Fem of Column of Blast Load

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 5 No 2 2014
Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Research article
ISSN 0976 4399
Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete columns under different

range of blast loads
Ahmed Samir Eisa
Lecturer, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University,
Zagazig, 44519, Egypt
ahmedeisa@zu.edu.eg
doi: 10.6088/ijcser.2014050015
ABSTRACT
Columns are the significant load-bearing elements in any structure and exterior columns are
probably the most vulnerable structural elements to accidental explosions. Blast load close to
or nearby a building might cause sudden failure on the building's external and internal
structural skeleton. Abaqus version 6.19 is used in this study to perform numerical
simulations of the dynamic responses and residual strength of reinforced concrete columns
subjected to different blast charge weights. The finite element model is verified through
correlated experimental studies listed on the literature. A parametric study was chosen to
cover wide range of factors on the global columns response; the effects of transverse and
longitudinal reinforcement ratios, the charge weight, and the column aspect ratio. The model
is validated to be used in the analysis of structures, and can closely predict the exact response
behaviour of reinforced concrete columns under different detonation Scenarios. The study
concluded that after a certain charge weight, the residual displacement became more
significant. Providing more lateral reinforcement improved the blast resistant design by
decreasing the residual displacement.
The results of this study are valid only for a specific standoff distance, and if the charge
weight comes in contact with the structure, the results will be significantly different.
Keyword: Columns, Finite element method, Blast load and Reinforced concrete.
1. Introduction
Blast loads are considered one of the extreme loads affecting structures and even a small
amount of blast can produce a severe damage to the structure because it is a sudden release of
energy, which releases a blast wave (Baker 1973). Explosions can be categorized as physical,
chemical and nuclear events. The chemical explosions or the condensed phase explosion, as
defined by ASCE (2010), mainly used in the most common attacks against structures,
involves chemical reaction of flammable materials (i.e. high explosive material). Also there is
a different classification of blast loads; low and high explosions. Low explosives occur when
an explosion propagates away from its initiation center thermally.
High explosives are those in which the energy is transferred from the exploded to the
unexploded material (air) through shock pressure. An explosion starts when highly explosive
material, such as TNT, is ignited causing a hot gas pressurized to a level of an average of 20
GPa, and temperature in the range of 3500o C range. This powerful gas is expanded outward,
pushing the air out and a rapid release of energy occurs. A compressed air layer is formed in
front of this gas, called the blast wave. This wave propagates outward in all directions from
the explosion center. The front of wave is called the wave front which travels many times
Received on November, 2014 Published on November 2014
155
Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete columns under different range of blast loads
Ahmed Samir Eisa
greater that the speed of the sound. The pressure of the wave front is called the incident (or
overpressure) pressure. Although explosions can initiate from various explosive materials,
such as TNT or C-4, all explosive materials are expressed as an equivalent weight of TNT.
TNT is a well understood, chemically pure, and stable material that allows for a common
point of comparison when dealing with different types of explosives. Figure 1 shows the
reflected pressure, the side-on (overpressure) and the dynamic pressure over time. It is seen
that the dynamic pressure is always does not have negative time phase because of two
reasons; the first one is because the dynamic pressure is a measure of the kinetic energy, and
the second because the dynamic pressure is calculated based on the square of the wind
velocity. As seen from Figure 1 the blast load is characterized by two main phases, the first
one is the positive phase which is considered in the design and the negative phase which is
almost neglected as its effect is very small compared to the positive one.
Figure 1: Variation of overpressure and dynamic pressure over time.

Analytically, the blast pressures could be calculated using the procedures outlined in TM51300 and the loading functions corresponding to these blast pressures are then applied to the
numerical model. TM5-1300 adopts the cube-root scaled distance for considering various
stand-off distances and charge weight. The scaled distance is defined as:
Z = R/W1/3
(1)
Where R is the distance from the source and W is the weight of explosives
Ngo et al. (2007) introduced a case study (modified from a typical building designed in
Australia) of reinforced concrete ground floor columns subjected to blast loading. The
concrete in the study was conventional and high strength. The columns were analyzed using
the Finite Element Method. The parameters considered were the concrete strength and
spacing of ligatures. The study concluded that at close-range of bomb both columns failed in
shear. Lee et al. (2009) simulated blast load on wide flange steel columns using
computational fluid dynamics with high-fidelity finite element analysis. The study compared
the blast load pressure with loads calculated through experiment-based direct method using
156
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 2 2014
Ahmed Samir Eisa
the program code and ATBlast. The study showed that the deep columns selected based on
seismic resistance can be highly vulnerable to blast load in the column weak-axis direction
and the web width-to-depth ratio was closely related to the deformation and failure. The
effect of boundary condition on the columns response was studied showed that the plastic
deformation of the columns pinned at both ends was concentrated at the middle and resulted
in larger strain concentration. The concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) column systems have
been tested and validated for blast resistance by Fujikura et al. (2008). The CFST system is
considered effective due its high breaching and spalling resistance. Blast experiments showed
that CFST columns experienced a good ductile behavior under such extreme loading.
However, the high strength concrete columns with reduced cross section have a higher lateral
deflection, which shows a better energy absorption capacity compared to that of the
conventional concrete columns Numerical simulations of the dynamic responses and residual
axial strength of reinforced concrete columns subjected to close standoff blast conditions was
studied by Bao et al. (2010). The key parameters of the study were carried out on a series of
twelve columns to investigate the effects of transverse reinforcement ratio, axial load ratio,
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and column aspect ratio. These various parameters were
incorporated into a proposed formula, capable of estimating the residual axial capacity ratio
based on the mid-height displacement to height ratios. The showed that the residual axial
capacity increases with the reduction of the aspect ratio for columns with high shear
reinforcement, Bao et al. (2010).
2. Reinforced concrete columns modeling
This study shows the analyses of reinforced concrete (RC) columns using the FEM under
wide range of blast loading. All the columns considered in this study were tested
experimentally by Wu et al. 2010. The reinforcement details of the columns are based on the
design requirements of ACI 318 (2011). The columns are modeled using the Abaqus/CAE
software, which is based on the finite element method. The mesh is chosen to be fine enough
to simulate accurate results. The columns are subjected to spherical charges with a fixed
standoff distance for all the cases considered in this study. The key parameters are the
columns aspect ratio, the longitudinal steel reinforcement, the transverse steel ratio, and the
column height. The gravity loading was included and the column dimensions were fixed to
196 in2. The analysis was performed over a period of 0.1 second with a time step increment
of 0.0001 second. It is known that the time step increment is a critical parameter in the
analysis of structural elements subjected to blast loads to have a stable solution. This time
step should be a very small to capture the supersonic wave hits the structure. If the time step
is not small enough, the results could be inaccurate and misleading. The results obtained from
the FEM included displacement, velocity, and acceleration time histories. Figure 2 shows all
the column dimensions and cross section considered in this study
3. Finite element materials models
In this study, the structure is modeled as an assembly of 3D solid elements using the software
Abaqus. The elements are connected together along their surfaces through a set of shared
nodes. The connecting nodes can also be shared with bar elements to represent reinforcement.
Each node has 6 degrees of freedom; 3 for translations and 3 for rotations. Relative
translational or rotational motion between two neighboring elements cause stresses in the
nodes located at their common face. Fully nonlinear path-dependant constitutive models are
adopted in the FEM. For concrete in compression, damage-plastic model is adopted. These
material models account for nonlinear hysteretic relationships for steel, concrete, and other
157
Ahmed Samir Eisa
material in tension, compression, and shear. All rebar reinforcement details, cross ties, curved
tendons and concrete cover can be easily modeled. Steel reinforcement bars for concrete
structures are assumed to be cut when reaching their ultimate stresses. Concrete Plasticity
Model is used to simulate the concrete behavior, the stress-strain relation for a given concrete
can be most accurately described on the basis of uniaxial compression tests carried out on it
as shown in Figure 2. When concrete is subjected to tension, linear stress-strain relationship
is adopted until cracking, where the stresses drop to zero. Since the model adopts crack
approach, the reinforcing bars are modeled as separate bars for the envelope. The FEM is a
stiffness-based method, in which an overall stiffness matrix is formulated and the equilibrium
equations including each of stiffness, mass and damping matrices are nonlinearly solved for
the structural deformations (displacements and rotations). Dynamic analysis is conducted in
the incremental time-domain whenever damage occurs, elements separate and may collide
during the response calculations. The solution for equilibrium equations is an explicit one that
adopts a dynamic step-by-step integration (Newmark-beta time integration procedure) (Bathe,
1982 and Chopra, 1994).
Figure 2: Compression stress-strain model of concrete (Abaqus)

4. Loads and boundary conditions
The axial load on the considered columns was computed based on minimum requirement of
the ACI 318 code and is applied as a uniform pressure at the top surface of the column in the
FE model. The blast load was designed to simulate a wide range of column material and
structural response. The blast load is built in the FE code and the user should enter the charge
weight and the standoff distance, then the code automatically calculates the incident pressure.
All the axial, blast load, and other parameter values are summarized on Table 1 below. The
columns are assumed fixed on the top and bottom surfaces. Several parameters are
considered in this study; the charge weight, the column aspect ratio, the variation of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcements. The simulation matrix is divided into four groups
according to the value of the charge weight. The standoff distance is considered fixed for all
158
Ahmed Samir Eisa
column cases and is considered 16 ft. Figure 3 shows the concrete columns details and
dimensions.
Table 1: Simulation matrix
Column
A1
B1
C1
D1
E1
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
A3
B3
C3
D3
E3
A4
B4
C4
D4
E4
Charge
Weight
(lb)
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
500
500
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2240
2240
2240
2240
2240
Aspect Ratio
(Length/Width
)
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
8
Long.
Steel
Long. Steel
(%)
Transverse
Steel
Transverse
Steel Ratio (%)
8#8
8#8
8#6
8#6
8#8
8#8
8#8
8#6
8#6
8#8
8#8
8#8
8#6
8#6
8#8
8#8
8#8
8#6
8#6
8#8
3.2
3.2
1.8
1.8
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.8
1.8
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.8
1.8
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.8
1.8
3.2
#3 @ 13
#3 @4
#3@13
#3@4
#3@13
#3 @ 13
#3 @4
#3@13
#3@4
#3@13
#3 @ 13
#3 @4
#3@13
#3@4
#3@13
#3 @ 13
#3 @4
#3@13
#3@4
#3@13
0.12
0.46
0.12
0.46
0.12
0.12
0.46
0.12
0.46
0.12
0.12
0.46
0.12
0.46
0.12
0.12
0.46
0.12
0.46
0.12
5. Discussion of results
In this section, the acceleration and displacement time histories of the considered columns are
presented. The time history is reported for the nearest node to the charge source. The
acceleration and displacement time histories were drawn for each column group as a function
of the charge weight. Figures 3 and 4 show the results from the FE analysis. Figure 4 shows
the acceleration time histories of the closest point to the charge. The maximum response of
the closest element to the center of detonation is reached after .01 seconds and followed by a
quick decay. This emphasizes that the blast load effect was a very high incident pressure in
the air immediately induced after the explosion and then the incident pressure factored by a
reflection factor when it hits the columns. As long as the charge weight increases, the
acceleration of the nearest element increases. The maximum acceleration of column A1 0.2W
is 5.41e3 in/sec2, while the maximum acceleration for column A4 is 9.14e3 in/sec2, which
indicates a global failure under that load. The acceleration increased gradually from a charge
weight of 100W to 2240 lb.
159
Ahmed Samir Eisa
Figure 3: Column dimensions and details (Wu et al. 2010).

4.00E+04
3.00E+04
Acceleration (in/sec2)
2.00E+04
1.00E+04
0.00E+00
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
-1.00E+04
A1
-2.00E+04
A2
-3.00E+04
A3
-4.00E+04
A4
-5.00E+04
-6.00E+04
Time (sec.)
160
Ahmed Samir Eisa
1.00E+05
D1
8.00E+04
D2
D3
Acceleration (in/sec2)
6.00E+04
D4
4.00E+04
2.00E+04
0.00E+00
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
-2.00E+04
-4.00E+04
-6.00E+04
Time (sec.)
Figure 4: Acceleration time histories for columns A and D groups.

Figure 5 shows the global column A4 response under a 2240 lb, it is shown that the column
failure is occurred under direct shear at the mid height, and close to the top and the bottom
boundaries.
Figure 5: Global response and deformed shape of column A4.

Figure 6 shows the displacement response time history of columns A and B groups under the
different charge weights. As shown from Figure 4 the maximum response of the closest
161
Ahmed Samir Eisa
element to is reached after .02 seconds and followed by a slow decay which led to a residual
displacement. The maximum displacement of column A4 under a charge weight 100 lb is
1.51 in, while residual displacement of the same column at 0.12 seconds was 1.26 in. The
maximum and residual displacements for the charge weight B4 is 1.77 in and 1.46 in,
respectively. The effect of 0.12% and 0.46% transverse steel ratios on the column response
under different charge weights are shown Figures 5, and 6. The residual displacement
increases as the charge weigh increase; and as the column aspect ratio decrease, the 0.46%
transverse steel ratio has a noticeable effect on the residual displacement as shown in Figures
7 and 8. The residual displacement of a column with an aspect ratio of 9.80 decreased by
77% with using lateral ties with a ratio of 0.12% compared to the same column with an aspect
ratio of 8.0. Similarly, using 0.46% of lateral reinforcements decreased the residual
displacement by 60% compared to the columns with 0.12% transverse reinforcement for a
charge weight of 2240 lbs.
1.80E+00
1.60E+00
1.20E+00
A1
1.00E+00
A2
8.00E-01
A3
6.00E-01
A4
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
0
0.02
0.04
-2.00E-01
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Time (sec.)
2.00E+00
1.50E+00
Displacement (in)
Displacement (in)
1.40E+00
B1
B2
1.00E+00
B3
B4
5.00E-01
0.00E+00
0
-5.00E-01
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Time (sec.)
Figure 6: Displacement response of column groups A and B.

162
Ahmed Samir Eisa
7
0.12 % Transverse Steel+ Aspect Ratio=8.0
Residual Displacement (in)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100
500
1000
Charge Weight (lb)
2240
Figure 7: Effect of 0.12% transverse steel on columns response.

4
Residual Displacement (in)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
100
500
1000
Charge Weight (lb)
2240
Figure 8: Effect of 0.46% transverse steel on column response.

6. Conclusions
The following conclusions are deduced from the numerical results:
1. The concrete plasticity damage material model predicted reasonably both the
compressive crush zone and tensile damage.
2. Concrete columns experienced significant residual displacement after exposed to 1000
lb. at a standoff distance of 16 ft.
3. Providing more lateral reinforcement decreased the residual displacement at the midheight of the studied columns, which consequently could improve the blast
resistances.
4. It is recommended to experimentally test more columns with more key parameters
like standoff distance and the effect of the axial load during the blast effect.
163
Ahmed Samir Eisa
7. References
1. Baker, W.E., (1973), Explosions in air, University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.
2. Design of blast-resistant buildings in petrochemical facilities, American society of
civil engineers, 2010.
3. TM5-1300. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. US Army, USA,
1990
4. Nago, T., Mendis, P., Gupta, A. and Ramsay, J., (2007), Blast loading and blast
effects on the structures-An overview. Electronic journal of structure engineering, pp
92-101.
5. Lee, K., Kim, T., and Kim, J., (2009), Local response of W-shaped steel columns
under blast loading. Structural engineering and mechanics, 31(1), pp 25-38.
6. Bao, X., Li, B., (2010), Residual strength of blast damaged reinforced concrete
columns. International journal of impact engineering, 37(3), pp 295308.
7. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318, Farmington Hills, MI.
8. Bathe, K-J., (1982), Finite element procedures in engineering analysis, Prentice-Hall.
9. Anil Chopra., (2011), Dynamics of structures. Prentice-hall
10. Wu, K. Bing L. and Tsai, K., (2010), Residual axial compression capacity of localized
blast-damaged RC columns. International journal of impact engineering, pp 1-12.
11. Abaqus, realistic simulations. Waltham, MA 02451 - United States.
12. Fujikura, S., Bruneau, M., and Garcia, D., (2008), Experimental investigation of
Multihazard resistant bridge piers having concrete-filled steel tube under blast loading.
ASCE Journal of bridge engineering, 13(6), pp 586-594.
164

Fem of Column of Blast Load

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fem of Column of Blast Load

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

ISSN 0976 4399

Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete columns under different

Received on November, 2014 Published on November 2014

Figure 1: Variation of overpressure and dynamic pressure over time.

Figure 2: Compression stress-strain model of concrete (Abaqus)

Figure 3: Column dimensions and details (Wu et al. 2010).

Figure 4: Acceleration time histories for columns A and D groups.

Figure 5: Global response and deformed shape of column A4.

Figure 6: Displacement response of column groups A and B.

Residual Displacement (in)

Figure 7: Effect of 0.12% transverse steel on columns response.

Residual Displacement (in)

Figure 8: Effect of 0.46% transverse steel on column response.

You might also like