IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Seismic fragility analysis of lap-spliced
Parametric Studies on Dynamic Analysis of Blast- reinforced concrete columns retrofitted by
SMA wire jackets
Loaded Retrofitted RC Columns Eunsoo Choi, Sun-Hee Park, Young-Soo
Chung et al.

- Comparison between cyclic response of

To cite this article: Mahmoud K. Ameen et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1056 012019 RC columns transversely reinforced with
FRP strips and carbon steel
Nur Hajarul Falahi Abdul Halim, Sophia C.
Alih and Mohammadreza Vafaei

- The effect of geometrical parameters on

View the article online for updates and enhancements. blast resistance of sandwich panels—a
review
Orhan Gülcan, Kadir Günaydn and Aykut
Tamer

This content was downloaded from IP address 195.43.22.134 on 16/08/2023 at 01:31

International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

Parametric Studies on Dynamic Analysis of Blast-Loaded

Retrofitted RC Columns
Mahmoud K. Ameen1, Fouad B. A. Beshara2, and Youssef M. H. Hammad2
1
Engineering Authority for Egyptian Armed Forces
2
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering (Shobra), Banha University

*
Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]

Abstract. The majority of public and private facilities, existing today, were not originally designed
to withstand blast loads rising from terrorist attacks. Hence, such facilities require effective
countermeasures to minimize losses inflicted on property and people in the event of terrorist
bombing. Retrofitting of main structural elements is very effective to increase blast resistance. In
this paper, comprehensive parametric studies for the dynamic response of blast-loaded RC columns
are performed using the proposed nonlinear coupled model and AUTODYN software. Many
material and reinforcement parameters are considered in the paper such as concrete compressive
strength, steel yield stress, longitudinal steel ratio and transverse stirrups ratio. Blast-loading
parameters such as using different explosive weights, changing the stand-off distance of explosion,
are also studied. Finally, the retrofitting parameters for blast-loaded columns, such as using different
retrofit material types like the Carbon Fiber Reinforcing Polymers (CFRP), Glass Fiber Reinforcing
Polymers (GFRP) and Steel Reinforcing Polymers (SRP) with different thicknesses for each
material type, are considered. Important conclusions are drawn for the sensitivity of dynamic
response and failure modes of RC columns under blast loading.

Keywords: Blast loading, Reinforced concrete columns, Finite element modelling,

Dynamic nonlinear analysis, AUTODYN, Parametric Studies.

1. Introduction
Hazard assessments are continuously updated and increased blast resistance may be desired for specific
structures. Implementing a standoff distance between a building and a potential hazard is not always
possible, especially in urban environments. A different approach proposes to retrofit existing buildings
to increase their blast resistance. Several experimental and theoretical studies [1-7] are reported for the
response of as-built and retrofitted RC columns under blast loading. A complete literature survey is
given in [1] which indicates that retrofitting with advanced composite materials, enhances significantly
the lateral resistance of columns subjected to blast loading.
In [1], the details of modelling and validation studies are given for nonlinear dynamic analysis
of blast-loaded retrofitted RC columns. A three-dimensional solid element and a connecting linear
element are used for spatial discretization of concrete and steel reinforcement, respectively. A strain
rate- and history-dependent behavioral model is proposed for the progressive failure of concrete under
explosion. The proposed model is an improved version of RHT model and takes into account the
different material non-linearities and strain rate sensitivity in compression and tension. Steel is modeled
as a rate-dependent elastoplastic material with strain hardening. For the retrofitting layers, the FRP and
SRP composite material in the layered solid element is modeled as a linear elastic orthotropic material.
The proposed model has been implemented in the AUTODYN program [8]. Several validation and
sensitivity studies have been successfully performed [1] for retrofitted blast-loaded RC columns.

This paper is concerned with parametric studies on the performance of RC columns under blast
loading. The parametric studies were held on a concrete column specimen, shown in Figure 1, and
previously tested by Crawford et al. [5]. It was numerically modelled in program AUTODYN, to
validate his results [1]. Accordingly, due to the good agreement between both the experimental results
and our numerical results as shown in Figure 2, the Crawford's specimen is kept as the reference column

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

C1 for the parametric studies. The load-time function used in the computer analysis is the triangular
function with duration of 0.2 msec. Many material and reinforcement parameters are considered in the
paper such as. concrete compressive strength, steel yield stress, longitudinal steel ratio and transverse
stirrups ratio. Blast-loading parameters such as using different explosive weights, changing the stand-
off distance of explosion, are also studied. Finally, the retrofitting parameters for blast-loaded columns,
such as using different retrofit material types like CFRP, GFRP and SRP with different thicknesses for
each material type, are considered.

2. Material Parameters

2.1 Effect of Concrete Compressive Strength

To study the effect of concrete compressive strength on the dynamic response of blast-columns, three
RC columns with different compressive strengths were considered and labelled as C1, C2 and C3. The
compressive strength for the three columns was respectively 31.2 MPa, 25 MPa, and 37.4 MPa. The
displacement-time history is shown in Figure 3 for the three different cases. The solid-line curve without
markers represents the original validated case C1, the curve with circular markers represents the column
C2 with 25% strength less, while the triangle marked curve represents the column C3 with 20% strength
higher. The original case C1 reached a maximum displacement of 362 mm and the residual deflection
is 250 mm. For column C2, the maximum deflection and residual displacement are 384 mm and 265
mm. For column C3, the maximum displacement and residual deflection are respectively 344 mm and
238 mm. Compared with C1, the maximum displacement ratio is 1.06 for C2, and 0.95 for C3. The little
effect of concrete compressive strength on displacement is due to the fact that the flexural resistance of
RC column under lateral blast loading is slightly affected by concrete strength.

The damage shapes of different columns are shown in Figure 4 at the end of dynamic analysis.
For the original column C1, it is obvious that the upper half of the column consists of many concrete
deteriorated parts, the concrete is almost crushed near both the upper and lower supports. For column
C2, the concrete is also deteriorated near the ends of the column and some parts are entirely crushed and
the steel cage is completely seen clearly. The column side facing the blast become less damaged due to
increasing the compressive strength. Also, some damaged parts are noticed in the middle of the upper
half of the column. For column C3, the deteriorated parts are noticed to be decreased specially near the
supports, some crushed concrete is seen but far less than the last two cases.

2.2 Effect of Yield Stress of Steel

The effect of steel yield stress on the dynamic response of blast-columns was illustrated by three RC
columns with different yield stress levels. These columns were labelled as C1, C4 and C5. The yield
stress for the three columns was respectively 420 MPa, 360 MPa, and 500 MPa. The different steel yield
stresses give different displacement-time history curves which are shown in Figure 5. The original
validated case 420 MPa is represented by the solid line, the 360 MPa case is represented by the curve
with circular markers, while the 500 MPa case is represented by the triangle marked curve. The original
case C1 reached a maximum displacement of 362 mm and the residual deflection is 250 mm. A
maximum displacement and residual deflection of 387 mm and 268 mm respectively, was experienced
by column C4, while a maximum displacement of 326 mm, and residual deflection of 225mm is reached
by column C5. This reflects that the C4 case reached a 7% higher displacement, while C5 reached a
lower displacement by 10%. The moderate effect of steel yield stress on displacement is due to the fact
that the flexural resistance of RC column under lateral blast loading is moderately affected by the
longitudinal steel reinforcement.

At the end of dynamic analysis, the damage shapes of different columns are shown in Figure 6.
For the original column C1, the upper half of the column consists of many concrete deteriorated parts,
the concrete is almost crushed near both the upper and lower supports. For column C4, the concrete is

2
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

also deteriorated near the ends of the column and some parts are entirely crushed and the steel cage is
completely seen clearly. As for the steel cage it was bent and had a slight deflection in both the
longitudinal and transverse steel bars but with no breakage. The column side facing the blast become
more damaged due to decreasing the steel yield stress. Also, some damaged parts are noticed in the
middle of the upper half of the column. For column C5, the deteriorated parts are noticed to be decreased
specially near the supports, some crushed concrete is seen but far less than the last two cases.

3. Reinforcement Parameters

3.1 Effect of Steel Longitudinal Ratio

For dynamic analysis under blast, three columns were considered and labelled as C1, C6 and C7. The
longitudinal steel ratio for the three columns was respectively 1.1%, 1.5%, and 2%. Figure 7 shows the
displacement-time history for the three different cases of longitudinal steel ratio. The solid-line curve
without markers represents the original validated case C1, the curve with circular markers represents the
column C6 with 36% strength higher, while the triangle marked curve represents the column C7 with
81.8% strength higher. The original case C1 reached a maximum displacement of 362 mm and the
residual deflection is 250 mm. For column C6, the maximum deflection and residual displacement are
326 mm and 225 mm. For column C7, the maximum displacement and residual deflection are
respectively 286 mm and 198 mm. Compared with C1, the maximum displacement ratio is 0.9 for C6,
and 0.79 for C7. It was noticed that in maximum displacement column C6 reached a decrease of 10.2%
while C7 was lower by 26.6%. The significant effect of longitudinal steel ratio on displacement is due
to the fact that the flexural resistance of RC column under lateral blast loading is highly affected by the
longitudinal steel reinforcement.

The damage shapes of different columns are shown in Figure 8. At the end of dynamic analysis,
it was obvious that by increasing the longitudinal steel ratio, the experienced damage by the column
specimen was decreased. For the original column C1, it is obvious that the upper half of the column
consists of many concrete deteriorated parts, the concrete is almost crushed near both the upper and
lower supports and the steel cage was exposed. For column C6, the concrete is also deteriorated near the
ends of the column and some parts are entirely crushed and the steel cage is completely seen clearly.
The column side facing the blast become less damaged due to increasing the steel reinforcement. Also,
some damaged parts are noticed in the middle of the upper half of the column. For column C7, the
deteriorated parts are noticed to be decreased specially near the supports, some crushed concrete is seen
but far less than the last two cases.

3.2 Effect of Transverse Stirrups Ratio

Three RC columns with different transverse steel ratios were considered and labelled as C1, C8 and C9.
The steel stirrup ratio (ρ) for the three columns was respectively 0.28%, 0.15%, and 0.3%. The
displacement-time history is shown in Figure 9 for the three different cases of transverse steel ratio. The
solid-line curve without markers represents the original validated case C1, the curve with circular
markers represents the column C8 with 26% stirrups ratio less, while the triangle marked curve
represents the column C9 with 59% stirrups ratio higher. The original case C1 reached a maximum
displacement of 362 mm and the residual deflection is 250 mm. For column C8, the maximum deflection
and residual displacement are 380 mm and 263 mm. For column C9, the maximum displacement and
residual deflection are respectively 300 mm and 205 mm. Compared with C1, the maximum
displacement ratio is 1.05 for C8 and 0.82 for C9. An increase of 4.97% for C8 and a decrease of 17%
for C9, was observed at the maximum displacement. The positive effect of steel stirrups ratio on
displacement is due to the fact that the shear resistance of RC column under lateral blast loading is quite
affected by the transverse steel reinforcement.

3
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

Figure 10 shows the damage shapes of different columns at the end of dynamic analysis. For
the original column C1, it is obvious that the upper and lower half of the column consists of many
concrete deteriorated parts, the concrete is almost crushed near the supports. For column C8, the concrete
is also deteriorated near the ends of the column and some parts are entirely crushed and the steel cage is
completely seen clearly specially in the lower half, casing most of the deflection. The column side facing
the blast is more damaged due to decreasing the stirrups reinforcement. Also, some damaged parts are
noticed in the middle of the column. For column C9, the deteriorated parts are noticed to be decreased
specially near the supports, some crushed concrete is seen but far less than the last two cases.

4. Blast Loading Parameters

4.1 Effect of Explosive Weight

To study the effect of Explosive weight on the dynamic response, three RC columns were considered
and labelled as C1, C10 and C11. The explosive weight for the three columns was respectively 750Kg,
1000Kg, and 350Kg. For all cases, the Stand-off distance was constant, and equals 4.5 m. Figure 11
shows the displacement-time history curves under three different explosive weights. The solid-line curve
without markers represents the original validated case C1, the curve with circular markers represents the
column C10 with 33% weight higher, while the triangle marked curve represents the column C11 with
47% weight less. The original case C1 reached a maximum displacement of 362 mm and residual
deflection is 250 mm. For column C10, the maximum deflection and residual displacement are 488 mm
and 338 mm. For column C11, the maximum displacement and residual deflection are respectively 139
mm and 95 mm, making an increase in maximum displacement of 35% for column C10, and a decrease
of 61.6% for C11. Compared with C1, maximum displacement ratio is 1.35 for C10 and 0.38 for C11.

The predicted damaged state for the three columns at the end of analysis is shown in Figure 12.
For the original column C1, it is obvious that the upper half of the column consists of many concrete
deteriorated parts, the concrete is almost crushed near both the upper and lower supports. For column
C10, the concrete is massively damaged at the upper half and the concrete was blown off, the steel cage
is badly deformed, as both the longitudinal and transverse steel. The column side facing the blast become
more damaged due to increasing the explosive weight. For column C11, the deteriorated parts are
noticed to be negligible specially near the supports, minor cracks spreading in concrete is seen, the
longitudinal steel bars is found to be slightly bent, with no considerable damage to the transverse steel
with no breakages in the steel cage, the overall damage is far less than the last two cases.

4.2 Effect of Stand-off Distance

To study the effect of the Stand-off distance on the dynamic response, three RC columns were
considered and labelled as C1, C12 and C13. The Stand-off distance of the simulated exploding charges
for the three columns was respectively 4.5 m, 5 m, and 4 m. For the three cases, the equivalent TNT
weight was constant and equals 750 kg. The displacement-time history is shown in Figure 13 for three
different cases of Stand-off distance. The solid-line curve without markers represents the original
validated case C1, the curve with circular markers represents the column C12 with 22% longer Stand-
off distance, while the triangle marked curve represents the column C13 with 22% shorter Stand-off
distance. The original case C1 reached a maximum displacement of 362 mm and the residual deflection
is 250 mm. For column C12, the maximum deflection and residual displacement are 284 mm and 195
mm. For column C13, the maximum displacement and residual deflection are respectively 445 mm and
308 mm, a decrease of 21.5% for C12 and an increase of 22.9% for C13, was observed at the maximum
displacement. Compared with C1, the maximum displacement ratio is 0.78 for C12 and 1.23 for C13.
The significant effect of the Stand-off distance on displacement is due to the fact that the resulted
pressure and impulse of blast is highly affected by the distance of the explosive from the column.

4
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

Figure 14 illustrates the different damage shapes of tested columns at the end of dynamic
analysis. For the original column C1, it is obvious that there is a considerable lateral deflection in the
column at mid-height, the upper half of the column consists of many concrete deteriorated parts, and the
concrete is almost crushed near both the upper and lower supports. As for the reinforced steel, the steel
cage was found to be bent considerable with no breakage found. For column C13, the concrete is also
deteriorated near the ends of the column and some parts near the lower support are crushed and the steel
cage is completely seen clearly. The column side facing the blast becomes less damaged due to
decreasing the blast pressure. But the overall damage is far less that of C1 column. For column C12, the
deteriorated parts are noticed to be decreased specially near the supports, some crushed concrete is seen
but far less than the last two cases.

5. Retrofit Material Parameters

5.1 Effect of CFRP Thickness

Three RC columns with different retrofitting material thickness were considered and labelled as C1,
C14 and C15. The thickness of CFRP on the three columns was respectively 0 mm, 3 mm, and 6 mm.
The displacement-time history is shown in Figure 15 for three different CFRP thicknesses. The solid-
line curve without markers represents the original validated case C1, the curve with circular markers
represents the column C14 with 3mm thick CFRP, while the triangle marked curve represents the
column C15 with 100% thicker CFRP. The original case C1 reached a maximum displacement of 362
mm and the residual deflection is 250 mm. For column C14, the maximum deflection and residual
displacement are respectively, 224 mm and 155 mm. For column C15, the maximum displacement and
residual deflection are respectively 145 mm and 100 mm. Compared with C1, C14 column experienced
a decreased percentage of 38% while C15 experienced a decreased percentage of 60%, compared to the
reference case of C1 column. In case of comparing maximum displacement, the ratio is 0.62 for C14
and 0.4 for C15. The significant effect of CFRP thickness on displacement is due to the fact that flexural
resistance of RC column under lateral blast loading is significantly affected by thickness of CFRP.

At the end of dynamic analysis, the damage shapes of different columns are shown in Figure
16. For the original column C1, the upper half of the column consists of many concrete decomposed
parts, the concrete is crushed near both the upper and lower supports. For column C14, damage to
concrete is almost negligible, due to the CFRP protection to the concrete, there is a partial tear of the
retrofitting material on the side facing the blast. Also, some damaged was noticed in the reinforcement
steel, as some bars and ties where bent, but no breakage was found. For column C15, the damage to
CFRP material was greatly reduced, only a very slight distortion was found. The concrete is seen to
sustain no damage.

5.2 Effect of GFRP Thickness

The dynamic response of blast-loaded GFRP-retrofitted RC columns is significantly affected by the
thickness of wrapping layers. Three RC columns with different GFRP thicknesses were considered.
These columns were labelled as C1, C16 and C17. The thickness of GFRP on the three columns was
respectively 0 mm, 3 mm, and 6 mm. The displacement-time history is shown in Figure 17 for the three
different cases of GFRP thicknesses. The solid-line curve without markers represents the original
validated case C1, the curve with circular markers represents the column C16 with 3 mm thick GFRP,
while the triangle marked curve represents the column C17 with 100% thicker GFRP. As mentioned
before, the original case C1 reached a maximum displacement of 362 mm and the residual deflection is
250 mm. For column C16, the maximum deflection and residual displacement are 253 mm and 175 mm.
For column C17, the maximum displacement and residual deflection are respectively 174 mm and 121
mm. It was calculated that C16 column experienced a decreased percentage of 30% while C17
experienced a decreased percentage of 52%, compared to the refinance case of C1 column. Compared
with C1, the maximum displacement ratio is 0.7 for C16 and 0.48 for C17. The significant effect of

5
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

GFRP thickness on displacement is due to the fact that the flexural resistance of RC column under lateral
blast loading is significantly affected by the thickness of GFRP.

Figure 18 indicates the shape of the damage sustained by the columns at the end of dynamic
analysis. For the original column C1, the upper half of the column consists of many concrete
decomposed parts, the concrete is crushed near both the upper and lower supports. For column C16,
damage to concrete is significantly decreased, due to the GFRP protection to the concrete, there is a tear
of the retrofitting material on the other side of the blast, and the concrete surface was exposed and had
some cracks as it sustained the damage. Also, some damage was noticed in the reinforcement steel in
the form of steel bars and ties where bent, but no breakage was found. For column C17, the damage to
the GFRP material was greatly reduced, only a very slight tear was found. The concrete is seen to sustain
the damage but the concrete surface had minor cracks.

5.3 Effect of SRP Thickness

In order to study the effect of retrofitting the column by SRP wrapping layers, three RC columns with
different SRP thicknesses were considered and labelled as C1, C18 and C19. The thickness of SRP was
respectively 0 mm, 3 mm, and 6 mm. The thickness was doubled for specimen C19 compared to C18.
For the three different cases of SRP retrofitting cases, the displacement-time history is shown in Figure
19. The solid-line curve without markers represents the original validated case C1, the curve with
circular markers represents the column C18 with 3 mm thick SRP, while the triangle marked curve
represents the column C19 with 100% thicker SRP. As mentioned before, the original case C1 reached
a maximum displacement of 362 mm and residual deflection is 250 mm. For column C18, the maximum
deflection and residual displacement are 235 mm and 153 mm. For column C19, the maximum
displacement and residual deflection are respectively 163 mm and 113 mm, resulting the following
enhancement to the columns resistance, as the maximum displacement the column experienced
decreased by 35% for C18 while C19 experienced a decreased percentage of 55%, all is compared to
the refinance case of C1 column. Compared with C1, the maximum displacement ratio is 0.65 for C18
and 0.45 for C19. The significant effect of SRP thickness on displacement is due to the fact that flexural
resistance of RC column under lateral blast loading is significantly affected by the thickness of SRP.

Figure 20 shows the damage shapes of different columns at the end of dynamic analysis. For
the original column C1, it is obvious that the upper half of the column consists of many concrete
deteriorated parts, the concrete is almost crushed near both the upper and lower supports. For column
C18, damage to concrete is almost negligible, due to the SRP protection to the concrete, there is a partial
tear of the retrofitting material on the side facing the blast. Also, some damaged was noticed in the
reinforcement steel, as some bars and ties where bent, but no breakage was found. For column C19, the
damage to the SRP material was significantly reduced, only a very slight distortion was found. The
concrete is seen to sustain some damage. An overall conclusion is that, as the thickness of the SRP cover
increases, the maximum mid-height displacement decreases. In addition, the damaged concrete parts are
nearly negligible, and the concrete of the column side facing the blast also experience almost no damage,
while the SRP absorbed all the damage. Also, it was noticed that the damage dealt to the SRP wrapping
is greatly reduced as the thickness increased.

6. Conclusions
From the comprehensive parametric studies for the dynamic response of blast-loaded RC columns, the
following major points are concluded:
 For RC columns subjected to blast loading, the displacement at mid-height, increases
significantly with the increase of explosive weight (Wexp), and with the decrease of
stand-off distance (SOD). Increasing Wexp leads to the concrete being blown of, and a
significant deformation to steel cage. For smaller SOD, the steel cage was found to be bent
considerably.

6
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

 For blast-loaded RC columns, the mid-height displacement decreases moderately with the
increase of concrete compression strength and steel yield stress. In addition, the damage
and concrete deterioration all over the specimen decrease due to the enhancement of
flexural strength and stiffness.
 For blast-loaded columns, the critical displacement decreases moderately with the increase
of longitudinal steel ratio, and stirrups ratio. Also, the concrete deterioration was decreased
slightly especially at the middle of the column for the longitudinal steel ratio increasing
case, and near the supports for the transverse steel ratio increasing case.
 The dynamic response of blast-loaded retrofitted RC columns decreases with the increase
of thickness of retrofit layers of advanced composite materials. Also, the concrete damage
of retrofitted column decreases significantly with nearly no deterioration. As well,
increasing the thickness of FRP materials, decreases slightly the partial tearing damage.

References
[1] Ameen M. K., “Dynamic Analysis of Retrofitted RC Columns under Blast Loadings”, Banha
University, Shoubra Faculty of Engineering, Dep. of Civil Engineering, PhD. Thesis, Cairo,
Egypt 2019.
[2] Carriere M. D., "Steel Reinforced Polymer Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete to Resist Blast
Loads", M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of the Royal Military College of Canada. 2006.
[3] Berger J. O., Heffernan P. J., and Wight R. G., “Blast Testing of CFRP and SRP Strengthened
RC Columns", WIT Trans. Built Environ, Vol. 98, pp. 95–104, 2008.
[4] Vappera, M., Lasn, K., “Blast protection of concrete columns with thin strips of GFRP overlay”,
El-Seiver, Structures, V.25, PP. 491-499, 2020.
[5] Kadhom, B., " Blast Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns Protected by FRP
Laminates", PhD Thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada, 2016.
[6] Jacques E., Lloyd A., Imbeau P., Palermo D., and Quek J., “GFRP-Retrofitted Reinforced
Concrete Columns Subjected to simulated Blast Loading", J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 141, no. 11, pp.
1–13, USA, 2014.
[7] Crawford J. E., Malvar L. J., Morrill K. B., and FerrittoJ. M., “Composite Retrofits to Increase
the Blast Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings", the Tenth International Symposium on
Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with Structures, Vol. 10, pp. 1–25, 2001.
[8] Century Dynamics, AUTODYN User and Theory Manual, 2016.

Figure 1. Details of Rectangular Column Figure 2. Mid-Height Displacement-Time

Specimen [7]. History for Test for Rectangular Column.

7
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

Figure 3. Displacement – time history for Figure 4. Damaged shape columns for
different concrete compressive strengths. different concrete compressive strengths.

Figure 5. Displacement – time history for Figure 6. Damaged shape columns for
different steel yield strengths. different steel yield stresses.

Figure 7. Displacement – time history for Figure 8. Damaged shape columns for
different longitudinal steel ratios. different longitudinal steel ratios.

8
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

Figure 9. Displacement -time history for Figure 10. Damaged shape columns for
different transverse steel ratios. different transverse steel ratios.

Figure 11. Displacement – time history for Figure 12. Damaged shape columns for
different explosive weights. different explosive weights.

Figure 13. Displacement – time history for Figure 14. Damaged shape columns for
different stand-off .distances different stand-off distances.

9
International Conference on Civil and Architecture Engineering (ICCAE-14) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1056 (2022) 012019 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1056/1/012019

Figure 15. Displacement – time history for Figure 16. Damaged shape columns for
different CFRP. thicknesses different CFRP thicknesses.

Figure 17. Displacement – time history for Figure 18. Damaged shape columns for
different GFRP thicknesses. different GFRP thicknesses.

Figure 19. Displacement – time history for Figure 20. Damaged shape columns for
different SRP thicknesses. different SRP thicknesses.

10