Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3373

Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011

G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. Müller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4

Experimental Study on the Response of Various Steel-Concrete-Steel Sandwich Panel

Configurations
K.W. Kang1, T.B. Soh2, L.Y.R. Liew 3
1,2
Defence Science and Technology Agency, 1 Depot Road #03-01J, Singapore 109679, Singapore
3
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Blk E1A, #07-03, 1 Engineering Drive 2,
Singapore 117576, Singapore
email: kkokwei@dsta.gov.sg, stianboo@dsta.gov.sg, cveljy@nus.edu.sg

ABSTRACT: This experimental study investigates the response of steel-concrete composite sandwich panel of various
configurations under quasi-static and dynamic loading. The differences in these configurations include the thickness of the steel
plates, the concrete properties of the sandwich core and the connectors to ensure the composite action of the panels. The latter
utilises a novel J-hook connector system [1] and the Eurocode [2] is used as the basis of design to predict the partial composite
capacity of the specimens. The quasi-static experiment series utilised a three-point laboratory load test and the dynamic load
experimental study involved the use of an actual explosive test setup. The differences in response of six configurations of
sandwich panels in the quasi-static and dynamic load series were investigated. Both experimental series showed the contributive
effect of increased steel plate thickness and the presence of the concrete core. The effect of the concrete core is observed to be
distinctively larger under blast loading. In addition, the use of ultra high strength concrete (fc ≈ 200MPa) for the core resulted in
contradictory contribution to the composite sandwich panels under blast loading regimes as compared to quasi-static loading.
Observations from the dynamic experimental series show hints that use of connectors may not benefit the blast design of steel-
concrete-steel sandwich panels.

KEY WORDS: Sandwich Panel, Steel-Concrete Composite, Blast, Experiment

1 INTRODUCTION and dynamic loadings. These parameters include the thickness

At present, it may no longer be sufficient for engineers to
design structures based on static loading alone. More than
ever, there seems to be an increasing number of events that
involve excessive dynamic or extreme loading. These
abnormal loading originates from natural elements such as
tsunamis, hurricanes and landslides as well as from intentional
man-made threats, for example the acts of terrorism by
extremist groups. The latter are well-planned and, therefore, it
is critical that proper passive protective measures are
implemented to mitigate the effects of the attack. One of the
blast mitigation methods is the erection of blast walls. This
paper studies and investigates the effectiveness of steel-
concrete-steel (SCS) sandwich composite panels in resisting
blast loading.
The SCS sandwich composite system was initially developed
for offshore applications, but, in view of the satisfactory
performance of SCS sandwich composites under static and
impact loads [1], it was deduced that the SCS sandwich
system could also be used to provide blast protection in the
form of perimeter walls. The response of steel-concrete
sandwich composite panels to blast loading has been studied
[3,4,5] and commercial products based on such materials have
been conceived [6,7]. The walls performed well under actual
explosions and research has shown that the massiveness and
high energy absorption capacity of the composite system are
effective in providing resistance against blast loading.
of the steel face plates, a novel J-hook connector system [1]
and the properties of the concrete core. In the conduct of the
experiment, SCS sandwich panels of various configurations
were fabricated in pairs. One of the pair was subjected to blast
loading while the other will be statically loaded in a three-
point laboratory load test. These tests were not just aimed at
demonstrating the influence of the various structural
components but also the different levels of effectiveness of
these same components under highly dynamic and quasi-static
loaded environment.
2 TEST DESIGN
2.1 SCS sandwich composite panel specimen
Six pairs of SCS sandwich composite panel specimens with
different specifications were fabricated. The span and width of
all the specimens were 1200 mm and 495 mm, respectively,
and the spacing between the inner surfaces of the top and
bottom steel face plates was 70 mm. The spacing of the J-
hook connectors was set as 100 mm in both directions of the
specimens. Two side steel plates were fillet welded along the
span of the face plates and another two steel plates termed as
end plates of 3mm thickness were welded to both ends of the
specimens in order to fully confine the concrete core. The
specifications of the steel plates and concrete core of the
specimens are documented in Table 1 and Figure 1 illustrates
the terminologies used in the description of the specimens.

This paper aims to show experimentally the levels of

influence and effectiveness of various components on the
response of SCS sandwich panel systems to both quasi-static
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3374

Table 1. Specifications of specimens 2.3 Dynamic Load Test Setup

Thickness of Type of In the explosive test setup of the specimens, the scaled
Specimen distance specified for each specimen was fixed at
Top and Bottom Concrete Remarks
Notification 1.077m/kg1/3 and the panels was tested in pairs (see Figure 2),
Plates (mm) Core
SP 4 - No concrete which translated to three repeated blasts to test all six
SCSN4 4 NSC specimens. The sequence of the three blasts and their
SCSN 3 NSC respective specimens was as follow:
SCSNE 3 NSC No connector
SCSL 3 LWAC • Blast 1: SP and SCSN4
SCSH 3 HSC • Blast 2: SCSN and SCSNE
NSC = Normal concrete • Blast 3: SCSL and SCSH
LWAC = Lightweight aggregate concrete
HSC = Ultra-high strength concrete In Blast 1, SP and SCSN4 were designed with similar nominal
sectional flexural stiffness about the major axis and bending
J-hook moment capacities as the objective was to evaluate the
connectors effectiveness of concrete core over stiffeners. The influence of
J-hook connectors on the blast performance of the SCS
sandwich composite was evaluated in Blast 2 while the last
Top plate
blast test was intended to demonstrate the effects of using
different concrete cores. Since the standoff distances were
maintained in all the three blasts, the effect of using thicker
steel face plates could be assessed by comparing specimens
SCSN4 and SCSN. The latter was also compared to the
Bottom plate specimens in Blast 3 in order to further evaluate the effects of
Side plate (1.5mm) core materials on the blast response of the SCS sandwich
End plate composite panels.
(a) Reinforced concrete
supporting structure
Stiffener (3mm)

Specimen
Top plate Steel I-beam to
Removable steel
clamp plates support
instrumentation

Ground zero
of blast load

Bottom plate Steel rod to create

simple support
Side plate (3mm) 1.077m/kg1/3
End plate

(b)
Figure 1. Notation for (a) SCS sandwich composite panel and
(b) Cellular steel panel (SP).
2.2 Material
The LWAC and HSC were mixed in the laboratory while the
NSC was procured from a commercial supplier. NSC had a
specific density of 2300kg/m3 and the cylinder strength on the
date of test was 35MPa. The LWAC had a specific density of
1250 kg/m3 and compressive cylinder strength of 20MPa. It
was mixed from expanded clay aggregates, sand, ordinary
portland cement, silica fume and water. The Ducorit D4
material was used in HSC and the compressive strength of the
material was found to be 190MPa. The steel plates were
acquired through a commercial supplier and the result from
coupon test based on the ASTM standard [8] showed that the
yield strength to be 325MPa and it attained an ultimate
strength of 450MPa at 0.17 strain.
Figure 2. Test setup which includes one specimen (for
illustration) and design of RC supporting structure.
As shown in Figure 2, the removable steel clamp plates,
which were attached to the RC support structure by four bolts,
enabled the tests will be repeated using the same support
structure and steel rods welded behind the plates created a
simply support end support for the specimens. Under such
boundary condition, the effective span of the specimen is 1m.
Figure 3 illustrates the instrumentation that was installed for
each blast test, which included pressure sensors installed on
the front surface of the shear wall of the RC support structure,
potentiometers mounted onto the steel I-beam behind the
specimen (see Figure 2) to record the mid span deflection
histories, accelerometer welded at the midspan on the back
face of the specimens and strain gauges attached on the mid-
span and quarter-spans of the specimens.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3375

Simple
Support on
Roller

Strain gauge
Load Line Accelerometer
Accelerometer
Potentiometer
Strain gauge
Pressure gauge

(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Schematic and (b) Actual positions of

instrumentation (view from back).
2.4 Quasi-static Three-point Laboratory Load Test Setup
The quasi-static test was carried out in the Structural
Laboratory at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
The objective of this test was to observe the influence levels
of various structural components of SCS composite sandwich
panels under quasi-static loading and compare the results from
the explosive test, which was described in the preceding
section. The schematic as well as the actual setup of the three-
point quasi-static load test is shown in Figure 4. The pivots at
the ends of the specimens allowed the specimen to achieve
simply supported boundary conditions the load actuator was
displacement controlled. The initial displacement rate was
0.1mm/min but it was accelerated at the latter stages of the
loading till failure.
Load
Specimen
1m
(a)
Simple
Support on
Roller
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Schematic of instrumentation on the (a) top and
(b) bottom face steel plates.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Dynamic Load Test Result
Due to the absence of the concrete core, specimen SP
underwent severe local buckling and global bending when
subjected to the blast loading. The deformed shape of the
specimen is shown in Figure 6. Due to the midspan
displacement of the specimen exceeding pre-test prediction,
the specimen collided with the steel I-beam prior to attaining
the peak displacement under the explosive load. The midspan
permanent deflection of the specimen was 160mm. The
displacement time history of the specimen was not recorded as
the trigger system failed to initiate and the potentiometers was
crushed due to the excessive displacement of the specimen. It
is clear from the overall deformed shape of the specimen that
the SP underwent a predominantly flexural response.

(b)

Figure 4. (a) Schematic and (b) laboratory setup for the quasi-
static three-point test.
Similar to the dynamic load test, the instrumentation was
essential to capture the data in this experiment. Figure 5
shows the instrumentation on each specimen which included
displacement and strain gauges at the quarter and mid spans
on the face plates of the specimen. In addition, force and
displacement readings were also acquired from the load cell of
the actuator and the supports respectively.
(a) (b)

Figure 6. (a) SP (left) and SCSN4 (right) after blast and (b)
elevation profile of deformed specimen SP.
Excessive local buckling was also observed on the top steel
face plate and side plates. Figure 7 shows that the top face
plate that buckled between the steel stiffeners which forced
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3376

the side plates near the midspan to bend towards the centre of 100
Actual Recording
the specimen. Filtered Recording

80

Displacement (mm)
60

40

20

-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (msec)

Figure 7. Local buckling on the specimen SP.
Rupture of steel was also observed at the side edge of the top
steel face place around the midspan. This could be attributed
to the result of excessive compressive response of the top
plate due to the large deformation of the specimen.
Specimen SCSN4, which was positioned adjacent to SP
sustained relatively less damage and the permanent deflection
at the midspan of the specimen measured 27 mm. The
response was observed to be flexural.
Specimens SCSN and SCSNE is shown in Figure 8. The
specimen deformed in a flexural manner similar to that of
Figure 9. Potentiometer reading history of SCSN.
Specimen SCSNE had less damage as compared to SCSN as
observed in Figure 6. The elevation profile view of the
deformed SCSNE specimen shows a predominantly flexural
response (see Figure 10). The midspan permanent deflection
was 31 mm and this is similar to the data captured by the
potentiometer, which is plotted in Figure 10. However, the
displacement time history by the potentiometer did not reflect
the reading correctly as there was a sharp drop in
displacement at 153ms. A possible reason for this could be
traced to the functionality of the potentiometer.
60
Actual Recording

Specimen SCSN4 and the midspan permanent deformation

was 57 mm. The recorded data from the potentiometer is
40
plotted in Figure 9 which indicated that the midspan
Displacement (mm)

permanent deflection to be 43 mm, which is 14 mm less than

the deflection measurement. The underestimation by the
potentiometer could be caused by the displacement of the 20

potentiometer as the fastening bracket was observed to be

detached after the test. Besides this, the large force from the
blast might have misaligned the potentiometer and caused the 0

reading to be slightly erroneous.

-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 170
Time (msec)
(a) (b)

Figure 10. (a) Elevation profile and (b) potentiometer reading

history of deformed specimen SCSNE.
Specimen SCSL underwent direct shear response at both ends
as shown in Figure 11. Instead rotating about the ends, the
specimen underwent shear yielding which minimized bending
of the specimen at the midspan, which was prevalent in the
other specimens in this test series. The midspan permanent
deflection recorded was 86 mm, which was higher than the 75
mm displacement given by the potentiometer as shown in
Figure 12.

The excessive shear response of the specimen resulted in the

(a) (b) buckling of the side steel plates as evident from Figure 11(b)
and, in fact, the side plate ruptured and the side plates were
Figure 8. (a) SCSN (left) and SCSNE (right) after blast and detached from the face plates. Holes were found on the rear
(b) elevation profile of deformed specimen SCSN. face steel plates at the positions of the J-hook connectors
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3377

which indicated the debonding between the J-hook connectors As mentioned in Section 2.3, the blast pressure was recorded
and the face plate. by two pressure sensors that were mounted onto the RC
support structure. The first blast test did not yield any readings
from the instrumentation due to the trigger failure.
14000

12000

10000

Overpressure (kPa)
8000
Blast 2
Blast 3
6000 CONWEP

4000

2000

-2000
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
Time (msec)
(a) (b)

Figure 11. (a) SCSL (left) and SCSH (right) after blast and (b) Figure 14. Pressure-time history comparison.
elevation profile of deformed specimen SCSL. 4000

125 3600
Actual Recording
3200

100 2800
Impulse (kPa-msec)

2400
Displacement (mm)

Blast 2
75 Blast 3
2000
CONWEP

1600

50
1200

800
25
400

0
0 20 40 60
Time (msec)
Figure 12. Potentiometer reading history of SCSL.
Specimen SCSH exhibited flexural response under the blast
loading (see Figure 11). The midspan permanent deflection of
the specimen was 79mm but the potentiometer for this
specimen was found to be damaged after test. The top steel
face plate buckled under the excessive compressive forces that
resulted from the large displacement of the specimen (see
Figure 13).
Figure 13. Local buckling of the steel face plate of SCSH.
0
0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6
80 100 120 Time (msec)
Figure 15. Impulse-time history comparison.
From the data acquired from second and third blasts, it was
found that the pressure sensor on the right side of the RC
support structure had malfunctioned. The blast pressure
recordings and subsequent calculated impulse based on the
pressure data are plotted in Figures 14 and 15 respectively.
Included in the figures are comparisons with CONWEP
predictions [9].
It is observed that the recorded peak overpressure and the
decay of both blasts are almost identical and the same could
be said about impulses. In comparison with the blast pressure
curves predicted using CONWEP, the impulse variations from
the actual test seem to fit the CONWEP plots well,
particularly for Blast 2. This signifies the reliability of
CONWEP in predicting the impulse for close-in explosions
and that the CONWEP impulse curves may not be
conservative in this case. On the contrary, there seem to be a
considerable underestimation of the actual peak overpressure
by CONWEP. While the CONWEP plot peaked at 5600kPa,
the actual readings from the pressure sensors documented
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 3378

12700kPa and 13200kPa peak overpressures for Blast 2 and tabulated in Table 2.The mode of failure of these three
Blast 3, respectively. It may be argued that these peaks may specimens are attributed to the buckling of the top steel face
be the result of noise but still a higher peak overpressure will plate and Figure 18 shows an example of this response.
be obtained after filtering the data. Furthermore, impulse is a
Table 2. Yield and ultimate points of specimens.
more important for the dynamic response as the panels
responded predominantly to the impulsive regime. The Yield Yield Ultimate Ultimate
response time (see Figure 9, 10 and 11) of the panels is more Specimen Load Deflection Load Deflection
than 10 times the load duration (see Figure 14) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
3.2 Quasi-Static Load Test Result SCSN4 204 10.9 266 68.0
SCSN 142 9.45 194 38.9
Due to the manner in which the specimen panels were loaded, SCSL 147 10.21 163 25.2
all the specimens failed in a flexural manner. Figure 16 and 17 SP 202 6.95 - -
plots the full and partial load-deflection history respectively, SCSH 149 7.30 - -
in which the deflection refers to the midspan displacement and SCSNE 159 11.1 190 59.5
the partial load history is limited to the elastic material phase.
300
SCSN4
250
SCSH
200
Load (kN)

SCSNE
SCSN
150
SCSL
100

50
SP

0
0 50 100 150
Midspan Deflection (mm) Figure 18. Buckling of top face plate that initiated softening.
Figure 16. Plot of load against midspan deflection (full range). Specimen SCSH exhibited similar response as the three
300
specimens which are described in the preceding paragraph.
The specimen yielded at 149kN with a midspan deflection of
250 7.3mm. As the panel hardened, the top plate buckled, which is
SCSN4 not dissimilar to the response shown in Figure 18. However,
SP
200 instead of softening, the specimen continued to harden and
SCSH due to the time constraint of the experiment, the load was
Load (kN)

150 lifted before softening of the panel was initiated.

SCSNE SCSL
100 SCSN Although the load variation with respect to the midspan
deflection of specimen SCSNE is similar to SCSN4, SCSN
50 and SCSL, the failure mode differs slightly. The specimen
yielded at a load of 159kN when the midspan deflection was
0 11.1mm while the ultimate load was 190kN at a
0 5 10 15
corresponding deflection of 59.5mm. At that point, the top
Midspan Deflection (mm) steel plates commence to buckle but, due to the absence of
connectors, the area that exhibited buckling was more
Figure 17. Plot of load against midspan deflection (elastic extensive than the three specimens previously mentioned.
range). Figure 19 illustrates the buckling effect, which was observed
Specimen SP yielded at 6.95mm with a corresponding load of on both sides of the load actuator.
202kN. At yield, the top plate exhibited local buckling which
explains the softening portion of the load history. Upon
further loading, the stiffener and side plate buckled which is
shown by the sharp drop at the end of the softening curve.

Specimens SCSN4, SCSN, SCSL exhibited similar response

when loaded. After the elastic phase, the specimens hardened Figure 19. Buckling of the top face plate of specimen SCSNE
till the specimens attained an ultimate load, after which the on both sides of the load actuator
softening process commenced. The yield and ultimate points
of these specimens together with those of the other three are
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Deductions from Dynamic Load Test
Table 3 compiles the permanent midspan deflections of the six
specimens tested. By comparing the permanent deformations,
extent of damage and the modes of failure of the specimens,
the following conclusions on the blast resistance of the
specimens could be drawn.
Table 3. Comparison of permanent midspan deflections
Specimen Permanent Deflection (mm)
SP 160
SCSN4 27
SCSN 57
SCSNE 31
SCSL 86
SCSH 81
• By comparing SP and SCSN4, the concrete core provided
the SCS sandwich specimen with added mass and rigidity
which help to reduce the effects of local buckling.
Despite possessing bending moment capacity, SCSN4
exhibited much less damage as compared to SP. This
showed that the concrete core is more effective in
enhancing the residual capacity of such panels.
• The performance of J-hook connectors in maintaining the
integrity of SCS sandwich specimens, which responded
flexurally, was found to be satisfactory as little or no
separation was observed between the steel face plates and
the core. SCSL underwent shear response and was an
exception whereby several J-hook connectors debonded
from the steel face plates at the areas of shear failure.
However, it must be noted that the side plates of all the
sandwich specimens appeared to play a significant role in
holding the two steel face plates together throughout the
blast response. This was evident from the deformed shape
of SCSNE which had no connectors and yet little or no
separation was observed between the steel face plates of
this specimen. Since the specimens were scaled, the
influence of the connectors may not be as significant as in
the case of larger wall panels.
• By comparing specimens SCSN4 and SCSN, it was found
that the thickness of the steel face plates significantly
influenced the permanent deformation of the specimens.
By increasing the thickness of the steel face plates by 1
mm, the permanent deflection of the SCS sandwich
specimen was reduced by almost half.
• The damage incurred by specimen SCSN was more
severe than in SCSNE which has the exact specification
sans J-hook connectors. More tests have to be carried out
to investigate and confirm the reasons behind this as it is
contradictory to pretest prediction and design philosophy.
One possible explanation is that there were more points
of stress concentration within the concrete core with J-
hook connectors which may increase crack formation.
• Specimen SCSL had larger deflection and deformed pre-
dominantly in shear. This could be attributed to two
factors: the lower weight and shear strength of the
concrete core. However, it was found that SP also
underwent flexural response despite being lighter. Hence,
it may be deduced that the shear response of specimen
3379
SCSL was due to its lower shear capacity. Since such
shear response would result in the premature buckling of
the steel plates which, in turn, would reduce the capacity
of the wall panel to resist blast loading, the use of LWAC
is thus, not recommended to be use in such sandwich
structures against blast threats.
• The use of HSC may have adverse effects on the SCS
sandwich panels based on the comparison of specimens
SCSN and SCSH, with the latter having a larger midspan
deflection. Hence, such material may not be suitable in
the design of blast resistant structures. This could be
attributed to the constitutive behavior of the HSC which
exhibited a softening gradient which was considerably
steeper than the other two concretes. Consequently, the
HSC may have been shattered as the shock wave
propagates through the core. This process prior to the
global bending response of the specimen might have
rendered the concrete from developing its full ultimate
strength. Thus, further tests are needed to understand the
dynamic response of the HSC.
4.2 Deductions from Quasi-static Load Test
Comparing the load variation and the failure modes of the
specimens under quasi-static loading, the following
deductions were drawn:
• It was clear by comparing specimen SP and the rest of the
specimens that the concrete core contributed to the post
yield hardening behavior of the SCS sandwich panel.
This translates to specimens with a higher energy
absorbent capacity as compared to panels which being
reinforced by steel stiffener plates, even if they are stiffer,
as observed in the current test series.
• Another deduction is that the use of a thicker face plates
will produce an elastically stiffer sandwich panel that
possesses higher yield and ultimate capacities.
• The use of various concrete cores did affect the quasi-
static response of sandwich panels. Although SCSN and
SCSL did not differ in terms of elastic modulus and yield
capacity, the post yield responses were different with
SCSN possessing a higher hardening modulus and
ultimate capacity. This is attributed to the higher strength
of the concrete core. The same can be said by comparing
SCSN and SCSH as the latter displayed a higher ultimate
capacity than the former. In addition to increasing the
elastic modulus of the specimen panel, upon the buckling
of the top face plate, the HSC used allowed the tensile
forces undertaken by the bottom steel plate to be balanced
with the high compressive forces undertaken by the high
compressive strength of the concrete core. This is clearly
exhibited by the extensive plastic phase, as compared to
the rest of the specimens. These deductions show that,
under quasi-static loading, the influence of the concrete
core is not significant in the elastic phase but, beyond
yield, the properties of the concrete play an important
role.
• Similar to the concrete core, the influence of steel J-hook
connectors was only exemplified after yield. Comparing
the post-yield response of specimen SCSN and SCSNE,
the factor allowing SCSN to have a higher ultimate load
but lower ultimate deflection can be attributed to the J-
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
hook connectors. By observing the buckling area, it can
be deduced that the connectors improves the composite
action between the steel and concrete. This allowed
specimen SCSN to have a higher ultimate load. The
reason behind the higher ultimate deflection of specimen
SCSNE could be due to the larger area of buckling.
Therefore, the specimen was able to deflect slightly more
before softening.
4.3 Deductions by Comparison Between Dynamic and
Quasi-static Load Tests
By comparing the deductions drawn from the preceding two
sections, the factors influencing the dynamic and static design
approaches are different. Certain parameters, which may
improve the performance under quasi-static loading, may not
necessarily yield better blast resistance under dynamic loads.
The following are the results by comparing the two
experimental series:
• The concrete core improved both static and dynamic
performance of the sandwich panel specimens. The quasi-
static test showed the lack of post yield response due to
extensive local buckling of the face plates and this was
also clearly demonstrated in the dynamic test as the
specimen lacked any resistance beyond yield to counter
the blast load.
• The thickness of the steel face plates exhibited similar
influence in both static and dynamic responses as, with
increased thickness of these plates, the energy absorbent
capacity of the panel is increased.
• LWC has also shown similar deficiencies under both
loading regimes as compared to the other two concrete
materials.
• The performance of the J-hook connectors did differ in
both test series. Under quasi-static loading, comparing
specimens with and without these connectors, the
differences were marginal. Prior to the test, it was thought
that the J-hook will enhance the blast performance of the
panels as they enhance the composite action between the
steel plates and concrete core. The dynamic test showed
that this approach should be further studied as the
specimen without J-hook connectors had a lower
deflection.
• HSC performed exceptionally well under quasi-static
loading as the test seemed to exhibit a high energy
absorbent capacity by possessing an extensive plastic
hardening phase. This characteristic was not
demonstrated in explosive test as SCSH deformed the
most amongst the SCS sandwich panel specimens.
5 CONCLUSION
Two test series were conducted to characterize the static and
dynamic behavior of six different configurations of SCS
composite sandwich panels. The dynamic test subjected the
panels to blast loading at a scaled distance of 1.077m/kg1/3 and
the panels of the same configurations were loaded in a three-
point quasi-static load test till failure. The influence of the
steel face plates, J-hook connectors and concrete core
materials were investigated. The combined investigation of
the results of both series of experiments showed that:
3380
• The use of concrete core and an increment of the
thickness of the steel face plates improved the both static
and dynamic performance of the sandwich panel
specimens.
• The use of LWC in SCS composite sandwich panel may
subject specimens to shear failure due to the low shear
capacity of the core material.
• The use of J-hook connectors reduced the blast resistance
of the SCS composite sandwich panel but this was not
evident in the quasi-static test as panels with and without
these connectors exhibited similar response.
• HSC may not be appropriate for use in blast design with
the loading similar to the experiment as they did not
perform as well as NSC. This was contrary to the
excellent capacity the material demonstrated in the quasi-
static test.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research described herein was funded by the Defence
Science and Technology Agency and National University of
Singapore. The authors sincerely express their gratitude for
the supports.
REFERENCES
[1] J.Y. Richard Liew and K.M.A. Sohel. Lightweight steel-concrete-steel
sandwich system with J-hook connectors. Engineering Structures,
Volume 31, Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 1166-1178.
[2] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures—Part
1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. BS EN 1994-1-1:2004 .
[3] T.S. Lok, J.R. Xiao, S. Lan and L Heng. Response of SFR concrete
panels to air-blast loading. Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference
on Shock & Impact Loads on Structures, Singapore, 1996.
[4] S. Lan and L. Heng. Composite structural components under blast
loading. Structures under Shock and Impact, 2002, Pages 13-21.
[5] S. Lan, T.S. Lok and L. Heng. Composite structural panels subjected to
explosive loading. Construction and Building Materials, Volume 19,
Issue 5, 2005, Pages 387-395.
[6] H. Bowerman, N. Coyle and J.C. Chapman. An innovative
steel/concrete construction system. The Structural Engineer, Volume 80,
Issue 20, 2002, Pages 33–38.
[7] http://www.corussecurity.com/en/design_and_innovation/blast_protecti
on/
[8] ASTM standard. ASTM E8/E8M-08 Standard Test Methods for Tension
Testing of Metallic Materials.
[9] U.S. Department of the Army. Fundamentals of Protective Design for
Conventional Weapons. Technical Manual 5-855-1, 1986.