See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335545285

ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO PREDICT NONLINEAR PARAMETERS FOR

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES APPLIED TO BLAST LOADS

Article  in  Kufa Journal of Engineering · July 2019

DOI: 10.30572/2018/kje/100301

CITATIONS READS

0 996

2 authors, including:

Ali Naji Attiyah

University Of Kufa
20 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Control of Shrinkage Cracks View project

Blast Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Naji Attiyah on 10 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Kufa Journal of Engineering
Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019, P.P. 1-18
Received 20 June 2018, accepted 25 September 2018

ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO PREDICT NONLINEAR

PARAMETERS FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF
STRUCTURES APPLIED TO BLAST LOADS
Ali N. Attiyah1 and Hawraa M. Hussain2
1 AssistantProfessor of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kufa,
Al-Najaf, Iraq. E-Mail: alin.diebil@uokufa.edu.iq
2 M.Sc. Candidate, Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kufa, Al-
Najaf, Iraq. E-Mail: hawraa.mohammed.hussain@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In this study, the Performance Based Design PBD method, which has been used only in seismic
design by several codes, has been expanded to be applied to structures exposed to blast loads.
The plastic hinge models used in PBD, which currently available for earthquake loads do not
represent real behavior under the blast load. An analytical approach was proposed to represent
the plastic behavior of flexural response under blast loads. The proposed model considers the
following essential phenomena: concrete cover crushing, concrete core crushing, bar buckling
in compression reinforcement, strain hardening in tensile reinforcement and softening in
reinforcement bar. The proposed analytical approach has been validated with two experimental
results of columns applied to blast loads and reasonable results has been seen

KEYWORDS: Performance Based Design PBD, plastic hinge, concrete cover crushing,
concrete core crushing, bar buckling, blast loads, nonlinear dynamic analysis.
2 Attiyah and Hussain

1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last few decades, the increasing of terrorist attacks on civilian buildings, led to growing
research interests on the protection of civil facilities. In the case of severe loads, the design is
based on deformation capacity, which is called Performance Based Design (PBD), instead of
using strength capacity. Hence, in the present study, the PBD method will be used to investigate
the blast resistance of structural components. For seismic design, there are several codes use
the nonlinear dynamic analysis such as ASCE/SEI 41-13, PEER 2010, ACI 374.3R-16, FEMA
2012 and FEMA 2009 (Haselton, C.B. et al. 2016). To the authors knowledge, there are no code
or research provide plastic hinge model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures applied to
blast loads.

The seismic plastic hinge model was used in the nonlinear dynamic analysis in such cases,
where the validity is questionable and need to be investigated. The researches done by Draganic
and Sigmund, 2012, Kulkarni and Sambireddy, 2014, Vinothini and S. Elavenil, 2014, Priyanka
and Rajeeva, 2015, and Shinde et al, 2016 are good examples of using seismic plastic hinge in
dynamic analysis of structures applied to blast loads. The main objective of the present study
s ’s

are to apply the PBD philosophy to structural components subjected to external explosions.

2. ASCE 41-13 PLASTIC HINGE MODEL VALIDATION UNDER BLAST LOADS

ASCE 41-13, 2013 assumed that the nonlinear load-deformation relation is based on
experimental evidence or taken from specified tables showing deformation limits. The typical
ASCE 41-13 load-deformation relation is shown in Fig. 1, where deformations are expressed
using terms, such as strain, curvature, rotation or elongation. Generally, the typical plastic hinge
model is described by Modeling Parameters MPs and Acceptance Criteria (Ghannoum. W. M.,
2014). The parameters (a) and (b), which can be found from ASCE 41-13 refer to post-yield
deformation or plastic deformation. When the load-deformation relation is used to express the
flexural response, it is given as moment-rotation relation for the plastic hinge at a section.
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 3

Fig. 1. ASCE 41-13 load-deformation relationship.

The ASCE 41-13 Plastic Hinge Model was applied to the column tested by Kadhom B., 2016.
The column was tested up to flexural failure only without the influence of the axial force and
its dimensions was 150×150×2230 mm. The column was constructed with seismically
reinforcement details, which consist of Ø11.3 mm longitudinal reinforcement for each concrete
column and ties reinforcement Ø6.3 mm spaced at 37.5mm center to center. Fig. 2 describes
the details of reinforcing steel, and Table 1 shows its mechanical properties. Concrete cover
from the outer edge of the ties was 10mm and the concrete compressive strength was 44MPa.
The support conditions for these columns was simply supported. The amount of blast loads
carried through the loading device (i.e. shock tube) on this column was 35kPa at duration of the
positive phase 20ms, and its reflected impulse equals to 345.2 kPa.ms.

Table 1. Mechanical Properties of Reinforcement.

Properties of Reinforcement 10M (Ø11.3mm rebar) Ø6.3mm smooth steel

Yield stress, fy (MPa) 572 521
Yield strain,s 0.0025 0.0045
Ultimate stress, fu(MPa) 748 578
Ultimate strain,u 0.0771 0.0405
4 Attiyah and Hussain

Fig. 2. Column dimensions and reinforcement detailing for Kadhom column.

In the current case study, the values of MPs according to ASCE 41-13 will be a=0.035, b=0.06
and c=0.2. ASCE 41-13 specifies flexural rigidity for columns with compression caused by
design gravity loads ≤ 0.1Ag f`c corresponding to 0.3 Ec Ig. E=concrete modulus (taken as
57,000√f`c , psi), Ag=gross area of column cross-section, and f`c=concrete compressive
strength. The slope of line BC, which represent the increase in strength due to hardening of
reinforcement, shall be taken between zero and 10% of the initial slope according to ASCE 41-
13. For more accurate calculations, the slope of line BC represent the difference between
nominal strength, which is calculated from Eq. (1), and the probable strength which represents
that associated with strain hardening of the steel reinforcement, i.e. 1.25 fy, which is calculated
from Eq. (2). So, the slope of line BC will be equal to 1.25.

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 (𝑑 − 𝑎/2) 1

𝑀𝑝𝑟 = 1.25 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 (𝑑 − 𝑎/2) 2

𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦
𝑎= 3
0.85𝑏 𝑓𝑐

Where: Mult. = nominal moment, Mpr: probable moment, As = total area of tension reinforcement
within the beam, fy = yield strength of reinforcement, which should be taken as Fdy for blast
loads, d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, a =
depth of equivalent rectangular stress block, b = width of the column and f'c = compressive
strength of concrete, which should be taken as f'dc for blast loads. Rotation at point (B) is
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 5

calculated from Eq. (4) (Elwood J. et. al., 2007). The MPs, ultimate strength and slope of line
BC are defined as shown Fig. 3, and entered as the user defined plastic hinge in ETABS as
shown in Fig. 4, and then the nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed.

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡. 𝐿
𝜃= 4
3𝐸𝐼𝑒𝑓𝑓.

Fig. 3. ASCE 41-13 plastic hinge model of Kadhom's column.

Fig. 4. Application of ASCE 41-13 Plastic Hinge Model for Kadhom's column by ETABS
program.

Fig. 5 represents the comparison of displacement at the column mid-height between

experimental and analytical results using ASCE 41-13 plastic hinge model. As shown in this
figure, the column fails at low displacement value and do not represent the actual response of
the experimental test. Fig. 6 shows the behavior of ASCE 41-13 plastic hinge, where it can be
seen clearly that all the plastic hinge capacity will be exhausted within short time (i.e. 13 msec.),
which is different from the experimental results (i.e. 48 msec.).
6 Attiyah and Hussain

Fig. 5. Displacement time history for Kadhom's column by ASCE 41-13 plastic hinge model.

Fig. 6. ASCE 41-13 plastic hinge behavior for Kadhom's column.

3. PROPOSED PLASTIC HINGE MODEL

In order to produce an accurate and comprehensive plastic hinge model for the nonlinear
dynamic analysis, understanding of important phenomena in the behavior of both materials
concrete and reinforcement is required. The proposed model considers the following essential
phenomena: concrete cover crushing, concrete core crushing, bar buckling in compression
reinforcement, strain hardening in tensile reinforcement and softening in reinforcement bar.
The models of concrete and reinforcement in tension and compression will be discussed in the
coming sections.
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 7

3.1. Material Models and Material Properties

To establish the moment-rotation model of a concrete section, this requires calculating section
properties based on material constitutive relations of concrete and steel, strain compatibility,
and equilibrium (Shayanfar J., and H.A. Bengar, 2017). Thus, in the present section, the
properties of materials which represent all the pre-and post-yield behavior are described.

i) Stress-Strain Model for Concrete

The modified Kent and Park model will be adopted in the present study. This model proposed
by (Park et. al.1982) and was a modified method of the Kent and Park model published in 1971.
Fig. 7 shows the modified Kent and Park model (Sharma A. et al., 2012).

Fig. 7. Modified Kent and Park model for confined concrete (Sharma A. et al., 2012).

The model contained three parts of behavior, which can be defined in the following equations.

For region AB, c ≤ 0.002K

2𝜀 𝜀 2
𝑐 𝑐
𝑓𝑐 = 𝑘 𝑓`𝑐 ⌊0.002𝑘 − (0.002𝑘 ) ⌋ 5
For region BC, 0.02k < c < 20m,c

𝑓𝑐 = 𝑘 𝑓`𝑐[1 − 𝑍𝑚 (𝜀𝑐 − 0.002𝑘)] ≥ 0.2𝑘 𝑓`𝑐 6

Where:

0.5
𝑧𝑚 = 3+0.29 𝑓`𝑐 𝑏``
7
+0.75𝜌𝑠 √𝑠 −0.002𝐾
145 𝑓`𝑐−1000 ℎ
For region CD,

𝑓𝑐 = 0.2 𝐾 𝑓`𝑐 8
Where:

𝜌𝑠 𝑓𝑦ℎ
𝑘 =1+ 9
𝑓`𝑐
2(𝑏``+𝑑``)𝐴𝑠
𝜌𝑠 = 10
𝑏`` 𝑑``𝑠ℎ
8 Attiyah and Hussain

fyh: yield strength of steel hoops, f`c: concrete cylinder strength in MPa, As: cross sectional area
of the stirrup reinforcement, s: the ratio of the volume of transverse reinforcement to volume
of concrete core measured to outside of hoops, i.e, b``: width of confined core measured to
outside of hoops, d``: depth of confined core measured to outside of hoops, Sh: spacing of hoops.

ii) Stress-Strain Model for Reinforcement

a) Reinforcement in Tension

The general form of strain-strain curve relationship for steel reinforcement in tension is
represented by four regions: (1) linear elastic, (2) yield plateau, (3) strain hardening, and (4)
post-ultimate stress region (Yu., W.,2006), as shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. General stress-strain curve for reinforcement.

Linear elastic region

The assumed stress-strain relation in this region is:

𝑓𝑠 = 𝐸𝑠 𝜀𝑠 11
Yield plateau region

The idealized stress-strain relationship in this region is:

𝑓𝑠 = 𝑓𝑦 12
𝑓𝑦
𝜀𝑦 = 13
𝐸𝑠
Strain hardening region

The strain hardening zone ranges from the ideal coordinates that strain hardening begins, (εsh,
fy), to the ultimate coordinates, (εu, fu) that correspond to the point that resists the maximum
load and starting of the bar necking (Yu., W., 2006). The idealized stress-strain relationship in
this region is represented by Eq. (14).
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 9

𝑓𝑠 = 𝑓𝑦 + 𝐸𝑠ℎ (𝜀𝑠 − 𝜀𝑠ℎ ) 14

Where: s: steel strain, y: yield strain, u: ultimate steel strain, fs: steel stress, fu: stress at the
𝑓𝑢 −𝑓𝑦
ultimate strain, Es: modulus of elasticity of steel, and Esh: strain hardening slope equal to 𝜀 .
𝑢 −𝜀𝑠ℎ

b) Reinforcement in Compression
The stress-strain relationship of reinforcing steel in compression is the same as that in tension
only, if the reinforcement was prevented from buckling (Dodd, L.L., and Restrepo-Posada, J.I,
1995). The modified Ohi and Akiyama model for bar buckling will be adopted in the present
study (Kato et al., 1973). For monotonic loading, the buckling is assumed to begin at a critical
buckling strain, εlb, indicated by point A as shown in Fig. 9. Post-buckling softening occurs by
assuming, firstly, the stress decrease by τlbEs until the strain reaches ps. After that, the slope
decreases by -0.005Es as shown Fig. 9. The term τlbEs is calculated from Eq. (16). The value of
ps is equal to Ib+0.01. (Nakatsuka et al., 1999) relationship will be adopted to calculate the
strain buckling lb as shown in Eq. (15).

The relationship considers the effect of the following parameters: lateral reinforcement spacing
to confined core diameter ratios; confining stress; yield strength of lateral reinforcement, fyh;
the shape of reinforcement (circular, rectangular); and the compressive strength of plain
concrete. The bar buckling initially resisted by the lateral restraint provided by the concrete
cover as well as the transverse reinforcement (Bai Z.Z. and Au, F., 2011).

Fig. 9. Buckling model for monotonic behavior of compressive reinforcement.

𝜀𝑏𝑢=𝜀𝑐𝑜 + 𝑓1 𝑓2 𝑓3 𝑓4 𝑓5 15
𝑠
3.6 − 4.8 (𝑑) 0.1 ≤ 𝑠/𝑑 ≤ 0.75
Where, 𝑓1 = [
0 𝑠/𝑑 > 0.75

𝑓2 = (𝜌𝑠 𝑓𝑦ℎ )2
10 Attiyah and Hussain

f3 = 1.0 for bar in circular column; 0.9 for corner bar; 0.18 for intermediate bar

110
−1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 30𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝑓𝑐 ≤ 110𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑓4 = [ 𝑓𝑐
0 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑐 ≥ 400𝑀𝑃𝑎

600
𝑓5 = [ + 0.5] × 10−4 𝑓𝑦ℎ ≥ 400𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑓𝑦ℎ

where, d = smallest side length of the concrete cross section surrounded by lateral
reinforcements, f`c= cylinder concrete strength, εc0 = maximum strain of plain concrete and s
= reinforcement ratio of transverse reinforcement to concrete core.
1
𝜏𝐼𝑏 = 100 𝜀𝑠𝑦 [√1+0.005𝜆2 − 1] 16

where, εsy = yield strain of longitudinal steel, λ =αs/ ir , α = 1.0 for corner bars; 0.5 for
intermediate bars and ir = radius of gyration for bar.

3.2. Analytical Approach for Moment Rotation Behavior

The moment-rotation behavior represents the plastic hinge model for flexural action in
Reinforced Concrete RC components under the effect of blast loads. In the previous studies,
the moment-rotation was conducted until concrete core crushing (i.e. loss of the compression
strength). The existence of the compression reinforcement in the section may increase the
deflection until the bar buckling or rupture in tensile reinforcement occurs. Therefore, in the
present study, the compression reinforcement role will be considered in the moment-rotation
behavior in both pre- and post-concrete core crushing stages.

The proposed analytical approach is capable of predicting the concrete cover crushing, concrete
core crushing, bar buckling in compression reinforcement, strain hardening in tensile
reinforcement and softening in reinforcement bar (post-yield behavior), which produce the
additional mechanism to dissipate the energy of components.

Pre-crushing of concrete core stage

In this stage, the plastic rotation until concrete core crushing is taken into account. It is known
that the RC columns consist of unconfined cover concrete and confined concrete core. Under
blast load effects, the concrete cover crushing occurs at the earlier stages, due to high rate in
strain. Thus, the plastic behavior of the proposed model starts when the concrete cover reaches
its ultimate strength (i.e. ultimate strain 0.003). So, the strength of concrete cover will be
neglected and the symbols k and kd refer to the depth and neutral axis depth of confined
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 11

concrete core, respectively. Fig. 10 shows the strain diagram during the stage of pre-crushing
of concrete core. The analytical approach is summarized in the following steps:

Fig. 10. Strain diagram in pre-stage of crushing core concrete.

1- Assume strain at the concrete cover cm-cover reaches the ultimate value 0.003.

2- Assume a value of neutral axis depth kd, starting from kd ≥0.5d.

3- Find the strain at extreme fiber of confined concrete cm-core by interpolation.

4- Determine the parameters of compressive stress block of concrete  and  in region BC in

the modified Kent and Park model which is shown in Fig. 7. Eqs. (17) and (18) are dependent
on the values of cm-core and kd.

1 0.004𝑘 𝑧𝑚
𝛼=𝜀 [ + (𝜀𝑐𝑚 − 0.002𝑘) − (𝜀𝑐𝑚 − 0.002𝑘)2 ] 17
𝑐𝑚 3 2

𝜀 2 (0.002𝑘)2 𝜀 3 (0.002𝑘)3
1 [{ 𝑐𝑚 − }−𝑧𝑚 { 𝑐𝑚 −0.001𝑘𝜀𝑐𝑚 2 + }]
2 12 3 6
𝛾 =1−𝜀 [ 0.002𝑘 𝜀𝑐𝑚 2 (0.002𝑘)2
] 18
𝑐𝑚 [{𝜀𝑐𝑚 − }−𝑧𝑚 { −0.002𝑘𝜀𝑐𝑚 + }]
3 2 1

Where k and Zm were described in section 3.1.1.

5- Determine the total compressive force in concrete Cconc. from the Eq. (19).

Cconc = f`dc b kd 19
Where f`dc: dynamic strength of concrete, b: width of cross section, and kd: depth of neutral
axis of concrete core.

6- Find strain of steel si at different levels of section by interpolation depending on kd and cm-

core values and calculate the corresponding stress in steel bars fsi using the stress-strain curve
which discussed in section 3.1.2 part I.

7- Determine the tensile force in reinforcement Ts from Eq. (20).

Ts= fds As 20
Where fds: dynamic strength of reinforcement, and As: area of reinforcement.
12 Attiyah and Hussain

8- Check the equilibrium between compressive and tensile forces. If they are equal go to step
9, and if Cconc > Ts, decrease kd and return back to step 2, and if Cconc < Ts go to step 13.

9- Calculate the moment, as follows:

𝑀 = 𝑇𝑠 (𝐷 − 𝛾𝑘𝑑) 21
Where

Ts = fsi × 𝐴𝑠𝑖 22
fs; stress in bar, and As; area of bar

10- Calculate the curvature value, as follows:

𝜀𝑐𝑚
𝜑𝑖 = 23
𝑘𝑑
11- Find rotation value, as follows:

𝜃𝑖 = 𝜃𝑦 + (𝜑𝑖 − 𝜑𝑦 )𝑙𝑝 24
𝜑𝑦 𝐿𝑒𝑓𝑓
Where: 𝜃𝑖 = 25
2
𝜀𝑦
𝜑𝑦 = 2.14 × Priestley et al. model (Shayanfar and Bengar, 2017) 26
𝐷
Where;

𝐿𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐿 + 0.022𝑓𝑠 𝑑𝑏 Paulay and Priestley (Shayanfar and Bengar, 2017) 27

Lp: plastic hinge length, and D: depth of the section.

12- Repeat steps 1-11 by increasing the value of cm-core with a specific increment such as 0.001,
until the tensile force exceeds the compressive force.

At large compressive strain values, the tensile force exceeds the compressive force and the
concrete core crushing occurs, which means losing the section ability to resist compression.
This phenomenon occurs earlier under blast loads due to the high strain rate of the material. At
this stage, the compressive strength is transferred to the reinforcing steel in the compression
zone. Hence, in the blast-resistant structural components, concrete beams with tension
reinforcement only are not permitted. Compression reinforcement, at least equal to one-half the
required tension reinforcement, must be provided (Ho et al., 2005).

Post-crushing of concrete core stage

The following additional steps will describe the post-crushing stage of concrete as seen in Fig.
11.

13- Determine the buckling strain of compression reinforcement from Eq. (15), which was
referred to in section 3.1.2, part II.
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 13

14- If the strain of steel, which will be referred by s-h in this stage, is smaller to the buckling

strain bu, then, the stress of steel increased duo to the hardening corresponding to the stress-

strain curve for reinforcement. Otherwise the stress of steel decrease by τlbEs until the strain of
steel reaches ps. After that, the slope decreases by 0.005Es. The values of ps, τlbEs, and bu
were discussed in section 3.1.2, part II.

15- Find moment from Eq. (28): (UFC3-340-02, 2008)

M = As × 𝑓𝑑𝑠 × 𝑑 28

Where M is the moment at the post-crushing of concrete core stage, As is the total area of
tension reinforcement within the beam, fds is the dynamic design stress of reinforcement, and d
is the distance between the compression and tension reinforcement.

Fig. 11. Strain diagram in post-stage of crushing core concrete.

16- Calculate the curvature Øs-h from Equation (29)

𝜀𝑠−ℎ
𝜑𝑠−ℎ = 29
(𝑑−𝑑`)/2

Where s-h: hardening strain reinforcement.

17- Calculate the rotation in this stage ϴhard.. from Eq. (30).

𝜃ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑑 . = (𝜑𝑠−ℎ − 𝜑𝑢 )𝑙ℎ 30

Where Øs-h: curvature of reinforcement in post-crushing of concrete core stage, Øu: ultimate
curvature at which concrete core crushing occur, and Lh: hardening hinge length. A part of the
plastic hinge zone is assumed as the region over which the longitudinal reinforcement
hardening, which is called Lh as shown in Fig. 12. Hardening hinge length will be assumed to
be equal to H/2, which its validity will be checked later.

Where H is the depth of section.

18- Calculate total rotation ϴs-h from Eq. (31)

14 Attiyah and Hussain

𝜃𝑠−ℎ = 𝜃ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑑. + 𝜃𝑢𝑙𝑡. 31

Where ϴs-h: ultimate rotation in post-crushing of concrete core stage.

Fig. 12. Curvature diagram in pre-and post-concrete crushing stages.

19- Repeat steps 14-18 by increasing the value of s-h with a specific increment such as 0.001

until reaches the dynamic ultimate stress of reinforcement fdu.

3.3. Validation of the Proposed Analytical Approach

The proposed analytical approach was validation with the experimental program of Kadhom
B., 2016. Fig. 13 displays the complete moment-rotation relationship conducted using the
analytical approach mentioned in section 2.2. The figure covers all strains, starting with the
strain of concrete cover crushing until the ultimate strain of steel, using element geometry and
reinforcement details of Kadhom's column.

Fig. 13. Moment rotation curve for Kadhom's column.

The moment-rotation behavior is described by a series of points A, B, B`, C and D. Point (A)
refers to the origin or unloading state, and point (B) refers to the crushing of concrete cover,
which occurs at the ultimate strain of extreme fiber of concrete. Strain in this point equals to
0.003 according to ACI 318-14. The flexural strength and plastic rotation using the mentioned
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 15

procedure are found. Point (B`) refers to the concrete core crushing, which occurs when the
tensile force exceeds the compressive force and concrete loses its strength. The compression
strength in this stage transferred to compression reinforcement. At the same time, the strain
hardening begins and the strength will be increased with the increase in deflection. Point (C)
refers to the end of the reinforcement hardening due to the absence of buckling in compression
reinforcement in this element. As mentioned earlier the compression reinforcement behaves
similarly to tension reinforcement in the absence of bar buckling. At the end of the hardening,
sudden strength loss occurs and the curve reaches point (D).

The moment-rotation behavior will be approximated to find a plastic hinge model that can
capture the important plastic response phenomena, as shown in Fig. 14. The modeling
parameters a and b of this model are similar and equal to 0.15 rad. The slope of line BC can be
determined by dividing the ultimate strength at point (C) by the strength at point (B), which in
this model equals to 1.3. The proposed model was used in ETABS as user-defined plastic hinge
as shown in Fig. 15, and then nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed.

Fig. 14. Proposed plastic hinge model for Kadhom's column.

Fig. 15. Application of the proposed model by ETABS program.

16 Attiyah and Hussain

Fig. 16 presents the comparison of displacement-time history of experimental and proposed

model for Kadhom's columns. The results indicate the ability of the proposed model to represent
the real response under explosion loads. Fig. 17 demonstrates the behavior of the proposed
plastic hinge for Kadhom's columns. The response behavior in the plastic hinge model exceeds
the concrete cover crushing as well as the concrete core crushing but don’t reaches the failure
of section.

Fig. 16. Comparison between proposed plastic hinge model and experimental results.

Fig. 17. Proposed plastic hinge behavior for Kadhom's column.

4. CONCLUSION
The following points are concluded from the present research:

1. The seismic plastic hinge characteristics of ASCE 41-13 are not valid in nonlinear dynamic
analysis of structural components applied to blast loads.

2. An analytical approach was proposed that simulates real behavior under explosive loads.
The proposed model considers the following essential phenomena: concrete cover crushing,
 Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2019 17

concrete core crushing, bar buckling in compression reinforcement, strain hardening in

tensile reinforcement and softening in reinforcement bar.

3. The proposed model gives the opportunity for more understanding of the real failure modes
of concrete members under the effect of blast loads, which may lead for more reliable
strengthening and repair in such cases.

5. REFERENCE
American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE/SEI 41–13 (2014), “Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Existing Buildings”, Reston, United States.

Bai Z.Z. and Au, F. (2011), “Effects of Strain Hardening of Reinforcement on Flexural Strength
and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Columns”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp. 784-800.

Dodd, L.L., and Restrepo-Posada, J.I. (1995), “Model for Predicting Cyclic Behaviour of
Reinforcing Steel,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121 No. 3, pp. 433-445.

Draganić, H. and Sigmund, V. (2012), ''Blast Loading on Structures'', Tehnički Vjesnik Volume
19, Issue 3, pp. 643-652.

Elwood J. et al. (2007), “Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions”, Earthquake Spectra,

Volume 23, No. 3, pp. 493–523.

Ghannoum. W. M. (2014), “Seismic Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings -

New Developments”, ACI Spring 2014 Convention.

Haselton, C.B. et al. (2016), “Guidelines on Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis for Performance-
Based Seismic Design of Steel and Concrete Moment Frames”, Proceedings of SEAOC 2016
Convention.

Ho J. et al. (2005), “Effects of strain hardening of steel reinforcement on flexural strength and
ductility of concrete beams”. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp.
185-198.

Kato, B. et al, (1973), “Predictable Properties of Material Under Incremental Cyclic Loading”,
IABSE, Report of the Working Commissions, Band 13, Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate
Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon, pp. 119-124.

Kulkarni A. V. and Sambireddy, G. (2014), “Analysis of Blast Loading Effect on High Rise
Buildings”, Civil and Environmental Research, Volume 6, No. 10, pp. 2225-0514.
 18 Attiyah and Hussain

Nakatsuka, T. et al., (1999), “Equations to Estimate Strains at Buckling of Longitudinal

Reinforcement Under Uniaxial and Monotonical Compression”, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, AIJ, No. 516, 145-149.

Priyanka A. and Rajeeva S. V. (2015), “Lateral Stability of a Multi-story Building under Blast
Load”, IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume 04,
Special Issue 14.

Shinde N.N. and Prasad R. (2016), “Comparative Study of Earthquake and Blast Load on
Commercial Building”, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology
IJSRST, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 34-38.

Kadhom, B. (2016), "Blast Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns Protected by FRP

Laminates ", M. Sc. Thesis Department of Civil Engineering Faculty of Engineering University
of Ottawa, Canada.

Shayanfar J., and H.A. Bengar (2017), “Nonlinear analysis of RC frames considering shear
behavior of members under varying axial load”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Volume
15, Issue 5, pp 2055–2078.

Sharma A. et al., 2012, “Nonlinear seismic analysis of reinforced concrete framed structures
considering joint distortion”, Scientific Information Resource Division, Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre, Mumbai.

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) UFC 3-340-02, (2008), “Structures to Resist the Effects of
Accidental Explosions”, Unified Facilities Criteria, Department of Defense DoD, USA.

Vinothini P. and Elavenil S. (2016), “Analytical Investigation of High Rise Building under
Blast Loading”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Volume 9, Issue 18.

Yu., W. (2006), “Inelastic modeling of reinforcing bars and blind analysis of the benchmark
tests on beam column joints under cyclic loading”, M.Sc. dissertation, ROSE School, Pavia,
Italy.

View publication stats