The 15th International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with Structures (ISIEMS), September 2013, 17 - 20 at the Conference Hotel in Potsdam, Germany. The symposium builds on previous meetings held in the United States of America (organized by DTRA) and Germany (organized by Armed Forces Office). ISIEMS will address all aspects of the response of civil engineering structures and materials to explosive loading. Scientists, engineers, and others interested in the symposium’s technical areas are invited to participate and contribute. All sessions will be unclassified, but some may be restricted to citizens of NATO member nations only. Paper presented at:

1. For Public Release
Vulnerability assessment of precast concrete cladding wall panels for police stations:
experimental and numerical investigations
Giannicola Giovino1, Sapienza University of Rome, Carabinieri Corps
Pierluigi Olmati2, Sapienza University of Rome
Franco Bontempi3, Sapienza University of Rome
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to investigate the behavior of precast concrete wall panels for strategic structures subjected to exceptional loads as a consequence of man-made attacks. In particular, the attention is focused on the Italian police stations. Among else, these kinds of station have a widespread distribution on the national territory. This
is obviously an advantage for the community. But often for offering this service to the community, these police
stations are no other than common civil buildings adapted for police use. Consequently, in the majority of cases,
these police stations do not have a structure with adequate performance against man-made attacks.
The current guidelines do not provide criteria to comprehensively assess the vulnerability of police stations against
man-made attacks. And as stated above, several police stations were former common civil buildings; generally it is
not economical sustainable retrofitting these buildings for police use. It is necessary to design and build new police
stations providing the adequate resistance performances against man-made attacks.
The cladding system is a crucial component of the building for protecting the inside of the police stations against
external explosions. For evaluating the resistance performance against man-made attacks of the cladding system of
the police stations both experimental and numerical investigations are carried out. The cladding system under investigation is a precast concrete wall panel. Typically the length and the width of these panels are adapted to the specific architecture requirements, but the thickness is approximately of 15 or 20 cm. The steel reinforcement is generally
placed in the middle of the cross section. From a design point of view, these walls should protect people and
equipment from external attacks.
Three precast concrete cladding wall panels subjected to detonations of explosive are investigated both experimentally and numerically and the results are presented in this paper.
1
P.E., Ph.D Student, Captain of the Carabinieri Corps, giannicola.giovino@uniroma1.it
P.E., Ph.D. Candidate, pierluigi.olmati@uniroma1.it
3
Professor, P.E., Ph.D., franco.bontempi@uniroma1.it
2
For Public Release

2. For Public Release
Vulnerability assessment of precast concrete cladding wall panels for police stations:
experimental and numerical investigations
Giannicola Giovino1, Sapienza University of Rome, Carabinieri Corps
Pierluigi Olmati2, Sapienza University of Rome
Franco Bontempi3, Sapienza University of Rome
INTRODUCTION
Due to the necessity of improving the performances of the Italian police stations against external explosions, this
study presents both experimental and numerical investigations on the assessment of precast concrete wall panels, for
using as exterior cladding system, subjected to explosive detonations.
The aim of the experimental program is twofold: i) collect data in order to verify and validate both analytical and
numerical models, and ii) check with the experimental evidence the necessity of properly design the cladding system
of the Italian police stations. A precast concrete cladding wall panel system has advantages over other traditional
non-load bearing cladding systems [1]. The first advantage of precast concrete wall panels versus traditional masonry cladding (concerning the blast loads considered in this paper) is the increased resistance of the precast system to a
blast demand. Precast concrete has shown to provide improved resilience against blast in comparison to traditional
steel stud contraction as discussed in [2]. Generally precast concrete has many advantages over the cast-in-place
concrete counterpart. The final condition of a concrete product is highly sensitive to environmental conditions during the curing process. The more finely controlled the environment is (such as humidity, temperature, hydration
effects, etc.), the better control over the final condition of the concrete. For this reason, precast components are often more aesthetically pleasing than cast-in-place components. Additionally, precast concrete can often be more
economical than cast-in-place concrete. As precast components can be made with the same formwork repeatedly,
the cost for constructing the component drops. Finally, precast components will often allow for a more efficient
construction process and decrease the total construction time. Precast components are fabricated in the factory,
shipped to the work site, and then are placed into position as opposed to cast in place concrete which requires building formwork and time for curing. Moreover, the building life-cycle should be considered when selecting the façade. Concrete cladding can be integrated with other materials improving the response of the panel to environmental attack such as acid rain and chlorine ions. In [3] the behavior of a precast concrete panel with an insulation layer
to improve the thermal resistance of the panel is investigated, focusing on the shear ties connecting the two concrete
layers confining the insulation layer. The panel and its surface are durable, not requiring expensive maintenance
repairs over time. In fact, this kind of cladding system is economically and ecologically sustainable, while maintaining all the advantages of traditional precast components.
Following the current increase trend of security requirement for strategic buildings and infrastructures numerous
works are published in journals papers on both numerical and experimental assessment of structures subjected to
explosive detonations. In [4] protected and unprotected concrete slabs are tested with a large hemispherical surface
detonation of TNT. The protection of the slabs was made by layer of aluminum foam attached on the blast exposed
side of the slabs. Moreover numerical simulations were carried out. In [5] a series of different kind of concrete
slabs were tested in order to compare their blast resistance. The slabs under investigation were made by: reinforced
concrete augmented with FRP plates; ultra-high performance concrete without reinforcement; and ultra-high performance concrete with reinforcement; moreover a normal reinforced concrete slab was tested as control specimens.
The amount of explosive in the detonation schedule varied from 1 to 20 kg. The authors conclude that plain ultrahigh performance concrete with reinforcement slabs suffered less damage than the normal reinforced concrete slabs
when subjected to similar blast loads, which confirms that ultra-high performance concrete is an effective material
for blast resisting structure.
1
P.E., Ph.D. Student, Captain of the Carabinieri Corps, giannicola.giovino@uniroma1.it
P.E., Ph.D. Candidate, pierluigi.olmati@uniroma1.it
3
Professor, P.E., Ph.D., franco.bontempi@uniroma1.it
2
For Public Release

3. For Public Release
In [6] a finite difference analysis model was proposed in order to predict the structural response of simply supported
structural members subjected to blast loads. The model was validated by an experimental test and a matching of the
predicted displacements with the experimental evidence was found.
In [7] normal concrete slabs were subjected to localized impact loads by a drop test machine. The aim of the study
was to investigate the effects of both different kinds of slab reinforcement and the applied impact loads on the dynamic structural response of reinforced concrete slabs. The paper highlights the importance of an experimental investigation for better understanding the behavior of reinforced concrete elements. Moreover the conducted experimental tests show that both the amount of steel reinforcement affected the slab failure modes.
Finally in [8] experimental impact tests were considered from the work of [9] for validating the numerical simulations able to predict the structural response of aluminum and composite panels under such impact events.
In this paper a three specimens are tested, and each specimen is subjected to a single detonation. The first specimen
(A) is conventionally designed with a minimum amount of reinforcement required (0.15 %), the second specimen
(B) is designed to achieve a specific maximum deflection if subjected to a specific blast demand, and the third specimen (C) is equal to the specimen (B). The amount of explosive used to conduct the test is the same for the specimens A and B, instead for the specimen C is used a greater explosive charge.
The experimental texts were conducted at the facility of the R.W.M. ITALIA s.p.a. (www.rwm-italia.com) at Domus
Novas (Italy). The R.W.M. ITALIA s.p.a. provided technical and logistical support for conducting the tests.
All the specimens are horizontally simply supported and the explosive charge is orthogonally suspended at 1500 mm
from the center of the exposed blast side of the concrete panel. The panels are located about 400 mm from the
ground and the lateral side of each specimen is close by sandbags for avoiding the diffracting pressure on the back
side of the panel that can leads a reduction of the mid-span deflection.
Finite Element Analyses (FEAs) are carried out with the explicit Finite Element (FE) code LS-Dyna® [10] for predicting the displacement time history of the precast panels. Solid elements are utilized for modeling the concrete
instead beam elements are adopted for modeling the reinforcement. Also a contact algorithm for modeling the
Boundary Conditions (BCs) is utilized. Moreover the LS-Dyna® keyword Load Blast Enhanced [10 and 11] is
adopted for providing the blast load. A direct match made by the experimental and numerical results validates the
adopted modeling technique.
TEST MATRIX
A total of three precast concrete wall panels are tested (specimen A, B, C). All the specimens are made by normal
concrete and standard reinforcement. The length and the width of the three specimens is 3500 x 1500 mm. The
specimen A is 150 mm thick; instead the specimens B and C are 200 mm thick. All the panels are provided by reinforcement in both the longitudinal and transversal directions, but the panels do not have shear reinforcement. This
single layer of reinforcement is located in the middle of the cross section. The specimen A is longitudinally reinforced respecting only the minimum reinforcing steel recommended [12], and the longitudinal reinforcement consists of seven rebar with a diameter of 8 mm; instead the transversal reinforcement consists of ten rebar with a diameter of 8 mm. The specimens B is longitudinally reinforced to achieve a limited deflection, so it is designed for having a specific resistance against blast loads; the specimen C is equal to the specimen B. The longitudinal reinforcement consists of twelve rebar with a diameter of 10 mm; instead the transversal reinforcing are the same of the specimen A. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the specimens.
Specimen
A
B
C
Length
[mm]
3500
3500
3500
Width
[mm]
1500
1500
1500
Thickness
[mm]
150
200
200
Stand-off
[mm]
1500
1500
1500
Explosive weight
[kg TNTeq]
3.5
3.5
5.5
Reinforcement
Longitudinal/Transversal
7 Φ8 / 10 Φ8
12 Φ10 / 10 Φ8
12 Φ10 / 10 Φ8
Table 1: Test matrix
All the three specimens are loaded by explosive at a stand-off distance of 1500 mm perpendicularly from the center
of the panel. The specimen A and B are loaded by 3.5 kg of equivalent TNT, instead the specimen C is loaded by
5.5 kg of equivalent TNT. The explosive provided by the R.W.M. ITALIA s.p.a. is the PBXN-109 composed by the
64.12 % of RDX, the 19.84 % of Aluminum, and the 16.04 % of Binder.
For Public Release

4. For Public Release
The compressive resistance of the concrete is estimated by testing six concrete specimens. Also the resistance of the
rebar is tested experimentally by traction tests of three rebar specimens for each rebar diameter. The steel used for
the reinforcement is the B450C [12]. Table 2 shows the results provided by the R.W.M. ITALIA S.p.a. of the reinforcing steel and concrete testing.
Specimen
N°
Concrete
Rc [MPa]
Rebar steel
fy [MPa]
Rebar steel
ft [MPa]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
37.46
35.87
35.60
35.19
29.89
31.01
34.17
536
540
541
547
549
547
543
616
625
626
670
676
672
647
Table 2: Reinforcing steel and concrete testing results
The specimens are simply horizontally supported, and the supports are made by concrete blocks. The explosive
charge is suspended at 1500 mm from the panel surface and it is orthogonal with the center of panel surface. The
supports are 400 mm high and the lateral open space between the panels and the ground is closed by sandbags. In
this way the shock wave would be not able to diffract on the back face of the panels. See both Figure 1 and Figure
2. When the precast concrete panels are installed on a building façade the shock wave is not able to load the back
side of the panels, so it necessary to reproduce this scenario. Moreover for the purpose of verify and validation of
numerical models both the boundaries and the loading conditions should be known as much is possible. Leaving the
shock wave to diffract on the back side of the panel, also interacting with the ground, leads an erroneous estimation
of the blast load on the panels consequently the prediction of the structural response would be affected by errors.
Generally minor deflections are assessed if the shock wave loads the back side of the panels.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the aerial view and the longitudinal section of the testing site respectively. The testing
site consists on an underground open space without ceiling surrounded by concrete walls. A ramp for entering and
exiting is on a side of the testing site, see Figure 1. The walls around the specimens cause the undesirable reverberating of the shock wave. This leads an amplification of the blast load and consequently greater displacements are
assessed than the ones predicted in the test program design. During the back analysis reported in this paper the image charge method is adopted to take account the reverberating effect due to the surrounding walls. However more
precise results can be obtained using the Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) method.
Panel
A
B
C
t
[mm]
150
200
200
a
[mm]
1550
1160
880
b
[mm]
c
[mm]
1550
1550
2030
Table 3: Thickness of the panels and position of the meter devices (see also Figure 1)
Two kinds of displacement meter are used and provided by the R.W.M. ITALIA s.p.a.: the comb device and the
coaxial tube device. The comb device works by the impacting force of the panel on the single tooth of the comb, the
tooth is damaged by the panel and after the detonation the maximum deflection is measured by counting the bent
teeth of the comb device. Instead the coaxial tubes device works by the impacting force of the panel on the top of
the internal tube of the coaxial device, the internal tube is so pushed inside the external tube of the coaxial device
and three screws scratch the surface of the internal tube marking the panel deflection. Figure 2 shows the position of
the meter devices respect the panel specimen; however the arrangement of their positions is different for each specimen and Figure 2 is not to scale. For the specimen A only the coaxial tube is adopted, it is positioned in the midspan of the panel. For the specimen B both the comb and coaxial tubes devices are utilized, the comb device is in
the mid-span and the coaxial tube is longitudinally about 400 mm away from the comb devices. Finally for the
specimen C three meter devices are utilized, one of the two comb devices is placed in the mid-span and the second
For Public Release

5. For Public Release
one is placed longitudinally about 500 mm away from the first one and the coaxial tube devices is placed at about
one third of the span. With reference to Figure 2, Table 3 summarizes the exact positions of the meter devices for
all the three specimens.
For measuring the maximum pressure on the blast side of the specimens the rupture discs for hydraulic applications
are utilized without appreciable results, see Figure 1. Each disc has a hydrostatic failure pressure however the dynamic characteristics of the disc are unknown. Positioned on the blast side of the panel, the specimen A and B have
four rupture discs instead the specimen C has five rupture discs.
Entry and exit ramp
3500
3100
Sandbags
Blast side
SOUTH
Rupture discs
750
1500
Explosive charge
500
EAST
WEST
NORTH
Panel
800
Concrete support
4800
1750
1370
1080
Wall
Not to scale
Figure 1: Aerial view of the testing site
4800
Explosive charge
Comb device
1500
Wall
EAST
WEST
1080
Coaxial tubes device
3500
3100
t
Panel
400
Concrete support
Ground
Not to scale
a
b
c
Figure 2: Longitudinal section of the testing site
The hydrostatic failure pressure of the discs is: 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 7.5, and 8 MPa. With reference to Figure 1 the specimen A has four rupture discs, from the left one of 4.5 MPa to the right one of 6 MPa; also the specimen B has four
rupture discs, but from the left one of 6 MPa to the right one of 4.5 MPa; finally the specimen C has five rupture
discs, from the left one of 5.5 MPa to the right one of 8 MPa.
Figure 3 shows details of the testing site. In Figure 3 (a) is in view the specimen A. The panel, the meter device,
and the sandbags are positioned, only the explosive charge has to be positioned like in Figure 3 (h). Figure 3 (b)
For Public Release

6. For Public Release
shows the operations for positioning the specimen A, and is visible the truck just at the end of the entry ramp of the
testing site (see Figure 1). In Figure 3 (c) is a zoom of the specimen A ready to be tested, instead in Figure 3 (d) is a
large view of the specimen A with the explosive just armed. Figure 3 (e) shows the coaxial tubes devices, instead
Figure 3 (f) shows the comb devices. Finally in Figure 3 (g) is a rupture discs.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(d)
Figure 3: Detail images of the R.W.M. ITALIA S.p.a. testing site
For Public Release

7. For Public Release
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The experimental test took place the July 22 and 23, 2013. The result data is in terms of both maximum and residual
deflection. The rupture discs do not provided a good measure of the maximum pressure, so they are considered unreliable and not suitable for measuring blast pressure at least in the adopted arrangement. Moreover the crack patterns of the specimens are marched and photographed. In the following sections the results of the experimental investigation are reported. The results concerning the rupture discs are not reported because meaningless.
Specimen A
The specimen A is designed with the minimum reinforcement for a concrete cladding wall panel [12]. The deflection of the specimen A reached the full scale value of the coaxial tubes device. The panel during the deflection impacted the external tube of the coaxial tubes device and the panel stops its deformation. The maximum and residual
deflection of the panel is so 108 mm. In Figure 4 (a) is shown the panel in contact with the external tube of the coaxial tubes device, and in Figure 4 (d) is the scratch that such tube made on the concrete panel during the impact.
Figure 4 (b) shows the measurement of the residual displacement. Finally Figure 4 (c and e) show the flexural crack
pattern of the specimen A.
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
(e)
Figure 4: Detail images of the specimen A
Specimen B
This panel is designed to achieve a specific performance under a blast load, so the specimen B is designed for blast;
the amount of explosive for the specimen B is the same of the specimen A.
The maximum and the residual deflection achieved by the specimen B is of 70 mm and 35 mm respectively. The
specimen B shows a ductile failure with a diffuse crack patterns on the central one third of the panel span; the major
For Public Release

8. For Public Release
cracks are 3 mm width. However as shown in Figure 5 (b) some radial crack patterns are present, this is due to the
short stand-off distance [11], and however the specimen B develops a flexural mechanism as designed. In Figure 5
(a) is the view both the comb and coaxial tubes device after the detonation; the bend of the comb teeth and the excursion of the internal tube of the coaxial tubes device are appreciable in this figure. Finally in Figure 5 (c and e) is
shown the crack patterns and crack width along the mid-span of the panel.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(e)
Figure 5: Detail images of the specimen B
Specimen C
The specimen C is equal to the specimen B but the blast demand is greater to leads significant damages to the panel
without reach a failure. The specimen C would test the blast resisting range of the panel over the limit of his specific design; for this purpose the amount of explosive is increased at 5.5 kg of equivalent TNT.
The maximum and the residual deflection are of 123 mm and 82 mm respectively. Figure 6 (a) shows the comb
devices after the detonation measuring the maximum deflection; instead the Figure 6 (b) shows the measurement of
the residual deflection of the specimen. Heavy crack patterns are assessed. Along the mid-span of the panel diffuse
cracks are present with significant width until 10 mm; in Figure 6 (c) the crack patterns at the mid-span are in view,
and in Figure 6 (d) the view of a 10 mm crack is proposed.
Moreover some cracks at the mid-span pass through the panel cross section thickness as visible in Figure 6 (e); furthermore Figure 6 (f) shows the maximum width of the crack passing through the panel cross section thickness of
Figure 6 (e).
For Public Release

9. For Public Release
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 6: Detail images of the specimen C
For Public Release

10. For Public Release
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
In order to reproduce the experimental tests numerically the explicit Finite Elements (FE) code LS-Dyna® is adopted
[10]. To simulate physic phenomena many numerical solution techniques can be utilized, the most relevant are: the
“Lagrangian”, the “Eulerian”, the “Eulerian-Lagrangian” meshes [13, 14], and the “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics” method [14, 15]. Furthermore two methods exist to take account the interaction between the blast load and the
structural component: a coupled and an uncoupled approach [16]. In this study a “Lagrangian” mesh is adopted and
the uncoupled approach is preferred [17], thus the blast load is computed and applied independently from the structural response of the concrete wall panels.
The FE models have constant solid stress elements for the concrete, and beams elements for the reinforcement [10].
To bond the beams and solid elements, the LS-Dyna® keyword Constrained Lagrange in Solid [10] is used. For
reducing the computational effort the model of the specimens are only a square part of the panel, so opportune
boundary conditions are provided. Figure 7 shows a detailed view of the finite element model of the specimen B
and C. The concrete supports of the panels are explicitly modeled and the contact between the panel and the support
is provided by the LS-Dyna® keyword Contact Automatic Surface to Surface. Furthermore, in order to take account
correctly the clearing effect [11] the boundary conditions for blast are provided; a rigid surface modeling the other
three quarter of the panel is added, see Figure 7.
The material constitutive law of the reinforcement is the kinematic hardening plasticity model [10] and the strain
rate effects is accounted for by the Cowper and Symonds strain-rate model [10], the parameters selected for this
model are: D=500 s-1 and q=6. Furthermore the steel Young’s modulus is 200 GPa, the Poisson coefficient is 0.3,
and the yielding stress is 543 MPa, see Table 2. The concrete utilizes the Continuous Surface Cap Model (CSCM),
MAT159 in LS-Dyna® [10]. The yield stresses are defined by a three-dimensional yield surface based on the three
stress invariants. The intersection between the failure surface and the hardening cap is a smooth intersection. The
softening behavior of the concrete is taken into account by a damage formulation that affects both the concrete
strength and a reduction in the unloading/loading stiffness. The increase in concrete strength with increasing strain
rate is taken account by a visco-plastic formulation. The Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) relation used for the concrete is shown in Figure 8 (a); instead in Figure 8 (b) the input data for the concrete model are shown.
Blast load BC
Support
Panel
Figure 7: The finite element model
The LS-Dyna® keyword Load Blast Enhanced is used for providing the blast load [18], the load surface is shown in
Figure 1; moreover also the gravity load is taken account.
Due to the walls delimiting the testing site multiple reflections of the original shock wave occurred; consequently
the blast load on the specimens is greater than the blast load on a specimen tested in an open space. For taking account the phenomenon of the reverberated shock waves [19] the ALE method is the most appropriate method, but it
is very computationally expensive. Using the uncoupled approach [16] the image charge method [19] provides acceptable results without increasing the computational effort.
The image charge method predicts the pressure pulses from a reverberating shock wave. The image charge method
consists in taking account the pressure pulse from a reverberating shock wave by a pressure pulse due to a spherical
free-air detonation of a fictitious (image) charge with the same weight of the actual charge but located at a stand-off
distance from the target equal to the full path length (see for example both the paths B and C in Figure 9) of the
For Public Release

11. For Public Release
shock wave to the reflecting wall and then to the target; and hitting the target with the angle of incidence of the reverberating shock wave. Figure 9 is adapted from [19] and it shows an elementary scenario of reverberating shock
waves. The path A is the direct shock wave path; instead the paths C and B are the reverberating shock wave paths
on the target.
8
DIF [-]
6
Density
4
2
0
0.001
0.1
10
Strain-rate [1/sec]
1000
2.248 lbf/in4 s2
2.4*103 kg/m3
fcm
Compressive
Tensile
4060 psi
28 N/mm2
Cap
retraction
Rate
effect
Erosion
(a)
active
Reflecting surface
C
A
B
active
none
(b)
Reflecting surface
(c)
Figure 8: Concrete model input data
Figure 9: image charge approximation, figure adapted
from [19]
In Table 4 are summarized the locations of the image charges for all the three specimens. The target point is the
center of the panel; α is the angle made by the orthogonal projection of the stand-off distance of the image charge
(full path length of the reverberating shock wave) on the panel surface; instead the image charge side is which side
the image charge is located. A total of four image charges plus the real charge load the specimens.
Image charge
side
West
North
South
East
Stand-off
[m]
6009
4705
4705
13505
α
[degrees]
27
35
35
13
Table 4: Image charge positions
Figure 10 shows the results of the numerical simulations. The time history of the mid-span deflection is plotted together with the experimental results. In Figure 10 δmax and δres are the maximum and residual mid-span deflections
assessed experimentally. For the specimen A the results cannot be compared because the specimen impacted the
external coaxial tubes devices and it stopped its deformation; instead for the specimen B and C the experimental and
numerical results can be discussed.
For both the specimen B and C the maximum deflection computed numerically is about 10 mm less than the measured experimentally, so the uncertainty due to the multiple reverberating shock waves is sufficiently achieved by the
image charge method; however the residual deflections are not predicted with enough accuracy. The predicted residual deflection is about 20 mm greater than the measured experimentally. A possible cause can be due to the diffracting of the shock wave on the back side of the panel not completely avoided by the sandbags. The kind of sandbag utilized was not enough strength to resist at the blast pressure and avoiding the diffracting of the shock wave on
the back side of the panel. Looking at the Figure 4 (a), Figure 5 (a and b), and Figure 6 (b) the disruption of the
sandbags is evident; so probably the sandbags reduced the diffraction of the shock wave on the back side of the panels but probably without totally avoiding this phenomenon.
The ALE method is probably the best method in order to simulate correctly the conducted experimental tests, because both the reverberating and the diffracting shock waves can be taken account together with the disruption of the
sandbags.
For Public Release

12. For Public Release
70
60
δ [mm]
80
200
δ [mm]
280
240
Numerical
160
δres
120
δmax
80
δmax
50
δres
40
30
20
Experimental
40
Experimental
Numerical
10
Specimen A
0
Specimen B
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
time [sec]
0.2
0.25
0
0.05
(a)
0.15
(b)
140
280
δmax
120
240
100
200
δres
80
δ [mm]
δ [mm]
0.1
time [sec]
60
40
Specimen A
120
Specimen B
80
Experimental
Numerical
20
160
Specimen C
40
Specimen C
0
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
time [sec]
time [sec]
(c)
0.2
0.25
(d)
Figure 10: Experimental and numerical mid-span displacement
The US Army Corps developed some Component Damage Levels (CDLs) [19], based on the building level of protection, which are correlated with two response parameters of the single component: the support rotation angle (θ)
and the ductility ratio (µ). These parameters are defined in Equations (1) and (2).
2δmax
δ
θ = arctan
μ=
(1)
(2)
L
Where δmax is the maximum deflection and δe is the equivalent yield deflection of the panel. In the U.S. antiterrorism performance-based blast design approach [19], there are five component damage levels (CDLs) considered,
listed in order of decreasing damage: Blowout, Hazardous Failure, Heavy Damage, Moderate Damage, and Superficial Damage. The thresholds corresponding to these CDLs are defined in terms of the response parameters θ and µ.
For a non-structural concrete cladding wall without shear reinforcement, neglecting tension membrane effects, the
CDL thresholds are those reported in Table 5 below.
Component damage levels
θ [degree]
µ [-]
Blowout
Hazardous Failure
Heavy Damage
Moderate Damage
Superficial Damage
>10°
≤10°
≤5°
≤2°
none
none
none
none
none
1
Table 5: Component damage levels, and the associated thresholds in terms of response parameters
Table 6 shows the summary of the results for each specimen reporting both the maximum and the residual deflections of the experimental and numerical investigations. Moreover the support rotation θ is shown for both the experimental and numerical investigations. Looking at the maximum support rotations experimentally assessed: the specimen B goes over the Moderate Damage CDL but does not exceed the Heavy Damage CDL; and also the specimen
C does not exceed the Heavy Damage. Thus the limits for the response parameters of the CDLs provided in [19]
have a good correspondence with the kind of structural response of the specimens assessed experimentally.
For Public Release

13. For Public Release
Finally Figure 11 shows the simulated crack patterns of the three specimens; in view is the brittle damage parameter
in the range from 0.95 to 1 [10 and 20]. Since only one quarter of the panels is modeled the Figure 11 is obtained
mirroring the plot of the crack patterns of the model.
Generally the crack pattern of the three specimens is similar, but the specimen A shows more concentrated cracks
that the specimens B and C. The simulated crack patterns match with the experimental evidence showing major
cracks at the panel mid-span, confirming the developing of the resisting flexural mechanism of the panels without
suffering a shear failure. In all the specimens and particularly in the specimen C some radial cracks are present, see
Figure 5 (b) and Figure 6 (a and c); also this kind of cracks are partially reproduced by the numerical simulations,
see Figure 11 (a).
Specimen
A
B
C
Experimental
δmax [mm]
108*
70
123
δres [mm]
108*
35
82
Numerical
δmax [mm]
244
58
114
δres [mm]
240
50
106
Experimental
θmax [deg]
4.0*
2.6
4.5
θres [deg]
4.0*
1.3
3.0
Numerical
θmax [deg]
8.9
2.1
4.2
θres [deg]
8.8
1.8
3.9
* Full scale value
Table 6: Summary of the results
Specimen A
Specimen B
(a)
For Public Release
Specimen C

14. For Public Release
Specimen A
Specimen B
Specimen C
(b)
Figure 11: Crack patterns of the specimens: (a) back view, (b) longitudinal view
CONCLUSIONS
With the aim to investigate how improving the blast resistance of the cladding system for Italian police stations,
three precast concrete cladding wall panels have been tested in the testing site of the R.W.M. ITALIA s.p.a.
(www.rwm-italia.com). Furthermore numerical simulations with the explicit finite element code LS-Dyna® have
been carried out.
Only the prescribed minimum amount of reinforcement has been used to design the first panel (specimen A) for
showing the failure of ordinary precast concrete cladding wall panels if subjected to detonation of explosive due for
example to man-made attacks or accidental explosions.
The second panel (specimen B), that is designed for blast, is subjected to the same detonation of the first panel
(specimen A) and a good flexural structural response with limited deflection has been assessed.
The third panel (specimen C) instead is subjected to a detonation of a greater amount of explosive for assessing the
structural resistance of the panel to detonations not considered in the design; it shows a good flexural structural response without go over the Heavy Damage Component Damage Level.
The conducted experimental program has also the aim to provide a benchmark for verifying and validating both numerical and analytical models. For this purpose, finite element analyses of the three specimens have been carried
out. The complex blast boundary conditions got place to reverberating shock waves and the image charge method
has been adopted to correctly load the panels. Good results have been obtained in terms of maximum deflection, but
the residual deflection is predicted with less accuracy maybe due to the diffracting shock wave on the back side of
the panel, phenomenon not avoided completely by the sandbags that were disrupted by the blast pressure.
A future development from the numerical point of view is to use the Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian method in order
to take account the complex boundary conditions of the blast load and the diffracting shock wave on the back side of
the panels together with disruption of the sandbags. Instead form the experimental point of view different kind of
cladding panels, like the composite panels, can be tested for both far-field [2] and close-in detonations [11].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the R.W.M. ITALIA s.p.a. (www.rwm-italia.com) for supporting the design,
the logistic, and the financing of the experimental program.
The authors would like to acknowledge also the Carabinieri Corps of the Italian General Command (45 Romania
Avenue, Rome), and both Dr. Francesco Petrini and Dr. Konstantinos Gkoumas (Sapienza University of Rome) for
the appreciate discussions on the experimental and numerical investigations.
For Public Release

15. For Public Release
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Olmati, P., Trasborg, P., Naito, C., J., Bontempi, F., Blast resistance of reinforced precast concrete walls under uncertainty. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures: accepted (2013).
Naito, C., J., Dinan, R., Bewick, B., Use of precast concrete walls for blast protection of steel stud construction, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 25: 454-463 (2011).
Naito, C., J., Hoemann, J., Beacraft, M., Bewick, B., Performance and characterization of shear ties for use in
insulated precast concrete sandwich wall panels, Journal of Structural Engineering 138:1-11 (2012).
Schenker, A., Anteby, I., Gal, E., Kivity, Y., Nizri, E., Sadot, O., Michaelis, R., Levintant, O., Ben-Dor, G.,
Full-scale field tests of concrete slabs subjected to blast loads, International Journal of Impact Engineering
35: 184-198 (2008).
Wu, C., Oehlers, D.J., Rebentrost, M., Leach, J., Whittaker, A.S., Blast testing of ultra-high performance
fibre and FRP-retrofitted concrete slabs, Engineering Structures 31: 2060-2069 (2009).
Jones, J., Wu, C., Oehlers, D.J., Sun, W., Marks, S., Coppola, R., Finite difference analysis of simply supported RC slabs for blast loadings, Engineering Structures 31: 2825-2832 (2009).
Zineddin, M., Krauthammer, T., Dynamic response and behavior of reinforced concrete slabs under impact
loading, International Journal of Impact Engineering 34: 1517-1534 (2007).
O’Daniel, J.L., Koudela, K.L., Krauthammer, T.., Numerical simulation and validation of distributed impact
events, International Journal of Impact Engineering 31: 1013–1038 (2005).
O’Daniel, J.L., Krauthammer, T., Koudela, K., Strait, L., An UNDEX validation methodology, International
Journal of Impact Engineering 27: 919–37 (2002).
Lawrence Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), “LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual”, California (US),
Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Unified Facilities Criteria, “Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions”, Department of Defense,
United States of America (2008).
Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici, “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni”, Ministro delle Infrastrutture
(2008).
Bontempi, F., Faravelli, L., Lagrangian/Eulerian description of dynamic system, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 124(8): 901-911 (1998).
Lawrence Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), “LS-DYNA theory manual”, California (US), Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Manenti, S., Sibilla, S., Gallati, M., Agate, G., Guandalini, R., SPH Simulation of Sediment Flushing Induced
by a Rapid Water Flow, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 138(3): 272-284 (2012).
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), “Blast-resistant highway bridges: design and
detailing guidelines”, Washington D.C., US: Transportation Research Board.
Davidson, J., S., Fisher, J.,W., Hammons, M.,I., Porter, J.,R., Dinan, R.,J., Failure mechanisms of polymerreinforced concrete masonry walls subjected to blast. Journal of Structural Engineering 131(8): 1194-1205
(2005).
Coughlin, A.,M., Musselman, E.,S., Schokker, A.,J., Linzell, D.,G., Behavior of portable fiber rein-forced
concrete vehicle barriers subject to blasts from contact charges, International Journal of Impact Engineering
37: 521-529 (2010).
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), “Methodology Manual for the Single-Degree-of-Freedom Blast
Effects Design Spreadsheets”, the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Murray, Y., D., User’s Manual for LS-DYNA Concrete Material Model 159, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
For Public Release