Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Investigation of ultra-high performance concrete slab and normal

strength concrete slab under contact explosion
Jun Li a,, Chengqing Wu a,b, Hong Hao c
a

School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, SA 5005, Australia
Tianjin Chengjian University & University of Adelaide Joint Research Centre on Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Australia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 November 2014
Revised 14 August 2015
Accepted 20 August 2015
Available online 9 September 2015
Keywords:
Ultra-high performance concrete
Contact explosion
SPH
Finite element

a b s t r a c t
Dynamic performance of concrete structures under blast loading conditions is a topic of importance as
such load generates severe structural damage including flexural damage, shear damage and concrete
spall damage which may impose threats to the personnel and instruments shielded by the reinforced
concrete structure. To mitigate blast effects on civil structures, a new kind of concrete material named
Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete (UHPC) is now widely studied and applied. UHPC material is known
for its high compressive and tensile strength, large energy absorption capacity as well as good workability and anti-abrasion ability. In a previous study, the performance of UHPC slab under blast loads had
been investigated through free air explosion tests. The blast resistance capacity of UHPC had been
demonstrated through comparison with normal strength concrete. In the present study, the dynamic performance of UHPC slab under contact charge explosion is experimentally studied and compared with normal strength concrete slab under the same loading scenario. Numerical models are established to
reproduce both the previous free air explosion tests and the current contact explosion tests. In particular,
finite element model is established to simulate the free air explosion test, and coupled smoothed particle
hydrodynamics (SPH) method and finite element method is utilized to simulate the contact blast tests.
Numerical results are compared with the experimental observations, and the feasibility and accuracy
of the numerical model are validated.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent decades, with the rising of terrorism threats, increasingly more attention is drawn to structural dynamic response
under blast loading conditions. Structural response under blast
loads is a highly complex problem as it involves geometric and
material nonlinearity, time dependent structural deformation and
loading rate dependent material properties.
Traditional treatments of this problem [13] depend mainly on
single degree of freedom (SDOF) analysis, which is also the preferred method for design analysis as it is relatively straightforward
and easy to use. However, SDOF method based on simplified
assumptions may not be adequate for reliably modelling a structure with complex geometry under complex loading conditions.
Experimental investigation on this topic can provide intuitional
observations and useful data of blast induced structural deformation and damage. Schenker et al. [4] conducted full-scale field tests
on protected and unprotected concrete slabs. Time dependent
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.li@adelaide.edu.au (J. Li).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.032
0141-0296/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

measurements of the response of the concrete slabs to the blast

waves were successfully recorded and the obtained data had been
used to verify and validate the computer code. Maji et al. [5] conducted a full-scale blast test on a structure constructed with fibrereinforced polymers (FRP) retrofitted masonry walls. It was
observed that the retrofit was able to withstand the blast load.
Smith et al. [6] conducted a series of experiments using smoothwalled tunnels of differing geometry at 1:45 scale and small
partially-vented cubicles designed to demonstrate that meaningful
results can be obtained at small scales.
With calibrated material and numerical model, computer based
simulation could be a powerful supplement to experimental analysis. Different numerical methodologies like finite element method
(FEM) and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) were developed and widely adopted in structural analysis and design. Vast
investigations utilizing these methods can be found in the previous
studies [713]. It has been proved that such computer based
numerical simulations, unlike experimental method which always
involve safety concern, can provide acceptable predictions of structural response to dynamic loading at a lower cost.

396

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Under blast loading conditions, various failure modes including

flexural damage, shear damage and concrete spall damage can be
observed on RC structures. Flexural damage is a desired failure
mechanism as it is the most ductile and allows the maximum
energy absorption. However, during blast tests on columns, Crawford et al. [14] found, over short loading duration, flexural failure
can only occur if the shear capacity exceeds the bending resistance
capacity. The first failure modes will be diagonal or direct shear
failure if the columns shear capacity is not sufficient enough. Using
reliability analysis technique, Low and Hao [15] developed a model
which predicts the most probable failure mechanism between flexure and direct shear of a one-way reinforced concrete slab.
Besides flexural and shear damage, concrete spall is another significant damage mode which is predominant in close-in or contact
explosion scenarios. In such cases, blast impart great amount of
energy on the structure in the form of stress wave propagation.
When the compression stress wave reaches the distal surface of
the structure component, it will be reflected and then transformed
into tensile stress wave. After superposition of the reflected and
incident waves, if the net stress within the concrete material
exceeds its dynamic tensile strength, spall damage happens [16
18]. Without evident structural deformation, spall damage reduces
the cross-sectional area and thus reduces the element load carrying capacity. Concrete spall also generates large amount of high
speed flying fragments which impose threats to the personnel
and equipment inside the structure. In the previous study, Ohtsu
et al. [19] experimentally and analytically investigated the
dynamic failure of fibre-reinforced concrete (FRC) slabs, and it
was observed that the averaged diameters and the volumes of
the spall failure remarkably decreased with the increase in the
flexural toughness of FRC. Leppnen [20] conducted experimental
and numerical analyses to examine the extent to which the concrete, at various distances, is affected by the blast wave and fragment impacts. The results showed that the damage in the
concrete, from the blast wave and fragment impacts, is localized
in the impact zone. The concrete below this zone, at a depth of
approximately twice the depth of the maximum penetration, was
hardly affected at all by the blast wave and fragment impacts. Nash
et al. [21] developed a numerical model to predict spall damage to
concrete walls from close-in explosions in air for cased and
uncased munitions. The model was used to develop guidelines
for designing concrete walls to prevent spallation.
Concrete spall damage occurs in a brittle manner due to the relatively low tensile strength of concrete material. In order to
improve the structural tensile resistance and mitigate the effects
of blast loads, externally bonded (EB) or near surface mounted
FRP plates are now widely used for retrofitting the existing structures. Muzsynski and Purcell [22] conducted a series of full-scale
explosion tests on RC walls, retrofitted with FRP on the rear (tensile) face. It was observed that the two retrofitted walls had a
higher blast resistance capacity and generally performed better
than the unretrofitted control wall. Razaqpur et al. [23] experimentally verified that overall the FRP retrofitted panels performed better than the companion control panels without FRP retrofit. Based
on available experimental and numerical investigations, Buchan
and Chen [24] summarized blast resistance of FRP composites
and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures. Mutalib and Hao [25] constructed pressure-impulse diagrams for FRP
strengthen RC column to provide correlations between the damage
levels of FRP strengthened RC columns and blast loadings.
Rather than retrofitting the existing structure, in recent decades, increasing attention has been given to the utilization of innovative concrete material like ultra-high performance concrete
(UHPC) in construction of new structural members. UHPC which
consists of ultra-fine reactive particles and fibre reinforcement is
known for its high compressive strength which is normally in

excess of 150 MPa. Due to the fibre reinforcement, UHPC is also

characterized by their improved tensile strength, durability and
impact as well as blast resistance ability when compared with
the conventional commercial concrete. Utilization of UHPC allows
construction of sustainable and economic buildings with extraordinary slim design which also satisfies public aesthetic needs.
Pioneering applications such as a hybrid (steel and UHPC) pedestrian bridge in Germany [26], a cable stayed bridge in Korea [27]
and a series of pedestrian bridges in New Zealand [28] have
impressed the world with its great capacity and potentiality.
Extensive research was carried out to gain knowledge about the
performance of UHPC structures under blast loading environment.
Ngo et al. [29] experimentally investigated blast induced behaviour
of UHPC prestressed concrete panels with various thickness and
reinforcement detailing. Test results were used to validate a
finite-element computer code. Roller et al. [30] adopted UHPC as
the retrofit coating material for reinforced concrete columns, and
the residual loading capacity test demonstrated that UHPC coating
was an effective measure for protective purpose. Based on shock
tube tests on nine UHPC columns, Aoude et al. [31] demonstrated
that the use of UHPC significantly improved the blast performance
of reinforced concrete columns by reducing the maximum and
residual displacements, enhancing damage tolerance, and eliminating secondary blast fragments. Astarlioglu and Krauthammer
[32] analytically investigated the response of normal-strength
(NSC) and UHPC columns to idealized blast loads. They compared
pressure-impulse curves for NSC and UHPC columns and concluded that under impulsive loads the UHPC columns can sustain
more than four times the impulse that would cause the NSC columns to fail. In more recent studies, Li et al. [33,34] studied UHPC
columns and slabs under both static and blast loading conditions,
the results demonstrated the positive effects of utilizing such
material in protective structural design.
In 2007, a series of free air explosion tests were conducted by
Wu et al. [35] to investigate the blast resistance of slabs constructed with both plain ultra-high performance fibre concrete
(UHPFC) and reinforced ultra-high performance fibre concrete
(RUHPFC). Normal reinforced concrete (NRC) slabs were also tested
as control specimens. It was noted the UHPC slabs outperformed
the NRC slab with significantly reduced flexural damage after blast.
In the current study, to investigate the spall damage resistance
of the UHPC, contact explosion tests are carried out. Reinforced
normal strength concrete slab and unreinforced UHPC slab are
tested under 1 kg contact charge. Spall damage on these two slabs
are recorded and discussed. Besides experimental investigation,
numerical simulation is performed to reproduce the contact explosion tests and free air explosion tests conducted in 2007. Numerical models are developed for both high explosives and concrete
slabs. Finite element analysis is carried out for the free air explosion tests in which slabs mainly responded in their global response
modes, i.e., shear and flexural response modes, in either elastic or
plastic range. For contact explosion test simulation, coupled finite
element and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method is
adopted, and SPH particles are used to simulate the high explosive
and finite elements are used to simulate the concrete slab. Results
from numerical simulations are compared with the field test
results. The feasibility of the numerical model is verified and
validated.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material properties of test specimens
2.1.1. Static strength
UHPC slab used in the current study was constructed by VSL in
their Melbourne laboratory. Material composition of current UHPC

397

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

is listed in Table 1 [36]. Micro reinforcement high carbon metallic

fibres were mixed at a volume dosage of 2%. The fibre length is
13 mm and diameter is 0.2 mm and fibre tensile strength is
1800 MPa.
An initial heat treatment, consisting of curing in hot water at a
temperature of 90 C for a period not less than 48 h was applied to
the concrete material after setting. Such heat curing accelerates
maturation of the material and gives it dimensional stability
immediately after manufacturing, thereby increasing its durability.
Experimental stress strain profiles for the concrete under
investigation were obtained from the manufacturer for both
uniaxial compression and flexural tension at 28 days. Compression
stress strain curve was obtained from 70 mm diameter cylinder
tests and flexural tensile stress strain relationship was obtained
from standard tensile tests on prisms of square section
(100 100 400 mm). Fig. 1 shows the typical representative testing data obtained from uniaxial compression and flexural tests.
The compressive strength and tensile strength of UHPC material
are averaged as 175 MPa and 30.2 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength and tensile strength of normal strength concrete used
in NRC slab construction are determined as 39.5 MPa and 8.2 MPa,
respectively. The Youngs modulus of the NRC and UHPC are
28.6 GPa and 41 GPa, respectively. The stress strain curves of UHPC
under uniaxial compression and tension tests are plotted in Fig. 1.
Table 1
UHPC mix proportions.
Constituent

Amount

Cement
Silica fume
Silica flour
Sand
Steel fibres
Superplasticizer
Water

680 kg/m3
204 kg/m3
204 kg/m3
974 kg/m3
156 kg/m3
44 l/m3
150 l/m3

Fig. 1. Stress strain relationship of UHPC material.

The steel reinforcement used in the current study has a yield

strength of 600 MPa and Youngs modulus of 200 GPa.
2.1.2. Strain rate effect and dynamic increase factor
It is commonly acknowledged that under high strain rate loading condition, material properties differ from those under static
condition [37,38]. The strength enhancement can be represented
using dynamic increase factor (DIF). For normal strength concrete
with compressive strength ranging from 20 to 70 MPa, their DIF
can be calculated through equations proposed by Malvar and
Crawford [39].
For normal strength concrete compressive strength, the DIFs
can be derived from:

8
1:026a
>
< e_e_s
f
DIF c

1=3
f cs >
: c e_
s

e_ s

for e_ 6 30 s1
for e_ > 30 s1

where fc is the dynamic compressive strength at e_ ; fcs is the static

compressive strength at e_ s ; e_ is the strain rate in the range of
30  106 to 300 s1; e_ s is the static strain rate 30  106;
log cs = 6.156 a 2; a = 1/(5 + 9fcs/fco); fco = 10 MPa.
For normal strength concrete tensile strength, DIFs can be
obtained from:

8
d
>
< e_e_s
ft
DIF

>
e_ 1=3
f ts :
b
e_ s

for e_ 6 1 s1
for e_ > 1 s1

For steel reinforcement:


DIF

e_
4

10

a

where for the yield strength, a = afy = 0.0740.04fy/60; and for the
ultimate stress, a = afu = 0.0190.009fy/60.
Until now, the dynamic strength of UHPC is a topic of limited
discussion. Magnusson and Hallgren [40] tested concrete with
compressive strength up to 200 MPa, and they found the load carrying capacity of steel fibre reinforced concrete was increased in
the dynamic tests due to strain-rate effects. The experimental data
summarised by Malvar and Crawford [41] showed a reducing DIF
with increasing concrete strength. Chen et al. [42] conducted
dynamic tensile tests on steel fibre reinforced concrete with various fibre volume fraction, and the largest DIF observed at a loading
rate of 450 GPa/s is around 1.1. Weidner [43] conducted a series of
drop hammer tests on both plain concrete and fibre reinforced high
strength concrete, and it was observed that fibre reinforced concrete specimens did not perform as well as normal strength concrete specimens when tested dynamically. Fibre reinforced
concrete specimens tested in tension at elevated temperatures
exhibited a decrease in DIF when compared to room temperature.
Millard et al. [44] performed dynamic flexural tensile test on ultrahigh strength concrete with different dosages of steel fibre. The
results show that the strain rate enhancement of flexural strength
for UHPFRC is reduced as the fibre percentage increases. In fibrereinforced beams, the fibres resist the lateral spreading of the
cracks by bridging across regions of lower strength. Therefore,
the beneficial effect of a restraint on lateral crack growth has
already been partially accounted for by fibre reinforcement, resulting in higher failure strength under quasistatic loading. Subsequently, the influence of the higher loading rate on reducing
lateral crack development would be lessened.
In the current study, since no data available describing the
dynamic behaviour of the UHPC material, a DIF value of 1.0 is used
in the simulation of UHPC under blast loads. This is a rather conservative assumption as it underestimates the UHPC strength under

398

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

blast loads. This assumption has been adopted in the previous

numerical studies [45,46] and reasonable correlation was noticed
between numerical results and experimental observation. It is
worth pointing out that further study on the dynamic strength of
UHPC material is undergoing through laboratory SHPB tests and
the numerical simulations with the updated DIF values will be conducted to validate the assumption made in the current study and
further improve the modelling accuracy.
2.2. Test setup
In these two contact blast tests, slab dimension is
2000 1000 100 mm. the NRC specimen was designed with both
tension and compression reinforcement using a 12 mm diameter
mesh, with a 10 mm concrete cover. The mesh bars were spaced
at 100 mm centres in the major bending plane and 200 mm in
the minor plane. This corresponds to a reinforcement ratio of
1.2%. Fig. 2 illustrates the configuration of the NRC slab.
UHPC slab shares the same dimension with the NRC slab but
with no steel reinforcement. The confinement effect from the reinforcement mesh does not exist in UHPC slab, and the spall damage
is solely resisted by the UHPC material. 1 kg explosive charge in the
shape of cylinder with ratio of diameter to length 1 is placed on the
upper surface of the slab specimens. Due to the predrilled holes in
the slabs for the installation of pressure gauges, the charge is offset
from the centre as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Fig. 4 shows the field set up and steel rig supporting system for
contact explosion test. The base steel plates are bolted to the concrete ground slab to stabilize the testing system, and the slab is
placed on the steel rig with a simply support boundary.
The blast program is summarised in Table 2.

Fig. 3. Contact explosion test.

2.3. Test results

Fig. 5 shows the response of NRC slab after 1 kg contact explosion. It can be noticed that the slab suffered a 390 mm diameter
failure on the proximal surface as indicated in Fig. 5(a), while the
distal surface of the slab has a larger failure diameter of 710 mm
as shown in Fig. 5(b). This is a typical concrete spall and punching
failure mode. Under contact loading condition, blast pressure
directly impacts on the proximal surface, and this pressure easily
exceeds the dynamic compressive strength of normal strength concrete which induces concrete punching failure. Blast load also generates severe stress wave propagation along the slab depth
direction. Upon the interaction between the reflective stress and
incident stress, if the resultant stress exceeds the dynamic tensile
strength of the concrete, concrete spall occurs. It is worth noting
that a wedge shape side failure was also observed on the NRC slab

Fig. 4. Test setup and supporting system.

as shown in Fig. 5(b). It is believed that such failure is caused by

the stress wave propagation within the slab plane. Since the explosives offset from the centre to the side, the incident stress wave has
a short distance to travel before it encounters the reflective stress
wave from the free edge, only small amount of energy has been
dissipated before the wave superposition, and the resultant stress
is still larger than the dynamic tensile strength of the concrete
which brings damage to the free edge of the slab.

Fig. 2. Dimension and reinforcement of NRC slab in contact explosion test.

399

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Table 2
Blast program.
Slab no.

Description

Rebar ratio

Standoff distance (m)

Scaled distance (m/kg1/3)

Explosive charge (kg)

NRC
UHPC

RC slab
Unreinforced UHPC

1.2%

Contact explosion
Contact explosion

1.0
1.0

Fig. 6 shows the response of UHPC after 1 kg contact explosion.

Similar damage mode as seen on the NRC slab is observed. However, after detailed measurement, the UHPC slab is found to have
smaller damage diameter on both the top and bottom surface,
i.e. 350 mm and 380 mm, respectively, and there is small difference between the upper and bottom damage area diameter. These
observations could be explained by the two factors. Firstly, the
steel fibre composites in UHPC slab can effectively prevent concrete cracking and even bridge over the concrete cracks to mitigate
the bottom surface spall damage. Secondly, UHPC has ultra-high
compressive strength and significant material ductility as shown
in Fig. 1 which means it can absorb large amount of blast energy,
thus reduce the concrete punching failure on the upper surface.
It is worth noting that the UHPC slab in this contact explosion test
does not have any steel reinforcement, and the spall damage can be
further confined if reinforcement mesh is included.
Table 3 summarises the spall damage diameters of both slabs.

3. Numerical simulation
In this section, to demonstrate the UHPC behaviour under various blast loads and verify the proposed numerical model, free air
explosion tests conducted in 2007 by Wu et al. [35] as well as
the current contact explosion tests are numerically investigated.
The material properties (both the UHPC and NRC), specimen
dimensions and testing systems in the free air explosion tests are

(a) Top surface

Table 3
Contact explosion induced damage.
Slab no.

Damage diameters (mm)

NRC
UHPC

dtop

dbottom

390
350

710
380

identical with contact explosion tests discussed above. In total four

slabs as summarised in Table 4 are numerically studied.
3.1. Material model
Numerical investigations in the present study are performed
using LS-DYNA, which is especially developed for nonlinear
dynamic simulations. In LS-DYNA, various material models such
as Pseudo Tensor (MAT_16), Brittle Damage (MAT_96), Johnson
Holmquist Concrete (MAT_111) and Concrete Damage Rel3
(MAT_72_REL3) can be used for concrete modelling under dynamic
loading condition.
In the present study, Concrete_Damage_Rel3 is used for modelling normal strength concrete. Concrete_Damage_Rel3 is a
plasticity-based model, and it uses three shear failure surfaces
which change shape, depending on the confinement pressure.
The damage and strain rate effect is included in this model. The
major advantage of this model is that it is based on a single user

(b) Bottom surface

Fig. 5. NRC response to contact explosion (a) top face of slab and (b) bottom face of slab.

(a) Top surface

(b) Bottom surface

Fig. 6. UHPC response to contact explosion (a) top face of slab and (b) bottom face of slab.

400

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Table 4
Slabs and blast scenarios considered in numerical simulation.
Slab no.

Description

Rebar ratio (%)

Standoff distance (m)

Scaled distance (m/kg1/3)

Explosive charge (kg)

NRC-2007
UHPC-2007
NRC
UHPC

RC slab
Reinforced UHPC
RC slab
Unreinforced UHPC

1.2
1.2
1.2

1.5
1
Contact explosion
Contact explosion

0.75
0.37

8.2
20.1
1.0
1.0

input parameter, i.e., the unconfined compressive strength. The

remaining model parameters are automatically generated using a
built-in algorithm and can also be modified by users.
The above mentioned material model is suitable for modelling
the brittle behaviour of plain concrete. They cannot well model
the damage softening behaviour in post-yield stage of UHPC. Moreover, these models involve too many parameters to be determined
by simple material tests. In the present study, the material properties provided by the UHPC company are limited to the uniaxial
compression and flexural tension stressstrain relationships.
To make use of most of the available test data, hydrodynamic
material model ElasticPlastic Hydrodynamics Model is adopted
to describe the dynamic behaviour of UHPC. This model can be
simplified as a bilinear elasticplastic stress strain relationship
suitable for most engineering materials including those with pressure dependent yield behaviours such as concrete. As shown
in Fig. 7. The yield strength ry is a function of the effective plastic
strain eP .

ry

r0 Eh eP

where r0 is the initial yield strength, Eh represents the plastic hardening modulus defined in terms of Youngs modulus, E, and the tangent modulus Et, as

Eh

Et  E
E  Et

Using the data from uniaxial compression tests the relationship

between the effective stress and the effective plastic strain eP , as
shown in Fig. 8 can be determined. Interpolation from the data
curve can be conducted, and in this case the parameter Eh is no
longer required for input during calculations.
Effective stress is defined in terms of the deviatoric stress
tensor sij = rij  dijrkk /3 as


12
3
r Sij Sij
2

and the effective plastic strain can be defined as

eP

1
Z t
2 p p 2
e_ ij e_ ij dt
3
0

where t denotes time, e_ pij is the plastic strain rate.

Table 5 lists the tabulated input of effective stresseffective
plastic strain data for UHPC.
The shock response of UHPC was considered using the Mie
Gruneisen equation of state. With cubic shock velocity-particle
velocity, the Gruneisen equation of state defines pressure for compressed material as:

ph

q0 C 2 l 1 1  c20 l  2a l2

1  S1  1l  S2 ll1  S3 ll12

i2 c0 alE

and for expanded material as:

p q0 C 2 l c0 alE

where C is bulk sound velocity termed as the intercept of the UsUp

curve, S1, S2 and S3 are the coefficients of the slope of the UsUp
curve; c0 is the Gruneisen gamma; a is the first order volume correction to c0; and l = q/q01.
The shock velocityparticle velocity relationship is non-linear
and is given by:

U s C S1 U p S2

 
 2
UP
UP
U P S3
UP
Us
Us

10

It is well recognized that for most materials, the second-order

and higher terms are negligible, the parameters S2 and S3 are then
taken as zeros. Shock velocity Us varies linearly with respect to
the particle velocity Up as

U s C S1  U p

11

Macroscopically, concrete is an isotropic material. For isotropic

elastic bodies, the bulk sound velocity C was determined as

p
K=q

12

2E
In which K is the UHPC bulk modulus equals to 912
c, c is Pois-

sons ratio.

Fig. 7. Uniaxial bilinear elasticplastic stressstrain model.

Fig. 8. Effective stress and effective plastic strain interpolated from tabulated input.

401

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Table 5
Effective stresseffective plastic strain data for describing UHPC hardening and softening.

Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Effective plastic strain

Effective stress (MPa)

0
0.0005
0.001
0.002
0.00275
0.003
0.0035
0.004

165
170
175
170
165
162
160
155

Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point

In summary, in the present study, the non-linear stress softening behaviour of UHPC is modelled by the tabulated stressstrain
curve of the elasticplastic hydrodynamic material model in LSDYNA. The tensile stress failure is determined by the tensile cutoff value which equals to 30 MPa according to the tensile stress
of UHPC. The shock response of UHPC is modelled using the Mie
Gruneisen equation of state.
The parameter in the EOS used in the present study is given in
Table 6. After substituting Youngs modulus (41 GPa), material
density (2650 kg/m3), Poissons ratio (0.15) into Eq. (12), bulk
sound velocity can be estimated as 2100 m/s. Due to the lack of
dynamic tests data, the slope of the UsUp curve S1 and Gruneisen
gamma c0 are sourced from previous numerical simulations on
steel fibre reinforced concrete [47]. It should be noted that
although the following numerical results demonstrate the feasibility of adoption of this material model and the corresponding
parameters, further dynamic material tests are deemed necessary
to verify the assumptions.
Steel reinforcement in the current study is simulated by MAT_
Piecewise_Linear_Plasticity (MAT_24). This model allows the definition of arbitrary stress versus strain curve and arbitrary strain
rate curve. Also, failure based on a plastic strain or the minimum
time step size can be defined.
Crack and concrete spall can be simulated in LS-DYNA through
either the tied node with failure definition or the element erosion
algorithm. The first method requires duplicated nodes to be
defined and tied together in selected regions. Using the erosion
algorithm, concrete finite element model is created in conventional
manner, and when the element response such as the principle
stress or strain exceeds the defined value, such element will be
automatically eroded and erased from the finite element model.
When choosing the erosion criterion for NRC and UHPC in the
current study, the primary concern is to avoid massive deletion
of the elements and maintain the mass conservation. Ideally erosion should not be used to delete elements. This, however, is not
possible when modelling large deformation in the post-failure
region such as concrete spall damage. Therefore, to avoid eroding
elements prematurely, large strain is usually chosen as the erosion
criterion (Note this strain is not necessarily the material fracture
strain).
For NRC material, typical concrete strain at peak tensile stress
under static loading is around 0.00025 (which is one tenth of the
peak compressive strain). Considering the softening phase, the
concrete fracture strain may be assumed as 5  0.00025 =
0.00125. Taken into the consideration of other effects like strain

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Effective plastic strain

Effective stress (MPa)

0.005
0.0055
0.006
0.0065
0.007
0.00725
0.0075
0.008

150
149
148
147
146
145
143
140

rate effect (DIF up to 7 under tension) and confinement effect from

the reinforcement, this value can be even higher than 0.2. For
UHPC material, according to the flexural stress strain curve as
shown in Fig. 1, UHPC has peak tensile strain around 0.002, and
this value is about 8 times higher than NSC material. However,
under dynamic tensile loading condition, UHPC is significantly less
rate sensitive (DIF slightly larger than 1). This means under
dynamic loading condition, the fracture strain for both UHPC and
NRC are more or less the same. Therefore, an erosion criterion
which is the same as the NRC is adopted for UHPC. Furthermore,
considering that FE models for UHPC and NRC slabs have the same
mesh density, uniform erosion criterion can give sound comparison on the crack propagation of the two materials.
After large amount of trials, a principal strain equal to 0.4 is
chosen as the erosion criterion. If the criterion is set higher, element distortion due to large element deformation under blast
loading happens; if the criterion is set lower, premature erosion
and element deletion occur which violate the mass conservation
and the results are no longer reliable. Table 7 summaries the material property used in the current study.
3.2. Numerical model
Finite element model of the slab under free air explosion is
modelled in ANSYS-LS-DYNA and shown in Fig. 9(a). The boundary condition of the test slab is shown in Fig. 9(b). In the major
bending plane, nodes within 0.1 m width towards the ends of
slab are selected and their vertical direction degree of freedom
is constrained. Two different sizes of element are used in the
model. The element size close to the slab centre is 8 mm while
element size close to the boundary is 40 mm. Convergence test
shows that further decrease of the central element size can
slightly increase the simulation accuracy; however at the cost
of enormous computational time and effort. The relatively larger
element size close to the boundary can effectively reduce the
stress concentration and avoid early erosion of the boundary
elements.
3.3. Free air explosion tests simulation
The blast load modelling in the free air explosion is through the
Load_Blast function in LS-DYNA. The utilization of this function
avoids the detailed modelling of the explosive charge and shock

Table 7
Material properties.
Table 6
Parameter for the equation of state describing the UHPC.
EOS

C0
S1

c0

2100 m/s
1.4
2

Youngs modulus
Compressive strength
Tensile strength
Erosion principle strain

NRC and
NRC-2007

UHPC and
UHPC-2007

Steel

28.3 GPa
39.5 MPa
8.2 MPa
0.4

45 GPa
175 MPa
30 MPa
0.4

200 GPa

600 MPa
0.2

402

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Fig. 9. Finite element model of slab.

wave propagation in air, thus it can save the computational effort.

The disadvantage of this function is that it cannot model the shock
wave and structure interaction. The reliability of this function in
simulating blast loads on structures has been proven and it is very
commonly used in numerical simulations of structural responses
to blast loads.
In this section, free air explosion on two slabs, i.e. NRC-2007
and UHPC-2007 are simulated. The numerical results are then
compared with the experimental results. Fig. 10 shows the
response of NRC-2007 with the plastic strain contour. It can be
observed that the slab deforms in the plastic region, and no
scabbing or spall damage happens. The plastic strain of concrete
is used as the damage indicator in this material model
(Concrete_Damage), and it can be noticed that at the time of
30 ms when the plastic strain distribution becomes stable, and
the contour shows the concrete cracks concentrate at the slab

mid-span and the crack lengths decrease towards the slab boundary. This damage observation is close to the field test results as
shown in Fig. 11.
The time history curves of the mid-span displacement and
velocity are plotted in Fig. 12. In the experiment, the LVDT used
for the displacement recording debonded from the slab after the
first peak, thus the comparison of the entire history curve is not
available here. However, it is noticed that, during the test, the peak
displacement in the first vibration period is captured as 38 mm.
The numerical simulation gives a value of around 36 mm and the
prediction accuracy is high. The slight underestimation can be
attributed to the explosive charge shape effect. Explosive used in
the test is cylindrical shaped, however in LS-DYNA, Load_Blast
function is based on spherical TNT explosion in free air. The charge
shape caused the blast wave to be directional, bringing about a
higher pressure magnitude in the test than predicted by the

5 ms

1ms

8 ms

10 ms

20 ms

30 ms
Fig. 10. NRC-2007 slab simulation.

403

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Fig. 11. NRC-2007 field observation [35].

Velocity (m/s)

Displacement (m)

Midspan velocity
Midspan displacement

-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

-4
-8
-12

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Time (ms)

Time (ms)
Fig. 12. Time history curves of midspan response.

3 ms

20 ms
Fig. 13. UHPC-2007 slab response simulation.

Fig. 14. UHPC-2007 field observation [35].

numerical method [48]. The permanent displacement given by the

numerical simulation is about 20 mm, and the slab exhibits a plastic deformation.

Fig. 13 shows the simulation of UHPC-2007 under severe free

air explosion with a scaled distance of 0.37 m/kg1/3. Slab flexural
damage at mid-span can be clearly noticed. In the plastic hinge
region, concrete elements are eroded. Cracks on the upper surface
and opening on the bottom side are observed. Comparing with the
field observations as shown in Fig. 14, the numerical model well
reproduces the slab damage mode. Again, due to the LVDT debonding from the slab, the time history curves cannot be compared.
Comparison of the plastic hinge in the mid span is shown in
Fig. 15, and it can be noted that the numerical model utilizing
the Mat_Elastic_Plastic_Hydrodynamics can well simulate the concrete crushing and cracking. It is believed that further decreasing
the element size could give even better crack simulation, however,
the computational effect would increase enormously.
The ultra-high strength concrete was observed to be an effective material which resists a large blast at a small scale distance.

Fig. 15. concrete crush and bottom crack.

404

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Fig. 16. Coupled FE model and SPH particles.

3.4. Contact explosion tests simulation

Contact explosion simulation is through the coupled finite
element method and smoothed particle hydrodynamics method.
The SPH method was originally developed by Lucy [49] and Gingold and Monaghan [50]. Instead of finite elements, this method

uses discrete particles, interacting with each other via an interpolation function. Since this method is Lagrangian and mesh free, it is
well suited to analyse large deformation events involving failure
and fragmentation [51], and the utilization of using such method
simulating the high explosive explosions are also found in literature [52,53]. In the present study, in order to simulate interaction

1 ms

5 ms

8 ms

10 ms

15 ms

20 ms
Fig. 17. Explosion expansion.

405

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

0.1 ms

0.2 ms

0.3 ms

0.5 ms

3 ms

1 ms

7 ms

10 ms

15 ms

20 ms
Fig. 18. Slab NRC top surface response.

of explosion wave with the slab, and capture large deformation of

the explosive, the high explosive material is simulated through
SPH particles and test slab is modelled with finite elements as
shown in the free air tests. MAT_High_Explosive is adopted to

simulate the high explosive material, Mat_Concrete_Damage_Rel3

and Mat_Elastic_Plastic_Hydrodynamics are used to simulate the
NRC slab and UHPC slab respectively, and the MAT_Piecewise_Lin
ear_Plasticity is used to model the steel reinforcement.

406

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

Fig. 19. Slab NRC bottom response.

0.1 ms

3 ms

10 ms

20 ms
Fig. 20. Slab UHPC top surface response.

In total, 12500 SPH particles are generated in cylinder shape to

model the explosive. The SPH particles and test slab model are
shown in Fig. 16.
Contact between the SPH particles and test slab is modelled
through the LS-DYNA built-in algorithm CONTACT_NODES_TO_S
URFACE, and default value is used in the contact setup.
Fig. 17 shows the explosion phenomenon modelled in the present study. The explosive expansion and corresponding blast wavefront pressure can be clearly observed in the figure.

Fig. 18 shows the top surface response of the target slab NRC.
The punching and spall failure quickly expands with time. The
damage extends quickly in the first 10 ms, and remains stable
afterwards. No global deformation can be observed which indicates
the slab response under contact explosion is highly localized.
It is even clearer to observe the spall damage from the bottom
surface as shown in Fig. 19, comparing with the experimental
observations of NRC on the bottom side, the numerical model gives
excellent predictions on the structural damage. Concrete spall,

407

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

0.1 ms

3 ms

10 ms

20 ms
Fig. 21. Slab UHPC bottom surface response.

4. Concluding remarks
Table 8
Spall damage dimension comparison.
Slab

NRC
UHPC

Damage diameters (mm)

Experimental
top

Experimental
bottom

Numerical
top

Numerical
bottom

390
350

710
380

360
310

700
330

punching and tearing of the steel reinforcement are all well simulated with high fidelity.
Fig. 20 shows the ultra-high performance concrete slab UHPC
under 1 kg contact explosion. Similar to the NRC slab, the concrete
crush and spall is highly localized and the structure restores stability in a short period of time. Due to the high compressive strength,
the concrete crush on the proximal face facing the explosive is significantly confined comparing with the NRC slab.
On the distal face of the UHPC slab, concrete spall failure which
is induced by the severe tensile wave propagation is again seen
clearly as shown in Fig. 21. However, with the contribution from
the steel fibre, the spall area is not as significant as seen on the
NRC slab. It is worth noting that in this UHPC slab, no steel reinforcement is placed, and according to the previous study [9,17],
with the inclusion of the steel reinforcement, the spall damage
can be further mitigated.
In the contact explosion tests, the minimum global flexural
behaviour was expected on the test slabs, thus no LVDT was
installed on the slab for the deflection time history recording.
Due to the lack of quantitative data of the test slab, only the failure
mode and failure dimension are compared between the test slabs
and numerical results, and the comparison are summarised in
Table 8. It is noticed that the numerical method gives good prediction of the spall damage diameter. Again the superior blast resistance capacity of UHPC slab is demonstrated.

Two contact explosion tests on normal concrete slab and ultrahigh performance concrete slab are conducted. From the experimental results, it is noticed that due to the contribution from the
ultra-high compressive strength and steel fibre reinforcement,
UHPC has significantly reduced concrete punching and spall damage as compared with the NRC slab. Rational numerical models for
UHPC and NRC under blast loads are developed. Free air explosion
tests conducted in a previous study and the current contact explosion tests are reproduced in hydro-code LS-DYNA using the proposed numerical models. Finite Element method is used for free
air explosion simulation while the coupled SPH and Finite Element
method is utilized for the contact explosion simulation. From the
results comparison of the damage mode and spall damage area,
it is concluded that the proposed numerical model and methodology can well reproduce the structural response of normal strength
concrete slab and UHPC slab under various blast loading conditions. The numerical results again demonstrated the superior blast
resistance capacity of UHPC material.
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper jointly supported by the
ARC Discovery Grant DP140103025, the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant 51278326, and the National
Key Technology R&D Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2012BAJ07B05) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers. Design of blast resistant buildings in
petrochemical facilities; 1997.
[2] UFC. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Department of
Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria 3-340-02, Washington, DC.
[3] Biggs JM. Introduction to structural dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964.
[4] Schenker A, Anteby I, Gal E, Kivity Y, Nizri E, Sadot O, Michaelis R, Levintant O,
Ben-Dor G. Full-scale field tests of concrete slabs subjected to blast loads. Int J
Impact Eng 2008;35:18498.

408

J. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 102 (2015) 395408

[5] Maji AK, Brown JP, Urgessa GS. Full-scale testing and analysis for blastresistant design. J Aeros Eng 2008;21:21725.
[6] Smith P, Mays G, Rose T, Teo K, Roberts B. Small scale models of complex
geometry for blast overpressure assessment. Int J Impact Eng 1992;12:34560.
[7] Zhou X, Hao H. Mesoscale modelling and analysis of damage and
fragmentation of concrete slab under contact detonation. Int J Impact Eng
2009;36:131526.
[8] Xu K, Lu Y. Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete
plates subjected to blast loading. Comput Struct 2006;84:4318.
[9] Li J, Hao H. Numerical study of concrete spall damage to blast loads. Int J
Impact Eng 2014;68:4155.
[10] Li J, Hao H. Influence of brittle shear damage on accuracy of the two-step
method in prediction of structural response to blast loads. Int J Impact Eng
2013;54:21731.
[11] Li J, Hao H. Numerical study of structural progressive collapse using
substructure technique. Eng Struct 2013;52:10113.
[12] Wang Z, Lu Y, Hao H, Chong K. A full coupled numerical analysis approach for
buried structures subjected to subsurface blast. Comput Struct
2005;83:33956.
[13] Xu J-X. Analysis of structural response under blast loads using the coupled
SPHFEM approach. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2008;9:118492.
[14] Crawford JE, Malvar LJ, Morrill KB. Reinforced concrete column retrofit
methods for seismic and blast protection. In: Proc of society of American
military engineering symposium on compressive force protection; 2001.
[15] Low HY, Hao H. Reliability analysis of direct shear and flexural failure modes of
RC slabs under explosive loading. Eng Struct 2002;24:18998.
[16] Grady D. The spall strength of condensed matter. J Mech Phys Solids
1988;36:35384.
[17] McVay MK. Spall damage of concrete structures. DTIC Document 1988.
[18] Foglar M, Hajek R, Kovar M, toller J. Blast performance of RC panels with
waste steel fibers. Constr Build Mater 2015;94:53646.
[19] Ohtsu M, Uddin FA, Tong W, Murakami K. Dynamics of spall failure in fiber
reinforced concrete due to blasting. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:5118.
[20] Leppnen J. Experiments and numerical analyses of blast and fragment
impacts on concrete. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31:84360.
[21] Nash PT, Vallabhan C, Knight TC. Spall damage to concrete walls from close-in
cased and uncased? Explosions in air. ACI Struct J 1995;92.
[22] Muszynski LC, Purcell MR. Composite reinforcement to strengthen existing
concrete structures against air blast. J Compos Construct 2003;7:937.
[23] Ghani Razaqpur A, Tolba A, Contestabile E. Blast loading response of reinforced
concrete panels reinforced with externally bonded GFRP laminates. Compos B
Eng 2007;38:53546.
[24] Buchan PA, Chen JF. Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer
strengthened concrete and masonry structures a state-of-the-art review.
Compos B Eng 2007;38:50922.
[25] Mutalib AA, Hao H. Development of PI diagrams for FRP strengthened RC
columns. Int J Impact Eng 2011;38:290304.
[26] Fehling E, Bunje K, Schmidt M. Grtnerplatz Bridge over River Fulda in
Kassel: Multispan Hybrid UHPC-Steel Bridge. In: Designing and building with
UHPFRC. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013. pp. 0136.
[27] Chin W, Kim Y, Cho J-R, Park J. Dynamic characteristics evaluation of
innovative UHPC pedestrian cable stayed bridge. Engineering 2012;4
(12):86976.
[28] Rebentrost M, Wight G. Perspective on UHPCs from a specialist construction
company. In: Designing and building with UHPFRC. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.;
2013. pp. 189208.
[29] Ngo T, Mendis P, Krauthammer T. Behavior of ultrahigh-strength prestressed
concrete panels subjected to blast loading. J Struct Eng 2007;133:158290.
[30] Roller C, Mayrhofer C, Riedel W, Thoma K. Residual load capacity of exposed
and hardened concrete columns under explosion loads. Eng Struct
2013;55:6672.

[31] Aoude H, Dagenais FP, Burrell RP, Saatcioglu M. Behavior of ultra-high

performance fiber reinforced concrete columns under blast loading. Int J
Impact Eng 2015;80:185202.
[32] Astarlioglu S, Krauthammer T. Response of normal-strength and ultra-highperformance fiber-reinforced concrete columns to idealized blast loads. Eng
Struct 2014;61:112.
[33] Li J, Wu C, Hao H, Su Y. Investigation of ultra-high performance concrete under
static and blast loads. Int J Protect Struct 2015;6:21735.
[34] Li J, Wu C, Hao H. An experimental and numerical study of reinforced ultrahigh performance concrete slabs under blast loads. Mater Des 2015;82:6476.
[35] Wu C, Oehlers DJ, Rebentrost M, Leach J, Whittaker AS. Blast testing of ultrahigh performance fibre and FRP-retrofitted concrete slabs. Eng Struct
2009;31:20609.
[36] Ngo TD. Behaviour of high strength concrete subject to impulsive loading
2005.
[37] Hao Y, Hao H, Li Z-X. Numerical analysis of lateral inertial confinement effects
on impact test of concrete compressive material properties. Int J Protect Struct
2010;1:14568.
[38] Hao Y, Hao H, Zhang XH. Numerical analysis of concrete material properties at
high strain rate under direct tension. Int J Impact Eng 2012;39:5162.
[39] Malvar LJ, Crawford JE. Dynamic increase factors for concrete. DTIC Document
1998.
[40] Magnusson J, Hallgren M. Reinforced high strength concrete beams subjected
to air blast loading. In: Structures under shock and impact VIII. Wit Press;
2004. pp. 5362.
[41] Malvar L, Crawford J, Morrill K. K and C concrete material model, release III
automated generation of material model input. Karagozian and case structural
engineers. Technical report 2000 TR-99-24.3; 2000.
[42] Chen R, Liu Y, Guo X, Xia K, Lu F. Dynamic tensile properties of steel fiber
reinforced concrete. Dynamic Behavior of Materials, vol. 1. Springer; 2011. p.
3742.
[43] Weidner AM. Dynamic properties of concrete and fiber reinforced concrete at
room and elevated temperatures, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering. University of Utah; 2013.
[44] Millard S, Molyneaux T, Barnett S, Gao X. Dynamic enhancement of blastresistant ultra high performance fibre-reinforced concrete under flexural and
shear loading. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37:40513.
[45] Wang Z, Wu J, Wang J. Experimental and numerical analysis on effect of fibre
aspect ratio on mechanical properties of SRFC. Constr Build Mater
2010;24:55965.
[46] Thiagarajan G, Kadambi AV, Robert S, Johnson CF. Experimental and finite
element analysis of doubly reinforced concrete slabs subjected to blast loads.
Int J Impact Eng 2015;75:16273.
[47] Teng T-L, Chu Y-A, Chang F-A, Shen B-C, Cheng D-S. Development and
validation of numerical model of steel fiber reinforced concrete for highvelocity impact. Comput Mater Sci 2008;42:909.
[48] Anderson J, Katselis G, Caputo C. Analysis of a generic warhead part I:
experimental and computational assessment of free field overpressure. DTIC
Document 2002.
[49] Lucy LB. A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. Astron J
1977;82:101324.
[50] Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and
application to non-spherical stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc 1977;181:37589.
[51] Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Simulation of high velocity concrete fragmentation using
SPH/MLSPH. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2003;56:142144.
[52] Liu MB, Liu GR, Zong Z, Lam KY. Computer simulation of high explosive
explosion using smoothed particle hydrodynamics methodology. Comput
Fluids 2003;32:30522.
[53] Liu MB, Liu GR, Lam KY, Zong Z. Meshfree particle simulation of the detonation
process for high explosives in shaped charge unlined cavity configurations.
Shock Waves 2003;12:50920.