Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Reliability analysis of direct shear and flexural failure modes of

RC slabs under explosive loading
*
Hsin Yu Low, Hong Hao
School of Civil and Structural Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Ave., Singapore 639798

Received 12 February 2001; received in revised form 3 September 2001; accepted 3 September 2001

Abstract

Two loosely coupled SDOF systems are used to model the flexural and direct shear responses of one-way reinforced concrete
slabs subjected to explosive loading. Incorporating the effects of random variations of the structural and blast loading properties,
as well as the strain rate effect caused by rapid load application, failure probabilities of the two failure modes are analyzed. The
model is capable of predicting the failure probability of the slab with random material and geometrical parameters and subjected
to random blast loading. Considering the random variations of structural properties and blast loading, the failure probabilities of
one-way RC slab designed according to BS 8110 (Stuctural use of concrete, parts 1 and 2 (1985)) are calculated. The effect of
span length of the slab on its failure probability to blast loading is also investigated. Based on numerical results, a semi analytical
boundary that separates the slab’s flexural and shear failure modes is derived as a function of peak reflected pressure and duration
of blasting wave.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reliability; Flexural; Direct shear; Blast loading; SDOF

1. Introduction and dimensional properties. These will be briefly

Inherent in every structure are the uncertainties in its
material and dimensions. As parameters related to struc-
tural materials and geometry, as well as loading on a
structure, cannot be completely certain, it is an over-
simplification to perform only deterministic structural
analysis although the deterministic limit state design
implicitly includes the uncertainty effects by applying
safety factors to both structural material and applied
load. A challenging task in non-deterministic structural
analysis is to more accurately account for the ran-
domness in a given problem with the use of proven
numerical algorithm. The result from such an analysis
would be in the form of statistical quantities describing
the response. Many efforts have been focused on the
development of reliability methods and algorithms in
recent years. With these algorithms, reliability problems
are solved more readily. Many researchers have also
studied the random variations of RC structural material
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-791-5278; fax: +65-791-0676.
E-mail address: chhao@ntu.edu.sg (H. Hao).
reviewed and used in the present study.
The analysis of the dynamic response of reinforced
concrete slabs subjected to blast loading is complicated
because the impulsive load caused by the explosion is
highly nonlinear and occurs in an extremely short dur-
ation. An experimental phenomenon observed by many
researchers indicated that reinforced concrete structures
subjected to distributed load of short duration may not
behave plastically at mid-span and fail there. Some of
the beams might fail at positions very close to the sup-
port owing to direct shear failure, i.e., failure is not
necessarily caused by its flexural mode [2–5]. Although
it is generally agreed that a large loading with short dur-
ation is more likely to cause a slab to fail by its shear
failure mode while a relatively small amplitude load with
longer duration will result in flexural failure, this
phenomenon is not well understood, and a lot of models
have been proposed to account for this problem. There
have been studies of structural element response in
assessing the dynamic elasto–plastic deformation of
plates both analytically as presented, for example, by
Yankelevsky [6] and experimentally by, for example,
Gürke and Bücking [7]. A Timoshenko beam model was

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 8 7 - 6
190 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198
also used to model the direct shear failure by Ross [8],
Karthaus and Leussink [2] and by Krauthammer et al.
[9]. However, the simplest approximation is by a SDOF
simplification. As commented in conwep [10], problems
that involve non-oscillatory loads such as blast load,
when only the peak response is required, many structural
systems may be sufficiently analyzed using only the first
mode. Works in this area include the references [4,5,11–
15]. The behavioral prediction by the more advanced
Timoshenko beam theory has been shown by Krau-
thammer et al. [16] to be exactly the same as those
derived by the SDOF approach. In all these studies, the
two failure modes of a slab to blast load, namely the
direct shear failure and flexural failure, are modelled
independently. This is usually acceptable because the
two failure modes normally do not occur at the same
time. A slab will enter the flexural response mode only
if it has survived the direct shear force. The decoupling
of the flexural and direct shear responses in SDOF analy-
sis was also justified in Krauthammer et al. [16].
In this study, parametric reliability analysis is carried
out to estimate the failure probabilities of RC slabs sub-
jected to blast loading. Two loosely coupled SDOF sys-
tems are used to model the direct shear and flexural fail-
ure modes. The random variations of the RC material
properties and structural dimensions suggested by other
researchers as well as the random variations of blasting
load proposed by the authors [17], based on a literature
survey of the various available empirical formulae, are
used in the analysis. Failure probabilities of slabs with
different dimensions subjected to blast pressures of vari-
ous amplitudes and duration are estimated by the First-
order reliability method (FORM). Based on the numeri-
cal results obtained, a boundary, which is a function of
blast pressure amplitude, duration and the aspect ratio
of slab, is derived to separate the direct shear and flex-
ural failure modes. This boundary can be easily used to
determine the failure mode of a given slab under a
known blast pressure history.
2. Random variables
To account for the random variation of basic para-
meters in structural analysis, statistical descriptions of
the variability of loads and material properties of
reinforced concrete (RC) members are required. The
flexural and direct shear strengths and stiffness of RC
members may vary from the expected values due to vari-
ations in material properties and dimensions of the mem-
ber, as well as uncertainties inherent in the models used
to compute them. The explosive loading parameters like
pressure, rise time and duration might also vary from
their expected values owing to its highly nonlinear nat-
ure and short duration. In fact, it is well known that such
parameters are very difficult to measure.
2.1. Concrete strength
Random variations of concrete properties have been
studied by many researchers. It was found that the con-
crete cube strength is normally distributed with coef-
ficient of variation (COV) of 0.07 if construction quality
is well controlled [18]. Analyzing data obtained from a
number of published sources, the same reference pro-
posed the following equation for the COV of concrete’s
in-situ strength
COV(in⫺situ strength)⫽[COV(cylinder strength)2 (1)
⫹0.0084] 1/2
Assuming the COV of cylinder strength is the same
as that of cube strength, the COV of in-situ concrete
strength is estimated to be approximately 0.11 from the
above equation.
The mean strength of concrete is often related to its
characteristic strength. Specifically, BS 8110 [1] defines
the characteristic strength of concrete as that value of
the cube strength below which not more than 5% of the
test results may be expected to fall. Hence, the relation-
ship between the characteristic strength (fcu)k and the
mean strength (fcu)m can be written as
(fcu)k⫽(fcu)m⫺1.64sfcu MPa (2)
where sfcu is the standard deviation, and subscripts k and
m denote characteristic and mean values. Using the
above relation, the mean strength of grade 30 concrete
((fcu)k=30 MPa) is estimated to be 36.56 MPa and stan-
dard deviation s=COV(fcu)m=0.11∗36.56=4 MPa.
Many codes and researchers suggest slightly different
approaches to estimate the Young’s modulus of concrete
according to the weight, compressive strength and den-
sity [19,20]. However, BS 8110’s recommendation is
adopted here for purpose of consistency, which treats the
Young’s modulus as normally distributed with a COV
of 0.1. The mean static value of Young’s modulus for
Grade 30 concrete is 26 GPa.
2.2. Reinforcement strength
A few statistical distribution types for yielding
strength of reinforcement have been proposed such as
normal, log-normal and beta distributions [21], or nor-
mal distribution [22]. In the latter study, it was proven
that normal distribution is more appropriate for
reinforcement yield strength at the 95% confidence level.
In the present study, normal distribution is adopted.
The mean yield strength of high-strength deformed
bar is related to characteristic yield strength through the
equation [23] below
fyk
fym⫽ and COV⫽0.08 (3)
1−1.64COV
 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198
where fyk is the characteristic yield strength and COV is
the coefficient of variation of the yield strength. Using
this relation, it can be estimated that the mean yield
strength of reinforcement steel is 530 MPa if its charac-
teristic yield strength is 460 MPa. Many studies indi-
cated that the variation of Young’s modulus of reinforce-
ment steel is minimal [24]. Hence, it is taken as
deterministic with a value of 200 GPa in this study.
2.3. Structural dimensions
Dimension is another parameter that will affect the
strength and stiffness of a structure. Geometric imperfec-
tion in RC elements is caused by deviations from the
specific values of the cross-sectional shape and dimen-
sions, the position of reinforcing bars, ties and stirrups,
the horizontality and verticality of the concrete lines, and
the alignment of columns and beams. Most researchers
recommended the use of normal distribution to model
the statistical variation of dimensions of structural mem-
bers [25,26]. Mirza and MacGregor [26] also analyzed
the variations of dimensions of cast in situ slabs. Based
on the above information on variability in structures’
dimensions, a COV of 0.03 is adopted for all dimensions
(slab height, h; effective depth, d; length, L; breadth, b),
and the designed dimensions are taken as the mean
values and their variations are assumed following nor-
mal distributions.
3. Strain rate effect on strengths
As mentioned in Bischoff and Perry [27], properties
of the materials used in reinforced concrete structures
are almost all strain rate dependent. It is also pointed out
in the same reference that the expected magnitude of
strain rate for blast loading ranges from 100 to 1000/s.
However, owing to the difficulty in carrying out concrete
material tests at high loading rate, knowledge on con-
crete material property enhancement is limited to strain
rates of 100/s. Moreover, during the blast loading pro-
cess, a slab will experience varying strain rates. For these
reasons, in the present study, a constant strain rate of
100/s is used in the analysis. This is acceptable as shown
by Krauthammer and his co-authors [28] that a constant
strain rate with a reasonable order of magnitude is suf-
ficient to yield good results.
3.1. Concrete
The strain rate enhancement formulae for concrete’s
uniaxial compressive strength (s), Young’s modulus (E)
and critical axial strain (e0) from the CEB [29] rec-
ommendation shown below are adopted in the present
study.
191
再 sd/ss=(ėd/ės)1.026a ėdⱕ30s−1
sd/ss=g(ėd)1/3 ėd⬎30s−1
(4)
Ed/Es⫽(ėd/ės)0.026 (5)
e0,d/e0,s⫽(ėd/ės)0.020 (6)
where ės=30∗10−6s−1 and a=(5+3fcu/4)−1,
logg=6.156a⫺0.492, and subscripts “d” and “s” rep-
resent dynamic and static conditions respectively.
3.2. Steel
The steel’s dynamic enhancement is based on the
model proposed by Liu and Owen [30], which suggests
冉冊
fyd ė
⫽l log10 ⫹1 (7)
fys ės
in which the parameter l is 0.03 and ės for steel is
approximately 10⫺2/s.
Coupled with the strain rate effect, the statistical vari-
ations of the basic random variables considered are tabu-
lated in Table 1. From these basic random variables of
material strengths, the flexural and direct shear strengths
can be obtained from the following models.
4. Structural resistances
4.1. Flexural resistance
The flexural resistance of the structure analyzed is
obtained first by computing the moment–curvature
relation of the section. Then, by considering the support
conditions, the deflection of the structure under uni-
formly distributed loading is calculated from the onset
of loading to failure. The incremental procedure for
obtaining the static load-deflection relationship of the
structural element is shown in Fig. 1.
In the analysis, it was assumed that strains had a linear
distribution over the beam cross section and that tensile
behavior of concrete located below the neutral axis is
neglected. An iterative process is utilized to satisfy the
force equilibrium condition of the section. The entire
procedure is repeated for incremental values of strain in
tensile reinforcement until failure of the cross section is
reached. Here, since ultimate failure is of concern, it
implies a severe deformation of the steel bars (when
reinforcement strain reached esu where esu=10 esy) or
crushing of the concrete (when concrete strain reaches
ecu). The section analyzed is designed according to BS
8110 [1] without considering the severe blast load. The
elastic limit of the moment–curvature relation thus corre-
sponds to the point of the first yielding of the reinforce-
ment.
The stress–strain relationship employed for the con-
192 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198

Table 1
Basic structural variables adopted (dynamically enhanced)

Variable Mean (strain rate enhanced) Enhancement factor COV Distribution

fcu 84.088 MPa 2.3 0.11 Normal

Ec 38.5 GPa 1.48 0.1 Normal
fy 594 MPa 1.12 0.08 Normal
Es 200 GPa 1 Deterministic –
ecu 0.0054 1.35 Deterministic –
Dimensions as designed – 0.03 Normal
mass 2446.5 kg/m3*Volume – 0.05 Normal
Prmax As recommended – 0.3227 Normal
a As recommended – 0.13 Normal

rate effect on flexural resistance is accounted for by the

use of dynamically enhanced material strengths as dis-
cussed above.

4.2. Direct shear resistance

The direct shear resistance function of RC structures

is not well developed and thus is more empirical. The
model used, as shown in Fig. 2, is based originally on
Krauthammer et al’s work [5]. It consists of five straight
line segments, namely the elastic response segment OA,
hardening segment AB, plastic flow segment BC, soften-
ing segment CD and final yielding segment DE. The
model was developed by modifying a few existing shear
stress–slip models. The elastic resistance (segment OA)
is modelled by equation te given in the figure, for which
the shear slip is up to 0.1 mm. The segment AB starts
from a shear slip of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm and its resistance
is represented by tm as indicated in the figure. In the
third segment BC, the shear strength remains a constant,
and the point C corresponds to a shear slip of 0.6 mm.
In actual application, Krauthammer et al. [9] did not con-
sider the softening region, and the model used was a tri-
linear one. In the present study, the tri-linear model is
further simplified to a bi-linear one for use in the

Fig. 1. Flow chart of flexural resistance computation.

crete material is the idealized stress–strain curve of con-

crete under uniaxial compression proposed by Hognestad
[31]. The problems of concrete confinement and possible
bond slip between concrete and reinforcement are not
considered. The support conditions are taken as ideal and
symmetrical, where differential settlement and second
order effect (P-⌬ effect) are not considered. The strain Fig. 2. Direct shear resistance model.
 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198
dynamic analysis (Fig. 2). The simplification is based on
the justification that as long as the area under the stress–
displacement curve remains constant, the energy
absorbed by the system would be the same, and thus the
displacement calculated would be the same as well [32].
The yielding and the maximum allowable shear slip are
taken as 0.1 mm and 0.6 mm, respectively as shown in
Fig. 2. An enhancement factor of 2 is multiplied to the
direct shear strength, as done in Krauthammer et al. [5]
to account for the rapid loading rate. This factor is
indeed obtained from tests by Chung [33]. In a series of
push-off tests for investigating the shear strength
enhancement under dynamic load, Chung [33] reported
dynamic increase factors for shear strength from 1.80 to
2.02, under a stressing rate of 10,000 to 12,800 N/mm2/s.
5. Blast loading
The blast load pressure time history on a structure is
usually simplified to an exponential or triangular shape
as
冉 冊
t Department of Army [36].
P(t)⫽Prmaxe−at or Prmax 1⫺ (8)
to
where Prmax is the peak reflected pressure of the blast
wave, a is the decaying rate for exponential represen-
tation and to the duration for triangular loading simplifi-
cation. The peak reflected pressure Prmax can be easily
estimated by Mills [34] in the following equation.
2Pmax(710+4Pmax)
Prmax⫽ KPa (9)
710+Pmax
in which Pmax is the peak pressure of the blast wave in
free air.
Many empirical formulae and charts are available to
estimate Pmax and duration to. From a statistical analysis
of eight available publications carried out by the author
[17], it was found that the mean value of the peak
reflected pressure at various scaled distances Z=R/w1/3
(R and w are the stand-off distance in metres and equiv-
alent TNT charge weight in kg) can be estimated by
154.67 617.19 3069.3
Prmax⫽ ⫹ 2 ⫹ 3 ⫺1.2024 kPa (10)
Z Z Z
and the average COV at each Z is 0.3227. The statistical
analysis also revealed that the average COV of loading
duration is about 0.13.
From the principle of conservation of impulse, the
decaying rate a is found to be related to duration to
through the relation a=2/to. Since the decay rate and
loading duration are inversely related, it is reasonable to
assume that they share the same COV.
193
6. Equivalent SDOF systems
Two coupled SDOF systems with bilinear resistance
functions are used to represent the shear and flexural
response mode of the slab. The first system is used for
modelling the flexural response at the point of maximum
displacement along the span of the structure (ie. at mid-
span as the loading and structure are symmetrical), and
the second is for monitoring the direct shear response at
the support.
The SDOF system for modelling the flexural response
is based on Biggs [32] where the deflected shape of the
structure is assumed to be the same as that resulting from
the static application of the dynamic load. The equival-
ent mass and stiffness parameters are derived based on
the mass density, Young’s modulus, moment inertia,
span length and boundary condition of the slab, as well
as the deflection shape of the slab under distributed static
load. More details can be found in Biggs [32]. The accu-
racy of using a SDOF system to model the slab response
to blast loads was proven by Krauthammer and his co-
authors [5]. This simplification for flexural response has
been widely accepted and recommended, for instance,
by the US Air Force Manual AFM 88–22 [35] and US
The second SDOF system is used to model the direct
shear response of the slab. Since the direct shear mode
is expected to occur within a very short duration after
the initiation of the explosive loading, the structure
would not have any significant deformation at that time,
and because the failure plane occurs very near to the
support, the phenomenon is very much like a sudden
collapse of the entire beam. This implies that the shape
function of the structure can be taken as unity with negli-
gible deflection. The transformation factors for the shear
mass, direct shear stiffness as well as the loading are
taken as unity too [11].
7. Performance function formulation
The exponentially decaying function in Eq. (8) is
selected to represent the explosive pressure’s time his-
tory. Upon transforming the structural slab into its equiv-
alent flexural SDOF system, the post-yielding response
of the equivalent system is given by
zy(Ky−Kn)
z̈⫹w2yz⫽Ae−at⫹ (11)
my
in which z=mid-span displacement; wy=post-yielding
frequency; A=equivalent explosive force per unit mass;
zy=yield displacement; Kn, Ky=pre- and post-yielding
flexural stiffness, and my=post-yielding mass.
The motion equation of the equivalent direct shear
SDOF system is
194 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198
ÿ⫹w21y⫽1/ms[0.5 PrmaxbLe−ta⫹0.5KLmsz̈(t)] (12)
where y=shear slip at support; w1=pre-yielding direct
shear stiffness; L,b=length and breadth of slab; KL=load
factor, and ms=shear mass. On the right hand side is the
applied shear force at the support, where the first term
is contributed by the pressure loading and the second
term from the inertia force of the structure. The two
SDOF systems are loosely coupled through the acceler-
ation of the flexural response that appears in the direct
shear equation as inertia force.
Their maximum responses can be derived as follows.
z(tmax,f)⫽C1sinwytmax,f⫹C2coswytmax,f (13)
A −t a zy(Ky−Kn)
⫹ e max,f ⫹
a +w2y
2
w2ymy
y(tmax,ds)⫽H1sinw2tmax,ds⫹H2cosw2tmax,ds (14)
0.5 PrmaxbL −t 0.5KLz̈(tmax,ds) y1(K2−K1)
⫹ 2 2
e max,dsa⫹ ⫹ Fig. 3(a)–(c) show the failure probabilities of the two
ms(a +w2) w22 w22ms
where z(tmax,f) and y(tmax,ds) are the maximum responses
of the flexural and direct shear modes respectively where
w2=post-yielding direct shear frequency, C1, C2, H1 and
H2 are constants dependent on initial conditions.
The performance functions of both the flexural and
direct shear modes relate the maximum responses to the
ultimate limits. This is done by dividing the maximum
displacement reached under the blast loading by the ulti-
mate displacement; if the value is greater than one, fail-
ure is initiated. Therefore, the performance functions of
the two modes are shown as follows.
zmax
gf⫽1⫺ (15)
zu
ymax
gds⫽1⫺ (16)
y2
where zu and y2 are the ultimate displacement of the
structure at the mid-span and the ultimate direct shear
slip at the support corresponding to the flexural and
direct shear responses respectively. zu needs be calcu-
lated iteratively as indicated in the flowchart given in
Fig. 1. The description of the procedure for calculating
zu is given in Section 4.1. The ultimate shear slip, y2, is
chosen as 0.6 mm as discussed in Section 4.2.
With the performance functions of both the flexural
and direct shear modes defined, the corresponding failure
probabilities of them can be computed by the first-order
reliability method (FORM). The standard reliability
method is used in the present study [37]. The numerical
calculation is performed by using a computer software
calrel [38].
8. Assessment of the two failure modes
To the authors’ knowledge, there is no definition yet
in the available literature to define the conditions under
which the flexural or direct shear failure occurs. Ross
[8] has come up with failure curves that divide the peak
pressure–rise time diagram into two parts; for loading
conditions above the failure curve, direct shear failure is
expected, and for the rest of the region, flexural failure
or no failure can be anticipated. He compared the
demand and supply of flexural and direct shear strengths
of the slab in each time increment. The mode in which
the strength demand reaches its capacity first is the fail-
ure mode. However, no information is given on the prob-
ability of such damage to the structure.
Krauthammer et al. [5,9,16] used SDOF and Timosh-
enko beam theory to model the structural behavior of
slabs under blast. Although their numerical results com-
pare well with the test data, no prediction is given as to
when one failure mode happens instead of the other.
failure modes of a one-way simply supported RC slab,
of dimensions 1*3*0.17 m3 with 1% tension reinforce-
ment and nominal top reinforcement. Detailed infor-
mation of the slab used is given in Table 2. The peak
reflected pressure is 1.5 and 2 MPa, with varying loading
duration on the horizontal axis. The results are calculated
by using calrel [38] with the above two performance
functions and the statistical properties of structural para-
meters defined in Table 1.
From the figure, a few important characteristics can
be observed:
1. When the peak pressure increases, failure prob-
abilities of both modes increase at the same loading
duration, as expected.
2. For a low enough peak reflected pressure (Fig. 3(a)),
flexural failure mode dominates the whole range of
loading duration considered.
3. When the peak reflected pressure increases, the “inter-
mediate” behavior occurs, where both modes are
active within the probability of failure range of zero
and one. In this case, as demonstrated in Fig. 3(b),
the direct shear mode dominates in the shorter loading
duration, and the flexural mode is important for longer
loading duration.
4. If the peak reflected pressure further increases, failure
is dominated solely by the direct shear mode in the
loading duration range considered, as shown in Fig.
3(c).
If the dominating failure probabilities for some particular
values are of concern, say 0.1, 0.5 and 0.8, then the peak
reflected pressure and the corresponding loading dur-
ation that give these failure probabilities can be
extracted, as shown in Fig. 4. In this figure, each contour
 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198 195

Fig. 4. Failure contours of 0.1, 0.5 and 0.8.

indicates the same failure probability and here, failure

probability refers to the one with the higher value of the
two failure modes under that particular loading. The two
modes are differentiated by their symbols in the figure.
It can be seen that generally each failure contour in
Fig. 4 is an exponential curve with the peak reflected
pressure Prmax causing failure decaying with increase of
loading duration to. This indicates that the higher the
peak reflected pressure, the shorter the loading duration
that a structure can sustain. Also, with higher peak
reflected pressure and shorter loading duration, which
means higher loading intensity, the direct shear mode is
the dominating failure mode. The flexural mode domi-
nates in the region with relatively lower peak reflected
pressure and longer loading duration. In order to obtain
the transition between the two modes in each failure con-
tour, more data points are computed to ensure that the
difference in peak reflected pressure between two con-
secutive points that fail by different failure modes do not
exceed 0.05 MPa. A straight line can be fitted through
these transition points in the peak reflected pressure —
Fig. 3. Failure probabilities of two modes.
loading duration diagram as shown in Fig. 5. The dia-
gram can be used to predict the failure probability and

Table 2
Standard values adopted in analysis

Slab parameters Mean value COV

Slab dimensions L 3m 0.03

B 1m 0.03
h 0.17 m 0.03
d 0.145 m 0.03
m 1.24*103 kg 0.05
r 1% Deterministic
Slab’s strengths Kn 1.11*107 N/m 0.13
Ky 1.07*106 N/m 0.13
K1 2.05*1010 N/m 0.1
K2 2.10*109 N/m 0.22
zy 0.027 m 0.11
zu 0.1713 m 0.13
y1 0.1 mm Deterministic
y2 0.6 mm Deterministic
196 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198
Fig. 5. Failure contours with failure mode transition.
failure mode for the slab with a given peak reflected
pressure and loading duration.
8.1. Effect of span length
A series of simulations is run for slabs with different
span lengths. It should be noted that in all the cases, the
two shorter sides of the slabs are simply supported, and
the other two sides are free. To ensure that the total force
acting on the slabs under the same pressure loading is
approximately the same, the area of the slab is main-
tained at around 10 m2. Hence, the slab width b also
varies with its span length L. The actual dimensions of
each slab used in the simulation are given in Table 3.
Other parameters of the slab such as the thickness, effec-
tive depth and reinforcement ratio, remain the same as
in Table 2. It should be noted that although the L/b ratio
in some cases is less than 2.0, the slabs are designed as
one-way slabs and analyzed by the beam theory
described above. Since the flexural rigidity of a beam
depends on I/L3, in which I is the moment inertia of the
cross section, increasing L and reducing b results in a
smaller flexural rigidity and a larger allowable deflec-
tion. On the other hand, it reduces its strength capacity
as the cross sectional area decreases. Hence, for slabs
with the same surface area, the larger the span length is,
the better is its capacity to resist blast loading in flexural
mode, but lower is its capacity in direct shear failure
mode.
Table 3
Slabs of different span lengths
L (m) B (m) A (m2)
5.4 1.8 9.72
5 2 10
4.4 2.2 9.68
3.9 2.6 10.14
3.2 3.2 10.24
This is demonstrated in the contour of failure prob-
ability of 0.1, corresponding to different span lengths in
Fig. 6 with the failure modes differentiated by symbol.
To present a clearer picture, only three span lengths stud-
ied are shown in this figure. It shows that the load resist-
ance of the slab in the direct shear mode is higher as
the span length L decreases. However, when the peak
pressure is small and the dominating failure mode is
flexural, the reverse is true. This can be seen from the
points corresponding to the peak reflected pressures of
0.5 and 0.7 MPa in the figure. It is clear that the order
swapped as the failure mode changed from direct shear
to flexural. The above observations indicate that as the
slab approaches a square shape, it tends to fail in flexural
mode. In other words, if a structure does not fail in direct
shear mode during the earlier stage when subject to an
explosion, a rectangular slab stands a better chance of
surviving the flexural failure mode than a square one
with the same surface area.
Fig. 7 demonstrates the failure mode transitions for
slabs with different L, with their equations shown against
the transitions. As loading points above a transition is
more likely to initiate a direct shear failure and the ones
below in flexural failure, a slab with a smaller span
length has less chance of failing in direct shear mode.
Fig. 6. Failure contours of 0.1 for slabs with different span lengths.
 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198
Fig. 7. Failure transitions of slabs with different span lengths.
It is more likely to fail in flexural mode. The opposite
is true for the slab with a larger span length. If the same
information is fitted in a three-dimensional space, as
shown in Fig. 8, a function is found relating the peak
reflected pressure, loading duration and span length L as
given below.
Prmax 冉
L2
A 冊
⫹16.3847 ⫽107.1571to
where A is the surface are of the slab. Again, any point
of combinations of Prmax, to and span length L at a given
surface area A that is lying above the plane is expected
to fail in direct shear mode, while those below in flex-
ural mode.
9. Conclusion
Using two loosely coupled SDOF systems to represent
the flexural and direct shear failure modes, the failure
probabilities of RC slabs designed to BS 8110 under
blast loading have been computed by the first-order
reliability method. Statistical variations of material
strengths, structural dimensions and parameters of the
explosive loading were considered. Rapid strain rate
Fig. 8. Failure contours of slabs with different span lengths.
197
effects on material strengths were also accounted in
the analysis.
The numerical results of parametric calculation indi-
cate that a slab tends to fail in a direct shear mode if
the blast load amplitude is high but of short duration. It
tends to fail in flexural failure mode if load amplitude
is relatively low and duration is relatively long. In
addition, the span length effect of the RC slab with the
same surface area has also been analyzed. Results indi-
cate that a slab tends to fail in direct shear mode when
it is relatively stiffer with a smaller span length. When
it is relatively flexible with a larger span length, its
chance of survival of the direct shear failure mode
increases. A semi-analytical boundary has been derived
to predict the failure mode of a slab in terms of its span
length L, surface area A, and the peak reflected pressure
and pressure loading duration.
(17)
References
[1] BS 8110: Structural use of concrete — Part 1: code of practice
for design and construction. Part 2: code of practice for special
circumstances. London: British Standard Institution, 1985.
[2] Karthaus W, Leussink JW. Dynamic loading: more than just a
dynamic load factor. Proceedings of Symposium on the Interac-
tion of Non-Nuclear Munitions With Structures, Colorado, USA,
1983:151–154.
[3] Veen CVD, Blaauwendraad J. Structural response of RC-mem-
bers in case of impulsive loading-failure analysis in bending and
shear. Proceedings of Symposium on the Interaction of Non-
Nuclear Munitions With Structures, Colorado, USA, 1983:182–
187.
[4] Krauthammer T. Shallow-buried RC box-typed structures. J
Struct Engng ASCE 1984;110(3):637–51.
[5] Krauthammer T, Bazeos N, Holmquist TJ. Modified SDOF analy-
sis of RC box-type structures. J Struct Engng ASCE
1986;112(4):726–44.
[6] Yankelevsky DZ. Elasto–plastic blast response of rectangular
plates. Int J Impact Engng 1985;3(2):107–19.
[7] Gürke G, Bücking P. Elasto–plastic response of steel plates to
blast loads. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium
on Military Application of Bast Simulation. Federal Republic of
Germany: Bad Reichenhall, 1987:382–394.
[8] Ross TJ. Direct shear failure in reinforced concrete beams under
impulsive loading. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1983.
[9] Krauthammer T, Assadi-Lamouki A, Shanaa HM. Analysis of
impulsive loaded reinforced concrete structural elements. I:
Theory Comput Struct 1993;48(5):851–60.
[10] Hyde DW. User’s guide for microcomputer program conwep,
application of TM5-855-1, fundamental of protective design for
conventional weapons. Instruction Report SL-88-1, Structures
Laboratory, US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi, 1992.
[11] Krauthammer T, Shahriar S, Shanaa HM. Response of reinforced
concrete elements to severe impulsive loads. J Struct Engng
1990;116(4):1061–79.
[12] Luckyram J, Stewart BM, Zintilis GM. Blast loaded R.C. slabs:
a binary response model for shear and flexure interaction. Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Conference on Structures
under Shock and Impact, Portsmouth, UK, 1992:177–188.
[13] Crouch RS, Chrisp TM. The response of reinforced concrete slabs
to non-nuclear blast loading. Proceedings of the First Inter-
198 H.Y. Low, H. Hao / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 189–198
national Conference on Structures Under Shock and Impact,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1989.
[14] Kiger SA, Hyde DW, Guice LK. Flexural response of reinforced
concrete structures to conventional weapons. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Conventional Munitions With
Protective Structures, Federal Republic of Germany: Manheim,
1987:N42–N53.
[15] Baker WE, Spivey KH. BIGGS — Simplified elastic–plastic
dynamic response. Proceedings of the First International Confer-
ence on Structures Under Shock and Impact, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, USA, 1989.
[16] Krauthammer T, Assadi-Lamouki A, Shanaa HM. Analysis of
impulsive loaded reinforced concrete structural elements. II:
Implementation. Comput Struct 1993;48(5):861–71.
[17] Low HY. Reliability analysis of structures under explosive load-
ing. Masters thesis, Nanyang Technological University, 2000.
[18] Mirza SA, Hatzinikolas M, MacGregor JG. Statistical descrip-
tions of strength of concrete. J Struct Div ASCE
1979;105(6):1021–37.
[19] ACI Committee 318 building code requirements for reinforced
concrete and commentary. Detroit: American Concrete Insti-
tute, 1995.
[20] Australian Standard 3600. Concrete structures. North Sydney:
Standards Association of Australia, 1988.
[21] MacGregor JG, Mirza SA, Elingwood B. Statistical analysis of
resistance of reinforced and prestressed concrete members. ACI
J 1983;80:167–76.
[22] Arafah AM. Statistics for concrete and steel quality in Saudi Ara-
bia. Mag Concrete Res 1997;49(180):185–93.
[23] Val DV, Bljuger F, Yankelevsky DZ. Reliability assessment of
damaged RC framed structures. J Struct Engng
1997;123(7):889–95.
[24] Mirza SA, MacGregor JG. Variability of mechanical properties
of reinforcing bars. J Struct Div ASCE 1979;105:921–37.
[25] Connolly JP. Construction tolerances in reinforced concrete.
Research Report Submitted to ACI Committee 117: Tolerances,
Auburn, Ala.: Auburn University, 1975.
[26] Mirza SA, MacGregor JG. Variations in dimensions of reinforced
concrete members. J Struct Div 1979;105(ST4):751–66.
[27] Bischoff PH, Perry SH. Compressive behavior of concrete at high
strain rates. Mat Struct/Matériaux et Construct 1991;24:425–50.
[28] Krauthammer T. Workshop on structural concrete slabs under
impulsive loads. Proceedings of the Third International Confer-
ence on Structures under Shock and Impact, Spain: Madrid,
1994:99–106.
[29] CEB. Concrete structures under impact and impulsive loading.
Synthesis Report, Bulletin d’Information No. 187. Lausanne:
Comité Euro-International du Béton, 1988.
[30] Liu GQ, Owen DRJ. Ultimate load behavior of reinforced con-
crete plates and shells under dynamic transient loading. Int J
Numer Meth Engng 1986;22:189–208.
[31] Hognestad E. A study of combined bending and axial load in
reinforced concrete members. University of Illinois Engineering
Experimental Station, Bulletin Series No. 399, 1951:128.
[32] Biggs JM. Introduction to structural dynamics. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.
[33] Chung HW. Shear strength of concrete joints under dynamic
loads. J Concrete Soc 1978;12(3):27–9.
[34] Mills CA. The design of concrete structures to resist explosions
and weapon effects. Proceedings of 1st International conference
for hazard protection, Edinburgh, 1987.
[35] Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosion. Air Force
Manual AFM 88-22, UNCL, 1969.
[36] Fundamentals of protective design for conventional weapons.
Technical Manual TM5-855-1, US Department.
[37] Melchers RE. Structural reliability analysis and prediction. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.
[38] Liu PL, Lin HZ, Der Kiureghian A. calrel User Manual, Report
No. UCB/SEMM-89/18, Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley, 1989.