CIESReport07 74

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/272417510
INVESTIGATION OF A HIGH-VOLUME FLY ASH WOOD FIBER MATERIAL

SUBJECTED TO LOW VELOCITY IMPACT AND BLAST LOADS
Technical Report · August 2007
CITATIONS READS
7 3,088
2 authors, including:
John Joseph Myers

Missouri University of Science and Technology
281 PUBLICATIONS 2,015 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Field Evaluation of Hybrid-Composite Girder Bridges in Missouri View project
FRP bond under direct service temperatures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by John Joseph Myers on 17 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CENTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING STUDIES
INVESTIGATION OF A HIGH-VOLUME FLY ASH-
WOOD FIBER MATERIAL SUBJECTED TO LOW-
VELOCITY IMPACT AND BLAST LOADS
by
Matthew Tinsley
Dr. John J. Myers
University of Missouri - Rolla
CIES
07-74
2
Disclaimer
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of information presented herein. This
document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Center for Infrastructure
Engineering Studies (CIES), University of Missouri -Rolla, in the interest of
information exchange. CIES assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
The mission of CIES is to provide leadership in research and education for
solving society's problems affecting the nation's infrastructure systems. CIES is
the primary conduit for communication among those on the UMR campus
interested in infrastructure studies and provides coordination for collaborative
efforts. CIES activities include interdisciplinary research and development with
projects tailored to address needs of federal agencies, state agencies, and private
industry as well as technology transfer and continuing/distance education to the
engineering community and industry.
Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies (CIES)

University of Missouri-Rolla
223 Engineering Research Lab
1870 Miner Circle
Rolla, MO 65409-0710
Tel: (573) 341-6223; fax -6215
E-mail: cies@umr.edu
www.cies.umr.edu
ii
REPORT OUTLINE
This report consists of the following two distinct investigations:
Pages 1-76: Low Velocity Impact Testing (Paper 1)
Pages 77-146: Blast Testing of Reinforced Panels (Paper 2)

iii
ABSTRACT
The report document consists of two technical papers, compiling the results of the
research done on a high-volume fly ash-wood fiber material. The two papers
independently examine the relative impact resistance and blast resistance of the material,
respectively. The objective of the study was to develop a composite material composed
of the two recyclables and investigate its use as a sacrificial liner in a blast barrier
application.
A modified version of the ACI drop-weight impact test for concrete was used to
relatively compare and quantify the impact resistance of seven various mix designs. The
mix designs included class C fly ash, Portland cement, and wood fibers. Two wood fiber
composite materials were selected for use in the blast barrier study based on the results
from the drop-weight impact test. Furthermore, the research findings proved the fly ash-
wood fiber composite had a relatively high impact resistance compared to plain concrete.
The blast resistance of the composite materials was assessed using real blast
loads. Ten test panels were fabricated from plain concrete and hybrid materials
incorporating wood fibers. A polyurea coating was also applied to five of the test panels
in the second phase of the blast study. The results validated an added benefit of using the
low density, low stiffness composite in a layered construction with reinforced concrete.
Polyurea also proved useful in containing debris when applied to the tension face of the
test panel.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL) for financial assistance in this study. Special thanks to Mr. Robert Dinan and
Ms. Jennifer Robertson, both of AFRL, at Tyndall AFB for their interest and assistance in
this work. The authors would like to thank Dr. Jason Baird and Mr. Jeff Bradshaw at the
University of Missouri-Rolla for their assistance in completing the blast testing phase of
the study. The field blast tests would not have been possible without their assistance.
The authors are also truly grateful to Mr. Steve Gabel for machining and constructing the
equipment necessary for the experimental tests and to Mr. Mike Lusher for his assistance
in fabricating and testing specimens. The assistance of students: Travis Hernandez, Amol
Sawant, Trevor Hrynyk, Jared Brewe, Dave Holdener, Yosuke Tanizawa, and Matt
Beyer, who played a vital role in specimen fabrication and testing is also acknowledged.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
REPORT OUTLINE........................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi
NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................ xiii
PAPER I.............................................................................................................................. 1
IMPACT RESISTANCE OF BLAST MITIGATION MATERIAL USING A
MODIFIED ACI DROP-WEIGHT IMPACT TEST...................................................... 1
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ 1
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 2
1.1 Green materials ............................................................................................. 2
1.2 Uses of fiber-reinforced concrete .................................................................. 4
1.3 Importance of statistics.................................................................................. 4
2. RELATED WORK ............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Drop-weight impact test proposed by ACI Committee 544.......................... 7
2.2 Modified ACI drop-weight impact test for concrete ................................... 10
2.3 Impact resistance of steel fiber-reinforced concrete.................................... 17
3. STUDY OF OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 20
3.1 Test setup..................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Materials and mix designs........................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Materials............................................................................................. 24
3.2.2 Mix proportions and processes........................................................... 29
3.3 Mechanical properties ................................................................................. 36
3.3.1 Compressive strength ......................................................................... 36
3.3.2 Splitting tensile strength..................................................................... 40
3.3.3 Modulus of elasticity.......................................................................... 41
3.4 Impact resistance ......................................................................................... 45
vi
3.4.1 Group 1 (FA-C-WF)........................................................................... 49

3.4.2 Group 2 (Concrete)............................................................................. 53
3.4.3 Group 3 (PFRC) ................................................................................. 56
3.4.4 Group 4 (FA-WF)............................................................................... 59
3.4.5 Group 5 (FA-WF-A) .......................................................................... 61
3.4.6 Group 6 (WF Concrete)...................................................................... 62
3.4.7 Group 7 (Bi-layered) .......................................................................... 64
3.4.8 Summary of impact resistance ........................................................... 67
3.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 71
4. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 73
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................. 75
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 75
PAPER II .......................................................................................................................... 77
INVESTIGATION OF A HIGH-VOLUME FLY ASH-WOOD FIBER MATERIAL
FOR MITIGATING BLAST PRESSURES ................................................................. 77
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................... 77
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 77
2. RELATED WORK ........................................................................................... 79
2.1. Nature of explosives................................................................................... 79
2.1.1 Dynamic strength of materials ........................................................... 85
2.1.2 Shock wave behavior in solids ........................................................... 87
2.2. Retrofitting reinforced concrete slabs with composites ............................. 88
2.2.1 Material properties ............................................................................. 89
2.2.2 Test results.......................................................................................... 89
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ....................................................................... 90
3.1 Test setup..................................................................................................... 92
3.1.1 Materials............................................................................................. 93
3.1.2 Test specimen fabrication................................................................... 98
3.1.3 Spray-on polyurea application ......................................................... 105
3.2 Mechanical properties of the material ....................................................... 105
3.2.1 Compressive strength ....................................................................... 106
3.2.2 Modulus of elasticity........................................................................ 107
vii
3.2.3 Splitting tensile strength................................................................... 109

4. EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS ............................................................. 109
4.1 Phase 1 blast testing .................................................................................. 109
4.1.1 Panel 1A (Bi-layered system, ρ = 0.2 percent) ................................ 110
4.1.2 Panel 2A (FA-C-WF) ....................................................................... 116
4.1.3 Panel 3A (wood fiber concrete) ....................................................... 118
4.1.4 Panel 4A (reinforced concrete; ρ = 0.5 percent) .............................. 120
4.1.5 Panel 5A (bi-layered system, ρ = 0.5 percent) ................................. 121
4.2 Phase 2 blast testing .................................................................................. 123
4.2.1 Panel 1B (bi-layered system with polyurea, ρ = 0.2 percent) .......... 124
4.2.2 Panel 2B (FA-C-WF and polyurea, ρ = 0.2 percent) ....................... 127
4.2.3 Panel 3B (WF concrete & polyurea, ρ = 0.2 percent) ...................... 129
4.2.4 Panel 4B (reinforced concrete with polyurea, ρ = 0.5 percent)........ 131
4.2.5 Panel 5B ........................................................................................... 133
4.3 Comparison of test results ......................................................................... 135
5. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................. 140
6. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 143
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................. 144
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 144
DISTRIBUTIONS OF IMPACT RESULTS.................................................................. 147
ANALYTICAL PRESSURES........................................................................................ 160
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
PAPER I
1. Standardized normal distribution for drop-weight specimens ...................................... 6
2. Drop-weight test apparatus ........................................................................................... 9
3. Drop-weight impact mold preparation........................................................................ 22
4. Modified ACI drop-weight impact test fixture ........................................................... 23
5. Impact piston............................................................................................................... 24
6. Class C fly ash and Portland cement........................................................................... 26
7. Consitutents of drop-weight test mix designs............................................................. 27
8. Polypropylene fibers and capping compound............................................................. 29
9. Batching drop-weight impact specimens .................................................................... 32
10. Concrete drop-weight impact specimens .................................................................... 33
11. Comparison of wood fiber concrete to plain concrete ................................................ 35
12. Layered construction of Group 7 ................................................................................ 36
13. Determination of material strength ............................................................................. 38
14. Determination of tensile strength and material stiffness............................................. 42
15. Modulus of elasticity curve for Group 1..................................................................... 43
16. Modulus of elasticity comparison............................................................................... 44
17. Base plate modifications ............................................................................................. 46
18. Distribution of 28-day FC test results for Group 1 ..................................................... 48
19. Normal probability curve for Group 1 ........................................................................ 48
20. Standardized normal distribution for Group 1 ............................................................ 49
21. Group 1 impact specimens.......................................................................................... 50
24. Mean ultimate resistance to impact at 28 days of age ................................................ 68
25. Ratio of mean ultimate and first crack resistances...................................................... 69
26. First crack impact resistance with increasing age....................................................... 72
27. Ultimate impact resistance with increasing age.......................................................... 72
ix
PAPER II
1. Typical blast pressure profile...................................................................................... 81
2. Simplified triangular blast pressure profile................................................................. 81
3. Theoretical incident and reflected pressure curves..................................................... 86
4. Polyurea tensile test .................................................................................................... 97
5. Stress-strain relationship for polyurea undergoing tensile load.................................. 98
6. Tensile test on No. 3 rebar .......................................................................................... 99
7. Formwork for blast panel fabrication ....................................................................... 100
8. Batching procedures.................................................................................................. 102
9. Fabrication of Panels 1A and 1B .............................................................................. 104
10. Fabrication phases for Panel 5A ............................................................................... 104
11. Polyurea application.................................................................................................. 105
12. Modulus of elasticity curves for blast panels............................................................ 108
13. Test setup of Panel 1A .............................................................................................. 110
14. Accelerometer location ............................................................................................. 111
15. Representative acceleration curve............................................................................. 112
16. Acceleration impulse ................................................................................................ 113
17. Panel 1A (bi-layered system, ρ = 0.2 percent).......................................................... 114
18. Panel 2A (FA-C-WF)................................................................................................ 117
19. Panel 3A (wood fiber concrete) ................................................................................ 119
20. Panel 4A (reinforced concrete, ρ = 0.5%)................................................................. 121
21. Panel 5A (bi-layered system, ρ = 0.5 percent).......................................................... 123
22. Panel 1B (bi-layered system with polyurea)............................................................. 125
23. Panel 1B after Event 4 .............................................................................................. 126
24. Panel 2B (FA-C-WF coated with polyurea) ............................................................. 128
25. Panel 3B (WF Concrete and polyurea) ..................................................................... 130
26. Panel 4B (reinforced concrete with polyurea, ρ = 0.5 percent) ................................ 132
27. Panel 4B following Event 3 ...................................................................................... 133
28. Panel 5B (panels separated by air gap) ..................................................................... 135
29. Crack patterns for panel system 5B .......................................................................... 136
x
30. Failure modes of the test panels................................................................................ 139

31. Benefits of polyurea.................................................................................................. 139
32. Polyurea delamination and fracture .......................................................................... 140
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
PAPER I
1. Mixture proportions for PFRC specimens .................................................................. 11
2. Physical properties of polypropylene fiber ................................................................. 12
3. Compressive strength results ...................................................................................... 13
4. Drop-weight impact test results .................................................................................. 14
5. Comparison of the drop-weight test methods ............................................................. 15
6. Number of specimens required for given percent error .............................................. 16
7. Mix proportions for SFRC .......................................................................................... 18
8. Test results of SFRC ................................................................................................... 19
9. Test results of plain concrete ...................................................................................... 20
10. Chemical composition of fly ash ................................................................................ 25
11. Mechanical properties of oak...................................................................................... 26
12. Specification data for polypropylene fibers................................................................ 28
13. Mix proportions by weight.......................................................................................... 30
14. Compressive strengths of drop-weight impact groups................................................ 39
15. Tensile strengths of fiber-reinforced materials ........................................................... 41
16. Summary of properties of base mix designs ............................................................... 44
17. Group 1 impact test results ......................................................................................... 51
18. Statistical comparison of impact test results............................................................... 52
20. Comparison of plain concrete ..................................................................................... 55
22. Comparison of PFRC.................................................................................................. 59
27. Mean percent increase in the number of blows from FC to UR ................................. 70
xii
28. Minimum number of tests required for 10% error...................................................... 71

PAPER II
1. TNT equivalence values for common explosives....................................................... 83
2. Dynamic increase factors............................................................................................ 86
3. Phase 1 test matrix ...................................................................................................... 91
4. Phase 2 test matrix ...................................................................................................... 92
5. Chemical composition of fly ash ................................................................................ 94
6. Mechanical properties of oak...................................................................................... 95
7. Mixture proportions for blast panel fabrication ........................................................ 101
8. Mechanical properties summary for blast panels...................................................... 107
9. Results for Panel 1A ................................................................................................. 112
14. Results for Panel 1B.................................................................................................. 124
19. Summary of results for 680 gram charge at 610 mm (Z = 0.69 m/kg1/3).................. 137
xiii
NOMENCLATURE
Symbol Description
b decay coefficient
d diameter of specimen
e specified error
L length of specimen
n minimum number of tests
N total number of specimens
P load at failure
Pi incident pressure
Po ambient atmospheric pressure
Pr reflected pressure
Ps peak overpressure
p(t) pressure as a function of time
R standoff distance
S standardized variable
t value from t-student distribution
T tensile strength
T+ positive phase duration
v coefficient of variation
W charge weight
X original variable
y number of blows
Z scaled distance
η mean
σ standard deviation
PAPER I
IMPACT RESISTANCE OF BLAST MITIGATION MATERIAL USING A

MODIFIED ACI DROP-WEIGHT IMPACT TEST
ABSTRACT
This experimental program was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a high
volume fly ash-wood fiber material at resisting repeated low velocity drop-weight impact.
A modified version of the ACI drop-weight test proposed by ACI Committee 544 was
conducted on seven groups of specimens. Each group was unique, consisting of various
quantities of materials including cement, fly ash, and wood fibers. Testing procedures for
the drop-weight test were consistent with test procedures listed in a previous research
study on drop-weight impact testing of polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete (Badr and
Ashour, 2005). However, a few modifications were made to the previous test setup to
better accommodate this study.
Test results revealed that the fly ash-wood fiber specimens have a significant
resistance to drop-weight impact as compared to unreinforced concrete specimens.
Although results show that polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete has the highest drop-
weight impact resistance, the fly ash-wood fiber material is a likely candidate for use in a
barrier system due to its low stiffness and ductile failure mode. Impact test results also
coincided with results from previous drop-weight impact tests.

2
1. INTRODUCTION
Due to the lack of a standard impact test for concrete, designers are not yet able to
use impact resistance as a design parameter. The lack of a standard impact test is due to
high variations in the results. However, ACI Committee 544 proposed a drop-weight
impact test that is becoming a common method to determine the relative brittleness and
impact resistance of fiber-reinforced concrete. In this regard, this study uses a modified
version of the ACI drop-weight test proposed by Badr and Ashour in 2005. The results
produced from their modified version of the ACI test proved to be much more
statistically accurate. Therefore, procedures documented by Badr and Ashour were
followed closely with very few modifications.
Various materials were used to produce seven distinctly different groups of drop-
weight impact test specimens. The types of materials investigated in this study include
plain concrete, polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete (PFRC), and a high-volume fly
ash-wood fiber material (FA-WF). Impact tests were conducted at three curing ages: 7,
14, and 28 days.
1.1 Green materials
Several mix designs investigated in this study consist of environmentally green
materials produced as by-products of other manufacturing processes. For example, fly
ash is a by-product of the combustion of pulverized coal. Its pozzolanic characteristics
make it a beneficial ingredient in concrete, and its use has increased with increasing
energy costs in cement production. Recent studies show that nearly 90 million tons of fly
ash is produced in the United States alone, and approximately 18 to 20 percent of that
total is used in the production of concrete and concrete products (Joshi and Myers, 2005).
3
Fly ash became readily available in the 1930s and was initially used as a volume
replacement of hydraulic cement. Researchers now know that fly ash provides several
benefits to concrete including improved resistance to deterioration from sulfates,
improved workability of fresh concrete, higher strengths at later ages of hardened
concrete, and reductions in temperature rise during initial hydration in large masses of
concrete (ACI 232.2R-03).
Another main ingredient in several mix designs was wood fiber. The United
States is currently facing the serious challenge of disposing of wood-based waste in many
landfills throughout the country that are already near capacity. In 1994, 13.2 million
metric tons of solid wood waste was generated, and only 1.3 million tons were used for
recycling or compositing. The discarded wood was either burned or placed in landfills.
Examples of compositing include oriented strandboard (OSB), particleboard, and
Spaceboard. These composites are lightweight, tough, easy to use, and are excellent
insulators (Joshi and Myers, 2005).
Solid wood waste includes wooden pallets and containers, full-sized lumber
salvaged from building demolition, old wooden utility poles and railroad ties, furniture,
and miscellaneous products made from wood. This waste has great potential for use in
many types of building products. Recycled wood fibers held together with an inorganic
matrix, such as gypsum and Portland cement, form a composite that can be used in
various structural and architectural applications (Falk, 1994). The recycled wood waste
material used in this study was milled oak wood fibers, which were milled from old
loading pallets. The wood fibers were provided by Encore Building Solutions in St.
Louis, Missouri.
4
1.2 Uses of fiber-reinforced concrete
Several types of fibers are used to reinforce concrete. The basic fiber categories
are steel, glass, synthetic, and natural fibers. Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) is currently
used in hydraulic structures, airport and highway paving, industrial floors, bridge decks,
thin-shell structures, and shotcrete linings and coverings. Steel and synthetic FRC has
also been used in place of welded wire fabric reinforcement. Many tests have proven that
the addition of fibers greatly improves energy absorption and cracking resistance of
concrete under dynamic loads. The energy absorption of the material is commonly
termed as toughness under impact. Sources of dynamic loads include impact from
missiles and projectiles, earthquakes, and machine dynamics (ACI 544.1R-96).
1.3 Importance of statistics
The design of FRC elements relies heavily on the statistical consideration of their
properties because of the significant influence of the fabrication method, sampling, and
testing. The orientation and concentration of fibers within the structural element, which
have a huge impact on the mechanical properties of the element, vary with the method of
placing and degree of compaction. The variations in mechanical properties should be
taken into account in deciding the minimum number of tests required to determine the
mechanical properties. Variations in results are higher for impact testing than for either
compressive or flexural testing. The observed coefficient of variation (COV) in impact
resistance is often greater than 50 percent. Therefore, many specimens are needed to
develop reliable conclusions about the normality of the distribution of impact resistance
test results (Nataraja et al., 1999).

5
The normality of a distribution is a measure of how well the results follow a
normal distribution curve. A normal distribution curve is a symmetric, single-peaked,
bell-shaped density curve based on a mathematical model that can be used to describe a
set of single-variable data. The curve is idealized and not completely accurate. The
normal distribution curve for a set of data is described using the mean (η) and standard
deviation (s) of the data. The mean controls the location of the peak of the curve, and
the standard deviation controls the spread of the normal curve. The standard deviation is
located at the point at which the curve changes curvature on either side of the mean. The
function for the normal density curve is listed in equation (1).

2
−1⎛ x − η ⎞
1 ⎜ ⎟
F(x) = e2⎝ σ ⎠
Eq. (1)
σ 2π
The 68-95-99.7 rule states that for any normal distribution, 68 percent of the
observations fall within a standard deviation of the mean, 95 percent of the observations
fall within two standard deviations of the mean, and 99.7 percent of the observations fall
within three standard deviations of the mean. The vertical scale for a frequency
histogram depends on the total number of observations (Moore et al., 1989). A
maximum of 18 specimens were tested for each group in the drop-weight test, so the
actual distribution of the impact data is skewed, and the normal distribution curve does
not fit the distribution well.
All normal distributions are equivalent when measurements are made in standard
deviations in relation to the mean as the origin. This occurrence is known as the standard
normal distribution. The equation used to standardize variables in a data set is listed in
6
equation (2). The standardized variable (S) is a function of the mean (η) and standard
deviation (σ).
X-η
S= Eq. (2)
σ
A standardized normal distribution plot shows how many standard deviations the
original observation falls away from the mean. Standardization changes the mean to zero
and the standard deviation of the standardized data to one. An example of a standardized
normal distribution plot is shown in Figure 1.
3
Standardized normal distribution
-1 First crack
Ultimate
resistance
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Impact resistance in blows
Figure 1. Standardized normal distribution for drop-weight specimens

7
2. RELATED WORK
This experimental program was conducted mainly to evaluate the effectiveness of
a high-volume FA-WF material at resisting repeated low velocity drop-weight impact.
No experimentation on the impact resistance of this material has taken place in the past.
However, numerous studies have been carried out to analyze the drop-weight impact
resistance of other types of FRCs. Other types of fiber reinforcement include synthetic
fibers and steel fibers. In two previous studies referenced herein, the drop-weight impact
resistances of PFRC and steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) were measured. The
PFRC was tested according to modified ACI impact testing procedures (Badr and
Ashour, 2005), and the SFRC was tested in accordance with current ACI drop-weight
impact testing procedures (Nataraja et al., 1999).
2.1 Drop-weight impact test proposed by ACI Committee 544
Several types of tests have been used to measure the impact resistance of FRC.
ACI classifies these tests in the following categories: (a) weighted pendulum Charpy-type
test; (b) drop-weight test; (c) constant strain-rate test; (d) projectile impact test; (e) split-
Hopkinson bar test; (f) explosive test; and (g) instrumented pendulum impact test (ACI
544.2R-89).
The repeated impact drop-weight test is the simplest of all the impact tests, and
therefore is widely used to quantify impact resistance of FRC. This test yields the
number of blows necessary to cause prescribed levels of damage in the test specimen.
The number of blows recorded serves as a qualitative estimate of the energy absorbed by
the specimen at the levels of distress specified. The relative impact resistances of various
materials can easily be established using the repeated drop-weight impact test. The
8
impact test equipment and procedure are outlined by ACI Committee 544 (ACI 544.2R-
89). Data from the impact test is usually exceedingly scattered due to the nature of the
test and nonhomogeneous condition of the concrete. Also, the fabrication and testing
processes strongly influence the impact strength of FRC. Therefore, statistical
considerations must be taken into account when designing FRC systems.
The equipment for the ACI drop-weight impact test consists of the following: (1)
a standard, manually operated 4.54 kg (10 lb) compaction hammer with a 457 mm (18
in.) drop (ASTM D 1557), (2) a 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) diameter hardened steel ball, and (3) a
flat baseplate with a positioning bracket. In addition to this equipment, a mold to cast
152 mm (6 in.) diameter by 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) [±3 mm ±(.125 in.)] concrete specimens
is needed. This task can be accomplished by using standard ASTM C 31 or C 470 molds.
Specimens are made in 152 mm (6 in.) diameter cylinder molds according to
procedures recommended for compressive cylinders. The molds can be filled partially to
the 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) depth and float finished, or specimens may be sawn from full-sized
cylinders to yield a specimen with the proper thickness. ACI Committee 544
recommends that specimens be tested at 7 and 28 days of age. Specimens may also be
tested at 90 days of age if desired. Curing and handling of the specimens should be
similar to that used for compressive cylinders, but accelerated curing is not desirable.
The thickness of each specimen should be recorded to the nearest 2 mm (0.0625
in.). The reported thickness is determined by averaging the measured thickness at the
center and each edge of the specimen along any diameter across the top surface. After
the thickness of the specimen is recorded, the bottom of the specimen should be coated
with a thin layer of petroleum jelly or grease. The specimen is then placed on the base
9
plate within the positioning lugs with the finished side face up. The positioning bracket
is bolted in place, and the hardened steel ball is placed on top of the specimen within the
bracket. Before testing, pieces of foam are placed between the positioning lugs and the
specimen to prevent movement of the specimen during testing to the first visible crack.
Once the specimen and steel ball are in position, the drop hammer is placed with
its base upon the steel ball and held there with just enough down pressure to keep it from
bouncing off the ball during the test. The steel ball transfers a single-point impact to the
surface of the specimen. ACI recommends that the base plate be fastened to a rigid base
during the test. An automated system with an automatic counter may also be used if the
equipment is available. Figure 2 displays the testing device for the repeated drop weight
impact test proposed by ACI Committee 544 (ACI 544.2R-89).
Figure 2. Drop-weight test apparatus (ACI 544.2R-89)

10
The hammer is dropped repeatedly, and the number of blows required to cause the
first visible crack on the top and to cause ultimate failure are both recorded. ACI
Committee 544 defines the ultimate failure as the opening of cracks in the specimen so
that the pieces of concrete are touching three of four positioning lugs on the base plate.
ACI Committee 544 reports that results of these tests exhibit a high variability and may
vary considerably with different types of mixtures and fiber contents (ACI 544.2-89).
2.2 Modified ACI drop-weight impact test for concrete
A modified ACI drop-weight impact test for concrete was proposed by Badr and
Ashour in an effort to reduce the large variations in the existing ACI drop-weight impact
test proposed by ACI Committee 544. Large variations that occur in test results from the
existing ACI method suggest that the test is rather unreliable. Large variations are a
universal problem in impact testing, and it is very difficult to develop ways to reduce the
variations. There are several sources of error in the current ACI drop-weight test. First,
the likelihood of erroneous results is increased by using a single point of impact because
the impact is localized on such a small amount of material. Second, the subjectivity of
the test is increased when cracks are allowed to occur at any location on the specimen.
Furthermore, by declaring failure when the pieces of the specimen touch the lugs, more
impacts may be applied than necessary to break the specimen. Criteria for accepted
failure modes must be set in place. Lastly, specimens must all be prepared in the same
manner (Badr and Ashour, 2005).
The changes listed below were proposed by Badr and Ashour to reduce the
amount of variation in the results of the drop-weight impact test:
1. Notch the specimens to force cracks along a predefined path.

11
2. Use a 50 mm (2 in.) line of impact from a steel bar, rather than using a single point
of impact from a steel ball.
3. All the specimens should have similar faces. Either cast the specimens in identical
molds and slice them to the proper thickness with a wet saw or trowel the top
surface of each specimen.
4. Declare ultimate failure when the specimen is separated completely into halves, or
the specimen touches the two opposite lugs of the apparatus.
5. Only accept specimens that crack through the line of impact; reject any other
failure locations.
6. The specimen thickness should be reduced from 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) to 50 mm (2
in.) to reduce the time required to test a single specimen, especially if the testing
apparatus is manually operated.
In the previous work conducted by Badr and Ashour, 40 PFRC specimens were
tested using the modified technique. Also, 40 specimens of the same mix design were
tested according to the current ACI drop-weight impact test for comparison. The mixture
proportions used in the study are listed in Table 1, and the physical properties of the
polypropylene fibers are listed in Table 2.
Table 1. Mixture proportions for PFRC specimens (Badr and Ashour, 2005)
Component Contents per m3 of concrete

Cement 410 kg
Fine aggregate 800 kg
Coarse aggregate 1000 kg
Water 185 L
High-range water reducer 4.1 L
Polypropylene fiber 3 kg
Unit conversion: 1 kg = 2.205 lb; 1 L = 33.814 floz
12
Table 2. Physical properties of polypropylene fiber (Badr and Ashour, 2005)
Physical properties and dimensions

Specific gravity 0.91
Tensile modulus 4.1 Gpa
Tensile strength 560 MPa
Length 12 mm
Nominal diameter 18 µm
Unit conversion: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
A rotary drum mixer was used to batch each mix. The aggregates and cement
were mixed dry for approximately 1 minute. The aggregates consisted of quartzite gravel
of 10 mm (0.4 in.) nominal maximum size and quartzite sand. Approximately half the
water was added after 1 minute of mixing. The remainder of the water and high-range
water reducer was added after 2 minutes of mixing. The concrete was allowed to mix 3
minutes before the polypropylene fibers were added slowly by hand. Once the fibers
were added, the concrete mixed 5 minutes to reach a uniform distribution. The slump test
yielded values of 80 mm and 105 mm (3.15 in. and 4.14 in.) for the first and second
batches, respectively (Badr and Ashour, 2005).
Specimens were made from two identical batches of concrete. Each batch
produced enough cylinders to create 40 test specimens. Half of the specimens were
tested according to the current ACI test method and half according to the proposed
method. Standard cylinders with a diameter of 150 mm (6 in.) and a height of 300 mm
(12 in.) were cast and demolded after a 24 hour period. Then, the cylinders were cured in
a moisture room seven days, after which they were cut with a diamond blade to achieve a
specimen thickness required for each test method. The top and bottom portion of the
13
cylinders were discarded. The specimens were placed in an environmental chamber until
a testing age of 28 days (Badr and Ashour, 2005).
Compressive strengths were determined using ten 100 mm (4 in.) cubes from each
batch. The cubes were tested according to BS 1881: Part 108: 1983. A total of 20 cubes
were tested at 28 days of age. The compressive strength test results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Compressive strength results (Badr and Ashour, 2005)
Batch No. Batch 1 Batch 2 Overall

Mean, MPa 38.6 44.1 41.3
Standard deviation, MPa 2.80 3.46 4.17
Coefficient of variation, % 7.26 7.85 10.09
Unit conversion: 1 MPa = 145.04 psi
Impact testing was conducted using a standard soil compaction machine, which
applies and counts the number of blows automatically. A total of 40 specimens were
tested according to the current ACI drop-weight test proposed by ACI Committee 544.
For the modified version of the ACI drop-weight test, a steel bar of 13 mm (0.5 in.) in
diameter and 50 mm (2 in.) in length was welded to the bottom of a steel cylinder 50 mm
(2 in.) in diameter and length. The bar was allowed to rest on top of the specimen during
the test, so the impact was transferred through the bar as a line load on the top surface of
the specimen. A total of 40 specimens were tested using the modified technique as well.
The number of blows to achieve first crack (FC) and ultimate resistance (UR) were
recorded for each specimen.
Table 4 presents the impact resistances of the PFRC specimens using the current
ACI impact test and the modified test procedure proposed by Badr and Ashour.
14
Table 4. Drop-weight impact test results (Badr and Ashour, 2005)
Current ACI method Proposed modified technique

Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 1 Batch 2
Specimen FC UR FC UR FC UR FC UR
1 11 18 9 16 12 23 13 15
2 12 27 12 20 20 29 19 24
3 17 30 14 25 22 34 23 29
4 26 38 15 28 27 38 26 33
5 28 40 24 43 32 41 29 38
6 32 41 33 52 34 43 32 40
7 34 65 43 74 39 48 34 43
8 43 73 47 63 40 53 37 47
9 46 60 55 79 43 54 39 50
10 53 89 56 73 45 57 42 52
11 54 100 58 89 45 58 42 55
12 65 95 64 95 48 61 43 56
13 67 89 66 81 49 63 44 58
14 77 121 68 101 52 68 47 64
15 79 121 70 85 54 72 52 65
16 81 104 76 98 59 73 55 68
17 97 135 76 103 62 78 57 70
18 99 127 90 141 66 81 64 73
19 108 141 109 129 74 87 73 82
20 148 173 118 134 77 96 79 86
As illustrated in Table 4, the results from the current ACI method are inconsistent.
For example, specimen 13 from the first group tested according to the current ACI drop-
weight test has a higher FC resistance than specimen 11 of that same group. However,
the UR of specimen 13 is lower than the UR of specimen 11. All specimens in both
groups tested according to the modified ACI method are consistent.
A summary of the results from the tests conducted by Badr and Ashour is
presented in Table 5. The table shows that the COVs for the current ACI method are
much higher than those using the modified technique.

15
Table 5. Comparison of the drop-weight test methods (Badr and Ashour, 2005)
Batch 1 Batch 2 Overall

Method Parameter FC UR FC UR FC UR
Current Mean (blow) 59 84 55 76 57 80
ACI Standard deviation (blow) 36.2 43.9 31.2 37.3 33.4 40.4
method Coefficient of variation, % 61.4 52.1 56.6 48.7 58.6 50.2
Mean (blow) 45 58 43 52 44 55
Modified
technique Standard deviation (blow) 17.6 19.8 17.3 19.1 17.3 19.4
Coefficient of variation, % 39.1 34.3 40.7 36.5 39.4 35.2
Due to the reduced thickness of the modified specimens, the number of blows to
achieve the FC and UR of the specimen is much less than that required for specimens
fabricated using the current ACI method. Overall, there was a 22 percent reduction in the
FC mean and 30 percent reduction in the UR mean by using the modified drop-weight
technique. Although using standard deviations to compare impact results is not suitable,
the standard deviations from the modified technique are about half of those obtained
using the current ACI method.
The COV, which is the standard deviation divided by the mean, is used more
commonly because it accounts for the mean and standard deviation. In fact, several ACI
committees have adopted the COV as a measure of inconsistency, rather than the
standard deviation. As shown in Table 5, the COV values for the modified technique are
much less than those of the current ACI method. There is nearly a 30 percent reduction
in the overall COV value when using the modified technique. Based on drop-weight test
results using other types of FRC, the reduction of the COV using the modified technique
should remain consistent for any type of FRC (Badr and Ashour, 2005).
The minimum number of tests required to keep the percent error of the measured
average below a specified limit at a specific level of confidence can be determined using
16
the COV in equation (3) below. In equation (3), n is the minimum number of tests, e is
the specified error, v is the COV value, and t is a value obtained from the t-student
distribution for the specified level of confidence (Nataraja et al., 1999).
n = (t2v2)/e2 Eq. (3)
Table 6 shows the number of specimens required to keep the error under a
specific limit for 95 percent and 90 percent confidence levels for both techniques. The
number of specimens required to keep the error under 10 percent on a 95 percent
confidence level is 42 for the modified technique and 93 for the current ACI method.
Obviously, a great improvement in results is seen when using the modified technique
proposed by Badr and Ashour.
Table 6. Number of specimens required for given percent error (Badr and Ashour, 2005)
Current ACI method Modified technique

Percent 95% 90% 95% 90%
error FC UR FC UR FC UR FC UR
10 93 68 56 41 42 34 26 20
15 41 30 25 18 19 15 11 9
20 23 17 14 10 11 8 6 5
25 15 11 9 7 7 5 4 3
30 10 8 6 5 5 4 3 2
40 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 1
50 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
The modified ACI drop-weight test described improved the consistency of the
results and reduced the time required for testing. If the current common practice of
testing five specimens is used to establish the impact resistance of concrete mixtures, the
error in the measured value obtained using the current ACI test could possibly fall
17
between 30 percent and 40 percent depending on the confidence level. The error from
testing only five specimens using the modified test would be reduced to 25 percent.
2.3 Impact resistance of steel fiber-reinforced concrete
The objective of the research conducted by Nataraja was to study the impact
resistance of SFRC by applying the ACI drop-weight test proposed by ACI Committee
544 (Nataraja et al., 1999). The goal was to assess the variations in the impact properties
of the SFRC.
The impact strength of concrete is greatly increased with the addition of steel
fibers, similar to concrete reinforced with polypropylene fibers. Although the impact
strength is clearly increased with the addition of steel fibers, the results from the ACI
drop-weight test are scattered. Several sources of error, as mentioned previously, include
the likelihood that concentrations and orientations of the steel fibers vary throughout the
specimen. Concentrations of fibers within the specimen depend on several factors
including the method of placement, workability of the mix, and degree of compaction.
Steel fibers detrimentally affect the workability of the concrete as well.
The test specimens were composed of the mix design presented in Table 7.
Granite aggregate with a maximum nominal diameter of 20 mm (0.75 in.) and river sand
conforming to zone IV of IS: 383-1970 were used for coarse and fine aggregates,
respectively. The water cement ratio was 0.49, which produced average 28-day
compressive strengths of 29.4 and 36.0 MPa (4264 and 5222 psi) for the plain concrete
and FRC, respectively. The round crimped steel fibers of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) diameter had
a breaking strength of 550 Mpa (80 ksi) and an aspect ratio of 55.
18
Table 7. Mix proportions for SFRC (Nataraja et al., 1999)
Component Contents per m3 of concrete

Cement 397 kg
Fine aggregate 562 kg
Coarse aggregate 1152 kg
Water 195 kg
High-range water reducer None
Crimped steel fiber 0.5% by volume
Unit conversion: 1 kg = 2.205 lb
Mixing procedures used here were similar to those used by Badr and Ashour.
Twelve SFRC standard cylinders of 150 x 300 mm (6 x12 in.) were made in two batches
of six. Five cylinders of each group were cut into thicknesses of 64 mm (2.5 in.), so each
cylinder provided three specimens. Thirty specimens were tested overall. Similarly, 12
cylinders of plain concrete were batched, providing a total of 32 specimens. Test results
for the first batch of SFRC specimens are shown in Table 8. Nataraja also reported the
average transit time and pulse velocity, which are not shown in the table.
The COV for the number of blows to FC and to UR, 55.1 and 46.0, respectively,
are very similar to those recorded in Table 5; 58.6 and 50.2 for FC and UR, respectively.
Both tests were conducted using the current ACI drop-weight test. In this regard, the
type of fiber used causes no distinction in the statistical results. The average number of
blows needed for FC and UR for the SFRC specimens were 98 and 139, respectively.
However, the average number of blows to FC and UR were much lower for the PFRC
specimens presented in Table 5, which shows the average number of blows to reach the
FC and UR to be 57 and 80, respectively. Therefore, based on these two results, the
SFRC specimens have a higher impact resistance than PFRC.

19
Table 8. Test results of SFRC (Nataraja et al., 1999)
Avg.
Specimen thickness, Blows to Blows to
No. mm Mass, g first crack failure
1 64 2904 196 270
2 65 2914 98 140
3 63 2834 72 95
4 64 2798 46 80
5 62 2776 46 86
6 64 2880 153 181
7 62 2737 144 189
8 64 2800 160 210
9 61 2710 39 60
10 64 2932 35 70
11 63 2840 81 128
12 66 2990 130 153
13 62 2770 84 131
14 61 2760 160 222
15 67 3012 34 68
Mean 63.5 2844 98 139
S.D. 1.73 92 54 64
COV 2.72 3.2 55.1 46
Unit conversion: 1 mm = 0.0394 in, 1 kg = 2.205 lb
Similarly, Table 9 presents test results from the first batch of plain concrete
specimens, as recorded by Nataraja. The table shows that, although the average number
of blows for each level of damage decreased, the COV remained approximately the same
for plain concrete, 49.3 and 46.7 percent for FC and UR, respectively. The highest
number of blows to FC was 130, and the corresponding UR for that specimen was 136
blows. The lowest impact resistance recorded was with specimen 9, which had a FC
resistance of 21 blows and an UR of 30 blows. The mean was calculated to be 71 and 77
blows for FC and UR, respectively.

20
Table 9. Test results of plain concrete (Nataraja et al., 1999)
Avg.
Specimen thickness, Blows to Blows to
No. mm Mass, g first crack failure
1 64.0 2790 114 124
2 63.5 2826 86 92
3 64.0 2850 119 125
4 63.0 2852 51 55
5 63.5 2872 34 41
6 63.5 2780 38 42
7 63.0 2792 63 70
8 65.5 2950 130 136
9 63.0 2745 21 30
10 62.5 2800 60 62
11 65.0 2862 43 51
12 63.0 2690 79 83
13 63.5 2864 38 44
14 64.0 2800 90 96
15 62.0 2814 48 56
16 63.5 2818 120 130
Mean 63.53 2819 71 77
S.D. 0.87 59 35 36
COV 1.37 2.09 49.3 46.7
Unit conversion: 1 mm = 0.0394 in, 1 kg = 2.205 lb
3. STUDY OF OBJECTIVES
The objective of this research study was to verify the statistical benefits of using
the modified ACI drop-weight test (Badr and Ashour, 2005), rather than using the current
ACI method proposed by ACI Committee 544. Furthermore, the tests were used to
investigate the effectiveness of a high-volume FA-WF material at absorbing energy from
a repeated low velocity impact. Seven groups of specimens were tested using the
modified ACI drop-weight technique.

21
3.1 Test setup
The test setup and procedures follow those proposed by Badr and Ashour with a
few minor differences. These differences include:
1. All specimens were troweled, not cut.
2. The impact hammer was manual, so it could be carried to any location easily.
3. Specimens were not allowed to move laterally until fracture occurred.
Specimen molds were constructed from pvc pipe 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) thick with a
150 mm (6 in.) inner diameter. A 3.05 m (120 in.) piece of pvc pipe was cut into lengths
slightly over 51 mm (2 in.) to create 54 round molds. Each mold was reduced to
50.8±1.27 mm (2 ±.05 in.) using a lathe. Figure 3 displays the various stages of the
mold preparation, and Figure 3-a shows one mold positioned on the lathe. Once all the
molds were cut, a small hole was drilled through opposite sides of each mold using a drill
press (see Figure 3-b). Then, each mold was cut down its length so specimens could be
easily extracted once hardened (see Figure. 3-c). Enough triangular wood pieces were
cut for each mold using a miter saw. All the wood pieces were allowed to soak in
hydraulic oil for a period of 24 hours to prevent concrete from adhering to them. Two
wood pieces were screwed to the inside of each pvc mold to create notches in the drop-
weight specimens, as shown in Figure 3-d.
Instead of using an automated soil compactor, a manual device was fabricated to
conduct the tests. The test fixture consisted of three steel plates, four steel angle sections,
and a handheld 4.54 kg (10 lb) modified proctor hammer. The proctor hammer was
ordered from Humbolt Industries, and the steel plates and angle were purchased from
Rolla Rental. Both the top and bottom plates were 254 x 228.6 x 6.4 mm (10 x 9 x 0.25
22
in.). The middle plate was 254 x 149.2 x 6.4 mm (10 x 5.875 x 0.25 in.), but had three 51
mm (2 in.) diameter holes cut into it. Two holes were cut to allow for visual inspection
of the test specimen, and the impact piston was placed in the center hole. A ring with a
diameter of 54 mm (2.125 in.) was welded to the top of the center hole to hold the impact
piston in position. Figure 4 shows the test fixture. The weight of the piston was 848 g
(1.87 lb), and the weight of the entire test fixture was 204 g (45 lb).
(a) Mold thickness using lathe (b) Mold screw hole
(c) Mold cut for specimen release (d) Hydraulic oil applied to formwork
Figure 3. Drop-weight impact mold preparation

23
Proctor hammer
6.4 mm Plate 254 mm
Piston
ring 229 mm
Raised notches
476 mm
(a) Impact device (b) Impact schematic
Figure 4. Modified ACI drop-weight impact test fixture
A hole was cut into the top steel plate, so the hammer could slide into it. A
washer was spot welded to the outside casing of the hammer, and 19 mm (0.75 in.) bolts
were used to hold the washer and hammer to the top plate. A steel cylinder with a bar
welded across the bottom was used to transfer the impact onto the specimen, similar to
that used in the modified technique. This steel cylinder will be called the impact piston.
The cylinder is 51 mm (2 in.) in diameter and 51 mm (2 in.) long but has a flat groove cut
along its length to prevent rotation during the test. The piston slides into the ring welded
in the center of the middle plate. A small flat piece of steel was welded into the center
ring to prevent the piston from rotating during the test. The piston was not constrained
from moving in the vertical direction. The impact piston is shown in Figure 5.
24
Flat face
51 mm dia. cylinder
51 mm
13 mm steel bar
(a) Impact piston (b) Impact piston schematic
Figure 5. Impact piston
3.2 Materials and mix designs
3.2.1 Materials
Materials used in the preparation of the modified drop-weight specimens include:
Class C fly ash, type I Portland cement, wood fibers, limestone, sand, high-range water
reducers, and potable water.
ASTM Class C fly ash was provided by Encore Building Solutions (EBS) of St.
Louis, Missouri. Fly ash was required to fabricate four of the seven groups of drop-
weight specimens investigated in the study. EBS receives the fly ash from the Rush
Island Power Plant in Jefferson County, Missouri. Table 10 displays the chemical
composition and properties of the Class C fly ash.
Commercial grade type I Portland cement was used to fabricate five of the seven
groups of drop-weight specimens. Portland cement was patented by Joseph Aspdin in
1824 and is now the most widely used construction material in the world. Of the five
types of Portland cement, type I is the most widely available and is used in general
25
applications of reinforced concrete construction. The Portland cement used for this study
complied with ASTM C 150-05 specifications. The cement had a dry density of
approximately 1506 kg/m3 (94 lb/ft3). Figure 6 displays samples of the Class C fly ash
and Portland type I cement.
Table 10. Chemical composition of fly ash (Joshi et al., 2005)
Rush Island Type I Portland

Parameter
fly ash (%) cement (%)
Sulfur in ash 0.7 -
Sulfur in ash (SO3) 1.75 2.5
Fineness (325 sieve) 81.9 -
Moisture 0.03 -
Loss of ignition (LOI) 0.17 1.4
Density 2.73 -
Specific gravity 2.74 -
Titanium oxide as TiO2 1.23 -
Aluminum oxide as Al2O3 17.06 4.9
Calcium oxide as CaO 26.12 64.4
Iron oxide as Fe2O3 6.31 2.1
Potassium oxide as K2O 0.39 -
Magnesium oxide as MgO 5.77 3.5
Sodium oxide as Na2O 1.87 -
Silicon oxide as SiO2 35.43 20.08
Phosphorus oxide as P2O5 0.9 -
Slagging index 0.34 -
The milled wood fibers of oak trees were provided by EBS. The fibers are
recycled by milling old wooden loading pallets. The mechanical properties of oak wood
are listed in Table 11.
The gradation of the milled wood fibers ranged from a maximum size of 12.7 mm
(0.5 in.) to fine particles of dust. The majority of the fibers were about 6.35 mm (0.25
26
in.) in length. In every group that wood fibers were used, the fibers were added to the
other contents of the mixture in a fairly dry state with a moisture content of roughly 10
percent, determined in accordance with ASTM C 566-04. The dry density of the
compacted wood fibers was determined to be 275.5 kg/m3 (17.2 lb/ft3). A sample of the
milled wood fibers is shown is Figure 7, along with other constituents in the mix designs.
(a) Class C fly ash (b) Portland cement, type I
Figure 6. Class C fly ash and Portland cement
Table 11. Mechanical properties of oak (Joshi et al., 2005)
Mechanical Properties Green Air Dried

3
Weight (kg/m ) 1009 753
Modulus of Rupture (MPa) 55.85 95.84
Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) 8274 11170
Maximum crushing strength parallel to grain (MPa) 24.3 48.5
Compression perpendicular to grains (MPa) 5.86 9.72
Maximum shearing strength parallel to grain (MPa) 8.76 13.03
3 3
Unit conversion: 1 kg/m = 0.0624 lb/ft ; 1 MPa = 145.04 psi
Presented in Figure 7-b, Gasconade dolomitic limestone from Capital Quarry,
located north of Rolla, MO, was used in the mix designs for Groups 2, 3, 5, and 6. The
limestone had a nominal maximum size of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) and a bulk specific gravity
27
of 2.70 in an oven-dried condition. The absorption of the aggregate was measured to be
1.2 percent. The moisture content of the limestone in each group remained below 0.1
percent during the mixing processes.
(a) Wood fibers (b) ½ in. limestone
(c) River sand (d) High-range water reducers
Figure 7. Consitutents of drop-weight test mix designs
The sand had a bulk specific gravity of 2.54 in an oven-dried condition, and the
absorption was calculated to be approximately 1.4 percent. Little Piney Creek near Rolla,
Missouri, was the source of the sand. The moisture content of the sand did not exceed
0.75 percent in any of the groups. A picture of the river sand is presented in Figure 7-c.
28
Glenium 3000 NS, a high-range water reducer (HRWR) was added in various
quantities to each mix as needed. The superplasticizer was added to increase the
workability and cohesiveness of the mix. Another benefit of using the admixture was a
low water-cement ratio, which increased the compressive strength of each mix. Glenium
300 NS is produced by BASF and meets ASTM C 494-05 requirements for type A and
type F admixtures. Containers of HRWR are presented in Figure 7-d.
Collated polypropylene fibrillated fibers were used in the Group 3 mix. The fiber
is made to mechanically bond with the concrete matrix, thus enhancing the impact
resistance and durability of the concrete. Polypropylene fibers are most commonly used
as a secondary reinforcement for temperature and shrinkage considerations but are used
in blast-resistant structures as well. The polypropylene fibers used in this study comply
with ASTM C 1116-06 specifications, as well as with other national building codes.
Mechanical properties of the fibers are listed in Table 12. Figure 8 shows a photograph
of the polypropylene fibers used in Group 3.
Table 12. Specification data for polypropylene fibers (Nycon, 2007)
Fiber Type Homopolymer polypropylene

Fiber Length (mm) 19
Color White / Clear
Ultimate elongation 20% at 21°C
Melting point (°C) 165
Ignition point (°C) 594
Specific gravity 0.91
Tensile strength (MPa) 379.2
Youngs modulus (GPa) 4.14
Unit conversion: 1 mm = 0.03937 in, 21°C = 70°F, 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi
29
Rediron 9000 capping compound, purchased from Gilson Company, Inc., was
used to cap the ends of the cylinders before conducting the compression and modulus of
elasticity tests. The compound was allowed to melt in a warming pot to a temperature of
approximately 135°C (275°F). The compressive strength of a 50.8 mm (2 in.) cube of the
sulfur compound exceeds 55.1 MPa (8,000 psi) after two hours of curing (Gilson
Company, Inc., 2007). Figure 8-b shows the hardened flakes of the Rediron 9000
capping compound.
(a) Polypropylene fibrillated fibers (b) Rediron 9000 capping compound
Figure 8. Polypropylene fibers and capping compound
3.2.2 Mix proportions and processes
Seven groups of specimens were evaluated for impact resistance using the
modified ACI drop-weight test. The mix proportions for each group are shown in Table
13.
The first group of drop-weight specimens was fabricated from Class C fly ash,
type I Portland cement, wood fibers, and potable water. This mix was designated as the
FA-C-WF mix. A high-range water reducer was also added to the mix. The mixture
30
portions are given in the second column of Table 13. In preparation for making the
specimens, the 54 pvc forms were attached to a 1.22 x 2.44 m (4 x 8 ft) sheet of plywood.
The forms were spaced approximately 200 mm (3 in.) apart to allow for a handheld form
vibrator to be placed between them. The base of each pvc form was attached to the
plywood using silicone caulking. The silicone was allowed to cure for at least 12 hours
before concrete was placed in the molds.
Table 13. Mix proportions by weight
Group 5 Group 7
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 FA-WF- Group 6 Concrete
Component FA-C-WF Concrete PFRC FA-WF A WF Con layer
Class C fly ash 462.9 - - 839.4 519.0 - -
Portland cement
(type I) 278.7 410.1 410.1 - - 451.7 410.1
White oak wood
fibers 112.1 - - 163.4 120.1 136.2 -
1/2" limestone - 999.6 999.6 - 611.9 808.9 999.6
Sand - 799.3 799.3 - 576.7 647.1 799.3
Water 281.9 144.2 144.2 299.5 248.3 136.2 144.2
High-range water
reducer (ml/kg) 2.6 5.2 5.2 2.6 2.6 5.2 5.2
Polypropylene
fibers - - 3.20 - - - -
Water / cement
ratio 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.48 0.30 0.35
% Wood fiber by
weight 10.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 6.0 6.2 0.0
Slump (mm) 76 178 127 51 178 51 153
3 3 3
All applicable units are in kg/m ; Unit conversion: l kg/m = 1.686 lb/yd
Note: The top layer of Group 7 is the FA-C-WF mix used in Group 1
The forms were brushed with hydraulic oil an hour after the silicone was applied
and again just before the mixing process began. Components of the mix were weighed in
31
buckets to the nearest half pound. A total of 0.085 m3 (3 ft3) of material was needed to
fill all 54 forms and produce enough cylinders for compression, split cylinder, and
modulus tests. Since the material was fairly difficult to mix, the total volume was broken
into two separate batches of 0.0425 m3 (1.5 ft3).
Shown in Figure 9, a conventional rotary drum mixer was used for mixing. First,
the mixer was washed to dampen the inside of the drum. Then, all the fly ash, cement,
and half the water were added to the drum and allowed to mix for one minute. The
HRWR was added to the other half of the water. After approximately one minute of
mixing, the inside of the drum was scraped to release any material stuck to the sides or
back of the drum. Then, half of the remaining water was added to the mixer, along with
the wood fibers. The fibers were added slowly to prevent balling of the material.
Finally, the remaining portion of water was added to the mixer. Mixing continued for
another 5 minutes after all the materials were added to the drum.
Once a uniform distribution of wood fibers was achieved, the material was poured
into a wheelbarrow and placed into the molds. After the molds were filled, a vibrator was
placed around each pvc mold to ensure there were no air voids or segregation in the
specimens. Figure 9-b displays several forms with the fresh material inside them. A
portion of the material was used for a slump test to check workability according to
ASTM C 143-05. The slump was determined to be 76 mm (3 in.). The specimens were
finished using trowels and then covered with a sheet of plastic. Compression, split
cylinder, and modulus specimens were made in compliance with ASTM C 192-06.
After a 24 hour period, the specimens were removed from the molds and placed in
a moist cure room until the time of testing. The moisture room was kept at about 22°C
32
(72°F) with 100 percent humidity. Specimens were tested at the following ages: 7 days,
14 days, and 28 days. Eighteen specimens were tested at each test age.
(a) Rotating drum mixer (b) Specimen preparation
Figure 9. Batching drop-weight impact specimens
Group 2 was composed of 54 specimens of plain concrete to be used as a control
group for comparison. The mix design is shown in the third column of Table 13. The
mix was batched in much the same way as Group 1; however, the entire 0.085 m3 (3 ft3)
required was mixed in one batch. First, the coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, and
Portland cement were mixed in the dry state for about 1 minute. Then, approximately
half the mixing water was added. After 2 minutes of mixing, the remaining portion of
water was added along with the HRWR. Mixing continued for approximately another 5
minutes to achieve a homogeneous mix. The slump value for the mix was about 178 mm
(7 in.). Figure 10-a displays 2 pvc forms filled with fresh concrete.
Group 3 was essentially the same mix design used in the previous study on
concrete reinforced with polypropylene fibers (Badr and Ashour, 2005), and it is listed in
the fourth column of Table 13. The PFRC mix was batched using the same process used
33
for Group 2 along with the addition of polypropylene fibers. The limestone, sand, and
Portland cement were mixed in a dry state for roughly 1 minute. Then, about half the
mixing water was added, and the HRWR was added to the remaining portion of water.
The remaining water and HRWR was added after approximately 2 minutes of mixing.
Mixing continued for another 4 minutes before the polypropylene fibers were added to
the mix. The fibers were added by hand to avoid balling of the concrete. Generally, the
smallest specimen dimension should be at least 3 times larger than the fiber length or
maximum aggregate size. Therefore, 19 mm (0.75 in.) fibers where chosen for the mix.
The slump of the fresh mix was measured at 127 mm (5 in.). Figure 10-b shows a fiber-
reinforced specimen.
(a) Plain concrete specimens (b) Fiber-reinforced concrete specimen
Figure 10. Concrete drop-weight impact specimens
Group 4 was composed of a FA-WF mixture developed in a previous study
conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) (Joshi et al., 2005). The mix
design is listed in the fifth column of Table 13. The mix design used in the previous
study was modified by slightly decreasing the relative quantity of wood fibers. This
34
action was done to increase the workability of the mix for larger test specimens. The
volume was split into two batches of 0.0425 m3 (1.5 ft3) to alleviate problems caused by
the material adhering to the sides of the mixer and to improve the quality of the mix.
First, a slurry consisting of all the fly ash and half the water was mixed for 1 minute.
After 1 minute of mixing, the material was removed from the sides of the drum using a
shovel or concrete scoop. Then, the material was allowed to mix while slowly adding
half the wood fibers. Finally, the remainder of the water and HRWR was added, along
with the other half of the wood fibers. The material was allowed to mix for 5 minutes
until the fibers were uniformly distributed. The FA-WF material was poured into a
wheelbarrow and then placed into the pvc molds. Once the molds were full, the fresh
material was consolidated using a tamping rod and vibrated with a handheld vibrator.
The slump of the FA-WF material was measured at 51 mm (2 in.).
Group 5 consisted of coarse and fine aggregates mixed with fly ash and wood
fibers. Therefore, this mixture was designated as FA-WF-A. The purpose of the
aggregates was to provide increased stiffness to the FA-WF mix. The materials were
mixed using relatively the same procedures listed for the previous groups. The
aggregates and fly ash were mixed in a dry state first. Then, half the mixing water was
added. After mixing for one minute, the wood fibers were added slowly, followed by the
remaining water and HRWR. Group 5 specimens were vibrated and finished using
trowels. The slump was measured at 178 mm (7 in.).
The specimens in Group 6 were batched using a normal weight concrete mix with
the addition of wood fibers. Table 13 contains the mix design used for the Group 6
specimens. The wood fibers were added in hopes of increasing the impact absorption
35
capabilities of the mix. The mixing procedures for Group 6 were the same as those used
for the previous groups. The slump was determined to be 51 mm (2 in.). Figure 11
shows a comparison between the wood fiber concrete and plain concrete. Notice the
significant amount of wood fibers in the specimen in Figure 11-a.
The seventh group was a layered construction of groups 1 and 2. A plain concrete
mix was batched first and allowed to cure for a 24 hour period. The molds were only
filled half way, about 25.4 mm (1 in.). The following day, the FA-C-WF mix used for
the first group was batched to fill the remaining portion of the molds. Therefore, the
specimens had a 25.4 mm (1 in.) plain concrete base and a 25.4 mm (1 in.) FA-C-WF
layer set on top. Each layer was mixed according to the procedures mentioned previously
for Group 1 and Group 2. The bottom layer of plain concrete was left in a roughened
state to provide some amount of shear interlock between the two layers.
(a) Wood fiber concrete (b) Plain concrete
Figure 11. Comparison of wood fiber concrete to plain concrete
Specimens were removed from the molds 24 hours after the top layer was placed
and then put in a moist cure room until testing age. Slump values for the FA-C-WF layer
36
and the concrete layer were 64 and 153 mm (2.5 and 6 in.), respectively. Figure 12
shows the fabrication of the two layers composing the Group 7 specimens.
3.3 Mechanical properties
Several mechanical properties were determined for each group of specimens.
These properties include the material’s compressive strength, indirect tensile strength,
and modulus of elasticity (MOE). Cylinders were capped with a sulfur compound before
the compressive strength and modulus were determined.
(a) Base concrete layer of Group 7 (b) Top WF-FA layer
Figure 12. Layered construction of Group 7
3.3.1 Compressive strength
The compressive strength of each group was determined using either a standard
specimen size of 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) or 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.). Although the
150 mm (6 in.) cylinder provides a better representation of the material, 100 mm (4 in.)
diameter specimens were used in most cases because less material was needed to produce
them. The specimens were prepared in the lab according to ASTM C 192-06
specifications. The 150 mm (6 in.) diameter cylinders were made in 3 equal layers and
37
rodded 25 times per layer using a 16 mm (0.625 in.) diameter tamping rod. The 100 mm
(4 in.) diameter cylinders were made in only 2 layers. The specimens were removed
from the molds after 24 hours and placed in a moist cure room until testing age.
Before testing, specimens were capped at the two bases to ensure parallel surfaces
according to ASTM C 617-98 specifications. Rediron capping compound was melted to
a temperature of approximately 135°C (275°F). Then, the compound was poured, using a
ladle, in a machined metal plate about 13 mm (0.5 in.) deep. With the aid of an
alignment device, a dry end of the specimen was placed into the capping compound on
the plate and held in place until the compound cooled. Figure 13 displays a 100 x 200
mm (4 x 8 in.) concrete specimen. The capping process is shown in Figure 13-a.
In most cases, two cylinders were tested, and the average of the two was used to
define the compressive strength of the mix. The cylinders were tested according to
ASTM C 39-05. A load rate of 4.5 kN/sec (1,000 lb/sec) was used for the 150 mm (6 in.)
specimens, while the 100 mm (4 in.) specimens were loaded at a rate of approximately
2.25 kN/sec (500 lb/sec). In most cases, the Forney LC-4 compression testing machine
was used to carry out the compression tests. The Forney is calibrated to 1780 kN
(400,000 lb), well exceeding the capacity of any of the specimens. For the 150 mm (6
in.) specimens, the Tinius Olsen universal testing machine was employed. The Tinius
has a data acquisition system (DAS) that is controlled with integrated computer software,
which automatically generates load-deflection plots. The Tinius has a capacity of 890 kN
(200,000 lb). Figure 13-b shows a 150 mm (6 in.) specimen undergoing a compressive
test on the Tinius Olsen universal testing machine.

38
(a) Sulfur capping (b) Compression test
Figure 13. Determination of material strength
The compressive strengths for all seven groups are shown in Table 14. Group 3
had the highest compressive strength out of all 7 groups, with an average 28-day strength
of 61.4 MPa (8,900 psi). The polypropylene fibers added to Group 3 increased the
compressive strength of the plain concrete by approximately 8.2 percent. Fibers usually
only have a minor effect on the compressive strength of a FRC specimen. The real
benefit of the FRC is the post-peak strength retained with increasing deformation beyond
the maximum load (ACI 544.2R-89). Group 2 consisted of plain concrete with an
average compressive strength of 56.7 MPa (8,219 psi) at 28 days of age, 632 percent
greater than the compressive strength of Group 6.
Groups 1, 4, and 6 had promising results, considering each group contained a
large percentage of wood fibers. Results from the compressive tests show that the
addition of wood fibers in the mixture considerably reduces the strength of the hardened
material. Group 6 had the highest strength and stiffness of the three groups, which was a
result of the amount of coarse and fine aggregates in the mix. Groups 1 and 4 had
average 28-day strengths of 7.5 and 4.4 MPa (1089 and 643 psi), respectively. Although
39
the mix designs of the two groups were similar, Group 1 had a 3 to 5 ratio of Portland
cement and fly ash. Group 4 had no cement added to the mix. The addition of Portland
cement to Group 1 possibly increased the strength of the mix.
The compressive failure modes of the wood fiber specimens of Groups 1, 4, and 6
were much different than those of the plain concrete and FRC specimens. The specimens
of Group 2 and Group 3 fractured at strain levels slightly over the strain at peak load,
whereas specimens from Groups 1, 4, and 6 held together at strains well beyond the
maximum stress. Although the strength of the FA-WF material is much lower than that
of plain concrete, the ductile nature of the material is an added benefit in impact and blast
resistance.
Group 7 consisted of two parts — the mix designs of Group 1 and Group 2. The
top half of the specimens had the same mix design as Group 1. The material had an
average compressive strength of 6.5 MPa (940 psi), slightly less than that of Group 1.
The 28-day compressive strength of the plain concrete mix of Group 7 was 53.3 MPa
(7,733 psi).
Table 14. Compressive strengths of drop-weight impact groups
Group 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day

No. Spec 1 Spec 2 Average Spec 1 Spec 2 Average Spec 1 Spec 2 Average
1 3.89 4.68 4.28 6.47 5.69 6.08 7.98 7.05 7.52
2 39.79 43.07 41.43 53.09 52.18 52.64 55.82 57.52 56.67
3 48.10 49.50 48.80 52.20 55.42 53.81 60.72 61.89 61.31
4 3.67 2.54 3.10 3.74 4.26 4.00 4.46 4.40 4.43
5 1.28 1.01 1.15 1.81 1.70 1.76 1.61 1.50 1.55
6 5.56 5.45 5.50 7.79 5.75 6.77 8.20 7.29 7.74
7-a - - - 5.22 5.61 5.42 6.25 6.71 6.48
7-b - - - 52.50 49.04 50.77 53.01 53.63 53.32
Units are in MPa / Units conversion: 1 MPa = 145 psi
40
3.3.2 Splitting tensile strength
Split-tension tests were performed on 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders to
indirectly measure the tensile strength of the concrete according to ASTM C 496-04.
Supplementary steel bearing plates were used since the diameter of the upper head of the
Forney LC-4 compression testing machine was smaller than the length of the specimen.
The specimen was loaded along its vertical diameter at a constant rate of 556 N/sec (125
lb/sec) until failure. Failure occurred due to tension developed in the transverse
direction. The indirect tensile strength was computed using equation (4), where T equals
the tensile strength (kPa), P is the load at failure (kN), and L and d represent the length
and diameter of the specimen (m), respectively.
2P
T= Eq. (4)
πLd
Table 15 presents the tensile strengths determined from the split cylinder tests.
Generally, the tensile strength of concrete is roughly 10 percent of its compressive
strength. The tensile strength of Group 2 was 4.4 MPa (635 psi), which was 8 percent of
its compressive strength. Group 1 had a tensile strength of 1.1 MPa (155 psi), which was
14 percent of its compressive strength. The tensile strengths of Group 4 and Group 6
were 14 and 12 percent of their compressive strengths, respectively. Group 5 was
omitted from the table due to a lack of available data, which is explained in section 3.4.5.
Split cylinder tests were not conducted for Group 7. It was assumed that the tensile
strengths of the materials used in Group 7 were similar to those of Group 1 and Group 2.
The results show that the wood fibers added to groups 1, 4, and 6 lead to a percentage
increase in tensile strength relative to the compressive strength of the material when
41
compared to plain concrete. Figure 14 displays mechanical testing of the specimens.
Figure 14-a represents a split-cylinder test on a 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) specimen.
Table 15. Tensile strengths of fiber-reinforced materials
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4 Mix 6

Spec 1 Spec 2 Spec 1 Spec 2 Spec 1 Spec 2 Spec 1 Spec 2 Spec 1 Spec 2
Applied load
(kN) 29.9 39.6 131.4 152.7 162.5 151.7 20.1 21.9 32.9 27.3
Splitting tensile
strength (kPa) 930 1206 4065 4685 4995 4685 620 689 1034 861
Average splitting
tensile strength
(kPa) 1068 4375 4840 655 948
Unit conversion: 1 kN = 224.8 lb; 1 kPa = 0.145 psi
3.3.3 Modulus of elasticity
The MOE of each group, with exception of Group 5, was determined using the
Tinius Olsen universal testing machine in accordance with ASTM C 469-02. Figure 14-b
displays a 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) cylinder in a compressometer device. The
compressometer consists of 3 yokes. The bottom yoke is rigidly attached to the
specimen, and the other 2 are attached at 2 diametrically opposite points, so the yokes are
allowed to rotate. A pivot rod was used to maintain a constant distance between the top
and bottom yokes. Opposite the rod, a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)
was used to measure the change in distance between the two yokes, which is referred to
as the gage reading. The gage reading is the sum of the displacement due to specimen
deformation and displacement due to rotation of the yoke about the pivot rod. Assuming
the distances from the pivot point to the pivot rod and LVDT are equal, the deformation
of the specimen is half the gage reading.

42
(a) Split-cylinder test (b) Compressometer
Figure 14. Determination of tensile strength and material stiffness
To obtain the MOE, a 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) specimen was loaded to 60
percent of the specimen’s compressive strength at a load rate of 4.5 kN/sec (1,000 lb/sec)
and unloaded at the same rate. Then, the specimen was reloaded once more at the same
rate and magnitude. The chord modulus, or MOE, was determined between a point
corresponding to a very small strain value and a point corresponding to 40 percent of the
ultimate stress.
Figure 15 displays the MOE stress-strain curve developed for Group 1. The MOE
was determined to be 2,928 MPa (425 ksi). Notice the large amount of residual strain in
the specimen after unloading. This residual strain did not occur in the concrete
specimens of Group 2 and Group 3.
Figure 16 shows the relative modulus curves for 5 of the 7 impact groups. The
compressive strength of Group 5 was not high enough to conduct a MOE test without the
risk of damaging the compressometer, and it was assumed that the top and bottom layers
of Group 7 had the same MOE values as those of Group 1 and Group 2, respectively.
43
Group 3 had the highest stiffness, followed closely by Group 2. The stiffnesses of
Groups 1, 4, and 6 were much smaller than those of the plain and PFRC specimens,
which was primarily due to the addition of wood fibers and the removal of aggregates
from the mix. The reduction of aggregate in the mix had an adverse effect on the
material stiffness. For example, although the compressive strength of Group 6 was only
3 percent greater than that of Group 1, the stiffness of Group 6 was 250 percent greater
than the stiffness of Group 1.
4
Stress (MPa)
Ec = 2928 MPa
3
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016 0.0018
Strain (in/in)
Unit conversion: 1 Mpa = 145 psi
Figure 15. Modulus of elasticity curve for Group 1
Table 16 summarizes the mechanical properties of the six base materials
investigated in the drop-weight impact test. The MOE values for the plain concrete and
PFRC were 40.7 and 43.8 GPa (5,900 and 6,350 ksi), respectively. Group 6 had some
44
portion of coarse and fine aggregates, along with wood fibers, resulting in a MOE value
of 10.3 GPa (1,500 ksi). Groups 1 and 4, which contained no amount of limestone or
sand, had MOE values of 2.9 and 2.1 GPa (425 and 300 ksi), respectively.
35
FA-C-WF
30 Concrete
PFRC
25 FA-WF
Stress (MPa)
WF Concrete
20
15
10
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Strain (in/in)
Unit conversion: 1 Mpa = 145 psi
Figure 16. Modulus of elasticity comparison
Table 16. Summary of properties of base mix designs
Group No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
3
Density (kg/m ) 1698 2467 2467 1426 - 1852
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 2.93 40.68 43.78 2.07 - 10.34
Split cylinder strength (kPa) 1068 4375 4840 655 - 948
Compressive strength (MPa) 7.52 56.67 61.31 4.43 1.55 7.74
Mean 28-day FC (blows) 13 5 18 8 2 15
Mean 28-day UR (blows) 27 6 32 15 3 19
Unit conversion: 1 kPa = 0.145 psi
45
3.4 Impact resistance
As previously discussed, the repeated drop-weight impact test characterizes the
impact resistance of FRC by measuring the number of blows required to achieve a
prescribed level of distress. The results of the test are useful for comparing the relative
merits of different fiber concrete mixtures. Large variations in the test are common,
which indicates that the dependability of the test is uncertain. Therefore, several
specimens must be tested to keep the error under 10 percent. Statistical studies on impact
resistance of concrete using the ACI repeated drop-weight test have determined that a
minimum of 35 to 40 specimens must be tested to keep the average percent error under
10 percent at a 90 percent level of confidence. One study conducted using the modified
technique determined that approximately 20 to 25 specimens are required to keep the
error below 10 percent at a 90 percent level of confidence (Badr and Ashour, 2005).
Seven unique groups of specimens were tested at 7, 14, and 28 days of age. The
repeated impact test was achieved using techniques developed in a previous study by
Badr and Ashour and the testing apparatus shown previously in Figure 4. After sliding
the impact piston into the steel ring welded to the middle plate, a specimen was centered
on the bottom base plate. With exception of the first group, specimens were placed
between the raised square steel tubes, as shown in Figure 17. The purpose of the tubes
was to prevent the specimen from rotating or moving laterally during the test.
Once the specimen was centered properly with the line of impact parallel to the
notched plane, the hammer was raised to its maximum height of 457 mm (18 in.) and
dropped. The hammer impacted the piston, which transferred the load directly to the
specimen. The process of dropping the hammer was continued until a crack developed in
46
the specimen, always within one of the two notches. The number of blows to reach that
level of damage was recorded, and the process was continued until ultimate failure
occurred.
Steel notches
Steel tongue
Steel notch
(a) Raised notches on base plate (b) Base plate
Figure 17. Base plate modifications
Once all the data was recorded for each group, the mean, standard deviation, and
COV were calculated for each set of data. Equation (5), equation (6), and equation (7)
were used to calculate the mean (η), standard deviation (σ), and coefficient of variation
(v), respectively, where N is the total number of specimens and y is the number of blows
applied to a single specimen.
η=
∑y Eq. (5)
N
∑ ( y - η)
2
σ=+ Eq. (6)

N -1
v = σ/η Eq. (7)

47
Histograms and normal probability plots were also used to represent the
distribution of impact data. Once the mean and the variance of the data were calculated,
the entire normal distribution was characterized. For example, Figure 18 represents the
distribution of the 28-day FC data for the FA-C-WF material of Group 1. Figures in
Appendix A illustrate the normal distribution curves for all the groups, which overlap the
histograms presenting the scatter in the test results.
Normal probability curves for 28-day test results of six test groups are presented
in Appendix A to analyze the normality of the distribution of the impact data. Group 5
was neglected due to the small amount of data available for analysis. Data was lacking
due to the low number of specimens, which resulted from a faulty mix design. Many of
the specimens broke apart when they were removed from the molds. Figure 19 is a
cumulative normal probability curve for Group 1. The normal probability curve indicates
that about 70 percent of the specimens tested from Group 1 will crack within 15 blows
and fail within 30 blows. Group 1 had the largest average percent increase in the number
of blows from FC to UR at 28 days of age, which was roughly 103 percent.
Standardized normal distribution curves were also developed for each group. The
standardized normal distribution illustrates the number of specimens lying above and
below the mean number of blows required to crack and fail the specimens. Generally,
most of the data points were within two standard deviations on either side of the mean.
Figure 20 presents the standardized distribution for Group 1. The standardized normal
distribution curves for the other test groups are shown in Appendix A.
48
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7 0.3
6 0.25
5
0.2
Frequency
4
0.15
3
0.1
2
0.05
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
First crack resistance in blows
Figure 18. Distribution of 28-day FC test results for Group 1
100
2
R = 0.978 2
80 R = 0.9711
Cumulative percent
60
40
First crack
Ultimate
20
resistance
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 19. Normal probability curve for Group 1

49

2
-1 First crack
Ultimate
resistance
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 20. Standardized normal distribution for Group 1
3.4.1 Group 1 (FA-C-WF)
Group 1 was represented with a total of 54 specimens tested in 3 groups of 18 at
7, 14, and 28 days of age. Figure 21 displays the stages of impact testing. Figure 21-a
displays a specimen from Group 1 before testing began. Notice that the 12.7 mm (0.5 in.)
steel bar is aligned directly on the notched plane. The ultimate failure of the first group,
consisting primarily of fly ash, cement, and wood fibers, was somewhat subjective.
Compared to unreinforced concrete or FRC specimens, the stiffness of the
material was relatively low, approximately 2,758 to 3,447 MPa (400 to 500 ksi).
Furthermore, the average density of the hardened material was roughly 1,698 kg/m3 (106
lb/ft3). Therefore, the impacts caused localized damage to the specimen. The bar of the
impact piston created a groove in the surface of each specimen from Group 1, shown in
50
Figure 21-b. Ultimate failure was declared when the specimen separated into two halves,
or the 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameter bar was completely submerged into the specimen, and
the bottom of the cylinder began penetrating it, as shown in Figures 21-c and 21-d.
Normally, failure was declared due to the latter of the two.
(a) Group 1 specimen before impact (b) Groove formation on FA-WF specimen
(c) Failure of FA-WF specimen (d) Piston penetration in FA-WF specimen
Figure 21. Group 1 impact specimens
Table 17 presents the impact resistance results for the 54 specimens in Group 1.
In the table, FC denotes the number of blows to first crack and UR signifies the number
51
of blows to failure. The sample mean of the data set varied from 7 blows for the 7-day
FC to 27 blows for the 28-day UR. The average coefficients of variation were 22.8 and
16.6 percent for FC and UR values, respectively. The COV remained approximately the
same, around 20 percent, for each testing age. The average standard error of the mean
was 0.68 blows.
Table 17. Group 1 impact test results
7 Day Strength 14 Day Strength 28 Day Strength

Specimen FC UR FC UR FC UR
1 5 11 10 23 10 18
2 7 15 12 29 13 27
3 10 18 10 24 12 25
4 6 14 8 16 9 23
5 4 11 9 20 18 33
6 13 21 11 23 12 26
7 6 15 7 18 15 33
8 9 20 9 24 15 30
9 9 19 9 22 17 32
10 7 14 8 17 13 27
11 8 15 13 28 10 24
12 7 16 8 21 14 31
13 8 17 6 21 16 29
14 5 12 10 23 13 27
15 7 17 6 18 13 26
16 7 16 12 27 11 21
17 8 15 10 22 15 25
18 5 13 13 29 14 24
Min 4 11 6 16 9 18
Max 13 21 13 29 18 33
Stand. Dev 2.1 2.8 2.1 3.8 2.4 4.0
Mean 7.3 15.5 9.5 22.5 13.3 26.7
C.O.V 28.5 17.9 22.0 17.0 17.9 14.9
For the 28-day test age, the 95 percent confidence interval about the UR mean
was 26 to 28 blows. Impact resistance increased as the material gained strength from
52
curing. Table 17 shows that the mean UR at 7 days of age was 15.5, and the mean UR at
28 days was 26.7 — a 72 percent increase in resistance. The frequency distribution for
the FC data in Figure 18 follows the superimposed normal distribution curve well, as
does the UR frequency distribution for Group 1 shown in Figure 1A of Appendix B.
Table 18 compares the statistical parameters of Group 1 with those recorded for
the PFRC specimens. The average number of blows to FC and UR were 70 percent and
51 percent less, respectively. Therefore, according to these two tests, PRRC has a higher
resistance to repeated impacts compared to the FA-C-WF specimens. The overall COV
reported for the PFRC specimens was 39.4 and 35.2 percent for FC and UR. Comparing
these values to the COVs of Group 1, 17.9 and 14.9 percent, the variations in Group 1 are
less than half those reported for the PFRC specimens.
Table 18. Statistical comparison of impact test results
Overall
Results
Test Parameter FC UR
Mean (drop) 44 55
Polypropylene fiber- Standard deviation
reinforced concrete1 (drop) 17.3 19.4
COV, % 39.4 35.2
Mean (drop) 103 142
Steel fiber-reinforced Standard deviation
concrete2 (drop) 59 66
COV, % 57.3 46.5
Mean (drop) 13.3 26.7
Group 1 wood fiber
Standard deviation
mix at 28 day
(drop) 2.4 4.0
strength
COV, % 17.9 14.9
1
Badr and Ashour, 2005
2
Nataraja et al., 1999
53
Furthermore, a statistical summary of the test involving SFRC specimens
conducted by Nataraja is also shown in Table 18 (Nataraja et al., 1999). The test was
conducted using the ACI 544 guidelines instead of the modified technique, which is
possibly the reason that the mean number of drops is much larger, 103 and 142 for the FC
and UR, respectively. Also, the COV for the SFRC specimens is large, 57.3 and 46.5
percent for the FC and UR.
3.4.2 Group 2 (Concrete)
Group 2 was composed of 54 specimens of unreinforced concrete with an average
density of 2,467 kg/m3 (154 lb/ft3), tested in three groups of 18. Table 19 displays the
data recorded for all the specimens in Group 2. The impact resistance of Group 2 was
very low compared to the other groups. The low resistance was attributed to the brittle
nature of the concrete. Unlike Group 1, no local deformation occurred around the impact
piston, and there was almost no post-cracking resistance. In several cases, the FC and
UR of the specimen occurred simultaneously.
The average resistance increased only slightly, from 3.67 blows at 7 days of age
to 5.61 blows at 28 days of age. The average coefficients of variation were 34.9 and 35.6
percent for FC and UR values, respectively. The average standard error of the mean was
0.4 blows. The 95 percent confidence interval about the mean for the FC and UR values
were 4 to 6 blows and 4.5 to 6.5 blows, respectively.
Histograms in Figure A2 of Appendix A present the distribution in impact
resistance of Group 2 for the FC and UR at 28 days of age. The normal distribution
curve is overlapping each histogram. This figure shows that the FC distribution is
skewed to the left side.

54

1 2 3 4 4 4 4
2 3 4 4 5 8 9
3 3 3 6 7 5 6
4 2 3 2 3 3 3
5 3 4 4 5 3 4
6 2 3 3 3 6 7
7 1 2 3 3 7 7
8 2 2 5 5 4 4
9 3 4 4 4 6 6
10 4 6 6 6 3 3
11 4 5 4 4 8 9
12 5 6 6 7 5 6
13 2 3 8 10 4 5
14 3 3 4 4 3 4
15 4 5 5 5 4 4
16 3 4 5 6 9 10
17 1 2 7 9 3 3
18 3 4 5 6 5 7
Min 1 2 2 3 3 3
Max 5 6 8 10 9 10
Stand. Dev 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.1
Mean 2.8 3.7 4.7 5.3 5.0 5.6
C.O.V 37.1 32.8 30.6 35.9 37.7 38.1
Two types of normal probability plots for Group 2 are shown in Figure A8 of
Appendix A. The plots represent the data recorded for the impact resistance at 28 days of
age. According to the standardized normal distribution, most the data points fall within
two standard deviations of the mean. The normal probability plot for the ultimate
resistance shows a 70 percent probability that a plain concrete specimen will fail within 8
blows. The data is not close to a straight line, which indicates the data set does not fit
closely with a normal distribution curve.

55
Although the standard deviations are small, the COV for Group 2 is comparable
to that recorded for the PFRC specimens (Badr and Ashour, 2005). The COV for Group
2 is 37.7 and 38.1 percent for the FC and ultimate resistance UR, respectively. The COV
for the PFRC specimens was 39.4 and 35.2 percent for the FC and UR. Note that
although the materials are slightly different, the COV remains approximately the same.
Statistical results from the drop-weight study conducted by Nataraja are shown in
Table 20, along with results from Group 2. Both groups consist of plain concrete, but an
enormous difference exists in the average impact resistance. Although the previous study
was conducted using the ACI 544 guidelines, at least a 173 percent difference occurs
between the average FC and UR values of the two groups. The difference may be
associated with the thickness of the specimens. Specimens tested under ACI guidelines
were approximately 63 mm (2.5 in.) thick, while specimens in Group 2 were only 50 mm
(2 in.) thick. Other possibilities might be the compressive strength, brittleness, and
surface roughness of the two groups. Specimens of Group 2 had rough surfaces because
they were finished with a trowel, but the other group had smooth cut surfaces.
Table 20. Comparison of plain concrete
Overall Results
Mean (drop) 5 5.6
Group 2: 8000 psi Standard
plain concrete deviation (drop) 1.9 2.2
COV, % 37.7 38.1
4000 psi plain Mean (drop) 70 77
concrete using ACI Standard
544 guidelines1 deviation (drop) 36 39
(32 samples tested) COV, % 53.7 50.6
1
Nataraja et al., 1999
56
Figure 22 displays several failed specimens from Group 2. Notice that the crack
develops through the notches. Figure 22-b shows the specimen’s rough surface. Also, no
local deformation from the impact piston is visible in the figure.
(a) Group 2 specimens (b) Group 2 notched fracture
3.4.3 Group 3 (PFRC)
Group 3 consisted of 54 specimens of the exact mix design as Group 2 except
with the addition of 19 mm (0.75 in.) polypropylene fibers. The average density of the
mix was 2467 kg/m3 (154 lb/ft3). The specimens were tested in 3 groups of 18, just like
groups 1 and 2. The impact resistance of Group 3 was the highest of all seven groups
investigated in the study. No local deformation occurred around the impact zone, which
proved the mix was much stiffer than the FA-C-WF material used in Group 1.
Furthermore, the addition of polypropylene fibers increased the cracking resistance and
provided the specimens with significant post-cracking strength. The average number of
blows to FC and UR increased from 12.1 and 24.6 at 7 days of age to 18.1 and 32.4 at 28
57
days of age. The addition of polypropylene fibers basically increased the FC strength and
UR of Group 2 by 260 and 471 percent, respectively.
Table 21 presents the data recorded for Group 3 for each testing age. The average
COVs of the impact test results were roughly 35.6 and 24.7 percent for FC and UR
values, respectively. The COV of the FC results were generally higher than those for
UR. The average standard error of the mean was approximately 1.5 blows. The 95
percent confidence interval about the mean FC resistance at 28 days of age was 15 blows
to 21 blows, and the corresponding interval for the UR was 29 to 36 blows.
Table 21.Group 3 impact test results

1 13 30 10 23 17 35
2 8 19 9 21 15 26
3 11 24 8 21 22 35
4 8 21 12 23 17 32
5 10 22 24 37 14 29
6 12 29 15 23 22 34
7 20 33 9 23 31 48
8 18 28 13 25 21 33
9 13 25 21 31 15 27
10 7 12 7 17 18 33
11 11 27 17 26 12 23
12 11 25 33 49 28 44
13 8 18 10 22 13 28
14 12 25 11 22 23 42
15 15 33 18 27 20 38
16 9 17 20 32 18 29
17 21 37 17 25 11 25
18 10 18 20 31 9 22
Min 7 12 7 17 9 22
Max 21 37 33 49 31 48
Stand. Dev 4.0 6.3 6.6 7.2 5.6 7.0
Mean 12.1 24.6 15.2 26.6 18.1 32.4
C.O.V 33.0 25.6 43.0 27.1 31.0 21.6
58
Figure A3 in Appendix A presents the scatter of the impact test results for the 28-
day impact test. The histograms reveal a poor distribution of the data, which is skewed to
one side. The data sets do not follow the normal curve overlapping them. In both cases,
the resistance values for the majority of the specimens are above the mean resistance
values. The normal probability plots in Figure A9 of Appendix A reaffirm the skewed
distribution of the impact tests because the data is not close to a straight line. According
to the plots, 70 percent of the fiber-reinforced specimens from Group 3 will crack within
20 blows and will fail within approximately 37 blows.
Table 22 shows a comparison between the two PFRC groups. The overall results
of the test conducted by Badr and Ashour conclude that the PFRC specimens had an
average FC and UR of 44 and 55 blows, respectively. The recorded average is based on
testing 40 specimens in accordance with the modified technique they developed (Badr
and Ashour, 2005). At the 28-day test age, the average number of blows to FC and UR
were 18 and 33, respectively, for Group 3, based on the 18 specimens tested. A 59
percent difference exists between the URs of the two groups. Although the thicknesses
of the two groups are approximately the same, the difference in the average might be
caused by several other variables. These variables could include the surface finish,
aggregate size, concrete strength, and fiber length.
The surfaces of all specimens in Group 3 were finished using a trowel, which
created a rougher surface than if the specimen were cut with a diamond saw. The rough
surface prevented the impact piston from lying smoothly on the specimen, creating stress
concentrations along the length of the bar. Also, the limestone used in Groups 2 and 3
had a maximum size of 19 mm (0.75 in.), while the nominal maximum size of the other
59
group was less than 12.7 mm (0.5 in.). The concrete strength of Group 3 was
approximately 55.16 MPa (8000 psi), compared to 41.37 MPa (6000 psi) for the PFRC
specimens tested by Badr. Furthermore, the fibers in Group 3 were approximately 60
percent longer than fibers used in the previous study (Badr and Ashour, 2005).
The COV for Group 3 was 31.0 percent for the FC values and 22 percent for the
UR values. These values are comparable to the COV values reported in the previous
study — 39.4 and 35.2 percent for FC and UR, respectively.
Table 22. Comparison of PFRC
Overall Results
Mean (drop) 18 33
Group 3: 8000 psi
Standard
polypropylene fiber-
deviation (drop) 5.6 7
reinforced concrete
COV, % 31.0 22.0
Mean (drop) 44 55
6000 psi polypropylene Standard
fiber-reinforced concrete1 deviation (drop) 17.3 19.4
COV, % 39.4 35.2
1
Badr and Ashour, 2005
3.4.4 Group 4 (FA-WF)
Group 4 consisted primarily of fly ash, water, and wood fibers. No cement was
added to the mix. Eighteen specimens were tested at each of the three testing ages for a
total of 54 specimens. With an average density of 1,426 kg/m3 (89 lb/ft3), Group 4
behaved in a similar manner to Group 1. Due to the low stiffness of the material, local
deformations formed around the impact zone. Therefore, the ultimate failure of the
specimen was subjective. Failure was declared when the 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameter steel
60
bar on the bottom of the impact piston was completely submerged or the specimen
fractured into two pieces, whichever occurred first.
Table 23 shows that the average number of blows to FC and UR were 8.0 and
15.2, respectively, at 28 days of age. These resistance values are relatively low compared
to Group 1. However, Group 4 has a lower MOE, and the compressive strength of Group
1 is approximately 70 percent greater than that of Group 4. The average coefficients of
variation for FC and UR were 28.5 and 18.9 percent, respectively. The average standard
error of the mean was 0.5 blows; therefore, the 95 percent confidence interval about the
28-day mean UR was approximately 14 to 16 blows.
The average FC and UR of Group 4 increased from 4.3 and 10.2 at 7 days of age
to 8.0 and 15.2 at 28 days of age. The average UR of Group 4 at 28 days of age was 15.2
compared to 5.6 for the unreinforced concrete specimens of Group 2. Therefore, the FA-
WF mix has a higher capability to absorb repeated impact, although the compressive
strength and stiffness of the mix is much lower than that of plain concrete.
Figure A4 in Appendix A presents the distribution of FC and UR results for
Group 4. The distributions are skewed to the right; however, both distributions follow
the standard curve moderately well. Approximately an equal number of results occur on
either side of the mean for the FC resistances. Both plots show the highest frequency
occurs at the mean, and the frequencies decrease as the results move away from the
mean. More tests are needed to better define the distribution of the results.
Figure A10 in Appendix A shows the probability plots for the results of Group 4.
The standard normal distribution reports that the majority of data points fall within two
61
standard distributions from the mean. According to the normal probability plots, 70
percent of the specimens of Group 4 will crack within 9 blows and fail within 17 blows.

1 5 13 6 11 9 17
2 3 9 8 16 8 15
3 5 11 5 9 12 21
4 3 8 4 10 7 15
5 4 10 7 13 6 13
6 7 16 6 12 11 16
7 5 11 8 14 13 20
8 2 6 4 10 6 12
9 7 12 6 13 7 15
10 5 11 5 11 9 16
11 2 7 4 9 8 13
12 4 9 5 13 7 16
13 6 8 4 12 5 13
14 4 13 5 13 8 14
15 5 11 8 15 7 13
16 3 12 4 11 6 14
17 4 10 5 14 9 16
18 3 6 6 15 6 15
Min 2 6 4 9 5 12
Max 7 16 8 16 13 21
Stand. Dev 1.5 2.5 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.3
Mean 4.3 10.2 5.6 12.3 8.0 15.2
C.O.V 33.8 25.0 24.9 16.5 26.7 15.1
3.4.5 Group 5 (FA-WF-A)
Only 21 specimens were tested from Group 5. Many of the specimens broke
apart and crumbled when they were removed from the forms, which left 21 acceptable
specimens for testing. Table 24 displays the data recorded for Group 5. Seven
specimens were tested at each of the three testing ages. Group 5 performed the worst of
62
all the seven groups investigated in the study, with an average UR of 2.8 blows at 28 days
of age. The average COVs were 32.7 and 16 percent for FC and UR, respectively. No
distribution of the results from Group 5 is presented due to low impact resistances and
lack of available data. The mix design for Group 5 should be revised, and cement should
be added to assist the fly ash in the paste matrix in bonding of the aggregates.

1 1 3 2 3 2 3
2 1 2 1 3 1 3
3 1 2 2 3 1 2
4 2 3 1 2 2 3
5 2 3 2 3 2 3
6 1 2 1 2 2 3
7 1 3 2 3 1 3
Min 1 2 1 2 1 2
Max 2 3 2 3 2 3
Stand. Dev 0.45 0.49 0.49 0.45 0.49 0.35
Mean 1.3 2.6 1.6 2.7 1.6 2.9
C.O.V 35.1 19.3 31.5 16.6 31.5 12.3
3.4.6 Group 6 (WF Concrete)
Group 6 consisted of 32 concrete specimens with the addition of wood fibers.
The average density of the material was 1,852 kg/m3 (115.6 lb/ft3). The wood fibers
accounted for 6.25 percent of the weight of the mix, and increased the 28-day ultimate
impact resistance of the plain concrete by 250 percent. Group 2 had an average FC and
UR of 5 and 5.6 blows, respectively. With the addition of wood fibers, Group 6 had an
average FC and UR of 15.3 and 19.2 blows, respectively. By comparing the average FC
and UR of the two groups, obviously the addition of wood fibers to concrete is beneficial
63
to energy absorption from repeated impact. However, the compressive strength of Group
2 was about eight times greater than that of Group 6.
As shown in Table 25, the impact resistance of Group 6 increased from an
average FC of 8.9 blows and a UR of 12.5 blows at 7 days of age to 15.3 and 19.2 blows,
respectively, at 28 days of age. The average COVs for Group 6 were 33.1 and 39.5
percent for FC and UR, respectively. COV values for each testing age remained low
compared to COV values obtained in the previous studies (Badr and Ashour, 2005;
Nataraja et al., 1999).

1 8 13 10 13 28 32
2 6 8 16 23 23 26
3 8 12 8 12 22 27
4 15 20 10 16 9 16
5 9 12 6 10 18 23
6 11 16 11 16 10 14
7 8 11 17 24 12 15
8 7 9 13 17 14 18
9 8 11 8 11 10 12
10 9 13 7 11 9 13
11 - - - - 13 15
12 - - - - 15 19
Min 6 8 6 10 9 12
Max 15 20 17 24 28 32
Stand. Dev 2.4 3.3 3.5 4.7 6.0 6.1
Mean 8.9 12.5 10.6 15.3 15.3 19.2
C.O.V 26.8 26.1 33.3 30.7 39.1 32.0
Histograms showing the distribution of impact test results at 28 days of age are
presented in Figure A5 in Appendix A. The distribution indicates a poor normality of the

64
impact test results. Several gaps exist in the distributions. For example, no test samples
cracked within 19 to 21 blows, but 3 of 12 tests had FC resistances greater than 22 blows.
The UR distribution has a mean of approximately 20 blows, but the distribution has the
highest frequency between 13 to 15 blows.
Figure A11 in Appendix A presents normal probability plots for the 28-day test
results of Group 6. The majority of the test results fall within two standard deviations of
the mean. The normal probability plot, which is not close to a straight line, indicates a
poor normality of the distribution. The plot also shows a 70 percent probability that a
Group 6 specimen will crack within 20 blows and fail within 24 blows.
3.4.7 Group 7 (Bi-layered)
Group 7 was unique in that it involved two separate materials. The specimens
were constructed of two layers of material, each approximately 25.4 mm (1 in.) thick.
The base material was plain concrete, the same mix design used for Group 2. The FA-C-
WF mixture used for Group 1 was placed on top of the concrete after the concrete was
allowed to cure for 24 hours. A representative sample of Group 7 is shown in Figure 23.
The specimen consisted of a soft top layer to absorb impact and a hard base to increase
the strength and stiffness of the specimen. Note that there is no reinforcement holding
the two layers together. The fresh concrete was roughened to enhance the bond
characteristics between the two layers.
Table 26 presents the impact results for Group 7. Results show that the average
number of blows to achieve the FC and UR of the specimens increased from 12.3 and
16.6 blows at 7 days of age to 23.2 and 24.7 blows at 28 days of age.
65
Layers
crack
FA-WF layer
together
cracks
(a) Non-composite action (b) Composite action
Although the soft layer increased the impact resistance of the plain concrete,
results show significantly less post-cracking strength than solid FA-WF specimens. Once
the impact piston penetrated the FA-C-WF layer, the concrete base broke easily. The
COV values for Group 7 are slightly higher than the COV values of the other six groups.
This result could possibly be related to the two different failure modes of the group.
In several cases, the soft top fiber layer split apart before the base developed any
cracks. In these cases, the bond between the two layers was not strong enough to permit
composite action. Therefore, stress was not carried to the concrete layer, and the
concrete did not crack. This effect prolonged the life of the concrete base, which was
used to determine the impact resistance. The FC and UR of the top layer was ignored.
However, composite action occurred in other cases where both layers cracked in the same
location with the same number of blows applied. This action, in effect, reduced the
impact resistance of the specimen.

66

1 7 8 13 14 32 37
2 8 10 15 15 10 10
3 10 15 18 20 20 22
4 11 27 19 19 32 34
5 20 32 22 24 38 39
6 14 20 19 22 5 6
7 24 29 9 10 13 14
8 13 15 18 20 36 38
9 7 9 17 18 34 35
10 8 11 8 10 21 22
11 9 9 13 16 10 11
12 13 15 16 18 26 28
13 15 16 26 27 27 28
14 16 18 18 20 25 27
15 6 6 27 30 15 16
16 8 9 28 29 17 18
17 19 22 9 9 30 32
18 14 18 11 12 26 28
Min 6 6 8 9 5 6
Max 24 32 28 30 38 39
Stand. Dev 4.9 7.4 5.9 6.2 9.5 10.1
Mean 12.3 16.1 17.0 18.5 23.2 24.7
C.O.V 40.0 46.0 34.5 33.2 41.2 40.7
The average COVs for Group 7 were 38.6 and 40.0 percent for FC and UR, in that
order. The average standard error about the mean was roughly two blows. Using the 68-
95-99.7 rule, the 95 percent confidence interval about the mean was 20 to 26 blows for
FC and 22 to 27 blows for UR values.
The COV values for Group 7 at 28 days of age were 41.2 and 40.7 percent for the
FC and UR, respectively. COV values reported in a previous study, based on 40 PFRC
specimens, were 39.4 and 35.2 percent (Badr and Ashour, 2005). These results, along
67
with results from the other six groups, confirm that the modified drop-weight impact test
provides reasonable COV values for FRC as well as high volume FA-WF materials.
Figure A6 in Appendix A presents the distributions of the FC and UR resistances
for Group 7. The frequencies do not follow the normal curve well, indicating poor
normality of the distribution. The distribution of the FC results is evenly spread to the
left of the mean, while the right side of the curve follows the normal distribution more
closely. Likewise, the UR results are evenly spread below the mean value, while
frequencies above the mean more closely resemble a normal distribution. Higher
frequencies occur at the upper and lower bounds of the curve rather than at the mean. A
larger sample size is needed to derive more reliable conclusions about the normality of
the distribution.
Normal probability plots representing the 28-day impact test data for Group 7 are
shown in Figure A12 of Appendix A. The standard normal distribution shows that all the
results fall within two standard deviations from the mean, verifying the 68-95-99.7 rule.
The normal probability plot indicates fair normality of the distribution, and the R2 values,
0.98 and 0.99, for both data series are the highest of all the groups.
3.4.8 Summary of impact resistance
Figure 24 illustrates a bar graph reporting the mean FC and UR values for all
seven test groups at 28 days of age. The I-shaped line in each bar represents the standard
deviation of the results for the ultimate resistances. Group 3, the PFRC group, had the
highest mean impact resistance with a mean of roughly 33 blows. Group 1 (FA-C-WF)
came in second with a mean impact resistance of roughly 27 blows, followed closely by
68
Group 7 (Bi-layer) with a mean of 25 blows. The bi-layered specimens also had the
largest standard deviation of 10 blows, followed by Group 3 with 7 blows.
Groups 4 (FA-WF) and 6 (WF Conc) had average strengths of 15 blows and 20
blows, respectively. Group 2 (Concrete), consisting of plain concrete, had an average
impact resistance of 5 blows. The average impact resistance of Group 5 (FA-WF-A) was
3 blows, the least of the seven groups investigated in the study. The low impact
resistance is most likely due to a faulty mix design. The bi-layered system had the
highest FC resistance, followed by the PFRC specimens of Group 3.
45
I - indicates SD
± 7.2
40 FC
± 10.3
35 UR
Mean / Standard dev. (blows)
± 4.1
30
± 6.4
25
20 ± 2.4
15
10 ± 2.2
5 ± 0.4
0
FA-C-WF Concrete PFRC FA-WF
0 FA-WF-A WF Conc. Bi-layer
Mix designation
Figure 24. Mean ultimate resistance to impact at 28 days of age
Figure 25 presents ratios of the mean URs divided by the mean FC resistances
presented previously in Figure 24. The figure shows that the FA-C-WF material has the
69
highest level of impact ductility with a ratio of two. The plain concrete specimens and
the bi-layered specimens had the lowest levels of impact ductility with ratios of 1.12 and
1.07, respectively. The PFRC specimens had high impact ductility as well, with a ratio of
1.79.
2.25
2.00
Ultimate / first crack resistance
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
FA-C-WF Concrete PFRC FA-WF
1 FA-WF-A WF Conc. Bi-layer
Mix designation
Figure 25. Ratio of mean ultimate and first crack resistances
The mean percent increase in the number of blows from FC to UR of each group
is shown in Table 27. Group 1 had the highest post cracking resistance with a 142
percent increase at 14 days and 103 percent at 28 days. Group 4 had the highest 7 day
value with a 152 percent increase from FC to UR. Group 6, with the wood fibers added
to the concrete, had slightly higher post cracking resistances than Group 2 at all three test
ages.
70
The bi-layered construction of Group 7 increased the mean UR of the plain
concrete from 5 blows to 17 blows. However, the mean percent increase in the number
of blows from FC to UR stayed approximately the same as that of the plain concrete. The
25.4 mm (1 in.) fly ash layer provided additional benefit up to cracking, but did not
provide post cracking resistance.
Table 27. Mean percent increase in the number of blows from FC to UR
Testing Age
Group No. 7 day (%) 14 day (%) 28 day (%)
1 120 142 103
2 38 13 12
3 109 89 85
4 152 128 97
5 114 86 100
6 41 46 31
7 30 10 7
The minimum number of tests (n) required to guarantee that the percent error in
the measured average is below a specified limit (e) at a certain level of confidence was
calculated using equation (3) discussed previously. Table 28 shows that if the error is to
be kept under 10 percent, the minimum number of tests should be roughly 24 for the
plain concrete at a 90 percent confidence interval. Slightly more tests are needed for the
bi-layered construction of Group 7. However, the FA-WF material making up Group 1
and Group 4 had much less variation, and only 4 to 12 tests are needed to keep the error
under 10 percent at a 90 percent level of confidence.

71
3.5 Summary
Figure 26 presents a comparison of the average FC impact resistances of all seven
test groups at each testing age. Group 7 had the highest FC values at all three test ages,
followed by the PFRC of Group 3. Group 7 also had the highest average increase in FC
resistance from the 14 day test age to the 28 day test age. Groups 1 and 4 had higher FC
resistances than the plain concrete, Group 2, at the three test ages. Furthermore, the
increase in the FC resistance due to curing was greater for groups 1, 4, and 6 than for the
plain concrete, which did not increase much beyond the 14 day test. The bi-linear curves
in Figure 26 show that the increase in average impact resistance due to curing is not
linear.
Table 28. Minimum number of tests required for 10% error
95% confidence 90% confidence

Group No. FC UR FC UR
1 9 6 5 4
2 38 39 23 24
3 26 13 16 8
4 19 6 12 4
5 27 4 16 2
6 41 28 25 17
7 46 45 28 27
Figure 27 shows a comparison of the average URs for all three test ages. The
PFRC specimens of Group 3 had the highest average UR values for all three testing ages,
although Group 7 had the highest FC values. The FA-WF-C mixture of Group 1 had
relatively high impact resistances as well. The average impact resistance of groups 2 and
5 barely increased between the 7 and 28 day tests.

72
25
G1
20 G2
G3
Avg. Number of blows
G4
15 G5
G6
G7
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Days
Figure 26. First crack impact resistance with increasing age
35
G1
30
G2
G3
25
Avg. Number of blows
G4
G5
20
G6
G7
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Days
Figure 27. Ultimate impact resistance with increasing age

73
The results of the drop-weight impact study show that PFRC provides the highest
amount of impact resistance and toughness of all seven groups of specimens investigated
in the study. The impact resistance of Groups 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 increased with varying
amounts between test ages. However, the impact resistance of the plain concrete and FA-
WF-A material remained roughly the same for every test age.
4. CONCLUSIONS
A modified version of the current ACI drop-weight impact test was used to
determine the relative impact resistances of seven unique groups of specimens.
Comparing the results presented herein to previous studies using the ACI repeated drop-
weight impact test, one might conclude that the modified drop-weight test used in this
impact study is a more reliable measure of impact resistance. The modified drop-weight
impact test was developed in a previous impact study (Badr and Ashour, 2005).
Several conclusions can be drawn from this study.
1. Due to the large variations in impact resistance test results, a larger sample size is
necessary to obtain more dependable conclusions regarding the normality of the
distributions. Although the COV values for the seven groups investigated in the
study are considerably lower than those reported in previous studies, not enough
specimens were tested in each group to develop a normal distribution of the
results.
2. Based on the variations of the impact test results, a proposal can be made as to the
number of tests needed to prevent the error in results from rising beyond a certain
percentage. Results from this study show that at least 16 tests are required to keep
the error below 10 percent for PFRC specimens based on a 90 percent level of
74
confidence. Likewise, 12 FA-WF specimens should be tested to keep the error
below 10 percent.
3. Based on the R2 value on the normal probability plots in Appendix A, Group 7 fit
the normal distribution curve better than the other groups. However, Group 7 also
had the highest COV values.
4. PFRC had the highest drop-weight UR, but the composite layer of FA-WF
material applied to Group 7 provided the best FC resistance values. The FA-WF
material proved to have excellent energy absorption characteristics, although the
material has much less strength and stiffness than plain concrete and FRCs. The
plain concrete had a low impact resistance and a brittle failure mode.
5. The impact test results of the FA-WF specimens of groups 1 and 4 had lower
COVs than the results for the other groups. The low stiffness and subjective
failure mode of the material lead to lower COV values.
6. The FA-C-WF material had the highest level of impact ductility with a value of 2,
compared to PFRC, which had an impact ductility of 1.79. The bi-layered
specimens had the lowest level of ductility with a value of 1.07, just below plain
concrete.
7. Regarding specimen preparation, specimens should be cut to the right thickness
using a diamond saw rather than finished with a trowel. This preparation would
create smooth finished surfaces and would provide more accurate results.
8. Although a portable impact test fixture may prove to be a great asset, the base
plate should be rigidly attached to an immovable foundation.

75
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research conducted herein on the drop-weight impact resistance of a high-
volume FA-WF material was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory.
6. REFERENCES
ACI Committee 544, “Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (ACI

544.2R-89),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1989, 11
pp.
ACI Committee 544, “Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete (ACI 544.1R-96),”

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1996, 66 pp.
ACI Committee 232, “Use of Fly Ash in Concrete (ACI 232.2R-03),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2003, 41pp.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 617-98). Standard Practice for
Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 192/C 192M-06). Standard
Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 494/C 494M-05a). Standard
Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 1116-03). Standard Specification
for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete, American Society for Testing and
Specification for Molds for Forming Concrete Test Cylinders Vertically,
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 150-05). Standard Specification
for Portland Cement, American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2005
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 39/C 39M-05). Standard Test
Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
76
Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete, American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 496/C 496 M-04). Standard Test
Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 469-02). Standard Test Method
for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression,
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 566-97). Standard Test Method
for Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying, American
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D 1557-02). Standard Test Methods
for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort,
Badr, A., Ashour, A. F., “Modified ACI Drop-Weight Impact Test for Concrete,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 102, No. 4, July-Aug. 2005, pp. 249-255.
Falk, R. H., “Housing Products from Recycled Wood,” CIB TG 16, Sustainable
Construction, Tampa, FL, 1994
Glenium® 3000 NS product brochure, BASF, http://www.basf-admixtures.com, accessed

January, 2007.
Joshi, N., Myers, J.J., “Investigation of an Alternative Wood Fiber-Fly Ash Material for
Infill Wall Systems (CIES 06-60),” Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies,
University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 2005.
Moore, D. S., McCabe, G. P., Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, W. H. Freeman

and Company, 1989, 790 pp.
Nataraja, M. C., Dhang, N., and Gupta, A. P., “Statistical Variations in Impact Resistance
of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Drop Weight Test,” Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 29, No. 6, 1999, pp. 989-995.
Nycon ConTrolPCF Collated Polypropylene Fibrillated Fibers product information,

Nycon®, http://www.nycon.com/pdf/cntrlpcfpi.pdf, accessed January, 2007.
77
PAPER II
INVESTIGATION OF A HIGH-VOLUME FLY ASH-WOOD FIBER MATERIAL

FOR MITIGATING BLAST PRESSURES
ABSTRACT
This research program was developed to assess the effectiveness of a high-volume
fly ash-wood fiber (FA-WF) material at mitigating dynamic pressure loads. Blast tests
were conducted on panel systems to determine if the material may be useful in a barrier
system to protect other structures and the people in those structures. Test panels were
subjected to various charge weights at decreasing standoff distances in an effort to
compare different material types and reinforcement ratios. Field tests conducted at the
University of Missouri-Rolla’s (UMR) experimental mine demonstrated that systems
incorporating the blast mitigation material had improved blast resistance compared to
plain reinforced concrete (RC) slabs when subjected to near field blast events. The two-
layered panel system also performed relatively well compared to slabs reinforced with
carbon fiber reinforced grids.
1. INTRODUCTION
This report covers a small portion of a multi-organizational project to create
architectural standards for blast-resistant barricade systems. The endeavor is lead by the
UMR Rock Mechanics and Explosives Research Center (RMERC). Other organizations
involved include Kontek Industries, UMR’s Department of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering (CArEE), the Department of Architectural Studies from the

78
University of Missouri-Columbia (UMC), and UMC’s National Center for Explosion
Resistant Design (NCERD). The project was funded by the Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL) Airbase Technologies Division, which also provides management
assistance and a testing site for large explosive tests. This specific task was undertaken
by personnel from UMR’s CArEE department and from the RMERC.
With ever increasing energy costs, engineers are researching new ways to utilize
and recycle waste products. This research project investigates the effectiveness of using
two common waste products, fly ash and wood fiber, in a blast barrier application. The
high-volume FA-WF material has a lower density than normal weight concrete and can
undergo large strains without a brittle failure (Joshi and Myers, 2005).
Fly ash is a by-product of the combustion of pulverized coal. Its pozzolanic
characteristics make it a beneficial ingredient in concrete. Fly ash improves the
concrete’s resistance to deterioration from sulfates, improves the workability of fresh
concrete, and provides higher strengths at later ages of hardened concrete (ACI 232.2R-
03). However, only 20 percent of the 90 million tons of fly ash produced in the United
States per year is used in the production of concrete and concrete products (Joshi and
Myers, 2005).
Wood fiber is another common waste product that can be recycled from wooden
pallets and containers, lumber salvaged from building demolition, old utility poles and
railroad ties, upper limbs not processed in wood products, and other miscellaneous
products made from wood. In 1994, approximately 13.2 million metric tons of solid
wood waste was generated, and only 1.3 million tons were used for recycling or
compositing. The discarded wood was either burned or placed in landfills (Falk, 1994).
79
At UMR, a great effort has been made to combine these two materials and use
them in a practical manner. Previous studies show that the material has excellent freeze-
thaw resistance and has a relatively high impact resistance compared to plain concrete. It
is believed that the low stiffness and low density of the material will make it a likely
candidate for use as a sacrificial material in a blast application. This assumption came
about from reports of demolishing adobe bunkers in the Middle East. The military
bunkers, formed from a type of adobe brick, would not concede to the explosives. The
blast would demolish localized areas of the bunker, but the pressure wave would not
destroy the entire structure. Therefore, this research effort was devoted to determine the
blast resistance capabilities of the high-volume FA-WF material, which hopefully has
many of the same beneficial properties as the adobe material.
2. RELATED WORK
2.1. Nature of explosives
Explosions are classified in three main categories: physical, chemical, and
nuclear. The most common artificial explosives are chemical explosives, usually
involving a rapid and violent oxidation reaction that produces extreme gas pressures and
heat. The rapid expansion of the gas results in a blast wave that moves through air or
solid materials, destroying anything within close proximity to the detonation. Explosives
are also classified as primary or secondary explosives depending on how they are
initiated. Primary explosives are dangerous because they can be detonated by a spark,
open flame, or impact. Secondary explosives, such as TNT and RDX, are usually
detonated using blasting caps (El-Domiaty et al., 2002). RDX-based C-4 was the primary
explosive used in this study.

80
A detonation wave is an extremely rapid wave of chemical reaction that travels at
a supersonic speed. Detonation velocities for high explosives usually range between
6,700 to 8,500 m/s (22,000 to 28,000 ft/sec). The detonation wave converts the explosive
into a hot, high pressure gas, creating pressures in excess of 18,616 MPa (2,700,00 psi)
behind the detonation front. For bare explosives, the blast wave propagates out into the
surrounding air. The blast wave decays in strength, lengthens in duration, and decreases
in velocity as it moves away from the detonation source (Robinson, 1944).
Any point in space near a detonation will experience a certain pressure profile.
Blast pressure profiles are important pressure time histories for any point in space
subjected to a blast wave. The characteristic pressure profile decays exponentially from a
peak overpressure into a pressure region below ambient pressure called the negative
overpressure phase. Typically, the negative pressure phase is ignored in design and in
many analytical models. The pressure curve takes the form of the modified Friedlander’s
equation shown in equation (1).
t
⎛
+ t ⎞ -b +
p(t) = po + P ⎜1- + ⎟ e T
s Eq. (1)
⎝ T ⎠
In equation (1), t is measured from the time of arrival, Ps+ is the peak
overpressure, po is the ambient atmospheric pressure, and b is the decay coefficient
(Chock and Kapania, 2001). The area under the pressure profile above ambient pressure
is equivalent to the positive phase impulse, I+. Figure 1 displays a typical blast pressure
profile for any point in the vicinity of a blast event.

81
+
Ps
Impulse
Pressure
Pa
Ta T
+ -
T
Time
Figure 1. Typical blast pressure profile (Chock and Kapania, 2001)
For design purposes, the blast pressure profile is usually simplified as a triangle
impulse loading, as shown in Figure 2.
+ +
Ps T
Pressure
Pa
Time
Figure 2. Simplified triangular blast pressure profile (Lu et al., 2005)

82
Only the peak overpressure, Ps+, and the duration of the blast impulse, T+, are
required to define the blast loading using the simplified profile. These two parameters
can be related to the charge weight and standoff distance using a few simple equations
(Lu et al., 2005). The peak pressure may be expressed in terms of the scaled distance, Z,
as shown in equations (2) and (3).
6.7
Ps = +1 bar (Ps ≥ 10 bar) Eq. (2)
Z3
0.975 1.455 5.85

Ps = + 2 + 3 - 0.019 bar (0.1 ≤ Ps ≤ 10 bar) Eq. (3)
Z Z Z
Scaling the properties of blast waves from explosives is very common. Scaled
distances are used to predict parameters of large-scale explosions based on small-scale
tests. Several methods of scaling blast parameters are used in analysis to generalize the
results, so they may be used in blast simulations with various amounts of energy and
standoff distance. One of the most common methods of scaling blast parameters is the
Hopkinson-Cranz blast scaling. Hopkinson hypothesized that if two different charge
weights of the same explosive were detonated, both charges would produce similar
pressure profiles at an identical scaled distance. This scaled distance formula is presented
in equation (4), where R is the distance from the center of the explosive source (m), and
W is the TNT equivalent charge weight (kg) (Baker, 1983).
R
Z= 1
Eq. (4)
W 3
83
Normally, W represents the weight of a standard explosive such as TNT. When
other types of explosives are used, the mass of the explosive can be converted into a TNT
equivalent mass using a conversion factor. The conversion factor is simply a ratio of the
specific energy of a particular explosive and the specific energy of TNT. Several
common explosives are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. TNT equivalence values for common explosives (Baker, 1983)
Specific TNT Detonation Detonation

Energy Equivalent Density velocity pressure
Explosive QX (KJ/kg) QX/QTNT (Mg/m3) (km/s) (Gpa)
RDX (Cyclonite) 5360 1.185 1.65 8.70 34.0
Nitroglycerine (liquid) 6700 1.481 1.59 - -
PETN 5800 1.282 1.77 8.26 34.0
Pentolite 50/50
(50% PETN, 50% TNT) 5111 1.129 1.66 7.47 28.0
TNT 4520 1.000 1.60 6.73 21.0
Composition C-4 5876 1.3 1.58 - -
HMX 5680 1.256 1.90 9.11 38.7
Unit conversion: 1 KJ/kg = 0.43 Btu/lb
Another model based on scaled distance was developed by the Department of
Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB). For the past several years, the DDESB has
had an important role in producing an explosion effects computation program known as
the Blast Effects Computer (BEC). BEC version 5.0 was used in this study to calculate
the incident and reflected air blast pressures resulting from the detonation of various
weights of C-4 explosive. Figures B1 through B4 in Appendix B show the calculated
incident and reflected pressures at various locations on the surface of the panel for the
charge weights used in the blast testing. Version 5 of the program takes into account the
effect of selected potential explosion sites, various types of weapons, the TNT
84
equivalence of the explosive, and the altitude of the event. The BEC algortithms are
based on experimental results, and outputs are usually within a few percent of actual
measured values. The BEC computes the time of arrival, incident overpressure, reflected
pressure, and other blast wave properties. The incident overpressure and reflected
pressure were the only properties compared in this study. The equations used to calculate
the incident overpressure are shown in equation (5) (Swisdak, 2003). The scaled
distance, Z, is based on an equivalent weight of TNT, so a factor of 1.3 was multiplied to
the weight of the C-4. The equations presented here are based on U.S. customary units.
Scaled distances should be expressed in ft/(lb1/3), and pressures are expressed in psi.
-4 2 2
For Z < 7.25 Pi = 1006z-1.44 e1x10 ln(z) (685ln(z) -1416ln(z)-2815)
-4 2 2
For 7.5 < Z < 60 Pi = 6658z-3.7e-1x10 ln(z) (127ln(z) -733ln(z)-2709) Eq. (5)
Scaled distances larger than 18.3 m (60 ft) were not considered, but a separate
equation exists for those values up to a scaled distance of 1,524 m (5,000 ft). The
atmospheric parameter, Sp, was used convert the calculated overpressures at sea level to
pressures that would be developed in the atmospheric conditions existing during the blast
testing. The Sp parameter is simply the ratio of the atmospheric pressure at the blast
location and the atmospheric pressure at sea level. Considering Rolla, Missouri, is
approximately 343 m (1,125 ft) above sea level, Sp was taken to be 0.9605 for the
pressure calculations.
Reflected pressures were also calculated using equation (6). Due to very low
scaled distance values investigated in this study, the equations shown here are not
applicable and, therefore, are inaccurate. The BEC program displays an “out of range”
85
warning for scaled distances below 0.3 ft/(lb1/3). Furthermore, the BEC model assumes
100 percent of the blast wave is reflected, which is not true. Some amount of energy is
absorbed by the test panel. The amount of energy the test panels absorbed could not be
quantitatively measured during the blast test.
For Z < 4
-4 2 4 3 2
Pr = 8774z-1.751e-1x10 ln(z) (118ln(z) -696ln(z) +128ln(z) +2199ln(z)+2877)
For Z ≤ 100 Eq. (6)

-6 2 4 5 3 6 2 6 6
Pr = 173z9.16e-1x10 ln(z) (8181ln(z) -1.6x10 ln(z) +1.3x10 ln(z) -5.6x10 ln(z)+11.9x10 )
The two models previously discussed are represented in Figure 3. The model
developed by the DDESB is more conservative than the model referenced by Lu et al.
(2005), but the curves follow the same trends. The corresponding pressures for scaled
distances below 1 m/(kg1/3) begin to increase exponentially toward infinity. Infinite
pressure is not possible, so scaled distance values were limited to a minimum of 0.3
ft/lb1/3. As stated previously, the BEC program displays an “out of range” warning for
the scaled distances used in this study, which were smaller than 0.3 ft/lb1/3. The program
still calculates incident and reflected pressure values, but the model is no longer accurate.
2.1.1 Dynamic strength of materials
Rapid strain rates occuring from a blast lead to increases in the strength of the
concrete and reinforcement. These increased dynamic strengths are used to calculate the
dynamic resistance of the material to the applied blast load. Therefore, the ultimate
resistance of a material subjected to a blast load is larger than its static load resistance. A
dynamic increase factor (DIF) is applied to static strength values to approximate the
86
dynamic strength of the material. The DIF is a ratio of the dynamic material strength to
static strength. Therefore, the factor is a function of the type of material and the strain
rate applied to it. Table 2 displays DIF values for various construction materials and
stress types.
1000000
Incident
Incident Pressure
Pressure (DDESB)
Incident Pressure
(Mays and Smith)
Incident or Reflected Pressure (kPa)
Incident (Mays
Model)
Reflected
Reflected Pressure (DDESB)
Pressure
10000
100
1
0 10 20 1/3
30 40
Scaled distance, Z (m/kg )
Unit conversion: 1 kPa = 0.145 psi
Figure 3. Theoretical incident and reflected pressure curves
Table 2. Dynamic increase factors (TM 5-1300, 1990)
Reinforcing bars Concrete Masonry

Stess type Fdy/Fy Fdu/Fu f'dc/f'c f'dm/f'm
Flexure 1.17 1.05 1.19 1.19
Diagonal tension 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Direct shear 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.00
Compression 1.10 1.00 1.12 1.12
Bond 1.17 1.05 1.00 1.00
87
The ultimate strength and ductility of the material is important when predicting
the behavior of a structural element subjected to a blast load. Ductile materials require
less strength than brittle materials to resist the same applied blast load. Brittle materials
tend to fail rapidly, unable to absorb much energy in the plastic range; however, ductile
materials maintain strength through large plastic strains (TM 5-1300, 1990).
2.1.2 Shock wave behavior in solids
A basic understanding of how shock waves propagate through solids is helpful to
better understand the modes of failure resulting from a blast event. The shock wave is
generated by the sudden contact of the hot gases with the surrounding air immediately
after the detonation of the explosive. The shock wave then propagates through any
nearby solids. The shock wave in the solid is basically treated as a discontinuity in
density, pressure, and temperature. The equations applying to this discontinuity were
first developed by Rankine and Hugoniot. The wave moves through the material at a
velocity corresponding to the maximum pressure in the pulse. When a shock wave
encounters an interface between two different materials, some of the wave is transmitted
into the new material, and some of the wave is reflected (Rinehart, 1975).
Two boundary conditions must be met at the interface of the two materials —
continuity of pressure and continuity of particle velocity. This condition is known as
impedance mismatch. The relative intensities of the both waves are dependent on the
density and stiffness of the adjoining materials. The reflected wave may be either in
compression or tension depending on the impedance mismatch between the two materials
(Rinehart, 1975). In the case of the panels tested in this study, the reflected stress waves
were in tension because the panel had a higher density than air. The collision of the
88
reflected tensile stresses from the adjoining sides of the panels caused a tension failure in
the stiff RC panels.
2.2. Retrofitting reinforced concrete slabs with composites
In a previous study, five RC slabs were tested under real blast loads at various
standoff distances and charge weights. The purpose of the test was to assess the
possibility of using the displacement based design (DBD) method to predict the blast
resistance of a RC slab. The RC slabs were strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced
polymers (CFRP) and steel reinforced polymers (SRP). Test results proved that the DBD
method can successfully estimate the blast loads needed to cause a specified level of
damage. Results also demonstrated that RC slabs retrofitted with fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) on both faces have a much higher blast resistance than slabs retrofitted on
one side only (Lu et al., 2005).
The test matrix developed in the previous study to assess the DBD method was
used in this study, so results from the two studies could be easily compared. The RC
slabs used in the previous study had nominal dimensions of 1200 x 1200 x 89 mm (47.25
x 47.25 x 3.5 in.). For Lu’s study, one slab was used as a control for comparison, and it
was not reinforced with FRP. Two slabs (2A and 2B) were retrofitted with CFRP, and
two slabs (3A and 3B) were retrofitted with SRP. Slabs 2A and 3A were retrofitted on
the tension face only, and slabs 2B and 3B were strengthened on both sides. The slabs
were tested in the experimental mine at UMR. The specimens were simply supported on
two box beams, and the charges were suspended above the specimens using a wire.
Charges were composed of desensitized RDX high explosive, the equivalent to military
C-4 demolition explosive.

89
2.2.1 Material properties
Each of the five specimens was batched with 28 MPa (4.06 ksi) concrete and had
a reinforcement ratio of 0.18 percent in each direction at mid depth. The steel
reinforcement had a tensile strength of 410 MPa (60 ksi) with an elastic modulus of 200
GPa (29,000 ksi). The CFRP and SRP laminates exhibited elastic behavior up to their
ultimate tensile strengths, which were 3,790 MPa (550 ksi) and 1,170 MPa (170 ksi),
respectively. The elastic moduli of the CFRP and the SRP were 230 GPa (33,359 ksi)
and 78 GPa (11,313 ksi), respectively.
2.2.2 Test results
Charge weights and standoff distances were chosen using the DBD method to
achieve two specified displacement ductility levels, 1 and 4. Ductility level 1
corresponds to minor cracks or no damage, and level 4 corresponds to visible cracks and
crushing of the cover concrete. The RC control slab was subjected to two blast events.
The first event, a charge of 0.45 kg (1.0 lb) at a 915 mm (36 in.) standoff, caused no
damage as expected. The second event was a 0.9 kg (2.0 lb) charge at a 300 mm (12 in.)
standoff, which caused major flexural cracks at the mid-span of the slab. The residual
displacement at the center of the slab was measured at 21 mm (0.875 in.), and the
residual displacement at the midpoint along the edge was measured at 11 mm (0.5 in.).
The RC slab strengthened with CFRP on the tension face, slab 2A, was loaded
with a 1.35 kg (3.0 lb.) charge at a standoff distance of 300 mm (12 in.). The event
severely damaged the slab to the extent that no residual deformations could be measured.
Slab 2B was strengthened with CFRP on both faces and subjected to the same charge
weight at the same standoff distance. With no major flexural cracks, slab 2B performed
90
much better with a residual deflection of 44 mm (1.75 in.) at center and 28 mm (1.10 in.)
along the edge. Slab 3A, which was retrofitted with SRP on the tension face, failed under
the same blast load and standoff as slab 2A. Furthermore, slab 3B had a similar amount
of damage as slab 2B, and also developed two major shear cracks at the supports. The
residual deflections on slab 3B were the same as those for 2B.
Two main conclusions were drawn from the study. First, the DBD method
accurately estimated the charge weight and standoff distance required to impose a
specified displacement ductility level. Additionally, results proved that slabs must be
strengthened on both faces to significantly improve their resistance to blast loads.
Results did not show any distinction between the two types of reinforcement used in the
study.
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The main purpose of the blast testing was to investigate the blast mitigation
properties of a high-volume FA-WF material being developed at UMR. The material has
low strength and density but has a higher level of ductility than plain concrete.
Compression and modulus of elasticity tests revealed the material can undergo large
strains without fracturing. Although the material is not adequate to support the static
loads of a superstructure, the material’s ductile failure mode and energy absorbing
characteristics are necessities in blast resistant applications.
In this study, ten panels were tested using various charge weights and standoff
distances, some of which were prescribed in a previous blast study conducted at UMR
(Lu et al., 2005). The panels consisted of RC as well as a high-volume FA-WF blast
mitigation material (BMM). The blast testing was broken into two phases, and five
91
panels were tested in each phase. Test panels in the second phase were coated with a
spray-on polyurea, which is already being used in many building retrofits for increased
protection from improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Tables 3 and 4 display the test matrix for each phase of testing. For each test
panel, the charge weight was increased, and the standoff distance was decreased with
each subsequent event until the panel failed. Comparisons were then made between the
failure modes and extent of damage of each panel.
Table 3. Phase 1 test matrix
Charge Standoff
Panel No. Event No. weight, grams distance, mm Description
1 454 915 Bi-layered construction with
2 680 610 concrete base and top layer of
Panel 1A BMM. 0.2% reinforcement ratio
3 907 305 in concrete and 0.16% in BMM
4 1360 305 layer [140 mm (5.5 in.) thick]
1 225 915 High volume fly ash-wood fiber
2 450 915 blast mitigation material with
Panel 2A reinforcement ratio of 0.2% in
3 680 610 each direction [89 mm (3.5 in.)
4 907 305 thick]
1 454 915 Normal-weight concrete with
addition of 6% wood fibers by
Panel 3A 2 680 610
weight. 0.2% reinforcment ration
3 907 305 each direction [89 mm thick]
Panel 4A 2 1134 305 0.5% reinforcement ratio each
3 1360 152 direction [89 mm (3.5 in.) thick]
1 454 915
Bi-layered construction with
2 1134 305 0.5% reinforced concrete base
Panel 5A
3 1360 305 and top layer of BMM [140 mm
(5.5 in.) thick]
4 1360 Contact
92
Table 4. Phase 2 test matrix
Charge Standoff
Panel No. Event No. weight, grams distance, mm Description
1 680 610 Bi-layered construction with
2 907 305 concrete base and top layer of
Panel 1B BMM. 0.2% reinforcement ratio
3 1360 305 in concrete and 0.16% in BMM
4 1360 152 layer coated with polyurea
High volume fly ash-wood fiber

1 680 610
blast mitigation material with
Panel 2B reinforcement ratio of 0.2% in
each direction. Coated with
2 907 305
polyurea

wood fibers. 0.2% reinforcment
Panel 3B 2 907 305
ration each direction. Coated with
3 1360 152 polyurea
1 680 610
Normal-weight concrete with
Panel 4B 2 1134 305 0.5% reinforcement ratio each
direction. Coated with polyurea
3 1360 152
1 680 610
FA-C-WF panel and RC panel
2 907 305 separated by 19 mm air gap.
Panel 5B
3 1360 305 Reinforcement ratio of each panel
was 0.2%
4 1360 152
3.1 Test setup
Mix designs chosen for the blast study were based on data collected from impact
tests performed at UMR (Tinsley and Myers, 2007). A modified version of the ACI
drop-weight impact test for concrete was carried out on seven various mix designs to
compare their relative impact resistances. The test is conducted by repeatedly dropping a
4.54 kg (10 lb) proctor hammer onto an impact piston, which applies a linear impact load
93
to the top surface of the test specimen. The test specimens are approximately 150 mm (6
in.) in diameter and 50 mm (2 in.) thick.
The relative impact resistance of each specimen is measured by simply counting
the number of blows to first crack (FC) and ultimate failure (UR). The tests revealed that
polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete (PFRC) had the highest 28-day impact resistance
with an average of 33 blows to failure. The PFRC was followed closely by a material
composed of fly ash, Portland cement, and milled wood fibers (FA-C-WF). This
environmentally green material had an average 28-day impact resistance of 27 blows.
The blast study incorporated another mix design developed from the impact analysis that
also performed relatively well. The mix design included a normal weight concrete mix
with the addition of 6 percent wood fibers by weight. The average 28-day impact
resistance of that material was 19 blows. In comparison, the plain concrete had an
average 28-day impact resistance of 6 blows.
One important conclusion developed from the impact testing was the failure mode
of the various materials. The concrete failed in a brittle manner, while the FA-C-WF
material held together to some extent even as the impact piston penetrated the surface of
the specimen. Therefore, this material was chosen to be used as a sacrificial layer in the
blast study. The sacrificial layer was designed to fail, and in doing so, absorb some
amount of energy from the blast wave.
3.1.1 Materials
Several mix designs were used to fabricate the two series of test panels. The
panels were composed of the following materials: Class C fly ash, Portland cement,
94
wood fibers, limestone, and river sand. The mechanical properties of the mix designs are
discussed later in section 3.2.
ASTM Class C fly ash was donated from Encore Building Solutions (EBS) of St.
Louis, Missouri. The fly ash was a key ingredient in the low density BMM used in
several of the test panels. EBS received the fly ash from the Rush Island Power Plant in
Jefferson County, Missouri. Table 5 displays the chemical composition and properties of
the Class C fly ash.
Table 5. Chemical composition of fly ash (Joshi and Myers, 2005)
Rush Island Type I Portland

Parameter
fly ash (%) cement (%)
Sulfur in ash 0.7 -
Sulfur in ash (SO3) 1.75 2.5
Fineness (325 sieve) 81.9 -
Moisture 0.03 -
Loss of ignition (LOI) 0.17 1.4
Density 2.73 -
Specific gravity 2.74 -
Titanium oxide as TiO2 1.23 -
Aluminum oxide as Al2O3 17.06 4.9
Calcium oxide as CaO 26.12 64.4
Iron oxide as Fe2O3 6.31 2.1
Potassium oxide as K2O 0.39 -
Magnesium oxide as MgO 5.77 3.5
Sodium oxide as Na2O 1.87 -
Silicon oxide as SiO2 35.43 20.08
Phosphorus oxide as P2O5 0.9 -
Slagging index 0.34 -
95
Commerical grade Quickrete type I Portland cement was an ingredient in all ten
test panels and complied with ASTM C 150-05 specifications. The dry density of the
cement is approximately 1506 kg/m3 (94 lb/ft3) (ASTM C 188-95).
Milled wood fibers were graciously donated from EBS. The fibers were recycled
from old loading pallets. The gradation of the milled wood fibers ranged from a
maximum size of 13 mm (0.5 in.) to very fine particles. The majority of the fibers were
between 6 to 13 mm (0.25 to 0.5 in.) in length. The mechanical properties of oak wood
are listed in Table 6.
Table 6. Mechanical properties of oak (Joshi and Myers, 2005)
Mechanical Properties Green Air Dried

3
Weight (lb/ft ) 63 47
Modulus of Rupture (psi) 8100 13900
Modulus of Elasticity (ksi) 1200 1620
Maximum crushing strength parallel to grain (psi) 3520 7040
Compression perpendicular to grains (psi) 850 1410
Maximum shearing strength parallel to grain (psi) 1270 1890
3 3
Unit conversion: lb/ft = 16.02 kg/m , 1 psi = 6.895 kPa
Gasconade dolomitic limestone from Capital Quarry was used in several of the
mix designs. The limestone had a nominal maximum size of 13 mm (0.5 in.) and a bulk
specific gravity of 2.70 in an oven-dried condition (ASTM C 127-04). The absorption of
the aggregate was roughly 1.2 percent, and the moisture content remained below 0.1
percent when batching each test panel.
The river sand had a bulk specific gravity of 2.54 in an oven-dried condition, and
the absorption was calculated to be approximately 1.4 percent (ASTM C 128-07). Little
96
Piney Creek near Rolla, Missouri, was the source of the sand. The moisture content of
the sand did not exceed 0.75 percent when batching the test panels.
An elastomeric polyurea was sprayed onto the top and bottom surfaces of the test
panels in Phase 2. The Air Force Research Laboratory at Tyndall Air Force Base in
Florida has already begun to investigate the use of polyurea in blast load applications
(Knox et al., 2000). The material is highly ductile and can easily be sprayed onto almost
any building surface. The polyurea offers an increased level of protection against an
explosive charge for occupants inside a building. The material bonds to the walls and
ceiling to form an elastic skin that prevents flying debris from entering the building. The
polyurea coating does not improve the structural integrity of the wall but will prevent
injuries by containing wall fragments. Recent studies show that polymer retrofits can
reduce required standoff distances by approximately 50 percent for a specific level of
damage (Knox et al., 2000).
Coupon tests were conducted on three samples of the polyurea applied to the test
panels in Phase 2 to characterize the material. The samples had nominal dimensions of
254 x 50 x 3 mm (10 x 2 x 0.125 in.). Thin sheets of aluminum were glued to each end
of the test specimens before they were tested to provide a grip bearing for the testing
machine. The coupon test was conducted using an Instron 4485 testing machine located
in the Interdisciplinary Engineering building at UMR.
Figure 4 shows the polyurea samples. Figure 4-a displays a sample undergoing
the tensile test, which was carried out at a rate of 51 mm/min (2 in./min). The average
modulus of elasticity of the material was calculated to be 82.68 MPa (12 ksi), with a yield
strength of 2,067 kPa (0.3 ksi) at a 0.2 percent offset. The elongation of the material was
97
measured at 279 percent. While the polyurea specimens could have elongated further the
test was aborted due to the range of the machine. Therefore, the ultimate stress of the
material could not be determined using the Innstron 4485 testing machine. Figure 4-b
also shows a comparison of three samples, two of which have residual strain from the
test. The sample on the right was not tested.
(a) Coupon test of polyurea (b) Samples of polyurea
Figure 4. Polyurea tensile test
Figure 5 displays the stress-strain relationship of the material. Notice the material
has a significant amount of ductility. The peak stress value is not actually the breaking
point. The material could not be ruptured, and the test was aborted due to limitations on
range of the machine.
Steel reinforcement was used in the panels as well. ASTM number 3 bars were
used as longitudinal reinforcement in all the panels, and a 6.3 mm (0.25 in.) cold rolled
round bar was used for stirrups in the bi-layered test panels. The 9.5 mm (0.375 in.)
rebar had a yield strength of 437.8 MPa (63.5 ksi) at a 0.50 percent offset and an ultimate
98
strength of 706.7 MPa (102.5 ksi). The elongation at failure was measured at
approximately 16 percent. The 6.3 mm (0.25 in.) cold rolled round bar had a yield
strength of approximately 582.6 MPa (84.5 ksi) and a peak stress of 604 MPa (87.6 ksi).
Figure 6 presents the tensile test setup, which was performed on the Tinius Olsen testing
machine.
5
Stress (MPa)
2 Specimen 1
Specimen 2
1 Specimen 3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Strain (%)
Unit conversion: 1 MPa = 145 psi
Figure 5. Stress-strain relationship for polyurea undergoing tensile load
3.1.2 Test specimen fabrication
Two sets of wooden forms were constructed to produce the blast panels. Forms
were made using two 13 mm (0.5 in.) sheets of plywood and several 25 x 102 mm (1 x 4
in.) and 25 x 152 mm (1 x 6 in.) sections of dimensional lumber. The forms produced
panels with nominal dimensions of 1180 x 1180 mm (46.5 x 46.5 in.). One form was
99
constructed to produce a panel thickness of 90 mm (3.5 in.), while the other was built to
produce panels with a thickness of 140 mm (5.5 in.). The thicker form was used when
constructing bi-layered systems composed of a 90 mm (3.5 in.) thick RC base with a 50
mm (2 in.) layer of a high-volume FA-WF composite applied to the surface. Once the
forms were constructed, an epoxy coating was applied to prevent concrete from adhering
to the bottom and sides of the forms. Plastic sheeting was also stapled to the forms to
allow the hardened specimens to be lifted out of them without having to remove the side
walls. Figure 7 shows the two sets of forms.
Figure 6. Tensile test on No. 3 rebar
As mentioned previously, standard size reinforcing bars with a number 3 ASTM
bar designation were used as the primary reinforcement in the panels. Wooden square
pegs served as chairs to provide 25.4 mm (1 in.) of cover below the rebar. The
reinforcement ratio was roughly 0.2 percent in both directions for the majority of the
panels. Number 3 bars were also bent into triangles to serve as lifting eyes. Three panels
100
fabricated during a previous blast study were also tested, and the reinforcement ratio for
those panels was approximately 0.5 percent (Lu et al., 2005). Figures B5 and B6 in
Appendix B display the two reinforcement layouts.
(a) 90 mm form (b) 140 mm form for 2-layer construction
Figure 7. Formwork for blast panel fabrication
Once the rebar mats were tied and properly placed in the forms, the material was
weighed and mixed using a rotary drum mixer. The mix designs used in the study are
shown in Table 7. Notice Panel 1A and 1B have the same mix design, as well as the
Panel 3 set. The mix design used to fabricate Panels 4A and 4B is not known since the
concrete was bought from a ready mix company.
A conventional rotary drum mixer was used for batching the 0.17 m3 (6.0 ft3)
needed to fill the formwork and cylinder molds for each panel. Mixing the BMM was
difficult due the high viscosity of the fresh material. First, the mixer was washed out to
dampen the inside of the drum. Then, all the fly ash, cement, and half the water were
added to the drum and allowed to mix for approximately one minute. A high-range water
reducer (HRWR) was added to the remaining portion of water. After mixing for one
101
minute, the inside of the drum was scraped clean of material build-up, as shown in Figure
8. Then, the mixing process proceeded, and half of the remaining water was added along
with the wood fibers. At this point in the mixing process, the mix had to be watched
carefully to ensure balling did not occur.
Table 7. Mixture proportions for blast panel fabrication
Panel 1 A&B Panel Panel 5B

Panel Panel Panel 3 5A
Component BMM Base 2A 2B A&B BMM BMM Base
Class C fly ash 462.9 - 462.9 462.9 - 462.9 462.9 -
Portland cement
(type I) 278.7 410.1 278.7 278.7 451.1 278.7 278.7 416.5
White oak wood
fibers 112.1 - 112.1 184.2 135.4 112.1 160.2 -
1/2" limestone - 999.6 - - 809.6 - - 1009.2
Sand - 799.3 - - 647.5 - - 674.4
Water 281.9 144.2 281.9 355.6 135.4 281.9 289.9 187.4
High-range water
reducer
(ml/ 100 kg) 2.6 5.2 2.6 3.9 5.2 2.6 1.3 2.6
Water / cement ratio 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.48 0.30 0.38 0.39 0.45
% Wood fiber by
weight 10.0 0.0 10.0 14.5 6.2 10.0 13.0 0.0
Units are in kg/m3: Unit conversion: 1 kg/m3 = 0.0624 lb/ft3
Note: Mix proportions for Panel 4 were not available
Finally, the remaining portion of water was added to the mixer. Mixing continued
for another five minutes after all the materials were added to the drum. After a uniform
distribution of wood fibers was achieved, the material was poured into a wheelbarrow
and placed into the form carefully to ensure the rebar chairs were not disturbed (see
Figure 8-b). The material was not vibrated due to its low workability. Instead, the sides
of the form were tapped with a rubber mallet to prevent voids. The panel was finished
102
smooth using trowels and covered with a sheet of plastic for 48 hours to avoid moisture
loss during curing.
A portion of the material was used for a slump test according to ASTM C 143-05
specifications. Slumps for the BMM ranged from 102 to 152 mm (4 to 6 in.), but the
slump test did not provide an accurate workability measurement when compared to a
concrete mix with the same slump. Compression and modulus specimens were made in
compliance with ASTM C 192/C 192M-06.
(a) Mixing BMM (b) Wooden rebar chair
Figure 8. Batching procedures
The normal-weight concrete mix was batched in much the same way as the BMM.
In this case, however, coarse and fine aggregates were used, which made the mixing
process much easier. First, the coarse and fine aggregates and Portland cement were
mixed in a dry state for about one minute. Then, approximately half the mixing water
was added to the mix. The remaining portion of water was added along with the HRWR
after another two minutes of mixing. Mixing continued for approximately another five
minutes to achieve a homogeneous mix. Then, the fresh concrete was shoveled into the
103
form, finished using concrete trowels, and covered with a sheet of plastic. A handheld
form vibrator was used to eliminate voids. The plastic was used to prevent moisture loss
for the first five days of curing. The test panels were allowed to cure in the forms for at
least five days before removing them. The slump values for the concrete ranged from
152 to 203 mm (6 to 8 in.). Compression and modulus specimens were made in
compliance with ASTM C 192/C 192M-06. These mixing procedures were used to
fabricate the concrete bases of Panels 1A, 1B, and 5B. These mixing procedures were
also followed when batching the concrete-wood fiber material used to fabricate Panels
3A and 3B, except the wood fibers were added before adding the remaining water and
HRWR.
Test Panels 1A and 1B were fabricated in two layers. The mix designs for both
layers are shown in the second and third columns of Table 7. The concrete layer had a
reinforcement ratio of 0.2 percent in both directions, while the BMM layer had a
reinforcement ratio of 0.16 percent in one direction only. The two layers were tied
together with 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) cold rolled steel bar. The concrete base was poured and
allowed to cure for 48 hours before adding the BMM on top of it. The surface of the
concrete was roughened to increase the bond between the two layers. Figure 9 shows the
fabrication of the system.
Panel 5A was a retrofit of a slab left over from a previous study. The concrete
slab had a reinforcement ratio of 0.5 percent in both directions. The reinforcement layout
for the slab is shown in Figure B5 of Appendix B. The panel was retrofitted with a 50
mm (2 in.) layer of BMM. The two layers were tied together using 6.4 mm (0.25 in.)
steel bars in the layout shown in Figure 10.

104
(a) Fresh concrete base (b) Addition of BMM
Figure 9. Fabrication of Panels 1A and 1B
Holes were drilled into the concrete, and the bars were attached using a two-part
epoxy. Three 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) bars were tied to the stirrups to provide longitudinal
reinforcement in the BMM layer. The concrete base was fabricated from a 27.6 MPa
(4,000 psi) mix design provided by Rolla Ready Mix of Rolla, Missouri, and the blast
mitigation layer was fabricated using procedures explained previously.
(a) Stirrup retrofit to concrete (b) Blast mitigation layer
Figure 10. Fabrication phases for Panel 5A

105
3.1.3 Spray-on polyurea application
The series of panels tested in the second phase of the blast study were coated with
a spray-on elastomeric polyurea. This process took place in the Engineering Research
Laboratory (ERL) at UMR. The polyurea consists of a resin blend and an aliphatic
isocyanate quasi-prepolymer. The two components were mixed at a 1 to 1 ratio in a
chamber on the spray gun. The materials were heated in two separate containers and
hoses to lower the viscosity of the two components while mixing. The combined mix
must leave the nozzle at or above a pressure of 13.8 MPa (2,000 psi), which then hardens
within seconds as it adheres to the test panel. Figure 11 shows the test panels being
coated with polyurea.
(a) Panel 1B (b) Panel 3B
Figure 11. Polyurea application
3.2 Mechanical properties of the material
Several mechanical properties were determined for each test panel from both
phases of blast tests. These include the compressive strength, indirect tensile strength,
106
and modulus of elasticity (MOE). Cylinders were capped with a sulfur compound before
the compressive strength and MOE were determined.
3.2.1 Compressive strength
The compressive strength of each material was determined using a standard
specimen size of either 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) or 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.). The
specimens were prepared in the lab according to ASTM C 192-06 specifications. The
150 mm (6 in.) diameter cylinders were made in 3 equal layers and rodded 25 times per
layer using a 16 mm (0.625 in.) diameter tamping rod. The 100 mm (4 in.) cylinders
were made in 2 layers. The specimens were removed from the molds after 24 hours and
placed next to the test panels to member cure. The room temperature remained roughly
20°C (70°F).
Before testing, specimens were capped to ensure parallel surfaces according to
ASTM C 617-98 specifications. Rediron capping compound was melted to a temperature
of approximately 135°C (275°F). Then, the compound was poured in a machined metal
plate using a ladle. The end of the specimen was placed directly into the melted capping
compound with the aid of an alignment device and held in place until the compound
solidified.
In most cases, two cylinders were tested, and the average of the two was used to
define the compressive strength of the mix. Cylinders were tested according to ASTM C
39-05 specifications. A load rate of 4.5 kN/sec (1,000 lb/sec) was used for the 150 mm
(6 in.) concrete specimens. The load rate was reduced to 3.4 kN/sec (750 lb/sec) when
testing the blast mitigation material due to its low strength and high strain values. In
most cases, the Forney LC-4 compression testing machine, which is calibrated to 1,780
107
kN (400,000 lb), was used to carry out the compression tests. The average compressive
strength values for all the panels are shown in Table 8.
3.2.2 Modulus of elasticity
The MOE, or Young’s modulus, was determined using the Tinius Olsen universal
testing machine in accordance with ASTM C 469-02 specifications. A linear variable
differential transformer (LVDT) was attached to the compressometer and measured the
strain. The Tinius Olsen has a data acquisition system that is controlled with integrated
computer software which automatically generates stress-strain plots. To obtain the MOE,
each specimen was loaded to 60 percent of its compressive strength at a load rate of 4.5
kN/sec (1,000 lb/sec) to condition the specimen. Then, the specimen was loaded once
more at the same rate. The MOE was determined between a point corresponding to a
very small strain value and a point corresponding to 40 percent of the ultimate stress.
Table 8. Mechanical properties summary for blast panels
Density Compressive Young's Indirect tensile

Panel No. Material (kg/m3) Strength (MPa) Modulus (MPa) strength (kPa)
FA-C-WF 1605 9.37 3102 1103
Panel 1A
Concrete 2390 65.32 41370 4620
FA-C-WF 1530 8.77 - -
Panel 1B
Concrete 2365 68.98 - -
Panel 2A FA-C-WF 1485 7.34 1724 862
Panel 2B FA-C-WF 1315 1.69 - -
Panel 3A WF concrete 1730 12.83 7584 1034
Panel 3B WF concrete 1815 14.13 - -
Panel 4 A&B Concrete - > 27.58 - -
Panel 5A FA-C-WF 1515 7.74 3792 965
FA-C-WF 1370 10.53 5516 1138
Panel 5B
Concrete 2350 48.72 37921 4482
3 3
Unit conversions: 1 kg/m = 0.0624 lb/ft ; 1 MPa = 145 psi
108
Figure 12 displays the relative modulus curves for each blast panel. The normal
weight concrete, with MOE values in excess of 37,000 MPa (5,300 ksi), had a much
higher strength and stiffness than any mix with wood fibers. The strongest blast
mitigation mixture that contained wood fibers was used to fabricate panels 3A and 3B.
The mix design consisted of coarse and fine aggregates but also contained 6 percent dry
wood fibers by weight. As seen in Figure 12, the addition of wood fibers greatly
decreases the stiffness of the material. Modulus values for all the materials are listed in
Table 8. Panel 1B was assumed to have the same stiffness as that of Panel 1A because
they were fabricated simultaneously. The material strength of Panel 2B was so low that
the stiffness was not measured. Modulus data for Panel 4 was unavailable.
35
Panel 1-BMM
30 Panel 1- Concrete
Panel 1A-base
Panel 2A
Panel 3
25
Panel 5A-BMM
Panel 5B-BMM
Stress (MPa)
20
Panel 5B- Concrete
Panel 1B-base
15
10
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Stain (mm/mm)
Unit conversion: 1 MPa = 145 psi
Figure 12. Modulus of elasticity curves for blast panels

109
3.2.3 Splitting tensile strength
The indirect tensile strength of the test materials were obtained according to
ASTM C 496-04 specifications. The split-tension test was performed on 100 x 200 mm
(4 x 8 in.) cylinders to indirectly measure the tensile strength of the concrete. Specimens
were loaded at 556 N/sec (125 lb/sec) along their lengths until failure, which occurred
due to tension developed in the transverse direction. The tensile strengths of the
materials are shown in Table 8.
4. EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS
4.1 Phase 1 blast testing
Phase 1 of the blast mitigation barrier study was conducted on December 11,
2006, through December 13, 2006. Five panels were tested using a total of 16 events
with various charge weights and standoff distances. The panels were tested in the UMR
experimental mine. The preparation of each panel was simple. Four accelerometer clips
were glued to the bottom face of each panel before the panel was carried into the mine.
A Bobcat was used to carry the panel into the mine and place it on two steel w-sections.
Each panel was simply supported on the steel beams with a 127 mm (5 in.)
bearing on each end, as shown in Figure 13. Charges were hung from a support bar to a
specified standoff distance measured from the center of the explosive to the top face of
the test panel. The explosives used in Phase 1 consisted of a combination of Pentolite
cast boosters and Composition C4. Only C4 was used in Phase 2.
Accelerometers were clipped to the bottom face of the panel for use in events of
small charge weights up to a 0.91 kg (2 lb) charge at a 305 mm (12 in.) standoff distance.
The accelerometer cables were placed in pvc pipes to prevent debris from damaging
110
them. A Synergy portable data acquisition system from Hi-Techniques was used to
record the accelerations applied to the panels. Figure 14 shows the locations of the
accelerometers on the panel. Midspan deflections were measured using a 1.2 m (48 in.)
level and a tape measure. Crack widths were measured using a crack comparator card,
and photos were taken to document the damage incurred from each blast event.
(a) UMR Mine test site (b) Blast test setup
Figure 13. Test setup of Panel 1A
4.1.1 Panel 1A (Bi-layered system, ρ = 0.2 percent)
On Monday, December 11, 2006, Panel 1A was tested with four blast events.
Panel 1A was a layered construction consisting of a 90 mm (3.5 in.) thick reinforced RC
base with a 50 mm (2 in.) layer of BMM covering the compression face. The concrete
base was reinforced with three No. 3 bars in each direction, providing a reinforcement
ratio of 0.2 percent. The blast mitigation layer was reinforced with three 6.5 mm (0.25
111
in.) diameter smooth bars in one direction only. The two layers were tied together with
6.5 mm (0.25 in.) diameter stirrups. The nominal dimensions of the panel were 1180 x
1180 x 140 mm (46.5 x 46.5 x 5.5 in.). Table 9 displays the charge weights and standoff
distances for the four blast events applied to Panel 1A and describes the damage incurred
from each event. Acceleration data was recorded for the first two events. A
representative curve is shown in Figure 15, and the approximate peak accelerations are
shown in Table 9. Figure 16 shows a millisecond of time in which the impulse occurred.
Test panel
(a) Accelerometers on base of panel (b) Accelerometer locations
Figure 14. Accelerometer location
Figure 17 displays the flexural cracks caused by the blast pressure. The first
event, Event 1, produced no visible damage or residual deflection to Panel 1A (see Figure
17-a). Event 2 created a hairline crack in the concrete base that ran the length of the
panel, as shown in Figure 17-b. The flexural crack was located in the midspan of the
112
panel, rising 13 mm (0.5 in.) from the bottom face. The crack width at the tension face
was 0.33 mm (0.013 in).
Table 9. Results for Panel 1A
Charge Peak
Event weight, W Standoff, R Residual midspan Max crack acceleration
No. (grams) (mm) deflection (mm) width (mm) (m/s2)
1 454 915 none no cracks 750
2 680 610 4 0.33 750
3 907 305 13 1.5 N.I.
4 1360 305 32 6.4 N.I.
Note: N.I. – Not instrumented
Unit conversion: 1 gram = 0.00221 lb; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 m/s2 = 3.28 ft/s2
800
600 Impulse
400
200
Acceleration (m/s2)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-200
Discharge in cables
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Time (sec)
Unit conversion: 1 m = 3.281 ft
Figure 15. Representative acceleration curve

113
Event 3 produced craters on the top face of the panel and burn spots due to the
fire ball from the explosion. The crack width increased to 1.5 mm (0.059 in.) at the
bottom face of the concrete, narrowing to 0.6 mm (0.024 in.) at a location 51 mm (2 in.)
from the bottom face. A residual deflection of 13 mm (0.5 in.) was measured at the
midspan of the panel. Since the panel failed in a flexural manner, the deflections
measured along the midspan were approximately the same at the center and ends of the
panel (see Figure 17-c).
800
600
400
200
Acceleration (m/s2)
0
72.5 72.7 72.9 73.1 73.3 73.5
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Time (ms)
Unit conversion: 1 m = 3.281 ft
Figure 16. Acceleration impulse
Event 4 increased the amount of craters on the surface, but no cracks were visible
on the surface of the blast mitigation layer. The midspan crack in the concrete base
114
increased to 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) at the bottom face and spread through the thickness of the
base to the adjoining top layer of BMM. The residual mid-span deflection was measured
at 32 mm (1.25 in.). Also, the pressure from the blast moved the panel approximately 51
mm (2 in.) from its original location on the steel beams.
(a) Prior to Event 1 (b) Result of Event 2
(c) Expanded crack in Event 3 (d) Result of Event 4
Figure 17. Panel 1A (bi-layered system, ρ = 0.2 percent)
A reinforced concrete panel of similar dimensions was tested by Lu et al. (2005).
The panel had nominal dimensions of 1200 x 1200 x 90 mm (45 x 45 x 3.5 in) and a
reinforcement ratio of 0.2 percent. The panel was simply supported on steel w-sections
115
with a 125 mm (5 in.) bearing. Lu’s panel sustained no damage under the first event of
0.45 kg (1.0 lb) with a standoff of 915 mm (36 in.). The second event was generated by a
charge weight of 0.9 kg (2.0 lb) at a standoff distance of 305 mm (12 in.), which was
equivalent to the third event applied to Panel 1A. Under this blast load, Lu’s panel
sustained a major flexural crack at midspan. The maximum crack width was reported to
be 3 mm (0.12 in.), and the residual displacement at the center of the slab was measured
at 21 mm (0.83 in.). In comparison, the crack width of Panel 1A after the third event was
measured at 1.5 mm (0.06 in.), with a residual deflection of 13 mm (0.5 in.). In this
regard, the addition of the 50 mm (2 in.) layer of BMM to the top surface of the panel
decreased the crack widths and residual deflections by half.
In the same series of tests conducted by Lu, another similar RC panel retrofitted
with a CFRP grid on the tension face was tested using a charge weight of 1.36 kg (3 lb)
and a standoff of 305 mm (12 in.). The slab was severely damaged in the event, and no
residual deformation could be measured. Lu stated that slabs retrofitted with CFRP
laminates on only the tension face were not suitable in a blast resistant application. For
comparison purposes, Panel 1A was tested under the same load and standoff distance.
Although the concrete base cracked completely through its thickness, the system proved
to be much more ductile than the equivalent panel reinforced with CFRP. The blast load
applied to the panel reinforced with CFRP resulted in a brittle failure. Pieces of the panel
were scattered everywhere. Panel 1A failed, but it held together and created very little
debris.
116
4.1.2 Panel 2A (FA-C-WF)
Panel 2A was tested on Tuesday, December 12, 2006. The mix design used to
fabricate the panel is shown in Table 8. The dimensions of the panels are 1180 x 1180 x
140 mm (46.5 x 46.5 x 3.5 in.). Panel 2A was subjected to four events in a similar
fashion to Panel 1A. The charge weights and standoff distances are shown in Table 10.
Charge Peak
3 680 610 13 1.5 N.I.
4 907 305 25.4 6.5 N.I.
For Panel 2A, no damage or residual deflection was created from the first two
events, although burn marks from the explosion were found on the top surface of the
panel, located directly below were the explosive was hanging. The third event created a
centerline crack in the same fashion as Panel 1A. The crack width was measured to be 1.5
mm (0.06 in.) at the bottom tension face and 0.2 mm at the top of the panel. The final
event, Event 4, resulted in a compressive failure, as well as an increase in the crack width
on the tension face. The entire panel failed in a flexural manner, and the BMM was not
able to resist the compressive stresses at the center of the panel. The crack width at the
bottom face was measured to be approximately 6.35 mm (0.25 in.). The residual
deflection at the center midspan was approximately 25.4 mm (1.0 in.), and the end
117
midspan deflection was 22 mm (0.875 in.). Figure 18 illustrates the damage resulting
from each event on Panel 2A. Figure 18-a is prior to the first event, and the panel had no
damage from the blast. Figure 18-b shows the flexural crack that developed along the
midspan after the third event. Figures 18-c and 18-d display the expanded crack created
by the last event.
(a) Event 1 – no damage (b) Event 3 – flexural crack at midspan
(c) Event 4 – crack along panel base (d) Event 4 - flexural failure
Figure 18. Panel 2A (FA-C-WF)

118
4.1.3 Panel 3A (wood fiber concrete)
Three blast events were applied to Panel 3A. The 225 gram (0.5 lb) charge at a
915 mm (36 in.) standoff was eliminated from the test matrix based on the fact that the
event did not create any damage to Panel 2A. The three events are shown in Table 11,
along with a summary of the residual midspan deflections and crack widths. The peak
acceleration at the center of the panel was obtained for the first event.
Charge Peak
2 680 610 22.3 9.5 N.I.
3 907 305 102 51 N.I.
The first event applied to Panel 3A caused no visible damage or deflection. Event
2 created a 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) crack along the bottom face of the panel 254 mm (10 in.)
from the end, instead of the usual crack location at midspan. The unusual crack location
could possibly be caused by a flaw in the panel. Panel 3A was dropped from the truck
bed while transferring it at the mine. The residual deflection measured along this crack
was 22.3 mm (0.875 in.) at the center and 19 mm (0.75 in.) at the end.
Event 3 created a 51 mm (2 in.) crack at the tension face and a residual deflection
of 101.6 mm (4 in.). The rebar prevented the panel from breaking in half. No surface
craters were observed on Panel 3A. Figure 19 shows damages due to the various charges.
119
Figure 19-a shows the test setup prior to the first event. The other figures illustrate the
odd location of the flexural failure.
The maximum theoretical incident and reflected pressures calculated using the
BEC were 1,077 and 6,126 kPa (156 and 888 psi) at the center of the panel for the 915
mm (36 in.) standoff distance. The panel was not damaged under those pressures. The
scaled distances for Events 2 and 3 are out of range for the BEC, so the pressures are
inaccurate. However, the model estimated the incident and reflected pressures to be
3,120 and 23,183 kPa (452 and 3,362 psi), respectively, for Event 2.
(a) Prior to Event 1 (b) Event 3
(c) Results of Event 3 (d) Crack formation along rebar
Figure 19. Panel 3A (wood fiber concrete)

120
4.1.4 Panel 4A (reinforced concrete; ρ = 0.5 percent)
Panel 4A was subjected to the three events listed in Table 12. The first event
created no damage. The second event produced a 0.2 mm hairline crack through the
midspan of the panel on the tension face. Also, a small amount of cratering was found on
the top face of the panel. The residual deflection was approximately 3.2 mm (0.125 in.)
at midspan. The third event failed the panel, punching a 559 mm (22 in.) diameter hole
through the 90 mm (3.5 in.) thick panel. Radial cracks developed around the
circumference of the hole, and cracks developed in an x-pattern leading to the four
corners of the panel. These cracks were due to reflections from the shock wave.
Compressive stress waves created from the shock wave radiate outward from the
center of the panel. Once the waves reach the edge of the panel, some amount of the
stress wave is reflected back toward the center of the panel due to the impedance
mismatch between the density of the panel and air. The reflected stress waves travel back
toward the center in tension. The tensile stress waves from the adjoining edges meet
along the lines, which creates the x-pattern of cracking.
Charge Peak
2 1134 305 3.2 0.2 N.I.
3 1360 152 - - N.I.
121
Figure 20 shows the damages from each event. Figure 20-a illustrates the
standoff distance for Event 2, which created minor residual deflection in the panel.
Figure 20-b shows the results of Event 3. The major damage resulted from a 226 gram
(0.5 lb) increase in the charge weight and a 152 mm (6 in.) decrease in the standoff
distance. Minor changes in the standoff distance and charge weight drastically increased
the level of damage.
(a) Prior to Event 2 (b) Event 3 – punching failure
Figure 20. Panel 4A (reinforced concrete, ρ = 0.5%)
4.1.5 Panel 5A (bi-layered system, ρ = 0.5 percent)
Panel 5A was a two-layered system similar to Panel 1A with a few minor
differences. The base was RC with a 0.5 percent reinforcement ratio, whereas the
concrete base of Panel 1A only had a 0.2 percent reinforcement ratio. Schematics of both
reinforcement layouts are shown in Figures B5 and B6 of Appendix B. The amount of
stirrups used to tie the two layers was also increased, but tests revealed that the increased
amount of ties was not a factor. Four events applied to Panel 5A are shown in Table 13.
122
Charge Peak
2 1134 305 none no cracks N.I.
3 1360 305 6 0.33 N.I.
4 1360 Contact - - N.I.
The first blast load on Panel 5A created no damage or residual deflection.
Acceleration data was obtained for two out of four channels, and the peak acceleration
values are shown in Table 13. The second event caused some small craters on the surface
due to the fire ball from the explosion, but no cracks developed. Event 3 increased the
amount of craters on the surface and produced a 0.2 mm crack along the bottom face of
the panel. The crack width increased to approximately 0.33 mm at the panel’s center.
Since the first three events generated minimal damage, a 1.36 kg (3 lb) surface blast was
applied to Panel 5A for the fourth event. The surface blast punched a 610 mm (24 in.)
hole in the center and obliterated the back half of the panel, throwing debris away from
the test setup. The contact charge increased the damage to the structure exponentially.
Figure 21 shows the results from the four events on Panel 5A. Figure 21-a shows
the condition of Panel 5A after Event 1. Figure 21-b illustrates the 1,360 gram (3 lb)
charge centered above the test panel at a 305 mm (12 in.) standoff distance. Figures 21-c
and 21-d show the test panel before and after Event 4, respectively.
123
4.2 Phase 2 blast testing
Phase 2 of the blast mitigation study was conducted on February 19 and 21, 2007.
Five panel systems were tested by using a total of 16 blast events with various charge
weights and standoff distances. Test panels for both test phases were fabricated using
identical mix designs and mixing processes. However, the panels of the second phase
were coated with a 3.2 mm (0.125 in.) layer of polyurea.
(a) Event 1 (b) Prior to Event 3
(c) Event 4 - contact (d) Damage from contact
Figure 21. Panel 5A (bi-layered system, ρ = 0.5 percent)

124
4.2.1 Panel 1B (bi-layered system with polyurea, ρ = 0.2 percent)
Panel 1B was subjected to the blast events shown in Table 14. Accelerations
were recorded at three locations on the base of the panel for the first two events. The first
event created a 0.1 mm (.005 in.) hairline crack at the edges of the midpan. No
measurable residual deflection occurred from the event. The blast produced small burn
spots on the polyurea covering the top surface of Panel 1B, but there were no apparent
areas of delamination. The peak acceleration recorded for the first event was 965 m/s2
(3,165 ft/ s2).
Table 14. Results for Panel 1B
Charge Peak
1 680 610 none 0.1 965
2 907 305 6.4 1.5 983
3 1360 305 22 13 N.I.
4 1360 152 - - N.I.
Event 2 created three cracks along the front side of Panel 1B and two cracks on
the opposite side of the panel. The front side with three cracks had a 1.5 mm (0.06 in.)
wide center crack running along the centerline of the panel. The other two cracks were
located approximately 102 mm (4 in.) to each side of the center crack, each measuring
0.2 mm (0.007 in.) in width. The two cracks on the opposite side were 0.8 mm (0.03 in.)
thick, separated by a distance of 127 mm (5 in.). The panel sustained minor amounts of
surface damage with areas of delamination approximately 50 mm (2 in.) in diameter. The

125
residual deflection was roughly 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) at the center of the panel. Figure 22
shows the damages from the first two events. Figure 22-a illustrates no damage after
Event 1, while Figure 22-b shows flexural cracks at the midspan of the test panel.
The third event expanded the cracks on the back side of the panel to 6.4 mm (0.25
in.) in width and increased the width of the center crack on the front side of the panel to
13 mm (0.5 in). The other two cracks on the front were approximately 0.8 mm (0.03 in.)
wide. The resulting residual deflection was measured to be 22 mm (0.875 in.) at the
panel’s center.
(a) Event 1 (b) Event 2 – midspan cracks
(a) Prior to Event 3 (b) Event 3 – midspan cracks
Figure 22. Panel 1B (bi-layered system with polyurea)

126
For the last event, Event 4, the charge weight remained at 1,360 grams (3 lb), but
the standoff distance was decreased to 152 mm (6 in.). The blast load punched a hole
through the polyurea covering the top surface of the panel and created a large crater in the
FA-WF BMM. The polyurea coating the tension face of the panel contained the concrete
fragments, preventing them from falling to the mine floor. The polyurea would serve the
same purpose when used in a barrier wall application, thereby preventing the fragments
from injuring occupants inside a building. Figure 23 documents the damage incurred
after the fourth event.
(a) Event 4 – front side (b) Event 4 – back side
(c) Event 4 – polyurea removed (d) Radial cracks and punching failure
Figure 23. Panel 1B after Event 4

127
4.2.2 Panel 2B (FA-C-WF and polyurea, ρ = 0.2 percent)
Panel 2B was tested with two blast events. The charge weights and standoff
distances used are shown in Table 15. Accelerometers were used to capture the
accelerations for the first event, but none of the channels provided adequate results.
No cracks were visible after the first event due to the layer of polyurea covering
all surfaces of the panel. However, the residual deflection was approximately 19 mm
(0.75 in.) at midspan, and several small areas of delamination were discovered after the
event. Later it was determined that the delaminated pockets were caused by the failure of
the BMM bond rather than the bond between the polyurea and the BMM. The residual
deflection of 19 mm (0.75 in.) after Event 1 was greater than the residual deflection
created by an equivalent event applied to Panel 2A. The mix design used to fabricate
Panel 2B contained 14 percent wood fibers by weight, while Panel 2A only contained 10
percent wood fibers by weight. The increased amount of wood fibers in Panel 2B
reduced the strength and stiffness of the panel, resulting in larger crack widths and
deflections.
Charge Peak
1 680 610 19 not visible -
2 907 305 89 - N.I.
128
The second event resulted in an 89 mm (3.5 in.) deflection at the center of the
panel and a 45 mm (1.75 in.) at the edge of the panel at midspan. Large areas of
delamination were found after the blast, which pulverized the FA-WF material. The
panel was basically obliterated after the second event. Therefore, panels constructed
from this material should be used as a sacrificial barrier and not as a structural element.
Figure 24 shows the damage resulting from the two events. Figure 24-b illustrates the
failure in the FA-C-WF bond, and Figure 24-c shows the residual sag in the panel after
Event 2.
(a) Event 1 (b) Event 2 – material bond failure
(c) Event 2 – delamination and residual deflection
Figure 24. Panel 2B (FA-C-WF coated with polyurea)

129
4.2.3 Panel 3B (WF concrete & polyurea, ρ = 0.2 percent)
Panel 3B was subjected to three blast events, which are shown in Table 16. The
panel was fabricated with the same mix design and reinforcement layout as Panel 3A;
however, Panel 3B was coated with a 3.2 mm (0.125 in.) layer of polyurea on the top and
bottom surfaces.
Event 1 produced no visible damage to the panel, and no residual deflections
could be measured. The peak acceleration was recorded at 945 m/s2 (3,100 ft/s2). Event
2 caused small patches of delamination on the surface of the panel, along with a burn spot
resulting from the fire ball. No cracks could be measured on the panel due to the
polyurea coat; however, the residual deflection at the center of the panel was measured at
38 mm (1.5 in.). The peak acceleration increased to 955 m/s2 (3,132 ft/s2). The
equivalent event applied to Panel 3A resulted in a 102 mm (4 in.) deflection. However,
Panel 3A was already damaged from two prior events and from unloading it from the
truck bed.
Charge Peak
2 907 305 38 not visible 955
3 1360 152 - - N.I.
Event 3 significantly increased the amount of delamination and punched a hole
completely through the panel. The bottom layer of polyurea ruptured and was unable to
130
contain the fragments from the panel. The pressure from the blast was great enough to
pulverize the concrete. Figure 25 displays the stages of damage after each consecutive
event. Minimal damages resulted from Event 1, as shown in Figure 25-a. The figure also
displays the accelerometer cables, which lead to four locations on the base of the panel.
Figure 25-b shows Panel 3B prior to Event 3. A noticeable residual deflection can be
clearly seen in the panel. Figures 25-c and 25-d show the punching failure resulting from
Event 3.
(a) Event 1 (b) Event 2
(c) Event 3 – polyurea fails (d) Event 3 – punching failure
Figure 25. Panel 3B (WF Concrete and polyurea)

131
4.2.4 Panel 4B (reinforced concrete with polyurea, ρ = 0.5 percent)
Panel 4B was a plain RC panel with a 0.5 percent reinforcement ratio in each
direction. The panel was coated with polyurea on the top and bottom surfaces. Three
events were used to test the blast resistance of the panel. The charge weights and
standoff distances for the events are shown in Table 17. Accelerometers were used to
capture the response of the panel to the first two events. Figure 26 displays the damages
the panel incurred from the first two events. Figure 26-a shows minor deflections from
Event 1, and Figure 26-b illustrates multiple hairline cracks resulting from Event 2.
Charge Peak
1 680 610 none 0.15 492
2 1134 305 13 0.4 -
3 1360 152 - 1.5 N.I.
A 0.15 mm (0.006 in.) crack was discovered at the midspan along one side of the
panel after the first event. Furthermore, the blast created a black burn spot on the top
surface of the polyurea directly below where the charge was hanging. The second event
spawned approximately six hairline cracks along the side of the panel around the midspan
ranging from 0.3 to 0.4 mm (0.012 to 0.016 in.) in width. Areas of delamination occurred
at the supports, and the residual deflection at midspan was roughly 13 mm (0.5 in.).
132
(a) Event 1- no damage (b) Event 2 – hairline cracks develop
Figure 26. Panel 4B (reinforced concrete with polyurea, ρ = 0.5 percent)
Event 3 increased the widths of the midspan cracks to approximately 1.5 mm
(0.06 in.) and punched a hole in the center of the panel measuring 483 mm (19 in.) in
diameter. The impulse from the blast bent the longitudinal reinforcement and ground the
concrete into small fragments within a 305 mm (12 in.) radius from the center of the
panel. Although the damage to the panel was extensive, the polyurea coating on the
bottom face of the panel contained all the fragments of concrete, creating a 102 mm (4
in.) deep basin underneath the panel. The top layer of polyurea detached almost
completely from the surface of the test panel and was easily remove by hand after the
blast event. After removing the polymer, radial cracks around the circumference of the
hole were visible. Cracks also ran to the four corners of the panel. Figure 27 displays the
punching failure on Panel 4B due to the fourth blast event. Figure 27-a shows the
damage with the polyurea still on the surface, and Figure 27-b shows the punching failure
with the polyurea removed from the panel.

133
(a) Event 3 – failure in polyurea (b) Event 3 – punching failure
Figure 27. Panel 4B following Event 3
4.2.5 Panel 5B
Panel 5B actually consisted of a two panel system with a 19 mm (0.75 in.) air gap
separating the two panels. The top panel was fabricated using a FA-C-WF, and the
bottom panel was fabricated using a standard normal weight concrete mix design. Mix
designs for both panels are shown in Table 7. Both test panels in the system had nominal
dimensions of 1180 x 1180 x 90 mm (46.5 x 46.5 x 3.5 in.). The FA-C-WF panel was
coated with a 3.2 mm (0.125 in.) layer of polyurea on the tension face, and the concrete
panel was completely covered with the polyurea on all sides. The panels had
reinforcement ratios of 0.2 percent in each direction. During the blast test, the concrete
panel had a 127 mm (5 in.) bearing on the steel w-sections. Two 19 mm (0.75 in.) square
wood sections supported the FA-C-WF panel and provided an air gap between the two
panels as shown in Figure 28.
The charge weights and standoff distances for the four blast events applied to the
system are shown in Table 18. The first event created a hairline crack roughly 0.15 mm
(.006 in.) thick at the midspan of the blast mitigation panel. No residual deflections could
134
be measured, but a small amount of localized damage was noticed on the surface of the
top panel. The concrete panel sustained no damage.
Charge Peak
1 680 610 none 0.15 -
2 907 305 10 0.8 896
3 1360 305 19 1.5 N.I.
4 1360 152 45 N.I.
The second event created four flexural cracks along the free span of the top panel
on the front surface and one crack on the rear surface. The cracks on the front surface
were spaced approximately 102 to 127 mm (4 to 5 in.) apart and ranged from 0.2 to 0.8
mm (0.008 to 0.03 in.) in thickness. The crack patterns are shown in Figure 28-b. The
residual deflection at the center of the panel was measured to be roughly 10 mm (0.375
in.).
Event 3 caused major amounts of surface damage and residual deflections.
Tension cracks also developed on the surface of the top panel due to the rebound effect
caused by the blast. The residual deflection of the top panel was measured at 19 mm
(0.375 in.). Although a small amount of residual deflection existed in the concrete panel,
any flexural cracks that may have existed at the panel’s midspan were concealed by the
polyurea coating.
135
20 mm air gap Wooden strip

hairline
cracks
(a) Test setup for Panel 5B (b) Panel 5B after Event 2
Figure 28. Panel 5B (panels separated by air gap)
Event 4 resulted in a 45 mm (1.75 in.) midspan deflection of the top panel, with
flexural cracks as large as 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) as well as shear cracks near the supports.
The concrete panel suffered major flexural damage as well. A flexural crack developed
at the midspan of the panel, which tore the polyurea coating along the panel’s length.
The crack width was approximately 13 mm (0.5 in.). The residual deflection measured at
the center of the panel was roughly 38 mm (1.5 in.). Radial cracks from punching shear
also developed on the concrete panel, which could be seen once the polyurea coating was
removed. Figure 29 shows the condition of the panel system after each consecutive
event.
4.3 Comparison of test results
A general comparison can be made between all the test panels from Phase 1 and
Phase 2 based on a given blast event. An event with a charge weight of 680 grams (1.5
lb) and a 610 mm (24 in.) standoff distance was common among almost all the panels,
and therefore, is used for comparison.

136
(a) Event 3 – flexural cracking (b) Event 4 – FA-C-WF panel
(c) Event 4 – flexural crack on RC panel (d) Event 4 – radial cracking on RC panel
Figure 29. Crack patterns for panel system 5B
Table 19 presents the residual deflections and crack widths for each test panel
following the event. BMM denotes the blast mitigation material. Results revealed that
the panels constructed of the FA-C-WF material failed in a flexural manner at the given
charge weight and standoff distance, producing residual deflections of 13 to 22 mm (0.5
to 0.875 in.) at midspan. The RC test panels, Panel 4A and 4B, had only hairline cracks
after the 680 gram (1.5 lb) event, and no residual deflections could realistically be
measured. The same result occurred for the two-layered systems. The maximum crack
137
width developed in the two-layered system from the 680 gram (1.5 lb) shot was 0.33 mm
(0.013 in.), and the maximum residual deflection was only 4 mm (0.125 in.).
Table 19. Summary of results for 680 gram charge at 610 mm (Z = 0.69 m/kg1/3)
Max Max crack Peak

Density
Panel No. f'c (Mpa) Ec (Mpa) deflection width acceleration
kg/m3
(mm) (mm) (m/s2)
1A (BMM) 1606.3 9.37 3103
4 0.33 750
1A (concrete) 2392.1 65.32 41369
1B (BMM) 1529.7 8.77 -
0 0.1 965
1B (concrete) 2366.5 68.98 -
2A 1487.2 7.34 1724 13 1.5 -
2B 1313.4 1.69 - 19 - -
3A 1729.8 12.83 7584 22 9.5 -
3B 1814.4 14.13 - 0 0 945
4B - >27.58 - 0 0.15 492
5A (BMM) 1513.7 7.74 3792
0 0 -
5A (concrete) - >27.58 -
5B (BMM) 1367.2 10.53 5516 0 0.15 -
5B (concrete) 2351.4 48.72 37921 0 0 -
Unit conversion: 1 kg = 2.21 lb; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 m/s = 3.28 ft/s2
2
Based on the results of the test, the additional benefit provided by the FA-C-WF
layer is RC concrete panels performed as well as the bi-layered system at that scaled
distance. The higher reinforcement ratios of panels 4A, 4B, and 5A resulted in less
residual deflection than the bi-layered system at the same charge weight and standoff.
The bi-layered systems did perform relatively better than the RC when subjected
to the 1,360 gram (3 lb) charge weight at a 152 mm (6 in.) standoff distance. A punching
failure occurred in the concrete panels reinforced with a 0.5 percent reinforcement ratio.
The panel was unable to displace due to its rigidity and stiffness, so the shock wave was
able punch through it. In comparison, the lower reinforcement ratio of the bi-layered
138
system allowed the panel to bend, causing a flexural failure at the midspan. Therefore,
the x-pattern tensile cracks caused by the stress wave reflections did not occur due to the
fact that a flexural failure occurred first.
The FA-C-WF composite layer provided an added benefit by decreasing the
amount of fragmentation resulting from the shock wave. Figure 30 shows a comparison
between a RC panel, Panel 4A, and a FA-C-WF panel, Panel 5B, subjected to a 1,360
gram (3 lb) charge of C-4 at a 152 mm (6 in.) standoff distance. Notice the FA-C-WF
material failed in flexure along the midspan of the panel but not due to a punching
failure.
Although the polyurea coating did not increase the stiffness or capacity of the test
panels, it did prove useful in containing the debris from the spall. In most cases, the
polyurea applied to the tension face of the panel contained the fragments from the spall.
However, it was unclear if the polyurea coating on the compression face provided any
benefit, especially at close standoff distances. Figure 31 displays the benefits of the
polyurea applied to the tension face of the panels. Figure 31-a illustrates the tension face
of Panel 1B. Notice the panel failed through its midspan, and the polurea skin ruptured
toward the edge of the panel at midspan. However, the bulk of the fragments in the
center of the panel were contained. Figure 31-b shows the tension face of Panel 4B.
Notice the polyurea did not split in any location on the surface.
139
(a) Punching failure (b) Prevented punching
Figure 30. Failure modes of the test panels
(a) Panel 1B held fragments (b) Panel 4B held fragments
Figure 31. Benefits of polyurea
The polyurea delaminated along the unsupported edge of Panel 4B, as shown in
Figure 32-a. Therefore, in a barrier application, it may be necessary to anchor the
polyurea skin to the wall in various locations to prevent large areas of delamination. As
shown in Figure 32-b, the polyurea applied to the tension face of Panel 3B split open
during the third event. This case was the only one where the polyurea was unable to
contain the debris.

140
(a) Polyurea delamination on Panel 4B (b) Panel 3B – polyurea tore open
Figure 32. Polyurea delamination and fracture
5. CONCLUSIONS
Ten test panels with nominal dimensions of 1180 x 1180 x 90 mm (46.5 x 46.5 x
3.5 in) were tested under various blast loads. RDX-based C-4 was used as the primary
explosive. The panels were simply supported with a 127 mm (5 in.) bearing, proving a
free span of approximately 915 mm (36 in.). Each panel was tested with blast events
until the panel completely failed. The severity of each consecutive event was increased
by increasing the charge weight of the explosive and decreasing the distance between the
explosive and the test panel. Crack widths, residual deflections, and other damages were
documented after each event. Several conclusions can be drawn from this study.
1. The high-volume FA-C-WF material investigated in this study does not, in itself,
provide an improved resistance to blast loading when compared to reinforced
concrete. An improvement in blast resistance was noticed in the bi-layered
systems with the FA-C-WF lower density material layered on top of the
reinforced concrete panel at low scaled distances.

141
2. The FA-C-WF test panels failed in flexure with the increasing pressures created
from the consecutive blast events. Large flexural cracks developed at the mispan
after the second event. Therefore, the 1,360 gram (3 lb) charge at the shortest
standoff distance did not create a punching failure in the FA-C-WF panels. This
result is most likely because of the low strength and stiffness of the material.
3. The RC panels failed due to punching shear in the center of the panel as a result
of the 1,360 gram (3 lb) charge at the 152 mm (6 in.) standoff distance. The
shock wave from the blast created a 508 mm (20 in.) hole in the center of the
panel. An x-pattern cracking also formed as a result of reflections from the
compressive stress wave at the panel-air interface. The stress waves reflected
back toward the center of the panel as tensile waves. The tensile waves from the
adjoining sides of the panel meet long the diagonals of the panel. In most cases,
the tensile stress was large enough to cause a failure along those diagonals.
4. The FA-C-WF material on the two-layered panels did not fragment to the same
extent as the reinforced concrete base. Instead, the material permanently
deformed in a localized area where the shock wave impacted the panel. Although
this deformation process undoubtedly absorbed some amount of energy from the
shock, the tension face of the panel still experienced a large amount of spalling.
Spalling occured from compression stress wave reflection in tension off the
bottom of the panel.
5. In the second phase of blast testing, the polyurea coating did not provide
significant benefit to the flexural strength of the panels. However, the material
was useful in containing spalling and fragments from the panel. In a barrier
142
situation, containing the flying debris is critical for the protection of occupants
inside a structure or behind a barrier system.
6. The compressive strength and stiffness of the FA-C-WF material was much
higher at test age than originally planned, as a result of delayed testing. Future
work should investigate the behavior of a FA-C-WF material with a lower
strength and stiffness.
7. The 19 mm (0.75 in.) air gap used in the Panel 5B system was not large enough to
prevent a flexural failure of the concrete. The top FA-C-WF panel flexed enough
from the blast to make contact with the concrete panel below it, likely
transmitting load to the concrete.
8. Based on the results from both phases of blast tests, the optimum blast barrier
system is similar to Panel 5A. The RC panel with a reinforcement ratio of 0.5
percent increases the bending capacity of the panel, and the sacrificial layer of
FA-WF material prevents a shear punching failure from the shock wave.
Furthermore, the polyurea coating on the tension face of the panel contains all the
fragments of concrete and debris. However, increasing the thickness of the
sacrificial layer would dissipate a larger amount of shock energy, and reduce the
damage incurred to the RC panel. Preventing damage to structural load-bearing
wall systems is crucial to allow time for inhabitants of a building to evacuate.
9. Results from the drop-weight impact test do not correlate well with the results
from the blast study. The FA-C-WF material had a much higher drop-weight
impact resistance than concrete. However, the concrete panels had less damage
and deflection than the FA-C-WF panels when loaded with equivalent blast loads.
143
The failure modes of the materials remained the same for both tests. For example,
the FA-C-WF material exhibited a ductile failure in the drop-weight test and the
blast test, while the concrete failed in a brittle manner in both tests.
10. Incorporating the polyurea coating in a barrier system will increase the cost of the
barrier. Currently, the FA-WF material costs roughly 10 dollars per cubic yard.
The addition of a 3.2 mm (0.125 in.) layer of polyurea to both faces of the barrier
would cost approximately 30 dollars per square yard, increasing the fabrication
cost of the barrier by 600 percent. Adding cement to create the FA-C-WF mix
would also increase the cost. Cement would account for roughly 42 dollars per
cubic yard of FA-C-WF material if the current mix design is used. However, the
FA-C-WF mix still remains cheaper than the PFRC mix design, which may be
produced for 65 dollars per cubic yard. The addition of polypropylene fibers
would increase the cost by approximately 5 dollars per cubic yard of concrete.
6. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Future blast studies incorporating the FA-C-WF material should investigate the
following issues.
1. A greater variation in the strength and stiffness of the FA-C-WF material should
be considered by changing the proportions of the materials in the mix design.
2. The FA-C-WF material proved to be most useful when joined with a concrete
panel. Variable thicknesses and densities of the FA-C-WF layer may be
investigated for comparison.

144
3. The air gap used in Panel 5B was 19 mm (0.75 in.). The air gap should be
increased in future testing to prevent the FA-C-WF mitigation layer from
impacting the structural concrete when undergoing flexural displacements.
4. More testing should be conducted on a RC panel of an equivalent thickness to the
bi-layered systems without an air gap tested in this study to provide an equal
comparison based on the panel thickness.
5. Future research should include the development of a lower density mixture of fly
ash and clay-based materials to better replicate the adobe-type material found in
Southwest Asia. A material with a lower strength and stiffness could be achieved
by using Class C fly ash blended with clay particles.
6. The adobe-type walls used in Southwest Asia were thick load-bearing walls. The
blast resistance of the FA-C-WF material may increase significantly if the
thickness is increased. Therefore, future tests should consider thick, full-scale
barrier walls.
7. The field blast tests discussed herein were all near-field events. Future tests need
to incorporate larger scaled distances to observe the behavior of the sacrificial
layer without the intense effects of the shock front.
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research effort was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
8. REFERENCES
ACI Committee 232, “Use of Fly Ash in Concrete (ACI 232.2R-03),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2003, 41pp.
145
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 617-98). Standard Practice for
Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, American Society for Testing and
Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory,
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 150-05). Standard

Specification for Portland Cement, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2005
Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, American
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 188-03). Standard Test
Method for Density of Hydraulic Cement, American Society for Testing and
Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of
Coarse Aggregate, American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2004.
Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine
Aggregate, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2007.
Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete, American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 496/C 496 M-04). Standard
Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,
Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in
Compression, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2002.
Baker, W.E., Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, Elsevier Scientific Publishing

Company, New York, NY, 1983.
146
Chock, J.M.K., Kapania, R.K., “Review of Two Methods for Calculating Explosive
Air Blast,” The Shock and Vibration Digest, V. 33, No. 2, March 2001, pp. 91-
102
El-Domiaty, K., Myers, J.J., Belarbi, A., “Blast Resistance of Un-reinforced Masonry
Walls Retrofitted with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CIES 02-24),” Center for
Infrastructure Engineering Studies, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 2002.
Falk, R. H., “Housing Products from Recycled Wood,” CIB TG 16, Sustainable
Construction, Tampa, FL, 1994
Joshi, N., Myers, J.J., “Investigation of an Alternative Wood Fiber-Fly Ash Material
for Infill Wall Systems (CIES 06-60),” Center for Infrastructure Engineering
Studies, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 2005.
Knox, K.J., Hammons, M.I, Lewis, T., Porter, J.R., “Polymer Materials for Structural
Retrofit,” Air Force Research Laboratory Air Expeditionary Forces Technology
Division Force Protection Branch, Tyndall AFB, FL.
Lu, B., “Application of Displacement-Based Design Method to Blast-Resistant

Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Missouri-Roll, Rolla, Missouri, 2005.
Robinson, C.S. Explosions Their Anatomy and Destructiveness, New York and
London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1944.
Rinehart, J.S., Stress Transients in Solids, Hyper Dynamics, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
1975.
“Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,” Departments of the

Army, the Navy and the Air Force, Department of the Army Technical Manual
TM 5-1300, Department of the Navy Publication NAVFAC P-397, Department of
the Air Force Manual AFM 88-22, November 1990.
Swisdak, M.M. Jr., Ward, J.M., DDESB Blast Effects Computer Version 5.0 User’s
Manual and Documentation, Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board,
Alexandria, VA, May, 2003.
Tinsley, M.E., and Myers, J.J., “Impact Resistance of Blast Mitigation Material Using
A Modified ACI Drop-Weight Impact Test,” under review to be submitted to the
ASCE Journal of Materials, 2007.
147
APPENDIX A.
DISTRIBUTIONS OF IMPACT RESULTS

148
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7 0.3
6 0.25
5
0.2
Frequency
4
0.15
3
0.1
2
0.05
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
a) Distribution of 28-day first crack impact test results

10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
0
2
4
6
8
8 0.16
7 0.14
6 0.12
5 0.1
Frequency
4 0.08
3 0.06
2 0.04
1 0.02
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Ultimate resistance in blows
b) Distribution of 28-day ultimate resistance impact test results
Figure A1. Distribution of Group 1 impact test results

149
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
10 0.45
9 0.4
8 0.35
7
0.3
6
Frequency
0.25
5
0.2
4
0.15
3
0.1
2
1 0.05
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 0.4
9 0.35
8
0.3
7
0.25
6
Frequency
5 0.2
4 0.15
3
0.1
2
0.05
1
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15

150
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
7 0.12
6 0.1
5
0.08
Frequency
4
0.06
3
0.04
2
0.02
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
7 0.09
0.08
6
0.07
5
0.06
Frequency
4 0.05
3 0.04
0.03
2
0.02
1
0.01
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

151
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
8 0.3
7
0.25
6
0.2
5
Frequency
4 0.15
3
0.1
2
0.05
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
9 0.3
8
0.25
7
6 0.2
Frequency
5
0.15
4
3 0.1
2
0.05
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

152
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
4 0.12
0.1
3
0.08
Frequency
2 0.06
0.04
1
0.02
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
5 0.12
0.1
4
0.08
3
Frequency
0.06
2
0.04
1
0.02
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Ultimate reistance in blows

153
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
5 0.07
0.06
4
0.05
3
Frequency
0.04
0.03
2
0.02
1
0.01
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

26 5
2
0
.
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
-1
-1
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
3
Frequency
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
c) Distribution of 28-day ultimate resistance impact test results

154

2
-1 First crack
Ultimate
resistance
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
a) Standardized normal distribution
100
2
R = 0.978 2
80 R = 0.9711
Cumulative percent
60
40
First crack
Ultimate
20
resistance
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
b) Normal probability
Figure A7. Normal probability plots for Group 1 impact test results
155
Standardized normal distribution 2
0 First crack
Ultimate
-1 resistance
-2
-3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
100
2
80 R = 0.9793
Cumulative percent
60
2
R = 0.9785
First crack
40
Ultimate
resistance
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
156
0 First crack
Ultimate
resistance
-1
-2
-3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
100
80
2
R = 0.9623
Cumulative percent
60 2
R = 0.9718
40
First crack
Ultimate
20 resistance
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
157
3
0
First crack
-1 Ultimate
resistance
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25
100
80 2
R = 0.9659
Cumulative percent
2
60 R = 0.9496
40 First crack
Ultimate
resistance
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
158
First crack
-1 Ultimate
resistance
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
100
80
Cumulative percent
2
60 R = 0.9737
2
R = 0.9749
40 First crack
Ultimate
resistance
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
159
0
First crack
-1 Ultimate
resistance
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
100
80
2
R = 0.9846
Cumulative percent
60
2
40 R = 0.9872
20
First crack
Ultimate
0 resistance
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
160
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL PRESSURES
AND REINFORCEMENT LAYOUTS
161
Radial distance from

center (mm)
IP = incident pressure (kPa)

RP = reflected pressure (kPa)
Unit conversions: 1 kPa = 0.145 psi, 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
Figure B1. Incident and reflected pressures (454 gram at 915 mm)
162

Figure B2. Incident and reflected pressures (680 grams at 610 mm)
163

164

165
Figure B5. Reinforcement layout with 0.5 percent reinforcement ratio

166
Figure B6. Reinforcement layout for 0.2 percent reinforcement ratio
View publication stats

CIESReport07 74

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CIESReport07 74

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIESReport07 74

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

INVESTIGATION OF A HIGH-VOLUME FLY ASH WOOD FIBER MATERIAL

Technical Report · August 2007

John Joseph Myers

Field Evaluation of Hybrid-Composite Girder Bridges in Missouri View project

FRP bond under direct service temperatures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INVESTIGATION OF A HIGH-VOLUME FLY ASH-

WOOD FIBER MATERIAL SUBJECTED TO LOW-

VELOCITY IMPACT AND BLAST LOADS

Dr. John J. Myers

University of Missouri - Rolla

Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies (CIES)

This report consists of the following two distinct investigations:

Pages 1-76: Low Velocity Impact Testing (Paper 1)

Pages 77-146: Blast Testing of Reinforced Panels (Paper 2)

3.4.1 Group 1 (FA-C-WF)........................................................................... 49

3.2.3 Splitting tensile strength................................................................... 109

30. Failure modes of the test panels................................................................................ 139

28. Minimum number of tests required for 10% error...................................................... 71

IMPACT RESISTANCE OF BLAST MITIGATION MATERIAL USING A

This experimental program was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a high

study on drop-weight impact testing of polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete (Badr and

better accommodate this study.

resistance to drop-weight impact as compared to unreinforced concrete specimens.

coincided with results from previous drop-weight impact tests.

statistically accurate. Therefore, procedures documented by Badr and Ashour were

followed closely with very few modifications.

plain concrete, polypropylene fiber-reinforced concrete (PFRC), and a high-volume fly

14, and 28 days.

1.1 Green materials

Several mix designs investigated in this study consist of environmentally green

materials produced as by-products of other manufacturing processes. For example, fly

ash is a by-product of the combustion of pulverized coal. Its pozzolanic characteristics

benefits to concrete including improved resistance to deterioration from sulfates,

improved workability of fresh concrete, higher strengths at later ages of hardened

concrete (ACI 232.2R-03).

Examples of compositing include oriented strandboard (OSB), particleboard, and

insulators (Joshi and Myers, 2005).

1.2 Uses of fiber-reinforced concrete

missiles and projectiles, earthquakes, and machine dynamics (ACI 544.1R-96).

1.3 Importance of statistics

placing and degree of compaction. The variations in mechanical properties should be

compressive or flexural testing. The observed coefficient of variation (COV) in impact

test results (Nataraja et al., 1999).

The normality of a distribution is a measure of how well the results follow a

normal distribution curve. A normal distribution curve is a symmetric, single-peaked,

function for the normal density curve is listed in equation (1).

histogram depends on the total number of observations (Moore et al., 1989). A

not fit the distribution well.

normal distribution plot is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Standardized normal distribution for drop-weight specimens

This experimental program was conducted mainly to evaluate the effectiveness of

a high-volume FA-WF material at resisting repeated low velocity drop-weight impact.

impact testing procedures (Nataraja et al., 1999).

2.1 Drop-weight impact test proposed by ACI Committee 544

processes strongly influence the impact strength of FRC. Therefore, statistical