Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Enhancement of engineering models for simulation of soft, and hard

projectile impact on reinforced concrete structures
Pascal Distler a, *, Hamid Sadegh-Azar b, Christian Heckötter c
a
Institute of Structural Analysis and Dynamics, University of Kaiserslautern, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 14, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
b
Institute of Structural Analysis and Dynamics, University of Kaiserslautern, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 14, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
c
Safety Research Division, Containment Department, Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) gGmbH, Schwertnergasse 1, 50667 Cologne, Germany

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

Keywords: Protective Reinforced Concrete (RC) barrier walls of nuclear or industrial facilities are required to withstand
Impact loading accidental or intentional missile impact. The missiles (projectiles) can be classified as hard, semi-hard or soft. In
Reinforced concrete particular, an airplane crash on a reinforced concrete structure causes local and global damage to the structure.
TDOF system
Local damage mechanisms are usually associated with the impact of hard aircraft components such as engine
Numerical simulation
Aircraft crash
shafts and wing boxes. In the event of a hard impact, the contact actions and target reactions are strongly coupled
and therefore the calculation of capacity and damage effects is very sophisticated.
There are various analysis methods for modelling both, hard and soft impacts. In this regard, empirical and
semi-empirical models can be considered to calculate the load-bearing capacity in a simplified way with a few
input parameters. However, validated numerical Finite Element (FE) simulation models allow further investi­
gation on damage mechanism as well as detailed evaluation of stresses and strains in concrete and reinforcement.
Hence, this paper investigates the efficiency of the existing analytical approaches as well as numerical
simulation methods in predicting the load-bearing capacity of rc structures under hard and soft impact loads.
Moreover, a novel simplified mechanical analytical method is proposed concerning hard impact loads. The
mechanical principles are based on a nonlinear two degree of freedom (TDOF) system by Schlüter (Schlüter,
1987), which was extended for applications on hard impact scenarios considering the interaction between the
impacting projectile and the rc target as well as penetration process of the projectile. FE-simulations and
experimental test results of recent and ongoing research projects are presented and have been used for validation
purposes and investigations.

1. Introduction called hard missiles, are required to be considered separately in these

Appropriate simulation and design models are highly required for
assessing building structures of nuclear and industrial facilities sub­
jected to intentional and unintentional projectile impact. The impacting
missiles or projectiles can be classified as hard, semi-hard or soft,
depending on the deformability of the missile relative to the target
deformability. If the projectile is deformable relative to the target the
assumptions of a plastic shock are a suitable approach and a load-time-
function can be determined using simplified methods, e.g. the Riera
method (Riera, 1968). In this case the projectile is classified as soft
missile. If only hard and non-deformable parts of a plane or engine (e.g.
engine shaft) are investigated, the interaction between the RC structure
and the impacting projectile should be considered. Rigid parts, also
approaches, e.g. by means of empirical formula.
2. Simulation of soft missile impact
The CEB-model (Comité Euro-International du Béton) according to
(Schlüter, 1987) and (CEB, 1988) is considered as a useful and simplified
solution for estimating the load bearing capacity of RC plates subjected
to soft missile impact. This analytical model describes all relevant
mechanisms in a physically adequate manner and allows a fast evalua­
tion of the system response under the missile impact. Outputs of the
model are the maximum slab displacement, the punching strength as
well as the global free oscillation after impact. The RC plate is repre­
sented as a TDOF-System with the following equations of motion

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pascal.distler@bauing.uni-kl.de (P. Distler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2021.111187
Received 15 October 2020; Received in revised form 17 February 2021; Accepted 2 March 2021
Available online 5 April 2021
0029-5493/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Fig. 1. CEB model and the three components of local resistanceR2 (u)

(equations (1) and (2)). 2 fct

u1 = heff ∙ ∙ with heff = 0, 5∙d (11)
M1 ∙ẅ1 + c1 ∙ẇ1 + R1 (w1 ) − R2 (u) − c2 ∙u̇ = 0 (1) 3 Ec
[( )2 ]
M2 ∙ẅ2 + c2 ∙u̇ + c3 ∙ẇ2 + R2 (u) − F(t) = 0 (2) d
Rfs = a+ − a2 ∙π∙as,τ ∙fy
tan(α) (12)
Nonlinear springs and dampers couple the two masses. M1 and
R1 (w1 ) represent the deformation characteristics of a circular plate in
bending. The resistance R1 is idealized as an elastoplastic spring 2 fy
u2 = heff ∙ ∙ (13)
describing bending of the plate. The bending-stiffness in the cracked 3 Es
state is given by equations (3) – (5). [( )2 ]
d
KII = Econcrete ∙III (3) Rus = a+ − a2
∙π∙as,τ ∙fu (14)
tan(α)
1 3
III = ∙x + As ∙n∙(h − xN )2 (4) u3 ≈ 0.9∙d∙εu (15)
12 N
[√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ] In the formulas fct is concrete tensile strength, fy is the yield stress, fu
χ n = h∙ (2 + n∙ρs )∙n∙ρs − n∙ρs (5) is the ultimate stress of the reinforment as,τ is the amount of stirrups and
εu is ultimate strain. For determination of the contribution of the
Where xN is the height of the pressure zone (distance from the neural bending reinforcement a parabolic tensile membrane is assumed.
axis), n is the ratio between the Young’s modulus of steel and concrete [ ]
and ρs is the reinforcement ratio related to the static height h. The ul­ 4u
RuB = 2∙sin arctan ∙ρs ∙h∙σ[ε(u)] (16)
timate plastic bending moment mp as well as the ultimate load from l
yield-line theory can be determined by equation (6)-(7). ⎛ ⎡ ⎤⎞
( ) ( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2̅ ( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2̅
fy ∙ρs l ⎝ 4u l ⎣ (4u) 4u ⎦ ⎠
mp = ρs ∙h2 ∙fy ∙ 1 − (6) ε(u) =
2
1+
l
+
4u
∙ln
l
+ 1+
l
− 1
1, 7∙fc
(17)
Fb = 2∙π ∙mp (7) ( )
The deformation at the center of a simply supported circular plate l = 2∙ tand α +a for upper reinforcement
concerning the cracked state is given by (Schlüter, 1987) in equation (8) l = 2∙a for lower reinforcement
and (9). As already mentioned M2 represents the mass of the assumed
r2
{
[ ( ) ] 2∙κ
} punching cone, me the participating mass of the plate. M2 is determined
w0 = 2
∙ 4 − 5β2 + 4 2 + β2 ∙ln(β) ∙β2 + ∙Fb (8) from geometric relations whereas me is evaluated assuming a one mass
KII ∙64∙π∙β 1+ν
system with the stiffness KII .
[ ]
κ = 4 − (1 − ν)∙β2 − 4∙(1 + ν)∙ln(β) ∙β2 (9) me = M1 + M2 (18)
where a is the radius of the load, r the radius of the plate and β is the
r4 ∙ρconcrete ∙d Fb
ratio between a and r. M2 with R2 (u) represent the deformation char­ me = ∙ (19)
acteristics of the punching cone relative to the surrounding plate (u = 24.77∙KII w0
w2 − w1 ). Initially, the assumed punching cone M2 is monolithically [ ( )2 ]
connected to the remaining concrete slab. When the concrete tensile M2 = ρconcrete ∙π∙d∙ a2 +
a∙d 1
+ ∙
d
(20)
strength is exceeded, depending on the reinforcement content, a sepa­ tan(α) 3 tan(α)
ration of punching cone and slab occurs. The resistance R2 (u) consists of
Damping is also included in this model to represent the amount of
three components, which can be idealized as three parallel connected
energy dissipation resulted from internal damage of the concrete and
springs, describing the contribution of the concrete Ruc , the stirrups Rus
dowel action of the bending reinforcement.
and the bending reinforcement RuB . Fig. 1 clarifies the three components
of the local resistance R2 (u). The determination of Ruc , Rus and RuB is shown
in equation (10–17).
[( )2 ]
d
Ruc = a+ − a2 ∙π∙fct (10)
tan(α)

2
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Table 1 For a fast but very simplified estimation (Biggs, 1964) suggests the
stiffness of spring R1 , and the static plastic limit load for different boundary mass factors μ for different load and boundary conditions. Table 2 gives
conditions. the calculated and in literature suggested values for simply supported
Parameter simply simply simply supported at two-way slabs, depending on the damage level. The figure next to it
supported supported supported the four shows the influence of various mass factors for the VTT impact Test B1.
circular slab two-way slab one -way slab corners

stiffnessK Fb /w0 86.2∙KII ∙b 48∙KII ∙b KII 2.3. Adjustment of the damping

L2 L3 0.0403∙L2
limit 2∙π∙mp 8∙mp ∙b 4∙mp ∙b 4∙mp
loadFb L L Viscous dampers are used to correctly represent the energy loss of the
w0 See eq. (8) Fb Fb Fb system. The loss is caused by plastic deformation not included in the
K K K springs, crack formation and internal friction. The damping of the global
slab area is described through the damper C1 coupled with the mass M1 .
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Fb Based on the CEB Model represented by (Schlüter, 1987) recommends a
C1 = 2∙ζ1 ∙ me ∙
w0 damping ratio of about 5–10%. Selected results of the described test
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅ series in section 5 were used to evaluate damping coefficients in Fig. 3.
Ruc (21)
C2 = 2∙ζ2 ∙ M2 ∙ VTT B1 is used to describe the influence of different damping ratios.
u1
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅ In order to determine Lehr’s damping ratio, the damping curve of a
Ru free damped vibration is generated for different experimental sensor
C3 = 2∙ζ3 ∙ M2 ∙ c
u1 positions using the equation of the enveloping curve. Fig. 3 illustrates
the evaluation of the damping value for Test VTT B1 (Vepsä et al.
(2011)) as an example. Table 3 gives the determined damping values for
2.1. Adjustment of the boundary conditions
further tests. These include Meppen test II/2 (HOCHTIEF AG, 1984a,
1984b, 1984c) and VTT X-Tests (Heckötter and Sievers, (2016)). This
In the CEB the calculation of the characteristic values of R1 is based
results in values between 5 and 8 % and can validate the recommended
on the assumption of a circular simply supported plate (see previous
CEB model according to Schlüter.
chapter). Accordingly, different calculation rules considering for
different boundary conditions are implemented and investigated as
3. Simulation of semi-hard and hard missile impact
follows. For all cases the cracked bending stiffness KII as well as the
ultimate plastic bending moment mp have to be firstly determined based As indicated in Fig. 4, it is required to consider the penetration of the
on (equations (3) – (6)). For different boundary conditions the stiffness projectile as well as the interaction between the target and the impacting
of spring R1 , and the static plastic limit load of the RC slab are obtained, projectile if only semi-hard and especially non-deformable parts of a
respectively (Tuomala et al., 2010) in Table 1. They can be used instead plane or engine are investigated. Therefore, the approaches of the
of equation (7–8). Where L is the span length and b represents the width
of the slab.
Table 2
Mass factor μ according to (Biggs 1964) and experiments.
2.2. Adjustment of the effective mass Test μ μ by (Biggs) Test μ μ by (Biggs)
(exp.) (exp.)
The calculation of the effective mass me of the RC slab has a signif­
VTT B1 0,28 0,17 (plastic) M168 0,30 0,17 (plastic)
icant influence on the global response of the target (equations (18) and
Meppen II/ 0,25 0,31 (elastic) VTT 0,28 0,31 (elastic)
(22)). For the different boundary conditions equation (19) is no longer 2/8 P1
valid. Therefore, to get the effective mass, experimental measured slab VTT X5 0,29 VTT 0,32
displacements in transversal or longitudinal direction are used to get an A1
approximated shape function (polynomial) φ(x) (see Fig. 2). Meq in M284 0,30 VTT 0,32
M171 0,30 AT
equation (23) gives the equivalent mass based on the approximated
shape function. The mass factor μ is defined as the ratio of equivalent
mass Meq to the total slab mass Mtotal .

me = μ∙ρconcrete ∙d∙L∙b (22)

∫∫ L
Meq = ρconcrete ∙d (φ(x) )2 dxdy (23)
0

Meq
μ= (24)
Mtotal

Fig. 2. Evaluation of shape function.

3
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Fig. 3. Evaluation of damping.

(spherical end) 1.00 and 1.14 for very sharp nose. K is a concrete
Table 3 penetrability factor, which is a function of the concrete compressive
Determined damping ratios. strength. The formula is derived for American units and must be con­
Test Sensor damping ξ Test Sensor damping ξ verted consistently if necessary. This impact force relationship leads
location location directly to the modified NDRC formula (equation (28)) for penetration xi
VTT B1 D1 8% M168 W1 assumed (Kennedy, 1976). Another approach of (Jonas and Rüdiger, 1974) is
10% given by equation (29). This is based on investigations for the design of
Meppen W8 8% VTT D1/D5 7–8% RC structures of the outer containment of nuclear power plants (Jonas
II/2 P1
and Rüdiger, 1974).
VTT X5 D5 8% VTT D2/D5 8%
A1 ( ) [ ( )2 ]
2Mv20 v0 ti v0 ti
M284 W1 assumed VTT D5 6–7% F(ti ) = ∙tanh ∙ 1 − tanh (29)
10% AT xe xe xe
M171 W1 assumed
10% In equation (29) v0 is the impact velocity and xe represents the final
penetration depth. xe can be determined using either different empirical
formulas (see Li et al. (2005)) or experimental results.
aforementioned CEB model (Schlüter, 1987) should be modified. In order to determine the response of the RC slab, the impact process
To determine the target response of a semi-hard or hard missile of the projectile should be considered in two different phases. Firstly, as
impact, it is desirable to know the impact force–time-history or at least long as the concrete spring is active, the projectile penetrates and creates
the duration of impact. Using the so-called Theory of Penetration based
an almost cylindrical penetration form (angle α ≈ 90 ). Therefore, the
◦

on (Kennedy, 1976), the time-history of the impact force can be

penetration depth xi due to the projectile at each time step ti decreases
approximated. To get the impact force–time-history and the total impact
the total slab thickness d at each time step. As shown in equation (30)
duration, it is necessary to numerically integrate the equation of motion
and illustrated in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, the load-bearing capacity of the
during impact using the impact force relationship defined by equation
concrete Ruc is modified from the original CEB model in equation (10)
(26). The equation of motion for the impacting projectile at any time ti
and decreases with increasing penetration depth xi .
after the impact is given in equation (25).
[( )2 ]
d − xi
d 2 xi
M∙ 2 = M∙
vi dvi
= − Pi ∙Ac = Fi (25) Ruc = a+ − a2 ∙π∙fct (30)
dti dxi tan(α)

In equation (30) a is the projectile radius and fct represents the tensile
263820 ( vi )0,2
Pi = ∙ ∙gzi (26) strength of concrete. The effective height of the plate heff is also reduced
KN 12000D
resulting in a decrease in fracture deformation of u1 .
⎧( x ) xi
i
⎪
⎨ , f ür ≤ 2.0 2 fct
2D D heff = 0, 5∙(d − xi ) u1 = heff ∙ ∙ (31)
gzi = (27) 3 Ec
⎩ (1.0), f ür xi ≥ 2.0
⎪
D By implementing equation (28) (to get the time-dependent xi ) in
( x )2 ( v )1.8 equation (30) and by using equation (25) or (29) as impact force rela­
i
= K∙N∙D0.2 ∙M∙ (28) tionship F(t) in equation (2) the interaction between missile and con­
2∙D 1000 crete structure is established. It can also be used any other empirical
formula together with the approach of (Jonas and Rüdiger, 1974). Fig. 5
Where vi = dx
dti , D is the projectile diameter and Fi represents the total
i
demonstrates the described evaluation of F(t) with a generic example.
impact force at time ti multiplied with the contact area of the projectile As illustrated in Fig. 4, the punching cone occurs when the impact
Ac . N is a shape factor for the missile. For a flat nosed missile N is equal load surpasses the concrete strength. To calculate mass M2 , the
to 0.72, for a blunt nosed missile it is 0.82, for average missile nose

Fig. 4. Modified CEB Model for hard missile impact (left); Phases of perforation process (right).

4
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Fig. 5. Evaluation of Load-Time Function.

Fig. 6. Shear fracture zone.
penetration depth xi and an optimized estimation of the shear fracture
zone should be considered, compared to the linear cone shape in the
original CEB model (see equation (20) together with Fig. 1). To improve
the calculation of M2 , the shape of the cone will be estimated with an
exponential shape function based on an input parameter β, shown in
equation (32). The shear fracture zone and the effect of the parameter β
are described in Fig. 6. The experimental investigations on the punching
cone in (Just et al., 2016; NEA, 2012, 2014;(Heckötter et al., 2020) )
have shown that the shape of the punching cone can be significantly
affected by the parameter projectile velocity v and plate thickness d (see
Fig. 5).
() ( )
1 xi
∙
(32)
β d
sf (di ) = d∙(c∙e − b)
Hard projectiles are also modeled with 3D solid elements, while the
deformable impactors are implemented with shell elements. The
average element size is between 5 and 10 mm for all tests performed.
The implementation of the components involved as well as their inter­
action are illustrated in Fig. 8.
Two material models are used for simulating the behavior of the
concrete. The RHT model (Riedel, Hiermaier, Thoma) and the Winfrith
model. A detailed description and investigation of the application range
and application limits of both models are given in detail in own research
reports (Heckötter and Sievers, 2016), (Heckötter et al., 2020). The
parameters that are necessary to describe the strength, damage and
failure model of the RHT material are based on the existing and vali­
dated parameter set CONC-35 by (Riedel, 2000). Individual material
parameters known from the experimental data, for example, concrete
density, shear modulus, compressive and tensile strength, and the pa­
rameters dependent on them, were adapted.
The material model 024_Piecewise_Linear_Plasticity is used to
represent the material behavior of steel or ductile materials. It allows the
description of the stress–strain behavior either as a bilinear behavior by
entering an elasticity and tangent modulus, or by defining a stress–strain
curve, for example from given experimental data.
5. Studies on selected soft and hard missile impact tests
The original CEB model recommended by Schlüter (Schlüter, 1987)
provides the calculation specification for a free-rotatable circular plate

In equation (32) d is the slab thickness and ra is the assumed

punching cone radius. The parameter c and b are fixed values that are
defined by the boundary values of the function, sf (xi ) = 0, 5∙D and
sf (d) = ra .
Fig. 7 illustrates with the VTT Tests IRIS P1, VTT A1 the application
of the shape function for determining mass M2 according to equation
(32).

4. Simulation of missile impact with finite elemente method

For finite element simulations (FE) the commercial software LS-

DYNA is used. The RC slabs are modeled as 3D models, discretely with
solid elements and the reinforcement discretely with beam elements. Fig. 8. Interaction between the RC structure and the projectile in the FE-model.

Fig. 7. Vertical and horizontal cross-section as well as the assumed punching cone shape.

5
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Table 4
Test data of impact experiments.
Test projectile slab

Type Mass velocity Dimension Concrete strength reinforcement Restraints

front rear shear
2
kg m/s m N/mm cm2/m cm2/m cm2/m2

Meppen Reference: Hochtief (1984)

II/2 soft 1016 172 R = 2.70x0.70 30 27.3 53.6 24.6 Circular single supported
II/8 soft 990 235 36 27.3 53.6 37.6
UKAEA Reference: Hochtief (1984)
M168 soft 15.5 183 1.35x1.35x0.125 22 5.1 10.7 54.5 rectangular supported at all edges
M171 soft 15.5 150 22 5.1 10.7 54.5
M284 soft 15.5 236 1.35x1.35x0.20 42 3.2 7.5 29.8

Table 5
cTest data of impact experiments.
Test projectile slab
Type Mass velocity Dimension Concrete strength reinforcement Restraints
front rear shear
kg m/s m N/mm2 cm2/m cm2/m cm2/m2

VTT References: IRIS B1, IRIS P1: Vepsä et al. (2011); AT, A1, X5: Heckötter and Sievers 2016)
IRIS B1 soft 50.5 100 2.10x2.10x0.15 55 5.3 5.3 50 rectangular supported at all edges
X5 soft 50.2 163 2.10x2.10x0.25 59 8.7 8.7 –
IRIS P1 hard 47.0 135 67 8.7 8.7 –
AT hard 47.0 100 54 8.7 8.7 140
A1 hard 47.0 101 58 8.7 8.7 –

under a central load. The feasibility of the model is demonstrated with
analysis on selected impact tests performed in the 1980 s within the
framework of reactor safety research in Meppen, Germany (HOCHTIEF
AG, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c). To confirm the applicability of the CEB
model, support conditions and geometries of rectangular test plates are
investigated. Comparison of test data and CEB model results for simply
supported one-way slabs and corner supported slabs are reported in the
corresponding research report (Heckötter and Sievers, 2016). In the
framework of an international research project called IMPACT, the
Technical Research Centre VTT in Finland conducted intermediate scale
impact tests. Another series of tests with deformable projectiles were the
UKAEA tests of the British Atomic Energy Agency. They were intended
to supplement the large-scale Meppen tests. To verify the CEB model and
the described adjustments, the results were compared with measured
impact test data and some verified numerical FE simulations using LS-
DYNA (see Chapter 4). More information regarding the corresponding

Fig. 9. Projectile results and load-time-function.

6
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Fig. 10. Calculated and measured deformation of the Tests Meppen II/2 and II/8.

projects, tests setup, test results and FE simulations are presented by
(NEA, 2012, 2014; Heckötter and Sievers, 2012; Heckötter and Vepsä,
2015; Heckötter et al., 2020), as well as by (HOCHTIEF AG, 1984a,
1984b, 1984c). Concerning hard impacts the aforementioned assump­
tions are implemented in the CEB model. To apply and verify the new
model, three impact tests were used. The test VTT P1 were the subject of
the benchmark activity IRIS (NEA, 2012a, 2012b) hosted by the Work­
ing Group on Integrity and Ageing of Components (WGIAGE) of the
Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI). Tests AT and
A1 were carried out in the framework of the research project IMPACT at
the test facility at VTT in Finland (Heckötter and Sievers, 2016;
Heckötter et al., 2020). Basic test parameters of the selected hard and
soft impact tests are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5.
5.1. Soft missile impact
The load-time functions represented in Fig. 9 were determined by the
Riera method (Riera,1968) and Finite Element simulations. The nu­
merical contact forces are oscillating around the Riera curve providing
an averaged load-time-function. The integration of the curves results in
the transmitted impulses. Concerning the obtained impulse results, both
methods agree well with each other in all test cases.
The experimental results of the deformable Meppen II/2 test show no
major damage of the RC slab so that the concrete spring R1 can be
considered as activated. Since the displacement transducers are eccen­
trically positioned, an interpolation of the resultsa is necessary. For this
purpose, a linear displacement profile was assumed. Test Meppen II/8

Fig. 11. Calculated and measured deformation of the VTT X5 and VTT B1.

7
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Fig. 12. Calculated and measured deformations of selected UKAEA impact tests.

shows much greater damage. The cross-sectional views in Fig. 10 show was formed. The analytical model also shows a separation of mass M1
the pronounced punching cone with an approximated angle of 42 de­ and M2 and predicts the right damage mode. The maximum deformation
grees. The CEB model also reflects this state of damage, i.e. the sepa­ is marginally overestimated. Again, a linear displacement profile was
ration between the mass M1 (w1 ) and the mass M2 (w2 ), correctly . assumed for all tests to consider the different transducer positions.
The application of formulas for a plate simply supported at all edges
is tested using the test VTT X5 (Heckötter and Sievers, 2016) and VTT B1
5.2. Hard missile impact
(NEA, 2012) in Fig. 11. Some diagonal cracks occurred in the experi­
ment B1, but there was no major damage. Therefore, no punching cone
For VTT P1, VTT A1 and AT the impact force history is determined
formation occurred. The CEB model also confirms this damage state. The
using the described approach according to (Kennedy, 1976) and (Jonas
displacement test data of VTT B1 was measured on the rear face, in the
and Rüdiger, 1974). As mentioned in section 3 the two formulas in
middle of the plate. The concrete spring remained intact, and therefore
equation (25) and (28) are interchangeable. The Nuclear Energy Insti­
w1 and w2 (see Fig. 1) did not diverge. In summary, the frequency of the
tute (NEI, 2011) recommends a reduction factor α for the determination
CEB model is slightly overestimating the observed frequency. The
of xi . Due to the fact that the experimental penetration depth (tunneling
maximum amplitude of the CEB model and the FE simulation fit well
phase) of the VTT tests are known, this factor is used to adjust the
with the experimental data. The influence of the effective mass on the
penetration depth xi and therefore the load-time function (see Fig. 13).
vibration behavior is also shown with Test B1. The recommended plastic
In test VTT P1, perforation occurred. The slab deformations were
effective mass by (Biggs, 1964) seems to gives too small values to fit the
measured on the front face. The perforation mode of the experiment and
experimental frequency.
simulation is apparent Fig. 14. The perforation mode is also clearly
Fig. 12 depicts the results of the selected UKAEA tests described in
identified in the modified CEB model due to the fact, that the maximum
Table 4. Test M171 and M284 show just a small damage level. The
elongation of the bending reinforcement is reached. The maximum
concrete spring R1 seems to be active, so no punching cone occurred in
deformation in the global area is slightly overestimated. The frequency
the local area. To compare the CEB model with the eccentrically posi­
and post vibration are in good agreement with the experiment. It seems
tioned displacement sensors, the results are interpolated by a linear
that due to the very local damage processes the bending behavior was
profile. The maximum deformation calculated by the CEB model are in
only slightly activated by the RHT concrete model.
good agreement with the measured data as well as the FE simulations.
In tests VTT A1 and AT, the ultimate load capacity of the RC slab was
The frequency of the post vibration again is slightly overestimated. In
not exceeded. The spring R2 seems to be intact. In Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 the
test M168 the concrete spring R1 was destroyed and the punching cone
global behavior calculated by the modified CEB model is compared with

Fig. 13. Projectile date and load history.

8
P. Distler et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187

Fig. 14. Calculated and measured deformation of the VTT P1.

Fig. 15. Calculated and measured deformation of the VTT AT.

Fig. 16. Calculated and measured deformation of the VTT A1.

9
P. Distler et al.
the experimental sensor data and numerical results of the simulations. In
both cases the overall target response is in good agreement with the
experiments. The FE simulations also reproduced the experimental
damage state even if too less mass is activated in the global bending
mode, as in experiment VTT P1. Therefore, the frequency of the post
behavior is again to high.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, simplified analytical and numerical simulation models
were investigated to describe the damage mechanisms as well as the
displacement-history of soft and hard missile impact. In the first part, a
simplified analytical approach for soft missile impact was presented and
compared with the results of FE simulations and experimental data. It
was possible to find a good agreement in the displacement-history and in
the prediction of the damage class. Furthermore, the paper presents
adjustments to describe a hard missile impact. In order to verify the
presented model for hard missile impact, the results of selected tests
conducted in the framework of the research project Impact I-III at the
test facility at VTT in Finland were used. It was calculated that the CEB
model as well as the developed approach for hard impact can be used to
represent the damage mode and target response of the projectile impact
on RC plates. The comparison between analytical model, numerical FE
simulations and experimental data shows good similarities in maximum
amplitudes and post behavior. The goal of the model is to provide a way
to quickly pre-design RC slabs under impact loading and complementing
complex and time-consuming numerical simulations. Since the different
material models in FE simulations have advantages and disadvantages
depending on the concrete damage due to an impact (Heckötter and
Sievers, 2016; Heckötter et al., 2020), a selection of the appropriate
material model can be made by a preliminary calculation with simplified
analytical models. A further advantage is the fast applicability, so that
parameter studies can be carried out easily and can also complement
complex procedures and FE simulations. To make the presented
analytical model more robust for many more load types, further in­
vestigations can be made. These investigations should specifically
include projectiles with larger dimensions especially outside the appli­
cation limits of the presented approaches for the load-time function as
well as scale effects to thicker slab dimensions. In a further step, sensi­
tivity studies are performed to reduce the dependence on assumed input
parameters such as damping, mass and the angle of the punching cone.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pascal Distler: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Hamid
Sadegh-Azar: Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision,
Project administration. Christian Heckötter: Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
10
Nuclear Engineering and Design 378 (2021) 111187
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work of University of Kaiserslautern was funded by German
Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy under the Project
Management Agency for Reactor Safety Research of GRS. The work of
GRS was carried out in the framework of the German Reactor Safety
Research Program funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic
Affairs and Energy (BMWi).
References
Biggs, J. M. (1964). Introduction to Structural Dynamics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, ISBN 07-005255-7.
CEB (1988). Concrete Structures under Impact and Impulsive Loading. Bulletin
d’Information no. 187, Comite Euro-International du Beton, Lausanne.
Heckötter, C., Sievers, J. (2012). Validierung von Analysemethoden zur Simulation von
Aufprallversuchen im In- und Ausland. Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und
Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) gGmbH, Final Report RS1182, GRS-A-3677.
Heckötter, C., Vepsä, A. (2015). Experimental investigation and numerical analyses of
reinforced concrete structures subjected to external missile impact. Progress in
Nuclear Energy, Article in Press, Elsevier Ltd. Amsterdam. Netherlands.
Heckötter, C., Sievers, J. (2016). Weiterentwicklung der Analysemethodik zur
Berücksichtigung komplexer Lastannahmen bei hochdynamischen Einwirkungen auf
Stahlbetonstrukturen. Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS)
gGmbH, Final Report, GRS-410, ISBN 978-3-944161-92-1.
Heckötter, C., Arndt, J., Sievers, J. (2020). SimSEB – Methoden zur Simulation
stoßbeanspruchter Stahlbetonstrukturen unter Berücksichtigung induzierter
Erschütterungen, Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) gGmbH,
Final Report, GRS-583, ISBN 978-3-947685-69-.
HOCHTIEF AG (1984). Kinetische Grenztragfähigkeit von Stahlbetonplatten, BMFT
Forschungsvorhaben RS 165. Schlussbericht.
HOCHTIEF AG (1984). Kinetische Grenztragfähigkeit von Stahlbetonplatten, BMFT
Forschungsvorhaben 1500408/ RS 467. Meppener Versuche Teil II.
HOCHTIEF AG (1984). Hard Missile Test, BMFT Forschungsvorhaben 1500408/ RS 467.
Jonas, W.,Rüdiger, E. Dimensionierung von Stahlbetonbauteilen des äußeren
Containments von Kernkraftwerken unter der Wirkung von Flugkörpern, BMFT
Forschungsvorhaben RS 116, 1974.
Just, M., Curbach, M., Kühn, T., Hering, M., 2016. Bauteilverhalten unter stoßartiger
Beanspruchung durch aufprallende Behälter (Flugzeugtanks). Technical University
of Dresden.
Li, Q.M., Reid, S.R., Wen, H.M., Telford, A.R., 2005. Local impact effects of hard missiles
on concrete targets. Int. J. Impact Eng. 32 (1-4), 224–284.
Kennedy, R.P., 1976. A Review of Procedures for the Analysis and Design of Concrete
Structures to Resist Missile Impact Effects. Nucl. Eng. Design. Vol. 37. No. 2.
NEA (2012). Improving Robustness Assessment Methodologies for Structures Impacted
by Missiles (IRIS_2010). NEA/CSCNI/R(2011)8, Final Report, Nuclear Energy
Agency, Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations.
NEA (2014). Improving Robustness Assessment Methodologies for Structures Impacted
by Missiles (IRIS_2012). NEA/CSCNI/R(2014)5, Final Report, Nuclear Energy
Agency, Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations.
NEI (2011). Methodology for Performing Aircraft Impact Assessments for New Plant
Designs, NEI 07-13, The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
Riedel, W. (2000): “Beton unter dynamischen Lasten. Meso- und makromechanische
Modelle und ihre Parameter“.
Riera, J.D., 1968. On the Stress Analysis of Structures Subjected to Aircraft Impact
Forces. Nucl. Eng. Design 8, 415–426.
Schlüter, F.H., 1987. Dicke Stahlbetonplatten unter stoßartiger Belastung –
Flugzeugabsturz. PhD thesis. University of Karlsruhe, Germany.
Tuomala, M., Calonius, K., Saarenheimo, A., Vlikangas, P., 2010. Hard Missile Impact on
Pre-Stressed Shear Reinforced Slab. J. Disast. Res. 5 (4), 437–451.
Vepsä, A., Saarenheimo, A., Tarallo, F., Rambach, J.-M., Orbovic, N., 2011. IRIS_2010 –
Part II: Experimental Data, Paper 520, Transactions of SMiRT-21. New Dehli, India.