Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, SA 5005, Australia
Tianjin Chengjian University & University of Adelaide Joint Research Centre on Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Australia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 November 2014
Revised 14 August 2015
Accepted 20 August 2015
Available online 9 September 2015
Keywords:
Ultra-high performance concrete
Contact explosion
SPH
Finite element
a b s t r a c t
Dynamic performance of concrete structures under blast loading conditions is a topic of importance as
such load generates severe structural damage including flexural damage, shear damage and concrete
spall damage which may impose threats to the personnel and instruments shielded by the reinforced
concrete structure. To mitigate blast effects on civil structures, a new kind of concrete material named
Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete (UHPC) is now widely studied and applied. UHPC material is known
for its high compressive and tensile strength, large energy absorption capacity as well as good workability and anti-abrasion ability. In a previous study, the performance of UHPC slab under blast loads had
been investigated through free air explosion tests. The blast resistance capacity of UHPC had been
demonstrated through comparison with normal strength concrete. In the present study, the dynamic performance of UHPC slab under contact charge explosion is experimentally studied and compared with normal strength concrete slab under the same loading scenario. Numerical models are established to
reproduce both the previous free air explosion tests and the current contact explosion tests. In particular,
finite element model is established to simulate the free air explosion test, and coupled smoothed particle
hydrodynamics (SPH) method and finite element method is utilized to simulate the contact blast tests.
Numerical results are compared with the experimental observations, and the feasibility and accuracy
of the numerical model are validated.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent decades, with the rising of terrorism threats, increasingly more attention is drawn to structural dynamic response
under blast loading conditions. Structural response under blast
loads is a highly complex problem as it involves geometric and
material nonlinearity, time dependent structural deformation and
loading rate dependent material properties.
Traditional treatments of this problem [13] depend mainly on
single degree of freedom (SDOF) analysis, which is also the preferred method for design analysis as it is relatively straightforward
and easy to use. However, SDOF method based on simplified
assumptions may not be adequate for reliably modelling a structure with complex geometry under complex loading conditions.
Experimental investigation on this topic can provide intuitional
observations and useful data of blast induced structural deformation and damage. Schenker et al. [4] conducted full-scale field tests
on protected and unprotected concrete slabs. Time dependent
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.li@adelaide.edu.au (J. Li).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.032
0141-0296/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
396
397
Amount
Cement
Silica fume
Silica flour
Sand
Steel fibres
Superplasticizer
Water
680 kg/m3
204 kg/m3
204 kg/m3
974 kg/m3
156 kg/m3
44 l/m3
150 l/m3
8 1:026a
>
< e_e_s
f
DIF c
1=3
f cs >
: c e_
s
e_ s
for e_ 6 30 s1
for e_ > 30 s1
8 d
>
< e_e_s
ft
DIF
> e_ 1=3
f ts :
b
e_ s
for e_ 6 1 s1
for e_ > 1 s1
DIF
e_
4
10
a
where for the yield strength, a = afy = 0.0740.04fy/60; and for the
ultimate stress, a = afu = 0.0190.009fy/60.
Until now, the dynamic strength of UHPC is a topic of limited
discussion. Magnusson and Hallgren [40] tested concrete with
compressive strength up to 200 MPa, and they found the load carrying capacity of steel fibre reinforced concrete was increased in
the dynamic tests due to strain-rate effects. The experimental data
summarised by Malvar and Crawford [41] showed a reducing DIF
with increasing concrete strength. Chen et al. [42] conducted
dynamic tensile tests on steel fibre reinforced concrete with various fibre volume fraction, and the largest DIF observed at a loading
rate of 450 GPa/s is around 1.1. Weidner [43] conducted a series of
drop hammer tests on both plain concrete and fibre reinforced high
strength concrete, and it was observed that fibre reinforced concrete specimens did not perform as well as normal strength concrete specimens when tested dynamically. Fibre reinforced
concrete specimens tested in tension at elevated temperatures
exhibited a decrease in DIF when compared to room temperature.
Millard et al. [44] performed dynamic flexural tensile test on ultrahigh strength concrete with different dosages of steel fibre. The
results show that the strain rate enhancement of flexural strength
for UHPFRC is reduced as the fibre percentage increases. In fibrereinforced beams, the fibres resist the lateral spreading of the
cracks by bridging across regions of lower strength. Therefore,
the beneficial effect of a restraint on lateral crack growth has
already been partially accounted for by fibre reinforcement, resulting in higher failure strength under quasistatic loading. Subsequently, the influence of the higher loading rate on reducing
lateral crack development would be lessened.
In the current study, since no data available describing the
dynamic behaviour of the UHPC material, a DIF value of 1.0 is used
in the simulation of UHPC under blast loads. This is a rather conservative assumption as it underestimates the UHPC strength under
398
399
Description
Rebar ratio
NRC
UHPC
RC slab
Unreinforced UHPC
1.2%
Contact explosion
Contact explosion
1.0
1.0
3. Numerical simulation
In this section, to demonstrate the UHPC behaviour under various blast loads and verify the proposed numerical model, free air
explosion tests conducted in 2007 by Wu et al. [35] as well as
the current contact explosion tests are numerically investigated.
The material properties (both the UHPC and NRC), specimen
dimensions and testing systems in the free air explosion tests are
Table 3
Contact explosion induced damage.
Slab no.
NRC
UHPC
dtop
dbottom
390
350
710
380
Fig. 5. NRC response to contact explosion (a) top face of slab and (b) bottom face of slab.
Fig. 6. UHPC response to contact explosion (a) top face of slab and (b) bottom face of slab.
400
Table 4
Slabs and blast scenarios considered in numerical simulation.
Slab no.
Description
NRC-2007
UHPC-2007
NRC
UHPC
RC slab
Reinforced UHPC
RC slab
Unreinforced UHPC
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.5
1
Contact explosion
Contact explosion
0.75
0.37
8.2
20.1
1.0
1.0
ry
r0 Eh eP
where r0 is the initial yield strength, Eh represents the plastic hardening modulus defined in terms of Youngs modulus, E, and the tangent modulus Et, as
Eh
Et E
E Et
12
3
r Sij Sij
2
eP
1
Z t
2 p p 2
e_ ij e_ ij dt
3
0
ph
q0 C 2 l 1 1 c20 l 2a l2
1 S1 1l S2 ll1 S3 ll12
i2 c0 alE
p q0 C 2 l c0 alE
U s C S1 U p S2
2
UP
UP
U P S3
UP
Us
Us
10
U s C S1 U p
11
p
K=q
12
2E
In which K is the UHPC bulk modulus equals to 912
c, c is Pois-
sons ratio.
Fig. 8. Effective stress and effective plastic strain interpolated from tabulated input.
401
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
0.0005
0.001
0.002
0.00275
0.003
0.0035
0.004
165
170
175
170
165
162
160
155
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
In summary, in the present study, the non-linear stress softening behaviour of UHPC is modelled by the tabulated stressstrain
curve of the elasticplastic hydrodynamic material model in LSDYNA. The tensile stress failure is determined by the tensile cutoff value which equals to 30 MPa according to the tensile stress
of UHPC. The shock response of UHPC is modelled using the Mie
Gruneisen equation of state.
The parameter in the EOS used in the present study is given in
Table 6. After substituting Youngs modulus (41 GPa), material
density (2650 kg/m3), Poissons ratio (0.15) into Eq. (12), bulk
sound velocity can be estimated as 2100 m/s. Due to the lack of
dynamic tests data, the slope of the UsUp curve S1 and Gruneisen
gamma c0 are sourced from previous numerical simulations on
steel fibre reinforced concrete [47]. It should be noted that
although the following numerical results demonstrate the feasibility of adoption of this material model and the corresponding
parameters, further dynamic material tests are deemed necessary
to verify the assumptions.
Steel reinforcement in the current study is simulated by MAT_
Piecewise_Linear_Plasticity (MAT_24). This model allows the definition of arbitrary stress versus strain curve and arbitrary strain
rate curve. Also, failure based on a plastic strain or the minimum
time step size can be defined.
Crack and concrete spall can be simulated in LS-DYNA through
either the tied node with failure definition or the element erosion
algorithm. The first method requires duplicated nodes to be
defined and tied together in selected regions. Using the erosion
algorithm, concrete finite element model is created in conventional
manner, and when the element response such as the principle
stress or strain exceeds the defined value, such element will be
automatically eroded and erased from the finite element model.
When choosing the erosion criterion for NRC and UHPC in the
current study, the primary concern is to avoid massive deletion
of the elements and maintain the mass conservation. Ideally erosion should not be used to delete elements. This, however, is not
possible when modelling large deformation in the post-failure
region such as concrete spall damage. Therefore, to avoid eroding
elements prematurely, large strain is usually chosen as the erosion
criterion (Note this strain is not necessarily the material fracture
strain).
For NRC material, typical concrete strain at peak tensile stress
under static loading is around 0.00025 (which is one tenth of the
peak compressive strain). Considering the softening phase, the
concrete fracture strain may be assumed as 5 0.00025 =
0.00125. Taken into the consideration of other effects like strain
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.005
0.0055
0.006
0.0065
0.007
0.00725
0.0075
0.008
150
149
148
147
146
145
143
140
Table 7
Material properties.
Table 6
Parameter for the equation of state describing the UHPC.
EOS
C0
S1
c0
2100 m/s
1.4
2
Youngs modulus
Compressive strength
Tensile strength
Erosion principle strain
NRC and
NRC-2007
UHPC and
UHPC-2007
Steel
28.3 GPa
39.5 MPa
8.2 MPa
0.4
45 GPa
175 MPa
30 MPa
0.4
200 GPa
600 MPa
0.2
402
mid-span and the crack lengths decrease towards the slab boundary. This damage observation is close to the field test results as
shown in Fig. 11.
The time history curves of the mid-span displacement and
velocity are plotted in Fig. 12. In the experiment, the LVDT used
for the displacement recording debonded from the slab after the
first peak, thus the comparison of the entire history curve is not
available here. However, it is noticed that, during the test, the peak
displacement in the first vibration period is captured as 38 mm.
The numerical simulation gives a value of around 36 mm and the
prediction accuracy is high. The slight underestimation can be
attributed to the explosive charge shape effect. Explosive used in
the test is cylindrical shaped, however in LS-DYNA, Load_Blast
function is based on spherical TNT explosion in free air. The charge
shape caused the blast wave to be directional, bringing about a
higher pressure magnitude in the test than predicted by the
5 ms
1ms
8 ms
10 ms
20 ms
30 ms
Fig. 10. NRC-2007 slab simulation.
403
Velocity (m/s)
Displacement (m)
Midspan velocity
Midspan displacement
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
-4
-8
-12
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Time (ms)
Time (ms)
Fig. 12. Time history curves of midspan response.
3 ms
20 ms
Fig. 13. UHPC-2007 slab response simulation.
404
uses discrete particles, interacting with each other via an interpolation function. Since this method is Lagrangian and mesh free, it is
well suited to analyse large deformation events involving failure
and fragmentation [51], and the utilization of using such method
simulating the high explosive explosions are also found in literature [52,53]. In the present study, in order to simulate interaction
1 ms
5 ms
8 ms
10 ms
15 ms
20 ms
Fig. 17. Explosion expansion.
405
0.1 ms
0.2 ms
0.3 ms
0.5 ms
3 ms
1 ms
7 ms
10 ms
15 ms
20 ms
Fig. 18. Slab NRC top surface response.
406
0.1 ms
3 ms
10 ms
20 ms
Fig. 20. Slab UHPC top surface response.
Fig. 18 shows the top surface response of the target slab NRC.
The punching and spall failure quickly expands with time. The
damage extends quickly in the first 10 ms, and remains stable
afterwards. No global deformation can be observed which indicates
the slab response under contact explosion is highly localized.
It is even clearer to observe the spall damage from the bottom
surface as shown in Fig. 19, comparing with the experimental
observations of NRC on the bottom side, the numerical model gives
excellent predictions on the structural damage. Concrete spall,
407
0.1 ms
3 ms
10 ms
20 ms
Fig. 21. Slab UHPC bottom surface response.
4. Concluding remarks
Table 8
Spall damage dimension comparison.
Slab
NRC
UHPC
Experimental
bottom
Numerical
top
Numerical
bottom
390
350
710
380
360
310
700
330
punching and tearing of the steel reinforcement are all well simulated with high fidelity.
Fig. 20 shows the ultra-high performance concrete slab UHPC
under 1 kg contact explosion. Similar to the NRC slab, the concrete
crush and spall is highly localized and the structure restores stability in a short period of time. Due to the high compressive strength,
the concrete crush on the proximal face facing the explosive is significantly confined comparing with the NRC slab.
On the distal face of the UHPC slab, concrete spall failure which
is induced by the severe tensile wave propagation is again seen
clearly as shown in Fig. 21. However, with the contribution from
the steel fibre, the spall area is not as significant as seen on the
NRC slab. It is worth noting that in this UHPC slab, no steel reinforcement is placed, and according to the previous study [9,17],
with the inclusion of the steel reinforcement, the spall damage
can be further mitigated.
In the contact explosion tests, the minimum global flexural
behaviour was expected on the test slabs, thus no LVDT was
installed on the slab for the deflection time history recording.
Due to the lack of quantitative data of the test slab, only the failure
mode and failure dimension are compared between the test slabs
and numerical results, and the comparison are summarised in
Table 8. It is noticed that the numerical method gives good prediction of the spall damage diameter. Again the superior blast resistance capacity of UHPC slab is demonstrated.
Two contact explosion tests on normal concrete slab and ultrahigh performance concrete slab are conducted. From the experimental results, it is noticed that due to the contribution from the
ultra-high compressive strength and steel fibre reinforcement,
UHPC has significantly reduced concrete punching and spall damage as compared with the NRC slab. Rational numerical models for
UHPC and NRC under blast loads are developed. Free air explosion
tests conducted in a previous study and the current contact explosion tests are reproduced in hydro-code LS-DYNA using the proposed numerical models. Finite Element method is used for free
air explosion simulation while the coupled SPH and Finite Element
method is utilized for the contact explosion simulation. From the
results comparison of the damage mode and spall damage area,
it is concluded that the proposed numerical model and methodology can well reproduce the structural response of normal strength
concrete slab and UHPC slab under various blast loading conditions. The numerical results again demonstrated the superior blast
resistance capacity of UHPC material.
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper jointly supported by the
ARC Discovery Grant DP140103025, the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant 51278326, and the National
Key Technology R&D Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2012BAJ07B05) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers. Design of blast resistant buildings in
petrochemical facilities; 1997.
[2] UFC. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Department of
Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria 3-340-02, Washington, DC.
[3] Biggs JM. Introduction to structural dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964.
[4] Schenker A, Anteby I, Gal E, Kivity Y, Nizri E, Sadot O, Michaelis R, Levintant O,
Ben-Dor G. Full-scale field tests of concrete slabs subjected to blast loads. Int J
Impact Eng 2008;35:18498.
408
[5] Maji AK, Brown JP, Urgessa GS. Full-scale testing and analysis for blastresistant design. J Aeros Eng 2008;21:21725.
[6] Smith P, Mays G, Rose T, Teo K, Roberts B. Small scale models of complex
geometry for blast overpressure assessment. Int J Impact Eng 1992;12:34560.
[7] Zhou X, Hao H. Mesoscale modelling and analysis of damage and
fragmentation of concrete slab under contact detonation. Int J Impact Eng
2009;36:131526.
[8] Xu K, Lu Y. Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete
plates subjected to blast loading. Comput Struct 2006;84:4318.
[9] Li J, Hao H. Numerical study of concrete spall damage to blast loads. Int J
Impact Eng 2014;68:4155.
[10] Li J, Hao H. Influence of brittle shear damage on accuracy of the two-step
method in prediction of structural response to blast loads. Int J Impact Eng
2013;54:21731.
[11] Li J, Hao H. Numerical study of structural progressive collapse using
substructure technique. Eng Struct 2013;52:10113.
[12] Wang Z, Lu Y, Hao H, Chong K. A full coupled numerical analysis approach for
buried structures subjected to subsurface blast. Comput Struct
2005;83:33956.
[13] Xu J-X. Analysis of structural response under blast loads using the coupled
SPHFEM approach. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2008;9:118492.
[14] Crawford JE, Malvar LJ, Morrill KB. Reinforced concrete column retrofit
methods for seismic and blast protection. In: Proc of society of American
military engineering symposium on compressive force protection; 2001.
[15] Low HY, Hao H. Reliability analysis of direct shear and flexural failure modes of
RC slabs under explosive loading. Eng Struct 2002;24:18998.
[16] Grady D. The spall strength of condensed matter. J Mech Phys Solids
1988;36:35384.
[17] McVay MK. Spall damage of concrete structures. DTIC Document 1988.
[18] Foglar M, Hajek R, Kovar M, toller J. Blast performance of RC panels with
waste steel fibers. Constr Build Mater 2015;94:53646.
[19] Ohtsu M, Uddin FA, Tong W, Murakami K. Dynamics of spall failure in fiber
reinforced concrete due to blasting. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:5118.
[20] Leppnen J. Experiments and numerical analyses of blast and fragment
impacts on concrete. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31:84360.
[21] Nash PT, Vallabhan C, Knight TC. Spall damage to concrete walls from close-in
cased and uncased? Explosions in air. ACI Struct J 1995;92.
[22] Muszynski LC, Purcell MR. Composite reinforcement to strengthen existing
concrete structures against air blast. J Compos Construct 2003;7:937.
[23] Ghani Razaqpur A, Tolba A, Contestabile E. Blast loading response of reinforced
concrete panels reinforced with externally bonded GFRP laminates. Compos B
Eng 2007;38:53546.
[24] Buchan PA, Chen JF. Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer
strengthened concrete and masonry structures a state-of-the-art review.
Compos B Eng 2007;38:50922.
[25] Mutalib AA, Hao H. Development of PI diagrams for FRP strengthened RC
columns. Int J Impact Eng 2011;38:290304.
[26] Fehling E, Bunje K, Schmidt M. Grtnerplatz Bridge over River Fulda in
Kassel: Multispan Hybrid UHPC-Steel Bridge. In: Designing and building with
UHPFRC. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013. pp. 0136.
[27] Chin W, Kim Y, Cho J-R, Park J. Dynamic characteristics evaluation of
innovative UHPC pedestrian cable stayed bridge. Engineering 2012;4
(12):86976.
[28] Rebentrost M, Wight G. Perspective on UHPCs from a specialist construction
company. In: Designing and building with UHPFRC. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.;
2013. pp. 189208.
[29] Ngo T, Mendis P, Krauthammer T. Behavior of ultrahigh-strength prestressed
concrete panels subjected to blast loading. J Struct Eng 2007;133:158290.
[30] Roller C, Mayrhofer C, Riedel W, Thoma K. Residual load capacity of exposed
and hardened concrete columns under explosion loads. Eng Struct
2013;55:6672.