Releasable to NATO

Blast energy-absorption connectors for protection of infrastructures

Gabriel Gomes1,2,3, Vitor Pereira1, Eduardo Júlio4,5, Valter Lúcio3,5

1
Portuguese Army, Lisboa, Portugal
2
CIDIUM - Centro de Investigação e Desenvolvimento do Instituto Universitário Militar, Lisboa,
Portugal
3
FCT-UNL – Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Monte da Caparica,
Portugal
4
Instituto Superior Técnico – Avenida Rovisco pais, Lisboa, Portugal
5
CERIS - Investigação e Inovação em Engenharia Civil para a Sustentabilidade, Avenida Rovisco pais,
Lisboa, Portugal

Introduction

Conventional structures are not designed to withstand loads due to explosions whereby the collapse of
certain more vulnerable elements in the vicinity of the explosion have a high probability of occurrence
with a high potential to form, following the first, progressive collapse mechanisms, which can lead to
total collapse of the structure.
The use of precast concrete panels in façades to protect structures is not new and presents itself a quick
and efficient solution. However, traditional façade panels are superimposed on the exposed faces of
support elements and floors, and rigidly attached to the frame. This solution transfers all the blast loads
imposed to the elements in contact, does not efficiently protect the critical elements nor prevent the local
failure. Most of the protective solutions developed are based on the addition of dissipative cores in
sandwich solutions or metallic elements in order to mitigate the transfer of charges, but as soon as the
absorption capacity is exceeded the problem persists.
The use of energy-absorbing connectors allows the façade panel to be kept without direct contact with the
elements to be protected, allowing also to adjust the stroke to withstand (by compression) the kinetic
energy transmitted by an explosion.

1. Dynamic loading imposed by shockwave

When a blast wave hits a building, a complex set of interactions is generated as a function of three types
of variables: the pressures (incident, reflected and dynamic); the shape, size and orientation of its façade
elements; and also the location, proximity and orientation of other obstacles, containing reflective
surfaces [1]. However, depending on the magnitude and distance of the explosion from the structure, two
typical cases of interaction can be identified, whose structure response will also be different. The first
case corresponds to the detonation of a small charge at a short distance (near field), which corresponds to
most cases of terrorist attacks, such as Vehicle Borne IEDs and other Improvised Explosive Devices. The
second case corresponds to large-scale detonations (accidents in ammunition depots, chemical industry,
refineries, nuclear installations or even nuclear detonations), but at relatively large distances from the
structure (far field).
For the near field, the loaded surface is taken as sufficiently large in relation to the magnitude of the
explosion, and diffraction phenomena or the generation of translational forces as a result of the
differential of pressures caused by the wave rarefaction in the contours will not occur[2]. In this case the
loading will be equal to the reflected pressure. The pressures are applied locally to the closest structural
elements and the structure will be loaded sequentially. Local responses are primarily dependent on the
properties of the materials, with overall structural behaviour being negligible [3, p. 237]. Thus, the overall
response may be more the result of the cumulative action of local effects, namely the collapse of critical
elements than of the imposed loading on the structure as a whole. However, the hypothesis of mobilizing
the entire structure to resist an explosion, eventually taking advantage of existing shear walls and anti-
seismic design of the main frame seems particularly interesting and will be deepened in this paper.

2. Design and retrofit approaches for infrastructures

Research on the effects of explosions in infrastructures is significant, particularly for military purposes
and in the protection of industrial facilities where explosion risk exists, but also as a result of the need for
 Releasable to NATO

nations to protect citizens against terrorist threats. The limitations and logistical problems faced by the
first military forces entering a new theatre of operations are also known, namely the lack of adequate
infrastructure for the settle down of these forces, which sometimes leads to the re-use of existing
buildings where important activities are run (e.g. command and staff) or have a considerable human
presence (billeting, food areas, etc.). Thus, taking into account a plausible threat and the need to protect
the troops, it is of the utmost importance to assess the extent of the expected damage and, consequently,
the likelihood of serious injuries to the occupants, designing proper protection measures and systems.
There are essentially three basic approaches to design or strengthening buildings under blast loading,
which can be used stand alone or combined: 1) Strengthening of structural elements and / or connections;
2) Allow existing elements to break and be collected by a catching system, protecting occupants from
debris propelling; and 3) shielding a structural elements from being directly loaded by the explosion
through the addition of a new explosion-resistant outer element.

From all the previous, the first approach is the most studied in the context of the progressive collapse
analysis, especially for the supporting elements (columns and shear walls), having developed several
protective solutions(especially jacketing), some of them based on high performance concrete
[4],including fibre incorporations[5, 6], or wrapping with fiber polymer materialsFRPC[7]or even with
welded steel plates. These solutions increase the performance but present the disadvantage of involving a
significant disruption of the activity of the occupants of the infrastructure in terms of the time necessary
for the retrofitting intervention. On the other hand, the critical elements, despite being more resistant,
continue exposed therefore vulnerable (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Effects of explosion on exposed critical elements [8]

The second approach seeks to essentially solve the problem of the façade non-structural elements in
general (masonry and glazing) through their retrofitting, which usually focus on: adding mass to the
system, increasing the thickness by adding internal masonry, concrete or metal walls [9]; The addition of
internal metallic frame is also widespread, seeking to reduce the free span of the walls. Also well
documented is the use of elastomers glued to the surface of the walls in order to absorb part of the energy
induced by the explosion [10]. The use of polymers offers good benefits for the retrofitting of masonry,
providing a significant increase in ductility, allowing significant deflections outside the plane of the wall.
However, the reinforcement of infill walls has to be analysed with caution in order to avoid creating
unacceptable lateral overload on the main structural frame; otherwise the possibility of progressive
collapse will increase.
Like the former, catching systems have similar drawbacks, causing in addition the loss of internal space.

The third approach involves the use of planar elements in the protection of the supporting elements
(columns and bearing walls) or in the integral encapsulation of the structure.
The most common solutions uses panels coupled to the existing structure through rigid elements. In its
simplified version, these are reinforced concrete panels, but in more sophisticated versions, the protective
element includes some kind of strengthening [11, 12, 4, 13]or alternatively an energy-absorbing core or
layer [14, 15, 16] made up of various materials such as composite elements with corrugated steel sheets
and cores containing various types of foams [17], honeycombs and/or folded cores (figure 2)[18, 19, 20],
metallic foams ([21, 22], granular materials and rock foams like perlite ([23, 16], cork[24], auxetic
structures and materials [25, 26, 27]and fluid or fluid-filled foam layers[28, 29, 30].
 Releasable to NATO

Figure 2 –Several sandwich plates with novel cores: (a) solid and hollowlattice truss structures; (b) egg-
box structures; (c) Kagomé grid coresreinforced by carbon fibres; (d) FRP tubes reinforced structure;(e)
woven core structure; (f) corrugated core structure. [31]

In some cases, the outer structure is only superimposed on the existing elements, transferring all the
impulse loads to the elements in contact. This solution, being common in current constructions, does not
truly protect critical elements nor prevent local collapse. The addition of energy-absorbing cores to these
planar elements only partially solves the problem in the way that the maximum distance available to
absorb energy by plastic deformation is very small and so the loads are fully transmitted to the structure
from the moment the core exceeds its dissipative capacity.
Thus, despite the increased protection obtained by the previously presented solutions, none of these
systems truly mitigate the problem.

3. Energy-absorbingsystemconcept

The concept presented in this paper, which has few examples of studies [32, 33, 33, 34]is intended to
ensure that the surface that receives the energy from the explosion is not in direct contact with the
elements to be protected, using floor-level Energy-Absorbing Connectors (EAC) with a sufficient stroke
to accommodate (by shortening) the intensity of a given explosion (figure 3). The advantages of this
concept, which adapts principles used for long time in the automotive and aeronautical industries, are
varied, both in terms of protection of critical elements and in the opportunity for the designer to take
advantage of the space between the outer panel and the structure to fill with other absorbent materials
(against fragmentation, spalling, formed projectiles, etc.) or simply the placement of thermal and / or
acoustic insulation.
When the external element is loaded, it triggers the set of connectors placed, which by compression begin
to dissipate energy. The EAC may still contain cores whose crushing absorbs even more energy. This
process allows the partial or total absorption of the kinetic energy transmitted by the explosion, depending
on its magnitude and the design of the connector, avoiding transmitting energy to the columns by contact.
The residual part will be transmitted to the structure at the floor levels, mobilizing its resistant capacity to
the horizontal actions.
 Releasable to NATO

Energy-absorbing
connector

Figure 3 – Protection System Concept – mobilizing all the structure

4. Energyabsorbers basics

An energy absorber is a system that converts, totally or partially, the kinetic energy into another form of
energy. The system presented in this paper dissipates the energy by plastic deformation of metallic
devices.
When designing an energy absorber, the aim is to absorb the kinetic energy imparted by the blast within
the device itself by plastic deformation, rather than storing it elastically, protecting in this way the
structure. The conversion of the kinetic energy into plastic deformation depends essentially, on the
material properties and shape, and the rate of load application. Additionally, the peak reaction force of an
energy-absorber should be kept below a threshold defined by the resistance of the structure intended to be
protected, to avoid unacceptable damages. Ideally this reaction force should remain constant as much as
possible during the deformation process of the energy-absorbing connector. The plastic energy absorption
is a function of the magnitude of the steady force times the displacement experienced. Therefore, if the
system has to absorb a large amount of input energy, the maximum deformable distance (the stroke) shall
be sufficiently large. Finally, is desirable that installation or reinstallation of the energy absorber is easy
once has been triggered.

5. Energy-absorber shapes

Thin walled structures represent the most common type of energy-absorber devices used. For instance,
with circular tubes the energy maybe dissipated by crushing, inversion[35, 36], expansion[37], reduction
or even splitting[38]. Likewise, the dissipation can be obtained by lateral compression, indentation,
bending, and lateral crushing of arrays of circular tubes, among others.

The axial crushing of tubular elements is characterized by a high energy absorption capacity, their
specific absorption capacity being estimated to be about 10 times higher than that obtained by lateral
compression of these elements. This is mainly due to the fact that, under axial loading, the full length of
the material of the tubular member deforms plastically, participating in the process of absorbing energy
[39, 40, 41] .

Despite the mentioned features, a tubular element subject to axial crushing has the disadvantage of
exhibiting an unstable deformation mode, with the possibility to develop local buckling and bending
phenomena during loading. [41].Instead, lateral compression of tubular elements has a more stable
deformation mode and a progressive response. In addition, the tubular elements do not destabilize when
 Releasable to NATO

loaded off-axis. Experimental studies have shown that the metallic tubular element subjected to a lateral
compression exhibits localized deformation phenomena, which can be treated as plastic hinges [42, 39].

6. System engineered

The main constraints to the design of a connector are related with functional aspects. The connector shall
contain the tubular elements therein, in an initial undisturbed position. Upon the lateral compression
(Figure 4) there will be a change to a deformed position. In an occurrence of rebound or suction phase the
breaking apart of the connector must be prevented, otherwise the façade panel will fall (see figure 10 for a
detail of the connector).

(b) Vertical cross section –

(a) 3D application example (c) EAC detail
deformation model

Figure 4 – Engineered Energy-absorption solution

According to [43], the resistance (pt) of a thin walled tubular element with diameter D, thickness t and
length L, subjected to lateral compression between rigid plates, can be estimated from equation (3), where
delta is the compression displacement, or deformation, and 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦 the yield stress of the material (evaluated
by a uniaxial tensile test).
2∙𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦 ∙𝑡𝑡 2 ∙𝐿𝐿
𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 = (3)
𝛿𝛿 2
𝐷𝐷∙�1−� �
𝐷𝐷

The energy absorbed can be obtained by integrating equation (3) along δ

𝛿𝛿 𝛿𝛿
𝐸𝐸𝛿𝛿 = ∫0 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 2 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦 ∙ 𝑡𝑡 2 ∙ 𝐿𝐿 ∙ 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 � � (4)
𝐷𝐷

7. Experimental Program

7.1 Material properties and specimens

Four reinforced concrete façade panels were precast (figure 5), using two different concrete mixtures on
two different days. Uniaxial compression tests were carried out and the compressive strength of concrete
was evaluated according to EN 12390-3 [12], using six cubic specimens collected from each concrete
mixture and tested in pairs at 7, 14 and 21 days of age.
The results were adjusted through an Eurocode 2 curve, to the age of the concrete at the test and average
concrete’s compressive strength and Young’s modulus were estimated as fcm=52,8MPa.
 Releasable to NATO

The façade panels were 2,0 m x 2,6 m and 0,12 m thick and the reinforcement was #φ5//0,15 in the outer
face and #φ10//0,20 in the inner face, with fyk = 500 MPa.

Figure 5 – Reinforced Concrete façade panel detail

The EAC are made of steel thin walled (TW) circular tubes, confined in a box. The aim is to maximize
the number of plastic hinges resulting from the deformation of the tubular elements, maintaining the
integrity of the box and the panel in the process of energy-absorption. Figures 6 and 7 present the
geometry and the dimensions of the tube arrangements (specimens) considered in this study and eligible
for placement inside the steel box. Different configurations were designed and tested. Tables 1 and 2
present the sizes and the main mechanical properties of the elements used. All boxes result from the
welding of 8 mm thick steel plates. In order to assess the tubes’ deformation modes during the tests, side
openings were created on boxes faces. The EAC elements were manufactured in accordance with EN
10025-2 and EN 10305-3 standards.

Figure 6 – Tube arrangements eligible for in-box placement

 Releasable to NATO

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 7 – Box:(a) Type A; (b) Type B; (c) Type C

Table 1 – Dimensions of the boxes [mm]

Box B yc B1 H1 B2 H2 e w wv φ a
A 125 60 115 105 97 105
B 200 67,5 195 105 177 105 8 15 33 12 14
C 200 100 195 145 177 145

Table 2 - Main properties of EAC elements

Eleme Standa Material fy fu εsu C Mn Si P S Al N
nt rd [MP [MP [% [% [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
a] a] ] ]
Plates EN S235JR 235 360 20 0,1 1,50 - 0,04 0,04 - 0,01
9 5 5 4
φ80x2, DX51D+Z2 397 435 18, 0,0 0,14 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,03 -
0 75 5 3 3 1 6 8 7

7.2 Selection of the testing configuration

Before the blast campaign, quasi-static testsof the EAC configurations shown in Figure 10 were
performed. For these tests an Instron 8800D universal testing machine with an adjustable hydraulic clamp
system and 250 kN load capacity was used. The specimens were centred with the loading shaft between
two steel bearing plates, fixed to the heads of the testing machine. The loading was applied with
displacement control and with a speed of 0.4 mm/s. Both the load and the displacement between heads
were recorded using a data logger, with an acquisition rate of 10 Hz. The specimens were tested up to a
displacement level prior to the closure limit of the box, thus avoiding the maximum deformable stroke
and likely damaging the test instrument. The main goal of this test was to obtain the force-displacement
curves of the specimens (Figure 8) for EAC analysis.
A B C D E
60
50
40
Load [kN]

30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement [mm]
Figure 8 – Force displacement curves for the different arrangements

As expected, specimen E has shown the best performance in terms of energy absorption (area under the
curve) so it was chosen to take part in the blast testing campaign.
 Releasable to NATO

The performance of arrangements of the EAC in terms of total energy absorption (EA)was evaluated
through the methodology proposed by [44]. In [45] can be found the details. As shown in Table 3,
arrangement E presented the best behaviour.

Table 3 – Energy absorbing characteristics

Specimen M PCF δmax EA
[Kg] [KN] [mm] [J]
A 6,8 15,6 50 394
B 14,4 9,2 50 297
C 14,9 40,0 50 1276
D 17,8 9,9 80 547
E 18,7 53,1 80 1815
PCF – Peak Crushing Force (given by testing
machine)
δmax – Stroke
EA – Energy absorbed

7.3 Testing setup and methodology

Fig. 9 shows the scheme of the test setup and the blast test campaign is presented in Table 4. EAC model
E was used in all the test specimens except in specimen 3 (R), where the four EAC were closed (without
tubes inside), to serve as reference. The difference between this one and the other specimens was
assessed. Specimens1 and 2 were tested under the same conditions. Specimen 4 had larger explosive
charge (50% increase) and was conducted to explore the protective system behaviour. The explosive was
an ORICAS’ dynamite Eurodyn 2000™, which has an approximately 0,75 strength factor in relation to
TNT for the amount used. A monitoring system was developed as well to measure protective system
maximum displacements. Residual deflections and cracking widths were also measured (figure 10).

Figure 9 – Test setup

 Releasable to NATO

(a) (b)

Fig 10 – EAC; (a) before blast test; (b) after blast test

Table 4 – Results synthesis of the blast campaign

Specimen 1 2 3 (Ref.) 4

Z [𝑚𝑚⁄ 3�𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾] 1,06 1,06 1,06 0,92

Ir [MPa.ms] 0,617 0,617 0,617 0,689

Protection system
Max Displacement panel ysp [mm] 60 58 40 89

Energy-absorption Connectors
Max Displacement connector ymc [mm] 24 28 0 45

Residual deflection[mm] 3,0 3,0 3,5 8,0

Max Def ymp=ysp-ymc [mm] 36 30 40 44

7.4 Analysis of the results

The most important considerations from the blast testing were the following:
The boxes of the EAC remained structurally intact after the test. As expected, panels have shown a
bidirectional bending, predominantly along larger span. Cracking was detected in the mid-span area
(panel edges and bottom face). The larger crack width: 0,20mm in test 4 and 0,15mm in the other ones.
Deformation in tubes of the bottom layers was very small, and no localized buckling was noticed,
indicating that the use of this type of protective system materializes a way to reduce the transmission of
the blast effects to the structure; the deformation of the EAC also indicates an adequate stiffness relation
between the panel and the EAC, allowing both to deform and absorb the energy from the explosion;
The reduction of the panel maximum deflection (Max Def ymp) with the introduction of EAC was over
25% to the same charge level, when comparing test 3 (ref) with tests 1 and 2. However, increasing the
charge about 50% (test 4) the increase in deflection was 10% in comparison with the reference.

Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn:

The Protective System presented an excellent behaviour in terms of load distribution and transmission to
the EAC, not registering any phenomenon of localized deformation;
For lower explosive loads (test 1 and 2), the Protective System dissipated energy mainly through the
flexural deformation of the façade panel; for the upper explosive load (about 50% higher than the lower
one), the panel deformation increased by a small percentage when compared to the reference specimen
(10%) and the maximum Protective System displacement increased considerably (75%); the increase in
the maximum displacement was absorbed mainly by the deformation of the connectors; the EAC proved
to be effective in absorbing the increase of energy associated with the increase of the blast loads;
 Releasable to NATO

The developed Protective System meets the conditions to be developed and adopted in both new and
existing structures in an effective, practical and efficient way.

Aknowlegdement
The research reported herein was conducted in cooperation between Portuguese Army, Instituto Superior
Técnico and Universidade Nova de Lisboa as part of a project funded by the Portuguese Foundation for
the Science and Technology, Proc. 31046. “Protection of Strategic Buildings against Blast Actions –
PROTEDES”

References

[1] Kinney, Graham, Explosive Shocks in Air, 2nd edition, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1985.
[2] TNO Green Book, Methods for determination of possible damage to people and objetcts resulting
from releases of hazardous materials (CPR 16E), Netherlands: Comitte for the Prevention of
Disasters due toDangerous Substances, 1992.
[3] Krauthammer, T., Modern Protective Structures, United States: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis
Group, 2008.
[4] D. Nabais, L. Cardoso, G. Gomes and E. Júlio, “Proteção de edifícios contra explosões através do
reforço dos elementos estruturais com novas camadas de betões especiais,” in Encontro Nacional
Betão Estrutural 2018, Lisboa, 2018.
[5] S. Barnett, “Explosion and Impact Resistance of Ultra-High Performance Fibre-Reinforced
Concrete,” 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/chemical-
manufacturing-chemicalproduct/4065888-1.html. [Accessed 21 August 2009].
[6] J. Xu, C. Wu, H. Xiang, Y. Su, Zhong-Xian, Q. Fang and H. Hao, “Behaviour of ultra high
performance fibre reinforced concrete columns subjected to blast loading,” Engineering structures,
118, pp. 97-107, 2016.
[7] M. Bazan and C. Oswald, “Blast Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Components
Retrofitted with FRP,” Protection Engineering Consultants, 4203 Gardendale, Suite C112, San
Antonio, TX 78229, 2010.
[8] G. Gomes, Reutilização de Edifícios correntes para fins operacionais - Blast Assessment, Lisboa:
Instituto Universitário Militar, 2016.
[9] R. D. Clay Naito and B. Bewick, “Use of Precast Concrete Walls for Blast Protection,” Journal Of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, September/October, pp. 454-463, 2011.
[10] C. F. Johnson, “Concrete Masonry Wall Retrofit Systems for Blast protection,” Texas A&M
University, Texas, 2013.
[11] W. C., D. Oehlersa, R. M., J. Leachc and W. A., “Blast testing of ultra-high performance fibre and
FRP-retrofitted concrete slabs,” Engineering structures, 31, pp. 2060 - 2069, 2009.
[12] H. Rebelo, “Numerical Simulation of Blast Effects on Fibre Grout RC Panels,” Dissertação para
obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Engenharia Civil - Perfil Estruturas, Faculdade de Ciências e
Tecnologia da Universidade Novas de Lisboa, Monte da Caparica, 2015.
[13] M. Gonçalves, “Reforço de Placas de Betão Armado com Argamassas Armadas para Acções de
Explosão,” Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia - Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Monte da Caparica,
2015.
[14] J. Davidson, C. Newberry, M. Hammons and B. Bewick, “Finite Element Simulation and
Assessment of Single-Degree-of-Freedom Prediction Methodology for Insulated Concrete Sandwich
Panels Subjected to Blast Loads,” Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing
Directorate, Tyndall Air Force Base, 2010.
[15] M. Goel and V. Matsagar, “Blast-Resistant Design of Structures,” Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000188, 2014.
[16] L. Cardoso, “Desenvolvimento de um Sistema de Proteção de Estruturas de Betão contra Explosões -
Painel Sanduíche com Núcleo Dissipador,” Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, 2017.
[17] C.-C. Liang, M.-F. Y. and P.-W. Wu, “Optimum design of metallic corrugated core sandwich panels
subjected to blast loads,” Ocean Engineering 28, pp. 825-861, 2001.
 Releasable to NATO

[18] R. Alberdi, J. Przywara and K. Khandelwal, “Performance evaluation of sandwich panel systems for
blast mitigation,” Engineering Structures, pp. 2219-2130, 2013.
[19] S. Thompson, H. Muchnick, H.-J. Choi, D. McDowell, J. K. Allen and F. Mistre, “Robust Materials
Design of Blast Resistant Panels,” in 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization
Conference, Portsmouth, Virginia, 2006.
[20] F. Zhua, L. Zhaoa, G. Lua and Z. Wanga, “Deformation and failure of blast-loaded metallic
sandwich panels—Experimental investigations,” International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 , p.
937–951, 2008.
[21] C.-s. Shim, d.-h. Shin and n.-r. Yun, “Pressure-Impulse Diagram of Multi-Layered Aluminum Foam
Panels Under Blast Pressure,” ournal of Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 284-
295, 2013.
[22] D. Karagiozova, G. Langdon and G. Nurick, “Blast attenuation in Cymat foam core sacrificial
claddings,” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, p. 758–776, 2010.
[23] V. Nesterenko, “Shock (Blast) Mitigation by “Soft” Condensed Matter,” in MRS Symposium, Proc.,
vol. 759, San Diego, 2003.
[24] T. João, “Comportamento de painéis sandwich de betão armado sujeitos a ação de explosão,”
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnololia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Monte da Caparica, 2016.
[25] H. Wadley, K. Dharmasenaa, Y. Chenb, P. Dudtb, D. Knightb, R. Charetteb and K. Kiddyc,
“Compressive response of multilayered pyramidal lattices during underwater shock loading,”
International Journal of Impact Engineering 35, p. 1102–1114, 2008.
[26] G. Imbalzano, P. Tran, T. D. Ngo and P. V. Lee, “A numerical study of auxetic composite panels
under blast loadings,” Composite Structures, pp. 339-352, 2016.
[27] Q. Liu, “Literature Review: Materials with Negative Poisson's Ratios and Potential Applications to
Aerospace and Defense,” Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Air Vehicles Division, ,
Australia, 2006.
[28] M. Dawson, “Composite plates with a layer of fluid-filled, reticulated foam for blast protection of
infrastructure,” International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36, p. 1288–1295, 2009.
[29] G. Ball and R. East, “Shock and blast attenuation by aqueous foam barriers: influences of barrier
geometry,” Shock Waves, 9, pp. 37-47, 1999.
[30] M. Grujicic, R. Yavari, J. Snipes and S. Ramaswami, “A zeolite absorbent/nano-fluidics protection-
based blast and ballistic-impact-mitigation system,” J Mater Sci, 50, DOI 10.1007/s10853-014-8779-
x, pp. 2019-2037, 2015.
[31] Zhua, Feng; Zhaoa, Longmao; Lua, Guoxing; Wanga, Zhihua, “Deformation and failure of blast-
loaded metallic sandwich panels—Experimental investigations,” International Journal of Impact
Engineering 35, p. 937–951, 2008.
[32] D. Lavarnway, “Evaluating the Use of Ductile Envelope Connectors for Improved Blast Protection
of Buildings,” Case Western Reserve University, 2013.
[33] Y. Wang, J. Y. R. Liew, S. C. Lee, X. Zhai and W. Wang, “Crushing of a novel energy absorption
connector with curved plate and aluminum foam as energy absorber,” Thin walled structures, vol.
111, pp. 145-154, 2017.
[34] M. G. Whitney, “Blast Damage Mitigation Using Reinforced Concrete Panels and Energy Absorbing
Connectors,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh DoD Explosives Safety Seminar, Las Vegas,
1996.
[35] T. Reddy, “Guist and marble revisited—on the natural knuckle radius in tube inversion,” Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 34 , pp. 761-768, 1992.
[36] L. Guist and D. Marble, “Prediction of the inversion load of a circular tube,” NASA, USA, 1966.
[37] J. Yang, M. Luo, Y. Hua and G. Lu, “Energy absorption of expansion tubes using a conical-
cylindrical die: experiments and numerical simulation,” Int. J. Mech. Sci 52, pp. 716-725, 2010.
[38] J. Tanaskovic, D. Milkovic, V. Lucanin and G. Franklin, “Experimental investigations of the
shrinking-splitting tube collision energy absorber,” Thin Wall, pp. 142-147, 2015.
[39] A. Baroutaji, M. Gilchrist and Olabi, “Quasi-static, impact and energy absorption of internally nested
tubes subjected to lateral loading,” Thin-Walled Struct, 98, pp. 337-350, 2016.
[40] A. Alghamdi, “Collapsible impact energy absorbers: an overview,” Thin-Walled Structures 39, pp.
189-213, 2001.
 Releasable to NATO

[41] A. Baroutaji, M. Sajjia and a. A.-G. Olabi, “On the crashworthiness performance of thin-walled
energy absorbers: Recent advances and future developments,” Thin-Walled Structures, 118, pp. 137-
163, 2017.
[42] Y. Wang, J. Y. R. Liew, S. C. Lee and W. Wang, “Experimental and analytical studies of a novel
aluminum foam filled energy absorption connector under quasi-static compression loading,” Eng.
Struct, 131, pp. 136-147, 2017.
[43] J. A. DeRuntz and P. G. Hodge, “Crushing of a Tube Between Rigid Plates,” Journal. Applied
Mechanics, vol. 30, no.3, p. 391, 1963.
[44] C. Magee and P. Thornton, “Design Considerations in Energy Absorption by Structural Collapse,”
SAE Paper No. 780434, 1978.
[45] V. Pereira, “Sistema Inovador de Protecção de Edifícios face a Explosões, composto por Painéis de
Fachada em Betão Armado e Conectores em Aço de Parede Fina com Capacidade de Absorção de
Energia,” Academia Militar/ Instituto Superior Técnico , Lisboa, 2017.
[46] Baker et al, Explosion Hazard and Evaluation, Baker, W.; Cox, P., Westine, P., Kulesz, J. Strehlow,
R., Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V., 1983.
[47] D. Barros, Eplosivos, artifícios e agressivos químicos, Lisboa: Academia Militar, 1984.
[48] DoD, “Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, UFC 3-340-02,” 2008. [Online].
Available: <www.wbdg.org/ccb/ DOD/UFC/ufc_3_340_02.pdf>. [Accessed 14 Maio 2011].
[49] UK MoD, Military Engineering, Volume IX, Force Protection Engineering, Part 2 - Structures and
Security Systems, UK: UK Ministry of Defense, 2008.
[50] ASCE, Design of blast resistant building in petrochemical facilities, US: American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1997.
[51] H. Brode, “Numerical Solution of spherical blast waves, Research Memorandum,” Rand corporation,
1954.
[52] G. Lu and T. Yu, Energy absorption of structures and materials, Cambridge England: Woodhead
Publishing, CRC Press, 2003.
[53] D. M. L.R. Guist, “Prediction of the inversion load of a circular tube,” NASA, USA, 1966.