Performance of Aramid Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Panels under Blast Loads
Thimira M. Abeysinghe, Ganchai Withit Pansuk
Tanapornraweekit* and Somnuk Department of Civil Engineering
Tangtermsirikul Faculty of Engineering
Construction and Maintenance Chulalongkorn University
Technology Research Center Bangkok, Thailand
(CONTEC)
School of Civil Engineering and
Technology
Sirindhorn International Institute of
Technology (SIIT), Thammasat
University
Pathum Thani, Thailand
*ganchai@siit.tu.ac.th
Abstract—It has been reported that thin concrete panels
reinforced with meshed aramid fiber were able to absorb and
dissipate energy from impact loads. Therefore, it is likely that
internally bonded aramid fibers perform well under blast loads
where high strain rates involve with the material level responses
similar to that from impact loads. A series of blast tests were
conducted to investigate the blast performance of reinforced
concrete (RC) panels with and without internal aramid fiber
reinforcement. Two steel arrangements (5RB6@225 and
11RB6@90) were selected as reinforcement for the test
specimens. With each rebar arrangement, two panels were cast
where one with ordinary concrete and another with aramid fiber
reinforced concrete. Fiber reinforcing was performed by adding
aramid fibers to the fresh concrete during the concrete mixing
processes. All the aramid fiber reinforced concrete (AFRC)
panels were cast with one percent of fiber volume fraction. Blast
tests indicate that AFRC panels outperform RC panels in overall
performance.
Keywords— aramid fiber; blast tests; reinforced concrete,
spalling
I. INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) has been widely used for
construction. Low tensile strength in ordinary concrete is
compensated by the addition of steel bars making RC a better
construction material than plain concrete. Though RC has been
a suitable material for construction, its properties alone are not
sufficient to withstand damage from extreme events such as
explosions.
Explosions rapidly release energy in large scale causing
massive damage to both life and property [1]. Damage may
occur from blast pressure, flying fragments, heat and fire. Main
cause of explosions is by terrorist actions [2]. To minimize the
damage caused by explosions, it is important to identify and
quantify the behavior of structures under blast loads.
Nuthaporn Nuttayasakul
Department of Civil Engineering
Chulachomklao Royal Military
Academy (CRMA)
Nakhon Nayok, Thailand
Even though many types of fiber are available, a few such
as steel, glass, carbon and aramid fibers are used for fabrication
of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) [3]-[4]. Out of them, steel
fiber has been used as a more common type of fiber than the
others [3]. Steel fiber has proven to improve static and dynamic
properties of concrete [5]-[8]. However, in case of concrete
spalling due to a higher blast pressure and impulse, it is
possible that fiber may be ejected together with concrete
debris. In such situations, it is likely that steel fibers may cause
additional injuries to people as well. On the other hand, aramid
fiber which is a soft, flexible material with high tensile strength
is less harmful when it spreads together with concrete debris.
Therefore, this study aims to investigate a safer alternative
material, namely aramid fiber reinforced concrete (AFRC) used
for the blast resistance structures.
II. PANEL DETAILS
TABLE I. provides the details of the tested panels. Two
types of reinforcement arrangements; namely 5RB6@225 and
11RB6@90 (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) were designed for the test
purposes. The first number represents number of main rebars
whilst RB6 is round bars with diameter of 6mm. The last
number indicates the spacing between main rebars. There are
two specimens in each rebar arrangement, one with aramid
fiber and another without aramid fiber. All the AFRC panels
were cast with one percent of fiber volume fraction similar to
[9] and [10] as improved performance was observed in
specimens with this amount of aramid fibers as presented in [9]
and [10]. Higher amount of the fiber also causes fiber balling
resulted in non-uniform fiber distribution. The specimens with
5RB6@225 arrangement have a reinforcement ratio of 0.2%
which corresponds to a minimum reinforcement ratio for a
flexural member [11]. 11RB6@90 rebar arrangement has a
reinforcement ratio of 0.45%. The idea was to investigate the
effects of reinforcement ratio and bar spacing on the
performance of panels under blast loads. TABLE II. shows TABLE II. STATIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF RC, AFRC AND STEEL
REINFORCEMENT
static material properties of RC, AFRC and steel reinforcement
used to cast RC and AFRC panels. All the RC and AFRC Yield strength Ultimate Young's modulus
specimens were fabricated with same concrete mix proportion Material
strength
therefore the increased compressive strength in AFRC
RB6 371.1 MPa 497. 5 MPa 156.3 GPa
specimens is attributed to the effects of aramid fibers. Twisted
aramid fibers with 0.5 mm diameter, 40 mm length and 1,390 Concrete RC Compressive strength = 16.3 MPa
kg/m3 density, manufactured by Teijin Polyester (Thailand) AFRC Compressive strength = 23.5 MPa
Limited were used to fabricate the AFRC panels (see Fig. 3).

TABLE I. PANEL DETAILS

a
Specimen designation Type Main Rebar Weight of TNT
5RB6@225-RC-2lb RC 5RB6@225 2 lb
11RB6@90-RC-2lb RC 11RB6@90 2 lb
5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb AFRC 5RB6@225 2 lb
Fig. 3. Twisted aramid fiber with 0.5 mm diameter and 40 mm length
11RB6@90-AFRC-2lb AFRC 11RB6@90 2 lb
a.
RC: normal reinforced concrete, AFRC: aramid fiber reinforced concrete

III. TEST SETUP

Standard military TNT bars with the size of
44.45×44.45×177.8mm were used as the source of blast load.
The axis of the bar charge was set to parallel with the span
direction of the tested panel. All the tested panels were exposed
to a 2 lb explosion. Explosives were placed at 0.5 m above the
panel center as shown in Fig. 4. All the above design
parameters were adopted to investigate the improved
performance from the contribution of aramid fibers.
A steel frame system, fixed on two RC footings, was
employed to support the panel during the test. This support
system is a modification from that used in [12]-[13].
Maximum displacement at locations G and H (see Fig. 5)
were obtained by placing an antenna at each location. Once the
explosion was cleared, residual displacements at A, B, C, D, E
and F were measured (see Fig. 5).
Fig. 1. Reinforcement design of 5RB6@225

Fig. 4. Test setup

Fig. 2. Reinforcement design of 11RB6@90


Fig. 5. Locations at which deflections were measured (A, B, C, D, E, F, G
and H)
IV. RESULTS
A. Panel deflection
Due to panel bending under explosion, the highest residual
and maximum displacements occurred along the panel center.
Residual displacement along the panel center was directly
measured while the maximum displacement at the panel center
was extrapolated from antenna reading at G and H. Linear or
curvilinear extrapolation was employed based on the final
deformation shape of the panel, i.e. if the final deformed shape
of a panel is in a linear shape, therefore, their deformed shapes
corresponded to their maximum deformation should also be in
a linear shape as well.
As presented in TABLE III. and TABLE IV. panels with
aramid fibers were observed to have lower maximum and
residual panel deflections compared to its RC counterpart.
Furthermore, it was observed that the reduction of
displacement became more distinct in the panel with higher
reinforcement ratio suggesting that the effectiveness of aramid
fiber depends on the reinforcement design.
For the panels with 5RB6@225 (panels with minimum
reinforcement ratio of 0.2%), reduction of displacements (see
TABLE III. And TABLE IV. ) due to addition of aramid fibers
seem to be meaningless since both of the panels lost their beam
behavior and failed under this level of explosion. Fig. 6
indicates that the deformed shapes of both panels are similar.
Top and bottom sides of panels 5RB6@225-RC-2lb and
5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb are shown in Fig. 7. Cracks on the
bottom side of panel 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb were more
concentrated in the mid-span of the panel when compared with
those of panel 5RB6@225-RC-2lb as depicted in Fig. 7. It was
observed that the number and width of cracks and scabbing on
the top surface of panel 5RB6@225-RC-2lb were more severe
than those of panel 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb. This is attributed to
the fact that fibers increase the tensile capacity of concrete
therefore crack propagation is somehow restricted. Further, it is
noted that cracks along the long axis of the panel were
observed. This may be caused by the TNT bar shape and the
orientation of the explosives as the bars were placed along the
long axis of the panel. In addition, it can be clearly seen that
the bottom surface of panel 5RB6@225-RC-2lb demonstrated
cracks and severe spalling (approximately 3.61% of the total
volume) while the panel 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb had negligible
amount of spalling and less number of cracks when compared
to those observed in panel 5RB6@225-RC-2lb. From these
observations, it could be said that for a blast pressure and
impulse of 2 lb at a distance of 0.5 m, reinforcement ratio of
0.20% and 1% aramid fiber did not help to prevent panel
failure as both RC and AFRC panels lost their beam behavior.
However, this amount of aramid fiber with 0.2% reinforcement
ratio contributes to reduce number and width of cracks and
concrete spalling.
TABLE III. MAXIMUM D ISPLACEMENT (RC VS AFRC)
Reinforcement design RC AFRC Reduction (%)
(reinforcement ratio) (mm) (mm)

B. Panel damage (5RB6@225-2 lb) 5RB6@225-2 lb (0.2%) 258 225 12.84

Fig. 6 shows the front and back sides of 5RB6@225-RC- 11RB6@90-2 lb (0.45%) 191 86 55.04
2lb and 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb. The number of cracks in front
and back sides of 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb were less when TABLE IV. RESIDUAL D ISPLACEMENT (RC VS AFRC)
compared to those of 5RB6@225-RC-2lb. Large diagonal
cracks were observed near the support of panel 5RB6@225- Reinforcement design RC AFRC Reduction (%)
(reinforcement ratio) (mm) (mm)
RC-2lb. On the other hand, there was no such diagonal crack
observed near the ends of panel 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb which 5RB6@225-2 lb (0.2%) 211 186 12.05
suggests that aramid fibers prevent such cracks to be initiated. 11RB6@90-2 lb (0.45%) 142 62 56.39
It was observed that the cracks at the mid span cut through the
section in both 5RB6@225-RC-2lb and 5RB6@225-AFRC-
2lb, causing the panels to break into independent pieces
(complete breakdown). The final deformed shapes which
represent the residual deformation of panels 5RB6@225-RC-
2lb and 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb were observed to be linear
shapes towards mid span as presented in Fig. 6. It is noted that
this linear shape of deflection appeared when the test panel lose
its beam behavior because of complete breakdown of the
section at the mid span. On the other hand, a curvilinear
deformed shape implies that the test panel is still flexible and
be able to vibrate during an explosion (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 8 for
a comparison).
 Fig. 7. Top and bottom sides of 5RB6@225-RC-2lb and 5RB6@225-AFRC-
2lb

Fig. 6. Front and back sides of 5RB6@225-RC-2lb and 5RB6@225-AFRC-

2lb

C. Panel damage (11RB6@90-2 lb)

As shown in Fig. 8, the cracks at the mid span of
11RB6@90-RC-2lb cut through the section causing the panel
to lose beam behavior (failure) which is unlike that observed in
11RB6@90-AFRC-2lb which still demonstrates bending
member characteristic. The severity of damage in these two
panels were less than those of specimens 5RB6@225-RC-2lb
and 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb. Shear cracks were also observed
near the support of 11RB6@90-RC-2lb but they were smaller
than those in 5RB6@225-RC-2lb. Top and bottom sides of
panels 11RB6@90-RC-2lb and 11RB6@90-AFRC-2lb are
shown in Fig. 9. Again, it was observed that most cracks were Fig. 8. Front and back sides of 11RB6@90-RC-2lb and 11RB6@90-AFRC-
2lb
generated in the mid-span of the panel with aramid fibers
(11RB6@90-AFRC-2lb) whilst cracks propagated in much
wider areas of top and bottom faces of panel without aramid
fiber (11RB6@90-RC-2lb).
In addition to reduction in number of cracks, aramid fibers
also prevented concrete spalling in panel 11RB6@90-AFRC-
2lb while a concrete spalling of the total panel volume was
measured and calculated to be about 0.55% in panel
11RB6@90-RC-2 lb. As expected, the level of concrete
spalling in panel 5RB6@225-RC-2lb (see section IV B) was
more severe compared to that of panel 11RB6@90-RC-2lb due
to an effect of less steel confinement caused by a lower
reinforcement ratio (larger bar spacing). It can be claimed that
using aramid fibers in RC panels with sufficient reinforcement
ratio is effective for blast loading as it enhances the overall
Fig. 9. Topt and bottom sides of 11RB6@90-RC-2lb and 11RB6@90-
performance of structure (control of deflection, number and AFRC-2lb
size of cracks and spalling).

D. Effect of reinforcement ratio on RC panels

Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 provide the comparison of maximum
and residual deflections of all RC panels where panels
5RB6@225-RC-2lb has a reinforcement ratio of 0.2% while
panels 11RB6@90-RC-2lb has a reinforcement ratio of 0.45%,
approximately. The results in both figures (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11)
suggest that a higher reinforcement ratio improves the panel
performance as expected.
When the damages at the front and back sides of the panels
were compared, it was observed that higher reinforcement ratio
reduces the severity of the damage as smaller and well
distributed cracks were observed in the panel 11RB6@90-RC-
2lb (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 8 for comparison).
Fig. 10. Maximum displacement of all RC panels
Fig. 11. Residual displacement of all RC panels
Similar to the damage on the front and back sides of the
panels, increase of reinforcement ratio contributes to the
reduction of severity of damage on the top surface. Smaller and
less number of cracks were observed in 11RB6@90-RC-2lb
when compared to 5RB6@225-RC-2lb. (see Fig. 7 and Fig. 9
for comparison).
When the bottom sides of the RC panels were compared, it
was observed that the higher reinforcement ratio reduced the
overall damage as well distributed and smaller cracks were
observed in panel 11RB6@225-RC-2lb. Furthermore, spalling
of panels 5RB6@225-RC-2lb and 11RB6@90-RC-2lb was
observed to be 3.61% and 0.55% of the total volume of the
panel. (see Fig. 7 and Fig. 9).
E. Effect of reinforcement ratio on AFRC panels
Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 provide the maximum and residual
displacements of all the tested AFRC panels. It was observed
that with the increase of reinforcement ratio, both maximum
and residual displacements reduced considerably. This
behavior is similar to that observed in RC panels.
Better distribution of flexural cracks on front and back
sides was observed in the panel with higher reinforcement ratio
as panel 11RB6@90-AFRC-2lb had more but smaller cracks
compared to those of panel 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb (see Fig. 6
and Fig. 8 for comparison). This was observed in RC panels as
well.
With the increase of reinforcement ratio, the number of
cracks on the top surface were reduced as panel 11RB6@90-
Fig. 12. Maximum displacement of all AFRC panels
Fig. 13. Residual displacement of all AFRC panels
AFRC-2lb had lower number of cracks and smaller crack
widths compared to those of 5RB6@225-AFRC-2lb. Further,
increase of reinforcement ratio contributes to reducing the
severity of concrete scabbing on the top surface as well. (see
Fig. 7 and Fig. 9 and for comparison).
The damage of the bottom side of the panels 5RB6@225-
AFRC-2lb and 11RB6@90-AFRC-2lb indicates that increasing
reinforcement ratio produce smaller and more distributed
cracks therefore damage becomes less severe (see Fig. 7 and
Fig. 9 for comparison).
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Performance of AFRC panels subjected to blast load was
studied through a series of real blast tests. Blast performance of
both RC and AFRC panels considering the effects of
reinforcement were investigated. From the blast tests, it was
observed that the panel deflections of AFRC panels were lower
compared to those of RC panels. No shear cracks were
observed in AFRC panels suggesting that aramid fibers
contributed to increasing the shear capacity of the panels as
well. Cracks on AFRC panels were observed to be of smaller
width compared to those in RC panels. Aramid fiber effectively
eliminates the concrete spalling on the bottom surface of the
panels.
However, aramid fibers in the panel with 0.2%
reinforcement ratio did not prevent the failure of the panel
under a 2 lb explosion suggesting that a certain minimum
reinforcement ratio must be satisfied for aramid fiber to be
more effective. Furthermore, it is observed that with higher
reinforcement ratio, performance of both RC and AFRC panels
are improved. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
effectiveness of aramid fibers used for blast resistance
structures depends on the steel reinforcement ratio.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
With the authorization of Chulachomklao Royal Military
Academy (CRMA), Thailand, a series of blast tests were
carried out at CRMA premises. The explosives, technical
personnel, labor force and some equipment were provided by
CRMA as well.
The authors would like to acknowledge Defence
Technology Institute (DTI) for providing the high speed video
camera and the operating crews. Furthermore, supports from
Teijin Polyester (THAILAND) by providing aramid fibers and
research fund are sincerely appreciated. Finally, assistance
provided by Mr. Sakkasem Suwarnarat and Mr. Ly Chan
during the tests is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta, and J. Ramsay, "Blast loading and blast
effects on structures–an overview," Electronic Journal of Structural
Engineering 7, no. S1, 2007, pp. 76-91.
[2] C. Wu, D. J. Oehlers, M. Rebentrost, J. Leach, and A. S. Whittaker,
"Blast testing of ultra-high performance fibre and FRP-retrofitted
concrete slabs," Engineering Structures 31, no. 9, 2009, pp. 2060-2069.
[3] Y. Uchida, T. Takeyama, and T. Dei. "Ultra high strength fiber
reinforced concrete using aramid fiber," Proceedings of FraMCoS-7,
Jeju, South Korea, 2010, pp. 1492-1496.
[4] R. Brown, A. Shukla, and K. Rajan Natarajan. “Fiber reinforcement of
concrete structures,” technical report No. URITC FY99-02, 2002.
[5] V. Bindiganavile, and N. Banthia. "Polymer and steel fiber-reinforced
cementitious composites under impact loading—part 1: bond-slip
response," Materials Journal 98, no. 1, 2001, pp. 10-16.
[6] K. Habel. "Structural behaviour of elements combining ultra-high
performance fibre reinforced concretes (UHPFRC) and reinforced
concrete," PhD. Thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe,
Germany, 2016.
[7] L. Mao, S Barnett, D. Begg, G. Schleyer, and G. Wight. "Numerical
simulation of ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete panel
subjected to blast loading," International Journal of Impact Engineering
64, 2014, pp. 91-100.
[8] S. Sakkasem. “Behaviour of steel fiber reinforced concrete under blast
load,” MSc. Thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand,
2016.
[9] L. Chan, G. Tanapornraweekit, and S. Tangtermsirikul. “Investigation of
aramid fibers compared with steel fiber on bending behavior of hybrid
RC beams,” In Materials Science Forum, 2016, Vol. 860, pp. 117-120
[10] C. T. Nguyen, P. Jongvivatsakul, and G. Tanapornraweekit.
“Mechanical Properties of Aramid Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” National
Convention on Civil Engineering (NCCE 2016), 2016, Thailand
[11] UFC 3-340-02, “Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions,
US Army Technical Manual, 2008.
[12] C. Wu et al. "Blast testing of RC slabs retrofitted with NSM CFRP
plates," Advances in Structural Engineering 10, no. 4, 2007, pp. 397-
414.
[13] G. Tanapornraweekit, N. Haritos, and P. Mendis. "Behavior of FRP-RC
slabs under multiple independent air blasts," Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities 25, no. 5, 2010, pp. 433-44