Khaled A. El-Domiaty, P.E.

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

Minneapolis, MN
April 15, 2013

©2013 Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants Inc.


General need to incorporate effective material
technologies to mitigate against explosive loads,
particularly at close-range
◦ Implemented components (e.g., wall panels) will ideally
be cost-effective and take up minimal space

Related need to develop analytical tools to predict
response of innovative materials in a blast
environment

Consider the advanced micro-reinforced concrete
composite system DUCON®
◦ Establish a material model within LS-DYNA that
qualitatively replicates the observed behaviors of MRC
from a variety of previously performed tests

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Introduction to MRC systems

Material Modeling within LS-DYNA

Comparisons between FEA Models and Testing
◦ Quasi-static Tests
◦ Blast Tests Exhibiting Flexural Response
◦ Blast Tests Exhibiting Breach/Spall Response

Conclusions and Recommendations

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Micro-reinforced
“DUctile CONcrete”
◦ Developed in Germany
within last 15 years

Self-consolidating, high
strength mortar

Multiple layers of fine-
wire steel mesh
reinforcement infiltrated
with slurry
◦ Creates a homogeneous
composite material

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


In comparison to typical
reinforced concrete and
other innovative
products (e.g., SIFCON),
has exhibited superior:
◦ Compressive strength

~23 ksi (160 MPa)
◦ Flexural strength

~11 ksi (76 MPa)
◦ Ductility (>10)
◦ Fragment/spall resistance

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


MRC
Standard Reinforced
◦ Steel volume ranges Concrete
between 5% and 12% ◦ Rebar congestion
◦ Enhanced ductility ◦ Corrosion
◦ Crack control ◦ Brittle failure
◦ Long-term durability ◦ Shrinkage cracking
◦ Thickness (>0.4 in) and ◦ Durability issues
minimum cover (>0.04
in) reduction

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


MRC slabs typically required to have 50-60% less
the thickness for an equivalent flexural blast
performance

A breach in MRC slab would have approximately
half the diameter of formed hole predicted for
standard reinforced concrete

MRC slabs would be approximately 30-50%
thinner than standard concrete at ballistic limit

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

Can provide a thinner substitute
to cast-in place or precast
concrete elements

Blast/spall mitigation for charges
with minimal standoff

Surfaces requiring resistance to
fragments

Flexural or shear upgrade of
beams/slabs

Column upgrades
◦ Additional axial strength
◦ Confinement
◦ Seismic retrofit

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Slurry Model
◦ Developed customized input parameters
using MAT72R3

Three invariant plasticity model

Can characterize nonlinear shear and
compressibility behavior of concrete-like
materials
◦ Matched against laboratory test data

Uniaxial strain tests

Triaxial compression tests

Split Hopkinson bar tests
◦ Available test information has gaps:

Strain-rate sensitivity

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

 Slurry Failure Surface Fit

Triaxial Compression Test Fit

Uniaxial Compression Test Fit

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

Steel Reinforcement
Model
◦ Used MAT24 elastic-
plastic material type
◦ Element tensile tests
performed to match
available stress-strain test
data
◦ Relatively wide range of
potential cut-off points in
curves

Failure strain varied in
subsequent models

Actual mesh type and
properties can be varied Wire Mesh Stress-Strain Test Fit
depending on application

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Beam element
diameter/mesh layout
modified in each
comparison test to match
reported steel volume
fraction

LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID
constraint used to embed
wire mesh in slurry

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Four-point Bending Tests
◦ Beams 28 x 4 x 2 in
◦ 2 unsupported span lengths

24 inches

12 inches
◦ 3 tests performed for each span

FEA Model
◦ Half-symmetry used Displaces 1
◦ 0.2 inch solid elements in/sec
◦ 0.5 inch beam elements
◦ Rigid cylinder moves downward
at constant rate to induce beam
bending

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Dynamic bending stress
calculated from:
◦ Induced support reaction
◦ Known moment arm
◦ Known section modulus FEA
Model

Bending stress depends
heavily on mesh failure
strain
◦ 1.05% indicative for 24 inch
support separation Bending Stress vs. Beam Displacement
◦ 1.5% indicative for 12 inch (24 inch span)
support separation (based
on average of scattered
data)

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Overall flexural response well captured
◦ Cracking pattern similar to that observed
experimentally

Predicted Damage Distribution at Onset

Experimentally Deformed Beam of Beam Cracking

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Explosive Slab Tests
◦ Slabs 96 x 48 x 3.3 in
◦ 2 flexural tests

C-4 charge at 36
inch standoff

Larger charge 24
inches away
◦ 2 breach/spall tests

C-4 contact charge

Identical charge 6
inches away

Charge above slab

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


FEA Model
◦ Flexural Tests

Half-symmetry used

0.5 inch solid elements

1.5 inch beam elements

BLAST_LOAD (TNTeq=1.28) Flexural Test Model
pressure distribution applied

Rigid infinite plane for ground
◦ Breach/Spall Tests

Quarter-symmetry used

0.2 inch solid elements

Breach/Spall Test Model

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

Global flexural mode matched
for 36 inch standoff case
◦ Minimal displacement (~2 in)
achieved
◦ No failure

General response and extent
of cracking matched for 24
inch standoff case

Predicted Damage Distribution for

36 inch Standoff Case Comparison of Actual and
Predicted Damage for 24
inch Standoff Case
ACI Spring 2013 Convention

Contact charge approximated with
charge located 1 equivalent sphere
radius away

Global breaching mode matched for
contact charge
◦ Hole size approximately 5x slab
thickness in both test and model

Loading algorithm questionable at
extremely close standoffs
(particularly for “contact” case)

Charge-side (left);
Backside (right)

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

ACI Spring 2013 Convention
 Uncertainty bounds
on pressure

Blast Parameters as a Function of

Scaled Distance

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Global spall mode matched for
15cm standoff case

Front-side hole size approximately
4x slab thickness in test
◦ Hole size approximately 3x slab
thickness in model

Loading algorithm questionable at
extremely close standoffs Charge-side

Backside
ACI Spring 2013 Convention

MRC Systems are effective for mitigation against blast
loads, including close-range detonations.

Finite element models developed for quasi-static and
dynamic blast tests accurately replicated the general
response of MRC components experimentally tested.
◦ Global bending response
◦ Spall/breach response induced by close-in detonations

Further MRC laboratory specimen testing and
structural component blast testing should be
performed to better evaluate the developed material
model and optimize steel mesh layers.
◦ Strain-rate sensitivity

ACI Spring 2013 Convention


Additional blast testing would allow the current
model to be fine-tuned and optimized over a
wider range of blast loading configurations and
support conditions.
◦ Reinforce use as a blast mitigation design tool
◦ Design connections for MRC precast elements
◦ Incorporate more pressure gages to reduce uncertainty
in modeled applied load

For current modeling, TNT equivalency factor can
possibly be increased for added conservatism,
particularly for small standoffs.

ACI Spring 2013 Convention

 Khaled El-
El-Domiaty, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Structures Lead Supervisor
BakerRisk- Washington, DC Office
keldomiaty@bakerrisk.com
ACI Spring 2013 Convention