ductile concrete

Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures -High Performance, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Special Loadings and Structural Applications- B. H. Oh, et al. (eds)

2010 Korea Concrete Institute, ISBN 978-89-5708-182-2

Blast loading response of ultra high performance concrete and reactive powder concrete slabs

J.H.J. Kim, N.H. Yi, I.S. Oh & H.S. Lee Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

J.K. Choi & Y.G. Cho Hyundai Institute of Construction Technology, Yongin, Korea ABSTRACT: In recent years, there have been numerous explosion-related accidents due to military and terror-ist activities. Such incidents caused not only damages to structures but also human casualties, especially in ur-ban areas. To protect structures and save human lives against explosion accidents, better understanding of the explosion effect on structures is needed. In an explosion, the blast load is applied to concrete structures as an impulsive load of extremely short duration with very high pressure and heat. Generally, concrete is known to have a relatively high blast resistance compared to other construction materials. However, normal strength concrete structures require higher strength to improve their resistance against impact and blast loads. There-fore, a new material with high-energy absorption capacity and high resistance to damage is a better material for blast resistance design. Recently, Ultra High Strength Concrete (UHSC) and Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) have been actively developed to significantly improve concrete strength. UHSC and RPC can improve concrete strength, member size and weight reductions and workability improvement. High strength concrete usages in better earthquake resistance and increase a building height and bridge span. Also, UHSC and RPC can be im-plemented for blast resistance design of infrastructure due to terror or impact such as 9.11 terror attack. There-fore, in this study, the blast tests are performed to investigate the behavior of UHSC and RPC slab subjected to blast load. Blast wave characteristics, including incident and reflected pressures as well as maximum and resid-ual displacements and strains in steel and concrete surface are measured. Also, blast damages and failure modes were recorded for each specimen. From these tests, UHSC and RPC are shown to effectively resist blast explo-sions compare to normal strength concrete.

1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there have been numerous explosion-related accidents due to military and terrorist activi-ties. Such incidents caused not only damages to structures but also human casualties. Especially, in metropolitan areas which are exposed to terror at-tack, these severe loading related accidents can cause great human causalities, economical losses, and pub-lic infrastructure destructions, and civilian structure collapses. To protect structures and save human lives against explosion accidents, better understanding of the explosion effect on structures is needed. In an explosion, the blast load is applied to structures as an impulsive load of extremely short duration with very high pressure and heat.

Generally, concrete is known to have a relatively high blast resistance compared to other construction materials. However, normal strength concrete struc-tures require higher strength to improve their resis-tance against impact and blast loads. Therefore, a new material with high-energy absorption capacity

and high resistance to damage is a better material for blast resistance design. Recently, Ultra High Strength Concrete (UHSC) and Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) have been actively developed to significantly improve concrete strength. UHSC and RPC can im-prove concrete strength, reduce member size and self-weight, and improve workability. Commonly, UHSC and RPC produce compressive strength greater than 150MPa and sometime up to 180~200MPa. High strength concrete are used to improve earthquake resistance as well as construc-tions of high-rises and long span bridges. Also, UHSC and RPC can be implemented to blast resis-tance design of infrastructure against terror or impact (ASCE 1999, Baker 1973).

The Korean building code has been modified in year 2009 where any high-rises located in the city of Seoul with the height of over 50 above ground floors or 200m, the terror resistant design has to be incor-porated. This code regulation reflects the keen public interest on blast resistance and protective design concepts. However, since UHSC or RPC has been

recently developed, their blast resistant capacities have never been studied. In order to properly and ef-ficiently incorporate UHSC and RPC into protective design scheme, an in-depth research on blast resis-tance behavior on UHSC and RPC is urgently needed at this time (Kim 2009, Zineddin et al. 2007).

Therefore, in this study, the blast tests are per-formed to investigate the behavior of UHSC and RPC slabs subjected to blast load. Blast wave char-acteristics including incident and reflected pressures as well as maximum and residual displacements and strains in steel and concrete surface are measured. Also, blast damages and failure modes were recorded for each specimen. From these tests, UHSC and RPC are shown to effectively resist blast explosions com-pared to normal strength concrete. Based on these test results, the blast design procedure will be sug-gested.

2 LITERATURE LEVIEW

2.1 Characteristic of blast load An explosion is a very fast chemical reaction produc-ing transient air pressure waves called blast waves. For a free-air burst, the blast wave will travel away from the source as a spherical wave front as shown in Figure 1(a). The peak overpressure and the dura-tion of the overpressure vary with distance from the explosives. The magnitude of these parameters also depends on the explosive materials from which the explosive compound is made. Usually the size of the explosive compound is given in terms of a TNT weight. Explosive behavior depends on a number of factors: ambient temperature, ambient pressure, ex-plosive composition, explosive material properties, and the nature of the ignition source type. Additional factors include type, energy, and duration of the events as well as geometry of surroundings (i.e., con-fined or unconfined). When a condensed high explo-sive is initiated, explosion reaction generates several additional characteristics such as blast wave of very high pressure, fragmentation from the explosive case or structural elements, hot gas with a pressure from 100 up to 300 kilobar, and a temperature of about 3,000~4,000. The main blast effect is impulsive pressure loading from the blast wave as shown in Figure 1(b) (Baker 1973, Mays & Smith 1995).

After a short time, the overpressure behind the shock front drops rapidly and becomes smaller than that of the surrounding atmosphere as shown in Fig-ure 1(b). This pressure domain is known as the nega-tive phase. The front of the blast wave weakens as it progresses outward and its velocity drops toward the velocity of sound in the undisturbed atmosphere.

The characteristics of a blast wave resulting from an explosion depend mainly on the physical

Shelter

W

Ground surface

Angle of incidence,

Normal distance, RA

Horizontal distance

Path of shock propagation normal to surface

Path of shock propagation to point other than the normal point

(a) Spherical free air blast

Pres

sure

tA+to+to

Pso

Pso

tAPo

0

Negative phaseDuration, to

Positive phase

Duration, to

Negative specific impulse, is

Ambient,

Ps

Ps

tA+to

Positive specific impulse, is

(b) Pressure-time history

Figure 1. Spherical free air blast (TM5-1300 1990, Kim et al. 2007).

properties of the source and the medium through which blast waves propagate. To create reference blast experiments, some controlled explosions have been conducted under ideal conditions. To relate other explosions with non-ideal conditions to the ref-erence explosions, blast scaling laws can be em-ployed. The most widely used approach to blast wave scaling is that formulated by Hopkinson, which is commonly described as the cube-root scaling law. The scaled distance, Z, is defined using the Hopkin-son-Cranz's cube root law as (ASCE 1999):

3/13/1 // WRZorERZ == (1)

where, Z is scaling distance; R is stand-off distance from the target structure; E is total explosive thermal amount of energy; W is charge weight of equivalent TNT amount. The scaling distance is used for evaluation of blast wave characteristics.

2.2 Research trends Concrete is generally known to have a relatively high blast resistance capacity compared to other construc-tion materials. However, concrete structures, which were not designed to have blast protective capacity, require retrofitting during their service life to im-prove their resistance against blast loads. Retrofitting method of attaching extra structural members or supports to increase the blast resistance is inefficient

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

hThD = ),(J

(1)

The proportionality coefficient D(h,T) is called

moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear function

of the relative humidity h and temperature T (Baant

& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires

that the variation in time of the water mass per unit

volume of concrete (water content w) be equal to the

divergence of the moisture flux J

J=

t

w

(2)

The water content w can be expressed as the sum

of the evaporable water w

e

(capillary water, water

vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable

(chemically bound) water w

n

(Mills 1966,

Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to

assume that the evaporable water is a function of

relative humidity, h, degree of hydration,

c

, and

degree of silica fume reaction,

s

, i.e. w

e

=w

e

(h,

c

,

s

)

= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm

(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and

by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one

obtains

nsc

w

s

e

w

c

e

w

h

h

D

t

h

h

e

w

&

&&

++

=+

)(

(3)

where w

e

/h is the slope of the sorption/desorption

isotherm (also called moisture capacity). The

governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed

by appropriate boundary and initial conditions.

The relation between the amount of evaporable

water and relative humidity is called adsorption

isotherm if measured with increasing relativity

humidity and desorption isotherm in the opposite

case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al. 1994), in

the following, sorption isotherm will be used with

reference to both sorption and desorption conditions.

By the way, if the hysteresis of the moisture

isotherm would be taken into account, two different

relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must

be used according to the sign of the variation of the

relativity humidity. The shape of the sorption

isotherm for HPC is influenced by many parameters,

especially those that influence extent and rate of the

chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore

structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement

ratio, cement chemical composition, SF content,

curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,

etc.). In the literature various formulations can be

found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal

concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present

paper the semi-empirical expression proposed by

Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it

explicitly accounts for the evolution of hydration

reaction and SF content. This sorption isotherm

reads

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

+

=

1

1

10

,

1

1

10

1

1,

1

,,

h

cc

g

e

sc

K

h

cc

g

e

sc

G

sc

h

e

w

(4)

where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the

physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second

term (capillary isotherm) represents the capillary

water. This expression is valid only for low content

of SF. The coefficient G

1

represents the amount of

water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%

relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling

Mjornell 1997) as

( )

s

s

s

vg

kc

c

c

vg

k

sc

G +=,

1

(5)

where k

c

vg

and k

s

vg

are material parameters. From the

maximum amount of water per unit volume that can

fill all pores (both capillary pores and gel pores), one

can calculate K

1

as one obtains

( )

1

1

10

1

10

1

1

22.0188.0

0

,

1

+

=

h

cc

g

e

h

cc

g

eGs

s

s

c

w

sc

K

(6)

The material parameters k

c

vg

and k

s

vg

and g

1

can

be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to

free (evaporable) water content in concrete at

various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).

2.2 Temperature evolution

Note that, at early age, since the chemical reactions

associated with cement hydration and SF reaction

are exothermic, the temperature field is not uniform

for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental

temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be

described in concrete, at least for temperature not

exceeding 100C (Baant & Kaplan 1996), by

Fouriers law, which reads

T= q

(7)

where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute

temperature, and is the heat conductivity; in this

in the perspective of additional construction cost and eliminating useable space. Also, since this method does not greatly improve the overall structural resis-tance against blast load, a more feasible method of retrofitting to improve blast resistance would be to use Ultra High Strength Concrete (UHSC) or Reac-tive Powder Concrete (RPC). UHSC and RPC would also be very effective in new constructions since they can be used for concrete materials in rein-forced concrete members.

In fact, beams and plates constructed using high strength concrete (HSC) showed better impact resis-tance capacity than ones made using normal strength concrete (NSC) in past researches. However, due to social and governmental constraints, this type of comparison study has not been carried over to blast resistance capacity study, resulting in insufficient da-tabase of HSCs role as blast resisting material (Kim 2009).

Recently, several researchers have pursued static and impact capacity studies on fiber reinforced con-crete members under time-dependent loading condi-tions. The reference study has shown that the impact and blast loaded UHSC or RPC study results are non-existing and blast loaded HSC study results are scarcely existing at best (Habel et al. 2008).

3 BLAST TEST DETAILS

In this paper, the failure behaviors of reinforced UHSC and RPC slabs under blast loading are stud-ied. The tests were performed as 2 step process of preliminary and main tests at Agency for Defense Development of Koreas testing sight. In the prelimi-nary test stage, TNT 35lbs was used as blast load on control specimens (NSC specimen). After the trial tests, ANFO 35lbs was selected as the blast explo-sive charge to be used for the main test stage.

3.1 Blasting test setup In this study, in order to eliminate the 3-D effect, RC slab specimens are placed at a same level as ground surface(Razaqpur et al. 2007). A steel frame is con-structed and buried in the ground as shown in Figure 2(a). For preventing the supporting frame distortion during blast loading, the stiffeners with 250mm spac-ing are installed on wall surface of supporting frame. Rubber pads of the same width and length as the steel angle legs were placed between the angles and test specimen to ensure uniform support conditions. The explosive used for the test was spherical ANFO, which was held by wooden horizontal bar. Figure 2(b) shows the test specimen setup with the 35lbs ANFO (28.7lbs TNT) explosive charge. The 1.5m standoff from specimens to explosive middle point is consistently maintained.

(a) Buried supporting frame

(b) Explosive charge and specimen

Figure 2. Overview blast setup.

3.2 Specimen manufacturing and details For the relative and absolute comparisons between the specimens casted with UHSC, RCP, and NSC RC slabs with the dimensions of 1,000 1,000150mm and D10 (71.33mm2) mesh type rein-forcements with 82mm spacing are used. The steel ratio of the reinforced NSC and UHSC specimens is same as the 2 volume % of short steel fibers used in RPC specimen. The mix proportions for NSC, UHSC, and RPC are tabulated in Table 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The 100200mm cylindrical specimens are prepared for compressive and tensile strength tests performed at Hyundai Institute of Construction Technology. The number of specimens tested for NSC, UHSC, and RPC are 2, 4, and 4 specimens, re-spectively. The average compressive strength of NSC, UHSC, and RPC are 25.6, 202.0, and 203.0 MPa, respectively. The compressive strengths with a deviation over 15% are eliminated from considera-tion. The tensile strength of RPC is approximately 2.3 times greater (21.4MPa) than NSC (2.2MPa) and UHSC, (9.21MPa), respectively, due to the addition of 2 vol.% of short steel fibers in RPC.

3.3 Measurement outline The free field incident pressure was measured at 5m from the center of the test slab specimens where re-flected pressure on concrete specimen was measure at the center of the top surface of the specimen and


hThD = ),(J

(1)








J=

t

w

(2)



e




n

(Mills 1966,




c

, and


s

, i.e. w

e

=w

e

(h,

c

,

s

)




obtains

nsc

w

s

e

w

c

e

w

h

h

D

t

h

h

e

w

&

&&

++

=+

)(

(3)

where w

e






























reads

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

+

=

1

1

10

,

1

1

10

1

1,

1

,,

h

cc

g

e

sc

K

h

cc

g

e

sc

G

sc

h

e

w

(4)






1




Mjornell 1997) as

( )

s

s

s

vg

kc

c

c

vg

k

sc

G +=,

1

(5)

where k

c

vg

and k

s

vg




can calculate K

1

as one obtains

( )

1

1

10

1

10

1

1

22.0188.0

0

,

1

+

=

h

cc

g

e

h

cc

g

eGs

s

s

c

w

sc

K

(6)


c

vg

and k

s

vg

and g

1

can













T= q

(7)



1000 mm

230 mm

460

mm

460

mm

230 mm (a) Steel strain gauge

1000 mm

230 mm

< T O P >< T O P >

100

mm

500

mm

230 mm

1000 mm

230 mm

< B O T T O M >< B O T T O M >

100

mm

500

mm

500 mm

230 mm

(b) Gauges on concrete surface

Figure 3. Location of measuring sensor.

230mm from the center. (e.g., 1/3 point of specimen diagonal length). To measure strain, 6mm strain gauges are attached on reinforcing steel at tensile re-gion and 30mm strain gauges are attached on con-crete top and bottom surfaces as shown Figure 3. In case of retrofitted specimen, FRP strain gauges are attached instead of concrete strain gauges on bottom surface. Also, LVDTs on the specimen center are used to measure the maximum and residual displace-ments.

4 BLAST TEST RESULTS

UHSC and RPC RC slabs are blast loaded to analyze their resistance performance. In the preliminary test-ing stage, NSC RC slab was tested to estimate the blast cracking behavior and the required explosive charge weight for the main tests.

Figure 4. Explosive scene by ANFO 35lbs.

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 10 20 30 40Time (msec)

Free

fiel

d pr

essu

re (M

Pa)

Incident pressure_ConWEPFree field Pressure_UHSC2Free field Pressure_ RPC2

(a) Free field pressure

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Time (msec)

Ref

lect

pre

ssur

e (M

Pa) Pressure_ConWEP

Reflect Pressure_UHSC2Reflect Pressure_ RPC2

(b) Reflect pressure

Figure 5. Measured pressure on specimens (ANFO 35lbs).

150

3030

D10

Pressure transducerLVDT (Residual displ.)

Strain GaugeAccelerometer

LVDT (Behavior displ.)

Table 2. Mix proportion of normal strength concrete (NSC).Binder (kg) FA (kg) Max. Size of

Coarse Aggre-gate (mm)

Target Strength (MPa)

Slump (mm)

W/B (%)

S/a (%) Water (kg) Cement Fly-ash S1 S2

CA (kg)

AE (kg)

25 24 100 49.8 47.7 163 294 33 616 264 957 2.45

Table 3. Mix proportion range of Ultra High Strength Concrete (UHSC). W/B (%) S/a (%) Water (kg) Binder (kg) FA (kg) CA (kg) AE (%) < 20 < 39.1 < 140 < 1300 < 450 < 700 1~3

Table 4. Mix proportion range of Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC). W/B (%) Cement (kg) Water (kg) Silica Fume (%) FA (kg) Filler (2.2~200) Admixture (%) Steel Fiber (%)< 20 < 800 > 200 10~30 800~1000 200kg ~ 1~3 2


hThD = ),(J

(1)








J=

t

w

(2)



e




n

(Mills 1966,




c

, and


s

, i.e. w

e

=w

e

(h,

c

,

s

)




obtains

nsc

w

s

e

w

c

e

w

h

h

D

t

h

h

e

w

&

&&

++

=+

)(

(3)

where w

e






























reads

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

+

=

1

1

10

,

1

1

10

1

1,

1

,,

h

cc

g

e

sc

K

h

cc

g

e

sc

G

sc

h

e

w

(4)






1




Mjornell 1997) as

( )

s

s

s

vg

kc

c

c

vg

k

sc

G +=,

1

(5)

where k

c

vg

and k

s

vg




can calculate K

1

as one obtains

( )

1

1

10

1

10

1

1

22.0188.0

0

,

1

+

=

h

cc

g

e

h

cc

g

eGs

s

s

c

w

sc

K

(6)


c

vg

and k

s

vg

and g

1

can













T= q

(7)



4.1 Blasting tests When ANFO 35lbs was used as the explosive charge, extreme wave of high pressure, temperature, noise, and energy dispersed out radially. The photos in Fig-ure 4 are ANFO 35lbs detonation photos. Since ANFO detonation produces debrisless explosion, giv-ing a more of pure pressure type of explosion load-ing, ANFO explosive charge is used for the main tests.

4.2 Measured blast pressure results Due to the exploded metal debris of TNT steel con-tainer impacting and damaging the pressure gauge in-stalled in the centertop surface of the specimen, the compressive blast pressure data was not obtained in the preliminary stage. The measured free field and re-flected pressures of ANFO 35lbs are shown in Figure 5. And the other data are tabulated in Table 6. The measured data are inconsistent due to the variations in experimental and environmental conditions (i.e., charge shape, charge angle, wind velocity, humidity, etc.). However, the obtained blast pressure data seem to agree well with ConWEP data.

4.3 Tested specimen examination When the testing is completed and the safety is in-sured for the inspectors, the surface examination of the specimen was performed. Figure 6(a), 6(b), and 6(c) are the schematic drawings of NSC, UHSC, and RPC slab bottom surface crack distributions after ANFO 35lbs blasting, respectively. The NSC speci-

mens had a well dispersed turtle back type crack pat-tern. The crack lines followed the cone prism type of plastic yield line from the center to the 4 corners, in-dicating a 2D membrane plastic failure mode. How-ever, UHSC specimens crack pattern showed mostly macro-cracks concentrated near or on the yield lines. The RPC specimens showed predominantly one di-rectional, center bisecting type, macro-cracks. Since RPC specimen is made using cement mortar with short fibers, it tended to be brittle but the crack bridging effect of short fibers resisted crack propaga-tion where the macro-cracks form only in the direc-tion perpendicular to the principle tensile strain direc-tion as shown in Figure 6(c)

4.4 Deflection measurements from blast tests The incidental and residual deflections are measured from the blast test. Both deflection results of maxi-mum and residual measurements are tabulated in Ta-ble 7. In the preliminary tests using TNT 35lbs, the maximum measured deflection at the center of the specimen was beyond 25mm measurement capacity of the LVDT. The specimen center deflection-time histories for NSC-TNT 35lbs, which exceeded LVDT measuring capacity, and NSC-ANFO 35lbs are shown in Figure 7. As shown in Table 7, the maximum and residual deflections from ANFO 35lbs for NSC, UHSC, and RPC are 18.57mm and 9.03mm, 12.83mm and 3..86mm, and 11.91mm and 4.31mm, respectively. In case of maximum retrofit effect, the RPC (35.85%) have more effective than UHSC (30.90%). But in case of residual effect, the UHSC (57.23%) have more effective than RPC

Table 6. Measured blast pressure. SPECIMEN ConWEP NSC2 UHSC1 UHSC2 RPC1 RPC2 Charge ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs

Temp. - 5 8 NR -9 NR Environment Humid (%) - up 51 56 NR 39 NR

Center (MPa) 17.02 NR NR 16.92 NR 21.99 Impulse (MPa-msec)2.42 NR NR 3.87 NR 2.83 230mm (MPa) 16.53 26.58 NR 18.76 22.62 22.1

Reflect Pres-sure Impulse (MPa-msec)2.38 3.26 NR 3.02 2.03 22.41

Peak overpressure 0.170 0.161 0.249 0.191 0.16 0.191 Free Field Pressure Impulse (MPa-msec)0.205 0.23 0.191 0.23 0.229 0.21 * NR : Not Record * NSC : Normal strength concrete(control specimen) * UHSC : Ultra High Strength Concrete * RPC : Reactive Powder Concrete

NSC2

UHSC1

RPC2

(a) NSC (b) UHSC (c) RPC Figure 6. The crack pattern of blasted specimens (bottom side).


hThD = ),(J

(1)








J=

t

w

(2)



e




n

(Mills 1966,




c

, and


s

, i.e. w

e

=w

e

(h,

c

,

s

)




obtains

nsc

w

s

e

w

c

e

w

h

h

D

t

h

h

e

w

&

&&

++

=+

)(

(3)

where w

e






























reads

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

+

=

1

1

10

,

1

1

10

1

1,

1

,,

h

cc

g

e

sc

K

h

cc

g

e

sc

G

sc

h

e

w

(4)






1




Mjornell 1997) as

( )

s

s

s

vg

kc

c

c

vg

k

sc

G +=,

1

(5)

where k

c

vg

and k

s

vg




can calculate K

1

as one obtains

( )

1

1

10

1

10

1

1

22.0188.0

0

,

1

+

=

h

cc

g

e

h

cc

g

eGs

s

s

c

w

sc

K

(6)


c

vg

and k

s

vg

and g

1

can













T= q

(7)



-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 50 10 0 15 0 2 00

T im e (m sec)

Disp

lace

men

t (m

m)

NSC_TN T 35lbs

NSC_A NF O 35lbs

Exceed Measurement Capacity

NSC TNT, ANFO

(a) NSC

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 50 100 150 200Time (ms ec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

m)

UHSC_1

UHSC_2

ANFO 35lb, UHSC

Maximum Displacement

Residual Displacement

(b) UHSC

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 50 100 150 200Time (msec)

Disp

lace

men

t (m

m

RPC_1

RPC_2

ANFO 35lb, RPC

(c) RPC

Figure 7. Displacement behavior of concrete specimen center point under blast loading.

(52.29%).

As shown in Table 7, the bottom center concrete strains were over 16,000 for NSC and UHSC specimens. However, when the strain measurements

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 3 6 9 12 15

Time (msec)

Acc

eler

atio

n (g

)

NSC_ANFO 35 lb

ANFO 35lb, NSC

Maximum acceleration = 1815.5 g

(a) NSC

-400

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

0 3 6 9 12 15

Time (msec)A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

UHSC 2

ANFO 35lb, UHSCMaximum acceleration , UHSC1 = Not ReportedMaximum acceleration, UHSC 2 = 1420 g

(b) UHSC

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 2 4 6 8

Time (msec)

Acc

eler

atio

n (g

)

RPC 1

RPC 2

ANFO 35lb, RPCMaximum acceleration , RPC1= 2844.6 gMaximum acceleration, RPC 2= 2465.2 g

(c) RPC

Figure 8. Specimen acceleration under blast loading.

and displacements for NSC, UHSC, and RPC speci-mens are compared, RPC data at the specimen center tend to be less than those of NSC and UHSC speci-mens. It means RPC specimens have more blast resis-tance capacity than others. This result is probably

Table 7. Measured blast test results. SPECIMEN NSC1 NSC2 UHSC1 UHSC2 RPC1 RPC2 Charge TNT 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbs ANFO 35lbsMax. displacement (mm) Over 25 18.565 10.517 15.14 10.73 13.09 Average of max disp.(mm) 18.565 12.829 11.910 Retrofit Effect (%) - 30.90 35.85 Residual displacement (mm) 12.260 5.790 1.860 5.86 3.202 5.41 Average of residual disp.(mm) 9.025 3.860 4.306 Retrofit Effect (%) - 57.23 52.29

Steel up 16012 5964 2796 2832 - - Steel bottom 15998 28113 6711 7553.6 - - Concrete up NR 11848 4502 12821 11198 24214

Strain

Concrete bottom 16007 NR 16025 18081 NR 4903 * NR : Not Record * - : Non-attached gauge


hThD = ),(J

(1)








J=

t

w

(2)



e




n

(Mills 1966,




c

, and


s

, i.e. w

e

=w

e

(h,

c

,

s

)




obtains

nsc

w

s

e

w

c

e

w

h

h

D

t

h

h

e

w

&

&&

++

=+

)(

(3)

where w

e






























reads

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

+

=

1

1

10

,

1

1

10

1

1,

1

,,

h

cc

g

e

sc

K

h

cc

g

e

sc

G

sc

h

e

w

(4)






1




Mjornell 1997) as

( )

s

s

s

vg

kc

c

c

vg

k

sc

G +=,

1

(5)

where k

c

vg

and k

s

vg




can calculate K

1

as one obtains

( )

1

1

10

1

10

1

1

22.0188.0

0

,

1

+

=

h

cc

g

e

h

cc

g

eGs

s

s

c

w

sc

K

(6)


c

vg

and k

s

vg

and g

1

can













T= q

(7)



due to the short steel fiber reinforcing in RPC speci-men where the fibers restrained crack opening by crack bridging and controlling effect.

4.5 Acceleration measurements from blast test Generally, specimen blast behavior can be analyzed based on data obtained from LVDT and accelerome-ter. If LVDT data are unusable or imprecise, speci-men acceleration data can be alternatively used. Fig-ures 8(a)~(c) show the specimen acceleration measurements for NSC, UHSC, and RPC specimens. As shown Figures 8(a)~(c), the accelerations ranging from 1,000~2,500g have occurred. However, these acceleration measurements are combined values of both specimen acceleration as well as the impulse ac-celeration. Also, for UHSC 1 specimen, the sensor was detached from concrete surface when blast pres-sure was applied, causing imprecise noise. Therefore, the data were considered unfit for analysis. Also, RPC specimens have extreme high frequency vibra-tion due to no reinforcement. Therefore, the rein-forcement can be affect to specimen behavior under blast load.

4.6 Blast design and analysis process Based on the blast tests for NSC, UHSC, and RPC in this study, the blast design and analysis process are suggested. Most importantly the building and owner requirements are needed for determination of blast resistance capacity of a targeted structure. To evalu-ate the building requirements, the blast loading on each component and resistance capacity can be de-rived from test results or research reports. If mate-rials and structural system are selected, determination of deformation limit using analysis method such as HFPB (High Fidelity Physics Based) and SDOF, MDOF, etc. is selected for the blast analysis. The de-tails of design will be accompanied with satisfaction of the deformation limit based on the analysis results.

Yes

No

Owner Specs & Standards

Building Requirements : Criticality, Occupancy, Layout,

Siting, etc.

ExistingNew

Building Performance Requirements

Select Materials & Structural System

Preliminary Member Sizes

Structural Analysis

Details & Documentation

Explosion Hazard Identification

Standard Practice

Site Study

Free Field Blast Parameter

Component Loads

Analysis Method

HFPB (High Fidelity Physics Based) SDOF MDOF

Foundation Design Ancillary Design

Deformation Limits

Material Properties

IsDeformation Limit

Satisfied?

Comparing with BLAST TEST results

Figure 9. Blast design and analysis process.

5 CONCLUSION

From this study, Ultra High Strength Concrete (UHSC) and Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) RC slabs response induced by explosive of blast wave pressure are evaluated to understand the blast resis-tance capacity blast resisting repair materials and ret-rofitted structure. The reflected blast pressure and impulse values calculated using the ConWEP were in reasonable agreement with the experimental data. The performance comparison of UHSC and RPC specimens to NSC control specimens subjected to blast loads of ANFO 35 lbs has shown the high blast resistance capacity of about 30.9~35.9% increase with respect to average maximum displacement. An average of residual displacements was smaller than normal strength concrete specimens residual dis-placement, even though there was no consistent trend due to variations in environmental conditions. Therefore, to evaluate the damage under blast load, failure mode must be considered. From the test re-sults, the failure patterns of both UHSC and RPC in-dicate that they are much more resistant to blast loading and have higher blast resistance capacity than NSC.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research was supported the financial support provided KOSEF (Korea Science and Engineering Foundation, Development of High Toughness and High Ductility Polyurea for Repair and Rehabilitation of Structure of General Concrete and be Impressed by Load of Impact and Explosion) and KOGAS from Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (Design standard of extremely large storage tank and optimum analysis technique).

REFERENCES

ASCE, 1999. Structural Design for Physical Security: State of the Practice Report. Task Committee on Physical Security, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.

Baker, W.E., 1973. Explosions in Air. Wilfred Baker Engi-neering, San Antonio.

Harbel, K., and Gauvreau, P., 2008. Response of Ultra-High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) to Im-pact and Static Loading. Cement and Concrete Composites 30 : 938-946.

Kim, H.J., Nam, J.W., Kim, S.B., Kim, J.H.J., and Byun, K.J., 2007. Analytical Evaluations of the Retrofit Performances of Concrete Wall Structures Subjected to Blast Load, Jour-nal of the Korea Concrete Institute 19(2) : 241-250.

Kim, J.H.J., 2009. Experimental Evaluation for the Blast Re-sistance Capacity of Concrete Structure using Ultra High Strength Concrete. Report of Hyundai Institute of Con-struction Technology.

Mays, G.C., and Smith, P.D., 1995. Blast effect on Buildings: Design of Buildings to Optimize Resistance to Blast Load-


hThD = ),(J

(1)








J=

t

w

(2)



e




n

(Mills 1966,




c

, and


s

, i.e. w

e

=w

e

(h,

c

,

s

)




obtains

nsc

w

s

e

w

c

e

w

h

h

D

t

h

h

e

w

&

&&

++

=+

)(

(3)

where w

e






























reads

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

+

=

1

1

10

,

1

1

10

1

1,

1

,,

h

cc

g

e

sc

K

h

cc

g

e

sc

G

sc

h

e

w

(4)






1




Mjornell 1997) as

( )

s

s

s

vg

kc

c

c

vg

k

sc

G +=,

1

(5)

where k

c

vg

and k

s

vg




can calculate K

1

as one obtains

( )

1

1

10

1

10

1

1

22.0188.0

0

,

1

+

=

h

cc

g

e

h

cc

g

eGs

s

s

c

w

sc

K

(6)


c

vg

and k

s

vg

and g

1

can













T= q

(7)



ing. Thomas Telford. Razaqpur, A.G., Tolba, A., and Contestabile, E., 2007. Blast

Loading Response of Reinforced Concrete Panels Rein-forced with Externally Bonded GFRP Laminates. Compos-ite Part B : engineering 38: 535-546.

TM5-1300/AFR 88-2/NAVFAC P-39, 1990. Structures to Re-sist the Effects of Accidental Explosions. Joint Depart-ments of the Army, Air Force and Navy Washington, DC.

Yi, N.H., Kim, S.B., Kim, J.H.J, and Cho, Y.G., 2009. Behav-ior Analysis of Concrete Structure under Blast Loading : (I) Experiment Procedures, Journal of the Korea Society Civil Engineering 29(5A) : 557-564.

Yi, N.H., Kim, S.B., Kim, J.H.J, and Cho, Y.G., 2009. Behav-ior Analysis of Concrete Structure under Blast Loading : (II) Blast Loading Response of Ultra High Strength Con-crete and Reactive Powder Concrete Slabs, Journal of the Korea Society Civil Engineering 29(5A) : 565-575.

Zineddin, M., and Krauthammer, T., 2007. Dynamic Re-sponse and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Impact Loading. International Journal of Impact Engi-neering 34 : 1517-1534.


hThD = ),(J

(1)








J=

t

w

(2)



e




n

(Mills 1966,




c

, and


s

, i.e. w

e

=w

e

(h,

c

,

s

)




obtains

nsc

w

s

e

w

c

e

w

h

h

D

t

h

h

e

w

&

&&

++

=+

)(

(3)

where w

e






























reads

( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

+

=

1

1

10

,

1

1

10

1

1,

1

,,

h

cc

g

e

sc

K

h

cc

g

e

sc

G

sc

h

e

w

(4)






1




Mjornell 1997) as

( )

s

s

s

vg

kc

c

c

vg

k

sc

G +=,

1

(5)

where k

c

vg

and k

s

vg




can calculate K

1

as one obtains

( )

1

1

10

1

10

1

1

22.0188.0

0

,

1

+

=

h

cc

g

e

h

cc

g

eGs

s

s

c

w

sc

K

(6)


c

vg

and k

s

vg

and g

1

can













T= q

(7)



MainReturn

ductile concrete

Documents