Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Behavior of reinforced concrete columns under combined effects of axial and blast-induced transverse loads
Serdar Astarlioglu a,, Ted Krauthammer a, Dave Morency b, Thien P. Tran c
a

Center for Infrastructure Protection and Physical Security (CIPPS), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 1st Engineer Support Unit, Moncton, NB, Canada c Force Protection R&D Sufeld, Medicine Hat, AL, Canada T1A 8K6
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The results of numerical studies on the dynamic response of reinforced concrete (RC) columns subjected to axial and blast-induced transverse loads utilizing an advanced single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model are presented in this paper. The main variables considered in this study were the level of axial force and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. This work addressed the effect of various levels of axial compressive load on the resistance function, time-history response, and loadimpulse diagram when the columns were subjected to transverse loads due to blast. The blast loads were idealized as triangular pulses and the effects of exural, diagonal shear, and tension membrane behaviors were included in the RC column response. The results from the SDOF analyses were validated using the commercial nite element (FE) program ABAQUS. The results of the parametric study indicated that the level of axial compressive load has a signicant inuence on the behavior of RC columns when subjected to transverse blast-induced loads. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Available online 13 February 2013 Keywords: RC columns Blast loads Behavior SDOF analysis Pressureimpulse diagram

1. Introduction Progressive collapse of a building is typically initiated by an abrupt failure of one or more of the load bearing structural members, such as columns. Therefore, the endurance of such members under severe short duration loads is essential for the survivability of the building. The primary objective of this paper is to investigate the blast response of reinforced concrete columns with various levels of axial compressive loads and idealized boundary conditions using both fast running nonlinear SDOF and high delity continuum based nite element approaches, and show how the response of the column varies as the axial load level is changed using momentcurvature, resistance function, and pressureimpulse diagrams. While beams are normally subject only to transverse loads, columns are always exposed to both transverse and axial loads. In practice, it is often assumed that lateral responses are normally larger than the vertical ones for columns under the above mentioned combined loading conditions, and that the failure of columns are normally caused by transverse, rather than axial, loads [1]. While the failure of the column will most likely be induced by the transverse loads, the effect of axial loads on the response should also be considered. The column resistance may be reduced due to the axial loads, and the column may fail sooner than if no
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 352 273 0695.
E-mail addresses: serdara@u.edu (S. Astarlioglu), tedk@u.edu (T. Krauthammer), dave.morency@forces.gc.ca (D. Morency), thien.tran@drdc-rddc.gc.ca (T.P. Tran). 0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.12.040

axial loads were applied [2]. Furthermore, RC columns may undergo large deformation if the axial load increases enough to create a stability failure, and/or the transverse load combined with the axial load increases enough to cause a exural failure. If the transverse deection is sufciently large (e.g., larger than the cross-sectional depth) the column may exhibit a tensile membrane response that has been observed for RC beams and slabs. Certain conditions must exist for a column to enable tension membrane behavior. The longitudinal steel reinforcement must be continuous through the entire length of the column and be well anchored into the supports. Also, once the transition into a tension membrane occurs, the axial compressive load acting on the column cannot be resisted, and it must be redistributed to other structural elements in the building. At that point, although the column no longer has the capability to carry axial compressive loads, it continues to have the ability to carry transverse loads. Fig. 1 shows the deformed shape of an RC column following a blast test in which the column exhibited a tension membrane behavior [3]. This capability of the column could be signicant for structures that must provide protection against various explosively-induced lateral loads [4]. 2. Numerical approach In this study, the Dynamic Structural Analysis Suite (DSAS) is used to perform numerical analysis of RC columns under blast loads. DSAS is a multifunctional dynamic analysis suite, capable

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

27

analysis. The reference displacement for the SDOF system is dened as the displacement of the continuous system at the point of interest (e.g., midspan) for each load increment i as shown in Eq. (2). The normalized displacement eld is dened, as shown in Eq. (3):

uim ui

  L 2 ui x uim

ui x

In which ui(x) is the displacement eld at increment i. uim is the midspan displacement eld at increment i. ui(x) is the normalized displacement eld at increment i. The equivalent resistance value for the load increment i can be written as shown in Eq. (4), to ensure that the strain energies of both the continuous system and the lumped SDOF system are identical.

F ie

Z
0

pi x ui x dx

Fig. 1. RC column following a blast test [3].

of performing time-history analyses of a wide range of structural components [2,4,5]. DSAS is based on an equivalent SDOF analysis concept [1], and it utilizes a layered section analysis approach and strain compatibility to determine the momentcurvature relationship of a structural component. Then, a displacement controlled nonlinear FE analysis, using Criselds cylindrical arch length method [6], is carried out to establish the resistance function and the equivalent load and mass characteristics. The resulting resistance function is then used to perform a SDOF time-history analysis of the structural component. DSAS is also capable of plotting physics-based loadimpulse diagrams [7]. The details of the approach used in obtaining the resistance function for different degrees of freedoms (DOF) are described below. 2.1. Equivalent SDOF system In order to perform an SDOF analysis of a structural component, one must establish the relationships that relate the continuous system, such as the one shown in Fig. 2, to a simple mass-damper system. Furthermore, the load function under consideration should be separable into time dependent and spatial components as shown in Eq. (1), where pt(x) is the load function, kt is the time x is the spatial disdependent portion of the load function, and p tribution of the load.

In which F ie is the equivalent load at increment i. pi(x) is the load function at increment i. Similarly, the equivalent mass value for the load increment i is determined by setting the kinetic energies to both systems equal to each other and assuming that the acceleration eld normalized with respect to the midspan acceleration is the same as the normalized displacement eld. The nal equation for the equivalent mass at load increment i, M ie , is shown in as follows:

Mie

Z
0

mx ui x2 dx

In which m(x) is the mass function of the continuous system.Once the static analysis is completed and the equivalent SDOF system properties are established, the Newmark-Beta method [8] is employed to solve the dynamic equilibrium equation, as shown in Eq. (6), and to determine the components response time history.
t t t _t Ft e M e um C um Re

6
t

t In which Rt e Re um is the equivalent resistance at time t. F e um t t t Mt e M e um is the equivalent mass at time t. F e kut k is the
m

_t t t equivalent external force at time t. u m ; um ; um is the midspan acceleration, velocity, and displacement at time t. C is the Damping coefcient. 2.2. Flexural and tension membrane resistance Most RC components will respond to dynamic lateral loads in a exural behavior mode. One may determine the equivalent load and equivalent mass for elastic and plastic ranges using closed form solutions, as described by Biggs [1]. This, however, may lead to some inaccuracies, since the ratio of the equivalent load to the applied load, dened as the load factor, and the ratio of the equivalent mass to total mass, dened as the mass factor, vary continuously as the nonlinearities in the member progress. In DSAS, a specic purpose FE analysis using structural type elements and a solution algorithm based on Criselds cylindrical arc-length method [6] are used to evaluate the equivalent resistance and mass values in Eqs. (2) and (3) at each load increment, respectively. Each of the structural elements behaviors is determined from the momentcurvature relationship of the section, considering the nonlinear material behavior of concrete and reinforcing steel. These material models account for crushing of concrete layers and fracture of steel layers. The momentcurvature function assigned to each element is derived using a layered section analysis and strain compatibility,

 x pt x kt p

The evaluation of the equivalent SDOF properties, including the resistance function, is accomplished by using a static nonlinear

Fig. 2. Continuous structural member.

28

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

The tension for the membrane at a distance x from the origin:

q 2 T2 0 px

12

Fig. 3. Tension membrane.

In which T0 is the Tension force in the membrane at midspan. The average tension for the cable can be obtained by integrating Eq. (12) from zero to L/2 and then dividing by L/2 and substituting the second part of Eq. (10):

T av e

2p L

Z
0

L=2

p a2 x2 dx

13

Rearranging the terms in Eq. (13):

T av e L 1 R L=2 p 2 a2 x2 dx
0

14

Fig. 4. Combined exural and tension membrane resistance.

and the material properties are adjusted to account for strain rate effects and level of connement. Furthermore, the moment curvature relationship is modied by incorporating a shear reduction factor to account for presence of diagonal shear [9]. In addition to exural behavior, in cases where the longitudinal reinforcement is well anchored in the supports, RC columns can also exhibit tension membrane behavior, which is quite clearly visible in Fig. 1. In this mode of response, the concrete with its negligible tensile strength plays a very little role [10]. Fig. 3 shows the deected shape and the support reactions in the tension membrane. The deected shape of a pure membrane under uniform load takes the shape of a parabola:

Once the strain in the material is determined for a given midspan displacement, the average tension force in the steel can be determined using the constitutive relation of the material and then substituted into Eq. (14) to estimate the uniform load. As noted earlier, the tensile membrane response can develop only if the longitudinal reinforcement is well anchored into the supports, and failure will be dened by the tensile capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement. Initially, the column will respond in a exural response mode, and undergo relatively small lateral displacements. However, the column would jump into a tensile membrane behavior under specic conditions that will be dened later, herein. A transition into a tensile membrane response also means that the adjacent members can take over the gravity loads that the column previously carried and withstand the additional axial compression induced by the tensile forces generated by the membrane in the deformed member. The switch to tension membrane mode is initiated by either compression failure of the concrete, buckling of the column, or when the lateral displacement exceeds the effective depth of the cross section. Fig. 4 shows the combined exural and tension membrane resistance functions. Instead of simply superimposing the pure tension membrane curve on top of the exural resistance curve, the tension membrane curve was shifted up slightly to account for the existing stresses in the member at the time of the transition from exure to tensile membrane, as recommended in [11]. 2.3. Direct shear resistance Another type of response that was observed in RC members under highly impulsive loads is direct shear. Unlike the exural and tension membrane responses that can be combined into the same resistance function, direct shear is different and unrelated to the other two behaviors. It is initiated by the localized through-thickness shear failure of the member at geometric or load discontinuity regions (e.g., at the supports), consequently resulting in separation of the member from the supports during the rst milliseconds of the loading. In DSAS, the check for the direct shear type of failure is accomplished using a resistance function for the direct shear response mode based on the Hawkins model [12]. The equations used in DSAS for modeling direct shear response are described in detail in Krauthammer et al. [13] and the inuence of axial load on the direct shear response is included by increasing the shear strength values according to ACI 318 [14] when the member is under axial compression. The overall algorithm in DSAS is shown in Fig. 5. For most analyses, a typical DSAS run time is less than one second, which is considerably shorter than the amount of time it takes to analyze the same member using a continuum based FE approach with tens of thousands of DOF. This allows a large number of cases or a single case with different load functions (i.e. to construct a pressure impulse diagram) to be analyzed rapidly. For example, typical ABA-

4um L2

x2

The length of the membrane is (origin of the coordinate system is placed at the lowest point of the curve) using symmetry is:

Larc 2

Z
0

L=2

s  2 dy 1 dx dx

Taking the derivative of Eq. (7) and substituting into Eq. (8):

Larc

2 a

Z
0

L=2

p a2 x2 dx L

where

L2 T0 8um p

10

The average strain in the membrane can be calculated as:

Larc L Larc 1 L L

11

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

29

Fig. 5. DSAS owchart.

Fig. 6. Details of the RC beams tested by Feldman and Siess [15].

QUS runtimes for the beam cases described in the next section were in the order of six hours. With DSAS, the results were obtained almost instantaneously. 3. Numerical procedure validation 3.1. Validation using experimental data from impact tests Five beams tested by Feldman and Siess [15] were used for validation of the computer code DSAS. Fig. 6 shows the layout and the reinforcement details of the beams that were tested. Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Concrete material properties [15]. Beam 1-C 1-G 1-H 1-I 1-J fc0 (MPa) 39.1 42.8 42.4 44.8 42.0 Ec (MPa) 29,593 30,970 30,682 32,612 26,821 fr (MPa) 6.2 6.9 6.4 5.9 6.4

show the concrete material properties and reinforcement material properties, respectively. All ve beams had identical layouts and

30 Table 2 Reinforcement material properties [15]. Beam Compression reinforcement fy (MPa) 1-C 1-G 1-H 1-I 1-J 322 333 328 331 337 Es (MPa) N/A N/A 222,563 N/A 203,809

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

Tension reinforcement

ey (mm/mm)
N/A N/A 0.0015 N/A 0.0016

esh (mm/mm)
N/A N/A 0.0150 N/A 0.0120

fy (MPa) 318 329 325 324 327

Es (MPa) 203,533 N/A 240,627 224,769 N/A

ey (mm/mm)
0.0016 N/A 0.0014 0.0014 N/A

esh (mm/mm)
0.0144 N/A 0.0125 0.0150 N/A

Table 3 Comparison of measured and calculated peak midspan displacements. Beam 1-C 1-G 1-H 1-I 1-J Experiment (mm) 76 105 225 268 24 ABAQUS (mm) 74 107 223 252 31 DSAS (mm) 78 102 208 243 21

closed stirrups except beam 1-C which had open stirrups. For comparison purposes, the beams were also modeled with the FE program ABAQUS/Explicit [16]. 8-noded brick elements with a Modied DruckerPrager Cap material model were used in ABAQUS to model the concrete, and beam elements were used to model the reinforcement. The peak midspan displacements, shown in Table 3, indicated that both DSAS and ABAQUS were able to predict the peak midspan response of the beams quite accurately, and except for test case 1-J, the results from both programs were within less than 10% from the measured peak displacements. Figs. 7 and 8 show the loading function and displacement time history for beam 1-C. While both programs follow the experimental results closely, the peak displacement is reached slightly earlier in DSAS and slightly later in ABAQUS, as compared to the test data. 3.2. Validation under blast loads using ABAQUS Since no test data for a beam under a uniform blast load was available, beam 1-C was also used for a comparison between DSAS and ABAQUS. In this case, the computer code CONWEP [17] was used to derive a loading function from an explosive charge at a specic distance from the beams midspan, and it was approximated by a triangular load time history with the peak pressure of 12.3 MPa and load duration of 1.28 ms. The corresponding impulse for this load is dened by the area under the load-time history (0.5 12.3 1.28 = 7.872 MPa ms). The results computed from ABAQUS and DSAS for beam 1-C are shown in Fig. 9. The difference in the peak displacements was less than two percent. The residual displacement calculated by ABAQUS was much bigger, which may be attributed to the inability of the material model in ABAQUS to capture the hysteretic behavior of concrete. Since the peak displacements are more relevant than residual displacements for assessing damage in protective structures [18], it was concluded that these results from both programs are acceptable. In addition to the simply supported beam, the RC column, shown in Fig. 10, was also modeled with ABAQUS. In this case, a 406 mm 406 mm section with a 3.66 m span length and eight US No. 11 bars as primary longitudinal reinforcement was selected. The section was enclosed in US No. 4 ties spaced at 304 mm. It was assumed that the column continued 152 mm at each end to properly model the boundary conditions. A steel plate was emplaced at the top and bottom of the column to properly distribute the axial point load onto the surface of the column. Both supports were xed

Fig. 7. Load function for beam 1-C [15].

Fig. 8. Beam 1-C midspan displacement time history under impact loading.

in all directions, and the longitudinal reinforcement ends were also xed in the vertical direction to ensure the full development of the reinforcements tensile capacity.

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

31

Fig. 9. Beam 1-C midspan displacement time history under blast loading.

Fig. 11. Column midspan displacement time history under blast loading.

Fig. 12. Imposed support displacement time histories to simulate axial loads in the ABAQUS model.

Table 4 Peak midspan displacements of the column under 3559 kN axial load. Re. pressure (MPa) 29.0 32.8 36.3 Fig. 10. RC column mesh in ABAQUS. Re. impulse (MPa-ms) 19.6 22.8 25.9 DSAS (mm) 193 240 287 ABAQUS (mm) 228 289 345 Difference (%) 15 17 17

Using the same pressure time history, as for the beam 1-C case, the displacement time histories, shown in Fig. 11, were obtained without axial loads. Similarly to the beam case, there was a difference between the times the peak displacements were reached in

DSAS and ABAQUS, and between the residual displacements. However, the difference in magnitudes of the peak displacements determined from both programs was less than 2%. In the next phase of validation, the same column conguration was analyzed under different levels of axial loads. In the ABAQUS

32

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

Table 5 Peak midspan displacements of the column under 6672 kN axial load. Re. pressure (MPa) 29.0 32.8 36.3 Re. impulse (MPa-ms) 19.6 22.8 25.9 DSAS (mm) 218 266 311 ABAQUS (mm) 231 262 342 Difference (%) 5 1 9

Fig. 15. Column moment curvature relationships for different axial load levels.

Fig. 13. Column interaction diagram when effects of connement are ignored.

Fig. 16. Column resistance functions for different axial load levels.

Fig. 14. Column interaction diagram when effects of connement are included.

model, the axial loads were simulated by slowly superimposing support displacement until the axial stresses on the column were at the desired level prior to application of the transverse blast pressures, as shown in Fig. 12. Table 4 shows the peak midspan displacements obtained with DSAS and ABAQUS under a constant

axial load of 3559 kN, for three different blast loads, denoted by their peak reected pressure and reected impulse (I dened the impulse for 1-C) values. Similarly, Table 5 shows the comparison between ABAQUS and DSAS results under a constant axial load of 6672 kN. It was noted that there was a better agreement between the peak displacements calculated by DSAS and ABAQUS in the blast cases which had the bigger level of axial load. While the difference between the peak displacements predicted was as high as 17% in the case of a 3559 kN axial load and a transverse blast loading with a peak pressure of 32.8 MPa and an impulse of 22.8 MPa-ms, the authors believe that the results obtained from DSAS are reasonably accurate.

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

33

Fig. 17. Column pressure-impulse diagram for different axial load levels.

4. Parametric study In the parametric study, two types of boundary conditions were considered for the RC columns. In the rst set, 406 mm 406 mm 3.66 m RC columns with simply supported boundary conditions were analyzed, and tension membrane type behavior was not included. In the second set, xed boundary conditions were considered, and tension membrane behavior was included in the response.

factors, the curve plotted by DSAS matched well the values provided in Concrete Steel Reinforcing Institute Design Handbook [19], and that served the purpose of further validation of the program. The second interaction diagram, shown in Fig. 14, was plotted for the case where the inuence of diagonal shear and the effects of connement were included. The axial load levels on the column prior to the application of the blast load were selected based on this interaction diagram, as follows: 4448 kN (approximately 80% higher than the balanced axial load), 2491 kN (the balanced axial load), 1112 kN (65% less than the balanced axial load), and zero axial load. Fig. 15 shows the momentcurvature diagrams of the column with the reinforcement ratio of 0.0188 under each of the previously-selected axial load levels, and Fig. 16 shows the corresponding exural resistance functions at these levels. As expected, up to the balance axial load, the strength of the column increased as the axial load level increased. However, once the axial load level was greater than the balance axial load, the strength of the column started to decrease. In all cases, the presence of compressive axial forces on the section reduced the ductility, since the failure mode shifted from a ductile tension type failure in the reinforcement to a brittle compression type failure. Fig. 17 shows the pressureimpulse diagram of the column with the reinforcement ratio of 0.0188 under an idealized triangular transverse load pulse. This diagram was obtained numerically by running a large series of SDOF analyses to obtain the threshold curves using the approach that was proposed in [7]. For low pressure (i.e. 0.42 MPa) and long duration loads (i.e., the quasi-static domain), there was very little difference between the threshold curves for the different axial load cases, unless the axial load level was above the balance axial load level. For high pressure and short duration loads (i.e., the impulsive domain), the impulsive asymptote shifted to the left with each increment in axial load (i.e. lower impulse level). This indicated that the column became more vulnerable to blast loads, as the level of axial load on the column was increased. 4.2. Column with xed boundary conditions

4.1. Column with simply supported boundary conditions In this part of the study, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement was selected as the primary variable. Four different congurations were analyzed with reinforcement ratios of 0.0188 (8 No.7), 0.0488 (8 No.8), 0.0352 (4 No.14), and 0.0731 (12 No. 11). The specied compressive strength of the concrete was 27.6 MPa and the yield strength of the reinforcing steel was 413.7 MPa. The interaction curves for the column with the reinforcement ratio of 0.0188 are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. The interaction diagram in Fig. 13 was plotted for the case when the inuence of diagonal shear and the effects of connement were ignored. With the inclusion of ACI 318-08 [14] strength reductions

In this part, a column with the same dimensions and material properties as the one described in the previous section was used. Three different longitudinal reinforcement ratios of 0.0247 (8 No.8), 0.0313 (8 No.9), and 0.0488 (8 No.11) were applied. The axial stresses in the columns were slowly increased to 13.5 MPa (2224 kN), 21.5 MPa (3559 kN), and 40.4 MPa (6672 kN) before the columns were subjected to blast loads, as shown in Fig. 12. Eight different blast loads, ranging from the least severe case of a 5.1 MPa peak reected pressure and a duration of 1.43 ms (reected impulse = 3.6 MPa-ms) to the most severe case

Table 6 Parametric study of a 406 mm 406 mm 3.66 m RC column with various amounts of longitudinal reinforcing subjected to different blast pressures and axial loads. Re. pressure (MPa) Re. impulse (MPa-ms) Midspan displacement (mm) 8-No.7 2224 kN 5.1 8.2 12.3 14.7 20.1 29.0 32.8 36.3 3.6 5.4 7.8 9.3 12.9 19.6 22.8 25.9 10 21 54a 80a 144a F F F 3559 kN 10 24a 54a 77a 136a F F F 6672 kN 20 44a 85a 112a 183a 329a F F
a

8-No.9 2224 kN 11 22 47a 72a 130a 250a F F 3559 kN 11 23 54a 76a 131a 246a F F 6672 kN 20 41a 78a 101a 160a 281a 336a 385a
a

8-No.11 2224 kN 10 19 36 52 102a 199a 248a F 3559 kN 10 18 39a 60a 107a 193a 240a 287a 6672 kN 14 31a 64a 85a 130a 218a 266a 311a

F Indicates direct shear failure. a Indicates tension membrane response.

34

S. Astarlioglu et al. / Engineering Structures 55 (2013) 2634

of a 36.3 MPa peak pressure and a duration of 1.43 ms (reected impulse = 25.9 MPa-ms) were used. A total of 72 cases were analyzed. Table 6 shows both the loading characteristics and the peak displacements calculated for the columns under these loads. In most of the loading cases, the columns behaved in the tension membrane mode. This type of response was expected since the axial load levels on the columns in this part of the study were selected to be relatively high to cause an early compressive failure that would force the columns to enter the tension membrane mode. For more intensive loads, the columns failed in the direct shear mode. It is interesting to note that the columns with the highest axial load level of 6672 kN started to exhibit a tension membrane behavior even under relatively small blast loads. This is a consequence of the addition of exural stresses caused by the blast load to the already existing high levels of compressive stresses in the section. The columns with lower levels of axial load behaved in exure up to moderate levels of blast loads. In more severe blast load cases, failures due to direct shear were observed. Based on the results of the parametric study, it is apparent that the columns with the highest reinforcement ratio and axial load are more resistant to blast loads, and the column with 8 No. 11 bars and 6672 kN axial load survived the most severe blast load. 5. Conclusions The comparisons and results provided in this study indicated that advanced SDOF based models can be used to study blast loaded RC column behavior efciently with acceptable accuracy. When compared with experimental results from impact tests on RC beams, DSAS results were within 211% of the measured values When compared with ABAQUS results for blast loading cases, the difference was between 1% and 17%. Nevertheless, further validation with results from actual tests of RC columns is needed to better dene the accuracies of both computational approaches. The results from the parametric study indicated that the level of axial compressive load had a signicant effect on the response of a RC column and should not be ignored. Even if the actual axial load on the column is less than half of its balance axial load, it resulted in a signicant reduction of its ability to withstand the impulse delivered by the blast, as compared to its capacity under pure exure. This is contrary to the response of columns under combined exural and axial loads when subjected to quasi-static loads, as indicated by the pressureimpulse diagram. For columns with xed boundary conditions and continuous reinforcement, a tension membrane type of behavior provided a considerable reserve capacity to resist blast loads and to avoid failure. However, when the column switched to a tension membrane, it indicated that

the column lost its ability to carry axial compressive loads. If the adjacent load bearing members are not able to redistribute the loads, this condition may initiate a progressive collapse. Finally, it was observed that for blast loads with very high peak pressures, the columns were prone to direct shear type failures. Acknowledgement The authors wish to acknowledge the support provided by US Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), and the Canadian Forces. References
[1] Biggs JM. Introduction to structural dynamics. McGraw-Hill; 1964. [2] Tran TP, Krauthammer T, Astarlioglu S. Effect of short duration high impulse variable axial and transverse loads on reinforced concrete column, center for infrastructure protection and physical security (CIPPS). Gainesville, FLA: University of Florida; 2009. [3] Crawford JE, Malvar LJ, Morrill KB, Ferrito JM. Composite retrots to increase the blast resistance of reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the tenth international symposium on interaction of the effects of munitions with structures; 2001. [4] Morency D, Krauthammer T, Astarlioglu S. Large deection behavior effect in reinforced concrete column under severe dynamic short duration load, center for infrastructure protection and physical security (CIPPS). Gainesville, FLA: University of Florida; 2010. [5] Astarlioglu S, Krauthammer T. Dynamic structural analysis suite (DSAS) user manual version 3.0. Center for Infrastructure Protection and Physical Security (CIPPS). University of Florida, Gainesville, FLA; 2009. [6] Criseld MA. Non-linear nite element analysis of solids and structures. Wiley; 1996. [7] Krauthammer T, Astarlioglu S, Blasko J, Soh TB, Ng PH. Pressure-impulse diagrams for the behavior assessment of structural components. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(8):77183. [8] Newmark NM, Rosenblueth E. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall; 1972. [9] Krauthammer T. Modern protective structures. CRC Press; 2008. [10] Park R, Gamble WL. Reinforced concrete slabs. 2nd ed. Wiley; 1999. [11] Krauthammer T. Shallow-buried RC box-type structures. J Struct Eng 1984;110(3):63751. [12] Hawkins NM. Direct shear resistance. Analysis of WES FY82 Dynamic Shear Test Structures (3rd Ed.), Technical Memorandum 5183-02 Defense Nuclear Agency, Port Hueneme, CA; 1982. [13] Krauthammer T, Bazeos N, Holmquist TJ. Modied SDOF analysis of RC boxtype structures. J Struct Eng 1986;112(4):72644. [14] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute; 2008. [15] Feldman A, Siess CP. Investigation of resistance and behavior of reinforced concrete members subjected to dynamic loading: part II; 1958. [16] Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp. Abaqus Version 6.8 (Abaqus Analysis Users Manual (5 Volumes), Abaqus Keywords Reference Manual (2 volumes), Abaqus Example Problems Manual, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.; 2008. [17] Hyde DW. CONWEP users manual. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS; 1988. [18] Department of Defense. Unied facilities criteria (UFC); 2008. [19] CSRI. CRSI design handbook, 2002. CSRI; 2002.