Shear in Concrete Structural Elements

Subjected to Dynamic Loads

Johan Magnusson

Doctoral Thesis
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering
Division of Concrete Structures
Stockholm, Sweden, 2019

iii
TRITA-ABE-DLT-1916 KTH School of ABE
ISBN: 978-91-7873-229-6 SE-100 44 Stockholm
SWEDEN

Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan framlägges till
offentlig granskning för avläggande av teknologie doktorsexamen i Byggvetenskap, med
inriktning mot Betongbyggnad onsdagen den 5 juni 2019 klockan 10:00 i Kollegiesalen,
Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Brinellvägen 8, Stockholm.

iii
Abstract
Concrete structural elements subjected to severe dynamic loads such as explosions at
close range may cause shear failures. In the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 two
concrete columns on the ground level were reported to have failed in shear. Such shear
failures have also been reported to occur in several experimental investigations when
concrete beams and slabs were subjected to blast or impact loads. The dynamic shear
mechanisms are not yet fully understood and it is therefore of research significance to
further investigate these mechanisms. The main objective of the research presented in
this thesis is to experimentally and theoretically analyse shear failures of reinforced
concrete elements subjected to uniformly distributed dynamic loads.

The experimental work consisted of concrete beams of varying concrete grades and
reinforcement configurations subjected to blast loads. One series involved testing of
steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams and the other series involved tests with
concrete beams reinforced with steel bars. The former investigation showed that SFRC
beams can resist certain blast loads. In the latter investigation, certain beams subjected
to blast loads were observed to fail in flexural shear while the same beams exhibited
flexural failures in the static tests. Such shear failures specifically occurred in beams
with relatively high reinforcement contents. With these experiments as reference,
numerical simulations with Ansys Autodyn were performed that demonstrated the
ability to predict flexural shear failures.

A direct shear failure mode has also been observed in experiments involving concrete
roofs subjected to intense distributed blast loads. In several cases, the roof slabs were
completely severed from their supporting walls along vertical or near-vertical failure
planes soon after the load had been applied. Theoretical analyses of the initial structural
response of beams subjected to distributed loads were conducted with the use of Euler-
Bernoulli beam theory and numerical simulations in Abaqus/Explicit. These analyses
show that the initial structural response consists of shear stresses and bending moments
developing at the supports. The remaining parts of the beam will be subjected to a rigid
body motion. Further simulations with Abaqus shows that that dynamic direct shear
failure appears to be due to a deep beam response with crushing of the compressive
struts at the supports, and therefore differs from a static direct shear mode. The results
also showed that parameters such as element depth, amount of reinforcement, load level
and load duration played a role in developing a dynamic direct shear failure.

Keywords: Dynamic load, initial response, shear failure, shear capacity, numerical
simulations, bond, shear span, support reactions

iii
iv
Sammanfattning
Byggnadselement i betong utsatta för stora dynamiska laster som explosioner på nära
håll kan förorsaka skjuvbrott. I bombådet i Oklahoma City 1995 rapporterades att två
betongpelare i marknivå gick till skjuvbrott. Sådana skjuvbrott har observerats i flera
experimentella undersökningar med betongbalkar eller plattor som utsattes för
explosionslaster eller anslag från fallande föremål. Mekanismerna bakom dynamisk
skjuvning är ännu inte helt klarlagda och det är därför av intresse att utforska dessa
mekanismer. Huvudsyftet med forskningen i föreliggande avhandling är att
experimentellt och teoretiskt analysera skjuvbrott i armerade betongelement utsatta för
jämnt utbredd dynamisk last.

Den experimentella delen av forskningen bestod av betongbalkar med varierande

betonghållfasthet and armeringsutformning utsatta för explosionslaster. En
försöksserie omfattades av stålfiberarmerade balkar och den andra av betongbalkar
med armeringsstänger. Den förra undersökningen visade att de fiberarmerade balkarna
kan bära en viss explosionslast. I den senare undersökningen observerades att de balkar
som utsattes för explosionslast och gick till böjskjuvbrott medans samma balkar gick
till böjbrott i de statiska försöken. Skjuvbrotten uppstod i balkar med relativt höga
armeringsinnehåll. Dessa balkar användes senare som referensbalkar för numeriska
simuleringar med Ansys Autodyn där simuleringarna visade på möjligheten att
förutsäga böjskjuvbrott.

Även direkt skjuvning har observerats i experiment med betongtak utsatta för höga
explosionslaster. I flera fall separerades taken från de stöttande väggarna längs
vertikala eller nära vertikala brottytor kor tid efter pålastningen. Teoretiska analyser av
den tidiga strukturresponsen för balkar utsatta för utbredda laster genomfördes med
Euler-Bernoulli balkteori och numeriska simuleringar med Abaqus/Explicit. Dessa
analyser visar att den initiala strukturresponsen består av skjuvspänningar och böjande
moment som uppstår vid stöden. Områdena på balken från nära stöd mot balkmitt rör
sig i form av en stelkropp. Vid ytterligare simuleringar med Abaqus förefaller ett
dynamiskt direkt skjuvbrott vara resultatet av en respons likt en hög balk med krossning
av de tryckta strävorna vid stöden, och därmed skiljer sig från statisk direkt skjuvning.
Resultaten visar även att balkhöjd, armeringsinnehåll, lastnivå och lastens varaktighet
är parametrar som påverkade utvecklingen av ett dynamiskt direkt skjuvbrott.

Nyckelord: Dynamisk last, initial respons, skjuvbrott, skjuvkapacitet, numeriska

simuleringar, förankring, skjuvspännvidd, upplagsreaktioner

v
vi
Preface
This thesis presents experimental and theoretical research on concrete beams subjected
to dynamic loads. The experimental research was carried out at the Swedish Defence
Research Agency (FOI) with financial support from the Swedish Armed Forces
Headquarters. The theoretical research was carried out at FOI, KTH Royal Institute of
Technology (Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Division of Concrete
Structures), Grontmij and Swedish Fortifications Agency. This research was
financially supported partly by Fortifikationskåren, the Armed Forces, KTH, Grontmij,
Swedish Fortifications Agency and RISE Research Institutes of Sweden. Their support
is greatfully acknowledged.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof Anders Ansell for his
guidance and valuable support. I also wish to express my gratitude to my co-supervisor
Adj. Prof. Mikael Hallgren for invaluable discussions and cooperation. Many thanks
also go to my second co-supervisor Dr. Richard Malm for his advice and support. I
would also like to thank the co-author to one of my research papers Tech. Lic. Håkan
Hansson. I also wish to acknowledge Adj. Prof. Costin Pacoste for his valuable
comments on the thesis. A special thanks to Mr. Göran Svedbjörk at Sweco Structures
for all discussions and suggestions during the theoretical part of the research. Finally,
I wish to thank my fellow doctoral students and the personnel at the Department of
Civil and Architectural Engineering for a friendly and fruitful atmosphere.

Eskilstuna, May 2019

Johan Magnusson

vii
viii
List of Papers
The following journal papers are included in this thesis:

Paper I: Magnusson, J. (2006). Fibre reinforced concrete beams subjected to air

blast loading. Nordic Concrete Research, 35, pp. 18-34.

Paper II: Magnusson, J., Hallgren, M. & Ansell, A. (2010). Air-blast-loaded, high-
strength concrete beams. Part I: Experimental investigation. Magazine of
Concrete Research, 62(2), pp. 127-136.

Paper III: Magnusson, J., Ansell, A. & Hansson, H. (2010). Air-blast-loaded, high-
strength concrete beams. Part II: Numerical non-linear analysis. Magazine
of Concrete Research, 62(4), pp. 235-242.

Paper IV: Magnusson, J., Hallgren, M. & Ansell, A. (2014). Shear in concrete
structures subjected to dynamic loads. Structural Concrete, 15(1), pp. 55-
65.

Paper V: Magnusson, J., Hallgren, M., Malm, R. & Ansell, A. (2019). Numerical
analyses of shear in concrete structures subjected to distributed loads,
submitted to Engineering Structures.

ix
x
List of contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aim ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Outline of the thesis ............................................................................................ 3
2 Shear of concrete and dynamic loads .................................................................... 7
2.1 Blast loads .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Incident blast waves ................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Reflected blast waves............................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Impulse loads ......................................................................................... 10
2.2 Static shear ....................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Flexural shear failure ............................................................................. 13
2.2.2 Shear compression failure ...................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Failure by splitting or crushing of the concrete strut ............................. 14
2.2.4 Direct shear failure................................................................................. 14
2.2.5 Further notes on static shear .................................................................. 17
2.3 Dynamic shear ................................................................................................. 18
2.3.1 Flexural shear failure ............................................................................. 18
2.3.2 Direct shear failure................................................................................. 20
2.3.3 Vibration modes ..................................................................................... 21
2.4 Models for calculations of the shear capacity .................................................. 22
2.4.1 Flexural shear capacity .......................................................................... 22
2.4.2 Direct shear capacity ............................................................................. 27
2.4.3 Support reactuions ................................................................................. 27

3 Material models ..................................................................................................... 29

3.1 Material dynamic properties ............................................................................ 29
3.1.1 Concrete tension and compression ........................................................ 29
3.1.2 Concrete elastic modulus ....................................................................... 33
3.1.3 Concrete fracture energy ........................................................................ 34
3.1.4 Steel reinforcement ................................................................................ 36
3.2 Material models for concrete ........................................................................... 37

xi
 3.2.1 RHT model ............................................................................................ 37
3.2.2 Concrete damaged plasticity .................................................................. 39
3.2.3 Crack softening for concrete in tension ................................................. 42
3.3 Material models for reinforcement .................................................................. 43
3.3.1 Johnson & Cook..................................................................................... 43
3.3.2 Isotropic elasto-plastic model ................................................................ 44
3.4 Bond between reinforcing bars and concrete ................................................... 44
4 Dynamic shear of concrete beams ....................................................................... 47
4.1 Experiments ..................................................................................................... 47
4.1.1 Concrete beams ...................................................................................... 47
4.1.2 Concrete roof slabs ................................................................................ 48
4.2 Numerical models ............................................................................................ 49
4.2.1 Flexural shear failures ............................................................................ 49
4.2.2 Direct shear failures .............................................................................. 52
4.2.3 Parametric studies .................................................................................. 54
4.2.4 Material parameters ............................................................................... 57

5 Results from numerical simulations .................................................................... 59

5.1 Initial response and shear ................................................................................. 59
5.2 Flexural shear failures ...................................................................................... 64
5.2.1 Bond between reinforcing bars and concrete ......................................... 64
5.2.2 Flexural shear crack patterns ................................................................ 66
5.2.3 Flexural shear deflections ...................................................................... 68
5.2.4 Flexural shear support reactions ............................................................ 70
5.3 Direct shear failures ......................................................................................... 74
5.4 Parametric studies – failure modes .................................................................. 79
5.5 Parametric studies – support reactions ............................................................. 82
5.5.1 Flexural shear ......................................................................................... 82
5.5.2 Direct shear ........................................................................................... 86
5.6 Parametric studies – shear capacity ................................................................. 91
5.6.1 Evaluation of the shear span .................................................................. 91
5.6.2 Evaluation of reinforcement strains ....................................................... 97
5.6.3 Evaluation of flexural shear capacity................................................... 101
5.6.4 Evaluation of direct shear capacity ...................................................... 105

xii
6 Summary of appended papers ........................................................................... 109
6.1 Paper I ............................................................................................................ 109
6.2 Paper II ........................................................................................................... 111
6.3 Paper III ......................................................................................................... 112
6.4 Paper IV ......................................................................................................... 113
6.5 Paper V........................................................................................................... 114

7 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 115

7.1 General ........................................................................................................... 115
7.2 Failure in dynamic shear ................................................................................ 118
7.3 Support reactions ........................................................................................... 120
7.1.1 Flexural shear ....................................................................................... 120
7.1.2 Direct shear .......................................................................................... 121
7.4 Shear capacity ................................................................................................ 121
7.4.1 Shear span ............................................................................................ 121
7.4.2 Plastic strains in the reinforcement ...................................................... 122
7.4.3 Flexural shear capacity ........................................................................ 122
7.4.4 Direct shear capacity ............................................................................ 123

8 Conclusions and further research ..................................................................... 125

8.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 125
8.2 Further research ............................................................................................. 127
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 129

Appendix A: Parametric study of the strain rate ................................................. 137

Appendix B: Material data .................................................................................... 143

Appendix C: Derivation of the shear span ............................................................ 155

xiii
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Dynamic loads such as explosions in air may cause severe damage to surrounding
concrete structures and may lead to varying degrees of damage. Explosions may
originate from different sources such as detonating explosive charges or the rapid
combustion of a fuel-air mixture. The explosion generates blast waves that propagate
through the air in all directions at supersonic velocity. Besides the blast wave, the
effects of explosions may also generate fragments and ground shock resulting from the
energy transmitted to the ground. However, the effects of blast overpressures are
usually the governing load when considering the dynamic response and damage to
structures above ground. There may be cases where the effects of fragments or ground
shock loads are the main cause of structural damage but these loads are not addressed
in this thesis.

As a blast wave strikes an object such as a building wall, the pressure will be reinforced
due to reflections. In a case where the reflected pressures are sufficiently high, local
failures of structural elements such as load-bearing walls or columns may occur. Local
failures of such essential structural elements may be the cause of partial or total collapse
of the entire structure. In the design of structural elements to resist the effects of severe
dynamic loads, a flexural response mode is preferable due to the large energy
absorption capability. The structural elements should therefore be designed for a certain
degree of plastic deformations with concrete cracking and yielding of the
reinforcement. However, blast at close range may subject the structure to loads of
sufficient intensity to cause shear failures. In the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995
(FEMA 1996) two concrete columns on the ground level were reported to have failed
in shear. The third column, even closer to the blast than the other two columns, was
completely shattered by the intensity of the blast. Such shear failures have also been
reported to occur in several investigations involving concrete elements subjected to
blast and impact loads, such as Hughes & Beeby (1982), Niklasson (1994), Kishi et al.
(2002), Morales-Alonso et al. (2011), Slawson (1984), Adhikary et al. (2013) and the
work reported in Paper II. In several cases, these tests also confirm that elements that

1
fail in flexure under a static load may fail in shear under intense dynamic loads. In a
few particular test cases, concrete slabs were observed to fail in a direct shear mode at
the supports with limited deformations in the slab. Shear failures in concrete structures
are brittle in nature and typically occurs prior to the flexural capacity has been reached.
Therefore, shear is regarded as a premature failure that should be avoided.

It is well known that plain concrete is relatively brittle and this is especially the case
for concrete of higher strength (Betonghandbok 2000). However, the introduction of
steel fibres into the concrete matrix results in an enhanced ductility. Steel fibre
reinforced concrete (SFRC) elements are known to have larger energy absorbing
capabilities compared to plain concrete elements. Thus, adding steel fibres in
combination with the use of a proper amount of reinforcement bars results in a ductile
structural element. Tests on SFRC slabs subjected to blast loads and reported by
Luccioni et al. (2017) showed the ability of such slabs to resist intense dynamic loads.

1.2 Aim
Structural concrete elements subjected to intense dynamic loads have been reported to
fail in shear even if they are designed to fail in a flexural mode under static loads. The
characteristics of a dynamic load can be regarded as significantly different from the
characteristics of a static load and it is of interest to quantify this difference. A concrete
element subjected to dynamic loads accelerates and obtains kinetic energy, which is
never the case in a corresponding static loading case. The structural properties of the
element changes to a certain degree that may influence the behaviour during a dynamic
loading case. A static shear failure is known to follow a certain sequence of events and
it is of interest to analyse the evolution of shear in a dynamic event in order to increase
the understanding of such failures. The force transmitted from the applied static load
to the supports needs to be determined in conventional shear design of concrete
elements. Quantification of this reaction force is naturally also of importance in
dynamic design in order to obtain a concrete element that resists shear.

The shear mechanisms in concrete structures during dynamic loading are not yet fully
understood, especially is this the case for the direct shear mode of failure. It is therefore
of research significance to further analyse the dynamic behaviour of concrete elements
and the nature of dynamic shear. The main objective of the research presented in this
thesis is to experimentally and theoretically analyse the shear failure of reinforced
concrete elements subjected to uniformly distributed dynamic loads. The dynamic load
refers to a shock wave in air with an almost instant increase to its peak value. The brief
discussion in this chapter leads to the following research questions:

2
  What characteristics of the dynamic load control failure in shear?
 What structural characteristics control failure in shear?
 What is the evolution of a shear failure in dynamic events compared to a static
case?
 Up to what accuracy can the shear forces at the supports be predicted?
 Up to what accuracy can the dynamic shear capacity of concrete elements be
determined?

1.3 Scope
The theoretical work in this thesis is conducted with the use of finite element analyses
in order to investigate details of the different aspects of dynamic shear and a number
of tests were also conducted. The work focused on shear failure modes due to uniformly
distributed dynamic loads with an almost instant increase to peak pressure and with a
linear decay to zero for a certain duration. Any effects on a concrete element due to the
negative phase of a real blast load were neglected and local or arbitrary load
distributions were considered outside the scope of this work. Structures subjected to
blast loads may also be subjected to a variety of fragments from the explosion. The
action of such fragments impacting the concrete element was also left outside the scope
of this work. The concrete elements analysed, with spans and depths that approximately
correspond to 1:2 scale, consisted of conventional concrete and reinforcement.
Elements with a geometry that can be considered as full scale were excluded in the
analyses. Furthermore, the analyses were limited to beams on two supports without the
action of axial loads. The beams may also represent one-way slabs and slab strips that
respond in a similar fashion as that of a beam.

1.4 Outline of the thesis

This thesis presents experimental and theoretical analyses and consists of a
introductory part accompanied with five journal papers. The introductory part discusses
and puts the research presented in the appended papers into a broader context. It also
presents additional background and theoretical analyses.

3
The introductory part includes four main chapters. Chapter 2 presents a review of the
characteristics of blast loads and shear in concrete structural elements. Next, Chapter 3
presents the numerical models for concrete, reinforcement and bond between
reinforcing bars and concrete. In Chapter 4, experiments and numerical models are
presented, followed by Chapter 5 where the results of the numerical analyses are
included. These main chapters are followed by Chapter 6, which presents a summary
of the appended journal papers:

 Paper I:
Involves testing of 40 steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams subjected
to static and air blast loads. A total of 22 beams were subjected to air blast
loading and the remaining 18 beams were subjected to static loads. The concrete
compressive strength varied between 36 MPa and 189 MPa with a fibre content
of 1.0 percent by volume. Two different fibre lengths having a length-to-
diameter ratio of 80 were used. The author planned and took part in conducting
the experiments, evaluated the results and wrote the paper.
 Paper II:
Discusses the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete beams subjected to
blast loads with static tests as reference. The beams were cast in several
compressive strengths and the amount of tensile reinforcement was also varied
accordingly. The investigation showed that beams that failed in flexure in the
static tests could fail in flexural shear in the dynamic tests. The author of this
thesis planned and took part in conducting the experiments, evaluated the
results and wrote this paper. Adj. Prof. Mikael Hallgren supported in the
evaluation and reviewed the paper. Prof. Anders Ansell also reviewed the paper.
 Paper III:
This paper presents numerical analyses of a selection of the dynamically tested
beams in Paper II using the software Ansys Autodyn. The analyses
demonstrated the ability to accurately predict the correct failure mode of
reinforced concrete elements subjected to dynamic loads. The author of this
thesis performed the finite element analyses, evaluated the results and wrote
this paper. Tech. Lic. Håkan Hanson supported in the analyses and reviewed
the paper. Prof. Anders Ansell also reviewed the paper.
 Paper IV:
Comprises is a literature review of the dynamic shear of reinforced concrete
elements, with a focus on the parameters that control flexural shear and direct
shear. The dynamic loads are referred to as explosions and impacts. The review
show that several structural and material strength parameters need to be
considered when analysing shear. The author of this thesis performed the

4
 literature review and wrote this paper. Adj. Prof. Mikael Hallgren and Prof.
Anders Ansell reviewed the paper.
 Paper V:
Presents analyses of reinforced concrete beams subjected to extreme dynamic
loads with the use of numerical simulations. The cross-section of the analysed
beams varied using three different depths and two different amounts of
reinforcement for each cross section. The simulations showed that dynamic
direct shear failure appears to be due to a deep beam response and that both
structural and load parameters play a role in developing such a failure mode.
The author of this thesis performed the finite element analyses, evaluated the
results and wrote this paper. Adj. Prof. Mikael Hallgren, Dr. Richard Malm and
Prof. Anders Ansell reviewed the paper.

In Chapters 7, the main findings of the appended papers and the results presented in
Chapter 5 are discussed. Finally, Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of this thesis
accompanied with suggestions for further research.

5
6
Chapter 2
Shear of concrete and dynamic loads
An explosion is a result of a sudden release of energy. There are a number of possible
situations that may cause an explosion, such as that of a sudden relief of compressed
air in a pressure vessel or that from detonation of high explosives. The contents of this
thesis deals only with the severe dynamic loads that arise from the detonation of high
explosives, which generates a shock wave that propagates through the air at supersonic
velocity in all directions.

2.1 Blast loads

2.1.1 Incident blast waves
A shock wave is defined as a discontinuity in pressure, temperature and density
(Meyers 1994). Figure 2.1 shows an idealistic representation of a blast wave profile at
a given distance from the centre of explosion. The blast wave is illustrated with the
time axis at ambient pressure. The arrival of the blast wave creates an almost instant
increase from the ambient pressure to the peak overpressure. The arrival of the shock
front is immediately followed by pressure decay down to the ambient pressure. The
pressure will continue to decrease below the ambient pressure until the minimum
negative pressure is reached, after which the ambient pressure is obtained once more.
The first part of the blast wave, representing overpressure, is termed the positive phase,
and the remaining part is termed the negative phase. The negative phase usually
exhibits a longer duration than the positive phase. In design, only the positive phase is
considered and the negative phase neglected. However, in some cases it is important to
also consider the effects of the negative phase, e.g. when considering damage of
windows or in a case with heavy structures having a response time longer than the
duration of the positive phase. The work in this thesis only involves the load of the
positive phase.

7
Besides the peak overpressure it is also of importance to consider the impulse density
of a blast load. The impulse density of the positive and negative phase, respectively, is
defined by (Baker 1973):
t a t 

 p(t ) dt

i  s (2.1)
ta

ta t  t 

 p(t ) dt

i 
s (2.2)
ta t 

where p denotes the overpressure. The time endpoints of the intervals are chosen as
referred to in Figure 2.1. Due to the expansion of the blast wave, the blast pressure
reduces over an increasing distance while the duration is increased. Thus, blast at close
range produces high pressures with a relatively short duration.

ps Positive
phase

Negative
phase

ta t
ps- + -
t t

Figure 2.1 Ideal blast wave profile at a given distance from the centre of explosion.
The blast wave is illustrated with the time axis at ambient pressure. Based
on Baker (1973).

2.1.2 Reflected blast waves

As the incident blast wave strikes a solid surface the wave is reflected, which brings
the particle velocity to zero while the pressure, density and temperature are reinforced.
The pressure increase during reflection is due to the conversion of the kinetic energy
of the air immediately behind the shock front into internal energy as the moving air
particles are decelerated at the surface. The actual pressure that develops is determined
by various factors such as the peak overpressure of the incident blast wave and the

8
angle between the direction of motion of the wave and the face of the structure, i.e. the
angle of incidence. The largest increase will, for stronger shock waves, arise for normal
reflection where the direction of motion of the wave is perpendicular to the surface at
the point of incidence. The reflected pressure will always be at least twice that of the
incident pressure, but in many cases the reflected pressure will be reinforced by a factor
several times larger in magnitude. The impulse density will in a similar manner be
reinforced by reflection. As a blast wave strikes a solid surface, the resulting load will
exhibit a distribution over the surface as schematically shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Blast wave propagation (a) at different points in time t1–t3 and (b) the
resulting blast load on the surface. Based on Baker (1973).

An explosive charge detonating inside a tunnel will initially give rise to a complicated
event due to the blast wave reflections against the tunnel walls, roof and floor.
However, at a certain distance from the centre of explosion the propagation of the two
shock fronts propagating in opposite longitudinal directions will be mainly one-
dimensional and planar. In a tunnel with a constant cross section this one-dimensional
propagation of the blast waves leads to higher pressures, higher impulse densities and
longer durations of the blast waves compared to the case with a spherical expansion of
the shock front. A shock tube, which can be considered as a small tunnel, was used in
the dynamic tests with concrete beams in order to generate blast loads with relatively
small amounts of explosive charges as presented in Papers I–II and further analysed
using numerical simulations in Paper III.

9
2.1.3 Impulse loads
The intensity of a load generally refers to its rise time to the peak load and the
magnitude of the load. It is well known that the flexural response of structural elements
under dynamic loads depends on the rise time and the peak pressure with respect to the
natural period of vibration and the resistance of the element (Granström 1958; Biggs
1964). Blast waves have a rise time of a fraction of 1 ms (Ross 1983), while loads from
objects impacting on a concrete element typically have rise times of approximately 1
ms (Niklasson 1994; Hughes & Speirs 1982). This applies to impact velocities in the
range of a few metres per second. Another way of describing the load variations in time
is to refer to its frequency content. Accordingly, a short rise time can be regarded as a
load containing a large number of frequencies as opposed to a load with a longer rise
time, which on the contrary contains a lower number of frequencies.

When considering intense dynamic loads such as blast loads, it is convenient to relate
its duration to the natural period of vibration T of the structural element in question.
Impulsive loads typically have high amplitudes and are of short duration in relation to
the natural period of vibration of the loaded element. It is suggested in Biggs (1964)
that a load can be regarded as impulsive if the duration is below 0.1 times the natural
period of the system. Due to this short duration, no significant deflections take place
during this period of time and negligible resistance in the element will be developed.
In such a case, the actual variations of the load can be approximated as of no importance
and the magnitude of the impulse becomes the main load parameter. Explosions at close
range to a wall and impacts can typically be regarded as such impulsive loads. On the
other hand, if the load duration is long with respect to the natural period, the load
variations of the positive phase need to be taken into account in the analysis.

2.2 Static shear

Concrete elements subjected to different types of loading and support conditions need
to resist shear forces. These forces usually act in combination with bending moments
and possibly also with axial forces. This chapter only considers shear in combination
with flexure of a concrete element subjected to static and dynamic loads. Shear in
concrete structures subjected to static loads is briefly reviewed in Paper IV and V. Static
shear is also reviewed here, however, extended to also include more variations of shear
failure modes. In this context, reinforced concrete elements without transverse
reinforcement are only considered. Shear cracks in concrete elements can generally be
related to the tensile strength of concrete. Due to the distribution of principal tensile
stresses in a beam subjected to an external load, shear cracks are inclined (diagonal

10
tension cracks) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the element. A concrete element
resists shear through two main mechanisms, namely through beam action and arch
action (Park & Paulay 1974).

Beam action refers to the mechanism with the assumption of a perfect bond between
the reinforcement and the concrete. The beam action includes the effects of aggregate
friction and interlock in the shear crack, tension and dowel action of the flexural
reinforcement, and the transverse (longitudinal) shear and moment of the concrete
cantilevers (as defined by Park & Paulay) between two cracks. The remaining shear
forces are transferred across the compression zone of the element. The arch action
transfers shear through inclined compression in the element from the load to the
supports. This mechanism requires a horizontal reaction at the supports, which for
simply supported beams, is provided by the flexural reinforcement. The anchorage of
the reinforcement at the support is therefore vital in order for arch action to develop. In
a real concrete element, perfect bond between the reinforcement and the concrete can
not develop due to slip of the reinforcing bars and cracking of the concrete. For these
reasons, the beam and arch mechanisms will provide a combined resistance against
shear in a real element. As the element develops shear cracks, a gradual transition from
beam action to arch action will occur. The element will eventually fail when the
combined beam and arch action no longer are capable of transferring the shear forces.
If, on the other hand, full arch action can be developed the element may be able to
sustain a further load increase.

Kani (1966, 1967) conducted a series of investigations on reinforced concrete beams

without transverse reinforcement. In these investigations where the beams were
subjected to concentrated loads, the beam depth and amount of reinforcement varied.
Based on this work, Kani created a ‘valley of diagonal failure’, see Figure 2.3. This
figure illustrates the relation between the relative beam strength Mu/Mfl, shear span do
depth ratio a/d (or shear slenderness) and geometrical reinforcement ratio . The shear
span a and effective depth d are defined in Figure 2.4. The bending moment at shear
failure is denoted Mu and Mfl is the ultimate bending moment. With reference to Figure
2.3, a transition point exists for each value of  at an a/d of approximately 2.5–3.0 that
defines the lowest bending moment at shear failure. For different  values the transition
points can be connected and becomes a line that defines the lowest values of Mu/Mfl.
According to the findings of Kani, a beam mechanism governs for a/d values above the
transition point, while the arch mechanism governs for values below the transition
point. Thus, a predominant arch mechanism is present at values of a/d < 2.5–3.0, and
these modes are controlled by failure of the area in the vicinity of the arch or by failure
of the arch itself. Figure 2.3 also illustrates that for low amounts of reinforcement ( <
0.5 %), the failure mode is governed by flexure without a risk of shear failures.

11
Figure 2.3 Relative moment capacity Mu/Mfl versus a/d and  (Kani 1966).

While a/d refers to elements subjected to concentrated loads, the shear slenderness for
an element with a distributed load is referred to as the full span to depth ratio (L/d). If
the distributed load is replaced by two resultant forces at the quarter-points closest to
each support, L/d may be translated to a corresponding value of a/d. This way the
parameter L/(4d) can be used, as also mentioned by Ansell et al. (2012). Experimental
investigations on reinforced concrete beams by Leonhardt & Walther (1962) clearly
show that the shear slenderness plays an important role in different shear mechanisms.
Depending on the shear slenderness, the behaviour of reinforced concrete elements in
shear may be divided into four categories with distinct differences in the shear transfer
mechanism as discussed in Park & Paulay (1974), Kotsovos (2014), Leonhardt &
Walther (1962), Ghaffar et al. (2010), Mattock & Hawkins (1972), Ansell et al. (2012).
The literature on shear does not clearly state limits for when these shear mechanisms
are active. This may be due to the fact that the shear mechanism depends on parameters
such as amount of reinforcement, element depth and material properties of the concrete
and reinforcement. Based on the literature, an attempt is made herein to quantify the
four regions for different shear slenderness. Thus, shear failures may generally be
classified into:

 flexural shear failure

 shear compression failure (initiated by web shear)
 failure by splitting or crushing of the compressive strut
 direct shear failure.

12
These shear modes will be briefly discussed in the following sections with reference to
Figure 2.4–2.6. Table 2.1 summarises the estimated limits of shear failure modes for
varying shear slenderness.

2.2.1 Flexural shear failure

Flexural shear failures of concrete elements subjected to continuously increasing static
loads are known to originate from a flexural crack that develops into an inclined crack
as discussed in Park & Paulay (1974) and Ansell et al. (2012), see Figure 2.4 (a).
Diagonal tension failure by flexural shear occurs at locations where both shear and
flexural stresses exist. Flexural shear typically occurs for point-loaded beams with
approximately a/d of 3–7 (Park & Paulay 1974; Leonhardt & Walther 1962). This
failure mode can also occur for distributed loads as shown by Leonhardt & Walther
(1962). These tests indicate that flexural shear can occur for L/d of approximately
11–20. Larger shear slenderness will result in a flexural failure. Figure 2.5 (c) and 2.6
(b) show test results of beams failing in flexural shear.

2.2.2 Shear compression failure

Diagonal tension cracks may occur where relatively large shear forces and
comparatively small bending moments exist. Such a case is typically where a point load
is located relatively close to the support, i.e. at values of a/d < 3 for rectangular cross
sections. The diagonal tension crack is initiated in regions near the neutral axis of the
element, see Figure 2.4 (b), and does not progress from a flexural crack. Web shear
cracks can also appear in the webs of flanged beams or near inflection points for
continuous beams. As the shear crack propagates under an increasing load, the
compression zone of the element is reduced and eventually becomes too small to resist
the compression stresses in that region. This subsequently leads to crushing of the
concrete and failure of the element. Such a failure is denoted a shear compression
failure and typically occurs for a/d = 1.5–3 (Park & Paulay 1974; Leonhardt & Walther
1962; Ghaffar et al. 2010; Kotsovos 2014), see Figure 2.4 (c). For a distributed load
the corresponding limits are estimated to approximately L/d = 5–11. Tested beams that
failed in shear compression are shown in Figure 2.5 (b) and 2.6 (a). The formation of
the diagonal crack does not lead to immediate failure, and the applied load must be
increased further to cause failure. Figure 2.7 illustrates the shear force at failure for low
values of a/d, i.e. with a significant increase in shear capacity compared to a/d > 3.

13
2.2.3 Failure by splitting or crushing of the concrete strut
Failure by crushing or splitting of the concrete compressive strut may occur for a point
load close to the support, i.e. at a/d < 1.5 (Park & Paulay 1974; Leonhardt & Walther
1962; Ghaffar et al. 2010), see Figure 2.4 (d). In this case, the load is carried by the
inclined compression strut that develops between the load and the support. Since a
considerable portion of the load is carried by inclined compression struts at each
support, the final failure is due to splitting or crushing of the concrete in these struts.
One example of a tested beam failing in this mode is shown in Figure 2.5 (a). Such
failures have also been observed in other tests with deep beams for a/d ≤ 1, see for
instance Rogowsky & MacGregor (1983) and Gedik (2011). It is uncertain if a
distributed load can cause crushing of the compressive strut, but it is estimated that L/d
needs to be less than 5. Figure 2.7 illustrates the shear force at failure for low values of
a/d, i.e. with a significant increase in shear capacity compared to the case where
a/d > 3.

2.2.4 Direct shear failure

Direct shear failure is a sliding type of failure along a well-defined plane through the
depth of the element. This type of failure is only critical in a case where the
concentrated load is very close to the support, i.e. at a/d < 0.5 (Park & Paulay 1974).
The failure mechanism of direct shear is different in initially uncracked and cracked
concrete. In the latter case, the shear transfer mechanism will be due to aggregate
interlock and dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement. Shear transfer for an
initially uncracked concrete cross section will cause several short diagonal tension
cracks to develop along the shear plane (Mattock & Hawkins 1972), as shown in
Figure 2.4 (e). Direct shear failure will occur when the small concrete struts fail under
the combined action of compression and shear, or when the local shear stresses at the
ends of the struts reach the ultimate capacity. The final stage is characterised by a
sliding type of failure along the shear plane through the depth of the element. It is not
probable that a distributed load can cause a direct shear failure due to the necessary
concentration of a load close to the support.

14
 F F F

a a a

(a) (b) (c)

F
F

a a

(d) (e)
Figure 2.4 Schematic view of (a) diagonal tension by flexural shear, (b) diagonal
tension by web shear, (c) shear compression, (d) crushing/splitting of the
concrete strut and (e) direct shear.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 2.5 Tested beams with two concentrated loads for a/d = (a) 1.0, (b) 1.5 and
(c) 4.0. Tests by Leonhardt & Walther (1962).

15
 (a)

(b)
Figure 2.6 Tested beams with a distributed load for L/d = (a) 5.2 and (b) 14.7. Tests
by Leonhardt & Walther (1962).

(a) (b)
Figure 2.7 The shear capacity at varying shear slenderness for (a) point loaded
beams and (b) beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads according
to the results reported by Leonhardt & Walther (1962). From Ansell et al.
(2012).

Table 2.1 Failure modes for concrete elements with estimated variations in shear
slenderness.
Shear slenderness
Failure mode
Concentrated load a/d Distributed load L/d
Flexural shear 3–7 11–20
Shear compression 1.5–3 5–11
Splitting / crushing of
< 1.5 <5
concrete strut
Direct shear < 0.5 -

16
2.2.5 Further notes on static shear
Beams with an applied load at a distance less or equal to 2d are in the literature referred
to as deep beams, e.g., Gedik (2011) and Adhikary et al. (2013). In this case, a
considerable portion of the load can be carried by inclined compression struts at each
support. The shear failures of deep beams have been reported to involve crushing and
splitting of the concrete struts or diagonal tension along the struts, e.g. Rogowsky &
MacGregor (1983), Gedik (2011), Birgisson (2011), Londhe (2011) and Malm &
Holmgren (2008a). Furthermore, tests performed by Birgisson (2011) indicated that a
diagonal tension cracks were able to form at the supports and that caused a shear failure
without crushing of the concrete in the compression zone. The loads were positioned
relatively close to the supports with a shear slenderness a/d of 1.86. Two of the beams
failed as soon as the diagonal tension crack appeared, and for the third beam the load
could be further increased by approximately 17 %. Thus, this was a brittle shear failure
and deviates from the description of a shear compression failure in Section 2.2.2. The
fact that the shear cracks formed at the supports may be due to a web shear crack but
this was not confirmed in the investigation.

It is well known that the shear strength of a concrete beam is reduced with an increased
depth commonly referred to as a size effect. Based on experiments on concrete beams,
Kani (1967) reported that the shear stresses decrease as the beam depth increase.
Figure 2.8 presents the results of four tests on beams with different depth. The
parameter Mu denotes the bending moment at shear failure and Mfl is the ultimate
bending moment of the cross section. It is clear that the relative load capacity of the
beams are reduced at an increasing depth. Bažant & Yu (2005a, 2005b) discuss this
issue using fracture mechanics concepts. Size effects in deep concrete beams were also
reported by Gedik (2011). The same investigation also showed that the beam width
influenced the post-peak behaviour after the maximum load had been obtained. Gedik
reported that wider beams exhibited an increased ductility after the maximum load had
been attained. However, the peak load was not affected by beam width.

17
Figure 2.8 Normalized bending moment for different shear slenderness (a/d) and
beam depth. From Kani (1967).

2.3 Dynamic shear

A structure subjected to dynamic loads may exhibit a significantly different behaviour
compared to the same structure subjected to static loads, especially if the applied load
is impulsive in nature. The abrupt changes in the applied load give rise to accelerations
of the structural elements and, consequently, the effects of inertia and kinetic energy
must be considered in the dynamic analysis. Several investigations have shown that
structural concrete elements are more susceptible to failing in shear when subjected to
dynamic loads (Magnusson 2000; Niklasson 1994). Two types of shear failures have
been reported due to dynamic loads, namely flexural shear and direct shear. These two
modes of dynamic shear failures are discussed in the following sections. Soon after a
dynamic load has been applied, a concrete element will exhibit deflections and
distributions of bending moments and shear forces which significantly deviate from
that of the same element subjected to a static load. This behaviour affects the direct
shear failure. Therefore, in the subsequent section, the response of concrete elements
soon after the load has been applied is discussed.

2.3.1 Flexural shear failure

As thoroughly discussed in Paper IV, several investigations have shown that concrete
elements that failed in flexure under a static load could fail in shear under a dynamic
load, such as in Hughes & Beeby (1982), Niklasson (1994), Morales-Alonso et al.

18
(2011) and Kishi et al. (2002). This is also shown in Paper II. These investigations
involved concrete beams subjected to blast and impact loads. The literature review by
Ansell (2005) also highlights the change in failure mode in several investigations.
Flexural shear failures of concrete elements subjected to continuously increasing static
loads are known to originate from a flexural crack that develops into an inclined crack
(Ansell et al. 2012). In the investigations involving blast and impact loads previously
listed in this section, shear failures exhibited similar types of inclined cracks.
Numerical simulations of concrete beams subjected to blast loading as reported in
Paper III showed that the flexural shear crack developed from a flexural crack in the
same manner as in the static case, which is also reported in Paper IV. This indicates
that flexural shear has the same characteristics for both static and dynamic loading
conditions.

The tests by Niklasson (1994) indicate that the rise time of the load and the subsequent
applied load level control the initiation of shear cracks. Hard impact conditions
generate a relatively short rise time and an increased amplitude compared to the case
with softer impacts. Hard impacts thereby increase the beams’ susceptibility of shear
failures. Such intense loads have a high frequency content and are therefore able to
excite higher vibration modes in the element. This fact results in a larger portion of the
strain energy being due to shear rather than flexure in the element. It should also be
noted that a blast wave having an extremely short rise time exhibits a high-frequency
content that induces higher vibration modes in the element. Furthermore, the beam
stiffness plays an important role such that beams of a relatively high reinforcement
content and under dynamic loading exhibited shear failures, while beams with lower
reinforcement contents failed in bending. Strain rate effects of the concrete and
reinforcement also contribute to an even further increase in stiffness. The influence of
the beam stiffness is more thoroughly discussed in Paper IV.

It is well known that adding steel fibres to the concrete matrix enhances its ductility
and may also increase the flexural strength of a beam compared to a corresponding
beam without any reinforcement. This is thoroughly discussed in Paper I. Other
investigations, involving reinforced concrete beam subjected to blast loads, showed
that beams containing steel fibres failed in bending while similar beams without fibres
failed in shear. Thus, the presence of steel fibres prevented shear cracks from
developing, which increased the shear strength of the beams. This discussion is
included in Paper II

19
2.3.2 Direct shear failure
The direct shear mechanisms during dynamic events are thoroughly discussed in Papers
IV and V. As previously mentioned in Section 2.2.4, it is not probable that a distributed
static load can cause a direct shear failure. However, tests have shown that uncracked
concrete elements can fail in direct shear under the action of a distributed blast load
with high intensity (Slawson 1984; Ross 1983), see also Paper IV and V. In several
cases, the test results reported by Slawson show that the slabs were completely severed
from the walls along vertical and near-vertical failure planes at the supporting walls. It
was further reported that the central portion of the roof slab remained relatively flat as
though no flexural deformations had taken place, see Figure 2.9. In a theoretical
analysis based on Timoshenko beam theory (Ross 1983; Ross & Krawinkler 1985), it
was stated that the actual failure process of the dynamic direct shear failure is unknown.
However, Ross (1983) provides a discussion of a possible dynamic failure mechanism,
which involves the propagation of a near-vertical crack close to the supports due to
wave propagation effects. Further theoretical investigations of dynamic shear are
presented in Krauthammer et al. (1986), Krauthammer et al. (1993a), Krauthammer et
al. (1993b), Chee (2008) and Krauthammer & Astarlioglu (2017) that involve a
Timoshenko beam and a single-degree-of-freedom approach. A direct shear-slip
relationship with an elastic slope, post-cracking slope and a softening slope beyond the
peak value was used in these investigations. The shear-slip relationship refers to the
separation of the structural element along a vertical failure plane. Direct shear stress-
slip relationships for normal and high performance concrete with and without fibre
reinforcement are also proposed for both static and impact loads in French et al. (2017).
The analyses by Ross (1983) also concludes that shorter rise times initiates direct shear
failures at lower pressure levels compared to the case with longer rise times, see also
Section 2.3.1 and Paper IV.

Figure 2.9 Illustration of a post-test view of a slab based on test DS2-3 by Slawson
(1984).

20
2.3.3 Vibration modes
A structural element subjected to transient dynamic loading will experience modes of
vibration that are higher than the fundamental mode. Figure 2.10 shows the first free
modes of vibration for a simply supported (pin-ended) beam. Hughes & Speirs (1982)
made a comparison between the response of the static mode versus first and third free
vibration modes for pin-ended reinforced concrete beams subjected to mid-span impact
of a falling mass, see also Hughes & Beeby (1982). The deformed mode shapes for the
calculated equal potential energies are schematically illustrated in Figure 2.11. This
figure shows reductions in displacements and bending moments for the first and third
vibration modes compared to the corresponding properties for the static mode. The
shear forces, on the other hand, are greater for both vibration modes in relation to the
static mode and this is especially the case for the third mode response. Thus, larger
shear forces can therefore be associated with higher vibration modes excited in a beam
under dynamic loading compared to that of a static loading case. These results show
similarities to the discussion in the previous section and in Paper IV, where it was
shown that higher modes are the major contributors to shear. See also the discussion
on load rise times and soft and hard impacts in Section 2.3.1.

Figure 2.10 The first three free vibration modes of a simply supported beam subjected
to a uniform symmetric load.

21
 Static mode for mid-span Free vibration modes for pin-ended beams
loading
1st mode 3rd mode
Displacement

0.11
1 0.99

1 0.82 0.82

Shear
3.84
1.28
1
1

Figure 2.11 Comparisons between different modes with equal potential energies.
Modified from Hughes & Speirs (1982).

2.4 Models for calculations of the shear capacity

There exists different models for calculation of the shear capacity of concrete structural
elements. In this section, models for calculations of the flexural and direct shear
capacities are described. A description of the model for calculations of the support
reactions is also included.

2.4.1 Flexural shear capacity

Swedish design manual for protective construction
In this section, a brief overview of the model in the Swedish design manual for
protective design FKR (Swedish Fortifications Agency 2011) for calculating the shear
capacity of reinforced concrete elements is given. The shear capacity is calculated
according to:

𝑉𝑐 = 𝑘𝑐 𝑏𝑑 (2.3)

22
where b and d denote the element width and the effective depth, respectively. The
strength parameter kc is determined by:

𝑘𝜇
𝑘𝑐 = 𝑘𝜏 (2.4)
𝑠

where s is a safety factor and k and k are calculated according to Eq. (2.5–2.6) and
Eq. (2.7–2.8), respectively.

𝜇 − 0.1
𝑘𝜇 = 0.7 + (2.5)
3

The geometrical reinforcement ratio  is determined by:

𝐴𝑠
𝜇= (2.6)
𝑏𝑑

0.25𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑎𝜏
𝑘𝜏 = 0.45 𝑎𝜏 for ≥ 0.45 (2.7)
𝑑
𝑑

𝑎𝜏
𝑘𝜏 = 0.25𝑓𝑐𝑘 for < 0.45 (2.8)
𝑑

In these expressions, As denotes the area of flexural reinforcement and fck is the
characteristic compressive strength of concrete. The shear span is denoted a.
Determining the shear span plays an important role in the calculations of the shear
capacity in FKR. The method employed in these design rules uses the initial response
where the beam is regarded as temporarily responding with an apparently low shear
slenderness L’/d soon after the load has been applied. This structural behaviour in
dynamic events is further explained in Paper IV. Eq. (2.9) presents the expression for
calculations of the shear span for simply supported beams and Eq. (2.10) is presented
without the 0.025 term.
𝑎𝜏 𝑞
= 0.025 + 0.25 ∙ (2.9)
𝐿 𝑝

𝑎𝜏 𝑞
= 0.25 ∙ (2.10)
𝐿 𝑝

Parameters p, q and L refer to the applied peak pressure, the static load capacity of the
structural element and its span, respectively. In the derivation of Eq. (2.10), the

23
influence of inertial forces are neglected. When inertial forces instead are included the
expression changes into Eq. (2.11).

𝑎𝜏 𝑞
= 0.43 ∙ (2.11)
𝐿 𝑝

This expression Appendix C presents the background to Eq. (2.9–2.11). It should be

noted that Eq. (2.11) is not included in FKR.

FKR states that Eq. (2.3–2.8) are valid for the case that a/d ≤ 1.5, and that shear design
according to a conventional design code shall be employed for a/d > 1.5. However,
Eq. (2.7) states that k is valid for a/d ≥ 0.45 without an upper limit. In this thesis, the
interpretation was made that these equations are to be used to calculate the shear
capacity during the initial response of the element and before deflections in the
fundamental vibration mode take place. Thus, it is assumed that the element responds
in an apparently low shear slenderness with an enhanced shear strength. The Swedish
Betonghandbok (1990) provides a model for enhancing the shear strength for elements
subjected to a uniformly distributed load under static conditions. This model allows for
an increased shear strength at reduced values of L/d down to the lowest slenderness of
6.0, see Figure 2.12. The model in FKR is adjusted to fit the function in Betonghandbok
(1990) starting from an L/d of 6.0 in a continuous curve down to a value of 1.8. This
part of the curve is denoted ‘FKR’ in the figure and can be interpreted as an
extrapolation of the original curve in Betonghandbok. In the same figure, a curve
denoted ‘FKR+’ is included, which is based on Eq. (2.7) without using an upper limit
of a/d. Thus, it appears as though Eq. (2.7) is allowed between the limits 0.45 ≤ a/d ≤
1.5, and that the function in Betonghandbok is to be employed for a/d > 1.5, which
corresponds to an L/d of 6.0 for distributed loads. It should be noted, however, that the
function in Betonghandbok is based on the former Swedish design code that is no
longer valid for design of conventional concrete structures. Thus, Eq. (2.3–2.8) may be
valid for determining the direct shear capacity of a concrete section.

24
 7

6
Incerase in shear capacity

4
FKR
FKR+
3
Betonghandbok

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
L/d
Figure 2.12 The increase in shear strength for a varying shear slenderness L/d.

Eurocode 2
The expression for calculations of the shear capacity without shear reinforcement or
normal forces is in Eurocode 2, EN 1992-1-1:2005 (Swedish Standards Institute 2005),
as follows:

1 3
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 𝑘 100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 (fck in MPa) (2.12)

where

200 (2.13)
𝑘 =1+ ≤ 2.0
𝑑

and
𝐴𝑠1
𝜌1 = ≤ 0.02 (2.14)
𝑏𝑤 𝑑

and CRd,c = 0.18 (for c = 1.0)

The parameter fck is the characteristic concrete compressive strength, and bw and d is
the element width and effective depth, respectively. The area of reinforcement is
denoted As1. The maximum shear at the support shall not exceed VRd,max, which is a

25
measure of the compression strength of the concrete compressive strut at the supports
and is calculates as:

𝑉𝐸𝑑 ≤ 𝑉𝑅𝑑 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5𝑏𝑤 𝑑𝜈𝑓𝑐𝑑 (2.15)

where
𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝜈 = 0.6 1 − (2.16)
250

Here, fcd is the design concrete compressive strength. The shear capacity is compared
to the reactions at a distance d from the face of the supports. Any reductions of the
reactions due to any applied forces placed close to the supports were not accounted for
in the calculations herein.

Draft revision of Eurocode 2

A simplified and closed form expression proposed for a revised Eurocode 2 (prEN
1992-1-1:2018, CEN 2018) for calculations of the shear capacity without shear
reinforcement or normal forces derived from the critical shear crack theory by Muttoni
& Ruiz (2008) is as follows:

1 3
0.6 𝑑𝑑𝑔
𝜏𝑅𝑑𝑐 = 100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 (fck in MPa) (2.17)
𝛾𝑐 𝑎𝑣

where

𝑑𝑑𝑔 = 16 + 𝐷𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 ≤ 40 mm (for fck ≤ 60 MPa) (2.18)

and
𝑎𝑐𝑠
𝑎𝑣 = ∙𝑑 (2.19)
4

𝑀𝐸𝑑
𝑎𝑐𝑠 = ≥𝑑 (2.20)
𝑉𝐸𝑑

In the calculations herein, a Dlower was set to 16. In the calculation of acs, the design
values of the applied bending moment MEd and shear force VEd in the critical cross
section are used. The analyses in this thesis only consider uniformly distributed loads
and, therefore, the value of acs was approximated to d according to Eq. (2.20). The
parameter c was set to 1.0.

26
2.4.2 Direct shear capacity
The direct shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams may be calculated according to
Department of Defense (2008):

𝑉𝑑 = 0.18𝑓𝑑𝑐 𝑏𝑑 (2.21)

where fdc is the dynamic compressive strength of concrete, b is the element width and
d denotes the effective depth.

Another model for calculating the direct shear capacity was originally proposed by
Hawkins (1982), which utilizes a piecewise linear approach to relate direct shear
strength and the corresponding shear slip values. This model was later modified for
applications to dynamic loads by applying an enhancement factor of 1.4 to account for
the effects of strain rate and in-plane compression Krauthammer et al. (1986). For the
purpose of calculating the direct shear capacity of the maximum shear strength m in
the modified model was used and multiplied by the beam width and the effective depth
as follows:

𝑉𝑑 = 1.4 8 𝑓𝑐 + 0.8𝜌𝑣 𝑓𝑦 𝑏𝑑 (2.22)

In Eq. (2.22), fc is in psi, and b and d are in inches. Converting this equation for
calculations in SI units becomes:

𝑉𝑑 = 1.4 8 145𝑓𝑐 + 0.8𝜌𝑣 ∙ 145𝑓𝑦 6.895𝑏𝑑 (2.23)

Thus, fc is in MPa, and b and d are in metres. The geometrical reinforcement ratio is
denoted by v. These equations account for direct shear with shear reinforcement across
the shear plane while the concrete beams modelled herein do not contain such shear
reinforcement other than the tensile and compression bars. The tensile reinforcement
was included in the calculations herein even though it is probable that this might
overestimate the influence of the reinforcement on the direct shear capacity.

2.4.3 Support reactions

The support reactions of a structural element subjected to a dynamic load is usually
regarded as a function of the flexural resistance and the applied load as discussed by
Biggs 1964 and in the Swedish design manual for protective design FKR (Swedish
Fortifications Agency 2011). Both refer to similar expressions and also provide similar

27
results. The basis for these expressions is the dynamic equilibrium of the beam
subjected to a uniformly distributed load, and the assumption that the beam deflects in
its fundamental mode. The expression for calculating the reactions at each support for
simply supported beams in FKR is as follows:

𝜒𝑝2 𝜒𝑝2
𝑅𝑑 = 0.5 ∙ 𝑝 ∙ 1 − + 𝑞𝑑 ∙ ∙𝐿∙𝑏 (2.24)
𝜒𝑚 𝜒𝑚

where for beams

𝑝
p = 0.64 and m = 0.50 for ⁄𝑞𝑑 ≤ 2

𝑝
p = 0.50 and m = 0.33 for ⁄𝑞𝑑 > 2

The parameters p and qd denote the applied peak pressure and the static load bearing
capacity of the beam, respectively. The beam span and width are denoted with L and b,
respectively.

28
Chapter 3
Material models
Finite element modelling and analyses enables detailed investigations of the strain and
stress states in a concrete element subjected to complex loads. Certain material models
also permits analyses of local damage initiation and evolution of failure zones of the
element, which would not be possible in experiments. This enables an increased
understanding of different types of failures that may occur in concrete elements
subjected to intense blast loads.

3.1 Material dynamic properties

The dynamic load will introduce a certain degree of deformation rate in the different
parts of the structural elements as these deform. This is commonly referred to as strain
rate effects in the material, which results in increases of the material strength and this
affects the structural response of the element. Reinforced concrete structures subjected
to blast loads will respond by deforming over a relatively short period of time, and the
strain rates in the concrete and reinforcement reach magnitudes considerably higher
than that of a statically loaded structure. For concrete, a static compressive and tensile
load is defined at a strain rate of 3·10-5 s-1 and 1·10-6 s-1, respectively, according to CEB
(1993). As a comparison, strain rates of around 1 s-1 can be expected for concrete
elements subjected to blast loading (Palm 1989; Magnusson & Hallgren 2000). The
material strength increase is normally referred to as a dynamic increase factor (DIF),
which is the ratio of the dynamic to the static value. Several aspects on the effects on
the material properties of concrete and steel reinforcement are given in the following
sections.

3.1.1 Concrete tension and compression

Several researchers have experimentally studied the compressive and tensile strength
of concrete at different strain rates. A selection of their commonly published results for
concrete in compression and tension are presented in Figure 3.1–3.2. For strain rates
exceeding static loads there is an increasingly larger scatter in test results for increasing
strain rates. Bischoff & Perry (1991) suggest that this relatively large scatter for the
compressive behaviour of concrete may depend on factors such as experimental
techniques used and methods of analysis employed. Other factors that can influence

29
the results are specimen size, geometry and aspect ratio as well as moisture content in
the specimens. Therefore, care should be taken when comparing the results of concrete
strength properties from different research programs.

Figure 3.1 Strain rate effects on the concrete compressive strength. From Bischoff &
Perry (1991).

Figure 3.2 Strain rate effects on the concrete tensile strength. From Johansson
(2000) and based on Malvar & Crawford (1998a).

30
For both compressive and tensile loading, two intervals with different strain rate
dependencies exist and with a relatively sharp transition zone between these. The first
more moderate strength increase has been explained by different authors and is
summarised by Johansson (2000) and later in Magnusson (2007). The increase in both
compressive and tensile strength for this interval may be explained by viscous effects
with free water in the micropores. At strain rates exceeding the transition zone there
will be a sharper strength increase. Explanations for this behaviour can mainly be
ascribed to inertia effects and lateral confinement. Weerheijm (1992) studied strain rate
effects on the tensile strength of concrete by using linear elastic fracture mechanics.
His studies showed that changed stress and energy distributions due to inertia effects
around the crack tips were the cause of the rapid strength increase. At an increasing
static compressive loading the behaviour will be affected by the propagation of
microcracks (Zielinski 1984). When the specimen instead is exposed to a rapid load,
the time available for initiation and propagation of microcracks will be reduced
(Bishoff & Perry 1991). This could be an explanation of the strain-rate dependent
behaviour at higher strain rates. Johansson (2000) reasons that the effects of the inertia
effects around the crack tips, which explains tensile strain rate sensitivity, also is a
reasonable explanation since the compressive failure is also governed by cracking.
Bishoff & Perry (1991) suggest that the sudden increase in compressive strength also
can be ascribed to lateral inertia confinement.

A model for the strain rate dependence of concrete in compression and tension is
presented in CEB (1993) and fib (2012). However, the former version of the Model
Code provides models that also include the reduced strain rate sensitivity of higher
concrete strength, which was excluded in Model Code 2010. Thus, the strain rate model
for concrete compression in Model Code 1990 was used in the work presented herein.
The ratio of dynamic to static compressive strength for strain rates up to 30 s-1 is given
as:
1.026𝛼 𝑠
𝑓𝑐𝑑 𝜀̇𝑐
= (3.1)
𝑓𝑐 𝜀̇𝑐0

where fcd and fc denote the dynamic and static compressive strength, and 𝜀̇𝑐 and 𝜀̇𝑐0
(= 310-5 s-1) are the actual and static strain rates, respectively.

The strain rate factor s is given as

−1
𝑓𝑐
𝛼𝑠 = 5 + 9 (3.2)
𝑓𝑐0

31
where fc0 = 10 MPa. This model is presented graphically in Figure 3.3 and appears to
properly fit the test data as shown in Figure 3.1.

In Model Codes 1990 and 2010, the change in a moderate strength increase into the
more dramatic strength enhancement is set to a strain rate of 30 s-1 and 10 s-1 for tensile
loading. This does not agree well for tensile stresses. Malvar & Crawford (1998a) argue
that available test data reveal that the change in slope should instead occur around
1 s-1. Therefore, they proposed a formulation similar to the Model Code 1990, which
was fit against test data. According to Malvar & Crawford, the ratio of dynamic to static
compressive strength is given as:
𝛿
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑑 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡
= for 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡 ≤ 1.0 s-1 (3.3)
𝑓𝑐𝑡 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡0

1/3
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑑 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡
=𝛽 for 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡 > 1.0 s-1 (3.4)
𝑓𝑐𝑡 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡0

where fctd and fct denote the dynamic and static tensile strength, and 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡 and 𝜀̇𝑐𝑡0
(= 110-6 s-1) are the actual and static strain rates, respectively. The strain rate factor 
is given as

−1
𝑓𝑐
𝛿 = 1+8 (3.5)
𝑓𝑐0

where fc0 = 10 MPa. The strain rate factor is given as:

𝑙𝑜𝑔𝛽 = 6𝛿 − 2 (3.6)

This model is presented graphically in Figure 3.3 and appears to properly fit the test
data as shown in Figure 3.2. The higher strain rate sensitivity of concrete in tension is
also noted in these figures.

32
 3.5

3
Dynamic increase factor

2.5

1.5

0.5 Compressive strength

Tensile strength
0
1.0E-06
10-6 1.0E-05
10-5 1.0E-04
10-4 1.0E-03
10-3 1.0E-02
10-2 1.0E-01
10-1 1.0E+00
100 1.0E+01
101
Strain rate (s-1)
Figure 3.3 Strain rate dependence of concrete in compression (fc = 45 MPa)
according to the CEB (1993) and in tension with the modified model
according to Malvar and Crawford (1998a).

3.1.2 Concrete elastic modulus

The elastic modulus of concrete is also affected by changes in strain rate. According to
Bishoff and Perry (1991), the enhancement of the elastic modulus at dynamic loading
can be ascribed to the decrease in internal microcracking at a given stress level with an
increasing strain rate. This behaviour results in a stress-strain curve that remains linear
up to higher stress values. The strain-rate dependence of the elastic modulus is also
included in fib (2012) as presented in Figure 3.4. The ratio of dynamic to static
compressive strength for different strain rates is given as:
0.026
𝐸𝑐𝑑 𝜀̇𝑐
= (3.7)
𝐸𝑐𝑖 𝜀̇𝑐0

where Ecd and Eci denote the dynamic and static elastic modulus, and 𝜀̇𝑐 and 𝜀̇𝑐0 are the
actual and static strain rates, respectively. The strain rate 𝜀̇𝑐0 is given the value
310-5 s-1 for compression and 110-6 s-1 for tension. This model is presented graphically
in Figure 3.4. It is noted that the elastic modulus in tension exhibits a higher sensitivity
compared to the modulus in compression. Also, the model does not account for a sharp
transition zone with two different strain rate dependencies. Furthermore, the model
does not account for possible strain rate dependencies due to varying concrete
strengths.

33
 2

1.8
Dynamic increase factor

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Compression
Tension
0.8
10-6
1.0E-06 10-5
1.0E-05 10-4
1.0E-04 10-3
1.0E-03 10-2
1.0E-02 10-1
1.0E-01 100
1.0E+00 101
1.0E+01
Strain rate (s-1)
Figure 3.4 Strain rate dependence of concrete elastic modulus according to fib
(2012).

3.1.3 Concrete fracture energy

Energy is consumed in the process of crack initiation and propagation in concrete. The
fracture energy is the total energy consumed per unit area of the fracture surface during
failure. Previous research has shown that also the fracture energy of concrete in tension
is sensitive to strain rate. Two investigations used the Split-Hopkinson-Bar test set-up
as a basis for their spall tests on concrete specimens. Weerheijm & Van Doormaal
(2007) used a detonating charge at a short distance from the end of the steel bar to
create the pressure pulse. Schuler et al. (2006), on the other hand, used a projectile that
impacted on the end of the bar. Both investigations concluded that the fracture energy
is enhanced at an increasing strain rate. The test results in Schuler et al. (2006) show a
relationship between the relative increase of the fracture energy with the crack opening
velocity and the strain rate. Herein, these results were interpreted as presented in
Figure 3.5. The tests indicate that the fracture energy is constant up to a strain rate of
about 0.3 s-1, where after the energy increases at a constant rate.

In terms of fracture toughness, the fracture energy is not an adequate measure. Instead,
the characteristic length is a more adequate parameter to describe the toughness of a
material Betonghandbok (2000). The characteristic length depends on the fracture
energy GF, the elastic modulus E and the tensile strength ft and is calculated according
to:

34
 2

Dynamic increase factor 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strain rate (s-1)

Figure 3.5 Strain rate dependence of the fracture energy based on the research
conducted by Schuler et al. (2006) for normal strength concrete.

𝐸𝐺𝐹
𝑙𝑐ℎ = (3.8)
𝑓𝑡2

This equation may be regarded in such a way that lch is proportional to the ratio of
energy consumed per unit area and the elastic energy per volume unit that is released.
Increasing values of lch results in an increased toughness and decreasing values results
in a reduced toughness. Considering the strain rate effects of GF, E and ft in dynamic
events results in different values of lch. Using the strain rate dependence in
Section 3.1.1–3.1.2 and Figure 3.5 as a basis, Figure 3.6 presents the results of how lch
is reduced at strain rates 0.001 s-1, 0.1 s-1 and 10 s-1. It is clear that the toughness of
concrete in tension is reduced considerably at an increasing strain rate.

35
 0.25

0.20
Characteristic length (m)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Strain rate (s-1)
Figure 3.6 The characteristic length for three different strain rates.

3.1.4 Steel reinforcement

Steel reinforcing bars are also affected by dynamic loads and will exhibit different
degrees of strength increases depending on steel grade. The elastic modulus, however,
is usually found to remain constant as stated by Malvar & Crawford (1998b). The
reasons for the strength increase of steel reinforcement are explained to be due to
dislocation effects originating from the crystalline structure of the steel under shear
stresses, Palm (1989) and Meyers (1994). Malvar & Crawford proposed a formulation
of the dynamic increase factor (DIF) for both the yield strength and ultimate strength
for reinforcing bars at different strain rates as follows:
𝛼
𝜀̇
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = (3.9)
10−4

where for the yield stress:

𝑓𝑦
𝛼 = 0.074 − 0.040 (3.10)
414

and for the ultimate stress:

𝑓𝑦
𝛼 = 0.019 − 0.009 (3.11)
414

where 𝜀̇ is the strain rate (s-1), and fy is the yield strength (MPa) of the reinforcing bar.
This formulation is valid for bars with yield strengths between 290 MPa and 710 MPa

36
and for strain rates of 0.0001–225 s-1. According to this formulation the magnitude of
the DIF will decrease with an increasing steel yield strength, which is the case for real
bars according to Malvar and Crawford (1998b). Figure 3.7 illustrates the strain rate
dependence of the yield and ultimate strength of the reinforcing steel. The figure shows
that the yield strength increase is more significant compared to that of the ultimate
strength. Thus, the ductitliy of the reinforcement is reduced at higher strain rates.

1.5

1.4
Dynamic increase factor

1.3

1.2

1.1

Yield strength
0.9
Ultimate strength

0.8
0.0001
10-4 0.001
10-3 0.01
10-2 0.1-1
10 10
10 101
Strain rate (s-1)
Figure 3.7 Strain rate dependence on the yield and ultimate strength of reinforcing
steel according to Malvar and Crawford (1998b) for a static yield and
ultimate strength of 500 and 600 MPa, respectively.

3.2 Material models for concrete

3.2.1 RHT model
The RHT material model is a general constitutive model for brittle materials (Riedel
2000). This model has been used in several investigations in the analyses of projectile
penetration in concrete and structural response of concrete beams subjected to blast
loads such as in Hansson (2011) and the work in Paper III. The stress states in the model
is described by three pressure dependent yield surfaces that define the elastic limit
surface, failure surface and the residual strength surface for crushed material, see
Figure 3.8. All surfaces are scaled with reference to the uniaxial compressive strength
for the concrete. In addition, the elastic limit and failure surfaces are strain rate

37
dependent. During a continuously increased loading of the material, the elastic surface
is eventually reached after which the shear modulus is reduced and the stresses will
increase during strain hardening up to the failure surface. After the failure surface has
been reached increasing plastic strains will lead to damage evolution and strength
reduction. The damage model describes the strength degradation due to increasing
plastic strains pl until the residual strength surface is finally reached. The damage
growth in the material is calculated according to:
∆𝜀𝑝𝑙
𝐷= 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 (3.12)
𝜀𝑝𝑙

𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 ∗ 𝐷𝑅𝐻𝑇 2 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 (3.13)

𝜀𝑝𝑙 = 𝐷𝑅𝐻𝑇1 𝑝∗ − 𝑝𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑙 ≥ 𝜀𝑝𝑙 ,𝑚𝑖𝑛

where DRHT1 and DRHT2 are specific material parameters, and p* is the pressure
∗
normalised to the uniaxial compressive strength (p/fc). The parameter 𝑝𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑙 is defined
𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒
in Figure 3.9, and 𝜀𝑝𝑙 ,𝑚𝑖𝑛 is the lower limit of the failure strain. The damage variable
D can take values 0–1, where the former expresses undamaged material and the latter
fully damaged material. The relationship for the compressive meridian in Riedel (2000)
is not used for pressures below fc/3. A piecewise linear approximation is instead used
as shown in Figure 3.9. Furthermore, an associated flow rule was employed, which
considers the plastic volume increase of the concrete that occurs near failure.

Elastic limit
surface

Failure surface Residual strength

surface
Figure 3.8 The three surfaces of the RHT concrete model as 3D projections.
Modified from Hansson (2011).

38
Figure 3.9 The linear approximation of the compressive meridian at pressures below
fc/3. From Hansson (2011) and Riedel (2000).

3.2.2 Concrete damaged plasticity

The Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) model was used for calculations of the stress-
strain states of the concrete (Abaqus 2011). This model is intended for analyses of
concrete structures under cyclic or dynamic loading and has been used in previous
investigations for both static and dynamic loads such as in Malm & Holmgren (2008b)
and Kamali (2012). The CDP model is based on the models proposed by Lubliner et al.
(1989) and by Lee and Fenves (1998).

As a concrete specimen is unloaded from any point on the strain softening branch of
the stress-strain curves, the unloading response is weakened, see Figure 3.10. Thus, the
elastic stiffness of the material appears to be weakened and this effect becomes more
pronounced at an increasing plastic strain. Therefore, the degraded response is
characterised by the two independent uniaxial damage variables dt (in tension) and dc
(in compression). The degree of damage is associated with the failure due to cracking
and crushing of the concrete, respectively. The damage variables can take values 0–1,
where the former expresses undamaged material and the latter fully damaged material.
The stress-strain relations under uniaxial tension and compression, respectively,
become (Abaqus 2011):
𝑝𝑙
𝜎𝑡 = 1 − 𝑑𝑡 𝐸0 𝜀𝑡 − 𝜀𝑡 (3.14)

𝑝𝑙
𝜎𝑐 = 1 − 𝑑𝑐 𝐸0 𝜀𝑐 − 𝜀𝑐 (3.15)

39
where the parameters are explained in Figure 3.10. The values of the maximum damage
parameter were limited to represent 1 % of the tensile strength and a maximum of 0.97
for the damage in compression, see Appendix B.

The strain rate dependent concrete strength can be tabulated for both compression and
tension. However, simulations on prisms subjected to uniaxial compressive and tensile
loads, respectively, revealed that the rate dependence of tensile stresses was not
functional. Therefore, the static concrete compressive and tensile strength was
increased with a DIF based on the strain rate of the tensile reinforcement in all
simulations. It is recognised that the strain rates vary throughout the concrete element
and at different points in time during a dynamic response. Thus, using a constant DIF
is a simplified approach. Therefore, simulations were performed with varying DIF
factors to specifically study the effects on the support reactions and the failure modes
in Appendix A. Strain rate effects for concrete compressive and tensile strength were
accounted for by using the relationships in fib (2012) and Malvar & Crawford (1998a),
respectively. The relationship in fib (2012) was used for the corresponding strain rate
effects of the elastic modulus.

The CDP model employs a non-associative flow rule and, thus, the plastic potential
function and the yield surface do not coincide. The dilation is a measure of the plastic
volume increase that occurs near failure of the concrete in compression. In Abaqus, the
dilation angle is used as a material parameter where a low value will produce a brittle
behaviour and higher values will produce a more ductile behaviour (Malm, 2009). This
author conducted a literature survey on the value of the dilation angle, which was used
as a basis for the simulations performed herein and in Paper V, see Appendix B.

According to Chen (1982) the yield surface of concrete has a triangular cross-sectional
shape in the deviatoric plane and at low hydrostatic pressures, but will show a more
circular shape at higher pressure levels. At low pressures, the failure in concrete is
typically brittle in nature, which is the case for tensile stresses and compressive stresses
at low pressures. On the other hand, if concrete is subjected to higher hydrostatic
pressures the material can deform plastically on the failure surface like a ductile
material before failure strains are obtained (Chen, 1982). Furthermore, the CDP model
uses a factor Kc to control the shape of the yield surface in the deviatoric plane, see
Figure 3.11. A value of 0.67 was used in the simulations performed herein.

40
Figure 3.10 Response of concrete subjected to uniaxial loading in (a) tension and (b)
compression. From Abaqus (2011).

Figure 3.11 Yield surface in the deviatoric plane with Kc values of 0.67 and 1.0,
respectively.

41
3.2.3 Crack softening for concrete in tension
Even though concrete is a relatively brittle material in tension, the tensile failure is not
characterised by an instantaneous strength loss. Hillerborg (1978) introduced the
concept of a fictitious crack, which is not a real crack but instead a simplified portrayal
of the fracture zone in the crack tip region. According to Hillerborg, after the ultimate
tensile stress of the concrete is reached the fictitious crack is portrayed as a
continuously descending stress as a function of the crack width (w) of the fracture zone.
Gylltoft (1983) proposed a bi-linear crack softening law for concrete in tension as
shown in Figure 3.12. Leppänen (2004) implemented this softening law in Autodyn to
be used together with the RHT material model. The slopes of the bi-linear crack
softening are:

𝑓𝑐𝑡2
𝑘1 = (3.16)
𝐺𝐹

𝑓𝑐𝑡2
𝑘2 = (3.17)
10𝐺𝐹

where fct and GF are the tensile strength and the fracture energy, respectively. The
ultimate crack width wu is calculated as:
𝐺𝐹
𝑤𝑢 = 4 (3.18)
𝑓𝑐𝑡

This model for crack softening of concrete in tension was used in the simulations in
Papers III and V, and also in the simulations in this thesis. The crack softening model
was implemented in Ansys Autodyn as part of the work later presented in Paper III and
reported by Westerling (2005).

42
 

fct

k1

fct/3 k2

wu/6 wu w
Figure 3.12 The bi-linear crack softening model for concrete in tension.

3.3 Material models for reinforcement

3.3.1 Johnson & Cook
The constitutive model by Johnson & Cook (1983) for metals is an empirical expression
where the flow stress () is a function of plastic strain (), plastic strain rate (𝜀̇) and
temperature (T) according to:

𝑚
𝑛
𝜀̇ 𝑇 − 𝑇𝑟
𝜎 = (𝐴 + 𝐵𝜀 ) 1 + 𝐶𝑙𝑛 1− (3.19)
𝜀̇0 𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇𝑟

The parameter A describes the yield strength, and B and n describe the strain hardening.
The parameter C considers the strain rate dependence of the material and, finally, m
takes the effects of temperature into account. The reference temperature (Tr) is
normally set to 293 K and Tm is the melting temperature. The reference strain rate 𝜀0̇ is
in the original model set to 1.0 s-1. Therefore, the Johnson & Cook model was therefore
modified as a part of the work later presented in Paper III and reported by Westerling
(2005). This modified model was implemented in Ansys Autodyn and gives the user
the opportunity to choose the value of the reference strain rate. A reference strain rate
of 10-4 s-1 was employed in the work of paper III, which is also used by Malvar &
Crawford (1998b)

43
3.3.2 Isotropic elasto-plastic model
An isotropic elasto-plastic material model for the calculation of stresses in the
reinforcing steel was used in the work presented in Paper V and also in the simulations
presented in this thesis. The static and dynamic stress-strain relations were specified as
piecewise linear approximations with isotropic strain hardening. The dynamic increase
of the yield and ultimate strength for steel reinforcement was employed as previously
discussed in Section 3.1.4. Figure 3.13 presents stress-plastic strain approximations for
a static yield stress of 500 MPa, see also Appendix B. The broken lines in the figure
represents the stresses using a DIF for the yield stress only. However, the DIF for the
ultimate stress at different strain rates are lower than the factors for the yield stress, see
Figure 3.7. Therefore, the stress-strain curves were adjusted to account for the larger
increase in yield stress compared to the ultimate stress according to Figure 3.13.

900
850
800
750
Stress (MPa)

700
650
600 10 s-1
1 s-1
550
0.1 s-1
500 0.01 s-1
450 Yield stress 0.001 s-1
Adjusted yield stress Static
400
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Plastic strain (-)
Figure 3.13 Piecewise linear approximations of the stress and plastic strain for
reinforcement with a static yield stress of 500 MPa (adjusted yield stress).

3.4 Bond between reinforcing bars and concrete

The bond between concrete and reinforcement is fundamental in reinforced concrete
structures. In a case where a diagonal shear crack is initiated in a reinforced concrete
beam, there is a sudden increase of the tensile force in the reinforcing bars across the
crack (Magnusson 2000, Chalmers University of Technology). For a diagonal crack
that develops close to one of the supports, the anchorage of the bars becomes more

44
critical. It may therefore be important to consider this interaction between concrete and
reinforcement when performing numerical analyses. Some of the parameters affecting
the bond strength are concrete strength, confinement, shrinkage of the concrete, rib
geometry and concrete cover. The bond resistance mechanisms are mainly due to
mechanical interlocking and friction (Magnusson 2000, Chalmers University of
Technology). The stresses transferred from the ribs to the concrete can be divided into
a longitudinal and a radial component, where the former is usually referred to as the
bond stress, see Figure 3.14. The tensile stresses that are initiated near the rib tips cause
transverse microcracks in the concrete at the tips, which allow the bar to slip. As the
applied tensile load on the rebar is further increased the shear resistance of the concrete
between two adjacent ribs determines the maximum bond stress. The concrete between
the two ribs will be completely sheared off at a certain slip and the rebar will start to
slide inside the concrete. At this point the transferred stresses are merely due to friction
and the rebar will be pulled out of the surrounding concrete at gradually reducing bond
stress.

The ribs give rise to a wedging action of the surrounding concrete and circumferential
tensile stresses are developed, which may cause longitudinal splitting cracks to
develop, see Figure 3.14. The local confinement of the concrete influences the initiation
and propagation of these splitting cracks. Such confinement enhances the bond strength
and occur e.g. at the supports of a loaded beam. In a case where the concrete cover is
relatively small, the splitting action may cause longitudinal cracks to propagate to the
surface and there may be a more severe abrupt drop in bond resistance. Such a case
may typically develop along the tensile reinforcement across a diagonal shear crack of
a beam near a support. This was observed in tests with concrete beams subjected to
blast loads, see Paper II.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.14 Stresses and cracks in the surrounding concrete as a reinforcing bar is
pulled out. From (a) Ansell et al. (2012) and (b) Betonghandbok (1990).

45
46
Chapter 4
Dynamic shear of concrete beams
This chapter presents experiments on reinforced concrete beams and roof slabs
subjected to various blast loads. These experiments served as a basis for the numerical
models that are also presented in this chapter. Further numerical modelling is also
included in order to conduct parametric studies.

4.1 Experiments
4.1.1 Concrete beams
The experiments on reinforced concrete beams were conducted inside a shock tube
where a detonating high explosive charge generated the blast load, see Figure 4.1.
These tests are thoroughly described by Magnusson & Hallgren (2000) and in Paper II.
The beam width and depth measured 300 mm and 160 mm, respectively. The beams
were assembled in a test rig and placed vertically with a span of 1500 mm as shown in
Figure 4.1. Bolts were used to secure the beams to the supports during the tests. The
end restrictions of these bolts appeared to have negligible influence on the test results
as discussed by Magnusson & Hansson (2005). Even though the beams were secured
with bolts, At the used distance between the charge and the beam of 10 m the beams
can be regarded as subjected to a uniformly distributed blast load. The instrumentation
of the tests consisted of two pressure gauges, load cells at the supports, and a deflection
gauge and an accelerometer at mid-span of the beam. A strain gauge on the concrete
surface at the compressive zone of the beam and on one reinforcing bar were also used
in a few tests. These gauges were placed at the beam mid-span.

47
Figure 4.1 Configuration of the blast tests inside a shock tube. From Magnusson &
Hallgren (2000).

4.1.2 Concrete roof slabs

In these tests, the roofs of reinforced concrete box structures were subjected to loads
from detonating explosive charges. These tests are thoroughly described by Slawson
(1984) and in Paper IV. The box structures were cast monolithically with two open
ends with a wall, roof and floor thickness of 184 mm. In this configuration, the free
span of the roof slab was 1140 mm. Strips of high explosive charges were evenly placed
across the sand backfill covering the entire roof and walls of the box structure as
illsustrated in Figure 4.2. Such configuration ensured that the roof load was due to the
propagation of a planar wave. Pressure gauges at different locations measured the load
on the box structure, and strain gauges were used on certain principal reinforcement.
Accelerometers on the roof slab at at mid-span were also used in a few tests.

Figure 4.2 Configuration of the blast tests of concrete roof slabs. From Slawson
(1984).

48
4.2 Numerical models
Analysing dynamic shear in concrete structures with large non-linearities makes a finite
element software with an explicit dynamics analysis procedure a useful tool. For this
purpose, the software Abaqus/Explicit 6.11 (Abaqus 2011) was used for modelling of
concrete beams and roof slabs subjected to varying blast loads.

4.2.1 Flexural shear failures

The tested beams B40-D3 and B40-D4 reported in Magnusson & Hallgren (2000) were
used as verifications of a flexural shear failure. The results of the latter beam were also
included in Paper II and further analysed in Paper III. The beam has a cross-section of
300  160 mm (width  depth) and a span of 1500 mm. The concrete, the tensile
reinforcing bars and the reinforcement bar-concrete interface were modelled using
solid elements with linear interpolation and reduced integration. A mesh size of
4  4  4 mm3 was used for the concrete while the mesh of the interface varied in size
depending on the bar diameter, see Figure 4.3. A mesh size of 2  2  2 mm3 for the
concrete was also used in a limited number of simulations as a comparison. A mesh of
5  5  5 mm3 was used for the supports. The transverse and compression
reinforcement, with bar diameters of 8 mm and 10 mm, was modelled using 4 mm
linear truss elements. Figure 4.4 (a) illustrates the configuration of the reinforcement.
Due to symmetry, half the beam span was modelled, with a symmetry plane at mid-
span. An interaction with friction between the support and beam surfaces was employed
to enable sliding as the beam deflects. One line of nodes at the middle of the bottom
surface of the support was used as a boundary condition, which enabled the support to
rotate during the response. This beam was subjected to a uniformly distributed blast
load over the top surface as shown in Figure 4.4 (b). A piecewise linear approximation
of the registered pressure-time curve was used as the applied load, see Figure 4.5.

The material properties of the concrete and reinforcing steel followed those reported
from the tests as reported by Magnusson & Hallgren (2000), see Appendix B. The
Concrete Damaged Plasticity model was used for calculating the stress-strain states of
the concrete in combination with the bi-linear crack softening model for concrete in
tension. In these simulations, the concrete strength properties were calculated for a
strain rate of 1.0 s-1, see Appendix B. The isotropic elasto-plastic material model was
used for the reinforcing steel with strain rate dependent data, as listed in Appendix B.

49
Figure 4.3 Modelled beam cross section with reinforcing bars and interface material
(in white).

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.4 Modelled beam with the (a) configuration of the reinforcement and the
(b) blast load applied over the top surface.

50
 1400

1200

1000
Pressure (kPa)

800

600 Registration
Simulation
400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (ms)
Figure 4.5 Piecewise linear approximation of the average pressure from two
measurements in the test of B40-D4 (Magnusson & Hallgren 2000).

In Paper III, the concrete beams were modelled using an interface material between the
reinforcing bars and the concrete to allow for slip of the bars. The results showed that
the crack pattern and possibly the failure mode could change when allowing for a
certain slip. Therefore, an interface material was used between the tensile reinforcing
bars and the concrete. Herein, the description of the different bond stress-slip
relationships in Model Code 1990 (CEB 1993) and Model Code 2010 (fib 2012) were
used as a basis to establish the shear strength and the slip. Abaqus/Explicit (Abaqus
2011) was used for modelling and simulations of a real pull-out test reported in
Magnusson (2000, Chalmers University of Technology). A reinforcement bar with a
diameter of 16 mm and a yield strength of 569 MPa was embedded with a length of
0.22 m in a concrete prism measuring 0.4  0.4  0.4 m3, see Figure 4.6. Due to
symmetry, half the pull-out test was modelled. The prism was modelled with two mesh
sizes where the solid elements, with linear interpolation and reduced integration, in the
region closest to the bar measured 4  4  4 mm3. The interface elements were modelled
with approximately the same size. A constant velocity of 0.002 m/s was used at the end
of the bar for pulling the bar out of the concrete. A rectangular area at the left edge of
the front surface of the concrete prism in Figure 4.6 served as boundary condition, with
restraints in all directions. The condition of an unconfined concrete (failure by splitting
of the concrete) ‘all other bond conditions’ according to CEB (1993) was employed.
For the maximum shear strength max, the concrete strength of the B40 beam in Paper
II was used. The strength parameters of the interface are presented in Appendix B. An
isotropic elasto-plastic material model was used for the calculation of stresses and
strains in the interface material.

51
The bond strength between concrete and reinforcement increases at an increasing strain
rate (Gebbeken & Greulich 2005) but this strain rate effect was not considered in the
bond model.

Figure 4.6 The model for pull-out of a reinforcing bar out of concrete.

4.2.2 Direct shear failures

Test DS1 and DS4 in Slawson (1984) were used as reference for verification of a direct
shear mode. In these tests, the entire roof surface of a concrete box structure was
subjected to a uniformly distributed blast load. The box structure was cast
monolithically with two open ends as shown in Figure 4.7. The roof slab thickness
measured 140 mm with a clear span of 1220 mm and the reinforcement consisted of
bars in both directions at the top and bottom surfaces and vertical stirrups (Slawson
1984). Half the roof width and the upper region of the side walls were modelled, see
Figure 4.8. The boundary conditions of the bottom surfaces of the walls were modelled
as fixed in all directions. The concrete was modelled using solid 4  4  4 mm3 elements
with linear interpolation and reduced integration, and the reinforcing bars and stirrups,
with bar diameters of 12.7 mm (No. 4 bar) and 9.5 mm (No. 3 bar), respectively, were
modelled with 4 mm linear beam elements. A mesh size of 2  2  2 mm3 for the
concrete was also used in a limited number of simulations as a comparison. The applied
blast load was modelled across the entire top surface using a piecewise linear
approximation of the average values of the registered pressure-time curves from gauges

52
IF-2 and IF-3 in Slawson (1984), see Appendix B. Figure 4.9 presents the piecewise
linear approximations of the registered pressure-time curves in tests DS1 and DS4. The
material properties of the concrete and reinforcing steel followed those reported from
the tests and presented in Appendix B. The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model was
used for calculating the stress-strains states of the concrete in combination with the bi-
linear crack softening model for concrete in tension. The concrete strength properties
were calculated for a strain rate of 1.0 s-1, see Appendix B. The isotropic elasto-plastic
material model was used for the reinforcing steel with strain rate dependent data as
presented in Appendix B.

Figure 4.7 Concrete box structure used in the direct shear tests. From Slawson
(1984).

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.8 Modelled (a) roof slab with walls and (b) reinforcement configuration.

53
 30

25

20
Pressure (MPa)

15 DS1 test
DS4 test
10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Time (ms)

Figure 4.9 Piecewise linear approximations of the average pressure from two
measurements in each test (DS1 and DS4).

4.2.3 Parametric studies

Beam models with a width and span of 300 mm and 1500 mm with three different
depths were considered in the simulations, i.e. depths of 260 mm, 160 mm and 84 mm
as shown in Figure 4.10. Also, the amount of tensile reinforcement was varied such
that each beam section had a reinforcement content of approximately 0.6 % and 1.5 %,
respectively. No transverse reinforcement was included in the models. Table 4.1
presents the geometric properties and reinforcement employed for each beam type.
Each beam type (B7, B12 and B27) is labelled with reference to the corresponding
shear slenderness L/d. The number in parenthesis refers to the number of reinforcement
bars. The beam depth and, thereby, the value of L/d was particularly chosen to resemble
beams subjected to uniformly loads and typically responding in a beam and an arch
mechanism as discussed in Section 2.2. Beam types B7 and B27 can typically be related
to responding in an arch mechanism and beam mechanism, respectively. With L/d of
approximately 12, beam type B12 relates to the transition point between these two
mechanisms. Another reason for modelling beams of varying depths is the known size
effects on shear for concrete elements. Furthermore, the amount of reinforcement is
also an important parameter that affects the shear of concrete elements. Thus, it is of
interest to analyse the behaviour of the same cross section but with different amounts
of reinforcement.

54
 (a) B7(2) (b) B7(5)

(a) B12(2) (b) B12(5)

(a) B27(2) (b) B27(5)

Figure 4.10 Modelled cross sections with three beam types with two amounts of
reinforcement.

Table 4.1 Geometry and reinforcement of the modelled beams.

Beam type h (m) d (m) L/d Reinforcement  (%)

B7(2) 216 0.59
0.260 0.228 6.6
B7(5) 516 1.47
B12(2) 212 0.59
0.160 0.128 11.7
B12(5) 512 1.47
B27(2) 28 0.60
0.084 0.056 26.8
B27(5) 58 1.50

55
The same mesh for the beam models as for the beam in Section 4.5.1 was employed
using half symmetry at mid-span and the same boundary conditions. For beam types
B7 and B12, two reinforcing bars with a diameter of 10 mm as compression
reinforcement were also modelled using truss elements. For beams B27, two bars with
a diameter of 6 mm were modelled. Truss elements do not consider bending and dowel
action but this effect was considered as negligible for the compression reinforcement
in the analyses. The blast load was idealised as a triangular pressure pulse with an
almost instant rise to peak pressure, immediately followed by a linear decay to zero,
see Figure 4.11. The load was uniformly applied over the top surface between the
interior faces of the supports. The peak pressure and duration was varied between the
different simulations.

The material properties of the concrete and reinforcing steel are listed in Appendix B.
A compressive concrete strength and yield strength of the reinforcement of 45 MPa and
500 MPa was employed, respectively. The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model was
used for calculating the stress-strains states of the concrete in combination with the bi-
linear crack softening model for concrete in tension. The isotropic elasto-plastic
material model was used for the reinforcing steel with strain rate dependent data. The
properties for the interface material is presented in Appendix B. Strain rate effects for
the interface material around each reinforcing bar were not considered.
Pressure

Time (ms)

Figure 4.11 Idealised blast load employed in the simulations.

56
4.2.4 Material parameters
The strain rate dependence of concrete in tension can not be considered in the Concrete
Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model. Therefore, the concrete strength properties in tension
and compression were specified for a typical strain rate that occurred in the concrete
beam. For the simulations of flexural and direct shear failures, this strain rate was
determined in the concrete elements adjacent to the tensile reinforcement. In
simulations where flexural shear was analysed, the strain rate in the vicinity of the shear
crack was used, while the strain rate at the inner face of the support was used when
direct shear failures were analysed. It is recognised that this approach is a simplification
that may influence the simulation results. Therefore, separate simulations were
performed with beam types B7(5), B12(5) and B27(5) in order to verify the dependence
on used material strength data in compression and tension. These simulations are
presented in Appendix A. In the models described in Sections 4.2.1–4.2.2, the concrete
strength properties were calculated for a strain rate of 1.0 s-1, see Appendix B. In the
parametric studies of the B7 and B12 beams, concrete properties for a strain rate of
5.0 s-1 were used at pressure levels of 15 MPa and above. Concrete properties for a
strain rate of 1.0 s-1 were used for pressure levels below 15 MPa. For the B27 beams,
concrete properties for a strain rate of 1.0 s-1 were used.

Furthermore, the dilation angle of concrete may typically be selected between

approximately 25° and 40° (Malm 2009). Using the upper values within this range is
more suitable for a low degree of hydrostatic pressures, while lower values provide a
better description of the material behaviour in biaxial stress states. Chen (1982), on the
other hand, states that an associated flow rule should be employed in structural
analyses, i.e. at a dilation angle of approximately 56° in CDP. Such a flow rule was
employed in the simulations in Paper III. In the simulations performed herein, a dilation
angle of 30° and 45° was used for description of the direct shear and flexural shear
failure, respectively. The relatively high value of the hydrostatic pressure at the
supports where direct shear failure occurs and the relatively low pressure values at the
location of flexural shear cracks motivated this choice.

The strain-rate dependence of the reinforcement was accounted for by specifying piece-
wise linear approximations of the stresses and plastic strains at a variation of strain
rates. These piecewise values were tabulated for the isotropic elaso-plastic model in
Abaqus, see Appendix B.

57
58
Chapter 5
Results from numerical simulations
This chapter includes the results from different analyses of dynamic shear in concrete
beams and roof slabs. The analyses were conducted with the use of Abaqus/Explicit
6.11 (Abaqus 2011) in order to investigate the initiation and propagation of different
shear failures. A part of the work focused on verifying the numerical models against
tests and the remaining part consisted of parametric studies. Prior to these simulations,
the initial response of a beam subjected to intense dynamic loads is reviewed.

5.1 Initial response and shear

Under static loads, material fractures such as cracks in concrete are initiated and
propagate according to the stress and strain fields existing throughout the concrete
element. The weakest regions will thereby control locations and levels of cracking.
However, under dynamic conditions, local high stresses and strains can develop whose
location may change before an initiated crack has time to propagate. Due to such
conditions, wave propagation effects become increasingly important in the analyses.
Shear failures typically may occur at an early stage and it is therefore of interest to
analyse the initial structural response soon after the load has been applied. The initial
response on aluminium beams have been experimentally reported by Menkes & Opat
(1973) and on reinforced concrete slabs by Slawson (1984). Theoretical analyses have
also been conducted on reinforced concrete beams with the Euler-Bernoulli and
Timoshenko beam theories (Svedbjörk 1975; Hughes & Beeby 1982; Ross 1983), and
with the use of finite element analyses (Ardila-Giraldo 2010; Andersson & Karlsson
2012). The theoretical analyses in Papers IV and V also agree with the findings in these
references.

For the case of a beam subjected to a uniformly distributed dynamic load, such as
shown in Figure 5.1, a pressure wave will develop and propagate through the thickness
of the beam. As soon as the wave strikes the rear face and reflects, there will be a
difference in particle velocity and part B-C begins to move downward. This movement
will occur with twice the velocity of the particles in the supporting walls. The portion

59
of the slab between the supporting walls will move downwards, which results in shear
stresses and bending moments developing in the cross section at the face of the
supports. At this early point in time, the remaining parts of the beam will be subjected
to a rigid body motion without any deformations. The distributions of deformations,
bending moments and shear forces at the early stages of a structural response are
presented in Paper IV and V and also in Andersson & Karlsson (2012). As concluded
in Paper IV, the concrete beam will initially exhibit deformations, shear forces and
bending moments with significantly different distributions compared to those under
static loads. Figure 5.2 presents the calculated deflections, bending moments and shear
forces at two points in time using Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, and with the same
values of the different parameters as presented in Paper IV. The values of the vertical
axes are normalized to the corresponding static quantities, and the same diagrams for
bending moment and shear force are used as in Paper IV. The bending moment and
shear distributions close to each support in Figure 5.2 (b) and (c) show similarities to
the distributions of smaller beams. Thus, at this stage, the entire beam may initially be
regarded as divided into two smaller beams, each responding with an apparently low
shear slenderness L/d. Structural wave motions originating from each support will over
time change the moment and shear distributions to eventually become similar to that of
the entire beam being statically loaded. The apparent shear slenderness of the smaller
beams will thereby increase and eventually be transformed into a response where the
entire beam deflects according to its fundamental mode.

The maximum values of the different properties in Figure 5.2 (a)–(c) reveal that the
relative magnitudes of the shear forces are larger than the corresponding magnitudes of
the bending moments and deflections. This is illustrated in Figure 5.3 at two points in
time. It is clear that shear is the dominant response mode over bending moments and
deflections and, thus, shear dominates the early response. The deflections are
comparatively small with a distinct approximately straight central portion of the beam.
The results presented in Figure 5.2–5.3 appears to, at a qualitative level, explain the
behaviour of the tested roof slabs that failed in a direct shear mode, as previously
discussed in Section 4.1.2.

Pressure wave

A B 2v0 C D
v0 v0

Open space

Figure 5.1 Wave propagation through the roof slab. Based on Ross (1983).

60
 0

-0.001

-0.002

-0.003
y/ystat
-0.004

-0.005
1t :
-0.006 0.025
0.125
-0.007
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L
(a)
0.02
Small beam
0.01

0
M/Mstat

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03 Small beam 1t :

0.025
0.125
-0.04
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L
(b)
0.15
Small beam
0.1

0.05
V/Vstat

-0.05

Small beam 1t1t: :

-0.1
0.025
0.125
-0.15
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L
(c)
Figure 5.2 Normalized (a) deflected shapes, (b) bending moments and (c), shear
forces for a simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly distributed
load according to Euler-Bernoulli theory. Based on the work in Paper IV.

61
 0.14
y
0.12 M

y/ystat ; M/Mstat ; V/Vstat

V
0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0.025 0.125
 1t
Figure 5.3 Calculated peak deflection y, moment M and shear force V using Euler-
Bernoulli theory and normalized to the corresponding static quantities.

The results in Figure 5.2–5.3 are related to the value of a similar beam subjected to a
static load of the same magnitude. However, it is also of interest to compare the bending
moments and shear forces to the ultimate capacities of the concrete beam. For the
purpose of performing such comparison, simulations using Timoshenko beam elements
were performed for beam types B7(5) and B27(5). The Timoshenko beam theory also
includes the effects of shear deformations and rotary inertia that become increasingly
significant for deep beams and dynamic loads. These calculations were analysed in
Abaqus using linear beam elements of 38 mm length and with the same dimensions as
the B7 and B27 beams. The same elastic modulus and load were used as in the
corresponding simulations. The beams were subjected to a uniformly distributed load
with a peak pressure of 15 MPa and a triangular duration of 4.0 ms.

62
 2
B7 beam
1.75

1.5

1.25
M/Mu ; V/Vu

0.75 M
V
0.5

0.25

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2
Time (ms)
(a) B7 beam. The moment shown at 133 mm ( 0.6d) distance from the support.
2
B27 beam
1.75

1.5

1.25
M/Mu ; V/Vu

0.75 M
V
0.5

0.25

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2
Time (ms)
(b) B27 beam. The moment shown at 57 mm ( 1d) distance from the support.
Figure 5.4 The bending moment (M) and shear forces (V) at the support over time
normalized to their ultimate capacities for a beam of type (a) B7 beam
and (b) B27. Calculations using Timoshenko beams subjected to a
uniformly distributed load of 15 MPa and a duration of 4.0 ms.

These simulations were part of the work in Paper V and the results in Figure 5.4 are
extracted from that work. The figure illustrates the increase in bending moments and

63
shear forces over time. The bending moment is taken at the locations where the
maximum bending moment occurs at an early time, i.e. at 133 mm (0.6d) and 57 mm
(1d) distance to the supports for the B7 and B27 beam, respectively. The shear is taken
at the supports. These two quantities are normalized to their ultimate calculated
capacities. The bending moment capacity was calculated according to FKR (Swedish
Fortifications Agency 2011):

𝑀 = 0.95𝑓𝑑 𝐴𝑠 𝑑 (5.1)

where fd and As is the steel yield strength and area of the reinforcement, respectively,
and d denotes the effective depth. The same reinforcement area was used as for the
B7(5) and B27(5) beams, see further Section 4.2.3 and Paper V. A dynamic increase
factor at a strain rate of 1 s-1 was used for the reinforcement as presented in Figure 3.7.
The ultimate shear capacity refers to the direct shear strength, which was calculated as
the maximum shear capacity at a/d < 0.45, see further Section 2.4.1.

For beam B7, the simulations show that the shear forces reach the ultimate value at
approximately half the time (i.e., at 0.060 ms) after the load was applied compared to
that of the bending moments (i.e., at 0.13 ms), see Figure 5.4 (a). However, for the B27
beam, the shear forces and bending moments reach their ultimate values rather close to
each other (i.e., at 0.038 ms and 0.051 ms, respectively). Thus, there is a tendency that
a shallow beam may reach either its shear or its moment capacity first, while shear
clearly reaches its ultimate capacity much earlier that the bending moments in the case
of a deeper beam. These simulations indicate that a deeper beam is more susceptible to
a shear failure while a shallower beam may be more susceptible to failing in shear or
possibly flexure close to the support. Furthermore, it is recognised that this elastic
response is a simplified approach compared to non-linear finite element analyses using
solid elements. However, the calculations indicate which failure mode to expect.

5.2 Flexural shear failures

5.2.1 Bond between reinforcing bars and concrete
Figure 5.5–5.6 present the resulting damage evolution due to concrete cracking and the
force-slip obtained in the simulation compared to the test result. The damage shows a
similar local conic failure of the concrete as observed by Magnusson (2000). Figure 5.6
shows that the entire force-slip response obtained in the simulation is completely below
the curve from the test. This is expected since the test can be regarded as a pull-out
failure with failure by shearing of the concrete between the ribs, while the simulation

64
is based on a model that describes failure by splitting of the concrete. The result in
Figure 5.5 shows a shearing failure since the cracks were not extended away from the
bar itself. It is also noted that the slip at maximum force and the slope of the descending
part of the force-slip curve were approximately the same as in the test.

Figure 5.5 The concrete damage in tension from the simulation.

70

60

50
Force (kN)

40

30

20

10 Test
Simulation
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Slip (mm)
Figure 5.6 The result from the pull-out simulation compared to the test result
(Magnusson 2000, Chalmers University of Technology).

65
5.2.2 Flexural shear crack patterns
The resulting concrete damage due to cracking of the concrete in the simulations of the
B40-D3 and B40-D4 beams reported in Magnusson and Hallgren (2000) are presented
in Figure 5.7–5.8. The simulations show flexural and shear cracks in a similar fashion
as obtained in the tests, even though the location of the shear cracks appear further
away from the supports in the simulations. The simulations using Ansys Autodyn and
the RHT concrete model in Paper III also resulted in a shear crack further away from
the supports than in the tests. One reason may be the employment of the modelled
interface between the concrete and reinforcement. The simulations reported in Paper
III show that such bond-slip model results in a shear crack further away from the
supports compared to the case without this model. Therefore, simulations were
performed herein without the interface material model such that the reinforcing bars
were connected directly to the concrete elements, see Figure 5.8. Without the interface
material, the number of flexural cracks increased and the shear cracks developed
slightly closer to the supports. Such increase of flexural cracks were also noted in Paper
III. The concrete cracks along the reinforcement from the shear crack and towards the
supports are also noted in Figure 5.8 (b).

The results in Figure 5.9, using a concrete element size of 2  2  2 mm3 also with and
without the interface material, were obtained. For both cases, shear cracks appeared
although with different shapes and further away from the supports compared to the
simulations using a 4 mm mesh. The number of flexural cracks decreased compared to
the corresponding simulation with the 4 mm mesh, which indicates that the interface
material responds in a softer manner as the element size with constant interface
properties. Furthermore, similar to the coarser mesh, the number of flexural cracks
increased without an interface material. The simulations show flexural cracks pointing
away from midspan at a slight inclination, except for Figure 5.9 (a), or a slight tendency
for a few cracks with such inclination. Such cracks were not observed in the tests and
the reason for these crack inclinations is unclear to the author. Figure 5.10 presents a
sequence of the simulation in Figure 5.8 (a) illustrating the propagation of flexural and
shear cracks. This figure shows that flexural shear failures in dynamic events follow
the same series of events as in the case of static loads. A similar result was obtained
with another software as presented in Paper IV.

66
Figure 5.7 Simulation with concrete damage in tension using a 4 mm concrete mesh
compared to tested beam B40-D3. The simulation image is mirrored at
mid-span.

(a) With interface between the reinforcing bars and the concrete.

(b) Without interface between the reinforcing bars and the concrete.
Figure 5.8 Simulations (a) with and (b) without an interface. The results show the
concrete damage in tension using a 4 mm concrete mesh compared to
tested beam B40-D4. The simulation images are mirrored at mid-span.

67
 (a) With interface

(b) Without interface

Figure 5.9 Simulation results with concrete damage in tension using a 2 mm concrete
mesh compared to tested beam B40-D4. The simulation images are
mirrored at mid-span.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 5.10 Simulation results of the propagation of concrete cracks (damage in
tension). The simulation sequence is shown at (a) 2.0 ms, (b) 3.0 ms and
(c) 4.0 ms after the load was applied.

5.2.3 Flexural shear deflections

Using the 4 mm mesh, the deflections at mid-span could be predicted relatively well
for the B40-D4 simulation, while the B40-D3 simulations exhibits a stiffer response
compared to the test result, see Figure 5.11. A similarly stiff response was obtained for
the B40-D3 beam in a corresponding simulation with Ansys Autodyn as reported by
Magnusson & Hansson (2005).

68
 14
Beam B40-D3

12
Midspan deflection (mm)

10

2 Test
Sim. 4 mm mesh
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (ms)
(a)
25
Beam B40-D4

20
Midspan deflection (mm)

15

10

Test
Sim. 4 mm mesh
5
Sim. 4 mm mesh; no interface
Sim. 2 mm mesh
Sim. 2 mm mesh; no interface
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (ms)
(b)
Figure 5.11 Simulations of midspan deflections compared to test results for beam (a)
B40-D3 and (b) B40-D4.

The deflections decreased when the reinforcement was tied directly to the concrete
without the interface material, which is valid also for the simulation using a 2 mm
mesh. This is in agreement with the results in Paper III. The simulation herein using
the same mesh but with the interface resulted in softer response with increased

69
deflections compared to the test result. In this case, the deflections follow the test result
quite well up to approximately 6 ms. At approximately this point in time the shear
failure occurred, and the tensile reinforcement across the shear crack will be subjected
to an increased tensile force. This force is trying to pull the reinforcing bars towards
the supports out of the concrete, which puts a higher demand on the anchorage length
of the bars. As previously mentioned in Section 5.2.2, the interface appears to respond
in a weaker manner as the mesh size is reduced. The increased deflections after 6 ms is
interpreted to be the cause of reduced reinforcement anchorage with the risk of bars
being pulled out of the concrete when the shear failure occurs.

5.2.4 Flexural shear support reactions

The support reactions in the simulations were calculated using element stresses in the
support top surface. Figure 5.12–5.14 shows that the reactions could be estimated
relatively well in comparison to the tests on beams B40-D3 and B40-D4. However, the
simulation could not capture the reaction peak at 2.7 ms from the B40-D3 test in
Figure 5.12. It is also noted that the reaction forces in the simulations include high-
frequency oscillations that were not present in the test results. The presence of the
oscillations will be further discussed below in this section. In spite of the oscillations,
the main trend of the calculated reactions is that they appear to follow the registered
reactions up to the peak value. During the descending part of the reactions, there are
some discrepancies between the simulations and the test. The reactions in Figure 5.13
follow the test result relatively well. These results indicate that assuming full bond
between the reinforcing bars and concrete elements results in slightly greater reactions
compared to the case with a modelled interface material. It is probable that this is due
to the increased stiffness of the beam when the bars are tied directly to the concrete.
The simulation results in Figure 5.14, using a 2 mm mesh, show the same results. In
this figure, it is further noted that the simulation with an interface material was able to
capture the relatively large dip in reactions that was observed in the test at
approximately 5 ms. This dip can be referred to the point in time when the shear failure
occurred in the test, which is also shown in the corresponding simulation.

70
 450
Beam B40-D3
400

350
Support reactions (kN)

300

250 Test
Simulation
200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (ms)
Figure 5.12 Simulations of total support reactions (using a 4 mm mesh) compared to
test results for beam B40-D3.

500
Beam B40-D4
450 4 mm mesh

400 Test
Total support reactions (kN)

Sim. interface
350 Sim. no interface
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (ms)
Figure 5.13 Simulations of total support reactions compared to test results for beam
B40-D4 using a 4 mm mesh

71
 500
Beam B40-D4
450 2 mm mesh

400 Test
Total support reactions (kN)
Sim. interface
350 Sim. no interface
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (ms)
Figure 5.14 Simulations of total support reactions compared to test results for beam
B40-D4 using a 2 mm mesh.

The average frequency of the oscillations in both simulations were determined to

2128 Hz. The air blast tests used a sampling frequency of 50 kHz and analogue filters
with a cut-off frequency of 15 kHz for the support reactions (Magnusson & Hallgren
2000). Thus, high-frequency oscillations similar to the simulations did not appear in
the tests. However, similar high-frequency oscillations were observed in a separate
series of analyses using Ansys Autodyn and the RHT concrete model reported in
Magnusson & Hansson (2005). If these frequencies are filtered, the reactions would
become smoother and obtain values approximately between the peak and the minimum
of each oscillation. However, such approach appears to underestimate the reactions
measured in the tests at certain points in time.

As discussed in Section 2.3.3, it is known that dynamic loads with a small rise time
such as blast loads, excites several vibration modes in the loaded element. Such
vibrations appear to influence the support reactions. The expression for calculations of
the natural frequencies of the beam is given in Eq. (5.2). In order to determine the
natural frequencies, the magnitudes of the elastic modulus of concrete Ec and the
second moment of area I, need to be established. For the concrete beam, I depends on
the crack state of the beam. The expression for the calculation of I in the cracked state
is according to Mårtensson (1996) given by Eq. (5.4–5.5), and the expression for
calculating the average value of I of the uncracked and cracked sections as suggested
by Biggs (1964) is given in Eq. (5.6). The results from calculations of the natural
frequencies of the beam with the use of Eq. (5.2–5.6) with varying values of Ec and I
is presented in Table 5.2. In this context, b, d and L denote the beam width, depth and

72
span, respectively. Furthermore, x denotes the depth of the compressive block, while 
and A are the mass density and the cross section area, respectively. Finally, As and Es
are the area of reinforcement and elastic modulus of steel, respectively.

The natural frequencies for different vibration modes were calculated to find any
frequencies that correspond to that of the support reactions from the simulations. Thus,
the frequencies for an uncracked (state 1) and a cracked (state 2) cross section, as well
as for an average value of the uncracked and cracked sections according to Biggs
(1964) were calculated. In addition, the same calculations were conducted using the
dynamic increase factor for Ec, denoted Ec,d. Assuming a strain rate of 1.0 s-1 for
concrete, the dynamic increase factor for Ec is approximately 1.3, see Figure 3.4. The
results of these calculations are presented in Table 5.1. As previously mentioned, the
average frequency of the oscillations in both simulations were determined to 2128 Hz.
This frequency is close to the calculated EcI2 = 2126 Hz, which indicates that the
oscillations may be the result of a beam response in mode 5. The measured reactions
appear to correspond to the third vibration mode.

𝑛𝜋 2 𝐸𝑐 𝐼1
𝜔= ∙ (5.2)
𝐿 𝜌𝐴

𝜔
𝑓= (5.3)
2𝜋

𝑥 2 𝑥
𝐸𝐼2 = 0.5𝑏𝑑3 𝐸𝑐 1− (5.4)
𝑑 3𝑑

𝑥 𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠 𝑏𝑑 𝐸𝑐
= ∙ 1+2 ∙ −1 (5.5)
𝑑 𝑏𝑑 𝐸𝑐 𝐴𝑠 𝐸𝑠

𝑏𝑑3 𝐴𝑠
𝐸𝐼1.5 = 𝐸𝑐 5.5 + 0.083 (5.6)
2 𝑏𝑑

73
Table 5.1 Calculated natural frequencies for the first five modes of vibration of
concrete beam B40 subjected to a uniformly distributed blast load.

Vibration f (Hz)
mode
Ec I1 Ec I1.5 Ec I2 Ec,d I1 Ec,d I1.5 Ec,d I2
1 119 101 85.0 136 115 97.0
3 1070 910 765 1220 1038 873
5 2973 2528 2126 3390 2883 2424
I1 = second moment of area (I) for an uncracked section; I1.5 = average value of I for a cracked
and uncracked section; I2 = I for a cracked section; Ec,d = dynamic elastic modulus of concrete

5.3 Direct shear failures

The DS1 test showed that the roof slab was completely separated from the walls along
vertical failure planes, while the failure planes in the DS4 test were observed to be
inclined Slawson (1984), see Figure 5.15. In the DS1 test, the centre part of the slab
was observed to remain relatively flat, which indicates that the main deformations
occurred in a narrow region around the supports. In the corresponding simulations, the
slabs exhibit damage zones at both supports with severe concrete crushing throughout
the entire depth, see Figure 5.16. The crushed compressive struts at each support were
fully developed at approximately 0.5 ms after the load was applied. Both simulations
exhibit inclined failure planes, which deviates from that observed in the DS1 test but,
is in agreement with the observations from test DS4. Corresponding simulations using
a 2 mm mesh for the concrete results in similar damage zones in compression and
cracking compared to the results in Figure 5.16 (a) and (b), see Figure 5.17.

Furthermore, the simulations show that a centre portion of the slab is relatively flat at
0.5 ms, which was also reported in the DS1 test. In this test, the walls were pushed in
approximately 100 and 130 mm from vertical at the top, respectively, and the
corresponding measurements for test DS4 was 65 and 75 mm, see Figure 5.15. Such
deformations in the supporting walls could not be observed in the simulations due to
the chosen boundary conditions of the model. In the DS1 simulation, the deflection of
the central portion of the slab was approximately 7 mm at 0.5 ms and the walls would
not be forced to bend at such a small deflection. The deformations of the walls are
estimated to occur at a much later time compared to the evolution of the failure planes
at the supports. Therefore, the displacements of the walls are believed not to have
influenced the response of the slab in the simulations. Furthermore, the first flexural
cracks appeared at a distance of approximately one beam depth from the supports in

74
both simulations at 0.3 ms, see Figure 5.16–5.17. This indicates that the slab is mainly
responding in shear during the initial response. Finally, Figure 5.18 presents a
simulation sequence that illustrates the propagation of compressive damage. This
figure shows that the damage in the compressive struts originate in the interior corner
of the slab and supporting wall, and propagates in the direction upwards over time.

In both tests, several reinforcing bars across the supports were pulled to failure and the
remaining bars were pulled out of the concrete. The simulations show that the top
reinforcing bars reach plastic strains prior to 0.5 ms. This is presented in Figure 5.38
and further discussed in Section 5.6.2. It is probable that the strains in these bars will
continue to increase as the slab moves downwards and eventually pulled to failure or
pulled out of the concrete. Furthermore, the analyses show that the region in the vicinity
of the supports were subjected to a triaxial stress state in compression, see
Figure 5.19–5.20. Von Mises stresses in Figure 5.20 are merely plotted to illustrate the
stress distribution and to point out which elements are used for the plots of the
compressive stresses in Figure 5.19. It is recognised that the compressive and tensile
stresses are the ones that control a failure initiation and propagation in a concrete
structural element. It is clear that the compressive stresses in Figure 5.19 change rapidly
over time and at different locations that are relatively close to one another.

Failed slabs

(a) DS1 (b) DS4

Figure 5.15 View of the failed slabs after the DS1 and DS4 tests. Modified from
Slawson (1984).

75
 (a) DS1 compressive damage

(b) DS1 tensile damage

(c) DS4 compressive damage

(d) DS4 tensile damage

Figure 5.16 Simulations of the DS1 and DS4 slabs using a 4 mm mesh, and with
concrete compressive and tensile damage 0.5 ms after the load was
applied. The deformations are exaggerated with a factor of 10.

(a) DS1 compressive damage

(b) DS1 tensile damage

Figure 5.17 Simulation of the DS1 slab using a 2 mm mesh, and with concrete
compressive and tensile damage 0.5 ms after the load was applied. The
deformations are exaggerated with a factor of 10.

76
 (a) 0.1 ms

(a) 0.2 ms

(a) 0.3 ms

(a) 0.4 ms

(a) 0.5 ms
Figure 5.18 A simulation sequence of the compressive damage of DS1. Each sequence
is shown at 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 ms after the load was applied. The
deformations are exaggerated with a factor of 10.

77
 0

-10

-20
Element 1
-30
Stress (MPa)

-40
S11
11
-50 S22
22

-60 S33
33

-70

-80

-90
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Time (ms)
(a) Element 1
0

-10

-20
Element 2
-30
Stress (MPa)

-40
S11
11
-50 S22
22

-60 S33
33

-70

-80

-90
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Time (ms)
(b) Element 2
Figure 5.19 Compressive stress distribution at the locations of the two elements as
specified in Figure 5.20. The directions 11 and 22 refer to the longitudinal
and vertical directions, and 33 refers to the direction of the slab width.

78
 Element 1
Element 2

Figure 5.20 Mises stresses at the right inner corner of the slab-wall junction for DS1.

5.4 Parametric studies – failure modes

The simulations with beam types B7, B12 and B27 that were subjected to varying peak
pressures and load durations showed that the resulting failure mode depended on
several parameters. The results from these simulations are thoroughly discussed in
Paper V but will be briefly portrayed herein. One of the conclusions made in the paper
is that both the applied pressure level and the load duration are important parameters
that control a direct shear failure mode. The applied pressure level needs to be of
sufficient magnitude to drive the beam to a direct shear failure. Also, the applied load
needs to possess a sufficiently long duration in order to cause such a failure. It is evident
that these two load parameters interact and may cause a change in failure mode
depending on the load intensity. Another conclusion of the analyses is that deeper
elements, such as the B7 and B12 beams, are more susceptible to respond in a shear
failure mode compared to slimmer elements, such as the B27 beam. This is a known
fact in static loading cases (Kani, 1967) and this also seems to be the fact for
dynamically loaded structural elements. Figure 5.21 presents simulations with a B7(5)

79
and a B27(5) beam subjected to the same load. The B7(5) beam appears to fail in a
direct shear mode while the B27(5) beam appears to fail in flexural shear.

Also, the reinforcement appears to influence the behaviour such that the beam becomes
more susceptible to shear as the reinforcement is increased. This was observed in the
analyses of B12(5)-1 and B12(2)-1 in Paper V where the former indicates a more severe
damage zone due to concrete crushing. The results of these simulations are also
included here as shown in Figure 5.22. The behaviour that a beam having more
reinforcement is more susceptible to shear failure is in agreement with concrete
elements subjected to static loads such as the findings of Kani (1966). Tests on concrete
beams subjected to blast loads also show the same tendency for flexural shear as
reported in Paper II.

(a) B7(5) damage in compression

(b) B7(5) damage in tension

(c) B27(5) damage in compression

(d) B27(5) damage in compression

Figure 5.21 Simulations of B7(5) and B27(5) beams subjected to a pressure of 15 MPa
and with a duration of 0.5 ms. The plots are at 0.7 ms after the load was
applied.

80
 (a) B12(5) damage in compression

(b) B12(5) damage in tension

(c) B12(2) damage in compression

(d) B12(2) damage in tension

Figure 5.22 Simulations of B12(2) and B12(5) beams subjected to a pressure of

15 MPa and with a duration of 0.5 ms. The plots are at 0.7 ms after the
load was applied.

Finally, the analyses presented in Paper V show that the dynamic direct shear mode is
a combination of bending moment and shear in the vicinity of the supports, which
results in a deep beam response in a static case. Therefore, a dynamic direct shear mode
will not be governed by the same mechanisms as static direct shear. Once the failure
zone has evolved throughout the depth of the element, a sliding motion commences
that separates the element along a near-vertical plane. The direct shear mode may also
involve the formation of a web shear crack near the supports. In a case where the failure
is due to web shear, the failure planes appear to have a larger inclination to the vertical.

81
5.5 Parametric studies – support reactions
5.5.1 Flexural shear
A series of simulations were performed using the B12(2) and B12(5) beam types
subjected to triangular blast loads with varying peak pressures and a duration of 2.0
and 10 ms. The results from these simulations and the corresponding calculated support
reactions, using Eq. (2.24) in Section 2.4.3, are given in Figure 5.23–5.24. These
figures show that the calculated reactions underpredict those from the simulations in
all cases except for B12(5) subjected to a pressure of 2000 kPa and a 2.0 ms duration
in Figure 5.24 (a). In this case the calculated value of reactions is very close to the peak
reactions from the simulation. For the cases with a load duration of 2.0 ms, the
calculated reactions underpredict the first reaction pulse but predicts the second pulse
better. The reaction calculations for the case with a 10 ms load duration shows
underprediction of several reaction pulses, see Figure 5.23 (b) and Figure 5.24 (b).
Similarly to the discussion in Section 5.1.3, the simulations in Figure 5.23–5.24 exhibit
high-frequency oscillations with a frequency of approximately 1550–1600 Hz. If these
frequencies are filtered, the reactions would become smoother and obtain values
approximately between the peak and the minimum of each oscillation. This would
result in calculated reactions above those from the simulations in Figure 5.23 and
Figure 5.24 (a), and a slight underprediction in Figure 5.24 (b).

Comparing the amplitudes of the reactions in diagrams (a) and (b) in Figure 5.23, shows
that a reaction of approximately 270 kN causes a shear failure for a 2.0 ms duration
load, while 120–130 kN is sufficient for a duration of 10 ms. Figure 5.24 shows a
similar result where the corresponding reactions are approximately 310 kN and
165–205 kN, respectively. Thus, comparing the reactions of beams that are subjected
to different load durations, it is apparent that the duration is also a driving parameter
that influences the reactions. Also, the duration of each reaction pulse appears to be a
key parameter that controls shear failure. This becomes clearer when comparing the
reactions that caused shear failure in Figure 5.25 (a). The impulse of these reactions
was evaluated by numerical integration of the reaction-time curves in Figure 5.24 (a)
and (b) and presented in Figure 5.25 (b). Two curves represent the impulse that caused
shear failure, while the two other curves represent the impulse without a failure. These
latter curves are below the values of the former curves, which indicates that a certain
reaction impulse is necessary do cause a shear failure. This evaluation would still be
valid in a case where the reaction oscillations are filtered since the impulse of the
reactions needs to be maintained,

82
 300
B12(2)
Shear failure td = 2.0 ms
250

200 p = 3000 kPa

Reactions (kN)

p = 2000 kPa
FKR
150
FKR
FKR

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (ms)

(a)
160
Shear failure B12(2)
140 td = 10 ms
p = 1200 kPa
120 p = 800 kPa
FKR
Reactions (kN)

100 FKR

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (ms)

(b)
Figure 5.23 Calculated support reactions for beam type B12(2) subjected to blast
loads of (a) 2.0 and (b) 10 ms duration.

83
 350
B12(5)
td = 2.0 ms
300 Shear failure
p = 3500 kPa
p = 2500 kPa
250 FKR
FKR
Reactions (kN)

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (ms)

(a)
250
B12(5)
Shear failure td = 10 ms
200 p = 1500 kPa
p = 1000 kPa
Reactions (kN)

FKR
150 FKR

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (ms)

(b)
Figure 5.24 Calculated support reactions for beam type B12(5) subjected to blast
loads of (a) 2.0 and (b) 10 ms duration.

84
 350
B12(5)
300
p = 1500 kPa, td = 10 ms
p = 3500 kPa, td = 2.0 ms
250
Reactions (kN)

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (ms)

(a)
1.4
B12(5)
Shear failure
1.2
Reaction impulse (kNs)

0.8

0.6

0.4
p = 1000 kPa, td = 10 ms
p = 1500 kPa, td = 10 ms
0.2 p = 2500 kPa, td = 2.0 ms
p = 3500 kPa, td = 2.0 ms
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (ms)

(b)
Figure 5.25 Comparison between (a) calculated support reactions and (b)
corresponding reaction impulse for beam type B12(5) subjected to blast
loads of 2.0 and 10 ms duration.

85
5.5.2 Direct shear
A series of simulations were performed using the B7(5), B12(5) and B27(5) beam types
subjected to triangular blast loads with varying peak pressures and duration. The results
from these simulations show that the support reactions depend on both the amplitude
and the load duration of the applied load, see Figure 5.26–5.27. The latter figure
summarises the reactions from the simulations of all the beam types. These results
indicate that the reactions level off at a load duration of approximately 4 ms for the
used beam geometries, span and applied load. The results also show a slightly larger
relative increase between the reactions at 8 ms duration compared to the reactions at
0.5 ms duration for a deeper beam. Furthermore, Figure 5.26 also illustrates that the
reactions depend on the type of beam section, where the deepest beam exhibits the
greatest reactions compared to slimmer beams. Thus, apart from the applied pressure,
also the beam stiffness appears to influence the reactions.

The support reactions were calculated with the use of Eq. (2.24) in Section 2.4.3. One
may question this approach because the deflected shape of the beam at this relatively
early point in time where the maximum reactions occur is very different from the
fundamental flexural mode. Figure 5.26 shows that the maximum support reactions
occur at approximately 0.3 ms for the B12(2) beam type, while the maximum reactions
occurred at approximately 0.35 ms and 0.2 ms for beam types B7(2) and B27(2). At
these early times, the beams have not yet deflected in its fundamental mode, see
Paper V. This is especially the case for beam type B27(2).

The results from the simulations and the corresponding calculated support reactions,
using Eq. (2.24), are given in Figure 5.28–5.30. Figure 5.28 shows that the calculated
reactions exhibit a steeper slope with respect to the applied pressure compared to the
reactions in the simulations. Thus, for the B7 beams, there is a tendency to underpredict
the reactions at lower pressures and overpredict the reactions at higher pressures. A
similar result was obtained for the B27 beams, although the calculated reactions do not
underpredict the reactions at lower pressures. The calculated reactions for the B12
beams show relatively similar calculated reactions compared to the reactions in the
simulations. The general tendency is that the calculations appear to underpredict the
actual reactions at lower pressure levels and overpredict the reactions at higher
pressures. In Figure 5.28–5.30, the simulated reactions using concrete strength
parameters of varying strain rates are also included to illustrate the variation in
reactions due to strain rate effects. This indicates that the reactions increase to a certain
degree for a higher assumed strain rate of the concrete. Also in in these figures with the
exception of Figure 5.28 (a) and Figure 5.30 (a), the simulated reactions for an applied
load with varying durations are included.

86
 1200
B12(5) td = 0.5 ms
td = 1.0 ms
1000 td = 4.0 ms
td = 8.0 ms

800
Reactions (kN)

p = 15 MPa

600

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (ms)
Figure 5.26 Support reactions from simulations of beam type B12(5) with a peak
pressure of 15 MPa and varying durations.

1400

1200

1000
Reactions (kN)

800

600

400 B7(5)
B12(5)
200 B27(5)

p = 15 MPa
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Duration (ms)

Figure 5.27 Support reactions from simulations of beam types B7(5), B12(5) and
B27(5) subjected to a peak pressure of 15 MPa and varying durations.

87
 2000
B7(2)
1800
1600 𝜀̇ 5 s-1

1400
Reactions (kN)

1200
𝜀̇ 1 s-1
1000
800
600
td = 0.5 ms
400
FEA
200
FKR
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pressure (MPa)

(a)
3000
B7(5)

2500

2000
Reactions (kN)

td = 1 & 4 ms td = 4 ms
𝜀̇ 1 s-1 𝜀̇ 5 s-1
1500
𝜀̇ 5 s-1
1000
td = 0.5 ms
FEA
500
𝜀̇ 1 s-1 FEA variation
FKR
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Pressure (MPa)

(b)
Figure 5.28 Support reactions from simulations and calculations using the design
manual according to FKR (2011) for beam types (a) B7(2) and (b) B7(5).

88
 1400
B12(2)
1200
td = 1 & 4 ms
1000
𝜀̇ 5 s-1
Reactions (kN)

800
𝜀̇ 1 s-1
600

400 td = 0.5 ms
FEA
200 FEA variation
FKR
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Pressure (MPa)

(a)
1800
B12(5)
1600
𝜀̇ 5 s-1
1400
1200
Reactions (kN)

td = 1, 2 & 4 ms
1000
800 𝜀̇ 1 s-1
600
td = 0.5 ms
400 FEA
200 FEA variation
FKR
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pressure (MPa)

(b)
Figure 5.29 Support reactions from simulations and calculations using the design
manual according to FKR (2011) for beam types (a) B12(2) and (b)
B12(5).

89
 1000
B27(2)
900
800
𝜀̇ 1 & 10 s-1
700
Reactions (kN)

600
500
𝜀̇ 5 s-1
400
300
td = 0.5 ms
200
FEA
100 FEA variation
FKR
0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Pressure (MPa)

(a)
1200
B27(5)

1000
td = 1 and 4 ms
Reactions (kN)

800
𝜀̇ 1 and 10 s-1
600
𝜀̇ 5 s-1
400
td = 0.5 ms

200 FEA
FEA variation
FKR
0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Pressure (MPa)

(b)
Figure 5.30 Support reactions from simulations and calculations using the design
manual FKR (2011) for beam types (a) B27(2) and (b) B27(5).

90
5.6 Parametric studies – shear capacity
Determining the shear capacity of reinforced concrete elements is important in order to
properly design such elements to resist blast loads. Determining the shear span is of
importance in the calculations of the shear capacity using the design manual FKR
(Swedish Fortifications Agency 2011). In order to do so, an evaluation of the shear
span and strains in the reinforcement are discussed in the two following sections. In the
subsequent sections, beam simulations serve as a basis for comparisons of different
expressions in the calculations of the flexural shear and direct shear capacities.

5.6.1 Evaluation of the shear span

The shear span in the simulations at different times was evaluated by considering the
von Mises stress distribution of the beam and locating the compressive zone of the
temporarily small beam as shown in Figure 5.31. The inclined compressive struts
between the loaded surface and the supports are clearly visible in this figure. The
distance from the face of the support to the centre of the compressive zone resembles
2a, in Figure 5.31, and twice this distance denotes the apparent shear slenderness L’/d
at that point in time. For each simulation, the measurements started off at 0.1 ms after
the load was applied and continued for each point in time with a time step of 0.1 ms
and ended at 0.5–0.6 ms. By performing this procedure in altogether 27 simulations for
beam types B7, B12 and B27 resulted in the diagram presented in Figure 5.32. The
growth of L’/d over time at a certain velocity is apparent in this figure. At
approximately 0.4–0.5 ms, the velocity reduces and the growth of L’/d levels off and
stops, which is due to large damage zones developing and arresting further growth. For
the B7 and B27 beams, a few simulations start off with a relatively high velocity up to
0.2 ms after which the growth of L’/d continuous at the same velocity as the other
simulations for each beam type. The reason for this initially higher velocity is the
evolution of damage zones in compression and tension of the beam. For beams
subjected to lower peak pressures, the damage zones develop at a slightly later point in
time. This results in an initially stiffer beam compared to beams subjected to higher
pressures. A similar behaviour is also shown for the B12 beams. The broken black lines
resemble the average response of each beam type. The amount of reinforcement for
each beam type does not appear to influence the behaviour at these early times.

91
 2a
(a)

2a
(b)
Figure 5.31 Evaluation of the shear span using the von Mises stress distributions. The
simulations are shown at (a) 0.2 ms and (b) 0.4 ms after the load was
applied.

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
L'/d

B7

3.0 B12
B27
2.0
B7

1.0 B12
B27
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Time (ms)

Figure 5.32 Evaluation of the apparent beam span to depth ratio L´/d at different
points in time for 9 of type B7, 10 of type B12 and 8 of type B27 beams.

92
The broken black lines in Figure 5.32 were used as reference in the subsequent
evaluation of the shear span and L’/d at varying loads presented in Figure 5.33–5.35.
These figures illustrate L’/d obtained from the calculations using Eq. (2.9–2.11) in
Section 2.4.1 and with Figure 5.32 as reference. The calculations using these equations
result in a specific value of L’/d, while in reality L’/d grows over time and the
simulations do not provide a specific value. Thus, for the purpose of this evaluation,
two methods were employed. Firstly, the point in time when initiation of the failure
zone occurs was used as an indication that L’/d is reached. For example, this shows
itself as a few elements reaches a damage level that resembles crushed concrete at the
supports. Another example is the initiation of a web shear crack that eventually causes
failure. Secondly, the point in time where the maximum support reactions is reached.
At that time, the cross section is evidently subjected to the maximum shear.
In Figure 5.33–5.35., these two methods were used and are denoted ‘Initiation of
failure’ and ‘FEA reactions’, respectively. The remaining curves in these figures
resemble the calculated values using Eq. (2.9–2.11).

According to Eq. (2.9–2.11), the shear span should decrease at an increased applied
pressure level, which is also the case using the two evaluation methods and presented
in Figure 5.33–5.34. The results for the B27 beams in Figure 5.35 show that L’/d
increase beyond a pressure level of 15 MPa. Overall, the results in these figures show
a similar trend but also show deviations between the calculated and the evaluated values
of L’/d. In some cases the calculated values using Eq. (2.9) and (2.11), correspond
relatively well to the results from the simulations, such as for the cases with the B7(5)
and B12(5) beams. For the remaining beams, the deviations were greater even if the
trends were similar. Also, using Eq. (2.11) where inertia is included (denoted ‘FKR Eq.
(2.11)’) resulted in similar values as using Eq. (2.9) as shown for beams B7(2), B12(2)
and B12(5). For beam B7(5), the Eq. (2.11) calculations resulted in greater L’/d, while
the opposite result was obtained for the B27 beams. It is also noted that for Beam B7(2)
in Figure 5.33 (a), the evaluation using the maximum reactions from the simulations
exhibited a different trend compared to the curves in the other diagrams. Instead of an
increasead L’/d at a reduced applied pressure, this curve appears to level off at pressures
of approximately 5–10 MPa.

93
 4.0
B7(2)
3.5

3.0

2.5
L´/d

2.0

1.5

1.0 Initiation of failure

FEA reactions
FKR Eq. (2.9)
0.5
FKR Eq. (2.10)
FKR Eq. (2.11)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pressure (MPa)

(a)
4.0
B7(5)
3.5

3.0

2.5
L´/d

2.0

1.5

1.0 Initiation of failure

FEA reactions
FKR Eq. (2.9)
0.5
FKR Eq. (2.10)
FKR Eq. (2.11)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pressure (MPa)
(b)
Figure 5.33 Evaluation of the apparent beam span to depth ratio L´/d at different
applied peak pressures for the (a) B7(2) and (b) B7(5) beams.

94
 5.0
B12(2)
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
L´/d

2.5
2.0
1.5
Initiation of failure
1.0 FEA reactions
FKR Eq. (2.9)
0.5 FKR Eq. (2.10)
FKR Eq. (2.11)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pressure (MPa)
(a)
5.0
B12(5)
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
L´/d

2.5
2.0
1.5
Initiation of failure
1.0 FEA reactions
FKR Eq. (2.9)
0.5 FKR Eq. (2.10)
FKR Eq. (2.11)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pressure (MPa)
(b)
Figure 5.34 Evaluation of the apparent beam span to depth ratio L´/d at different
applied peak pressures for the (a) B12(2) and (b) B12(5) beams.

95
 7.0
B27(2)
6.0

5.0

4.0
L´/d

3.0

2.0 Initiation of failure

FEA reactions
1.0 FKR Eq. (2.9)
FKR Eq. (2.10)
FKR Eq. (2.11)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure (MPa)
(a)
7.0
B27(5)
6.0

5.0

4.0
L´/d

3.0

2.0 Initiation of failure

FEA reactions
1.0 FKR Eq. (2.9)
FKR Eq. (2.10)
FKR Eq. (2.11)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure (MPa)
(b)
Figure 5.35 Evaluation of the apparent beam span to depth ratio L´/d at different
applied peak pressures for the (a) B27(2) and (b) B27(5) beams.

96
5.6.2 Evaluation of reinforcement strains
The initial response illustrated in Figure 5.2 (Section 5.1), shows that bending moments
occur relatively close to the supports at early times. This may lead to yielding of the
reinforcement for sufficiently high loads. The plastic strains in the reinforcement for
simulations where the beams of types B7(2), B12(2) and B27(2) failed in direct shear
are presented in Figure 5.36. The B7(2) beam was subjected to a peak pressure of
30 MPa, and the B12(2) and B27(2) beams were subjected to 20 MPa. The load
duration was 0.5 ms for all beams. Figure 5.36 shows that the plastic strains are
localized in the area where the damage zone of crushed concrete occurs close to the
supports. The simulations of beams B12(2) and B27(2) also show that plastic strains in
the reinforcement develop in areas where flexural shear cracks initiated and propagates.
Even though plastic strains develop, these strains are not distributed across the entire
cross section of each bar. The central portion of each bar does not reach yielding at
0.6 ms after the load was applied as presented in Figure 5.37. This figure presents the
development of plastic strain over time for the cross section of the reinforcing bars as
marked by the broken lines in Figure 5.36. The curves in Figure 5.37 represent the
plastic strains in each element of that cross section. The distributions of plastic strains
indicate that the reinforcing bars are bending due to a transverse motion throughout the
beam depth. Such a transverse motion is also visible through the displacement of the
reinforcing bars. Furthermore, even though the reinforcement does not appear to reach
yielding, it is likely that the reinforcement reaches plastic strains throughout the cross
section of the bars as time progresses and the beam continues in a downwards motion.

The simulations of the DS1 test, see Section 5.1.2, show that the top reinforcing bars
reach plastic strains 0.3 ms after the load was applied as presented in Figure 5.38. This
figure shows that plastic strains mostly develop in the top bars at 0.5 ms after the load
was applied. Over time as the slab moves downwards and flexural cracks develop the
bottom reinforcement also reaches yielding. It is also likely that the top bars reach
relatively high plastic strains during the downward movement of the slab.

97
 (a) B7(2)

Flexurar shear
crack

(b) B12(2)

Flexurar shear
cracks

(b) B27(2)

Figure 5.36 Plastic strains in the reinforcement 0.6 ms after the load was applied for
(a) B7(2), (b) B12(2) and (c) B27(2). The beams were subjected to 30
MPa, 20 MPa and 20 MPa, respectively, all with a duration of 0.5 ms.
The deformations are exaggerated with a factor 10. The broken lines
mark the cross section of the plastic strains presented in Figure 5.37.

98
 0.6
B7(2)
0.5

0.4
Plastic strain (%)

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (ms)

(a)
0.18
B12(2)
0.16
0.14
0.12
Plastic strain (%)

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (ms)

(b)
Figure 5.37 The development of plastic strains over time in in each element of the
reinforcement marked with the broken lines in Figure 5.36 for (a) B7(2),
(b) B12(2) and (c) B27(2).

99
 0.4
B27(2)
0.35

0.3
Plastic strain (%)

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (ms)

(c)
Figure 5.37 continued.

Figure 5.38 Plastic strains in the reinforcement at one of the supports 0.5 ms after the
load was applied for the DS1 simulation. The deformations are
exaggerated with a factor of 10.

100
5.6.3 Evaluation of flexural shear capacity
In order to evaluate the flexural shear capacity, a series of simulations using B12(2)
and B12(5) beams were performed with varying magnitudes of peak pressure. The
series were also divided into simulations with a 2.0 ms and 10 ms load duration. Even
though shear cracks may develop, a beam may still exhibit a flexural response mode.
This was observed in several tests where concrete beams were subjected to blast loads
and did not fail in shear even though shear cracks were present as shown in Paper II
and reported in Magnusson & Hallgren (2000). For a shear failure to occur, the beam
needs to be separated along a diagonal crack. In this separation the two beam parts
displace in relation to each other in a transverse motion, which may be detected by
analysing the plastic strains and deformations of the reinforcing bars. In a shear failure,
the reinforcement exhibits strains and deformations that reveal local bending along a
limited length similar to a dowel action, see Figure 5.39. Therefore, the distribution of
plastic strains and deformations were employed as the distinguishing factor in order to
determine if a shear failure occurred in the simulations. Beams where a shear crack
developed in the simulations without failing in shear did not show the same
characteristic displacement and local plastic strains in the reinforcement.

(a)

Location of
shear crack
(b)
Figure 5.39 Shear failure of a B12(5) beam subjected to a peak pressure of 4000 kPa
and 2.0 ms duration. The figures illustrate (a) concrete cracking and (b)
plastic strains in the reinforcement. The deformations in (b) are
exaggerated with a factor of 5.

101
Figure 5.40–5.41 present the results from the analyses at varying pressure levels, and
for a 2.0 ms and 10 ms load duration. The reactions from the simulations (denoted
‘FEA’ in the figures) are presented at the phase of the support and also at 1d and 2d
distance from the support, respectively. In most cases, the shear cracks developed at
approximately 2d from the supports. The calculations using the models in Eurocode 2
(Swedish Standards Institute 2005) and the draft revision of Eurocode 2 (CEN 2018)
are denoted ‘EN2’ and ‘Draft’, respectively. These calculations show that they
underpredict the shear strength of the beams for all cases in Figure 5.40–5.41. The
calculations using the FKR model (Swedish Fortifications Agency 2011) appear to
predict the shear failure relatively well, with respect to the shear at a distance of 2d
from the supports. This is valid for all cases except for that of beam B12(2) subjected
to a load duration of 10 ms in Figure 5.41 (a). The reason for this result appears to be
the combination of higher reactions in the simulations of the B12(5) beams at the same
applied load compared to the B12(2) beam reactions, and higher calculated shear
strength for the B12(2) beam.

In the model for calculating the shear capacity in FKR, the calculated shear slenderness
becomes important. The ratio q/p determines the magnitude of the shear span, see
Section 2.4.1, which means that reduced values of q results in smaller shear spans. This
is the case for the B12(2) beam and, consequently, the shear capacity increases in
relation to the B12(5) beam according to Section 2.4.1. Thus, the combination of
reduced reactions and an increased calculated shear capacity results in the curves
presented in Figure 5.41 (a). The same relations apply to the results in Figure 5.41 (b)
but the influence of the ratio q/p becomes less prominent at those pressure levels.

102
 250
B12(5) Shear failure
td = 10 ms
200
R and VR (kN)

150

100
FEA
FEA 1d
50 FEA 2d
FKR VR
Draft VR
EN2 VR
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Pressure (kPa)

(a)
400
B12(5) Shear failure
350 td =2.0 ms

300
R and VR (kN)

250

200

150
FEA
FEA 1d
100
FEA 2d
FKR VR
50
Draft VR
EN2 VR
0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Pressure (kPa)

(b)
Figure 5.40 Reactions from simulations of B12(5) beams and calculated shear
capacities at different applied peak pressures, and a load duration of (a)
10 ms and (b) 2.0 ms.

103
 140
B12(2) Shear failure
td = 10 ms
120

100
R and VR (kN)

80

60
FEA
40 FEA 1d
FEA 2d
FKR VR
20
Draft
Draft VR
EN2 VR
0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Pressure (kPa)

(a)
350
B12(2) Shear failure
td =2.0 ms
300

250
R and VR (kN)

200

150
FEA
100 FEA 1d
FEA 2d
FKR VR
50
Draft VR
EN2 VR
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure (kPa)

(b)
Figure 5.41 Reactions from simulations of B12(2) beams and calculated shear
capacities at different applied peak pressures, and a load duration of (a)
10 ms and (b) 2.0 ms.

104
5.6.4 Evaluation of direct shear capacity
Simulations using beam types B7(5), B12(5) and B27(5) were used in the evaluation
of the direct shear capacity. Comparisons were made between the results of the
simulations and calculations of the direct shear capacity using the expressions
presented in Sections 2.4.1–2.4.2 Eq. (2.3–2.7), Eq. (2.21) and Eq. (2.23). Calculations
using these expressions were compared to the simulation results in Figure 5.42–5.44.
Calculations using Eq. (2.21) includes the dynamic compressive strength of concrete.
The simulations show variations in the strain rate within the area of the supports
between approximately 1–10 s-1. Based on Figure 3.3 in Section 3.1.1 for a compressive
strength of 45 MPa, the dynamic increase factor for concrete in compression at a strain
rate of 1.0 and 10 s-1 is 1.26 and 1.33, respectively. Thus, an average DIF of 1.3 was
used in the calculations of the direct shear capacity using Eq. (2.21). The abbreviations
‘UFC’, ‘Krauth.’ and ‘FKR’ in these figures refer to Eq. (2.17), (2.19) and (2.3–2.7),
respectively.

For beams B7(5) and B12(5), the figures illustrate that the calculations using Eq. (2.19)
appear to predict the direct shear capacity reasonably well. This is also the case for
Eq. (2.17) although these calculations appear to be more conservative. Using the
equations in FKR appear to give results that underpredict the direct shear capacity. In
the case of beam B27(5) in Figure 5.44, the results indicate that all the calculations
underpredicted the shear capacity with quite a large margin. The simulations show that
the direct shear failure develops due to concrete crushing (and possibly splitting) of the
compressive struts at the supports. Therefore, it was of interest to also include new
calculations that consider such a failure mode. Thus, in addition to the expressions
presented previously in this section, Eq. (2.3) in Section 2.4.1 was modified into
Eq. (5.7) and Eq. (5.8). Eq. (5.7) is the capacity of the compressive concrete strut at the
supports without any additional contribution from the reinforcement. In Eq. (5.8), the
same dynamic increase factor of 1.3 is employed as in Eq. (2.7) to account for the
average increase in concrete compressive strength at strain rates of 1.0 s-1 and 10 s-1.

𝑉𝑐 = 0.25𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑑 (5.7)

𝑉𝑐 = 0.25 ∙ 1.3𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑑 (5.8)

Comparing the calculations using these expressions with the simulations provided the
results presented in Figure 5.45–5.46 for the B7(5) and B12(5) beams. Here, the
abbreviations ‘Krauth.’, ‘FKR concr.’ and ‘FKR concr. DIF’ refer to Eq. (2.19), (5.7)
and (5.8), respectively. In this case, all calculations appear to predict the direct shear
capacity reasonably well. It is interesting to note that the calculations using the

105
‘Krauth.’ and the ‘FKR concr. DIF’ expressions ended up at the same shear capacity.
However, this would not be the case where other reinforcement ratios are used.

1400
B7(5)
Direct shear
1200

1000
R and VR (kN)

800 td = 4.0 ms

600

400
FEA
UFC
200
Krauth.
FKR
0
8 10 12 14 16

p (MPa)

Figure 5.42 Reactions from simulations of B7(5) beams with varying peak pressures
and calculated direct shear capacities. Load durations of 0.5 and 4.0 ms
were used.

1200
B12(5)
1000 Direct shear

800
R and VR (kN)

600

400
FEA
200 UFC
Krauth.
FKR
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

p (MPa)

Figure 5.43 Reactions from simulations of B12(5) beams with varying peak pressures
and calculated direct shear capacities. A load duration of 0.5 ms was
used.

106
 1000
B27(5)
Direct shear
800
R and VR (kN)

600

400

FEA
200 UFC
Krauth.
FKR
0
5 10 15 20 25

p (MPa)

Figure 5.44 Reactions from simulations of B27(5) beams with varying peak pressures
and calculated direct shear capacities. A load duration of 0.5 ms was
used.

1400
B7(5)
Direct shear
1200

1000
R and VR (kN)

800 td = 4.0 ms

600

400
FEA
Krauth.
200
FKR concr.
FKR concr. DIF
0
8 10 12 14 16

p (MPa)

Figure 5.45 Reactions from simulations of B7(5) beams with varying peak pressures
and modified calculations of the direct shear capacities. Load durations
of 0.5 and 4.0 ms were used.

107
 1200
B12(5)
1000 Direct shear

800
R and VR (kN)

600

400
FEA
200 Krauth.
FKR concr.
FKR concr. DIF
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

p (MPa)

Figure 5.46 Reactions from simulations of B12(5) beams with varying peak pressures
and modified calculations of the direct shear capacities. A load duration
of 0.5 ms was used.

108
Chapter 6
Summary of appended papers
6.1 Paper I: Fibre reinforced concrete beams
subjected to air blast loading
Magnusson, J.
Nordic Concrete Research (2006), 35, pp. 18-34.

This paper involves testing of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams subjected
to static and blast loads. Unreinforced concrete in tension is characterized by a brittle
failure but by adding steel fibres to the matrix, the ductility can be improved
considerably. The fibres provide stress transfer across cracks that form under tensile
stresses, which may arrest further crack propagation. However, as a concrete specimen
is subjected to a continuously increasing tensile load, a major crack will eventually
form and, after the peak load has been reached, crack opening will follow under the
unloading phase. During this phase the fibres across the crack are either pulled out of
the matrix or pulled to rupture. Fibre pull-out characterizes a ductile failure of the
concrete specimen. The purpose of the work in Paper I was to investigate the
mechanical behaviour of SFRC beams subjected to various blast loads.

A total of 40 beams were tested, of which 22 beams were subjected to blast loading and
18 to static loading. Three concrete grades were used with concrete strengths of 36
MPa, 97 MPa and 189 MPa. The beams were reinforced with Dramix hooked-end steel
fibres with a volume fraction of 1.0 %. Half of the beams contained 30 mm long fibres
and the other half were reinforced with fibres of 60 mm length. The static beam tests
were performed with four point loads and the blast tests were performed in a shock tube
with an explosive charge at a 10 m distance from the beam. At this distance, the blast
load can be considered as a uniformly distributed load across the beam surface.

The tests show that, for beams of the two lower concrete grades, the failure mechanism
was by fibre pull-out, while a combination of fibre pull-out and fibre ruptures were
observed for beams of the highest grade. In the static tests, beams with the two lowest
concrete grades and with long fibres exhibited greater strain hardening compared to

109
those containing short fibres. However, for beams with the highest concrete grade,
beams with short fibres obtained the greatest strain hardening. The probable cause for
this may be the larger amount of fibre ruptures for the long fibres that was observed.
For beams of the highest concrete grade, an increased number of fibre ruptures in the
blast tests in relation to the static tests were observed. In these beams, the blast tests
also revealed an increased number of fibre ruptures in the beams with long fibres
compared to beams with short fibres. Furthermore, the load capacity of the beams
increased in the blast tests compared to the corresponding static tests, see Figure 6.1.
The main reason may be due to strain rate effects. Both the static and the dynamic load
capacity also increased with an increased concrete strength.

Even though SFRC has many benefits, the traditional way of reinforcing concrete
structural elements with steel bars is still preferred in the design of blast resistant
structures. The presence of steel bars enables the element to deform and absorb the
dynamic load in a controlled manner. Previous research by Magnusson & Hallgren
(2000) indicate that a flexural shear failure could be prevented by adding steel fibres.
Another investigation by Magnusson & Hallgren (2003) also indicate that the
introduction of steel fibres contribute to increased ductility of the concrete in the
compression zone of the beam. The increased ductility appears to contribute to an
enhanced residual strength in the post-peak stage of a statically loaded beam.

Figure 6.1 Mean load capacities in the tests. The numerals above the bars indicate
the ratio between the dynamic and static load capacity. The beam types
resemble: S=short fibres, L=long fibres, numeral=concrete grade
(MPa).

110
6.2 Paper II: Air-blast-loaded, high-strength
concrete beams. Part I: Experimental
investigation
Magnusson, J., Hallgren, M. & Ansell, A.
Magazine of Concrete Research (2010), 62 (2), pp. 127-136.

This paper presents a summary of tests on 49 reinforced concrete beams that were
performed using both static and blast loads. Altogether 38 beams were subjected to a
variety of blast loads and the remaining 11 beams were tested with static loads as
reference. The tests series consisted of 11 beam types, each type having individual
concrete grade and amount of reinforcement. The purpose of the investigations was to
analyse the structural behaviour of reinforced beams of high strength concrete (HSC),
i.e. concrete with a compressive strength exceeding 80 MPa. The static tests were
performed with four point loads and the blast tests were performed in a shock tube with
an explosive charge at a 10 m distance from the beam. The blast can be considered as
a uniformly distributed load across the beam surface at this distance.

For beams with the same amount of reinforcement, the static tests showed that the load
capacity and stiffness increased with an increase in concrete strength. Increasing the
concrete strength of beams with the same amount of reinforcement reduces the
mechanical ratio of reinforcement. As this ratio was reduced, an increase in
deformation capacity was observed in the static tests. The blast tests show that the
dynamic load capacity is larger for beams of all concrete grades compared to the
corresponding static load capacity. The results also show that beams failing in flexure
in the static tests could fail in flexural shear when subjected to blast loads. However,
such a shear failure could be prevented for beams of the same concrete grade by
reducing the tensile reinforcement and thereby reducing the load capacity and stiffness
of the beam. In this case the beam failed in flexure due to the reduction of shear forces
in the beam.

In the blast tests, beams containing steel fibres failed in flexure while similar beams
without fibres failed in shear. Hence, the increased ductility, and possibly the increased
tensile strength, of the concrete matrix in tension prevented a shear crack to develop
and propagate. The results from the static tests also show that steel fibres contribute to
an enhanced ductility of the concrete in the compression zone. This enhances the
ductility of the entire beam response and allows for increased deflection capabilities.

111
6.3 Paper III: Air-blast-loaded, high-strength
concrete beams. Part II: Numerical non-linear
analyses
Magnusson, J., Ansell, A. & Hansson, H.
Magazine of Concrete Research (2010), 62 (4), pp. 235-242.

Numerical simulation enables detailed analyses of the structural response of reinforced

concrete elements subjected to blast loads. This paper presents such analyses using the
software Ansys Autodyn version 5.0 with the experimental results presented in Paper
II as reference. The RHT material model was employed for calculations of the stress-
strain states of the concrete and a damage model, which describes the damage evolution
and strength reduction due to increasing plastic strains. A linear and a bi-linear function
was used for the crack softening of concrete in tension. The Johnson & Cook
constitutive model was used for description of the stress states of the reinforcing steel.
The bond between concrete and reinforcement was modelled using a bond-slip
relationship according to CEB (1993). Simulations were performed with full bond and
bond-slip in order to evaluate its effect. Strain rate effects were included for concrete
and reinforcement but not for the bond-slip model.

Overall, the simulations showed the ability to analyse beams of varying concrete
strengths and content of reinforcement subjected to blast loads with good accuracy. The
simulations show some noticeable effects when considering with or without strain rate
effects of the reinforcement. Employing strain rate effects results in a slightly stiffer
response with reduced deflections. This is in agreement with a corresponding static
case with an increased yield strength of the beams.

The simulations demonstrates the ability to correctly predict the failure mode of beams
of varying concrete grades subjected to blast loads. Comparing simulations with a
linear and a bi-linear crack softening in tension does not seem to affect the crack
patterns noticeably. Using a bond relationship between the concrete and reinforcing
bars results in increased deflections and a reduced amount of flexural cracks. In this
case the location of the shear cracks changed such that the crack appeared at a larger
distance to the supports in the direction towards midspan. A similar change in location
of the shear cracks was observed in simulations where the strain rate effects of the
reinforcement was excluded.

112
6.4 Paper IV: Shear in concrete structures
subjected to dynamic loads
Magnusson, J., Hallgren, M. & Ansell, A.
Structural Concrete (2014), 15(1), pp. 55-65.

This paper presents a review of the literature dealing with shear in reinforced concrete
elements subjected to dynamic loads such as explosions and impacts. The review
focused on parameters that control shear and, for this reason, the initial response was
also highlighted. In dynamic events, high stresses and strains can occur locally in the
structure for short periods of time. The effects of structural wave propagation, strain
rate effects and dynamic load characteristics therefore need to be considered in shear
analyses. Elastic analyses using Euler-Bernoulli beam theory illustrates the effects of
flexural wave motions and build-up of shear close to the supports soon after a
distributed dynamic load has been applied. The results of the review concluded that
shear in concrete elements depends on load characteristics and structural parameters.

Load characteristics that were found to typically contribute to shear are peak load and
rise time. Typical characteristics of impulsive loads are high pressures, small rise times
and short durations, which is the reason such loads contribute to large shear forces in
the element. The load duration was reported in Ross (1983) as not having a significant
influence on direct shear. However, the load duration may have some influence on
flexural shear since this mode occurs at a much later time. Structural parameters
important to shear were concluded to be element resistance and stiffness, span-to-
effective depth (L/d) ratio and strain rate effects. Higher stiffness and resistance
contribute to larger shear forces in the element compared to a softer element with a
lower resistance. Strain rate effects in the concrete and reinforcing steel also contribute
to stiffer elements.

Arch action in the shear span will always be present in a concrete element, which
distributes a portion of the load directly to the supports. Soon after the load has been
applied, shear forces and bending moments will occur in the vicinity of the supports
while the remaining beam is straight and subjected to a rigid body motion. The element
may therefore be regarded as temporarily responding with an apparently low shear
slenderness, which may contribute to an enhanced shear strength. Wave propagation
effects over time will change the shear distribution, eventually becoming similar to that
of quasi-static loading, and the apparent shear slenderness will increase. Thus, the
enhancements in shear strength should decrease as the response progresses.

113
6.5 Paper V: Numerical analyses of dynamic shear
in concrete structures subjected to distributed
loads
Magnusson, J., Hallgren, M., Malm, R. & Ansell, A.
Submitted to Engineering Structures (2019)

The purpose of this paper was to analyse reinforced concrete beams subjected to
extreme dynamic loads with the use of numerical simulations. The shear mechanism
during dynamic loading is not yet fully understood, especially in the case for direct
shear failures. Therefore, the analyses focused on direct shear failure modes at early
structural response times due to uniformly distributed pressure loads. The software
Abaqus/Explicit 6.11 was used for modelling and simulations of reinforced concrete
beams subjected to varying blast loads. In this work, three types of beams with different
depths of the cross section were modelled. The amount of reinforcement was also
varied for each cross section. The Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model was used
for the calculations of the stress-strain states of the concrete and a damage model, which
describes the damage evolution and strength reduction of the concrete due to increasing
plastic strains. A bi-linear tension softening model was employed. The bond between
concrete and reinforcement was modelled using a bond-slip relationship that was based
on Magnusson (2000, Chalmers University of Technology) and fib (2012).

The analyses show that the dynamic direct shear mode appears to be a combination of
bending moment and shear in a deep beam response and is therefore different from the
static direct shear mode. Dynamic direct shear appears to be initiated by concrete
crushing in the vicinity of the supports. Once the failure zone has evolved throughout
the depth of the element, a sliding motion commences that separates the element along
a near-vertical plane. The direct shear mode may also involve splitting of the concrete
or the formation of a web shear crack near the supports. In a case where the failure is
caused by web shear, the failure planes appear to have a smaller inclination to the
horizontal plane. The simulations also indicate that a deeper beam is more susceptible
to dynamic shear failures compared to a slender beam, and that a higher reinforcement
content causes the beam to become more susceptible to shear compared to a
corresponding beam with less reinforcement. These findings are in agreement with
beams subjected to static loads. The analyses also show that both the blast pressure and
the duration of the load influence the development of a direct shear failure.

114
Chapter 7
Discussion
7.1 General
The initial beam deflections during the early response of the beam are discussed in
Section 5.1 and also in Paper IV and V. Similar curves of the initial beam deflections
as in Paper IV were generated from the simulations using solid elements. The initial
response in the simulations was verified by mapping the beam deflections at equidistant
points along the beam span over time for beams B7(2), B12(2) and B27(2). The
distance between each point was 40 mm and the deflections were plotted for every
0.1 ms as shown in Figure 7.1. Corresponding simulations with the use of an elastic
Timoshenko beam were carried out as reference as shown in the figure. The
Timoshenko beam theory also includes the effects of shear deformations and rotary
inertia that become increasingly significant for deep beams and for dynamic loads when
higher vibration modes are excited. These calculations were analysed in Abaqus using
linear beam elements of 38 mm length and the same dimensions, elastic modulus and
load as in the solid-element simulations. The diagram representing the B12(2) beam is
also included in Paper V. The deflected shapes at different times exhibit a similar
pattern as those obtained in Paper IV. Soon after the dynamic load has been applied to
the beam surface, a wave will propagate through the thickness of the beam and the
entire beam will be accelerated. As soon as the pressure wave reflects against the rear
surface of the beam, bending moments and shear forces develop at the supports while
the remaining beam will be subjected to a rigid body motion. This condition is reflected
in the deflected curves at 0.1 ms in Figure 7.1. Structural wave motions over time will
cause the beam to deflect in its fundamental motion of vibration. In the figure, the
beams B7(2) and B12(2) appear to deflect in their fundamental mode at approximately
0.4 ms and 0.5 ms, respectively. Beam B27(2) reaches this deflection mode at times
beyond 0.6 ms. Thus, it is evident that deeper beams reach their fundamental vibration
mode earlier than slimmer beams. Furthermore, the deflected shapes of the elastic
Timoshenko beam simulations agree well with the simulations using solid element
models even though there are slightly increasing deviations over time between the two
types of simulations. The results of the simulations show that concrete cracking and
crushing need a certain time to develop into specific failure zones (e.g. see Figure 5.18),

115
and therefore the beam initially exhibits an approximately elastic response. As the
concrete damage evolves over time, there is a continuous change in beam stiffness and
the deviations in deflections compared to the Timoshenko simulations grow.

0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Deflection (mm)

-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6 B7(2)
-1.8 FEA Timoshenko
FEA solid elem.
-2.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

0.0

-0.5

-1.0
Deflection (mm)

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5
B12(2)
-3.0
FEA Timoshenko
FEA solid elem.
-3.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

Figure 7.1 Calculated deflected shapes at different times for beam types (top) B7(2),
(middle) B12(2) and (bottom) B27(2) subjected to a uniformly distributed
load of 10 MPa and a duration of 0.5 ms. Each curve represents a time
difference of 0.1 ms.

116
 0.0

-1.0
Deflection (mm)
-2.0

-3.0

-4.0

-5.0 B27(2)
FEA Timoshenko
FEA solid elem.
-6.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

Figure 7.1 continued.

The initial response soon after the load has been applied shows that the concentration
of bending moments and shear within a narrow region of the beam in the vicinity of the
supports may initially subject the cross section to large stresses, see Figure 5.2. This is
supported by blast tests on concrete beams where relatively large reactions were
registered before any noticeable deflections were measured (Magnusson, 2007). Thus,
at a sufficiently intense load, the cross section of the element may reach its ultimate
strength and fail. Specifically the shear forces appear to reach relatively large values
compared to the evolution of bending moments at an early time, see Figure 5.3.
However, as the beam depth is reduced, the point in time where the bending moments
and shear forces reach their capacities become rather similar, which may cause a
slender beam to respond in flexure rather than shear as shown in Figure 5.4. The
moment and shear curves in this figure are normalized to the calculated moment and
direct shear capacities. The results in Figure 5.44 indicate that the direct shear capacity
from the simulations appears to be significantly larger for the B27 beam compared to
the calculated capacity. Thus, assuming a direct shear capacity of 700 kN, as indicated
in the simulation (according to Figure 5.44) results in moment and shear curves as
presented in Figure 7.2. In this case a flexural mode is predicted to dominate the
response of the beam. This may be regarded as the effect that deeper beams are more
susceptible to a shear response compared to slender beams in similarity to a static
loading case, as stated in Paper V. This is known from static tests and analyses as
previously discussed in Section 2.2.

117
 2
B27 beam
1.75

1.5

1.25
M/Mu ; V/Vu

0.75
M
0.5 V

0.25

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2
Time (ms)
Figure 7.2 Simulation of the bending moment and shear forces (at supports) over
time normalized to their ultimate capacity using a Timoshenko beam
under a uniformly distributed load of 15 MPa and duration of 4.0 ms.

In the simulations performed herein, the concrete strength properties in compression

and tension were increased due to an assumed constant strain rate in the beam. This is
a simplification since, naturally, the strain rates will change throughout the beam
depending on both location and over time. Due to this, specific simulations were
performed in order to verify the effects of this approach on the structural response in
terms of support reactions and failure modes, see Appendix A. These simulations show
that the chosen strain rate enhancement of the concrete strength resulted in certain
variations in the reactions. The resulting compressive and tensile damage also show
certain variations depending on the chosen strain rate. However, the failure mode did
not change even though the variations in strength properties for different strain rate was
considerable. The simulation of the B27 beam using a strain rate of 30 s-1 did change
the failure mode, but on the other hand, this high strain rate did not occur in the
simulation. The results of these simulations indicate that the influence on the results by
choosing this approach is within reasonable limits.

7.2 Failure in dynamic shear

It is well known in a statically loaded concrete element that a certain deflection occurs
with initiation and propagation of flexural cracks prior to the formation of flexural shear
cracks. The simulations presented herein show that such shear failures follows the same
sequence of events for elements subjected to blast loads, see Figure 5.10. The same

118
results was obtained using a Ansys Autodyn and the RHT concrete model as presented
in Paper IV. Once the diagonal crack has formed, the beam could be regarded as failing
but this may not be the case. However, the element needs to possess a certain amount
of remaining kinetic energy to be able to drive the element to a shear failure as the
beam separates along the shear crack. In the simulations, this was the criterion for
evaluating whether a shear failure occurred, see Section 5.6.3. The simulations indicate
that shear cracks may form but the beam did not fail and were therefore able to resist
an increased load. The shear crack appears to initiate approximately 2 ms after the load
was applied, and the shear failure occurred at around 4–5 ms, see Figure 5.10 and
Paper IV. Referring back to the discussion of initial response in Section 7.1, flexural
shear typically occurs at a point in time when the element is responding according to
its fundamental flexural mode.

Tests on roof slab subjected to intense dynamic loads showed that several of the slabs
failed along vertical or near vertical failure planes at the supports in a direct shear mode
as reported by Slawson (1984). The simulations of these tests presented in Section 5.3
indicate that severe crushing occurs throughout the entire depth of the compressive
struts at the supports caused the failure of the slabs along inclined failure planes, see
Figure 5.16. The simulations sequence in Figure 5.18 shows that the crushing damage
of the struts originate in the interior corner of the adjacent supporting wall and
propagates upwards over time. This damage evolution has a strong resemblance to the
shear failure of a deep beam subjected to static loading. As discussed in Section 2.2,
static tests have shown that the failure was caused by crushing of the compressive struts
close to the supports, possibly in combination with splitting of the concrete in the struts.
The compressive strut is clearly visible in Figure 5.31 and also presented in Paper V.
In these figures, the concentration of relatively high stress levels in the region above
the support is notable. It is therefore expected that crushing of the concrete originates
from this region. Also, the compression zone at the top of the beam indicates that the
response has evolved and generated a temporarily small beam. The temporary shear
slenderness L’/d of the beam in Figure 5.31 (a) and (b) are estimated to approximately
2 and 3, respectively. Thus, the initial response and stress distribution support the
presence of a deep beam response during the initial stages of response. The evolution
of the shear failure in Figure 5.18 indicates that crushing of the compressive struts
commence at approximately 0.1–0.2 ms. Thus, this failure mode occurs during the
initial response and the temporarily small beams occur in a similar fashion as shown in
Figure 5.31. Figure 5.21–5.22 present more simulations with crushed concrete struts
and tension cracks for different types of beams. The direct shear mode may also involve
the formation of a web shear crack near the supports. In a case where the failure is due
to web shear, the failure planes appear to have a larger inclination to the vertical, see
also Paper V. In all, the analyses show that the dynamic direct shear mode is a

119
combination of bending moment and shear in the vicinity of the supports. Therefore,
the element may be regarded as temporarily responding in a deep beam response. The
final step of the failure process is a sliding motion that occurs after the struts are
completely crushed throughout the beam depth, and the element separates along the
failure planes.

7.3 Support reactions

7.3.1 Flexural shear
The support reactions from tests and in simulations represent the shear forces at the
supports and are compared to the capacity of the element in a shear design and the
ability to predict the reactions as accurately as possible is therefore vital. A model for
calculating the reactions of a concrete beam subjected to a uniformly distributed blast
load is described by Eq. (2.24) in Section 2.4.3. This expression depends on the
maximum applied load level and the maximum resistance. The simulations of B12(2)
and B12(5) beams show that the general shape of the support reactions change
depending on the combination of pressure level duration of the load. Figure 5.23–5.24
shows that the peak reactions appear at a much earlier point in time for a duration of
2.0 ms compared to the corresponding reactions for a load duration of 10 ms. In the
former case, the maximum reactions appear at approximately 0.4 ms, while the
reactions in the latter case appear at approximately 2–3 ms. At 0.4 ms, the beam has
not yet deflected in its fundamental mode as shown in Figure 7.1 and, ideally, Eq. (2.24)
should be modified to better account for a different deflected shape. However, the
deflected shape is not entirely different from the fundamental mode and this relatively
small deviation does not appear to affect the calculated reactions in a negative manner.

To a certain degree, the calculated reactions appear to underestimate the reactions from
the simulations, Figure 5.23–5.24. The high-frequency oscillations that occurred in the
simulations but not in the tests may need to be taken into account when comparing the
calculated reactions. A probable cause for these oscillations is the ideal model of the
concrete beams without imperfections such as existing microcracks in a real beam. If
these oscillations do not occur in a real structural element, the simulations may
overpredict the actual reactions to a certain degree.

The duration of each reaction pulse appears to control shear failure. This becomes
clearer when comparing the reactions that caused shear failure in Figure 5.25 (a). The
impulse of these reactions was evaluated by numerical integration of the reaction-time
curves in Figure 5.24 (a) and (b) and presented in Figure 5.25 (b). Two curves in this

120
figure represent the impulse that caused shear failure, while the two other curves
represent the impulse without a failure. These latter curves are below the values of the
former curves, which indicates that a certain reaction impulse is necessary to cause
shear failure.

7.3.2 Direct shear

In order to evaluate the reactions for loads that caused a direct shear mode, a series of
simulations were performed using the B7(5), B12(5) and B27(5) beam types subjected
to blast loads of varying peak pressures and durations. The results from these
simulations show that the support reactions depend on both the amplitude and the load
duration of the applied load. The beam stiffness appears to also influence the reactions
such that greater reactions were obtained for deeper beams compared to slimmer
beams. The support reactions were calculated with the use of Eq. (2.24) in a similar
manner as discussed in Section 7.3.1. One may question this approach because the
deflected shape at the early point in time where the maximum reactions occur is very
different from the fundamental flexural mode. Figure 5.26 shows that the maximum
support reactions occur at approximately 0.3 ms for the B12(2) beam type, while the
maximum reactions occurred at approximately 0.35 ms and 0.2 ms for beam types
B7(2) and B27(2). Thus, ideally, Eq. (5.6) should be modified to better account for this
different deflected shape because the distribution of inertial forces are different from
these in the assumption of a fundamental mode of vibration. However, this does not
appear to have affected the calculated reactions in a negative manner. In fact, the
calculated reactions corresponded relatively well to the reactions in the simulations.
Even though the deflected shapes initially deviate from the fundamental mode, the
inertia forces are not completely different in these two cases. Thus, Eq. (5.6) appears
to provide a relatively accurate approximation of the reactions also for impulsive loads.
However, this may not be the case for beams with longer spans because the initial
distribution of inertia forces could to a larger degree deviate from those in a
fundamental mode than for the case with shorter spans.

7.4 Shear capacity

7.4.1 Shear span
The discussion in Sections 5.1 and 7.1–7.2, and in Paper IV and V, shows that there
exists an initial response with the temporary moment and shear distributions of short
beams. It is therefore reasonable to believe that such a temporarily short beam has the

121
ability to transfer larger shear loads prior to failure than a beam with a larger shear
slenderness. This enhancement in shear capacity is time dependent due to structural
wave effects, such that the initial positive effects on the shear capacity will gradually
diminish over time until the fundamental mode of vibration is reached. Such initial
behaviour is of interest to use when considering impulsive loads with large amplitudes
and of short duration. A model that accounts for the effects of such time-dependent
shear capacity was originally included in Publikation 25 (1973) and has also been
incorporated in the design manual FKR. The derivation of the equations used in this
manual is presented in Appendix C. An attempt was made in Section 5.6.1 to evaluate
the equations for determining the shear span of the element based on simulations. The
evaluation exhibited a similar trend of the shear span at an increasing pressure level.
However, there were deviations present that do not establish a foundation to draw any
general conclusions.

7.4.2 Plastic strain in the reinforcement

The bending moment that occur relatively close to the supports soon after the load has
been applied may lead to yielding of the reinforcement for sufficiently high loads. Such
yielding is assumed in the model for calculating the shear slenderness in FKR, see
Appendix C. However, the simulations of the B7(2), B12(2) and B27(2) beams indicate
that the reinforcing bars did not entirely reach plastic strains throughout the cross
sections at the point in time when the direct shear failure was developed. According to
the model in FKR, a case where the stresses in the reinforcement are assumed to stay
below yielding would result in a reduced shear slenderness and an increased shear
capacity. Vecchio & Collins (1988) showed that a beam section fails at lower loads in
cases where high moment and shear occur simultaneously at one location. Such a
location may typically be close to the supports in a direct shear failure. Further
investigations would be necessary to analyse the bending moments that occur close to
the supports soon after the load has been applied.

7.4.3 Flexural shear capacity

In the evaluation of the flexural shear capacity in the simulations, the shear cracks
developed at approximately 2d from the supports in most cases. The calculations using
Eurocode 2 (Swedish Standards Institute 2005) and the draft revision of Eurocode 2
(prEN 1992-1-1:2018, CEN 2018) show that these underpredict the dynamic shear
strength of the beams for all cases as shown in Figure 5.40–5.41, see Section 5.6.3. On
the other hand, the calculations using the FKR model appear to predict the shear failure

122
in a better way. There appears to be a need for further investigations to draw more
general conclusions.

Furthermore, tests on concrete beams subjected to blast loads have shown that beams
containing steel fibre reinforcement failed in flexure while similar beams without fibres
failed in shear as reported in Paper II. This is likely the result of an increased tensile
strength and fracture energy in tension of fibre reinforced concrete, see also Paper I. In
this work it was noted that longer fibres were favourable in terms of toughness of the
beams and load capacity. However, for an increased concrete strength, the tests indicate
that the positive effects of the long fibres are reduced. This is likely due to the observed
fibre fractures that occurred in beams containing long fibres.

7.4.4 Direct shear capacity

The results of the evaluation of the direct shear capacity showed that the used models
were able to fairly well predict the shear capacity. The FKR model appears to give
more conservative results compared to the two other models used (Krauthammer et al.
1986; Department of Defense 2008). The model by Krauthammer predicted the direct
shear failures in the simulations relatively well. The simulations show that the direct
shear failure develops due to concrete crushing (and possibly splitting) of the
compressive struts at the supports. Therefore, part of the FKR model was used to only
consider the failure mode of concrete crushing, see Eq. (5.7) in Section 5.6.4. This
equation was extended to also include strain rate effects of concrete in compression
using a dynamic increase factor (DIF) of 1.3 as shown in Eq. (5.8). This latest
modification resulted in an improved prediction with respect to the results of the
simulations. Apart from the results of the simulations, the use of a DIF is also supported
by the work presented by Krauthammer et al. (1986) and has also been observed in
tests on shear keys as reported by French et al. (2017). Also in this work, the
observation was made that the addition of steel fibres enhanced the direct shear
capacity.

FKR (2011) puts a limit on the allowed reinforcement content to a maximum of 0.5 %,
and it should be noted that the reinforcement content were 0.59 % and 1.47 % for the
beam sections employed in the simulations. Thereby both beam types exceeding the
allowed reinforcement limit. It is therefore of interest to further analyse the flexural
and direct shear capacity with beams of lower reinforcement ratios. Such analyses may
also include varying beam spans. Furthermore, in FKR (2011) the design shear force
at each support occurs at the location of the shear span and is therefore given to be half
the calculated support reactions. However, the analyses performed within the work in
this thesis shows that a direct shear failure occurs due to crushing and splitting of the

123
compressive struts at the supports where the entire reactions arise. It is therefore
advisable to change the design shear force such that the full support reactions are used.
In the case of flexural shear, the design shear force should be taken at the distance d
from the support, which follows the same principle as stated in Eurocode 2 (Swedish
Standards Institute 2005).

124
Chapter 8

Conclusions and further research

8.1 Conclusions
Reinforced concrete elements subjected to an explosion at close range may fail in shear
due to the high intensity of the load. Shear is a brittle failure mode that limits the ability
of the element to deform and respond in flexure. The work in this thesis involved
experimental and theoretical investigations using the finite element method in order to
analyse the different aspects on dynamic shear. Several research questions were
specified in order to direct the work into specific key areas of research as outlined in
Section 1.2. With reference to these questions, the conclusions of the work in this thesis
are stated in the following.

 Soon after the dynamic load has been applied, relatively large shear forces and
bending moments may occur within a narrow region of each support. The
magnitude of the load is apparently a key parameter in the initiation and
evolution of shear failures. An increased pressure resulted in an increased shear
force at the supports. According to the literature, the rise time to peak pressure
of the applied load is of importance. However, specific analyses of the influence
of the rise time were not part of the work in this thesis.

 Several aspects of the configuration of the concrete element influences the risk
of shear failures. For instance, a stiff beam generally attracts larger shear forces
compared to a beam with lower stiffness. Additional stiffness of a beam may be
due to an increased amount of flexural reinforcement or an increased depth. The
simulations indicate that a deeper beam is more susceptible to dynamic shear
failures compared to a slender beam, and that a higher reinforcement content
may cause the beam to become more susceptible to a shear response compared
to a similar beam with less reinforcement. A possible size effect, which is a
well-known effect in static loading cases, in combination with the enhancement
of shear forces due to the stiffness may contribute to the susceptibility to shear

125
 failures of deeper structural elements. Thus, the aspects that affect shear in static
loading cases also appear to be valid in dynamic events.

 Dynamic flexural shear is shown to follow the same sequence of events as in

the case with a static load. The simulations show that the shear crack originates
from a flexural crack and propagates into a diagonal crack, at approximately
1–2 beam depths from the supports. Both tests on concrete beams and
simulations show that a flexural shear crack may form but does not necessarily
lead to a shear failure. The element also needs to have a sufficient kinetic energy
to be able to fully develop a shear failure. The dynamic direct shear mode
typically occurs soon after the load has been applied at an early stage of the
structural response and appears to be due to the combination of bending moment
and shear. It is shown that dynamic direct shear appears to follow the same
sequence of events as in a static case of shear in a deep beam. Such response
may cause concrete crushing and possibly splitting of the compressive struts at
the supports. The dynamic direct shear mechanism is therefore different from
the static direct shear mode. The dynamic direct shear mode may also involve
the formation of a web shear crack near the supports.

 The calculations using FKR (Swedish Fortifications Agency) appears to

provide a relatively accurate approximation of the reactions for moderate blast
loads that may cause flexural shear. This is also the case for more impulsive
loads of higher intensity that may cause a direct shear failure. The simulations
show that the reactions depend on the applied load level, beam stiffness and
also, to a certain degree, on the duration of the load. The analyses also show
that the combination of peak support reactions and duration control the
evolution of a flexural shear failure. Thus, the structural element may be able
to resist a relatively large reaction with a short duration compared to the case
with a reduced reaction but with longer duration. Therefore, calculations of the
maximum reactions alone may be misleading without also considering the
duration. In FKR, it is prescribed to use half the calculated reactions as the
design shear force for direct shear. However, based on the analyses herein, it is
recommended to instead use the entire reaction since the direct shear failure
develops at the face of the supports. In the case of flexural shear, it is suggested
that the design shear force at a distance equal to the effective beam depth (d )
away from the support should be used. This is in accordance with the European
design rules for concrete structures Eurocode 2 (Swedish Standards Institute
2005).
 Calculations of the capacity in flexural shear using Eurocode 2 (Swedish
Standards Institute 2005) and the draft revision of Eurocode 2 (CEN 2018)

126
 show that these appear to underpredict the shear strength of beams in dynamic
events. On the other hand, the calculations using the FKR model appear to
predict the shear capacity in a better way. In calculations of the direct shear
capacity, the FKR model appears to result in conservative results. A
modification of this model to also include strain rate effects of the concrete was
made to better reflect the actual failure with crushing of the compressive struts
at the supports. This modification resulted in an improved prediction with
respect to the results of the simulations. Another model by Krauthammer et al.
(1986) also appeared to predict the direct shear capacity relatively well. A third
model (Department of Defense 2008) resulted in underprediction of the direct
shear capacity.

Furthermore, tests on concrete beams containing steel fibres and subjected to blast
loads were observed to fail in flexure, while similar beams without fibres failed in
flexural shear. Long fibres appear to be favourable in terms of an enhanced load
capacity and toughness of a beam. However, for an increased concrete strength, the
positive effects of the long fibres are reduced due to an increased number of fibre
ruptures across flexural cracks. Even though shear may be prevented by the inclusion
of fibres in the concrete, it is apparent that the shear capacity can not rely on fibres as
shear reinforcement. Instead, transverse reinforcement such as stirrups is necessary to
enhance the strength for flexural shear. However, stirrups will not be effective in
preventing direct shear failures.

8.2 Further research

The work in this thesis is based both on testing and on numerical simulations and it is
of interest in future research to further analyse the evolution of flexural shear and direct
shear failures. Such analyses could include variations in parameters such as support
conditions, longer spans at varying element depths, applied pressures and load
durations. Also, the work herein is entirely based on the assumption of a uniformly
applied load. However, an explosion at a relatively close range gives rise to an uneven
load distribution across the span of the element where one support may be subjected to
substantially larger shear forces compared to that of the other support. For this reason,
an uneven load distribution is of interest to include in further research.

All suggestions of further research should involve numerical simulations and an

experimental program. It may be of interest to perform the simulations with another
software and material models for comparisons. Future work should also include

127
analysing the models in FKR for calculations of the shear capacity and compare these
to tests and simulations. In this context, continued analyses of the dynamic shear span
and its influence on the shear capacity during the initial response appears to be of
importance. Furthermore, calculations of the maximum reactions only may be
misleading without also considering the duration of the reactions. Thus, the influence
of maximum reactions and duration on the evolution of shear failures should also be
included in future research.

A certain portion of the results of the simulations were compared to experiments that
were conducted within the scope of this thesis but also compared to other experiments.
The simulations were, however, extended to a variation of geometries and
reinforcement contents in parametric studies. In future research, it is of interest to
include experimental investigations with the same configurations. In addition, the
analyses in this thesis are based on simply supported beams without end-restraints or
axial loads. It is therefore of interest to further analyse dynamic shear using end-
restraints and axial loads. Such work may also include analyses on slabs supported on
all four sides.

128
Bibliography
Abaqus 6.11 (2011). Theory manual. Simulia.
Adhikary, S.D., Li, B. & Fujikake, K. (2013). Strength and behavior in shear of
reinforced concrete deep beams under dynamic loading conditions. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 259, pp. 14-28.
Andersson, S. & Karlsson, H. (2012). Structural Response of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Subjected to Explosions. Time Dependent Transformation factors, Support
Reactions and Distribution of Section Forces, Chalmers University of Technology,
Master’s Thesis 2012:103, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ansell, A. (2005). A Literature Review on the Shear Capacity of Dynamically Loaded
Concrete Structures, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, TRITA BKN Report no 89,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Ansell, A., Hallgren, H., Holmgren, J., Lagerblad, B. & Westerberg, B. (2012).
Concrete Structures (Report 143). Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Sweden.
Ardila-Giraldo, O.A. (2010). Investigation on the Initial Response of Beams to Blast
and Fluid Impact, Purdue University, Ph.D. Thesis, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Baker, W.E. (1973). Explosions in Air. Austin: University of Texas, USA.
Bažant, Z., P. & Yu, Q. (2005a). Designing Against Size Effect on Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Without Stirrups: I. Formulation. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 131(12), pp. 1877-1885.
Bažant, Z., P. & Yu, Q. (2005b). Designing Against Size Effect on Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Without Stirrups: II. Verification and Calibration.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(12), pp. 1886-1897.
Betonghandbok: Konstruktion (1990). Utgåva 2. Örebro: AB Svensk Byggtjänst (in
Swedish).
Betonghandbok: Högpresterande betong Material och utförande (2000). Stockholm:
AB Svensk byggtjänst. (in Swedish)
Biggs, J.M. (1964). Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York,
USA.
Birgisson, S.R. (2011). Shear Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Beams without
Stirrups. BSc Thesis. Reykjavik: Reykjavik University.

129
Bishoff, P.H. & Perry, S.H. (1991). Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain
rates. Materials and Structures, 24, pp. 425-450.
CEB (1993). CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design code. Thomas Telford. London,
United Kingdom.
CEN (2018). Final Version of PT1-draft prEN 1992-1-1:2018.
Červenka, V., Jendele, L. & Červenka, J. (2018). ATENA Program Documentation
Part 1: Theory. Červenka Consulting, Prague.
Chee, K.H. (2008). Analysis of Shallow Buried Reinforced Concrete Box Structures
Subjected to Airblast Loads, University of Florida, Master’s Thesis, Gainesville,
USA.
Chen, W.F. (1982). Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Department of Defense (2008). Structures to resist the Effects of Accidental
Explosions. Unified Facilities Criteria UFC 3-340-02, Washington D.C.
FEMA 277 (1996). The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving Building Performance
through Multi-Hazard Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C., USA.
fib (2012). Model Code 2010. Final Draft: Volume 1. Lausanne, Switzerland.
French, R., Maher, E., Smith, M., Stone, M., Kim, J. & Krauthammer T. (2017). Direct
shear behavior in concrete materials. Int. J. Impact Eng., 108, pp. 89-100.
Gebbeken, N. & Greulich, S. (2005). Effects of Stress Wave Propagation in Reinforced
Concrete Bond Considering Crack Opening, EUROMECH Colloquium 460
Numerical Modelling of Concrete Cracking. Innsbruck, Austria.
Gedik, Y.H. (2011). Experimental and numerical study on shear failure mechanism of
RC deep beams. PhD Thesis. Nagoya: Nagoya University.
Ghaffar, A., Javed, A., Rehman, H., Ahmed, K. & Ilyas, M. (2010). Development of
Shear Capacity Equations for Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Beams. Pak. J. Eng.
& Appl. Sci., 6, pp. 1-8.
Granström, S.A. (1958). Analysis of Structures Subjected to Air Blast, Swedish
Fortifications Agency, Report 103:18 (in Swedish), Stockholm, Sweden.
Gylltoft, K. (1983). Fracture Mechanics Models for Fatigue in Concrete Structures.
PhD Thesis. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.
Hansson, H., (2011). Warhead penetration in concrete protective structures. Licentiate
Thesis Bulletin 109, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Hawkins, N.M. (1982). Direct shear resistance. Letter Report to U.S. Navy.

130
Hillerborg, A., (1978). Brottmekanik tillämpad på betong, (Fracture mechanics applied
to concrete), Nordisk betong, 22:6 (in Swedish with an English summary and
conclusions).
Hughes, G. & Beeby, A.W.(1982). Investigation of the effect of impact loading on
concrete beams, The Structural Engineer, vol. 60B, No. 3, 45-52.
Hughes, G. & Speirs, D.M. (1982). An investigation of the beam impact problem
(Technical Report 546). London: Cement and Concrete Association, United
Kinngdom.
Johansson, M. (2000). Structural Behaviour in Concrete Frame Corners of Civil
Defence Shelters. Ph.D. Thesis Publication 00:2. Göteborg: Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden.
Johnson, G.R. & Cook, W.H. (1983). A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals
Subjected to Large Strains, High Strain Rates and High Temperatures. In Proceedings
from the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics. Hauge, Holland, pp. 541-547.
Kani G.N.J. (1966). Basic facts concerning shear failure. J ACI;63, 675-692.
Kani G.N.J. (1967). How safe are our large reinforced concrete beams. J ACI;64(3):pp.
128-141.
Kishi, N., Mikami, H., Matsuoka, K.G. & Ando, T. (2002). Impact behaviour of shear-
failure type RC beams without shear rebar, Int. Journal of Impact Engineering. 27,
pp. 955-968.
Kamali, A.Z. (2012). Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Blast
Loading, Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis. Master’s Thesis 368. Stockholm: KTH
Royal Institute of Technology.
Kotsovos, M.D. (2014). Compressive Force-Path Method: Unified Ultimate Limit-
State Design of Concrete Structures. Cham: Springer.
Krauthammer, T., Bazeos, N. & Holmquist, T.J. (1986). Modified SDOF Analysis of
RC Box-Type Structures. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 112(4), pp. 726-
744.
Krauthammer, T., Assadi-Lamouki, A. & Shanaa, H.M. (1993a). Analysis of
impulsively loaded reinforced concrete structural elements – I: Theory. Computers &
Structures, 48(5), pp. 851-860.
Krauthammer, T., Assadi-Lamouki, A. & Shanaa, H.M. (1993b). Analysis of
impulsively loaded reinforced concrete structural elements – II: Implementation.
Computers & Structures, 48(5), pp. 861-871.

131
Krauthammer, T. & Astarlioglu, S. (2017). Direct shear resistance models for
simulating buried RC roof slabs under airblast-induced ground shock, Engineering
Structures, 140, pp. 308-316.
Lee J. & Fenves G. (1998). Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 124(8), pp. 892-900.
Leonhardt, F., Walther, R. (1962). Schubversuche an einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken
mit und ohne Schubbervehrung, Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Heft 151,
Berlin, Germany.
Leppänen, J. (2004). Concrete Structures Subjected to Fragment Impacts: Dynamic
Behaviour and Material Modelling. PhD Thesis Publication 04:4. Göteborg:
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
Londhe R.S. (2011). Shear analysis and prediction of reinforced concrete transfer
beams in high-rise buildings. Structural Engineering & Mechanics, 37(1), pp. 39-59.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S. & Onate, E. (1989). A plastic-damage model for
concrete. Int. Journal of Solids and Structures, 25(3), pp. 299–326.
Luccioni, B., Isla, F., Codina, R., Ambrosini, D., Zerbino, R., Giaccio, G. & Torrijos,
M.C. (2017). Effect of steel fibers on static and blast response of high strength
concrete. Int. Journal of Impact Engineering, 107, pp. 23-37.
Menkes, S.B. & Opat, H.J. (1973). Broken Beams, Experimental Mechanics, 13(11),
pp. 481-486.
Magnusson, J. (2000). Bond and Anchorage of Ribbed Bars in High-Strength Concrete.
PhD Thesis Publication 00:1. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology,
Sweden.
Magnusson, J. & Hallgren, M. (2000). High Performance Concrete Beams Subjected
to Shock Waves from Air Blast (FOA-R--00-01586-311--SE). Tumba: Swedish
Defence Research Agency, Sweden.
Magnusson, J. & Hallgren, M. (2003). High Performance Concrete Beams Subjected
to Shock Waves from Air Blast: Part 2 (FOI-R--1116--SE). Tumba: Swedish Defence
Research Agency, Sweden.
Magnusson, J. & Hansson, H. (2005). Simulations of Air Blast Loaded Structural
Reinforced Concrete Elements (FOI-R--1686--SE). Tumba: Swedish Defence
Research Agency, Sweden.
Magnusson, J. (2007). Structural Concrete Elements Subjected to Air Blast Loading.
Licentiate Thesis Bulletin 92. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
Sweden.

132
Malm, R. (2009). Predicting shear type crack initiation and growth in concrete with
non-linear finite element method. PhD Thesis Bulletin 97. Stockholm: KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Malm, R. & Holmgren J. (2008a). Cracking in deep beams owing to shear loading. Part
1: Experimental study and assessment. Magazine of Concrete Research, 60(5), pp.
371-379.
Malm, R. & Holmgren, J. (2008b). Cracking in deep beams owing to shear loading.
Part 2: Non-linear analysis. Magazine of Concrete Research, 60(5), pp. 381-388.
Malvar, L.J. & Crawford, J.E. (1998a). Dynamic increase factors for concrete. 28th
Department of Defence Explosives Safety Seminar (DDESB), Orlando, Florida.
Malvar, L.J. & Crawford, J.E. (1998b). Dynamic increase factors for steel reinforcing
bars. 28th Department of Defence Explosives Safety Seminar (DDESB), Orlando,
Florida.
Mattock, A.H. & Hawkins, N.M. (1972). Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete –
Recent Research. Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, 17 (2), pp. 55-75.
Menkes S.B. & Opat H.J. (1973). Broken Beams. Exp Mech, 13(11), pp. 480-486.
Meyers, M.A. (1994). Dynamic Behavior of Materials. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
USA.
Morales-Alonso, G., Cendón, D.A., Gálvez, F., Erice, B. & Sánchez-Gálvez, V. (2011).
Blast Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs: Experimental Procedure and
Numerical Simulation. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 78.
Muttoni, A. & Ruiz, M.F. (2008). Shear Strength of Members without Transverse
Reinforcement as Function of Critical Shear Crack Width. ACI Structural Journal,
105(2), pp. 163-172.
Mårtensson, A. (1996). Concrete Structures 3. Lund: Lund University, Faculty of
Engineering, Sweden. (in Swedish)
Niklasson, G. (1994). Skjuvbrott i armerade betongbalkar: utvärdering av försöksserie
(Shear Failure in Reinforced Concrete Beams: An experimental investigation),
Report D 20241-2.6. Sundbyberg: Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI),
Sweden. (in Swedish)
Palm, J. (1989). On Concrete Structures Subjected to Dynamic Loading (Report
A4:89). Eskilstuna: Swedish Fortifications Agency. (in Swedish)
Park, R. & Paulay, T. (1974), Reinforced Concrete Structures. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, USA.

133
Publikation 25 (1973). Design of protective structures in reinforced concrete against
conventional weapons effects at close range (Dnr 7547/73). Swedish Fortifications
Agency, Stockholm, Sweden. (in Swedish)
Riedel, W. (2000). Beton unter Dynamischen Lasten: Meso- und makromechanische
Modelle und ihre Parameter (Concrete and dynamic loading: Meso- and
macromechanical models and their parameters). PhD Thesis 6/00. Freiburg: Ernst-
Mach-Institute, Germany.
Rogowsky, D.M. & MacGregor, J.G. (1983). Shear strength of deep reinforced
concrete continuous beams (Report no. 110). Edmonton: University of Alberta,
Canada.
Ross, T.J. (1983). Direct Shear Failure in Reinforced Concrete Beams under Impulsive
Loading (AFWL-TR-83-84). Kirtland: Air Force Weapons Laboratory, USA.
Ross T.J. & Krawinkler H. (1985). Impulsive direct shear failure in RC slabs. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 111, pp. 1661-77.
Schuler, H., Mayrhofer, C. & Thoma, K. (2006). Spall experiments for the
measurement of the tensile strength and fracture energy of concrete at high strain
rates. Int. Journal of Impact Engineering, 32, pp. 1635-1650.
Slawson, T.R. (1984). Dynamic Shear Failure of Shallow-Buried Flat-Roofed
Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Blast Loading (Technical Report SL-84-
7). Vicksburg: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, USA.
Svedbjörk, G. (1975). Elastic beam subjected to transient load: Moment and shear
distributions in time and space (Publ. 42). Eskilstuna: Swedish Fortifications Agency,
Sweden. (in Swedish)
Swedish Standards Institute (2005). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings (SS-EN 1992-1-1:2005). Stockholm,
Sweden.
Swedish Fortifications Agency (2011). Fortifikationsverkets konstruktionsregler FKR
2011 (Design Manual for Protective Construction) Dnr 4535/2011. Eskilstuna,
Sweden. (in Swedish)
van Mier J.G.M. (1986). Multiaxial Strain-Softening of Concrete. Material and
Structures (RILEM), 19(111), pp. 179-200.
Vecchio, F.J. & Collins, M.P. (1988). Predicting the Response of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Subjected to Shear Using Modified Compression Field Theory. ACI Structural
Journal, 85(3), pp. 258-268.
Weerheijm, J. (1992). Concrete under Impact Tensile Loading and Lateral
Compression. PhD Thesis. Rijswijk: TNO Prins Maurits Laboratory, the Netherlands.

134
Weerheijm, J., & Van Doormaal, J.C.A.M. (2007). Tensile failure of concrete at high
loading rates: New test data on strength and fracture energy from instrumental
spalling tests. Int. Journal of Impact Engineering, 34, pp. 609-626.
Westerling, L. (2005). User Subroutines in Autodyn for Simulation of Reinforced
Concrete. Tumba: Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), FOI-R--1758--SE. (in
Swedish)
Zielinski, A.J. (1984). Concrete Structures under Impact Loading – Rate Effects
(Report 5-18-14). Delft: Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

135
136
Appendix A
Parametric study of the strain rate
Separate simulations were performed with the beam types B7(5), B12(5) and B27(5)
in order to verify the dependence on used material strength data in compression and
tension due to different strain rates. In the simulations of flexural shear failures, the
material data for strain rates 0.1, 1.0 and 10 s-1 were used. Corresponding simulations
of direct shear failures used material data for strain rates 1.0, 10 and 30 s-1.

The concrete damage in compression and tension from the simulations are presented in
Figures A1–A4. In the first figure, the applied load was limited to produce flexural
shear failure, while the load was increased to produce direct shear failures in the
remaining figures. Figure A1 shows that varying materialdata for substantially different
strain rates did not change the failure mode. The shear cracks developed closer to the
supports for the case with 0.1 s-1. The results in Figures A2–A3, show that varying the
material properties between 1.0 s-1 and 30 s-1 did not change the failure mode in direct
shear. Crushing of the compressive struts appeared although even though the crushed
zones were reduced for increasd strength properties. The tension cracks also show
similarities for different strain-rate properties. However, the simulations with the B27
beam show a distinct difference in failure modes. In a case with material properties for
1.0 s-1, a direct shear failure was obtained with crushing of the compressive struts,
whereas the failure mode may be interpreted as a flexure shear failures in simulations
using material properties for higher strain rates. Thus, the material properties appears
to play a more significant role for B27 beams compared to the B12 and B7 beams.

137
 (a) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 0.1 s-1.

(b) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 10 s-1.

Figure A1. Simulations of B12(5) beams subjected to a uniform pressure of 2.0 MPa
with a duration of 10 ms. Damage in compression (left) and tension
(right). Plots at 3.0 ms after the load was applied.

(a) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 1.0 s-1.

(b) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 10 s-1.

(c) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 30 s-1.

Figure A2. Simulations of B7(5) beams subjected to a uniform pressure of 20 MPa
with a duration of 1.0 ms. Damage in compression (left) and tension
(right). Plots at 0.7 ms after the load was applied.

138
 (a) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 1.0 s-1.

(b) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 10 s-1.

(c) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 30 s-1.

Figure A3. Simulations of B12(5) beams subjected to a uniform pressure of 20 MPa
with a duration of 1.0 ms. Damage in compression (left) and tension
(right). Plots at 0.7 ms after the load was applied.

(a) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 1.0 s-1.

(b) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 10 s-1.

(c) Concrete properties for a strain rate of 30 s-1.

Figure A4. Simulations of B27(5) beams subjected to a uniform pressure of 15 MPa
with a duration of 1.0 ms. Damage in compression (left) and tension
(right). Plots at 0.7 ms after the load was applied.

The support reactions from the simulations are presented in Figures A5–A8 for the
corresponding cases shown in Figures A1–A4. Figure A5, that corresponds to a flexural
shear failure, shows that the support reactions are barely affected by different strain
rates. A probable reason is that the reactions depend on the development of tensile
stresses in the reinforcement and not in the concrete. However, the reactions are
affected to a higher degree for the case with direct shear failures in Figures A6–A8.
This is expected because a direct shear mode depends to a large degree on the
compressive struts that develop at the supports.

139
 250
B12(5)
p = 2.0 MPa
td = 10 ms
200
Strain rate 0.1 s-1
s-1
Reactions (kN)

s-1
Strain rate 1.0 s-1
150
s-1
Strain rate 10 s-1

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (ms)

Figure A5. Support reactions from simulations with B12(5) beams at varying strain
rates.

1800
B7(5)
1600 p = 20 MPa
td = 1.0 ms
1400
s-1
Strain rate 1 s-1
1200
Reactions (kN)

s-1
Strain rate 10 s-1
1000 s-1
Strain rate 30 s-1

800

600

400

200

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (ms)

Figure A6. Support reactions from simulations with B7(5) beams at varying strain
rates.

140
 1600
B12(5)
1400 p = 20 MPa
td = 1.0 ms
1200
s-1
Strain rate 1 s-1
Reactions (kN)

1000 s-1
Strain rate 10 s-1
s-1
Strain rate 30 s-1
800

600

400

200

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (ms)

Figure A7. Support reactions from simulations with B12(5) beams at varying strain
rates.

900
B27(5)
800 p = 15 MPa
td = 1.0 ms
700
s-1
Strain rate 1 s-1
600
Reactions (kN)

s-1
Strain rate 10 s-1
500 s-1
Strain rate 30 s-1

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (ms)

Figure A8. Support reactions from simulations with B27(5) beams at varying strain
rates.

141
142
Appendix B
Material data

B1 Concrete in compression
The relation between stresses and strains for the initial hardening up to the uniaxial
compressive strength fcm was calculated using (fib 2010):

𝜀𝑐 𝜀 2
𝐸𝑐𝑖 − 𝑐
𝑓𝑐𝑚 𝜀𝑐1
𝜎𝑐 = 𝑓
1 + 𝐸𝑐𝑖
𝜀𝑐1
−2 𝑐
𝜀 𝑐𝑚 for c ≤ c1 (B.1)
𝑓𝑐𝑚 𝜀𝑐1

where the parameters are explained in Figure B1. The concrete strain at fcm is calculated
according to (CEB 1993):

0.31 (B.2)
𝜀𝑐1 = 0.0007 𝑓𝑐𝑚

Červenka et al. (2018) describes a model with a fictitious compression plane based on
the assumption that compression failure is localized in a plane normal to the
compressive principal stress, where all compressive displacements wd occur. These
displacements are assumed to be independent on the size of the structure, which is
supported by experiments reported by van Mier (1986), see Figure B2. From these
experiments, a value for wd of 0.5 mm was determined for normal strength concrete.
Based on the specimen size, the plastic displacement wd can be calculated according to
Červenka et al. (2018):
𝑤𝑑
𝜀𝑑 = 𝜀𝑐 + (B.3)
𝐿𝑑

where Ld denotes the specimen length. The calculations of the softening branch of the
stress strain curve will thereby depend on the strain in the element of the FEM model.
Using Ld = leq, the expression of the compressive stresses at increasing strains becomes:

𝑙𝑒𝑞
𝜎𝑐 = 1 −
𝑤𝑑 𝑐
𝜀 − 𝜀𝑐1 𝑓𝑐𝑚 for c > c1 (B.4)

143
Figure B1 Schematic representation of the stress-strain relation for uniaxial
compression. From fib (2012).

Figure B2 Softening displacement relation in compression. From Červenka et al.

(2018).

144
B2 Concrete properties
The concrete properties were adjusted to fit available data on the specimens in the
experiments. The following parameters were used for all types of concrete.

Eccentricity = 0.1
fb0/fc0 = 1.16
Kc = 0.667
Viscosity parameter = 10-7
 = 2400 kg /m3
 = 0.2

B1.1 Flexural shear failures of concrete beams

This section refers to simulations of the B40-D3 and B40-D4 beam tests.

Static properties:
fc = 45 MPa
fct = 4.1 MPa
Ec = 34 GPa
GF = 130 N/m

Dilation angle = 45°

Concrete properties at a strain rate of 1 s-1 and 4 mm mesh.

Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
5.7 0 0.000 5.96 0 0
27.2 9.01E-05 0.042 1.99 0.0151 0.027
39.0 0.000226 0.072 0.06 0.0904 0.847
47.9 0.000425 0.106
53.8 0.000692 0.147
56.7 0.00103 0.195
56.7 0.00163 0.277
55.6 0.00405 0.494 An average value of the elastic modulus in
tension and compression was used:
53.5 0.00870 0.685
Ec = 46.6 GPa.
51.2 0.0138 0.782
47.6 0.0218 0.860
41.2 0.0360 0.921
26.3 0.0690 0.972

145
Concrete properties at a strain rate of 1 s-1 and 2 mm mesh.
Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
5.7 0 0 5.96 0 0
27.2 9.01E-05 0.042 1.99 0.0151 0.053
39.0 0.000226 0.072 0.06 0.0904 0.917
47.9 0.000425 0.106
53.8 0.000692 0.147
56.7 0.00103 0.195
56.8 0.00163 0.277
An average value of the elastic modulus in
56.3 0.00404 0.490
tension and compression was used:
55.2 0.00866 0.677
Ec = 46.6 GPa.
54.1 0.0137 0.772
52.3 0.0217 0.848
49.1 0.0358 0.907
41.6 0.0687 0.957

B1.2 Direct shear failures of roof slab

This section refers to simulations of the DS1 and DS4 tests.

Static properties:
fc = 27 MPa
fct = 2.4 MPa
Ec = 30 GPa
GF = 52 N/m

Dilation angle = 30°

146
Concrete properties at a strain rate of 1 s-1 and 4 mm mesh.
Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
3.9 0 0 4.10 0 0
21.9 0.000160 0.082 1.37 0.00879 0.020
29.6 0.000369 0.132 0.04 0.05250 0.800
34.7 0.000643 0.184
37.7 0.000970 0.238
38.9 0.00144 0.311
38.8 0.00174 0.353
An average value of the elastic modulus in
37.9 0.00456 0.594
tension and compression was used:
36.5 0.00910 0.752
Ec = 41.1 GPa.
35.0 0.0141 0.831
32.5 0.0222 0.893
28.1 0.0363 0.940
17.9 0.0694 0.979

B1.3 Parametric studies of concrete beams

This section refers to the parametric studies of concrete beams.

Static properties:
fc = 45 MPa
fct = 4.1 MPa
Ec = 34 GPa
GF = 130 N/m

Dilation angle = 45°

147
Concrete properties at a strain rate of 0.1 s-1.
Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
5.4 0 0 5.60 0 0
22.6 6.28E-05 0.034 1.87 0.0156 0.026
34.5 0.000178 0.061 0.06 0.0929 0.843
43.8 0.000357 0.093
50.2 0.000604 0.132
53.6 0.000924 0.179
53.9 0.00142 0.249
An average value of the elastic modulus in
52.7 0.00414 0.497
tension and compression was used:
50.8 0.00869 0.683
Ec = 41.1 GPa.
48.6 0.0137 0.781
45.2 0.0218 0.859
39.1 0.0360 0.921
24.6 0.0699 0.973

Concrete properties at a strain rate of 1 s-1.

Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
5.7 0 0.000 5.96 0 0
27.2 9.01E-05 0.042 1.99 0.0151 0.027
39.0 0.000226 0.072 0.06 0.0904 0.847
47.9 0.000425 0.106
53.8 0.000692 0.147
56.7 0.00103 0.195
56.7 0.00163 0.277
An average value of the elastic modulus in
55.6 0.00405 0.494
tension and compression was used:
53.5 0.00870 0.685
Ec = 46.6 GPa.
51.2 0.0138 0.782
47.6 0.0218 0.860
41.2 0.0360 0.921
26.3 0.0690 0.972

148
Concrete properties at a strain rate of 5 s-1.
Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
5.9 0 0 10.18 0 0
28.2 9.30E-05 0.044 3.39 0.0106 0.012
40.4 0.000232 0.074 0.10 0.0633 0.703
49.5 0.000434 0.109
55.7 0.000702 0.150
58.7 0.00104 0.198
58.9 0.00163 0.279
An average value of the elastic modulus in
57.7 0.00426 0.507
tension and compression was used:
55.6 0.00880 0.688
Ec = 48.6 GPa.
53.2 0.0139 0.784
49.4 0.0219 0.861
42.8 0.0361 0.922
27.3 0.0692 0.972

Concrete properties at a strain rate of 10 s-1.

Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
6.0 0 0 12.83 0 0
28.7 9.43E-05 0.045 4.28 0.0101 0.009
41.0 0.000234 0.075 0.13 0.0604 0.646
50.3 0.000438 0.110
56.5 0.000706 0.151
59.9 0.00133 0.240
59.6 0.00224 0.348
An average value of the elastic modulus in
58.6 0.00426 0.508
tension and compression was used:
56.4 0.00881 0.689
Ec = 49.3 GPa.
54.0 0.0139 0.785
50.2 0.0219 0.861
43.5 0.0361 0.922
27.8 0.0692 0.973

149
Concrete properties at a strain rate of 30 s-1.
Compression Tension
c (MPa) c,in (m/m) dc c (MPa) w (mm) dt
6.1 0 0 18.51 0 0
29.4 9.63E-05 0.046 6.17 0.0094 0.006
42.0 0.000238 0.077 0.19 0.0562 0.548
51.4 0.000444 0.112
57.8 0.000713 0.153
61.4 0.00134 0.242
61.0 0.00225 0.350
An average value of the elastic modulus in
60.0 0.00427 0.510
tension and compression was used:
57.8 0.00881 0.690
Ec = 50.7 GPa.
55.3 0.0139 0.785
51.4 0.0219 0.862
44.5 0.0361 0.922
28.4 0.0692 0.973

B1.4 Interface properties

This section refers to the properties of the bond-slip model employed between the
reinforcing bars and concrete. The plastic strain is based on a brick element of 4 mm
length.

 = 2400 kg /m3
 = 0.2
E = 30 GPa

c (MPa) p (m/m)
1.0 0
2.3 0.0032
3.1 0.0079
3.6 0.013
4.4 0.027
5.4 0.042
6.3 0.072
2.5 0.3
2.5 1.2

150
B2 Reinforcement properties

B2.1 Flexural shear failures of concrete beams

This section refers to simulations of the B40-D3 and B40-D4 beam tests.

Static 𝜺̇ = 0.001 s-1 𝜺̇ = 0.01 s-1

T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m)
600 0 623 0 646 0
601 0.0010 623 0.0010 647 0.0010
613 0.0180 636 0.0180 660 0.0180
657 0.0296 680 0.0296 703 0.0296
686 0.0392 708 0.0392 730 0.0392
727 0.0583 746 0.0583 765 0.0583
752 0.0770 767 0.0770 782 0.0770
768 0.0953 779 0.0953 790 0.0953
780 0.1133 786 0.1133 793 0.1133

𝜺̇ = 0.1 s-1 𝜺̇ = 1 s-1 𝜺̇ = 10 s-1

T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m)
670 0 695 0 722 0
671 0.0010 696 0.0010 722 0.0010
685 0.0180 710 0.0180 737 0.0180
727 0.0296 752 0.0296 778 0.0296
753 0.0392 777 0.0392 801 0.0392
784 0.0583 805 0.0583 826 0.0583
798 0.0770 814 0.0770 830 0.0770
801 0.0953 815 0.0953 831 0.0953
802 0.1133 816 0.1133 832 0.1133

151
B2.2 Direct shear failures of roof slabs

This section refers to simulations of the DS1 and DS4 tests.

Static 𝜺̇ = 0.001 s-1 𝜺̇ = 0.01 s-1

T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m)
434 0 467 0 503 0
434 0.0010 468 0.0010 504 0.0010
437 0.0078 471 0.0078 507 0.0078
508 0.0149 546 0.0149 582 0.0149
574 0.0247 610 0.0247 649 0.0247
645 0.0392 678 0.0392 714 0.0392
696 0.0535 724 0.0535 754 0.0535
733 0.0677 754 0.0677 777 0.0677
754 0.0816 768 0.0816 782 0.0816
772 0.0933 778 0.0933 785 0.0933

𝜺̇ = 0.1 s-1 𝜺̇ = 1 s-1 𝜺̇ = 10 s-1

T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m)
542 0 583 0 628 0
542 0.0010 584 0.0010 628 0.0010
546 0.0078 588 0.0078 633 0.0078
624 0.0149 669 0.0149 717 0.0149
691 0.0247 736 0.0247 785 0.0247
752 0.0392 793 0.0392 837 0.0392
786 0.0535 821 0.0535 857 0.0535
801 0.0677 826 0.0677 858 0.0677
802 0.0816 827 0.0816 859 0.0816
803 0.0933 828 0.0933 860 0.0933

152
B2.3 Parametric studies of concrete beams

This section refers to the parametric studies of concrete beams.

Static 𝜺̇ = 0.001 s-1 𝜺̇ = 0.01 s-1

T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m)
500 0 530 0 563
501 0.0010 531 0.0010 563 0.0010
515 0.0223 547 0.0223 580 0.0223
528 0.0296 559 0.0296 591 0.0296
561 0.0392 590 0.0392 622 0.0392
603 0.0583 630 0.0583 658 0.0583
633 0.0770 655 0.0770 679 0.0770
653 0.0953 671 0.0953 690 0.0953
671 0.1133 684 0.1133 696 0.1133

𝜺̇ = 0.1 s-1 𝜺̇ = 1 s-1 𝜺̇ = 10 s-1

T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m) T (MPa) p (m/m)
597 0 633 0 672 0
598 0.0010 634 0.0010 673 0.0010
615 0.0223 653 0.0223 693 0.0223
625 0.0296 662 0.0296 700 0.0296
655 0.0392 691 0.0392 728 0.0392
688 0.0583 719 0.0583 752 0.0583
704 0.0770 730 0.0770 757 0.0770
709 0.0953 731 0.0953 758 0.0953
710 0.1133 732 0.1133 759 0.1133

153
B3 Applied dynamic loads
The applied loads in the simulations were adjusted as picewise linear fits to the
measured loads in the tests. The loads used in the simulations are presented below.

B3.1 Flexural shear failures of concrete beams

This section refers to simulations of the B40-D3 and B40-D4 beam tests.

B40-D3 B40-D4
Time (ms) Pressure (kPa) Time (ms) Pressure (kPa)
0 0 0 0
0.14 765 0.070 1170
2.53 375 1.97 610
2.80 485 2.87 710
3.31 480 4.77 410
3.88 380 5.42 500
7.78 200 7.47 250
9.78 200 8.17 380
10.58 120 9.47 200
29.28 0 22.77 0

B3.2 Direct shear failures of roof slab

This section refers to simulations of the DS1 and DS4 tests.

DS1 DS4
Time (ms) Pressure (MPa) Time (ms) Pressure (MPa)
0 0 0 0
0.036 22 0.074 22.7
0.0741 24.5 0.17 19
0.16 21 0.23 18
0.296 21.5 0.32 19
0.37 17.5 0.495 5.5
0.444 11.5 0.605 0
0.494 5.5
0.623 0

154
Appendix C
Derivation of the shear span
C1 Introduction
A brief review of the derivation of the shear span used in the design manual Swedish
Fortifications Agency (2011) is given in these sections. The idea of a specific shear
span in dynamic events is used in the design of the shear capacity of reinforced concrete
elements subjected to dynamic loads to account for an increase in shear strength due to
a temporarily short shear span. The derivation is based on notes from one of the authors
of the design manual (G. Svedbjörk) and considers a simply supported beam subjected
to a uniformly distributed blast load. Soon after the load has been applied, limited
deformations occur in the vicinity of each support and where the central portion of the
beam exhibits a rigid body motion, see also Figure 7.1 and Paper IV. At this point in
time, xm denotes the distance from the support to the location where the maximum
bending moment develops. The design shear force Vd is assumed to occur somewhere
between the same distance. Furthermore, the shear capacity is assumed to be a function
according to:
(C1)
𝑘
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥
⁄𝑑
where k denotes a constant, and x and d denote the shear span and effective depth of
the element. Define a function that describes the ratio between the shear force V0 and
the shear capacity of the cross section such that:

𝑉0 ∙ 1 − 𝑥⁄𝑥𝑚 𝑉0 ∙ 1 − 𝑥⁄𝑥𝑚 ∙ 𝑥⁄𝑑 𝑉0 𝑥2

𝑔= = = 𝑥− (C2)
𝑓(𝑥) 𝑘 𝑘∙𝑑 𝑥𝑚

The next step is to find the distance x where the ratio between the maximum shear force
and the shear capacity at that location is minimal. Hence, the location where the cross
section is subjected to the largest ratio between shear force and shear capacity. This
distance is calculated by derivation of Eq. (C2) with respect to x and finding the
maximum:

𝑑𝑔 𝑉0 2∙𝑥
= ∙ 1− =0 (C3)
𝑑𝑥 𝑘 ∙ 𝑑 𝑥𝑚

155
Solving for x results in:

𝑥𝑚
𝑥= (C4)
2

Thus, the shear span is:

𝑥𝑚 (C5)
𝑎𝜏 =
2

Thus, Eq. (C5) states that the shear span is always half the distance between the support
and the location of the maximum bending moment. Due to this, Swedish Fortifications
Agency (2011) states that the design shear force is taken as half the support reaction.

C2 The shear span of a simply supported beam

As a first assumption, the static force equilibrium is only considered without the
influence of inertia forces, see Figure C1. At a distance greater than xm, the beam is
considered as straight without any bending moments and shear forces. Take moments
about the support:

𝑥𝑚 (C6)
𝑝 𝑡 ∙ 𝑥𝑚 ∙ −𝑀 𝑡 =0
2

It is assumed that the ultimate bending moment is reached, thus:

𝑞 ∙ 𝐿2
𝑀= (C7)
8

where q and L is the load capacity and the span, respectively. This results in:
2
𝑥𝑚 𝑞 ∙ 𝐿2
𝑝∙ = (C8)
2 8

Solving for xm/L the expression below is obtained:

𝑥𝑚 1 𝑞 𝑞 (C9)
= ∙ = 0,5 ∙
𝐿 4 𝑝 𝑝

Thus, using Eq. (C5), the expression for calculating the shear span becomes:

156
 𝑎𝜏 𝑞 (C10)
= 0,25 ∙
𝐿 𝑝

In Swedish Fortifications Agency (2011), an extra factor of 0.025 is added to Eq. (C10)
to ensure that a does not approach zero. Thus, the final expression becomes:

𝑎𝜏 𝑞 (C11)
= 0,025 + 0,25 ∙
𝐿 𝑝

p(t)

M(t)

V1(t)
xm

Figure C1 Simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load without

inertia forces.

When considering the influence of inertia forces, the dynamic equilibrium in Figure C2
needs to be considered. The same conditions are assumed as for the static case above.
The straight central part of the beam, without bending moments and shear, is moving
in the y-direction downwards as a solid. According to Newton’s second law of motion:

𝑑2 𝑦 (C12)
𝑝=𝜌∙ℎ∙
𝑑𝑡 2

where  and h denote the mass density and the beam depth, respectively.
Assuming a deflection and a corresponding inertia force distribution according to
Figure C2 results in the resulting inertia force:

𝑝 ∙ 𝑥𝑚
𝐼= (C13)
2
Taking moments about the support and assuming that the ultimate bending moment is
reached:

𝑥𝑚 1 2 𝑞 ∙ 𝐿2 (C14)
𝑝 ∙ 𝑥𝑚 ∙ − ∙ 𝑝 ∙ 𝑥𝑚 ∙ ∙ 𝑥𝑚 − =0
2 2 3 8

157
Solving for xm/L the expression below is obtained:

𝑥𝑚 3 𝑞 𝑞 (C15)
= ∙ ≈ 0,866 ∙
𝐿 4 𝑝 𝑝

Thus, the expression for calculating the shear span becomes:

𝑎𝜏 𝑞 (C16)
≈ 0,43 ∙
𝐿 𝑝

p(t)

M(t)

V1(t) I(t) 𝜌∙ℎ∙𝑦

xm

Figure C2 Simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load

including inertia forces.

C3 The shear span of a fixed beam

The same conditions as in Section C2 is applied for a fixed beam without the influence
of inertia forces, see Figure C3. Take moments about the support:
𝑥𝑚
𝑝 𝑡 ∙ 𝑥𝑚 ∙ −𝑀 𝑡 −𝑀 𝑡 =0 (C17)
2

It is assumed that the ultimate bending moment is reached at the support and at xm,
which results in:
2
𝑥𝑚 𝑞 ∙ 𝐿2
𝑝∙ = (C18)
2 4

Solving for xm/L the expression below is obtained:

𝑥𝑚 1 𝑞 (C19)
= ∙
𝐿 2 𝑝

Thus, the expression for calculating the shear span becomes:

158
 𝑎𝜏 1 𝑞 𝑞
= ∙ ≈ 0,35 ∙ (C20)
𝐿 8 𝑝 𝑝

In Swedish Fortifications Agency (2011), an extra factor of 0.01 is added to Eq. (C20)
to ensure that a does not approach zero. Thus, the final expression becomes:

𝑎𝜏 𝑞
= 0,01 + 0,35 ∙ (C21)
𝐿 𝑝

p(t)

M(t) M(t)

V1(t)
xm

Figure C3 Fixed beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load without inertia

forces.

The same conditions as in Section C2 is applied for a fixed beam where the influence
of inertia forces is included, see Figure C4. Taking moments about the support and
assuming that the ultimate bending moment is reached at the support and at xm:
𝑥𝑚 1 2 𝑞 ∙ 𝐿2
𝑝 ∙ 𝑥𝑚 ∙ − ∙ 𝑝 ∙ 𝑥𝑚 ∙ ∙ 𝑥𝑚 − =0 (C22)
2 2 3 4

Solving for xm/L the expression below is obtained:

𝑥𝑚 3 𝑞 (C23)
= ∙
𝐿 2 𝑝

Thus, the expression for calculating the shear span becomes:

𝑎𝜏 3 𝑞 𝑞
= ∙ ≈ 0.61 ∙ (C24)
𝐿 8 𝑝 𝑝

159
 p(t)

M(t) M(t)

V1(t) I(t) 𝜌∙ℎ∙𝑦

xm

Figure C4 Fixed beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load including inertia

forces.

160