1st Specialty Conference on Disaster Mitigation 1re confrence spcialise sur lallgement des dsastres

Calgary, Alberta, Canada May 23-26, 2006 / 23-26 mai 2006

Ductal - An Ultra-High Performance Material for Resistance to Blasts and Impacts

B. Cavill1, M. Rebentrost2 and V. Perry3 1 VSL Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, Australia 2 VSL Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3 Lafarge North America, Calgary, AB, Canada Abstract Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) is a cementitious material consisting of cement, sand, silica fume, silica flour, superplastizer, water and high strength steel fibres. The material was developed by Bouygues, the parent company of VSL, Lafarge and Rhodia and is marketed under the brand name of Ductal. Ductal is almost self-placing, has a compressive strength of 160-200 MPa and a flexural strength of 3040 MPa. It has exceptionally high-energy absorption capacity and resistance to fragmentation, making it ideal for panels and components that need to perform under explosives, impact or shock loads. The flexural toughness is greater than 200 times that of conventional fibre reinforced concrete. In May 2004, the performance of seven panels was evaluated in two large explosive trials performed at Woomera (South Australia). The panels performed remarkably well, exhibiting high levels of ductility and no signs of fragmentation. In further tests, 100mm thick Ductal blast resistant panels have effectively resisted explosions from close charge blasts, projectile impacts from ballistic tests, and impacts caused by blast produced fragments using fragment simulated projectile tests. In June 2005, the first Ductal protective panels manufactured to provide resistance to blast were supplied to the Australian Government and installed on an Australian Government building in a high risk, international location. 1. Properties of Ductal for Design Ductal production in Australia commenced in January 2003. Initially, development and testing of the production mix were undertaken by University of New South Wales (UNSW), and are reported in detail in Gowripilan et al. (2003). Ductal is a family of products with a range of properties, custom formulated for each application or market segment. The properties shown in this paper represent those properties for the particular mix utilized for this application. Table 1 lists the properties of Ductal used in design. Figure 1 shows a typical stress-strain response obtained from a compression test, with 100mm diameter by 200mm long cylinders and the stressdeflection response for a typical four-point flexure test from 100100500mm prisms.

DM-003-1

Table 1. Design properties for Ductal Property Fluidity Compressive strength Flexural Tension: Modulus of Rupture Flexural Tension: First cracking Modulus of Elasticity Shrinkage Density
200
40

Standard ASTM C230 AS 1012.9 AS 1012.11 AS 1012.11 AS 1012.17 AS 1012.13

Heat Treated Ductal Between 190 and 250mm after 20 drops 160 MPa 24 MPa 20 MPa 47 GPa < 500 strain after 56 days 0 after heat treatment 2,450 kg/m3

Bending stress [MPa]

0 3 5 8 10 13

Stress [MPa]

150 100 50 0

30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8

Compression strain [10-3]

Deflection [mm]

Figure 1. Typical force deformation response of Ductal in compression and flexure Heat treatment consists of curing in steam at a temperature of 90C for a period of 48 hours after demoulding. This results in rapid strength gain and substantially reduced creep, and causes almost all the shrinkage to occur during the period of the heat treatment. The strength of heat treated Ductal is 15% greater than non-heat treated, and durability properties are also improved. The use of heat treatment is optional and depends on the application. Table 2 lists the durability properties of Ductal in general compared with high performance concrete, as reported by Roux et al. (1996). The extremely high resistance to the penetration of aggressive agents, due to the absence of capillary porosity, corresponds to excellent durability characteristics. Table 2. Durability Properties (Following Heat Treatment) Durability Indicator Total porosity Microporosity (>10m) Permeability (air) Water absorption Chloride ions diffusion Electrical resistance (excl. fibre) Electrical resistance (incl. fibre) Abrasion resistance coefficient Fatigue, impact and blast resistance Value 2-6% < 1% 2.510-18 m2 < 0.2 kg/m2 0.0210-12 m2/s 1.13103 k.cm 137 k.cm 1.3 Ductal with Metallic Fibres compared with High Performance Concrete 1/4 to 1/5 of HPC 1/10 to 1/30 of HPC 1/50 of HPC 1/50 of HPC 1/50 of HPC 12 to 17 times HPC 1.5 to 2 times HPC 2 to 3 times HPC Far superior to HPC

While the ultra-high strength of Ductal puts it outside the direct provisions of national design standards, design recommendations have been prepared in France (BFUP, AFGC 2002) and Australia (Gilbert et al. 2000), in accordance with the intent of national standards.

DM-003-2

A prestressed beam or slab made from Ductal has between 35-45% of the volume of a conventional prestressed beam or slab. The depth is approximately the same as a conventional prestressed member in order to provide stiffness for deflection control. Flexural strength for large span beams and slabs is achieved through prestressing in combination with the high compressive strength of Ductal. Short span beams and slabs generally need no reinforcement. Shear strength is provided by the tensile strength of Ductal. No additional shear reinforcement is required. The compression stresses, due to the prestressing, add to the material tensile strength to counter the principal tensile stresses. 2. Conventional Uses of Ductal Ductal has been used worldwide to create precast elements from thin (20mm) fascia and sound absorption panels to pedestrian bridges with spans up to 120m and other innovative architectural and structural applications. Details of applications can be found in Behloul and Lee (2002), Cavill and Chirgwin (2004), Acker & Behloul (2004), Cavill and Rebentrost (2005), Rebentrost (2005), Graybeal(2005) and Perry et al (2005).

3. Protective Panels Research & Development Concrete panels (slabs and walls) play an important part in protecting buildings against the extreme loading conditions caused by blast, shock and impact. The high-energy absorption capacity of Ductal was known from static strength tests, however the performance of Ductal elements under severe impulsive loading had not been investigated. The flexural toughness measured as the area under the flexural bending stress-deformation curve (Figure 1) is greater than 200 times that of conventional fibre reinforced concrete. 3.1 Blast Testing at Woomera, May 2004 In a joint project between VSL Australia Pty Ltd and the Advanced Protective Technologies for Engineering Structures (APTES) group at the University of Melbourne, Ductal panels were tested under extreme explosions at blast trials performed at Woomera in South Australia. The Woomera trial in May 2004 consisted of two separate blasts equivalent to six (6) tonnes of TNT. Each detonation consisted of a bare charge of 5 tonnes of the explosive Hexolite. A total of seven panels were tested at 30m, 40m and 50m from the blast. One conventional, reinforced concrete panel was tested at 40m from the blast. Calculated reflective blast pressures were 2000, 800 and 400kPa, respectively, for these distances. The panels had a span of 2m and were 1m wide, with a thickness of 50mm, 75mm and 100mm. Five of the panels contained an identical arrangement of high strength (tensile breaking strength 1840MPa) prestressing strands. The details are confidential. The other two panels were unreinforced. Deflections were recorded on five of the panels using a simple pen on paper apparatus. The other two panels had a laser system installed with the intent of recording the deflection and time history. Unfortunately the system malfunctioned and provided no information. The test data and observations showed that the panels performed remarkably well, displaying high ductility and no signs of fragmentation. The stressed panels were able to absorb substantial energy through their ability to sustain considerable deflection up to span/28 without fracture. The fact that the Ductal panels displayed no fragmentation in any of the tests, even at fracture, is a major advantage compared to conventional concrete. Fragmentation poses great danger to both people and infrastructure. Table 3 lists the main observations from the tests.

DM-003-3

Table 3. Main observations, Woomera blast trial PANEL TYPE Stressed 100mm Stand-off Distance 30m Recorded Deflection 50mm in 37mm out 0mm Laser No record 0mm 72mm in 55mm out 18mm in Laser No record 0mm >300mm >300mm 280mm >300mm Main observations Virtually undamaged, no permanent deflection. Several vertical hairline cracks in front face of 0.1 to 0.2mm width. No fragmentation. Basically undamaged, no permanent deflection, No fragmentation. Intact, cracked with small permanent deflection, no fragmentation. Intact, shallow crack, no permanent deflection, no fragmentation. Fractured, no fragmentation Fractured, no fragmentation Fractured, no fragmentation Fractured, severe damage, fragmentation from back face

Stressed 100mm Stressed 75mm Stressed 50mm Unreinforced 50mm Stressed 75mm Unreinforced 100mm Reinforced conventional concrete (40MPa) 100mm

40m 40m 50m 50m 30m 40m 40m

The series of photos in Figures 2and 3 show; a typical 2 1m panel being installed into a concrete test frame; the test panels before a blast; one of the two blasts; the crater caused by a blast and two of the panels after being subjected to extreme blast loading.

Installing panels into concrete frames

Panels ready for blast

Blast, equivalent to 6t of TNT

Crater (17m dia) caused by the blast

Figure 2. Protective panel tests, Woomera blast trial

DM-003-4

100mm panel at R=30m after the blast; undamaged

50mm panel at R=50m after the blast, shallow crack, no spalling or fragmentation

Figure 3. Protective panel tests, Woomera blast trial The 100mm thick stressed panel at 30m after the blast is shown in Figure 4 bottom left. The panel had deflected inwards 50mm, then outwards 37mm and come to rest with no permanent deflection. The blast resulted in an average reflected impulse at the panel surface of 3771 kPa.msec with a peak reflected pressure of 1513 kPa. The panel was basically undamaged. The 50mm thick stressed panel at 50m after the blast, also shown in Figure 4 (bottom right), withstood significant deflection and had no permanent deflection. The panel was basically intact, and had a shallow crack on the front face. The results of the blast trials demonstrated the suitability of Ductal for blast resistance and confirmed the design methods. 3.2 Constitutive Model for Ductal at High Loading Rates The response of concrete to very high strain rates needs to be known in order to properly design structures subjected to blast or impact effects. At high strain rates, the strength of concrete can increase significantly. The response for Ductal was determined by a series of impact tests carried out using the Split Hopkinson Pressure bar (SHPB) setup on large-diameter test cylinders. A range of loading rates and pressures were used. Figure 4 shows the stress-strain curves at different strain rates of 50mm diameter Ductal cylinders. It can be seen that the compressive strength increases up to 1.5 times at the strain rate of about 267.4/sec. This corresponds to a strength Dynamic Increase Factor of 1.5. Table 4 summarises the test results of 3 RPC specimens. It was found that RPC is less rate sensitive compared to both NSC and HSC (Ngo 2005).
250

RPC-3
200

150

RPC-1 RPC-2

Stress (MPa)

100

Static

50

0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02

Strain

Figure 4. Stress-strain curves of RPC (Ductal) at different strain-rates

DM-003-5

Table 4. Dynamic Compressive Strength of RPC (Ductal) Concrete Specimen Static Test RPC-1 RPC-2 RPC-3 Impact Velocity 11.6 m/s 16 m/s 20 m/s Average Strain Rate (1/sec) 80.7 187.3 267.4 Ultimate Strength 159.8 MPa 187.2 MPa 226.1 MPa 240.9 MPa Dynamic Increase Factor 1.17 1.41 1.5

Based on the results of the experimental program using the Hopkinson Bar apparatus and through a rigorous calibration process, a new strain-rate dependent constitutive model has been proposed by the APTES group at the University of Melbourne for concrete under dynamic load. The model can take into account the strain-rate effect by incorporating multiplying factors for increases in the peak stress and strain at peak strength. This model is applicable to concrete strengths varying from 32 MPa to 160MPa with a strain rate up to 300 s-1. A detailed report is given in Ngo, et al. (2005). 3.3 Fragment Impact Simulation Tests On June 9, 2005, two 100mm thick Ductal blast resistant panel pieces were subjected to fragment simulated projectile (FSP) loading. Tests were carried out at a NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) approved projectile testing lab in Melbourne, Australia. Test pieces were sourced from the production of high-performance blast resistant Ductal panels. The pieces had a thickness of 100mm and were reinforced with high strength steel (tensile breaking strength 1840MPa) prestressing strands. Details of the strands are confidential. The test pieces were cut from a single larger panel. In accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZ 2343 (1997) for Bullet Resistant Panels and Elements, all test pieces had a plan dimension of 420 x 420mm. During production of the project panels, Ductal cylinders and prism were tested and strength results of approximately 170 MPa in compression and 30 MPa in tension (flexural) recorded. Testing procedure followed AS/NZ 2343 and consisted of firing projectiles at the target piece with an intended speed. Each test piece was mounted in a frame and a witness (paper) card was placed behind it to record fragmentation impacts. The test was considered to be passed if no fragment penetrated through the witness paper; see Figure 5.

Figure 5. Testing frame and 420 x 420 x 100mm Ductal panel ready for test

DM-003-6

Two types of steel projectiles were used: 50 caliber (13mm diameter) and 20mm diameter. The projectiles were fired at the test panels with different target speeds. Figure 6 shows the projectiles.

13mm dia

20mm dia

Figure 6. 50 caliber and 20mm FSP, before and after impact The tests were the first of their type to be undertaken using Ductal high performance blast protection panels. The results of these simulated fragment projectile tests show that a specifically designed 100mm thick Ductal blast resistant panel will resist the impact of a 50 caliber FSP at 1164m/s and 20mm FSP at 821 m/s without fragmentation on the non-impact side. Figure 7 shows the test pieces after impact and test observations are summarized in Table 5.

Panel 1after impacts from 50 caliber FSP at 715 Panel 2 after impact from 20mm FSP at 821 m/s. m/s and 1164 m/s. (crater depth is 25mm) Figure 7. Test pieces after impact Table 5. FSP tests observations Panel 1 50 Caliber FSP at 715 m/s Panel 1 50 Caliber FSP at 1164 m/s Panel 2 20mm FSP at 821 m/s FSP did not cause spalling of the panel on the non-impact face No micro cracking observed behind impact Panel passed impact test successfully (witness paper undamaged) FSP did not cause spalling of the panel on the non-impact face Micro cracking observed behind impact Impact crater larger diameter and depth than in shot 1 Panel passed impact test successfully (witness paper undamaged) FSP did not cause spalling of the panel on the non-impact face Cracking observed behind impact but no spalling Panel passed impact test successfully (witness paper undamaged)

In comparison with standard mortar fragments, the results compare favourably with impact data for 81mm mortar, general purpose (GP) and US 4.2 inch mortar fragments. The impact energy of the projectiles that caused no spalling on the non-impact face and repelled the fragment (20mm at 821m/s), are at least a magnitude of almost two greater than the impact energy data for the mortars. DM-003-7

3.4 Close Charge Tests In July 2005, two Ductal panels (panels 1 & 2) were tested with close charges of the plastic explosive C4at a laboratory in England. In November 2005, one Ductal (panel 3) and one conventional reinforced concrete panel (panel 4) were subjected to close charges of composition B. The tests were performed by a laboratory in Australia. The panels were manufactured at the VSL Ductal factory in Melbourne. The panels were reinforced with high strength steel strands with the same arrangement as used in the FSP tests. The reinforced concrete panel 4 was designed to have a similar static flexural capacity to the Ductal panel 3. Table 7. Panel details for close Charge Tests Panel 1 2 3 4 Dimensions m 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.1 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.15 1.3 x 1.0 x 0.1 1.3 x 1.0 x 0.1 Material Ductal Ductal Ductal Concrete 50MPa Reinforcement High strength steel strands High strength steel strands High strength steel strands N20 at 75mm back face N20 at 150mm front face Explosive 3kg C-4 5kg C-4 0.5kg Comp B 0.5kg Comp B Stand-off 1.0m 0.5m 0.1m 0.1m

The three panels (1, 2 and 3) performed very well under the very severe loading. Panels 1 and 2 had only minor hairline cracks appearing on the back face. Photos and observations of panels 3 and 4 are shown in Figure 8.

Panel 3 (Ductal) front surface after explosion No cracks

Panel 4 (conventional reinforced concrete) front surface after explosion - Slight cracks

Panel 3 rear surface after explosion - Very slight scabbing at the surface of the panel. - Minor cracks through the panel. - Structurally undamaged.

Panel 4 rear surface after explosion - Heavy scabbing, reinforcing bars exposed. - Cavity approximately 480 mm x 300 mm, with a maximum depth of 50 mm (1/2 section depth).

Figure 8. Test panels 3 and 4 after close charge explosion

DM-003-8

3.5 Ballistic Tests In September 2005, three 100mm thick panels were tested at a NATA registered laboratory in Melbourne, for resistance to attack by NATO standard 7.62/9.3g full metal case bullets at 850m/s. All panels were reinforced with high strength steel strands with the same arrangement as used in the FSP tests. The tests were performed in accordance with AS/NZS 2343. All panels passed the test, with no fragments being dislodged from the back face or penetrating the witness paper, and achieved an R2 ballistic rating. Figure 9 shows the panels following the test.

Figure 9. Two test specimen after three impacts from 7.62mm full metal case bullet at 850m/s

4. Protective Panel Project Example Panels for the first structure to utilize Ductal to provide resistance to blasts were manufactured in March/April 2005 at the VSL plant in Melbourne. The client was the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Australian Government. The panels are part of a blast protection system designed by VSL Australia and APTES. The panels are up to 4.5m long x 2.0m wide x 100mm thick. They are being used to provide blast resistance to an existing building in a high risk international location. The panels were installed on site in July. Photos of the panels prior to shipment from the VSL factory and as installed on site are shown in Figure 10. Project specifics have been classified.

Installed Panel system. Precast Ductal blast resistant panels in storage. Figure 10. Ductal protective panels with 100mm thickness

DM-003-9

5. Concluding Remarks Large scale blast tests, close charge blast tests, fragment simulation tests, and ballistic tests have confirmed that panels made with Ductal are an effective solution for blast and impact resistance. Panels can be much thinner than those made from conventional concrete, and the risk of injury or damage caused by concrete fragments is virtually eliminated.

6. References Acker, P and Behloul, M (2004). Ductal Technology: A Large Spectrum of Properties, A Large Range of Applications, International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Concretes, Kassel, Germany, Sept 2004. Australian Standard for Bullet Resistant Panels and Elements AS/NZS 2343. 1997, Australia. Australian Standard for Testing Concrete AS 1012-1 to 13. Various dates, Australia. BFUP, AFGC, Ultra-High Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concretes, Interim Recommendations, AFGC publication, France, 2002. Behloul, M. and Lee, K. (2002). Innovative Footbridge in Seoul Seonyu Footbridge, First FIB Congress, Osaka, Japan, October 2002 Cavill, B. and Chirgwin, G. (2004). The Worlds First RPC (Ductal) Road Bridge at Shepherds Creek, NSW, Austroads 5th Bridge Conference, Hobart, May 2004. Cavill, B. and Rebentrost, M. (2005). Ductal An Ultra-High Performance Material for Innovative Structures and Resistance to Hazardous Environments, Australian Structural Engineering Conference 2005, Newcastle NSW, September 2005. Gilbert, I., Gowripalan, N. and Cavill, B. (2000). On the Design of Precast, Prestressed Reactive Powder Concrete (Ductal) Girders, Austroads 4th Bridge Conference, Adelaide, November 2000. Gowripalan, N., Watters, R., Gilbert, I. and Cavill, B. (2003). Reactive Powder Concrete (Ductal) for Precast Structural Concrete Research and Development in Australia, 21st Biennial Conference of the CIA, Brisbane, July 2003. Graybeal, B.(2004). Fabrication of an Optimized UHPC Bridge, 2004 PCI National Bridge Conference, USA. Ngo, T., Mendis, P., Lam, N. and Cavill, B. (2005). Performance of Ultra-High Strength Concrete Panels subjected to Blast Loading, The 2005 Science, Engineering and Technology Summit, Canberra, July 2005 Ngo, T. (2005). Behaviour of High Strength Concrete subjected to Impulsive Loading, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil & Env. Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia, 2005 Perry, V., Zakariasen, D., Chow, T., Vincenzino, E.,and Culham, G. (2005), First Use of UHPFRC in Thin Precast Concrete Roof Shell for Canadian LRT Station, PCI Journal, October 2005, USA. Rebentrost, M. (2005). Design and Construction of the First Ductal Bridge in New Zealand, 22nd Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute of Australia, October 2005, Melbourne. Roux, N., Andrade, C. and Sanjuan, M.A. (1996). Experimental Study of Durability of Reactive Powder Concretes, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Feb 1996.

DM-003-10