0 views

Uploaded by atman chana

blast

blast

© All Rights Reserved

- 600.pdf
- Advanced Finite Element
- Non Linear FEA Course- Basic To Advanced
- Difference Between FEM FDM and FVM
- lab 1 intro fem-1
- tmp2BB9
- Graf Lusas New
- A nonlinear PDE formulation for offshore vessel pipeline installation.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S2351978917307928-main
- MENG4326S05
- ME1401-QB
- Grid Generation
- 906-1984-1-SM
- Caliri-Ferreira-Tita -- 2016 -- A New Finite Element for Thick Laminates and Sandwich Structures Using a Generalized and Unified Plate Theory
- liaw1976
- M Tech Mech
- ( FEM) Modelación de Elementos Finitos Para Transductores Ultrasónicos
- Msds Iso- N-pentan en 2015-10-28
- Lecture5 Triangle
- 88464_Assignment1

You are on page 1of 8

Yousef Alostaz, PhD, PE1

1Associate Vice President, AECOM USA, Inc. 125 Broad Street, New York, NY.

Yousef.Alostaz@aecom.com, (212) 377-8422.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT

One of the greatest challenges blast engineers face is securing enough standoff for

facilities that need to be protected against attacks by vehicle-borne bombs. One solution

might require the use of a perimeter blast wall. Depending on their location relative to the

protected facility and the standoff distance to the bomb, perimeter blast walls might reduce

the blast pressure and impulse from a vehicle bomb. Generally, erecting a blast wall at some

distance from the building might provide no appreciable increase in protection for the

majority of buildings. However, constructing a blast wall immediately in front of the building

might provide significant protection. The blast wall effectively reduces the pressure from a

reflected pulse to an incident pulse, permitting reduced safe standoff distances. Additionally,

a properly designed perimeter blast walls will stop the effects of fragmentation.

Empirical equations, developed by military researchers, might be used to predict the

blast pressure and impulse reduction capabilities of a perimeter wall. However, the

application of such equations is severely limited by the test parameters used in the equation

development. Some design guidelines require that blast walls have a height equal to 1.5 times

the protected structure height, and a width equal to twice the protected structure width.

Furthermore, the wall must be constructed no further than one story height from the protected

face of the building. Hence, blast walls can be massive and aesthetically not pleasant

This paper will examine the effectiveness of blast walls in reducing blast pressures

and impulses behind the walls. Three-dimensional, Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)

simulations will be used to calculate the blast pressures for various blast environments.

Where applicable, the calculated blast loads will be compared with those obtained using the

empirical approach.

INTRODUCTION

Providing the required standoff between the target and the threat is a challenging task,

especially in urban environments. For such situations, engineers might elect to provide a

blast wall in order to reduce the blast pressure to a manageable level at the location of the

protected facility. Blast walls reduce pressures by reflecting part of the incident pressure

towards the explosion source, and diffracting the blast wave over the barrier. It should be

noted that the diffracted pressure is reduced for some distance behind the wall before the

shock wave reforms to its original intensity. A properly designed blast wall can arrest

airborne debris, generated by the explosive threat, and hence providing further protection to

the protected building.

Structures Congress 2014 © ASCE 2014 98

2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The effectiveness of the blast wall in reducing the blast pressures depends on the

geometry of the blast wall, the scaled standoff between the threat and the wall and between

the threat and the protected target. The blast parameters are shown in Figure 1.

The following parameters will be used in this article:

• Weight of explosive device W

• Height of target h

• Height of blast wall H

• Distance between building at Wall R

• Scaled standoff to the blast wall /

Experiments conducted on blast walls are the main source for information on blast

pressures behind the walls. Typically, those experiments address a limited range of

parameters. The Army and Air Force Security Engineering Manual (TM 5-853, AFM 88-56)

provides a methodology to calculate blast pressures behind blast walls which is based on

small-scale tests. The methodology was not validated using full-scale tests and is limited to

certain geometries. Generally, the blast wall effectiveness increases as the wall is placed

close to the protected target or the explosive threat. The peak blast pressure is reduced

significantly behind the wall, but gradually approach the free-filed blast values at large

distances.

It should be noted that an improperly designed blast wall might increase the blast

pressures and/or impulses on the building. For example, this scenario might occur for some

combination of large standoff from the blast wall and short standoff between the building and

the blast wall. The current data indicates that blast wall is most effective when the explosive

charge is placed within one wall height (1H) from the blast wall and within ten wall heights

(10H) from the protected facility. For buildings located at more than twenty wall heights

(20H), the blast pressure approaches its free-field values [2010].

This paper will examine the effectiveness of blast walls in reducing blast pressures

and impulses behind the walls. Three-dimensional, Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)

simulations will be used to calculate the blast pressures for various blast environments.

Where applicable, the calculated blast loads will be compared with those obtained using the

empirical approach.

Structures Congress 2014 © ASCE 2014 99

3

ANALYTICAL SIMULATIONS

things, the identification of two major elements, namely the governing equations for the

physical phenomena and the boundary conditions of the physical entity being modeled. A

simple explosion would have the following three characteristics: 1) the explosive device, 2)

the pressure wave, and 3) the standoff distance to the target, that is the distance between the

target and the bomb. The explosive device can be categorized as a high order explosives or

low order explosives depending on its reaction rate. High order explosives include TNT,

dynamite, C4, nitroglycerin and ammonium nitrate fuel oil mixture (ANFO). Low order

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

explosives include rocket propellants, pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. Because of their

low reaction rate, low order explosives do not form a shock wave.

High order explosives posses a fast chemical reaction rate that converts the charge

mass into an expanding gas pressure wave accompanied by sound and heat. The leading tip

of the pressure wave is known as the shock front, and it typically has the highest pressure at

any time. The blast gasses expand as they travel away from the blast source; a void might be

created where the pressure is below the ambient atmospheric pressure.

The complex destruction effect of the blast is the main driving factor behind the need

to perform field physical testing on large scale prototype, unfortunately, it is that same effect

that makes field testing expensive and time consuming. Numerical simulation might be used

to identify the most crucial parameters in a specific blast scenario. Once those parameters are

identified, field testing of limited number of prototypes might be needed to confirm and

calibrate the blast performance of the structural element in question.

The blast phenomenon generates extreme pressure gradients and impulsive loading

that cannot properly be treated by conventional implicit finite element formulation. Explicit

finite element formulation is more suited to handle such extreme loading conditions.

Commercially available explicit finite element software include LSDYNA, AUTODYN,

ABAQUS, NASTRAN, ALIGRO… etc. We used LSDYNA for the simulations presented in

this paper.

Typically the explicit finite element software generates a set of differential equations

that incorporate Equations of State (EOS) that describes the variation of a volumetric

material property, such as volumetric strain, with pressure. Using the principles of

conservation of mass, energy and momentum, the explicit finite element algorithm advances

the solution of the differential equations over short periods of time, commonly known as time

steps. This time step indicates the time that is required for the speed of sound to travel

through the smallest element within the finite element grid. Hence, finer grid would yield

smaller time step, and softer material would yield larger time step. Most explicit software has

built-in algorithms that automatically calculate the time step and impose a cap, with user

override, on the maximum time step. The imposed cap is necessary in order to keep the time

step value within limits that most likely would yield a stable, converged solution.

The finite element software might utilize a Lagrange solver, an Euler solver, or a

combination of both of these solvers, known as an Arbitrary Lagrange-Euler solver (ALE).

The basic characteristic of the Lagrange solver is that the finite element grid distorts with the

material. The solver tries to impose distortion compatibility at the finite element nodes. The

Lagrange solver is not suitable for problems that produce excessive distortions of the finite

element grid, such as the modeling of fluid movements. Unlike the Lagrange solver, the finite

element grid in the Euler solver is stationary. However, the material is allowed to flow

between the finite element grids in order to satisfy pressure compatibility at the finite element

Structures Congress 2014 © ASCE 2014 100

4

nodes. The Euler solver is not suitable for tracking the deformations of a material in its solid

state. The ALE solver combines the benefits of both solvers, and most likely would capture

the Fluid-Structure-Interaction (FSI).

Geometry and Discretization

The three-dimensional (3D)

finite element model is shown in

Figure 2. The height and width of

the blast wall were selected to be 8

ft and 3 ft, respectively. The

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from the blast wall. The total width

of the model was 30 ft, but due to

symmetry, only 15 ft width was

modeled.

The standoff distance

between the threat and the wall “r”

and the weight of the threat “W” are

the main parameters investigated in

this article, and the range of those

parameters are shown in Table 1. Figure 2. 3D Finite Element Model

Other parameters will be the topic

of a future article.

Table 1. Investigated Parameters

Reflective boundary conditions were Standoff Threat Scaled

assumed at the ground surface, and Distance, r (ft) Size, W (lb) Standoff,

symmetric boundary condition was assumed (ft/lb1/3)

at the plane of symmetry. Non-reflective

boundary conditions were assumed at the 100 0.862

sides of the air domain. 250 0.635

Eight-noded brick elements were used 500 0.504

to model the air, the blast wall, and the 4

1000 0.400

explosive material. Lagrangian element

formulation was used for all finite elements 2000 0.317

representing the blast wall. The Arbitrary 4000 0.252

Lagrange-Euler (ALE) algorithm was used to 100 1.724

simulate the behavior of the explosives and 250 1.270

the air.

500 1.008

Material Models 8

1000 0.800

The material models implemented in our 2000 0.635

analyses represented the high order explosive, 4000 0.504

and the air domain. The blast wall was

assumed to be infinitely rigid.

High order explosive

TNT material was used to simulate an explosive material placed next to the blast wall.

The Jones-Wilkins-Lee (JWL) Equation of State (EOS) described the behavior of this

explosive material. This equation can have the form shown below

Structures Congress 2014 © ASCE 2014 101

5

ω ω E

peos = A(1 − )e − R1V + B(1 − )e − R2V + ω (1)

R1V R2V V

The blast pressure at specific time is given by this equation:

P = F . peos (2)

Where:

A, B, R1, R2 and ω: are material specific parameters

peos: is the pressure

V: is the ratio between initial and current densities

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F: Burn fraction ≤1.0

The explosive material parameters used in our analyses are presented in Table 2. It is

assumed that the explosive device is rectangular in shape, and located at 2 ft above ground

level.

Table 2. TNT parameters

Density Detonation Velocity A B R1

(cm/μsec)

(g/cm3) (Mbar) (Mbar)

1.63 0.693 3.712 0.03231 4.15

R2 ω E0/V0 Chapman-Jouget Pressure

3 3

(Mbar cm / cm ) (Mbar)

0.95 0.3 0.07 0.21

Air

The air is modeled as an ideal gas material using a linear polynomial form of the equation

of state:

(

p = C0 + C1 μ + C2 μ 2 + C3 μ 3 + C4 + C5 μ + C6 μ 2 E (3) )

Ideal gas behavior is achieved by setting

C 0 = C1 = C 2 = C3 = C 6 = 0 and C 4 = C5 = γ − 1

Where:

γ: is the ratio of specific heat = 1.4

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Our past experience with similar blast analyses indicated that the accuracy of the

predicted blast response was highly dependent on the resolution of the finite element mesh.

Several analyses were performed with various element sizes that resulted in number of nodes

ranging between about 300k to about 4.5m. It was found that while the peak blast pressure

was somehow sensitive to the size of the finite element mesh, the peak blast pressure ratio

showed less sensitivity to the finite element size. The peak blast pressure ratio was calculated

as the ratio of the peak blast pressure with blast wall to the peak blast pressure without the

wall. The pressure is monitored at the face of the protected building. The impulse ratio was

calculated in a similar manner. Figure 3 shows sample results from the sensitivity analysis

performed at two locations on the façade of the protected building. Generally, it was

observed that coarser models resulted in more conservative assessment of the blast loads

Structures Congress 2014 © ASCE 2014 102

6

behind blast walls. With more reduction in the finite element size, the change in the blast

load ratio was almost negligible and would

not justify the extra computational time. 0.7%

Impulse

based on 3D finite element models with 0.5%

Ratio

0.3%

0.2%

ANALYSIS RESULTS Pressure

0.1%

0.0%

Obstacles, such as blast walls, placed in

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the path of oncoming shock wave will number of Nodes

disturb the natural propagation of the shock 4.0%

wave, see Figure 4. Among other things,

3.5%

the presence of the blast wall will delay the

3.0%

arrival time of the shock wave at the lower Impulse

2.5%

levels of the building. The analytical shock

Ratio

2.0%

wave exhibited similar characteristics to

1.5% Pressure

those shown by Smith [2010].

1.0%

This article is focused on examining

the reduction of the blast loads due to the 0.5%

0.0E+00 1.0E+06 2.0E+06 3.0E+06 4.0E+06

analytical models were generated for each Number of Nodes

parameter investigated in the article. One

model included the blast wall, and the Figure 3. Sensitivity Analysis – at blast wall

second model did not have the blast wall. height (top), top of building (bottom)

Both models were identical to each other,

except that the material at the location of the blat wall was assigned either rigid or air

properties.

The ratio of the peak blast pressure, in the presence of the blast wall, to the peak blast

pressure without the blast wall is shown in Figure 5. As mentioned earlier, the blast pressure

is monitored at the façade of the

protected building. The blast

impulses are numerically

integrated from the blast pressure

time-histories. The blast impulse

ratios are calculated in a similar

manner to the blast pressure ratios

and are shown in Figure 6.

For the blast wall parameters

examined in the this article, it was

observed that the presence of the

blast wall reduced the peak blast

pressure at the building façade

(below the height of the blast

wall) to less than 10% of the free Figure 4. Shock wave propagation around blast wall

field peak blast pressure. For

façade areas above the blast wall height, the reduction in the blast pressure ratio was

dependent on the size of the explosive device, see Figure 5. Only 20% reduction in the peak

blast pressure was observed at top of the protected building when a large explosive device is

Structures Congress 2014 © ASCE 2014 103

7

detonated at 4 ft from the face of the wall. As expected, when the threat standoff to the blast

wall increases, the effectiveness of the blast wall diminishes. For example, the peak blast

pressure ratio is about 20% at a façade height of 22 ft when a 100 lb TNT device is detonated

at 8 ft from the blast wall. The larger threat, 4000 lb TNT equivalent, detonated at 8 ft from

the wall, is anticipate to retain the majority of its peak blast pressure at top of the protected

building. In other words, the blast wall is not efficient in reducing the blast loads at the face

of the protected building.

When the same device is detonated at closer distance from the wall, the reduction in the

blast pressure at the building façade is larger. It is interesting to note that the closer the threat

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

45 45

40 40

35 35

30 30 Threat size, lb

TNT equivalent

Height, ft

Height, ft

25 25

4000

20 20

UFC 2000

15 15

Threat at 4 ft Threat at 8 ft 1000

10 from wall 10 from wall 500

5 250

5

100

0 0

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Peak Pressure Ratio, % Peak Pressure Ratio, %

Figure 5. Blast Pressure Ratio – Threat at 4ft (left) and 8 ft (right) from wall

to the blast wall, the more dependent the blast pressure ratio on the size of the threat.

The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) prediction for the blast pressures behind blast walls

is shown in Figure 5. Note that the UFC calculations are based on empirical formulas that

have many limitations and restrictions. Generally, the empirical formulas are more

conservative than the analytical results, but both approaches exhibited similar characteristics.

For example, analytical and empirical approaches indicated that the largest reduction in the

blast loading occurs at heights below the top of the blast wall. Blast wave reflected from the

ground surface, and the interior corner effects are likely to be the main driver behind the

increased blast loads at façade elements close to the ground level.

The impulse ratios as calculated from the numerical simulations are shown in Figure 6.

This figure indicates that the blast impulse values across the height of the façade exhibit

similar trends as the peak blast pressure. However, the overall reduction in the blast impulse

is larger than that observed for the blast peak pressure.

It is interesting to note that when smaller threats are detonated at larger distance from the

blast wall, the reduction in the blast impulse was smaller than the case for larger threat

detonated at the same standoff from the blast wall. Such behavior will require further

investigation. However, it is possible that this behavior is due to the way the results are

presented. Note that the impulse ratio is calculated as the blast impulse in the presence of

blast wall divided by the blast impulse without the blast wall. For smaller threats at larger

standoffs, the blast impulse without the wall is much smaller. The smaller denominator might

be resulting in larger impulse ratios in the case of smaller threats.

Structures Congress 2014 © ASCE 2014 104

8

45 45

Threat at 4 ft from wall Threat at 8 ft from wall

40 40

35 35

30 30

Height, ft

Height, ft

25

equivalent

20 20 4000

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2000

15 15

1000

10 10 500

5 250

5

100

0 0

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

Impulse Ratio, % Impulse Ratio, %

Figure 6. Impulse Ratio - Threat at 4ft (left) and 8 ft (right) from wall

CONCLUSIONS

This paper investigated the effectiveness of blast walls in reducing blast pressures and

impulses behind the walls. Three-dimensional, Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)

simulations were used to calculate the blast pressures for various blast environments. The

flow of the blast wave around blast wall is a complex phenomenon that depends on many

parameters that might include the scaled standoff between the wall and the threat, the wall

height, and the distance between the wall and the protected building. Only limited number of

parameters were numerically investigated and presented in this article. Further investigation

will be required to fully understand the blast wave propagation in the vicinity of blast wall.

As anticipated, the effectiveness of the blast wall diminishes as the standoff between the

wall and the explosive device increases.

At smaller standoffs between the blast wall and the threat, the reduction of the peak blast

pressure was inversely proportional to the size of the threat.

REFERENCES

Handbook for Blast Resistant Design of Buildings (2010), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Blast Mitigation for Structures: 1999 Status Report on the DTRA/TSWG program, National

Academy Press, Washington DC.

Smith, P.D (2010), “Blast walls for structural protection against high explosive threats: a

review”, International journal of protective structures, Volume 1, Number 1.

- 600.pdfUploaded byHai Tung
- Advanced Finite ElementUploaded byrs0004
- Non Linear FEA Course- Basic To AdvancedUploaded byMSC Software
- Difference Between FEM FDM and FVMUploaded byRafael Santos Roque
- lab 1 intro fem-1Uploaded bysaifulsabdin
- tmp2BB9Uploaded byFrontiers
- Graf Lusas NewUploaded byMohamad Zahir Razak
- A nonlinear PDE formulation for offshore vessel pipeline installation.pdfUploaded byYoungtae Kim
- 1-s2.0-S2351978917307928-mainUploaded byDavid Yandar
- MENG4326S05Uploaded byXi Wang
- ME1401-QBUploaded bymiraculas
- Grid GenerationUploaded byMahesh J Rao
- 906-1984-1-SMUploaded byklomps_jr
- Caliri-Ferreira-Tita -- 2016 -- A New Finite Element for Thick Laminates and Sandwich Structures Using a Generalized and Unified Plate TheoryUploaded byJorge Yarasca
- liaw1976Uploaded bycmkoh
- M Tech MechUploaded bynav1278
- ( FEM) Modelación de Elementos Finitos Para Transductores UltrasónicosUploaded byrotero_pujol
- Msds Iso- N-pentan en 2015-10-28Uploaded byBimantara Adi
- Lecture5 TriangleUploaded byAmin Kotb
- 88464_Assignment1Uploaded byAnnshun Kiat
- PrefaceUploaded byShamsul Arefin
- DarylL.loganAFirstCourse Bar Convergence-1Uploaded byFarzad Dehghan
- 41899_01Uploaded byjanni
- KCS - CtUploaded byakıle nese bulut
- pro076-006Uploaded byEmanuel Gevara
- Finite Element Analysis FormulasUploaded bySHAIK NISHAR
- 2688Uploaded byvijay patil
- Readme FemUploaded byasangallo
- IFEM.ch11.SlidesUploaded byTuan Pham Minh
- DGS T Op BlastPlanUGstopingMiningUploaded byNisargTripathi

- Calculation of the Plastic Section Modulus Using the ComputerUploaded byAnonymous 7MdZQn1
- Bauer 1997 Plastic Modulus AiscUploaded byatman chana
- nhi catalogUploaded byatman chana
- PT DetailingUploaded bycuongnguyen
- Acelerated Precast Bridges PCIUploaded byaleitaosilva
- Mander's model for concreteUploaded byGopalAdhikari
- FDOT PRESTRESINGUploaded byatman chana
- BDK83_977-13_rpt[1].pdfUploaded byRafael Borchardt
- pcine_full_depth_deck_panel_report.pdfUploaded byatman chana
- Lewis and Clark BridgeUploaded byatman chana
- PCINE Spec Sec-Precast Partial Depth Panel Guidelines 2nd EdUploaded byatman chana
- 07-0018Uploaded byatman chana
- bajar.pdfUploaded byMohammed Faisal T
- 07-0018.pdfUploaded byatman chana
- Lateral Load Capacity of PilesUploaded bychutton681
- 00-0008.pdfUploaded byatman chana
- SPT, procedure-method statement.pdfUploaded byAsif Khanzada
- Movable Bridge ManualUploaded byatman chana
- Non-Linear Seismic Soil Structure Interaction Method for Developing Nonlinear Seismic SSI Analysis Techniques_1Uploaded byatman chana
- Esp Dulcebook4Uploaded byatman chana

- 01 WelcomeUploaded byDenis Sanchez
- DC Inverter Mini ChillerUploaded byavramus
- manual megger DBL_ME_ME-L1072_ME-L1073_MANUAL_ENGLISCH.pdfUploaded byJaime Osorio P
- EvaporatorUploaded byAravind Vicky
- NSE - F&O - Underlying Info.pdfUploaded byAbhijith Deviara
- Hydrogen Storing for Fuel-Cell Cars (Sci Am 2007)Uploaded byOscar David Gutierrez
- V130-R34Uploaded byBloodman_6
- OSRAM LED Module LINEARlight Flex Protect LF05E-P Data-sheetUploaded byWinie Mallare
- Boiler Room Guide - Cleaver BrooksUploaded bySH1961
- AWM 5100 gb GUploaded byJose Daniel Moreno Villegas
- 13-4-7InverterUploaded bySa'id Ibn Mas'ud
- Lec-3Uploaded byMohamed Elfeky
- State of the Art Pd-TiO2Uploaded byIlham Faturachman
- Measuring Exhaust ValveUploaded byHamilton Miranda
- B2 Tasks Lifting AssessmentUploaded byMohd Shahril Abd Latiff
- Electrical Circuit Breaker | Operation and Types of Circuit Breaker | Electrical EngineeringUploaded byBattinapati Shiva
- Chapter 13 WsUploaded byranbus
- Gas Springs[1]Uploaded byslavcecaci
- MAN B&W Alpha DieselUploaded byamin_corporation
- ecr2012_full_en.pdfUploaded byLuis Oliveira
- L13_070314Uploaded bySrikanth Batna
- Basics of AutomobileUploaded bymaniknrcl
- How to Conform to ASME B40-100 (summary)Uploaded byMátyás Kabai
- Miguel 2010 FF (25) 291-312 Review Ac EsenUploaded byDaisuke Nuñez
- Drive Shaft AnalysisUploaded bySachin Patel
- 04 SLD for 500-630kW InvertersUploaded byAnonymous bxAM8j
- BUK453-100AUploaded bymicrowave440
- 5125_w08_erUploaded byHany ElGezawy
- Materion_BBC AlBeCast DatasheetUploaded byjahumbarger
- Entropy Generation Due to Micropolar Fluid Flow Between c 2018 Ain Shams EngUploaded byAnonymous u9WmSgap