Our reference: COST 4643

P-authorquery-v11

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Journal: COST Please e-mail or fax your responses and any corrections to: E-mail: corrections.esch@elsevier.sps.co.in Article Number: 4643 Fax: +31 2048 52799

Dear Author, Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen annotation in the PDF le) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the le with software other than Adobe Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF le. To ensure fast publication of your paper please return your corrections within 48 hours. For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions. Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by ags in the proof. Click on the Q link to go to the location in the proof. Location in article Query / Remark: click on the Q link to go Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof

Q1 Q2

Please confirm that given names and surnames have been identified correctly. Please provide year of publication for Ref. [8].

Please check this box if you have no corrections to make to the PDF file

Thank you for your assistance.

COST 4643 26 May 2012

Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx 1

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

2 3 4 Q1 5

Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcretesteel sandwich panels
Alex M. Remennikov , Sih Ying Kong
School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia

6 8 1 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Steelconcretesteel (SCS) sandwich panels are an effective means for protecting personnel and infrastructure facilities from the effects of external blast and high-speed vehicle impact. In conventional SCS construction, the external steel plates are connected to the concrete inll by welded shear stud connectors. This paper describes a programme of research in which the non-composite SCS panels with axially restrained connections were studied experimentally and numerically. High delity nite element models for axially restrained steelconcretesteel panels subjected to impact loading conditions were developed using LS-DYNA. The simulation results were validated against the dynamic testing experimental results. The numerical models were able to predict the initial exural response of the panels followed by the tensile membrane resistance at large deformation. It was found that the strain rate effects of the materials and the concrete material model could have signicant effect on the numerically predicted exural strength and tensile membrane resistance of the panels. 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Article history: Available online xxxx Keywords: Steelconcretesteel sandwich panels Protective structures Impact load

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

1. Introduction Composite steelconcretesteel (SCS) or double skin composite structures consist of a concrete core connected to two steel faceplates using mechanical shear connectors. This form of construction was originally conceived during the initial design stages for the Convy River submerged tube tunnel in the UK [1]. It was subsequently used in building cores, gravity seawalls, nuclear structures and defence structures. Shear resistance between the steel and concrete interfaces is of prime importance to achieve a full composite action. Current techniques for achieving composite action using mechanical shear connectors include headed studs, friction-welded bars and J-hooks. Oduyemi and Wrigth [2], Wright et al. [3] and Shanmugam and Kumar [4] carried out experimental investigations on the response of SCS structural members with headed shear studs subjected to static loading. Corus UK have developed the Bi-steel panels with transverse steel bars friction-welded to both steel faceplates simultaneously [5]. Liew and Sohel [6] presented double J-hook connectors to interlock the steel faceplates. The Bi-steel and J-hook are not only effective in resisting longitudinal shear between steel and concrete interface, they also provide transverse shear resistance. Steelconcretesteel panels are an effective means of protecting structures against extreme impact and blast loading due to

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4221 5574; fax: +61 2 4221 3238.
E-mail address: alexrem@uow.edu.au (A.M. Remennikov). 0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

their high strength and high ductility characteristics. Young and Coyle [7] tested Bi-steel panels subjected to contact and close-in detonations of high explosives. Liew et al. [8] performed lowvelocity impact tests on the J-hook panels lled with lightweight concrete. Remennikov et al. [9,10] investigated experimentally the static and impact performance of non-composite SCS panels in which no shear connectors were utilised to connect the steel faceplates and the concrete core. Owing to the specially designed connection details, the tested panels exhibited tensile membrane resistance at large deformation. The tensile membrane resistance achieved in the tests was signicantly higher than the exural resistance. The panels were capable of resisting large support rotations, more than 15, without collapse. Kong et al. [11] presented FE simulation techniques for the SCS panels under static and impact loading and validated the simulation results against the experimental results presented in Remennikov et al. [9]. This paper presents three dimensional FE modelling techniques for the axially restrained SCS panels under impact loading conditions using the non-linear transient dynamic nite element program LS-DYNA [12]. These techniques have been validated against the experimental results of SCS panels under impact loading conditions, utilising the drop hammer facility at the University of Wollongong. Parametric studies include investigation on the effects of the contact surface algorithms, concrete density, strain rate effects and erosion of concrete elements were carried out.

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

2 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

2. Impact tests description High-velocity impact tests were performed on four axially restrained steelconcretesteel panels. The congurations of the tested panels are described in Table 1. The Control panel had a normal weight concrete core and mild steel faceplates. For the other panels, one design parameter was varied to obtain a more detailed picture of the response of the non-composite SCS sandwich panels under impact loading as shown in Table 1. Details of the experimental setup for the impact tests are illustrated in Fig. 1. The panels were axially restrained with specially designed keyed connections. It consists of keyed inserts, UC sections, I-beam and bolt connections. The panel was connected to the UC sections through the keyed connections, while the bottom anges of the UC sections were bolted to the I beam using M25 high strength bolts. The bolt connections between the UC sections and the I-beam, together with the angle bracing restrained the inplane movement of the UC sections, providing axial restraint on the panel. The mass of the drop hammer was approximately 600 kg. It was released from a height of three metres to impact the panels at the mid-span. During the experiments, a 1600 kN capacity load cell, mounted on the drop hammer was used to measure the load time history. The displacement of the panel at midspan was measured using a high speed draw wire potentiometer. The experimental data was acquired by the National Instrument PXI data acquisition system using a sampling rate of 100,000 samples per second. 3. LS-DYNA modelling Finite element analysis of the axially restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels was carried out using the three-dimensional non-linear transient dynamic nite element code LS-DYNA [12]. This program uses explicit time integration for the transient dynamic analysis which is suitable for the application of short duration events such as vehicle crash and explosion. The explicit analysis considers dynamic equilibrium of each node at every time step as follow

The accuracy of the simulation is determined by monitoring the total energy in the structures during the analysis. The total energy in the structures consists of kinetic energy (Ekin), internal energy (Eint), friction energy (Efr), damping energy (Edamp) and hourglass energy (Ehg). The internal energy includes elastic strain energy and work done in plastic deformation. The hourglass energy is attributed to nonphysical modes of deformation occured in under-integrated element formulation. It should be less than 10% of the peak internal energy of each part.

122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Ekin Eint Efr Edamp Ehg Etotal constant

4. Numerical model description

131 133

134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

In the nite element models developed for this study, only a quarter of the experimental setup was considered due to the symmetry of the specimen, loading and support conditions, to save the computational time. The axial restraints, including the keyed inserts, bolted connections, steel UC section and steel I-beam were modelled in detail, as shown in Fig. 2. From the convergence study, a mesh size of 10 mm was found to be appropriate for the concrete core and the steel faceplates. Fully integrated selectively reduced (S/R) solid element formulation was applied to the steel UC section, I-beam, and the bolts, to avoid hourglass effects in these elements. Under large deformation, the fully integrated S/R solid elements become unstable and may cause error termination (negative volume) in the simulation. To avoid the negative volume effect, the concrete core of the panel was modelled using constant stress solid elements. The steel faceplates were modelled using Belytschko Tsay shell elements. The HughesLiu with cross section integration beam elements was used to model the reinforcing steel elements. The bolts of the keyed inserts were simplied as square bars with the cross sectional area equivalent to M16 bolts. This simplication has no signicant effect on the accuracy of the model as shown by Lee et al. [13]. 4.1. Boundary conditions The models were dened so that they were symmetrical in the x- and y-directions. For symmetry in the x-direction, the x translational degree of freedom of the solid elements was restrained. For the symmetry in the y-direction, the y translational degree of free of solid elements were restrained. For the shell elements, there are

117 119
120 121

Man F ex n F int n

where the M is the mass on the node, a is the acceleration, Fex is the external force, Fint is the internal force and n is the time step.

Table 1 The parameters evaluated in the impact tests for steelconcretesteel panels. No. 11 22 43 64 Panel Control panel (CP) Stainless steel panel (SP) Lightweight concrete core panel (LP) Reinforced concrete core panel (RP) Parameter Normal weight concrete core and mid steel faceplates Stainless steel faceplates Lightweight concrete core, with a density and concrete compressive strength of 1400 kg/m3 and 10.5 MPa respectively Normal weight concrete core was reinforced with two layers of 4@50 mm wire meshes.

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for an axially restrained steelconcretesteel panel subjected to mid-span impact.

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

3 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255

slave surface is arbitrary, but normally the surface with a ner mesh will be dened as the slave surface. This sliding contact algorithm only considers the friction interaction between the contact interfaces. The dynamic coefcient of friction of 0.2 was applied to the mild steel and concrete core interfaces. For the contact interfaces between the stainless steel and the concrete core, the dynamic coefcient of friction of 0.1 was used considering the surface of the stainless steel was smoother than the mild steel. In these models, the chemical bonding of the concrete was ignored. This was a realistic assumption because the chemical bonding failed during the panel handling and experimental set up before the tests commenced. For the Reinforced core panel, the nodes of the beam elements were merged with the nodes of the concrete elements and the slippage between these interfaces in reality was ignored. 4.3. Material models 4.3.1. Mild steel and stainless steel The complete stressstrain relationships for both the mild steel and the stainless steel faceplates were modelled using the LSDYNA Piecewise Linear Plasticity material model. For the mild steel, the yield stress was 271 MPa from the tensile coupon tests, whilst for the stainless steel, the yield stress was 291 MPa. The non-linear behaviour after yielding was considered by dening plastic stressstrain relationships for both steels according to the tensile coupon tests, as shown in Fig. 3. The strain rate effects of the mild steel and stainless steel was considered in the model by specifying the CowperSymonds coefcients. The CowperSymonds coefcients for mild steel are 40.4 (D) and 5 (q), while for the stainless steel, they are 100 (D) and 10 (q) [15]. The impactor was assumed to be absolutely rigid since there was no deformation observed on the drop hammer during the tests. The steel UC section, I-beam, bolts and wire meshes were assumed to behave as elastic perfectly plastic material and modelled using the LS-DYNA Plastic Kinematic material model. The yield stress for the UC section and I-beam was assumed as 300 MPa, while the yield stress for the bolts was assumed as 600 MPa. The yield stress of the wire mesh was assumed as 450 MPa. 4.3.2. Concrete inll The CSCM (Continuous Surface Cap Model) Concrete (Mat 159) material model was developed for the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to simulate the reinforced concrete structures subjected to impact loading conditions [16]. This model is simple to use as it can generate default parameters for the concrete by only requiring some basic inputs. The details of theoretical description and validation of the LS-DYNA CSCM_Concrete model are provided in the Federal Highway Administration reports [16,17]. For this model, the three inputs required to generate the default parameters are the unconned compressive strength, aggregate size and the units used in the nite element model [12]. According to the FHWA report [17], the model is applicable for concrete grade between 20 MPa and 58 MPa with the aggregate size between 8 mm and 32 mm. The unconned compressive strength will affect all the generated parameters such as stiffness, three dimensional yield strength, hardening and softening, while the aggregate size only affect the softening behaviour. The parameters are generated based on the Comite Euro-International Du Beton-Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte Model (CEB-FIP) Code. The yield surface of this concrete model is dened by three invariants and the cap hardening parameter j, as follows:

Fig. 2. A quarter model of the experimental set up for axially restrained SCS panels under the drop mass impact test.

162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

6 of freedom at each node, namely translational and rotational at the x-, y- and z-direction. For the x symmetry of the shell elements, the x translational, and y and z rotational degrees of freedom were xed. While the y translational degree of freedom, and x and z rotational degrees of freedom of shell elements were restrained for the y symmetry. The I-beam was bolted down to the strong oor in the experimental setup. In the model, all the nodes at the bottom surface of the I-beam were restrained in the three translational degrees of freedom, x, y and z, so no movement was allowed at these nodes. The impactor was positioned 2 mm from the top faceplate, and it was assigned with an initial velocity in the z direction that corresponded to the drop height used in the tests. By using the energy conservation approach, an initial velocity of the drop hammer immediately before it strikes the panel can be calculated. The initial velocity was determined as 7.67 m/s for the 3 m drop height. 4.2. Contact surfaces The interaction between different parts in the model was important in order to predict the behaviour of the SCS panels correctly. In this study, the Automatic-Surface-to-Surface contact algorithm in LS-DYNA was used to model the interaction between the following parts in the model: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Impactor and steel faceplates. Steel faceplates and the concrete core. Steel faceplates with the UC section and keyed inserts. Steel UC section and I beam. Bolts and the UC section and I beam.

In this penalty-based contact algorithm, when a penetration is found for the parts in contact, a force proportional to the penetration depth is applied to these interfaces to eliminate the penetration [14]. Thus, the impact load time histories for the models can be obtained by using this contact algorithm between the impactor and the steel faceplates. The denition of the master surface and

256

f J 1 ; J 02 ; J 03 ; j J 02 K 2 F 2 F c f

258

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

4 A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

Fig. 3. Stressstrain relationship (a) mild steel and stainless steel, (b) concrete.

259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276

277 279

where J1 is the stress invariant of stress tensor, J02 is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor, and J 03 is the third invariant of the stress tensor. Ff is the shear failure surface and Fc is hardening cap. K is the Rubin three invariants reduction factor to account for lower concrete strength under triaxial extension and torsion compared to triaxial compression when concrete subjected to the same pressure. It has a smooth intersection between the shear yield surface and the hardening cap as shown in Fig. 4. The strength of the concrete is modelled by the shear surface when the concrete is subjected to tensile and low conning pressure regimes. In the low to high conning pressure regimes, the strength of the concrete is modelled by a combination of shear and cap surface. The cap expands to simulate the plastic volume compaction while it contracts to simulate the plastic volume expansion. Concrete shows strain softening behaviours where the strength decreases as the strain increase after it reaches the peak tensile or compressive strength. The softening is modelled by a scalar damage parameter,

  d max 1B dsc 1 Ductile damage B 1 BexpAsc s0c

291

293
294

where the parameters A, B, C and D are shape softening parameters.

st is the tensile energy term, sot is the tensile damage threshold, sc is the compressive energy tensile, and soc is the compressive damage
threshold. The parameter dmax is the maximum damage level that can be attained, depending on the conning pressure. In this concrete model, the strain rate effect is applied to the plasticity surface, the damage surface, and the fracture energy. The strain rate effect on the plasticity surface is applied through viscoplastic formulation. For concrete under uniaxial tensile or unconned compression, the strength increases depending on the strain rate as,

295
296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304

fT0dyn

fT0

Eeg
:

305 307 308

0dyn 0 fC fC E e g

6
fT0

310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323

rd 1 drv p
d vp

where fT0dyn is 0dyn strength, fC

280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287

288 290

where r is the stress tensor with damage, r is the stress tensor without damage and d is the scalar damage parameter. The damage of the concrete whether cracking or crushing is represented by the damage parameter that ranges from 0 to 1. The concrete elements lose all strength and stiffness when the damage parameter approaches to one. The damage parameter in tension (brittle damage) or compression (ductile damage) is determined from the following formulations:

dst

0:999 1D 1 D 1 DexpCst s0t

 Brittle damage

the dynamic tensile strength, is the static tensile 0 is the dynamic compressive strength, fC is the static : compressive strength, E is the Young modulus, e is the effective strain rate and g is the uidity coefcient. The dynamic increase factor (DIF) for the concrete in this material model is based on the developers experiences and is different from DIF given in the CEB-FIP. This concrete model has a built in feature that allows a user to include data for the strain rate effect by selecting the strain rate option. In this study, it was found that the hourglass energy in the concrete core exceeded 50% of its peak internal energy when the strain rate effect was considered. The hourglass control formulations, FlanaganBelytschko viscous form with exact volume integration

Fig. 4. Schematic of shear failure surface and cap surface in the material model CSCM 159. (reproduced from [17]).

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

5 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382

for solid elements (type 3) and FlanaganBelytschko stiffness form with exact volume integration for solid elements (type 5) were not effective to control the hourglass energy. This is due to localised impact condition and the panel underwent very large deformation. The hourglass energy in the concrete core can be reduced to about 15% of the peak internal energy when the strain rate effect was ignored. Therefore, the strain rate effect of the concrete was ignored in this study to minimise the hourglass energy in the concrete core. The concrete compressive strength for panels was different because the panels were casted using different batches of concrete. For the Control panel and the Reinforced core panel, the concrete compressive strength was 23 MPa. For the Stainless steel panel, the concrete compressive strength was 37 MPa while the concrete compressive strength for the lightweight panel was 10.5 MPa. The density of the lightweight concrete was 1400 kg/m3 and no aggregates were used in the mix. Single element simulation [16] was carried out to evaluate the ability of the concrete model CSCM (Mat 159) to generate parameters for the lightweight concrete. It was found that using the density of 1400 kg/m3, concrete compressive strength of 16 MPa and ignoring the aggregate size, the concrete model can generate a stressstrain curve with the compressive strength of 10.8 MPa and tensile strength of 0.9 MPa, as shown in Fig. 3b. It was assumed that this stressstrain relationship was appropriate for the lightweight concrete in this study. The stressstrain relationships for different grades of concrete used in this study were generated by a single element simulation and the results were shown in Fig. 3b. The stressstrain relationships included the compressive strength, tensile strength, softening curves after the concrete reached its maximum strengths. 4.4. Element erosion An erosion algorithm is available in the LS-DYNA code which allows computation to be carried out without the need for re-zoning distorted regions of the mesh during a large deformation loading. The erosion algorithm is based on the concept that the highly strained elements of the deformed mesh have failed totally and may no longer contribute to the physics of structural response. Upon erosion, the sliding interface between the steel faceplates and the concrete core needs to be re-dened dynamically due to the total element failure. The erosion of the elements is based on somewhat ad hoc criteria related to a deformation or stress measure in the element. In the LS-DYNA concrete material model CSCM_Concrete, the element removal can be activated by specifying an erosion coefcient. When the erosion coefcient is less than unity, no erosion occurs, while erosion coefcient of 1 means the erosion is independent of

the strain. For erosion depending on the maximum principal strain, erosion coefcient is set to values greater than 1. For example, when erosion coefcient is set to 1.05, the element is deleted once it reaches maximum principal strain of 5%. It should also be realised that the erosion strain has no correlation with the fracture strain and is solely a measure of how much plastic deformation an element can undergo before it is removed from the numerical computation. In this study, based on a priori knowledge of the experimental outcomes, it was found that it would not be benecial to include the eroding-element technique for the concrete core of the panels. This was because it may result in signicant underestimation of the overall ultimate load-carrying capacity of the non-composite SCS sandwich panels under impact loading. 5. Numerical results and discussion 5.1. Control panel The predicted load and displacement time histories of the Control panel are compared to the experimental results in Fig. 5. It shows that the model has the capacity to predict initial inertial effects during the instrumented impact testing and exural response of the Control panel quite closely. After the initial exural capacity was reached, the exural resistance of the Control panel reduced signicantly to about 12 kN due to damage of the concrete core. Then, the tensile membrane action started to develop in the steel faceplates resulting in the signicantly increased load-carrying capacity of 356 kN. The model predicted the residual exural strength of 48 kN, which is higher than the experimental residual strength of 36 kN. The model was able to predict the development of the tensile membrane resistance and showed the peak tensile membrane resistance of 384 kN. The maximum experimental displacement of the panel was 200 mm, compared to the maximum predicted displacement of 182 mm. The model underestimated the maximum displacement by 9% compared to the experimental result. Fig. 6 illustrates the damage of the concrete core observed after the test. It shows that the concrete core at the mid-span was severely damaged and large fragments of concrete fell out from the panel. The model predicted extensive damage of the concrete core at the impact zone and near the support similar to the experimental observation, as shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 shows the indentation of the top steel faceplate observed after the test. Contour plot of the Von Mises stresses on the top steel faceplate is shown in Fig. 9. The indentation of the top faceplate is visualised by the elements with a very high stress concentration forming a circular shape at

383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412

Fig. 5. A comparison between experimental and predicted results for the Control panel (a) load time histories, (b) displacement time histories.

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

6 A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

Fig. 8. Indentation of the top faceplate of the Control panel observed in the test.

5.2. Stainless steel panel

Fig. 6. Damage of the concrete core of the Control panel after the impact test.

442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471

413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441

the mid-span. The maximum stress on the top faceplate was 623 MPa, exceeding the static yield stress of the mild steel due to the strain rate effects included in the model. From the comparison of the numerical and test data for the impact load, maximum displacements, physical damage of the concrete and steel plates, it can be concluded that the nite element model is capable of capturing the most important structural response characteristics of the Control panel. An additional nite element model was generated to investigate the effect of erosion of the concrete elements on the behaviour of the Control panel under impact loading. Using the LS-DYNA concrete model 159 (CSCM), the erosion coefcient was assigned the value of 1.0. This means that the concrete elements will be eliminated from the model once they reach the failure strain. The simulation results were compared to the experimental results in Fig. 10. It shows that the predicted residual exural strength was reduced and correlated better with the experimental residual exural strength of the panel. However, the predicted tensile membrane resistance reduced to only 200 kN, and the maximum predicted displacement was signicantly lower than the experimental displacement. This can be attributed to the elimination of a large number of concrete elements from the model, causing a shattering effect on the concrete core of the panel as shown in Fig. 11. From these results, it can be concluded that modelling the concrete core of SCS sandwich panels with the element erosion option activated may result in signicant underestimation of the panels ultimate capacity and peak deformation. Hence, the erosion algorithm is not recommended in the simulation of non-composite steelconcretesteel panels under impact loads.

This panel used stainless steel faceplates. The stress strain relationship of the stainless steel shown in Fig. 3 was dened in the model. The CowperSymonds coefcients of 100 and 10 were dened to include the strain rate effects in the material model of the stainless steel. As shown in Fig. 12, the model produced reasonable prediction of the inertial effects and exural capacity of the Stainless steel panel. Between 0.01 s and 0.02 s of the response, the model predicted a signicantly higher exural strength than the experimental residual exural strength of the panel for the same reasons discussed above for the Control panel. However, the peak tensile membrane resistance predicted by this model was 380 kN, and it was only slightly higher than the experimental peak resistance of 377 kN. The maximum displacement of the bottom faceplate for this model was 162 mm, which is 10% lower than the experimental displacement of 181 mm. In the test, the concrete core of the Stainless steel panel was extensively damaged at the mid-span and near the support, while the top faceplate was significantly indented by the impactor. These failure modes were similar to the experimental observations of the Control panel shown in Figs. 6 and 8. The contour plot of concrete damage distribution and the Von Mises stresses for the model of the Stainless steel panel were similar to the Control panel as shown in Figs. 7 and 9. 5.3. Panel with lightweight inll Lightweight concrete with a density of 1400 kg/m3 and the concrete compressive strength of 11 MPa was used as the inll for this panel. The load and displacement time histories predicted by the numerical model wre compared to the experimental results in Fig. 13. The model predicted higher values for the initial exural capacity and the residual exural strength than the experimental

Fig. 7. Damage contour plot for the concrete core of the FE model for the Control panel.

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

Fig. 9. Von Mises stress contour plot on the top faceplate of the FE of the Control panel.

Fig. 10. A comparison between experimental and predicted results using erosion formulation for the Control panel (a) load time histories, (b) displacement time histories.

Fig. 11. Shattering of the concrete core due to erosion of concrete elements.

472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482

results. As previously discussed, the erosion of the concrete elements can reduce the predicted residual exural strength, but it will also affect the tensile membrane resistance of the steel faceplate due to the shattering of the concrete elements. Therefore, the erosion formulation was not considered in the model of the lightweight concrete panel. The peak tensile membrane resistance predicted by the model was 358 kN compared to the experimental values of 333 kN. The maximum predicted displacement of the bottom faceplate was 174 mm. The model underestimated the experimental maximum displacement of 196 mm by 11%. In the test, the physical damage of the lightweight concrete panel was

similar to the Control panel, except the concrete core of the lightweight concrete panel experienced more severe damage. The numerical model was capable to represent the main stages of the response of the panel with lightweight concrete inll with reasonable accuracy. 5.4. Panel with reinforced inll In this panel, two layers of 4@50 mm wire mesh were used to reinforce the concrete core. The wire meshes were modelled using the Hughes-Liu beam elements and their nodes were merged with

483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

8 A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

Fig. 12. A comparison between experimental and predicted results for the stainless steel panel (a) load time histories, (b) displacement time histories.

Fig. 13. A comparison between experimental and predicted results for the lightweight core panel (a) load time histories, (b) displacement time histories.

Fig. 14. A comparison between experimental and predicted results for the Reinforced core panel (a) load time histories, (b) displacement time histories.

492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500

the concrete elements. Fig. 14 shows the comparison between the experimental results and the simulation results. From Fig. 14a, it can be observed that the numerical model predicted the initial response of the panel quite accurately. The exural strength predicted by the model was signicantly higher than that in the test. This could be attributed to the modelling of the bond between the wire meshes and the concrete core by merging the nodes of the beam elements to the nodes of the concrete elements in the model. This full interaction between the concrete

and the wire meshes ignored the slippage at the steel wire-concrete interface thus causing a higher exural capacity. The peak tensile membrane resistance predicted by the model was 294 kN, which was slightly higher than the experimental result of 284 kN. The maximum displacement of the bottom faceplate predicted by the model was 168 mm. It was 8% lower than the experimental displacement of 183 mm. In the test, it was observed that the concrete core at the impact zone was crushed at the top and cracked at the bottom, as shown

501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

Fig. 15. Damage of the concrete core of the Reinforced core panel (a) cracking, crushing of the concrete and buckling of top layer of the wire mesh, (b) cracking at the ared zone.

Fig. 16. Damage contour plot for the concrete core for the FE model of the Reinforced core panel.

Fig. 17. Deformation and axial force distribution in the wire meshes for FE model of the Reinforced core panel.

510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518

in Fig. 15a. The top layer of the wire mesh at the mid-span buckled and the top steel faceplate was indented. There was some cracking at the ared zone, as shown in Fig. 15b. The damage contour plot of the concrete core was illustrated in Fig. 16. It shows that the model predicted similar damage of concrete core at the mid-span and ared zone with the experimental observations. The axial force contour plot of the wire meshes was illustrated in Fig. 17. It shows that the top layer of wire mesh suffered local buckling at the impact zone and fractured near the support.

6. Conclusions An extensive study on the dynamic response of non-composite steelconcretesteel sandwich panels under condition of normal impact by a falling mass has been undertaken. The numerical simulations presented a full three-dimensional modelling of the impact by a falling hammer from a height of 3 m. The numerical results demonstrated reasonable correlation with the test results. They also revealed some differences in modelling the failure

519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011

COST 4643 26 May 2012

10 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 A.M. Remennikov, S.Y. Kong / Composite Structures xxx (2012) xxxxxx

No. of Pages 11, Model 5G

mechanisms between the steel plates and the concrete inll under impact conditions. Several important modelling observations were summarised below: 1. The contact surface algorithm: The LS-DYNA AutomaticSurface-to-Surface contact algorithm which only considers the friction resistance between interfaces was appropriate for the non-composite steelconcretesteel panels since the chemical bonding of the concrete has failed before the testing. However, the assumption of a full bond between the wire meshes and the concrete core in the model with reinforced concrete inll may overestimate the exural capacity of the panel. 2. The strain rate effect: The strain rate effect of the steel was considered by dening the CowperSymonds coefcients. These coefcients increased the static yield stress of the steels. The maximum stress achieved by the steel plates in the simulation was higher than 600 MPa. It was found that the hourglass energy exceeded 50% of the internal energy of the concrete core when the strain rate effects of the concrete were considered. Therefore the strain rate effects of concrete were ignored to minimise the hourglass energy in this study. 3. Erosion formulation of concrete elements: The concrete elements can be eliminated once they exceeded the strain threshold dened in the LS-DYNA concrete material model CSCM Concrete (Mat 159). The erosion of the concrete elements could improve the prediction of the residual exural strength of the panel. On the other hand, the erosion formulation was not recommended in this study because it may result in signicant underestimation of the tensile membrane resistance of the non-composite axially-restrained sandwich panels under large deformation.

to thank senior technical staffs, Mr. Alan Grant and Mr. Ian Bridge for their assistance in conducting the experiments. References

562 563 564

Acknowledgements This research was supported under Australian Research Councils Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project No. DP0879733), this support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like

565 [1] Narayanan R, Roberts TM, Naji FJ. Design guide for steelconcretesteel 566 sandwich construction, general principles and rules for basic elements, vol. 567 1. UK: The Steel Construction Institute; 1994. 568 [2] Oduyemi TOS, Wrigth HD. An experimental investigation into the behaviour of 569 double-skin sandwich beams. J Constr Steel Res 1989;14(3):197220. 570 [3] Wright HD, Oduyemi TOS, Evans HR. The experimental behaviour of double 571 skin composite elements. J Constr Steel Res 1991;19(2):97110. 572 [4] Shanmugam NE, Kumar G. Behaviour of double skin composite slabs-an 573 experimental study. J Steel Struct 2005;5:43140. 574 [5] Xie M, Foundoukus N, Chapman JC. Static tests on steelconcretesteel 575 sandwich beams. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63:73550. 576 [6] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA. Lightweight steelconcretesteel sandwich system with 577 J-hook connectors. J Eng Struct 2009;31(5):116678. 578 [7] Young B, Coyle N. Resistance of Bi-steel to in-contact and close-proximity high 579 explosive detonations, In: 17th International symposium on military aspects of 580 blast and shock, Lac Vegas, Nevada, USA; 2002. 581 [8] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA, Koh CG. Impact tests on steelconcretesteel sandwich Q2 582 beams with lightweight concrete core, J Eng Struct 31 (9) 20452059. 583 [9] Remennikov A, Kong SY, Uy B. Static and dynamic behaviour of non-composite 584 steelconcretesteel protective panels under large deformation. In: The 4th 585 international conference on steel & composite structures, Sydney, Australia; 586 2323 July 2010. 587 [10] Remennikov A, Kong SY, Uy B. Impact resistance of non-composite axially 588 restrained steelconcretesteel sandwich panels. In: The 5th civil engineering 589 conference in the Asian region and Australasian structural engineering 590 conference 2010, Sydney, Australia; 812 August 2010. 591 [11] Kong SY, Remennikov A, Uy B. Numerical simulation of high-performance SCS 592 panels under static and impact loading conditions. In: The 21st Australasian 593 conference on the mechanic of structures and materials, Melbourne, Australia; 594 710 December 2010. 595 [12] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA keyword users manual, version 971, vol. 1. Livermore 596 Software Technology Corporation (LSTC); 2010. 597 [13] Lee SC, Sohel KMA, Liew JYR. Numerical simulation of ultra-lightweight steel 598 concretesteel sandwich composite panels subjected to impact. In: The ninth 599 international conference on computational structures 600 technology. Stirlingshire, Scotland: Civil-Comp Press; 2008. 601 [14] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore Software Technology 602 Corporation (LSTC); 2006. 603 [15] Jones N. Structural impact. Cambridge University Press; 1989. 604 [16] Federal Highway Administration. Users manual for LS_DYNA concrete material 605 model 159. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-062; 2007. 606 [17] Federal Highway Administration. Evaluation of LS-DYNA concrete material 607 model 159, Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-063; 2007. 608

Please cite this article in press as: Remennikov AM, Kong SY. Numerical simulation and validation of impact response of axially-restrained steelconcrete steel sandwich panels. Compos Struct (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.011