4.7 Article

Post-blast capacity of ultra-high performance concrete columns

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 134, Issue -, Pages 289-302

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.12.057

Keywords

UHPC; Columns; Blast load; Residual strength; Damage index

Funding

  1. ARC Discovery Grant [DP140103025]
  2. National Basic Research Programme [2015CB058002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the past several decades, iconic and public buildings have become targets of terrorist bomb attacks, but most of these buildings were built without consideration of blast loading scenarios. Key load-carrying elements such as concrete columns are probably the most critical structural components for structural protection against bomb threats. Failures of columns may trigger catastrophic progressive collapse if there is insufficient structural redundancy. In a recent study, novel ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) material formulated based on reactive powder concrete (RPC) was developed. Field blast tests on columns made of this material were performed. Test results showed that UHPC columns had excellent blast resistant capability, only small mid-height deflection and minor concrete damage was observed after the blasting tests. In the present study, to quantify blast-induced damage and assess residual loading capacity of UHPC columns, static axial loading tests on post-blast UHPC columns were carried out. Undamaged control samples were tested to provide benchmarks. Damage index and residual loading capacity of UHPC columns after various blast loadings were obtained. It Was found that column cast with micro steel fibre reinforced UHPC preserved more than 70% of its loading capacity after 35 kg TNT detonation at 1.5 m standoff distance, while high strength concrete column only maintained 40% loading capacity after 8 kg TNT detonation at 1.5 m standoff distance. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available