Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Blast responses of one-way sea-sand seawater concrete slabs reinforced

with BFRP bars
Yingjie Gao a,c,1, Yinzhi Zhou a,1, Jiannan Zhou a, Xinli Kong a,⇑, Bei Zhang a,⇑, Sanfeng Liu a, Jiang Feng a,d,
Naishu Zhu a, Hualin Fan b,e,⇑, Fengnian Jin a
a
State Key Laboratory for Disaster Prevention & Mitigation of Explosion & Impact, Army Engineering University of PLA, Nanjing 210007, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical Structures, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China
c
Naval Logistics Academy, Tianjing 300450, China
d
Rocket Force University of Engineering, Xi’an 710025, China
e
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Blast resistance of BFRP reinforced sea-sand seawater concrete slab was investigated.

Damage modes of BFRP reinforced sea-sand seawater concrete slab under explosion were revealed.

Sea-sand seawater concrete slab has comparable blast resistance with usual concrete slab.

An equivalent static load method for BFRP reinforced sea-sand seawater concrete slab was developed.

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

Article history: Avoiding steel corrosion in seawater sea-sand concrete (SSC) members, basalt fiber reinforced plastic
Received 13 November 2018 (BFRP) bars behaving as reinforcement have advantages in coastal civil engineering and protective struc-
Received in revised form 4 October 2019 tures. One-way BFRP-bar reinforced SSC slabs (BRSSs) were designed to investigate their mechanical
Accepted 12 October 2019
responses under static loads and close-in explosions. The SSC blocks have comparable quasi-static com-
pressive strength with plain concrete blocks. The BRSSs have comparable quasi-static flexural strength
and identical failure mode with the BFRP bars reinforced plain-concrete slabs (BRPSs). Under close-in
Keywords:
explosions, the BRSSs have comparable blast resistance and similar failure modes with the BRPSs.
Blast resistance
Basalt fiber reinforced polymer bar (BFRP)
Together with the excellent anti-corrosion ability, the BRSS is an ideal selection for costal protective
Sea-sand seawater concrete slab structures.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In construction, the steel bars reinforced concrete (SBRC) is the
most widely used structural material. In coastal engineering, when
the sea-sand, the coral reef and the seawater are applied in con-
crete members, chloride-induced steel corrosion will greatly
weaken the performances, such as the workability, the long-term
strength and the durability, or even lead to collapse of the struc-
tural elements [1,2]. Many attempts have been made in recent
⇑ Corresponding authors at: State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of
Mechanical Structures, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing
210016, China (H. Fan).
E-mail addresses: 75974502@qq.com (X. Kong), zhangbei_qd@163.com
(B. Zhang), fhl15@nuaa.edu.cn (H. Fan).
1
Equally contributed to the paper.
years to solve the corrosion problem, including adopting fiber rein-
forced polymer (FRP) bars as an alternative to the steel bars [3,4].
The FRP reinforcements can effectively solve the durability
problem associated with the abundance of chloride ions in the
sea-sand seawater concrete (SSC) [5–8]. The glass fiber reinforced
plastic (GFRP) bars have been already applied to replace the steel
bars [9]. Recently, the BFRP bars have attracted researchers in
the coastal engineering for their cost-effectiveness and good
resistance to corrosion [10,11]. Corrosion resistance of the BFRP
bars reinforced concrete (BBRC) members has been investigated
extensively [12–15].
However, most of these works are focused on the quasi-static
loads. Blast-resistance of concrete members is important for pro-
tective structures or civil structures in anti-terrorism [16]. Sun
et al. [17] and Pantelides et al. [18] have applied GFRP bars and
fiber reinforced concrete to resist explosion in RC structures. Feng

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117254
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

Fig. 1. (a) Granular coral reef, (b) sea-sand and (c) BFRP bars.

Table 1 As a reference, the plain concrete (PC) is also casted by fine

Integrations of cement P.O42.5. stone and sand aggregates, cement P.O42.5 and fresh water. The
Integrations Fraction of weight (%) Integrations Fraction of weight (%) aggregate density is 2.6  103 kg/m3. The mixture ratio of the PC
is listed in Table 4. The concrete block density is about 2.4  103
SiO2 22.15 C3S 56.78
CaO 65.17 C2S 20.67 kg/m3. Six 150 mm  150 mm  150 mm cubes were casted from
Al2O3 5.24 C3A 7.88 the same batch of commercial concrete whose strength grade is
Fe2O3 3.54 C4AF 10.76 C40, cured for 28 days in room temperature and then compressed
MgO 1.37 K2O + Na2O 0.52 at a loading rate of 0.4 mm/min. The average strength of the SSC
SO3 0.39
cubes is only 50.9 MPa, as listed in Table 5. The average strength
of the PC cubes is 49.34 MPa. It is found that SSC blocks have a little
et al. [19] experimentally investigated the blast-resistance of one- greater compression strength than the PC blocks in this research.
way concrete slabs reinforced by BFRP bars under close-in
explosion. Liu et al. [20,21] experimentally investigated the blast-
resistance of the GFRP bars reinforced concrete beams and the 2.2. Tensile property of BFRP bars
steel-FRP composite bars (SFCBs) reinforced concrete beams under
close-in explosion. Zhou et al. [22] proposed an improved finite dif- The BFRP bars have different tensile behaviors compared with
ference (FD) procedure to predict the dynamic response of concrete the steel bars, as revealed by the extension experiments [19]. The
members reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars tensile strength of the BFRP bars is over 1.53 GPa and the modulus
under close-in explosion. Qasrawi et al. [23,24] experimentally is 57.68 GPa, in average [19]. The fracture strain of the BFRP bars is
investigated the dynamic behaviors of the concrete-filled FRP 4.6% in average [19]. No post-yield deformation is observed. The
tubes (CFFTs) under impact [23] and close-in explosion [24]. A tensile strength of the steel bars is 653.4 MPa and the modulus is
numerical procedure for developing equivalent close-in blast forc- 210 GPa, in average [19]. The tensile strength of the BFRP bars is
ing functions was also outlined [24]. 2.34 times of that of the steel bars.
Blast resistance ability is also an important index for the water
front protective structures. In this research, the blast responses of
2.3. The design of slabs
the BFRP bars reinforced SSC slabs were studied through explosion
experiments and theoretical analysis.
Two types of concrete slabs were casted and cured. One is the
BFRP bars reinforced SSC slab (BRSS), the other is the BFRP bars
2. BFRP reinforced Sea-sand seawater concrete slabs reinforced plain-concrete slab (BRPS). The length of all the slabs
is 1100 mm. The width is 500 mm and the thickness is 50 mm, as
2.1. Sea-sand seawater concrete (SSC) shown in Fig. 2.
There is only one layer of reinforcing-bar mesh near the bottom
As shown in Fig. 1, seawater, sea-sand and cement P.O42.5 were of the slab with10 mm thick concrete cover. The effective depth of
used to cast SSC structures in this research. Integrations of cement the slab is 37 mm. The spacing between the two neighboring BFRP
P.O42.5 are listed in Table 1 and its physical properties are listed in bars is 100 mm and the diameter of the BFRP bars is 6 mm.
Table 2.
The sea-sand and the coral aggregates were obtained from the
sea of China. The coarse coral aggregates consist of 14 maximum 3. Quasi-static flexural behaviors
size basalts with a specific gravity of 2.95. Its numerical tube pres-
sure is 2 MPa. The fineness of the sea-sand is between those of the 3.1. Three-point bending experiments
river sand and the desert sand. This medium-fine sea-sand has
fineness modulus of 2.4 and stacking density of 2.37  103 kg/ Quasi-static three-point bending experiments were conducted
m3. The constitutions of the seawater are listed in Table 3 and at a loading rate of 3 mm/min to reveal the flexural capacity and
the mixture ratio of the SSC is listed in Table 4. The block density failure modes of the slabs, which were placed on a stiff steel frame
is about 2.1  103 kg/m3. support with two edges simply-supported and the others free,

Table 2
Physical properties of the cement.

Cement Compressive strength Bending strength Initial setting time (min) Final setting time (min)
(MPa) (MPa)
3d 28d 3d 28d
P.O42.5 29.5 47.7 5.7 8.9 130 200
 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254 3

Table 3
Constitutions of seawater.

Integrations NaCl MgCl2 MgO4 CaO4 K2SO4

Fraction of weight (%) 77.8 10 4.7 3.6 3

Table 4
Mixture ratio of the concrete.

Concrete Cement P.O42.5 Seawater or fresh water Coral reef or stone Sea-sand or sand
SSC 16.4% 6.9% 45.6% 31.1%
PC 23% 12.4% 31.2% 33.4%

Table 5 pendicular to the neutral line and neglecting the tensile stress of
Compression strength of concrete blocks. the concrete, distribution of the stresses is simplified as Fig. 6.
Concrete Ultimate load Strength Average strength According to ACI400.1R-2006, there is a critical reinforcement
block (kN) (MPa) (MPa) ratio, qfb , for BRSS. When the reinforcement ratio qf > qfb , the slab
SSC1 1180 52.44 50.90 fails at concrete crushing at compression area. When qf < qfb , the
SSC2 1120 49.78 slab fails at extension fracture of BFRP reinforcements.
SSC3 1283 57.02
SSC4 998 44.36
The critical reinforcement ratio is given by

Ef ecu
PC1 1100 48.89 49.34 0
fc
PC2 1120 49.78 qfb ¼ 0:85b ð1Þ
f fu Ef ecu þ f fu

where f fu and Ef represent the tensile strength and modulus of the

as shown in Fig. 3. The span of all the slabs is 1000 mm. The test
results are listed in Table 6.
3.2. Flexural behavior
The mid-span flexural curves of the BRSS and the BRPS are
depicted in Fig. 4.
The curves have three typical stages. In the first stage, the con-
crete keeps intact and no crack initiates from the tensile region.
The panel deforms elastically. When cracks form from the lower sur-
face, a turning point is observed and the deformation curve still
keeps linear but the stiffness gets smaller. Accompanying with the
developing of the concrete cracks as shown in Fig. 5, the reinforce-
ments finally peel off from the concrete and the slabs approach their
peek loads, as shown in Fig. 5. Then, the load and the strain of the
reinforcements drop gradually although the deformation still
increases.
Totally, the BRSS has comparable flexural capacity and similar
damage style with the BRPS in quasi-static loading environment.
3.3. Analysis
Compressed concrete has nonlinear stress-strain relation while
the BFRP bar has linear stress-strain relation, as shown in Fig. 6.
Assuming that the cross section of the slab keeps planar and per-
0
BFRP bar, respectively, f c is the compression strength of the con-
crete, b is the discount coefficient of the strength of the concrete.
When qf > 1:4qfb , the failure depends on the crushing of the
compressed concrete. The maximum strain is 0.003. The resultant
compression force sustained by the concrete is 0:85f c bx assuming
a1 ¼ 0:85. The critical bending moment, Mu , is given by
(

Mu ¼ f f Af h0  2x
; ð2Þ
0:85f c bx ¼ f f Af
where Mu is the critical bending moment. f c is the compressive con-
crete strength. f f is the tensile stress of the BFRP bar. b is the width
of the slab. x ¼ b1 xc is the calculation height of the compressed con-
crete. h0 is the distance from the bar center to the upper surface of
the slab. Af is the cross section area of the BFRP bar.
When qf < qfb , the failure of the slab is controlled by the tensile
fracture of the BFRP bars. As the maximum strain is below its crit-
ical strain in compression, 0.003, a1 and b1 are unknown. The
bending moment of the slab is calculated by
 
b xc
Mn ¼ f fu Af h0  1 ; ð3Þ
2
where b1 xc relates to the reinforcement ratio and when
ec ¼ ecu ¼ 0:003, b1 xc ¼ b1 xcb . Considering a discount coefficient,
0.8, the bending moment of the slab is given by

Fig. 2. BFRP reinforcement placement of the concrete slab (Unit: mm).

4 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

Fig. 3. Quasi-static three-point bending experiment.

Table 6
Quasi-static flexural responses of concrete slabs.

Slab Cracking load (kN) Peak load (kN) Deflection at peak load (mm) Maximum strain of BFRP (106)
BRPS 2.4 19.2 50.6 14,400
BRSS 2.3 16.8 39.4 16,100

21 18 Right_50T Force
Right_50T Force

18 BFRP bars peel off BFRP bars peel off

15
15
12
Force(kN)

Force(kN)

12
9
9 (a)
6
6
concrete cracking
3 3 concrete cracking

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm)
15000 Strain 18000 Strain
BFRP bars peel off BFRP bars peel off
12000 15000

12000
9000
Strain

Strain

9000
6000 (b)
6000

3000 concrete cracking

concrete cracking
3000

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Slab BRPS Slab BRSS

Fig. 4. (a) Mid-span force-displacement curves and (b) strain-displacement curves.

8

< M u ¼ 0:8f fu Af h0  b12xcb
 
: xcb ¼ ecueþcue h0

BFRP bars jointly control the failure of the slabs. Then the critical
: ð4Þ bending moment of the slab is calculated by
(

Mu ¼ Ef efs Af h0  2x
fu

; ð5Þ
where efu is the tensile fracture strain of the BFRP bar. In this 0:85f c bx ¼ Ef efs Af
research, crushing of the compressed concrete and slippery of the
 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254 5

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Slab BRSS Slab BRPS

Fig. 5. Failure modes: (a) sidewall cracks, (b) back fracture, front cracks of (c) slab BRSS and (d) slab BRPS and (e) slippery of BFRP bars.

Concrete BFRP

Distributions of strains and stresses

Fig. 6. Compression stress-strain curves and distributions of strains and stresses.

where efs is the strain of the BFRP bars when the slippery occurs. this section and more data are needed to validate the prediction of
The dimensionless critical bending moment is given by the critical bending moment.
 
 Mu Ef efs Af 1 Ef efs Af
Mu ¼ 2
¼ 1 ð6Þ
bh0 f c f c h0 b 1:7 f c h0 b 4. Close-in explosion behaviors

A Ef efs
with h0fb ¼ 0:00707, for the BRSS, fc
¼ 18:2 and bhM2uf ¼ 0:103. For the 4.1. Explosive experiments
0 c
Ef efs
BRPS, fc
¼ 16:83 and bhM2uf ¼ 0:1216. As shown in Fig. 7, Eq. (6) con- Close-in explosive experiments were performed on eight slabs
0 c

sistently predicts the peak bending moments of the tested BRSS and to investigate the dynamic flexures and damage patterns of the
the BRPS. It is regretted that there are only two experimental data in slabs, as listed in Table 7. Like the quasi-static flexural experiment,
6 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

0.4 To get the dynamic mid-span flexure, a linear variable displace-

Tested value of BRSS
Tested value of BRPS ment transformer (LVDT) was set below the center of the slab, as
Predition, Eq. (6) shown in Fig. 8. Three pressure sensor were adhered onto the sur-
0.3 face of slab and a PCB air pressure sensor was set 3 m away from
the TNT block horizontally, as shown in Fig. 8. All the dynamic data
were collected by a dynamic measurement system, DH8302.
M u 0.2
bh02 f c 4.2. Pressures

The dynamic pressure curves measured by the pressure sensors

0.1
are depicted in Figs. 9 and 10, which are also compared with Con-
Wep calculations. Details of the tested data are listed in Table 8.
Under 1.357 m/kg1/3, the reflected pressure at point A is
0.0 1.32 MPa and the duration is 0.71 ms. When the scaled distance
0 10 20 30 40 50
E f ε fs is reduced to 1.077 m/kg1/3, the reflected pressure at point B is
enlarged to 4.48 MPa and the duration is 1.0 ms. When the scaled
fc
distance is reduced to 1.0 m/kg1/3, the reflected pressure at point B
Fig. 7. Predictions of the peak bending moments.
is enlarged to 5.38 MPa and the duration is 0.9 ms. The impulse is
2.421 MPams.

Table 7 4.3. Dynamic deformations

Schemes of explosion experiments.

Panel Stand-off distance (m) TNT mass (kg) Scaled distance (m/kg1/3) Dynamic mid-span displacement curves were under 1.357 m/
BRSS1 1.0 0.4 1.357 kg1/3, 1.077 m/kg1/3, and 1.0 m/kg1/3 were obtained by the LVDT,
BRSS2 1.0 0.8 1.077 as shown in Fig. 11.
BRSS3 1.0 1.0 1.0 For slab BRSS1 under 1.357 m/kg1/3, the maximum defection is
BRSS4 1.0 2.0 0.794
13.4 mm and then the slab rebounds to the initial position with
BRPS1 1.0 0.4 1.357
BRPS2 1.0 0.8 1.077 only 1 mm residual deflection. No other vibration circle is mea-
BRPS3 1.0 1.0 1.0 sured in the experiment. For slab BRSS2 under 1.077 m/kg1/3, the
BRPS4 1.0 2.0 0.794 LVDT fell off from the slab and the deflection curve is useless. For
slab BRSS3 under 1.0 m/kg1/3, the maximum defection is enlarged
to 63.2 mm and then the slab rebounds to the initial position com-
the slab was simply-supported on a steel frame and the span is
pletely. The vibration period is about 0.02 s, much longer than the
1.0 m, as shown in Fig. 8. To avoid blast damage to neighboring
duration of the blast wave. The slab vibrates freely.
buildings near the explosion test site, the TNT mass cannot be over
Under 1.357 m/kg1/3, slab BRPS1 firstly deflects downwardly to
2 kg. To acquire various damage styles of the concrete slabs under
the maximum value of 8.7 mm and then rebounds back to a max-
close-in denotation, the stand-off distance from the TNT block to
imum upward defection of 18.0 mm, following by two subsequent
the slab center is 1.0 m and the TNT mass changes from 0.4 kg to
decaying vibration circles. Under 1.077 m/kg1/3, slab BRPS2 firstly
2.0 kg. Thus the scaled distance changes from 1.357 m/kg1/3 to
deflects downwardly to the maximum value of 28.3 mm and then
0.794 m/kg1/3.
rebounds back to a maximum upward defection of 44.0 mm. Then

Fig. 8. Close-in explosion experiment and arrangements of sensors.

 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254 7

2.0 1.4
Test
ConWep 1.2
1.6
1.0

Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)

1.2
0.8

0.8 0.6

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.4 -0.2
0.035 0.036 0.037 0.038 0.039 0.040 0.035 0.036 0.037 0.038 0.039 0.040
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b)
5 6

4 5

Pressure (MPa) 4
Pressure (MPa)

3
3
2
2
1
1

0 0

-1 -1
0.016 0.017 0.018 0.019 1.663 1.664 1.665 1.666
Time (s) Time (s)

(c) (d)
Fig. 9. Reflection pressure curves (a) at A under 0.4 kg TNT, (b) at B under 0.4 kg TNT, (c) at B for under 0.8 kg TNT and (d) at B under 1.0 kg TNT.

0.06 0.20
Test
Test
ConWep
ConWep
0.16
0.04
Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)

0.12

0.02 0.08

0.04
0.00
0.00

-0.02 -0.04
1.291 1.292 1.293 1.294 1.295 1.590 1.595 1.600 1.605 1.610 1.615 1.620
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b )
Fig. 10. Free-filed pressure curves three meters away from the explosive under explosions with (a) 0.4 kg TNT and (b) 2.0 kg TNT.
8 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

Table 8
Measured characteristic constants of blast waves.

Pressure style TNT mass (kg) Peak pressure (MPa) Rising time (ms) Descending time (ms) Duration (ms) Impulse (MPams)
Reflection (1 m) 1 (0.4 kg) 1.32 0.22 0.47 0.71 0.469
2 (0.4 kg) 1.27 0.16 0.54 0.70 0.445
3 (0.8 kg) 4.48 0.12 0.88 1.00 2.240
4 (1.0 kg) 5.38 0.13 0.77 0.90 2.421
Free field (3 m) 5 (0.4 kg) 0.056 0.60 1.96 2.56 0.072
6 (0.8 kg) 0.177 0.53 17.00 17.53 1.551
7 (1.0 kg) 0.341 0.81 16.2 17.01 2.507
8 (2.0 kg) 0.172 1.30 13.70 15.00 1.290

20

16 0
Displacement (mm)

12

Displacement (mm)
-3
8
-6
4

0 -9 (a)
-4
-12
-8

-12 -15
0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

Time (s) Time (s)

Slab BRPS1 Slab BRSS1

25
50
0
40
Displacement (mm)

30 -25
Displacement (mm)

20 -50
10
-75
0
-100
(b)
-10
-125
-20

-30 -150
1.58 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.62 1.63 1.64
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 Time (s)
Time (s)

Slab BRPS2 Slab BRSS2

50 10
40 0
30
Displacement (mm)

-10
Displacement (mm)

20
-20
10
-30
0
-40 (c)
-10
-50
-20
-30 -60

-40 -70
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Time (s) Time (s)

Slab BRPS3 Slab BRSS3

Fig. 11. Dynamic mid-span displacement curves under explosions with (a) 0.4 kg TNT, (b) 0.8 kg TNT and (c) 1.0 kg TNT.
 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254 9

5000 4000

4000
3000

3000
Strain (10 )

Strain (10 )
-6

-6
2000
2000
1000
1000

0
0

-1000 -1000
4.80 4.82 4.84 4.86 4.88 4.90 4.80 4.82 4.84 4.86 4.88 4.90
Time (s)
Time (s)

Slab BRSS1
14000 12000

12000
9000
10000

8000 6000
Strain (10 )

Strain (10 )
-6

-6
6000
3000
4000

2000 0

0
-3000
-2000
1.66 1.68 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.72 1.74
Time (s) Time (s)

Slab BRSS2
25000 20000

20000
15000
15000
Strain (10 )
Strain (10 )

-6
-6

10000 10000

5000 5000
0
0
-5000

-10000 -5000
2.34 2.36 2.38 2.40 2.34 2.36 2.38 2.40
Time (s) Time (s)

Slab BRSS3
Fig. 12. Strain curves of BRSSs.

the vibration decays with a residual upward deflection of 20 mm.
For slab BRPS3 under 1.0 m/kg1/3, the maximum downward defec-
tion is 34.6 mm and the maximum upward defection is 45.0 mm.
Then the vibration decays periodically with a residual upward
deflection of 32 mm. It is found that under the same scaled dis-
tance, the BRSSs have larger deflections than the BRPSs. It is also
interesting that the BRSSs exhibit excellent damping effect while
the BRPSs have more excellent elastic responses.
4.4. Strains
From Fig. 12, the maximum BFRP strain for the BRSSs is 0.0039
under 1.357 m/kg1/3, 0.0119 under 1.077 m/kg1/3 and 0.02 under
1.0 m/kg1/3, respectively. From Fig. 13, the maximum BFRP strain
for the BRPSs is 0.0046 under 1.357 m/kg1/3, 0.0108 under
1.077 m/kg1/3 and 0.0148 under 1.0 m/kg1/3, respectively. In the
latter two cases, the BRSSs have greater strains, representing larger
10 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

6000 5000

5000 4000

4000
3000
Strain (10 )

Strain (10 )
-6

-6
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
0

-1000 -1000
1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38
Time (s) Time (s)

Slab BRPS1
12000 12000

10000 10000
8000
8000

Strain (10 )
6000
Strain (10 )

-6
-6

6000
4000

2000 4000

0 2000
-2000
0
-4000
1.72 1.74 1.76 1.78 1.80 1.82 1.84 1.72 1.74 1.76 1.78 1.80 1.82 1.84
Time (s) Time (s)

Slab BRPS2
16000 16000
14000 14000
12000 12000
10000 10000
Strain (10 )

Strain (10 )
-6

-6

8000 8000
6000 6000
4000 4000

2000 2000

0 0

1.64 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.76 1.78 1.80 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.76 1.78 1.80
Time (s) Time(s)

Slab BRPS3
Fig. 13. Strain curves of BRPSs.


deformations, consistent with the laws of the mid-span deflections. efd BRSS ¼ 0:0161 ð8Þ
The maximum static strain of the BFRP bar is 0.0144 for the BRPS
and 0.0161 for the BRSS, while in explosion, the maximum for the BRSS, respectively. These values can be used to judge the
dynamic strain is a little larger, 0.0148 for the BRPS and 0.02 for critical scaled distance the slab can sustain theoretically.
the BRSS, respectively. Conservatively, the critical dynamic strain
of BFRP bars, efd , can be assigned as 4.5. Damage modes

efd BRPS ¼ 0:0144: ð7Þ Cracks, spalls and breach categorize the damages of concrete
slabs from slight, severe to fatal. Damage modes of the BRPSs and
for the BRPS and the BRSSs are clearly acquired, as shown in Figs. 14 and 15,
 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254 11

0.4 kg TNT, Slab BRPS1

0.8 kg TNT, Slab BRPS2

1.0 kg TNT, Slab BRPS3

2.0 kg TNT, Slab BRPS4

Front face Back face
Fig. 14. Failure modes of BRPSs.

respectively. They have identical damage modes under the same
scaled distance. Under 1.357 m/kg1/3, there is a distinct transverse
crack across the whole width of the slab on the front surface, while
no damage is observed on the back surface. The BFRP bars restrict
the tensile crack initiation on the back surface while rebound pro-
duces tensile crack on the front surface.
Under 1.077 m/kg1/3, there are parallel transverse cracks on the
front and back surfaces. Larger downward deflection promotes the
formation of tensile cracks on the back surface while severe
rebound produces more tensile cracks on the front surface.
Under 1.007 m/kg1/3, the BRSS has different damage mode
with the BRPS. Parallel transverse cracks are the damage mode
of the BRPS, tighter with a distinct longitudinal crack through
the back surface. For the BRSS, no crack is observed on the front
surface, while a transverse fractured zone forms at the back sur-
face, accompanying with concrete spalling. It indicates that
under intense shock wave, the slab cannot vibrate back and
forth.
Under 0.794 m/kg1/3, the BRPS and the BRSS are both crushed.
The concrete is squashed to pieces. BFRP bars are naked from the
concrete. The slabs completely lose their load-bearing ability.
Table 9 categorizes the damage modes of the exploded slabs by
no damage, fine cracks, main crack accompanying with spalling
and crushing. The third damage mode defines the critical scaled
distance. For current slabs, the critical scaled distance is about
1.007 m/kg1/3.
5. Equivalent static load method
To predict the critical scaled distance the slab can sustain under
explosion, the equivalent method is suggested to get the critical
equivalent static load. The fundamental frequency calculation of
the simply-supported beam is given by
rffiffiffiffiffi
9:87 B
x¼ 2
; ð9Þ
l m
12 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

0.4 kg TNT, Slab BRSS1

0.8 kg TNT, Slab BRSS2

1.0 kg TNT, Slab BRSS3

Front face Back face

2.0 kg TNT, Slab BRSS4

Fig. 15. Failure modes of BRSSs.

Table 9
Damage degree of the shallow slabs.

Damage Phenomenon BRSS BRPS

No damage Few barely visible cracks 0.4 kg 0.4 kg
TNT TNT

Fine cracks Plenty of distributed fines cracks 0.8 kg 0.8 kg

TNT TNT
 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254 13

Table 9 (continued)

Damage Phenomenon BRSS BRPS

1.0 kg
TNT

Main crack and spalling A visible crack zone 1.0 kg

TNT

Crushing Concrete crushed 2.0 kg 2.0 kg

TNT TNT

(a) 0.4 kg TNT (b) 0.8 kg TNT

(c) 1.0 kg TNT (d) 2.0 kg TNT

Fig. 16. Peak pressure distribution with stand-off distance of 1 m.
14 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254

Table 10 0.20
Constants of BRSS calculated by CONWEP. Broken Tested data
Eq. (14)
TNT (g) 400 800 1000 2000
1/3
P m (MPa) 2.065 4.099 5.074 9.529 0.15 1.103 kg/m
P u (MPa) 1.792 3.580 4.423 8.396
Fracture and spall

Pressure (MPa)
I (kPams) 258.4 436.0 516.8 879.6
T (ms) 0.29 0.24 0.23 0.21 Fine cracks
j 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.10
xT 0.047 0.039 0.037 0.034
Kd 0.0235 0.0195 0.0185 0.017
jK d 0.0204 0.0170 0.0161 0.0148
P s (MPa) 0.042 0.070 0.0817 0.141 0.05
Danger Safe
Intact
0.00
Table 11 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Constants of BRPS calculated by CONWEP.
1/3
Scaled distance (kg/m )
TNT (g) 400 800 1000 2000
P m (MPa) 2.065 4.099 5.074 9.529
Fig. 17. Critical scaled distance for BRSS predicted by equivalent static load
P u (MPa) 1.792 3.580 4.423 8.396
method.
I (kPams) 258.4 436.0 516.8 879.6
T (ms) 0.29 0.24 0.23 0.21
j 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88
xT 155.4 0.045 0.037 0.036 0.033
Kd 0.0225 0.0185 0.018 0.0165 0.20
jK d 0.0196 0.0161 0.0157 0.0145 Broken Tested data
P s (MPa) 0.040 0.066 0.080 0.138 Eq. (14)

0.15 1/3
1.018 kg/m
Pressure (MPa)
Developed cracks
Fine cracks
where l is the span, and m is the mass unit length. B is the bending
stiffness and decided according to the quasi-static flexural experi- 0.10
ment. For the BRSS B ¼ 10:34 kN  m and x ¼ 161:4 s1 . For the
BRPS B ¼ 11:1 kN  m and x ¼ 155:4 s1 . According to the equiva-
lent static load method, the dynamic load can be equivalent to a 0.05
uniformly-distributed static load, Ps , as Danger Safe
Intact
Ps ¼ jK d Pm ¼ K d Pu ð10Þ 0.00
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
j is the factor to reflect the non-uniform distribution of the pres- 1/3
sure, K d is the dynamic coefficient, P m is the peak pressure and P u Scaled distance (kg/m )
is the uniform pressure, which can be calculated by ConWep, as Fig. 18. Critical scaled distance for BRPS predicted by equivalent static load
shown in Fig. 16 and listed in Tables 10 and 11. method.
In this research, the blast duration, T, is too short and K d is given
by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi



xT  sinðxT Þ 2 1  cosðxT Þ 2 6. Conclusions
Kd ¼ þ : ð11Þ
xT xT
In this research, the sea-sand seawater concrete is reinforced by
The critical dynamic pressure the slab can sustain is decided by BFRP bars to construct ocean corrosion-resistant and blast-
the bending moment, M u , when the reinforcement slippery occurs resistant concrete slabs. Through the researches, it is found that:

jK d Pm 2 Ps 2
bl ¼ bl 6 M u ð12Þ 1) As the average strength of the SSC is 50.90 MPa, while the
8 8 strength of the PC is 49.34 MPa in average. The strength of
or the SSC is even 3.25% higher. As the seawater and the sea-
sand will not decrease the strength of the concrete, the
Ps 6 Psc ð13Þ
SSC can be applied construct marine concrete structures.
with 2) The BFRP bars have ultrahigh strength, as their tensile
strength is 2.34 times of that of the steel bars in this
2F s
Psc ¼ ð14Þ research. The maximum tensile stress of the BFRP bars in
bl the SSCs is only 35% of their ultimate tensile strength in cur-
where F s is the peak force of the slab in quasi-static flexural exper- rent experimental studies. Concrete crushing is the main
iment, corresponding to the critical strain suggested by Eqs. (7) and failure mode of the slabs and determines the load capacity
(8). For the BRSS, Psc ¼ 0:0672 MPa. For the BRSS, Psc ¼ 0:0768 MPa. of the slabs. The BRSSs have comparable flexural load capac-
As shown in Figs. 17 and 18, the critical scaled distance pre- ity and similar damage styles with the BRPSs in the quasi-
dicted by equivalent static load method is 1.103 kg/m1/3 for BRSS, static three-point bending experiments.
and 1.018 kg/m1/3 for BRPS, respectively. The prediction is consis- 3) Based on a small number of specimens, the blast responses
tent with the experiments. It is shown than using equivalent static of the BRSSs are revealed by close-in explosion experiments.
load method and the slippery failure criterion, dynamic responses Decreasing the scaled distance, the damage degree of the
of the BRSSs can be corrected predicted. BRSSs gradually becomes serious, evolving from fine cracks,
 Y. Gao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 232 (2020) 117254
main crack, spalling, to concrete crushing. The BFRP rein-
forced sea-sand seawater concrete slabs have comparable
blast resistance and similar failure mode with BFRP rein-
forced plain-concrete slabs under close-in explosions.
4) The blast-resistance of the SSC slabs can be predicted jointly
by the equivalent static load method and the critical load
capacity in quasi-static flexural experiment. The ratio of
the actual maximum tensile stress of the BFRP bars to their
ultimate tensile strength is an important variable to deter-
mine the blast resistance of the concrete slabs. The method
can correctly predict the critical blast loading the slab can
sustain and is easy to master for engineers to design SSC pro-
tective slabs.
As the BRSSs have excellent corrosion resistance and blast resis-
tance ability, the sea-sand, the seawater and the BFRP bars can be
applied in constructing concrete structures in marine structures
and water front protective structures.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Supports from National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51908549, 51778622, 11972184, and 11672130) and the Natural
Science Foundations of Jiangsu Province (BK20150713, and
BK20151448), State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering (SLDRCE16-01) and State Key Laboratory of Mechanics
and Control of Mechanical Structures (MCMS-0217G03) are grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
[1] J.Z. Xiao, C.B. Qaing, A. Nanni, et al., Use of sea-sand and seawater in concrete
construction: Current status and future opportunities, Constr. Build. Mater.
155 (2017) 1101–1111.
[2] B. Da, H.F. Yu, H.Y. Ma, et al., Experimental investigation of whole stress-strain
curves of coral concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 122 (2016) 81–89.
[3] Z.K. Wang, X.L. Zhao, G.J. Xian, et al., Long-term durability of basalt- and glass-
fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP/GFRP) bars in seawater and sea sand concrete
environment, Constr. Build. Mater. 139 (2017) 467–489.
[4] Z.K. Wang, X.L. Zhao, G.J. Xian, et al., Durability study on interlaminar shear
behaviour of basalt-, glass- and carbon-fibre reinforced polymer (B/G/CFRP)
15
bars in seawater sea sand concrete environment, Constr. Build. Mater. 156
(2017) 985–1004.
[5] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K. RamanSingh, et al., Experimental study on seawater and
seasand concrete filled GFRP and stainless steel tubular stub columns, Thin
Wall Struct. 106 (2016) 390–406.
[6] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K. RamanSingh, et al., Tests on seawater and seasand
concrete-filled CFRP, BFRP and stainless steel tubular stub columns, Thin Wall
Struct. 108 (2016) 163–184.
[7] Z.Q. Dong, G. Wu, Y.Q. Xu, Experimental study on the bond durability between
steel-FRP composite bars (SFCBs) and sea sand concrete in ocean environment,
Constr. Build. Mater. 115 (2016) 277–284.
[8] J. Wang, P. Feng, T.Y. Hao, et al., Axial compressive behavior of seawater coral
aggregate concrete-filled FRP tubes, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 272–285.
[9] C.P. Pantelides, M.E. Gibbons, L.D. Reaveley, Axial load behavior of concrete
columns confined with GFRP spirals, J. Compos. Constr. 17 (3) (2013) 305–313.
[10] Z.Q. Dong, G. Wu, B. Xu, et al., Bond durability of BFRP bars embedded in
concrete under seawater conditions and the long-term bond strength
prediction, Mater. Des. 92 (2016) 552–562.
[11] L. Wang, Y.D. Mao, H.B. Lv, et al., Bond properties between FRP bars and coral
concrete under seawater conditions at 30, 60, and 80 °C, Constr. Build. Mater.
162 (2018) 442–449.
[12] X. Wang, G. Wu, Z.S. Wu, et al., Evaluation of prestressed basalt fiber and
hybrid fiber reinforced polymer tendons under marine environment, Mater.
Des. 64 (2014) 721–728.
[13] N.S. Zhu, F.N. Jin, Kong Xl, et al., Interface and anti-corrosion properties of sea-
sand concrete with fumed silica, Constr. Build. Mater. 188 (2018) 1085–1091.
[14] Y.J. Huang, X.J. He, Q. Wang, et al., Mechanical properties of sea sand recycled
aggregate concrete under axial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 175 (2018)
55–63.
[15] L.J. Li, B. Hou, Z.Y. Lu, et al., Fatigue behaviour of sea sand concrete beams
reinforced with basalt fibre-reinforced polymer bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 179
(2018) 160–171.
[16] B. Wang, P. Wang, Y.S. Chen, et al., Blast responses of CFRP strengthened
autoclaved aerated cellular concrete panels, Constr. Build. Mater. 157 (2017)
226–236.
[17] W. Sun, G. Pan, H. Yan, C. Qi, H. Chen, Study on the anti-exploding
characteristics of fiber reinforced cement based composite, in: H.W.
Reinhardt, A.E. Naaman (Eds.), Proceedings of Third International RILEM
Workshop on High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composites, RILEM
Publications, 1999, pp. 565–574.
[18] C.P. Pantelides, T.T. Garfield, W.D. Richins, T.K. Larson, J.E. Blakeley, Reinforced
concrete and fiber reinforced concrete panels subjected to blast detonations
and post-blast static tests, Eng. Struct. 76 (10) (2014) 24–33.
[19] J. Feng, Y.Z. Zhou, P. Wang, et al., Experimental research on blast-resistance of
one-way concrete slabs reinforced by BFRP bars under close-in explosion, Eng.
Struct. 150 (2017) 550–561.
[20] S.F. Liu, Y.Z. Zhou, Q. Zheng, et al., Blast responses of concrete beams reinforced
with steel-GFRP composite bars, Structure 22 (2019) 200–212.
[21] S.F. Liu, Y.Z. Zhou, J.N. Zhou, et al., Blast responses of concrete beams reinforced
with GFRP bars Experimental research and equivalent static analysis, Compos.
Struct. 226 (2019) 111271.
[22] Y.Z. Zhou, S.F. Liu, J. Feng, et al., Improved finite difference analysis of dynamic
responses of concrete members reinforced with FRP bars under explosion,
Compos. Struct. 230 (2019) 111518.
[23] Y. Qasrawi, P.J. Heffernan, A. Fam, Dynamic behaviour of concrete filled FRP
tubes subjected to impact loading, Eng. Struct. 100 (2015) 212–225.
[24] Y. Qasrawi, P.J. Heffernan, A. Fam, Performance of concrete-filled FRP tubes
under field close-in blast loading, J. Compos. Constr. 19 (4) (2014) 04014067.