Structural Analysis9

Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal
Failure analysis of reinforced concrete walls under impact

loading using the nite element approach
Duc-Kien Thai, Seung-Eock Kim
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Kunja-dong, Kwangjin-ku, Seoul 143-747, South Korea
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 December 2013
Received in revised form 31 May 2014
Accepted 25 June 2014
Available online 15 July 2014
Keywords:
Missile impact
Reinforced concrete wall
LS-DYNA
Dynamic analysis
Punching behavior
a b s t r a c t
In this paper, the punching resistance of a reinforced concrete (RC) wall under missile
impact loading is evaluated using the nite element approach. The model is analyzed using
LS-DYNA, a commercially available software program. The structural components of the RC
wall, missile, and their contacts are fully modeled. Included in the analysis is material
nonlinearity, which considers damage and failure. Damping effect is also taken into
account. The analysis results are then veried with the test results. Parametric studies with
a varying number of layers of longitudinal rebar and shear bar spacing are carried out to
investigate the punching behavior of RC walls under missile impact. The distance travelled,
scabbing area, and failure mode of various RC walls are examined, and efcient designs are
recommended thereafter.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete walls have been widely used in nuclear-related structures in order to protect the main interior facility of the building. Several researches have been conducted to study the punching resistance of RC walls subjected to impact
loading. The local damage to concrete walls has been primarily evaluated by missile impact tests. Kojima [1] performed a
series of small-scale missile impact tests on RC slabs to investigate its local behavior. Sugano et al. [2,3] conducted a series
of impact tests on small-, intermediate-, and full-scale aircraft engine models to RC panels in order to determine the local
damage. A series of studies on RC walls with the dimensions of 2.1 m 2.1 m 0.25 m, with and without shear bars have also
been carried out by Vepsa et al. [4], Orbovic and Blahoianu [5], and Saarenheimo et al. [6] to investigate the punching resistance of walls under missile impact.
The experimental approach can provide reliable results of wall behavior, but it is quite expensive and time consuming.
Considering the economic and time constraints, a good alternative is the use of nite element analysis. A number of numerical studies have already been carried out by Oliveira et al. [7], Pires et al. [8], Borgerhoff et al. [9], and Sagals et al. [10]. The
objective of their numerical simulations was to capture the response and behavior of RC walls subjected to high-rate impact
loading. Finite element analysis was an appropriate and efcient solution for large actual size structures that cannot be
accommodated through experiments.
In the aforementioned studies, both the given experimental and numerical studies focused on RC walls with two layers of
longitudinal rebar, with or without shear bar. These researches had longitudinal rebar ratios in the range of 0.40.7%, and the
shear bar ratios were in the range of 0.621.4%. In this study, the number of layers of longitudinal rebars also varied. The
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3408 3291; fax: +82 2 3408 3332.
E-mail address: sekim@sejong.ac.kr (S.-E. Kim).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.06.006
1350-6307/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
253
D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277
analysis of longitudinal rebars with two, three, and four layers, having ratios of 0.2% and 4.0%, were implemented to investigate the inuence of longitudinal rebar arrangement to the punching resistance of RC walls. In addition, parametric studies
were conducted with different shear bar spacings of 100 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm, having ratios of 0.44% and 1.5%, to
investigate the inuence of shear bar spacing to the punching resistance of the RC walls. Six loading cases were considered
in assessing the behavior of RC walls. Parametric studies with different combinations of reinforcements were then carried
out to nd out the optimal design of RC walls under impact loading.
2. Design of the RC wall and missile
2.1. Geometry
Two categories of RC wall, adopted and modied from specimens tested by Vepsa et al. [4] and Orbovic et al. [5], were
used in this study. In order to investigate the punching response of the RC wall under impact loading, a full-scale RC wall
with clamping system was designed as shown in Fig. 1a and b. The total length of the two-way wall was 7.0 m 7.0 m,
the long span 6.6 m, and the thickness 0.8 m. 55 rebars of 30 mm diameter with shear bars of 30 mm diameter were placed
at the support area of the wall in order to avoid local damage of the edges as shown in Fig. 1c. Steel plates of 30 mm thickness
encased the edges of the wall. This wall system was clamped into a steel frame having steel rollers of 150 mm diameter as its
support system. Subsequently, the steel frame was installed to a massive wall.
A schematic representation of the missile is shown in Fig. 2. The missile consisted of a 30 mm thick steel pipe with
560 mm outside diameter. The missile was lled with lightweight concrete such that it had sufcient mass and rigidity.
The total length of the missile was 2100 mm.
In this study, the behavior of two categories of RC walls was observed as adopted and modied from the specimens tested
by Vepsa et al. [4] and Orbovic et al. [5]. The rst category of the RC wall, RCW-LR, was designed by using a different number
200
7000
6600
200
800
200
Supported
7000
6600
Position of
impact
A-A
(b) Cross section
Y
Steel roler
270
300
200
Stirrup
200
6600
7000
200
(a) RC Wall
(c) Support area
Fig. 1. Reinforced concrete wall and support detail.
Fig. 2. Detail of the missile.
254

7000
6600
200
660
70
800
70
200
270300
150
9@300=2700
300 270
(a) RCW-LR-A: Two layers

7000
6600
200
660
70
800
70
200
270300
150
9@300=2700
300 270
(b) RCW-LR-B: Three layers

7000
6600
200
660
70
800
70
200
270300
150
9@300=2700
300 270
(c) RCW-LR-C: Four layers

Fig. 3. First RC wall series (RCW-LR).
of longitudinal rebar layers as shown in Fig. 3. The RCW-LR-A wall, as shown in Fig. 3a, had two layers of longitudinal rebars.
Fig. 3b shows the RCW-LR-B wall with three layers of longitudinal rebars. For the RCW-LR-C wall, as shown in Fig. 3c, four
layers of longitudinal rebars were used. The layers of longitudinal rebars were equally spaced for all RCW-LR walls. All
the three models in this RC wall category had 300 mm longitudinal rebar spacing, 70 mm concrete cover, and had no shear
bars.
The second RC wall category, RCW-SR, is shown in Fig. 4. Shear bar spacings of 300 mm, 200 mm, and 100 mm were used
for RCW-SR-A (Fig. 4a), RCW-SR-B (Fig. 4b), and RCW-SR-C (Fig. 4c), respectively. The RC walls had two layers of 30 mm
diameter longitudinal rebars of 300 mm spacing in each direction.
2.2. Material properties
Table 1 lists the material properties of the concrete, rebar and other steel parts. The unconned compressive strength of
the concrete wall was 60.0 MPa. The yield strength of the steel rebar was 540 MPa. The yield strength of steel cover plate,
frame, and roller was 550 MPa. The failure strain of the steel rebar was 20.0%. The yield strength of the steel missile model
was 758 MPa. The compressive strength of the missile models concrete ller (lightweight concrete) was 3 MPa.
3. Finite element modeling

3.1. General
The nite element code, LS-DYNA (version 971s R5.1.1) [11], was used for analysis. The full model in Fig. 5a was generated using a quarter model for ease of understanding. As shown in Fig. 5b, a quarter of the wall and missile was modeled due
to symmetry of geometry and impact loading. The concrete wall, longitudinal rebars, shear bars, cover plates, rollers, and
255

7000
6600
200
70
800
660
70
200
270300
150
9@300=2700
300 270
(a) RCW-SR-A: Spacing of 300mm

7000
6600
200
70
800
660
70
200
100
270300
13@200=2600
150
300270
(b) RCW-SR-B: Spacing of 200mm

7000
6600
200
70
800
660
70
200
270300
28@100=2800
50
300270
(c) RCW-SR-C: Spacing of 100mm

Fig. 4. Second RC wall series (RCW-SR).
Table 1
Material properties.
Material
Modulus of
elastic E (GPa)
Poisson
ratio m
Density
q (kg/m3)
UCS
(MPa)
UTS
(MPa)
Failure
strain (%)
Aggregate
size (m)
Concrete
Lightweight concrete
Rebar steel
Missile steel
Cover plate and roller steel
25
10.9
200
205
200
0.17
0.17
0.3
0.3
0.3
2400
804
7800
7850
7800
60
3
540
758
550
3.22
1
540
758
550
20
20
20
0.008
missile were modeled separately and assembled to subsequently develop the full model. The appropriate constraints and
contacts were applied between all contact surfaces.
3.2. Element type and mesh
Fig. 6 shows the FE modeling of the RC wall, missile, and frame. The concrete wall in Fig. 6a was modeled with the solid
element. The HughesLiu beam element (type 1) was used to model the longitudinal and shear bars as shown in Fig. 6b.
Fig. 6c shows the FE modeling of cover plates using the BelytschkoTsay shell element. The solid element was used to model
the rollers. The missile head and concrete ller were modeled using the solid element, whereas the missile cover plate was
modeled using the shell element as shown in Fig. 6d.
The bond between the missile head, concrete ller, and missile cover plate was considered by using shared nodes. The
general mesh size was about 30 mm. The total number of elements of the components of the quarter model for the RCWLR-A wall type is shown in Table 2.
256

Missile
Roller
RC wall
Cover
plate
(a) 3D view of full. model

Missile
Roller
Cover
plate
Front face
RC wall
Back face
(b) 3D view of quarter model

Fig. 5. Finite element model of RC slab with frame and missile.
3.3. Material model

3.3.1. Concrete
The Winfrith material model (MAT#084) considering the strain-rate in LS-DYNA [12] was used for the wall and lightweight concrete material. Fig. 7 shows the bi-linear concrete model using an equivalent uniaxial stressstrain curve. The
elasticplastic curve with ultimate strain (ecu) at the failure was assumed for the concrete compressive model. The assumed
concrete tension model was the linear tension softening behavior with axial strain (eck1) at the failure. The tensile fracture
strain (eo) was determined as a function of the fracture energy of the concrete.
The Winfrith concrete model does not consider the erosion effect. The erosion option for damage and failure was considered by using the option MAT_ADD_EROSION. This option has a total of 14 different erosion criteria. According to sensitivity
studies conducted by Sagals et al. [10], the principal strain was shown to be the most sensitive erosion criterion. The erosion
criteria of 7.5% were used in this study.
The strain-rate effect was automatically considered in the Winfrith concrete model. Fig. 8 shows the stressstrain curves
with respect to various strain-rates. The concrete strengths were calculated by multiplying the original values with the
strain-rate enhancement factors. The tensile (ET) and compressive (EC) factors were calculated using the following equations [12].
With low strain-rate, when e_ < 30 s1 :
ET
e_
_e0T
1:016d
and EC
e_
_e0C
1:026a
1
With high strain-rate, when e_ > 30 s1 :
ET ge_ 1=3 and EC ce_ 1=3 ;

where d
1
;
100:5f cu
1
;
50:75f cu
2
6
log10 g 6:933d 0:492; log10 c 6:156a 0:49; e_ 0T 30 10
1
; and e_ 0C 3 10
6
s1 .
Here, fcu is the concrete cube strength (unit in MPa).

The Youngs modulus rate enhancement was calculated using the following equation:
EE 0:5
"
e_
e_ 0T
0:016
e_
e_ 0C
0:026 #
:
Missile
257
Concrete wall
(a) Concrete wall

Support
reinforcement
Longitudinal
rebar
Shear bars
(b) Reinforcement
Roller
Missile
cover
Concrete
filler
Cover plate
Missile
head
(c) Cover plate and rollers
(d) Missile
Fig. 6. Finite element type and mesh.
Table 2
Total element numbers of a quarter modal for RCW-LR-A type.
Components
Beam elements
Shell elements
Solid elements
Wall
Rebar
Missile
Cover-plate
Roller
1896
381
11,052
330,750
1673
7840
Total
1896
11,433
340,263
3.3.2. Rebar, structural steel

Fig. 9 shows the elastic plastic with the kinematic hardening material model (MAT#003) in LS-DYNA which was used to
model the behavior of the rebar and structural steel [13]. In this study, kinematic hardening was considered by setting the
parameter b = 0.
The yield strength of rebar and structural steel was highly strain-rate dependent. The yield strength increased when the
strain-rate increased. This dynamic yield strength of steel was taken into consideration by the CowperSymonds formula for
uniaxial tension or compression [14]:
258
Fig. 7. Bi-linear concrete model.
Fig. 8. Stressstrain curve of concrete with various strain-rates.
Fig. 9. Elasticplastic behaviors with kinematic/isotropic hardening.
1
rd
e_ P
1
;
rs
C
where rd is the dynamic yield strength, rs is the static yield strength, e_ is the strain-rate, and C and P are the constants of the
Cowper-Symonds relation. For the rebar and structural steel, the constants C = 40.4 s1 and P = 5 proposed by Jones [15] were
used. Fig. 10 shows the stressstrain curves with respect to the various strain-rates of the steel with a yield strength of
540 MPa.
259
Fig. 10. Stressstrain curve of steel with various strain-rates.
Steel plate
master surface
Concrete slave
surface
(a) RC wall and cover plates

Roller master
surface
Steel plate
slave surfaces
(b) Cover plates and rollers

Fig. 11. Contact between components.
3.4. Damping
Damping effect was considered in this study. The damping matrix [C] is calculated using the following function [16]:
C aM bK;
where [C] is the damping matrix; [M] is the mass matrix; and, [K] is the stiffness matrix of the physical system; a and b are
Rayleigh damping constants.
The equation for the Rayleigh damping is
a
2xi
bxi
;
2
where xi is the natural circular frequency of ith mode, n is the damping ratio, and a and b are constant parameters.
260
Reference nodes
of the rollers
(a) At ref. nodes of the rollers
(b) At ref. nodes of mid-span section

Fig. 12. Boundary condition.
The constants a and b can be calculated as follows:
"

a
b
1
2x1
1
2x2
x1 #1
2
x2
The reference frequencies x1 and x2 are chosen based on the frequency range of the structures, which can be dened
using eigenvalue analysis in LS-DYNA.
In this study, the option DAMP_FREQUENCE_RANGE was used to consider the effect of damping. A frequency range of
x1 = 1000 rad/s to x2 = 10,000 rad/s was used, and a damping ratio of 0.01 (refer to [9]) was dened as the input data.
3.5. Contact and boundary condition
The component models were assembled with appropriate constraints and contacts. The longitudinal rebars, shear bars
and supported rebars were embedded in the concrete using the option CONSTRAINED_LARGRANGE_IN_SOLID. The option

AUTOMATIC_ SURFACE_TO_SURFACE was used to create contact between the edges of the RC wall and the cover plates as
shown in Fig. 11a. The contact between the cover plates and the rollers is shown in Fig. 11b. The xed supported boundary
conditions were applied to the reference node of the rollers as shown in Fig. 12a, and symmetric boundary conditions were
applied at the reference nodes of the mid-span sections of the model in Fig. 12b. The perfect bonds between missile cover
plate, missile head, and missile ller were considered by sharing their nodes.
Missile slave
surface
Concrete wall
master surface
Missile master
surface
Rebar slave
nodes
(a) Missile-concrete wall contact
(b) Missile-rebar contact
Fig. 13. Contacts between the missile and RC wall.
261
In order to reduce both analysis time and numerical errors, the segments and nodes for the segment set and node set,
respectively, should be selected within the domain where the contact may occur, as shown in Fig. 13. The option AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_ TO_SURFACE was used for the missile-wall contact, whereas AUTOMATIC_NODES_ TO_SURFACE was
used for the missile-rebar contact. For the missile-concrete wall contact, the segment set of the missile was dened as
the slave part, whereas the segment set of concrete wall was dened as the master part, as shown in Fig. 13a. For the missile-rebar contact, the node set of the rebar was dened as the slave, while the segment set of the missile was dened as the
master, as shown in Fig. 13b.
3.6. Loading cases and analysis method
The dynamic explicit analysis method in LS-DYNA was adopted in this study. Three different initial velocities of 70 m/s,
110 m/s, and 200 m/s were applied to the missile nodal set using the option INITIAL_VELOCITY. Three other loading cases
with different missile masses of 1000 kg, 1500 kg, and 2000 kg were applied by increasing the density of the missiles material. In order to reduce the analysis time, the initial location of the missile head was set directly on the face of the slab. The
analysis time of 50 ms was allotted in order to observe complete missile perforation. The time interval between outputs of
(a) RC slab
(b) Support system
(c) Missile
Fig. 14. Details of the RC slab specimen and missile (Ref. [4,19]).
262

Table 3
Dimensions of the tested specimen and the missile in the experiment of Vepsa et al. [4].
Item
Unit
Amount
Total length of RC wall

Length between supports
Thickness of RC wall
Cover-plate thickness
Roller diameter
Number of rebar
Rebar diameter
Missile diameter
Missile length
Total weight of the missile
m
m
m
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
kg
2.1
2.0
0.25
10
35
96
10
168
64
47
1E4 s was applied for obtaining a continuous behavior. Hourglass control with the stiffness form of Flanagan-Belytschko
integration (IHQ = 4) was selected. In LS-DYNA, the contact between slave and master parts was taken into account using
coupling interaction analysis.
The Winfrith concrete model is capable of calculating crack width of a concrete element, which in our study was calculated using the option DATABASE_BINARY_D3CRACK. In this analysis, fracture energy (FE) of 95 N/m was used as the per
design code recommendation [17], which corresponds to an assumed aggregate size equal to 8 mm.
4. Verication of FE model
A recent experiment conducted by Vepsa et al. [4] was used to verify the proposed FE model. The RC wall specimen and
the support system are shown in Fig. 14a and b respectively, while the missile detail is shown in Fig. 14c. Table 3 presents the
dimensions of the specimen. Fig. 15 shows the experiment specimen clamped by the test frame. The initial velocity of the
missile was 136 m/s. The material properties tested by Vepsa et al. [4] were used.
Table 4 shows a comparison between the residual velocity, scabbing area, and failure mode obtained from the test and
nite element analysis. The residual velocity was taken at 15 ms after the beginning of impact. The scabbing area was
obtained using the erosion option with failure strain criteria of 7.5%. Good agreement has been achieved between the
experimental and numerical results. The specimen was perforated in both the test and FE modeling. The scabbing area
agreed well in both the experiment and numerical analysis, as shown in Fig. 16. Fig. 17 compares the missile velocity
Fig. 15. Experimental specimen (Ref. [19]).
Table 4
Comparison of the analysis results with that of the test by Vepsa et al. [4].
Method
Initial velocity (m/s)
Failure mode
Residual velocity (m/s)
Scabbing Area (m2)
Test
FEM
Difference
136
136
0
Perforation
Perforation
45
45.7
1.6%
1.00
1.06
6.0%
263
(m/s) after impact obtained from the analysis and test results provided by Vepsa et al. [4] and Calonius et al. [18]. The curve
closely matched the results of test P2. These results showed that the developed nite element model reliably predicted the
failure mode and damage of the RC wall under impact loading.
5. Parametric analysis
A parametric study was carried out to investigate the punching response of RCW-LR and RCW-SR. Table 5 lists the most
inuential variables as the analysis parameters.
Fig. 16. Scabbing area.
140
Test P1
120
Test P2
Test P3
100
This study
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
Time (ms)
Fig. 17. Missile velocities during the rst 20 ms after impact.
264
The observed damage of the RC wall was classied into ve modes:
Full Perforation (FP) mode: The missile passed through the slab completely.
Partial Perforation (PP) mode: The missile stopped at the back layer of the longitudinal rebar.
Full Scabbing (FS) mode: The missile stuck onto the slab and the shear cone failure occurred at the back of the slab.
Partial Scabbing (PS) mode: The missile stuck onto the slab and shear cone cracks formed at the back of the slab, but scabbing mode was prevented.
Penetration (P) mode: A crater formed at the front face of the slab, but shear cone cracked except that only a few small
cracks did not form at the back face of the slab.
5.1. RC wall under angular impact
The behavior of the RCW-SR-A wall type having longitudinal rebar ratio of 2.0% and shear bar ratio of 0.35% was
investigated considering different angular impact. Fig. 18 compares the failure modes of oblique impacts with that of the
Table 5
Selected parameters.
Wall series
Variable
Range of variable
Normal wall
RCW-LR
Missile angle (degree)

Number of LR layers
LR ratio (%)
Missile velocity (m/s)
Missile mass (kg)
SR spacing (mm)
SR ratio (%)
Missile mass (kg)
0, 30, and 60
2, 3, and 4
0.24.0
70, 110, and 200
1000, 1500, and 2000
100, 200, and 300
0.441.5
70, 110, and 200
1000, 1500, and 2000
RCW-SR
Fig. 18. Failure modes of RCW-LR walls with different angular impacts.
Table 6
Parametric analysis results of RCW-LR walls with different missile velocity.
Specimen name
Ratio (%)
Distance travelled (m)
Scabbing area (m2)
Failure modea
70
RCW-LR-A-1
RCW-LR-A-2
RCW-LR-B-1
RCW-LR-B-2
RCW-LR-C-1
RCW-LR-C-2
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
0.91
0.25
0.83
0.32
0.91
0.18
13.85
0.00
9.07
0.00
8.72
0.00
PP
P
PP
P
PP
P
110
RCW-LR-A-1
RCW-LR-A-2
RCW-LR-B-1
RCW-LR-B-2
RCW-LR-C-1
RCW-LR-C-2
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
2.63
0.45
2.66
0.51
2.58
0.50
12.56
0.00
10.17
0.00
8.72
0.00
FP
PS
FP
PS
FP
PS
200
RCW-LR-A-1
RCW-LR-A-2
RCW-LR-B-1
RCW-LR-B-2
RCW-LR-C-1
RCW-LR-C-2
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
6.13
1.30
6.06
1.30
6.56
1.28
9.43
25.80
7.71
25.21
7.07
24.62
FP
PP
FP
PP
FP
PP
P = Penetration Mode, PS = Partial Scabbing Mode, FS = Full Scabbing Mode, PP = Partial Perforation mode, FP = Full Perforation mode.
265
perpendicular impact. It can be observed that the local damage of the RC wall decreased as the missile angle increased. The
RC wall under the perpendicular impact had the most signicant damage among them.
Although the conditional probability of the perpendicular impact of the missile to the walls is small, it is the most unfavorable scenario regarding the punching resistance of the structures. Therefore, perpendicular impact is used to assess the
vulnerability of the RC structures.
5.2. RCW-LR wall
The behavior of RCW-LR-A, RCW-LR-B, and RCW-LR-C were investigated considering two rebar ratio of 0.2% and 4.0%. The
missile velocity and its mass were treated as parameters in order to evaluate the vulnerability of the different walls. The
input parameters and corresponding analysis results are shown in Tables 6 and 7. The term distance travelled used in this
study means the distance travelled by the missile head from 0 ms to 50 ms.
5.2.1. Different impact velocities
Different missile velocities of 70 m/s, 110 m/s, and 200 m/s were used to evaluate the punching behavior of RCW-LR
walls. Fig. 19 shows the failure modes of the three different wall types at the time of 50 ms.
5.2.1.1. Failure mechanism. The analysis result showed that, in the case where missile velocity was 70 m/s, partial perforation
modes occurred on all RCW-LR wall types when rebar ratio was 0.2%, whereas penetration modes occurred when rebar ratio
was 4.0% as shown in Fig. 19a. In the case of the missile velocity of 110 m/s as shown in Fig. 19b, full perforation modes
occurred when rebar ratio was 0.2%, whereas partial scabbing modes occurred when rebar ratio was 4.0%. In the case of
the missile velocity of 200 m/s, full perforation modes occurred when rebar ratio was 0.2%, whereas partial perforation
modes occurred when rebar ratio was 4.0% as shown in Fig. 19c.
5.2.1.2. Distance travelled. The left side of Fig. 20 shows the distance travelled corresponding to the different longitudinal
rebar ratios. The analysis result showed that the distance travelled rapidly decreased as the longitudinal rebar ratio
increased. When the longitudinal rebar ratio increased from 0.2% to 4.0%, the distance travelled of the missile decreased
by about 66.7%, 85.2%, and 81.5% corresponding to the missile velocity of 70 m/s, 110 m/s, and 200 m/s. It is concluded that
the longitudinal rebar ratio plays an important role in resisting perforation of the RC wall.
However, the analysis result showed that the distance travelled corresponding to the three different wall types did not
show any major difference. It can be concluded that the number of layers of the longitudinal rebar does not show any signicant effect in resisting perforation of the RC wall.
5.2.1.3. Scabbing area. The right side of Fig. 20 compares the scabbing area on the back face of the three different walls with
two longitudinal rebar ratios at the time of 50 ms. The analysis result showed that in the case of the velocities of 70 m/s and
110 m/s, the failure mode changed from perforation to penetration and the scabbing area rapidly decreased as the longitudinal rebar ratio increased, whereas in the case of the velocity of 200 m/s, the full perforation mode occurred in all cases. The
scabbing area increased as the longitudinal rebar ratio increased from 0.2% to 4.0%.
Table 7
Parametric analysis results of RCW-LR walls with different missile mass.
Missile mass (kg)
Specimen name
Ratio (%)
Scabbing area (m2)
Failure modea
1000
RCW-LR-A-1
RCW-LR-A-2
RCW-LR-B-1
RCW-LR-B-2
RCW-LR-C-1
RCW-LR-C-2
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
1.46
0.32
1.56
0.39
1.56
0.38
12.98
0.00
10.17
0.00
9.07
0.00
FP
P
FP
P
FP
P
1500
RCW-LR-A-1
RCW-LR-A-2
RCW-LR-B-1
RCW-LR-B-2
RCW-LR-C-1
RCW-LR-C-2
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
2.63
0.45
2.66
0.51
2.58
0.50
12.56
0.00
10.17
0.00
8.72
0.00
FP
PS
FP
PS
FP
PS
2000
RCW-LR-A-1
RCW-LR-A-2
RCW-LR-B-1
RCW-LR-B-2
RCW-LR-C-1
RCW-LR-C-2
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
0.20
4.00
2.73
1.01
3.19
0.80
3.36
0.84
7.71
25.21
10.94
21.77
9.43
18.59
FP
PP
FP
PP
FP
PP
P = Penetration Mode, PS = Partial Scabbing Mode, FS = Full Scabbing Mode, PP = Partial Perforation Mode, FP = Full Perforation Mode.
266
Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-LR-A
RCW-LR-B
RCW-LR-C
0.2%
4.0%
(a) Impact velocity V0 = 70 m/s

Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-LR-A
RCW-LR-B
RCW-LR-C
0.2%
4.0%
(b) Impact velocity V0 = 110 m/s

Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-LR-A
RCW-LR-B
RCW-LR-C
0.2%
4.0%
(c) Impact velocity V0 = 200 m/s

Fig. 19. Failure modes of RCW-LR walls with different missile velocity.
The analysis result also showed that the number of rebar layers had a signicant effect on reducing the scabbing area of
the RC wall. The deformation of the rebar caused the scabbing area increment due to the bond between them. When the
rebar was installed near the face of the wall, the deformation of rebar caused the concrete cover to be separated easily. This
was the main reason for the scabbing area increment. When the rebar was arranged near the walls center, the concrete cover
was not easily separated. As a result, the scabbing area decreased signicantly. It is therefore concluded that, at a certain
rebar ratio, rebar arrangement having more than two layers better withstands the impact load and reduces the scabbing
area. The RC wall with four layers of rebar had the smallest scabbing area among three.
5.2.2. Different missile masses
Different missile masses of 1000 kg, 1500 kg, and 2000 kg were used to evaluate the punching behavior of RCW-LR walls.
Fig. 21 shows the failure modes of the three different wall types at the time of 50 ms.
267
Fig. 20. Distance travelled and scabbing areas with respect to LR ratio.
5.2.2.1. Failure mechanism. Analysis result showed that, in the case of the missile mass of 1000 kg, full perforation modes
occurred on all RCW-LR wall types when rebar ratio was 0.2%, whereas penetration modes occurred when rebar ratio was
4.0% as shown in Fig. 21a. In the case of the missile mass of 1500 kg as shown in Fig. 21b, full perforation modes occurred
when rebar ratio was 0.2%, whereas partial scabbing modes occurred when rebar ratio was 4.0%. In the case of the missile
mass of 2000 kg, full perforation modes occurred when rebar ratio was 0.2%. When rebar ratio was 4.0%, partial perforation
modes occurred, and signicant scabbing and cracking occurred on the both faces of the wall as shown in Fig. 21c.
5.2.2.2. Distance travelled. The left side of Fig. 22 shows the distance travelled corresponding to the different longitudinal
rebar ratios. The analysis result showed that the distance travelled rapidly decreased as the longitudinal rebar ratio
increased. When the longitudinal rebar ratio increased from 0.2% to 4.0%, the distance travelled of the missile decreased
268
Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-LR-A
RCW-LR-B
RCW-LR-C
0.2%
4.0%
(a) Missile mass M = 1,000 kg

Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-LR-A
RCW-LR-B
RCW-LR-C
0.2%
4.0%
(b) Missile mass M = 1,500 kg

Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-LR-A
RCW-LR-B
RCW-LR-C
0.2%
4.0%
(c) Missile mass M = 2,000 kg

Fig. 21. Failure modes of RCW-LR walls with different missile mass.
by about 72%, 85.2%, and 75.8% corresponding to the missile masses of 1000 kg, 1500 kg, and 2000 kg. However, the number
of longitudinal rebar layers did not show any signicant effect on the distance travelled of the missile.
two longitudinal rebar ratios at the time of 50 ms. The analysis result showed that in the case of the masses of 1000 kg and
1500 kg, the failure mode changed from perforation to penetration and the scabbing area rapidly decreased as the longitudinal rebar ratio increased. Whereas in the case of the missile mass of 2000 kg, the perforation mode occurred in all cases,
and the scabbing area increased as the longitudinal rebar ratio increased from 0.2% to 4.0%.
The analysis result also showed that the number of rebar layers had a signicant effect on reducing the scabbing area of
the RC wall. The RC wall with four layers of longitudinal rebar had the smallest scabbing area among them.
269
Fig. 22. Distance travelled and scabbing areas with respect to LR ratio.
5.3. RCW-SR wall

The behavior of RCW-SR-A, RCW-SR-B, and RCW-SR-C was investigated considering two rebar ratios of 0.44% and 1.5%.
The missile velocity and its mass were also treated as parameters in order to evaluate the vulnerability of the different walls.
The input parameters and corresponding analysis results are shown in Tables 8 and 9.
5.3.1. Different impact velocities
Different missile velocities of 70 m/s, 110 m/s, and 200 m/s were used to evaluate the punching behavior of the RCW-SR
270
Table 8
Parametric analysis results of RCW-SR walls with different missile velocity.
Specimen name
Ratio (%)
Scabbing area (m2)
Failure modea
70
RCW-SR-A-1
RCW-SR-A-2
RCW-SR-B-1
RCW-SR-B-2
RCW-SR-C-1
RCW-SR-C-2
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
0.91
0.73
0.94
0.93
0.38
0.32
2.74
1.66
6.45
5.31
0.00
0.00
PP
FS
PP
PP
P
P
110
RCW-SR-A-1
RCW-SR-A-2
RCW-SR-B-1
RCW-SR-B-2
RCW-SR-C-1
RCW-SR-C-2
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
2.34
2.53
2.33
2.47
1.99
1.49
4.03
2.01
8.38
8.04
4.78
2.93
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
200
RCW-SR-A-1
RCW-SR-A-2
RCW-SR-B-1
RCW-SR-B-2
RCW-SR-C-1
RCW-SR-C-2
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
5.62
5.75
6.03
6.23
5.45
5.55
2.01
1.13
4.27
4.52
2.74
1.69
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
Table 9
Parametric analysis results of RCW-SR walls with different missile mass.
Missile mass (kg)
Specimen name
Ratio (%)
Scabbing area (m2)
Failure modea
1000
RCW-SR-A-1
RCW-SR-A-2
RCW-SR-B-1
RCW-SR-B-2
RCW-SR-C-1
RCW-SR-C-2
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
1.02
1.02
1.13
1.17
0.84
0.50
5.31
4.27
11.74
10.94
2.01
1.14
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
FS
1500
RCW-SR-A-1
RCW-SR-A-2
RCW-SR-B-1
RCW-SR-B-2
RCW-SR-C-1
RCW-SR-C-2
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
2.34
2.53
2.33
2.47
1.99
1.49
4.03
2.01
8.38
8.04
4.78
2.93
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
2000
RCW-SR-A-1
RCW-SR-A-2
RCW-SR-B-1
RCW-SR-B-2
RCW-SR-C-1
RCW-SR-C-2
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
0.44
1.50
2.59
3.19
3.24
3.16
1.93
2.47
2.93
3.14
7.71
6.75
1.26
2.36
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
5.3.1.1. Failure mechanism. The analysis result showed that, in the case of the missile velocity of 70 m/s as shown in Fig. 23a,
when the rebar ratio was 0.2%, the partial perforation modes occurred on the RCW-SR-A and RCW-SR-B walls, whereas the
penetration mode occurred on the RCW-SR-C wall. When the rebar ratio was 4.0%, the full scabbing modes, partial perforation mode, and penetration occurred on RCW-SR-A, RCW-SR-B, and RCW-SR-C, respectively. In the case of the missile velocity of 110 m/s and 200 m/s, full perforation modes occurred on all walls as shown in Fig. 23b and c, respectively.
5.3.1.2. Distance travelled. The left side of Fig. 24 shows the distance travelled corresponding to the different shear bar ratios.
In some cases, the distance travelled increased as the shear bar ratio increased, whereas in other cases, the distance travelled
decreased as the shear bar ratio increased. It is observed that increasing shear bar ratio did not show any major effect on
reducing the distance travelled of the missile.
However, the analysis result showed that the shear bar spacing had a signicant effect on the distance travelled of the
missile. The RCW-SR-C wall had the lowest distance travelled among them.
two shear bar ratios at the time of 50 ms. The analysis result showed that the scabbing area slightly decreased as the shear
bar ratio increased, except RCW-SR-B in the case of missile velocity of 200 m/s. Therefore, increasing shear bar ratio did not
show any major effect on reducing the scabbing area.
271
Fig. 23. Failure modes of RCW-SR walls with different missile velocity.
However, the shear bar spacing had a signicant effect on reducing the scabbing area of the RC wall. In the case of velocity
of 70 m/s, RCW-SR-C showed a good ability in preventing scabbing area, whereas in the cases of velocities 110 m/s and
200 m/s, RCW-SR-A had the smallest scabbing area.
5.3.2. Different missile masses
Different missile masses of 1000 kg, 1500 kg, and 2000 kg were used to evaluate the punching behavior of the RCW-SR
5.3.2.1. Failure mechanism. In the case of the missile mass of 1000 kg as shown in Fig. 25a, partial perforation modes occurred
on all RCW-SR walls when shear bar ratio was 0.44%. When the rebar ratio was 1.5%, the partial perforation mode occurred
on RCW-SR-A and RCW-SR-B, whereas full scabbing modes occurred on RCW-SR-C. In the case of the missile masses of
1500 kg and 2000 kg, full perforation modes occurred on all walls as shown in Fig. 25b and c.
272
Fig. 24. Distance travelled and scabbing areas with respect to SR ratio.
5.3.2.2. Distance travelled. The left side of Fig. 26 shows the distance travelled corresponding to the different shear bar ratios.
The analysis result showed that the distance travelled slightly changed as the shear bar ratio increased. It is concluded that
increasing shear bar ratio did not show any major effect on reducing the distance travelled of the missile. However, the shear
bar spacing had a signicant effect on the distance travelled of the missile. The RCW-SR-C wall had the lowest distance
travelled among them.
Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-SR-A
RCW-SR-B
273
RCW-SR-C
0.44%
1.5%
(a) Missile mass M = 1,000 kg

Wall type
SR ratio
RCW-SR-A
RCW-SR-B
RCW-SR-C
0.44%
1.5%
(b) Missile mass M = 1,500 kg

Wall type
LR ratio
RCW-SR-A
RCW-SR-B
RCW-SR-C
0.44%
1.5%
(c) Missile mass M = 2,000 kg

Fig. 25. Failure modes of RCW-SR walls with different missile mass.
two shear bar ratios at the time of 50 ms. The scabbing area slightly decreased as the shear bar ratio increased, except
RCW-SR-C in the case of missile velocity of 200 m/s. Therefore, increasing shear bar ratio did not show any major effect
on reducing the scabbing area.
However, the shear bar spacing had a signicant effect on reducing the scabbing area of the RC wall. In the cases of velocities of 70 m/s and 200 m/s, RCW-SR-C had the smallest scabbing area, whereas in the case of velocity 110 m/s, RCW-SR-A
had the smallest scabbing area.
6. Optimal design of RC wall
This section presents the optimal design of the RC wall considering resistance to the impact of a missile with initial velocity of 110 m/s, having a total mass of 1500 kg. In order to determine the most efcient combination of the reinforcements for
274
Fig. 26. Distance travelled and scabbing areas with respect to SR ratio.
optimal design, the behavior of the RC walls with different combinations of longitudinal rebar and shear bars were observed.
The perforation limit is the most important criterion to guarantee safety, and secondary criterion is to prevent scabbing. The
following parameters were used for optimal design:
(1) RCW-LR-A, RCW-LR-B, and RCW-LR-C with longitudinal rebar ratio of 3.0%.
(2) RCW-SR-C with shear bar ratios of 0.44% and 1.5%.
275

Table 10
Analysis results of design models.
a
b
Specimen
Number of longitudinal rebar layers
Shear bar ratioa (%)
Scabbing area (m2)
Failure modeb
Design-1
Design-2
Design-3
Design-4
Design-5
Design-6
2
3
4
2
3
4
0.44
0.44
0.44
1.50
1.50
1.50
0.44
0.66
0.81
0.41
0.50
0.63
0.00
1.54
3.14
0.00
1.85
1.54
P
FS
PP
P
PS
FS
Shear bar spacing of 100 mm was used for all design walls.
Design-1
Design-2
Design-3
Design-4
Design-5
Design-6
Fig. 27. Comparison of failure modes of design RC walls.
Fig. 28. Comparison of distance travelled.
Six different design models, Design-1 to Design-6, were created as listed in Table 10. Three effects including distance travelled, scabbing area, and failure mode were observed as shown on the last three columns in Table 10. Fig. 27 shows a comparison of the failure modes of the different design walls. Fig. 28 compares the distance travelled of the missile at 50 ms,
whereas Fig. 29 compares the scabbing areas at the back face of the walls.
It can be observed that full perforation mode was prevented in all design walls. Design-3 had the greatest distance travelled and largest scabbing area, whereas both perforation and scabbing were almost prevented in Design-1 and Design-4
walls. Design-4 had smallest distance travelled; therefore, it is recommended to be the best choice for optimal design.
276
Fig. 29. Comparison of scabbing areas.
7. Conclusions
A reliable nonlinear nite element model of RC walls under impact loading was developed. The structural components
and their contacts were fully modeled. The erosion option of concrete and steel reinforcement was considered in the analysis, and the nite element model was veried against the experiment. A parametric study was performed to investigate the
inuences of the longitudinal rebar and shear bar to the punching behavior of RC walls. Different missile velocities and their
mass were treated as parameters in order to evaluate the vulnerability of the different walls. The following conclusions have
been obtained:
(1) Longitudinal rebar ratio had a signicant effect on punching resistance of RC walls. However, in the case where
perforation mode had occurred, increasing rebar ratio led to a signicant increment of scabbing area. The number
of layers of the longitudinal rebar did not show any signicant effect on resisting perforation, rather it had a signicant
effect in reducing the scabbing area of the RC wall in the case where shear bars were not considered. The RC wall with
four layers of longitudinal rebar had the smallest scabbing area.
(2) Shear bar ratio showed a minor effect on punching resistance of the RC wall, whereas shear bar spacing showed a
signicant effect on resisting perforation of the RC wall and reducing the scabbing area. The RC wall with shear bar
spacing of 100 mm had the smallest scabbing area among three models.
(3) In such case where missile velocity is 110 m/s and the total mass is 1500 kg, Design-4 is recommended as the optimal
design to withstand missile impact.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from the Human Resources Development program (No. 20124030200050) of the
Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP), funded by the Korea government Ministry of Knowledge Economy.
References
[1] Kojima I. An experimental study on local behavior of reinforced concrete slabs to missile impact. Nucl Eng Des 1991;130:12132.
[2] Sugano T, Tsubota H, Kasai Y, Koshika N, Ohnuma H, Riesemann WA, et al. Local damage to reinforced concrete structures caused by impact of aircraft
engine missile, Part 1. Test program, method and results. Nucl Eng Des 1993;140:387405.
[3] Sugano T, Tsubota H, Kasai Y, Koshika N, Itoh C, Shirai K, et al. Local damage to reinforced concrete structures caused by impact of aircraft engine
missile, Part 2. Evaluation of test results. Nucl Eng Des 1993;140:40723.
[4] Vepsa A, Saarenheimo A, Tarallo F, Rambach J-M, Orbovic N. IRIS_2010-Part II: Experiment data. Transactions of the 21st SMiRT 2011.
[5] Orbovic N, Blahoianu A. Test on reinforced concrete slabs under hard missile impact to evaluate the inuence of transverse reinforcement and prestressing on perforation velocity. Transactions of the 21st SMiRT 2011.
[6] Saarenheimo A, Tuomala M, Calonius K, Hakola I, Hostikka S, Silde A. Experimental and numerical studies on projectile impacts. J Struct Mech
2009;42(1):137.
[7] Oliveira DA, Saudy A, Lee NH, Elgohary M. The effect of t-headed bar reinforcement on the impact response of concrete walls. Transactions of the 21st
SMiRT 2011.
[8] Pires JA, Ali SA, Candra H. Finite element simulation of hard missile impacts on reinforced concrete slabs. Transactions of the 21st SMiRT 2011.
[9] Borgerhoff M, Stangenberg F, Zinn R. Numerical simulation of impact test of reinforced concrete slabs with dominating punching. Transactions of the
21st SMiRT 2011.
[10] Sagals G, Orbovic N, Blahoianu A. Sensitivity studies of reinforced concrete slabs under impact loading. Transactions of the 21st SMiRT 2011.
[11] LS-DYNA Key Users Manual, Version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2007.
[12] An Introduction to the Winfrith Concrete Model. Schwer Engineering & Consulting Services; 2010.
277
[13] LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2006.

[14] Marais ST, Tait RB, Cloete TJ, Nurick GN. Material test at high strain rate using the split Hopkinson pressure bar. Latin Am J Solids Struct
2004;1:31939.
[15] Jones N. Structural impact. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 33384.
[16] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures theory and applications to earthquake engineering. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall;
2006. p. 44765.
[17] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design Code. Redwood Books. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UK; 1993.
[18] Calonius K, Elgohary M, Sagals G, Kahkonen J, Heckotter C, Ciree B, et al. Punching failure of a reinforced concrete slab due to hard missile impact
(IRIS_2010 Case). Transactions of the 21st SMiRT 2011.
[19] Oliver M, Vincent C, Thierry S. Numerical analysis on the missile impact tests performed at VTT within the benchmark project IRIS, JRC scientic and
technical reports, European Commission, EUR 24880 EN; 2011.

Structural Analysis9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Analysis9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

Failure analysis of reinforced concrete walls under impact

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

(b) Cross section

(c) Support area

Fig. 1. Reinforced concrete wall and support detail.

Fig. 2. Detail of the missile.

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

(a) RCW-LR-A: Two layers

(b) RCW-LR-B: Three layers

(c) RCW-LR-C: Four layers

3. Finite element modeling

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

(a) RCW-SR-A: Spacing of 300mm

(b) RCW-SR-B: Spacing of 200mm

(c) RCW-SR-C: Spacing of 100mm

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

(a) 3D view of full. model

(b) 3D view of quarter model

3.3. Material model

With high strain-rate, when e_ > 30 s1 :

ET ge_ 1=3 and EC ce_ 1=3 ;

log10 g 6:933d 0:492; log10 c 6:156a 0:49; e_ 0T 30  10

Here, fcu is the concrete cube strength (unit in MPa).

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

(a) Concrete wall

(c) Cover plate and rollers

Fig. 6. Finite element type and mesh.

3.3.2. Rebar, structural steel

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

Fig. 7. Bi-linear concrete model.

Fig. 8. Stressstrain curve of concrete with various strain-rates.

Fig. 9. Elasticplastic behaviors with kinematic/isotropic hardening.

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

Fig. 10. Stressstrain curve of steel with various strain-rates.

(a) RC wall and cover plates

(b) Cover plates and rollers

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

(a) At ref. nodes of the rollers

(b) At ref. nodes of mid-span section

The constants a and b can be calculated as follows:

(a) Missile-concrete wall contact

(b) Missile-rebar contact

Fig. 13. Contacts between the missile and RC wall.

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

(b) Support system

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

Total length of RC wall

Fig. 15. Experimental specimen (Ref. [19]).

Initial velocity (m/s)

Residual velocity (m/s)

Scabbing Area (m2)

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

Fig. 16. Scabbing area.

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

The observed damage of the RC wall was classied into ve modes:

Missile angle (degree)

Missile velocity (m/s)

Distance travelled (m)

Scabbing area (m2)

D.-K. Thai, S.-E. Kim / Engineering Failure Analysis 45 (2014) 252277

log10 g 6:933d 0:492; log10 c 6:156a 0:49; e_ 0T 30 10