Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experimental response and numerical modelling of a full-scale two-span

concrete slab frame subjected to blast load
Lina M. López a, *, Alejandro Pérez-Caldentey b, c, Anastasio P. Santos a, Yolanda G. Diego b,
Ricardo Castedo a, María Chiquito a
a
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid– ETSI Minas y Energía, C Ríos Rosas 21, 28003 Madrid, Spain
b
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid – ETSI Caminos, Canales y Puertos. C. Prof Aranguren 3, 28040 Madrid, Spain
c
FHECOR Consulting Engineers, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Three full scale tests have been carried out on the same structure to determine the effect produced by several
Full-scale test blast loadings detonated at different times. The structure is a two-span 7.00 × 14.00 m2 RC frame subjected to
RC frame explosives load from 10 to 20 kg TNT equivalent at distances varying from 0.5 m to 1.5 m. The tests were
Blast loads
monitored using pressures gauges, accelerometers, high-speed camera and a 3D topography scanner for mea­
Explosion
surement of permanent deflections. The test results show the robustness of the slab, with only minor cracking
LS-DYNA
damage in the first two loading scenarios and only local damage in the third scenario, where the equivalent load
of 20 kg TNT is placed only 50 cm from the slab surface. The third test produced maximum deflections of about 4
cm and a local punching failure measuring 66 cm in diameter on the upper face and 82 cm in diameter on the
lower face. The simulation of the building was carried out with the LS-DYNA software with a Lagrangian
formulation for the walls, using the Load Blast Enhanced (based on CONWEP) module. Permanent defections and
damage has been evaluated and has been compared with numerical modelling.

1. Introduction
The tests which are documented and analyzed in this paper were
carried out within the framework of research project ITSAFE, a project
partially funded by the Spanish Government and the European Union
(reference number IPT-2012-0845-370000) and uniting a Consortium
integrated by DRAGADOS, FHECOR and the Technical University of
Madrid (UPM), whose purpose was to develop a methodology to assess
the blast vulnerability of existing large transportation facilities and
make recommendations for design of future infrastructures, considering
this very important safety issue. The project is focused specifically on the
risk of moderate weight explosive devices (up to 20 kg of TNT equiva­
lent) which can be introduced into transportation facilities where access
control is not viable. It is aimed at helping safety officials, in charge of
large infrastructure buildings, manage situations involving explosive
load threats especially where the need for user mobility limits the ca­
pacity to carry out security checks. For this, an estimate of the effect of a
given load scenario on a given structure, is of great help in making de­
cisions involving, for instance, what part of a large building should be
evacuated. The lack of full-size tests places the weight of establishing
protocols for given potential situations on finite element simulations
[1–3], which are excellent at modelling known results but can be very
poor at predicting the behaviour beforehand. It was considered worth it
to obtain the experimental data in order to better understand how a
structure would be damaged.
From the initial vulnerability studies carried out within the frame­
work of the project, it was concluded that, for floors, the structural ty­
pology best adapted for blast load resistance is a solid reinforced or
prestressed concrete slab. In order to test the robustness of existing
buildings, involving this floor typology, a realistic structure to be tested
under blast load was designed using traditional design methods as is
fully described in this paper. Robustness is defined in EN 1991-1-7 [4] as
“the ability of a structure to withstand events like fire, explosions,
impact or frequency of an occurrence of a defined hazard, without being
damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original clause”. Following
this definition, the loads are placed so as to maximize damage in the
slab. Within the framework of the ITSAFE project, damage, or failure of
supports was studied in parallel robustness tests which are documented

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lina.lopez@upm.es (L.M. López).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116969
Received 1 March 2023; Received in revised form 30 August 2023; Accepted 24 September 2023
Available online 30 September 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.M. López et al.
Fig. 1. Structure geometry.
in Perez-Caldentey et al [5]. This test was made to be able to simulate
the dynamic effect of a column failure, which turns out to be rather
small. These results were also considered in the design of the structure.
From the experience gathered in the December 30th, 2006 bombing
of Barajas Airport, where failure of the connection between supports and
slabs was caused by load inversion [6], it was decided to test this
structure in two scenarios: with the explosive charge acting on the top of
the slab, and with the explosive charge acting from below. Load inver­
sion refers to the situation when the overpressure acting on the bottom
of a slab is larger than the gravitational loads. This leads to positive
bending at the supports and negative bending at centre-spans, a situa­
tion most structures are not designed for.
This paper describes in detail tests carried out at the military in­
stallations of La Marañosa, located to the South of the Spanish city of
Madrid, and their results in terms of structural behavior and damage.
The experimental observations are complemented by numerical anal­
ysis. The numerical simulations show that numerical models are able to
make a reasonably good estimate of the structural behavior. It is not to
2
Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969
be hidden however, that such modelling is much helped by having the
experimental results available and that the predictive abilities of FEM of
the non-linear behaviour of concrete structures are still limited. The tests
carried out and their analysis allow to draw interesting conclusions with
respect to the behavior of solid slab floors subjected to blast loading of
limited intensity.
The value of the experimental information gathered cannot be over-
stressed, given the relatively small number of experimental results on
full scale reinforced concrete structures available in the bibliography at
the current moment [7,8]. Other research that has been found, available
to the public, dealing with large scale testing involve buildings using
masonry walls [9–12] or testing of isolated elements (panels [13,14],
isolated slabs [15–17], or isolated beams or columns [18–20]). In all
these cases, and others, as reported in [21] the specimen dimensions do
not really correspond to life-size structures. So, no tests that deal with
realistic full-size structures that are currently designed without consid­
eration for blast loading such as those reported in this paper were found
in the literature.
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Table 1
Test load configuration.
Test # Explosive Charge, w TNT equivalence Standoff distance, R (m) Location Midspan
(kg TNT)

E1 Plastic (PG2) 10 1.4 1.5 over slab 1

E2 Plastic (PG2) 20 1.4 2 under slab 1
E3 Dynamite (Riodin) 20 0.7 0.5 over slab 2

Fig. 2. Setup Test 1: 10 kg TNT eq. at 1,5m over slab. Units in meters.

Fig. 3. Setup Test 2: 20 kg TNT eq. at 2 m under slab. Units in meters.

3
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 4. Setup Test 3: 20 kg TNT equivalent at 0.5 m over slab. Units in meters.

of 1.4. A gelatinous, nitroglycerine-based dynamite (Riodin) with a TNT

Table 2
Instrumentation and experimentally measured test parameters.
Test Pressure Acceleration Final Images Shockwave
displacement HSC velocity
T1 P1, P2, A1, A2, A3 ✓ ✓ – explosive used in tests T1 and T2 was PG2, an RDX-based plastic
P3,P4
T2 P1, P2, A1, A2, A3 ✓ ✓ –
P3,P4
T3 – – ✓ ✓ ✓ nitroglycerine-based dynamite (Riodin) with a TNT equivalent of 0.8
2. Test description
2.1. Structure description
The structure which was tested consists of 13.60 m long, 7.00 m wide
and 0.25 m thick reinforced concrete slab, supported every 6.60 or
6.475 m. For reference within the paper, the span having 6.60 m will be
referred to as span 1 and the span having 6.475 m will be referred to as
span 2 (see Fig. 1). The specimen was designed as an undetermined
structure in order to have a more realistic representation of existing
structures. The supports are of reinforced concrete. Four of the supports
have a square cross section of 25x25 cm, while the other two have a
cross section of 25x50 cm. The reason for this asymmetry was that some
of the FE models developed early in the works incorrectly predicted that
the structural would present lateral instability. Instead of running the
risk that the models might be right, it was agreed to reinforce one line of
supports in order to prevent this type of failure, which eventually was
shown to be the product of modelling, and not a real phenomenon.
The concrete used in the structure was a class C25/30 concrete with
an aggregate size of 20 mm, a minimum cement content in the mix of
275 kg/m3 and a water/cement ratio of 0.60. This type of concrete is
expected to achieve a minimum compressive strength of 25 MPa. As for
the reinforcing steel, B500C rebar with a yield strength of 500 MPa was
used.
The foundation of the supports is a previously existing concrete slab.
The column reinforcement was fixed to the slab by using bars anchored
with epoxy resin. A detailed description of the structural design of the
flat slab can be found as an appendix to this manuscript.
2.2. Test design and setup
Three different tests were performed on the same structure in order
to determinate the effects of blast loads detonated on different places of
the structure at different times. The explosive used in tests T1 and T2
was PG2, an RDX-based plastic explosive with a composition similar to
C4 and a TNT equivalent found experimentally on a peak pressure basis
equivalent of 0.8 was used in the T3 test. In all three tests the shape of
the charge was roughly cubic with rounded edges and was initiated with
an instantaneous detonator placed in the center of the charge.
Table 1 shows the load configuration in the 3 tests performed. The
explosive with a composition similar to C4 and a TNT equivalent found
experimentally on a peak pressure basis of 1.4. A gelatinous,
was used in the T3 test. In all three tests the shape of the charge was
roughly cubic with rounded edges and was initiated with an instanta­
neous detonator placed in the center of the charge.
For Test T1, the blast load was situated over the top of the slab, in
span 1 (shown on the right in Fig. 2). The load was situated at a distance
of 1,5 m above the surface of the slab and the explosive charge was 10 kg
TNT equivalent. This first test was intended to get a first idea of the
strength of the structure and was intended not to induce major structural
damage.
For Test T2, the load was placed under the slab, 2,0 m below its lower
surface in span 1. In this case, the explosive charge was 20 kg TNT
equivalent (see Fig. 3). This test was meant to simulate a typical scenario
where someone would leave the explosive charge on a bench, about 0.5
m from the floor.
For Test T3, the load was placed, over the top of the slab over the
center of span 2 (shown on the left of Fig. 4). The height of the explosive
load over the top surface of the slab was 0.5 m and the load had a 20 kg
TNT equivalent. This third test was again conceived as someone leaving
an explosive charge on a bench 50 cm above the ground, in this case
affecting the structure below.
2.3. Instrumentation
In order to characterize both the explosion and its effects on the
structure, pressure sensors, accelerometers, laser scanner and high-
speed camera have been used. Table 2 shows a summary of the pa­
rameters measured experimentally in the 3 tests carried out.
Tests T1 and T2 were monitored with pressures gauges and accel­
erometers. Four piezoelectric pressure sensors (P1 to P4, - see Fig. 2 and
Fig. 3) were located in the slab with their sensor surface exposed to the
blast wave. In test T1, with the load on the top slab, the pressure sensors
were located on the top of the slab with the sensing surface level with the
floor parallel to the forward movement of the shock, so that they
recorded the incident wave. In test T2, with the load located under span
1, the pressure sensors were located on the face opposite the detonation,
recording the reflected pressure on the surface.
Additionally, three uniaxial shock accelerometers (A1 to A3) were
fixed to the slab on the face not directly exposed to the blast.

4
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 5. View of the high-speed camera in the T3 test with the position of the targets.

Table 3
Pressure results.
Test: T1 T2

Parameter Gauge: P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4

Charge, W (kg) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Distance, d (m) 6.8 7.5 10.0 10.5 7.0 7.7 10.2 10.7
Scaled distance, z (m/kg1/3) 3.1 3.5 4.6 4.9 2.6 2.8 3.7 3.9
Incident pressure, Pso (kPa) 115.4 102.6 51.2 51.6
Reflected pressure, Pr (kPa) 474.9 358.7 151.8 208.2
Impulse, I+ (kPa.ms) 155.3 106.2 99.1 69.4 448.4 335.7 267.8 254.5
Positive phase duration, t+ (ms) 4.9 3.0 5.1 4.2 4.0 2.7 4.9 4.6
Arrival time, ta (ms) 8.3 10.1 15.6 16.8 6.0 7.5 11.1 12.6

Accelerometers were screwed onto a metal support embedded in the
concrete and fixed with an epoxy resin. They were placed on the face of
the slab opposite to the detonation, i.e. in T1 under the slab and in T2 on
the slab.
A data acquisition system for pressure sensors and accelerometers
with a sampling rate of 2 MHz was used. The trigger system used for the
recording was the ionization of a wire placed in the detonator of the
explosive charge so that the zero time corresponds exactly to the start of
the detonation of the charge.
All three tests were also documented by means of a high-speed
camera and conventional cameras. The images obtained with the high-
speed camera make it possible to evaluate the evolution of the fireball
and the shock wave generated in the surroundings. The imaging speed in
fps used in the 3 tests (6400, 4000, and 5000 respectively) was adequate
to analyses the shock wave evolution. The position and orientation of
the high-speed camera are shown in the diagrams in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and
Fig. 4 respectively.
As shown in Table 4, no accelerometers or pressure sensors were
used in the T3 test, so in order to characterise the generated shock wave,
the high-speed camera was used to measure the shock velocity. In Test
T3, the high-speed camera was located in front of the structure laterally,
with a view perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the structure, in
order to measure the arrival time of the shockwave at targets located at
different distances on the ground. Fig. 5 shows the positions of the tar­
gets in the T3 trial.
A laser scanner was used to evaluate the final displacements in the
structure after each of the tests. By obtaining a pre- and post-scan of the
structure, the data is obtained with millimetric precision. This technol­
ogy makes it possible to generate a three-dimensional model of the
structure as well as to obtain isoelevation curves and transverse profiles
of the geometry of the structure at each measurement point.
3. Experimental test results
3.1. Pressure
The pressure recorded in the T1 test can resemble the incident
pressure (Pso) as the sensing surface on the ground is parallel to the
shock advance. If compared to the incident pressure data for a surface
type explosion, it is observed that they match quite well as it is indeed an
air burst explosion with the sensors located below the triple point. The
situation of the sensors in the T2 test is different and cannot be compared
to a surface explosion, nor to a “free air” forming an angle with the
obstacle, since the charge is located between two parallel obstacles. In
the figure, the results recorded for T2 pressure are shown, and it can be
seen that they are similar to those that would be obtained for a reflected
wave in a surface explosion, since what happens in a surface explosion is
the same as for a reflected wave in a surface explosion.
Table 3 summarizes the measured values of pressure, impulse,
duration of the positive phase and arrival time for all 4 pressure gauges
for Tests T1 and T2.
Measured pressure values are compared with predictions from the
Manual of the US Department of Defense, UFC3-340 [22] in Fig. 6, and
represented against scaled distances. In this figure, pressure measure­
ments (P) from Tests T1 and T2, arrival times of the pressure front (ta),
also from Tests T1 and T2 and the shockwave velocity (u), from test T3
are represented. “The pressure recorded in the T1 test can resemble the
incident pressure (Pso) as the sensing surface on the ground is parallel to
the shock advance. If compared to the incident pressure data for a sur­
face type explosion, it is observed that they match quite well as it is
indeed an air burst explosion with the sensors located below the triple
point. The situation of the sensors in the T2 test is different and cannot
be compared to a surface explosion, nor to a “free air” forming an angle
with the obstacle, since the charge is located between two parallel ob­
stacles. In the figure, the results recorded for T2 pressure are shown, and

5
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 6. Comparison UFC 3-340 surface explosion, with experimental data.

Fig. 7. Acceleration signals Test 1 (A1, A2, A3) and Test 2 (A1, A2, A3).

it can be seen that they are similar to those that would be obtained for a 3.2. Accelerations
reflected wave in a surface explosion, since what happens in a surface
explosion is the same as for a reflected wave in a surface explosion. Fig. 7 shows the acceleration records obtained in tests T1 and T2.
Table 4 summarises the main acceleration results including the values of

6
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Table 4
Results from accelerometers fixed to the structure.
Test Sensor Distanced Arrival time Peak positive accelerationppa Time Peak negative acceleration pna (g) Time
(m) ta (ms) (g) tppa (ms) tpna(ms)

T1 A1 6.6 2.1 84.2 3.45 − 89.9 5.12

A2 7.4 2.26 97.1 4.42 − 92.9 7
A3 9.9 2.94 98.6 6.38 − 75.9 6.13

T2 A1 6.6 2.26 181.6 6.18 − 108.3 4.25

A2 7.4 2.61 166.6 5.52 − 189.8 6.21
A3 9.9 3.09 90.7 7.9 − 72 6.05

Fig. 8. Sequence obtained with high-speed camera. a) Test 1 (yellow lines over image point out the shock wave) b) Test 2. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the distance of the explosive load to the sensor, d, the arrival time of the
pressure front to that point, ta, the peak positive acceleration recorded,
ppa, the time when this peak value is reached, tppa, the peak negative
acceleration recorded, pna, and the corresponding time for which this
value was reached, tpna.. The accelerations recorded range from − 93 to
98 g in the T1 test and from − 190 to 182 g in the T2 test. The acceler­
ation peaks, both positive and negative, have been recorded between 3
and 8 ms in all records. It is observed that the vibrations are recorded in
all cases before the shock measured by the pressure sensor in the same
position, as the shock travels faster through the concrete than through
the air.
3.3. High-speed camera images
In test 1, with 10 kg of TNT on the top floor, the range of the fireball
is limited to span 1. A roughly spherical fireball of about 7 m diameter is
observed. If the charge had been confined, the fire would have spread
over almost the entire structure. Fig. 8-a shows the image sequence
obtained in test T1 with the high-speed camera and details the time that
elapses between images taking as reference (t = 0) the first photograph
before the detonation. In test 2, with 20 kg on the ground floor, the
extent of the fireball does not allow the shock wave to be observed in the
video. Fig. 8-b shows 4 sequences from 0 to 15 ms in which the extent of
the fireball can be observed. With this type of explosive charge, it is
already necessary to consider the possible damage to the structure and
its covering caused by the fire.
Fig. 9 shows the image sequence obtained in test T3 with high-speed
camera and details the time that elapses between images taking as
reference (t = 0) the first photo before the detonation. As mentioned
above, for T3 test, five targets were positioned on the structure surface
(see Fig. 5) in order to evaluate the shock arrival times. Table 5 shows
the arrival time results extracted from the images. Due to the fireball,
only the arrival times on targets numbered T3, T4 and T5 were visible.
With these data, the average shock velocity (Table 6) has been evaluated
by assigning the mean position between the target section taken into
account for the velocity calculation. The arrival time and shock velocity
parameters evaluated by analysis of the high-speed camera images in the
T3 test are plotted in Fig. 6 together with the parameters given for TNT

7
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 9. Test 3 sequence. High-speed camera.

movement which is dynamic. The self-weight is therefore reapplied

Table 5
on the structure magnified by a Dynamic Load Factor, which con­
Arrival time obtained with High-speed camera in Test T3.
tributes to increase the effect of cracking in the slab (reduction of
Target Distanced Arrival Scaled tension stiffening effects).
(m) time distancez
ta (ms) (m/kg1/3)
At the end of the second test, the applied load is the same, but the
T0 0 0 structural stiffness is reduced resulting in a larger deflection. The values
T1 2 –
T2 4 –
of the permanent deflections are small, less than 20 mm for the two first
T3 6 5 2.21 blasts and only 35 mm after the third blast which does inflict local
T4 8 8.6 2.95 damage on the structure. Note that the deflection at the perforation of
T5 9.7 12.6 3.57 the slab corresponds to the bent reinforcement which is captured by the
laser-scanner. The results show that the structural solution adopted for
the floor has a high degree of robustness and could withstand this range
Table 6 of explosive action with only local damage, without any special
Shockwave velocity obtained with High-speed camera in Test T3. measures.
Target Section Timet Distance Scaled Shockwave
Section distanceL (ms) d mean distancez velocity, u (m/s) 4. Numerical model
(m) (m) (m/kg1/3)

[T0-T3] 6 5.0 3.0 1.11 1200 To simulate the tests the Nonlinear explicit finite element software
[T0-T4] 8 8.6 4.0 1.47 930 LS-DYNA [23] is used. This program has been widely used for modelling
[T3-T4] 2 3.6 7.0 2.58 556 impact and blast related problems of structural engineering. It has the
[T4-T5] 1.7 4.0 8.9 3.26 425
capability to perform advanced structural dynamics analyses using
advanced material constitutive models. In this case the Winfrith model is
(UFC 3-340) [22]). A good agreement is observed as with the pressure used for concrete. This model is based on the Ottosen plasticity model
data and arrival times recorded by the sensors in the T1 and T2 tests. and allows modelling of softening of concrete in tension (through frac­
ture Energy, allowing for aggregate size) and can account for strain rate.
Eight node solid hexahedron elements are used to simulate concrete
3.4. Displacements
parts (Fig. 11). As the Rate-Card of the Winfrith material is set to “0″ LS-
DYNA uses the specific fracture energy, i.e. energy per unit area dissi­
By using the 3-D laser scan the geometry of the structure was
pated in opening a crack. The fracture energy GF [N/m] is calculated
measured before the first blast and after each of the blasts. By sub­
using the equation:
tracting the position of each point after each blast from their position at
the start of the test it is possible to have an estimate of the permanent GF = 73 × fc0.18 = 137N/m
deflections inflicted on the structure by each blast as well as their cu­
For the model, the element size at the blast impact location is le =
mulative effect. Fig. 10 shows the displacements after each of the three
0.05 m. If the mesh size is smaller than the fracture progress zone (FPZ)
successive tests, taking as a reference the original position (the one prior
the model is affected by the fracture energy dissipation leading to a
to test T1). Negative displacement implies downward movement. Test 2
failure response of the whole structure (depending on the explosive
induces an additional downwards permanent load deflection because it
charge and therefore the pressures applied to the structure) [24,25].
contributes to deteriorate the stiffness of the slab for the following
The reinforced bars are modeled explicitly using two node Hughes-
reasons:
Liu beam elements with 2x2 Gauss points in the cross section and
located in their theoretical position within the concrete mesh. The
• Cracking occurs in the supports, and this reduces the embedment of
interface between reinforcement and concrete is modeled using CON­
the slab in hogging bending
STRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID command. Model fixed boundary
• The second explosion produces an ascending deflection, but once the
conditions are applied at the bottom of each column.
effect of the overpressure has passed gravity produces a downwards

8
L.M. López et al.
Fig. 10. (a) Three-dimensional representation of the structure obtained by 3D Scanner after test 3. (b) Experimental results for permanent displacement.
Table 7 shows the parameters used for the material model for con­
crete MAT_Winfrith. Note that, unfortunately, no tests of the concrete
strength are available, so the design characteristic strength increase by
8 MPa, as recommended by EC2 [26] was used as the mean concrete
strength. This fact does not undermine the results of the model as the
behavior of concrete is more influenced by other factors than the
compressive strength of the concrete [27]. Steel behavior is represented
using the Piecewise Linear Plasticity material model, which is an elas­
toplastic material model with hardening, equal response in tension and
compression, and failure when the effective plastic strain reaches the
ultimate strain. Table 8 listed the parameters used for Piecewise Linear
Plasticity material model for steel rebars. For reinforcement, the steels
manufactured in Spain are well characterized by the industry. The
values used for the analysis fy = 575 MPa and a tangent modulus for the
second line of the bilinear law of 1194 MPa are taken from data provided
by the Spanish steel reinforcement manufacturing association for a steel
of class B 500 SD.
9
Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969
LS-DYNA provides different solid element formulations. One inte­
gration point at the center of the element is used for modeling the
concrete in this study. This solid element formulation has three trans­
lational degrees of freedom at each node. Although a single point inte­
gration formulation is effective for modeling nonlinear material
behavior and capturing large deformations, it does suffer from hour
glassing or zero-energy modes. To avoid zero energy deformations, or
hour glassing, an artificial stiffness is added to the eight node solid el­
ements to resist these zero-energy deformation modes using CON­
TROL_HOURGLASS in LS-DYNA. The initial state of the structure under
the gravity load is achieved through a dynamic relaxation state.
The blast pressure can be automated in the LS-DYNA environment
and applied on the blast-facing surface of the slab and columns using the
LOAD_BLAST_ENHANCED (LBE) keyword. This function is based on the
Kingery-Bulmash empirical blast data [28]. In this approach, the blast
pressures on slab and supports were generated following the CONWEP
empirical relations [29].
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 11. FEM model details.

events. Erosion is characterized by the physical deletion of the eroded

Table 7
solid element from the rest of the mesh [30].
Parameters used for concrete (MAT_Winfrith parameters).
The most common erosion criteria used are the instantaneous geo­
Parameters LS-DYNA Symbol Value(*) metric strain and maximum principal strain. These criteria can be used
Mass density RO 2300 kg/m3 to smooth simulations. The maximum strain criterion acts as a limit on
Initial tangent modulus of concrete TM 33.55 GPa tension strain. This criterion, when applied to brittle materials like
Unconfined compressive strength UCS 33 MPa
concrete, can be physically interpreted as a lower limit on crack open­
Unconfined tension strength UTS 2.56 MPa
Poissoń s ratio PR 0.2 ing. Luccioni and Aráoz [31] summarized recent past research to show
Aggregate size (radius) ASIZE 0.01 m that the maximum principal strain can represent tensile fracture and
spalling of concrete under blast and impact loads. Maximum principal
(*) Values according to Eurocode 2.
strain values are often used as the erosion criterion in the simulation of
concrete fracture and cracking [32,33]. Other criteria such as maximum
Table 8 tensile stress and maximum shear strain [34] have also been used to
Parameters used for steel rebars (Piecewise Linear Plasticity material). simulate concrete damage. Maximum principal strain has been used is
Parameter LS-DYNA Symbol Value (*)
this study for spalling and damage assessment. To visualize the forma­
tion of the crater, an additional erosion criterion has been taken (which
Mass density RO 7850 kg/m3
in LS-DYNA is introduced by means of the command *MAT_ADD_ER­
Young’s modulus E 210 GPa
Poisson’s ratio PR 0.3 OSION). Following the indications of Luccioni et al. [35], for concretes
Yield stress SIGY 575 MPa with the same order of element sizes and scaled distance similar to those
Tangent modulus ETAN 1194 MPa used in this study, a value for the maximum principal strain at failure of
Effective plastic strain to failure FAIL 0.12 0.01 has been selected as a criterion.
(*) Values according to Eurocode 2.

The element erosion function, while not a property or physics-based

phenomenon, provides a useful means of simulating the spalling of
concrete and provides a more realistic graphical representation of blast

10
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 12. Comparison of experimental and FEM results for permanent displacement history along the central longitudinal axis of the structure.

Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental and FEM results for permanent displacement history along the transversal axis of the structure at the center of span 2.

5. Model validation Fig. 14 shows comparisons between deflections measured by laser-

scan and the numerical simulations. The shapes and values obtained
5.1. Permanent deflections by the simulation are reasonably close to those of the tests.

Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 show the displacements obtained from the laser
scanner tests together with those obtained from the numerical simula­
tion. The FEM nodal displacements of the LS-DYNA simulation exhibited
approximately the same trend as the experimental values. The maximum
deflection is 15 mm after first blast, 17 mm after second blast and 42 mm
after the third blast.
5.2. Accelerations
Experimental acceleration records are used to check the goodness of
fit of the model. In Fig. 15 the records obtained by the model are plotted
together with the experimental ones at sensor position A1. It can be seen
that although the shape of the signals is not the identical, the maximum

11
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 14. Permanent deflections after Tests. (a) FEM (b) and Test.

Fig. 15. Accelerations obtained experimentally and by modelling sensor S1 tests T1 and T2.

and minimum acceleration values are approximate. The experimental
acceleration ranges from − 90 g to 84 g while in the model it ranges from
− 85 g to 71 g for T1 test. And in the T2 test, the experimental acceler­
ation range is − 108 to 182 while the model gives accelerations between
− 156 and 137 g.
5.3. Damage to concrete
In the first two scenarios, despite the non-negligible mass of the
explosive used, damage to the structure even ignoring the blast loads in
the design, is quite small. Fig. 16 shows images of the damage after each
of the tests. Damage is limited to the appearance of flexural cracking in
the bottom face of the slab after the first blast and horizontal cracking in
the supports near the connection to the slab after the second blast load.

12
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. 16. Damage to concrete after each test.

Fig. 17. Experimental and FEM structure after T3 Test.

Fig. 18. Residual displacement vs. time obtained with different values of compressive strength (25, 30, 33 and 35 MPa).

When for the third test the 20 kg TNT equivalent load is placed only 50 The crater generated in the slab is about 66 cm of diameter on top face.
cm away from the slab surface, damage does occur, but it is local and The bottom face shows a spalling surface of approximately 82 cm in
consists of a perfectly circular punching failure. diameter. The results of the FEM model show a cracking pattern on top
Fig. 17 shows several images of the structure after Test number 3. face of approximately 79 cm of diameter while the bottom face

13
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Table A1 necessarily the real value or even sufficiently close to the real value. In
Summary of forces and required reinforcement. order to check that there are no noticeable differences when changing
Value Longitudinal Transversal the concrete strength, different models have been run with compressive
strengths of 25, 30 and 35 MPa. As can be seen in Fig. 18, the residual
Total M−Ed [kNm] 591.16 –
moment M+Ed [kNm] 374.38 591.16 displacement after the three tests run in series is practically the same,
with a difference of 2 mm between the concrete with the highest and
lowest strength. This displacement has been evaluated at a node located
Column M−Ed [kNm] 443.37 –
Strips M+ Ed [kNm] 224.63 354.696 in the centre of span 1. Therefore, it can be concluded that in this case
m-Ed [kNm/ 134.35 – the influence of the concrete strength is negligible considering the tested
m] loads and scaled distances.
m+ Ed [kNm/ 68.19 107.48
For the material model used for concrete, it is necessary to define the
m]
A-s [cm2/m] 17.43 (21.35) – (5.65) uniaxial tensile strength (UTS) together with the uniaxial compressive
* strength (UCS). In this case, the value has been calculated using the
A+ 2
s [cm / 8.71 (11.3) 13.56 (15.7) formula provided by EC2 as follows:
m] 2/3
fctm = 0.30 × fck for concrete class ≤ C50/60,being fck the charac­
teristic compressive strength. Thus, in the simulations carried out to test
Central M−Ed [kNm] 147.79
the influence of the variation of the concrete compressive strength, the
–
Strip M+Ed [kNm] 149.75 236.464
m-Ed [kNm/ 44.78 – UTS values were modified accordingly being in these cases 2.56, 2.89
m] and 3.21 MPa respectively. As can be seen in Fig. 18, this parameter also
m+Ed [kNm/ 45.37 71.66 has negligible influence on the simulation result. It can therefore be
m]
concluded that a 40% increase in the concrete strength values will
As [cm2/m]
-
5.34 (5.65) – (5.65)
A+ 2 hardly influence the simulation result. This is mainly due to the fact that
s [cm / 5.41 (5.65) 8.74 (10.05)
m] the strength of the structure is provided by the steel reinforcement as the
concrete slabs work mostly in bending. The reinforcement steel is
()* placed flexural reinforcement.
perfectly characterised and the model parameters are those showed in
Table 8 and required according to the material model
presented a cross-shaped spalling with a maximum length of 95 cm. The (Piecewise_Linear_Plasticity).
FEM provides a reasonable order of magnitude, usable in practice, Regarding the material model used for concrete, the Winfrith ma­
without need for further adjustments. terial model (MAT084) which was developed in the 1980s to solve RC
structures subjected to impact loads and implemented in LS-DYNA in
5.4. Discussion on model parameters 1991, so it can be considered sufficiently tested. However, there are
other material models included in LS-DYNA which work with simplified
In the numerical model there are a large number of parameters input parameters also offering good results. But, looking at the experi­
relating to blast type and material properties. All the parameters used mental results, after the first and second tests the damage was minimal.
have been selected according to the test to be modelled and some of Only after the third test local damage was observed. The modification of
them based on references of works in line with the present study. the material model used for concrete would have an impact on a larger
Therefore, this section aims to justify and clarify some of the assump­ or smaller crater in the structure, but would not differ in anything else.
tions made on model parameters. Another parameter that can have an influence on the simulation
As mention above, no tests were carried out to obtain the mechanical result is the hourglass technique used. LS-DYNA recommends viscous
properties of the concrete so the values recommended by the EC2 were hourglass control for problems deforming with high velocities, as this is
used in the numerical simulation (i.e. a compressive strength of 33 the case. Stiffness control is often preferable for lower velocities, espe­
MPa). However, this value of compressive strength could not be cially if the number of time steps are large. Given the problems with

Fig. A1. Longitudinal reinforcement.

14
L.M. López et al.
Fig. A2. Transversal reinforcement.
Fig. A3. Punching reinforcement at corner 25x25 cm2 support.
using the standard LS-DYNA viscous form (i.e. IHQ = 1) for hourglass
control in high strain rate problems, the option IHQ = 3 Flanagan-
Belytschko viscous form with exact volume integration for solid ele­
ments has been chosen, since, as stated in the LS DYNA manual, for solid
elements the exact volume integration provides some advantage for
highly distorted elements.
As for the blast load, it was applied using the load blast enhanced
(LBE) feature, which is an improved version of the Load Blast command.
The LBE technique is optimal when the explosive used is TNT or its
equivalent is known. In this study, the pressures were measured in the
15
Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969
Fig. A4. Punching reinforcement at central 25x25 cm2 support.
three tests performed and the results were found to correspond to the
detonated charges, and therefore the TNT equivalent masses were as
initially calculated (10 kg TNT eq. for the first test and 20 kg TNT eq. for
the second and third tests). The pressure was applied directly to the
structure by defining a segment for the impact of the shock wave. To use
the LBE technique, it is only necessary to define the equivalent mass of
TNT and the charge coordinates. In addition, the type of blast source
needs to be specified. In case of the third test where the local damage
was observed, the type of source defined was hemispherical surface
burst, which means that the charge is located on or very near the ground
surface. Furthermore, the validity range of this option is determined by
the scaled distances between 0.178 and 40 m/kg1/3, and here, the test
carried out was within this range.
6. Conclusions
The results show the remarkable robustness of the slab, with only
minor cracking damage for the first two load scenarios and only local
damage in the third scenatio for which the 20 kg TNT equivalent load is
placed only 50 cm away from the slab surface. Even after this third blast,
the structure is still able to carry its self-weight and, probably from the
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

Fig. A5. Column reinforcement: left:25x25 cm2, right 50x25 cm2.

limited observed damage its design-imposed load. The structure can be
deemed robust (according to the Eurocode) since damage cannot be said
to be disproportionate to the cause.
From the point of view of structural behaviour, the results are very
interesting and of great value, given the limited experimental evidence
available in real scale structural testing. This structural solution does a
good job resisting the scenarios considered. The tests provide a great
deal of certainty regarding the actual behaviour that is to be expected in
such situations and allows managers to make informed decisions in case
of a similar threat.
Experimental results for displacement, damage, cratering and ac­
celerations are in good agreement with those obtained by the model.
Subsequently, the numerical model could be used in similar scenarios,
considering that a new experimental validation would be necessary for
structures of other typologies.
Even though the results can eventually be replicated by FEM, tests
are irreplaceable since models only reach accuracy after experimental
calibration, there being a wide range of possible reasons for why models
can at first fail to provide adequate results. Even so FEM can be useful in
providing orders of magnitude.
The tests carried out provide a solid order of magnitude of the
damage to be expected in this type of structure and can be the basis for
recommendations for the assessment of existing structures with a well-
informed knowledge and with a greater level of confidence. They are
also very valuable given the very limited number of full-scale tests on
conventional reinforced concrete structures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Writing – original draft. Alejandro Pérez Caldentey: Conceptualiza­
tion, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Project administration.
Anastasio P. Santos: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation. Yolanda G. Diego: Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Ricardo
Castedo: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation. María Chi­
quito: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The project “Safe Transport Hubs against Heavy Explosions”, also
known as ITSAFE, led by Dragados, and also integrated by FHECOR and
the Technical University of Madrid (UPM) was cofounded by the Min­
istry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO), within the National
Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation
2008-2011 (INNPACTO 2012), and the European Union through the
ERDF (European Regional Development Fund).

Lina M. López: Investigation, Methodology, Project administration,

APPENDIX A: Structural design of the flat slab

Three design situations should be considered during the design of a concrete structure [26]: persistent, accidental, and seismic. In a persistent
situation, the loading is transferred through the entire system of columns and slab. The loss of a column could be considered as an accidental situation.
In this study, the floor was designed using the method of virtual frames for loads to be carried in the persistent load situation. This method considers
that forces concentrate near the supports.
For this, the following loads were considered:

• Self-weight of 0.25 × 25 = 6.25 kN/m2

• Flooring and other dead loads: 1.50 kN/m2
• Imposed load: 4.00 kN/m2

Considering partial factors γ P = 1.35 for dead loads and γ Q = 1.50 for imposed loads, and considering that the behavior in the longitudinal direction
is that of a two-span structure, the total negative and positive bending moments were determined as:

16
L.M. López et al. Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969

qEd = 1.35 × (6.25 + 1.50) + 1.5 × 4.00 = 16.45 kN/m2

⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟
qGd =10.46 qQd =6.00

2
− qEd wl 16.45 × 6.60 × 6.62
MEd,tot = = = 591.16 kNm
8 8
( )
+
MEd,tot ≈ 0.07 × qGd + 0.095qQd wl2
= (0.07 × 10.46 + 0.095 × 6.0)wl2 × 6.60 × 6.62 = 374.38 kNm
The central strip was taken as half the width between supports, that is 3.3 m, while column strips were assumed to be 1.65 m wide on each side. The
central strip is assumed to absorb 25% of the negative moment and 40% of the positive moment, the rest being taken by the support strips.
In the transversal direction the structure behaves as simply supported, and the total bending moment is, therefore 591.16 kNm. Table A1 sum­
marizes the positive and negative bending moments to be resisted by the central and column strips in the longitudinal and the transversal directions.
From the values of Table A1 the following reinforcement, needed for structural reasons, was designed (see Fig. A1 and Fig. A2):

• A base reinforcement at the bottom of the slab of ϕ12/0.20 in the longitudinal direction and ϕ16/0.20 in the transversal direction.
• A base reinforcement at the top of the slab of ϕ12/0.20 in the longitudinal and transversal directions.
• An additional reinforcement at the bottom of the slab of ϕ12/0.20 only over the column strips in the longitudinal direction
• An additional reinforcement at the top of the slab of ϕ20/0.20 in the longitudinal direction over the supports only over the column strips.
• An additional reinforcement at the bottom of the slab of ϕ12/0.20 only over the column strips in the transversal direction

The required and placed reinforcement areas per meter are also included in Table A1. This is representative of a typical case that occurs in everyday
practice.
Additionally, punching reinforcement was provided in the vicinity of the supports, consisting of 5 layers spaced 15 cm apart, with a total of 36ϕ12
for the 25x25 cm corner supports, 50ϕ12 for the two central supports and 46ϕ12 for the 50x25 corner supports (see Fig. A3 and Fig. A4).
The 25x25 cm supports were reinforced with 4ϕ12 mm longitudinal bars and ϕ10 stirrups spaced 10 cm apart, close to the top and bottom slabs, for
a length of 50 cm, and spaced 20 cm apart in the central part of the support. The 50x25 cm supports had 10ϕ16 as longitudinal reinforcement and 2ϕ12
stirrups spaced 10 cm near the top and bottom of the supports (50 cm form the slabs) and 2ϕ10 stirrups spaced 20 cm in between (see Fig. A5).

References simulation. J Appl Mech, Trans ASME 2011;78. https://doi.org/10.1115/

1.4004278.
[16] Schenker A, Anteby I, Gal E, Kivity Y, Nizri E, Sadot O, et al. Full-scale field tests of
[1] Luccioni BM, Ambrosini RD, Danesi RF, Tera JB. Analysis of building collapse
concrete slabs subjected to blast loads. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35:184–98. https://
under blast loads 2004;26:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJIMPENG.2006.12.008.
engstruct.2003.08.011.
[17] Castedo R, Santos AP, Alañón A, Reifarth C, Chiquito M, López LM, et al. Numerical
[2] Shi Y, Li Z, Hao H. A new method for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames
study and experimental tests on full-scale RC slabs under close-in explosions. Eng
under blast loading. Eng Struct 2010;32:1691–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Struct 2021;231. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2020.111774.
engstruct.2010.02.017.
[18] Magallanes JM, Martinez R, Koenig JW. Experimental results of the AISC full-scale
[3] Jayasooriya R, Thambiratnam DP, Perera NJ, Kosse V. Blast and residual capacity
column blast test; 2006.
analysis of reinforced concrete framed buildings. Eng Struct 2011;33:3483–95.
[19] Zhang D, Yao SJ, Lu F, Chen XG, Lin G, Wang W, et al. Experimental study on
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.07.011.
scaling of RC beams under close-in blast loading. Eng Fail Anal 2013;33:497–504.
[4] EN 1991-1-7. EN 1991-1-7: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-7: General
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.06.020.
actions - Accidental actions; 2006.
[20] Codina R, Ambrosini D, De BF. Alternatives to prevent the failure of RC members
[5] Pérez Caldentey A, Diego YG, Ariñez Fernández F, Santos AP. Testing robustness: a
under close-in blast loadings. EFA 2016;60:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
full-scale experimental test on a two-storey reinforced concrete frame with solid
engfailanal.2015.11.038.
slabs. Eng Struct 2021;240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112411.
[21] Anas SM, Alam M, Umair M. Experimental and numerical investigations on
[6] Bermejo M, Santos AP, Goicolea JM, Pérez A. Evaluación de acciones explosivas
performance of reinforced concrete slabs under explosive-induced air-blast
sobre estructuras de hormigón armado mediante elementos finitos. Informes de La
loading: a state-of-the-art review. Structures 2021;31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Construccion 2015;67. https://doi.org/10.3989/ic.13.121.
istruc.2021.01.102.
[7] Bermejo M, Santos AP, Goicolea JM. Development of practical finite element
[22] DoD US. UFC 3–340-02: Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions.
models for collapse of reinforced concrete structures and experimental validation.
Washington, DC, USA: US DoD; 2008.
Shock Vib 2017;2017. 10.1155/2017/4636381.
[23] Hallquist J. LS-DYNA® theory manual; 2006.
[8] Xiao W, Andrae M, Steyerer M, Gebbeken N. Investigations of blast loads on a two-
[24] Khoe YS, Weerheijm J. Limitations of smeared crack models for dynamic analysis
storeyed building with a gable roof: full-scale experiments and numerical study.
of concrete Yoeng Sin Khoe and Jaap Weerheijm. In: 12th International LS-DYNA
J Build Eng 2021;43:103111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103111.
Users Conference 2012:1–14.
[9] Maji AK, Brown JP, Urgessa GS. Full-scale testing and analysis for blast-resistant
[25] Alañón A, Cerro-Prada E, Vázquez-Gallo MJ, Santos AP. Mesh size effect on finite-
design. J Aerosp Eng 2008;21:217–25. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321
element modeling of blast-loaded reinforced concrete slab. Eng Comput 2018;34:
(2008)21:4(217)/ASSET/E98FE4A1-8687-4C03-917F-E9898B7413B1/ASSETS/
649–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-017-0564-4.
IMAGES/LARGE/15.JPG.
[26] EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules
[10] Kernicky TP, Whelan MJ, Weggel DC, Rice CD. Structural identification and
and rules for buildings; 2004.
damage characterization of a masonry infill wall in a full-scale building subjected
[27] Grisaro HY. Effect of combined blast and fragmentation load on the dynamic
to internal blast load. J Struct Eng 2015;141:D4014013. https://doi.org/10.1061/
response of reinforced concrete structures. Eng Struct 2021;248. https://doi.org/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001158.
10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113244.
[11] Chiquito M, López LM, Castedo R, Pérez-Caldentey A, Santos AP. Behaviour of
[28] Kingery CN, Bulmash G. Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air burst and
retrofitted masonry walls subjected to blast loading: damage assessment. Eng
hemispherical surface burst. US Technical Report ARBRL-TR-02555. April 1984;
Struct 2019;201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109805.
1984.
[12] Triantafillou BC. Member; strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-
[29] Hyde D. ConWep, conventional weapons effects program. USA: US Army Engineer
bonded FRP laminates. J Compos Constr 1998;2:96–104. https://doi.org/10.1061/
Waterways Experiment Station; 1991.
(ASCE)1090-0268(1998)2:2(96).
[30] Wu KC, Li B, Tsai KC. The effects of explosive mass ratio on residual compressive
[13] Ghani Razaqpur A, Tolba A, Contestabile E. Blast loading response of reinforced
capacity of contact blast damaged composite columns. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:
concrete panels reinforced with externally bonded GFRP laminates. Compos B Eng
602–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.001.
2007;38:535–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.06.016.
[31] Luccioni B, Aráoz G. Erosion criteria for frictional materials under blast load.
[14] Lin X, Zhang YX, Hazell PJ. Modelling the response of reinforced concrete panels
Mecánica Computacional 2011;30:1809–31.
under blast loading. J Mater Des 2014;56:620–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[32] Tanapornraweekit G, Haritos N, Mendis P, Ngo T. Modelling of FRP strengthened
matdes.2013.11.069.
RC slabs subjected to blast loading. Proceedings of the 20th Australasian
[15] Morales-Alonso G, Cendón DA, Gálvez F, Erice B, Sánchez-Gálvez V. Blast response
Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials. 2008.
analysis of reinforced concrete slabs: experimental procedure and numerical

17
L.M. López et al.
[33] Xu K, Lu Y. Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete plates
subjected to blast loading. Comput Struct 2006;84:431–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruc.2005.09.029.
[34] Teng TL, Chu YA, Chang FA, Shen BC, Cheng DS. Development and validation of
numerical model of steel fiber reinforced concrete for high-velocity impact.
18
Engineering Structures 296 (2023) 116969
Comput Mater Sci 2008;42:90–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
commatsci.2007.06.013.
[35] Luccioni BM, Aráoz GF, Labanda NA. Defining erosion limit for concrete. Int J
Protect Struct 2013;4:315–40. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.4.3.315.