended to address extreme loads, which by deni-
tion are not well dened. This paper focuses on the use of FRP
(ber-reinforced plastic) to enhance the blast resistance of rein-
forced concrete (RC) columns of existing structures.
The blast-resistance capability afforded by an RC column is of-
ten of crucial concern in mitigating the risks brought forth by
blast loads to the framing system of a structure. In blast effects
tests conducted by Karagozian and Case (K&C) over the last decade
(Crawford et al. 2001, 2010; Malvar et al. 1999, 2007), FRP has
shown itself to provide an effective and easily deployable means
to upgrade the blast protection of existing buildings and bridges.
The capability afforded by FRP is particularly important be-
cause some RC columns are quite susceptible to being damaged by
blast. This vulnerability and its importance in exacerbating the
risks of disproportionate collapse is exemplied by the 1995
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, which led to the failure of one or more main
load-bearing columns, ultimately leading to the collapse of about
half of the building's structure. This event resulted in a large
number of fatalities, where over 85% of the people killed were in
the collapsed portion. One of the conclusions that may be gleaned
from such an event is that preventing catastrophic damage (i.e.,
collapse) of the structural system is paramount in preventing fa-
talities, and as such the performance of the columns of the struc-
tural system is crucial.
Background
FRP materials have been used to upgrade RC structures since
the mid-1980s in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the United States. In
particular, FRP wrapping (as well as steel jacketing) of RC columns
is now a proven method of retrotting structures to resist earth-
quakes.
The retrot of RC columns using FRP composites to resist explo-
sions is more recent, having started around 1995 (Crawford
et al. 1995, 1996). Around this time, it was shown numerically
that the columns of the Murrah building could have been up-
graded using a steel jacket or composite wraps to enhance their
blast resistance, limit their lateral deection, and prevent
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
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-
pices of the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) and the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a series of full-scale
blast tests were conducted to quantify the effects of terrorist ex-
plosions on conventional buildings and structural components
and to demonstrate the capability of these retrot methodologies.
A retrot design procedure developed by K&C using steel jackets
and FRP wraps was shown to successfully prevent column damage
and building collapse, even for square and rectangular columns
(Malvar et al. 1999; Morrill et al. 1999, 2000, 2001).
To successfully enhance the blast resistance of existing RC col-
umns with FRP, several facets of the problem need to be addressed
and well understood. These include the following:
Characterization of the blast effects loads.
Clear understanding of the behaviors and failure modes of RC
columns caused by blast loads.
Development and validation of design concepts (in this case,
using FRP) to lessen the penchant for brittle failure modes to
occur as well as to enhance a column's blast resistance.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
Development of analysis tools that can effectively evaluate the
performance of RC columns and existing columns retrotted
with FRP to a full range of blast threats.
Development of comprehensive design tools that can address
all the important response and failure modes associated with
the behaviors of RC columns struck by blast loads, especially
those emanating from near-contact explosives.
These are, in essence, the aspects of the research and develop-
ment work (Malvar et al. 2004, 2007; Crawford et al. 2001, 2003;
Crawford and Lan 2005; Crawford 2010) that K&C has conducted
over the last 15 years. These endeavors have included full-scale
blast effects and quasi-static tests, a few of which are highlighted
in this paper (Crawford et al. 2001; Crawford 2010; Morrill et al.
2001); development of high-delity physics-based analysis tools
(Malvar et al. 1997; Crawford et al. 1995; Crawford 2011); genera-
tion of design tools (Malvar et al. 1999; Crawford et al. 2003); and
validation studies pertaining to design and analysis tools for using
FRP to enhance RC column blast resistance (Malvar et al. 2007;
Crawford 2011).
Published by NRC Research Press
 Crawford
Fig. 2. Close-up of the shear failure observed in Test 6. (Photo
courtesy of DTRA.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
For personal use only.
Blast effects responses of RC columns
RC columns are typically not well designed to resist blast loads,
which makes them particularly vulnerable to threats from vehicle-
borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs). These threats, al-
though often considered global in nature, can be quite localized if
the standoff is signicantly less than the column's height or the
blast load is sufciently intense to damage the column's concrete
core. This is important because such localized responses are difcult
to analytically capture without using high-delity physics-based
(HFPB) analytic models. Given the importance of understanding the
challenges presented to RC columns by VBIED blast loads, a brief
summary of the response and failure modes that have been observed
in tests is presented.
Responses caused for VBIED threats
Examples of bomb scenarios and response data illustrative of
key response behaviors and failure modes for RC columns are
presented in Figs. 110. These gures depict the kinds of blast
events and responses that may be associated with VBIED threats.
The responses shown in Figs. 18 are indicative of the RC column
response data gathered by K&C in terms of full-scale blast and
quasi-static tests of RC columns. They in general reect that RC
column behaviors are dictated by the capability afforded by the
column's concrete core (e.g., the failure due to diagonal shear
shown in Fig. 2 and loss of axial resistance shown in Fig. 7). In
particular, the rubblization of the concrete core, as exemplied
by the response shown in Fig. 7 for a seismic load, can also be
generated by the kinds of intense shock waves that a nearby ex-
plosion might generate. Such a situation is exhibited in Fig. 8,
where the concrete rubble shown was generated by a blast wave
striking a conventionally designed RC column. Such rubblization
of the core can be expected to cause a catastrophic loss of axial
resistance if insufcient reinforcement is present. Conversely, if a
sufcient amount of FRP hoop wrap is provided (e.g., as shown in
Fig. 3b), cracking is inhibited and axial resistance is preserved,
although perhaps degraded.
The results presented in Fig. 1 from three separate blast tests of
a typical non-seismic RC column show the importance of the re-
inforcement design in creating RC columns that resist blast. The
1025
same blast load and column (except for the retrot) was used in all
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
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
rare circumstances (e.g., as shown in Fig. 6), response at the col-
umn's supports are of secondary interest in predicting the blast-
resistant capacity of RC columns.
Failure modes for VBIEDs
Examples of various responses and failure modes for RC col-
umns are described in this section, using results from blast and
quasi-static loadings. The most common failure mode for an RC
column is likely to be diagonal shear failure (Fig. 2). Probably less
likely is a failure mode associated with a ductile exure response,
because columns are not commonly designed to perform this way.
In this instance, the ductile exure type of response (not a failure
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
eventually with increasing lateral deection, the axial resis-
tance of the column gradually decreases enough to fall below
the axial demand.
Results from a series of quasi-static tests of RC columns (like the
one shown in Fig. 4a) demonstrating this type of P response are
presented in Fig. 5. These results were produced from a series of
tests of identical RC columns under the same loading conditions,
where differing amounts of carbon-FRP hoop wrap were used to
retrot the columns, as indicated in Table 1. Such results indicate
the highly ductile nature of the compression-membrane response
of a well-designed RC column (i.e., in this case realized using FRP)
and the kind of P behavior exhibited with increasing lateral
deection. The P behaviors are of particular interest in that they
demonstrate that such columns, if retrotted with sufcient FRP
hoop wrap, show only a gradual diminution in the column's axial
load capacity, even at quite large values of (i.e., mid-span deec-
tions on the order of the column's width for the columns shown).
These results also show the importance of selecting a sufcient
number of hoop wraps so as to prevent the FRP's failure.
Other less common brittle failure modes (i.e., as compared
with the diagonal shear type of brittle failure mode, Fig. 2) include
those failures related to direct shear and a form of design error.
The direct shear response is a rarely considered (or observed) fail-
ure mode for a column. However, such modes are likely to be of
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
(e.g., as shown in Fig. 4a). Lateral loads are presented in the upper
half of the plot, whereas axial loads are presented in the lower half.
(Photo courtesy of K&C.)
Fig. 6. Example of a direct shear failure for an RC column caused
by a blast load. Such failures are generally due to a lack of vertical
steel passed into the support. In this case, the steel jacket retrot
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
used to retrot a relatively small existing column.
Another more subtle failure concern arises when the enhanced
lateral resistance afforded by compression-membrane behavior is
not correctly considered (i.e., a design error). This error is likely to
be quite common for RC columns of high-rise buildings subjected
to a blast. This omission would enhance the risk of the occurrence
of diagonal shear failure because ignoring the compression-
membrane enhancement of the exure resistance could result in
a gross underestimate of the shear demand.
Finally, of special concern is a failure mode involving the sud-
den loss of the column's axial capacity caused by the extensive
cracking of the column's concrete core owing to an intense blast.
This phenomenon is another major form of brittle failure (i.e.,
besides diagonal shear), which presents a potentially quite serious
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,
here caused by a seismic loading (a calculated example of such a
failure is shown in Fig. 10). (Photo courtesy of NOAA/NGDC,
M. Celebi, U.S. Geological Survey.)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV VICTORIA on 11/19/14
Fig. 9. Blast-related failure mode of most concern for large columns
involves a loss of axial strength even though the lateral deection
imparted by the blast is minimal. (a) Two VBIED threat scenarios
(A, B) are considered, as shown from a horizontal section above a
loading dock. (b) Column properties. (Photos courtesy of K&C.)

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
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
deciencies apparent in the results produced by the other
concrete models offered by LS-DYNA for example, the lack of
shear-dilation behavior exhibited by the RHT, Cap, and Winfrith
models depicted in Fig. 12. Shear-dilation behavior is of particular
concern in modeling the blast response of RC columns that em-
ploy FRP hoop wrap because this provides the principal means by
which the FRP is tensioned and high levels of connement are
imparted to the concrete. This phenomenon also plays a key role
in predicting when the FRP wrap fails (e.g., as shown in the test
results presented in Fig. 5).
One of the models the Winfrith (Fig. 11b) model seems to
have a particular difculty capturing the effects of connement
on concrete response. Other results for different material tests
have also been generated by K&C (Crawford 2011, Crawford et al.
2012) for both single-element models and structural models of the
actual test specimen (e.g., standard cylindrical specimens mod-
eled with many solid elements), which produce results consis-
tent with those shown in Figs. 11, 12, indicating that most of the
LS-DYNA have serious model problems capturing important
concrete phenomena. This nding is reinforced by the results
reported in the next section pertaining to the inuence of con-
crete model selection on the responses computed for wrapped
RC columns.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
Quasi-static tests
The capability afforded by the K&C concrete model is further
demonstrated in the responses predicted for the series of tests of
FRP-wrapped RC columns shown in Fig. 5; the setup for these tests
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-
crete, whereas the reinforcement is modeled explicitly with beam
elements. These sorts of HFPB FE models have been used hun-
dreds of times at K&C to generate results for RC columns sub-
jected to quasi-static and blast loads. Such models have been
validated on numerous occasions against test results like those
shown in Figs. 16.
Plots of lateral force versus lateral deection and axial force
versus lateral deection computed for the tests listed in Table 1
are shown in Fig. 14. Early on in the response (i.e., for deections
from around 1030 mm) the process of concrete cracking and the
ensuing enhanced connement due to the FRP is exhibited in the
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-
sion (i.e., as demonstrated by comparing the responses shown in
Figs. 5, 14).
The results computed using two other concrete models pro-
vided by LS-DYNA are shown in Fig. 15. As may be observed, these
other models are unable to effectively predict the failure of the
FRP observed in the tests (Fig. 5). Moreover, the RHT appears not to
capture the effects of connement at all (Fig. 15b), which is con-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Crawford
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.
1" = 2.54 cm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN. (Photo courtesy of K&C.)
1031
Fig. 14. Response curves generated by MAT072 for lateral force
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
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
(Figs. 11, 12).
Blast effects analyses of columns retrotted with FRP
Results for a wrapped and bare RC column of the sort shown in
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
fringes of concrete damage generated by the K&C concrete model
are shown. The number of the fringe indicates the extent of
damage: 0, no damage; 1, initiation of softening behavior; 1.9, only
10% of the concrete's residual shear strength remaining; 2.0, no
shear strength remaining. These plots indicate the fundamental
benet of FRP hoop wrap, which is that a much-reduced level of
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
damage is exhibited by the column's concrete core (see Fig. 16).
This outcome is related primarily to the effects of added conne-
ment and the enhanced shear strength induced in the concrete by
it, which is manifested by the presence of the FRP. For the nonret-
rotted column (Fig. 16a), the axial residual capacity is severely
degraded owing to shear failure; this type of failure is common to
many forms of blast threat scenarios (e.g., as shown in Figs. 1, 3). In
contrast, the same column under the same blast load remains
nearly undamaged. These benets have been validated in actual
blast tests (e.g., by the side-by-side comparisons of responses
shown in Figs. 1b, 3c for identical columns (except for the FRP
hoop wrap) subjected to the same blast loads.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Crawford
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
In this very brief paper (for the topic covered), the basic behaviors
that need to be considered in blast effects analysis of RC columns for
VBIED threats were described. The ability of FRP to address some of
these risks was shown through the analysis and test results pre-
sented. Four crucial points were addressed in this paper: (1) assessing
the residual capacity of large columns struck by a nearby VBIED blast
loading involves consideration of the effects that material damage
may have in reducing the strength of the concrete; (2) FRP offers a
remarkable capability to enhance the blast resistance of existing RC
columns; (3) HFPB FE models are necessary to capture some forms of
blast response, particularly where the concrete experiences exten-
sive cracking; and (4) it is important that the selection of a concrete
material model for the HFPB FE model be done with care because
some models do not incorporate some of the basic behaviors exhib-
ited by concrete or show disconcerting modes of response.
In addition, the key RC column behaviors engendered by blast
loads were shown. These include two classic forms of response
and failure modes: diagonal shear modes and a combination of
modes representing exure and compression-membrane behaviors.
Two other forms were also shown, which are peculiar to blast
loading: (1) direct shear behavior, manifested as a horizontal fail-
ure plane at the base of a column, and (2) a mode in which the
shock wave propagated through the concrete is sufciently in-
tense to cause extensive cracking of the column's concrete core,
resulting in a catastrophic loss of strength in the concrete.
References
Crawford, J.E. 2010. Retrot of Structural Components and Systems, Chapter 17.
In Handbook for Blast-resistant Design of Buildings. Edited by D.O. Dusenberry.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Crawford, J.E. 2011. Users Manual and Documentation for Release III of the K&C
Concrete Material Model in LS-DYNA. (TR-11-36.1). Karagozian & Case, Bur-
bank, CA.
Crawford, J.E., and Lan, S. 2005. Design and implementation of protection tech-
nologies for improving blast resistance of buildings. Presented at the Enhanc-
ing Building Security Seminar, Singapore, March 2005.
Crawford, J.E., Wesevich, J., Valancius, J., and Reynolds, A. 1995. Evaluation of
jacketed columns as a means to improve the resistance of conventional
1033
structures to blast effects. Proceedings, 66th Shock and Vibration Sympo-
sium, Biloxi, MS, 30 October 2 November 1995.
Crawford, J.E., Malvar, L.J., Dunn, B.W., and Gee, D.J. 1996. Retrot of reinforced
concrete columns using composite wraps to resist blast effects. Proceedings
of the 27th Department of Defense Explosive Safety Seminar, Las Vegas, NV,
1922 August 1996.
Crawford, J.E., Malvar, L.J., Morrill, K.B., and Ferritto, J.M. 2001. Composite ret-
rots to increase the blast resistance of reinforced concrete buildings.
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Interaction of the Ef-
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.
2003. Description of Design Software for Retrotting Reinforced Concrete
Columns to Improve Their Resistance to Blast. Report TR-01-16.2. Karagozian
and Case, Burbank, CA. Limited distribution.
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-
tures Research. Edited by H. Hao and Z.-X. Li. CRC Press/Balkema, London, UK.
pp. 132.
LSTC. 2009. LS-DYNA, Version 971 Revision 65543, Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, Livermore, CA., USA.
LSTC. 2011. LS-DYNA Keyword Manual Volume II Material Models Version
971, Revision: 949, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore,
CA., USA.
Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., Wesevich, J.W., and Simons, D. 1997. A plasticity
concrete material model for DYNA3D. International Journal of Impact Engi-
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
Reducing the Vulnerability of an Ofce Building to Airblast, Report TR-98-
39.2. Karagozian & Case, Burbank, CA.
Malvar, L.J., Morrill, K.B., and Crawford, J.E. 2004. Numerical modeling of con-
crete conned by ber reinforced composites. Journal of Composites for
Construction, 8(4): 315322. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:4(315).
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/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:6(601).
Morrill, K.B., Malvar, L.J., and Crawford, J.E. 1999. Retrot design procedure for
existing RC buildings to increase their resistance to terrorist bombs. Proceed-
ings of the 9th International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of
Munitions with Structures (IEMS), Berlin, Germany. 37 May 1999.
Morrill, K.B., Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., and Attaway, S.W. 2000. RC column and
slab retro-ts to survive blast loads. Proceedings of the ASCE Structures
Congress, Philadelphia, PA. 810 May 2000.
Morrill, K.B., Malvar, L.J., Crawford, J.E., Hegemier, G., and Seible, F. 2001. Full-
scale testing of reinforced concrete column retrots to resist blast loads.
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Interaction of the Ef-
fects of Munitions with Structures, San Diego, CA. May 2001.
Published by NRC Research Press