Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 1120–1137 | Cite as

An investigation of ballistic response of reinforced and sandwich concrete panels using computational techniques

  • Mohammad Hanifehzadeh
  • Bora GencturkEmail author
Research Article


Structural performance of nuclear containment structures and power plant facilities is of critical importance for public safety. The performance of concrete in a high-speed hard projectile impact is a complex problem due to a combination of multiple failure modes including brittle tensile fracture, crushing, and spalling. In this study, reinforced concrete (RC) and steel-concrete-steel sandwich (SCSS) panels are investigated under high-speed hard projectile impact. Two modeling techniques, smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and conventional finite element (FE) analysis with element erosion are used. Penetration depth and global deformation are compared between doubly RC and SCSS panels in order to identify the advantages of the presence of steel plates over the reinforcement layers. A parametric analysis of the front and rear plate thicknesses of the SCSS configuration showed that the SCSS panel with a thick front plate has the best performance in controlling the hard projectile. While a thick rear plate is effective in the case of a large and soft projectile as the plate reduces the rear deformation. The effects of the impact angle and impact velocity are also considered. It was observed that the impact angle for the flat nose missile is critical and the front steel plate is effective in minimizing penetration depth.


concrete panels projectile impact finite element modeling smoothed particle hydrodynamics strain rate effect 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The financial support for this project was provided by the United States Department of Energy through the Nuclear Energy University Program under Contract No. 00128931. The findings presented herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.


  1. 1.
    Nie J G, Hu H S, Fan J S, Tao M X, Li S Y, Liu F J. Experimental study on seismic behavior of high-strength concrete filled double-steel-plate composite walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013, 88: 206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takeuchi M, Narikawa M, Matsuo I, Hara K, Usami S. Study on a concrete filled structure for nuclear power plants. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1998, 179(2): 209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sohel K M A, Richard Liew J Y, Koh C G. Numerical modelling of lightweight steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite beams subjected to impact. Thin-walled Structures, 2015, 94: 135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebad Sichani M, Padgett J E, Bisadi V. Probabilistic seismic analysis of concrete dry cask structures. Structural Safety, 2018, 73: 87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jiang H, Chorzepa M G. Aircraft impact analysis of nuclear safety-related concrete structures: A review. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2014, 46: 118–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang C C, Wu T Y. A study on dynamic impact of vertical concrete cask tip-over using explicit finite element analysis procedures. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2009, 36(2): 213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ebad Sichani M, Hanifehzadeh M, Padgett J E, Gencturk B. Probabilistic analysis of vertical concrete dry casks subjected to tipover and aging effects. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2019, 343: 232–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riera J D. On the stress analysis of structures subjected to aircraft impact forces. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1968, 8(4): 415–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanifehzadeh M, Gencturk B, Mousavi R. A numerical study of spent nuclear fuel dry storage systems under extreme impact loading. Engineering Structures, 2018, 161(1): 68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sohel K, Liew J R. Behavior of steel-concrete-steel sandwich slabs subject to impact load. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 100: 163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abdel-Kader M, Fouda A. Effect of reinforcement on the response of concrete panels to impact of hard projectiles. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2014, 63: 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruhl J C, Varma A H, Kim J M. Static resistance function for steel-plate composite (SC) walls subject to impactive loading. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2015, 295: 843–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heckötter C, Vepsä A. Experimental investigation and numerical analyses of reinforced concrete structures subjected to external missile impact. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2015, 84: 56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sudhir Sastry Y B, Budarapu P R, Krishna Y, Devaraj S. Studies on ballistic impact of the composite panels. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Budarapu P R, Gracie R, Yang SW, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Efficient coarse graining in multiscale modeling of fracture. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 69: 126–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu Y, Wang D, Wu C T. Three dimensional fragmentation simulation of concrete structures with a nodally regularized meshfree method. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu Y, Wang D, Wu C T, Zhang H. A direct displacement smoothing meshfree particle formulation for impact failure modeling. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2016, 87: 169–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lucy L. A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. Astronomical Journal, 1977, 82: 1013–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gingold R A, Monaghan J J. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Theory and application to non-spherical stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1977, 181(3): 375–389zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu G R, Liu M B. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: A Meshfree Particle Method. Singapore: World Scientific, 2003zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: A simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G. A meshfree method based on the local partition of unity for cohesive cracks. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 39(6): 743–760zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Modelling dynamic failure of concrete with meshfree methods. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2006, 32(11): 1878–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Randles P, Libersky L. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Some recent improvements and applications. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1996, 139(1–4): 375–408MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ren H, Zhuang X, Cai Y, Rabczuk T. Dual-horizon peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2016, 108(12): 1451–1476MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hughes G. Hard missile impact on reinforced concrete. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1984, 77(1): 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dancygier A, Yankelevsky D. High strength concrete response to hard projectile impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1996, 18(6): 583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dassault Systemes. ABAQUS, 6.14, Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA, 2016Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hibbitt H D, Karlsson B I, Sorensen E P. ABAQUS User’s & Theory Manuals, 6.14, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA, 2013Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee S, Cho S S, Jeon J E, Kim K Y, Seo K S. Impact analyses and tests of concrete overpacks of spent nuclear fuel storage casks. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 2014, 46(1): 73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malvar L J. Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars. Materials Journal, 1998, 95(5): 609–616Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fu H, Erki M, Seckin M. Review of effects of loading rate on concrete in compression. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1991, 117(12): 3645–3659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ross C A, Tedesco J W, Kuennen S T. Effects of strain rate on concrete strength. Materials Journal, 1995, 92(1): 37–47Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leppänen J. Concrete Structures Subjected to Fragment Impacts. Goteborg: Chalmers University of Technology, 2004Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li Q, Meng H. About the dynamic strength enhancement of concrete-like materials in a split Hopkinson pressure bar test. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2003, 40(2): 343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    CEB-FIP. Design of Concrete Structures. Euro-International Committee for Concrete (CEB). Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    UFC. Unified facilities criteria (UFC), structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, UFC 3-340-02. U.S. Department of Defence, 2008Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kupfer H, Hilsdorf H K, Rusch H. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses. ACI Journal Proceedings, 1969, 66(8): 656–666Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kupfer H B, Gerstle K H. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1973, 99(4): 853–866Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee J, Fenves G L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1998, 124(8): 892–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hanifehzadeh M, Gencturk B, Willam K. Dynamic structural response of reinforced concrete dry storage casks subjected to impact considering material degradation. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2017, 325: 192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jankowiak T, Lodygowski T. Identification of parameters of concrete damage plasticity constitutive model. Foundations of civil and environmental engineering, 2005, 6(1): 53–69Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hognestad E. Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1951Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang T, Hsu T T. Nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures using new constitutive models. Computers & Structures, 2001, 79(32): 2781–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Harris H G, Sabnis G. Structural modeling and experimental techniques. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cowper G R, Symonds P S. Strain-hardening and Strain-rate Effects in the Impact Loading of Cantilever Beams. DTIC Document, 1957Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Malvar L J, Crawford J E. Dynamic increase factors for steel reinforcing bars. In: 28th DDESB Seminar, Orlando, USA, 1998Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    ASTM. Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel, A36/A36M. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2014Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    ASTM. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM A615/A615M-16. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2016Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kawamoto Y, Stepan J. Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete Slab Subjected to Soft Missile Impact. SMiRT-23, Manchester, UK, 2015Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rodríguez Soler J, Martinez Cutillas F J, Marti Rodriguez J. Concrete constitutive model, calibration and applications. In: SIMULIA Community Conference, Vienna, Austria, 2013Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kennedy R. A review of procedures for the analysis and design of concrete structures to resist missile impact effects. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1976, 37(2): 183–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kar A K. Local effects of tornado-generated missiles. Journal of the Structural Division, 1978, 104(5): 809–816Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Linderman R, Rotz J, Yeh G. Design of structures for missile impact. San Francisco: Bechtel Power Corp., 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sonny Astani Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations