Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A new method for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames under blast loading
Yanchao Shi a,b , Zhong-Xian Li a,b, , Hong Hao a,b,c
a b c

School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China Key Laboratory of Coastal Civil Engineering Structure and Safety (Tianjin University), Ministry of Education, Tianjin 300072, China School of Civil & Resource Engineering, The University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia

article

info

abstract
The progressive collapse of structures under blast loading has attracted great attention all over the world. Some guidelines give specific procedures to analyse the progressive collapse of building structures. Numerical analysis and laboratory test results of the progressive collapse of structures have also been reported in the literature. Because the progressive collapse of a structure induced by blast loading occurs only after the blast-loading phase, most of these studies and guideline procedures perform progressive analysis by removing one or a few load-carrying structural members with static and zero initial conditions. The damage on adjacent structural members that might be induced by blast loads and the inevitable non-zero initial conditions when progressive collapse initiates are neglected. These simplifications may lead to inaccurate predictions of the structural collapse process. In this paper, a new method for progressive collapse analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures by considering nonzero initial conditions and initial damage to adjacent structural members under blast loading is proposed. A three-storey two-span RC frame is used as an example to demonstrate the proposed method. Numerical results are compared with those obtained using the alternative load path method, and with those from comprehensive numerical simulations by directly applying the blast loads on the frame. It is found that the proposed method with a minor and straightforward extension of the simplified member-removal procedure is efficient and reliable in simulating the progressive collapse process of RC frame structures. It requires substantially less computational effort as compared to direct numerical simulations, and gives more accurate predictions of the structural progressive collapse process than the member-removal approach. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 30 June 2008 Received in revised form 1 February 2010 Accepted 4 February 2010 Available online 29 March 2010 Keywords: Reinforced concrete (RC) frame Blast loading Progressive collapse Numerical analysis Initial damage Non-zero initial condition Direct numerical simulation Member-removal procedure

1. Introduction Progressive collapse refers to the failure of one or a group of key structure load-carrying members that gives rise to a more widespread failure of the surrounding members and partial or complete structure collapse. It is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it [1]. Many accidental and intentional events, such as false construction order, local failure due to accidental overload, damage of a critical component by earthquake and explosion, could induce the progressive collapse of a structure. However, because of the high peak, short duration and negative phase of the blast load, the progressive collapse induced by an explosion is very different from that by earthquake ground excitations. With the recent progressive collapse of

Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China. Tel.: +86 22 2740 2397; fax: +86 22 2740 7177. E-mail address: zxli@tju.edu.cn (Z.-X. Li).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.02.017

the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and World Trade Centre due to blast and impact, research is focused more than ever to make buildings safer from progressive collapse induced by blast and impact loading. For an economic and safe design of structures against progressive collapse to blast loads, a reliable progressive collapse analysis is essential. Because of the catastrophic nature of progressive collapse and the potentially high cost of retrofitting buildings to resist it, it is imperative that the progressive analysis methods be reliable [2]. Engineers need an accurate and concise methodology to produce trustworthy and timely results. Thus, many researchers have been spending lots of effort in developing reliable, efficient and straightforward progressive collapse analysis methods recently. Krauthammer et al. [3] developed a procedure for studying progressive collapse both theoretically and numerically, and established a reliable structural damage assessment procedure to predict a possible future phase of progressive collapse. Luccioni et al. [4] carried out an analysis of the structural collapse of a reinforced concrete building caused by a blast load. In the analysis,

1692

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

the building was modelled using 3D solid elements, including the reinforced concrete columns, beams and masonry walls. The volume of air in which the structure was immersed was also modelled. The comparison of numerical results with photographs of the collapsed structure by blast load showed that the numerical analysis reproduced the collapse of the building under the blast load. Marjanishvili [5] summarized the progressive collapse procedures defined in the US General Service Administration (GSA) [6] and US Department of Defence (DoD) [7] guidelines and discussed their advantages and disadvantages. Kaewkulchai and Williamson [8] proposed a framework for computing the dynamic response of frame structures during a progressive collapse event to overcome the limitations of the Alternative Load Path method, i.e., the GSA method and DoD method. Sasani [9] evaluated the response of a six-storey reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure following the simultaneous removal of two adjacent exterior columns using the finite element method and the applied element method. They found that the analytical results show good agreement with experimental data. Tsai and Lin [10] carried out nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses to estimate the progressive collapse resistance of a building subjected to column failure. The results showed that different assessed results are obtained by the linear static method and the nonlinear acceptance criterion suggested by the GSA guidelines. Mohamed [11] investigated the implementation of UFC 4-023-23 to protect against the progressive collapse of corner floor panels when their dimensions exceed the damage limits through analysing the progressive collapse potential of a reinforced concrete building using the alternative path method. Kwasniewski [12] carried out the progressive collapse analysis of an existing eight-storey steel framed structure built for fire tests using nonlinear dynamic finite element simulations following the GSA guidelines. A detailed 3D model with a large number of finite elements was developed for the entire structure, and the main modelling parameters affecting the numerical results were identified. Hao et al. [2] found that both the GSA and DoD methods may not give reliable predictions of structural progressive collapse and usually underestimate the stress and strain response at the supporting joint of adjacent columns. The authors [13] also found that even the nonlinear dynamic alternative load Path method would underestimate the collapse potentials of RC frames and its dynamic responses. Starossek [14] developed a typology and classification of the progressive collapse of structures based on a study of the various underlying mechanisms of collapse. Six different types and four classes of progressive collapse are discerned; the characteristic features of each category are described and compared. They are pancake-type collapse, zipper-type collapse, dominotype collapse, section-type collapse, instability-type collapse and mixed-type collapse. Vlassis et al. [15] proposed a novel simplified framework for the progressive collapse assessment of multi-storey buildings, considering the sudden column loss as a design scenario. Using the proposed procedure, they conducted a case study to learn the progressive collapse process of a typical steel-framed composite building. The result demonstrated that steel-framed composite buildings with typical structural configurations could be prone to progressive collapse initiated by local failure of a vertical supporting member. Vlassis et al. [16] also proposed a new designoriented methodology for the progressive collapse assessment of floor systems within multi-storey buildings subject to impact from an above failed floor. The proposed method was applied to analyse the progressive collapse of a typical multi-storey steel-framed composite building with the impact of a floor plate. Saffen [17] carried out a simple analysis of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Center. In the analysis, a simplified variable-mass collapse model was used. By solving the governing equation of motion, information about the overall collapse conditions was obtained. As reviewed above, the current methods of analysing structural progressive collapse consist of two major approaches, namely the

direct simulation of blast-loading effects on structural damage and collapse, and uncoupled alternative load path analysis of structural progressive collapse without considering the blast-loading effects. The direct simulation method can yield reliable predictions of structural collapse to blast loads [2,4], but it is extremely time consuming, and requires a profound knowledge of structural dynamics, damage mechanics, dynamic material properties and computational skills. It is therefore not practical for common engineering applications. The uncoupled alternative load path analysis as specified in the GSA [6] and DoD [7] guidelines is easy to implement, but does not necessarily yield reliable predictions of structural progressive collapse induced by blast loading. The primary drawback of the alternative load path approaches is that they neglect the initial damage, or damage in adjacent structure members caused by the blast load, and the non-zero initial condition [2]. Obviously, if the blast load is big enough to knock off one or a few structural columns, a certain degree of damage in adjacent structural members is inevitable, which will definitely reduce the members stiffness and strength. Moreover, the structure will not have zero initial conditions when progressive collapse initiates although structural progressive collapse usually occurs after the action of blast loads. The objective of this paper is to develop a new method for the progressive collapse analysis of RC frames with consideration of both the non-zero initial condition and existing damage in structural members. The method consists of three steps: (1) determination of critical blast scenarios of the RC frame for progressive collapse analysis; (2) determination of the non-zero initial condition and initial damage of the structural members caused by the blast loads, and (3) progressive collapse analysis with consideration of both the non-zero initial condition and damage in structural members. A three-storey two-span RC frame is used as an example to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of the method. The commercial software LS-DYNA is used to perform the numerical calculations. The commonly used alternative load path method and the direct simulation method are also used to analyse the progressive collapse of this example frame. Numerical results obtained from the three approaches are compared. The reliability and efficiency of the proposed method in the analysis of the structural progressive collapse to blast loadings are verified. 2. Critical blast scenarios for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames As discussed above, besides completely destroying some key structural members, a blast load also causes damage to other structural members and non-zero structural velocity and displacement when progressive collapse initiates. Therefore, a reliable structural progressive analysis should take into consideration the non-zero initiation conditions and possible damage to other structural members. Since the velocity, displacement, and the damage severity of the structure at the end of the blast-loading phase depend on the blast scenarios, the critical blast scenarios that completely destroy some key structural members to cause progressive collapse need be determined first. The corresponding structural displacement, velocity, and damage at the end of the blast-loading phase can then be determined and used in the subsequent progressive collapse analysis. The principles for selecting the critical blast scenarios (including the location and charge weight) are as follows. a. The critical explosive location should be selected at places where terrorist bombing or accidental explosion is possible. b. The critical charge weight is defined, in association with the explosion center, as the minimum charge weight that will cause collapse to the columns that will be removed in the subsequent analysis. This can be easily done by using many pressureimpulse (P I ) curves or design charts available in the literature for particular structural columns.

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1693

It should be mentioned that, for a given RC frame, there might be several critical blast scenarios, i.e., placing explosives at a few possible locations may all cause the collapse of the column under consideration. In these cases, in order to get a full understanding of the progressive collapse resistant capacity of the RC frame, several progressive collapse analyses under different blast scenarios should be carried out. 3. Derivation of the non-zero initial condition and initial damage of adjacent structural members 3.1. Non-zero initial conditions The initial condition is normally considered as the velocity and displacement of the structure or structure member at the beginning of dynamic response analysis. Herein it is the velocity and displacement of the adjacent members at the time of complete loss of the key columns. It is also the beginning of the progressive collapse analysis in the GSA and DoD guidelines. In order to derive the initial conditions of the adjacent members, it is assumed that the progressive collapse begins at the end of the blast-loading phase. This is a reasonable assumption because the blast-loading duration is very short, usually of an order of microseconds. To derive these initial conditions, the commonly used equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) approach is used, as explained in the following. 3.1.1. Damage modes and deflection shape function Both numerical and experimental studies indicate that the damage modes of RC members under blast loading depend not only on the blast load, but also on the properties of the structural member, such as the shear force and bending moment resistance capacity of the member. In general, there are three failure modes, namely shear failure mode, flexural failure mode and the combined shear and flexural failure mode. The exact damage mode and corresponding deflection shape of a structural member under blast loading are normally predicted through detailed numerical analysis or field tests. However, in practice, the structural member deflection shape is usually assumed when deriving the equivalent SDOF system [18], and this often leads to an acceptable prediction of the overall structural response. In this paper, to simplify the calculation, a plastic deflection shape is assumed with the plastic mechanism for the structural beam or column. The deflection shape function is triangular, with two hinges at both ends plus a hinge at the mid-span, as shown in Fig. 1. It should be noted that in theory the use of an elastic deflection shape is more appropriate because the considered structural members for calculations of initial conditions and damage are assumed not to collapse by the blast loads. However, either elastic deflection or plastic deflection shape assumption brings in some error in deriving the equivalent SDOF system, especially in deriving the loadmass factor. In this study, the plastic deflection shape is adopted only because of its simplicity and popularity in practice. The assumption might lead to some error. If the displacement at the mid-span of the member is smax , the deflection shape function of the member could be described by s(y) = smax 1 y L/ 2 (1) s td =
0

Fig. 1. Assumed deflection shape of a uniformly loaded RC member.

where vmax is the velocity at the end of the blast-loading phase at the mid-span of the structural element. 3.1.2. Maximum initial velocity and displacement If the blast loads acting on the structural member are known, the maximum initial velocity and displacement at the end of the blast-loading phase can be derived easily by analysing the equivalent SDOF system. According to Biggs approach [19], the equivalent mass, stiffness and load of the SDOF system can be determined through the following formulae: Me = KM Mt Mt = mL (3) (4)

where Me is the equivalent mass and Mt is the total mass of the system, which is equal to the mass per unit length m multiplied by the total length of the member L. KM is the ratio of the equivalent mass to the total mass, which is related to the boundary condition and deflection shape function of the member [19]. Fe (t ) = KL Ft (t ) Ft (t ) = p(t )L ke = KL k (5) (6) (7)

where Fe (t ) is the equivalent load. Ft (t ) is the total load of the system, which is equal to the load per unit length p(t ) multiplied by the total length of the member L. KL is the ratio of the equivalent load to the total load, which is also related to the boundary condition and the deflection shape function. Time t is the same in the two systems. Through Eqs. (3)(7), all the parameters of the equivalent SDOF system can be derived. Suppose that the equivalent blast load is Fe (t ); since the blast load is of very short duration, the equation of motion can be approximately written as Fe (t ) = Me a. Then
td 0

(8)

v td =

Fe (t )dt Me

=
td 0

Ie Me
t 0

(9) Fe (t )dt dt Me

td

where y is the distance measured from the mid-span of the member and L is the length of the member. Because of the very short duration of the blast load, the acceleration of the member can be assumed as a constant during the loading phase. In this case, the relationship between the velocity and the displacement is linear. Therefore, the distribution of the initial velocity along the member is

v dt =

(10)

in which td is the loading duration. vtd and std are the velocity and displacement at time td , respectively. If the blast load is assumed to be triangular, the displacement can be finally derived as

v(y) = vmax 1

y L/2

(2)

vt td . (11) 3 d Therefore, both the initial velocity and displacement can be obtained based on the above equations. It is worth noting that if
s td =

1694

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Fig. 2. P I curves for different damage degree D.

damage of an RC member is limited to several damage zones. The number and the location of the damage zones are dependent on the damage modes of the RC member. If an RC member is damaged primarily by shear damage mode, two damage zones, each at one end, are assumed. If the damage is primarily by flexural mode, one damage zone at the mid-span of the member is assumed. The length of the damage zone is assumed to be one fifth of the member length. In every damage zone, the damage degree is assumed to be uniform. The occurrence of damage type, i.e., primarily shear or flexural damage, depends on the blast-loading duration and the vibration period of the structural member. In this study, if the loading is quasi-static, the damage is assumed to be primarily flexural failure; if the loading is of impulsive type, the damage is assumed to be primarily shear failure [20]. The damaged concrete compressive strength and Youngs modulus for each damage zone are defined as fc ,dmg = KY fc (1 D) Edmg = KE E (1 D) (12) (13)

the blast load duration is so small that the member has no time to deform during the blast-loading phase, the initial displacement will be very small compared with the length of the member. In this case, for the purpose of simplification, this small initial displacement is ignored in the progressive collapse analysis of the RC frame. However, the velocity is not necessarily small, depending on the blast-loading impulse, and it is always important to include it in the analysis. 3.2. Initial damage Initial damage is another very important parameter that should be considered in the progressive collapse analysis of RC frames. The damage severity can be estimated by using the pressureimpulse (P I ) diagram for RC members [2023]. The damage degree of the member is obtained by using the following proposed procedure. Suppose that the pressureimpulse diagram of a column developed by the authors [20], as shown in Fig. 2, is available, the procedure is as follows. a. Estimate the pressure and impulse acting on the member and locate it in the pressureimpulse diagram in the P I space. b. If the point is in the small damage range, for example, the damage index D is smaller than 0.2, the initial damage of this RC member is ignored. c. If the point is in the range of collapse (D > 0.8), it means that the RC column is totally damaged and does not have or only has minimum load-carrying capacity. In this case, the corresponding column(s) are removed at the beginning of the progressive collapse analysis. d. If the point is in other ranges, for example point A in Fig. 2, the damage degree of this column is obtained by interpolation between the two adjacent damage degrees DA and DB . It should be noted that the proper interpolation is done by deriving an intermediate P I curve that has point A on it because of the nonlinearity of the P I curve. In this study, a program is written in MATLAB to derive this P I curve. Fig. 2 shows the pressureimpulse curve corresponding to the damage degree D. In order to model the initial damage of an RC member, one should relate the above damage degree to the member material strength and stiffness degradation. In order to do this, a few assumptions related to the member damage are made. First, it is assumed that damage only occurs in the concrete material. This is reasonable because, for an RC member that still maintains a certain level of load-carrying capacity at the end of the blast-loading phase, the steel bar is normally in the elastic range. This is because the blast-loading duration is very short, and damage to the RC member in this loading phase is usually brittle failure. Therefore, the reinforcement is unlikely to enter the plastic deformation stage. Moreover, plastic deformation of steel bars is associated with large cracks in the concrete, which dramatically reduces the loadcarrying capacity of the RC member. Second, it is assumed that the

where fc and E are the yield compressive strength and the Youngs modulus of the undamaged concrete; fc ,dmg and Edmg are the yield compressive strength and the Youngs modulus of the damaged concrete, respectively. KY and KE are the modification factors used to reduce the errors arising from the simplifications related to the assumptions of uniform loading and damage only to the concrete. In this study, however, both KE and KY are set to be 1, which, as will be demonstrated, gives a very good representation of the effect of structural member damage on the progressive collapse. However, more examples with different blast-loading and structural damage scenarios need be analysed to derive more appropriate KY and KE values. 3.3. Validation Numerical simulations are carried out to validate the above procedures in deriving the initial condition and initial damage of RC members. A typical RC column, which is extracted from the RC frame in Section 5, is analysed using LS-DYNA. This column is 3 m long with a cross-section of 300 mm 300 mm. It has four vertical steel bars, each having a diameter of 24 mm with the yield stress 335 MPa. The stirrup is D10@200 with the yield stress 235 MPa. The finite elements and material model for the studied column are exactly the same as those used in modelling the RC frame in Section 5, and will be described in detail there. In order to relate the studied column to the actual member within the frame, column constraints with higher fidelity are employed. As shown in Fig. 3(a), a footing and a head are included in the numerical model. The outer vertical faces of the footing and the head were constrained against horizontal motions (i.e., in the x-direction and the y-direction) and the bottom face of the footing is constrained against vertical motion (i.e., in the z -direction). The peak overpressure applied on the column is 2495 kPa, while the reflected impulse is 3642 kPa ms. This is the same as the blast load acting on column C1 in the RC frame in Section 5. Since the critical standoff distance considered is 10 m, the blast load is applied uniformly on one side of the RC column. Fig. 3(b) and (c) give the contours of the transverse velocity and the effective plastic strain of the column at the end of the positive phase of the blast load. As can be seen, the distribution of the transverse velocity along the column is approximately triangular, as assumed in Section 3.1. The damage zones are also at both ends. Since the blast load applied is in the impulsive range, this indicts that the assumption made in Section 3.2 is reasonable. In order to derive the initial velocity of the RC column using the method discussed in Section 3.1, the RC column is simplified into an SDOF system. The equivalent mass of the column is 369 kg; the equivalent stiffness is 1.13 108 N/m, the equivalent blast load is derived as 1437 kN, and the equivalent impulse is 2.10 kN s.

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1695

a
Head S S

H Rebar and ties

Concrete

Footing

Fig. 3. RC column model and its transverse velocity and effective plastic strain contours at the end of the blast-loading phase. (a) boundary conditions, (b) transverse velocity contours, (c) effective plastic strain contours.

1696

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

According to Eqs. (9)(11), the initial velocity and displacement of the column are obtained as 5.52 m/s and 10.75 mm, respectively, as compared to 5.55 m/s and 9.62 mm derived from the numerical simulation. These results indicate that using the equivalent SDOF system gives reliable displacement and velocity estimations of the column at the end of the blast-loading phase. 4. Proposed method for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames under blast loading The proposed method is based on the alternative load path method in the GSA and DoD guidelines [6,7], but incorporates the non-zero initial condition and initial damage of structural members in the analysis. The procedure of this method is as follows. a. Establish the finite element model of the RC frame. b. Select the critical blast scenarios from all possible cases according to the above proposed principles; for each blast scenario, do Steps c to f. c. Prior to the removal of the key element, bring the model to static equilibrium under the combination of dead loads and live loads as defined in the GSA and DoD guidelines. d. From available P I diagrams, assess the damage levels of all members close to the explosion center, and calculate the initial velocity, displacement and the initial damage of the structural members that are not completely damaged by direct blast loading using the above proposed method; and modify the material properties of these structural members according to the estimated damage degrees from P I diagrams. e. Remove those elements that are completely damaged by direct blast loading instantaneously to perform progressive collapse analysis with the non-zero initial velocity and displacement applied to the structure. f. Continue the dynamic analysis until the structure reaches a steady and stable condition or collapse. 5. Progressive collapse analysis of an RC frame: Comparison and verification 5.1. Numerical model The software LS-DYNA is utilized to carry out the progressive collapse analysis of the example frame structure, as shown in Fig. 4. The frame has two bays with a span of 6 m each in the x-direction, and 3 m in the y-direction. The storey height is 3 m for all levels. The dimensions of all the columns are 300 mm 300 mm, and the beams are 200 mm 300 mm. All the columns and beams have 2% longitudinal reinforcement with the yield stress 335 MPa and 10@200 mm hoop reinforcement with the yield stress 235 MPa. The slab is 150 mm thick with a dimension of 6 m 3 m. The longitudinal reinforcement is also 2% and the yield stress of the steel bar is 335 MPa. Solid elements (50 mm cubes) with a single integration point are used to model the column, beam and slab. The shell element is utilized to model the rigid ground. The numerical convergence study shows that further decrease of the mesh size only has a little effect on the numerical results but leads to a much longer calculation time. Therefore, a mesh size of 50 mm is used in the study. The material model MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE (MAT_72) available in LS-DYNA is used in the present study to model the concrete [24]. This model has been used to analyse concrete subjected to impulsive loading successfully [20]. Different strain rate effects can be implemented for tension and compression to simulate the desired rate effects. The simulated crack patterns using this concrete damage model also agree well with the experimental observations [24,25]. The material model MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC (MAT_003) is used to model the steel. It is an elasticplastic material model

Fig. 4. Sketch of the RC frame.

Table 1 Material properties of concrete. Compressive strength 24 MPa Youngs modulus 23 000 MPa Poissons ratio 0.2 Density 2500 kg/m3

Table 2 Material properties of steel. Strength 335 MPa Youngs modulus 200 000 MPa Poissons ratio 0.3 Steel ratio 2%

with strain rate effect. The material model MAT_RIGID (MAT_20) is used to model the rigid ground. The contact between the structure members and rigid ground is also considered using the *CONTACT model available in the software [24]. The material properties of the concrete and steel used in the model are given in Tables 1 and 2. Many empirical relations are available in the literature to consider the strain rate effect on concrete material properties. In this paper, the K&C model, which is an improvement of the CEB model based on test results, is adopted [26,27]. The effect of strain rate on the concrete and steel strength is typically represented by a parameter, namely the dynamic increase factor (DIF ). It is the ratio of the dynamic-to-static strength versus strain rate. In the K&C model, the DIF values for compressive and tensile strengths are defined separately. The DIF of the tensile strength is given by the following equations: TDIF = ftd fts ftd fts

= =

d ts d ts

for d 1 s 1
1/3

(14)

TDIF =

for d > 1 s1

(15)

where ftd is the dynamic tensile strength at the strain rate d , fts is the static tensile strength at the strain rate ts ( ts = 106 s1 ), and log = 6 2, in which = 1/(1 + 8fc /fco ), fco = 10 MPa, and fc is the static uniaxial compressive strength in MPa. In compression, the empirical formulae are given as CDIF = CDIF = fcd fcs fcd fcs

d cs

1.026

for d 30 s1

(16) (17)

= ( d )1/3 for d > 30 s1

where fcd is the dynamic compressive strength at the strain rate d, cs = 30 106 s1 , log = 6.156 0.49, = (5 + 3fcu /4)1 ,

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1697

fcs is the static compressive strength, and fcu is the static cube compressive strength in MPa. For steel, the dynamic increase factor (DIF ) is given as [28] DIF =

104

(18) fy 414 (19)

= 0.074 0.040

where is the strain rate of the steel bar in s1 and fy is the steel bar yield strength in MPa. This formulation is valid for steel bars with yield stress between 290 and 710 MPa and for strain rate between 104 s1 and 225 s1 . In order to simulate the progressive collapse process of the RC frame, the so-called erosion algorithm is used. This algorithm is employed to capture the physical fracture process of the material if no significant reverse loading occurs to the fractured elements [29]. There may be a variety of criteria governing the erosion of the material, such as principal stress, principal strain, shear strain, pressure, and so on. Xu and Lu [29] used the principal tensile strain as the erosion criterion for reinforced concrete. The maximum principal tensile strain at failure is assumed as 0.01. Their simulation results for concrete spallation show a consistent comparison with the relevant experimental observations. Unosson [30] adopted numerical erosion based on a shear strain criterion to simulate the penetration and perforation of three types of high-performance concrete (HPC) targets. The maximum shear strain at failure they used is 0.8 to 0.9. It must be emphasized here that the erosion technique is introduced to overcome the large distortion problem in numerical simulations. It has no solid physical background. The erosion criteria must be used with caution, as early and premature erosion of material can lead to incorrect model predictions, and significantly increase the mesh-size dependency of the calculation [31,32]. Therefore, the limiting value for the erosion criteria, i.e., the maximum value of each damage criterion at failure, cannot be too small. Otherwise, incorrect model predictions might occur. In this study, two erosion criteria, i.e., principal strain and shear strain, are adopted. The element will be deleted if either one of the two erosion criteria is met. Limiting values for both the principal strain and shear strain erosion criterion are carefully selected. First, the range of the limiting value is decided according to the available references in the literature. For the principal strain criterion, the limiting value is set to be 0.10 initially, which is ten times the limiting value for principal tensile strain criterion in [29]. The limiting value for the shear strain criterion is set to be 0.8 according to [30]. In order to get reasonable values of these two erosion criteria, several calculations are carried out; on gradually increasing the limiting values of these two criteria from the numerical results, the limiting value of the principal strain criterion for erosion is decided to be 0.15 and the shear strain criterion to be 0.9. Further increasing these values will lead to large distortion of the numerical elements, while decreasing the values may result in premature eroding of the materials in the structural model. 5.2. Benchmark analysis In order to verify the proposed method of progressive collapse analysis of RC frames, a benchmark progressive analysis of the example RC frame is carried out by using the direct simulation method. In the analysis, blast loads acting on the front face of the RC frame are directly applied to the structure. The blast scenario considered is a detonation on the ground surface at a distance of 10 m from the centre column in front of the RC frame. The blast load estimation formulae and pressureimpulse

Fig. 5. Pressureimpulse diagram of a column in the RC frame.

diagram of the RC column developed by the authors [20,33] are used to determine the critical TNT charge weight that only knocks off the centre column (key column). For a standalone rectangular column, the reflected pressure and impulse at the base are estimated by [33] PrF (0) = 1.936 + 0.402 ln (b) + [4.833

+ 1.980 ln (b)]e0.65Z Ps0F (0.5 Z 10)

IrF (0) = 2.154 + 0.291 ln (b) + [136.554

(20)

+ 65.001 ln (b)]e6Z IsF (0.5 Z < 1)

IrF (0) = 1.452 + 0.287 ln (b) + [3.221

(21)

+ 1.577 ln (b)]e0.65Z IsF (1 Z 10)

(22)

where PrF (0) and IrF (0) are the reflected pressure and impulse respectively at the base of the column, b is the width of the column, Z is the scaled distance defined by the charge weight and standoff distance in m/kg1/3 . Ps0F and IsF are the incident pressure and impulse at the same point as PrF (0), respectively. They could be easily obtained from the design charts in TM5-1300 [18]. It should be mentioned here that Eqs. (20)(22) can only be used to predict the reflected pressure and impulse at the base of the RC column that is exactly in front of the explosive charge center with a zero degree incident angle. For other columns, the equivalent standoff distance is used to take into account the incident angle effect [18]. In this study, the blast load is assumed to be uniform on each column and all equal to the blast load at the base of the respective column. However, as the RC frame is of three storeys, the top floor column is up to 69 m above the ground. Therefore, for the columns in a different storey, the height effect is considered. The formulae to estimate the reflected pressure and impulse at height hp are [33] PrF (hp ) = PrF (0) 31.53Z 2.64 h2 p PrF (hp ) 0 (kPa) IrF (hp ) 0 (kPa) (23)

(0.5 Z 10) (0.5 Z 10)

IrF (hp ) = IrF (0) (49.86Z 2.82 )h2 p

(24)

where hp is the height at the base of each column measured from the ground surface. hp is zero for the first-storey columns and equal to the storey height for the second-storey and third-storey columns. The pressureimpulse diagram of the RC column can be obtained using the formulae in [20]. The P I diagrams are represented by Eq. (25), in which P0 and I0 are the pressure and impulsive asymptotes corresponding to each critical damage degree

1698

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Table 3 Pressure and impulsive asymptotes for P I curves obtained from the formulae in [20]. D = 0.2 P0 (kPa) Numerical results 750 I0 (kPa ms) 1690 D = 0.5 P0 (kPa) 1000 I0 (kPa ms) 2190 D = 0.8 P0 (kPa) 1300 I0 (kPa ms) 3450

Table 4 Calculated blast loads acting on the columns. Column Peak pressure (kPa) Impulse (kPa ms) C1 & C3 2495 3642 C2 3639 4062 C4 & C6 2117 3062 C5 3072 3164 C7 & C9 1362 1900 C8 1936 1369

of the column. The pressure and impulsive asymptotes depend on the column dimensions, longitudinal and hoop reinforcement ratio, and concrete and reinforcement strength. Table 3 lists the estimated pressure and impulse asymptotes for the column under consideration. The corresponding P I curves are shown in Fig. 5. More detailed information regarding the P I diagrams can be found in [20].

5.3. Alternative load path method The alternative load path method included in the GSA and DoD guidelines allows for four levels of analysis, namely linear elastic static analysis, nonlinear static analysis, linear elastic dynamic analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis. In this section, the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis, which is known as the most accurate, is carried out to obtain the progressive collapse process of the established RC frame. The procedure can be briefly summarized in the following [6]. a. Establish the finite element model of the RC frame. b. Prior to the removal of the key element, bring the model to static equilibrium under the combination of the dead loads and live loads as defined in Eq. (26). c. With the model stabilized, remove the appropriate key element instantaneously. d. Continue the dynamic analysis until the structure reaches a steady and stable condition or collapse. Fig. 7 gives the numerical results of the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis. Since the first two steps of applying the combined dead load and live load are the same as the above benchmark analysis, the pictures from 0 ms to 100 ms are not presented herein. The figure shows that, after the removal of the key column, the slabs and columns above the removed key column go down rapidly until t = 350 ms because of the dynamic effects and the redistribution of the load path. Afterwards, the displacement response becomes slower and the whole structure stabilizes without total collapse, indicating that the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure overestimates the structural capacity against progressive collapse because it neglects the non-zero initial condition and damage in the structural members in the progressive collapse analysis. 5.4. The proposed method Using the proposed method, the initial velocity and initial damage of the other structural members are derived from the method proposed in Section 3. The maximum initial velocities and displacements of the adjacent RC columns are given in Table 5. As can be seen, the maximum initial displacement of all the columns is only 8.06 mm, which is only 0.3% of the column height. This is because of the very short duration of the blast load. As modelling of these initial displacements is very time consuming and they are also rather small, the initial displacements of the columns are neglected in the analysis. Moreover, because the uplifting forces acting on the beams and slabs are neglected, only the blast load in the transverse direction acting on the beam is considered. However, because the RC floor with high in-plane stiffness and large mass constrains the possible response of the beam in the transverse direction, both the initial velocity and displacement of the beam are very small at the end of the blast-loading phase, so

(P P0 )(I I0 ) = 12(P0 /2 + I0 /2)1.5 .

(25)

With the P I diagrams and the standoff distance, using Eqs. (20)(22), the critical charge weight can be determined such that the generated blast pressure and impulse will just cause the key column to collapse. This standoff distance and the corresponding explosion weight are then considered as the critical explosion scenario, which represents the minimum explosion threat to cause possible progressive collapse of the structure. In this study, as shown in Fig. 5, the critical charge weight is determined to be 1000 kg with the standoff distance 10 m from the centre column in front of the frame. The corresponding blast loads acting on the RC columns calculated from Eqs. (20)(24) are given in Table 4. It should be noted that the uplifting loads on the beams and slabs are neglected because the explosive is located 10 m away from the structure. In this case, the blast load acting on the top and bottom surface of the beam is almost the same; the overall uplifting load is therefore very small. However, for the case when the explosive is near the frame, the uplifting loads on the beams and slabs must be considered since they generate an uplifting initial velocity and displacement, which is probably another important factor that needs be addressed in progressive collapse analysis. In the benchmark analysis, from 0 ms to 100 ms, the combination of dead loads and live loads as defined in GSA guidelines is gradually applied to the frame. According to the GSA guidelines, when carrying out the nonlinear dynamic progressive collapse analysis of buildings, the static load as defined below should be applied on the structure first. Load = DL + 0.25LL (26) in which DL is the self-weight and LL is the live load of the structure. In this paper, the live load considered is 4 kN/m2 . The weight of the infill walls, which are not modelled, is also applied on the beams. The value is 80 kN/m2 . At t = 100 ms, after applying the static load to the structure, all the blast loads acting on the column of the RC frame are applied to the structure. Fig. 6 shows the collapse process of the RC frame simulated in the benchmark analysis through the direct simulation method. From the figure one can see that, at t = 150 ms, the key column collapses. At this moment, it is obvious to see that the adjacent columns also suffer a certain level of damage. At about t = 400 ms, the combination of the vertical load and transverse load damages the other two first-floor columns heavily and the two columns begin to collapse. At t = 500 ms, the second-floor columns begin to fail due to the pulling force of the connected beams. The whole frame goes down rapidly and collapses to the ground at about t = 800 ms.

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1699

Fig. 6. Collapse process of the RC frame from the benchmark analysis (direct simulation).

Fig. 7. Response process of the RC frame from the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis.

they are also neglected in the analysis. Therefore, only damage and the initial velocity of columns are considered. The blast loads acting on the columns listed in Table 4 are plotted in the pressureimpulse diagram of the RC column generated in Section 5.2, as shown in Fig. 8. The damage degrees of

the columns are obtained from the method proposed in Section 3. They are also given in Table 5. The damage level of each column is used to modify the column properties accordingly. With the modified column properties, the progressive collapse analysis is carried out by removal of the key column for dynamic

1700

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

Table 5 Initial damage degree and maximum initial velocity and displacement of RC columns. Column Initial damage degree D Maximum initial velocity (m/s) Maximum initial displacement (mm) C1 & C3 0.65 5.85 8.06 C4 & C6 0.53 4.91 6.70 C5 0.61 5.07 4.93 C7 & C9 0.00 3.05 4.03 C8 0.00 2.20 1.47

force of the connected beams, and the whole frame collapses to the ground at about t = 800 ms. 5.5. Comparison and discussion The numerical results of the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis and the proposed method are compared with those of the benchmark analysis to verify the accuracy and reliability of the proposed method. One can clearly see from Figs. 6, 7 and 9 that the frame does not collapse in the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis, while it collapses to the ground almost at the same time in the benchmark analysis and the proposed method. This is because, in the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis, the catenary effect of the beams will produce a force to balance the gravity load after removing the centre column and therefore resist the collapse of the frame. However, in the proposed method, by considering the initial damage and the nonzero initial condition of the structure, the other first-floor columns also fail at about t = 400 ms, which is almost the same as that in the benchmark analysis. The damage and collapse of the adjacent columns accelerate the collapse of the structural members, leading to the total collapse of the frame. These observations clearly indicate the overestimation of the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure on the capacity of the frame in resisting progressive collapse because it neglects the initial damage and non-zero initiation conditions generated by the blast load. Four main response quantities at the key nodes and elements of the structural model are also extracted from the numerical results and compared with each other. They are the following.

Fig. 8. Pressureimpulse diagram of the column and different blast loads on columns.

analysis with nonzero initial velocities applied to respective columns. This is done as a full restart analysis in LS-DYNA. It should be noted that, when applying the initial velocity on the RC columns, it is very time consuming to apply the initial velocity to every node according to the deflection shape function. For simplification purposes, the column is divided into five segments, and each segment is assumed to have the same initial velocity, equal to the largest velocity in this segment. The results of this analysis are shown in Fig. 9. In the figure, it is clear that, at about t = 400 ms, the damage in the first-floor columns is severe, and these columns start to collapse. At t = 500 ms, the second-floor columns begin to fail due to the pulling

Fig. 9. Collapse process of the RC frame from the proposed method.

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

1701

a. b. c. d.

Vertical and transverse displacement at node N1. Vertical accelerations at node N1. Vertical velocity at node N1. Stress in element E1.

N1 is the node at the middle of the beamcolumn joint above the first-storey front center column; E1 is the beam element that models the horizontal steel bar on the bottom side of the joint above the center column. Their exact locations are indicated in Fig. 4. Fig. 10 shows the comparison of the vertical displacement at node N1 during the collapse process of the frame from different approaches. As can be seen, the result from the proposed method is very close to that of the benchmark analysis. That from the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis is also similar initially, but it becomes a constant after t = 400 ms, indicating that the structure does not collapse. As also shown, when the vertical displacement reaches about negative 3 m, the node touches the ground and some slight rebounds may occur. Fig. 11 shows the comparison of the transverse displacement at node N1 during the collapse process of the frame from the three analyses. As shown, the transverse displacement from the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis is smaller than those from the benchmark analysis and the proposed method. This is because the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis neglects the initial non-zero conditions in the structure. The dynamic effect of the sudden removal of the center column enables the frame to vibrate and deform mainly in the vertical direction, but the collapse of the front side of the frame causes a slight rotation of the whole frame, leading to a small displacement in the positive y-direction at node N1. The result from the proposed method agrees reasonably well with that from benchmark analysis. The slight overestimation of the lateral displacement by the proposed method might be caused by the simplified way that the initial velocity is applied on the structure. As described above, when applying the initial velocity on a column, the column is divided into five segments, and a constant initial velocity equal to the largest velocity in this segment is used. This results in a slight overestimation of the initial velocity of each column, and hence in the lateral displacement of the frame. Nonetheless, as shown in the figure, the difference is relatively small. The comparison of the vertical velocities at node N1 from different analyses is shown in Fig. 12. As shown, the vertical velocity increases quickly with the removal of the center column because of the dynamic effect of the redistribution of the load. The velocity increment rate slows down, indicating a smaller acceleration. This is because, after the damage or removal of the center column, the two beams on both sides of the collapsed column act as a long beam. The catenary effect of the long beam generates a force to balance the gravity load and therefore reduces the collapse acceleration of the frame. The velocity estimated from the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis oscillates around zero after t = 400 ms. Those from the benchmark analysis and the proposed method rapidly increase again at about t = 300 ms until the structural member impacts the ground. This increase in velocity is caused by the damage of the long beam or the adjacent columns. The impact between the structural member and the ground immediately changes the direction of the vertical velocity at node N1, indicating that some rebounding occurs. The result from the proposed method again agrees well with that from the benchmark analysis. Fig. 13 compares the vertical acceleration at node N1. It shows that the proposed method gives consistent prediction of acceleration responses as the benchmark analysis. The GSA approach underestimates the acceleration responses. Fig. 14 compares the stress time histories in element E1 from different analyses. As shown, initially, the stress in the element E1 is negative; the steel bar is in compression. This is because, after application of the dead

Fig. 10. Comparison of the vertical displacements at node N1 from different analyses.

Fig. 11. Comparison of the transverse displacements at node N1 from different analyses.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the vertical velocities at node N1 from different analyses.

load and live load, negative moment occurs at the joint section, and the steel reinforcement that is at the bottom side of the beam will be in compression. After the collapse of the center column, the two beams above the center column will work as a longer one. The section of the joint, which is at the middle of the long beam, will experience a positive moment. Thus, the stress in element E1 is in tension. In the benchmark analysis and the proposed method, the tension stress in the element reduces suddenly when the structural member reaches the ground, whereas that from the GSA analysis remains almost a constant after t = 400 ms because the structure stabilizes. The figure also shows that the proposed method and the benchmark analysis give similar predictions of stress in element E1.

1702

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703

analysis [34]. All these examples demonstrate the accuracy of using the proposed method in the prediction of structural progressive collapse induced by explosive loadings. 6. Conclusion In this paper, a new procedure for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames is proposed. It is based on the alternative load path method in the GSA and DoD guidelines, but with modifications by including the inevitable non-zero initial conditions and damage in the structural members caused by the direct blast load. The method uses P I diagrams to estimate the damage to structural members by the direct blast load, and the equivalent SDOF approach to estimate the velocity and displacement of structure members at the end of the blast-loading phase. A three-storey two-bay RC frame is analysed to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of the proposed method. It is found that the proposed method gives a similar prediction of the frame collapse process to that of the direct simulation of the structure response to blast load. Because the proposed method does not require a comprehensive modelling of the structure, it therefore substantially reduces the computational time and computer memory requirements. Compared to the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis method, the proposed method gives better predictions of the structural progressive collapse with minimum additional effort in determining the non-zero initial conditions and damage in structural members at the end of blast loading phase when progressive collapse starts. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant number 50638030 and 50528808, the National Key Technologies R&D Program of China under Grant number 2006BAJ13B02, the Key Project of Tianjin Application Basis and Forefront Technology Research Program of China under grant number 08JCZDJC19500, and the Australian Research Council under Grant number DP0774061 for carrying out this research. References
[1] ASCE7. Minimum design for buildings and other structures. Reston (Virginia): American Society of Civil Engineers; 2002. [2] Hao H, Wu C, Li ZX, Abdullah AK. Numerical analysis of structural progressive collapse to blast loads. Trans Tianjin Univ 2006;12(Suppl.):314. [3] Krauthammer T, Hall RL, Woodson SC, Baylot JT, Hayes JR, Sohn Y. Development of progressive collapse analysis procedure and condition assessment for structures. In: Proceeding of national workshop on prevention of progressive collapse in Rosemont, Washington (DC): Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences; 2002. [4] Luccioni BM, Ambrosini RD, Danesi RF. Analysis of building collapse under blast loads. Eng Struct 2004;26(1):6371. [5] Marjanishvili SM. Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse. J Perf Constr Fac 2004;18(2):7985. [6] GSA. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects. Washington (DC): Office of Chief Architect; 2000. [7] DoD. Unified facilities criteria (UFC). DoD minimum antiterrorism standards for buildings. Department of Defense. UFC 4-010-01. Washington (DC): US Army Corps of Engineering. 31. 2002. [8] Kaewkulchai G, Williamson EB. Beam element formulation and solution procedure for dynamic progressive collapse analysis. Comput Struct 2004; 82(78):63951. [9] Sasani M. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to removal of two adjacent columns. Eng Struct 2008;30(9):247891. [10] Tsai MH, Lin BH. Investigation of progressive collapse resistance and inelastic response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to column failure. Eng Struct 2008;30(12):361928. [11] Mohamed OA. Assessment of progressive collapse potential in corner floor panels of reinforced concrete buildings. Eng Struct 2009;31(3):74957. [12] Kwasniewski L. Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a multistory building. Eng Struct. 2010. in press (doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009. 12.048).

Fig. 13. Comparison of the vertical accelerations at node N1 from different analyses.

Fig. 14. Comparison of the stress in element E1 (steel reinforcement) from different analyses.

The above observations indicate that the proposed method gives accurate predictions of progressive collapse of frame structures. Compared to the GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis, the additional calculation effort of the proposed method in determining the non-zero velocity and damage of each structural member is minimum, as the initial damage can be determined from available P I diagrams and the initial velocity from an SDOF analysis, but the results are more accurate. On the other hand, compared to the direct simulations, the proposed method gives comparable results, but the computational time and computer memory requirement are substantially less since the progressive analysis is a free vibration analysis, and therefore the mesh size used can be larger than that in direct simulations. It should be also noted that other numerical simulations with different frame examples have also been carried out to further verify the reliability of the proposed method. One example considered is a simple RC frame, which is similar to the one presented previously in the paper. The difference is the column dimension and the concrete compressive strength. Herein the column dimension considered is 250 250 mm and the concrete strength is 20 MPa. In this example, when progressive collapse analyses of the frame are carried out using the proposed method, GSA nonlinear dynamic analysis and direct simulation method, the numerical results all indicate that the simple frame finally collapses under the same blast scenario. However, it is also very obvious that both the collapse process and the typical dynamic responses of the simple RC frame derived from the proposed method analysis and the direct simulation method analysis are almost the same, while they are very different from the one obtained from the GSA nonlinear dynamic

Y. Shi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 16911703 [13] Shi YC, Li ZX, Hao H. Numerical analysis of progressive collapse of reinforced concrete frame under blast loading. J PLA Univ Sci Technol (Natural Science Edition) 2007;8(6):6528. [14] Starossek U. Typology of progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):23027. [15] Vlassis AG, Izzuddin BA, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column lossPart II: Application. Eng Struct 2008;30(5):142438. [16] Vlassis AG, Izzuddin BA, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to failed floor impact. Eng Struct 2009;31(7): 152234. [17] Seffen KA. Progressive collapse of the world trade center: Simple analysis. J Eng Mech 2008;134(2):12532. [18] Technical Manual (TM5-1300). To resist the effect of accidental explosions. Washington (DC): Department of the Army, Navy and the Air force; 1990. [19] Biggs JM. Introduction to structure dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1964. [20] Shi YC, Hao H, Li ZX. Numerical derivation of pressureimpulse diagrams for prediction of RC column damage to blast loads. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(11): 121327. [21] Ma GW, Shi HJ, Shu DW. P I diagram method for combined failure modes of rigidplastic beams. Int J Impact Eng 2006;34(6):108194. [22] Li QM, Meng H. Pressureimpulse diagram for blast loads based on dimensional analysis and single-degree-of-freedom model. J Eng Mech 2002; 128(1):8792. [23] Fallah AS, Louca LA. Pressureimpulse diagrams for elasticplastic-hardening and softening single-degree-of-freedom models subjected to blast loading. Int J Impact Eng 2006;34(4):82342.

1703

[24] LS-DYNA. Keyword users manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. Livermore (California); 2006. [25] Tu ZG, Lu Y. Evaluation of typical concrete material models used in hydrocodes for high dynamic response simulations. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36(1):13246. [26] Malvar LJ, Ross CA. Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI Mater J 1999;96(5):6146. [27] Pandey AK, Kumar R, Paul DK, Trikha DN. Strain rate model for dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete structures. J Strut Eng 2006;132(9):1393401. [28] Malvar L. Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars. ACI Mater J 1998;95(6):60916. [29] Xu K, Lu Y. Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete plates subjected to blast loading. Comput Struct 2006;84(56):4318. [30] Unosson M. Numerical simulations of penetration and perforation of high performance concrete with 75 mm steel projectile. FOA-R00-01634-311SE. Technical report. Tumba (Sweden): Defence Research Establishment Weapons and Protection Division; 2000. [31] Tasdemirci A, Hall IW. Numerical and experimental studies of damage generation in multi-layer composite materials at high strain rates. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34(2):189204. [32] AUTODYN. Theory manual. Century Dynamics; 2006. [33] Shi Y, Hao H, Li Z-X. Numerical simulation of blast wave interaction with structure columns. Shock Waves 2007;17(1):11333. [34] Shi YC. Dynamic response and damage mechanism of reinforced concrete structures under blast loading. Ph.D. thesis, P.R. China: Tianjin University. 2009 [In Chinese].