Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 July 2014
Accepted 14 September 2014
Available online 2 October 2014
Keywords:
Prestressed reinforced concrete beam
Blast resistance
Dynamic response
a b s t r a c t
Prestressing technique has been widely used in civilian and military constructions. The prestressed
reinforced concrete (RC) structural components such as beams and columns usually outperform the
non-prestressed RC components because prestressing not only increases the structural stiffness and load
carrying capacity, but also has higher crack resistance than non-prestressed component. As a result, it
usually leads to light structures. The investigation of non-prestressed RC components subjected to blast
loadings has been reported in the literature. However, the study on the blast-resistant capacity of prestressed RC components is very limited. In this study, the dynamic response of a simply-supported prestressed RC beam with rectangular section under blast loadings is numerically investigated by using nite
element codes LS-DYNA. The prestress is pre-applied on the RC beam in an analytical approach. The reliability of the numerical model is calibrated with testing results available in the literature. With the calibrated model, numerical simulations on four groups of prestressed RC beams to blast loadings are
carried out to investigate the inuences of prestressing level and concreted compressive strength on
beam blast loading resistance capacity. The structural responses such as mid-span maximum deection,
residual deection, cracking, stress of rebars and shear stress of concrete near the supports are extracted
from the numerical results. The effectiveness of prestressing on blast-resistant capacity of RC beam is
demonstrated through comparing the results with the bench marking non-prestressed RC beam under
the same blast loadings.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Blast loadings due to terrorist bombing or accidental gas
explosion may cause signicant structural damage, casualty and
economic loss. Reinforced concrete is commonly used in the building industry. Conventional RC column, beam and panel, as major
load carrying components, are often damaged when subjected to
blast loading, which might lead to partial or total collapse of building structures. In 1968, an internal gas explosion seriously damaged the Ronan Point residential apartment building in the UK,
owing to the failure of some structural components that triggered
progressive collapse [1]. Engineering solutions for structure protection need to be developed and improved to ensure the safety
of structures. To overcome concretes natural weakness in tension
and the growth of cracks, prestressed technique is employed in
both civilian and military constructions. Prestressing concrete
Corresponding author.
E-mail
(W. Chen).
addresses:
wensu.chen@curtin.edu.au,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.033
0261-3069/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
wensu.chen@hotmail.com
663
664
Fig. 2. Tested column (L) before blast loading; (R) after blast loadings [21].
Fig. 3. (L) Finite element model; (R) Cross section of test column [20].
665
LS-DYNA Model
Input parameter
Magnitude
MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC (MAT_24)
Mass density
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Yield stress
Failure strain
7800
207 GPa
0.3
450 MPa
0.18
MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC (MAT_24)
Mass density
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Yield stress
Failure strain
7800
207 GPa
0.3
400 MPa
0.18
Concrete
MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_REL3 (MAT_72)
Mass density
Unconned strength
Failure strain
2400
42 MPa
0.1
" 0 #1=3
fc
b0
f t 1:58
CDIF
fc
f cs
e_
e_ cs
1:026a
for e_ 30 s1
CDIF
fc
1=3
ce_ for e_ > 30 s1
f cs
TDIF
TDIF
ft
f ts
e_
e_ ts
ft
b
f ts
d
for e_ td 6 1 s1
e_
e_ ts
1=3
4
5
DIF
e_
a
104
a 0:074 0:040f y =414
6
7
where fy is the steel yield strength in MPa. The DIF of steel used in
this study is shown in Fig. 4 (R). It should be noted that to avoid
overestimation of the DIF of steel material at high strain rate, DIF
is taken as a constant when strain rate is larger than 200 1/s as
shown in Fig. 4.
2.5. Blast load modeling
In LS-DYNA, the function Load_Blast_Enhanced has been proven in simulating blast loads on structures and it has been used
in numerical simulations of structural responses to blast loads
[29,30]. The amplitudes of blast loadings are determined by the
scaled distance (Z) and the incident angle. The scaled distance is
dened as Z = R/W1/3, where R is the standoff distance in meters
and W is the amount of TNT equivalent in kilograms [31]. In this
study, the blast loadings with positive and negative phases can
be idealized as triangular pressure time history and applied on
the structure. For a stiff structure, the inuence by the negative
phase blast pressure is relatively small compared to that of the
positive phase. Therefore, the negative pulse is usually neglected
to save computational cost. The positive pressure time history is
modeled by a steep rise to peak pressure Pr. and then decays to
666
1.4
Steel
1.3
DIF
DIF
1.2
4
1.1
3
1.0
2
1
-4
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
0.9
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
-1
-1
Strain rate (S )
Strain rate (S )
Fig. 4. DIFs versus strain rate (L) Concrete; (R) steel.
7000
Pressure (kPa)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Time (ms)
Fig. 5. Idealized air explosion pressure time history.
ambient pressure. It can be dened by the arrival time ta, the ctitious duration t0f and the positive reected peak pressure Pr. The
ctitious duration is determined by the positive reected impulse
Ir and the positive reected peak pressure Pr [31] as
t of
2Ir
Pr
Fig. 6. Plastic strain contours (a) maximum deection (t = 3 ms); (b) residual
deection.
indicating the numerical model gives reliable predictions of RC column response to blast loadings.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the plastic strain and Von Mises stress distributions along the column, respectively. High plastic strain occurs
near the supports and the mid-height of the inner vertical face,
where the cracks appear and grow. The damage mode is the combination of exural and shear damage.
Fig. 8 shows that the mid-height displacement time histories of
the column. The maximum deection and residual deection at
mid height of column are around 11.6 mm and 6.9 mm,
respectively. Fig. 9 shows the numerical results agree well with
the testing results reported by Baylot and Bevins [20], as well as
the numerical results by Shi et al. [22] and Mutalib and Hao [23],
The above calibrated numerical model is used to perform a series of simulations of RC beams with different prestressing levels
subjected to blast loadings. The structural responses such as the
mid-span maximum deection, residual deection and shear stress
in concrete elements near supports are compared to examine the
effectiveness of prestressing RC beam on blast-resistant capacities.
3.1. Beam specications
The specication of a prestressed RC beam in [11] is used in this
simulation. The simply supported prestressed RC beam of 220 mm
667
Fig. 7. Von Mises stress contours (a) maximum deection (t = 3 ms); (b) residual
deection.
0.012
Peak deflection=11.6mm
Deflection (m)
0.010
0.008
Residual deflection=6.9 mm
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Time (s)
Present study
Baylot & Bevins (2007) measured deflection
Mutalib & Hao (2010)
Shi et al. (2008)
Deflection (m)
0.014
M F d r p As d
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Time (s)
Fig. 9. Comparisons of deection time histories.
0.018
0.016
Ml
8EI
0.05
10
668
Table 2
Initial stress in concrete with respect to prestress level (Group #1).
1
1
Moment
of
Inertia:
I 12
bh 12
0:22 0:163 7:5
105 m4 ;
Therefore, the initial hogging deformation of the beam at
mid-span for the prestress of 315 MPa is calculated as
2
1:25 mm
d Ml
8EI
The calculation includes two steps. In the rst step, the initial
hogging deformation distribution along the beam is estimated with
the calculated mid-span deformation. The nodes along the beam
are dened as displacement restraints in ANSYS. The initial geometry and the initial prestress of the beam can be obtained through
the implicit analysis. The bending moment can be applied through
MPa
Initial midspan
displacement
mm
Maximum initial
principal stress
(in tension)
MPa
Maximum initial
principal stress (in
compression)
MPa
0
315
472
630
0
1.25
2.0
2.5
0
2.289
3.653
4.067
0
2.356
3.734
4.193
Beam
Prestress
No.
#11
#12
#13
#14
the initial hogging deformation. In the second step, the conguration and initial stress state of the beam resulted from the rst-step
implicit analysis are taken as the initial condition for the subsequent explicit analysis under blast loading in LS-DYNA through
its implicit to explicit option.
As shown in Fig. 13, the geometry of prestressed RC beam is created according to the above calculations. To study the inuence of
prestressing level on beam responses, a total of four beams, categorized as Group #1 in this study, with increasing prestress are considered. Table 2 lists the corresponding initial hogging
deformations and initial principal stress in tension and compression, respectively. The prestress distributions are generated by
applying the prestress in the beam in the present approach, it is
obtained by applying bending moment to induce the initial deformation of the beam. Fig. 14 shows the typical initial principal
stress contour in the beam. The maximum initial principal stress
Fig. 13. (a) Initial geometry of the original beam; (b) geometry of the RC beam after prestressing (not to scale).
669
Fig. 14. Initial principal stress contour of beam #13 after prestressing.
Table 3
Axial stress and strain in longitudinal reinforcement with respect to prestress level (Group #1).
Beam
Prestress
No.
MPa
#11
#12
#13
#14
0
315
472
630
0
18.9
30.3
38.2
0
0.0095
0.0152
0.0191
0
17.2
27.4
34.2
0
0.0086
0.0137
0.0171
Table 4
Mid-span deection time history (Group #1).
Beam
Prestress
Concrete
Maximum deection
Residual deection
No.
MPa
MPa
mm
Reduction
mm
Reduction
#11
#12
#13
#14
0
315
472
630
42
42
42
42
112.0
111.6
104.0
88.9
0.4%
7.2%
20.6%
86.5
81.0
60.5
50.0
6.4%
30.1%
42.2%
Note: benchmark.
200
Maximum deflection
Residual deflection
Deflection (mm)
160
120
80
40
0
#11
#12
#13
#14
Beam
Fig. 15. Maximum and residual deection of beam with respect to prestress level
(Group #1).
examine the exural capacity. The prestressed RC beam experiences smaller maximum and residual deections, and the response
decreases with the increased prestress level, as shown in Fig. 15.
Taking Beam #11 without prestress as the benchmark, as shown
in Table 4, when the prestress of 630 MPa is applied, the beam
#14 experiences the maximum deection of 88.9 mm, which is
20.6% less than that of the benchmark beam. The residual deection is 50 mm, which is 42.2% lower than that of the benchmark
beam. The mid-span deection time histories are shown in
Fig. 16. These results demonstrate that prestressing the RC beam
is benecial to its blast loading resistance capacity.
As shown in Fig. 17, the crack patterns of beams in Group #1 are
different at t = 1.5 ms after the blast event. The primary damage of
beam #11 without prestress is exural cracks developed at the
bottom side of the mid-span of the beam. The damage patterns
of beam #12 to beam #14 with increasing prestress change from
exural damage dominant to more prominent shear damages.
Large cracks move from the mid span towards the supports. This
is because prestressing the beam increases its exural capacity
and therefore decreases the concrete tensile damage at the midspan. However, it should be noted that prestressing would slightly
increase the diagonal shear stress in the beam because of the compressive prestressing over the cross section, therefore it results in
damage towards the supports. To demonstrate this, the stress on
the longitudinal rebars near the mid-span and the stress of hoop
rebars near the supports of beam #11 and beam #12 are extracted
and compared from the numerical results. The time histories of
stresses of longitudinal bar and hoop rebar are shown in Fig. 18.
As summarized in Table 5, the maximum stresses on the longitudinal rebars are 547.2 MPa and 487.2 MPa for the non-prestressed
and prestressed beam #12, respectively. The maximum stresses
of hoop rebars near the supports are 476.7 MPa and 511.2 MPa
670
Displacement (m)
0.05
Beam
No.
0.00
-0.05
#11
#12
Prestress
MPa
Maximum stress of
longitudinal rebar
MPa
0
315
547.2
487.2
476.7
511.2
-0.10
-0.15
#11
#13
-0.20
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
#12
#14
0.08
0.10
Time (s)
Fig. 16. Mid-span deection time histories (Group #1).
600
600
500
500
400
400
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
Fig. 17. Crack patterns of beam #11, #12 and #14 at t = 1.5 ms.
300
200
100
0
0.00
Beam #12
Beam #11
0.01
0.02
Time (s)
0.03
300
200
100
0
0.00
Beam #12
Beam #11
0.01
0.02
Time (s)
Fig. 18. (L) Stress time histories of longitudinal rebar; (R) stress time histories of hoop rebar at supports.
0.03
671
0.05
#11
#12
#13
#14
15
Displacement (m)
20
10
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
#21
#23
-0.20
0.00
0
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.10
Time (s)
0.08
Time (s)
0.04
#22
#24
Fig. 20. Maximum shear stress time histories at supports (Group #1).
160
Maximum deflection-Group#1(fc'=42MPa)
Maximum deflection-Group#2(fc'=50MPa)
Maximum deflection-Group#3(fc'=60MPa)
Maximum deflection-Group#4(fc'=70MPa)
Deflection (mm)
140
120
100
80
60
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Prestress (MPa)
Fig. 21. Maximum deections versus prestress for different concrete strength.
120
Deflection (mm)
100
80
60
40
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Prestress (MPa)
Fig. 22. Residual deections versus prestress for different concrete strength.
672
0.05
Beam
No.
Displacement (m)
0.00
Prestress
(MPa)
Case
Peak
pressure
(kPa)
Positive
reected
impulse
(kPa ms)
Duration of
positive
phase (ms)
-0.05
#11
#11-1
#11-2
#11-3
6100
13,000
20,000
3050
3050
3050
1.0
0.47
0.31
#12
315
#12-1
#12-2
#12-3
6100
13,000
20,000
3050
3050
3050
1.0
0.47
0.31
-0.10
-0.15
#31
#33
-0.20
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
#32
#34
0.08
0.10
Time (s)
Fig. 24. Mid-span deection time histories for Group #3.
25000
0.05
0.00
Displacement (m)
#11-1 #12-1
#11-2 #12-2
#11-3 #12-3
20000
-0.05
-0.10
#41
#43
-0.15
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
10000
5000
#42
#44
-0.20
0.00
15000
0
0.0
0.10
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Time (ms)
shown in Fig. 27, both beams suffer primarily exural damage with
most of the cracks at the bottom side of the mid-span. The beam
#12-1 experiences less damage at the mid-span region than the
beam #11-1 because the prestressing reduces the exural damage
as discussed above. When the beams are subjected to the blast load
of peak pressure 13,000 kPa, the prestressed beam #12-2 experiences the combined pattern of shear and exural damage as shown
in Fig. 28. The damage moves from the mid-span towards the supports where longitudinal rebars fail. The non-prestressed beam
#11-2 has a similar failure mode with more cracks developed in
the mid-span and longitudinal rebars also failed. However, it is
Table 6
Mid-span deections of beams (Group #1 #4).
Group
Beam
Prestress
Concrete
Maximum Deection
No.
No.
MPa
MPa
mm
Reduction
mm
Reduction
#1
#2
#3
#4
#1
#2
#3
#4
#1
#2
#3
#4
#1
#2
#3
#4
#11
#21
#31
#41
#12
#22
#32
#42
#13
#23
#33
#43
#14
#24
#34
#44
0
0
0
0
315
315
315
315
472
472
472
472
630
630
630
630
42
50
60
70
42
50
60
70
42
50
60
70
42
50
60
70
112.0
111.9
104.5
94.6
111.6
111.5
91.3
66.9
104.0
102.0
79.6
65.3
88.9
76.6
70.0
54.0
0.1%
6.7%
15.5%
0.2%
18.2%
40.0%
1.9%
23.5%
37.3%
13.8%
21.3%
39.2%
86.5
83.6
80.5
62.4
81.0
75.8
69.5
44.6
60.5
56.8
51.4
41.6
50.0
48.1
44.4
28.0
3.4%
6.9%
27.9%
6.4%
14.2%
45.0%
45.4%
50.6%
60.0%
45.9%
50.1%
68.5%
Residual Deection
673
#11-1
#12-1
Fig. 27. Damage modes of beams #11-1 and #12-1 (at time = 4.5 ms).
#11-2
#12-2
Fig. 28. Damage modes of beams #11-2 and #12-2 (at time = 4.5 ms).
#11-3
#12-3
Fig. 29. Damage modes of beams #11-3 and #12-3 (at time = 4.5 ms).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the partial nancial support from
Australian Commonwealth Scientic and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) to carry out this research work.
References
[1] Ellingwood BR. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. J
Perform Constr Facil 2006;20:31523.
[2] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structures. NJ: Hall Englewood
Cliffs; 1991.
[3] AS/NZS. Concrete structures. Standard Australia & Standards New Zealand;
2009.
[4] Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures concrete bridges: design and
detailing rules. 2005.
[5] Fang Q, Wu P. Main factors affecting failure modes of blast loaded RC beams.
Chin J Comput Mech 2003;1:009.
[6] Lin X, Zhang Y, Hazell PJ. Modelling the response of reinforced concrete panels
under blast loading. Mater Des 2014;56:6208.
[7] Magnusson J, Hallgren M. High performance concrete beams subjected to
shock waves from air blast. Swedish Defence Research Agency; 2003.
[8] Jiang H, Wang X, He S. Numerical simulation of impact tests on reinforced
concrete beams. Mater Des 2012;39:11120.
[9] Fang Q, Qian Q-H, Shi Y-L. A rate-sensitive analysis of R/C beams subjected to
blast loads. In: International conference on structures under shock and impact;
1996. p. 22130.
674
[10] Yi N-H, Kim J-HJ, Han T-S, Cho Y-G, Lee JH. Blast-resistant characteristics of
ultra-high strength concrete and reactive powder concrete. Constr Build Mater
2012;28:694707.
[11] Li Y, Wang X, Guo X. Experimental study on anti-impact properties of a
partially prestressed concrete beam. Explos Shock Waves 2006;26:256.
[12] Ishikawa N, Enrin H, Katsuki S, Ohta T. Dynamic behavior of prestressed
concrete beams under rapid speed loading. Struct Under Shock Impact V
1998:71726.
[13] Ishikawa N, Katsuki S, Takemoto K. Incremental impact test and simulation of
prestressed concrete beam. Struct Mater 2002;11:48998.
[14] Iskhakov I, Ribakov Y. Two-layer pre-stressed beams consisting of normal and
steel bered high strength concrete. Mater Des 2008;29:161622.
[15] Cramsey N, Naito C. Analytical assessment of blast resistance of precast,
prestressed concrete components, AFRL-ML-TY-2007-4529. Air Force Research
Laboratory; 2007.
[16] Ngo T, Mendis P, Krauthammer T. Behavior of ultrahigh-strength prestressed
concrete panels subjected to blast loading. J Struct Eng 2007;133:158290.
[17] Chen L, Fang Q, Liu J-c, Zhang Y-d, Xiang H-b. Nonlinear analysis of blast
performance of partially prestressed RC beams. Int J Protective Struct
2011;2:295314.
[18] Cofer WF, Matthews DS, McLean DI. Effects of blast loading on prestressed
girder bridges. Shock Vib 2012;19:118.
[19] LSTC, LS-DYNA version 971 keyword users manual_Rev5-beta. Livermore
Software Technology Corporation; 2010.
[20] Baylot JT, Bevins TL. Effect of responding and failing structural components on
the airblast pressures and loads on and inside of the structure. Comput Struct
2007;85:891910.