See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291785901

Behavior analysis of concrete structure under blast loading: (II) blast loading
response of ultra high strength concrete and reactive powder concrete slabs
(Korean)

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

3 1,274

4 authors, including:

Jang-Ho Jay Kim Yun-Gu Cho

Yonsei University Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd, Seoul, South Korea
147 PUBLICATIONS   2,412 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Concrete PBD Guideline Development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jang-Ho Jay Kim on 26 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 (This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Blast-resistant characteristics of ultra-high strength concrete and reactive

powder concrete
Na-Hyun Yi a, Jang-Ho Jay Kim a,⇑, Tong-Seok Han a, Yun-Gu Cho b, Jang Hwa Lee c
a
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Engineering Building #A, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-794, South Korea
b
Material Division, Hyundai Institute of Construction Technology, Mabuk-dong, Gihung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyunggi-do 446-716, South Korea
c
Structural Engineering & Bridges Research Division, Infrastructure Research Department, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, 1190, Simindae-Ro, Ilsanseo-Gu, Goyang-Si,
Gyunggi-do 411-712, South Korea

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

Article history: Recent advances in nanotechnology research have been applied to improve the durability, serviceabil-
Received 7 October 2010 ity, and safety of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). Furthermore, improvements in the com-
Received in revised form 2 September 2011 pressive strength of concrete have allowed concrete structural member size and self-weight to be
Accepted 28 September 2011
significantly reduced, which has in turn resulted in cost reduction and structural aesthetic enhance-
ment. Among many UHPCs currently available on the market, the most representative ones are ultra-
high strength concrete (UHSC) and reactive powder concrete (RPC). Even though UHSC and RPC have
Keywords:
compressive strengths of over 100 MPa, their safety has been questioned due to possible ultra-brittle
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)
Ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC)
failure behavior and unfavorable cost-to-performance efficiency. The blast-resistant capacities of UHSC
Reactive powder concrete (RPC) and RPC were experimentally evaluated to determine the possibility of using UHSC and RPC in con-
Material properties crete structures susceptible to terrorist attacks or accidental impacts. Slump flow, compressive
Blast-resistant capacity strength, split tensile strength, elastic modulus, and flexure strength tests were carried out. In addi-
ANFO blast charge tion, ANFO blast tests were performed on reinforced UHSC and RPC panels. Incidental and reflected
TNT blast charge pressures, as well as maximum and residual displacements and the strains of rebar and concrete were
measured. Blast damage and failure modes of the reinforced panel specimens were recorded. Our
results showed that UHSC and RPC have better blast explosion resistance than normal strength con-
crete. The study results are discussed in detail.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The recent construction trends of building super-span bridges
and mega-height high-rises mandate the use of ultra-high
performance concrete (UHPC) because of its outstanding safety, ser-
viceability, durability, and economical advantages [1,2]. The con-
struction of new and old concrete structures using UHPC can
improve their service life beyond 100 years with minimal mainte-
nance requirements and low life cycle costs [1,3]. Furthermore,
recent findings in nano-material science have been used to improve
the compressive strength of concrete while simultaneously reducing
member size and self-weight, resulting in cost reduction and struc-
tural aesthetic enhancement. UHPCs are defined as cementitious
composites with superior material properties that can withstand
compressive stresses of up to 150 MPa and tensile stresses of up to
8 MPa while exhibiting strain-hardening behavior under uniaxial
tension [1,4,5]. The extremely low permeability of UHPC, attribut-
able to its dense matrix, allows it to be used as a waterproofing layer
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2123 5802; fax: +82 2 364 1001.
E-mail address: jjhkim@yonsei.ac.kr (J.-H.J. Kim).
in bridge decks [6] and a non-penetrable cover protection for rein-
forced concrete (RC) structures under marine environments [7–9].
UHPC is the main material in the non-reinforced Seon-Yu footbridge,
a pedestrian bridge in Korea with the world’s highest slenderness ra-
tio (120 m span to 130 cm depth) [8]. Among many UHPCs available
on the market, ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC) and reactive
powder concrete (RPC) are the most widely used [1]. However, be-
cause of their ultra-high strengths and manufacturing costs, the
use of UHSC and RPC has been questioned, with concerns raised
about possible ultra-brittle failure and unfavorable cost-to-perfor-
mance efficiency. This study was performed to evaluate the blast
resistance capacities of UHSC and RPC to determine whether these
materials are suitable for use in structures susceptible to terrorist at-
tacks or accidental impacts.
In 2009, the Korean building code was modified to require
terror-resistant designs for any high-rises located within the city
limits of Seoul with an above-ground height of over 200 m or 50
or more floors above ground [10,11]. This code regulation reflects
the public concern regarding possible terror attacks on buildings
and structures in Korea. Because of the ultra-high strengths and
energy absorption capacities of UHSC and RPC, they are optimal

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.09.014
 Author's personal copy

N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707 695

Table 1
Mix proportion design of normal strength concrete (NSC).

Max. size of coarse Target strength Slump W/B (%) S/a (%) Unit water Unit binder Unit fine aggregate (kg) Unit coarse AE admixture (kg)
aggregate (mm) (MPa) (mm) (kg) (kg) aggregate (kg)
Cement Fly-ash S1 S2
25 24 100 49.8 47.7 163 294 33 616 264 957 2.45

Table 2
Mix proportion design of ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC).

W/B (%) less S/a (%) less Unit water (kg) less Unit binder (kg) less Unit fine aggregate (kg) less Unit coarse aggregate (kg) AE admixture (%)
than than than than than less than range of
20 39.1 140 1300 450 700 1–3

Table 3
Mix proportion design of reactive powder concrete (RPC).

W/B (%) less Cement (kg) Unit water (kg) Silica fume (%) Unit fine aggregate (kg) Filler (2.2–200 lm) (kg) Admixture (%) Steel fiber
than less than greater than range of range of greater than range of (%)
20 800 200 10–30 800–1000 200 1–3 2

materials for use in structures that are potential targets of terror
attacks or accidental impacts. However, because UHSC and RPC
are fairly new materials, their blast-resistant capacities have not
yet been investigated in detail. To correctly and efficiently
incorporate UHSC and RPC into a protective design scheme, their
blast-resistant capacities need to be known. Therefore, in this
study, we focused on evaluating the blast-resistant capacities of
UHSC and RPC developed at Hyundai Engineering and Construc-
tion Co. in Korea. The static material properties of UHSC and RPC
were measured by performing slump flow, compressive strength,
split tensile strength, flexure strength, and elastic modulus tests,
and ANFO blast tests were carried out on reinforced UHSC and
RPC panels to assess blast-resistant capacity.
2. Previous UHSC and RPC studies
2.1. Material research studies
Since the initial development of UHSC and RPC in the early
1980s in Denmark [4,12], numerous studies have been carried

Fig. 1. Photos of flow test for UHSC and RPC: (a) UHSC slump-flow test, (b) RPC flow table test.
 Author's personal copy

696 N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707

Fig. 2. Photos from compressive strength and elastic modulus tests: (a) compression test, (b) elastic modulus test.

250 60,000
Compressive
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Strength 50,000
200

Elastic Modulus (MPa)

40,000
150
30,000
100
Elastic Modulus 20,000

50
10,000

0 0
NSC UHSC RPC

Fig. 3. Average compressive strength and elastic modulus test results of NSC, UHSC, and RPC.

Table 4 out to evaluate and improve these materials. Due to their extraor-
Poisson’s ratio, shear modulus of elasticity, and bulk modulus test results of NSC, dinary strength and energy absorption capacity compared to con-
UHSC, and RPC. ventional concrete, UHSC and RPC have attracted strong interest
Specimen Poisson ratio Shear modulus of Bulk modulus, K (GPa) from researchers in other fields as well [1,4,5]. A UHSC mixture
elasticity, G (GPa) contains homogeneous silica aggregates and cement-replacing sil-
NSC 0.17 6.99 8.13 ica fume binders, which are responsible for the incredible strength
UHSC 0.22 21.8 31.1 of this material [4,13,14]. RPC is reinforced with special short steel
RPC 0.19 21.3 26.9 fibers to improve its ductility. Furthermore, UHSC and RPC both re-
quire high temperature curing to obtain high early-age strength
[2,13,15–17].
Numerous studies to improve the material properties of UHSC
and RPC have resulted in the current availability of various UHSCs
and RPCs with compressive strengths ranging from 120 to 400 MPa
Concrete
[1,12,14]. UHSCs and RPCs with tensile strengths ranging from 8 to
30 MPa and elastic moduli ranging from 60 to 100 GPa have also
been developed [1,5,12,14]. The effects of curing on the compres-
sive strength of UHSC and RPC according to curing age have been
investigated [4,6]. Typical stress–strain and flexural stress-dis-
placement relationships for UHSC and RPC have been proposed
and compared to those of typical high strength concrete for design
Steel fiber applications [1,18,19]. Recently, stress–strain relationships under
dynamic compressive strain rate were reported for both UHSC
and RPC [20–25]. Yang and Joh (2010) predicted the flexural capac-
ity of plain UHSC beams using modified ACI-recommended equa-
tions and Hable et al. (2006) proposed material property models
based on experimental data [6,26]. The abovementioned UHSC
Fig. 4. Cohesive crack model of RPC [21]: (1) Stress free zone, (2) Fiber bridging and RPC studies indicate that the material properties and behavior
zone, (3) Micro-crack zone, (4) Undamaged zone. of UHSC and RPC can vary according to mixture proportions, curing
 Author's personal copy

N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707 697

25
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

20

15

10

0
Fig. 7. Photo of the buried supporting frame setup.
NSC UHSC RPC

Fig. 5. Split tensile strength test results of NSC, UHSC, and RPC.
UHSC, and RPC are tabulated in Tables 1–3, respectively. Special
conditions, and loading rates. Therefore, in this study, we directly short steel fibers at 2% volume were used in the RPC specimens.
measured the blast-resistant material properties of UHSC and RPC. Due to the patent copyright of the developer of the materials,
Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co., the mix proportions
of RPC and UHSC are listed as range values. The specific mixture
2.2. Blast resistance
contents are reported in the Korean patent [35]. UHSC and RPC
specimens were steam-cured for 3 days at 90 °C.
Concrete structures with blast protection must have sufficient
structural strength, stiffness, and energy absorption capacity to re-
3.1. Slump flow and flow tests
sist blast loads. Concrete is generally known to have a relatively
higher blast-resistant capacity than other construction materials
UHSC and RPC must have sufficient workability for construc-
[27,28], but the blast-resistant capacity of concrete structures de-
tion usage. For workability testing of fresh concrete mixes, con-
signed without blast protection needs to be improved by retrofit-
crete slump flow and mortar flow table tests were carried out
ting during their service life [29,30]. Retrofitting by attaching
according to KS F 2594 (2009) and KS L 5111 (2007) standards,
extra structural members or supports to increase blast resistance
respectively [36,37]. UHSC and RPC slump flows were measured
is inefficient, because it eliminates useable space and incurs extra
by averaging the maximum flow diameter and perpendicular
expenses [27,28,31]. Furthermore, the retrofitting method does not
diameter to the maximum flow distance as suggested by the KS
greatly improve the overall structural resistance against a blast
F 2594 (2009) and KS L 5111 (2007) standards [36,37]. The slump
load. A more feasible method of blast resistance retrofitting would
flows of UHSC and RPC were 635 and 200 mm, respectively, as
be to use advanced materials such as UHSC or RPC [30].
shown in Fig. 1.
Past studies have shown that beams and slabs constructed
using high strength concrete (HSC) have better impact resistant
3.2. Compressive strength and elastic modulus tests
capacity than beams and slabs made using normal strength con-
crete (NSC). However, due to social and governmental constraints,
Compressive strength tests were carried out on 100  200 mm
these types of comparison studies have not been carried over to
cylindrical specimens according to KS F 2405 (2005) as shown in
structural blast resistance improvement studies, resulting in a lack
Fig. 2a [38]. The average compressive strengths of the NSC, UHSC,
of data concerning the blast-resistant capacity of HSC [32]. Re-
and RPC specimens were 25.6, 202.1, and 202.9 MPa, respectively,
cently, several researchers have pursued static and impact capacity
as shown in Fig. 3. The compressive strengths of the UHSC and RPC
studies on fiber-reinforced concrete members under time-depen-
specimens were approximately 7.9-fold greater than that of the
dent loading conditions [33,34]. However, few impact or blast-
NSC specimen. The elastic modulus of each specimen was mea-
loaded UHSC or RPC studies have been performed, and data from
sured using a compressometer according to the KS F 2438 (2002)
the studies that have been performed are not publically available.
standard as shown in Fig. 2b [39]. The average elastic modulus of
the NSC, UHSC, and RPC specimens was 16300, 53143, and
3. UHSC and RPC material properties 50511 MPa, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. The elastic moduli of
UHSC and RPC were approximately 3.09–3.26-fold greater than
In this study, we evaluated the material properties of UHSC and that of the NSC specimen. The UHSC specimen had a higher elastic
RPC under static loading. The selected mix proportions of NSC, modulus than the RPC specimen for two reasons. Firstly, UHSC has

Fig. 6. Photos of flexural test for RPC.

 Author's personal copy

698 N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707

Fig. 8. Measurement sensor locations: (a) pressure-meter placement setup photo, (b) strain gauge locations.

a higher material rigidity than RPC, because UHSC is denser than
RPC, and secondly, RPC is more deformable than UHSC, because
RPC contains short steel fibers which create multiple interfaces
(similar to voids) in the material.
Test results for Poisson’s ratio, shear modulus, and bulk modulus
are tabulated in Table 4. Poisson’s ratio was measured using an
extensometer according to the KS F 2438 (2002) standard [39].
The average Poisson’s ratios of the NSC, UHSC, and RPC specimens
were 0.166, 0.216, and 0.187, respectively, calculated according to
the width-to-length strain. The UHSC specimen had the highest
Poisson’s ratio, indicating that more damage can occur in the lateral
direction in this material, leading to a brittle failure. Due to a steel
fiber bridging effect, the RPC specimen developed less cracks and
had higher ductility than the UHSC specimen as shown in Fig. 4.
Eqs. (1) and (2) were used to calculate the shear and bulk modulus,
respectively, using the measured elastic modulus and Poisson’s
ratio:
E
G¼
2ð1 þ tÞ
E ried out on unnotched prismatic specimens with dimensions of
K¼
3ð1  2tÞ
where G is the shear modulus; K is the bulk modulus; E is the elastic
modulus; and t is Poisson’s ratio. The shear and bulk modulus val-
ues of UHSC and RPC were 3.0–3.8-fold greater than the corre-
sponding NSC values as shown in Table 4. In particular, the bulk
modulus (volume expansion resistant capacity under compression)
of UHSC was greater than that of RPC, indicating possible cata-
strophic brittle failure in UHSC.
3.3. Split tensile strength
Split tensile strength tests were carried out on 100  200 mm
cylindrical specimens according to the KS F 2423 (2006) standard
[40]. The average split tensile strengths of the NSC, UHSC, and
RPC specimens were 2.2, 9.2, and 21.4 MPa, respectively, as shown
in Fig. 5. RPC had a higher split tensile strength than UHSC, because
the short steel fibers in RPC control crack openings in the tensile
stress direction. Due to the fiber crack control effect, the ductility
of RPC was also significantly higher than that of UHSC.
3.4. Flexural strength tests
ð1Þ
As shown in Fig. 6, tests of the flexural strength of RPC were car-
ð2Þ 100  100  400 mm using a 4-point loading setup according to
the KS F 2408 (2000) standard [41]. The load was applied by force
control loading at a rate of 2.4 kN/s. The flexural strengths of three
RPC specimens were 33.16, 32.50, and 33.94 MPa, giving an aver-
age flexural strength of 33.20 MPa. Bending cracks initiated and
propagated at a location approximately 100 mm from the support
 Author's personal copy

N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707 699

Fig. 9. Data acquisition system descriptions.

Fig. 10. Specimen appearance before and after the preliminary blast test: (a) before blasting, (b) after blasting with 4.08 kg TNT, (c) after blasting with 15.88 kg TNT.

as shown in Fig. 6, indicating a combined flexural-shear type of of the D10 reinforcement was 400 and 600 MPa, respectively
failure. [30,42] with a nominal cross-sectional area of 71.33 mm2 and a
unit weight of 0.56 kg/m. The reinforcement ratios of NSC and
UHSC specimens were the same, whereas 2% volume of special
4. Blast-resistant capacity
short steel fibers were used in the RPC specimens. The mix propor-
tions of NSC, UHSC, and RPC are tabulated in Tables 1–3,
We evaluated the blast-resistant capacity of reinforced UHSC
respectively.
and RPC panels under ANFO blast loading. The experiments were
Free-field incident pressure and reflected pressure were mea-
carried out at the test site of the Agency for Defense Development
sured at distances of 5 m and 1.5 m away from the center of the
of Korea located near the Military Demarcation Line (MDL). Two
specimen, respectively, as shown in Fig. 8a. The reflected pressure
sets of tests, preliminary and main tests, were performed indepen-
transducers were placed on the top surface of the specimens, at the
dently. In the preliminary test, the required blast charge weight for
center and at 230 mm from the center, 1/3 of the diagonal distance
an NSC panel specimen was estimated. The blast charge weight
from the center to the corner as shown in Fig. 8b. To measure wave
and standoff distance for the main test were based on the results
impact acceleration, an accelerometer was attached on the top
obtained in the preliminary test. In the preliminary test, 4.08 and
center of the specimens and linear variable differential transform-
15.88 kg of TNT were used as blast charges on a reinforced NSC pa-
ers (LVDTs) were placed on the bottom surface to measure maxi-
nel (a control specimen). After the preliminary test, 15.88 kg of
mum and residual vertical displacements. Details of the
ANFO and a standoff distance of 1.5 m were selected for the main
measurement system set-up are provided in Fig. 9. Signals from
test.
gauges were transferred using filters and amplifiers, and stored
in a data acquisition (DAQ) system as digital data [10,42].
4.1. Blast test details

4.2. Blast test results

A steel frame was buried in the ground as a fixture for specimen
placement as shown in Fig. 7, because ground surface placement
Blast pressures, deflections, strains, and wave impact accelera-
eliminates blast wave reflection [10,11,31,42]. The steel frame
tions of the NSC, UHSC, and RPC panel specimens were measured
was made using 7-mm thick SM520 with stiffeners at a spacing
under blast loading.
of 250 mm to prevent frame distortion during blast loading. The
specimen was clamped on all four sides with two clamps per side
to prevent uplifting during the experiment. The panel dimensions 4.2.1. Surface examination and crack patterns
were 1000  1000  150 mm. Two layers of D10 mesh reinforce- When the tests were completed and safety was insured, the sur-
ments with 82 mm spacing in both directions were placed in the faces of the specimens were examined. Crack patterns, fragmented
NSC and UHSC panel specimens. The yield and ultimate strength dimple locations, and gauge survival were assessed. The NSC
 Author's personal copy

700 N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707

NSC1 NSC2

NSC2

(a) (b) (c)

UHSC1 UHSC2
UHSC
No crack

(d) (e) (f)

RPC1 RPC2
RPC
No crack

(g) (h) (i)

NRC : Normal Strength Concrete, UHSC : Ultra High Strength Concrete, RPC : Reactive Powder Concrete

Fig. 11. Surface crack patterns of blasted specimens: (a) top of NSC2 specimen (ANFO charge), (b) bottom of NSC1 specimen (TNT charge), (c) bottom of NSC2 specimen
(ANFO charge), (d) top of UHSC1 and UHSC2 specimens, (e) bottom of UHSC1 specimen, (f) bottom of UHSC2 specimen, (g) top of RPC1 and RPC2 specimens, (h) bottom of
RPC1 specimen, (i) bottom of RPC2 specimen.
 Author's personal copy

N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707 701

Fig. 12. Photos of bottom surface of the blasted specimens: (a) NSC, (b) UHSC, (c) RPC.

Table 5
Blast pressure and impulse measurements from the main tests (15.88 kg ANFO).

Specimen NSC UHSC1 UHSC2 RPC1 RPC2 ConWEP

Environment
Temp. 5 8 NR 9 NR –
Humid(%) Up 51 56 NR 39 NR –
Reflected pressure
Center
RP_C 1st (MPa) NR NR 16.92 NR 21.99 17.02
RP_C 2nd (MPa) NR NR 25.28 NR 28.1
Duration (ms) NR NR 1.176 NR 0.374 1.412
Impulse (MPa ms) NR NR 3.87 NR 2.83 2.42
230 mm
RP_2_1st (MPa) 26.58 NR 18.76 22.62 22.1 16.53
RP_2_2nd (MPa) 26.58 NR 18.76 22.62 22.41
Duration (ms) 1.212 NR 0.564 0.424 1.524 1.468
Impulse (MPa ms) 3.26 NR 3.02 2.03 3.29 0.01
Free field pressure
1st Peak (MPa) 0.161 0.249 0.191 0.16 0.191 0.170
2nd Peak (MPa) 0.26 0.249 0.191 0.217 0.191
Duration (ms) 3.102 3.1 3.194 3.056 3.212 4.628
Impulse (MPa ms) 0.23 0.191 0.23 0.229 0.21 0.205

NR: Data not recorded due to strain gauge malfunctioning. RP_C: Reflected pressure
at the top surface center. RP_2: Reflected pressure at 230 mm location from the top
surface center. CFRP: NSC retrofitted with CFRP sheet.

damage to the top surface of the specimen blasted with 15.88 kg

Fig. 13. Free-field incident pressure versus time measurements from the pre-
liminary test: (a) 4.08 kg TNT, (b) 15.88 kg TNT.
specimens were photographed before blasting as shown in Fig. 10a,
after blasting with 4.08 kg TNT as shown in Fig. 10b, and after
blasting with 15.88 kg TNT as shown in Fig. 10c. A drastic differ-
ence in the magnitude of damage between 4.08 and 15.88 kg
TNT blasts was evident comparing Fig. 10b and c. However, the
of TNT was mostly due to TNT metal capsule fragments rather than
the blast pressure. The damage caused by blast fragments is depen-
dent of the fragment shape, mass, initial velocity, standoff distance,
and impact angle of the fragments [10,11]. In particular, a TNT
blast charge that explodes in air creates hundreds of sharp metal
fragments with an initial velocity and impact force dependent on
the charge amount.
Schematic drawings of the top and bottom surface crack pat-
terns of NSC, UHSC, and RPC panel specimens are shown in
Fig. 11. All of these specimens were loaded with 15.88 kg of ANFO
charge except for the NSC 1 specimen as shown in Fig. 11b, which
was loaded with 15.88 kg of TNT. The bottom surfaces of NSC spec-
imens were photographed after loading with 15.88 kg TNT as
shown in Figs. 11b and 15.88 kg ANFO as shown in Fig. 11c. Serious
shell fragment damage was observed from TNT loading, but almost
no damage from ANFO loading, because an ANFO blast produces
pure wave pressure without shell fragment impact. Well-dispersed
turtle-back types of crack patterns were observed in the NSC spec-
imens as shown in Figs. 11b and c and 12a. Macro-crack lines sim-
ilar to a cone prism type of plastic yield line were observed from
the center to the four corners, indicating a two-dimensional (2D)
membrane plastic failure mode. It is important to note that the
diagonal shear cracks that formed on the side surfaces of the
 Author's personal copy
702 N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707
Fig. 14. Reflected pressures versus time measurements of various top surface
locations from the main test (15.88 kg ANFO): (a) the center, (b) 230 mm radial
location from the center.
specimen indicated that the panel was susceptible to shear failure.
This shear failure suggested that to design blast-resistant NSC
structures, shear resistance must be taken into account.
We did not observe any damage or cracks on the top surfaces of
UHSC and RPC specimens as shown in Fig. 11d and g. These results
indicated that the ultra-high compressive strengths of UHSC and
RPC conferred greater resistance to blast loading than NSC. We
2observed crack patterns on the bottom surface of the UHSC spec-
imens as shown in Figs. 11e and f and 12b. The crack patterns were
similar in appearance to the yield line failure pattern expected
based on 2D membrane theory, and the cracks were mostly
macro-cracks concentrated near or on the yield lines. Crack pat-
terns on the bottom surfaces of the RPC specimens are shown in
Fig. 11h and i. One-directional multiple chopped macro-cracks bi-
sected the middle of the RPC specimens. This crack pattern was ex-
pected for RPC, because RPC is a cement mortar reinforced with
Fig. 15. Strain rate ranges for various loading types [43].
short steel fibers; crack control by the fibers prevented cata-
strophic macro-crack propagations, resulting in the formation of
chopped macro-cracks only in the direction perpendicular to the
principle tensile strain direction as shown in Fig. 12c. Because both
UHSC and RPC specimens failed due to macro-cracks, it is safe to
assume that they failed in a quasi-brittle manner even under the
flexure mode because of their ultra-high compressive strengths.
The lack of shear cracks on the specimens led us to conclude that
the shear capacities of UHSC and RPC are sufficient to withstand
blasts. In summary, the failure patterns of UHSC and RPC indicate
that they are much more resistant to blast loading than NSC and
have superior blast-resistant capacities. Furthermore, because rel-
atively fewer cracks were found in these specimens than in the NSC
specimens, it would require less effort and cost to repair blast-
damaged UHSC and RPC members than NSC members.
4.2.2. Blast pressure measurements
We were not able to measure the compressive blast pressure in
the preliminary test because metal capsule fragments from the
TNT blast impacted and damaged the pressure gauge installed at
the center top surface of the specimen. Therefore, in the prelimin-
ary test, we measured the pressure from a free-field incident pres-
sure meter placed 5 m from the center of the specimen and
compared the results with those calculated using ConWEP soft-
ware. ConWEP software is an analytical program used to calculate
the blast loadings of blast pressure, fragmentation, surface impact,
etc. based on Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-340-01. The pres-
sure comparison results are shown in Fig. 13. The first peak pres-
sure obtained from the experiment was similar in magnitude to
that predicted by ConWEP. However, the second peak of reflected
pressures from the 4.08 kg and 15.88 kg TNT charges were approx-
imately 40% and 56% less than that predicted by ConWEP, respec-
tively. These results indicated that reflected pressure is highly
dependent on experimental variabilities and environmental condi-
tions, validating the implementation of a magnification factor in
the ConWEP calculation [11,31]. The experimental data were
inconsistent due to experimental variations and environmental
conditions (i.e., charge shape, charge angle, wind velocity, humid-
ity, etc.) as shown in Table 5 and Fig. 11. However, the overall blast
pressure data agreed well with the ConWEP results.
The free field and reflected pressures were measured with pres-
sure meters for all specimens as shown in Table 5. A second peak
overpressure followed the first peak overpressure at the center of
the specimen for both reflected and free field pressures. This could
be ascribed to the finite time duration of the explosion of an ANFO
charge, unlike an incidental TNT explosion, resulting in a relatively
slower detonation speed. Due to the continuous explosion charac-
teristics of an ANFO charge, the reflected and re-reflected pressures
are combined, creating different applied pressures and several
peak overpressures as shown in Fig. 14. Because an ANFO charge
of 15.88 kg is equivalent to a TNT charge of 13.02 kg in terms of
blast pressure magnitude, the expected free field incident pressure
and impulse of a 15.88 kg ANFO charge would be approximately
15.9% and 13.5% less than those of a 15.88 kg TNT charge.
The approximate ranges of the expected strain rates for differ-
ent loading conditions are shown in Fig. 15. Blast loads typically
produce very high strain rates in the range of 102–104 s1, while
 Author's personal copy

N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707 703

5
5

0
0
-5
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
-10 -5

-15
-10
TNT 15.88 kg, NSC
-20 Max. displacement = over 25 mm ANFO 15.88 kg, NSC
Residual displacement = 12.618 mm -15 Max. displacement = 18.565 mm
-25 Residual displacement = 5.790 mm
Over LVDT range

-30 -20
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Time (msec) Time (msec)
(a) (b)
10 10

5 UHSC_1 RPC_1
5
RPC_2
UHSC_2
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
ANFO 15.88 kg, UHSC ANFO 15.88 kg, RPC
-15 Max. displacement = 10.517 mm, 15.140 mm -15 Max. displacement = 10.730 mm, 13.090 mm
Residual displacement = 1.856 mm, 5.860 mm Residual displacement = 3.202 mm, 5.410 mm

-20 -20
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Time (msec) Time (msec)
(c) (d)
Fig. 16. Center displacement versus time measurements from blast loading: (a) NSC under 15.88 kg TNT loading, (b) NSC under 15.88 kg ANFO loading, (c) UHSC, (d) RPC.

with high strain rate is applied to a structure, its dynamic mechan-

Table 6 ical properties and damage mechanisms itself change. Evaluation
Maximum and residual displacement measurements from blast loading. data can be used to characterize the dynamic damage mechanisms.
Specimen Experiment results (mm)
Max. Residual
4.2.3. Deflection measurements
displacement displacement In the preliminary tests using 4.08 and 15.88 kg TNT charges,
the maximum vertical deflections measured at the center of the
NSC Case 1 Over 25 12.26
Case 2 18.57 5.79 NSC specimens were 7 mm and exceeding 25 mm (the LVDT’s
maximum measurement capacity is 25 mm), respectively. The
UHSC Case 1 10.52 1.86
Case 2 15.14 5.86 NSC specimen with a 15.88 kg TNT charge showed significant
residual deflection, but because the LVDT was destroyed during
RPC Case 1 10.73 3.20
Case 2 13.09 5.41 the experiment, the exact deflection was not measured.
The center point deflection histories of NSC specimens with a
15.88 kg TNT and 15.88 kg ANFO charge are shown in Fig. 16a
and b, respectively, while the center point deflection histories of
ordinary static strain rate is within the range of 106–105 s1 [43]. the UHSC and RPC specimens with an ANFO charge of 15.88 kg
The strain rate range measured from this blast test was 278– are shown in Fig. 16c and d, respectively. The maximum and resid-
457 s1. In the preliminary test, the measured strain rate was ual deflections of the NSC, UHSC, and RPC specimens from the
approximately 750 s1, which is 1.64–2.7-fold greater than that 15.88 kg ANFO charge were 18.57 and 5.79 mm, 15.14 and
from the main tests. The measured strain rates for blast loading 5.86 mm, and 13.09 and 5.41 mm, respectively, as shown in Table
were similar to previously reported strain rates [43]. When a load 6 and Fig. 16. These results indicate that RPC has the best
 Author's personal copy

704 N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707

Table 7
Maximum strain measurements from blast loading.

Specimen NSC UHSC1 UHSC2 RPC1 RPC2

Steel strain
Ch. 1 TC 5964 2796 2832 – –
Ch. 2 T2 2052 1549 2192.47 – –
Ch. 3 BC 28,113 6711 7553.6 – –
Ch. 4 B2 4831 3452 3622 – –
Concrete strain
Ch. 5 TC 11,848 4502 12,821 11,198 NR
Ch. 6 T1 5336 3479 6243 9247 NR
Ch. 7 T2 2518 NR 3745 5967 1951
Ch. 8 BC NR 16,025 18,081 NR 4903
Ch. 9 B1 2581 9768 454 NR 3571
Ch. 10 B2 28,274 4692 878 708 2269

TC: Top surface center. T1: 100 mm from the top surface center. T2: 230 mm from
the top surface center. NR: Data not recorded due to strain gauge malfunctioning.
BC: Bottom surface center. B1: 100 mm location from the bottom surface center. B2:
230 mm location from the bottom surface center. –: Strain gauge not installed.

blast-resistant capacity followed by UHSC and then RPC. This is a

reasonable result because the blast resistance of RPC is signifi-
cantly enhanced by the presence of short steel fibers which provide
improved crack-bridging characteristics and energy absorption
capacity. In contrast to the other two types of specimens that are
reinforced only with ordinary rebar, the RPC specimens are prone
to having smaller deflections and cracks. Furthermore, it is impor-
tant to note that different results obtained from identical speci-
mens tested with a 15.88 kg ANFO charge is due to differences in
the testing conditions such as humidity, temperature, and wind.
Because the specimens labeled Case 1 and Case 2 were tested a
few months apart, the Case 1 group data (UHSC and RPC) and the
Case 2 group data (NSC, UHSC, and RPC) have different range val-
ues. Many previous studies have demonstrated the sensitivity of
blast test results to environmental conditions. The differences in
data for Case 1 and 2 (approximately 50% difference) are within
the range of differences that can be considered to be caused by
environmental conditions.

4.2.4. Strain measurements

Strain data are generally better at reflecting specimen behavior
compared to deflection data. The strains measured in this study are
tabulated in Table 7. Because RPC specimens do not have reinforc-
ing bars, steel strain measurements were only obtained from the
NSC and UHSC specimens. The strain data indicate bottom rein-
forcement yielding in all specimens, with higher strains occurring
in the reinforcements towards the center of the specimen. The
maximum strains measured from bottom reinforcement of the
NSC and UHSC specimens were approximately 28,000 and
10,000 le, respectively, as shown in Fig. 17. These results indicated
that smaller displacements occurred in the UHSC specimens than
in the NSC specimens and confirmed that UHSC has better blast-
resistant capacity than NSC.
Concrete strains were measured from six strain gauges attached
to the bottom and top surfaces (three for each surface) of the spec-
imens. Three strain gauges on the top and bottom surfaces mea-
sured mostly compressive and tensile strains, respectively. The
bottom center concrete strains were over 16,000 le for the NSC,
UHSC, and RPC specimens as shown in Fig. 18. The horizontal line
data for the NSC specimen indicated that the tensile strain exceeded
the gauge capacity and destroyed the gauge. Comparison of the
strains of the NSC, UHSC, and RPC specimens showed that the strain
at the center of the RPC specimen tended to be less than that of the
NSC and UHSC specimens because of the presence of short steel fi-
bers in the RPC specimen that controlled crack opening by crack
bridging. In contrast, reinforcement of the NSC and UHSC
Fig. 17. Reinforcement bar strain versus time measurements from blast loading: (a)
NSC, (b) UHSC.
specimens did not control cracks, but rather caused larger strains
to occur. If a specimen behaves elastically, then specimen stress
can be calculated using Hooke’s Law and strain data, allowing indi-
rect calculation of the strength magnification factor due to strain
rate.
4.2.5. Wave acceleration measurements
Specimen blast behavior can be analyzed based on data ob-
tained from LVDT or accelerometers. Specimen acceleration mea-
surements for the NSC, UHSC, and RPC specimens are shown in
Fig. 19a–c, respectively. Wave accelerations were found to range
between 1000 and 2500 times gravity (g). However, these acceler-
ation measurements are mixed values, and represent both the
specimen and impulse accelerations. The sensor installed on the
top concrete surface of the UHSC1 specimen was detached when
blast pressure was applied, giving results with imprecise noise.
Therefore, the UHSC1 data was considered unfit for analysis.
The NSC and UHSC specimens showed similar acceleration
behavior, but the acceleration behavior of the RPC specimen was
markedly different, and was characterized by large oscillations
and magnitude. Two factors could account for this finding. One is
that rebar in the NSC and UHSC specimens controlled the
 Author's personal copy

N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707 705

3500

3000

2500 NSC

Acceleration (g)
2000

1500
ANFO 15.88 kg, NSC
1000
Maximum acceleration = 1815.5 g
500

-500
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (msec)
(a)
3500

3000
UHSC 2
2500
Acceleration (g)

2000
ANFO 15.88 kg, UHSC
1500
Maximum acceleration , UHSC1 = Not Reported
1000 Maximum acceleration, UHSC 2 = 1420 g

500

-500
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (msec)
(b)
3500

2800
RPC 1
RPC 2
2100
Acceleration (g)

ANFO 15.88 kg, RPC

1400
Maximum acceleration , RPC1= 2844.6 g

700 Maximum acceleration, RPC 2= 2465.2 g

-700

-1400
0 2 4 6 8
Time (msec)
(c)
Fig. 19. Specimen acceleration versus time measurements from blast loading: (a)
NSC, (b) UHSC, (c) RPC.

Fig. 18. Concrete strain versus time measurements from blast loading: (a) NSC, (b)
UHSC, (c) RPC.

fibers without rebar, it was unable to control acceleration behavior.

structural acceleration behavior (i.e., oscillation and magnitude), Another possible explanation of the results is that RPC with steel
but because the RPC specimen was reinforced only with short steel fibers is more flexible than UHSC, and thereby absorbs more blast
 Author's personal copy
706 N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707
Fig. 20. FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) spectrum of the specimens under blast loading: (a) NSC, (b)UHSC, (c) RPC1, (d) RPC2.
energy. Even though the acceleration of the RPC specimen had the
largest magnitude among the three tested specimens, damping of
the RPC specimen reduced the oscillation period by approximately
2 ms compared to a 4 ms reduction in the NSC and UHSC
specimens.
The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) spectrum analysis results for
blast loaded specimens are shown in Fig. 20. The specimens
(NSC, UHSC, RPC) all showed three identical resonant frequen-
cies under blast loading, with first, second, and third mode fre-
quencies of 5.197, 10.39, and 15.593 kHz, respectively. However,
the magnitude of the amplitude differed. RPC specimens had
amplitudes of 0.392 and 0.356 for its second mode of vibration,
vibrating with high acceleration over a short time duration. The
short steel fibers of RPC without rebar reinforcement makes it
very flexible. Therefore, during its free vibration process, it oscil-
lates with larger amplitude and higher blast energy absorbing
capacity.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the material properties and blast-resistant capac-
ities of ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC) and reactive powder
concrete (RPC) were experimentally evaluated. The results showed
that they have outstanding material properties and blast-resistant
capacities. The conclusions of this study are summarized as
follows:
(1) The compressive strength, split tensile strength, elastic mod-
ulus, and Poisson’s ratio values of UHSC and RPC are 3.0–7.9-
fold higher than the corresponding NSC values. The Poisson’s
ratio of UHSC is 1.2-fold greater than that of RPC because of
the short steel fibers used in RPC. RPC has a higher split ten-
sile strength than UHSC because of the crack-controlling
effect of the short steel fibers.
(2) The blast-resistant capacities of UHSC and RPC were verified
by blast tests using a 15.88 kg ANFO charge with a 1.5 m
standoff distance, applying a blast load with strain rate of
278–457 s1. Deflection, strain, and accelerometer measure-
ments from the blast tests revealed that UHSC and RPC panel
specimens have higher blast-resistant capacities than NSC
specimens.
(3) Rebar and short steel fibers used in the UHSC and RPC spec-
imens, respectively, negate the brittle material characteris-
tics of UHSC and RPC members, provide sufficient ductility,
and confer outstanding energy absorption and crack control-
ling capacities to these materials.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out with financial assistance from the
Nuclear Research and Development Division of the Korea Institute
of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant
 Author's personal copy
N.-H. Yi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 694–707
funded by the Korea government Ministry of Knowledge Economy
(No. 2010-1620100180) and a National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Education, Science,
and Technology (No.2011-0014752).
References
[1] Almansour H, Lounis Z. Innovative design approach of precast-prestressed
girder bridges using ultra high performance concrete. Can J Civil Eng
2010;37(4):511–21.
[2] Aydin S, Yazici H, Baradan B. High temperature resistance of normal strength
and autoclaved high strength mortars incorporated polypropylene and steel
fibers. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(4):504–12.
[3] Sayed AF, Foret G, Le Roy R. Bond between carbon fibre-reinforced polymer
(CFRP) bars and ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC):
experimental study. Constr Build Mater 2010.
[4] Michael S, Ekkehard F. Ultra-high-performance concrete: research,
development and application in Europe. In: Proceedings of the 7th
internatinal symposium on the utilization of UHS/HPC. 2005. p. 51–77.
[5] Vejmelková E, Pavlíková M, Kersner Z, Rovnaníková P, Ondrácek M, Sedlmajer
M, et al. High performance concrete containing lower slag amount: a complex
view of mechanical and durability properties. Constr Build Mater
2009;23(6):2237–45.
[6] Katrin H, Marco V, Emmanuel D, Eugen B. Development of the mechanical
properties of an ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC).
Cem Concr Res 2006;36(7):1362–70.
[7] Aïtcin PC. Developments in the application of high-performance concretes.
Constr Build Mater 1995;9(1):13–7.
[8] Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM. Concrete; microstructure, properties, and
materials. McGraw-Hill; 2006.
[9] Seleem HD, Rashad AM, El-Sabbagh BA. Durability and strength evaluation of
high-performance concrete in marine structures. Constr Build Mater
2010;24(6):878–84.
[10] Yi NH, Kim SB, Kim JHJ, Cho YG. Behavior analysis of concrete structure under
blast loading: (I) experiment procedures (Korean). J Korean Soc Civil Eng
2009;29(5A):557–64.
[11] Yi NH, Kim SB, Kim JHJ, Cho YG. Behavior analysis of concrete structure under
blast loading: (II) blast loading response of ultra high strength concrete and
reactive powder concrete slabs (Korean). J Korean Soc Civil Eng
2009;29(5A):565–75.
[12] Buitelaar P. Heavy reinforced ultra high performance concrete. In: Proceedings
of the international symposium on ultra high performance
concrete. Germany: Kassel University; 2004.
[13] Köksal F, Altun F, Yigit I, Sahin Y. Combined effect of silica fume and steel fiber
on the mechanical properties of high strength concretes. Constr Build Mater
2008;22(8):1874–80.
[14] Acker P, Behloul M. DuctalÒ technology: a large spectrum of properties, ultra
high performance concrete. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on
ultra high performance concrete. Germany: Kassel University; 2004. p. 11–23.
[15] Yang SL, Millard SG, Soutsos MN, Barnett SJ, Le TT. Influence of aggregate and
curing regime on the mechanical properties of ultra-high performance fibre
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Constr Build Mater 2009;23(6):2291–8.
[16] Cheyrezy P. Composition of reactive powder concretes. Cem Concr Res
1995;25(7):1501–21.
[17] Soutsos MN, Millard SG, Karaiskos K. Mix design, mechanical properties and
impact resistance of reactive powder concrete (RPC) In: Proceedings of
international workshop on high performance fiber reinforced cementitious
composites in structural applications. Hawaii; 2005.
[18] Wu C, Oehlers DJ, Rebentrost M, Leach J. Energy-controlled design of
reinforced ultra-high performance fiber concrete slabs against airblast loads.
Key Eng Mater 2009;400–402:107–12.
View publication stats
707
[19] Wu C, Oehlers DJ, Rebentrost M, Leach J, Whittaker AS. Blast testing of ultra-
high performance fibre and FRP-retrofitted concrete slabs. Eng Struct
2009;31(9):2060–9.
[20] Wang ZL, Liu YS, Shen RF. Stress-strain relationship of steel fiber-reinforced
concrete under dynamic compression. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(5):811–9.
[21] Wang ZL, Wu J, Wang JG. Experimental and numerical analysis on effect of
fibre aspect ratio on mechanical properties of SRFC. Constr Build Mater
2010;24(4):559–65.
[22] Wang ZL, Wu LP, Wang JG. A study of constitutive relation and dynamic failure
for SFRC in compression. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(8):1358–63.
[23] Rong Z, Sun W, Zhang Y. Dynamic compression behavior of ultra-high
performance cement based composites. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37(5):515–20.
[24] Tai YS. Uniaxial compression tests at various loading rates for reactive powder
concrete. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2009;52(1):14–21.
[25] Edouard PPR, Eric J, Claude B. Strain rate effect on bending behavior of new
ultra-high-performance cement-based composite. ACI Mater J
2007;104(5):458–63.
[26] Yang IH, Joh CB. Prediction of flexural capacity of steel fiber-reinforced ultra
high strength concrete beams (Korean). J Korean Soc Civil Eng
2010;30(3A):317–28.
[27] Nam JW, Kim HJ, Kim SB, Kim JHJ, Byun KJ. Analytical study of finite element
models for FRP retrofitted concrete structure under blast loads. Int J Damage
Mech 2009;18(5):461–90.
[28] Nam JW, Kim HJ, Yi NH, Kim IS, Kim JHJ, Choi HJ. Blast analysis of concrete arch
structures for FRP retrofitting design. Comput Concr 2009;6(4):305–18.
[29] Mosallam AS, Mosalam KM. Strengthening of two-way concrete slabs with FRP
composite laminates. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(1):43–54.
[30] Lan S, Lok TS, Heng L. Composite structural panels subjected to explosive
loading. Constr Build Mater 2005;19(5):387–95.
[31] Nam JW, Kim HJ, Kim SB, Yi NH, Kim JHJ. Numerical evaluation of the retrofit
effectiveness for GFRP retrofitted concrete slab subjected to blast pressure.
Compos Struct 2010;92(5):1212–22.
[32] Ngo TD, Mendis PA, Teo D, Kusuma G. Behavior of high-strength concrete
columns subjected to blast loading. In: Proceeding of international conference
on advances in structures (ASSCCA03). Sydney; 2003. p. 1057–62.
[33] Cavill B, Rebentrost M, Perry V. An ultra-high performance material for
resistance to blasts and impacts. 1st Specialty conference on disaster
mitigation. Canada: Calgary Albertal; 2006. p. DM-003-1.
[34] Harbel K, Gauvreau P. Response of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced
concrete(UHPFRC) to impact and static loading. Cem Concr Comp
2008;30:938–46.
[35] Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co. Patent: Low heat ultra high
strength concrete composition (Korean). 2008.
[36] Korea Standard. KS F 2594 Method of test for slump flow of fresh concrete
(Korean). 2009.
[37] Korea Standard. KS L 5111 Flow table for use in tests of hydraulic cement
(Korean). 2007.
[38] Korea Standard. KS F 2405 Method of test for compressive strength of concrete
(Korean). 2005.
[39] Korea Standard. KS F 2438 Testing method for static modulus of elasticity and
poisson’s ratio in compression of cylindrical concrete specimen (Korean).
2002.
[40] Korea Standard. KS F 2423 Method of test for splitting tensile strength of
concrete (Korean). 2006.
[41] Korea Standard. KS F 2408 Method of test for flexural strength of
concrete(Korean). 2000.
[42] Razaqpur AG, Tolba A, Contestabile E. Blast loading response of reinforced
concrete panels reinforced with externally bonded GFRP laminates. Compos
Part B – Eng 2007;38:535–46.
[43] Ngo T, Mendis P, Gupta A, Ramsay J. Blast loading and blast effects on
structures – an overview. Elect J Struct Eng 2007;3:5 [Special Issue – Loading
on Structures:76–91].