Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

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

Experimental and numerical study on the dynamic response of

RC slabs under blast loading
Shujian Yao a, Duo Zhang a, Xuguang Chen a, Fangyun Lu a,⁎, Wei Wang b
a
College of Science, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410073, China
b
Luoyang Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Technology, Luoyang, Henan 471023, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anti-blast performance and damage characteristics of reinforced concrete slab with different
Received 28 January 2016 reinforcement ratios were analyzed in the present study through both blast experiments and
Received in revised form 11 April 2016 numerical simulations. Three sets of slabs with different reinforcement ratios under 0.13 kg
Accepted 14 April 2016
and 0.19 kg TNT explosive blast loading were conducted. The experimental and numerical re-
Available online 17 April 2016
sults show that different damage features are observed in the different tests. On the one hand,
the increase of explosive charge is shown to gradually change the damage degree of RC slab.
Keywords: The crack diameter and spallation area of larger mass explosive test is greater than that of
Reinforced concrete slab
small mass explosive test. On the other hand, with an increasing reinforcement ratio, the dam-
Reinforcement ratio
age degree, deflection and the spall radius all decrease. The results indicate that the reinforce-
Dynamic response
Damage features ment ratio has great influence on the survivability of RC slabs when subjected to blast loading.
Blast loads Ten additional simulations with different reinforcement ratios and TNT masses were conduct-
ed. The results show the deflection thickness ratio of RC slab is inversely proportional to the
scale distance and the reinforcement ratio. Based on the experimental and numerical results,
an empirical expression on deflection thickness ratio was obtained which considered both
the scale distance and the reinforcement ratio.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Close-in explosions on reinforced concrete (RC) buildings can cause severe damage [1–3]. The dynamic behavior, analysis
and design of hardened structures against blast loads, is a subject of extensive studies in the recent years. Meanwhile, anti-
blast capability of RC structure should be considered in the process of structural design for both military structures and civilian
facilities [4–5].
A number of papers have been published on the damage of the reinforced concrete structures subjected to blast loadings in
recent years. The current methods of analysis for concrete slabs subjected to blast loadings consist of three major approaches,
namely, theoretical, experimental and numerical studies. In theoretical studies, simplified method by assuming deformation
shape function to represent the global displacement function [6] was used in conjunction with rigid-plastic material behavior
and energy methods [7–9]. Other simplified methods using equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) system are popular in
the design process of anti-blast structures. The SDOF system presents several advantages, such as ease of use and low running
time, which have made it appealing for blast design and incorporation into design manuals (e.g., PDC-TR-06-01(Rev1) [10],
UFC-3-340-02 [11]) for the blast analysis and design of building components. However, simplified theoretical method has

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Lu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.04.027
1350-6307/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129 121

shortcomings for it cannot provide assessment and prediction of damage features like cracking and spallation, and it has difficul-
ties in the situation of non-uniform blast load.
Close-in or near field blast produced non-uniform blast loads in the structure surface, experimental and numerical studies are
important in these situations. For example, Silva and Lu [12] and Lu and Silva [13] studied a procedure to estimate how the ex-
plosive charge weight and standoff distance affect the damage level of reinforced concrete slabs. Ohkubo et al. [14] evaluated the
effectiveness of fiber sheet reinforcement on the anti-blast performance of concrete plate. Wu et al. [15] studied the spallation and
fragment size of RC slab due to airblast loads. Wang et al. [16–17] and Zhang et al. [18] studied the damage mode of one-way
square RC slabs and beams subjected to different weight of blast loading through experiments, and proposed a new model to
evaluate the damage degree through SDOF method. Numerical methods with different algorithms and material models have
been developed to simulate the dynamic response and spallation of RC structures subjected to air blast in many studies
[19–20] which showed the dynamic response process and damage feature can be effectively simulated.
In the process of normal RC structure design, a minimum reinforcement rate is usually requested by the Design Codes of many
countries, but further research is needed to discuss whether it suits for impact and blast loads. The influence of reinforcement
ratio on the dynamic behavior and failure modes of RC structures under impact loading were investigated by Wang et al. [21],
Thai et al. [22] and Ozbolt and Sharma [23], their studies showed that the reinforcement ratio would significantly affect the
crack pattern and failure mode. Presently, how the reinforcement ratio will impact the dynamic response and damage features
of RC slabs under blast loading still needs study. The present work aims on studying this problem blast experiments and numer-
ical simulations. Two sets of experiments under 0.13 kg and 0.19 kg TNT explosive blast loading were conducted, and three kinds
of reinforcement ratio were considered in each set. The blast resistant performance and the damage characteristics of the RC slabs
are analyzed.

2. Experiment setup

These kinds of specimens were constructed with a 6 mm diameter bar, and three meshing space of 750 mm, 75 mm and
50 mm were adopted in both plane. The dimensions of the specimens are all 850 × 750 × 30 mm, the dimensions and the ar-
rangement of the reinforcement bar are given in Fig. 1. The uniaxial compressive strength of the concrete is 39.5 MPa, which is
measured using three normal concrete cubes (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm). The tensile strength of the concrete is 4.2 MPa,
and Young's modulus is 28.3 GPa. The HPB235 steel is used as reinforcement bar with a Young's modulus of 200 GPa. And the
yield strength and ultimate strength of HPB235 steel are 395 MPa and 501 MPa, respectively.
The specimens are tested on the steel frame to ensure that the slabs are firmly placed (shown in Fig. 2). TNT explosive is used
in the tests and a detonator is inserted at the top of TNT. The mass of TNT is set at 0.13 kg and 0.19 kg to examine the effect of
different mass of explosives in terms of damage to concrete slabs. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the charge is suspended above the
test specimens to a specific standoff distance. A standoff distance of 300 mm is selected in the current study. Table 1 summarizes
the test cases.
The deflection of the specimens under blast loading is measured by a cluster of steel needles which has stabbed into a barrel
filled with fine sand (as shown in Fig. 3). Before detonation, the upper ends of the needles are in a plain which is parallel to and
with a small distance from the bottom surface of the slab. After detonation, slab bends and the bottom of the slab touch the
needles and make them move into the sand. The displacement of the needle is deemed to be the maximum deflection of the
slab (not the final deflection) at the touch point on the bottom surface. In the current study, two deflection measure devices
are used, one is placed under the slab center (device I), and the other placed under the slab with a distance from the slab center
(device II). If spalling occurred at the bottom center, the result measured from device I is not credible. At this time, the result
measured by the device II is useful to calculate the maximum deflection of the slab. The measured deflection by device II is δ2,
and the corresponding center deflection δ1 can be easily got through a conversion formula of similar triangles (as shown in Fig. 3).

Fig. 1. The dimensions of the specimens (850 × 750 × 30 mm).

122 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129

Fig. 2. Test device of the slabs.

3. Numerical simulation modeling

Finite element method (FEM) has become a powerful means in the design process of a structure, as well as in the investigation
of physical mechanisms. In the current study, the explicit nonlinear finite element program LS-DYNA was used and 3D numerical
models were setup to investigate the global structural deformation and local concrete spallation as it has proven effectiveness in
geometric modeling and impact analysis (Zhao and Chen [19], Lin et al. [20]). The description of modeling includes relevant ma-
terial models and calculation finite element models.

3.1. Material model for concrete

To study the interactive mechanism and dynamic response of reinforced concrete slab under blast loads, a proper and reliable
dynamic damage model that reflects the characteristics of the concrete material behavior at high strain rate is needed. The finite
element code LS-DYNA was used in this study, and Material type 72RW3 (Mat_Concrete_Damage_Rel3) is adopted to model the
concrete material. Material type 72RW3 is the third release of Karagozian and Case (K&C) concrete model which is a plasticity-
based model using three shear failure surfaces and including damage and strain-rate effect. The model has a default parameter
generation function based on the unconfined compressive strength of the concrete [24–25]. In this model, the stress tensor is
expressed as the sum of the hydrostatic stress tensor and the deviatoric stress tensor. The hydrostatic tensor corresponds to
the concrete volume and the deviatoric stress tensor controls the shape deformation. For the hydrostatic stress tensor, the com-
paction model is a multiple approximation in internal energy. Pressure is defined as:

P ¼ C ðεv Þ þ γTðεv ÞE ð1Þ

where C and T are coefficients given as the functions of volume strain εv, E is the initial energy per initial volume, γ is the ratio of
specific heats. The volume strain (εv) is given by the natural logarithm of the relative volume.
A three-curve model is adopted to analyze the deviatoric stress tensor, as shown in Fig. 4, where the upper curve represents
the maximum strength curve, the middle curve is the initial yield strength curve and the lower curve is the failed material resid-
ual strength curve.

Table 1
Experimental program.

Slab Dimension(mm) Reinforcement Reinforcement Explosive mass W(kg) Scale distance Z(m/kg1/3)
Ratio r(%)

P1-1 850 × 750 × 30 Φ6@750 0.44 0.13 0.591

P1-2 850 × 750 × 30 Φ6@750 0.44 0.19 0.518
P2-1 850 × 750 × 30 Φ6@75 2.42 0.13 0.591
P2-2 850 × 750 × 30 Φ6@75 2.42 0.19 0.518
P3-1 850 × 750 × 30 Φ6@50 3.76 0.13 0.591
P3-2 850 × 750 × 30 Φ6@50 3.76 0.19 0.518
 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129 123

Fig. 3. The illustration of the setup of deflection measurement device II.

When the reinforced concrete structures are subjected to blast loads, both concrete and steel may respond at very high strain
rate. At such strain rates, the apparent strength of these materials can increase significantly [26]. Therefore, the strain rate effect
for concrete and steel needs to be considered for the reliable simulation of RC slab under blast loads. A dynamic increase factor
(DIF), namely the ratio of the dynamic-to-static strength versus strain rate, is employed to consider the strain rates in this
study. The expressions proposed by Malvar and Ross [27–28] are utilized.

8

>
< ε_ d
1:026a
f 0 cd ; ε_ d ≤30s
−1
CDIF ¼ 0 ¼ ε_ ds ð2Þ
f cds > : _ 1=3 −1
γðεd Þ ε_ d ≤30s

where f'cd is the dynamic compressive strength at the strain rate ε_ d ; ε_ s ¼ 30  10−6 s−1, logγ = 6.15α-0.429, α = (5 + 3fcu/4), f'cs
is the static compressive strength and fcs is the static cube compressive strength in MPa.

3.2. Material model for reinforcement steel

The reinforcement steel within the slab is represented by MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC material model from LS-DYNA in this
study, which is a strain sensitive uniaxial elastic–plastic material to account for its strain rate sensitivity as well as stress–strain
history dependence. The K&C model on strain rate effect is applied in Malvar's paper [27]. The DIF for steel can be expressed
as follows:

α
ε_
SDIF ¼ ð3Þ
10−4

Fig. 4. Strength model for concrete.

124 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129

where for the yield stress, α is expressed as follows:

σy
a ¼ 0:074−0:040 ð4Þ
414

where the strain rate is in s−1 and σy is the yield stress in MPa. Eq. (4) is valid with yield stresses between 290 and 710 MPa, and
for strain rates between 10−4 s−1 and 225 s−1.

3.3. Modeling of blast loads

In LS-DYNA, the blast pressure time histories are calculated using the CONWEP (1992) code [29], which is an empirical blast
loading function based on a vast amount of experimental data proposed by Kingery and Bulmash [30]. The blast loading equation
is stated as follows:
 
2 2
P ðτÞ ¼ P r cos θ þ P i 1 þ cos θ−2 cosθ ð5Þ

where θ is the angle of incidence, defined by the tangent to the wave front and the target's surface, Pr is the reflected pressure,
and Pi is the incident pressure. This blast function can be used for to calculate the pressure over certain predefined surfaces relat-
ed to the geometry of the analyzed structure.
The P(τ) obtained in Eq. (5) is the peak pressure on the surface of structure, and an exponential decay of the pressure was
assumed to model the attenuation of pressure with time. The resulting overpressure time histories are given by
8
> 0   tbt a
>
<
 t−t
P ðt Þ ¼ P max P 1− t−t a e
−b t a
d
t a ≤tbt a ≤t a þ t d ð6Þ
>
> td
:
0 t Nt a þ t d

where P(t) is the overpressure at time t after detonation, Pmax is the peak overpressure which is equal to P(τ), ta is the arrival time
of the shock wave, td is the duration time, and b is the decay constant.

3.4. Finite element model

As considering the symmetry of the structure and the calculation efficiency, only ¼ of the slab is considered. The finite element
models of specimens with different reinforcement steel ratios are shown in Fig. 5. The detailed arrangement of reinforcement

Fig. 5. The finite element model (¼ structure).

 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129 125

steel in experiment P3-1 and P3-2 (reinforcement Φ6@50) is shown in Fig. 5 (d). The reinforcement bars are linked by shared
nodes and they are assumed to be perfectly bonded without any slip. In the supporting area of the slab, upper and lower sup-
ports were created. Solid elements are used to model both the concrete and the reinforcement bar. The command
CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE is used to model the bonded contact condition of concrete and reinforcement
bar. The element size for concrete and reinforcement bar is 3 mm, sufficiently small to obtain reliable results. The supports
are deemed as rigid, and the mesh size is 5 mm.

4. Damage characteristics and comparison between numerical and experimental results

Figs. 6 and 7 show the comparison of the damaged results between numerical simulations and experiments of RC slab under
0.13 kg TNT charge blast. The pictures showed in Fig. 6 from left to right are the damage results of P1-1(low reinforcement ratio),
P2-1(middle reinforcement ratio) and P3-1(high reinforcement ratio). In Fig. 6(a), the central area of the slab broke to pieces for
there is no reinforcement bar in that area, and the edge of the broken area is approximated by a ellipse is because that there are
four reinforcement bars along the slab edges. The Fig. 6(d) is the corresponding numerical result of Fig. 6(a), it is showed that the
damage area is slightly greater than that of experiment. In Fig. 6(b) and (c), it can be found that there is no evident damage at the
front surface center of the slab. While in the back surface as shown in Fig. 7(b) and (c), the Fig. 7(b) with less reinforcement
shows a characteristic of spalling crater damage and the Fig. 7(c) only have cracks. The radial and circular cracks and fractures
of the specimens P2-1 and P3-1 in the numerical simulation are in good agreement with the results of experiments.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the comparison of both sides between the damaged results obtained from the numerical simulation and
with those from RC slab under 0.19 kg TNT charge blast test, respectively. In blast test P1-2 (0.19 kg TNT, reinforcement Φ6@
750), the slab exhibits severe damage and has almost been destroyed, as shown in Figs. 8(a) and 9(a). In Fig .8(b) and (c),
axial cracks are observed which means that the failure of the slab is bending in the axial direction with the support of the
steel frame. And this also happens in the numerical results in which there are more axial cracks than transverse cracks, as
shown in Fig .8 (e) and (f). In destruction comparison of the back surface (Fig. 9), spalling occurred on the central area of
both middle and high reinforcement ratio slab, but the spall radius of the high reinforcement ratio slab is smaller than that of
middle reinforcement ratio slab.
From the analysis above, the numerical model gives a reliable prediction of the damage characteristics for RC slabs through the
comparison of numerical and experimental results. The increase of explosive charge is shown to gradually change the damage de-
gree of RC slab in both experiments and numerical simulations. The crack diameter and spallation area of larger mass explosive
test (see the results of test P1-2 and P2-2 in Figs. 6-9) is obviously greater than that of small mass explosive test (see the results
of test P1–1 and P2–1 in Figs. 6-9). While, the damage degree changes from inelastic deformation to local spallation failure in the
higher reinforcement ratio test (test P3-1 and P3-2 as shown in Figs. 7c and 9c). On the other hand, with the increasing of

Fig. 6. Comparison of the experimental and numerical results of RC slabs with different reinforcement ratio (Front surface, Z = 0.591 m/kg1/3).
126 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129

Fig. 7. Comparison of the experimental and numerical results of RC slabs with different reinforcement ratio (Back surface, Z = 0.591 m/kg1/3).

reinforcement ratio, the damage degree, deflection and the spall radius are all decreasing. The results indicate that the reinforce-
ment ratio have great influence on the survivability of RC slabs when subjected to blast loading.

5. Discussions

In Sections 3 and 4, experiments and numerical simulations of slabs with three different reinforcement ratios were implement-
ed. The central deflection thickness ratio δ/h are listed in Table 2(the symbol “–” means no reasonable data recorded because the

Fig. 8. Comparison of the experimental and numerical results of RC slabs with different reinforcement ratio (Front surface, Z = 0.518 m/kg1/3).
 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129 127

Fig. 9. Comparison of the experimental and numerical results of RC slabs with different reinforcement ratio (Back surface, Z = 0.518 m/kg1/3).

slab exhibits severe damage similar with the result showed in Fig. 6a). The central deflection here is the transient maximum de-
flection measured in Fig. 3(experiments) and Fig. 10(simulations), the Fig. 10 shows the deflection-time curve of the simulation
result of P2-1, in which the maximum deflection is 0.84 cm and the residual deflection is about 0.17 cm.
Five numerical models with a wider scope of reinforcement ratio range from 0.44%–6.12% were built to analysis the influence
of reinforcement ratio more comprehensively. The newly built slab model shared the same dimensions with experimental spec-
imens as shown in Fig. 5. The newly built models are noted as S1–S5 for different reinforcement bar arrangement. Because there
are two sets of scale distance, the slab models are noted as S1-1–S5-1 and S1-2–S5-2 corresponding to Z = 0.591 and Z = 0.518,
respectively. Using the same method introduced in Section 3 to conduct the numerical simulations of S1-1–S5-1 and S1-2S5-2, the
results are listed in Table 2.
Based on the data in Table 2, the maximum central deflection thickness ratio δ/h obtained by numerical simulation and the
experiment results are plotted in Fig. 11. The maximum central deflection thickness ratio δ/h is observed inversely proportional

Table 2
Test results of experiments and simulations.

Slab Scale distance Z(m/kg1/3) Reinforcement arrangement Reinforcement Deflection thickness ratio δ/h
ratio(%)
experiment simulation

P1-1 0.591 Φ6@750 0.44 – –

S1-1 0.591 Φ6@375 0.70 –
S2-1 0.591 Φ6@250 0.94 1.14
S3-1 0.591 Φ6@150 1.42 0.72
S4-1 0.591 Φ6@100 2.02 0.41
P2-1 0.591 Φ6@75 2.42 0.3 0.28
P3-1 0.591 Φ6@50 3.76 0.17 0.19
S5-1 0.591 Φ6@30 6.12 0.16
P1-2 0.518 Φ6@750 0.44 – –
S1-2 0.518 Φ6@375 0.70 –
S2-2 0.518 Φ6@250 0.94 –
S3-2 0.518 Φ6@150 1.42 1.44
S4-2 0.518 Φ6@100 2.02 0.98
P2-2 0.518 Φ6@75 2.42 0.77 0.71
P3-2 0.518 Φ6@50 3.76 0.33 0.35
S5-2 0.518 Φ6@30 6.12 0.27
128 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129

Fig. 10. Numerical simulation results of maximum deflection and residual deflection (P2-1).

to the different reinforcement ratio and the scale distance Z. Therefore, two curves are obtained through fitting the data of the two
scale distance, respectively (as shown in Fig. 11), as follows,

δ −1:294
¼ 1:061  r Z ¼ 0:591 ð7Þ
h

δ −1:289
¼ 2:286  r Z ¼ 0:518 ð8Þ
h

Eqs. (7) and (8) indicate that the two curves have similar tendency. Thus, a relationship is obtained by fitting the data to con-
sider both the reinforcement ratio and the scale distance.

δ −5:82 −1:29
¼ 0:0496  Z r ð9Þ
h

The empirical formula (9) can be used to calculate the maximum central deflection, while the formula is derived only from the
data we studied, thus, it should be used cautiously for scale distance out of the range we studied. It should be also noticed that if
the reinforcement ratio r is too small the calculated δ/h may be unreasonable because RC slab may be severely damaged in the
central area (Figs. 6a and 8a).

Fig. 11. The relationship between deflection thickness ratio δ/h and reinforcement ratio r.
 S. Yao et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 66 (2016) 120–129 129

6. Conclusions

Through experimental and numerical study, the blast resistant performance and the damage characteristics of reinforced con-
crete slab were analyzed. The influence of the reinforcement ratio on the dynamic response of RC slabs under close-in explosion
was discussed.
Two sets of experiments under 0.13 kg and 0.19 kg TNT explosive blast loading were conducted with three kinds of reinforce-
ment ratio were considered in each set. Numerical simulations of these experiments were implemented using the explicit nonlin-
ear finite element analysis software LS-DYNA. The results show that cracking in the concrete of both sides happened due to the
low tensile strength and the spallation occurred on the back surface of the slab. The increase of explosive charge was shown to
gradually change the damage degree of RC slab from inelastic deformation to local spallation failure. While with the increase of
reinforcement ratio, the damage degree, deflection and the spall radius were all decreasing. The results indicate that the reinforce-
ment ratio have great influence on the survivability of RC slabs when subjected to blast loading.
Additional five numerical models with different reinforcement ratios were built and implemented on blast simulations. The
results together with the results obtained in Section 4 showed the deflection thickness ratio of RC slab is inversely proportional
to the scale distance and the reinforcement ratio. Based on these data, an empirical expression on deflection thickness ratio
was obtained which considered both the scale distance and the reinforcement ratio.
The empirical expression developed in this study has certain limitations. The authors note that it should only be used for similar
structures and dimensions, and within the scaled distance studied. The authors also note that due to certain limitations, the empirical
studies were only conducted on one set of samples and therefore, the reproducibility of the test results has not been determined.
Nonetheless, the results of numerical simulations are in agreement with the test results and the study presented herein provides use-
ful data and a methodology for further study of design codes and performance evaluation of reinforced concrete slabs.

Acknowledgements

The research reported herein is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Projects Nos. 11202236 and
11302261) which is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] S.L. Orton, V.P. Chiarito, J.K. Minor, T.G. Coleman, Experimental testing of CFRP-strengthened reinforced concrete slab elements loaded by close-in blast, J. Struct.
Eng. ASCE 140 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000821.
[2] E. Hamed, O. Rabinovitch, Masonry walls strengthened with composite materials – dynamic out-of-plane behavior, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 27 (2008) 1037–1059.
[3] B.M. Luccioni, R.D. Ambrosini, R.F. Danesi, Analysis of building collapse under blast loads[J], Eng. Struct. 26 (1) (2004) 63–71.
[4] S. Ginsburg, U. Kirsch, Design of protective structures against blast, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 109 (1983) 1490–1506.
[5] N. Jones, M. Alves, Post-failure response of impulsively loaded clamped beams, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 25 (2006) 707–728.
[6] P.R. Craig, Structural Dynamics, Wiley, New York, 1981.
[7] N. Jones, Structural Impact, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[8] G.S. Langdon, G.K. Schleyer, Inelastic deformation and failure of clamped aluminium plates under pulse pressure loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 28 (10) (2003)
1107–1127.
[9] N. Jacob, G.N. Nurick, G.S. Langdon, The effect of stand-off distance on the failure of fully clamped circular mild steel plates subjected to blast loads, Eng. Struct. 29
(10) (2007) 2723–2736.
[10] PDC-TR-06-01(Rev1), Methodology Manual for the Single-Degree-of-Freedom Blast Effects Design Spreadsheets (SBEDS), US Army Corps of Engineers, 2008.
[11] UFC-3-340-02, Unified Facilities Criteria UFC DOD Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, US Department of Defense, 2008.
[12] P.F. Silva, B. Lu, Blast resistance capacity of reinforced concrete slabs, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 135 (2009) 708–716.
[13] B. Lu, P.F. Silva, Improving the blast resistance capacity of RC slabs with innovative composite materials, Compos. Part B Eng. 38 (2007) 523–534.
[14] K. Ohkubo, M. Beppu, T. Ohno, K. Satoh, Experimental study on the effectiveness of fiber sheet reinforcement on the explosive-resistant performance of concrete
plates, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (2008) 1702–1708.
[15] C. Wu, R. Nurwidayati, D.J. Oehlers, Fragmentation from spallation of RC slabs due to airblast loads, Int. J. Impact Eng. 36 (2009) 1371–1378.
[16] W. Wang, D. Zhang, F.Y. Lu, S.C. Wang, F.J. Tang, Experimental study on scaling the explosion resistance of a one-way square reinforced concrete slab under a
close-in blast loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 49 (2012) 158–164.
[17] W. Wang, D. Zhang, F.Y. Lu, S.C. Wang, F.J. Tang, Experimental study and numerical simulation of the damage mode of a square reinforced concrete slab under
close-in explosion, Eng. Fail. Anal. 27 (2013) 41–51.
[18] D. Zhang, S.J. Yao, F.Y. Lu, X.G. Chen, G.H. Lin, W. Wang, et al., Experimental study on scaling of RC beams under close-in blast loading, Eng. Fail. Anal. 33 (0)
(2013) 497–504.
[19] C.F. Zhao, J.Y. Chen, Damage mechanism and mode of square reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast loading, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 63–64 (0) (2013) 54–62.
[20] X.S. Lin, Y.X. Zhang, P.J. Hazell, Modelling the response of reinforced concrete panels under blast loading, Mater. Des. 56 (2014) 620–628.
[21] X.G. Wang, Y.M. Zhang, Y.P. Su, Y. Feng, Experimental Investigation on the Effect of Reinforcement Ratio to Capacity of RC Column to Resist Lateral Impact Load-
ing, Systems Engineering Procedia, 2011 International Conference on the Risk and Engineering Management, Vol. 1 2011, pp. 35–41.
[22] D.K. Thai, S.E. Kim, H.K. Lee, Effects of reinforcement ratio and arrangement on the structural behavior of a nuclear building under aircraft impact, Nucl. Eng. Des.
276 (2014) 228–240.
[23] J. Ozbolt, A. Sharma, Numerical simulation of reinforced concrete beams with different shear reinforcements under dynamic impact loads, Int. J. Impact Eng. 38
(2011) 940–950.
[24] L.J. Malvar, J.E. Crawford, J.W. Wesevich, D. Simons, A plasticity concrete material model for DYNA3D, Int. J. Impact Eng. 19 (1997) 847–873.
[25] E. Erduran, A. Yakut, Drift based damage functions for reinforced concrete columns, Comput. Struct. 82 (2004) 121–130.
[26] Y.C. Shi, H. Hao, Z.X. Li, Numerical derivation of pressure–impulse diagrams for prediction of RC column damage to blast loads, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (11) (2008)
1213–1227.
[27] L.J. Malvar, Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars, ACI Mater. J. 95 (5) (1998) 609–616.
[28] L.J. Malvar, C.A. Ross, Review of strain rate effect for concrete in tension, ACI Mater. J. 96 (5) (1999) 614–616.
[29] CONWEP, Conventional weapons effects, US Army TM-855, 1992.
[30] C. Kingery, G. Bulmash, Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air burst and hemispherical surface burst, ARBRL-TR-02555, U.S·Army Ballistic Research Labora-
tory, MD, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 1984.