Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Experimental and numerical study of CFRP protective RC piers under

contact explosion
⁎
Lu Liua, Zhouhong Zonga, , Chao Gaob, Sujing Yuanc, Fan Loud
a
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
b
Institute of Defense Engineering, AMS, PLA, Luoyang 471023, China
c
School of Highway, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710064, China
d
Shanghai Municipal Engineering Design Institute (Group) Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200092, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the wake of the event of September 2001, the increasing terrorist attacks have been a destabilizing threat
Blast experiment around the world. Public infrastructures, such as tall buildings and traffic facilities, have become attractive
Numerical simulation bombing targets for terrorists. Crucial bridges subjected to great destruction from bomb attacks can contribute to
CFRP casualties, property loss and interruption of the transportation system. Bridge piers are the main axial bearing
RC piers
components that are common in bridge construction, and it can readily suffer damage under blast loading.
Contact explosion
Therefore, it should be necessary to explore protective measures for reinforced concrete (RC) piers to resist blast
loading. In this paper, carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) is chosen to protect RC piers under contact
explosion. Five piers, consisting of two unprotected piers and three CFRP protective piers, were constructed and
the explosion testing was conducted in the field. Additionally, finite element models of CFRP protective piers
were built, considering the contact between concrete and CFRP as well as the anisotropy of CFRP composite
material. The models were calculated using the Arbitrary Lagrange Euler (ALE) algorithm and validated by
experimental acceleration as well as damage extent. Then, the damage development and CFRP protective effect
for RC piers were further analysed. Finally, all specimens experienced local failure under contact explosion and
the simulative models were proved accurate for depth analysis.

1. Introduction
In the wake of the event of September 2001, the increasing terrorist
attacks have been a destabilizing threat around the world [1]. Public
infrastructures, such as tall buildings and traffic facilities, have become
attractive bombing targets for terrorists. Crucial bridges subjected to
great destruction from bomb attacks can contribute to casualties,
property loss and interruption of transportation system [2,3]. The
number of bridge collapses caused by explosion is 2.7 times greater
than that caused by earthquake worldwide [4].
Bridge structures mainly consist of superstructures and bridge piers
that are important components supporting the superstructure.
Meanwhile, seriously damaged piers under blast loading can lead to
bridge collapse. There are few design codes to guide the explosive
protection of bridge piers. First, it is necessary to study the damage
model and the mechanism for piers under blast loading. RC piers are
common in bridge constructions, resulting in many researches focusing
on RC piers. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) [5,6] has investigated the failure mode of piers under blast
loading, testing ten half-scale RC columns at a small standoff in the
field. It was concluded that the pier foot experienced shear failure when
the explosives were located near the ground. However, most piers had
sufficient shear capacity and experienced limited spalling without
breaching [7,8]. Yi et al. [9] have also studied RC piers under blast
loading, building a three-span RC bridge numerical model. The results
showed that bridge piers have six types of damage mechanisms in-
cluding the eroding of pier bottom concrete, shear of a pier from the
footing, rebar severance, breakage of the pier, spalling of the concrete
surface, and plastic hinge formation.
There are few researches on RC piers in bridge structures, but there
are some studies on RC columns in building structures, with many si-
milar conclusions. Codina et al. [10] constructed a RC specimen with a
square section and tested it in the field under a close-in blast loading
with results of concrete spalling at one end of the column and cracks
developing at the mid-height. In addition, Kyei et al. [11] studied the
effects of transverse reinforcement spacing on the blast resistance of RC

⁎
Corresponding author at: No.2 Southeast University Road, Jiangning District, Nanjing 211189, China.
E-mail address: zongzh@seu.edu.cn (Z. Zong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111658
Received 19 August 2018; Received in revised form 26 September 2019; Accepted 3 November 2019
0263-8223/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Lu Liu, et al., Composite Structures, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111658
L. Liu, et al.
columns and showed transverse reinforcement spacing and axial
loading significantly affected RC column behaviour under blast loading
at low-scaled distances. However, it is difficult to completely resist blast
loading for RC columns in buildings and bridges. Therefore, it should be
taken some measures to protect RC piers, such as CFRP sheet protec-
tion.
There are many available types of polymer composite materials for
strengthening and retrofitting RC structures [12], such as glass fibre
reinforced polymer (GFRP) and carbon fibre reinforced polymer
(CFRP). GFRP was made into an FRP tube, whose material character-
istics were fully utilized to protect RC columns. They have been applied
in many fields. For example, Fang et al. [13] used the GFRP to design a
large-scale composite bumper system (LCBS) for bridge against ship
collision and simulative analysis showed LCBS could increase the en-
ergy dissipation during collision for protecting bridge piers. Parghi
et al. [14] conducted nonlinear static pushover analysis for RC bridge
pier retrofitted with FRP composites under seismic loading. From the
explosion testing [15,16], the stability of columns can be improved by
GFRP tubes and local failures as well as global lateral displacements can
be reduced. Wood [17] used the traditional FRP tube and developed a
new type of FRP-VE tube with a visco-elastic hardening, damping, and
wave-modulating system, which was employed to protect RC columns
with a reduced scale of 1:4. Finally, the blast experiments showed that
FRP-VE tubes could effectively decrease local failures as well as per-
manent deformations of columns and FRP could confine concrete de-
struction. Another blast experiment on an FRP protective concrete
column was done by Echevarria et al. [18], followed by residual
bearing capacity testing. The post-explosive residual bearing capacity of
FRP tube protective concrete columns was remarkably improved com-
pared to unprotected columns. Based on the simulation, Mutalib et al.
[19] evaluated the failure mode and residual bearing capacity of FRP
protective RC columns and concluded that the blast-resistance capacity
of FRP protective columns can be obviously improved.
Although GFRP is more economical, Crawford et al. [20] re-
commended that CFRP was more available than GFRP for wrapping
piers due to the high tensile strength and stiffness that can protect the
concrete from expansion and it has been widely used for seismic
strengthening of bridge piers [21–23]. CFRP was also used to wrap
circular, rectangular, square and rhombus cross-section columns in fi-
nite element software, which showed that the bending capability of
CFRP protective columns can be improved under blast loading [24].
There are relatively few experimental studies with an emphasis on
numerical studies. Elsanadedy et al. [25] only studied CFRP protective
circular RC columns through simulation. The results showed that the
lateral residual deformations of CFRP protective columns decreased
under blast loading. Pan et al. [26] selected three different CFRP pro-
tective methods to protect circular RC columns under blast loading by
LS-DYNA, showing that the global bearing capacity and the resistance
capacity to local failure of circular RC columns were markedly im-
proved. Furthermore, CFRP can be used to protect concrete-filled steel
tube (CFST) columns in simulations [27] and have a confinement effect
on CFST columns, demonstrating that the global lateral deformation
and bending failure of columns can be effectively reduced.
According to the above research, RC piers are still the main research
object for researchers in explosion field. Various protective measures
for RC piers to resist blast loading have been proposed. Among these
measures, CFRP is a common composite material for piers, especially
circular piers. However, the dynamic response and damage mechanism
of CFRP protective RC piers under contact explosion are not understood
due to much attention on non-contact explosion. Therefore, this paper
mainly concentrates on studying the dynamic response and damage
model of CFRP protective RC piers under contact explosion using blast
experiment and numerical simulation. Five piers with a reduced scale of
1:3, consisting of two unprotected RC piers and three CFRP protective
RC piers, were tested in the field under contact explosion. The corre-
sponding numerical models considering the anisotropic material,
2
Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Table 1
Essential parameters of RC piers.
S1 S2 JS5 JS6 JS7
Number of CFRP layers None None One Two Three
Thickness of CFRP/mm – – 0.163 0.326 0.489
H0/mm 3500
D/mm 400
Concrete strength/Mpa 40
Longitudinal bars size/mm 10φ12
Yield strength of longitudinal 400
reinforcement/Mpa
Stirrup size/mm φ8
Yield strength of stirrup/Mpa 300
Note: H0 is effective height; D is cross-sectional diameter.
contact connection and strain rate were built using the Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) method according to experimental cases.
The accuracy of the models was validated by the experimental accel-
eration and damage extent, so the models can be used to analyse the
damage development mechanism and CFRP protective effect for RC
piers.
2. Blast experiment preparation
2.1. Specimen design
In this paper, to study the CFRP protective effect for RC piers under
blast loading, five circular RC piers are designed and constructed,
whose numbers are S1, S2, JS5, JS6 and JS7. S1 and S2 are the same
without any protection and JS5, JS6 and JS7 are protected by one, two
and three layers of CFRP sheet, respectively [28–31]. The five piers are
designed with a reduced scale of 1:3, whose essential parameters are
shown in Table 1. According to standard bridge drawing and bridge
design code in China, the pier diameter of urban bridge is generally
from 1200 mm to 1500 m. In order to obtain the failure mode of pier
easily, the specimen diameter is set to 400 mm by the reduced scale in
this study, while our group also consider other section sizes in reference
[29,30]. Then there are various pier heights in bridge construction,
therefore, the specimen height is designed based on the height of re-
action frame, which is set 3500 mm. To fix the top of the pier, 200 mm
of height is added to the top, so the actual height of the pier is
3700 mm.
Bridge pier is axially compressed component, so its reinforcement
design should meet the design of axially compressed component and
constructional requirement in code for design of reinforced concrete in
China. The longitudinal bars are ten hot-rolled ribbed bars (HRB400)
with a diameter of 12 mm and its reinforcement ratio is 0.9%, whose
yield strength is 400Mpa. The stirrups are hot-rolled plain bars
(HPB300) with a dimeter of 8 mm, whose yield strength is 300Mpa. The
distance between stirrups at the mid-span pier is 150 mm, and the
distance at the two ends is 100 mm. The longitudinal reinforcements
are evenly arranged in the cross-section of the pier and extend to the
base. The thickness of the concrete cover is 30 mm and the axial com-
pressive strength of concrete is 40Mpa, which can meet the axial
compressive strength in the code. To fix the bottom of the pier, a cubic
base is also constructed, with dimensions of
1000 mm × 1000 mm × 500 mm. The geometric dimensions of the RC
piers and reinforcement arrangement are illustrated in Fig. 1.
CFRP sheet is used to protect the pier due to its pliability for circular
pier and glued to the concrete in the surface by epoxy resin adhesive.
Three specimens without any damage are separately attached one layer,
two layers and three layers of CFRP sheet as a confinement ratio
parameter, provided by the mechanical properties of CFRP. It cannot
cause cumulative damage for a pier because each explosion test may
cause serious damage to a pier. While the piers are warped by the CFRP
sheet from bottom to top due to the random characteristic of blast
L. Liu, et al.
Fig. 1. Geometric dimensions and reinforcement arrangement of the specimen (Unit: mm).
loading in the real world and the CFRP strips are attached along cir-
cumferential direction. The thickness of different layers are separately
0.163 mm, 0.326 mm, 0.489 mm.
2.2. Experimental setup
The pier top is simplified as a hinged constraint with two lateral
displacements limited to 3500 mm. The constraint mainly consists of a
four-leg steel support fixed on a reaction wall and a steel hoop welded
on the support. The pier bottom is assumed to be a fixed constraint in
which the entire rotation and translation are limited so the pier base is
buried in a pit consisting of a concrete block.
The axial force on the top of the bridge pier is caused by the dead
weight of the superstructure and vehicular loads. However, a correla-
tion study has proven that the shearing and bending capacity of a pier
can be enhanced on the condition that axial force does not exceed the
balance point of pier damage [32–35]. Hence, axial force is not con-
sidered in this paper. The placement and constraint of the pier are
shown in Fig. 2.
2.3. Measuring point layout
Acceleration is an important indicator in dynamics. Therefore, ac-
celeration transducers are arranged on the back face to record accel-
eration, where they are protected from being burned out under blast
loading. There are three acceleration transducers located at heights of
300 mm, 1750 mm and 3300 mm on the back face, as shown in Fig. 3.
2.4. Experimental cases
The typical height of vehicles ranges from 600 mm to 1100 mm, so
the height of an explosive ranges from 600 mm to 1100 mm in a car
bomb explosion [36]. The height of the explosive in this paper is set
equal to 330 mm according to the product of the scale factor of 1/3 and
the actual height of 1000 mm. Based on these parameters, contact ex-
plosion tests in Table 2 are conducted, in which the explosive is tied to
3
Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx
the front face at the height of 330 mm, as shown in Fig. 4. In this test,
the TNT equivalent is 1.0 kg and 2.0 kg, which consists of five and ten
small blocks of 0.2 kg-TNT, respectively.
An explosion is an energy-releasing process with high temperature
and high pressure, which is a transient process. From Fig. 5 recorded
using a high-speed camera, the flame around the explosive centre is
blue during the initial detonation at 0.2 ms because the temperature
around the explosive centre is relatively high. Then, an orange flame
spreads at 0.6 ms, when the temperature decreases as energy is re-
leased.
3. Blast experiment results
3.1. Acceleration history
Contact explosions can produce high overpressure that can directly
act on the pier [37], which has a serious effect on the acquisition of
accurate test data. Due to strong vibration in the pier, 1# and 2# ac-
celeration transducers are shaken off from all the piers and only 3#
acceleration transducer of JS5, JS6 and JS7 record the data in Fig. 6.
The intensive vibration of pier transmits from bottom to top when a
large impact force strikes the pier bottom. From the acceleration history
of 3#, the pier top begins to vibrate at 1.0 ms, meaning the vibration is
transmitted from the pier bottom to pier top in one millisecond. The
acceleration with high frequency reaches a peak of 1.3 × 104 m/s2,
which is 1300 times as high as acceleration of gravity. After one mil-
lisecond of consistently intensive vibration, the acceleration rapidly
decreases to zero at 2.0 ms. In this vibration process, the pier begins to
move back and forth due to external work, which can be quickly
transformed to kinetic energy and internal energy as a result of the high
vibratory frequency and large damping. When the energy is fully dis-
sipated in a transitory time, the pier vibration stops and the accelera-
tion is decreased to zero.
L. Liu, et al.
Fig. 2. Placement and constraint of the specimen.
3.2. Local damage
Fig. 7 shows the local damage phenomena of five piers under con-
tact explosion. S1 is tested under a 1.0 kg-TNT explosion; the front
concrete spalls at a height of 60 cm and a maximum depth of 4 cm.
Then, transverse and vertical micro-cracks appear in the rear concrete.
S2 is tested under a 2.0 kg-TNT explosion, whose damage extent is more
serious than S1. The concrete of S2 is completely broken through the
cross-section at a height of 70 cm and wider cracks appear in the rear
concrete. In addition, the longitudinal reinforcement experiences
bending deformation and the stirrup is fractured without any concrete
protection.
JS5, JS6 and JS7 with CFRP protection are tested under a 1.0 kg-
TNT explosion. For JS5, the front CFRP sheet is broken and the front
concrete spalls at a height of 53 cm, a width of 93 cm and a maximum
depth of 12 cm. Then, transverse cracks appear in the rear concrete.
However, the stirrup is fractured due to the hook in the front face. For
JS6, the front CFRP sheet is broken and the concrete spalls at a height of
46 cm, a width of 92 cm and a maximum depth of 14 cm. Then, trans-
verse cracks appear in the rear concrete with the stirrup fracturing. For
JS7, the front CFRP sheet is broken and the concrete spalls at a height of
40 cm, a width of 85 cm and a maximum depth of 13 cm. Then, trans-
verse cracks appear in the rear concrete with the stirrup pulled from
concrete. From the local damage of CFRP protective pier, the concrete
damage extent decreases as the number of CFRP layers increases.
4. Numerical simulation
To further study the protective effect of CFRP under blast loading,
numerical simulation is the most common and effective method. In this
study, LS-DYNA finite-element software is employed to simulate the
4
Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx
dynamic response and damage mode of pier under contact explosion,
which mainly consist of two classic algorithms, e.g., Lagrangian and
Eulerian algorithm. In the Lagrangian algorithm, element meshes can
move due to the movement of nodes on the meshes with material
points, but in the Eulerian algorithm, element meshes are fixed in space,
which cannot deform in the movement of a substance. Therefore, it
should be replanned appropriately for large fluid meshes [38]. Com-
bining the advantage of those two algorithms, an Arbitrary-Lagrangian-
Eulerian (ALE) algorithm is proposed. The nodes on solid meshes move
with the deformation of solids in the Lagrangian algorithm, and the
nodes on fluid meshes are fixed in space in the Eulerian algorithm. The
ALE algorithm synchronously indicates the dynamic response of solid
and the motion of fluid [39–42]. In this algorithm, the Lagrangian and
Eulerian meshes must be overlapped to produce better accuracy, but it
can be inconsistent for the size of two meshes [43,44]. In this paper, the
pier is simulated using the Lagrangian algorithm, then the air and ex-
plosive are simulated using the Eulerian algorithm.
4.1. Model construction
Concrete is simulated by solid 164 with eight-node solid elements,
which can get stress in six direction and concrete spalling. All steel bars,
including the longitudinal reinforcements and stirrups, are simulated by
beam 161 with two-node beam elements, which can get axial stress and
bar fracture. In addition, CFRP composite layer and ground are simu-
lated by shell 163 with four-node thin-shell elements, which in-plane
stress is dominant.
From Fig. 8, the height of top is 200 mm, the effective height of pier
is 3500 mm, and the underground foundation is 500 mm. The cross-
sectional diameter of pier is 400 mm. The size and layout of steel bars
are built according to the piers in explosion testing.
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 3. Acceleration measurement points. Fig. 4. Location and dimension of the TNT charge.

The foundation is fixed from all translational displacement and ro-
tational displacement due to large base imbedded into the earth and the
top is limited to two transverse translational displacements because
these are limited by steel sleeve. All surface of pier is wrapped by CFRP
with a height of 3500 mm, whose fibre tension direction is circumfer-
ential. The mesh sizes of concrete, steel bar, CFRP and ground are di-
vided into 10 mm. Yuan et al. [45] have investigated the mesh con-
vergence of RC piers and proved that a 10-mm mesh size can achieve a
balance between the accuracy and calculation effort. The concrete
elements and steel bar elements are coupled with common nodes ig-
noring relative slippage due to a fairly short blasting time [31], fur-
thermore, concrete may be broken early before the development of
slippage between different elements.
The adhesive contact connection between CFRP element and con-
crete element is set by the keyword AUTOMA-
TIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_TIEBREAK in LS-DYNA [19]. The contact
in LS-DYNA is an algorithm, which considers non-interpenetration be-
tween two adjacent interfaces (concrete and CFRP). Traditional con-
tacts transmit only normal compressive force and tangential force, but
cannot transmit normal tension. However, not only normal compressive
force and tangential force but also normal tension should be considered
between concrete and CFRP. This connection is a typical glued surface
that can transmit both tensile and compressive forces until the glue
fails. The contact between CFRP and concrete is valid before a failure
criterion predefined by equation (1) is reached, which originates from
the strength of epoxy based on its normal tensile and shear stresses at
failure. The mechanical properties of the epoxy adhesive shown in
Table 3 are provided by Sayed-Ahmed [46]. In other words, when the
normal stress and the shear stress between CFRP and concrete exceed
the tensile strength and shear strength of epoxy adhesive, the contact
connection between CFRP and concrete will be lost, so that the CFRP
can be separated from the concrete.
In addition, the friction coefficient between CFRP and concrete did
not be considered. Firstly, it is extremely short to acting on the structure
for blast loading, therefore, there is no sliding development between
CFRP and concrete under contact blast loading before the contact
connection is lost. Then the epoxy adhesive is considered a brittle
failure in a very short time.

Table 2
Main test cases.
Test case No. TNT equivalent/kg Height of explosive center/mm Blast type

Case1 S1 1.0 330 Contact explosion

Case2 S2 2.0 330 Contact explosion
Case3 JS5 1.0 330 Contact explosion
Case4 JS6 1.0 330 Contact explosion
Case5 JS7 1.0 330 Contact explosion

5
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 5. Explosion process.

Fig. 6. Acceleration history.

6
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 7. Damage phenomena.

2 2
1600 mm × 2000 mm × 1020 mm with a mesh size of 20 mm, and the
⎛ |σn | ⎞ + ⎛ |σs | ⎞ ≥ 1
⎝ NFLS ⎠ ⎝ SFLS ⎠ (1) dimensions of 1.0 kg-TNT and 2.0 kg-TNT explosives are
80 mm × 80 mm × 100 mm and 120 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm, re-
where σn is the normal stress and σs is the shear stress at the interface spectively. The explosive, ground and pier with a height of 1000 mm
surface; NFLS is the corresponding tensile stress and SFLS is the cor- are in the air domain, in which the ground can reflect shock wave. The
responding shear stress at failure. partial air domain has been validated to reasonably simulate explosion
The air and explosive are simulated by solid 164 with eight-node cases under contact explosion [45,47], since most energy released by
solid elements, and the Eulerian element is also coupled with common explosive is absorbed directly by the pier leading to small shock wave
nodes. The physical dimensions of air domain are

7
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 3
Mechanical properties of the epoxy adhesive [46].
Property Value

Tensile strength (NFLS)/MPa 32

Tensile modulus/GPa 11.7
Shear strength (SFLS)/MPa 29.4
Compressive strength/MPa 60
Poisson’s ratio 0.2

interaction between fluid and solid. Then, the keyword CONTROL_ALE

is chosen to set the global control parameters for the Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) and Eulerian calculations. The keyword
BOUNDARY_NON_REFLECTING is chosen to set the non-reflecting
boundaries, which are used on the exterior boundaries of infinite air
domain, such as a partial air domain to prevent artificial shock wave
reflections generated at the air domain boundaries from re-entering the
air domain and contaminating the results.

4.2. Material model

4.2.1. Concrete
The concrete uses material model MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_REL3
(MAT_72R3), called KCC model, which can analyse the dynamic per-
Fig. 7. (continued) formance of a concrete structure under high strain rate [48]. This

Fig. 8. Finite element model of the pier.

generated by air. Therefore, the shock wave propagating to the upper
part has little effect on the pier, which can be ignored to save com-
puting time.
The air and pier are linked by the keyword CONSTRAI-
NED_LAGRANE_IN_SOILD to provide the coupling mechanism for
constitutive model is modified in accordance with pseudo-tensor con-
crete material, including three independent failure surfaces, a strain
rate effect and a damage effect [49]. The strain rate effect can be
considered based on the relationship between strain rate and dynamic
increase factor (DIF) of material strength, where DIF comes from the

8
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

modified CEB model. The tension dynamical increase factor (TDIF) of Table 5
concrete strength is as follows [50]. Material properties of CFRP composites [53].

ftd Mechanical Properties Carbon/Epoxy (AS4/3501-6)

TDIF = = 0.26(lgεḋ ) + 2.06, εḋ ≤ 1/ s
fts (2) Density/kg·m −3
1580
Youngs modulus/GPa Ea 138
ftd Eb 9.65
TDIF = = 2(lgεḋ ) + 2.06, 1/ s < εḋ ≤ 2/ s Ec 9.65
fts (3) Shear modulus/GPa Gab 5.24
Gbc 2.24
ftd Gca 5.24
TDIF = = 1.44331(lgεḋ ) + 2.22766, 2/ s < εḋ ≤ 150/ s
fts Poisson’s ratio Prba 0.021
(4)
Prca 0.021
where ftd is the dynamic tension strength of concrete at strain rate εḋ , fts Prcb 0.49
Transverse compressive strength/MPa 1440
is the static tension strength of concrete at strain rate εtṡ (εtṡ = 10−6/ s ).
Transverse tensile strength/MPa 2280
The compressive dynamical increase factor (CDIF) of concrete Vertical compressive strength/MPa 228
strength is as follows [50]. Vertical tensile strength/MPa 57
In-plane shear strength/MPa 71
fcd Maximum strain for fiber tension/% 1.38
CDIF = = 0.0419(lgεḋ ) + 1.2165, εḋ ≤ 30/ s
fcs (5) Maximum strain for fiber compression/% 1.175

Note: a is the transverse direction; b is the vertical direction; c is the through-

fcd
CDIF = = 0.8988(lgεḋ )2 − 2.8255(lgεḋ ) + 3.4907, εḋ > 30/ s thickness direction.
fcs (6)

where fcd is the dynamic tension strength of concrete at strain rate εḋ , fcs
is the static compressive strength of concrete at strain rate εcṡ
(εcṡ = 30 × 10−6/ s ).
In LS-DYNA, only unconfined compressive strength (UCS), concrete
density and Poisson’s ratio can be input to the KCC model. Other ma-
terial parameters are automatically generated. The material parameters
are shown in Table 4. MAT_ADD_EROSION is chosen to define the
failure mode of concrete by principal strain.
4.2.2. Steel bar
The steel bar uses material model
MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY (MAT_24), which is an elasto-
plastic material with an arbitrary stress vs strain curve and an arbitrary
strain rate dependency that can be defined. In this model, failure based
on a plastic strain can also be defined. The dynamical increase factor
that scales the yield stress can be used to account for strain rate. In this
paper, the dynamical increase factor (DIF) of the steel bar is as follows
[50].
ε̇ α fy
DIF = ⎛ −4 ⎞ , α = 0.074 − 0.04
⎝ 10 ⎠ 414
where ε ̇ is the strain rate of reinforcement, f y is yield strength, and the
application ranges are 10−4s−1 ≤ ε ̇ ≤ 255s−1 and 270MPa ≤ f y ≤ 710MPa .
The material parameters are shown in Table 4.
4.2.3. Ground
The ground can be considered a rigid plane to reflect shock wave,
whose rotation and displacement in the x, y and z directions is con-
strained. Therefore, MAT_RIGID (MAT_20) is chosen to simulate the
ground, whose material parameters are shown in Table 4.
4.2.4. CFRP
The CFRP can be simulated as a type of anisotropic composite ma-
terial. The tensile direction of fibre is the principal stress direction and
the other two directions are the subordinate stress directions due to
adhesive bonding. MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE (MAT_54)
is chosen to model the CFRP composite, which has been widely used
[19,51,52]. This material model is based on the Change-Chang failure
criterion for evaluating lamina failure, in which there are four failure
modes including the tensile fibre mode, compressive fibre mode, tensile
matrix mode and compressive matrix mode. The CFRP composites
shown in Table 5 consist of a CFRP sheet and epoxy (AS4/3501-6),
whose material properties are provided by Chan et al [53]. The con-
finement ratio [54] of different CFRP layers can be got by equation (8),
which is separately 0.0465 (one layer), 0.0929 (two layers), 0.1393
(three layers).
ρc = 2σf t / dfco (8)
where σf is transverse tensile strength of CFRP, t is thickness of CFRP, d
is diameter of cross-section, fco is the uniaxial compressive strength of
concrete.
(7)
4.2.5. Air and explosive
The air is simulated as an ideal gas in the LS-DYNA by MAT_NULL
(MAT_9) material model, and the state equation is set by keyword
EOS_LINEAR_POLYNOMIAL. The linear polynomial state equation is
linear in internal energy. The pressure is described by equation (9).
P = C0 + C1 μ + C2 μ2 + C3 μ3 + (C4 + C5 μ + C6 μ2 ) E (9)
whereC0 ~ C6 are material parameters; μ = ρ / ρ0 − 1, ρ / ρ0 is the ratio of
current density to reference density; E is the initial internal energy per
unit reference volume.

Table 4
Material parameters of the concrete, steel bar and ground.
MAT_72R3 MAT_24 MAT_20

Parameter Concrete Longitudinal bar Stirrup Ground

Yield strength/MPa – 4.0 × 102

3.0 × 10 2
–
Density/kg·m−3 2.5 × 103 7.85 × 103 7.85 × 103 2.5 × 103
Elastic modulus/MPa – 2.0 × 105 2.0 × 105 3.25 × 104
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2
Tangent modulus/MPa – 2.0 × 103 2.0 × 103 –
Failure strain – 0.15 0.15 –
UCS/MPa 40 – – –

9
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 6
Material parameters for the explosive.
Parameter A /GPa B /GPa ω R1 R2 V E /kJ·m−3 ρ /kg·m−3 vD /m·s−1 PCJ /GPa

2 6 3 3
Value 3.738 × 10 3.747 0.35 4.15 0.9 1 6.0 × 10 1.63 × 10 6.93 × 10 21

In this study, the gamma law state equation can be used to simulate
the ideal gas, which can be achieved by setting
C
C0 = C1 = C2 =C3 = C6 = 0 and C4 = C5 = γ − 1, where γ = CP is the
v
ratio of specific heats.
Therefore, the pressure for a perfect gas is given by equation (10). In
this study, γ = 1.4 , the initial air density is 1.225 kg/m3 and the initial
internal energy of air per unit volume is 0.2068 × 106 kJ/kg [55].
ρ large number of grid element, so there is time lag effect between si-
P = (γ − 1) E mulation and experiment, which is less than 0.5 ms. Although there is
ρ0 (10)
The explosive is simulated as a TNT charge in the LS-DYNA by
MAT_HIGH_EXPLOSIVE_BURN (MAT_8) material model, and the state
equation is set by the keyword EOS_JWL. The pressure is defined by
equation (11).
ω ⎞ −R1 V ω ⎞ −R2 V ωE
p = A ⎛1 −
⎜ e + B ⎛1 −
⎟ e ⎜+ ⎟ structure.
⎝ R1 V ⎠ ⎝ R2 V ⎠ V (11)
where p is the hydrostatic pressure; V is the relative volume of the
explosive; E is the energy per unit volume; A , B , R1, R2 and ω are
material constants for the explosive determined by the experiment. The
material parameters for the explosive are shown in Table 6 [56], in
which vD is the detonation velocity of the explosive and PCJ is the
Chapman-Jouget pressure calculated by the least action detonation
model of the explosive in the chemical domain.
4.3. Model verification
To verify the reliability of numerical model for analysing the da-
mage mechanism of a pier under contact explosion, the corresponding
experimental cases are simulated and the numerical models are vali-
dated in accordance with acceleration and damage extent.
4.3.1. Acceleration verification
In structural dynamics, acceleration, velocity and displacement are
the main dynamic responses of pier. The acceleration histories of JS5,
JS6 and JS7 at 3# in the simulation are extracted for comparison with
the experiment. From Fig. 9, the peak values and the global vibration
trend of simulated acceleration data are in reasonable agreement with
the experimental results except for some time lag effect. The peak value
and starting times of acceleration are almost identical, which peak
value is about 13000 m/s2 and starting time is on about 0.7 ms; in
addition, the vibration data is mainly concentrated between the mo-
ments of 0.5 ms and 2.5 ms and decreases to zero before the movement
of the piers stops. Due to short time of structural vibration and intensive
response, pier vibration is a high-frequency response, especially under
blast loading. Relative study [45] has explained that high-frequency
vibration may not be accurately because of the limitation of data ac-
quisition system, and continuous finite element model also has limita-
tion that material fracture is unavoidable under contact blast loading.
Based on these, it can be concluded that they are in good agreement and
numerical model can give a reasonable prediction for analysis under
blast loading.
However, there are several reasons why the time is not exactly the
same. Firstly, the sampling frequency response of data acquisition
system cannot keep up with the natural frequency of the structure that
is an ultra-high frequency vibration and the sampling data in the ex-
periment is actually discontinuous. Then, numerical simulation is a
hypothetical simulation method, dispersing a continuous structure into
small elements. It is difficult to get the higher order vibration frequency
of structures due to the linear characteristics of mesh. Meanwhile, the
vibration frequency can be affected by the stiffness and mass in dy-
namics. The stiffness is linked with the size, number, and shape of mesh
and boundary condition of structure. The mass is linked with volume
and density. As we can see, the localized blast effects cause the erosion
and fracture of mesh, and the reduction of mass. In addition, the data
transmission needs more time in the process of calculation due to a
some limitation for this model, it can be improved in the future ac-
cording to several aspects. It should be increased for the sampling fre-
quency of acquisition system to get more continuous data. Then, nu-
merical model can set infinitesimal mesh, add nonlinear elements at
local locations, and adjust the boundary condition. Lastly, it should be
further to study the erosion criterion to simulate accurate mass-loss of
4.3.2. Damage verification
The damage extent of pier is also an important validation indicator
between simulative results and experimental phenomenon. From
Fig. 10, the damage extent of S1, S2, JS5, JS6 and JS7 is obtained in the
simulation. There is no global deformation, but highly localized failure
occurring for all piers. It is showed that the concrete is cracked with a
spalling of a crystal shape, and the steel bar is bent. The damage height
of S1 under a 1.0 kg-TNT contact explosion is 54 cm in the simulation
and 60 cm in the test, in which the concrete cover is peeled off. The
damage height of S2 under a 2.0 kg-TNT contact explosion is 65 cm in
the simulation and 70 cm in the test, in which the concrete is com-
pletely broken through the cross-section and the longitudinal re-
inforcement is bent. The damage height of JS5 under a 1.0 kg-TNT
contact explosion is 53 cm in the simulation and 53 cm in the test, the
damage height of JS6 under a 1.0 kg-TNT contact explosion is 53 cm in
the simulation and 52 cm in the test, and the damage height of JS7
under a 1.0 kg-TNT contact explosion is 38 cm in the simulation and
40 cm in the test. These three specimens all develop concrete cover
spalling and CFRP fracture.
According to Fig. 10(f), the damage heights of simulative specimens
and experimental specimens are in good agreement for the five piers
with an error of less than 20%. Therefore, the simulative model can be
used to analyse the damage mechanism of a pier. Furthermore, the
damage extent is greater for S2 than for S1 based on the damage height
of S1 and S2, which is because more TNT is used for S2. In addition, it is
a notable result that the damage extent increases with the increasing
number of CFRP layers based on the damage heights of S1, JS5, JS6 and
JS7.
5. Numerical results and discussion
5.1. Damage development
To better understand the damage development of a CFRP protective
pier, the validated model can be used. In related research [45], the
stress wave can propagate in a circular cross-section from the front to
rear and reflect off the pier surface. The stress wave can also propagate
in the vertical section of Fig. 11 to the above and below height of ex-
plosive. When the TNT starts to explode, the front CFRP breaks directly
due to the great impact force from the energy release, so the stress wave
can be introduced straight into the concrete interior.
The stress wave at the height of explosive initially arrives at the rear

10
L. Liu, et al.
Fig. 9. Acceleration verification of 3#.
surface and reflects off the surface, producing tensile stress. However,
the upper and lower stress waves continue to propagate towards the
arrow direction in vertical section, producing the compressive stress.
This situation contributes to the rear CFRP sheets at the height of ex-
plosive experiencing a drag force, so the CFRP is separated from con-
crete. Then, the CFRP is gradually separated from the height of ex-
plosive to the above and below height of explosive.
During the detachment process between CFRP and concrete, the
rear CFRP is also pulled in the vertical and transverse direction. When
the stress value of CFRP element reaches the pre-supposed stress
threshold, the element will be invalid that implies the CFRP is broken.
In Fig. 12, a shell element in the rear CFRP is selected, which is a failure
element. There are vertical and transverse tensile directions for the
failure element, whose tensile stress in the two directions is extracted.
From the curves, the maximum vertical stress in the history curve is
66 MPa, which is greater than 57 MPa and contributes to the element
failure in the vertical direction. However, the maximum transverse
stress in the history curve is 630 MPa, which is much larger than the
maximum vertical stress but less than 2280 MPa, so the elements in the
transverse direction are not fractured and can continue to bear trans-
verse tensile stress. According to the analysis for the rear CFRP, the thin
connection lines are broken in vertical direction and the transverse
CFRP strips remain intact in the experimental phenomenon.
11
Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx
5.2. Reinforcement stress
For CFRP protective piers under contact explosion, there is some
deformation and axial stress for reinforcement after the CFRP is broken
and concrete spalls. The axial stress of reinforcement at the height of
the explosive in the front face for S1, JS5, JS6 and JS7 is shown in
Fig. 13. The axial stress history of stirrup is shown in Fig. 13(a). The
peak stress decreases with the increase in CFRP layers for the four piers
and the residual stress decreases with the increase in CFRP layers except
for S1. The stirrups are important for constraining core concrete when it
is in good condition without spalling. For S1 without any protection,
the core concrete spalls so that stirrups lose the ability to constrain it
and release the residual stress. Therefore, the residual stress is smaller
for S1 than for the other piers.
The peak stress and residual stress of longitudinal reinforcement for
S1 are significantly greater for CFRP protective piers. The peak stress of
longitudinal reinforcement for JS5, JS6 and JS7 are almost identical
and the residual stress of longitudinal reinforcement decreases to zero,
which can be explained by the number of CFRP layers not having an
effect on the stress of longitudinal reinforcement and the lack of re-
sidual deformation for longitudinal reinforcement in the front face due
to separation between the concrete and reinforcement.
In the rear face, the peak stress and residual stress of stirrup for S1
are greater than for other piers in Fig. 14(a). The stirrups can still
confine the core concrete due to the back-core concrete not spalling.
Nevertheless, the number of CFRP layers does not have an effect on the
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 10. Damage verification.

12
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

100 100
Experiment
Simulation
80 Error 80

Damage Height (mm)

60 60

Error (%)
40 40

20 20

0 0
S2 S1 JS1 JS2 JS3

(f) Damage height comparison

Fig. 10. (continued)

axial stress for CFRP protective piers due to the same stress. The peak rear face can produce plastic deformation that is the same as concrete
stress of longitudinal reinforcement is greater for S1 than for other piers due to the coupling action between reinforcement and concrete without
in Fig. 14(b) and the residual stress of longitudinal reinforcement for spalling.
those four piers is nearly identical. Longitudinal reinforcement in the In general, CFRP can protect RC piers from the axial stress of

Fig. 11. Stress-flow process.

13
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 12. CFRP fracture.

Fig. 13. Axial stress of reinforcement in the front face.

14
L. Liu, et al. Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 14. Axial stress of reinforcement in the back face.

reinforcement in the front and rear faces, and the protective effect for
RC piers is better with an increasing number of CFRP layers.
5.3. Energy
Fig. 15 shows the internal energy of S1, JS5, JS6 and JS7 from
concrete absorption. The concrete can absorb external energy and
translate it into internal energy by concrete deformation and fracture.
From the internal energy history, the peak internal energy and residual
internal energy is greater for S1 than for other piers, and the residual
internal energy of S1 is nearly ten times greater than that of the other
three piers, as can be interpreted by more concrete deformation and
fracture leading to greater residual internal energy of concrete.
Therefore, the damage extent of unprotected piers is more serious in
accordance with concrete damage. However, the residual internal en-
ergy of JS5, JS6 and JS7 are approximate and quite small, which im-
plies CFRP can effectively protect the piers and the number of CFRP
layers has little influence on concrete damage under contact explosion.

Fig. 15. Internal energy of concrete.

15
L. Liu, et al.
Fig. 16. Kinetic energy and internal energy of CFRP.
Fig. 16 shows the kinetic energy and internal energy of CFRP for
JS5, JS6 and JS7. There is kinetic energy and internal energy for each
CFRP shell element, resulting in the total kinetic energy and internal
energy of CFRP. When the CFRP shell element fails, it can vanish in-
cluding its all characteristics, such as velocity, mass, etc. According to
Fig. 16(a), the total kinetic energy of CFRP increases as the number of
CFRP layers decreases. Since the decreasing number of CFRP layers can
weaken the protective effect for pier, more shell elements will fail. In
addition, the kinetic energy finally decreases to zero due to stop-motion
with a velocity of zero. From Fig. 16(b), the total internal energy of
CFRP increases as the number of CFRP layers decreases. Shell elements
without failure can become deformed and store the internal energy in
deformation, because the identical external work and the large de-
formation can cause more energy to be absorbed. Therefore, the CFRP
of JS7 can store the most internal energy so that it is the best protective
effect for pier.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the explosion experiment and simulation were con-
ducted to study the dynamic response and damage mechanism of CFRP
protective RC piers under contact explosion. Some main conclusions are
drawn as follows.
Based on the experimental explosion test in the field, the piers
present a high-localized damage model in which the concrete spall and
reinforcement become deformed. The local damage extent of pier is
more serious due to larger TNT equivalents. CFRP can protect RC pier.
In addition, the integral structure of pier can vibrate due to local im-
pact.
Simulation models are built based on the Arbitrary Lagrangian-
Eulerian (ALE) algorithm considering the strain rate effect for concrete
and reinforcement and an anisotropic composite for CFRP. The air and
explosive are also simulated accurately according to the experimental
TNT charge. The models were validated by a comparison of the accel-
eration and damage extent showing good agreement, so they can be
used to further analyse the damage mechanism of CFRP protective RC
piers.
In accordance with the validated finite element model, the damage
development of the piers is studied. The results show that a dragging
force caused by a stress wave separates the CFRP from concrete. The
vertical CFRP fibre is broken first, followed by transverse fibre. The
reinforcement stress and energy of concrete and CFRP are also analysed
with a conclusion that CFRP can provide effective protection for RC
piers under contact explosion.
16
Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51678141) and the Fund of State Key Laboratory
of Bridge Engineering Structural Dynamics and the Key Laboratory of
Bridge Earthquake Resistance Technology, Ministry of
Communications, PRC (201801), as well as the Graduate Research and
Innovation Projects of Jiangsu Province (KYCX18_0119). The first au-
thor also appreciates the financial support provided by the China
Scholarship Council.
References
[1] Combs CC. Terrorism in the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge; 2018.
[2] Agrawal AK, Yi ZH. Blast load effects on highway bridges. New York: City College of
New York, University Transportation Research Center; 2009.
[3] Yi ZH. Blast load effects on highway bridges. New York: City University of New
York; 2009.
[4] Garlock M, Paya-Zaforteza I, Kodur V, Gu L. Fire hazard in bridges: review, as-
sessment and repair strategies. Eng Struct 2012;35:89–98.
[5] Williamson E, Bayrak O, Davis C, Williams G. Performance of bridge columns
subjected to blast loads. I: Experimental program. J. Bridge Eng
2011;16(6):693–702.
[6] Williams G, Williamson E. Response of reinforced concrete bridge columns sub-
jected to blast loads. J Struct Eng 2011;137(9):903–13.
[7] Williamson E, Bayrak O, Davis C, Williams G. Performance of bridge columns
subjected to blast loads. II: Results and recommendations. J Bridge Eng
2011;16(6):703–10.
[8] Williams G, Williamson E. Procedure for predicting blast loads acting on bridge
columns. J. Bridge Eng 2012;17(3):490–9.
[9] Yi Z, Agrawal A, Ettouney M, Alampalli S. Blast load effects on highway bridges. II:
Failure modes and multihazard correlations. J Bridge Eng 2013;19(4). 04013024.
[10] Codina R, Ambrosini D, Borbón F. Experimental and numerical study of a RC
member under a close-in blast loading. Eng Struct 2016;127:145–58.
[11] Kyei C, Braimah A. Effects of transverse reinforcement spacing on the response of
reinforced concrete columns subjected to blast loading. Eng Struct
2017;142:148–64.
[12] Pham TM, Hao H. Review of concrete structures strengthened with FRP against
impact loading. Structures 2016;7:59–70.
[13] Fang H, Mao YF, Liu WQ, Zhu L, Zhang B. Manufacturing and evaluation of Large-
scale composite bumper system for bridge pier protection against ship collision.
Compos Struct 2016;158:187–98.
[14] Parghi A, Alam MS. Seismic collapse assessment of non-seismically designed cir-
cular RC bridge piers retrofitted with FRP composites. Compos Struct
2017;160:901–16.
[15] Qasrawi Y, Heffernan PJ, Fam A. Performance of concrete-filled FRP tubes under
field close-in blast loading. J Compos Constr 2014;19(4):04014067.
[16] Qasrawi Y, Heffernan PJ, Fam A. Numerical modeling of concrete-filled FRP tubes’
dynamic behavior under blast and impact loading. J Struct Eng
L. Liu, et al.
2015;142(2):04015106.
[17] Wood BH. Experimental validation of an integrated FRP and visco-elastic hard-
ening, damping, and wave-modulating system for blast resistance enhancement of
RC columns. Missouri: Missouri University of Science and Technology, 2008.
[18] Echevarria A, Zaghi AE, Chiarito V, Christenson R, Woodson S. Experimental
comparison of the performance and residual capacity of CFFT and RC bridge col-
umns subjected to blasts. J Bridge Eng 2015;21(1):04015026.
[19] Mutalib AA, Hao H. Development of P-I diagrams for FRP strengthened RC columns.
Int J Impact Eng 2011;38(5):290–304.
[20] Davidson JS, Fisher JW, Hammons MI, Porter JR, Dinan RJ. Failure mechanisms of
polymer-reinforced concrete masonry walls subjected to blast. J Struct Eng
2005;131(8):1194–205.
[21] Lignola GP, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Non-linear modeling of RC rectangular
hollow piers confined with CFRP. Compos Struct 2009;88:56–64.
[22] Delgado P, Aretonio A, Pouca NV, Rocha P, Costa A, Delgado. Retrofit of RC hollow
piers with CFRP sheets. Compos Struct 2012;94:1280–7.
[23] Casas JR, Chambi JL. Partial safety factory for CFRP-wrapped bridge piers: model
assessment and calibration. Compos Struct 2014;118:267–83.
[24] Rabie O, Al-Smadi YM. Numerical simulation of blast wave mitigations on RC
buildings via improved structural configuration and column cross-section proper-
ties. Pittsburgh: Structures Congress 2013: Bridging Your Passion with Your
Profession. 2013; 78-92.
[25] Elsanadedy HM, Almusallam TH, Abbas H, Al-Salloum YA, Alsayed SH. Effect of
blast loading on CFRP-retrofitted RC columns-a numerical study. Latin Am J Solids
Struct 2011;8(1):55–81.
[26] Pan JL, Luo M, Zhou JJ. Dynamic responses and failure mechanism of reinforced
concrete cylindrical column wrapped with CFRP under blast loading. J Tianjin Univ
2010;43(9):755–61. (In Chinese).
[27] Xu JF. Analysis on the dynamic response of concrete filled CFRP-steel tube columns
under explosive load. Xi’an: Chang’an University, 2014. (In Chinese).
[28] Liu L. Experimental study of differently protective RC piers under blast loading.
Nanjing: Southeast University; 2016. (In Chinese).
[29] Tang B. Experimental investigation of reinforced concrete bridge piers under blast
loading. Nanjing: Southeast University; 2016. (In Chinese).
[30] Zong ZH, Tang B, Gao C, Liu L, Li MH, Yuan SJ. Experiment on blast-resistance
performance of reinforced concrete piers. China J Highway Transport
2017;30(9):51–60. (In Chinese).
[31] Liu L, Zong ZH, Li MH. Numerical study of damage modes and assessment of cir-
cular RC pier under noncontact explosions. J Bridge Eng 2018;23(9):04018061.
[32] Williams GD. Analysis and response mechanisms of blast-loaded reinforced concrete
columns. Texas: The University of Texas at Austin; 2009.
[33] Williamson EB, et al. Blast-resistant highway bridges: design and detailing guide-
lines. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Rep.645,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 2010.
[34] Williamson EB, Bayrak O, Davis C, Williams GD. Performance of bridge columns
subjected to blast loads. I: Experimental program. J Bridge Eng
2011;16(6):693–702.
[35] Williamson EB, Bayrak O, Davis C, Williams GD. Performance of bridge columns
subjected to blast loads. II: Results and recommendations. J Bridge Eng
2011;16(6):703–10.
17
Composite Structures xxx (xxxx) xxxx
[36] Wu J, Liu JB, Du YX. Elastic-plastic dynamic calculation and numerical analysis of
assembling blast resistant wall under effect of vehicle bombs. J Disaster Prevention
Mitigation Eng 2007;27(4):394–400. (In Chinese).
[37] Wu KC, Li B, Tsai KC. The effects of explosive mass ratio on residual compressive
capacity of contact blast damaged composite columns. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67(4):602–12.
[38] Pi SJ, Cheng DS, Cheng HL, Li WC, Hung CW. Fluid-structure-interaction for a steel
plate subjected to non-contact explosion. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2012;59(1):1–7.
[39] Wang J, Gadala MS. Formulation and survey of ALE method in nonlinear solid
mechanics. Finite Elements Anal Des 1997;24(4):253–9.
[40] Stoker HC. Developments of the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian method in non-
linear solid mechanics. Enschedel: University of Twente; 1999.
[41] Haufe A, Weimar K, Göhner U. Advanced airbag simulation using Fluid-Structure-
Interaction and the Eulerian Method in LS-DYNA. Proceedings of the LS-DYNA
Anwenderforum, Deutschland, 2004.
[42] Tai YS, Chu TL, Hu HT, Wu JY. Dynamic response of a reinforced concrete slab
subjected to air blast load. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2011;56(3):140–7.
[43] Gebbeken N, Ruppert M. On the safety and reliability of high dynamic hydrocode
simulations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1999;46(6):839–51.
[44] Mullin JM, O’Toole JB. Simulation of energy absorbing materials in blast loaded
structures. 8th International LS-DYNA Users conference, Penetration/Explosive,
Michigan, 2004.
[45] Yuan SJ, Hao H, Zong ZH, Li J. A study of RC bridge columns under contact ex-
plosion. Int J Impact Eng 2017;109:378–90.
[46] Sayed-Ahmed EY, Numerical investigation into strengthening steel I-section beams
using CFRP strips. Structures Congress. St Louis, Missouri: Structural Engineering
and Public Safety; 2006.
[47] Li MH, Zong ZH, Liu L, Fan L. Experimental and numerical study on damage me-
chanism of CFDST bridge columns subjected to contact explosion. Eng Struct
2018;159:265–76.
[48] Zhang CA, Fang Q, Chen L. Discussion on K&C concrete model for concrete in
DYNA3D. Ind Constr 2010;40(6):288–92. (In Chinese).
[49] Malvar LJ, Crawford JE, Wesevich JW, Simons D. A plasticity concrete material
model for DYNA3D. Int J Impact Eng 1997;19(9–10):847–73.
[50] Hao YF, Hao H. Influence of the concrete DIF model on the numerical predictions of
RC wall responses to blast loadings. Eng Struct 2014;73:24–38.
[51] Han HP, Taheri F, Pegg N, Lu Y. A numerical study on the axial crushing response of
hybrid pultruded and ± braided tubes. Compos Struct 2007;80(2):253–64.
[52] Mamalis AG, Manolakos DE, Ioannidis MB, Kostazos PK. Crushing of hybrid square
sandwich composite vehicle hollow bodyshells with reinforced core subjected to
axial loading: numerical simulation. Compos Struct 2003;61(3):175–86.
[53] Chan S, Fawaz Z, Behdinan K, Amid R. Ballistic limit prediction using a numerical
model with progressive damage capability. Compos Struct 2007;77(4):466–74.
[54] Csuka B, Kollár LP. FRP-confined circular concrete columns subjected to concentric
loading. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010;29(23):3504–20.
[55] Shi YC. Dynamic response and damage mechanism of reinforced concrete structures
under blast loading. Tian Jin: Tianjin University; 2009. (In Chinese).
[56] Wang Z, Lu Y, Hao H, Chong K. A full coupled numerical analysis approach for
buried structures subjected to subsurface blast. Comput Struct
2005;83(4–5):339–56.