Blast Concrete Walls

Structures Congress 2015
151
Summary of Blast Tests on Steel-Plate Reinforced Concrete Walls

Jakob C. Bruhl, M.ASCE1 and Amit H. Varma, M.ASCE2
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fernando S-F on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette,

IN 47907. E-mail: jbruhl@purdue.edu
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
47907. E-mail: ahvarma@purdue.edu
Abstract
Conventional reinforced concrete (RC) structures have historically been the
preferred choice for blast and impact resistant structures. Recent research
demonstrates advantages of steel-plate composite (SC) structures that make them an
excellent candidate for efficient construction of protective structures. Understanding
of the behavior, analysis, and design of SC walls for safety-related nuclear structures
in the US and abroad has advanced in the past decade resulting in the publication of a
new specification for their design. A body of knowledge also exists to design SC
structures to resist the effects of projectile impacts. Research on the behavior of SC
walls subjected to blast does not exist in the public domain a loading which has
been identified as a continuing concern for protective structure design. This paper
summarizes results from blast tests of SC walls.
INTRODUCTION
Steel-plate composite (SC) walls consist of steel faceplates with a poured
concrete core (see Figure 1). Steel headed stud anchors provide composite action
between the concrete infill and steel faceplates. Tie bars provide stability during
construction and in-service shear strength. SC walls have recently been used in
nuclear power plant (NPP) projects and are being considered for the next generation
of small modular reactors (SMR). A specification to design SC structures for NPP
applications, AISC N690s1 Appendix N9 (AISC, 2014), contains guidance to design
each component within an SC wall. For safety-related NPP facilities these walls may
be required to resist the effects of impact or impulsive loads. While there are methods
to design SC walls to resist the local effects of projectile impact (i.e. Bruhl et al.
(2015)) there are no accepted methods to design blast resistant SC walls.
There is limited experimental data on the response of SC walls to blast loads
that can be used to validate a design method. Heng et al. (1995) and Lan et al. (2005)
described the results of blast tests on various configurations of steel-concrete
composite panels. None of these configurations included headed stud anchors or tie
bars, which are both important components of the SC structures discussed in this
paper. They tested fully enclosed steel-concrete-steel (SCS) panels and thin profiled
steel sheeting cast compositely with concrete, similar to that in a composite deck.
ASCE
152
Liew & Wang (2011) reported results from a series of blast tests on two different
types of steel-concrete composite panels: cellular stiffened panels and a unique
configuration which used J-hooks in place of headed stud anchors and tie bars. Hulton
& Gough (1999) and Hulton (1995) provided quantitative descriptions of blast tests of
what eventually became the Bi-Steel system. Of the different configurations
previously tested, Bi-Steel is most similar to the general SC system described in this
paper but is proprietary and has some key differences from SC structures designed in
accordance with AISC N690s1 Appendix N9.
Pipe Sleeve
(for Penetrations
Through SC Panel)
Steel Headed Stud Anchors
Steel Plate
Tie Bars
Concrete
Embed Plate
for Commodity
Attachments
Steel Plate
Figure 1. Typical SC Wall Section (from Johnson et al. (2014))

The purpose of this paper is to summarize: (1) the blast test program
conducted on a variety of SC walls designed in accordance with AISC N690s1
Appendix N9, (2) results from a representative test specimen, and (3) comparisons of
the blast response of SC walls and RC walls.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Twelve one-way SC wall specimens were subjected to blast loads using the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center
(USACE-ERDC) Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (GSL) Blast Load
Simulator (BLS) located in Vicksburg, MS. This facility can be tuned to create
pressure waves, which replicate those generated by high explosives at various farfield stand-off distances. The components, operation, and limitations of the BLS are
described by Johnson (2013).
Eight different SC wall designs were tested which varied steel plate thickness,
steel plate strength, tie bar spacing, and tie bar diameter (see Table 1). Figure 2
provides design details and Figure 3 depicts a specimen prior to being filled with
ASCE
153
conncrete. The specimens were one-thhird scale with

w
the folllowing dim
mensions: 4inchhes total thicckness, tsc; 11-inches
1
wiide; and 64--in long. Thhe support frrame within
the BLS was designed
d
to provide sim
mple supporrts with 6-innches of overhang: the
unssupported leength was 522-inches. Various gradees and thickkness of A1011 HSLA
hott-rolled steell sheet were used. Conccrete had dayy-of-test com
mpressive strrengths, fc,
betw
ween 6200-p
psi and 6600-psi. Various diameteers of mild steel
s
threadeed rod were
useed as tie bars, the size of
o which waas determineed using AIS
SC N690 Apppendix N9
andd accounting
g for dynam
mic shear efffects. To accommodat
a
te tie bars, holes were
drillled in each steel sheet and
a hex nutss placed insiide and outsiide of the stteel sheet to
secure tie bars prior to conncrete placem
ment. Compposite actionn for all speccimens was
achhieved using
g 0.25-inch diameter, 1--1/8-inches long, Nelson headed sttud anchors
spaaced at 2-inch
hes on centeer.
Table 1 provides details
d
abouut the designn of each specimen:
s
plate (sheet)
thicckness, tp; fleexural reinfoorcement rattio, ; ratio of
o stud spaciing, s, to platte thickness
(thee slendernesss ratio); ratiio of stud diiameter, ds, to plate thicckness; grade of A1011
HSLA steel sheet; tie bar diameter, dt, and corressponding sheear reinforceement ratio,
s; and the ratio
o of tie bar sppacing, S, too total specim
men thicknesss, tsc.
s
S
tsc
(b) End
(a) Sidee
ure 2. Blast Test Specim
men Design
n
Figu
A101
11 steel sheet
Headed stud anchors
Hex nuts to secu

ure tie rods to steel sheeet
T
Threaded
tie rods
Figurre 3. Photo of
o SC Specim
men Prior to Infilling with
w Concreete
Table 1. Sp
pecimen Dim
mension and Material Details
Specimen
n
3-2-50-5
3-2b-50-5
3-2-65-5
3-2b-65-5
5-4-50-5
5-2-50-5
5-2b-50-5
5-2-80-5
tp (in)
0.079
0.079
0.069
0.069
0.112
0.112
0.112
0.099
(%)
4.0%
4.0%
3.5%
3.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.6%
5.0%
s//tp
ds/tp
25.3
25.3
29.0
29.0
35.7
17.9
17.9
20.2
3.16
3.16
3.62
3.62
2.23
2.23
2.23
2.53
Sheet
S
G
Grade
G
Gr50
G
Gr50
G
Gr65
G
Gr65
G
Gr50
G
Gr50
G
Gr50
G
Gr80
ASCE
dt (inn)
s (%)
S/tsc
0.13880
0.16440
0.13880
0.16440
0.31225
0.16440
0.25000
0.25000
0.37%
0.53%
0.37%
0.53%
0.48%
0.53%
1.23%
1.23%
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
154
Prior to conducting dynamic tests in the BLS, static four-point bending tests
of each specimen were completed. Figure 4 depicts the static test setup. A shear arm
of 18-inches (a/tsc = 4.5) was used for each test. Load was applied by a single
actuator and spreader beam. Displacements were measured at the three quarter-points
of the specimen using linear extensometers. Rotations were measured at the ends and
directly under the load points using inclinometers. Strains on the tension face were
measured at the quarter points and strain on the compression face was measured at
mid-span.
Static results were used to benchmark numerical models which were then used
to analyze the static behavior of each specimen loaded with increasing uniform
pressure. Two numerical methods were used: (1) a fiber model to calculate momentcurvature relationships and moment-area method to generate load-displacement
relationships, and (2) non-linear explicit finite element analysis using LS-DYNA. The
result of these experiments and analyses was the static resistance function of each
specimen for use in single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) dynamic analysis to compare
to experimental results.
Figure 4. Static Four-Point Bending Test Setup

Three specimens were tested simultaneously in the BLS by loading them
adjacent to one another with 0.25-inches between each specimen and 0.25-inches
between the end specimens and the BLS frame, as shown in Figure 5. Displacements
at mid-span were measured using linear potentiometers and were also calculated from
accelerometer data as a check. Displacements 8.75-inches from mid-span were
measured using linear extensometers. Strains on the tension (non-blast) face were
measured at the quarter points and strain on the compression (blast) face was
measured at mid-span. Pressure was measured by eight pressure transducers placed
around the perimeter of the frame. Three high-speed video cameras captured the
specimen response from different angles.
ASCE
155
1-1/4-in
1-1/4-in
8-in
8-in
~2-in
3-in
Right
Center
Left
Specimen Specimen Specimen
Left
Center
Right
Specimen Specimen Specimen
52-in
3-in
68-in 70-3/4-in
52-in
68-in 70-3/4-in
8-in
8-in
1-1/2-in
1-1/2-in
~2-in
(a) Blast Face
(b) Interior (Non-Blast) Face
Figure 5. Test Specimens in BLS Frame and Instrumentation Plan

Four tests were conducted with a total of six BLS shots. The first two tests
consisted of two shots: a lower pressure-impulse intended to stay within the elastic
range of response and a higher pressure-impulse combination intended to exceed the
elastic capacity of the specimens. The second two tests consisted of only the higher
pressure-impulse combination.
REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS
18
90.0
16
80.0
14
70.0
12
60.0
Pressure (psi)
Shear (kips)
The test results of only one specimen are summarized for brevity. This
specimen (5-2b-50-5) represents a typical SC wall design and was a one-third scale
specimen of the minimum practical SC wall (12-in total thickness with 0.25-in steel
plates). It was comprised of A1011 HSLA Grade 50 gage 12 hot-rolled steel sheets
and -inch diameter tie bars at 2-inch spacing. The measured material properties are
provided in Bruhl (2015). The flexural reinforcment ratio using measured steel sheet
thickness was 5.6%. The holes drilled in the steel sheet to accommodate tie bars
resulted in 12.8% reduction in section. Calculated moment capacity of the net section
was 223-kipinches. Static test of the specimen confirmed this moment capacity and
yielded the static resistance functions shown in Figure 6.
10
8
6
5-2b-50-5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
30.0
3.5
from Moment-Curvature
10.0
FEM
0
40.0
20.0
from Moment-Curvature
50.0
0.0
0.00
FEM
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Mid-Span Displacement (in)
Mid-Span Displacement (in)
(a) Four-Point Bending
(b) Uniform Pressure
Figure 6. Static Resistance Functions (5-2b-50-5)
ASCE
3.00
3.50
156
Pressure (psi)
20
70
1200
250
60
1000
200
15
150
10
100
Pressure
50
Impulse
0
-5
-50
50
100
150
800
40
600
30
400
20
200
Pressure
10
Impulse
50
200
-200
-10
0
50
100
150
200
Time (msec)
Time (msec)
(a) Lower Pressure Shot (Sensor P5)
(b) Higher Pressure Shot (Sensor P6)
Figure 7. Measured Pressure-Time History and Calculated Impulse
ASCE
Impulse (psimsec)
25
300
Pressure (psi)
30
Impulse (psimsec)
This specimen was tested dynamically twice: first with a lower pressure and
then with a higher pressure. The average measured pressures and impulses were
18.9-psi and 260-psimsec for the first shot and 61.6-psi and 1068-psimsec for the
second shot. Representative pressure-time history and calculated impulse for each
shot are shown in Figure 7.
Transient displacement and strain measurements for both shots are shown in
Figure 8 and Figure 9. When corrected for frame movement, the maximum
displacement of the specimen from the first shot was 0.11-inches with 0.08-inches of
residual displacement. Displacement measured by the potentiometer was close to that
calculated from accelerometer data. The displacement measured by the linear
extensometer was smaller than that from the other two sensors because it was not
located at mid-span as the others were. While yield strain was not reached in the steel
sheets, the strain gages measured small residual strains.
Maximum displacement from the second shot was 0.49-inches with 0.24inches residual displacement (corrected to account for frame movement). The
displacement measured by the potentiometer was larger than that calculated from
accelerometer measurements. The tension steel sheet yielded during the second shot
as evidenced by the change in slope of the strain history at approximately 2000-,
the residual strain of approximately 1500-, and the residual displacement of the
specimen.
After the second shot, the specimens were removed from the frame, cracks
marked and photographs taken. This was not done after the first shot so as not to
disturb the specimen before the second shot. As seen in Figure 10, flexural cracks
were most prevalent near mid-span and there was limited shear cracking. Residual
displacement is evident in this figure.
157
0.5
1000
750
500
0.25
Microstrain
Displacment (in)
0.375
0.125
-0.125
-25
25
50
75
100
SG4
SG3
SG2
SG1
-250
Cable extensometer
Potentiometer
Accelerometer
250
-500
-25
125
25
50
Time (msec)
75
100
125
150
175
200
Time (msec)
(a) Displacements
(b) Strains
Figure 8. Dynamic Response (5-2b-50-5; pr = 18.9-psi; ir = 260-psimsec)

1
4000
3000
0.75
0.5
Microstrain
Displacment (in)
2000
0.25
1000
0
-1000
0
Cable extensometer
Potentiometer
Accelerometer
-0.25
-25
25
50
75
100
125
SG4
SG3
SG2
SG1
-2000
-3000
-25
Time (msec)
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Time (msec)
(a) Displacements
(b) Strains
Figure 9. Dynamic Response (5-2b-50-5; pr = 61.6-psi; ir = 1068-psimsec)
Figure 10. Post-test Crack Map (5-2b-50-5)

COMPARISON OF SC AND RC PERFORMANCE
While flexural reinforcement ratios of the SC specimens included in this study
were larger than typical RC reinforcement ratios, comparison of their performances is
instructive. Thiagarajan, et al., (2014) reported experimental results from a program
which investigated the influence of different reinforcement and concrete strengths.
Their tests of 4-in thick RC slabs were conducted in the BLS and applied pressure
waves nearly identical to those of the high pressure shot shown in Figure 7(b). Each
panel in their study was doubly reinforced with 1.5% total flexural reinforcement.
The panels included shrinkage reinforcement but did not have shear reinforcing steel.
Two varieties of concrete were investigated: normal strength (NSC, 4000-psi) and
high-strength (HSC, 15,500-psi).
Two steel reinforcement strengths were
investigated: conventional (NR, 50-ksi yield) and HSLA-V (VR, 83-ksi yield).
ASCE
158
Maximum mid-span deflections were largest for NSC-NR panels (8.7-inches) and
smallest for HSC-VR panels (4.8-inches) indicating that the use of higher strength
materials improved the blast resistance of RC structures. Comparing the response of
the NSC-NR panels to specimen 5-2b-50-5 suggests that typical SC walls deflect
much less than typical RC walls subjected to the same blast pressure.
Coyle & Cormie (2009) suggested that the same level of protection could be
provided by a Bi-Steel wall which was less than half the thickness of an RC wall.
Their comparison was between a Bi-Steel wall with 8% and a RC wall with 1% total
flexural reinforcement. A numerical investigation of SC and RC wall sections with
the same reinforcement ratio was reported by Bruhl & Varma (2014). Their study
included nine SC models and nine RC models consisting of 12-inch thick wall
sections comprised of conventional construction materials (5000-psi concrete and
Grade 50 steel). The flexural reinforcement ratio was approximately 5% for both the
SC and RC section. Various lengths and pressure-impulse combinations were
included in the study. Results indicated smaller deflections for SC structures
compared to RC structures. The authors concluded that this was due, in part, to the
fact that the steel reinforcement in an SC wall is at the extreme fiber while it cannot
be for an RC wall due to clear cover requirements. Thus, for the same section depth,
the moment capacity and flexural rigidity is inherently larger for an SC wall than an
RC wall of the same thickness. It is important to note that RC walls have significant
rebar congestion and concrete placement issues at reinforcement ratios greater than
1.5%. The advantages of SC walls become evident for high reinforcement ratios.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper provided an overview of a test program investigating the
performance of one-way SC structures subjected to blast pressures and presented
results from one specimen. Results from this study confirmed the influence of
reinforcement ratio and steel strength on blast resistance. Results corroborated
conclusions by others that SC structures provide improved blast resistance when
compared to RC structures. Continued investigation of the blast response of SC
structures to other than far-field explosions is necessary. Improved understanding of
connection details and the influence of shear reinforcement are important.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Carol Johnson,
USACE ERDC, for her efforts during planning and execution of this experimental
program. The authors also thank the USACE ERDC technical staff that assisted in
the execution of the test program. This research was funded by the U.S. Department
of Energy (SL-14ID020104).
REFERENCES
American Institute of Steel Construction. (2014). Specification for Safety-Related
Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities Supplement No. 1 (AISC N690s1)
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DATED 5-1-14. Chicago, IL: American Institute of
ASCE
159
Steel Construction. Retrieved from

http://www.aisc.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=37900
Bruhl, J. C. (2015). Response of Steel-Plate Reinforced Concrete Walls Subjected to
Impulsive Loads (Doctoral Dissertation). Purdue University.
Bruhl, J. C., & Varma, A. H. (2014). Preliminary Study of Blast Response of Steel
Plate-Reinforced Concrete Walls. In Structures Congress 2014 (pp. 105116).
Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
doi:10.1061/9780784413357.011
Bruhl, J. C., Varma, A. H., & Johnson, W. H. (2015). Design of composite SC walls
to prevent perforation from missile impact. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 75, 7587. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.07.015
Coyle, N., & Cormie, D. (2009). Design of elements in steel-concrete-steel composite
materials. In D. Cormie, G. Mays, & P. Smith (Eds.), Blast effects on buildings
(2nd ed., pp. 154176). London, UK: Thomas Telford.
Heng, L., Kennedy, L. J., & Mays, G. C. (1995). Blast Resistance of Fully Enclosed
Steel-Concrete-Steel Standwich Panels. In 7th International Symposium on
Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with Structures (pp. 189197).
Mannheim, Germany.
Hulton, F. G. (1995). The Behaviour of Steel-backed Reinforced Concrete Panels
under Explosive Attack. In 7th International Symposium on Interaction of the
Effects of Munitions with Structures (pp. 111116). Mannheim, Germany.
Hulton, F. G., & Gough, M. S. (1999). The development of steel-plate/reinforced
concrete composite panels to resist explosive attack. In 9th International
Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with Structures (pp. 63
69). Berlin-Straussberg, Germany.
Johnson, C. F. (2013). Concrete Masonry Wall Retrofit Systems for Blast Protection
(Doctoral Dissertation). Texas A&M University.
Johnson, W., Bruhl, J., Reigles, D., Li, J., & Varma, A. (2014). Missile Impact on SC
Walls: Global Response. In Structures Congress 2014 (pp. 14031414). Reston,
VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. doi:10.1061/9780784413357.124
Lan, S., Lok, T.-S., & Heng, L. (2005). Composite structural panels subjected to
explosive loading. Construction and Building Materials, 19(5), 387395.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.07.021
Liew, J. Y. R., & Wang, T. Y. (2011). Novel Steel-Concrete-Steel Sandwich
Composite Plates Subject to Impact and Blast Load. Advances in Structural
Engineering, 14(4), 673688. doi:10.1260/1369-4332.14.4.673
Thiagarajan, G., Kadambi, A. V., Robert, S., & Johnson, C. F. (2014). Experimental
and finite element analysis of doubly reinforced concrete slabs subjected to blast
loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 75, 162173.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.07.018
ASCE

Blast Concrete Walls

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Blast Concrete Walls

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Structures Congress 2015

Summary of Blast Tests on Steel-Plate Reinforced Concrete Walls

Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette,

Structures Congress 2015

Figure 1. Typical SC Wall Section (from Johnson et al. (2014))

Structures Congress 2015

conncrete. The specimens were one-thhird scale with

Headed stud anchors

Hex nuts to secu

Structures Congress 2015

Figure 4. Static Four-Point Bending Test Setup

Structures Congress 2015

(a) Blast Face

(b) Interior (Non-Blast) Face

Figure 5. Test Specimens in BLS Frame and Instrumentation Plan

Mid-Span Displacement (in)

Mid-Span Displacement (in)

(a) Four-Point Bending

(b) Uniform Pressure

Figure 6. Static Resistance Functions (5-2b-50-5)

Structures Congress 2015

(a) Lower Pressure Shot (Sensor P5)

(b) Higher Pressure Shot (Sensor P6)

Figure 7. Measured Pressure-Time History and Calculated Impulse

Structures Congress 2015

Figure 8. Dynamic Response (5-2b-50-5; pr = 18.9-psi; ir = 260-psimsec)

Figure 9. Dynamic Response (5-2b-50-5; pr = 61.6-psi; ir = 1068-psimsec)

Figure 10. Post-test Crack Map (5-2b-50-5)

Structures Congress 2015

Structures Congress 2015

Steel Construction. Retrieved from

Anda mungkin juga menyukai