Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

DOI 10.1617/s11527-011-9742-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Impact resistant behaviour of RC slab strengthened

with FRP sheet
Abdul Qadir Bhatti Norimitsu Kishi
Kiang Hwee Tan

Received: 19 May 2010 / Accepted: 26 April 2011 / Published online: 10 May 2011
RILEM 2011

Abstract To investigate the impact resistance of RC

slabs strengthened with Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP)
sheet to the back of the slab, falling-weight impact tests
were conducted. Two loading types were applied:
iterative loading and single loading. The impact load
was applied to the centre of the RC slab with a free
falling 300 kg steel striker with a diameter of 60 mm.
A total of 12 RC slabs that were 1,650 (L) 9 1,650
(W) 9 150 (h) mm were used for these experiments. In
this study, the strengthening method and material
properties of the FRP sheet and the number of FRP
sheet layers were varied. The results obtained from this
study are as follows: (1) the impact resistance of the RC
slabs can be improved by attaching a strengthened FRP
sheet to the back surfaces; (2) the load bearing
mechanism of RC slabs depends on the loading type
and strengthening volume of the FRP sheet; and (3) the
dynamic amplification factor is about two, which is

A. Q. Bhatti (&)
Department of Earthquake Engineering, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, National University
of Sciences & Technology, NUST, Islamabad, Pakistan
e-mail: bhatti-nit@nust.edu.pk; draqbhatti@gmail.com
N. Kishi
Civil Engineering, Muroran Institute of Technology,
Muroran 050-8585, Japan
K. H. Tan
Department of Civil Engineering, National University
of Singapore, 1 Engineering Drive 2,
Singapore 117576, Singapore

independent of the load bearing mechanism of the RC

slab and the strengthening volume and tensile rigidity
of the FRP sheet.
Keywords FRP sheet
RC slab
Impact resistant
behaviour
Lower cover concrete spalling

1 Introduction
Increasing attention has focused on applying
advanced composite materials, especially Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP) laminates and strips, in the field
of structural engineering. Extensive applications of
FRP composites as construction materials have been
accomplished recently [13]. FRP composites are
lightweight, high-strength, non-corrosive and nonmagnetic materials. There is a wide range of recent,
current and potential applications of these materials
that cover both new and existing structures. Recently,
to upgrade the load-carrying capacity of existing
Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures, many strengthening and retrofitting works have been conducted in
Japan [46]. In these strengthening works, not only
the steel plate jacketing method and/or the concrete
covering method but also the Fibre Reinforced Plastic
(FRP) sheets bonding method have been applied. The
FRP sheet bonding method is an excellent method for
strengthening existing RC structures because FRP

1856

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

sheets have the following advantages: (1) high tensile

strength, (2) easy manoeuvrability because it is a
lightweight and limp material; and (3) high durability
for robustness against environmental influences.
Currently, uni-directional FRP sheets are typically
produced. Therefore, to strengthen plate members
such as RC slabs or an RC wall, FRP sheet must be
orthogonally bonded one after the other to improve
the application process of FRP sheet to strengthen RC
slab structures [79]. Moreover, current studies that
have focused on the FRP sheet bonding method under
static load-carrying capacity of RC slabs have been
conducted by many researchers [5, 1012]. However,
research on upgrading the impact resistance capacity
has not been carried out yet.
Thus, in this study, to investigate the impact
resistant behaviour of RC slabs with FRP sheet
bonded to the back surface, falling-weight impact
tests were conducted considering loading type,
strengthening method, material properties and volume of the FRP sheet as variables [1315]. FRP
sheets used in these experiments are uni/crossdirectional Aramid FRP (AFRP) sheets and Carbon
FRP (CFRP) sheets; in addition, the cross-directional
AFRP sheet is newly developed and can resist
orthogonally acting forces with one sheet [1618].

2 Experimental Overview
2.1 Specimen
Table 1 shows the list of RC slabs used in this study as
well as the strengthening method, loading type and
Table 1 List of RC slabs

impact velocity of a falling weight for each specimen.

The material properties of FRP sheets are listed in
Table 2. The nominal names of these RC slabs are
designated based on the strengthening material (N:
non-strengthening; A: strengthening with AFRP; C:
strengthening with CFRP), the weaving method of the
FRP sheet (1: uni-directional weaving, 2: cross-directional weaving), the number of FRP sheet layers, the
loading type (II: iterative loading, IS: single loading),
and the impact velocity (m/s) for the single loading test.
Notations for the strengthening material and weaving
method were combined. Then, the specimens of A1/
C1-2, A2-1 possess almost the same tensile stiffness in
orthogonal directions. However, the area of the FRP
sheet for slab A2-2 is about two times larger than that of
the other strengthened slabs.
Figure 1 shows the dimensions and rebar arrangement of the RC slab and the strengthening area of the
FRP sheet. The dimensions for all RC slabs used here
were 1,650 9 1,650 9 150 mm. D13 (13 mm)
deformed bars (SD295A) were used and arranged at
intervals of 150 mm in orthogonal directions.
Regarding boundary conditions on the four sides;
the opposite two sides of the RC slab were pinched
on the top and bottom surfaces at a point 125 mm
inside from the edges to prevent the slab from spring
up. The main shaft supporting the RC slab was free to
rotate (pinned condition) [1922]. The other opposite
sides were free to move and to rotate. Photo 1 shows
the experimental setup for the impact loading tests.
At the beginning of the experiments, the average
compressive strength and elastic modulus of concrete
were 16.7 MPa and 13.9 GPa, respectively. The yield
strength of rebar was 354.5 MPa [2326].

Specimen

Strengthening method

N-II

Non-strengthening

Loading
type

Impact velocity
V (m/s)

Iterative

1, 2, 3, 4

Single

One uni-directional AFRP sheet bonded

orthogonally

Iterative

5
1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5

C1-2-II

One uni-directional CFRP sheet bonded

orthogonally

Iterative

1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5

A2-1-II

One cross-directional AFRP sheet bonded

N-IS4
N-IS5
A1-2-II

A2-1-IS5

Iterative

1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5

Single

A2-1-IS6
A2-2-II

6
Two cross-directional AFRP sheet bonded

Iterative

1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

1857

Table 2 Material properties of FRP sheets

FRP sheet

Mass per unit

area (g/m2)

Thickness
t (mm)

Tensile strength
(GPa)

Youngs Modulus
E (GPa)

Tensile stiffness
per unit width
E
t (kN/mm)

Uni-directional AFRP sheet

415

0.286

2.48

126.5

36.2

Uni-directional CFRP sheet

300

0.167

4.07

230.5

38.5

Cross-directional AFRP sheet

435/435

0.3/0.3

2.48

126.5

38.0/38.0

Photo 1 Experimental setup

anchoring treatment was applied at the edge of the

FRP sheets.
Fig. 1 Dimensions of an RC slab

2.3 Impact loading test

2.2 Strengthening process
In this experiment, to improve the bonding capacity
of the FRP sheet, shot blasting and primer coating
treatment were applied to the bonding surface of each
RC slab before bonding to the FRP sheet. When
bonding uni-directional FRP sheets orthogonally
(A1-2, C1-2), FRP sheets for the first layer were
bonded in the main-rebar direction; those for the
second layer were bonded in the orthogonal direction.
When bonding the cross-directional AFRP sheet
(A2-1), the sheets that were 1 m in width were bonded
in the main-rebar direction. Moreover, for A2-2, the
FRP sheets for the second layer were bonded in the
orthogonal direction. For all strengthened RC slabs, no

The impact load was applied by a free falling 300 kg

steel striker with a diameter of 60 mm onto the centre
of the RC slabs. Two loading types for subjecting
impact load were applied: iterative and single loading.
The iterative loading tests were conducted for all kinds
of RC slabs with (1) 1 m/s initial impact velocity that
was incremented by 1 m/s up to V = 4 m/s, and then
(2) 0.5 m/s increments in impact velocity until the RC
slab collapsed. In this experiment, it is assumed that the
RC slabs have collapsed when the cumulated residual
displacement reached 28 mm, which is 1/50th of the
clear span length. In addition, single loading tests with
V = 4, 5 m/s and V = 5, 6 m/s impact velocities were
conducted for slabs N-IS and A2-1-IS, respectively,

1858

in which the former impact velocities are the same as

the final impact velocity for each RC slab in the
iterative loading test and in which the latter ones are the
same with an impact velocity 1 m/s greater than the
final velocity [12, 2729].
In these experiments, the time histories of weight
impact and reaction forces and displacement at the
loading point of the RC slab (hereinafter, displacement) were continuously recorded using a wide
band data recorder. After experiments, to observe
the crack patterns due to punching shear, the RC
slabs were cut along the centreline in the main-rebar
direction.

3 Experimental results
3.1 Characteristics of the responses
Figure 2 compares the time histories of impact and
reaction force P, R and displacement d for each RC
slabs. Figure 2a and b are for results of the iterative
and single loading test, respectively. Here, the reaction force is evaluated by summing up the output from
both supporting points. From Fig. 2a, it is seen that
impact forces P for all slabs suddenly increase at the
beginning because of the weight of the impact. The
maximum amplitude for each slab increases as the
impact velocity increases until V = 3 m/s. After that,
for V = 4 m/s, the maximum amplitude at the beginning is smaller than that at V = 3 m/s, and the second
predominant sinusoidal half wave is excited, which
has a low amplitude and a duration of about 20 ms.
Furthermore, when the impact velocity exceeds
4.5 m/s, the incident wave at the beginning disappears, and a sinusoidal half wave with a low amplitude
and duration of 30 ms is generated [3032].
The wave configuration of the action force R is
similar among all specimens. The maximum amplitude of the reaction force for each slabs increases as
the impact velocity increases until V = 3 m/s. For
V = 4 m/s, the amplitude is lower than that of
V = 3 m/s. In cases over V = 4.5 m/s, the wave is
composed of two sinusoidal waves: one wave with a
duration of 30 ms and the other wave with a period of
about 15 ms.
Observing time histories of displacement d, it is
evident that the amplitude for each RC slab increases
as the impact velocity increases, and the residual

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

displacement is almost zero until V = 3 m/s. For

V = 4 m/s, the maximum amplitude increases suddenly. In particular, for slab N-II, the residual
displacement is as large as the maximum one, and
the RC slab must collapse due to punching shear
failure. When the impact velocity exceeds 4.5 m/s,
the wave configuration of the displacement for
strengthened RC slabs is similar among the tested
scenarios [3335].
From these results, it can be seen that RC slabs behave
elastically until V = 3 m/s because residual displacement is almost restored for each RC slab. However,
when the impact velocity is greater than 4 m/s, RC slabs
behave elasto-plastically because residual displacement
occurs for all slabs. The elastic limit for all RC slabs may
be an impact velocity of V = 3 m/s.
From Fig. 2b, it is seen that the wave configurations of slab N for single loading tests (N-IS) at
V = 4 and 5 m/s are similar to those for iterative
loading tests (N-II) at V = 3 and 4 m/s, respectively.
The slabs A2-1-IS at V = 5 and 6 m/s are similar to
that for the iterative loading test (A2-1-II) at
V = 4 m/s. Thus, slabs N-IS and A2-1-IS can sustain
impact loading until V = 4 m/s and 5 m/s, respectively. From these results, it is seen that the impact
velocity of RC slab reaches its final state when single
loading is larger than that under iterative loading.

3.2 Hysteretic loop of reaction force (R)

displacement (d)
The hysteretic loops of reaction force (R)displacement (d) are compared for each slab in Fig. 3. Here,
Fig. 3a and b show the results for the iterative and
single loading tests, respectively. From Fig. 3a, it is
seen that the hysteretic loops are similar among all
specimens considered here until V = 3 m/s, except for
slab N-II at V = 2 and 3 m/s. Therefore, the reaction
force increases as displacement increases, and then
after reaching maximum value, it decreases as it passes
through the loading path. Thus, these RC slabs are in
the elastic region until the impact velocity reaches
V = 3 m/s impact velocity. The configurations of the
hysteretic loop for V = 4 m/s are triangular, which
implies that at this impact velocity, a punching shear
cone may develop in the RC slabs, and the shear cone
may be pulled out a little. When the impact velocity
exceeds V = 4 m/s, the maximum reaction force is less

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

1859

Fig. 2 Time histories of impact force P, reaction force R and displacement d

than that at V = 4 m/s because the punching shear

cone has already been developed.
From Fig. 3b, it is observed that slab N-IS still
behaves almost elastically at V = 4 m/s. However, at
V = 5 m/s, the RC slab reaches its final state of
punching shear failure mode because the hysteretic

loop is triangular. However, it is recognised that slab

A2-1-IS at V = 5 and 6 m/s behaves similarly to that
at V = 4 m/s of iterative impact loading. Moreover,
the maximum reaction force at V = 6 m/s is less than
that at V = 5 m/s. Thus, it can be seen that slab
A2-1-IS at V = 6 m/s has already been in its final state.

1860

3.3 Distributions of maximum impact forces,

reaction forces and residual displacement
Figure 4 shows the distributions of maximum
response values: (a) maximum impact force Pud;
(b) maximum reaction force Rud; and (c) cumulated
residual displacement dcr, taking the impact velocity
as abscissas. From Fig. 4a, it is seen that the impact
forces Pud for slabs A2-1/2-II at V = 3 m/s are
similar to those at V = 4 m/s, and these are maximum among all cases considered here for the iterative
impact loading test. However, the impact forces Pud
for the other slabs have a maximum value at
V = 3 m/s. When the impact velocity exceeds
V = 4.5 m/s, the impact forces Pud for all slabs
decrease significantly to about 80 kN. For the single

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

loading test, the impact forces Pud for each slab are
larger than those for the iterative loading test.
From Fig. 4b, it is seen that for the iterative
loading test, the reaction force Rud of N-II is the
smallest among those for all slabs at each impact
velocity. The reaction forces Rud for slabs A1/C1-2-II
reach their maximum values at V = 3 m/s, but at
V = 4 m/s, the reaction forces decrease to the same
level as that for slab N-II in the iterative loading test.
However, the reaction forces Rud for slabs A2-1/2-II
at V = 4 m/s are greater than those for slabs A1/C12-II. From these results, it is seen that the strengthening effects of cross-directional AFRP sheet on
dynamic load carrying capacity are greater than those
of the uni- directional FRP sheet, which implies that
bonding a cross-directional AFRP sheet can disperse

Fig. 3 Comparisons of hysteretic loops for reaction forcedisplacement

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

1861

Fig. 4 Distributions of maximum impact and reaction forces Pud and Rud, respectively, and cumulative residual displacement dcr

tensile stress more effectively across the back surface

of the RC slab than orthogonal bonding of a unidirectional FRP sheet. For the single loading test, it is
seen that the reaction forces Rud for all slabs are
greater than the cases of iterative loading tests, which
is similar to the results mentioned above for the
impact force Pud.
Observing Fig. 4c, for the iterative impact loading
test, it is recognised that cumulated residual displacements dcr for all slabs increase linearly as the impact
velocity increases to V = 3 m/s. When the impact
velocity exceeds V = 4 m/s, these increase exponentially as the impact velocity increases. Comparing the
residual displacement dcr for all RC slabs at
V = 4 m/s, that for slab N-II is the largest and those
for slabs A2-1/2-II are the smallest.
For the single loading test, because the residual
displacement dcr for slab N-IS at V = 4 m/s is very
small (about 5 mm), the slab may behave almost
elastically. The value for slab N-IS at V = 5 m/s was
not measured precisely because of spalling of the
lower cover concrete. The residual displacement dcr
for slab A2-1-IS increases as the impact velocity
increases. However, the residual displacement dcr at
V = 5 m/s is small and is half that of the iterative
loading test. From these results, it can be seen that the
impact response behaviour of the RC slab is strongly
affected by the loading history.
3.4 Punching shear behaviour
Photo 2 shows an example of the failure conditions on
the bottom surface of RC slabs. Here, the experimental
results for slabs N/A2-1-IS5 tested by single loading
type of V = 5 m/s are shown. From these photos, for

slab N-IS5, it is recognised that the punching shear

cone is completely spalled, and cracks due to bending
and/or torsion are generated. However, for slab A2-1IS5, which is strengthened with a cross-directional
AFRP sheet, it is seen that a punching shear cone is
formed, and the AFRP sheet around that (see hatched
area) is peeled off. However, the AFRP sheet has never
been ruptured, and the sheet outside the peeled area has
been completely bonded yet. From these results,
spalling of the punching shear cone can be prevented
by strengthening with an FRP sheet. Moreover, from
the results of other strengthened RC slabs, it has been
recognised that the failure condition on the bottom
surface of each slab is almost the same, independent of
the FRP sheet material, strengthening method, and
loading type.
Photo 3 shows the crack patterns in the cross section
along the centreline for all RC slabs considered here.
From these photos, it is observed that for the iterative
loading test, the punching shear cone for slab N-II is
formed at a slope of about 45 degrees. However, the
punching shear cone for the strengthened RC slabs
forms a gradual slope from the middle surface. The
punching shear cone for slab A2-2-II forms in the
lowest area of the cross section of the RC slab among
all slabs considered here, which implies that as the
tensile rigidity of the strengthening FRP sheet
increases, the shear cone flattens. One of the aspects
observed in the experimental results is the development of a bidirectional action. Although the slabs are
simply supported, the ratio between the diameter of the
impactor and the associated dynamically loaded
localised area and the dimensions of the slab may
yield a bi-directional type of behaviour. The cracking
pattern observed in Fig. 2 also indicates such

1862

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

Photo 2 An example failure condition in the bottom surface of RC slabs

Photo 3 Crack pattern in the cross section of RC slab

behaviour. This phenomenon may explain the advantageous behaviour of the bi-directional FRP system.
An AFRP sheet can disperse tensile stress occurring in
the back surface of the RC slab more effectively than a
uni-directional FRP sheet.
Observing the crack patterns in RC slabs for the
single loading test, it is seen that as the impact
velocity increases, the damage becomes more severe.
The damage for slabs N-IS-4 and A2-1-IS-5 for the

single impact loading test are not as severe as those

for the iterative loading test at the same velocity.
3.5 Static and dynamic load carrying capacity
Tables 3 and 4 show the details of the static punching
shear capacity authorised by authors (hereinafter, static
capacity) and the maximum reaction force obtained
from this study (hereinafter, dynamic capacity) for the

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

Table 3 Experimental
results of dynamic load
carrying capacity for the
iterative loading test

Specimen

1863

Static
capacity
(kN) (1)

Static
capacity
ratio

Dynamic
capacity
(kN) (2)

Dynamic
capacity
ratio

Dynamic
amplification
capacity (2)/(1)

N-II

142

1.00

321

1.00

2.27

A1-2-II

186

1.32

421

1.31

2.26

C1-2-II

183

1.30

382

1.19

2.08

A2-1-II

188

1.33

399

1.24

2.12

A2-2-II

206

1.46

427

1.33

2.07

Table 4 Experimental results of the dynamic load carrying capacity for the single loading test
Specimen

Static capacity
(kN) (1)

Static capacity
ratio

Dynamic capacity
(kN) (2)

Dynamic capacity
ratio

Dynamic amplification
capacity (2)/(1)

N-IS-4

142

1.00

283

1.00

2.00

A2-1-IS-5

188

1.33

367

1.30

1.95

iterative and single loading tests, respectively. In these

tables, the dynamic capacity ratio and static capacity
ratio are calculated by normalizing with reference to
the dynamic and static capacities of non-strengthened
slab N, respectively. The dynamic amplification factor
is obtained by dividing the dynamic capacity by the
static capacity. Here, the shape of the loading gigue
used in the static loading test was the same as that used
in the impact loading test.
From these tables, it is seen that the dynamic capacity
ratios of strengthened RC slabs are distributed from 1.2
to 1.3, independent of the loading type, strengthening
method, material properties, and volume of FRP sheet.
However, the static capacity ratio of slabs A1-2, C1-2
and A2-1 and slab A2-2 are about 1.3 and 1.5,
respectively. From these results, it is seen that the static
capacity ratios tend to be larger than those with dynamic
capacity. Dynamic amplification factors for all slabs are
about two, independent of the loading type, strengthening method, material properties and volume of FRP
sheet.

(1)
(2)

(3)

(4)
(5)

The elastic limit for all RC slabs considered

here is an impact velocity of V = 3 m/s.
The impact resistance of RC slabs can be
upgraded by bonding a strengthened FRP sheet
to the back surface.
The crack pattern observed from the experiment
clearly shows the development of bi-directional
yielding of slabs. Therefore, it may explain the
advantage of the FRP system in a bi-directional
FRP system. The AFRP strengthening effects of
a bi-directional AFRP sheet are greater than
those of a uni-directional FRP sheet because the
bi-directional AFRP sheet can disperse tensile
stress occurring in the back surface of the RC
slab more effectively than a uni-directional FRP
sheet.
The impact response behaviour of an RC slab is
strongly affected by the loading history.
The dynamic amplification factors for all slabs
are about two, irrespective of the loading type,
strengthening method, material properties and
volume of FRP sheet.

4 Conclusions
In this study, to investigate the impact resistance
behaviour of RC slabs when a FRP sheet is bonded to
the back surface, falling-weight impact tests were
conducted considering loading type, strengthening
method, material properties and volume of FRP sheet
as variables. The results obtained from this study are
summarised as follows:

References
1. Kishi N, Zhang G, Mikami H (2005) Numerical cracking
and debonding analysis of RC beams reinforced with FRP
sheet. J Compos Constr ASCE 9(6):507514
2. Kishi N, Ohno T, Konno H, Bhatti AQ (2006) Dynamic
response analysis for a large scale RC girder under a falling
weight impact loading. In: International conference on

1864

3.

4.
5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

advances in engineering structures, mechanics & construction, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, May
1417, pp 99109
Kishi N, Bhatti AQ (2010) An equivalent fracture energy
concept for nonlinear dynamic response analysis of prototype RC girders subjected to falling-weight impact
loading. Int J Impact Eng 37:103113
Japan Concrete Institute, Prospective technique of concrete
(2002) Volume 03
Kishi N, Mikami H, Matsuoka KG, Kurihashi Y (2001)
Failure behavior of flexural strengthened RC beams with
AFRP sheet. In: Proceedings of FRPRCS-5, pp 8795
Kishi N (2004) Practical methods for impact tests and
analysis. Struct Eng Ser JSCE 2004:15
Benmokrane B, Zhang BR, Chennouf A (2000) Tensile
properties and pull-out behavior of AFRP and CFRP rods
for grouted anchor applications. Constr Build Mater
14(3):157170. doi:10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00017-9
Benmokrane B, Zhang BR, Chennouf A, Masmoudi R (2000)
Evaluation of aramid and carbon fibre reinforced polymer
composite tendons for prestressed ground anchors. Can J Civ
Eng 27(5):10311045. doi:10.1139/cjce-27-5-1031
Buyukozturk O, Hearing B (1998) Failure behavior of
precracked concrete beams retrofitted with FRP. J Compos
Constr 138144
Chennouf A, Benmokrane B (1997) Tensile properties and
pull-out behavior of fiber reinforced plastic ground
anchors. Proc Annu Conf Can Soc Civ Eng 6:141150
Erki MA, Rizkalla SH (1993) Anchorages for FRP reinforcement. Concr Int Des Constr 15(6):5459
Naaman AE, Namur GG, Alwan JM, Najm HS (1991)
Fiber pull-out and bond slip. I: Analytical study. J Struct
Eng 117(9):27692790. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(1991)117:9(2769)
Agardh L (1999) Validation of Numerical simulations of
structural response via material sample testing and field
trials-comparative studies of concrete elements subjected
to transient loads. In: 3rd Asia pacific conference on shock
& impact loads on structures, 1999, November 2426,
Singapore, pp 113
Bamonte P, Coronelli D, Gambarova PG (2003) Smooth
anchored bars in NSC and HPC: a study on size effect.
J Adv Concr Technol 1(1):4253. doi:10.3151/jact.1.42
Bangash T, Munjiza A (2002) FEM/DEM modeling of RC
beams under impact. Seventh International Conference on
Structures under impact, SUSI 2002, Montreal, pp 519528
Bhatti AQ, Kishi N, Mikami H, Ando T (2009) Elastoplastic impact response analysis of shear-failure type RC
beams with shear rebars. J Mater Des 30(3):502510
Bhatti AQ, Kishi N (2010) Constitutive model for absorbing
system of RC girders used in Rock-sheds under falling
weight impact loading test. J Nucl Eng Des 240:26262632
Bhatti AQ, Kishi N, Mikami H (2011) An applicability of
dynamic response analysis of shear failure type RC beams
with lightweight aggregate concrete under falling-weight
impact loading. J Mater Struct 44(1):221231. doi:
10.1617/s11527-010-9621-9
Bhatti AQ, Kishi N, Konno H, Mikami H. Elasto-plastic
dynamic response analysis of prototype RC girder under
falling-weight impact loading considering mesh size effect.
J Struct Infrastruct Eng. doi:10.1080/15732479.2010.492838

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:18551864

20. Budelmann H, Kepp B, Rostasy FS (1990) Fatigue
behavior of bond-anchored unidirectional glass-FRPs. In:
Serviceability and durability of construction materials:
proceedings of the first materials engineering congress,
pp 11421151
21. Chen Y, May IM (2009) Reinforced concrete members
under drop-weight impacts. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build
162(1):4556
22. Ghose A (2009) Strategies for the management of bridges
for vehicular impacts. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build
162(1):310
23. Izatt C, May IM, Lyle J, Chen Y, Algaard W (2009) Perforation owing to impacts on reinforced concrete slabs.
Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 162(1):3744
24. Jones J, Fraser R (2009) Ship impact on concrete offshore
platform legs. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 162(1):2125
25. Nanni A, Bakis CE, Boothby TE (1997) Externaly bonded
FRP composites for repair of RC structures, non-metallic
(FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. In: Proceedings of the third international symposium, vol 1,
pp 303310
26. Nam JW, Kim HJ, Kim SB, Byun KJ (2009) Analytical
study of finite element models for FRP retrofitted concrete
structure under blast loads. Int J Damage Mech,
18(5):461490
27. May IM, Chen Y (2006) An experimental investigation of
the high-mass low-velocity impact behavior of reinforced
concrete members. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international
conference on design and analysis of protective structures,
Singapore, pp 417430
28. Morrison JK, Shah SP, Jenq YS (1988) Analysis of fiber
debonding and pull-out in composites. J Eng Mech
114(2):277294. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1988)114:
2(277)
29. Nanni A, Tomas J (1996) Grouted anchors for carbon FRP
tendon. Proc Mater Eng Conf 1:527534
30. Ouyang C, Pacios A, Shah SP (1994) Pull-out of inclined fibers
from cementitious matrix. J Eng Mech 120(12):26412659.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1994)120:12(2641)
31. Parker J (2009) Ship impact protection for Hungerford
Bridge, London, UK. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build
162(1):1119
32. Paul DK, Abbas H, Godbole PN, Nayak GC (1993) Aircraft crash upon a containment structure of a nuclear power
plant. In: Transactions of the 12th international conference
on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT-12),
1520 August, MPA, University of Stuttgart. Elsevier,
Germany. pp 157162
33. Stang H, Li Z, Shah SP (1990) Pull-out problem: stress
versus fracture mechanical approach. J Eng Mech
116(10):21362150. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1990)
116:10(2136)
34. Zhang BR, Benmokrane B, Chennouf A, Mukhopadhyaya
P, EI-Safty A (2001) Tensile behavior of FRP tendons for
prestressed grouted anchors. J Compos Constr ASCE
5(2):8593
35. Wu Z, Yang S, Zheng J, Hu XZ (2010) Analytical solution
for the pull-out response of FRP rods embedded in steel tubes
filled with cement grout. Mater Struct 43(5):597609. doi:
10.1617/s11527-009-9515-x