Advertisement

Post-blast Non-destructive Damage Assessment on Full-scale Structural Elements

  • Lina M. LópezEmail author
  • Ricardo Castedo
  • María Chiquito
  • Pablo Segarra
  • José A. Sanchidrián
  • Anastasio P. Santos
  • Juan Navarro
Article

Abstract

A damage assessment methodology, based on the Schmidt hammer rebound value, has been developed and applied to evaluate the integrity of different structural elements after a blast event. All the elements (nine slabs, five beams and four masonry walls) were tested at full-scale with scaled distances that range from 0.2 to 2.92 m/kg1/3. The methodology consists of the evaluation of a statistically significant difference between six rebound values before and six after a blast event at each evaluation point. Based on each individual damage value, damage maps have been created using an interpolation tool. The combination of a global damage value with the spalled area based on visual inspection, allows the comparison between different protective solutions against blasting. The methodology presented and validated in this work can be used to evaluate the status of different concrete elements after a blast event such as terrorist attacks and can be also used for determination of the quality of different protective solutions. In terms of the solutions tested, the use of fibers enhances the tensile resistance of specimens. Concrete in beams configuration appears to have less resistance than in slabs, making them more vulnerable against explosives. To reduce the inner spalling in tiling wall areas, and the associated injuries, a good potential solution is the basalt fiber mesh.

Keywords

Blast loading Rebound hammer Slabs Beams Masonry walls Damage assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been conducted under SEGTRANS project funded by the Centre for Industrial Technological Development (CDTI) Government of Spain. We would like to thank all the people from TAPUSA, EUROESTUDIOS, KV Consultores and Sacyr who contributed to the design and execution of the tests. We also thank the staff in La Marañosa (ITM-INTA) for their help at the testing site and MAPEI and Italfim for the cession of testing products.

References

  1. 1.
    Silva, P.F., Lu, B.: Improving the blast resistance capacity of RC slabs with innovative composite materials. Compos. Part B 38(5), 523–534 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou, X.Q., Kuznetsov, V.A., Hao, H., Waschl, J.: Numerical prediction of concrete slab response to blast loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 35(10), 1186–1200 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mao, L., Barnett, S., Begg, D., Schleyer, G., Wight, G.: Numerical simulation of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete panel subjected to blast loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 64, 91–100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tabatabaei, Z.S., Volz, J.S., Baird, J., Gliha, B.P., Keener, D.I.: Experimental and numerical analyses of long carbon fiber reinforced concrete panels exposed to blast loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 57, 70–80 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pantelides, C.P., Garfield, T.T., Richins, W.D., Larson, T.K., Blakeley, J.E.: Reinforced concrete and fiber reinforced concrete panels subjected to blast detonations and post-blast static tests. Eng. Struct. 76, 24–33 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foglar, M., Kovar, M.: Conclusions from experimental testing of blast resistance of FRC and RC bridge decks. Int. J. Impact Eng. 59, 18–28 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castedo, R., Segarra, P., Alañon, A., Lopez, L.M., Santos, A.P., Sanchidrian, J.A.: Air blast resistance of full-scale slabs with different compositions: numerical modeling and field validation. Int. J. Impact Eng. 86, 145–156 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schenker, A., Anteby, I., Gal, E., Kivity, Y., Nizri, E., Sadot, O., et al.: Full-scale field tests of concrete slabs subjected to blast loads. Int. J. Impact Eng. 35(3), 184–198 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu, C., Huang, L., Oehlers, D.J.: Blast Testing of Aluminum Foam-Protected Reinforced Concrete Slabs. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 25(5), 464–474 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu, C., Sheikh, H.: A finite element modelling to investigate the mitigation of blast effects on reinforced concrete panel using foam cladding. Int. J. Impact Eng. 55, 24–33 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghani Razaqpur, A., Tolba, A., Contestabile, E.: Blast loading response of reinforced concrete panels reinforced with externally bonded GFRP laminates. Compos Part B 38(5), 535–546 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malhotra, V.M., Carino, N.J.: Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leshchinsky, A.M.: Combined methods of determining control measures of concrete quality. Mater. Struct. 24(3), 177–184 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen, N.T., Sbartaï, Z.M., Lataste, J.F., Breysse, D., Bos, F.: Non-destructive evaluation of the spatial variability of reinforced concrete structures. Mech. Ind. 16(1), 103–109 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    IAEA, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (2002) Guidebook on non-destructive testing of concrete structures. Training courses series N17. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, H.K., Yim, H., Lee, K.M.: Velocity-strength relationship of concrete by impact-echo method. ACI Mater. J. 100(1), 49–54 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott, M., Rezaizadeh, A., Delahaza, A., Santos, C.G., Moore, M., Graybeal, B., Washer, G.: A comparison of nondestructive evaluation methods for bridge deck assessment. NDT E Int. 36(4), 245–255 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colombo, M., Felicetti, R.: New NDT techniques for the assessment of fire-damaged concrete structures. Fire Saf. J. 42(6), 461–472 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khalim, A.R., Sagar, D., Kumruzzaman, M.D., Hasan, A.S.M.Z.: Combination of nondestructive evaluations for reliable assessment of bridge deck. Facta Univ Ser 9(1), 11–22 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Domingo R, Hirose S (2009) Correlation between concrete strength and combined nondestructive tests for concrete using high-early strength cement. In: The Sixth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development. Bangkok, March, pp. 12–13Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boundy, C.A.P., Hondros, G.: Rapid field assessment of strength of concrete by accelerated curing and Schmidt rebound hammer. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 61(1), 77–83 (1964)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt, E.: The concrete test hammer, Der Beton-Prüfhammer. Schweiz Bauz 68, 378 (1950)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmidt E (1954) The concrete sclerometer. In: Proc Int Symp Non-destructive Testing on Mater and Struct. Paris: RILEM, pp. 310Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hannachi S. Guetteche MN (2014) Review of the Rebound Hammer Method Estimating Concrete Compressive Strength on Site. In: Proceedings of Inernational Conference on Architect and Civil Engneering Dubai, pp. 118–127Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Corbett, D.: Advancing the Rebound Hammer Method: A New Concrete Test Hammer. In: Büyüköztürk, O., et al. (eds.) Nondestructive Testing of Materials and Structures, pp. 149–154. Springer, Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Breysse D, Balayssac J, Biondi S, Borosnyoi A, Candigliota E, Chiauzzi L, et al. (2013) Comparing investigation approaches and NDT methodologies for concrete strength estimation: an international benchmark. In: NDT-CE Conference Berlin, pp. 15–17Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pucinotti, R.: Reinforced concrete structure: non-destructive in situ strength assessment of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 75, 331–341 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ASTM (2002) American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete. ASTM C805-02Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    López LM, Sanchidrán JA, Piedra LJ, Rios J (2003) Shock Wave Pressure in Underground Explosions. Explosives and Blasting Technique. In: Holmberg R, editor. Proc of the EFEE 2nd World Conference, Taylor & Francis, Prague, pp. 441–447Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    UNE-EN ISO 6892-1:2009 (2009) Metallic materials—Tensile testing—Part 1: Method of test at room temperature (ISO 6892-1:2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    UNE-EN 771-3:2011 + A1:2016 (2016) Specification for masonry units—Part 3: aggregate concrete masonry units (Dense and lightweight aggregates)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ITALFIM (2017) http://www.italfim.it/. Accessed 3 April 2017
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    Liu, J.C., Sue, M.L., Kou, C.H.: Estimating the strength of concrete using surface rebound value and design parameters of concrete material. Tamkang J. Sci. Eng. 12(1), 1–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shariati, M., Ramli-Sulong, N.H., Shafigh, P., Sinaei, H.: Assessing the strength of reinforced concrete structures through Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and Schmidt Rebound Hammer tests. Sci. Res. Essays 6(1), 213–220 (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bergmann, R., Ludbrook, J., Spooren, W.P.J.M.: Different outcomes of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test from different statistics packages. Am. Stat. 54(1), 72–77 (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Teodoru, G.V.: Use of simultaneous nondestructive tests to predict the compressive strength of concrete. Special Pub. 112, 137–152 (1989)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    MathWorks (2016) Help User’s Guide (R2016b). http://es.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/griddata.html#btl6cdn-1. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  40. 40.
    Uddin, N.: Blast protection of civil infrastructures and vehicles using composites. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang, W., Zhang, D., Lu, F., Wang, S.C., Tang, F.: Experimental study and numerical simulation of the damage mode of a square reinforced concrete slab under close-in explosion. Eng. Fail. Anal. 27, 41–51 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhao, C.F., Chen, J.Y.: Damage mechanism and mode of square reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast loading. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mec. 63, 54–62 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Department of the Army (2008) Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, UFC 3-340-02. U.S. Department of the Army; DecemberGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Krauthammer, T.: Modern Protective Structures. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Politécnica de Madrid – E.T.S.I. Minas y EnergíaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations