Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

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

Numerical study on damage mechanism of RC beams under

close-in blast loading
Bo Yan ⇑, Fei Liu, DianYi Song, ZhiGang Jiang
College of Basic Education, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410073, PR China

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

Article history: RC structures have been widely used in civil engineering, and are vulnerable under blast
Received 21 October 2014 loading. Improved understanding of damage mechanism of RC components helps advances
Received in revised form 12 February 2015 the damage evaluation of RC structures under blast loading. In this paper, damage mechan-
Accepted 23 February 2015
isms of RC beam under close-in blast loading are investigated numerically. The FE model is
Available online 2 March 2015
validated through the experimental data reported by other researchers. A comprehensive
investigation is carried out to investigate the damage mechanisms of RC beam, including
Keywords:
the propagation of the main cracks, spallation at the bottom and the exfoliation of the
Damage mechanism
RC beam
side-cover concrete.
Close-in blast loading Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Numerical simulation

1. Introduction

RC structures which are widely used in civil engineering have been proved to be vulnerable under explosion accident,
such as accidental explosion events in China (2013) and malicious attacks in Moscow (2011). Comprehensive understanding
of the dynamic response of RC components, such as RC slab, RC column and RC beam, under blast loading is vital in the dam-
age evaluation of RC structures, which is closely related to the analysis of explosion accident, the blast-resistant and anti-
terrorist design of civil engineering and military weapon design [1]. The understanding of damage mechanisms of RC com-
ponents subjected to blast loading is very important to the damage evaluation of RC structures.
Considerable studies have been conducted on the dynamic response of RC slab under blast loading in recent year. Luccioni
and Luege [2] analyzed the local damage of concrete pavement slabs subjected to blast loading, which was produced by the
high explosive charges, and proposed an equation for the crater diameter of the slab by the explosive mass and its height
above the pavement. Xu and Lu [3] studied the damage behavior of concrete plates subjected to air blast loading using
numerical approach and presented an empirical spallation criterion that took the complex three-dimensional stress condi-
tions of concrete into account. Silva and Lu [4,5] presented an approach that can be used to evaluate the damage levels of RC
slabs under different explosive mass and standoff distance, and demonstrated that the approach was reliable by comparing
with the test results. Yuan et al. [6] simulated the dynamic response processes of RC slabs under contact detonation and
investigated the effects of explosive mass and reinforcement arrangement on the damage modes. Wu et al. [7] estimated
the fragment size distribution in spallation damage of concrete under air blast loading. Tai et al. [8] performed numerical
study on the dynamic response of RC structures under explosive loading, and investigated the destruction of RC slabs with
different parameters. Wang et al. [9] conducted experimental studies on blast resistance of a one-way square RC slab under
closed-in explosion, and simulated the damage process. Lin et al. [11] simulated the damage process of RC panels subjected

⇑ Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.02.007
1350-6307/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
10 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19

to blast loading with LS-DYNA, and investigated the effects of explosive mass, standoff distance, panel thickness and rein-
forcement ratio on the blast resistance of RC panels.
Some researchers conducted numerical simulation studies on the dynamic response of RC columns or beams under blast
loading. Wu et al. [12] utilized LS-DYNA to simulate the dynamic response and residual axial capacity of composite columns
subjected to blast loading, and proposed empirical equations to predict the residual capacity index. Williams and Williamson
[13] modeled the response of RC columns subjected to blast loads using the FEA method, reproduced the experimental
behavior and explained the cross-sectional response mechanisms. Li and Hao [14] carried out numerical simulations on spall
damage of RC columns subjected to blast loading, investigated the effects of the column dimension and reinforcement ratio,
and proposed some empirical equations to predict the spall damage of concrete. Ibrahim and Salim [15] conducted a numer-
ical study on reinforcement concrete box girder bridges under close-in blast loading, developed a reliable numerical model to
predict the damage size of the deck and the corresponding dynamic response of the damaged bridge system.
Previous studies have made progress on the dynamic response of RC structural components under blast loading, whereas
mainly focused on the RC slabs and columns; and the damage mechanisms of the RC beam subjected to blast loading are
rarely reported. It is significant to understand the damage mechanisms of the RC beam. Recently, Zhang et al. [10] conducted
experimental study on the damage modes and damage levels of RC beams under close-in blast loading, and proposed empiri-
cal equations for the deflection in the mid-span of the beams. In the present study, numerical investigation is carried out to
study the damage mechanisms of RC beams under close-in blast loading. Firstly, the experimental tests in the literature [10]
are briefly introduced in Section 2. Secondly, in Section 3 the finite element model is calibrated through comparisons of the
numerical results with the experimental results reported in the literature [10]. Lastly, intensive simulations are carried out to
investigate the damage mechanisms of the RC beam under close-in blast loading in Section 4.

2. Experimental test introduction

In this study, the experimental tests for RC beam conducted by Zhang [10] were used to validate the FE model. The RC
beam was 100 mm in width, 100 mm in height, and 1100 mm in length and fixed at each end. The longitudinal reinforce-
ments in both compression and tension sides were 2#D6 rebar with the yield strength of 395 MPa. A 20 mm clear cover
was provided between the top and the bottom beam surfaces and the bars. D6 stirrups were arranged with intervals of
60 mm, whose yield strength was 395 MPa. The unconfined compressive strength of the concrete was 40.45 MPa, the
Young’s modulus of longitudinal reinforcements and the stirrups was 210 GPa. The details of the test specimens are given
in Fig. 1. A cylindrical charge with 0.51 kg mass TNT was hanged over the test specimens with a vertical distance of
400 mm. The experiment setup is shown in Fig. 2.

3. Numerical simulation of the experimental test

Finite element method has become a powerful approach in the structure design and the physical mechanism analysis. LS-
DYNA, which is based on explicit numerical algorithm, has been widely used in the dynamic simulations of RC structures
subjected to blast loading. In this paper, the numerical simulations are carried out with LS-DYNA 971 [16].

3.1. The FE model

The 3D FE model of the blast test is depicted in Fig. 3. Concrete, air and TNT explosive are modeled by solid element (Solid
164), both the longitudinal reinforcements and stirrups were discretized into beam elements (Beam 161). Common nodes
between rebar and concrete elements were used for meshing them. The mesh size of the solid and beam element is
3.5 mm. The element number of RC beam is 249,056 (246,776 for the concrete and 2380 for the reinforcing bars), and the
air 2048,000, the TNT explosive 12,800. The six faces of the air model are set as nonreflecting boundaries (labeled as
‘‘NFBC1’’‘‘NFBC6’’ in Fig. 3) to eliminate the refraction and reflection effect of shock wave. All the node displacements of
the supporting area of the RC beam are fixed.
The Arbitrary–Lagrange–Euler (ALE) algorithm is applied in this paper. The RC beam is modeled with Lagrangian mesh,
the air and the high explosive with the Eulerian mesh. In the Lagrangian mesh, the coordinates move with the material. On
the other hand, the grid is fixed and materials are allowed to flow through in the Eulerian mesh. The Lagrangian mesh impos-
es a geometric constraint on the Eulerian mesh meanwhile the Eulerian mesh provides a pressure boundary to the
Lagrangian mesh in the ALE algorithm. The boundary condition of the Eulerian mesh and the Lagrangian mesh is set as
an outflow boundary.

3.2. Material model

3.2.1. Concrete
An appropriate material model for concrete is critical for the reliable simulation of RC structure subjected to blast loading.
At present, several material models for concrete are available in LS-DYNA, such as Holmquist Johnson Concrete Model [18],
Continuous Surface Cap Model for Concrete [19] and the Karagozian and Case Concrete Damage Model Release 3 [20,21].
 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19 11

Explosive

400 mm
Fixed
Fixed

18 × 60 mm 1080 mm
1100 mm

Fig. 1. Geometry of the RC beam [10].

In this paper, the Concrete Damage Model Release 3 (⁄MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_REL3 in LS-DYNA) is used according to
previous studies [22,23]. The major advantage of this model is that it is based on a single user input parameter, i.e., the
unconfined compressive strength. The remaining model parameters are automatically generated using a built-in algorithm
and can also be modified by the user. It is a plasticity-based model including damage and strain rate effects and defined three
strength surfaces which change shape, depending on the confinement. The hydrostatic tensor and the deviatoric stress ten-
sor are decoupled. The hydrostatic tensor changes the concrete volume, and the deviatoric stress tensor controls the shape
deformation. The hydrostatic pressure is defined as
p ¼ cðeV Þ þ cTðeV ÞE ð1Þ
where E is the internal energy per initial volume, c is the ratio of specific heats and eV is the volumetric strain given by the
natural logarithm.
The model uses simple functions to define three independent strength surfaces, i.e. the initial yield, maximum failure and
residual strength surfaces. These surfaces can be expressed by
F i ðpÞ ¼ a0i þ p=ða1i þ a2i pÞ ð2Þ
where Fi(p) is the ith failure surfaces, a0i, a1i and a2i are the parameters defining the three-parameter strength surfaces, and
p=(r1 + r2 + r3)/3 is the hydrostatic pressure, in which r1, r2 and r3 are the principal stresses.
For hardening, the plasticity surface is interpolated between the initial yield surface and maximum failure surface based
on the value of the damage parameter; for softening, a similar interpolation is applied between the maximum and residual
surfaces.
The strain rate effect is taken into account in this model. Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for the concrete compressive
strength is defined according to the empirical function provided by CEB [24], and DIF for the concrete tensile strength is
defined according to [25]. For concrete compressive strength:
8  1:026a
>
< e_e_s for e_ 6 30s1
fc
DIF ¼ ¼  1=3 ð3Þ
f cs >: c e_
s e_ s for e_ > 30s1

Fig. 2. Experiment setup [10].

12 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19

Fig. 3. FE model.

where fc is the dynamic compressive strength at e_ ; fcs is the static compressive strength at e_ s ; e_ is the strain rate in the range
of 30  106  300 s1; and e_ s = 30  106 s1 is the quasi-static strain rate; log cs = 6.156a  2; a = 1/(1 + 9 fcs/fc0);
fc0 = 10 MPa.
For concrete tensile strength:
8  d
>
< e_e_s for e_ 6 1 s1
ft
DIF ¼ ¼  1=3 ð4Þ
f ts >: b e_
e_ s for e_ > 1 s1

where ft is the dynamic tensile strength at e_ ; fts is the static tensile strength at e_ s ; e_ is the strain rate in the range of 106–
160 s1; and e_ s = is 106 s1 the quasi-static strain rate; log b = 6d  2; d = 1/(1 + 8fc0/fc0); fc0 = 10 MPa.

3.2.2. Rebar
The ⁄MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC material model in LS-DYNA is used to simulate rebar. This model is suit to simulate
isotropic and kinematic hardening plasticity with the option of including rate effect [16]. The isotropic and kinematic hard-
ening is specified by varying the hardening parameter between 0 and 1. The Cowper–Symonds model [17] is applied to take
into account the strain rate effect under blast loading.

3.2.3. Air
The air is modeled by the ⁄MAT_NULL material model and the ⁄EOS_LINEAR_POLYNOMIA state equation in LS-DYNA. The
hydrostatic pressure related to the energy can be expressed as follows:

p ¼ C 0 þ C 1 l þ C 2 l2 þ C 3 l3 þ ðC 4 þ C 5 l þ C 6 l2 ÞE0 ð5Þ

where E0 is the specific initial energy, and l = q/q0  1, q0 is the initial density of air, and q is the current density of air. Ci
(i = 1–6) are the coefficients.

3.2.4. Explosive
The TNT explosive is modeled by the ⁄MAT_HIGH_EXPLOSIVE_BURN material model and the ⁄EOS_JWL state equation in
LS-DYNA. The pressure generated by chemical energy in an explosion can be written as
   
x R1 V x R2 V xE
p¼A 1 e þB 1 e þ ð6Þ
R1 V R2 V V

where p is the hydrostatic pressure; V is the specific volume; E is the specific internal energy; and A, B, R1, R2 and x are mate-
rial constants.
The main material parameters used in this paper are listed in Table 1.
 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19 13

Table 1
Main material parameters in simulations.

Concrete Parameters Compressive strength Failure strain

Magnitude 40.55 MPa 0.002
Rebar Parameters Density Elastic modulus Poisson’s ratio Yield stress
Magnitude 7800 kg/m3 210 GPa 0.3 395 MPa
TNT Parameters Density Detonation velocity C–J pressure A B R1 R2 x
Magnitude 1630 kg/m3 6930 m/s 2.1e4 MPa 3.71e5 MPa 3.53e5 MPa 4.15 0.95 0.3
Air Parameters Density Initial energy C0–C3 C4 C5 C6
Magnitude 1.293 kg/m3 2.5e5 kJ/kg 0 0.4 0.4 0

3.3. Erosion algorithm

In order to simulate the physical damages of the concrete under the blast or impulsive loads, such as shear failure, cra-
tering, spalling and crushing, an erosion algorithm is usually adopted. In the previous studies, the erosion algorithm has been
widely used in simulating the concrete damage under impacts [26–28] and blast loads [29,30]. Xu and Lu [3] adopted the
maximum principle strain as the failure criteria of concrete under blast loads, The failure strain was expressed by

ef ¼ K 1 K 2 es ð7Þ

where eS is the static tensile peak strain of concrete which is set as 0.0002 around; K 1 and K 2 are magnifying factors, K 1 is
about 5.0 considering the softening effect, and K 2 is about 10 considering the stain rate effect and the confinement effect.
Similar approach is adopted in this paper; the static tensile peak strain and K 1 are set as 0.0002 and 5.0 respectively; K 2 is
set as 2 because the maximum effective strain rate is beyond 140 s1 in present study, and the DIF under tension according
to [25] is about 2. Taking these effects into account, the failure strain is set as 0.002; when the maximum principle strain of
an element equals to 0.002, the element is immediately erased from the FE model.

3.4. Validation of the FE model

The simulated hydrostatic pressure contour is illustrated in Fig. 4 which indicates that the peak pressure is 5.42 MPa in
the air. According to the Baker’s empirical formula [31], the peak pressure in the air is 5.51 MPa when the scale distance Z is
0.44. The results obtained from simulation and empirical formulas agree very well with each other.
Fig. 5 shows comparisons of the damage phenomenon of specimen from simulation and test. There is severe spallation at
the bottom and a main crack through the height of across-section at mid-span, the horizontal length of the spallation in the
test is about 12 cm while 11.6 cm in the simulation. The exfoliation of concrete occurs at two sides of the beam and the com-
pressive damage appears in the front. The area of compressive damage in the experiment is throughout the whole beam
width and about 10 cm length while 11.8 cm in the simulation.
Small difference between the simulation and the test may be caused by follows. Firstly, the material model in simulation
is isotropic, whereas the specimen is inhomogeneous in nature. Secondly, the material constants fluctuate with pressure and

Fig. 4. Pressure contours in the air. The color fringe level is divided into ten levels and the maximum, the minimum are 5416,000 Pa, 6876 Pa respectively.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
14 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19

Front fragment

Spallation
Main crack

Spallation

Front damage

Exfoliation Spallation

(a) The specimens (b) Results of simulations

Fig. 5. Comparisons of damaged phenomenon between the experiment (left) and the simulation (right), pictures from top to bottom are the overall
destruction, side, front and the back of the specimen.

y
p

mid-span

axis 7mm
100 mm

E4 x

E3

7mm 10.5mm
E2 E1

60 mm

Fig. 6. Location of elements.

loading rates. However, it should be noted that the numerical simulation captures the damage phenomenon and can repro-
duce the dynamic response; the FE model is competent for the investigation of damage mechanism in next sections.

4. Damage mechanism analysis

There are several main damage phenomena in the dynamic response of RC beam under blast loading, such as the spal-
lation at the bottom, the main crack propagation and the exfoliation of the side-cover concrete. The damage mechanism
of these phenomena is discussed in this section. The color fringe levels of pressure contours in following figures remain
unchanged, the maximum and the minimum value are 5 MPa and 5 MPa, respectively.

4.1. Mechanism of the spallation at the bottom

Fig. 6 shows the location of interested elements (E1–E4). Pressure–time curves of the E1 and E2 are shown in Fig. 7, the
hydrostatic pressure under tension is positive.
 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19 15

p-e1
7
2.0x10 p-e2
Failed
7
1.5x10

Pressure (Pa)
7
1.0x10

6
5.0x10

0.0

6
-5.0x10

7
-1.0x10
0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020 0.00025 0.00030
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Pressure–time curves of E1 and E2.

E1
E2
(a) t=0.14 ms (d) t=0.20 ms

Horizontal crack
(b) t=0.16 ms (e) t=0.22 ms

(c) t=0.18 ms (f) t=0.26 ms

Fig. 8. The process of spallation.
16 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19

Compressive crack

E3 E4

(c) t=0.28 ms (c) t=0.32 ms

Tensile crack Meeting up

(c) t=0.30 ms (c) t=0.40 ms

Fig. 9. The process of main crack propagation.

7
2.0x10
p-e3
1.5x10
7
p-e4
7
1.0x10
6
5.0x10
Pressure (Pa)

0.0

6
-5.0x10
7
-1.0x10
7
-1.5x10
7
-2.0x10
7
-2.5x10
0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020 0.00025 0.00030 0.00035 0.00040
Time (s)

Fig. 10. Element pressure in the main crack analysis.

Fig. 8 shows the process of the stress wave propagation and the concrete spallation. At t = 0.14 ms, the incident compres-
sive wave reaches the bottom surface of the beam, some elements on the top surface fail due to compression. When
0.14 ms < t < 0.16 ms, the incident compressive wave reflects on the free bottom surface of the beam, a tensile wave is moti-
vated and propagates upward. At t = 0.16 ms, the tensile wave reaches the top surface, some elements near the bottom of the
beam, including the E1, have failed due to tension and are erased from the model, then a horizontal crack which is parallel to
the axis of beam occurs. At t = 0.18 ms, the tensile wave reflects again on the top surface, and the secondary compressive
wave is motivated. At t = 0.20 ms, the secondary compressive wave reflects again on the bottom surface and the free surfaces
surrounding the horizontal crack, the secondary tensile wave is motivated. Due to the second tensile wave, more elements
including the E2 fail and are erased from the model. Consequently, spallation occurs as shown in Fig. 7(f).
 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19 17

3.5mm
N3 N5

z N4
N2

100 mm
stirrup

Axis of Symmetry N1 3.5mm

100 mm

Fig. 11. Location of interested nodes.

From the pressure–time curves in Fig. 7, it can be seen that the minimum pressure of E1 is about 20 MPa at 0.16 ms, the
minimum pressure of E2 is about 15 MPa at 0.19 ms, and then the element pressure decreases dramatically to zero. The ero-
sion of E1 and E2 all occurs during the period in which the tensile wave controls the bottom of the beam.
The simulation indicates that the incident compressive pressure wave reflects repeatedly on the top and the bottom free
surface of the beam, the tensile pressure wave is motivated repeatedly on the bottom surface. The first tensile wave results in
the horizontal crack, and then the secondary tensile pressure wave directly leads to the concrete spallation at the bottom of
the beam. The tensile pressure wave reflected from the free bottom surface of the beam is the major reason for the spallation
at the bottom.

4.2. Mechanism of the main crack propagation

Fig. 9 shows the process of the main crack propagation and the distribution of the hydrostatic pressure.
From the pictures at 0.28 ms and 0.30 ms, it can be found that the third tensile wave is propagating from bottom to the
top of the beam, while the tail of the third compressive wave is propagating in the opposite direction. Some elements in the
middle-bottom of the beam are erased due to tensile failure; three cracks evolve up to the middle of the beam. The pressure–
time curves of two elements (the blue dash dot line for the element 3 and the red 1solid line for the element 4) in Fig. 10
show that both elements underwent thrice compressions and twice tensions, and both failed in the third tension. From
the pictures at 0.28 ms and at 0.30 ms, it also can be seen that another kind of crack comes into being from the top to
the middle of the beam because of compressive failure.
When stress waves are reflected on the top face and the bottom of the beam continually, more elements fail and are
erased from the element model, two kinds of cracks evolve toward the middle of the beam further, while the two kinds
of cracks meet up, the main crack perforates through the height comes into being. From the picture at 0.32 ms, we can
see the evolution trend of the two kinds of cracks. In the picture at 0.40 ms, the main crack perforates through the height
occurred. It is indicated that the evolving and meeting up of the two kinds of vertical cracks (tensile cracks and compressive
cracks) is the major reason for the main crack propagation.

4.3. Mechanism of the exfoliation of the side-cover concrete

Fig. 11 shows the location of interested nodes (N1–N5), all the nodes locate at a same cross-section which keeps a dis-
tance of 7 mm from the mid-span cross-section.
Fig. 12 shows the relative displacement between nodes in different directions. For example, the sign Ni–Nj–k represents
the relative displacement between Ni and Nj in the k-direction. The N5–N1–y curve and N5–N4–y curve keep negative before
0.16 ms and reach the first peak value at about 0.14 ms, which means that the concrete undergoes a contraction in the direc-
tion of the blast loading(y-direction). This contraction is attributing to the incident compressive pressure wave as shown in

1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 10, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.
18 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19

0.00020

0.00015

0.00010

Displacement (m)
0.00005

0.00000

-0.00005

N3-N5-z
-0.00010
N2-N4-z
N5-N1-y
-0.00015 N5-N4-y

-0.00020
0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020 0.00025 0.00030 0.00035 0.00040 0.00045
Time (s)

Fig. 12. Node displacement differentials.

N3 N5 N3 N5

N2 N4 N2 N4

N1 N1
(a) t=0.40 ms (b) t=0.80 ms
Fig. 13. The process of exfoliation on two sides.

Fig. 10(a). Whereas, the N3–N5–z curve and N2–N4–z curve keep positive before 0.16 ms, which indicates that transversal
expansion (z-direction) appears in the beam. This expansion is caused by the Poisson’s effect of concrete. Due to the Poisson’s
effect, the contraction of y-direction may lead expansion in the other two directions, especially in the z-direction which has
smaller size. The N5–N1–y curve changes from negative to positive at about 0.16 ms and increases dramatically after about
0.18 ms, which means that the elements in this position may fly off rapidly (i.e., the spallation discussed above).
Fig. 13 shows the exfoliation process of the beam, at t = 0.40 ms, the fragments occur on two sides. At t = 0.80 ms, the frag-
ments begin to exfoliate from the two sides of the beam. It is indicated that the transversal expansion resulting from
Poisson’s effect leads to the exfoliation of the side-cover concrete.

5. Summary

Numerical simulations were conducted to investigate damage mechanisms of RC beam subjected to close-in blast load-
ing. A three-dimension numerical model, including explosive, air, reinforcement, concrete, Arbitrary Lagrange–Euler
approach and erosion algorithm, is developed to simulate the test reported by other researchers. The good consistency
between the simulation and the test shows that the FE model yields a reliable prediction of dynamic response. Intensive
simulations are carried out to investigate the damage mechanisms of the RC beam under the close-in blast loading. It is
found that the tensile stress wave reflected from the free bottom surface of the beam is the major reason for the spallation
 B. Yan et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 51 (2015) 9–19 19

at the bottom; the evolving and meeting up of the two kinds of vertical cracks (tensile cracks and compressive cracks) is the
major reason for the main crack propagation, the transversal expansion resulting from Poisson’s effect leads to the exfo-
liation of the side-cover concrete.
These studies are preliminary, however results are promising. Further efforts will be made to investigate the effect of
explosive scale distance, RC-beam dimensions and reinforcement layouts on the damage mechanism.

References

[1] Li ZX, Du H, Bao CX. Review of current researches on blast load effects of building structures in China. Trans Tianjing Univ 2006;12(Suppl.):35–41.
[2] Luccioni BM, Luege M. Concrete pavement slab under blast loads. Int J Impact Eng 2006;32(8):1248–66.
[3] Xu K, Lu Y. Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete plates subjected to blast loading. Comput Struct 2006;84:431–8.
[4] Silva PF, Lu B. Improving the blast resistance capacity of RC slabs with innovative composite materials. Compos Part B – Eng 2007;38(5–6):523–34.
[5] Silva PF, Lu B. Blast resistance capacity of reinforced concrete slabs. J Struct Eng – ASCE 2009;135(6):708–16.
[6] Yuan L, Gong SF, Jin WL. Spallation mechanism of RC slabs under contact detonation. Trans Tianjin Univ 2008;14:464–9.
[7] Wu CQ, Nurwidayati R, Oehlers DJ. Fragmentation from spallation of RC slabs due to airblast loads. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36(12):1371–6.
[8] Tai YS, Chu TL, Hu HT, Wu JY. Dynamic response of a reinforced concrete slab subjected to air blast load. Thero Appl Fract Mec 2011;56(3):140–7.
[9] Wang W, Zhang D, Lu FY, Wang SC, Tang FJ. Experimental study on scaling the explosion resistance of a one-way square reinforced concrete slab under
a close-in blast loading. Int J Impact Eng 2012;49:158–64.
[10] Zhang D, Yao SJ, Lu FY, Chen XG, Lin GH, Wang W, et al. Experimental study on scaling of RC beams under close-in blast loading. Eng Failure Anal
2013;33:497–504.
[11] Lin XS, Zhang YX, Hazell PJ. Modelling the response of reinforced concrete panels under blast loading. Mater Des 2014;56:620–8.
[12] Wu KC, Li B, Tsai KC. The effects of explosive mass ratio on residual compressive capacity of contact blast damaged composite columns. J Construct
Steel Res 2011;67(4):602–12.
[13] Williams GD, Williamson EB. Response of reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to blast loads. J Struct Eng. Am Soc Civil Eng
2011;137(9):903–13.
[14] Li J, Hao H. Numerical study of concrete spall damage to blast loads. Int J Impact Eng 2014;68:41–55.
[15] Ibrahim A, Salim H. Finite-element analysis of reinforced-concrete box girder bridges under close-in detonations. J Perform Constr Facil
2013;27(6):774–84.
[16] LS-DYNA. LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual. version 971. Livermore, California: Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2007.
[17] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2006.
[18] Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR, Cook WH. A computational constitutive model for concrete subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high pressures.
In: The 14th international symposium on ballistics. Quebec; 1993. p. 591–600.
[19] Schwer LE, Murray YD. Continuous surface cap model for geomaterial modeling: a new LS-DYNA material type. In: 7th international LS-DYNA users
conference; 2002. p. 16–35.
[20] Malvar L, Crawford J, Morrill K. K&C concrete material model release III – automated generation of material model input. Karagozian and Case
Structural Engineers: Technical Report TR-99-24:3; 2000.
[21] Magallanes JM, Wu Y, Malvar LJ, Crawford JE. Recent improvements to release III of the K&C concrete model. In: 11th international LS-DYNA users
conference. 2010; p. 3–37.
[22] Brannon RM, Leelavanichkul S. Survey of four damage models for concrete. In: Laboratories SN, editor. Albuquerque. California: New Mexico and
Livermore; 2009.
[23] Yaramada VKR. Numerical response of steel reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast and pressure loadings in LS-DYNA. In: Civil and Mechanical
Engineering. University of Missouri Kansas City, Kansas City; 2010.
[24] Béton CE-Id. CEB-FIP model code 1990: design code. Thomas Telford; 1993.
[25] Malvar LJ, Crawford JE. Dynamic increase factors for concrete. DTIC Document; 1998.
[26] Farnam Y, Mohammadi S, Shekarchi M. Experimental and numerical investigations of low velocity impact behavior of high-performance fiber-
reinforced cement based composite. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37(2):220–9.
[27] Lian YP, Zhang X, Zhou X, Ma ZT. A FEMP method and its application in modeling dynamic response of reinforced concrete subjected to impact loading.
Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 2011;200(17–20):1659–70.
[28] Nyström U, Gylltoft K. Comparative numerical studies of projectile impacts on plain and steel–fibre reinforced concrete. Int J Impact Eng 2011;38(2–
3):95–105.
[29] Coughlin AM, Musselman ES, Schokker AJ, Linzell DG. Behavior of portable fiber reinforced concrete vehicle barriers subject to blasts from contact
charges. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37(5):521–9.
[30] Tang EK, Hao H. Numerical simulation of a cable-stayed bridge response to blast loads, Part I: Model development and response calculations. Eng
Struct 2010;32(10):3180–92.
[31] Baker WE. Explosions in air. Austin: University of Texas Press; 1973. p. 54–77.