EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 434 (2023) E3S Web Conf., 434 (2023) 02023 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 434, 2023
4th International Conference on Energetics, Civil and Agricultural Engineering (ICECAE 2023)
Article Number 02023
Number of page(s) 16
Section Civil Engineering
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202343402023
Published online 12 October 2023
  1. Kyei, C., & Braimah, A. (2017). Effects of transverse reinforcement spacing on the response of reinforced concrete columns subjected to blast loading. Engineering Structures, 142, pp. 148–164. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Mouräo, R., Maazoun, A., Dias, F. T., Vantomme, J., & Lecompte, D. (2018). Load-Displacement Assessment of One-Way Reinforced Concrete (RC) Slabs Externally Strengthened Using CFRP Strips under Blast Loads. The 18th International Conference on Experimental Mechanics, Proccedings, MDPI, 2(8). doi: 10.3390/ICEM18-05435. [Google Scholar]
  3. Xu, K. & Lu, Y. (2006). Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete plates subjected to blast loading. Computers & Structures, 84, pp. 431–438. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2005.09.029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Low, H. Y., & Hao, H. (2001). Reliability analysis of reinforced concrete slabs under explosive loading. Structural Safety, 23, pp. 157–178. doi: 16/S0167-4730(01)00011-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anas, S. M., Alam, M., & Umair, M. (2021). Experimental and Numerical Investigations on Performance of Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Explosive-induced Air-blast Loading: A state-of-the-art review. Structures, Elsevier, 31, pp. 428–461, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Anas, S. M., Alam, M., & Umair, M. (2021). Air-blast and ground shockwave parameters, shallow underground blasting, on the ground and buried shallow underground blast-resistant shelters: A review. International Journal ofProtective Structures, SAGE, 13(1), pp. 99–139, doi: 10.1177/2F20414196211048910. [Google Scholar]
  7. Anas, S. M., & Alam, M. (2021). Comparison of Existing Empirical Equations for Blast Peak Positive Overpressure from Spherical Free Air and Hemispherical Surface Bursts. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Springer, 46, pp. 965–984, doi: 10.1007/s40996-021-00718-4. [Google Scholar]
  8. Anas, S. M., Shariq, M., Alam, M., Yosri, A. M., Mohamed, A., & AbdelMongy, M. (2023). Influence of Supports on the Low-Velocity Impact Response of Square RC Slab of Standard Concrete and Ultra-High Performance Concrete: FEM-Based Computational Analysis. Buildings, MDPI, 13(5). doi: 10.3390/buildings13051220. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Anas, S. M., Alam, M., & Umair, M. (2020). “Performance of one-way composite reinforced concrete slabs under explosive-induced blast loading”. In: 1st International Conference on Energetics, Civil and Agricultural Engineering 2020, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 614, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/614/1/012094. [Google Scholar]
  10. Al-Dala’ien, R. N., Syamsir, A., Usman, F., & Abdullah M.J. (2023). The effect of the W-shape stirrups shear reinforcement on the dynamic behavior of RC flat solid slab subjected to the low-velocity impact loading. Results in Engineering, vol. 19, p. 101353, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101353. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Al-Dala’ien, R.N., Syamsir, A., Abu Bakar, M.S., Usman, F., & Abdullah, M.J. (2023). Failure Modes Behavior of Different Strengthening Types of RC Slabs Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact Loading: A Review. Journal of Composites Science, vol. 7, no. 6, p. 246, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/jcs7060246. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hao, H., Hao, Y., Li, J., & Chen, W. (2016). Review of the current practices in blast-resistant analysis and design of concrete structures. Advances in Structural Engineering, SAGE, 19(8): 1193–1223. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Krauthammer, T., Astarlioglu, S., Blaško, J., Soh, T., & Ng, P. (2008). Pressure-impulse diagrams for the behavior assessment of structural components. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35(8):771–783. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.12.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hetherington, J. & Smith, P. (1994). Blast and Ballistic Loading of Structure. Laxton’s, London, 1 edition, 1994. ISBN 978-0-7506-2024-6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Kulesz, J. J., Strehlow, R. A., & Westine, P. S. (1983). Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, volume 5 of Fundamental Studies in Engineering. Elsevier Science, 1 edition, 1983. ISBN 978-0-444-42094-7. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mays, G. & Smith, P. D. (2009). Blast Effects on Buildings. ICE Publishing, 2nd edition. ISBN 978-0-7277-3403-7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jarrett, D. E. (1968). DERIVATION OF THE BRITISH EXPLOSIVES SAFETY DISTANCES. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 152(1):18–35, October 1968. ISSN 0077-8923, 1749-6632. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1968.tb11963.x. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Zhang, F., Wu, C., Zhao, X.-L., & Li, Z.-X. (2017). Numerical derivation of pressure-impulse diagrams for square UHPCFDST columns. Thin-Walled Structures, 115:188–195, June 2017. ISSN 02638231. doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2017.02.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Krauthammer, T. (2008). Modern Protective Structures, volume 22 of Civil and Environmental Engineering. CRC Press, February 2008. ISBN 978-0-8247-2526-6 978-1-4200-1542-3. doi: 10.1201/9781420015423. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kang, B., Choi, W., & Park, G. (2001). Structural optimization under equivalent static loads transformed from dynamic loads based on displacement. Computers & Structures 79(2): 145–154. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ritzel, D. & Matthews, K. (1997). An adjustable explosion-source model for CFD blast calculations. In: Proceedings of the 21st international symposium on shock waves, Great Keppel Island, QLD, Australia, 20 July, pp. 97–102. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kingery, C. N., & Bulmash, G. (1984). Air Blast Parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface Burst. Aberdeen, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratories. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mougeotte, C., Carlucci, P., Recchia, S., et al. (2010). Novel approach to conducting blast load analyses using Abaqus/ Explicit-CEL (DTIC document). In: Army Research Development and Engineering Center Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  24. Carlucci, P., Mougeotte, C., & Huidi, J. (2010). Validation of Abaqus Explicit - CEL for classes of problems of interest to the US Army. In: 2010 SIMULIA customer conference, Providence, RI, 25-27 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
  25. Luccioni, B., Ara'oz, G., & Labanda, N. (2013). Defining erosion limit for concrete. International Journal of Protective Structures, 4(3): 315–340. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Xu, X.-P., & Needleman, A. (1994). Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 42(9): 1397–1434. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhou, F., Molinari, J.-F., & Ramesh, K. (2005). A cohesive model based fragmentation analysis: effects of strain rate and initial defects distribution. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 42(18): 5181–5207. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Camacho, G. T., & Ortiz, M. (1996). Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 33(20): 2899–2938. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ortiz, M., & Pandolfi, A. (1999). Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three-dimensional crackpropagation analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 44: 1267–1282. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Clayton, J. (2005). Dynamic plasticity and fracture in high density polycrystals: constitutive modeling and numerical simulation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 53(2): 261–301. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Belytschko, T., Lu, Y. Y., & Gu, L. (1994). Element-free Galerkin methods. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 37(2): 229–256. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rabczuk, T., Xiao, S. P., & Sauer, M. (2006). Coupling of mesh-free methods with finite elements: basic concepts and test results. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 22(10): 1031–1065. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sulsky, D., Chen, Z., & Schreyer, H. L. (1994). A particle method for history-dependent materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 118(1): 179–196. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lucy, L. B. (1977). A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. The Astronomical Journal, 82: 1013–1024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson, G. R., Beissel, S., & Stryk, R. (2000). A generalized particle algorithm for high velocity impact computations. Computational Mechanics, 25(2-3): 245–256. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rabczuk, T., Xiao, S. P., & Sauer, M. (2006). Coupling of mesh-free methods with finite elements: basic concepts and test results. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 22(10): 1031–1065. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Attaway, S., Heinstein, M., & Swegle, J. (1994). Coupling of smooth particle hydrodynamics with the finite element method. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 150(2): 199–205. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rabczuk, T., & Belytschko, T. (2006). Application of particle methods to static fracture of reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Fracture, 137(1-4): 19–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Caleyron, F., Chuzel-Marmot, Y., & Combescure, A. (2011). Modeling of reinforced concrete through SPH-FE coupling and its application to the simulation of a projectile’s impact onto a slab. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 27(6): 882–898. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Johnson, G. R., & Stryk, R. A. (2003). Conversion of 3D distorted elements into meshless particles during dynamic deformation. International Journal ofImpact Engineering, 28(9): 947–966. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lu, Y. (2009). Modelling of concrete structures subjected to shock and blast loading: an overview and some recent studies. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 32(2): 235–249. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hart, R. (1991). General report: an introduction to distinct element modelling for rock engineering. In: Proceedings of the 7th ISRM congress, Aachen, 16-20 September 1991. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kun, F., & Herrmann, H. J. (1996). A study of fragmentation processes using a discrete element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 138(1): 3–18. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Cusatis, G., Bazant, Z., & Cedolin, L. (2003). Confinement-shear lattice model for concrete damage in tension and compression: I. Theory. Journal ofEngineering Mechanics, 129(12): 1439–1448. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bonet, J., & Kulasegaram, S. (2000). Correction and stabilization of smooth particle hydrodynamics methods with applications in metal forming simulations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 47(6): 1189–1214. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rabczuk, T., Eibl, J., & Stempniewski, L. (2004). Numerical analysis of high speed concrete fragmentation using a meshfree Lagrangian method. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 71(4): 547–556. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Vignjevic, R., Campbell, J., & Libersky, L. (2000). A treatment of zero-energy modes in the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 184(1): 67–85. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, M., Hao, H., Ding, Y., et al. (2009). Prediction of fragment size and ejection distance of masonry wall under blast load using homogenized masonry material properties. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36(6): 808–820. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.