48J 2023 Rachit and Senthil European J of Civil and Environ Engg

European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20
Performance of thin reinforced concrete slabs

against low velocity repeated impact load
Rachit Sharma & Senthil Kasilingam
To cite this article: Rachit Sharma & Senthil Kasilingam (28 Sep 2023): Performance of thin
reinforced concrete slabs against low velocity repeated impact load, European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2023.2259956
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2023.2259956
Published online: 28 Sep 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tece20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2023.2259956
Performance of thin reinforced concrete slabs against low

velocity repeated impact load
Rachit Sharma and Senthil Kasilingam
Civil Engineering Department, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The use of thin reinforced concrete slabs for buildings has more advan Received 8 April 2023
tages than beam supported slabs, slabs with column capitals, and drop- Accepted 7 September 2023
down panels because of its easier construction and economic feasibility.
KEYWORDS
However, it is susceptible to localized failure due to punching shear result
Reinforced concrete slab;
ing in progressive collapse of the structure. Therefore, the attempt has low velocity impact;
been made to study the behaviour of thin reinforced concrete slabs experiments; simulations;
1200 � 1200 mm having thicknesses of 50 and 30 mm under repeated load repeated impact load
ing through the experiment and simulations. The mass of the impactor
was 60 kg with 35 and 70� angular motion and the corresponding impact
velocity were 2.62 and 4.97 m/s, respectively. Based on the member
response under static conditions using analytical methods, the flexural fail
ure was found to be more prominent and the ultimate flexural load for
50 mm thick slab was found to be 101.7% higher as compared to 30 mm
thick slab. It was concluded that the resistance of the target was found to
increase by 36% when the target thickness increased from 30 to 50 mm at
35� pendulum impact whereas the same was found to be 63% increment
at 70� pendulum impact, during the first impact. Under repeated impacts,
the impulse on both 30 and 50 mm thick slab was found to decrease grad
ually against 35� pendulum impact whereas the abrupt decrease in
impulse was observed at 70� impact. The numerical analysis was performed
using ABAQUS/EXPLICIT to predict the response of the slab under multi-
impact loading. The numerical model was able to accurately predict the
peak impact force on both 30- and 50-mm thick slab, up to the fourth
impact.
1. Introduction
The use of thin RC slabs for buildings has a few major benefits over beam supported slabs or slabs with
column head or drop-down panels including offering more clear space for a given story height and
reduction in total height and weight of the building (Torabian et al., 2019). The smaller thickness of ele
ments is widely used for special structures, such as domes and shells, and boat hull as they provide a
reduction in both materials and construction costs, as concrete is relatively inexpensive and easily cast
into compound curves. In contrast, these building elements offer low punching shear capacity and
greater deformations (Kennedy, 1976). A thin slab element is limited by its given span length and load
carrying capacity. Also, the concentration of load near the column results in punching shear failure which
becomes critical due to the absence of shear reinforcement (Hassan et al., 2014). These reinforced con
crete structures are generally acted upon by static loads nonetheless the possibility of RC structures
CONTACT Senthil Kasilingam kasilingams@nitj.ac.in, urssenthil85@yahoo.co.in, urssenthil85@gmail.com Civil Engineering

Department, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, 144011, India.
� 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. SHARMA AND S. KASILINGAM
subjected to impact loads, such as accidental drop weights during the construction of high rise building
on floor system cannot be omitted. The response of concrete structures under impact loading are highly
dependent on the nature of the event and the properties of the constituent materials. These events can
be repetitive in nature, i.e. the structure can be impacted repetitively under such dynamic events. Often
it was observed that structures exposed to impact load, characterized as a sudden impulse can produce
higher strain rates and inertial effects which yields greater resistance and abrupt change to the failure
mode (Adhikary et al., 2016).
The investigation on flat slab with and without openings using different strengthening materials, such
as fibers and fiber reinforced polymer has been widely studied under static loading (Al-Rousan, 2017,
2022; Al-Rousan & Alnemrawi, 2022, 2023). Further, the use of fiber reinforced polymer sheets as a
strengthening material on reinforced concrete members were evaluated and compared with the conven
tional concrete members. The behaviour was studied in terms of failure mode, load-mid span deflection,
stiffness, and energy absorption characteristics (Alhassan et al., 2017, 2018; Al-Rousan, 2018a, 2018b; Al-
Rousan et al., 2018). The usage of polymer fiber was found to enhance the post-cracking ductility and
assist in crack arresting mechanism of the reinforced concrete member. The use of natural fibers, such as
flax fiber and coconut fiber in reinforced concrete slabs improved the dynamic performance in terms of
energy absorption capacity and reduced crack widths (Batarlar et al., 2021; Wang & Chouw, 2018). The
use of acoustic emission techniques using acoustic sensors were found successful in assessing the differ
ent fracture modes (tension, bending, and shear) in concrete matrix and useful in structural health moni
toring of the concrete structures (Aggelis et al., 2014, 2015; Chalioris et al., 2021). The use of piezoelectric
sensors based on acoustic emission technique was found useful in assessing the damage due to cracking
in fiber reinforced concrete occurring due to repeated loading (Voutetaki et al., 2022).
Earlier studies were mostly conducted on RC structures, such as nuclear containment walls and
internal concrete barriers to evaluate their response to soft and hard missile impacts at higher velocities.
Based on these tests many empirical formulae were suggested and reviewed (Li et al., 2005). However,
limitations were found in these empirical formula as they were only applicable under certain conditions.
While most of the studies found on impact associated problems focused on the moderate velocity impact
on RC structures (impact velocity > 100 m/s). Studies related to low velocity impact (impact velocity <
15 m/s) were found to be limited. This type of low velocity impact loading is different from static loading
due to the dynamic response of the structure such that a structure failing under flexural failure mode
may experience shear failure mode if the loading rate is increased. Reinforced concrete members are also
able to sustain higher loads when loading rates are increased because of inertial and strain rate effect
associated with the constitutive properties of concrete and steel (Malvar & Ross, 1998). Chen and May
(2009) studied four 760 mm square and 76 mm thick and two 2320 mm square and 150 mm thick slabs
under a drop weight of up to 380 kg and velocities up to 8.7 m/s with clamped support at the edges.
Experimental results were compared with analytical formulae, and it was found that analytical formulae
were not able to predict the results accurately for 150 mm thick slabs although satisfactory predictions
were obtained for 76 mm thick slabs. Xiao et al. (2016) found that load carrying capacity, energy absorp
tion capacity, inertial forces, and strain rates were found to increase with higher loading rates. It was con
cluded that shear reinforcement was more effective as compared to longitudinal reinforcement in
enhancing slab resistance under higher loading rates. Yı lmaz et al. (2020) found that increasing rebar
ratio in two-way slab increases bending strength, stiffness, and toughness characteristics of RC slab.
Further, with increasing input energy applied to the RC slab resulting higher damages to the slab.
Sadraie et al. (2019) studied the response of concrete slabs using Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRP)
bars and it was observed that by changing the arrangement of GFRP bars, it has better performance as
compared to steel rebar due to its corrosion resistance. Additionally, the use of GFRP sheets or strips
enhances the impact resistance of concrete slab by changing the mode of failure from punching shear to
punching-bending (Soltani et al., 2020).
The researchers rigorously studied the effect of normal impact on reinforced concrete slab, it is to the
author’s knowledge that there exists a gap in characterizing the structural behaviour under repeated
loading. The current knowledge is limited to good impact resistance under single impact however poor
knowledge on further functionality after subjected to repeated loading (Li & Yu, 2019). The repeated
impact loads were established by the development of flexural cracks, however punching failure was
observed as the final failure in the slab (Said & Mabrook Mouwainea, 2022). Kishi et al. (1997) performed
repeated free falling steel test on nine rectangular RC slabs having 4 m wide and 5 m long under the
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 3
weight of 1000, 3000, and 5000 kg. The variations in slab thickness (25, 50, and 75 cm) and reinforcement
ratio (0.5, 1%) were experimentally investigated. It was observed that maximum impact force was highly
affected by slab thickness rather than reinforcement ratio type as well as strength of material.
Simulations have been widely used to investigate RC structure response under high strain rate impact
loadings (Ågårdh & Laine, 1999; Kumar et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022). Numerical simulation performed using
LS-Dyna to assess the impact behavior for the perforation of slab was studied by Izatt et al. (2009). RC
slab was modelled using Winfrith concrete and elasto-plastic steel reinforcement model with element
erosion. The results have been compared with empirical penetration formulae for concrete structures as
well as experimental tests, and perforation limit agreement was found. Sagals et al. (2011) identified sev
eral critical finite element parameters for modelling RC structures, such as uniaxial concrete strength in
tension and compression, reinforcement failure strain, strain-rate law, etc. Additional non-physical factors,
such as fracture energy, pressure vs. volumetric strain relationship, and particularly, erosion criteria were
found to affect the outcome of finite element analysis. Kezmane et al. (2017) found that mesh density in
finite element analysis plays an important role in local and global responses for concrete. The CDP model
and steel reinforcement have the capability to replicate the behaviors of the material. Xiao et al. (2017)
performed finite element analysis to determine the impact energy that causes punching shear failure of
RC slabs. Strain-rate sensitivity was applied to the material model to accurately predict the response of
the RC slab under impact load.
Based on the detailed literature, the response of thin reinforced concrete slabs under impact loading
was found limited. The damage of reinforced concrete slabs under repeated impact load was not found
in the literature. Further, the thin elements have special advantages, such as reducing overall structure
height and better-quality control, and faster construction time. Also, the experimental and numerical
investigations on thin RC slabs is still restricted to static testing and the studies under repeated low vel
ocity impact loading were found to be limited. The thin reinforced concrete slab is designed to have suf
ficient plastic rotation capacity to allow complete moment distribution at the ultimate load and has
found commercial application in various types of structures all over world. Further, the damage mechan
ism under impact load differs from static loading, so its damage characteristics under repeated impact
loading may shed light on the progressive damage accumulation on reinforced slab under repeated
impacts. Therefore, an attempt to investigate thin reinforced concrete slabs under repeated loading to
investigate its damage mechanism is a scientific novelty in the manuscript. Section 2 describes the
experimental investigations, test setup and discusses the results obtained under normal and repeated
impact loading. The numerical model and constitutive behavior of concrete and steel reinforcing bar
materials were discussed in Section 3. The predicted numerical results were compared with the experi
mental results under normal and repeated impact loading is discussed in Section 4.
2. Experimental investigation
The experimental study was performed to investigate the behavior of RC slab under normal and repeated
loading. The reinforced concrete slabs were tested under impact loading and the compressive strength
of the slabs was evaluated using a concrete cylinder tested at 28 days age of concrete. Test procedure
using a drop weight setup was presented and experimental results were discussed for normal and
repeated impact loading.
2.1. Preparation of specimens

The specimens were prepared in iron moulds with a size of 1200 mm square RC slab with distinct thick
nesses (30 and 50) mm as shown in Figure 1. These 1200 mm square and (30 and 50) mm thick slabs
were reinforced with 6 mm diameter rebars with a clear cover of 10 and 20 mm, respectively as shown in
Figures 1(a,b). The concrete slab with 30 and 50 mm corresponding reinforcement ratios of 0.39 and
0.23%, respectively was designed for dead load and live load, as per the codal requirements of IS
456:2000 (IS 456, 2000). As per codal requirements, the minimum percentage of steel is 0.15% of the
cross-sectional area. The concrete mix was designed as per IS 10262:2019 (BIS:10262, 2019). Ordinary
Portland Cement, river sand, coarse aggregate, water, and superplasticizer were used as raw materials for
designing concrete mix as per IS 456:2000 (IS 456, 2000). Ordinary Portland Cement 43 grade
Figure 1. Reinforcement layout of slab specimens of (a) 30 and (b) 50 mm thickness.
Table 1. Details of experimental program.

Angle of impact Incidence Impact
Sample Thickness, (� ) (height Mass, velocity, Impact energy, momentum, Mi,
designation t, mm in mm) M, kg Vi, ms−1 Ei, J kg.m/s
S30D35 30 35 (367.48) 60 2.62 205.93 157.2
S50D35 50 35 (367.48) 60 2.62 205.93 157.2
S30D70 30 70 (1337.01) 60 4.97 741.02 298.2
S50D70 50 70 (1337.01) 60 4.97 741.02 298.2
(compressive strength ¼ 43 MPa at 28 days) and 3.15 specific gravity in accordance with IS 269:2015 (IS
269, 2015) was used as binder. Naturally dried fine sand and coarse aggregate with maximum aggregate
size as 4.75 and 12 mm, respectively were used for the mix design (IS 383, 2016). The ratio of various
materials considered for cylindrical compressive strength, fc0 ¼ 40 MPa concrete was considered as
1:1.83:2.08 (Cement: Fine Aggregate: Coarse Aggregate) with cement quantity as 450 kg/m3 for weigh-
batching method and keeping water-cement (w/c) ratio to be 0.37 (IS 456, 2000). To keep the flow of the
mix for a slump of 150 mm, superplasticizer for 0.70% weight of cement was used. For each batch, the
three cylinders were used to check the compressive strength of concrete at 28 days age of concrete and
one slab was tested for impact loading under repeated impact. The 28 days compressive strength of con
crete mix was tested on 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height cylindrical specimens in compression test
ing machine (CTM) as per IS 516:1959 (IS 516, 1959). The 28 days cylindrical compressive strength was
found to be 42.8 ffi 43 MPa with a standard deviation of 1.64 MPa.
2.2. Test setup and procedure

The experimental program has been detailed in Table 1 and four slabs were tested after a curing period
from 90 to 120 days. Due to the ongoing pandemic situation at the time of testing, and due to the cylin
drical specimens being used for the characterization of concrete at 28 days for author’s different study,
the CEB-FIP model code (CEB-FIP, 2010) was used for the prediction of concrete compressive strength at
90–120 days age of concrete. Therefore, the strength development of concrete at 90–120 days of age
predicted using CEB-FIP model code (CEB-FIP, 2010) was found to be 47.6 � 48 MPa. This is further veri
fied by testing the reinforced concrete slab specimens using rebound hammer test. The average rebound
hammer test values tested as per IS 13311:1992 (IS13311, 1992) were found to be 47, 44, 51, and 45
which corresponds to the compressive strength of 50, 46, 54, and 47 MPa, respectively. The slabs were
tested against two different angles of impact of 35 and 70� . The slab was designated as S30D35 and
S50D35 where S is Slab, D is angle of impact, 35 represents 35� , 70 represents 70� , 30 represents 30 mm
thickness and 50 represents 50 mm thickness of slab. The equivalent height of impact is 0.367 and 1.34 m
from the center of impact against 35 and 70� angle of impact, respectively. Each slab of one group of
thicknesses 30 and 50 mm was tested for the same drop height, which was chosen to produce the same
impact energy. The slab was chosen for different heights, i.e. 35 and 70� angle of impact to study the
effect of impact energy on the impact resistance and energy absorption capacity of slab under repeated
impact loading. The slab specimens were loaded using a swinging pendulum drop weight system as
shown in Figure 2(a) and the machine has a maximum weight capacity and drop height as 90 kg and
3.47 m (135� angle of impact), respectively. The swinging pendulum has an angular guided motion which
enables it to impact the specimens at its center. This system has six circular steel pipe sections of diam
eter 50.4 mm and two C-channel steel sections of size 100 � 50 � 5 mm tightly bolted using 10 mm diam
eter bolts. The slab was supported on two opposite sides while the other two sides were free to create a
simply supported condition due to the limitations of the testing machine. The center-to-center distance
between the two supports is 900 mm. The impactor has a hemispherical nose 90 mm diameter attached
to the solid steel section with additional weight each weighing 15 kg for a total number of three weights.
The hemispherical nose shape impactor found to be more conservative for thin reinforced concrete slab.
The total weight of the assembly including impactor, load cell, and swinging steel arm is 60 kg. The load
cell was attached between the impactor and solid section to provide complete rigidity without any loss
of incoming energy. The swinging steel arm section was operated using a steel coil which is connected
to the release mechanism. To prevent the swinging pendulum from striking with the apparatus itself,
rubber pads were provided as shown in Figure 2(a). The pancake type dynamic load cell is attached to
the impactor that can measure the impact force up to 250 kN with a resonant frequency of 8.7 kHz and
the attachment to the impactor. The data from the load cell was recorded at a frequency of 50 kHz with
the help of data acquisition system DNA-AI-211 with a maximum sampling rate of 100 kHz. To measure
the imparted velocity, slow motion video was recorded at 240 Hz which was then further used to calcu
late the impact velocity using open-source software TRACKER. The software has been well-documented
in a number of publications to provide accurate tracking of objects in 2-D space (Kinchin, 2016; Wee
et al., 2012). The schematic representation of impact angles tested at 35 and 70� for different impact
energies was shown in Figures 2(b,c), respectively.
For hemispherical impactors, the location of the load cell plays a vital role in capturing the correct
value of impact force during impact. Based on the findings of Li et al. (2020), for load cell placed
between the impactor head and trailing weight, the mass distribution of drop weight may affect the
impact force measurement. A drop weight mass ratio factor a is introduced which is defined as the ratio
of the mass of weight above the load cell (mw) to the mass of head (mh). A mass ratio of <20 requires
correction factor bc ¼ (1 þ 1/a) to be multiplied by the measured impact force to get correct values of the
impact force-time plot. In this study, the value of a was found to be a ¼ 2.9/60 ¼ 20.68, therefore no cor
rection to the impact force was applied.
2.3. Constitutive modelling of concrete and steel bar
2.3.1. Concrete damage plasticity (CDP) model

The CDP model was used to model concrete material behavior under low velocity impact loading. The
CDP model is based on classical continuum plasticity damage theory which uses the isotropic tensile and
compressive plasticity with isotropic damage defined by two failure mechanisms, mainly tensile cracking
and compression crushing of concrete material. The model was developed by Lubliner et al. (1989) and
later modified by Lee and Fenves (1998) for dynamic and cyclic loading and adopted in ABAQUS. The
model can reproduce the key characteristics of concrete, such as elasticity, plasticity, its asymmetric
strength in tension and compression, its pressure sensitivity associated with yielding and unloading, and
reloading stiffness degradation associated with damage, irreversible strains, and strain rate effects.
Figure 2. (a) Swinging pendulum drop impact test machine (b) schematic at 35� and (c) 70� impact.
The CDP model uses the loading function F, in which the evolution of the yield surface is controlled
by equivalent tensile and compressive plastic strain variables ~e pl e pl
t and ~ c which are determined from uni
axial tension and compression tests. �
Lim et al. (2016) calibrated the experimental results for the value of fb0 =fc0 as the ratio of biaxial to
uniaxial compressive stress and second stress invariant parameter, Kc in Equations (1) and (2),
respectively as:
�
fb0 =fc0 ¼ 1:57fc0 − 0:09 (1)
Kc ¼ 0:71fc0 − 0:025 (2)

� � � �
pl pl
The compressive and tensile damage indices Dc ~e c and Dt ~e t characterize the degraded elastic
compressive and tensile stiffness as ð1 − Dc ÞEc and ð1 − D�t ÞEc , respectively. Li et al. (2020) suggested the
tensile damage index taking the form kEc~e cr e cr
t = kEc~ t þ rt with k ¼ 0:2: The compressive damage index
may take this form well with k ¼ 0:5 to yield similar results. The damage indices used for the CDP model
using Equations (3) and (4) as:
_
� ~e in
Dc ~e in
c ¼ in
c
< 0:8 (3)
~e c þ 2r Ec
c
� ~e cr
Dt ~e cr
t ¼ t
< 0:8 (4)
~e in
t þ Ec
5rt
_
where ~e in
c ¼ ec − rc =Ec is the inelastic compressive strain corresponding to compressive stress, rc and
strain, ec ; ~e cr
t ¼ et − rt =Ec the cracking strain corresponding to compressive stress, rt and strain, et ; and Ec
the initial modulus of elasticity. Based on the axial and lateral strain relation, the value of dilation angle,
w was taken from Li et al. (2020).
The uniaxial compressive stress-strain relationships were based on Aslani and Jowkarmeimandi (2012)
using Equation (5) as:
� �
n eecpc fc0
sc ðec Þ ¼ � �n (5)
n − 1 þ eecpc
h i−0�74
f0
where n ¼ n1 ¼ 1:02 − 1:17 Ec eccp for
� ec � � ecp and n ¼ n1 þ a þ 28b for ec > ecp , in which
a ¼ 3:5ð12:4 − 0:0166fc0 Þ−0:46 , b ¼ 0:83exp − 911 0
fc and ecp is the strain at peak compressive stress, calcu
lated from Equation (6) as:
� �
f 0 0:75 qc u
ecp ¼ la c (6)
Ec 2320
where qc as density of concrete, la ¼ 4:26 for crushed aggregate or la ¼ 3:78 for rounded aggregate
(Samani & Attard, 2012), and u ¼ 0:3:
The dynamic increase factor (DIF) of the uniaxial compressive strength in terms of uniaxial strain rate,
e_ c , as adopted by Malvar and Crawford (1998). The compressive stress-inelastic strain curve incorporating
the strain rate effects at strain rate 10−1, 1, and 10 s−1 is shown in Figure 3(a). The compressive damage-
inelastic strain was incorporated using Equation (5) and shown in Figure 3(a).
Figure 3. The uniaxial behaviour in (a) compression and (b) tension is defined in CDP model.
The uniaxial tensile proposed by Reinhardt et al. (1986) based on static tensile test results is of the
form of Equation (6) as:
� � ! � �
rt w 3 w w �
¼ 1 þ c1 exp −c2 − 1 þ c31 exp ð−c2 Þ (6)
ft wc wc wc
where c1 ¼ 3; c2 ¼ 6:93 and wc the critical crack opening displacement with near zero stress is deter
mined by wc ¼ 5:136GF =ft in which GF � 2:5Gf is the fracture energy that equals the area under entire
stress-crack opening displacement curve. The value of area under the initial tangent of the softening
stress-separation curve of cohesive crack model, which governs the maximum loads of structure, Gf was
based on the statistical study done by Ba�zant and Becq-Giraudon (2002).
The dynamic increase factor (DIF) of uniaxial tensile strength is presented by Malvar and Ross (1998).
The tensile stress-cracking strain curve incorporating the strain rate effect at strain rates 10−1, 1, and
10 s−1 is shown in Figure 4(b). The tensile damage-cracking strain was incorporated using Equation (6).
Note that the fracture energy used for constructing tensile stress-cracking strain relationship was based
on fracture energy, Gf :
Under uniaxial tensile behaviour, the localization of deformations leads to significant convergence
problems of finite element model. To solve partially the problems and to keep mesh objectivity, mesh
regularization based on fracture energy criterion was chosen. In this approach, the evolution of stress-
strain curve depends on the size of the finite element. The dissipated energy at tensile cracking is then
kept constant when the elemental characteristic length ðLc Þ changes upon mesh refinement (Kezmane
et al., 2017). The cracking strain ~e cr e cr
t is then regularized as ~ t ¼ w=Lc : The criteria for mesh size to meet
the requirement on the element characteristic length Lc can be fulfilled for softening laws using the crite
ria; element size < 0:4Ef 2c Gf ¼ 44 mm: The uniaxial elasto-plastic and multi-axial properties for concrete
t
material using CDP model is shown in Table 2.
2.3.2. Elasto-plastic model for steel reinforcement

Classical plasticity theory based on Von Mises model was used to model the behaviour of reinforcement
and reinforcing steel was modelled as a linear elastic and linear strain hardening material with a yield
stress. It was observed that the stress-strain model of reinforcing steel bar (rebar) embedded in concrete
was different from that of a bare bar due to the bond-slip behaviour between the rebar and concrete.
The isotropic elastic materials parameters taken for steel were dS ¼ 7850 kg=m3 and Es ¼ 200 MPa
and Poisson’s ratio as 0.30. The values required of bare rebar of 6 mm diameter for constructing engin
eering stress-strain curve for yield stress, fsy ¼ 586 MPa and fsu ¼ 652 MPa were taken from the
Figure 4. Load-displacement response of reinforced concrete slab.

Table 2. CDP model parameters under uniaxial and multi-axial behaviour.

Parameter Value Unit Denotation
Uniaxial behaviour
fc0 48 MPa Uniaxial compressive strength (CEB-FIP, 2010)
ecp 0.0027 mm/mm Strain at peak compressivep strength,
ffiffiffi Equation (6)
Ec 31,276.91 MPa Elastic modulus, Ec ¼ 4500 fc0 (in MPa) (ACI Committee
318, 2019)
q 2400 kg/m3 Density of concrete (from physical test)
� ce 0.166 − Poisson’s ratio, using
� ce ¼ 8 � 10−6 fc0 2 þ 0:0002fc0 þ 0:138 (Candappa et al.,
2001) �2=3
ft 3.86 MPa Uniaxial tensile strength using ft ¼ 0:3 fc0 (CEB-FIP,
2010)
Gf 53.99 N/m Fracture energy of initial linear segment (Ba�zant & Becq-
Giraudon, 2002)
GF 134.97 N/m Fracture energy, using GF � 2:5Gf
Lc 5 mm Characteristic length of element (ambiguous value)
Multi-axial behaviour
w 37.91 − Dilation angle, from Li et al. (2020)
fb0 =fc0 1.108 − Ratio of biaxial to uniaxial compressive strength,
Equation (1)
Kc 0.644 − Ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile
meridian to that on compressive meridian,
Equation (2)
2 0.1 − Eccentricity of flow potential, default value, Default value
Table 3. Average stress-plastic strain relationship for reinforcement.

Average stress (MPa)
Plastic strain Strain rate 0.0001/s Strain rate 0.1/s Strain rate 1/s Strain rate 10/s
0 384 463 491 520
0.11 652 680 690 700
0.20 652 680 690 700
experiments performed by Cadoni et al. (2015). The value of failure strain was taken as 11.30% and the
corresponding engineering stress was 400 MPa (Cadoni et al., 2015). The properties of rebar for 50 mm
thickness RC slab were shown in Table 3. To substitute the effect of such sliding, Belarbi and Hsu (1994)
model was used to model the behaviour of reinforcement embedded in concrete taking the parameters
from the study of Cadoni et al. (2015) as reference. The strain rate effects for reinforcements were based
on the DIF formulations of Malvar (1998).
The material model for impactor was incorporated using the Johnson-Cook (JC) material model
(Johnson & Cook, 1985). The properties of JC material model for mild steel were taken from the experi
mental and numerical data of Iqbal et al. (2015). Note that the temperature effects and damage proper
ties were not taken in the study as the impactor hardly went under any adiabatic change and/or plastic
deformation during the experimentation.
3. Analytical and experimental results

The experimental results for different thicknesses of slabs were discussed in this Section. The multiple
impact resistance of reinforced concrete slab under impact loading and an analytical procedure to obtain
the energy absorption in RC slabs under multiple impacts were discussed in this section.
3.1. Analytical results for flexural and shear response of RC slab

The load-displacement response of RC slabs S50 and S30 under static loading using an analytical method
based on critical shear crack theory (CSCT) (Muttoni, 2008) and yield line theory (Hognestad, 1953) was
shown in Figure 4(a). The corresponding moment-curvature response for reinforced concrete slabs is pre
sented in Figure 4(b). The peak load observed for slab S50 and S30 was 15.35 and 7.61 kN, respectively.
Table 4. Reinforced concrete slab performance parameters.

Slab Id Pu (kN) Du (mm) Ki (kN/mm) Ku (kN/mm) Ea, pre (kN.mm) Ea, post (kN.mm)
S50 15.35 3.65 95.10 4.42 0.59 49.72
S30 7.61 4.55 19.63 1.76 0.30 25.78
Pu: ultimate load; Du: ultimate deflection; Ki: initial stiffness; Ku: post-cracking stiffness; Ea, pre: pre-cracking energy absorption;
Ea, post: post-cracking energy absorption.
Table 5. Punching shear capacity predictions (in kN).

Slab Id ACI318-19 EC-2 IS 456:2000 CSCT
S50 26.78 61.80 232.73 69.10
S30 16.45 56.55 333.91 43.69
The response was evaluated under plate load of cross-section (80 � 80) mm. The peak flexural load for
slab S50 was found twice as 101.7% higher as compared to slab S30. The peak moment for sectional
response of slab S50 and S30 was found to be 3.02 and 1.48 kN-m, respectively. On comparing with the
peak flexural load based on yield line mechanism, it was estimated to be 13.42 and 6.57 kN (4 Mp/L,
where L is clear span between supports) for slab S50 and S30, respectively. The various parameters, such
as ultimate load, deflection, initial and post-cracking stiffness, and energy absorption under pre- and
post-cracking stages of slab S50 and S30 were shown in Table 4. The stiffness observed for slab S50 and
S30 was 95.10 and 19.63 kN/mm, respectively. It was observed that lower thickness slab (slab S30)
showed higher ultimate displacement as compared to slab S50 and similar results were also observed by
Al-Rousan. Furthermore, the punching shear capacity of reinforced concrete slab was evaluated using dif
ferent codal provisions, such as ACI318-19 (Committee et al., 2019), EC-2 (1992-1-1:2004 BE, 2004), IS
456:2000 (IS 456, 2000), and critical shear crack theory (CSCT) (Muttoni, 2008) are shown in Table 5. It
was observed that the punching shear provision for RC slab without shear reinforcement was over-esti
mated by IS 456:2000. Based on the analytical results, it was observed that the failure of RC slabs was
mainly governed by the flexural failure rather than shear failure.
3.2. Response of slab under normal and repeated impact load

The response of reinforced concrete slab was predicted in terms of crack pattern and impact force–time
profile of the specimens. The impulses observed in the duration of impact were tabulated and compared
for different number of impacts as well as slab thickness.
3.2.1. Normal impact load (first impact)

The damage on the front and back face of slab specimens is shown in Figure 5. On the front face, no sig
nificant cracks were observed for slab specimens S30D35 and S50D35, except a crater at the impacted
area, no cracks were observed for the rest of the slab area, see Figures 5(a-i,a-ii). The diameter of the cra
ter on the front face was measured at 34 and 26 mm for S30D35 and S50D35, respectively. It was
observed that increasing the thickness of the slab marginally decreases the diameter of the punched
area at the front face of the specimen. On increasing the angle of impact from 35 to 70� , the damage
was quite severe at the front face of the slab specimens S30D70 and S50D70, see Figures 5(b-i,b-ii). The
diameter of the crater at the front side was found to be 60 mm for both the slab specimens. It was
observed that a threshold of impact energy at 70� , the crater at front face of both the specimens was
approximately equal to the diameter of the impactor. The diameter of the crater was found similar to
that of the impactor due to the higher impact energy cause perforation by the impactor. The perforated
diameter was found equal to the diameter of the hemi-spherical impactor head. For specimen S30D70,
flexural failure with punching shear at the impacted area was observed. A single flexural crack having an
approximate width of 2.5 mm running horizontally at the slab center up to the free edge was observed,
see Figure 5(a-iii), while the rest of the slab remained intact, and no cracks were seen. For slab specimen
S50D70, minor tensile cracks about 1 mm wide were observed at the front face, see Figure 5(a-iv). For
both the specimens, scabbing of concrete mass at the front face was observed. It was concluded that
the slab failed by flexure due to the first impact and crack propagating towards the free edge in case of
Figure 5. Damage on the (a) front and (b) rear face of the slab (i) S30D35, (ii) S50D35, (iii) S30D70, and (iv) S50D70.
30 mm thickness slab. However, on increasing slab thickness, i.e. 50 mm, the energy absorption capacity
of slab increases where cracks propagate towards the rigid support of the specimen along with the for
mation of a few small radial cracks. The structural action of the slab is essentially one–way when the
loads being carried by the two-way slab in the direction perpendicular to the supporting sides.
Therefore, the structural action of the slab (S30D35 and S50D35) against lesser impact energy is basically
governed by the flexural action along the two perpendicular directions to the support. However, for
higher impact energy, the response of the slab changes from global bending and punching to local
punching (slab S30D70), which is basically the case for punching induced by column supporting flat slab
at its corner.
On the back face, major cracks on S30D35 slab were found extending from the center to the supports
whereas minor cracks were observed in case of S50D35, see Figures 5(b-i,b-ii). However, no scabbing was
observed in both specimens and both slabs were able to prevent the scabbing and perforation phenom
enon. In case of S30D70, major damage at the back face was observed. Scabbing of concrete was
observed near the impacted area whose average diameter was 200 mm and two large cracks of average
size 25 mm were also observed which resulted in the exposure of reinforcement and permanent bending
of the slab specimen, see Figure 5(b-iii). Fewer cracks in smaller sizes extending up to the supports were
also observed. Larger damage in slab S50D70 was found at the back face for a diameter of about
325 mm, however insignificant scabbing of concrete was seen, see Figure 5(b-iv). The arrangement of
cracks at the rear face of the specimen S30D70 is characterized by the shear þ major flexural failure.
Because of the low thickness of slab (i.e. 30 mm), the formation of yield lines is across the unsupported
end which results in a typical flexural failure of one-way slab, however, due to sudden action of concen
trated load, the punching shear phenomenon was observed at the rear face of the slab. However, shear
failure with several radial cracks were formed at the rear face of slab S50D70 due to the higher thickness
of the specimen, see Figure 5(b-iv). The impact on reinforced concrete slab is generalized as the transfer
of compression stress wave at the front face which induce spalling of concrete at the front face if the
impact energy of the impactor is increased (Akshaya Gomathi et al., 2022). For the rear face, the stress is
characterized by the formation of radial cracks. On increasing the impact energy, the stress wave is trans
ferred as compressive wave in thickness direction, and reflected tensile stress wave causes scabbing of
concrete at rear surface. Further, for higher impact energies, the angle of shear cracks gets reduced and
produced localised impact with lesser scabbing area.
The impact force recorded using dynamic load cell was shown in Figure 6. The pattern of impact force
history response was found to be similar, where single peak force was recorded followed by secondary
plateau peak which continued for few milliseconds before settling to a near zero value. The impact force
was found to increase with increasing thickness of the slab. The recorded peak impact force for slab
S30D35 and S50D35 were 27.74 and 37.79 kN, respectively, and same were 35.05 and 57.37 kN in case of
slab S30D70 and S50D70, respectively. The peak impact force on 30 mm thick slab against 70� angle of
impact was found to be 26.35% higher than that of 35� angle of impact. Whereas the peak impact force
Figure 6. First impact force-time history response of RC slab specimens of (a) S30D35, (b) S50D35, (c) S30D70, and (d) S50D70.
on a 50 mm thick slab against 70� angle of impact was found to be 51.81% higher than of 35� angle of
impact. It was concluded that impact resistance of target in terms of peak impact force was found to
increase 36% when the target thickness increased to 50 mm at 35� impact whereas the same was found
to be 63% increment at 70� impact.
The impulse of impact force history response was calculated using OriginPro software by integrating
the area under the impact force-time curve using Equation (7) as:
ðt2
I¼ Pt ⅆt (7)
t1
Where, Pt is the area under force-time curve bonded by time values t1 ¼ 0 s and t2. It was found that
for most cases the value of impact force was dropped to near zero value at 0.02 s, therefore the value of
t2 ¼ 0.02 s is selected. The impulses were found to be 123.66, 130.21, 154.42, and 230.82 N-s for S30D35,
S50D35, S30D70, and S50D70 slab specimens, respectively. Results indicate that as the impact energy
increases, the impulse recorded for slab S30D70 was high as compared to slab S50D35. It indicates that a
thinner slab experiences higher impulse as compared to thicker slabs only if it has high enough load
bearing capacity.
3.2.2. Repeated impact load (from second impact to failure)

Repeated impacts were performed to assess the damage propagation in slab specimens under low vel
ocity. The lower level of damage is characterized as the formation of flexural cracks in concrete and fur
ther expansion of existing cracks and formation of new cracks. The higher damage will be characterized
Figure 7. Damage on (a) front of 30 mm and (a0 ) 50 mm and (b) rear side of 30 mm and (b0 ) 50 mm thick slab at (i) 2nd, (ii) 3rd,
(iii) 4th, (iv) 5th, (v) 6th impact of 30 mm, and (vi) 11th impact of 50 mm thick slab.
as the scabbing of concrete from the rear surface as well as spalling due to compression at the front sur
face. The reinforced concrete slab specimen will be considered as fully damaged (punching shear failure)
when no concrete surface was available to resist the perforation of concrete mass at the impact zone.
The damage on the front and back face of slab specimens S30D35 and S50D35 is shown in Figure 7.
From 2nd impact till the last impact, the concrete near the impact region loses its load carrying capacity
and the progressive damage to the slab was observed, see Figure 7. At the front face, failure to the spe
cimen S30D35 observed a single flexural crack extending till the unsupported sides whose width magni
fied on further impact, till the 4th impact, see Figures 7(a-i–a-iii). At the rear face several radial cracks
which extend to the rigid supports were observed. The cracks were further widened on repeated impacts
till the 4th impact, see Figures 7(b-i–b-iii). On 5th and 6th impact, mode of failure for S30D35 changes
from radial cracks to punching shear failure and on front face, the width of shear cracks remains
the same as shown in Figures 7(a-iv,v), while the radial cracks at rear face further enlarged, see
Figure 8. Damage on (a) front and (b) rear side of slab (i) S30D70 and (ii) S50D70 at second impact.
Figures 7(b-iv,v). For specimen S50D35, minor radial cracks were seen at rear face of the specimen which
were expanded, and new radial cracks were generated on subsequent impacts up until the 5th impact,
see Figures 7(b-i–b-iv). The final failure of specimen S50D35 occurs at 11th impact where several shear
cracks extending till free edges of the slab at the rear face were observed, see Figure 7(b-vi). It can be
inferred that on changing the slab thickness from 30 to 50 mm, the number of shear cracks with smaller
widths were found to be increasing. It was concluded that the major failure observed was flexural crack
along the center line with punching shear failure at the center as final failure on 30 mm slab thickness
against 35� . However, only flexural failure with several shear cracks at the rear face was recorded as the
final failure in the case of slab S50D35.
The damage to the slab S30D70 for 2nd impact as shown in Figures 8(a-i,b-i), depicted flexural as well
as punching shear modes of failure. At the front face of the specimen, horizontal flexural crack and spal
ling of concrete were observed at the locations of longitudinal reinforcements. In addition to that, major
tensile cracks, and formation of concentric crack at the front face was observed. The punching shear fail
ure was observed with hole enlargement on 2nd impact to an average diameter of 125 mm, with severe
spillage at the sites of longitudinal reinforcement having a diameter ranging between 50 − 100 mm. On
the back face of the specimen, the 2nd impact rendered complete punching shear failure (average diam
eter ¼ 215 mm) with a very large lateral flexural crack of average length 30 mm entirely exposed the
reinforcement, however, no additional radial cracks were observed. For slab specimen S50D70, the con
crete at the impacted site eroded completely with large scabbing was observed at the back face as
shown in Figures 8(b-i,b-ii). The mode of failure was punching shear failure, with no new major crack for
mation was observed. The 2nd impact only resulted in the enlargement of existing cracks and scabbing
Figure 9. Repeated impacts impact force-time response of (a) S30D35, (b) S50D35, (c) S30D70, and (d) S50D70.
at rear face. It can be inferred that for lower thickness specimens, the mode of failure observed was lat
eral flexural crack with punching shear failure, however on increasing thickness crack branching was
observed with punching shear as final failure. Results indicate that on increasing the thickness of slab,
scabbing observed at the back face extends to a larger diameter for equal impact energy (Mizushima &
Iino, 2022). For the front face, increase in slab thickness has resulted in mitigating the spalling as well as
radial cracks formation on repeated impact.
The force vs. time response for repeated impact for S30D35 is shown in Figure 9(a). For slab specimen
S30D35, the peak force recorded in chronological order from 1st to 6th impact at 27.74, 20.7, 12.51, 9.48,
8.57, and 6.15 kN. The last impact recorded an even curve with numerous peaks which indicates that the
impact force history response of RC slab changes from one peak and then plateau of peak to multiple
peaks as the number of impacts increases in case of S30D35. For slab S30D70, the peak impact force was
recorded at 35.05 kN and 21.07 kN for 1st and 2nd impact, respectively as shown in Figure 9(c). Complete
failure in concrete occurred on second impact and one peak and plateau peak force for the impact force
history response was observed. For slab S50D35, the peak impact force was recorded in chronological
order at 37.79, 35.8, 33.5, 28.98, 27.67, 28.53, 28.23, 25.99, 25.01, 22.12, and 23.83 kN from 1st to 11th
impact as shown in Figure 9(b). For slab S50D70, the peak impact force was recorded at 57.37 and 27.44
for 1st and 2nd impact as shown in Figure 9(d). The gradual drop in impact force was observed for
S50D35 and S30D35 as compared to S50D70 and S30D70 where a sudden drop in peak impact force was
observed at 2nd impact and concrete failed due to punching shear failure. The drop in peak impact force
Figure 10. Trend of peak impact force with repeated impacts.
Figure 11. Impulse of 30 mm RC slab specimens under repeated impacts for (a) S30D35 and (b) S30D70.
with repeated impact for different specimens is shown in Figure 10. It was observed that the drop in
peak impact force follows the logarithmic law for each consecutive impact. It was observed that peak
impact force at the first impact was 52.17% more as compared to the second impact in case of S50D70
slab. It was also observed that peak impact force at the first impact was 39.89% higher as compared to
the second impact in case of S30D70. Overall, thinner slab, i.e. 30 mm thickness depicted lower impact
force as compared to 50 mm. The 30 mm slab depicted lower impact force due to the lower stiffness and
energy absorption capacity of slab in terms of pre as well as post-cracking phase. Therefore, it was con
cluded that the slab thickness significantly contributes to the multi-impact resistance capacity of the rein
forced concrete slab. Peak impact force on both 30- and 50-mm thick slab was found to decrease
gradually against 35� impact whereas the abrupt decrease in peak impact force was observed at 70�
impact. The recorded peak impact force on slab S50D70 was higher due to the higher stiffness of the
50 mm thickness slab. Further, the enhanced structural response of slab S50D70 was observed which
results in higher peak impact forces in the specimen due to strain rate and inertial effect of concrete and
reinforcement.
The impulse for each impact was calculated based on the area enclosed under impact force history
response for the 30 mm thickness RC slab under different impact energies as shown in Figures 11(a,b).
The impulse was calculated for slab S30D35 and the impulse for repeated impacts in chronological order
were 123.66, 99.12, 93.36, 87.39, 83.11, and 71.14 N-s, respectively. Results indicate that the impulse was
decreasing with the number of impacts. Impulse observed for slab S30D70 for 1st and 2nd impacts were
154.42 and 99.76 N-s, respectively. This phenomenon was expected because with more impacts the dam
age in the RC will increase causing less energy to be absorbed as elastic deformations and more energy
will be dissipated in the form of plastic deformations and permanent deformations to the slab. The
impulse observed for slab S50D35 in chronological order were 130.21, 115.35, 121.22, 121.27, 117.19,
120.43, 120.85, 116.01, 112.81, 108.65, and 111.57 N-s, respectively as shown in Figures 12(a,b). The
impulse produced in the slab S50D35 has a similar trend however the order of drop in impulse was quite
marginal. This phenomenon may be due to the impact energy induced by the RC slab resulting in the
Figure 12. Impulse of 50 mm thick slab under repeated impact load for (a) S50D35 and (b) S50D70.
Table 6. Experiment and simulations results for different cases.

Sample designation DA, mm Major failure type PIF Exp. kN I, N-s Ei, J DE, J PIF Num, kN
S30D35 − Radial cracks 27.74 123.66 205.93 193.09 24.06
S30D35-2I − Flexural crack 20.97 99.12 205.93 173.80 18.63
S30D35-5I 140 Flexural þ punching shear 8.57 83.11 205.93 155.80 7.17
S50D35 − Radial cracks 37.79 130.21 205.93 196.55 38.52
S50D35-2I − Radial cracks 35.8 115.35 205.93 187.68 31.16
S50D35-9I − Flexural cracks 25.01 112.81 205.93 185.80 8.8
S30D70 200 Flexural þ punching shear 35.05 154.42 741.02 557.33 29.39
S50D70 325 Punching shear 57.37 230.82 741.02 697.44 55.23
S50D70-2I 325 Punching shear 27.44 222.4 741.02 686.77 25.60
Notes: DA is diameter of damaged rear face; PIF Exp. is experimental peak impact force; I as impulse; Ei is initial impact energy;
DE energy loss by impactor; PIF Num is peak impact force in FEM.
energy absorption in the form of temporary elastic deformations and the energy resulting in the
impactor when these elastic deformations recovered. The impulse produced in slab S50D70 was 230.82
and 222.4 N-s for the first and second impacts, respectively.
According to Banthia et al. (1989), the kinetic energy lost by the hammer during the impact process
can be calculated as
2 0 12 3
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 ðt2
1 6 7
DEðtÞ ¼ mh 62ah h − B
@ 2ah h − Pt ⅆtC
A 7 (8)
2 4 mh 5
t1
where mh ¼ 60 kg, is the mass of the hammer, ah as downward acceleration of hammer and h (0.371
and 1.42 m) is the drop height. An efficiency parameter g ¼ 97% was used based on the ratio of actual
velocity to free fall velocity such that the value of ah ¼ g � g2 , where g ¼ 9:81 ms−2 is the acceleration
due to gravity. Note that the DE is equal to the energy absorbed by the specimen in addition to the
energy lost to the supports in the form of elastic strains, friction, and mechanical vibrations. The DE of
different cases obtained using Equation (8) is shown in Table 6. It was observed that the energy absorp
tion capacity was reduced with each consecutive impact. The drop in energy absorption capacity was
more prominent for 30 mm thickness slab as compared to 50 mm. The impulse generated in the slab
kept on decreasing with repeated impacts indicating that the reinforced concrete slab kept on losing its
impact resistance leading to progressive failure.
4. Numerical modelling and results

Numerical modelling to simulate the behaviour of reinforced concrete slab was presented under normal
and repeated impact loading. Further, the numerical results were compared with the experimental results
in terms of crack pattern, peak impact force, and impact force–time profiles.
4.1. Numerical modelling

The concrete was modelled as a three-dimensional deformable continuum as per its actual size of
1200 � 1200 mm while the reinforcements were modelled as a two-node 3D beam element in space. The
impactor hammer was modelled as a three-dimensional deformable body without any damage proper
ties. To simulate the actual conditions, additional non-structural mass (52.8 kg) was added to the
impactor part to keep the total weight as 60 kg similar to the experimental conditions, and to save the
computational time, simplified modelling approach for the impactor part was adopted. Additional dis
crete rigid parts were made to act as boundary conditions as per details of experiment shown in
Figure 2(a). The impactor was kept at 1.294 and 1.395 mm from the target corresponding to impact
velocities of 2.96 and 4.97 ms−1, respectively.
The mesh sensitivity of the concrete body was studied by varying the size of the element. The size of
mesh was chosen according to the number of through thickness elements of the slab as 20, 15, 10, 7.5,
and 5 mm having 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 elements through the thickness. The comparison of mesh sizes was
shown in terms of percentage difference from experimental results peak impact force, see Figure 13.
Although several filters were available to dampen the noise in simulating results, no such data filtering
was employed in the current study. The peak of impact force obtained for different mesh sizes was
53.07, 49.52, 48.48, 38.70, and 38.52 kN and the experimental results were 37.79 kN. The difference in
impact force was converging towards the experimental results as the mesh size was refined. The impact
force was overpredicted for larger mesh sizes (41% for 20 mm), however, the percentage difference was
reduced to 1.93% for 5 mm mesh size as shown in Figure 13. The tension damage, Dt to the slab for dif
ferent mesh sizes was shown in Figure 14.
Based on the mesh sensitivity analysis, a mesh size of 7.5 mm or below leads to satisfactory results for
the low velocity impact simulations. Keeping the simulation results and crack pattern as close to the
experimental results and based on crack strain regularization, a mesh size of 5 mm near the impact
region of size 400 � 400 mm and a coarser mesh size of 10 mm further away from the impact zone as
shown in Figure 15 was adopted for validation and parametric study. A mesh size of 10 mm was adopted
for embedded reinforcement. The impactor was modelled as a deformable body and defined a mesh size
of 5 mm on the contacting face to maintain a similar element size as that of concrete slab for proper
Figure 13. Comparison of mesh sensitivity with experimental results.

Figure 14. Comparison of tensile failure, Dt due to different mesh sizes of (a) 20, (b) 15, (c) 10, and (d) 7.5 mm.
Figure 15. Modelling and mesh details of the model, impactor, and the embedded rebar technique.
contact. The boundary supports were given a coarser mesh size of 25 mm as they were modelled as rigid
parts in the simulation.
As the impactor strikes the concrete plate, the contacting faces of the slave surface erode, and new
internal faces of the slave surfaces are exposed to the contact. To include the internal surfaces of the
slave surface, element-based surfaces using general contact were used to model the interaction between
the impactor and the concrete plate. The general contact is based on the penalty contact method with
finite sliding and further, tangential behaviour was given using coulomb friction model with a value of
Figure 16. Comparison for material model parameter for concrete under (a) compression, (b) tension, and for steel under
(c) tension.
coefficient of friction as 0.30 (Wriggers, 2006). The normal behaviour was given ‘HARD’ contact for all
types of contact. The coefficient of friction for the contact between the boundary surfaces and plate ele
ments was given a value of 0.60 (Rabbat & Russell, 1985). The reinforcements were embedded in con
crete, which states that the node of embedded element lies within the host element, the translation
degrees of freedom (DOF) at that node are removed and the node becomes an ‘embedded node’.
Distortion control option with length ratio 0.15 and pure viscous approach with scaling factor 1.0 was
used to control hourglass effect (Li, 2020). A typical section of the mesh model and boundary conditions
are shown in Figure 15. The repeated impact is modelled in the ABAQUS using restart analysis command.
The restart analysis is used to define the new initial impact velocity of the drop weight which allows the
model to continue using the material properties and state from the termination point of the previous
analysis step. The initial state in the new analysis maps the stresses and strains of the previous analysis
to the reinforced concrete slab. The following procedure has been used in the previous studies also to
model the repeated impact analysis (Othman & Marzouk, 2017).
4.2. Numerical validation

The numerical validation of the proposed analytical approach described in Section 2.3 to model the
behaviour of concrete under uniaxial compression and tension is shown in Figures 16(a,b). The test was
conducted on cubical element of size 100 mm using mesh size of 5 mm. It was observed that the pro
posed numerical model was able to reproduce the constitutive model behaviour under uniaxial compres
sion and tensile loading conditions. For steel reinforcement, the uniaxial tensile test was performed using
truss element with mesh size of 5 mm. The tensile test results were presented in Figure 16(c). It was
observed that the elasto-plastic material model for reinforcement was able to reproduce the behaviour
of steel bar under uniaxial tensile loading conditions.
The predicted numerical results for validation purposes were compared with the experimental results
of specimen S50D70. The predicted and experimental impact force vs. time was shown in Figure 17(a).
Considering the dynamic strength enhancement effects for low velocity impact as well as tension stiffen
ing effect due to reinforcement, concrete fails at higher strains as compared to quasi static conditions.
Based on several trails, a cap of 0.05 in equivalent plastic strain in tension (PEEQT) was applied to limit
Figure 17. Results for (a) impact force validation, (b) energy balance of numerical solution, and (c) front, (d) rear crack pattern for
slab S50D70 at (i) experiment, (ii) numerical, and (e) midpoint displacement.
the excessive distortion of elements and to allow element erosion (Luccioni & Ar�aoz, 2011). The plastic
strain in compression was kept at 0.30 for all simulations to prevent premature failure of the elements
(Luccioni & Ar�aoz, 2011). The energy balance illustrated in Figure 17(b) shows the effectiveness of the
current approach. The artificial energy (ALLAE) was very low as compared to internal energy (ALLIE) and
total energy of system (ETOTAL) which indicates that the element erosion technique can be considered
for the simulation. The kinetic energy of the system (ALLKE) is reducing, and internal energy of the sys
tem is increasing which is the case when slab is impacted by the impactor. The peak impact force was
found to be 55.23 kN with a percentage difference of 3.72% as compared to experimental results. It is
concluded that the simulated results were found in good agreement with the experimental results in
terms of predicting peak impact force. It was also observed that insignificant plateau force in simulated
results and it may be due to the default normal HARD contact behaviour was considered for simplicity
such that the penetrations are resisted without any limit to stiffness. A more concise post-peak behaviour
may be produced by limiting the contact stiffness (Li et al., 2020). The failure pattern observed was illus
trated for the damage in tension at the front and rear faces as compared to experimental results, see
Figures 17(c,d). In comparison, the radial cracks at the front face have slight differences due to the
boundary conditions. However, on the rear face, the shear failure as well as the radial cracks were quite
well-predicted by the numerical simulation. The numerical impulse was found out to be 207.24 N-s as
compared to 230.82 N-s as in experimental results. A large part of vibrations was induced after the
impactor rebounds which can affect the post-primary peak behaviour of impact force-time history curve
and therefore variations from the numerical impulse. Therefore, considering all the variables, the simpli
fied numerical modelling can be found suitable which can predict the experimental impulse with 10%
variation. The residual displacement in slab S50D70, was found to be 19.12 mm in case of numerical
study however, in case of experiment, the residual displacement was found to be 17 mm, see
Figure 17(e).
4.3. Comparison of experiment and simulations

The first impact of various slab specimens was compared with experimental results in Figure 18. It was
observed that the numerical results were well correlating with the experimental results for only peak
impact force. A maximum deviation of 16% was observed for slab S30D70. For lower thickness speci
mens, the post-peak behaviour of force-time curve shows quite stiff behaviour as compared to the
experimental results, see Figures 18(a–d). It was observed that post-peak behaviour was controlled by
the boundary conditions of the system. Because of the stress wave attenuation, the difference in stiff
nesses between the boundary conditions and specimen was quite high for 30 mm thickness slab which
results in excessive wave reflection at the boundary. Additionally, during experimentation, it was
observed that the reflected wave results in high oscillations in the boundary conditions which absorbed
much of the imparted energy. In contrast, the boundary conditions in numerical simulations were mod
elled as perfectly rigid elements therefore no damping in stress wave was observed at the boundaries
which results in higher post-peak impact forces as compared to the experimental results. The thickness
of slab has minimal effect to the post-peak behaviour because a similar trend was observed for S50D35
slab, see Figure 18(e). However, in case of higher impact energies, the stiffness of the specimen was
increased because of the dynamic effects comparable to the boundary conditions in actual conditions
therefore, the post-peak behaviour for slab S50D70 was predicting much better the post-peak behaviour
as compared to other cases.
The element deletion criteria were required to correctly capture the degradation in material stiffness
and loss in impact force. The absence of element deletion leads to higher impact force due to the con
tact between the impactor and concrete plate. A reason maybe because of the contact between impactor
and concrete plate, as long as there is contact it results in unexpected plastic strains in the material
resulting in increase in impact force (Zhou et al., 2020). The comparison of impact force-time for all four
cases is shown in Figures 18(a–h). It should be noted that the numerical impact force-time response was
shifted accordingly to match the time of peak impact force in the experimental results. The predicted
results for peak impact force were in good agreement with the experimental results for up to 5th impact.
However, the differences were found to be increasing as the number of impacts increases from 5th
impact onwards for slab S50D35. It may be due to that the FEM solution degrades the stiffness of the
concrete material much faster than the experimental results. Another interesting observation was the
Figure 18. Prediction of numerical impact force with the experimental results under repeated impacts for slab (a,b) S30D35,
(c,d) S30D70, (e,f) S50D35, and (g,h) S50D70.
post-peak behaviour which increases with the repeated impacts because of larger contact time periods.
Due to serious damage to the concrete plate in repeated impacts, the impactor went further in thickness
direction producing more contact and taking more time to bounce back to zero value for impact force.
The percentage differences in predicting the impact force for slab S30D35 from first impact to fifth
impact were 13.25, 11.17, 15.34, 13.30, and 16.32, respectively. For slab S30D70, the percentage difference
observed was 16.14 and 30.68 for impacts 1 and 2, respectively. For slab S50D35, the percentage differ
ence for first impact–fourth impact was 1.92, 12.96, 7.65, and 27.72% for slab S50D70 was 3.72 and 6.71
for impact 1 and 2, respectively.
The tensile damage for repeated impacts were shown in Figure 19. Numerically, compressive failure of
the slab (S30D35_N), was observed with minor radial cracks on the front side. Also, the damage increases
with repeated impacts, and radial cracks become more pronounced. At the rear side, shear cracks were
observed which were wider, and more cracks formed with repeated impacts. The formation of shear
cracks phenomenon was also observed in the experimental results. For the last impact, the slab punched
as shown in Figure 19 recorded as the final failure in experimental results. For slab S50D35_N, the first
Figure 19. Prediction of tensile damage, Dt at the (a–d) front and (a0 –d0 ) rear face of the specimen S30D35, S50D35, S30D70, and
S50D70, respectively for (i) 1st, (ii) 2nd, (iii) 3rd, (iv) 4th, and (v) final impact.
Figure 20. Displacement profiles of (a) S30D35, (b) S50D35, (c) S30D70, and (d) S50D70.
four impacts recorded minor damages in terms of shear crack however major damage in terms of scab
bing (punching shear) to the concrete slab rear face was observed with further impacts and final impact
recording punching of the slab. Due to severe damage and rapid stiffness loss in the material after 4th
impact, the elements eroded resulting in a smaller number of elements for contact, consequently, low
impact forces were observed from 5th impact until final impact. However, such behaviour was not
observed from the experimental results. Hence it was concluded that the predictability of numerical mod
els is limited to a maximum of 4–5 impacts for repeated impact loadings in case of concrete model. The
simulation on S50D35_N predicted the length of flexural cracks was much larger extending till the sup
ports and such behaviour was also observed in experimental results. Slab S30D70_N punched through in
2nd impact, accurately capturing the experimental behaviour. The failure of concrete in the form of major
flexural cracks as well as large bending with moderate radial damage was observed as identical to the
experimental results. Lastly, a smaller number of flexural cracks at the front side of slab S50D70_N was
observed; however, a major failure in the form of punching shear þ flexural crack was noticed at 2nd
impact. At the front face, one major horizontal flexural crack with punching in the centre was observed.
The displacement profiles using numerical study are shown in Figures 20(a–d). It was observed that
the maximum displacement for S30D35 for the first and second hit was 15.29 and 15.83 mm, respectively.
For slab S50D35, the maximum displacement for the first and second hit was 5.94 and 7.23 mm, respect
ively. For slab S30D70, the displacement at first hit was quite significant, and punching shear failure at
10.5 ms was observed. For slab S50D70, the maximum displacement at the first hit was 20.30 mm and for
second hit, the punching shear failure was observed at 12.5 ms. The residual displacement for slab
S30D35, S50D35, and S50D70 was 14.10, 5.10, and 18.86 mm, respectively. For slab S50D70, the punching
shear failure was observed at 12.5 ms similar to the experimental results. It was concluded that the max
imum and residual displacement were quite sensitive to the impact energy and thickness of the slab.
5. Conclusions
The response of thin RC slabs under repeated impact loading was studied through experiments and finite
element simulations. A sound numerical method was presented to numerically investigate the behaviour
of thin RC slabs under low velocity impact loading along with governing parameters and their influence
on the numerical simulations and following conclusions were drawn:
� For tests under static loading using analytical method based on CSCT, the peak flexural load for slab
S50 was found twice (101.7%) higher as compared to slab S30. Based on the analytical results, it was
observed that the failure of RC slabs was governed by flexural failure rather than shear failure.
� It was concluded that the resistance in terms of peak impact force was found to increase 36% when
the target thickness increased to 63% at 35� impact whereas the same was found to be 63% incre
ment at 70� impact, during the first impact.
� The scabbing diameter was higher than spalling diameter, and both diameters were increasing with
slab thickness as well as with impact energy. The shear angle decreased for 30 mm thick slab
whereas the same was found to increase with an increase of slab thickness to 50 mm with an
increase of the impact energy.
� It is concluded that the slab thickness significantly contributes to the multiple impact resistance cap
acity of reinforced concrete slab.
� The impulse generated in the slab kept on decreasing with repeated impacts indicating that the rein
forced concrete slab kept on losing its impact resistance and leading to progressive failure.
� The peak force was in reasonable agreement up to the fourth impact however the deviation
between the simulation and experiment was found to increase with an increased number of impacts
and it may be due to the numerical model losing stiffness much faster than the physical model.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
References
1992-1-1:2004 BE (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings.
ACI Committee 318 (2019). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19) and commentary
(ACI 318R-19). American Concrete Institute.
Adhikary, S. D., Li, B., & Fujikake, K. (2016). State-of-the-art review on low-velocity impact response of rein
forced concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete Research, 68(14), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.
15.00084
Ågårdh, L., & Laine, L. (1999). 3D FE-simulation of high-velocity fragment perforation of reinforced con
crete slabs. Int J Impact Eng, 22(9–10), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(99)00008-1
Aggelis, D. G., Mpalaskas, A. C., & Matikas, T. E. (2015). Acoustic monitoring for the evaluation of concrete
structures and materials. In Acoustic emission and related non-destructive evaluation techniques in the
fracture mechanics of concrete (pp. 269–286). Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural
Engineering, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-327-0.00013-1
Aggelis, D. G., Mpalaskas, A. C., Matikas, T. E., & Van Hemelrijck, D. (2014). Acoustic emission signatures of
damage modes in concrete. In W. Ecke, K. J. Peters, N. G. Meyendorf, & T. E. Matikas (Eds.), (p. 90620P).
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2044750
Akshaya Gomathi, K., Rajagopal, A., & Suriya Prakash, S. (2022). Predicting the failure mechanism of RC
slabs under combined blast and impact loading. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 119,
103357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103357
Alhassan, M., Al-Rousan, R. Z., Amaireh, L. K., & Barfed, M. H. (2018). Nonlinear finite element analysis of
B-C connections: Influence of the column axial load, jacket thickness, and fiber dosage. Structures, 16,
50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.08.011
Alhassan, M., Al-Rousan, R., & Ababneh, A. (2017). Flexural behavior of lightweight concrete beams
encompassing various dosages of macro synthetic fibers and steel ratios. Case Studies in Construciton
Materials, 7, 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.09.004
Al-Rousan, R. (2017). Influence of polypropylene fibers on the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete
slabs with different opening shapes and sizes. Structural Concrete, 18(6), 986–999. https://doi.org/10.
1002/suco.201600222
Al-Rousan, R. (2022). Influence of opening sizes on the flexural behavior of heat-damaged reinforced con
crete slabs strengthened with CFRP ropes. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 17, e01464. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01464
Al-Rousan, R. Z. (2018a). Behavior of macro synthetic fiber concrete beams strengthened with different
CFRP composite configurations. Journal of Building Engineering, 20, 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2018.09.009
Al-Rousan, R. Z. (2018b). Empirical and NLFEA prediction of bond-slip behavior between DSSF concrete
and anchored CFRP composites. Construction and Building Materials, 169, 530–542. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.013
Al-Rousan, R. Z., & Alnemrawi, B. R. (2022). Punching shear behavior of FRP reinforced concrete slabs
under different opening configurations and loading conditions. Case Studies in Construction Materials,
17, e01508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01508
Al-Rousan, R. Z., & Alnemrawi, B. R. (2023). Punching shear code provisions examination against the cre
ation of an opening in existed RC flat slab of various sizes and locations. Structures, 49, 875–888.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.02.007
Al-Rousan, R. Z., Alhassan, M. A., & AlShuqari, E. A. (2018). Behavior of plain concrete beams with DSSF
strengthened in flexure with anchored CFRP sheets—Effects of DSSF content on the bonding length of
CFRP sheets. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 9, e00195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.
e00195
Aslani, F., & Jowkarmeimandi, R. (2012). Stress–strain model for concrete under cyclic loading. Magazine
of Concrete Research, 64(8), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.11.00120
Banthia, N., Mindess, S., Bentur, A., & Pigeon, M. (1989). Impact testing of concrete using a drop-weight
impact machine. Experimental Mechanics, 29(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02327783
Batarlar, B., Hering, M., Bracklow, F., K€uhn, T., Beckmann, B., & Curbach, M. (2021). Experimental investiga
tion on reinforced concrete slabs strengthened with carbon textiles under repeated impact loads.
Structural Concrete, 22(1), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900319
Ba�zant, Z. P., & Becq-Giraudon, E. (2002). Statistical prediction of fracture parameters of concrete and
implications for choice of testing standard. Cement and Concrete Research, 32(4), 529–556. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00723-2
Belarbi, A., & Hsu, T. T. C. (1994). Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and reinforcing bars stiffened
by concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 91, 465–474. https://doi.org/10.14359/4154
BIS:10262 (2019). Concrete mix proportioning – Guidelines. Bureau of Indian Standard.
Cadoni, E., Dotta, M., Forni, D., & Tesio, N. (2015). High strain rate behaviour in tension of steel B500A
reinforcing bar. Materials and Structures, 48(6), 1803–1813. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0273-z
Candappa, D. C., Sanjayan, J. G., & Setunge, S. (2001). Complete triaxial stress-strain curves of high-
strength concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 13(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2001)13:3(209)
Chalioris, C. E., Kytinou, V. K., Voutetaki, M. E., & Karayannis, C. G. (2021). Flexural damage diagnosis in
reinforced concrete beams using a wireless admittance monitoring system—Tests and finite element
analysis. Sensors, 21(3), 679. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030679
Chen, Y., & May, I. M. (2009). Reinforced concrete members under drop-weight impacts. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 162(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.
2009.162.1.45
Comit�e Euro-International du Beton-Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte (2010). CEB-FIP model
code for concrete structures. Author.
ACI Committee (2019). ACI 318-19: Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
American Concrete Institute.
Hassan, M., Ahmed, E. A., & Benmokrane, B. (2014). Punching-shear design equation for two-way concrete
slabs reinforced with FRP bars and stirrups. Construction and Building Materials, 66, 522–532. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.036
Hognestad, E. (1953). Yield-line theory for the ultimate flexural strength of reinforced concrete slabs. ACI
Journal Proceedings, 49(3), 637-656. https://doi.org/10.14359/11842
Iqbal, M. A., Senthil, K., Bhargava, P., & Gupta, N. K. (2015). The characterization and ballistic evaluation of
mild steel. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 78, 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.
2014.12.006
IS 269 (2015). Ordinary Portland cement – Specification. Bureau of Indian Standard.
IS 383 (2016). Coarse and fine aggregate for concrete – Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 456 (2000). Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 516 (1959). Method of tests for strength of concrete. IS 516-1959 (Reaffirmed 2004). Bureau of Indian
Standards.
IS13311 (1992). Non-destructive testing of concrete–Methods of test. Bureau of Indian Standards.
Izatt, C., May, I. M., Lyle, J., Chen, Y., & Algaard, W. (2009). Perforation owing to impacts on reinforced
concrete slabs. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 162(1), 37–44.
https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2009.162.1.37
Johnson, G. R., & Cook, W. H. (1985). Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains,
strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 21(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0013-7944(85)90052-9
Kennedy, R. P. (1976). A review of procedures for the analysis and design of concrete structures to resist
missile impact effects. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 37(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-
5493(76)90015-7
Kezmane, A., Chiaia, B., Kumpyak, O., Maksimov, V., & Placidi, L. (2017). 3D modelling of reinforced con
crete slab with yielding supports subject to impact load. European Journal of Environmental and Civil
Engineering, 21(7–8), 988–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2016.1194330
Kinchin, J. (2016). Using Tracker to prove the simple harmonic motion equation. Physics Education, 51(5),
053003. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/51/5/053003
Kishi, N., Matsuoka, K. G., Mikami, H., & Goto, Y. (1997). Impact resistance of large scale RC slabs. In
Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Shock & Impact Loads on Structures.
Kumar, V., Kartik, K. V., & Iqbal, M. A. (2020). Experimental and numerical investigation of reinforced con
crete slabs under blast loading. Engineering Structures, 206, 110125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2019.110125
Lee, J., & Fenves, G. L. (1998). Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 124(8), 892–900. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892)
Li, H., Chen, W., & Hao, H. (2020). Factors influencing impact force profile and measurement accuracy in
drop weight impact tests. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 145, 103688. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103688
Li, P. P., & Yu, Q. L. (2019). Responses and post-impact properties of ultra-high performance fibre rein
forced concrete under pendulum impact. Composite Structures, 208, 806–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2018.10.071
Li, Q. M., Reid, S. R., Wen, H. M., & Telford, A. R. (2005). Local impact effects of hard missiles on concrete
targets. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 32(1–4), 224–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.
2005.04.005
Li, X. X. (2020). Parametric study on numerical simulation of missile punching test using concrete dam
aged plasticity (CDP) model. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 144, 103652. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103652
Li, X.-X., Lambert, Wang C., & Sato, J. (2020). Framework for dynamic analysis of radioactive material trans
port packages under accident drop conditions. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 360, 110480. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110480
Li, Z. C., Jia, P. C., Jia, J. Y., Wu, H., & Ma, L. L. (2022). Impact-resistant design of RC slabs in nuclear power
plant buildings. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 54(10), 3745–3765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.
2022.05.027
Lim, J. C., Ozbakkaloglu, T., Gholampour, A., Bennett, T., & Sadeghi, R. (2016). Finite-element modeling of
actively confined normal-strength and high-strength concrete under uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial com
pression. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(11), 04016113. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001589
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., & On ~ate, E. (1989). A plastic-damage model for concrete. International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 25(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(89)90050-4
Luccioni, B., & Ar�aoz, G. (2011). Erosion criteria for frictional materials under blast load. Meca �nica
Computational, 30, 1809–1831.
Malvar, L. J. (1998). Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars. ACI Materials
Journal, 95, 609–616. https://doi.org/10.14359/403
Malvar, L. J., & Crawford, J. E. (1998). Dynamic increase factor for concrete. In 28th Department of Defense
Explosives Safety Seminar.
Malvar, L. J., & Ross, C. A. (1998). Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI Materials
Journal, 95, 739–735.
Mizushima, Y., & Iino, N. (2022). Behavior of thin reinforced concrete slabs and effect of reinforcement
bars subjected low-velocity impact. Structures, 38, 832–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.02.036
Muttoni, A. (2008). Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs without transverse reinforce
ment. ACI Structures Journal, 105, 440–450. https://doi.org/10.14359/19858
Othman, H., & Marzouk, H. (2017). Finite-element analysis of reinforced concrete plates subjected to
repeated impact loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, 143(9), 04017120. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)st.1943-541x.0001852
Rabbat, B. G., & Russell, H. G. (1985). Friction coefficient of steel on concrete or grout. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 111(3), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:3(505)
Reinhardt, H. W., Cornelissen, H. A. W., & Hordijk, D. A. (1986). Tensile tests and failure analysis of con
crete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 112(11), 2462–2477. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1986)112:11(2462)
Sadraie, H., Khaloo, A., & Soltani, H. (2019). Dynamic performance of concrete slabs reinforced with steel
and GFRP bars under impact loading. Engineering Structures, 191, 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng
struct.2019.04.038
Sagals, G., Orbovic, N., & Blahoianu, A. (2011). Sensitivity studies of reinforced concrete slabs under
impact loading. SMiRT 21, 6–11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India (p. 8).
Said, A. M. I., & Mabrook Mouwainea, E. (2022). Experimental investigation on reinforced concrete slabs
under high-mass low velocity repeated impact loads. Structures, 35, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2021.11.016
Samani, A. K., & Attard, M. M. (2012). A stress–strain model for uniaxial and confined concrete under com
pression. Engineering Structures, 41, 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.027
Soltani, H., Khaloo, A., & Sadraie, H. (2020). Dynamic performance enhancement of RC slabs by steel fibers
vs. externally bonded GFRP sheets under impact loading. Engineering Structures, 213, 110539. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110539
Torabian, A., Isufi, B., Mostofinejad, D., & Ramos, A. P. (2019). Behavior of thin lightly reinforced flat slabs
under concentric loading. Engineering Structures, 196, 109327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.
109327
Voutetaki, M. E., Naoum, M. C., Papadopoulos, N. A., & Chalioris, C. E. (2022). Cracking diagnosis in fiber-
reinforced concrete with synthetic fibers using piezoelectric transducers. Fibers, 10(1), 5. https://doi.org/
10.3390/fib10010005
Wang, W., & Chouw, N. (2018). Experimental and theoretical studies of flax FRP strengthened coconut
fibre reinforced concrete slabs under impact loadings. Construction and Building Materials, 171, 546–
557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.149
Wee, L. K., Chew, C., Goh, G. H., Tan, S., & Lee, T. L. (2012). Using tracker as a pedagogical tool for
understanding projectile motion. Physics Education, 47(4), 448–455. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/
47/4/448
Wriggers, P. (2006). Computational contact mechanics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-540-32609-0
Xiao, Y., Li, B., & Fujikake, K. (2016). Experimental study of reinforced concrete slabs under different load
ing rates. ACI Structural Journal, 113(1), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.14359/51688067
Xiao, Y., Li, B., & Fujikake, K. (2017). Behavior of reinforced concrete slabs under low-velocity impact. ACI
Structural Journal, 114(3), 643-658. https://doi.org/10.14359/51689565
€ Erdem, R. T., & Kaçaran, G. (2020). Experimental investigation of impact
Yı lmaz, T., Kı raç, N., Anil, O.,
behaviour of RC slab with different reinforcement ratios. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(1), 241–
254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-1168-x
Zhou, J., Wen, P., & Wang, S. (2020). Numerical investigation on the repeated low-velocity impact behav
ior of composite laminates. Composite Part B Engineering, 185, 107771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compo
sitesb.2020.107771

48J 2023 Rachit and Senthil European J of Civil and Environ Engg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

48J 2023 Rachit and Senthil European J of Civil and Environ Engg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20

Performance of thin reinforced concrete slabs

Rachit Sharma & Senthil Kasilingam

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2023.2259956

Published online: 28 Sep 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Performance of thin reinforced concrete slabs against low

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Senthil Kasilingam kasilingams@nitj.ac.in, urssenthil85@yahoo.co.in, urssenthil85@gmail.com Civil Engineering

2.1. Preparation of specimens

Figure 1. Reinforcement layout of slab specimens of (a) 30 and (b) 50 mm thickness.

Table 1. Details of experimental program.

2.2. Test setup and procedure

2.3. Constitutive modelling of concrete and steel bar

2.3.1. Concrete damage plasticity (CDP) model

Kc ¼ 0:71fc0 − 0:025 (2)

2.3.2. Elasto-plastic model for steel reinforcement

Figure 4. Load-displacement response of reinforced concrete slab.

Table 2. CDP model parameters under uniaxial and multi-axial behaviour.

Table 3. Average stress-plastic strain relationship for reinforcement.

3. Analytical and experimental results

3.1. Analytical results for flexural and shear response of RC slab

Table 4. Reinforced concrete slab performance parameters.

Table 5. Punching shear capacity predictions (in kN).

3.2. Response of slab under normal and repeated impact load

3.2.1. Normal impact load (first impact)

3.2.2. Repeated impact load (from second impact to failure)

Figure 10. Trend of peak impact force with repeated impacts.

Table 6. Experiment and simulations results for different cases.

4. Numerical modelling and results

4.1. Numerical modelling

Figure 13. Comparison of mesh sensitivity with experimental results.

4.2. Numerical validation

4.3. Comparison of experiment and simulations

Data availability statement

You might also like