All Issue

2025 Vol.2, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Article

Comparison of Effective Stiffness Estimation Methods and Evaluation of Nonlinear Dynamic Response for Reinforced Concrete Members under Blast Loads

폭발하중을 받는 철근콘크리트 부재의 유효강성 산정 방법 비교 및 비선형 동적 응답 영향 평가

Ga-Eun Choe1
,
Seung-Hoon Lee2
,
Han-Soo Kim3*
최 가은1
,
이 승훈2
,
김 한수3*
1Graduate Student, Department of Architectural Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, 05029, Rep. of Korea
2Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Architectural Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, 05029, Rep. of Korea
3Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, 05029, Rep. of Korea
1건국대학교 건축학부 건축공학전공 석사과정
2건국대학교 건축학부 건축공학전공 박사과정
3건국대학교 건축학부 교수
*Corresponding Author
20 August 2025. pp. 178-185
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study verified that the effective stiffness based on the average moment of inertia, as presented in blast-resistant design guidelines, may overestimate blast performance. Pushover and SDOF analysis using OpenSees showed that the average effective stiffness resulted in a 1.68 times higher value in static analysis and up to 26.9 % response error in dynamic analysis. Parametric studies indicated that the error decreased with increasing reinforcement ratio and ductility, however, the average-based method consistently produced unconservative results. Therefore, it was confirmed that the average-based method is likely to underestimate the extent of structural damage in blast analysis.

Keywords
effective stiffness
pushover analysis
SDOF analysis
blast load
blast-resistant design

본 연구는 내폭 설계 가이드라인에서 제시한 평균 이차모멘트 기반 유효강성이 내폭 성능을 과대평가할 수 있음을 검증하였다. OpenSees를 이용한 푸쉬오버 및 SDOF 해석 결과, 평균 유효강성은 정적해석에서 1.68배, 동적해석에서 최대 26.9 %의 응답 오차를 발생시켰다. 매개변수 분석 결과 철근비와 연성비 증가 시 오차는 감소했으나, 평균값 방식은 지속적으로 비보수적인 결과를 보였다. 따라서 평균값 기반 방식은 폭발해석 시 구조물의 손상 정도를 과소평가할 가능성이 높음을 확인하였다.

키워드
유효강성
푸쉬오버 해석
단자유도 해석
폭발하중
내폭 설계
References
1

ACI 318-19 (2019) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute.

2

ASCE (2025) Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings in Energy and Industrial Facilities. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers.

3

Astarlioglu, S., Krauthammer, T., Morency, D., and Tran, T. P. (2013) Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns under Combined Effects of Axial and Blast-Induced Transverse Loads. Engineering Structures 55, 26-34.

10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.12.040
4

Bedair, O. (2020) Economical Damage Classification Approach for Blast-Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Plants. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 25(3), 04020020.

10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000503
5

Biggs, J. M. (1964) Introduction to Structural Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

6

Crisfield, M. A. (1981) A Fast Incremental/Iterative Solution Procedure that Handles Snap-through. Computers and Structures 13(1), 55-62.

10.1016/0045-7949(81)90108-5
7

Fafard, M. and Massicotte, B. (1993) Geometrical Interpretation of the Arc-Length Method. Computers & Structures 46(4), 603-615.

10.1016/0045-7949(93)90389-U
8

Fujikake, K., Li, B., and Soeun, S. (2009) Impact Response of Reinforced Concrete Beam and Its Analytical Evaluation. Journal of Structural Engineering 135(8), 938-950.

10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000039
9

Jacques, E., Lloyd, A., and Saatcioglu, M. (2013) Predicting Reinforced Concrete Response to Blast Loads. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 40(5), 427-444.

10.1139/L2012-014
10

Lim, T. H., Lee, S. H., and Kim, H. S. (2025) Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to Axial and Blast Loads Using a Single Degree of Freedom System. Journal of the Computational Structural Engineering Institute of Korea 38(3), 147-154. (In Korean)

10.7734/COSEIK.2025.38.3.147
11

Liu, Y., Yan, J. B., and Huang, F. L. (2018) Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams and Columns Subjected to Blast Loading. Defence Technology 14(5), 550-559.

10.1016/j.dt.2018.07.026
12

McKenna, F. T. (1997) Object-oriented finite element programming: frameworks for analysis. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California.

13

Park, R. (1989) Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural Assemblages from Laboratory Testing. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 22(3), 155-166.

10.5459/bnzsee.22.3.155-166
14

PDC-TR 06-08 (2008) Single Degree of Freedom Structural Response Limits for Antiterrorism Design. Omaha: US Army Corps of Engineers.

15

Popovics, S. (1973) A Numerical Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 3(5), 583-589.

10.1016/0008-8846(73)90096-3
16

Szalai, J. and Papp, F. (2002) Simulation of Beam-Column Stability with Automatic Strain Incrementation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Computational Structures Technology, Prague 4-6 September 2002. Edinburgh: Civil-Comp Press. 29-30.

17

Thairy, H. A. (2016) A Modified Single Degree of Freedom Method for the Analysis of Building Steel Columns Subjected to Explosion-Induced Blast Load. International Journal of Impact Engineering 94, 120-133.

10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.04.007
18

UFC 3-340-02 (2008) Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defence (DOD).

Information
  • Publisher :Korea Protective Facility Institute
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국방호시설학회
  • Journal Title :Protective Facility
  • Journal Title(Ko) :방호시설
  • Volume : 2
  • No :3
  • Pages :178-185
  • Received Date : 2025-07-24
  • Revised Date : 2025-08-07
  • Accepted Date : 2025-08-11
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.23310/PF.2025.2.3.178
Journal Informaiton Protective Facility Protective Facility
Online Submission & Review System
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close