Journal Pre-proof

Experimental investigation on the effect of impact loading on behavior of post-

tensioned concrete slabs

Youmn Al Rawi, Yehia Temsah, Oussama Baalbaki, Ali Jahami, Mohamad Darwich

PII: S2352-7102(19)31935-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101207
Reference: JOBE 101207

To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering

Received Date: 18 September 2019

Revised Date: 17 January 2020
Accepted Date: 18 January 2020

Please cite this article as: Y. Al Rawi, Y. Temsah, O. Baalbaki, A. Jahami, M. Darwich, Experimental
investigation on the effect of impact loading on behavior of post- tensioned concrete slabs, Journal of
Building Engineering (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101207.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Youmn Al Rawi Visualization , Formal Analysis, Writing- Original draft preparation, Writing-
Reviewing and Editing Yehia Temsah Conceptualization, Supervision Oussama
Baalbaki Validation, Resources Ali Jahami Investigation, Methodology Mohamad
Darwich Software, Data Curing
 Experimental Investigation on the Effect of
Impact Loading on Behavior of Post-
Tensioned Concrete Slabs
Youmn Al Rawi#1, Yehia Temsah #2, Oussama Baalbaki #3 Ali Jahami #2, Mohamad Darwich *5
#
Civil Engineering Department, Beirut Arab University
Dibbieh BAU Campus Lebanon
1
youmn.alrawi@gmail.com
2
ytemsah@bau.edu.lb
3
obaalbaki@bau.edu.lb
4
ahjahamy@hotmail.com
*
Mechanical Engineering Department, Beirut Arab University
Dibbieh BAU Campus Lebanon
5
m.darwich@bau.edu.lb

Abstract—Impact resistance of structures has become an essential part of construction projects, especially
in mountain zones due to the prominent hazard of falling rocks. Some environmental changes, such as
deforestation and modifications in landslides, have increased the danger to civil structures and pose a serious
threat to the infrastructure and human life. The effect of impact due to landslide falling rocks on reinforced
concrete (RC) slabs has been investigated by many researchers, while very few studied the effect of impact
loading on pre-stressed structures. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the behavior of post-
tensioned (PT) slabs under impact load. A comparison was made with a traditional (RC) slab having a similar
moment capacity. The RC slab was a flat slab with a thickness of 320mm, while the other two slabs were PT
with a thickness of 250mm. The slabs were subjected to an impact load of 605Kg dropped freely from 20m.
The load was dropped at the center of gravity for the RC and PT1 slabs. On the other hand, the load was
dropped at mid-span of the free edge of the second post-tensioned slab PT2. The tests showed the behavior of
the PT slabs under dynamic impact load due to the free falling block, and their different behavior from the
RC slab, by comparing displacements, impact force, cracks, and damage type. Also, the results displayed the
effect of impact location on the response of PT slabs through analyzing PT1 and PT2 results.

Keyword- Post-tension, Reinforced concrete, Impact load, Concrete damages, Cracks, Nonlinear behavior,
Punching failure

I. INTRODUCTION
Post-tensioning technique is widely used in many structural elements such as slabs, beams, bridges’ decks and
others. The use of post-tensioned (PT) slabs in structures was proven to have many advantages, such as construction
of large spans, speeding the erection of structures, and reduction of self-weight due to decrease in slab thickness
compared to reinforced concrete slabs (RC). These advantages encouraged engineers to use PT slabs in various
structures and raised researchers’ interest to build a profound understanding to these slabs’ behavior under static and
dynamic loads.

In the last few years, researchers focused their studies on the response of different types of slabs (RC and PT)
under dynamic loads, especially impact loads. The falling rocks hazard’s impact on structures became of a major
importance because of the population growth in the mountain regions, and because of the global environmental
changes. These latter affect civil structures, posing a serious threat to the infrastructure and human life, especially

1
when these structures are not specifically designed to resist impact dangers [1]. Therefore, structures’ impact
resistance is of great investigatory importance to avoid disasters and decrease damage [2].
Numerous researches have been conducted, experimentally and numerically, on the behavior of reinforced
concrete and pre-stressed structures when subjected to impact loads. Reference [3] studied the impact load effect on
reinforced concrete road sheds, both experimentally and numerically. The considered reinforced concrete sample
was 12mx4.4mx0.28m, simply supported over two lines of 11 steel cylinders. The concrete compressive strength
was 32.5MPa and the reinforcement yield strength was 500MPa. The samples were subjected to an impact load from
450Kg reinforced concrete cube. Three impacts were carried out, two of them were from a height of 15m and one
from 30m. The numerical modelling results using ABAQUS proved to be in accordance with the experimental
measurements, where the deflection values measured in the three impacts were approximately equal to the
calculated ones. The results showed that the modelling technique used simulated results so close to the experimental
ones.
Reference [4] carried out six tests on RC slabs and compared the effect of transverse reinforcement or pre-
stressing in resisting a missile’s impact. It was concluded that for the same thickness both the transverse
reinforcement and the pre-stressing decrease the slab deflection. Yet, pre-stressing tends to decrease the scabbing
area and the punching cone angle.
Reference [5] tested two pre-stressed slabs of 0.8mx0.8mx0.1m with a drop hammer of 242.8Kg mass at 0.5m.
The slabs were identical except for the pre-stressing force applied on the initial stressing. The results showed that the
increase in the initial stressing force reduced the deflection under impact but increased the impact force.
Reference [6] investigated the impact of missiles having different velocities 100m/s, 150m/s and 200m/s hitting at
the center of 1.2mx1.2m RC slabs with different thicknesses varying from 60mm to 240mm. The impact effects
were categorized as local and global. Local behavior was accompanied by the damage produced at the impact zone,
whereas global behavior referred to the overall slab’s destruction when stress waves propagated away from the
contact area and towards the supports. The study concluded that the damage in concrete is directly proportional to
the increase in the impact velocity.
Reference [7] investigated a pre-stressed slab of 3mx1mx0.15m with a manhole under a 5m-tall impact load,
numerically at the slab’s center of gravity. Three man-hole locations were considered at the center, on the free edge
and at the edge close to the support. In addition, three manhole sizes were taken 500mmx500mm,
555.556mmx450mm and 625mmx400mm. The results exhibited that the best location within the manhole should be
at the edge close to the support with an optimum size of 500mmx500mm. The main reason for the edge position to
be the optimum one was that, in this case, the pre-stress energy was entirely used up by the impactor with a more
central cross-section. Moreover, in the case of the hole next to the support, a major part of the energy was
transported to the latter rather than being absorbed by the concrete near the hole.
References [8],[9],[10] and [11] had numerically studied the effect of blast loads on reinforced concrete beams.
The studies showed that blast loads caused local damage in the studied beams, and a spalling phenomenon was
realized especially in the tensile zone. A single degree of freedom analysis was conducted to confirm the numerical
analysis results, and the damage curves for the studied beams were plotted for different damage levels. The results
of the blast phenomenon were similar to those of the falling load impact.
Reference [12] conducted a study on RC beams which were subjected to impact loads from free falling objects.
The study revealed the same damage pattern caused by blast loads which were studied by [10].
Other researchers investigated numerically the impact loads’ effect on RC and PT slabs [13], [14], [15] and [16].
A similar localized damage was witnessed in the studied samples; but in these cases, the localized damage recorded
was due to punching shear.
The current study intended to extend the understanding of the pre-stressed slabs’ behavior, when subjected to
low-velocity impacts. Another objective of this study was to compare the behavior of pre-stressed slabs with the
behavior of reinforced concrete slabs when exposed to the impact load effect at the slabs’ center of gravity. Another
comparison was made between two PT slabs (PT1 and PT2), where PT1’s impact position was at the slab’s center of
gravity, while PT2’s impact position was at the slab’s free edge’s mid-span. Large scale slabs were casted in the
field to get more realistic experiment results. The experimental study involved testing of one RC slab and two PT
slabs (PT1 and PT2) under the same impact load. The following section includes the testing details for both types of
slabs and presents the results of the accomplished tests.

2
 II. METHODOLOGY
A. Experimental Work Setup:
The tested specimens consisted of one RC slab and two PT slabs (PT1/PT2), all having the same planar size of
3000 mm x 6600mm, with a thickness of 320 mm for the RC slab and 250mm for the two PT slabs. The three slabs
had the same moment capacity under static load. The concrete mix proportion was 1:1.74:1.68 (C: FA: CA) giving a
30MPa concrete compressive strength. The water-cement ratio used was of 0.35. The final strength reached
32.5MPa after 28 days. High yield strength deformed bars of 420MPa yielding strength were used. The three
specimens were simply supported as shown in Figure 1 (1a and 1b) for the planar view and the cross sections.

Figure 1a. Planar Dimensions of the Tested Slabs with Cylindrical Steel Supports (mm)

Figure 1b. Cross Sections of the Tested Slabs with Cylindrical Steel Supports (mm)

Figure 1. Planar Dimensions and Cross Sections of the Tested Slabs with Cylindrical Steel Supports (mm)

Design Calculation and Reinforcement:

The slabs’ thickness and reinforcement calculation were performed based on the above dimensions and
according to [17].

Each specimen’s moment equivalent capacity was calculated using the following formulae:

● RC Slab: (1)

.
1 1 (2)
.

Where “Mn” is the nominal moment, “Rn” is the strength coefficient of resistance, “As” is the area of steel,

“a” is the depth of equivalent rectangular stress block, “b” = length of strip of the slab (1000mm),

3
 “d” = effective depth, “f’c”= compressive strength of concrete
%
● PT Slab: !" #"! $ & (3)
' $ !" ∗ #"! ) !" ∗ #* &/$0.85 ∗ #/0 ∗ & (4)

3
#"! #"1 2 1 4 "
46
) $7 70 & 8 (5)
5 4

Where “fps”is the stress in the pre-stressed reinforcement at nominal strength, “fpu” is specified tensile strength of
pre-stressing tendons, “dp” distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the pre-stressed
reinforcement but not less than 80% of the overall slab’s thickness, “ɣp” is a factor based on the criteria (fpy= 0.80fpu
for high strength pre-stressing bars, 0.85 for stress-relieved strands, and 0.90 for low-relaxation strands), “ω” = ρ
(fy/f’c) = reinforcement index, “ω’ ”= ρ’ (fy/f’c) = reinforcement index for compression non-pre-stressed
reinforcement
From the above formulae, the moment capacity value of the three specimen under study was calculated.
According to the abovementioned formulae and the reinforcement described below, the moment capacity of
PT slabs was 63% of that of the RC slab. This percentage was taken into consideration while adjusting the
readings and analyzing them as well, in order to attain analysis based on equal moment capacity. The
specimens’ reinforcement is then found to be as follows:

● RC slab: Reinforcement consisted of rebar 14mm diameter in the main bottom direction spaced 150mm
from center to center and rebar 10mm diameter spaced 250mm from center to center at the secondary
bottom direction. Rebar 10mm diameter spaced 250mm from center to center in both top directions.
● PT slabs (PT1 and PT2): Reinforcement consisted of 6 tendons (7 wire strand) with a cross-sectional area
of 99mm2 spaced 0.42m o.c.(on center). The tendons were placed using the parabolic profile. These
tendons were post-tensioned by stress in the wires with a hydraulic jack after casting the concrete slabs to
reach a stress equal to 1440MPa. In addition to the tendons, the post-tension slabs (PT1 and PT2) had a
rebar of 10mm diameter spaced at 250mm from center to center in both top and bottom directions. Both
slabs were identical except for the impact load location. The impact load for PT1 was at the center of
gravity for PT1 slab while it was at 750mm from the slab edge’s mid-span for PT2.Figure 2 (2a, 2b, and 2c)
shows the tendons’ layout for the PT slabs and the reinforcements for each of the three slabs.
The slabs were supported simply on hollow steel cylinders of a 100mm diameter and a 3mm thickness as
shown in Figure 3. Each of these cylinders was screwed by 4 bolts to IPE400 steel beam where all this
system was dowelled to a reinforced concrete block as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 2a. PT Slab Plan View-Tendon Distribution (mm)

4
 Figure 2b. PT Slab Reinforcement Detailed - Longitudinal Cross Section (mm)

Figure 2c. RC Slab Reinforcement Detailed - Longitudinal Cross Section (mm)

Figure 2. Tendons Planar Distribution and Parabolic Profile and Configuration of Steel Reinforcement for RC, PT1 and PT2 Slabs (mm)

Figure 3. Cylindrical Supports (mm)

Figure 4. Support System (mm)

5
 Impact tests were performed using a 605Kg concrete cube (600mmx600mmx600mm). The block was
reinforced using four bars of a diameter of 16mm at each side in both directions and encased with a steel plates,
Figure 5. The impact load was dropped from a 20 m height. The bottom face of the block was chamfered 50mm
from each side to end up with a clear dimension of 500mmx500mm at the bottom face.

Figure 5. Impact Block of a 605Kg Mass

B. Impact Test System:

The RC and PT slabs were mounted by four electronic accelerometer sensors which were fixed at locations shown in
Figure 6. These sensors were attached to a data acquisition system to register readings during the impact. The RC
slab, as well as PT1 slab, had the impact point exactly at the center of gravity; while PT2 slab had the impact point
at 750mm from the mid-span of its free edge. The choice of accelerometers’ locations excluded the impacted area.
The expected damages within the impacted area, due to the impact, would generate nonrealistic readings. The
measurement of displacements, at the impact location, were obtained from a simple system that consisted of steel
dowels partially embedded in paste with a steel, Figure 7. Prior to each drop, the steel dowels were positioned at the
slabs soffit. The slab displacement due to the impact was obtained from the additional embedment of the steel
dowels into the paste.

Figure 6. Accelerometers’ Locations (mm)

6
 Choosing the right sensor for this type of experiments is very important. The traditional displacement
sensors can be separated into two types: contact and non-contact sensors. Both types must be placed at the bottom of
the slabs to detect the displacement. The impacted slab, with this amount of load (605Kg), might cause a severe
damage at the bottom surface resulting in scattering of slab parts which may damage the sensors; and thus the
recorded data could be lost. Many sensors can be used to detect the force, but they will not resist the impact force.
Many sensors can be used to detect the force, but they will not resist the impact force. Many researchers had used
piezoelectric accelerometer sensors to detect and to derive the displacement with respect to time [18] and [19].

Figure 7. Can with embedded steel dowels

Each accelerometer can record up to 500 g of load, with a sensitivity of 10mV/g, a frequency range
between 10000 Hz and 15000Hz and a resonant frequency greater than 50KHz [20]. The data acquisition system
used in this experiment, shown in Figure 8, was composed of National Instrument CompactDAQ (cDAQ-9178 with
eight channels [21]) and a measurement card (NI 9234 [22]).

Figure 8. Data acquisition system used in this experiment

C. Testing Method:

In order to hold the load in position before setting it free a heavy crane was used. It raised the load (605Kg)
and a topographical system defined the load’s exact height (20m) and confirmed its verticality. The generated
accelerations with respect to time were recorded and the data was saved through the data acquisition system. Then
these values were used to derive the displacements and impact force, as shown in the following section. The
specimen response to the impacts such as damage extent, damage type, crack types and propagations were registered
after each impact using a 50.3-megapixel camera, and results were then analyzed. The test setup with all
experimental components is shown in Figure 9 below.

7
 Figure 9. Test setup with all experimental components

III. RESULTS

A. Displacement:
The slabs’ displacements were deduced from the measurement of the accelerometers distributed at the slabs as
described previously. The acceleration with respect to time was recorded then the results were double integrated in
order to get the displacement with respect to time [23]. The equations used to derive the displacement are as follow:

9$:& ; '$:& : (6)

<$:& ; 9$:& : (7)

Where “a” is the acceleration, “V” is the velocity and “D” is the displacement of the slab.

The above double integration was calculated using Labview© code. This code was developed to acquire the
accelerometer data and then integrated it using a pre-defined block. The Labview block can double integrate the data
to directly get the displacement as shown in Figure 10. Then the displacement versus time curves of RC, PT1 and
PT2 slabs were plotted, Figures (11, 12 and 13).

8
 Figure 10. Labview© code solving

Figure 11. Displacement (mm) of the RC slab with respect to time (sec) after impact at its center of gravity

9
 Figure 12. Displacement (mm) of the PT1 slab with respect to time (sec) after impact at its center of gravity

Figure 13. Displacement (mm) of the PT2 slab with respect to time (sec) after impact at 750mm from its edge

During the analysis, the RC slab results were adjusted by a factor of 63% in order to attain equivalent
moment capacity to PT slabs since, as previously mentioned, Mn [PT] = 0.63 Mn [RC]. So, all the generated results
from the accelerometers above for the RC slab were then adapted to account for this factor.

After applying the above adjustment to the readings, the RC slab showed higher maximum deflection than
the PT1 slab where the deflections at the impact instance were 46.48 and 40.45mm respectively at ACC0. This can
be explained due to the lack of cracks in PT1 and the post stress which gave the concrete higher stiffness, despite the
difference in thickness with the RC slab. The comparison between the maximum deflection at each accelerometer
for both RC and PT1 slabs are shown in Figure 14.

10
 Figure 14. Maximum Displacement (mm): A comparison between the RC and PT1 slabs after impact at each accelerometer

The sensors closest to be located at the same position for both slabs were ACC1 for PT1 and ACC2 for PT2.
As table 1 shows, a higher displacement was observed in PT2 compared to PT1 when comparing the displacement
due to ACC2 for PT2 slab (38.13mm) and that due to ACC1 for PT1 (36.97mm). The comparison between the
maximum deflection at each accelerometer for both PT1 and PT2 slabs is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Maximum Displacement (mm): A comparison between the PT1 and PT2 slabs after impact at each accelerometer

Table I showed a summary of all the aforementioned maximum displacements with the exact value given by
each accelerometer for each of the three specimen.
Table I:
Maximum Displacement Comparison between the RC, PT1 and PT2 slabs after impact

MAX DISP
ACC0
MAX DISP MAX DISP MAX DISP
Slab (mm) ACC1 (mm) ACC2 (mm) ACC3(mm)

RC 46.48 32.92 36.21 11.64

PT1 40.45 36.97 33.74 21.57

PT2 35.36 34.080 38.13 27.76

11
 The above mentioned curves of displacement with respect to time for each specimen showed a damping
phenomenon. The precise estimate of damping prepares a method to employ this damping to characterize damage in
structures. Several researchers had established the significant potential of damping in acting as a practical damage
signature [24].

In order to calculate the damping ratio for each slab, the curve of maximum cycles from the displacement – time
curves shown in Figures 11, 12 and 13 was plotted. The exponential trend curve which best matches the maximum
cycle displacement curve was generated. The trend curve is called the decaying curve and has a formula type:

= > ?@ A:
(8)

Where “y” is the displacement, “A” is a constant, “wn”is the natural frequency and is presented by 2Л/Tn, where Tn
is the period of vibration, "A" is the damping ratio, and “t” is the time [25].

The decaying curves for (ACC0 and ACC2) were used for the slabs (RC and PT1) to get the damping ratio "A" for
each slab. Similarly, the decaying curves for and (ACC0 and ACC3) were used for slab PT2 in order to find its
damping ratio "A" as shown through Figures 16 to 21.

Figure 16. Decaying Function for RC slab (ACC0)

Figure 17. Decaying Function for RC slab (ACC2)

12
The damping ratio A was calculated for the RC slab and it was found to be 0.137 for ACC0 and 0.136 for ACC2.
The same analysis was done for PT1 and PT2 slabs. The damping ratio was calculated for PT1 slab and it was found
to be 0.0931 for ACC0 and 0.0834 for ACC2. The damping ratio was calculated for PT2 slab and it was found to be
0.0979 for ACC0 and 0.0827 for ACC3.

Figure 18. Decaying Function for PT1 slab (ACC0)

Figure 19. Decaying Function for PT1 slab (ACC2)

Figure 20. Decaying Function for PT2 slab (ACC0)

13
 Figure 21. Decaying Function for PT2 slab (ACC3)

Thus, the previous results showed that the RC slab had significantly a higher damping ratio than the post-
tensioned slabs. This phenomenon could be explained by the fact that micro-cracking along the length of the slab
caused friction within solid concrete. This friction could increase the damping ratio. In the post-tensioned slabs,
micro-cracks were effectively closed up by the post-load, so that the friction motion was reduced, resulting in a
lower damping ratio. This phenomenon could not occur in the unstressed slab.

B. Impact Force:
The impact history had shown a high force magnitude peak directly at the instant contact between the load and
the slab, followed by few small values due to the drop load bouncing after hitting the slabs. The first impact’s
magnitude was more severe compared to the other succeeding values. The load value reported a sudden increase
followed by a sudden decrease just after the impact. That was primarily due to the slabs’ inertia and the drop load;
finally followed by some low magnitude force acting over a relatively long duration. The maximum displacement
were recorded from the above explained method which was used to deduce the average impact force. The formulae
used to compute the average impact force are given below. Then the values of the impact force for each slab are
displayed in Table 2, as well as the ratio between the impact force and maximum displacement.
M
IJKL
C%DE . =FGH OPQ'R: S@>TU= $PUℎ& (9)
N

W
Where “Favg” is the average Impact force, “K” is the shear stiffness = (where A = critical parameter x thickness, L
X
= distance between support and the impact point), “m” = 605 Kg, “h” = 20m.
Table II.

Maximum Displacement at Impact Point (mm), Average Impact Force (KN) and Ration between impact force and max displacement (KN/mm)

Ratio Between Impact Force and Max

Displacement
Impact Load Maximum Displacement under Impact Impact Force
Slab (Kg) Point (mm) (KN) (KN/mm)

RC 605 58.095 2052 35.32

PT1 605 50.562 2367 46.81

PT2 605 62.515 1907 30.50

14
 Table II above shows that the generated impact force for the PT1 slab was higher than the RC and PT2 with a
value of 2367KN. That is as previously clarified due to the stiffness attained by PT1 slab’s concrete, since it had no
cracks before the impact and it was post loaded. This can explain the generation of a higher impact force especially
at the slabs’ center of gravity due to the slab’s resistance to this impact. So, PT1 slab was able to support impact
force higher by 15.29% than that of the RC slab before failure.

Furthermore, from the other side, PT1 was able to sustain an impact force which is 24.12% higher than that of
PT2 before failure. This is due to the modification in the position of the impact load. PT slabs showed that at the
center of gravity the slabs had better resistance to impact rather at the free edge.

The ratio between the impact force and the maximum displacement shows that PT1 slab’s ratio is 32.53%
higher than that of the RC slab. This is another indicator about how much was the ability of the PT1 slab to resist the
impact load than the RC slab. However, the results show that PT1’s ratio is higher by 53.47% than that of PT2 slab.
This shows the higher ability to resist the impact load at mid-span than the free edge for the same post-tensioned
slab.

C. Damage and Cracks:

Damage and crack patterns that occurred on the slabs were documented with the help of a camera. The
damage observed is presented in Figure 22, 23, and 24 below for the three slabs. In addition to the camera photos,
manual drawings were done for the damaged zones, represented by the hatched zones, and crack patterns at the
bottom face of each specimen, represented by the curved lines. The total damaged areas were calculated and
provided in table III as scabbing areas for each of the specimen.

The figures below show that the RC slab showed local damage at the bottom under the impact load; while PT1
showed multiple damaged zones under the same impact load. PT2 showed damage that propagated to the slab’s
center of gravity, which was totally different than PT1.

Figure 22. Damage in RC slab due to Impact Load

15
Figure 23. Damage in PT1 slab due to Impact Load

Figure 24. Damage in PT2 slab due to Impact Load

16
 The scabbing areas on the slabs’ top and bottom faces were measured as shown in Table III. The percentage
between these areas and the impact zone area (0.36 m2) was calculated and given below with respect to each sample.
It was clear that the tensile stresses generated by the impact exceeded the concrete’s tensile strength at the impact
zone.
Table III.

Scabbing Areas at Top and Bottom Faces of the Slabs in mm2

Slab Scabbed Area Scabbed Area

(Slab Top Face)m2 (Slab Bottom Face)m2

RC 0.46 0.74

PT1 0.54 0.79

PT2 0.74 1.13

The results compared to the impact area and given in percentages are as follows:

● RC slab:
o The top face scabbing area formed 127% of the impact area
o The bottom face scabbing area formed 205% of the impact area
● PT1 slab:
o The top face scabbing area formed 150% of the impact area
o The bottom face scabbing area formed 219% of the impact area

● PT2 slab:
o The top face scabbing area formed 206% of the impact area

o The bottom face scabbing area formed 314% of the impact area

As for the cracks, the RC slab showed the propagation of shear cracks on the slab’s top and bottom faces as
well as its edges. PT slabs showed cracks just in the impact load location, especially on the slabs’ edges. It was
obvious that the cracks’ width in the PT slabs were wider than those found in the RC slab. All the damage and
cracks found indicated that the failure was a punching failure mode.

The failure mode was determined by calculating the shear strength values through the ACI318-11 code for the three
samples according to the following formulae:

• For the RC sample:

9/ Y (10)
Z

Where “λ”= 1 for normal concrete, “b” is the critical width, and “d” if the effective depth.

• For the PT1 and PT 2 samples:

[/ \]\^" _#/0 ) 0.3#"/ a ) [" a (11)

h
^" min e3.5, g ) 1.5jk (12)
i

9/ [/ (13)

17
 Where, “βp”is the factor used to compute v in the pre-stressed slab; “b0”is the perimeter p of the
critical section; “fpc”is fpc’s average value in the two directions; “ʋ p” is the vertical component of
all effective pre-stress stresses crossing the critical section; and “αs”is a scale factor based on the
critical section location (40 for the interior columns, 30 for the edge column and 20 for the corner
column)”.

The results generated by the manual code calculation are shown in Figure 25, and compared to the previously
found impact forces in each sample. The shear strength for the RC slab was found to be 1659 KN while the
corresponding impact force was found previously to be 2052KN. As for PT1, the shear strength was calculated to be
996.8KN while the impact force was 2367KN. The shear strength for PT2 was 925.6KN and its impact force was
1907KN. The comparison showed that the impact force exceeded the shear strength for each of the studied slabs,
which leads to a punching shear failure. This is in conformity with the damage and cracks found in the experimental
results.

PT2

PT1

RC

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Impact Force (KN) Shear Strength (KN)

Figure 25. Specimen Shear Strength Compared to Impact Force (KN)

After confirming the mode of failure to be punching shear failure, the angle of punching cone was estimated for
each of the slabs. It was found out to be 44o for the RC slab while it was 36o in PT1 and 39o in PT2. This can be
explained due the higher stiffness of the PT1 slab rather than RC slab; while PT1 and PT2 being of same stiffness,
the difference in the impact location had slight effect on the angle of punching cone.

IV. CONCLUSION

This paper studies the behavior of PT slab under free falling impact load, at its center of gravity, in
comparison to similar moment capacity RC slab. Also, similar analysis was done between two identical PT slabs
(PT1 and PT2) but by changing the impact point from the center of gravity to 750mm from the free edge mid-span.

The following points can be deduced about RC and PT1 slabs having the same moment capacity when being
subjected to impact at their center of gravity from a 20m height:

❖ Both failed under punching shear.

❖ The RC slab showed a maximum deflection which was 14.9 % higher than that of the PT1 slab.
❖ The RC slab continued to wave for a relatively longer period than the PT1 slab and showed a higher
damping ratio than the PT1 slab by 40.13% at ACC0 and 65.56% at ACC2.
❖ The PT1 slab had an impact force which was 35.19% higher than that of the RC slab.
❖ PT1 slab had higher scabbing area than RC slab which was 17.39% higher in the top face of the slab
and 6.75% higher in the bottom face of the slab.
❖ PT1 slab had a higher punching cone angle than the RC slab by 47%.

18
 ❖ Under impact load, the RC and PT slabs showed similar results to slabs under blast load by comparing
the failure mode, damage and behavior since it showed similar results by references [9] and [10].
The following points can be deduced about PT1 and PT2 slabs when being subjected to impact respectively at
their center of gravity, at 750mm from their edge and from a 20m height:

❖ Both failed under the punching shear failure mode.

❖ The PT2 slab showed a maximum deflection that was 23.64% higher than that of the PT1 slab.
❖ PT1 and PT2 waved relatively in the same way and both showed similar damping ratios.
❖ The PT1 slab had impact force 54.39% higher than that of PT2 slab.
❖ PT2 slab had higher scabbing area than PT1 slab which was 37.04% higher in the top face of the slab
and 43.04% higher in the bottom face of the slab.
❖ PT1 and PT2 had close punching cone angles.
❖ PT1 and PT2 slabs under impact load showed similar results to slabs under blast load by comparing the
failure mode, damage and behavior since it showed similar results by references [9] and [10].

ACKNOLEDGMENTS
Authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Beir1qut Arab University, Faculty of Engineering.
The authors want to thank all the academic and administrative staff for all the theoretical and logistic support
throughout the research time.

REFERENCES
[1] Bermejo, M., Goicolea1,J., Gabaldon,P.,1 and Santos,A. (2011), “Impact and Explosive Loads on Concrete
Buildings Using Shell and Beam Type Elements” , 3rd ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational
Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering M. Papadrakakis, M. Fragiadakis, V. Plevris
(eds.) Corfu, Greece.
[2] Pavithra, T. and Naidu, G. (2016), “Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Slabs Subjected to Impact Loads”,
International Journal of Engineering Research Online, Vol. 4 Issue No. 5, pp. 57- 64.
[3] Berthet-Rambaud, Y. Temsah, P., Mazars, J., and Daudeville, L. (2003), “Finite Element Modelling of
Concrete Protection Structures Submitted to Rock Impacts”, 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics
Conference, July 16-18,2003, University of Washington, Seattle.
[4] Orbovic, N., Lee, N., Elgohary, M., and Blahoianu, A. (2009), “Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs with
Prestressing and with Transverse Reinforcement under Impact Loading”, 20th International Conference
on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 20), Espoo, Finland.
[5] Saatci, S., and Vecchio, F.J., (2009). “Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Structures under Impact Loads”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, pp.717-725.
[6] Kumar, V., Iqbal, M. Mittal, A. (2016), “Behaviour of prestressed concrete under drop impact loading”,
11th Symposium on Plasticity and Impact Mechanics, Procedia Engineering (Elsevier Journal) pp. 403 –
408, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.038
[7] Fareed, S. (2018), “Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Accidental Impacts”, ISEC Second
European and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (Euro-Med-2), Beirut,
Lebanon, pp.STR44-1-6.
[8] Mathews, S., Mohanan, N., Jose, M. (2019), “Falling weight impact response of prestressed concrete slabs
with manhole”, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 396 (2018) 012010
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/396/1/012010
[9] Temsah Y, Jahami A, Khatib J, Firat S. (2017a), “Numerical study for RC beams subjected to blast
waves”, 1st International Turkish World Engineering and Science Congress in Antalya, Turkey.
[10] Temsah Y, Jahami A, Khatib J, Firat S. (2017b), “Single Degree of Freedom Approach of a Reinforced
Concrete Beam Subjected to Blast Loading”, 1st International Turkish World Engineering and Science
Congress in Antalya, Turkey.
[11] Temsah Y, Jahami A, Khatib J, Sonebi M. (2018a), “Numerical Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete Beam
under Blast Loading”, MATEC Web of Conferences 149(3):02063. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201814902063.
[12] Elani, M., Temsah, Y., Ghanem, H., Jahami, A. and Al Rawi, Y. (2018). “The Effect Of Shear
Reinforcement Ratio On Prestressed Concrete Beams Subjected To Impact Load”. ISEC Second European
and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (Euro-Med-2), Beirut, Lebanon,

19
 pp.STR33-1-6. Available at: https://www.isec-society.org/ISEC_PRESS/EURO_ MED_SEC_02/html/STR-
33.xml [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[13] Al Rawi, Y., Temsah, Y., Ghanem, H., Jahami, A. and Elani, M. (2018), “The Effect of Impact Loads on
Prestressed Concrete Slabs”. ISEC Second European and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and
Construction Conference (Euro-Med-2), Beirut, Lebanon, pp.STR28-1-6. Available at: https://www.isec-
society.org/ISEC_PRESS/EURO_MED_SEC_02/html/STR-28.xml [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[14] Jahami A, Temsah Y, Khatib J, Sonebi M. (2018), “Numerical Study For The Effect of Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) Sheets on Structural Behavior of Posttensioned Slab Subjected to Impact
Loading”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Concrete Modelling – CONMOD2018 , RILEM PRO 127,
Edited by Erik Schlangen et al., pp. 259-267.
[15] Jahami, A., Temsah, Y., Baalbaki, O., Darwiche, M., Al-Rawi, Y., Al-Ilani, M. & Chaaban, S. (2019),
“Effect of Successive Impact Loads from a Drop Weight on a Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab”. MATEC
Web of Conferences, 281, 02003. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201928102003.
[16] Jahami, A., Temsah, Y., Khatib, J.(2019) “The efficiency of using CFRP as a strengthening technique for
reinforced concrete beams subjected to blast loading”. International Journal of Advanced Structural
Engineering. DOI:10.1007/s40091-019-00242-w. URL:http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40091-019-
00242-w (date of application: 11.10.2019).
[17] ACI Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-11 (2011), American Concrete
Institute, ACI Committee 318, Detroit, 2011.

[18] Abir, J., Longo, S., Morantz, P., Shore, P. (2016), “Optimized estimator for real-time dynamic
displacement measurement using accelerometers”, Mechatronics 39 (2016) 1–11, published by Elsevier,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2016.07.003

[19] Yanga, J., Lib, J.B., Linb, G. (2006), “A simple approach to integration of acceleration data for dynamic
soil–structure interaction analysis”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26, pp.725–734.

[20] PCB Piezotronics (2006), “ICP Accelerometer” available at :

https://www.pcb.com/contentstore/docs/PCB_Corporate/Vibration/Products/Specsheets/352C03_E.pdf

[21] NI cDAQTM-9171/9174/9178 (2016), “User manual for NI CompactDAQ USB 2.0 Chassis” available at:
www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/372838e.pdf (accessed July 2016).

[22] NI 9234 (2015), “4 AI, ±5 V, 24 Bit, 51.2 kS/s/ch Simultaneous, AC/DC Coupling, IEPE AC Coupling”
available at: www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/374238a_02.pdf (accessed October 2015).

[23] Thong, Y.K., Woolfson, M.S., Crowe, J.A., Hayes-Gill, B.R., Jones, D.A (2004), “Numerical double
integration of acceleration measurements in noise”, Measurement, Vol. 36, pp. 73–92
[24] Cao, M.S., Sha, G.G., Gao, Y. F., & Ostachowicz, W. (2017), “Structural damage identification using
damping: a compendium of uses and features”, Smart Mater. Struct. 26 (2017) 043001 (14pp) :
doi:10.1088/1361-665X/aa550a
[25] Chopra, Anil K. (2009), “Dynamics of Structures”. 4th edition.

AUTHOR PROFILE
Youmn Al Rawi PhD Student at Civil Engineering Department at Beirut Arab University, Lebanon
Yehia Temsah Professor and Dean Assistant at Engineering Department at Beirut Arab University, Lebanon
Oussama Baalbalki Professor at Civil Engineering Department at Beirut Arab University, Lebanon
Ali Jahami PhD Student at Civil Engineering Department at Beirut Arab University, Lebanon
Mohamad Darwich Assistant Professor at Mechanical Engineering Department at Beirut Arab University,
Lebanon

20
 Highlights

• Post-tensioned (PT) slab performance under impact load at its center of gravity
C.G.)
• Reinforced concrete (RC) slab structural response under impact load at its C.G.
• Performance of post-tensioned slab (PT) under impact load at its free edge
• Comparing PT slab to RC slab, with equal moment capacity, under impact load
• Comparing the behavior of impacted post-tensioned slabs with different load
location
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: