USE OF STEEL FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE FOR BLAST RESISTANT DESIGN

by

DEIDRA KALMAN

B.S., Kansas State University, 2010

A REPORT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Architectural Engineering and Construction Science

College of Engineering

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

Manhattan, Kansas

2010

Approved by:
Major Professor
Kimberly Waggle Kramer, P.E.
 Abstract

Reinforced concrete is a common building material used for blast resistant design.
Adding fibers to reinforced concrete enhances the durability and ductility of concrete. This report
examines how adding steel fibers to reinforced concrete for blast resistant design is
advantageous.
An overview of the behavior of blasts and goals of blast resistant design, and advantages
of reinforced concrete in blast-resistant design, which include mass and the flexibility in
detailing, are included in the blast resistant design section. The common uses for fiber-reinforced
concrete, fiber types, and properties of fiber reinforced concrete varying with fiber type and
length, and concrete strength are discussed in the fiber-reinforced concrete section. Two studies,
Very High-Strength Concrete for Use in Blast-and-Penetration Resistant Structures and Blast
Testing of Ultra-High Performance Fiber and FRP-Retrofitted Concrete Slabs, are reviewed.
Lastly, the cost, mixing and corrosion limitations of using steel fiber-reinforced concrete are
discussed.
Reinforced concrete has been shown to be a desirable material choice for blast resistant
design. The first step to designing a blast resistant reinforced concrete structure is to implement
proper detailing to ensure that structural failures will be contained in a way that preserves as
many lives as possible. To design for the preservation of lives, a list of priorities must be met.
Preventing the building from collapse is the first of these priorities. Adding steel fibers to
concrete has been shown to enhance the concrete’s post-crack behavior, which correlates to this
priority. The second priority is reducing flying debris from a blast. Studies have shown that the
failure mechanisms of steel fiber reinforced concrete aid in reducing flying debris when
compared to conventional reinforced concrete exposed to blast loading.
The major design considerations in designing steel fiber reinforced concrete for blast
resistant design include: the strength level of the concrete with fiber addition, fiber volume, and
fiber shape. As research on this topic progresses, the understanding of these factors and how
they affect the strength characteristics of the concrete will increase, and acceptance into the
structural design industry through model building codes may be possible.
 Table of Contents

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ viii

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1

2.0 Blast Resistant Design ..........................................................................................................3

2.1 Behavior of Blasts .............................................................................................................3

2.2 Goals of Blast Resistant Design ........................................................................................6

2.3 Advantages of Reinforced Concrete in Blast Resistant Design ........................................9

2.3.1 Mass ...........................................................................................................................9

2.3.2 Flexibility in Detailing .............................................................................................10

3.0 Fiber-Reinforced Concrete..................................................................................................12

3.1 Common Uses for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete................................................................12

3.2 Fiber Types ......................................................................................................................12

3.3 Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete .........................................................................13

3.3.1 Effect of Different Fiber Types, Lengths, and Concrete Strengths on Mechanical
Properties ................................................................................................................................13

3.3.2 Effect of Different Concrete Strengths ....................................................................15

3.3.3 Effect of Lightweight Versus Normal Weight Concrete .........................................17

4.0 Studies of FRC Under Blast Loading .................................................................................20

4.1 Very High-Strength Concrete for Use in Blast-and-Penetration Resistant Structures ....20

4.2 Blast Testing of Ultra-High Performance Fiber and FRP-Retrofitted Concrete Slabs ...25

5.0 Limitations of SFRC ...........................................................................................................34

5.1 Cost of SFRC ..................................................................................................................34

iii
 5.2 Mixing of SFRC ..............................................................................................................34

5.3 Corrosion of SFRC ..........................................................................................................36

6.0 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................37

7.0 Works Cited ........................................................................................................................38

Appendix A - Glossary of Terms ...................................................................................................40

Appendix B – Copyright Permission .............................................................................................42

iv
 List of Figures
Figure 2.1-1 Air-blast pressure response over time (Hinman, 2003) ........................................ 4

Figure 2.1-2 Incident pressures of different explosive charge weights (Hinman, 2003) .......... 6

Figure 2.2-1 Succession of blast pressure waves on a building (Agnew, Marjanishvili, &
Gallant, 2007) ................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2.3.1-1 Applied force and internal resistance time histories (using 2% damping)
(McCann & Smith, 2007) ............................................................................................................. 10

Figure 3.3.2-1 Postcracking strength enhancements in SFRC with different fiber contents
for different concrete mixes (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007) ................................................... 17

Figure 3.3.3-1 Load-deflection curves in flexure for normal weight (right) and lightweight
(left) concrete (Higashiyama & Banthia, 2008)........................................................................... 18

Figure 3.3.3-2 Load-deflection curves in direct shear for normal weight (right) and
lightweight (left) concrete (Higashiyama & Banthia, 2008) ...................................................... 19

Figure 4.1-1 Flexural toughness comparison for VHSC Concrete vs. plain and fiber-
reinforced concrete (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley) ........................................................................ 22

Figure 4.1-2 Comparison of penetration experiment results and spherical-cavity expansion

model calculations for CSPC, HSPC, HSFR, and VHSC concretes (Cargile, O'Neil, &
Neeley) .......................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 4.2-1 Mechanical properties of conventional concrete and UHPFC (Wu, Oehlers,
Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009) ........................................................................................ 26

Figure 4.2-2 Support conditions for slab testing (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, &
Whittaker, 2009) ........................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 4.2-3 Cracks in specimen NRC-3 (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009) ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 4.2-4 Cracks in specimen NRC-4 (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009) ............................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 4.2-5 Crack pattern in RET-2 (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). 29

Figure 4.2-6 Flexural failure of the RUHPFC specimen (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, &
Whittaker, 2009) ........................................................................................................................... 30

v
Figure 4.2-7 Moment-curvature relationship for RUHPFC specimen (Wu, Oehlers,
Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009) ........................................................................................ 32

Figure 4.2-8 Stress profiles for different regions of the moment-curvature of RUHPFC
specimen (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009) ................................................ 33

vi
 List of Tables
Table 3.3.1-1 Properties of fibers used in testing (Tadepalli, Mo, Hsu, & Vogel, 2009) ........ 14

Table 4.1-1 Hardened material properties (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley) .................................. 23

Table 4.2-1 Summary of slab deflections (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009) ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Table 4.2-2 Resistance, reflected impulses and energy demands, and capacities (Wu,
Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009).......................................................................... 31

vii
 Acknowledgments

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my committee for their time and
thoughtful feedback on this report. Specifically, I would like to recognize Kimberly Kramer for
her guidance throughout the process of reading, writing, and presenting.

viii
1.0 Introduction
When explosion is a design criterion for buildings either due to the combustible materials
contained within the structure or due to an intentional explosion (bomb), a common material
chosen for blast resistance design is reinforced concrete, because of its large mass and flexibility in
detailing. The use of fibers in concrete is a common design practice for the reduction of cracks in
concrete slabs, among other benefits. The possibility of fiber reinforced concrete satisfying blast
resistant design requirements for external blasts more effectively than conventionally reinforced
concrete is examined in this study. It also addresses goals and techniques for blast resistant design,
introduces fiber reinforced concrete applications, and fiber types, and determines properties of steel
fiber reinforced concrete through impact loading tests. Additionally, this report examines previous
research by others that tested steel fiber reinforced concrete under blast loading, and explores
limitations of steel fiber reinforced concrete.
Accordingly, Section 2 introduces the behavior of blast loading on a structure. This is
fundamental to understanding the expectations of a member designed to be blast resistant. Next,
follows a brief discussion of the expectations of blast resistant design, as defined by the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers, and how to detail reinforced concrete members to meet expectations. The final
discussion in the Blast Resistant Design Section is the advantages of using reinforced concrete in
blast resistant design, and, to substantiate the argument for using Fiber Reinforced Concrete for
blast resistant design.
A general overview of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (FRC) is presented in Section 3. Current
uses of FRC are presented to examine the properties accepted by engineers in the design field. An
overview of fiber types, including available materials and shapes, gives background for studies in
further reading. In particular, the report covers flexural and shear behavior of FRC under impact
loading via several studies, a few of which are presented in Section 4 to demonstrate FRC’s
benefits as a blast resistant material.
To build upon the findings of the impact loading studies, two studies examine different
concrete strengths and fiber properties under blast loading.

1
 Finally, discussion of limitations of FRC, cost, mixing and placing, and corrosion potential,
covered in Section 5, complete the perspective on what an engineer would need to consider to
adopt FRC as a blast resistant design material.

2
2.0 Blast Resistant Design
The United States military has been testing and designing structures for blast resistance for
several decades. Over the past decade, the private sector has been developing standards for blast
resistance design, using the military’s parameters for guidance. Through testing done by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and private associations, engineers and researchers have studied the
behavior of blasts so that structural members can be adequately designed for blast events. Since
blast loading is an extreme loading event, reasonable assumptions (such as large deformations and
strategic failures) are required to maintain an economical design (Agnew, Marjanishvili, & Gallant,
2007). Reinforced concrete is one material that can meet the demands of blast resistant design
because of its large mass and flexibility in detailing (Galinat, 2007).

2.1 Behavior of Blasts

“An explosion is a rapid release of energy taking the form of light, heat, sound and a
shock-wave. The shock wave consists of highly compressed air that wave-reflects off the ground
surface to produce a hemispherical propagation of the wave that travels outward from the source
at supersonic velocities” (Hinman, 2003). The shockwave of a blast can reflect off a surface
with an amplification factor up to 13, compared to an accoustical wave, which can reflect with an
amplification factor up to two. The amplification factor is influenced by the distance the
schockwave travels before reflection and by the angle of incidence.
This event differs from other loading types for buildings because of its short duration and
high pressures. The time interval for the blast wave, td, is between 0.1 and 0.001 seconds; the
natural period of the structure, Tn, ranges from 0 to 8 seconds, depending on building height,
framing system, and loading scenario (Jacobs, 2008). “For situations where td<0.4Tn (some
sources advise td<0.1Tn), the blast wave effectively imparts an initial velocity to a structural
element, and the element then continues to respond at its natural frequency” (McCann & Smith,
2007). Moreover, the initial velocity (load being applied to the structure) is determined by the
blast wave duration, force, and mass of the structure. “This load response to a blast is
significantly different from the load response to a seismic event, for which the natural frequency

3
of the structure, rather than the mass, is the primary factor in the response” (McCann & Smith,
2007).
Another consideration in designing structural members for blast resistant design is load
reversals. Late into the shockwave’s phase, the pressure becomes negative, creating a suction
force. A graph of this response, where the blue dotted line indicates initial wave pressures and
the red solid line indicates reflected wave pressures, is shown below in Figure 2.1-1. Clearly, the
reflected pressures are stronger than the initial pressures, as mentioned previously. Immediately
following the suction force, surfaces experience a drag pressure as air rushes in bringing flying
debris. “In an external explosion, a portion of the energy is also imparted to the ground, creating
a crater and generating a ground shock wave analogous to a high-intensity, short-duration
earthquake” (Hinman, 2003).

Figure 2.1-1 Air-blast pressure response over time (Hinman, 2003)

The extent of damage caused by a blast is determined by two factors: (1) explosive size
measured in pounds of TNT and (2) distance between explosive and affected structural member.

4
Figure 2.1-2, for example, illustrates the pressure differences between two different sizes of
explosives at varying distances, where it is apparent that range and incident pressure have a non
linear relationship, and that explosive weight has less influence on incident pressure as the range
increases. Furthermore, two threats are considered in blast resistant design and the size of the
explosive is related to the threat type. These two threats are vehicle weapons and hand-delivered
weapons. Hand-delivered weapons typically range from 2.3 kg (5 lbs.) to 45.4 kg (100 lbs.) of
TNT. Meanwhile, vehicle weapons, by far the larger threat, are typically greater than one
hundred pounds of TNT. Vehicle weapons pose the greater threat to the structure due to their
size and potential site of detonation, an example of this type of threat would be the bombing of
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in April of 1995; however
their rate of occurrence is far less than that of hand delivered weapons. “To put the weapon size
into perspective, it should be noted that thousands of deliberate explosions occur every year
within the United States, but the vast majority of them have weapon yields less than 2.3 kg (5
lbs.). The number of large-scale vehicle weapon attacks that have used hundreds of pounds of
TNT during the past twenty years is by comparison very small” (Hinman, 2003). Ultimately, the
owner and the security and protective design consultants work together to determine the size of
weapon to design for (Hinman, 2003).
Another consideration is the distance the structural member is from the explosion, which
affects the magnitude of the load. When a blast occurs relatively close to the structural element,
it may shatter the concrete in the immediate vicinity, a phenomenon referred to as breach
(Agnew, Marjanishvili, & Gallant, 2007). A similar behavior is exhibited by the impact of a
bullet or explosion shrapnel (Millard, Molyneaux, Barnett, & Gao, 2010). Specifically, direct
shear governs when the distance between the structural element and the explosion site increases,
and a relatively small area experiences high air blast pressures. Finally as the distance grows
between the structural element and explosion, the pressures are distributed over a greater area so
that flexure is the governing response. Section 3.0 Fiber Reinforced Concrete covers correlation
of these loadings with fiber reinforced concrete testing.

5
Figure 2.1-2 Incident pressures of different explosive charge weights
(Hinman, 2003)

2.2 Goals of Blast Resistant Design

“Blast-resistant design is element-focused. It enhances toughness, ductility, strength and
dynamic characteristics of individual structural elements for resistance to air-blast induced
loading” (McCann & Smith, 2007).
In particular, the goals of blast resistant design are relatively modest compared to most
other load scenarios with the exception of seismic. Gravity loads are predicted by codes, and
structural engineers design structural elements to withstand these loads, without yielding or
permanent deformation of the structural elements. Thus, when designing a structure to resist wind
loads, every element of the structure is designed to sustain an expected pressure. Quite simply, the
failure of a structural component due to wind loading, excluding tornadic events, is unacceptable in
design practice. Seismic design is most closely related to blast resistant design in that
predetermined structural elements are designed to yield and buckle during the seismic event to
ensure that progressive collapse does not occur. Also, similarly to seismic design, blast design
accounts for the occupancy of the building to determine the level of protection required.
However, blast loading differs from any other loading event in a few significant ways.
First, the magnitude of the pressures acting on the building during a blast event can be many orders
of magnitude greater than those of pressures experienced in any other loading. “It is not
6
uncommon for the peak pressure on the building from a vehicle weapon parked along the curb to
be in excess of 690 kPa (100 psi)” (Hinman, 2003). Therefore, failure of building components is
expected. Secondly, a wide variety of pressures are imposed on the building, since blast pressures
decay rapidly with distance. Accordingly, many types of damage will occur and it will be more
localized, compared to that of other hazards. Lastly, duration of the event is measured in
milliseconds, rather than seconds. (Hinman, 2003)
Notably, it would not be economical to design every building for a high level of protection,
where “no visible permanent damage” is experienced (McCann & Smith, 2007). Therefore, the
primary goal is to save lives, not the building, and so the following is a prioritized list of goals:
1) preventing the building from collapse
2) reducing flying debris
3) facilitating evacuation and rescue/recovery efforts. (Agnew, Marjanishvili, &
Gallant, 2007)
First, preventing building collapse means the columns and floor slabs must be given
particular consideration in design, since their failure could initiate a progressive collapse. Floor
slabs are particularly vulnerable to vehicle-delivered explosions because of their large surface area
for the explosive pressures to act on and their relatively small thickness. The consequence of
losing the floor slab is the increased unbraced length of the column, which could cause the column
to buckle. As illustrated in Figure 2.2-1, the structure’s floor and column elements are the most
susceptible to the blast loading, due to the sequence of the blast wave.

7
Figure 2.2-1 Succession of blast pressure waves on a building (Agnew,
Marjanishvili, & Gallant, 2007)

The ductility of columns is an important design consideration to ensure proper energy

absorption. The “ductile detailing of primary members and connections allows for large
deformations while maintaining load-carrying capacity” (Agnew, Marjanishvili, & Gallant, 2007).
This ductility can be accomplished through proper detailing, which is discussed in the Flexibility in
Detailing section. Additionally, Section 3.0 Fiber Reinforced Concrete addresses ductility due to
fibers.
Although reducing flying debris caused by the impact of the explosion on windows and
walls is the second priority, it can be a major source of injuries and fatalities. When the blast wave
encounters a concrete member, failure in tension of the material in the cover zone, which is the
area of concrete covering the tensile reinforcement, occurs because concrete has a small tensile

8
capacity (Millard, Molyneaux, Barnett, & Gao, 2010). Fortunately, this area of blast resistant
design offers the greatest potential for adding fiber to reinforced concrete.
The structural engineer has the least control over the third priority of facilitating evacuation
and rescue/recovery efforts. Nevertheless, “Evacuation, rescue and recovery efforts can be
significantly improved through effective placement, structural design, and redundancy of
emergency exits and critical mechanical/electrical systems” (Agnew, Marjanishvili, & Gallant,
2007). This priority is not a major consideration for this report, while the first two priorities are.

2.3 Advantages of Reinforced Concrete in Blast Resistant Design

Reinforced concrete is the most common material for blast resistant design, due to its
availability, relatively low cost, mass, and flexibility of detailing. (Lane, Craig, & Babcock, 2002)
However, to understand the advantages of adding fiber to reinforced concrete, structural engineers
first need to understand the advantages of using reinforced concrete even without fibers.

2.3.1 Mass
Reinforced concrete “ranks second to steel as a stand-alone material in its ability to
withstand blast overpressures, mostly due to its mass” (Lane, Craig, & Babcock, 2002). The initial
velocity a structure experiences during a blast is inversely proportional to its mass. Therefore, a
dense material such as concrete has an advantage in resisting blast loads (McCann & Smith, 2007).
Figure 2.3.1-1 illustrates the effect of mass on the resistance of a structure to blast forces. Clearly,
the more massive 25.4 cm (10”) wall shows a higher resistance, or less excitation, to the blast load
and a shorter period as compared to the 20.3 cm (8”) wall. Both walls respond to the blast load
with decreasing amplitude, due to the 2% damping used in this trial.

9
Figure 2.3.1-1 Applied force and internal resistance time histories (using
2% damping) (McCann & Smith, 2007)

2.3.2 Flexibility in Detailing

The compressive strength of concrete is approximately ten times greater than its tensile
strength and therefore steel reinforcing bars are added in the tension region of the elements to be an
effective structural member. Naturally, in blast design, the structural engineer assumes that the
structural elements will be loaded beyond their yield strength and up to failure. Also, as illustrated
in Figure 2.2-1(2), members need to be designed for load reversals, particularly slabs and columns
which could experience loading in the opposite direction of gravity loading. To account for this,
reinforcing steel must be placed in both the top and bottom of slabs to meet tensile capacity
expectations, and also, splices in columns should be design for tension. Therefore, detailing of
reinforced concrete elements is critical to achieve ductile structural behavior to resist blast loading.
Some general guidelines for detailing follow:

10
 • “Limit concrete compressive strengths to 34,480 kPa (5,000 psi) or less, since
elements with higher strength concrete will experience more brittle modes of failure
when subjected to inelastic yielding.”
• “Design for load reversals, which can subject elements to loads for which they were
not designed; for example, tension in a column due to floor slab uplift”, as shown
previously in Figure 2.2-1.
• “Ensure that the ratio of the steel reinforcement’s actual tensile strength to actual
yield strength is not less than 1.25 for sufficient yield capability.”
• “Locate lap splices outside of the hinge region of an element as predicated by the
design air blast threat.”
• “Design lap splices as tension splices. With [a] blast, localized loading locations
are unpredictable and hinge regions could be located anywhere along the length of
the member” (Agnew, Marjanishvili, & Gallant, 2007).
These are general guidelines, intended to give the reader an idea of the considerations for
blast resistant design. Meanwhile, later sections will cover the impact of adding fiber to reinforced
concrete and how it could benefit blast resistant design.

11
3.0 Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has been investigating adding fiber to reinforced
concrete since the late 1950’s, and several studies have investigated the behavior of fiber
reinforced concrete (FRC) under impact loading. Moreover, fiber is currently used in applications
that require enhanced crack control and/or better performance in flexure and shear (ACI
Committee 544, 1996). Several fiber types are available depending on the application and desired
behavior. This report addresses selective studies to provide evidence supporting the use of fibers
in reinforced concrete for blast resistant design.

3.1 Common Uses for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

“FRC has been used successfully in structures subjected to bending and/or shear such as
highway bridge slabs, piles, tunnel linings, architectural concrete, precast elements, offshore
structures, structures in seismic regions, thin and thick repair, crash barriers, footings, and
various hydraulic structures. FRC exhibits better performance not only under static and quasi-
statically applied loads but also under fatigue, impact, and impulse loadings and under
environmentally imposed cracking” (Higashiyama & Banthia, 2008). Additional elements that
may include fibers in reinforced concrete are industrial flooring, which can be exposed to
abrasive loading, and air-field pavements (Suaris & Shah, 1983). Both loading situations require
the concrete to have a high energy absorption rate and toughness.

3.2 Fiber Types

Many different fiber types are available: steel, micro-synthetic, macro-synthetic, glass,
cellulose, natural, and poly-vinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers. These types have varying properties and
applications. Fibers to control plastic shrinkage cracking are micro-synthetic fibers, which are
made of synthetic materials such as polypropylene, nylon, polyethylene, and polyester. Macro-
synthetic fibers have properties similar to steel fibers and can be used in their place (Applications ,
2007). The first glass fibers produced were attacked by the alkai in the cement and destroyed;
therefore, they are manufactured today with zirconia, and their most common application is in
“exterior architectural cladding panels” (ACI Committee 544, 1996). Steel fibers are used to
enhance the “toughness and post-crack load carrying capacity,” and their lengths vary from 38.1
12
mm (1.5”) to 76.2 mm (3”). “Typically loose or bundled, these fibers are generally made from
carbon or stainless steel and are shaped into varying geometries such as crimped, hooked end or
with other mechanical deformations for anchorage in the concrete” (Applications , 2007). Steel
fibers are the material investigated for their mechanical properties in this study.
A variety of steel fiber shapes are available: straight, crimped, hooked single, hooked
collated, and twisted (Tadepalli, Mo, Hsu, & Vogel, 2009). Before the mid-1970’s, the only fiber
shape tested was straight. Currently, straight fibers are seldom used in the field, due to their
inferior mechanical bond to concrete compared to that of deformed fibers. The most effective
shape for energy absorption capacity is hooked fibers according to studies on effects of steel fiber
reinforcement on the mechanical properties of reinforced concrete (Tadepalli, Mo, Hsu, & Vogel,
2009).

3.3 Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Steel fiber reinforced concrete has undergone much testing to determine its mechanical
properties, and is described in ACI document ACI 544.1 R-96 Fiber Reinforced Concrete as “a
concrete with increased strain capacity, impact resistance, energy absorption, fatigue endurance,
and tensile strength” (ACI Committee 544, 1996). This information is vital to integrating steel
fibers into reinforced concrete design properly. Accordingly, the following sections present
several studies published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the American
Concrete Institute (ACI).

3.3.1 Effect of Different Fiber Types, Lengths, and Concrete Strengths on Mechanical
Properties
The first study is Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams by
Padmanabha Tadepalli, Y.L. Mo, Thomas Hsu, and John Vogel. This study explores the
mechanical properties (compressive strength, first-crack flexural strength, and ultimate flexural
strength, modulus of elasticity, flexural toughness, and ductility) of fiber reinforced concrete beams
based on fiber content, fiber length, and type.
Two concrete mixes were tested; one traditional concrete with aggregates, cement, and
water, and another mix with fly ash added and less water content to attain increased strength. “The
13
steel fibers used were hooked-collated long (Dramix), hooked-collated-short (Dramix), hooked
single (Royal) and twisted (Helix)” (Tadepalli, Mo, Hsu, & Vogel, 2009). Two different Dramix
fibers, long and short, were tested with lengths of 2.4” and 1.2” respectively, Royal fibers had a
length of 1.6” and finally the Helix fibers had a length of 1.0”. Another significant property, aspect
ratio, is found by dividing the length by the diameter of the fiber. The properties of these fibers are
given below:

Table 3.3.1-1 Properties of fibers used in testing (Tadepalli, Mo, Hsu, &
Vogel, 2009)

All four fiber types were added to the higher strength concrete mix, and only the Dramix
(long and short) fibers were added to the traditional concrete. Among these mixes, two different
fiber volume fractions were used: 0.5% and 1.5% by volume.
The test was performed on beams with cross sectional dimensions of 152 mm x 152 mm x
508 mm (6” x 6” x 20”). Three specimens tested for each mix were subjected to a two-point
loading flexural test, following the guidelines of ASTM C 1609.
Testing of the specimens showed that concrete with steel fibers had increased ductility
when compared to concrete beams with no steel fibers. Specifically, the failure mode of the
concrete containing steel fibers was different from the failure of the concrete with no fibers.
Instead of a sudden brittle failure as is typical of concrete with no steel fiber reinforcing, the steel
fiber reinforced concrete developed initial cracks, but then sustained additional load as the steel
fibers prevented cracks from spreading; “randomly oriented fibers crossing the crack resisted the
propagation of cracks and separation of the section” (Tadepalli, Mo, Hsu, & Vogel, 2009).
Eventually, the failure of the fiber and concrete bond led to the beam failure. The ultimate load

14
capacity of the steel fiber reinforced concrete depended on several steel fiber characteristics: fiber
content, fiber tensile strength, fiber shape and fiber bond strength.
The hooked collated long fibers withstood the highest loading, followed by twisted fibers at
a fiber content of 0.5% by volume. For the fiber content of 1.5% by volume the hooked collated
short fibers had the maximum load capacity. The authors noted that the hooked collated long fibers
and twisted fibers had poor workability with a fiber content of 1.5% by volume. The results
showed that the higher fiber content yielded increased ultimate load capacity for all the mixes as
long as the mixes were workable. Also, the advantage of long fibers over short fibers was apparent
at fiber content of 0.5%, but less advantageous at 1.5% fiber content. These results are consistent
in both normal and high strength concrete. Overall, hooked collated fibers showed the best
flexural strength, regardless of the strength of concrete used. Researchers also observed that fiber
type and length was more important at low concrete strengths and less significant at higher
strengths.
This study concludes that flexural capacity increased from 30% to 120% when the fiber
content increased from 0.5% to 1.5%. The study also concluded that the length of fibers was a
significant factor in hooked shaped fibers at low percentages, but as the fiber percentage increased,
the significance of fiber length diminished. Overall, the hooked collated and twisted fibers
performed the best; however, the poor workability of the twisted fibers means that the hooked
collated fibers are preferable.

3.3.2 Effect of Different Concrete Strengths

Another technical paper, Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete,
published by the Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering investigated the strength properties of
FRC by testing three grades of concrete: normal strength concrete (35 MPa [5,076 psi]),
moderately high-strength concrete (65 MPa [9,428 psi]), and high-strength concrete (85 MPa
[12,328 psi]). Silica fume was added to the 85 MPa (12,328 psi) concrete mix, and a
superplasticizer was added to both the 65 MPa (9,428 psi) and 85 MPa (12,328 psi) concrete
mixes. Also, hooked-end fibers were added at a fiber dosage between 0.0 and 1.5% test
specimens consisting of cubes and cylinders. Then, “The cube and cylinder specimens were
tested to determine the compressive strength according to IS: 516 (BIS 1959), while cylinder
specimens were tested for split tensile strength according to IS: 5816 (BIS 1999). Also, a
15
modulus of rupture test was carried out according to IS: 516 (BIS 1959). Finally, modulus of
elasticity and Poisson’s ratio were determined using the standard cylinder specimens (BIS
1959)” (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007).
This research resulted in several findings of interests; one was that “the average increase
in cube compressive strength due to the addition of steel fibers was found to be minimal”, but the
biggest increase in cube compressive strength occurred in the normal strength concrete test
specimens (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007). Tests for cylinder compressive strength showed that
normal-strength concrete had the greatest strength increase at 8.33% with the addition of fibers,
but that still was judged to be a minimal increase. However, split tensile strength tests with
fibers showed an increase of 38.2% in normal-strength concrete, 41.2% in moderately high-
strength concrete, and 38.5% in high-strength concrete. Similar increases of 46.2% in normal-
strength concrete, 38.8% in moderately high-strength concrete, and 40.0% in high-strength
concrete were observed for modulus of rupture tests with fibers. Researchers discovered the
fibers bridged the cracks that develop in the concrete matrix and determined this was the
mechanism that enhances the tensile strength characteristics (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007).
Meanwhile, adding fibers had little effect on Poisson’s ratio since the key factor is the
behavior during initial loading and the fibers don’t provide a significant advantage at this stage.
Another property that benefited minimally from adding fibers was the modulus of elasticity
because it is measured from the linear portion of the stress-strain relationship, where the effect
of the fibers is insignificant (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007).
An area that showed considerable improvement was the strain corresponding to the peak
compressive stress. An increase of 29.5% was shown in the normal-strength concrete when
fibers were added, 29.4% in moderately high-strength concrete, and 27% in high-strength
concrete. “The increase in strain corresponding to compressive strength is due to the
confinement effect induced by the distributed steel fibers in a concrete matrix” (Thomas &
Ramaswamy, 2007). This benefit of enhanced peak strain capacity is a significant advantage to
using FRC in blast resistant design.
This report concluded that the primary advantage of fiber reinforced concrete is in the
post-cracking response, as shown below in Figure 3.3.2-1. The high-strength concrete has the
greatest flexural strength gain after cracking, but all strengths show a gain in flexural strength

16
after cracking. The gain appears to increase as the reinforcing index (RI) increases; the RI is
found by multiplying the fiber content by the fiber aspect ratio.

Figure 3.3.2-1 Postcracking strength enhancements in SFRC with

different fiber contents for different concrete mixes (Thomas &
Ramaswamy, 2007)

3.3.3 Effect of Lightweight Versus Normal Weight Concrete

The technical paper, Correlating Flexural and Shear Toughness of Lightweight Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete, published by the ACI Materials Journal, contrasts the behavior of fiber
reinforcing in lightweight and normal weight concrete, without steel reinforcing. Lightweight
concrete’s advantage is that it reduces the structure’s dead load. However, since it is more prone
to a brittle failure than normal weight concrete, it was thought to be a good candidate for adding
fibers to improve its ductility. The behavior of FRC under shear loading was also of particular
interest to the researchers, since limited research was available in this area compared to research
on flexural behavior. “If a clear correlation could be established between the flexural
performance and shear performance of FRC, both before and after matrix cracking, then the
understanding of the performance and safety of structures subjected to high shear forces can be
dramatically improved” (Higashiyama & Banthia, 2008).
The tests included mixes with two types of lightweight coarse aggregate: pumice and
expansive shale. Pea gravel was used as the coarse aggregate for normal weight concrete. The
17
fine aggregate was river sand and the cement was general purpose portland cement. Crimped
steel fibers of two different lengths, 38 mm (1.5”) and 63.5 mm (2.5”), with an equivalent
diameter of 1.14 mm (0.045”) were used. These fibers were tested in two different fiber
volumes: 0.5% and 1.0% by volume. To prevent fiber balling, which occurs when the fibers get
congested within the concrete and aren’t evenly dispersed, the fibers were added at the end of
mixing.
The specimens tested were “three 100 mm x 200 mm (4” x 8”) cylinders for compressive
strength determination as per ASTM C39, three 100 mm x 100 mm x 350 mm (4” x 4” x 14”)
beams for determination of shear strength and toughness properties as per the JSCE-G 553-1999
procedure, and three 100 mm x 100 mm x 350 mm (4” x 4” x 14”) beams for flexural strength
and toughness evaluation as per ASTM C1609” (Higashiyama & Banthia, 2008). The tests
followed the standards of ASTM C1609 for flexural toughness tests and a modified version of
JSCE-G 553-1999 procedure for shear testing.
The results of the flexural testing showed that the concrete specimens with no fiber
reinforcement (mixture PE-0 and PU-0) softened more rapidly, as illustrated in Figure 3.3.3-1 by
the steep negative slope indicating a small deflection before failure, than the specimens with
fiber reinforcing (mixture PE-5, PE-10, PU-5-38, PU 5-64, PU-10, and EX-5) which sustained
loads through increasing deflection, thus responding with ductility.

Figure 3.3.3-1 Load-deflection curves in flexure for normal weight

(right) and lightweight (left) concrete (Higashiyama & Banthia, 2008)

Similar behavior was illustrated in direct shear testing, where the fiber reinforced
specimens (mixture PE-5, PE-10, PU-5-38, PU 5-64, PU-10, and EX-5) showed a gradual
18
decrease in load carrying capacity with respect to deflection. Moreover, the unreinforced
specimens without fibers (mixture PE-0 and PU-0) failed almost immediately after reaching the
peak load, indicating a brittle response. The load-deflection curves in direct shear are shown
below in Figure 3.3.3-2.

Figure 3.3.3-2 Load-deflection curves in direct shear for normal weight

(right) and lightweight (left) concrete (Higashiyama & Banthia, 2008)

Comparing the flexural and shear responses shows, “greater post-peak load retention in the
case of shear compared with flexure” (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007). The increased deflections
shown in the shear testing indicates better toughness in shear than in flexure.
This study concluded that an increase in fiber content resulted in increased ductility. Also,
“the post-crack shear capacity of FRC drops more sharply with an increase in the deflection (or
crack opening) than [does] its flexural capacity” (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007). Finally, the
study determined that lightweight FRC did not perform to the level of normalweight FRC during
post-cracking behavior (Thomas & Ramaswamy, 2007).

19
4.0 Studies of FRC Under Blast Loading
Although the previous studies provided evidence to support the advantages of using
fibers in reinforced concrete under impact loading, actual explosive testing of fiber reinforced
members was needed to show actual behavior.

4.1 Very High-Strength Concrete for Use in Blast-and-Penetration Resistant Structures

The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center conducted the study, Very
High-Strength Concrete for Use in Blast-and-Penetration Resistant Structures (Cargile, O'Neil,
& Neeley), hoping to determine a suitable concrete mix to resist the effects of blast threats. The
use of very-high-strength concrete (VHSC) is of interest in this study, due to its ability to provide
strength with less material, which reduces cost. The components of VHSC are the same as those
for typical concrete: water, aggregate, cement, and admixtures. However, their proportions and
the curing process, during which heat and pressure are applied, are the factors that produce
concrete with enhanced tensile and compressive strength, toughness, and durability. The
following list contains principles of VHSC:
• “Improved homogeneity through particle size and material selection”
• “Increased density by optimizing particle size and mixing technology”
• “Improved strength by maximizing reactive materials and minimizing water content”
• “Increased microstructure by applying pressure before setting and post-set heat
treatment”
• “Increased tensile strength, toughness, and ductility by incorporating steel fibers or steel
micro-fibers” (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley)
The homogeneity of particle size is one important aspect of VHSC. Since the particles
have similar size and modulii, their strain rates are similar under loading and therefore reduce
the internal tensile strain of the concrete. Another critical difference in VHSC versus
conventional concrete is the density of the concrete. The largest aggregate used is sand, with a
maximum particle size of 4.75 mm (0.187”); next, the cement particles are 10 µm (0.0004”) to
100 µm (0.004”) in size; finally silica fume at 0.1 µm (0.000004”) is the smallest particle. The
volumes of these components are carefully considered to “achieve the greatest particle packing,
and hence the greatest density of the paste” (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley), which means a greater

20
ratio of solids per unit volume due to the increased efficiency in particle packing exists. The
increased amount of pozzolanic material within the concrete mix for VHSC compared to that of
conventional concrete also helps to increase the strength. Pozzolanic materials react with the
components of the concrete to form calcium-silicate-hydrate, which acts as the “glue” between
aggregates and cement. The water to cement ratio recommended for VSHC concrete is 0.4, and
it is important not to exceed this ratio or else the strength of the concrete will be compromised.
Only enough water is needed to react in the hydration process; any excess will weaken the
compressive and tensile strengths of the concrete. However, the workability of the concrete at
this water to cement ratio is difficult and therefore high-range-water-reducing admixtures must
be used to make the concrete workable (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley).
When all these components are cured under standard conditions, no applied heat or
pressure, the resulting compressive strength can be up to 175 MPa (25 ksi). However, if heat and
pressure are applied throughout the curing process to “expel any excess liquids and air from the
fresh mixture” greater strengths can be achieved (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley). For instance, a
temperature of 90oC (194oF) maintained for several days throughout the curing of the concrete
can generate a compressive strength greater than 200 MPa (29 ksi). Indeed, compressive
strengths of at least 800MPa (116 ksi) can be reached with applied pressure and a temperature of
400oC (752oF) (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley).
To increase the tensile strength of VHSC, steel fibers are added to the mixture. “The
addition of steel fibers increases the first-crack load, increases the ultimate load-bearing capacity,
and dramatically increases the flexural toughness” (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley). Also, steel fibers
have proven beneficial in the post cracking stage of concrete loading; “the large number of small
fibers [that] cross the path of potential cracks, coupled with the good bond between fiber and
matrix, provide high resistance to fiber pullout during tensile-cracking, and greatly increase the
toughness of the material” (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley). Figure 4.1-1 illustrates the enhanced
post-cracking behavior and toughness of VHSC, which is important in blast resistant design due
to the expectations of members behaving into the inelastic range.

21
Figure 4.1-1 Flexural toughness comparison for VHSC Concrete vs.
plain and fiber-reinforced concrete (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley)

Toughness, “a measure of the amount of energy that must be expended to open cracks in
the matrix under tensile loading,” is a critical property in resisting blast loading (Cargile, O'Neil,
& Neeley). Researchers expect that the VHSC will either stop the projectile from penetrating the
member, reduce spalling from the back face of the member, or slow the velocity of the projectile
leaving the member to less than would be likely with conventional concrete (Cargile, O'Neil, &
Neeley).
The steel fibers for this study were hooked-end with a diameter of 0.5 mm (0.0197”) and
a length of 30 mm (1.18”). These fibers were shown to be most effective and economical in
previous studies (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley).
To achieve the desired concrete strength, the concrete “targets,” 914 mm (36”) long and
762 mm (30”) wide, were wrapped in insulation to keep the temperature high. To maintain
moisture, water was ponded on the surface for a week. After that, the concrete was cured in
ambient conditions and allowed to cure 30 to 60 days before being tested.

22
 Next, testing compared the depth of penetration into the concrete at the velocity at which
a projectile was traveling upon impact. The projectiles weighed 0.906 kg (2 lbs) and had a
diameter of 26.9 mm (1.1”) and an overall length of 242.4 mm (9.54”). They were projected
from “the ERDC (formally WES) 83-mm (3.27”), smooth-bore powder gun at striking velocities
(Vs) ranging from 229 m/s (751 feet/s) to 754 m/s (2,474 feet/s)” (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley).
Four different mixes of concrete were compared: conventional-strength portland cement
concrete (CSPC), high-strength portland cement concrete (HSPC), high-strength, steel-fiber
reinforced concrete (HSFR), and very-high-strength concrete (VHSC), which included steel
fibers in its mix. Notably, the VHSC mix was the only one in this particular study to be
compared to the three other mixes already tested under similar constraints. The hardened
material properties of the four mixes are provided in Table 4.1-1, which shows VHSC has the
highest strengths of the four mixes, with a 450% increase in compressive strength over CSPC,
150% increase over HSPC, and 185% increase over HSFR. In regards to the compressive
modulus of elasticity, the percent increases of VHSC compared to CSPC, HSPC, and HSFR are
133%, 102%, and 102%, respectively. Significantly, the percent increase of tensile strength for
VHSC compared to CSPC, HSPC, and HSFR are 257%, 188%, and 200%, respectively.

Table 4.1-1 Hardened material properties (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley)

23
 The results of the penetration experiments with VHSC were compared to those of previous
experiments using CSPC, HSPC, and HSFR and showed that the VHSC performed as expected,
with the least depth of penetration versus striking velocity of the four mixes. This is important
because a lower depth of penetration indicates higher energy absorption at striking velocity. A
graph of these results is shown in Figure 4.1-2.

Figure 4.1-2 Comparison of penetration experiment results and

spherical-cavity expansion model calculations for CSPC, HSPC, HSFR,
and VHSC concretes (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley)

The method for calculating the model depth of penetration was a “spherical-cavity
expansion model developed by Forrestal and Tzou” (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley). This method
takes into account “density, yield strength, slope of the yield surface, tensile strength, and linear
bulk modulus” to determine the depth of penetration versus striking velocity behavior. These
properties influence the specimen’s response to projectile penetration. As shown in Figure 4.1-2,
the prediction of the model agreed with the experimental data, which is a significant step towards
blast resistant design, when model predictions can yield results which are similar to actual results
(Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley).

24
 The results showed that the penetration into VHSC is about half that of penetration into
CSPC. Additionally, the results of the HSFR concrete test showed a “significant decrease in
visible damage, and still resulted in a depth of penetration about 30% less than [that of] the CSPC,”
but fiber addition alone did not reduce projectile penetration depth, as the HSPC had a similar
depth of penetration (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley). Ultimately, researchers concluded that VHSC
was successful in “spall resistance and increased deflection without failure and exhibited a flexural
toughness “greater than 250 times that of conventional, non-fiber-reinforced concrete”, which
improves reinforced concrete’s ability to meet the blast resistant design goals of preventing
collapse of the structure and reducing flying debris (Cargile, O'Neil, & Neeley). It should be noted
that while VHSC was mechanically successful, the curing process used for this experiment,
including insulating wraps and water ponding, would be labor intensive for field construction and
therefore, an impractical material choice at this time.

4.2 Blast Testing of Ultra-High Performance Fiber and FRP-Retrofitted Concrete Slabs
The University of Adelaide, in Australia, conducted a study, Blast Testing of Ultra-High
Performance Fiber and FRP-Retrofitted Concrete Slabs, to find a material “to mitigate the
effects of blast loads on buildings” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). The
material tested was another high strength concrete; “Ultra-high performance fiber concrete
(UHPFC) is a relatively new construction material with higher strength, deformation capacity
and toughness than conventional normal strength, normal weight concrete” (Wu, Oehlers,
Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). The mix for this type of concrete includes steel fibers to
enhance the strength and ductility characteristics. In Figure 4.2-1 “Sample stress-strain curves
for UHPFC materials are shown”, illustrating the enhanced ductility of the UHPFC through
increased stress capacity at increased strains, with a gradual decrease in stress capacity with
increasing strain for both compressive and tensile stresses (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, &
Whittaker, 2009).

25
Figure 4.2-1 Mechanical properties of conventional concrete and
UHPFC (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

This study’s objective was to explore the response of UHPFC under blast loading. The
control specimens were made with normal reinforced concrete (NRC) that had two layers of wire
mesh reinforcing, one for the tension face and one for the compression face. The wire mesh had
a diameter of 12 mm (.47”) and a spacing of 100 mm (3.9”) in the major bending direction and a
spacing of 200 mm (7.9”) in the minor bending direction. “The concrete had a cylinder
compressive strength of 39.5 MPa (5.7 ksi), tensile strength of 8.2 MPa (1.2 ksi) and Young’s
modulus of 28.3 GPa (4,105 ksi)” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). Two
specimens of UHPFC were cast for testing: one with reinforcing bars in addition to the fiber
reinforcing (RUHPFC) and one without (UHPFC). The UHPFC strengths were found to be
151.6 MPa (22 ksi) for the average compressive strength, which is an increases of 386%
compared to the NRC, 30.2 MPa (4.4 ksi) for the tensile strength, which is an increase of 367%
compared to the NRC, and 47 GPa (6,820 ksi) for Young’s modulus, which is an increase of
166% compared to the NRC (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009).
A steel frame was used to prevent lateral movement and restrained the slabs from the
suction force from the negative phase of the blast wave. Figure 4.2-2 illustrates this test set-up.
A frame consisting of pipe sections was constructed to support the explosive charge. “The
charge was suspended from the horizontal section with light rope. The charge was centered over
the slab using four string guides” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009).

26
Figure 4.2-2 Support conditions for slab testing (Wu, Oehlers,
Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

To record the data during testing, “a Linear Variable Displacement Transducer (LVDT),
pressure transducers, and a high speed camera” were used (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, &
Whittaker, 2009). Specifically, a pressure transducer recorded pressures at the center of the slab,
and one recorded pressures near the support. (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009)
The explosives used for testing were cylindrically shaped, and the diameter equaled the
length. Previous studies had determined that the shape and diameter to length ratios played an
important role in the detonation results. One conclusion was that “for low ratios of length-to-
diameter, more energy is directed in the axial direction [,] and for high length-to-diameter ratios,
more energy is directed in the radial direction” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009). After testing, researchers compared the experimental overpressures and impulses to the
pressures and impulses predicted by the Department of Defense document, Structures to Resist
the Effect of Accidental Explosions, TM5-1300, which showed that the majority of the
experimental values exceeded the predicted values. The reason for this discrepancy is attributed
to the small standoff distance, the length-to-diameter ratio, and the cylindrical shape of the
explosive charge (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009).
The factors and results of the blast load on the concrete slabs are summarized in Table
4.2-1. Clearly, as discussed in Section 2.0 Blast Resistant Design, charge weight and standoff
distance dramatically influence the pressures experienced by the slabs, therefore, the maximum
deflection of the slabs indicates the amount of energy absorption. The first four tests listed were

27
conducted on normal reinforced concrete (NRC) slabs. The first two tests, NRC-1 and NRC-2,
showed no cracking in the specimens after testing. However, blast NRC-3 showed minor
flexural cracking, indicating that pressures from this blast did not exceed the yield moment.
Figure 4.2-3 illustrates the crack pattern from NRC-3.

Table 4.2-1 Summary of slab deflections (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009)

Figure 4.2-3 Cracks in specimen NRC-3 (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009)
The final test on normal reinforced concrete, NRC-4, used the strongest blast of the four
tests based on a large charge weight being detonated at the shortest standoff distance. The results
of this test showed significant cracks; “residual crack widths were measured, indicating a plastic or
post-yield response” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). Figure 4.2-4 illustrates
the crack pattern from NRC-4, which consists of flexural cracking with greater widths than NRC-
3.

28
Figure 4.2-4 Cracks in specimen NRC-4 (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

The next two tests, RET-1 and RET-2, were performed on retrofitted reinforced concrete
slabs. The placement of FRP plates on the compression face of the concrete slabs is a
configuration that is outside the scope of this report, however, the results of these tests reveal
much about the behavior of concrete slabs subjected to blast loads. RET-2 had a relatively large
charge weight at a relatively small standoff distance, which caused shear cracks to form.
“During rapid loading, direct shear cracks can be formed in areas of concentrated loads. Direct
shear failures will preclude the development of the strength of a slab and are undesirable,
although, probably unavoidable for near-field charges” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, &
Whittaker, 2009). A photograph of this slab and the resulting crack patterns is presented in
Figure 4.2-5, where it is apparent that shear cracks were formed near the support and flexural
cracks were formed midspan, which was the expected response.

Figure 4.2-5 Crack pattern in RET-2 (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, &
Whittaker, 2009)

The next test was performed on ultra-high performance fiber concrete without
reinforcing. At a charge weight of 3.4 kg (7.5 lbs) and a standoff distance of 0.75 m (29.5”), this
represented the smallest explosive of all the tests; it showed flexural cracking but not shear

29
cracking. “This test confirmed the substantial ability of ultra-high performance fiber concrete for
resisting blast loads” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009).
The last test was performed on reinforced ultra-high performance fiber concrete. The
charge weight of the explosive was more than twice the size of the largest charge weight used in
the tests. Additionally, the standoff distance was only 1 m (39.4”) making this blast
“approximately 15 – 20 times greater” than the other blasts (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, &
Whittaker, 2009). The response of this slab was characterized by crushing of concrete on the top
surface near the midspan of the slab however, little spalling and no shear cracking was observed.
A photograph of the slab after testing is presented in Figure 4.2-6. “The usefulness of ultra-high
performance fiber concrete for blast resistance was further confirmed by this large blast load at a
small standoff distance.” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

Figure 4.2-6 Flexural failure of the RUHPFC specimen (Wu, Oehlers,

Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

The capacity of a specimen to absorb energy, quantified by finding the area under the
resistance-deflection curve, is useful for evaluating the test results. First, the loading was
considered impulsive, since the duration of the load was measured to be between 0.99 ms and 1.70
ms. Thus, the energy absorption capacity, En, is found by Equation 4.2-1:

E Equation 4.2-1

30
 Where I is the applied impulse, KLM is the load-mass transformation factor, and M is the
mass of the slab. It was stated that “the value of KLM for a SDOF system for a simply supported
member subjected to a uniformly distributed load and responding far into the inelastic range is
0.72” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). This value was obtained from the
textbook, Introduction to Structural Dynamics by J. Biggs. Next, I, is the averaged reflected
impulse measured during testing for NRC-1, NRC-2, NRC-3, and RET-1, or computed from the
Navy and Air Force Technical Manual, TM5-1300, for all other specimens. These specimens did
not have recorded experimental reflected impulses due to the limit of the pressure sensors at 6.9
MPa (1000 psi). Therefore, the mass of all specimens was determined to be approximately 440 kg
(970 lbs), which was used for calculations. The applied impulse energy was computed and is
presented in Table 4.2-2. Also included in this table are values for the predicted energy absorption
capacity, estimated energy absorption, and averaged reflected impulse. Clearly, RUHPFC
specimen had the highest predicted energy absorption capacity and the applied impulse energy
exceeded this value by almost a factor of three (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker,
2009).

Table 4.2-2 Resistance, reflected impulses and energy demands, and

capacities (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

The flexural blast resistance was determined by dividing the slab cross section into layers
and then assuming the strain, rate, and stress to be constant in each layer. The resistance of each
layer was determined considering the stress, dynamic increase factor, width, and thickness of the
layer. Once the neutral axis was determined, the moment capacity could be calculated. The
energy absorption capacities of the retrofitted concrete slabs and the normal reinforced concrete
slabs were determined in a previous study, “Layered Blast capacity Analysis of FRP Retrofitted
RC Members” by the same authors (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009).
31
 The derivation of the moment curvature diagram for RUHPFC is shown below in Figure
4.2-7. Clearly, section A of the moment curvature graph illustrates a linear relationship, defining
the behavior as linear elastic. Section B occurs after the steel has yielded, indicating that the
concrete tensile capacity has been exceeded. In this section an increased stress in the tensile
portion of the cross section is evident due to the tensile capacity of the fibers in the concrete, which
moves the location of the neutral axis up towards the compression region as illustrated in Figure
4.2-8. This reduces the moment capacity of the section also shown in Figure 4.2-7.
The behavior of section C “starts when the compressive stress reaches its maximum value
at the extremity” (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). Thus, as section C of the
moment curvature graph progresses, the compression block reaches its maximum compressive
strength from the extreme fiber towards the neutral axis, until failure is caused by crushing, which
is illustrated in Figure 4.2-8.

Figure 4.2-7 Moment-curvature relationship for RUHPFC specimen

(Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

32
Figure 4.2-8 Stress profiles for different regions of the moment-curvature of RUHPFC
specimen (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009)

This study shows that the RUHPFC was the preferable concrete mixture for resisting blast
loads, as it has the highest energy absorption capacity. “Importantly no scabbing or shear cracking
was observed in the RUHPFC slab after testing with a large weapon at close range,” which means
less flying debris (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009). Additionally, researchers
noted that the UHPFC slabs performed better by suffering less damage than the NRC slabs when
exposed to similar explosive charge weights (Wu, Oehlers, Rebentrost, Leach, & Whittaker, 2009).
The results of this study show that adding fibers, whether to the RUHPFC or the UHPFC mix, is
beneficial to the behavior of the concrete under blast loading.

33
5.0 Limitations of SFRC
Although promising research that supports the use of steel fibers in reinforced concrete
exists, a few limitations to its use in design are: cost, mixing and placing, and corrosion of
surface fibers.

5.1 Cost of SFRC

If steel fiber reinforced concrete is accepted into industry as a blast resistant material,
cost is an issue that must be addressed. While SFRC is currently used in the construction
industry, its applications are at a relatively low volume, such as slabs. If SFRC is used as a blast
resistant material for structures, the material cost of adding fibers could be substantial.
Therefore, some estimates from the Kansas City area from William R. “Rusty” Owings III at
Ash Grove KC Concrete Group are used as an example. The current cost of 27.6 MPa (4000
psi), Type I/II cement, exterior use concrete is $88.00 per yard and $53.00 per 20 kg (44 lbs) bag
of hooked end steel fibers. The concrete type and strength were simply chosen because of their
common usage. These costs do not include additional labor or admixtures.
Based on the mix proportions used by the study, Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Beams, the addition of fiber, with a fiber percentage of 0.5 by volume,
would cost approximately $10.00 more per yard. Clearly, a fiber percentage of 1.5 by volume
would cost approximately $30.00 more per yard. Using the cost of concrete of $88.00 per yard
given above, means that the addition of fibers at a percentage of 0.5 by volume results in an 11%
increases in cost and a fiber percentage of 1.5 by volume results in a 34% increase in cost. As
the strength of concrete increases, so does the price, which means the percent increase in cost
would decrease with concrete strength, but overall cost would increase.
These estimations are only provided to give a general idea of expected cost increases with
the addition of steel fibers to concrete mixes. However, several additional considerations must
be taken into account: fiber type, fiber dosage, concrete strength, regional cost indexes,
additional labor before an accurate cost estimate can be arrived at.

5.2 Mixing of SFRC

Adding steel fibers to a concrete mix can create problems with mixing and placing the
concrete. “The large surface area of fibers tends to restrain flowability and mobility of the mix”

34
(Bayasi & Soroushian, 1992). In particular, fiber balling can occur when fibers interlock within
the concrete mix, therefore reducing the workability and compromising the material properties of
the hardened concrete (Bayasi & Soroushian, 1992).
Specifically, three fiber properties affect the workability of the concrete are: percent of
fibers by volume, length-to-diameter ratio, and shape. Clearly, increasing the amount of fibers
increases the potential for problems with fresh mix workability. Also, increasing the length-to-
diameter ratios, while beneficial in post-peak performance for resisting pullout, can have an
adverse effect on fresh mix workability (Bayasi & Soroushian, 1992). Next, the recommended
length-to-diameter ratio is between 50 and 100; at 100 or above, fiber interlocking is likely to
occur, and at 50 or below, the mechanical properties, specifically tensile strength, of the concrete
are compromised because the length of the fiber is too short to effectively resist pullout from the
concrete matrix, similar to the development length of steel reinforcement in concrete. To
increase the fiber’s resistance to pullout, fibers can be deformed (ACI Committee 544, 1996).
However, the shape of the fibers, crimped, hooked, or straight, for example, influences the air
content of the mixture. Tests showed that deformed fibers increased the air content, thereby
decreasing the workability of the mixture (Bayasi & Soroushian, 1992).
Furthermore, aggregate size affects the potential for fiber balling. “The larger the
maximum size aggregate and aspect ratio, the less volume fraction of fibers can be added without
the tendency to ball” (ACI Committee 544, 1996). Guidelines for determining mix proportions
in relation to maximum aggregate size (3/8”, ¾”, and 1 ½”) are given Table 2.2 of the ACI 544.1
R-96 document, Fiber Reinforced Concrete.
While testing by Bayasi and Soroushian found that adding fibers decreases slump, the
ACI 544.1 R-96 document, Fiber Reinforced Concrete notes that it does “not necessarily mean
that there is a corresponding loss of workability, especially when vibration is used during
placement” (ACI Committee 544, 1996). To accurately measure workability, the report,
suggests “the inverted slump cone test (ASTM C 995) or the Vebe Test (BS 1881)” (ACI
Committee 544, 1996). Ultimately, careful consideration of fiber volume, length-to-diameter
ratios, shape, and maximum aggregate size coupled with admixtures that address “air
entrainment, water reduction, workability, and shrinkage control,” can enable engineers and

35
contractors to overcome the mixing and placing challenges of fiber reinforced concrete (ACI
Committee 544, 1996).

5.3 Corrosion of SFRC

Although most fibers “are protected from corrosion by the alkaline environment of the
cementitious matrix,” exposed steel fibers can corrode (ACI Committee 544, 1996). Fortunately,
even given corrosion of the surface fibers, corrosion does not penetrate more than 2.54 mm
(0.10”) below the surface of the uncracked concrete. However, if the concrete is cracked, and
the cracks are greater than 0.1 mm (0.004”) wide, corrosion can extend to the fibers exposed
across the crack. This corrosion, depending on how critical the location of the corrosion is,
could have a significant effect on the structural stability during blast loading.
“Most of the corrosion testing of SFCR has been performed in a saturated chloride
environment, whether experimentally in the laboratory or in a marine tidal zone”. ACI 544.1 R-
96 states that “corrosion behavior of SFRC in aggressive non-saturated environment or in fresh
water exposure is limited” (ACI Committee 544, 1996). Thus, while corrosion may not be a
significant deterrent to using steel fibers in reinforced concrete, it does require some design
consideration. Alternatives such as stainless steel fibers, alloyed carbon steel fibers, or
galvanized carbon steel fibers are available if corrosion is expected to be a problem, but further
research on their mechanical properties would need to be investigated before they could be used
as a subsititute (ACI Committee 544, 1996).

36
6.0 Conclusion
Reinforced concrete is clearly a desirable material choice for blast resistant design. The
first step to designing a blast resistant reinforced concrete structure is to implement proper
detailing, which includes the addition of steel reinforcement in typical compression regions that
could experience tensile forces due to load reversals experienced during blast loading, to ensure
the structure performs in the best possible, most controlled manner. This does not mean the
structure will not experience failures, but that the failure will be contained in a way that
preserves as many lives as possible. To design for such preservation requires a list of priorities.
Logically, preventing the building from collapse is the first of these priorities, and adding steel
fibers to concrete has been shown through testing to enhance the concrete’s post-crack behavior,
which addresses this priority. The second priority is reducing flying debris; studies have shown
that the delayed failure mechanisms of steel fiber reinforced concrete better reduce flying debris
than conventional reinforced concrete exposed to blast loading.
The major considerations in designing steel fiber reinforced concrete for blast resistance
include the strength level of the concrete, fiber volume fraction, and fiber shape. As research on
this topic progresses, the understanding of these factors and how they affect the strength
characteristics of the concrete will increase, and acceptance into building codes will be possible.
Though some limitations exist to adding steel fibers to reinforced concrete exist, such as
additional cost, potential for corrosion, and difficulty in mixing and placement, thoughtful
consideration during design and construction can overcome these limitations.

37
7.0 Works Cited
ACI Committee 544. (1996). Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute.

Agnew, E., Marjanishvili, S., & Gallant, S. (2007, January). Concrete Detailing for Blast.
Structure Magazine , pp. 26-28.

Applications . (2007). Retrieved February 10, 2010, from Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Association: http://fiberreinforced.org

Bayasi, M. Z., & Soroushian, P. (1992). Effect of Steel Fiber Reinforcement on Fresh Mix
Properties of Concrete. ACI Materials Journal , 369-374.

Cargile, J. D., O'Neil, E. F., & Neeley, B. D. (n.d.). Very-High-Strength Concretes for Use in
Blast-and-Penetration-Resistant Structures. AMPTIAC Quarterly , 61-66.

Galinat, M. A. (2007). Fibers for Blast Resistance. PCI Journal , 51-52.

Higashiyama, H., & Banthia, N. (2008). Correlating Flexural and Shear Toughness of
Lightweight Fiber-Reinforced Concrete. ACI Materials Journal , 251-257.

Hinman, E. (2003). Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks.
FEMA 427.

Lane, R., Craig, B., & Babcock, W. (2002). Materials for Blast and Penetration Resistance. The
AMPTIAC Quarterly , 39-45.

Lok, T., & Xiao, J. (1999). Steel-Fibre-Reinforced Concrete Panels Exposed to Air Blast
Loading. Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings , 319-331.

McCann, D. M., & Smith, S. J. (2007, April). Blast Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete
Structures. Structure Magazine , pp. 22-26.

Millard, S., Molyneaux, T., Barnett, S., & Gao, X. (2010). Dynamic Enhancement of Blast-
Resistant Ultra High Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concrete Under Flexural and Shear Loading.
International Journal of Impact Engineering , 405-413.

Owings, W. R. (2010, April 6). Steel Fiber Estimate. Overland Park, Kansas, United States of
America.

Suaris, W., & Shah, S. (1983). Properties of Concrete Subjected to Impact. J. Struct. Engrg. ,
1727-1741.

38
Tadepalli, P., Mo, Y., Hsu, T., & Vogel, J. (2009). Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Beams. 2009 Structures Congress (pp. 1039-1048). Austin, TX: ASCE.

Thomas, J., & Ramaswamy, A. (2007). Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber-Reinforced

Concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering , 385-392.

Wu, C., Oehlers, D., Rebentrost, M., Leach, J., & Whittaker, A. (2009). Blast Testing of Ultra-
High Performance Fibre and FRP-Retrofitted Concrete Slabs. Engineering Structures , 2060-
2069.

39
 Appendix A - Glossary of Terms

Balling - “When fibers entangle into large clumps” (ACI Committee 544, 1996).

Compressive strength – “The compressive strength of concrete is determined by testing to failure

28-day-old 6” by 12” concrete cylinders at a specified rate of loading” (McCormac & Nelson,
2006).

Ductility – As load is applied material deforms significantly before failure. Also an indication of
energy absorption capacity of a material.

Dynamic increase factor (DIF) – Value that takes into account increased “strength and modulus
of elasticity of the constitutent materials (concrete and steel fiber considered separately), as well
as the bond strength between the steel fiber and concrete (acting coherently” when subjected to a
high loading rate, such as a blast (Lok & Xiao, 1999).

Fiber Aspect Ratio – “The ratio of length to diameter of the fiber” (ACI Committee 544, 1996).

Flexural toughness – “The area under the flexural load-deflection curve obtained from a static
test of a specimen up to a specified deflection. It is an indication of the energy absorption
capability of a material” (ACI Committee 544, 1996).

High Strength Concrete – “Concretes with compression strengths exceeding 6000 psi”; also
referred to as high-performance concretes (McCormac & Nelson, 2006).

Modulus of elasticity – Slope of the linear portion of the stress-strain curve. “The higher the
value, the smaller the deformations in a member” (McCormac & Nelson, 2006).

Modulus of rupture (MOR) - “The greatest bending stress attained in a flexural strength test of a
fiber reinforced concrete specimen. Although modulus of rupture is synonymous with matrix
cracking for plain concrete specimens, this is not the case for fiber reinforced concrete
specimens” (ACI Committee 544, 1996).

Neutral Axis – Location in cross section, perpendicular to loading, where internal stress is zero.

Poisson’s ratio – Ratio of lateral expansion to longitudinal shortening experienced during

compressive loading (McCormac & Nelson, 2006).

Reinforcing Index (RI) – Value that takes into account fiber volume and fiber length (Thomas &
Ramaswamy, 2007).

Split tensile strength – Tensile strength at which a testing specimen, typically a cylinder, splits
when compressive loads are “applied uniformly along the length of the cylinder, with support
supplied along the bottom for the cylinder’s full length” (McCormac & Nelson, 2006).
40
Strain – Found by dividing the longitudinal deformation of a member by its length.

Stress – “The force per unit area, or intensity of the forces distributed over a given section”
(Beer, Johnston Jr., & DeWolf, 2006).

Toughness - “Total energy absorbed in breaking a member in flexure” (McCormac & Nelson,
2006).

Young’s modulus – See “Modulus of Elasticity”

41
Appendix B - Copyright Permission

42
43
44
45
46