Hershey Lodge

Preconference Symposium 17 March 2008

Structural Concrete Innovations:

A Focus on Blast Resistance

Blast Overview
Blast can effect structure in multiple way
Air blast Drag Ground shock Primary and secondary fragmentation Fire

Blast Loading
Air blast design can be governed by max pressure, impulse, or combination
Function of size of explosive, standoff distance, and structure

Air Blast Loads

Properties of the air blast load a function of the:
Size and shape of explosive Distance to explosive Orientation of specimen Type of blast

Free air burst Ground burst Contained burst

Scaled Distance
Convert explosive to equivalent weight of TNT Determine scaled distance using Z = D / W^(1/3)
where Z = scaled distance W= equivalent TNT weight D = distance between specimen and explosive

Use figures in references (TM5-1300): Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions
determine the expected peak pressure and impulse for determined scaled distance

Scaled Distance
Figure 2-7 TM5-1300

Types of Cross Sections

TM5-1300: 3 types of cross sections
Type I:

Concrete is sufficient to resist compressive component of moment Cover remains undamaged Concrete is no longer effective at resisting moment Equal top and bottom reinforcement Cover remains in tact Single leg stirrups used to resist shear Equal top and bottom reinforcement Cover disengages Lacing used to resist shear

Type II:

Type III:

Example Type II Cross-Section

Motivation for Innovation in Blast Resistant Concrete

Increased demand for impact and blast-resistant building materials Need for practical, constructible options Need for reduction in secondary fragmentation

Innovation
Long (3) fibers
Increased bond with concrete matrix Length provides crack bridging, spalling resistance, increased ductility, energy absorption (through long-fiber pull-out)

Coated tape
Mix retains workability (no balling, etc) Can be used with aggregate

Potentially economical
Carbon fiber yarn is waste product from the aerospace industry

No special mixers required

Lightweight additive reinforcement Precast or cast-in-place

Molds to any shape

Experimental Program
Mix design development
Workability

Static flexural strength

Small and large scale Ductility

Impact testing
Small beams Panels

Blast Testing Finite Element Modeling

Experimental Program
Mix design development
1.5% to 2.5% fiber content (by volume) Various admixture combinations Pozzolans (interground SF + GGBFS)

Preliminary Testing
Mixture Design
Avoid balling Increase workability Increase fines and cement in mixture
2500 2112 2000 1887 1595 1500

Preliminary Static Tests

6 X 6 X 18 beams loaded at third points Flexural Strength = 2112 psi

Flexural Stress (psi)

1000

500

0 B1-2.5 T1-2.5 T2-2.5

Slab Strips
4 X 12 X 10 slab strips loaded at midspan Specimens:
2 control specimens with reinforcing mesh 2 fiber reinforced concrete specimens 2 fiber reinforced concrete specimens with mesh

Used to obtain load vs. deflection plot Useful for obtaining toughness

Slab Strip Results

Compressive Strength (psi) Average Plane + mesh Average Fiber 6151 6652 Tensile Stress (psi) 750 1904 Toughness (lbs-in) 186 1834

Average Fiber + mesh

6619

2116

2619

Force vs Displacement for Slab Strips

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 Displacement (in) 3 Plane 1 Plane 2 Fiber 1 Fiber 2 Fiber + Mesh 1 Fiber + Mesh 2

Force (K)

Impact Test Setup

15 ft maximum drop height 50# weight Panels 2x2x2

Impact Testing: Panels

Drop Height at failure
180
7 blows 7 blows 7 blows 9 blows

160 140

Drop Height (in)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Plain 1 Wire Mesh 2 Fiber 3

Impact Testing: Panels

Drop Height at first cracking (top side)
180 160 140

Drop Height (in)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Plain 1 Wire Mesh 2 Fiber 3

Impact Testing: Panels

(No Steel Reinforcement)

Fiber addition controlled spalling Failure in fiber specimens along weak plane due to fiber orientation

Plain panel

Fiber panel

Impact Testing: Panels

(Steel Reinforcement)

Fiber panel with steel reinforcement did not fail after repeated blows at top drop height

Plain panel

Fiber panel

Blast Testing
6 x 6 x 6.5 Heavily reinforced (as per TM5-1300)
resist shear failure at supports evaluate comparison of materials under full blast design Identical reinforcement in all specimens

Clear cover to ties

Test Setup
Slabs were simply supported on all four sides Restraint provided along two sides to prevent rebound

Test Setup
TNT suspended at desired height Pressure gages record reflected pressure and incident pressure

Hit 1: 75# at 6 (scaled range 1.4)

Extensive cracking, some spalling A few hairline cracks

Standard Concrete

SafeTcrete

Hit 2: 75# at 3.2 (scaled range 0.76)

Standard Concrete

SafeTcrete

Hit 2: 75# at 3.2 (scaled range 0.76)

Concrete rubble within steel cage

Some concrete loss due to pop out where reinforcement buckled (3/4 cover)

Standard Concrete

SafeTcrete

Hit 2: 75# at 3.2 (scaled range 0.76)

Standard Concrete

SafeTcrete

Summary of Impact & Blast Testing

Much improved workability and dispersion of coated tape fibers Increased ductility over plain concrete and further improved combined with standard reinforcement Significantly increased flexural strength under both static and impact loads Complete control of spalling in panels under impact load Excellent performance in blast testing

Potential
Low cost fiber alternative Applications requiring impact and blast resistance
Protective cladding panels Structural components: columns, walls Barriers Bridge piers

May be used as a replacement for, or in combination with standard reinforcement depending on application

Material Properties
Stress-strain curves for material in both compression and tension needed for modeling
Compression: standard 6 diameter cylinders Tension: dogbone specimens will be utilized Varied load rates and fiber orientation

Tensile Properties
New test method for tension in fiber concrete
Difficulties with direct tension Size-effect with longfibers

Dogbone specimens 32 high, 8 neck width, 16 top width

Concrete Dogbone
Mechanical anchorages were used to load specimen Anchorage consisted of 5/8, 125 ksi threaded prestressing rod LVDTs for displacement Failure occurred in desired region

Tensile Properties
Increase in energy dissipation Testing will determine if cracking stress is affected by the addition of fibers

Finite Element Modeling

Material model developed from testing Comparison to field blast test and instrumented impact testing Loading
CONWEP (built into LS Dyna) Gas dynamics model (Lyle Long, AE) Field data

Current Work
Continued model refinement
Material model Incorporation of fracture mechanics Contact charges

Application specific testing

Durability Reinforcement and fiber content variations

Specification development

Barrier Application Testing

Use of fibers & polyurea for barriers
Large volume of concrete with small reinforcement percentage Reduction in secondary fragmentation needed

Wall Testing: Spec Development

Hershey Lodge
Preconference Symposium 17 March 2008

Questions?