Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Resist Blast
Effects
[ I I
by John E. Crawford, L. Javier Malvar, James W. Wesevich, Joseph Valancius, and Aaron D.
Reynolds
Analyses were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of jacketing col-
umns of existing reinforced concrete multistory buildings to improve their
survivability to attacks by explosives. Dtrerent standoff distances, charge
sizes, and steel and composite jackets were considered. Two building
designs were analyzed: one in which the building members were designed
primarily for gravity loads (UBC seismic zone I) and one in which the
members were designed to resist seismic loads (UBC seismic zone 4).
Structural response predictions were perjotvned with the three-dimensional,
LagrangianJinite element code DYNA3D. using a concrete material model
especially designed to predict nonlinear concrete responses to explosive
loads. The results indicate that jacketing can be an effective means to retro-
fit an existing facility to lessen its vulnerability to blast loads.
Keywords blast effects; reinforced concrete; steel jacket; composites; FRE!
INTRODUCTION
Preliminary numerical analyses of conventional rein-
forced concrete multistory buildings confirmed their vulner-
ability to attacks by explosives. The focus of these analyses
was the response of the perimeter columns of a typical build-
ing to blast loads. Two building designs were analyzed: one
in which the building members were designed mainly for
gravity loads (UBC seismic zone 1) and one in which the
members were designed to resist seismic loads (UBC seis-
mic zone 4). Both cases were considered since the zone 4 de-
sign includes significantly higher lateral reinforcement (for
confinement purposes) which enhances the resistance to
shear. The numerical analyses showed that structural col:
lapse of the building as a whole was typically started by the
failure of perimeter columns on the first and second floors.
Retrofit techniques consisting of strengthening the columns
with round steel jackets or composite wraps were assessed.
Structural response predictions were completed with the
three-dimensional Lagrangian finite element code
DYNA3D,’ using a concrete material model especially de-
signed to predict nonlinear concrete responses to explosive
loads. The study also includes the use of different charge siz-
es and standoffs so that architectural considerations that limit
the threat (e.g., increasing standoff) can be evaluated.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Recent events have emphasized the vulnerability of con-
ventional multistory buildings to blast loads. This paper as-
sesses simple retrofit techniques in typical multistory
reinforced concrete buildings to improve their blast load re-
sistance. The retrofit designs considered focus on jacketing
concepts which have been widely applied in the mitigation
of earthquake hazards for highway bridges, mostly by the
California Department of Transportation.2~4 For seismic
zone 4 these retrofit techniques could then have dual appli-
cation. Also, the effect of standoff is evaluated as a way of
reducing the blast load on the structural elements.
MODELING OF BUILDINGS FOR BLAST ANALYSIS
To illustrate the issues involved, the response of a multi-
story building composed of reinforced concrete columns and
floor slabs is shown in Figure 1. For this situation, a 2000
pound (909 Kg) ANFO bomb was placed at a standoff of
20 feet (6.1 m), a burst height of 6 feet (1.83 m), and centered
on an exterior building column. To simplify the problem, the
‘loading applied consists of only airblast (i.e., fragment and
debris effects are ignored). The airblast was generated sepa-
rately (e.g. see reference 5). The pressures reflected off the
exterior surfaces are predicted with relatively high fidelity
(in contrast to, the pressure field inside the building, which is
complex and difficult to predict). The results indicate that the
exterior perimeter columns on the first and second floors are
blown out at an early time, failing in shear near the supports.
Failure of just a few perimeter columns results in a partial or
complete collapse of the structure (Figure 1). ConsequeMly,
the retrofit techniques analyzed concentrated on the upgrade
of the perimeter columns on the first and second floors.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 4, July-August 1997.
Received September 29, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright 6 1997, Amencan Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from tbe copyright proprietors. Perti-
nent discussion will be published in the May-June 1998 ACI Structural Journal if
received by January 1.1998.
 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-
ments
372
~ ACI Structural Journal / July-August 1997
Table l-Characteristics of airblast loads applied
to the first story
Peak
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-
tion.”
Modeling with continuum and structural elements
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
calculations in the remainder of the structure. A hybrid mod-
el was used in this study, where the perimeter columns use
continuum elements for the concrete (to capture any shear
response) and beam elements for the steel reinforcing bars,
while in areas of less importance structural shell elements
were used to model the floor joists and slabs.
VALIDATION OF RESPONSE PREDICTIONS
There is not much experimental data in the open literature
by which to evaluate the accuracy and applicability of the
models used to predict the effects of blasts on structures.
Most test data is either compromised because of its incom-
pleteness (e.g., lack of complete material characterization),
ill-defined boundary conditions (e.g., as often occurs in tests
involving single structural members, such as slabs and
beams), or is derived from weapons effects programs and is
not widely disseminated. One validation study that is avail-
able for models similar to the ones shown in this paper is pre-
sented in reference 10. That paper studied the response of
substantial dividing walls to close-in charges (Figure 2). The
metric for validation was the velocity of the debris, which
were predicted within 10 percent of the test data.
--THREAT DlRECJ/ON
Fig. j-overview of multistory building used in evaluation
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE USED TO EVALUATE
THE RETROFITS
Conventional multistory design
To measure the effectiveness of the various retrofit de-
signs, a baseline design for a multistory building was gener-
ated, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Two designs were
developed: one in which the columns and beams were de-
signed mainly for gravity loads (i.e., consistent with UBC
seismic zone 1) and one in which the columns and beams
were designed to resist seismic loads (i.e., consistent with
UBC seismic zone 4). This allows the evaluation to include
the effects of the increased ductility and ultimate strengths
associated with a building designed for a highly active seis-
mic zone.
Portion of building used for analysis
To reduce computational demands, only a single bay from
the bottom three stories of the building is used for the re-
sponse predictions (Figure 5). Symmetry is assumed along
the east-west edges of this section. While this is an approxi-
mation, it does produce a model of reasonable accuracy and
size for evaluating the effects of jacketing. To keep the mod-
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

 GRAVITY LOAD
GRAVITY LOAD FROM FROM UPPER
UPPER STORIES

&-#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.

Loading
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
to the exterior faces of the first and second story columns.
Jacket concepts
The main benefit of jacketing is gained from the effect that
increased confinement has on the strength and ductility of
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
the jacket will be most useful in mitigating direct shear fail-
urep but it can also provide increased axial and bending ca-
pacities. The steel jacket seams are typically welded, and
the gap between the jacket and the existing column is filled
with grout. Composite or fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) jack-
ets can also be used. Figure 7 depicts the jacket designs used
in this study for the columns on the first and second floors of
the building shown in Figure 3. This type of column jacket-
ing has been shown to significantly increase the column duc-
tility, typically from a ductility of 1.5 to 1O.3V4 As a
consequence this type of column retrofit (using either steel
or FRP jackets) has been extensively applied in California
for highway bridge columns.*
Material models
The material models for the concrete and steel reinforce-
ment include elastic-plastic behavior, rate effects, and frac-
ture. The new concrete material model implemented in
DYNA3D”*‘* includes softening together with a fracture-
i/,
2 7500 \‘MPa
f:
Li 5000
2 Unconfined
IS 2500 - MODEL
00
0 12 3 4 5 6 7
AXIALSTRAIN
Fig. 6-Fit of material model to experimental data for concrete
energy based localization limiter to prevent any spurious
mesh sensitivity. The concrete material model includes a ra-
dial strain rate enhancement in the principal stress difference
versus pressure plane which is valid for uniaxial, biaxial and
triaxial tension, as well as uniaxial and biaxial compression.
For the analyses, an ASTM A 615 Grade 60 steel was used
for reinforcement, ,with a rupture strain of 13 percent. The
concrete had a nominal strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa). For
this particular study a relatively weak carbon wrap was used
with a thickness of 0.019 inch (0.5 mm) per layer, a strength
of 54 ksi (372 MPa) and a stiffness of 7600 ksi (52 GPa).
Only six layers of the composite were applied (additional
layers would further stiffen the structural member and re-
 1
1.4,

----
-0 WRAPS - TESTS
-m-2 WRAPS - TEST
-N- 0 WRAPS - MODEL
- 2 WRAPS - MODEL

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

1.0

0.8
E
g 0.8
F
g 0.4
3
E 0.2
tn +Transverse
0.0
-0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
Fig. 1 l-Mesh for the portion of the building studied
TENSION STRAIN COMPRESSION

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

jined compression test

1.0
F” 0.8
z
pc 0.6
z
g 0.4

g 0.2

0.0
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
 2.0 30” SQUARE COLUMN
1.8
g 1.6-
!ii IA-
Y 12-
44” ROUND COLUMN
2 1:0-
8 0.8 -
z
g 0.6- - - - -

iii 0.4- COMPOSITE WRAP

0.2
(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
,TIME(MS)

duce the deflections). Figure 6 depicts some of the behaviors
modeled for the concrete. Material data and details for the
material models are given in references 11 through 15.
The column jacketing system is dependent on the lateral
dilation of the concrete for development of the confining ac-
tion. Concrete in uniaxial unconfined compression exhibits a
constant Poisson ratio of about 0.2 until approximately 75
percent of the compressive strength, corresponding to a vol-
umetric compression phase. At that point extensive internal
cracking starts developing and the apparent Poisson ratio
starts increasing to 0.5, where there is no further volume
variation. For increasing compression the apparent Poisson
ratio keeps increasing until the overall volumetric strain be-
comes zero, then becomes positive (net volume increase).16
The ability of the numerical material model to reproduce the
volumetric expansion phase is the key to the proper repre-
sentation of the jacketing confinement effect. Figure 8 shows
the corresponding output from the new concrete material
model for a single concrete element in uniaxial unconfined
compression. The predicted variation of the apparent Pois-
son ratio as a function of the load is shown in Figure 9.
ASTM C39 compression tests carried out on 6-inch (15.2
cm) diameter concrete cylinders jacketed with two layers of
a carbon composite resulted in a strength increase of 20 per-
cent at a peak strain of about 0.005. Figure 10 shows the test
results for plain and jacketed concrete cylinders. Figure 10
also shows the DYNA3D predictions for both cases. It is ap-
parent that the material model is able to properly represent T
the jacketing effects.
With respect to the composite material, although carbon
(or graphite) and glass fibers have typically been used for
column retrofits,* aramid fibers (e.g. Kevlar) would actually
be more appropriate for blast loads, due to their impact resis-
tance.
Mesh
The concrete portions of the columns and girders are mod-
eled with three-dimensional eight-node brick elements; the
reinforcement is explicitly modeled with truss elements.
Shell elements, which replicate the nonlinear flexural behav-
Fig. 14-Midspan displacemkntforfour column types (I
in. = 2.54 cm)
ior, are used to model the floors and floor joists. The mesh
for the unjacketed columns is shown in Figure 11.
EFFECT OF RETROFITS
The response of the building section for the steel jacket
retrofit design is illustrated by plots of the deformed shape of
the first floor perimeter column, which are shown in
Figures 12 and 13 for various charge sizes, standoffs, and de-
sign configurations. The corresponding response for an un-
jacketed column is also included for comparison. As can be
seen from the results, a jacket can have a substantial benefi-
cial effect on the performance of the columns and prevent
structural failure of the building as a whole.
Figure 14 compares the response time history of four types
of columns: the original 30-inch (76 cm) square column, a
44inch (112 cm) diameter circular column (resulting from
rounding the square column), and the circular column with
either a steel jacket or a composite wrap. This comparison is
for the case of a 20-ft (6.1 m) standoff and a 1500-lb (682
Kg) charge. As the confinement on the original square col-
umn increases the peak midspan deflection decreases. In the
case of the composite wrap the response could be further de-
creased by increasing the number of wraps.
Table 2 provides a summary of the midspan deflection for
the various column designs considered. For a small standoff
of 10 feet (3.05 m), the unjacketed column fails for both
charges, but a steel or composite jacket can prevent this fail-
ure. For a standoff of 40 feet (12.2 m), no failure is predicted.
Zone 4 columns are somewhat more resistant to shearing.
This is more apparent when the FRP jacket displacements
are compared. The relative thickness used in the composite
wrap made it less effective than the steel jacket, but similar
improvements could be obtained by increasing the number
of wraps.
It should be noted, however, that while structural collapse
may be prevented, this is only a partial solution for the build-
ing occupants as it does not prevent the propagation of high
pressures or debris within the building.
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of standoff and column jacketing on enhancing
the blast resistance. of conventional reinforced concrete
structures were analyzed. It was shown first that structural
collapse appears to result from the shearing of first and sec-
ond floor perimeter columns. Jacketing the columns with a
steel or composite jacket prevents collapse for most of the
cases studied. Although a weak composite wrap system was
used in this analysis, similar responses can be obtained for
steel and FRP jackets provided that enough wraps are ap-
plied. Increasing the standoff distance, whenever possible,
appears as a simple solution. Further work should be per-
formed to develop additional retrofit designs to enhance the
floors, reduce debris production, and channel high pressures
away from building occupants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
While the results presented in this paper were privately funded, the au-
thors would like to acknowledge the support of the Defense Nuclear Agency
in developing the basic work associated with predicting and validating the
response of reinforced concrete structures td airblast loadings.
REFERENCES
1. Whirley, R. G., and Engelmann, B. E., “DYNA3D: A Nonlinear
Explicit Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid and Structural
Mechanics,” User Manual, Report UCRL-MA-107254 Rev. 1, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, November 1993.
2. “GRP Wraps up Bridge Repairs,” Reinforced Plastics, Vol. 39, No. 7-
8, July-August 1995, pp. 30-32.
3. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, E; and Fyfe, E., “Column Seismic Retrofit
Using Fibreglass Epoxy Jackets,” Advanced Composite Materials in
Bridges and Structures, First International Conference, Sherbrooke, Que-
bec, Canada, 1992, pp. 287-298.
4. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; Xiao, Y.; and Verma, R., “Steel Jacket
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Enhanced Shear
Strength--Part 2: Test Results and Comparison with Theory,” AC1 Struc-
tural Journal, Sept.-Oct. 1994, pp. 537-551.
5. Major Hazards Assessment Panel Overpressure Working Party, Explo-
sions in the Process Industries, Major Hazards Monograph, Institution of
Chemical Engineers, Rugby, U.K., 1994,74 pp.
6 . Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill,
1964.
7. Crawford, J. E., and Karagozian, J., “Behavior and Design for Struc-
tural Components to Resist Blast Loadings,” Technical Report TR-95-25,
Karagozian & Case, Glendale, CA, August 1995.
8. Crawford, J. E.; Holland, T. J.; Mendoza P. J.; and Murtha R.,“A Fail-
ure Methodology Based on Shear Deformation,” Fourth ASCE Engineer-
ing Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, May 1983.
9. Slawson, T. R., “Dynamic Shear Failure of Shallow-Buried Flat-
Roofed Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Blast Loading,” Tech-
nical Report SL-84-7, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS, Apr. 1984.
10. Bogosian, D., “Parametric Analysis of 12-Inch Substantial Dividing
Walls,” Technical Report TR-94-20, Karagozian & Case, Glendale, Oct.
1994.
11. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford J. E.; and Wesevich J. W., “A Concrete Mate-
rial Model for DYNA3D,” Proceedings of the 10th ASCE Engineering
Mechanics Conference, Boulder, May 1995.
12. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford J. E.; and Wesevich J. W., “A New Concrete
Material Model for DYNA3D,” Technical Reporr TR-94-14, Karagozian &
Case, Glendale, Dec. 1994.
13. U.S. Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Structures to
Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,” NAVFAC P-397 Design Man-
ual, Alexandria, 1991 (also Army TM5-1300 and Air Force AFM 88-22).
14. Ross, C. A.; Thompson, P Y.; and Tedesco, J. W., “Split-Hopkinson
Pressure-Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression,”
AC1 Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp. 475-481.
15. Malvar, L. J., and Simons, D., “Concrete Material Modeling in
Explicit Computations,” Proceedings, Workshop on Recent Advances in
Computational Structural Dynamics and High Performance Computing,
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Apr. 1996.
16. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley
& Sons, NY, 1975,769 pp.