ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 94-S13
Assessment of Reinforcement Details for Blast
Containment Structures
by Robert K. Otani and Theodor Krauthammer
The behavior and design of typical three-dimensional slab-to-
slab-to-slab joints for monolithic construction of blast contain-
ment structures and the reinforcement details associated with
such facilities were investigated. Finite element simulations were
done in the nonlinear dynamic domain with modified concrete and
steel constitutive models. Deformations and stress distributions in
both concrete and steel were examined to determine the compos-
ite structural behavior and damage after an accidental explosion.
The simulations revealed structural behavior aspects and local
stress distributions that could pose safety issues not addressed in
current design approaches.
Keywords: blast-resistant structures; detailing; reinforced concrete; safety.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Accidental explosions may occur during operations with
explosive materials, and protective structural containment
systems could be required to mitigate the effects from such
events. A containment structure is defined1 as a building
that fully, or nearly fully, encloses the donor system with
hardened structural elements. The structural behavior and
response of blast containment structures are of interest
because they correspond to important safety issues.
Previous research on connections in blast containment
facilities2,3 consisted of numerical studies of two-dimensional
models. Although the previous research provided impor-
tant information, a better understanding of the global and
local response of the structure and its constituent members
needed to be addressed. The present study4 concentrated on
the structural behavior of typical three-dimensional slab-
to-slab-to-slab joints for monolithic construction of blast
containment structures and the reinforcement details asso-
ciated with such facilities. The blast containment chamber
analyzed in this study is classified as a Type I containment
cell.1 These are structures in which the cross sections are
effective in resisting moment and the concrete cover over
the reinforcement on both surfaces of the element remains
intact. The structure under consideration5 was designed
based on current recommendations,1 and analyzed in the
nonlinear dynamic domain with the finite element code
DYNA3D.6 This approach has been used extensively for
similar studies2-4 and was validated against reliable test data.
124
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Although current design procedures for reinforcement
details in structural concrete blast containment facilities are
well defined,1 their actual contribution to resisting anticipated
loads is of great interest. Also, structural behavior under
explosions and the associated responses of concrete and
steel need to be better understood. This study was aimed at
assessing numerically the structural behavior of a Type I
reinforced concrete blast containment structure5 that was
designed based on current recommendations.1 The findings
from this study are used to reach conclusions and recom-
mendations on explosive safety and to define the needs for
modifications of current design procedures.
PARAMETRIC STUDY DESCRIPTION
The structure under consideration, as shown in Fig. 1,
was considered in its three-dimensional form. Taking
advantage of the planes of symmetry along the slabs’ center
lines, the finite element model represented one-eighth of
the total structure. To understand better and document the
contributions of each reinforcement component, nine
different cases were considered, using incrementally
varying details of the reinforcement, as described next.
Table 1 contains a summary of the different cases. Fig. 2
illustrates the sidewall/roof connection for Case 6. Fig. 2(a)
shows the specified bar sizes and spacings for the flexural,
tension, shear, diagonal, and radial reinforcement details in a
typical cross section of the containment cell. This reinforce-
ment pattern is repeated every 8 in. in the direction normal to
the figure, and every 12 in. along the structural members.
Fig. 2(b) shows the concrete and steel finite element
mesh for Case 6. It should be noted that several relatively
small utility/service openings existed in this structure.
Although they were considered for the calculation of the
internal load function, their effects on the overall structural
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 2, March-April 1997.
Received July 18, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion will be published in the January-February 1998 ACI Structural Journal if
received by September 1, 1997.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997
ACI member Robert K. Otani is a structural engineer at Thornton-Tomasetti Engi-
neers in New York. He received his BSCE from Rutgers University and MSCE from
Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include the numerical analysis of
reinforced concrete structures subjected to impulsive loading and the evaluation of
design guidelines for such structures.

Theodor Krauthammer, FACI, is a professor of civil engineering at Pennsylvania

State University. He chairs ACI Committee 370, Short Duration Dynamics and Vibra-
tory Load Effects, and is a member of joint ACI-ASCE Committees 421, Design of
Reinforced Concrete Slabs and 445, Shear and Torsion, and ACI Committee 444,
Experimental Analysis for Concrete Structures, and an associate member of joint ACI-
ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His
research interests include numerical and experimental evaluation of structural con-
crete response to severe impulsive loads, including characterization of failure pro-
cesses in both materials and structures and development of design recommendations
for such environments.

performance were not important and they were ignored for

the present structural analysis.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND LOADING

As in previous studies,2,3 the material models for the Fig. 1—Structure under consideration.
structures under consideration were obtained by using the
design material properties and adjusting the soil and crush-
able foam material model in DYNA3D6 to simulate these
properties. The following material properties were used for
all computations: Concrete— f c′ (uniaxial compressive
strength) of 4000 psi (27.6 MPa), and ν (Poisson’s ratio) of
0.16. Steel—E (elastic modulus) of 29 × 106 psi (2 × 105
MPa), ν (Poisson’s ratio) of 0.33, fy (yield strength) of 6 ×
104 psi (414 MPa), and Et (tangent modulus) of 5.1 × 105
psi (3516 MPa). It should be noted that dynamic rate effects
of the concrete and steel properties, which are not well
understood, were not taken into account in this study. This
is a plasticity type material model in which one defines the
shear modulus G, the bulk unloading modulus Ku, three
yield function constants, a hydrostatic pressure tension
failure criterion pf, a maximum principal stress for failure σf,
and up to nine pairs of pressure-volumetric strain data points in
order of increasing compression. This model has no strain
hardening, and the yield stress is determined by the pressure. If

Table 1—Summary of cases (a)

Case
no. Description

1 Consisted of 50,428 eight-node solid plain concrete elements. All

subsequent cases had same concrete mesh configurations.
Concrete with flexural and tension reinforcement as thin layers of
2 steel with 15,861 thin shell elements. Volume of reinforcement
based on design data provided by sponsor.
Similar to Case 2, but longitudinal reinforcement represented as
3 discrete steel bars modeled as 11,184 tubular beam elements. All
subsequent cases used this approach to model reinforcement.

4 As Case 3, but included diagonal reinforcement at connections.

Total of 12,410 tubular beam elements.

5 As Case 4, but included shear reinforcement. Total of 21,842

tubular beam elements.
Most accurate reinforcement representation of structure under
6 consideration. As Case 5, but included radial bars in connections.
Total of 22,783 steel beam elements.
As Case 6, but all diagonal bars moved a distance of 12 in. inward
7 (i.e., toward center of structure), to determine effect of increased
moment arm of diagonals.
As Case 6, but diagonal bars shortened so they did not extend from (b)
8 outside face to outside face of connection to evaluate effects of bar
length and anchorage on both global and local structural response.
As Case 6 except blast loading function did not include gas over- Fig. 2—Case 6 reinforcement and finite element layouts: (a)
9 pressure (load illustrated in Fig. 3). reinforcement; (b) finite element model.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997 125

the hydrostatic pressure tension failure criterion is used, the
element in which it is exceeded cannot sustain hydrostatic
tension or shear stresses. If the maximum principal stress
criterion is used, the deviatoric stresses are gradually set to
zero in the element where the criterion is triggered and the
hydrostatic pressure is left unchanged. This model has been
very useful for concrete and soil, especially if it can be vali-
dated against reliable test data, as discussed previously.2
The design load simulated a 300 lb (136.4 kg) TNT
contained explosion. Although test data would show various
reflections of shock waves from the surrounding walls, the
design loading function venting, according to current design
recommendations,1 was bilinear, consisting of a shock over-
pressure and a gas overpressure, as shown in Fig. 3. The load
depends on the charge weight, proximity of the detonation
relative to the structural element, free air volume within the
containment cell, and venting features. In Case 9, the blast
loading was altered to find the response of the test cell to the
shock overpressure of the blast loading. For each case, the
roof and sidewall were subjected to a blast load with a peak
pressure of 1115 psi (7.69 MPa), while the backwall loading
had a peak pressure of 2470 psi (17 MPa).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The main objective of generating and analyzing the different
case models was systematically to determine the overall effects
of each type of reinforcement as it was added to the structure.
The behavior and stress distributions of Case 6, which most
closely simulated the structure, were analyzed in the greatest
detail and will be discussed again in a separate section.
Table 2 includes the maximum midspan displacements of
the backwall, sidewall, and roof along with their corre-
sponding times for the different cases. Analyses were run to a
maximum of 200 milliseconds (ms) except for Case 1, which
was run to a maximum time of 300 ms. However, this case did
not have the required resistance to reach a stable configuration
(in Table 1, Case 1 data are shown at t = 100 ms).
The deformed shape of Case 1 revealed very large deflection
(and corresponding rotations at the joint regions) at a very
early time, as shown in Table 2, showing failure of the slab-
to-slab connections in the joint region. Cases 2 and 3
showed significant strengthening of the structure with just
the flexural and tension reinforcement added to the plain
concrete model. A definite plateau was noted in the displace-
ments for Cases 2 and 3, but still the displacements were very
large and failure of the connections was probable.
To strengthen the connections further, diagonal reinforcing
bars were added to the structure for Case 4. The diagonal
bars across the inner corners are required in blast contain-
ment structures1 to resist the opening of the joint, transfer
shear stresses from the loaded slab to its support, and resist
direct (pure) shear at the corner region. The addition of the
diagonal reinforcing bars produced a significant reduction
in displacements and rotations. Compared with Case 3, the
maximum displacements of the backwall, sidewall, and
roof decreased by 56.4, 49.6, and 34.9 percent, respec-
tively. At the joint region, the diagonal bar effectively
restrained the opening of the connection. The strength-
ening of the joint region was characterized by reducing the
largest rotations at cross sections near the endpoints of the
diagonal bar, where plastic hinge regions were formed. The
relocation of the largest rotations from the face of the
connection to the diagonal bar endpoint locations showed a
shift of maximum moment from the support face region to
the plastic hinge region.
Case 5 included further enhancement by considering the
shear reinforcement. The addition of the shear reinforce-
ment resulted in a less significant decrease of the maximum
displacements compared with Case 4, as shown in Table 2.
The stirrups helped further to strengthen the connection
region between the ends of diagonal bars to the support
and the regions of the plastic hinges where large shear
deformations in the concrete elements occurred in Case 4.
Case 6 was the model that most closely represented the
reinforcement layout of the structure under consideration.
Radial stirrups at the corner joints were added to the model
of Case 6. Although the radial stirrups had a minor effect
on the displacements, as shown in Table 2, they added to
the connections’ strength.
In Case 7, the effect of the increased moment arm (radius
of rotation) of the slab-to-slab connection was examined.
The deformations for Case 7 were similar to those in Case 6.
Plastic hinges formed at a region near the ends of the diag-
onal bars and the joint underwent little rotation. The effect
of the extended diagonal bars was to shift the plastic hinges

Table 2—Maximum displacements

Backwall, Sidewall, Roof,
Case no. Δmax , in. tmax, ms Δmax , in. tmax , ms Δmax, in. tmax , ms
1 104.4 100* 106.0 100* 67.7 100*
2 31.0 66 35.8 71 60.6 124
3 41.4 82 42.1 82 93.5 200*
4 18.04 60 21.23 68 60.9 200
5 11.21 45 13.96 55 47.2 149
6 10.92 43 13.30 54 46.34 142
7 6.58 33 8.13 42 38.3 136
8 23.4 66 26.3 69 70.5 200*
9 3.25 30 2.98 30 7.13 115
*
Does not represent actual Δmax. Failure presumed to have occurred; displacement
Fig. 3—Blast loading function. and time shown for comparison to subsequent cases.

126 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997

more toward the midspans of the slab sections, resulting in of the diagonal bars resulted in a significant strengthening of
a significant reduction of the maximum midspan displace- the structure, yet further examination of the deformed struc-
ments and further strengthening the joint region. ture revealed the formation of plastic hinges near the ends of
The shortened length of the diagonals in Case 8 affected the diagonal bars. Fig. 5 illustrates the plastic hinge regions
significantly the structural behavior, compared with that of for the backwall/roof connection, while local θ1 and global
Case 6. The deformation behavior for Case 8 was similar to θ2 rotations are defined in Fig. 6. The global rotation is
that for Case 6 except that the location of the plastic hinges obtained from the maximum wall displacement divided by
shifted toward the support face region (i.e., closer to the the distance to the support, while the local rotation is
connection). The maximum displacements for this case obtained from the displacement conditions in the hinge
were much greater than even those of Case 4. This means region and the hinge width. It is noticed that the plastic hinge
that the contributions of the shear reinforcement (Case 5) mechanism was characterized by very large local rotations.
and radial bars (Case 6) were virtually offset by the shorter Rotations resulting from the formation of plastic hinges are
diagonal bars. The increased displacements for this case important damage indicators because of the high stresses and
showed that the length of the diagonal bars was very impor- possible failure of both concrete and steel associated with
tant to the overall strengthening of the connections, and such mechanisms. The local and global joint rotations for
strongly affected the plastic hinges’ locations and ultimately
the integrity of the joint regions.
As shown in Table 2, the maximum midspan displace-
ments for Case 9 were very small. The very large decrease
in displacements for Case 9 revealed the large effect that
the gas overpressure portion of the blast loading, rather
than the more intense shock pressure, had on the behavior
of the containment cell. The large effect of the gas over-
pressure showed that the venting and interior free-air
volume of the containment cell are major considerations in
controlling structural deformations.

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CASE 6

For Case 6, a more detailed analysis was undertaken to Fig. 4—Deformed shape of backwall/roof connection (Case 6).
study the structural behavior of the interconnected wall and
roof slab members and to assess the damage to the struc-
ture. The magnitudes and locations of the maximum steel
stresses were recorded along with the associated beam
element force time-history plots. Similarly, the stresses in
the concrete elements were examined to determine failure
and the local stress distributions in the slab cross sections.
Maximum local and global rotations were examined and
compared with the maximum recommended rotation of 2
deg for the Type I containment cells.1 The results of this
analysis are presented and discussed next.

Structural behavior
The deformed shape of the backwall/roof connection is
Fig. 5—Plastic hinge regions (backwall/roof connection).
shown in Fig. 4. Plastic hinge regions near the ends of the
diagonal bars are clearly depicted along with the large local
rotations and shear deformations. It can also be seen in Fig. 4
that the opening of the corner joints was very small. This
showed that the internal joint damage, caused by the opening
of the connection, was reduced by the combination of the
longitudinal, diagonal, shear, and radial reinforcement details.
The displacement of the roof slab continued to increase
well after the walls reached their peak displacements. The
roof’s peak midspan displacement was reached at 142 ms,
during the gas overpressure loading stage, and well after
the peak stresses occurred in the diagonal bars inside its connec-
tions with the walls. This showed that the inertia of the
massive roof slab dominated its behavior.
As noted previously, the support rotations of Type I
containment structures are restricted to 2 deg.1 The addition Fig. 6—Local and global rotations

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997 127

each connection are presented in Table 3. The local and
global rotations are a good indication of the extent of damage
in a structure. It is important to note that the values of the
local θ1 and global θ2 rotations for all of the slab-to-slab
connections exceeded the prescribed maximum 2 deg
support rotations.
Concrete stresses
The initial impulse of the blast shock wave produced very
high stresses in the concrete. When the shock wave reached
the structure, the overpressure produced a compressive stress
wave propagating into the walls. Reflections from the rear
faces produced tensile stresses. These can produce local
fracture in the concrete before any flexural response can
develop in the slab, as observed in other studies.7 Local frac-
tures of concrete elements, associated with the tensile
stresses caused by shock waves, could contribute to direct
shear failures. The direct shear mode of failure is character-
ized by a sliding type failure along a well-defined plane
perpendicular to the axis of the member. Direct shear failure
occurs at very early loading stages8-10 (usually, within 1 ms
after the load arrival and before a flexural response can be
developed).
At early times (i.e., less than 5 ms), the maximum concrete
tensile stresses along the planes of symmetry occurred at the
midspan, plastic hinges, or support face regions. These
maximum tensile stresses are presented in Table 4. Tensile
failure of the concrete was expected at approximately 400
psi (2.76 MPa), that is, 10 percent of the uniaxial compres-
sive strength.
Fig. 7 shows the concrete maximum principal stress distri-
butions through the roof slab thickness for the backwall/roof
connection at the support face region at various times up to
4.0 ms. The distance through the roof (Fig. 7) starts at the
inside face of the roof slab (0 in.) through to the outside face
of the roof slab (54 in. [1372 mm]). The plastic hinge in the
backwall, for the backwall/roof connection, formed at the
end of the diagonal bar where the maximum tensile stresses
occurred early after the load arrival (Table 4). Fig. 7 illus-
trates the large compressive stresses at a very early time (t =
0.25 ms) and the subsequent large tensile stresses. The large
tensile stresses caused by the stress waves showed local
cracking of the concrete at the regions of highest tensile
stress (Table 4) within the thicknesses of the slab members.
The distribution of the concrete stresses showed that, gener-
ally, the internal stresses were compressive. However, the
maximum tensile stresses occurred near the tension bars, and
the stresses approached zero near the exterior of the slabs
(outside face of the walls). Furthermore, it is important to
note that the early-time tensile cracking of the concrete,
caused by the tensile stress waves, may contribute to a direct
shear failure.
Direct shear failure is characterized by shear slip along a
common plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of a
structural member. Fig. 8 shows the maximum shear stress
contours in the backwall/roof connection region at 8 ms. The
locations of maximum shear are highlighted by Planes A and
B (Fig. 1) for the backwall and roof, respectively. The largest
shear stresses occurred at the plastic hinge regions. It should
be noted that the maximum tensile stresses (see Table 4)
occurred at the same locations as the early time maximum
shear stresses in the backwall/roof connection.
The concrete stress distribution through the joint regions
(on a diagonal line through the joint, from the inside corner
to the outside corner of the connection) displayed similar

Table 3—Local and global rotations

Connection Side θ1, deg θ2, deg
Roof 25.9 11.9
Fig. 7—Concrete stress distribution of roof support region Backwall/roof
Backwall 15.5 6.9
(backwall/roof connection). Sidewall 17.7 6.8
Sidewall/roof
Roof 32.3 18.4
Sidewall 12.7 2.9
Backwall/sidewall
Backwall 12.7 4.8
Note: θ1 = local joint rotation; θ2 = global joint rotation.

Table 4—Maximum concrete tensile stresses

Tensile stresses, psi
Support Diagonal Midspan
Connection Side region region region Time, ms
Backwall 262 847 698 0.75
Backwall/roof
Roof 538 296 341 1.25
Sidewall 110 337 364 1.50
Sidewall/roof
Roof 298 370 275 1.00
Fig. 8—Maximum shear stress contours at 8 ms (backwall/ Backwall/ Backwall 263 622 698 0.75
sidewall Sidewall 460 23 57 1.00
roof connection).

128 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997

stress wave behavior to that in the walls and roof (see Fig. 7).
At very early times, up to 0.75 ms, the stress wave propa-
gating through the joint was compressive. At about 1.0 ms,
the stress wave became tensile, with the largest stresses
occurring near the inside corner of the joint. After 1.0 ms, the
concrete stresses diminished to very low stresses.
For the backwall (backwall-roof connection), the largest
concrete stresses (Table 4) occurred at the plastic hinge
regions. This showed that the strengthening by the diagonal
bars essentially shortened the span of the backwall slab, and
the stiffened regions (i.e., the triangular prism behind the
diagonal bars) behaved like a support. For the roof, the largest
stresses occurred at the support face region, which showed
that at early time the diagonal bar had little effect on the
relocation of the largest direct shear stresses. Here it should be
noted that current design procedures1 do not address clearly
how to design structural regions with such difficult simulta-
neous stress combinations (flexure, shear, and tension).
Later, after the high tensile stresses caused by the shock
wave, the stresses were redistributed. The largest tensile
stresses shifted to the midspan regions. This indicated that
the flexural mode of behavior had begun along with the
continuing development of in-plane tension caused by the
expansion of the walls due to the interior explosion.
Reinforcement stresses
The distribution, location, time histories, and magnitude
of maximum stresses in the reinforcement were examined to
provide better understanding of the structural behavior and
the damage in the reinforcement (i.e., yielding and/or frac-
ture), as discussed next.
Diagonal bars—The significant effect of the diagonal bars
in reducing the maximum slab displacements was revealed
in the comparison between Cases 3 and 4, as shown in Table 2.
Fig. 9 shows the axial stress-time histories of the diagonal
bars found along the planes of symmetry (i.e., near the walls’
midspans) for the backwall/roof, sidewall/roof, and back-
wall/sidewall connections, as shown in Fig. 1. Immediately
following the explosively induced shock wave, the diagonal
bars developed tensile stresses. At approximately 40 to 60 ms,
a peak stress was reached followed by a longer phase of
stress decrease. The peak stresses occurred at times generally
associated with the peak displacements of the walls, but not
with that of the roof. Yielding of the backwall/roof and side-
wall/roof diagonals occurred at 28 and 24 ms, respectively.
No yielding occurred in the backwall/sidewall diagonal. It
was noted that the magnitude of stresses for the diagonals
was directly related to the magnitudes of the local and global
rotations (Table 3).
Table 5 includes the maximum steel stresses in the diago-
nals. The maximum diagonal bar stresses of the backwall/
roof, sidewall/roof, and backwall/sidewall connections
Table 5—Maximum steel stresses
Peak stress, ksi
Connection Diagonal Longitudinal Shear Radial
Backwall/roof 64.83 73.08 81.34 42.10
Sidewall/roof 85.26 92.95 103.26 44.71
Backwall/sidewall 46.79 72.67 93.55 105.26
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997
occurred at 45, 60, and 26 ms, respectively. After the peak
stresses, the diagonal bar stresses steadily declined. This
showed a redistribution of stresses for both the roof and wall
slabs because the displacement of the roof continued to
increase until the midspan displacement reached a maximum
at 142 ms (Table 2). Examination of the axial stresses along
the diagonal bars for all connections revealed that the largest
stresses were found at the inner corner of the connections,
while the lowest stresses occurred at the ends.
Longitudinal reinforcement—The axial stresses in the
flexural and tension reinforcement were examined to deter-
mine the location and magnitude of the maximum stresses,
as shown in Table 5. Again the largest stress of 92.95 ksi
found along the sidewall/roof connection was associated
with the large local and global rotations listed in Table 3. The
locations of the maximum flexural and tension bar axial
stresses, along with the locations of the bars loaded to yield
in the backwall/roof connection, are shown in Fig. 10. For all
the connections, the maximum stresses occurred either near
the plastic hinge regions associated with the ends of the diag-
onal bars (the negative moment region) or near the midspan
regions (the positive moment region).
Yielding of the exterior flexural bars (i.e., along the
external slab faces) occurred from the plastic hinge regions
to the midspans, with the largest stresses located at midspan.
Except in the backwall (backwall/roof connection), the
tension bars yielded from the plastic hinge regions to the
midspans, with the largest stresses occurring near the plastic
hinge regions. Yielding of the interior flexural bars generally
occurred from the vicinity of the support face to the plastic
hinge region, with the maximum stresses also occurring at
the plastic hinge regions. Yielding of the interior bars in the
backwall and sidewall slabs near midspan occurred at later
times during the rebound of the respective slabs (during the
damped elastic or elasto-plastic harmonic motion that occurs
after the maximum positive displacements1). The data also
revealed that the flexural and tension bars found inside the
connection regions (located behind the diagonal bars in Fig.
10) did not yield and exhibited low stresses, as compared
with bars outside the connection regions.
Examination of the axial steel stress-time history data at
the support face, diagonal bars, and midspan regions for wall
and roof slabs showed large tensile stresses that had developed
early. These stresses were induced by the rapid expansion of
the internal explosion, and the times associated with the peak
Fig. 9—Diagonal bar axial stress-time history plot.
129
stresses coincided with the times of maximum displacements
of the walls and roof, as shown in Table 2. The time of first
yielding for reinforcements in the roof midspan and diagonal
regions in the backwall/roof connections occurred at 11 and
46 ms, respectively. At 11 ms, the displacement of the roof
was only 1.45 in. (37 mm). Up to 10 ms, the interior flexural
bar, tension bar, and exterior flexural bar stresses underwent
similar ascending tensile stress-time history paths. This indi-
cated that the large in-plane tensile stresses, caused by the
expansion of the structure, were the main contributors to the
first yielding of the roof’s exterior flexural bars at midspan,
before the flexural mode of behavior.
Shear reinforcement—The addition of the shear reinforce-
ment in Case 5 reduced the backwall, sidewall, and roof
Fig. 10—Flexural and tension bar yield pattern (backwall/
roof connection).
Fig. 11—Maximum shear stirrup stress distribution (back-
wall/roof connection).
Fig. 12—Maximum shear stress contours for (a) Case 3 and
(b) Case 6 at 20 ms.
130
displacements by strengthening regions subjected to high
diagonal tension stresses. Table 5 lists the maximum axial
stresses in the stirrups for each connection.
For the backwall/roof connection, each stirrup was exam-
ined to detect which bar element carried the highest axial
stress. Fig. 11 highlights the locations of the highest stresses
in each stirrup for the backwall/roof connection. For the roof
slab, the largest stresses in the stirrups found along Sections
1 through 10 were all approximately 21.5 ksi (148 MPa).
Beyond Section 10, the stresses in the stirrups increased
significantly to the maximum stirrup stress of 81.34 ksi (560
MPa) along Section 15. Along the diagonal bars in Sections
17 through 20, a diagonal pattern developed, although none
of the stirrups reached yield at those locations. For the back-
wall slab, the pattern of highest stirrup stresses clearly
revealed the diagonal tension along the slab. All stirrups
highlighted in the backwall reached yield with the maximum
stirrup stress of 69.28 ksi (475 MPa) near the diagonal bars.
The diagonal pattern of highest stirrup stresses could be a
good indication of anticipated diagonal tension crack
patterns along the slab.
The maximum shear stresses listed in Table 5 generally
occurred near the plastic hinge regions. Fig. 12 (a) and (b)
show the maximum shear stress contours of the sidewall/roof
connection for Case 3 (flexural/tension reinforcement only)
and Case 6 (all the reinforcements included) at 20 ms,
respectively. The maximum shear stress contours for Case 3
were concentrated near the support faces, while for Case 6
the maximum shear stress contours were concentrated near
the ends of the diagonal bars (the plastic hinge region). The
presence of the diagonal bars shifted the maximum shear
stresses away from the supports to the plastic hinge regions.
It is important to note, however, that current design
procedures1 do not address the shifting of the maximum
shear stresses away from the supports toward the ends of the
diagonals. The maximum negative moment and maximum
shear stresses are assumed to be located near the supports
(the negative yield line region).
Joint shear reinforcement: radial bars—The addition of
the radial bars decreased slightly the maximum displace-
ments of the slab midspans, as shown in Table 2, but more
importantly strengthened the joint regions and reduced the
concrete deformations in the regions. Table 5 lists the
maximum radial bar stresses.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study was initiated to provide a better understanding
of the effects that various reinforcement details have on the
behavior of typical reinforced concrete connections in blast
containment cells subjected to an internal explosion. In
determining the effects that each reinforcement detail had on
the structural response of the walls and roof of the contain-
ment cell, a better understanding of current design guidelines
and possible deficiencies were highlighted. The three-
dimensional analysis of the blast containment structure
under consideration is a more realistic method of modeling
and simulation of the blast containment structure than a two-
dimensional approach. Unlike in the two-dimensional case,
the membrane-strengthening effects of the walls and roof
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997
were included. Furthermore, this study captured the incre-
mental strengthening of the structure as each reinforcing
component was added.
The results of Case 1 revealed that the plain concrete
model did not have sufficient strength to resist the blast
loading. The addition of the flexural and tension reinforce-
ment (Cases 2 and 3) provided substantial strength enhance-
ments, but the midspan displacements and joint rotations
were still very large and failure was anticipated. The largest
reduction of displacements was a result of including the
diagonal bars across the inner corners (Case 4). The diagonal
bars significantly strengthened the connection regions by
resisting the opening of the joints, thereby minimizing the
stresses within the joints. The diagonal bars effectively
connected the slabs and transferred forces from one slab to the
other. The forces in the diagonal bars were induced by the
opening of the connections and the relative motions of
adjoining slabs. This is important because the dynamic
response characteristics of the connecting slabs affect the
magnitude of induced forces in the diagonal bars, which in
turn affect the structural response of the connecting slabs. In
Case 4, the peak displacement for the backwall and sidewall
occurred at 60 and 68 ms, respectively, compared with 200 ms
for the roof. The responses of the walls were out of phase with
that of the roof. The forces in the diagonal bars (induced by the
continuing displacement of the roof after the walls’ peak
responses had occurred) caused the roof to pull the walls
inward and contributed to their rebound (inward displace-
ment). It should be noted that very large stresses in the longi-
tudinal bars were associated with the rebound of the walls.
In Case 5, the shear reinforcement was added to the model
of Case 4 and helped to resist the high shear stresses near the
plastic hinge regions and the locations between the plastic
hinge regions and the slab supports. The diagonal pattern of
the largest stirrup stresses could be a good indication of a
possible diagonal tension crack pattern along the slab. The
reinforcement layout for Case 6 was the most accurate
representation of the reinforcement details to that of the
prototype containment cell. The addition of the radial bars did
not significantly decrease the structural response of the
containment cell, but the radial bars contributed to
strengthening the joint region. The increased moment arm
for the diagonal bars (Case 7) further strengthened the
connections and shifted the plastic hinge regions further into
the slabs. The significant decrease in strength and the
increased peak deflections were shown in Case 8 by shortening
the diagonal bar lengths. The results of Cases 7 and 8 showed
that the location (length of the moment arm) and end conditions
of the diagonal bar significantly affected the structural
response. To develop the full contribution of the diagonal
bars, they should extend from the outside face to outside
faces of the adjoining slabs and be well anchored. The axial
stresses in the diagonal bars are greatest at the inner connection
corners and decrease significantly near the ends of the diagonal
bars. In Case 9, the blast loading was modified to include
only the shock overpressures. This resulted in very small
deformations that indicated that although shock overpressures
are extremely intense (but of short duration), the comparatively
low-intensity gas overpressure (with long duration) caused
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997
most of the deformation. Therefore, damage could be
reduced significantly if the gas overpressure duration could
be decreased by adequate venting.
The strengthening of the joint regions by the diagonal bars
was characterized by the formation of plastic hinge regions
near the ends of the diagonal bars. The relocation of the
largest rotations from the support faces to the plastic hinge
regions showed a shift of maximum moment and shear along
the slabs. Examination of the stresses in the flexural bars
along the planes of symmetry revealed that yielding and the
maximum stresses in the interior flexural and tension bars
were found in the plastic hinge regions. Besides the damage
to the flexural reinforcement, maximum shear stresses in the
concrete and large tensile shock wave stresses also occurred
in the plastic hinge regions. These concrete and steel stress
patterns, combined with direct in-plane tension in the slab
due to the expansion of the structures, may cause excessive
damage. Current design procedures1 do not address the issue
of plastic hinge regions, nor do they anticipate the location
of maximum negative moment (negative yield line location)
to occur near the ends of the diagonal bars. Furthermore, the
computation of structural capacity in current design proce-
dures is based on the assumption of yield line formation at
the supports. Clearly, the shift in hinge location must be
included to derive a more realistic structural capacity. Also,
the classical yield line theory treats yield lines that have a
zero thickness. In reality, the plastic hinge regions have
finite thicknesses (roughly the member’s thickness), and this
issue should be addressed in design procedures.
As noted previously, the local rotations of all the connec-
tions exceeded 12 deg and the global rotations exceeded 2
deg (Table 3). The sidewall/roof connection, which had the
largest local and global rotations, also had the largest diag-
onal and longitudinal stresses (Table 5). It showed that the
magnitudes of the local and global rotations provide a good
indication of damage in the slab. This emphasizes the need
to address both local and global rotations in design approaches.
Soon after the initiation of the blast load, shock waves
propagated through the walls and roof of the containment
cell. These shock waves produced high compressive and
tensile stresses that could cause significant cracking of the
concrete before any flexural action in the slabs. The largest
tensile stresses, which far exceeded the tensile strength of the
concrete, occurred either at the support regions, near the
ends of diagonal bars, or at midspan. The stress distributions
at various locations showed that the interior (midsection near
the tension bar) of the slabs received the largest tensile
stresses. Concrete cracking at those locations contributed to
the possible cracking associated with the largest direct shear
stresses (Fig. 12) that occurred at the plastic hinge regions.
This difficult phenomenon is further complicated by the in-
plane tension in the slabs caused by the expansion of the
containment cell due to an interior explosion. Current design
procedures1 stipulate that the ultimate direct shear strength
of concrete in tension is zero. Since reinforcement to resist
direct shear did not exist at the plastic hinge locations, signif-
icant damage could be possible in such regions. This damage
would be caused by the combination of the high tensile
shock wave stresses, in-plane tension, and direct shear
131
stresses. Unfortunately, current design procedures1 do not
address the design of regions in which high tension,
moments, and shear (both diagonal and direct) appear simul-
taneously. The plastic hinges are such regions, and they pose
safety concerns.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge research support from the U.S. Navy
(NAVFAC) and the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board to un-
dertake this study. Also, the authors express their gratitude to the Applied
Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University for its continuous
support and cooperation.
REFERENCES
1. “Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,” TM 5-
1300, Department of the Army, Nov. 1990.
2. Krauthammer, T., and Marx, E., “Combined Numerical Experimental
Development of Innovative Structural Concrete Connections,” Building the
Future, F. K. Garas, G. S. T. Armer, and J. L. Clarke, eds., E&FN Spon
(Chapman & Hall), London, 1994.
132
3. Ku, C. K., “Structural Concrete Connections Subjected to Impulsive
Opening Loads,” Ph.D thesis, Pennsylvania State University, Dec. 1994.
4. Otani, R. K., and Krauthammer, T., “Reinforcement Details for Struc-
tural Concrete Blast Containment Facilities,” Final Report, Applied
Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, July 1995.
5. “Basis of Design for NAVFAC Type I Missile Test Cell,” Technical
Note N-1752R, Revision 1, NCEL, Apr. 1990.
6. Whirley, R. G., and Engelmann, B. E., “DYNA3D User Manual,”
UCRL-MA-107254, Rev. 1, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Nov. 1993.
7. Duranovic, N., and Watson, A. J., “Impulsive Loading on Reinforced
Concrete Slabs—Blast Loading Function,” Structures under Shock and
Impact III, P. S. Bulson, ed., proceedings of the Third International Confer-
ence, Computational Mechanics Publications, Boston, 1994.
8. Krauthammer, T.; Assadi-Lamouki, A.; and Shanaa, H. M., “Analysis
of Impulsively Loaded RC Structural Elements, Part 1—Theory,”
Computers and Structures, V. 48, No. 5, Sept. 1993, pp. 851-860.
9. Krauthammer, T.; Assadi-Lamouki, A.; and Shanaa, H. M., “Analysis
of Impulsively Loaded RC Structural Elements, Part 2—Implementation,”
Computers and Structures, V. 48, No. 5, Sept. 1993, pp. 861-871.
10. Krauthammer, T.; Shanaa, H. M.; and Assadi-Lamouki, A., “Response
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Elements to Severe Impulsive Loads,”
Computers and Structures, V. 53, No. 1, Oct. 1994, pp. 119-130.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1997