See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264159234

Numerical FE Modelling of Occupant Injury in Soil-Vehicle Blast Interaction

Conference Paper · September 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2325.0564

CITATIONS READS

5 511

4 authors, including:

Michael Saleh D. K. Shanmugam

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation 17 PUBLICATIONS   498 CITATIONS   
40 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Lyndon Edwards
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
247 PUBLICATIONS   4,019 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DMTC P 9.14 View project

WELDES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Saleh on 03 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 28th International Symposium on Ballistics
Numerical FE modelling of occupant injury in soil-vehicle blast interaction
Authors: Michael Saleh1,2
Richard Smith2,3
Dinesh Shanmugam2,3
Lyndon Edwards1,2

1
Institute of Materials Engineering, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.
Locked Bag 2001, Kirrawee DC, NSW, 2232. Australia
2
Defence Materials Technology Centre (DMTC), Level 2, 24 Wakefield St. Hawthorn. VIC
3122. Australia
3
Protected Vehicles, Land & Air Systems, THALES, Finn Street, Bendigo, Vic 3550, Australia
 In ensuring occupant safety, analysis of blasts in soils has become
increasingly important in evaluating the influence of the soil properties on the
structural integrity of nearby structures. The proliferation of IED’s (improvised
explosive devices) and land mines in areas where soil properties are unknown
poses a significant threat to the occupants of armoured vehicle. It is therefore
important to increase the accuracy of the numerical analysis by incorporating
more sophisticated material models whilst maintaining mathematical
tractability. The current study aims to incorporate a multi-physics blast FE
simulation In LS-DYNA to investigate the interaction of soil blast with an
idealised V-Hull vehicle. Using the Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices
model the authors evaluated he dynamic response index (DRIz) and the head
injury criterion (HIC), along with the acceleration and forces of the vehicle’s
underbody, to assess the suitability of numerical modelling as a tool to optimise
hull shape and reduce occupant injury.

Introduction

In assessing the impact of IED’s on the occupant’s safety in armoured

personal carriers, the authors’ have evaluated the physical and mechanical
response of an idealised vehicle and a 50th percentile male Hybrid III model.
The high accelerations and pressures associated with the blast events where
evaluated by coupling the vehicle to an ALE model comprising a soil test bed in
accordance with the STANAG 4569 [1] and the Mine Threat annex AEP-55
Vol2 [2]. It was previously found [3,4] that for the case of landmine detonation
the CONWEP model fails to account for charge shape, shadowing, soil
composition or confinement effects. The model also largely fails to accurately
predict both peak pressures and impulse for near field blast regimes. Employing
the FHWA soil model and the FSI (fluid structure interaction) coupling allows
for the evaluation of the material response and occupant response to a blast
event. Similar published studies by Souli et.al [5] Chafi et.al [6] and Bouamoul
[7] have demonstrated the successful use of the ALE method in air blast analysis
but few studies [8] are published in open literature for the analysis of coupled
soil vehicle interaction with evaluation of occupant injury.
STANAG 4569 and its Mine Threat annex AEP-55 Vol2 specifies a
number of human injury criteria, or metrics that must be evaluated for the
vehicle platform under investigation to be certified to the particular mine threat
size and position selected. During a blast test these criteria are measured via a
50th percentile male Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD’s),
commonly known as crash test dummies, which are instrumented to record data
such as accelerations, forces, deflections, moments and pressures at critical
locations of the body. After processing the data using appropriate signal post
processing methodologies these can then be compared to the limits of the injury
criteria also outlined in AEP-55 to determine if the vehicle platform can be
certified to the threat level under investigation.
Three of the mandatory injury criteria outlined within table E2 of AEP-
55 [2] are the Lower Tibia Axial Compression Force, the Dynamic Response
Index (DRIz) and Head Injury Criteria (HIC15). Classically for a blast test
conducted under the conditions specified in AEP-55 the most difficult injury
criterions to conform to are the Lower Tibia Force and the DRIz. These criteria
represent the regions of a seated ATD that are most closely in contact with the
vehicle and show particular sensitivity to the test procedure. The Lower Tibia
receives an impulse directly from the floor structure through the foot and the
DRIz (which is a measure of spinal compression outlined in detail below)
receives its impulse through the seating system and lower moulded buttocks pad
of the ATD.
The response of any particular region of the ATD to a blast event may be
generated via local structural deformations, such as a floor plate bulging, or
primarily via the global effects of the entire vehicle accelerating which is
typically much slower. For the current vehicle study designing a flooring system
was not an objective therefore the Lower Tibia Force, which can be highly
affected by the local effects of the floor, is not considered here as a comparative
metric.
The primary metric as a differentiator for this study is the DRIz which in
reality is usually less influenced by local effects and reacts more in response to
the global motion of the vehicle. This was selected as more suitable for this
investigation as the change in global motion of the vehicle due to the relative
position of the mine threat is a basic outcome of the simulation. While the seat
employed in this study is also simplistic it does employ base and back foam
cushion components with uniquely designed realistic shapes and foam
compression characteristics. As such the acceleration generated within the
simulation utilised for the DRIz calculation can be considered as reasonably
representative of a real world blast.
As a secondary injury metric the HIC15 criterion was selected. As the
impulse transfer path is considerably further and more damped to the seat
acceleration than the DRIz, except for the case of a direct head strike, the HIC15
is expected to be far less sensitive to the change of mine position under vehicle.
This is somewhat highlighted by the fact that this criteria has only recently been
included within Edition 2 of AEP-55 as an injury metric, prior to this edition
there was no HIC criterion considered for mine blast events.

Soil model

In analysing the soil it is imperative to consider its shear strength as the shear
and effective stress concepts are used to describe the failure and the stress states
of the soil respectively. This is often done through the Mohr-Coulomb shear
failure envelope shown in Equation 1.
(1)
Where is the shear stress, is the soil cohesion, in the normal
stress and is the friction angle. Earlier studies by the current authors [3,4]
investigated the use of a hydrocode for the analysis of both ballistic and blast
events; primarily Lagrangian based analysis of kinetic energy impactors and
ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) analysis of blast events. The successful
coupling of the soil to the flying plate test is extended to the idealised land
vehicle for the assessment of occupant safety. In-depth discussion of all the
parametric constituents can be found in [9] but a brief note is given herein as to
main attributes of the model. The *MAT_FHWA yield surface is described by:

 y   P sin   J 2 K ( ) 2  a 2 sin 2   c cos   0 (2)

Where is the yield surface, P is the pressure, is a function based on the
√
Lode angle and is equal to ( ), are the cohesion and angle
of shear resistance respectively and the ‘a’ parameter is used to correct the
hyperbolic Mohr-Coulomb approximation and is equal to . Other
studies [11-13] have shown that the amount of moisture within the soil has a
significant effect on soil ejecta, the kinetic energy imparted to neighbouring
structures and the formation of craters. The model accounts for moisture content
and computes the pore pressure as a function of the volumetric strain and the
collapsing air voids which, in the absence of permeability formulations, causes
the pore (water dependent) pressure to rise. Increases in pore water pressure and
the subsequent reduction in effective soil stress are essential in describing the
loading capacity of the soil. High deformation rates are also known to reduce the
residual shear strength of the soils [14] and these are also implemented in the
model. In light of the models stability with low confinement and through
evaluation of the soil pressures in the vicinity of the blast, 5-12 MPa, the soil’s
response is thought to lie largely in the linear region of the bulk modulus as
shown in Figure 1 . The plateauing of the bulk modulus upon pore collapse is
thus a reasonable approximation of the soil behaviour. The final soil parameters
for prairie type soil [15] with 10% moisture is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Soil input data for MAT_FHWA

variable value variable value
Ρ (density soil) 2200 kg/m3 Φ (friction angle) 9.27°
ρw (density water) 1000 kg/m3 D1 0.0001
SG (specific gravity) 2.65 D2 0.000243
G (shear modulus) 3.764 MPa MCONT (moisture) 0.1
Dint (strain at initial
K (bulk modulus) 5.457 MPa damage) 0.0005
Kskeleton 0.273 MPa Vdfm (void energy) 20
C (cohesion) 0.114 MPa Φres (residual friction angle) 1.5°

Figure 1 Material data for Prairie soil adapted from [15]

Air and Explosive models

The 6 kg TNT solid explosive is buried 50 mm below the soils surface and is
modelled using a *MAT_HIGH_EXPLOSIVE_BURN previously. The explosive
product is modelled using the Jones, Wilkins and Lee (JWL) EOS with the parameter
given in pressure term given by:
    R1V     R2V E
P  A1  e  B1  e  (3)
 R1V   R2V  V
Where, A,B, R1,R2,  are material constants usually derived from cylindrical
explosive testing or thermo chemical kinetic simulations. V is relative volume and E is
energy per initial unit volume. The first term of the JWL is the high pressure term
where the relative volume is close to 1. The second intermediate pressure term applies
when V is close to 2. As V becomes larger in the expanded state the EOS reduces to the
E
last term, [16].
V
The Air is modelled using a *MAT_NULL material model specifying only
density and a linear polynomial EOS with the pressure term given by:
P  C0  C1  C2  2  C3  3  (C4  C5   C6  2 ) E (4)
1
Where, C0 , C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , C5 , C6 are material parameters;    1 ; V, relative
V
volume; and E, Energy per initial unit volume.
The cut-off pressure and viscosity were set to zero as viscosity was found to be
negligible and to ensure the pressure stays positive. The polynomial EOS can be
reduced to an ideal gas type relation by setting C0, C1, C2, C3=0 and C4=C5 =  -1=0.4.
To initialise the atmospheric pressure of 101 kPa, the relation below can be used:
 (5)
P  (  1) E
0
Where P is the atmospheric Pressure,  is the specific heat ratio;  and  0 are
in the current and initial densities respectively and E=253.2 kPa is the energy per unit
volume.
Table 2 JWL parameters for cast TNT, 250mm diameter × 80 mm height as per [2].
variable Value
(Density) 1632 kg/m3
D(Detonation velocity) 7070 m/s
Chapman-Jouget Pressure 20.50 GPa
EOS (JWL)
A 524.40 GPa
B 4.90 GPa
R1 4.579
R2 0.85
ω 0.23
E0 (Energy of detonation) 7.1 GJ

Vehicle Hull Model

The vehicle is largely modelled using rigid shell elements with the
exception of the 20 mm thick V-hull on the underside of the vehicle, modelled
with solid elements, which is intended to divert the force of the blast away from
the vehicle and plastically deform to absorb the blast energy. The three
parameter Johnson-Cook (JC) constitutive model [17] was used to compute the
flow stress of materials under high strain:
   
 eq  A  B n 1  C ln  *1  (T *) m
(2)
Where is the flow stress, ε is the effective plastic strain,  * =  0 is the
T  T0
dimensionless plastic strain rate, T *  is the homologous temperature
Tmelt  T0
and A, B, n, C and m are material constants. This phenomenological model
accounts for (i) the increase in yield stress due to strain hardening through
dislocation pile up (first bracket), (ii) the increase in yield and tensile strength
with increased strain rate (second bracket) and (iii) the thermal softening of the
material (third bracket) due to thermal-plastic instability. The temperature
increase is assumed adiabatic, and can be calculated according to the following
relation:

 eq d
T   
0
C p
(3)
where, Cp is the specific heat of the material and ρ is its density. The Taylor-
Quinney coefficient, χ, has been set as 0.9 since high strain rate deformation is
generally characterised by the bulk conversion of the plastic work into adiabatic
heating of the specimen. Børvik et al [17] proposed a modified version of the
Johnson-Cook model, MJC. This model offered greater sensitivity to the strain
rate hardening component by modifying the formula to include the strain rate
hardening term, ‘C’, as the exponent, in lieu of inclusion as a multiplicative
constant as per Eq.1 .The MJC model can be written as:
 eq  A  B n 1   *C 1  (T *)m  (4)
This modified version of the JC is used in the current study along with the
material parameters specified by Børvik et al [18] for ARMOX 560T shown in
Table 3.
Table 3. MJC data for ARMOX 560T [18]
A B n C m ̇ s-1 Tr (K) Tm(K)
(Mpa) (MPa)
Armox 560T 2030 568 1.0 0.001 1.0 5E-4 298 1800

A full 3D analysis of the blast simulation was carried using a 6 m

diameter and 4.1 m high cylindrical domain split between the air, 60% and the
soil, 40%. The ALE domain was meshed using 8 node, 1 point integration ALE
multi-material elements with a non-reflecting boundary condition was imposed
on the top and periphery of the cylindrical domain; the bottom cylindrical face
was fully constrained with no inflow/outflow conditions. Based on the pressure
wave velocity, acceleration history profiles, computational limits and previous
studies [3,4], the final computational domain is realised. Fluid-structure
coupling was achieved through the
*CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID keyword with appropriate
MMALE coupling parameters. The blast event was simulated for an initial
phase of 15 ms upon which the model was restarted with the ALE components
deleted (i.e. Air, Explosive and soil). The final simulation was run on a 16 core
HPC Linux cluster up to a termination time of 100 ms. The final FE model in
shown in Figure 2 and the associated vehicle data in Table 4
 Figure 2 Vehicle-ALE domain setup

Table 4 Vehicle data

Component Name MASS (kg) Vehicle Dimension (mm)
MAIN-HULL 5375.19 Overall width (W) 1968
FLOOR 319.898 Overall height (H) 2384
DMTC-SEAT-BACK-Cushion 4.5598 Overall Length (L) 4450
DMTC-SEAT-BASE-Cushion 3.249079 Wheel Base (WB) 3122
DMTC-SEAT-FRAME 22.29335 X: -162.9
Rear Left Wheel 99.99825 CG Vehicle Y: -7.4
Front Left Wheel 99.99825 Z: 2994.8
Front Right Wheel 99.99824 X: 0
Rear Right Wheell 99.99825 CG Charge Y: 0
AXLE 1 181.1787 Z: 1671.8
AXLE 2 181.167
Solid Belly plate 875.3254
Total Mass 7362.85

Dummy positioning

During a real world mine blast test the anthropomorphic test device
(ATD) is placed on the seat in a position naturally conforming under gravity to
the seating system that it is placed on. Within any FE simulation this normally
natural process is problematic as the shapes of the base and back cushions of the
seat are general shapes and do not match the mating surfaces of the ATD.
During the simulation model setup the ATD is initially placed in a position as
close to the seat cushion components as possible without generating any
overlapping geometry which can cause significant problems during the solving
process. This process however leaves the ATD initially not in contact with the
seat cushions as indicated in Figure 3(a).
Non-contact gaps between the seat and ATD can result in incorrect load
transfer effecting the injury criteria results under investigation. Under the
normal 1g gravitational field enabled during a blast simulation the time taken for
the ATD to compress into the seat and reduce oscillatory motion to an
acceptable level is far longer in duration than the blast simulation event itself.
To retain this long initial solve time for each solve iteration is unacceptable
therefore a seat initiation approach was adopted.
 Figure 3 H-III ATD (a) non-contact (b) conforming contact upon initialisation

A two stage initialisation scheme was adopted to alleviate the

aforementioned problem. In the first step the ATD was allowed to settle into the
seat under a 1g gravitational load until the oscillations reduced under global
damping to a virtually settled state. From this state new instances of the seat
cushions and the entire ATD along with the pre-stressed states of the deformed
components materials were written out as the starting state for the mine blast
simulation itself. This state can be seen in Figure 3(b).This process ensures
correct initial contact between the ATD and the seat which can be critical for
very short duration events and eliminates the need to settle the dummy for each
modelling iteration.
The seat design for this study comprises a rigid base and back shell plate
that was logically linked to the rigid floor plate of the vehicle so as to enable
direct acceleration transfer from the global vehicle motion. The low density
foam seat cushions were then attached to this rigid seat structure. In the
aforementioned setup, shown in Figure 4 (a), the impulse attenuation properties
of the seat are purely due to the compression characteristics of the seat foam
material and not through structural deformations. The stress normalised
compression curve for the low density seat foam is shown in Figure 4 (b). A 4
point seat belt harness was added to the model for completeness, however,
internal experimental work show these pose no significant influence on the
injury criteria results as the impulse is largely in the vertical direction.

Figure 4 Plots of (a) Seat coupling to structure and (b) Seat Cushion Foam Compression Curve
Results and Discussion

The results of the vehicle’s response, Figure 5, shows the interaction

between the detonation products, the soil and the steel plate. The model captured
the inverted cone phenomena mentioned earlier, with the soil forming a crater
and an annulus around the detonation products as the explosive rapidly expands.
The under vehicle blast simulation shows a prolonged FSI in comparison to the
tyre track simulation where the blast product travel across the side of the
vehicle. Evolution of the stresses and the strains in the deformable hull, Figure
6, shows large buckling of the hull in the Under Vehicle (UV) simulations with
a pronounced plastic strain along the centre line. Local plastic yielding is less
apparent in the Tyre Track (TT) results. The Von-Mises stresses at t=5ms are
approximately 1-2 GPa and are more confined in the TT simulation indicating
very localised interaction. The reverse is true in the UV simulation with more
profuse stress distribution. In considering the small variations of the DRIz and
the HIC between the two simulations, which are discussed in the next section, it
is prudent to note the local deformation of the hull ultimately plays a significant
role in damping the global response of the vehicle hence the proximity of the
injury results.

Figure 5 Development of blast products and interaction with vehicle at (a) 1ms (b) 3ms and (c)
5ms for under vehicle (UV) and tyre track (TT) positioned charge.
Figure 6 Plot of (a) Von-Mises stress and (b) plastic strain of the deformable hull at 5ms.

The HIC is calculated on the basis of the resultant triaxial acceleration over a
maximum sampling time period usually either 15ms or 36ms. Within AEP-55
the 15ms sample time is stipulated therefore only the HIC15 result is generated.
The 15ms denotes the maximum period over which the resultant acceleration is
summed however the post processing software determines the actual sampling
period within that range that will create the highest HIC result depending on
the shape of the acceleration impulse. The actual period is that which lies
between t1 and t2 of the following HIC expression:
{[ ∫ ] } (5)

Where and √
The acceleration measurements are taken from an accelerometer mounted at
the centre of gravity within the head of the ATD as indicated in Figure 7 (b).
Each of the tri-axial accelerometer directional results recorded are conditioned
via a CFC1000 filter, as stipulated in AEP-55, before being transformed into a
resultant acceleration in line with the flow diagram shown below:

} √ [ ∫ ] (6)

The HIC15 plot, in Figure 7 (a), shows the resultant head acceleration and
an overall HIC15 result of 1.88 for the UV simulation and 1.078 for the TT
simulation, both of which are very low. The resultant acceleration trace
indicates an absence of any clearly defined acceleration peak which is
normally found for a head strike condition, therefore, it is clear that the low
HIC15 result generated primarily from the highly damped vertical impulse. The
 AEP-55 stipulates a maximum HIC15 injury criterion of 250, in light of this the
current results are thought to be less critical in evaluating occupant injury,
where no head impact occurs, and are more aligned to the global response of
the vehicle. Moreover, whilst the charge in the TT simulation is in closer
proximity to the ATD, the resultant head accelerations are less than those of
the UV simulation. The confining characteristics of the soil ensure that parts
of the vehicle outside the inverted blast cone are less severely impacted,
variations of the burial death or placement of the charge on the surface would
likely change these findings further and is the subject of ongoing research.

Figure 7 (a) HIC for under vehicle (UV) and Tyre Track (TT) simulation and (b) position of head
accelerometer

The Dynamic Response Index (DRIz) injury criterion is the dynamic

measure of the ATD spinal compression in the critical Z direction aligned
roughly along the spine central axis. Since the accelerations related to a mine
blast event are highly transient in nature and of short duration an appropriate
dynamic function is necessary to capture this behaviour. This function should
then be able to be referenced against a developed injury risk model of the
thoraco-lumbar spine region, the DRIz model meets these requirements [20].
The DRIz model is a general dimensionless mathematical model relating
the biomechanical compression of the spine by using a single mass-spring-
damper system as seen in Figure 8(a) and was first developed to describe the
impact to humans from aircraft ejection seat events [20].The input for the DRIz
model is the acceleration measured from the ATD pelvic block accelerometer in
its local Z direction. The output plot of this acceleration reading for the
simulated ALE blast for both models is shown in Figure 8(b) after being
inverted and conditioned via CFC1000 filter as required by AEP-55[2].
The system governing the pelvic movements is shown in Figure 8(a) and
the equation of motion is calculated through:
̈ ̈ ̇ (7)
Where ̈ = is the vertical acceleration, in the relative system displacement
and >0 in compression, is the damping coefficient and

√ is the natural system frequency.

The DRIZ is thus calculated through the following relation:
(8)
Figure 8 Plot of (a) DRIz damped model (b) pelvic acceleration for UV and TT and
The excitation acceleration of Figure 8(b) is input into the DRIz equation
and solved numerically for relative displacement and the corresponding DRIz
result data can be seen in Figure 9. Within the DRIz calculation the damping
coefficient and natural frequency ωn are set as constants of 0.224 and 52.9
radians/s respectively. These values were originally selected as representative of
a population of Air Force pilots with a mean age of 27.9 years [20].

The peak value of the DRIz trace, Figure 9, is 6.47 corresponding to the
under vehicle simulation. When compared against the upper limit of 17.7 as
permitted by AEP-55 [2] an assessment can be made as to the severity of any
injuries and qualify various components for energy absorption. This limit of
17.7 represents a 10% risk of an AIS 2+ (Abbreviated Injury Scale) severity
injury. A full description of this injury scale and its development is beyond the
scope of this document but can be found in TR-HFM-090 [20].
A direct z-axis spinal force (Fz) is also often examined as a metric for spinal
response. It is commonly found however that while this force is often sensitive
to seat design modifications the DRIz value does not exhibit the same sensitivity
and is often more difficult to influence. Deviations between these two spinal
metrics should however be expected due to the fact that the DRIz analysis
considers the dependency of an injury risk model (AIS 2+) as well as the
acceleration durations. As a general rule the DRIz value can be estimated if the
change in seat velocity is known and via the relation DRIz =4.ΔV. For a DRIz
value of 17.7 this relates to a ΔV of ~4.5m/s. This is only valid for short
duration events of generally less than 30ms. The peak achieved rigid body
vehicle velocities were 2.8 m/s at t= 5ms for the UV simulation and 1.35 m/s for
the TT simulations at t=4 ms.

Figure 9 DRIz results for UV and TT simulations

 Conclusion
The authors were able to assess the impact of soil-vehicle blast
interaction and use numerical simulation to ascertain the effects on the
occupants by calculating the DRIz and HIC injury criterions. A significant
reduction in injury can be achieved through large deformation of the vehicle
hulls and through shape optimisation to ensure redirection of the explosive
products. The metrics used to evaluate injury did not exceed the stipulated
standards but the local and global link between the different injury criterions
was better elucidated. The successful coupling of the soil and the vehicle in the
current preliminary works allows for the investigation of additional energy
attenuation features, provides the basis for the design of occupant-centric
vehicles and reduces the need for exhaustive full vehicle testing.
Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the support and funding of the
Defence Materials Technology Centre (DMTC), which was established and is
supported by the Australian Government’s Defence Future Capability
Technology Centre (DFCTC) initiative.
References
[1] STANAG 4569 Ed. 2 Protection Levels For Occupants of Armoured Vehicles (2012)
[2] NATO AEP-55, Volume 2 “Procedures for evaluating the protection level of logistic and
light armoured vehicles” (2006)
[3] Saleh, M; Edwards, L “Evaluation of a hydrocode in modelling NATO threats against steel
armour” Proc. of the 25th Int. Symp. on Ballistics. China (2010)
[4] Saleh, M; Edwards, L “Application of a soil model in the numerical analysis of landmine
interaction with protective structures.” Proc. of the 26th Int. Sym. on Ballistics. USA (2011)
[5] Souli, M; Ouahsine, A; Lewin, L “ALE formulation for fluid- structure interaction
problems” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanical Engineering.190:659-675 (2000)
[6] Chafi, M.S; Karami, G; Ziejewski, M “Numerical analysis of blast-induced wave
propagation using FSI and ALE multi-material formulations” Int. J of Impact Eng. 36:1269-
1275 (2009)
[7] Bouamoul, A; Nguyen-Dang, T.V “High explosive simulation using arbitrary Lagrangian-
Eulerian formulation” Defence R&D Canada- Valcartier (2008)
[8] Larsen, M.B; Demex, N; Jorgensen, K. C; “Landmine protection of armoured personnel
carrier m113” 6th European LS-DYNA User’s Conference (2007)
[9]Federal Highway Administration “Manual for LS-DYNA soil material model 147” Report
FHWA-HRT-04-095. US department of transport (2004)
[11]Hlady, S.L “Effect of soil parameters on land mine blast” 18th Military Aspects of Blast and
Shock (MABS) Conference, Germany (2004)
[12] Gruijicic, M; Pandurangan, B; Cheeseman, M.A “A computational analysis of detonation of
buried mines” Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures.2:363–387 (2006)
[13] Anderson Jr, C.El; Behner, T; Weiss, C.E “Mine blast loading experiments” Int. J of Impact
Eng.38:697-706 (2011)
[14] Saito,R; Fukuoka, H; Sassa K. “Experimental Study on the Rate Effect on the Shear
Strength”. Proceedings International Symposium Interpraevent Disaster Mitigation of Debris
Flows, Slope Failures and Landslides”, Niigata, Japan, Tokyo. pp.421-427. (2006)
[15]Fišerová, D “ Numerical analyses of buried mine explosions with emphasis on effect of soil
properties on loading” PhD thesis. Cranfield University (2006)
[16] Zukas, J.A; (Eds) “Explosive effects and applications” Springer-Verlag, New York. (1998)
[17] Johnson, G R; Cook, W,H “A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large
strains, high strain rates and high temperatures” Proc. Of the 7th Int. Sym. on Ballistics, The
Netherlands, pp. 541–547. (1983)
[18] Børvik, T; Hopperstad OS; Berstad, T; Langseth, M. “A computational model of
viscoplasticity and ductile damage for impact and penetration. European J of Mechanics
A/solids. 230:685-7122001:
[19] Børvik, T; Dey, S; Clausen, A.H “Perforation resistance of five different high-strength steel
plates subjected to small-arms projectiles” Int J of Impact Eng Vol 36 pp948-964 (2009)
[20] NATO , Final Report of HFM-090 Task Group 25.TR-HFM-090 Test Methodology for
Protection of Vehicle Occupants against Anti-Vehicular Landmine Effects (2007)

View publication stats