Evaluation of the shockwave absorption of

the high performance concrete

J. Krátký, R. Holešinský, S. Rolc

Abstract
The emerging threat to critical infrastructure leads to many studies and research works aiming at
behaviour of the concrete under the blast load. Explosive loads are typically applied to structures
at rates approximately 1000 times faster than earthquake-induced loads so the results of the
works done on earthquake resistant structures can be applied only to limited extent. To add to the
research effort devoted to the blast resistant concrete, the blast response of purposefully prepared
energy absorbing high performance concrete has been studied. The work presented in this paper
compares the shockwave absorption properties of the small 500 x 500 x 40 mm slabs made from
various types of high performance concrete (glass fibre reinforced, steel fibre reinforced, etc.).
The shockwave absorption is measured by means of vibration sensors (accelerometers) placed in
the centre of the sample and on the edge of the testing stand. The signal from the accelerometers
is then processed and the information on the energy absorbed by the sample is compared.

Keywords: high performance concrete, shockwave absorption, blast absorption

1 Introduction
Extensive studies during the last decades showed that short-duration high-magnitude loading
conditions significantly influence structural response. Explosive loads are typically applied to
structures at rates approximately 1000 times faster than earthquake-induced loads (Krauthammer,
1999). The corresponding structural response frequencies can be much higher than those induced
by conventional loads. The short-duration dynamic loads often exhibit strong spatial and time
variations, resulting in sharp stress gradients in the structures. High strain rates also affect the
strength and ductility of structural materials, the bond relationships for reinforcement, the failure
modes, and the structural energy absorption capabilities (Yan and Lin, 2006). Blast resistant
structures must be robust (i.e. have well-defined redundancies) to ensure alternative load paths in
case of localized failures (Nadel, 2004; TM5-1300, 1990). Ensuring robustness may not be
possible if the structural details cannot perform as expected. It is therefore important to focus not
only on the matters of the engineering design of the buildings but also on the information
concerning the behaviour of the selected materials under the blast loading.

Even in case of preserving structural integrity the lives of people inside building are still at risk
from the secondary fragments produced by the blast and/or impact loading on the outer side of
the concrete wall. There are several ways to lower the risk of the secondary fragments formation,
e.g. using of air gap to stop shockwave energy transfer to the inner side of the wall or application
of spall liners. However these techniques are not always applicable for various reasons like the
need for discreet retrofitting or lack of space for this solution. Some experiments indicate the
possibility to improve the blast resistance by the steel or carbon fibre reinforced polymer on the
both sides of concrete slab (Silva and Lu, 2007). The integration of the fibre reinforcement (glass,
steel or organic polymer) is one of the seamless ways to improve the concrete resistance to the
secondary fragment formation and blast resistance (Lan, 2005).

The materials selected for experimental work were therefore based on the fibre or net reinforced
high performance concrete, rapid hardening alkali activated granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS)
materials and autoclaved alkali activated GBFS materials.

2 Experimental program
2.1 Parameters and composition of the tested samples
Several groups of materials have been chosen for the blast testing program:

• SFRC 600: high performance concrete containing 2.5 % by weight of steel fiber (6 x
0.15 mm) reinforcement.
• G+SFRC 300: high performance concrete containing 1.25 % by weight of steel fiber (6 x
0.15 mm) and 1.25 % by weight of glass fiber reinforcement (12 x 0.014 mm).
• GFRAAS 600: autoclaved alkali activated GBFS containing 2.5 % by weight of glass
fiber reinforcement (12 x 0.014 mm).
• ASMS1440: rapid setting material based on the alkali activated GBFS without any
reinforcement.
• GFRAAS 600-Gl net: autoclaved alkali activated GBFS containing 2.5 % of glass fiber
reinforcement (12 x 0.014 mm) and glass net having the mesh size of 10 mm placed
30 mm above the side of the sample exposed to the explosion.
• GFRC-Gl net: high performance concrete containing 2.5 % of glass fiber reinforcement
(12 x 0.014 mm) and glass net having the mesh size of 10 mm placed 30 mm above the
side of the sample exposed to the explosion.
• GFRC-S net 2 x 2: high performance concrete containing 2.5 % of glass fiber
reinforcement (12 x 0.014 mm) and steel net having the mesh size of 20 mm and wire
diameter of 0.65 mm placed 30 mm above the side of the sample exposed to the
explosion.
• GFRC-S net 1 x 1: high performance concrete containing 2.5 % of glass fiber
reinforcement (12 x 0.014 mm) and steel net having the mesh size of 20 mm and wire
diameter of 1.3 mm placed 30 mm above the side of the sample exposed to the explosion.
• GFRC-C net: high performance concrete containing 2.5 % of glass fiber reinforcement
(12 x 0.014 mm) and carbon fiber fabric placed 30 mm above the side of the sample
exposed to the explosion.

For the comparison with the material having low capability to absorb the energy of blast, the 500
x 500 x 40 mm armour steel plate was tested – the plastic deformation of the steel plate was not
measurable so almost no energy was absorbed by this plastic deformation mechanism.
The density and mechanical parameters of the samples tested are shown in table 1.

Table 1: List of the density and mechanical parameters of the tested samples.
Density Flexural strength Compressive strength
Sample code
[kg*m-3] [MPa] [MPa]
SFRC 600 2258.4 8.3 48.90
G+SFRC 300 2221.7 15.6 79.38
GFRAAS 600 2059.4 5.3 38.28
ASMS1440 2043.0 4.2 32.75
GFRAAS 600-Gl net 2034.0 5.8 40.32
GFRC-Gl net 2234.0 24.8 83,56
GFRC-S net 2x2 2214.8 22.7 80,08
GFRC-S net 1x1 2228.8 23.6 81,03
GFRC-C net 2229.5 19.5 65,09

2.2 Experiment setup

The military standards dealing with threat levels for temporary campsites (STANG 2280, 2007),
document concerning the testing procedures for blast resistant application (AEP-55, 2006) and
also design guidelines for building and testing of blast resistant structures (Task Committee on
Blast Resistant Design, 1997; TM5-1300, 1990) are publically available. However the tests
proposed in these documents are usually based on full-scale testing, which brings problems
concerning the feasible number of performed tests, availability of proving ground etc. Thus many
authors focus on computer simulations (Remennikov and Rose, 2007) and/or scaled explosive
tests (Nash et al. 1995; Padey et al., 2006; Ghani Razaqpur et al., 2007).

The testing procedure used in this work was based on the methodology designed for testing of
shockwave absorption and protection ability of blast absorbing armour plates (Kratky et al.,
2007). The dimensions of the samples tested were 500 x 500 x 40 mm. The sample was inserted
into testing stand (see figure 1) and covered by 3 mm thick armour steel plate with acceleration
sensor having measurement range ± 980 000 m*s-2 attached in the centre. Second acceleration
sensor (± 98 000 m*s-2) was attached to the corner of the testing stand. The explosive charge was
placed in the steel pit (see figure 1) under the tested sample. The standoff from the top of the
charge to the bottom of the sample was 200 mm. The charge was made from Semtex A1 plastic
explosive and was cylindrical 40 mm high and 46 mm in diameter. The fuse was inserted from
the bottom of the charge. See figure 2 for experiment setup sketch. The data from the sensors
were collected for the time period of 500 milliseconds using data-logging oscilloscope at sample
rate of 200 kHz per channel. For the triggering of the data acquisition the acoustic trigger was
used.
 78
960

12 0 0

Figure 1: Schematic drawings of the testing stand (left) and steel pit for charge emplacement
(right).

Inner and outer acceleration sensors.

Tested sample.

200 mm

Steel pit with testing charge

Figure 2: Sketch and photo of experiment setup.

2.3 Evaluation of the data collected
The raw data collected from the acceleration sensors (for example see figure 3) were processed in
the following way: first the absolute value of the acceleration was calculated and then the integral
value for this vibration was computed (see figure 3). The resulting number makes it possible to
compare the energy absorbing ability of the materials tested amongst each other – the lower the
value – the better energy absorbing properties. This assumption is valid until the cracks appear at
the covering armour plate which would allow the impulse to go through tested sample and hence
distort the result. The different weight of the samples can also contribute to the total value of
vibration but due to the negligible weight differences in comparison to the total mass of the stand
and sample this effect was neglected.

The integral value was then compared to the reference one measured on steel plate.

Also the empirical evaluation of the blast effect on the sample was performed. The scale used to
mark the state of the sample after blast was from 1 (almost unharmed) to 5 (sample crushed to
little pieces). See figure 4 for examples of the samples after blast loading.

Figure 3: Examples of raw data collected from the acceleration sensor (left) and processed data -
integral of the absolute value of the raw data (right). Measured on sample GFRC-S net 1x1.

Figure 4: Examples of the samples after blast test – empirical evaluation of the blast effect on
sample: left side mark 3 (substantial cracks through whole sample), right side mark 5 (samples
broken down to little pieces).
3 Test results

The results of the tests are summarised in the following table 2 and figure 5:

Table 2: List of the density and mechanical parameters of the samples tested.
Effect of the explosion to Relative to
Sample code * Integral value
the sample reference
Reference steel plate 1 145.1 1
SFRC 600 3 96.1 0,66
G+SFRC 300 3 90.8 0,63
GFRAAS 600 5 99.6 0,69
ASMS1440 5 120.3 0,83
GFRAAS 600-Gl net 3 81.4 0,56
GFRC-Gl net 3 75.4 0,52
GFRC-S net 2x2 2 98.8 0,68
GFRC-S net 1x1 2 92.9 0,64
GFRC-C net 3 95.9 0,66
*
– an effect of the explosion on the sample marked from 1 (almost unharmed) to 5 (sample
crushed to little pieces).

Figure 5: Graph showing the integral value of vibration relative to the reference steel plate –
smaller values means better energy absorbing properties of the sample.

From the empirical evaluation of the effect of the explosion on the sample it can be seen that the
best results were obtained using steel net reinforcement in combination with glass fibre
reinforcement. Generally, the samples based on high performance concrete perform better
(considering the sample integrity after the exposure to the blast) than samples based on
autoclaved alkali activated GBFS concrete. The worst result was obtained on samples
GFRAAS 600 (glass fibre reinforced autoclaved alkali activated GBFS) and ASMS1440
(autoclaved alkali activated GBFS without reinforcement). The results obtained on sample
GFRAAS 600 shows the possible degradation of the properties of glass fibre reinforcement
during autoclaving process – the indication of the glass fibre reinforcement degradation is also
the low bending strength of autoclaved GBFS based materials.

Considering the energy absoprtion effectiveness, as expected, most of the samples perform much
better when compared to armour steel sample. The best result was measured on the glass fibre
reinforced high performance concrete incorporating glass fibre net (GFRC-Gl net). The glass net
reinforced alkali activated GBFS composite was the second one. As the result of the
GFRAAS 600 sample indicates, the maintaining of the sample integrity is not the key factor for
the energy absorption – the value measured is close to the value of sample GFRC-S net 2x2,
which shows only minor cracks after blast exposure. However, when there is no reinforcement at
all the energy absorption properties are quite poor, as can be seen on the results of ASMS1440
sample.

4 Conclusion
The blast absorption properties of high performance concrete and autoclaved alkali activated
GBFS concrete materials containing glass and steel fibre reinforcement and incorporating glass,
steel and carbon net reinforcement were studied. The 500 x 500 x 40 mm samples were subjected
to the explosion of 100 g plastic high explosive charge from the 200 mm standoff. The effects of
the explosion on the samples were then evaluated both empirically - the integrity of the sample
marked from 1 (almost unharmed) to 5 (crushed into small pieces) and by the measurement of
vibration response of the tested stand after the explosion. The data obtained from the acceleration
sensors were processed and integrated. The resulting value makes it possible to compare the
results among the samples. As the reference, the armour steel plate having good mechanical
properties but very poor energy absorbing properties was selected.

Regarding the integrity of sample after the explosion, the portland cement based high
performance concrete shows better results in comparison to the autoclaved alkali activated GBFS
concrete. This can be also caused by the degradation of the glass fibre reinforcement properties
during the autoclaving process which can also be observed from the results of the bending
strength of these materials. The best integrity was observed, as expected, on the samples
reinforced with steel net. The best energy absorbing properties were observed on samples
containing glass net reinforcement (GFRC-Gl net and GFRAAS 600-Gl net).

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of Ministry of Industry and Trade within
the research project no. FI-IM3/053.
References
AEP-55: Allied Engineering Publications 2006. Procedures for evaluating the protection level of
logistic and light armoured vehicles for mine threat, Brussels.
Krátký, J., Dohnal, P. et al. 2007: Hodnocení absorpce rázové vlny v materiálech výbuchovými
testy na zkušebním stavu T0. Brno.
Lan, S., Lok, T.-S. et al. 2005: Composite structural panels subjected to explosive loading.
Construction and Building Materials 19(5): 387-395.
Nadel, B. A. 2004: Building Security: Handbook for Architectural Planning and Design,
McGraw-Hill Professional.
Nash, P.T., Vallabhan C.V.G., Knight T.C. 1995: Spall damage to concrete walls from close-in
cased and uncased explosions in air, ACI Struct. J. 92(6): 680–688.
Pandey, A. K., Kumar, R. et al. 2006: Non-linear response of reinforced concrete containment
structure under blast loading Nuclear Engineering and Design 236(9): 993-1002.
Remennikov, A. M. and Rose T. A. 2007: Predicting the effectiveness of blast wall barriers using
neural networks. International Journal of Impact Engineering 34(12): 1907-1923.
Silva, P. F. and Lu, B. 2007: Improving the blast resistance capacity of RC slabs with innovative
composite materials. Composites Part B: Engineering 38(5-6): 523-534.
STANAG 2280: NATO Standardization Agency. 2007: Design threat levels and handover
procedures for temporary protective structures, Brussels.
Task Committee on Blast Resistant Design, 1997: Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in
Petrochemical Facilities, ASCE Publications.
TM5-1300: US Department of Army Technical Manual. 1990: Design of structures to resist the
effects of accidental explosions, Washington, DC.

Josef Krátký, Stanislav Rolc, Military Technical Institute of Protection division of VOP-026
Šternberk, Veslařská 230, CZ-637 00 Brno, Czech Republic, tel. +420 543 562 144, fax
+420 543 562 131, e-mail addresses: kratky@vtuo.cz, rolc@vtuo.cz
Radek Holešinský, Research Institute of Building Materials, Hněvkovského 65, CZ-617 00 Brno,
Czech Republic, tel. +420 543 529 271, fax: +420 543 216 020, e-mail: holesinsky@vustah.cz