applied

sciences
Article
Numerical Analysis for Critical Structures Protection
against Blast Loading Using Metallic Panels
Ageel Alogla 1 , Mahmoud Helal 1,2, *, Mohamed Mokbel ElShafey 3 and Elsayed Fathallah 4,5, *
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Taif University, Al-hawyah, P.O. Box 888,
Taif 26571, Saudi Arabia; a.alogla@tu.edu.sa
2 Production and Mechanical Design Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University,
Mansoura 35516, Egypt
3 School of Engineering, The knowledge Hub Universities, Partnered with Coventry University,
Cairo Governorate 11311, Egypt; mohamed.elshafey@tkh.edu.eg
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Military Technical College, Cairo 11865, Egypt
5 Ships and Submarines Engineering Department, Military Technical College, Cairo 11835, Egypt
* Correspondence: eng_mah_helal@yahoo.com (M.H.);
saidhabib2000@mtc.edu.eg or saidhabib2000@hotmail.com (E.F.)




Received: 20 February 2020; Accepted: 11 March 2020; Published: 20 March 2020


Abstract: The need for building protection against blast loads is a crucial issue nowadays due to the
escalating threat of terrorist attacks, which affect people’s lives and critical structures. Consequently,
design of protective panels to segregate building façades from the effect of a nearby explosion is
required. Such design mainly depends on the ability of protective panels to mitigate and diffract the
blast wave before reaching building façades. Five protective panel models with different designs,
referred to as the Combined Protection System (CPS), are introduced in this paper. The main
objective of this research was to achieve a design that could sustain a blast load with minimum plastic
deformations. The introduced CPS designs included two steel plates linked by connector plates.
The CPS dimensions were 3 m × 3 m × 0.35 m, representing length, width, and height, respectively.
After that, the successful panel design was supported by placing these panels onto a masonry wall in
different configurations. The protective panels were tested against 50 kg of trinitrotoluene (TNT) with
a standoff distance of one meter. The final run of the optimum model was carried out using a blast
load equivalent to 500 kg of TNT. The air–structure interactions were simulated using finite element
analysis software called “ANSYS AUTODYN”, where the deformation of the panel was the governing
parameter to evaluate the behavior of different designs. The analysis showed minimum deformation
of the CPS design with vertical and horizontal connecting plates in a masonry wall distanced at
500 mm from the panel. However, the other designs showed promising results, which could make
them suitable for critical structural protection on different scales.

Keywords: blast load; charge weight; AUTODYN; plastic deformation; front and rear plate; connectors

1. Introduction
Blast loads have gained attention in recent years due to the large number of deliberate events.
Thus, the protection of significant and critical structures, such as governmental buildings and airports,
against extreme loads, such as high velocity impacts and explosions, has become a crucial issue.
Consequently, the development of new technologies for protecting such structures against blast loads
has been of great interest, not only for military applications but also for civilian purposes. The threat
from an explosion is defined by the standoff distance and the charge quantity.
The techniques for protection against explosion hazards have attracted some recent attention [1–16].
Mana [17] studied the effects of an explosion on a building with and without a soil barrier. Moreover,

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121; doi:10.3390/app10062121 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 2 of 18

researchers successfully reduced the effect of blast loading on building foundations by utilizing
advanced material casts along with ultra-high performance concrete materials [18,19]. A study of the
protection of containers was conducted by Elshafey, M.M et al. [20,21], introducing a suppressive shield
container to transport hazardous materials safely on Canadian roads. Ehasni et al. [22] used composite
materials for protection against an explosive charge of 100 kg of trinitrotoluene TNT. However, the cost
of using composite materials was found to be too expensive and is not applicable for all buildings.
Langdon et al. [23] evaluated the effect of material properties on the dynamic response of plates
subjected to air explosions. Furthermore, McDonald et al. [24] experimentally investigated the dynamic
response of four high-strength and armor-grade steels to blast load, in terms of deformation resistance
and rupture threshold at different standoff distances. Additionally, Guangyong et al. [25] studied the
effects of introducing face-sheet materials and configurations on the blast resistance of sandwich-panel
structures. Additionally, Jacob et al. [26] studied the relationship between the responses of circular
plates subjected to different blast loads and standoff distances. The results illustrated that the standoff
distance influenced the type of loading condition applied to a structure. Mehreganian et al. [27]
analytically investigated the dynamic responses of thin square plates with various boundary conditions
subjected to a blast load. Zong et al. [28] investigated the mitigation capabilities of using fence walls
for blast wave diffraction. The results illustrated that the fence walls could significantly reduce the
peak blast pressure and impulse. Xia et al. [29] numerically studied the protective performance of
metallic foam cladding on reinforced concrete slabs. Wu and Sheikh [30] investigated the abilities
of metallic foam cladding to protect reinforced concrete slabs against air explosions. Furthermore,
Palta et al. [31] investigated the dynamic responses of monolithic steel plates, multilayer steel plates,
and hybrid plates constructed from steel and Kevlar layers against a blast load. Fallon et al. [32]
numerically studied the fluid–structure interaction effect on a coated concrete slab subjected to blast
loading. Furthermore, the amount of explosives was determined by knowing the incident pressure peak
value, while the negative pressure was determined from the pressure after decay [33]. Additionally,
Cai et al. [34] investigated the dynamic performance of multilayered hybrid aluminum foam and Ultra
High Molecular Weight PolyEthylene (UHMWPE) laminates core sandwich panels subjected to air
blast. The effects of foam core gradation and the utilization of UHMWPE laminates on blast mitigation
performance were studied. The results revealed that deploying the UHMWPE laminate as a first core
layer helped in decreasing the front face velocity. Liang et al. [35] studied the dynamic response of
two-layer graded aluminum foam to blast loading. Cheng et al. [36] numerically studied polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) foam-filled corrugated core sandwich panels subjected to an air explosion using ANSYS
AUTODYN. Yazici et al. [37] evaluated the dynamic responses of sandwich-panel structures subjected
to blast loading. The results revealed that the deflections were reduced by approximately 50%, and at
the same time the weight of the panel was decreased by 2.3%. Xue and Hutchinson [38] demonstrated
that the sandwich beam could withstand a higher blast load than the solid beam with the same
mass and material. Zhang et al. [39] investigated the dynamic responses of corrugated sandwich
plates with different core arrangements to maximize the mitigation of blast effects on the structures.
Abdel Wahab et al. [40] presented a mitigation system to protect the substructures of military vehicles
against blast loading by using V- shape elements. Hussein et al. [41] studied the effects of blast loads
using a thin oriented strand board (OSB) cantilever wall. It was found that the OSB reduced the blast
pressure by 20%.
Previous studies have presented the mitigation performance of steel barriers against blast load.
It is clear that the barriers attained various values of plastic deformation without reaching complete
failure. Thus, more research is needed to enhance the design of barriers to withstand a blast load while
reducing the plastic deformation values. As a result, this paper introduces an improved steel protective
panel design that could sustain a blast load with minimum plastic deformation and avert any failure.
This panel design includes a modified structural design. The modifications include reinforcement
techniques using shear connectors and horizontal and vertical walls.
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

Appl. Sci.any failure.

2020, 10, 2121This panel design includes a modified structural design. The modifications include
3 of 18
reinforcement techniques using shear connectors and horizontal and vertical walls.

2. Pressures
2. Pressures on theonStructural
the Structural Surfaces
Surfaces
The blast load is characterized by the instantaneous release of an enormous amount of energy,
The blast load is characterized by the instantaneous release of an enormous amount of energy,
and depends on the explosive materials and the basis of their physical state [42]. Explosions are
and depends on the explosive materials and the basis of their physical state [42]. Explosions are
classified as far-range explosions when the offset distance is equal to or greater than 1.2 m/kg 1/3; and
1/3
classified as far-range explosions when the offset distance is equal to or greater than 1.2 m/kg ; and are
are classified as near-range explosions when the offset distance is less than 1.2 m/kg1/3. Figure 1
classified as near-range
represents explosions
a typical when time
pressure versus the offset
plot ofdistance is lessThe
a blast wave. than m/kg1/3
1.2 wave
blast . Figure 1 represents
is characterized by a
a typical pressure versus time plot of a blast wave. The blast wave is characterized
sudden increase in incident pressure to a certain peak value, and the subsequent by a sudden
decay inincrease
the
in incident pressure
atmospheric to a certain
pressure peak
(positive value,
phase). andthat,
After thethe
subsequent decay in
incident pressure the atmospheric
decays pressure
further underneath
thephase).
(positive ambientAfter
atmospheric
that, thepressure
incidentproducing
pressurenegative
decays phase
furtherpressure. The pressure
underneath at any atmospheric
the ambient instant of
pressuretime is defined by
producing the modified
negative phaseFriedlander’s
pressure. The equation, as presented
pressure in Equation
at any instant (1) is defined by the
of time
modified Friedlander’s equation, as presented in Equation (1) t
t −θ ( t pos )
P ( t ) = P0 + Pso+ (1 − t )−θ
e ( t )    (1)
P(t) = P0 + Pso+ (1 − t pos)e tpos (1)
tpos
where, P (t) is the incident overpressure at any time instant; P0 is the ambient pressure; Pso+ and Pso−
where, P(t) is the incident overpressure at any time instant; P0 is the ambient pressure; Pso+ and Pso− are
are the peak positive incident overpressure and the peak negative incident under-pressure,
the peak positive incident
respectively; overpressure
tpos and tneg and
are the positive andthe
thepeak negative
negative phaseincident
durationsunder-pressure, respectively;
for the incident blast wave,
tpos andrespectively;
tneg are thetapositive and the negative phase durations for the incident blast wave, respectively;
is the arrival time; and θ is the decay parameter of the wave. Friedlander equation can
ta is thebearrival
used fortime; and θ isphase
the positive t
the decay tparameter
t . Theof theside-on
peak wave. overpressure
Friedlanderisequation
presentedcan be used for
in Equation
(2) [43]phase (t1 ≤ t ≤ t2 ). The peak side-on overpressure is presented in Equation (2) [43]
the positive
K
=
Pso++ = K11 (2)
Pso
Z3
Z3 (2)
where K1 is a constant depending on the quantity of the explosive charge as in [43]. The scaled
where K1 is a constant depending on the 1quantity of the explosive charge as in [43]. The scaled distance
distance is
is represented asrepresented
Z = R/W 3as
1
Z = R/W
, where
3 , where the variables R and W refer to the distance from the
the variables R and W refer to the distance from the center of a
center of a spherical charge and the charge mass of equivalent TNT, respectively.
spherical charge and the charge mass of equivalent TNT, respectively.

P(t)
Pso+

Positive Specific Impulse

Pressure

Negative Specific Impulse

t1 t2 t3
Po
Time
Pso-
ta tpos tneg

Figure
Figure 1. Pressure
1. Pressure vs.vs. timeplot
time plotfor
for blast
blast wave.
wave.

3. Mathematical Model
3. Mathematical and and
Model Model Hypothesis
Model Hypothesis
Protective
Protective panel models
panel models consistconsist
of two of two
steel steeljoined
plates plateswith
joined with connectors.
connectors. The introduced
The models models
in this introduced in this paper
paper are called are called the
the Combined Combined
Protection Protection
System System
(CPS), (CPS),
which is anwhich is an extension
extension of
of a previous
a previous model for a protective panel investigated in [44]. The panel design used in this
model for a protective panel investigated in [44]. The panel design used in this study consisted of two study
consisted of two steel plates, each 20 mm in thickness with a steel yield stress of 4.0 × 105 kPa. The
steel plates, each 20 mm in thickness with a steel yield stress of 4.0 × 105 kPa. The panel dimensions
were 3 m tall, 3 m wide, and 350 mm thick. Moreover, the panel was supported at the bottom due
to the limitations of deformation in the middle; hence, the bottom fixed support helped in reducing
the deformation in the middle of the panel. The parameters were adopted from [44]. Furthermore,
the effective charge weight was 50 kg of TNT. The standoff distance between the explosive charge
and panels was set to 1 m. The ANSYS AUTODYN finite element analysis package was deployed to
simulate the blast wave propagation, due to its ability to study air–structure interactions. The material
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 4 of 18

properties for the TNT and air were retrieved from the standard AUTODYN library. The modeling of
the air was carried out using 3D Euler equations, while the explosive charge was typically modeled
using the Jones Wilkens Lee (JWL) equation of state, which can be written as Equation (3) [28,45,46]
!
w −r1 v w −r2 v we
 
P = C1 1 − e + C2 1 − e + (3)
r1 v r2 v v

where P denotes the hydrostatic pressure, v denotes the specific volume, and e denotes the specific
internal energy. C1 , r1 , C2 , r2, and w are the material constants. The values of constants C1 , r1 , C2 , r2,
and w for many common explosives have been previously determined from dynamic experiments.
The values of the constants for TNT explosives are available in AUTODYN as shown in Table 1 [28,46,47].
In addition, the air is modeled by an ideal gas equation of state, which can be expressed as in
Equation (4)
P = C1 (γ − 1)ρe (4)

where, γ denotes the heat specific ratio and ρ denotes the density. The standard constants of air were
taken from AUTODYN material library, that is, air density, where ρ = 1.225 kg/m3 and γ = 1.4. The air
initial internal energy was assumed to be 2.068 × 105 kJ/kg [46].

Table 1. TNT explosive parameters.

Parameters C1 /MPa C2 /MPa r1 r2 w

Value 3.7377 × 105 3.7471 × 103 4.15 0.9 0.35

The material of the steel panel was selected from the ANSYS library. Additionally, the linear
equation of state and strength model was applied. The yield stress of the steel panel was assumed to
be 4 × 108 (Pa). The solver used for steel plates was the shell element. The air element was modeled
with dimensions of 4 m, 3 m, and 3 m, representing length, width, and height, respectively. Moreover,
movable gauges to measure deformation were added, where the critical gauge position was placed at
the mid-point of the panel. During the analysis there was a raised governing variable paradox either
pressure or deformation to be considered as governing variable as clarified in Fekry, M. et al. [44].
Furthermore, deformation was selected to be the governing value. Eventually, the boundary condition
was set as fixed free from the lower cross-section of the panel. Figure 2 illustrates the model setup.
For accuracy, the model validation was based on the previous work of the authors of [44]. By comparing
the results of the verification model and the reference model it was found that the correlation of the
results was very strong. The displacement peak value in the reference model was 82 mm and was
79 mm inAppl.
theSci.verification model [44].
2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

Figure 2. Model setup.

Figure 2. Model setup.
4. Results and Discussion

4.1. CPS 3
Horizontal and vertical plates were used in a joining method, where the vertical position
distance was 750 mm from the edge and the horizontal distance was 500 mm equally spaced. The
horizontal and vertical plates had a thickness of 12 mm. Figure 3 represents the orientation of
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 Figure 2. Model setup. 5 of 18

4. Results and Discussion

4. Results and Discussion
4.1. CPS 3
4.1. CPS 3
Horizontal and vertical plates were used in a joining method, where the vertical position
Horizontal
distance was 750and mm vertical
from plates
the edge wereandused
theinhorizontal
a joining method,
distancewhere
was 500 themm vertical position
equally distance
spaced. The
was 750 mm from the edge and the horizontal distance was 500 mm
horizontal and vertical plates had a thickness of 12 mm. Figure 3 represents the orientation ofequally spaced. The horizontal
and vertical
horizontal plates
and hadplates
vertical a thickness
insideof the12panel.
mm. Figure
The mixed3 represents
orientation theoforientation
the joiningofplates
horizontal
improvedand
vertical
the plates inside
distribution of thetheload
panel. Thefront
on the mixed orientation
and of the
rear plates; joining
thus, plates improved
deformation the distribution
was distributed along theof
the load on the front and rear plates; thus, deformation was distributed
plates. Consequently, the maximum deformation was reduced to 20 mm and occurred at 13 along the plates. Consequently,
the maximumThe
milliseconds. deformation was reducedversus
graph of deformation to 20 mm time and occurred
showed at 13 milliseconds.
a significant reduction inThe graph of
deformation
deformation versus time showed a significant reduction in deformation
and achieved promising results, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the location of the maximumand achieved promising results,
as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the location of the maximum deformation
deformation located in the middle of panel. The vertical plates increased the stiffness in the direction located in the middle
of loading
of panel. The duevertical plates increased
to the increase in inertia of thethe
stiffness
panel. in the direction
Finally, the mixed of oriented
loading due to the increase
connectors improved in
inertia of the panel. Finally, the mixed oriented connectors improved the
the stiffness of the structure in main stress directions. Plastic deformation in this model varied in stiffness of the structure in
main stress directions. Plastic deformation in this model varied in distribution
distribution between the front, rear, and stiffener plates. Deformation in the front plate recorded a between the front, rear,
and stiffener
wide plates. Deformation
plastic region. However, plastic in thedeformation
front plate recorded
in the reara wide
plate plastic region. However,
was included plastic
in small regions.
deformation in the rear plate was included in small regions. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the deformation in vertical connecting plates was plastic deformation with small elastic the deformation in vertical
connecting
regions. Theplates
lower washorizontal
plastic deformation
connecting with smallachieved
plates elastic regions. The plastic
a larger lower horizontal
deformation connecting
region
plates achieved a larger plastic deformation region compared to the
compared to the upper plates. This is because of the proximity of lower plate to the explosiveupper plates. This is because of
charge.
the proximity of lower plate to the explosive charge. In conclusion,
In conclusion, the contribution of the vertical plates was significant. Comparison between the the contribution of the vertical
plates was significant.
deformation plots for the Comparison
front, rear,between the deformation
and connector plots for
plates is shown in the front,
Figure rear, and
6, Figure connector
7and Figure
8. Where the green color represents an elastic region and the light blue color representslight
plates is shown in Figures 6–8. Where the green color represents an elastic region and the blue
a plastic
color
region.represents a plastic region.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Figure 3. Orientation of horizontal and vertical plates inside the panel for Combined Protection System
Figure 3. Orientation of horizontal and vertical plates inside the panel for Combined Protection
(CPS) 3. System (CPS) 3.

5.0
2.5
0.0
-2.5
Deformation (mm)

-5.0
-7.5
-10.0
-12.5
-15.0
-17.5
-20.0
-22.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (ms)

4. Time
FigureFigure history
4. Time displacement
history curve
displacement curve for 3.CPS 3.
for CPS
 -17.5
-17.5
-20.0
-20.0
-22.5
-22.5
0
0 2
2 4
4 6
6 8
8 10
10 12
12 14
14 16
16 18
18 20
20
Time (ms)
Time (ms)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 6 of 18
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Time
Time history
history displacement
displacement curve
curve for
for CPS
CPS 3.
3.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Location
Location of
Location of the
of the maximum
the maximum deformation
maximum deformation located at
deformation located at the
the panel
panel middle
middle for
for CPS
CPS 3.
3.

Figure
Figure
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER 6. Plastic
6.
REVIEW Plastic deformation
Plastic deformation region
deformation region in front
region in front plate
plate for
for CPS
CPS 3.
3. 7 of 18

Figure 7. Plastic
Plastic deformation
deformation region
region in rear plate for CPS 3.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 7 of 18
Figure 7. Plastic deformation region in rear plate for CPS 3.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Plastic
Plastic deformation region in
deformation region in connector
connector plates
plates for
for CPS
CPS 3.
3.

4.2. CPS 4
The
The number
numberofofvertical plates
vertical waswas
plates increased
increasedto four, equally
to four, spacedspaced
equally at 1000atmm,1000while
mm,the number
while the
of horizontal
number plates was
of horizontal kept was
plates the same
kept astheinsame
the previous
as in themodel.
previous Figure 9 represents
model. Figure 9 the orientation
represents the
of horizontalofand
orientation vertical and
horizontal plates insideplates
vertical the panel.
inside Thethenew panel
panel. Thedesign improved
new panel designtheimproved
deformation the
distribution,
deformation while reducing
distribution, the regions
while reducing of the
plastic deformation
regions of plasticindeformation
all plates. Ininaddition, theInmaximum
all plates. addition,
deformation
the maximumwas reduced significantly
deformation was reducedtosignificantly
16 mm, occurring 9 milliseconds
to 16 mm, occurring 9before the panel
milliseconds started
before the
relieving
panel startedthe load. The vertical
relieving the load. plates
The achieved a smaller
vertical plates plastica region
achieved smallercompared to thecompared
plastic region previous model.
to the
previous
The designmodel.
cost of The designwould
this model cost ofbethis model
higher thanwould be higher
the previous than
model, butthe previous model,
it withstood the blastbut
loadit
withstood
with the blast
less damage andload with less
without damage
failure. and without
Furthermore, suchfailure.
panelsFurthermore,
would be ablesuch panelssequential
to sustain would be
able to
blast sustain
waves, in sequential blastattacks
case of several waves, occurring
in case of concurrently.
several attacksFinally,
occurring
the concurrently. Finally, the
CPS results achieved
CPS results
main achieved
goal, which was the main
clearly goal, which
observed in thewas clearly observed
deformation in the in
graph shown deformation graph shown
Figure 10. Figure 11 shows in
Figure
the 10. Figure
location 11 shows deformation
of the maximum the location at ofthe
themiddle
maximum of thedeformation at thethe
panel. Moreover, middle
plasticof the panel.
deformation
Moreover,
regions therear,
of the plastic deformation
front, vertical, and regions of theplates
horizontal rear, front,
showed vertical, and results
promising horizontal platesthe
matching showed
aims
promising
of resultsasmatching
the researcher, shown inthe aims of
Figures the researcher, as shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure
12–14.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
14.

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Orientation
Orientationof
ofhorizontal
horizontal and
and vertical
vertical plates
plates inside
inside the
the panel
panel for
for CPS
CPS 4.
4.

5.0
2.5
0.0
-2.5
Deformation (mm)

-5.0
-7.5
-10.0
-12.5
-15.0
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 8 of 18
Figure
Figure9.9.Orientation
Orientationof
ofhorizontal
horizontaland
andvertical
verticalplates
platesinside
insidethe
thepanel
panelfor
forCPS
CPS4.4.

5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
-2.5
-2.5

(mm)
Deformation(mm)
-5.0
-5.0
-7.5
-7.5

Deformation
-10.0
-10.0
-12.5
-12.5
-15.0
-15.0
-17.5
-17.5
-20.0
-20.0
-22.5
-22.5
00 22 44 66 88 1010 12 12 14
14 16
16 18
18 20
20
Time
Time(ms)
(ms)

Figure 10.Time
Figure10. Timedisplacement
displacementcurve
curvefor
forCPS
CPS4.4.

Figure
Appl. Sci. 2020, 11.
11.Location
10, x FOR
Figure PEER of
ofthe
REVIEW
Location themaximum deformation,located
maximumdeformation, locatedat
atthe
thepanel
panelmiddle
middlefor
forCPS
CPS4.4. 9 of 18

Figure 12. Plastic

Plastic deformation
deformation region
region in
in front
front plate for CPS 4.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 9 of 18
Figure12.
Figure 12.Plastic
Plasticdeformation
deformationregion
regionin
infront
frontplate
platefor
forCPS
CPS4.
4.

Figure13.
Figure 13.Plastic
Plastic deformation
Plasticdeformation region
deformationregion inrear
regionin rearplate
platefor
forCPS
CPS4.
4.

Figure14.
Figure 14.Plastic
Plastic deformation
Plasticdeformation region
deformationregion inconnector
regionin connectorplates
platesfor
forCPS
CPS4.
4.

4.3.CPS
4.3.
4.3. CPS444and
CPS andMasonry
and MasonryWall
Masonry Wallwith
Wall withNo
with NoDistance
No Distancebetween
Distance betweenThem
between Them
Them
The masonry
The
The masonry wall
masonry wall used
wall used in
used in the
in the model
the model consisted
model consisted of
consisted of standard
of standard small
standard small bricks
small bricks placed
bricks placed in
placed in the
in the wide
the wide
wide
direction.Cement
direction.
direction. Cementmortar
Cement mortar
mortar joined
joined
joined thethe
the brick
brick
brick with
with
with each
each
each other.
other.
other. TheThe
The wallwall
wall dimensions
dimensions
dimensions werewere
were concurrent
concurrent
concurrent with
with
with the
the panel
the panel dimensions.
panel dimensions.
dimensions. The The
The panel panel
panel was was separated
was separated
separated from from
from the the
the wall wall
wall by by zero
by zero distance;
zero distance; it was
distance; itit was totallyin
was totally
totally in
in
contactwith
contact
contact withthe
with thefront
the front plate.
front plate. Boundarycondition
plate. Boundary
Boundary conditionselected
condition selectedfor
selected forthe
for thewall
the wallrepresented
wall representedaaahinged
represented hingedwall,
hinged wall,as
wall, as
as
shown in Figure 15. Reasons behind the use of a masonry wall include two main points. Firstly for
security reasons; in most cases, the panel would be placed on the inner side of the premises’ fence
wall to work as the main protective component without being visible from the outside. Secondly, a
masonry wall would fail once the charge was detonated, which would reduce the intensity of the
blast wave before hitting the front panel plates. Consequently, the deformation after adding the
masonry wall was reduced significantly, recording a maximum deformation of 13 mm. Figure 16 shows
the maximum deformation, which occurred at 11 milliseconds. Furthermore, the deformation first
occurred in the mortar of the wall; after that, bricks start failing. Figure 17 shows that the maximum
deformation occurred in CPS4 at the end of analysis and failure of the masonry wall. Moreover,
the plastic deformation regions of the rear, front, vertical, and horizontal plates were lower than CPS4
because the masonry wall consumed part of blast wave, as shown in Figures 18–20.
 showsthe
shows themaximum
maximumdeformation,
deformation,which
whichoccurred
occurredat at1111milliseconds.
milliseconds.Furthermore,
Furthermore,the thedeformation
deformation
first occurred
first occurred in in the
the mortar
mortar of
of the
the wall;
wall; after
after that,
that, bricks
bricks start
start failing.
failing. Figure
Figure 17 17 shows
shows that
that the
the
maximum deformation occurred in CPS4 at the end of analysis and failure
maximum deformation occurred in CPS4 at the end of analysis and failure of the masonry wall. of the masonry wall.
Moreover,the
Moreover, theplastic
plasticdeformation
deformationregions
regionsofofthe
therear,
rear,front,
front,vertical,
vertical,and
andhorizontal
horizontalplates
plateswere
werelower
lower
thanSci.
than
Appl. CPS4
CPS4 because
2020,because the masonry
10, 2121 the masonry wall
wall consumed
consumed partpart of
of blast
blast wave,
wave, asas shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 18
18 Figure
Figure 19
10 of19
18
Figure
Figure 20.20.

Figure15.
Figure
Figure 15.Model
15. Modelsetup
setupfor
forCPS
CPS44and
andmasonry
masonrywall
wallwith
withno
nodistance.
distance.

5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
-2.5
-2.5
(mm)
Deformation(mm)

-5.0
-5.0
-7.5
-7.5
Deformation

-10.0
-10.0
-12.5
-12.5
-15.0
-15.0
-17.5
-17.5
-20.0
-20.0
-22.5
-22.5
00 22 44 66 88 10 12
10 12 14
14 16
16 18
18 20
20
Time (ms)
Time (ms)

Figure
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,Figure
Figure 16.
x FOR 16.
PEERTime displacement
REVIEW
16.Time
Time curve
displacementcurve
displacement of
curveof CPS
CPS444and
ofCPS and
andmasonry
masonrywall
masonry wallwith
wall withno
with nodistance.
no distance.
distance. 11 of 18

Figure 17.
Figure The maximum
17. The maximum deformation
deformation for
for CPS
CPS 44 and
and wall
wall failure.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 11 of 18
Figure 17. The maximum deformation for CPS 4 and wall failure.

Figure 18. Plastic

Plastic deformation
deformation region
region in front plate of CPS 4 and masonry wall with no distance.

Appl. Sci.Figure 19.x FOR

2020, 10, Plastic
Plastic
PEERdeformation
REVIEW region
deformation region in rear plate for CPS 4 and masonry wall with no distance. 12 of 18

Figure 20. Plastic

Figure 20. Plastic deformation region in
deformation region in connector
connectorplates
platesof
ofCPS
CPS44and
andmasonry
masonrywall
wallwith
withno
nodistance.
distance.
4.4. CPS 4 and Masonry Wall with 500 mm Distance between Them
4.4. CPS 4 and Masonry Wall with 500 mm Distance between Them
CPS 4 presumes that the panel will be installed behind a masonry wall with a distance between
themCPS
equal to 500 mm.
4 presumes Hence,
that the previous
the panel model was
will be installed repeated
behind with the
a masonry same
wall conditions
with a distancebut with a
between
500 mm
them distance
equal to 500between panelthe
mm. Hence, andprevious
masonrymodel
wall. This
was distance
repeatedallowed
with thethe masonry
same wall to
conditions butabsorb
with
amore
500 energy while failing.
mm distance between Figure
panel21 and
shows the model
masonry setup.
wall. ThisThe blast swept
distance thethe
allowed wallmasonry
until hitting
wallthe
to
panel
absorbasmore
shown in Figure
energy while22. This reduced
failing. Figure 21the blast the
shows loadmodel
effect setup.
by a significant
The blastvalue.
swept Consequently,
the wall until
the deformation
hitting the panelinastheshown
panel achieved
in Figurenear zero deformation.
22. This Deformation
reduced the blast recorded
load effect by a asignificant
maximumvalue.value
of 2 mm at 5 milliseconds,
Consequently, as shown
the deformation in theinpanel
Figure 23. Furthermore,
achieved the plastic deformation
near zero deformation. Deformation region was
recorded
a maximum value of 2 mm at 5 milliseconds, as shown in Figure 23. Furthermore, the plastic
deformation region was obvious where the masonry wall hit the panel at the front plate.
Nevertheless, the rear plate showed zero plastic region, which means that the rear plate was
functioning after the blast, with no damage. So, the panel could be reversed and not changed until
the second incident might happen. This would lead to cost reduction and would double the panel life
them equal to 500 mm. Hence, the previous model was repeated with the same conditions but with
a 500 mm distance between panel and masonry wall. This distance allowed the masonry wall to
absorb more energy while failing. Figure 21 shows the model setup. The blast swept the wall until
hitting the panel as shown in Figure 22. This reduced the blast load effect by a significant value.
Consequently,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, the
2121deformation in the panel achieved near zero deformation. Deformation recorded
12 of 18
a maximum value of 2 mm at 5 milliseconds, as shown in Figure 23. Furthermore, the plastic
deformation region was obvious where the masonry wall hit the panel at the front plate.
obvious where the masonry wall hit the panel at the front plate. Nevertheless, the rear plate showed
Nevertheless, the rear plate showed zero plastic region, which means that the rear plate was
zero plastic region, which means that the rear plate was functioning after the blast, with no damage.
functioning after the blast, with no damage. So, the panel could be reversed and not changed until
So, the panel could be reversed and not changed until the second incident might happen. This would
the second incident might happen. This would lead to cost reduction and would double the panel life
lead to cost reduction and would double the panel life cycle. However, if the explosive charge weight
cycle. However, if the explosive charge weight were doubled, the panel would have extra protection
were doubled, the panel would have extra protection with the same setup at the time of the attack.
with the same setup at the time of the attack. Figure 24 and Figure 25 show the impact of the blast
Figures 24 and 25 show the impact of the blast load on the front and the rear plates.
load on the front and the rear plates.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

Appl. Sci.Figure
2020, 10, 21.
Figure x21.
FORModel
Model setup
setup in
PEER REVIEW in case
case of
of CPS
CPS 44 and
and masonry
masonry wall
wall with
with 500
500 mm
mm distance.
distance.13 of 18

Figure 22. Deformation plot of CPS 4 and masonry wall with 500 mm distance.
Figure 22. Deformation plot of CPS 4 and masonry wall with 500 mm distance.
Figure 22. Deformation plot of CPS 4 and masonry wall with 500 mm distance.
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
Deformation (mm)

3.0
Deformation (mm)

3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8Time10
(ms) 12 14 16 18 20
Time (ms)
Figure 23. Time displacement curve of CPS 4 and masonry wall with 500 mm distance.
23. Time
FigureFigure displacement
23. Time displacementcurve ofCPS
curve of CPS4 4and
and masonry
masonry wall
wall withwith 500 mm
500 mm distance.
distance.
 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (ms)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 13 of 18
Figure 23. Time displacement curve of CPS 4 and masonry wall with 500 mm distance.

Appl. Sci. 2020,24.

Figure 10, Plastic
x FOR PEER REVIEW region in front plate of CPS 4 and masonry wall with 500 mm distance.
deformation 14 of 18
Figure 24. Plastic deformation region in front plate of CPS 4 and masonry wall with 500 mm distance.

Figure 25.
Figure Plasticdeformation
25. Plastic deformationregion
region in
in rear
rear plate
plate of
of CPS
CPS 44 and
and masonry
masonry wall
wall with
with 500
500 mm
mm distance.
distance.

The great
The great performance
performance of of CPS4
CPS4against
againstthethe50
50kgkgofofTNTTNTallowed
allowedthe theauthors
authors toto
take thethe
take model
model to
next level. The model was repeated and examined against a charge weight
to next level. The model was repeated and examined against a charge weight of 500 kg of TNT. This of 500 kg of TNT. This run
helped
run to study
helped the maximum
to study the maximum bearable blast load
bearable blastof load
the panel.
of theAstonishing results were
panel. Astonishing observed,
results were
proving that the panel could protect critical buildings from a charge of up
observed, proving that the panel could protect critical buildings from a charge of up to 500 kg of to 500 kg of TNT. Such
TNT.an
explosive charge would emulate a large-scale terrorist attack. Figure
Such an explosive charge would emulate a large-scale terrorist attack. Figure 26 shows the 26 shows the deformation versus
time of the panel
deformation versus against
time of 500 thekgpanel
of TNT. The 500
against maximum
kg of TNT.deformation
The maximumvalue was 160 mm,value
deformation occurring
was
at 20 ms. The plastic deformation region of the rear plate is shown in
160 mm, occurring at 20 ms. The plastic deformation region of the rear plate is shown in Figure Figure 27. The failure in the
27.
masonry
The wall,
failure the masonry
in the front plate, andthe
wall, thefront
connecting plates
plate, and theare shown in plates
connecting Figuresare 28–30,
shown respectively.
in Figure 28,
FigureFollowing the blast
29 and Figure 30,wave, the masonry wall was swept until smashing the front plate; the masonry
respectively.
wall Following
was totallythe destroyed
blast wave, tore
and the the plate at
masonry a lower
wall was section. Moreover,
swept until smashingthe horizontal plate was
the front plate; the
disintegrated from the middle at the vertical plates. Furthermore, the fragments
masonry wall was totally destroyed and tore the plate at a lower section. Moreover, the horizontal of all the failed parts
crumbled
plate onto the rear plate,
was disintegrated from thecausing
middlehigh atplastic deformation.
the vertical However, thethe
plates. Furthermore, plastic region of
fragments wasallvery
the
large with no obvious failure occurring in the rear plate. This means that
failed parts crumbled onto the rear plate, causing high plastic deformation. However, the plasticsuch panels could withstand
a charge
region of very
was up tolarge
500 Kgwith of no
TNT. Eventually,
obvious failurethis model proved
occurring thatplate.
in the rear the CPS4 had a chance
This means that suchto survive
panels
a charge that is larger than moderately sized, which is rarely used in suicide
could withstand a charge of up to 500 Kg of TNT. Eventually, this model proved that the CPS4 had a attacks. In conclusion,
the research
chance aim has
to survive been achieved
a charge that is largerandthan
validated theoretically.
moderately sized, which is rarely used in suicide attacks.
In conclusion, the research aim has been achieved and validated theoretically.

0
-20
-40
formation (mm)

-60
-80
-100
-120
plate was disintegrated from the middle at the vertical plates. Furthermore, the fragments of all the
failed parts crumbled onto the rear plate, causing high plastic deformation. However, the plastic
region was very large with no obvious failure occurring in the rear plate. This means that such panels
could withstand a charge of up to 500 Kg of TNT. Eventually, this model proved that the CPS4 had a
chance to survive a charge that is larger than moderately sized, which is rarely used in suicide attacks.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 14 of 18
In conclusion, the research aim has been achieved and validated theoretically.

0
-20
-40

Deformation (mm)
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0
Time (ms)

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER

Figure 26.REVIEW
Time displacement curve due to charge weight of
of 500
500 kg
kg of
of TNT.
TNT. 15 of 18

Figure
Figure 27.
27. Plastic
Plasticdeformation
deformationregion
region in
in rear
rear plate
plate due
due to
to charge
charge weight
weight of 500 of TNT.

Figure
Figure 28.
28. Masonry
Masonry wall
wall failure
failure due
due to
to charge
charge weight
weight of
of 500
500 kg
kg of
of TNT.
TNT.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 15 of 18
Figure 28. Masonry wall failure due to charge weight of 500 kg of TNT.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FORFigure

Figure 29.
29. Front
Front plate
PEER REVIEW plate failure
failure due
due to
to charge
charge weight
weight of
of 500
500 kg
kg of
of TNT.
TNT. 16 of 18

Figure 30. Connecting

Connecting plates failure due to charge weight of 500 kg of TNT.
TNT.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Combined
Combined protection
protection systems
systems were
were investigated
investigated against
against various
various blast
blast loads
loads in
in this
this paper.
paper. Panel
Panel
designs
designs consisted
consisted ofof front
front and
and rear
rear steel plates connected
steel plates connected with vertical and
with vertical horizontal stiffeners.
and horizontal stiffeners. Finite
Finite
element
element simulation
simulation techniques
techniques werewere used
used to
to avoid
avoid thethe complexity
complexity and
and expenses
expenses of of physical
physical tests.
tests.
The investigation was simulated using the ANSYS (AUTODYN)
The investigation was simulated using the ANSYS (AUTODYN) finite elements package. finite elements package.
The
The analysis
analysis parameters
parameters were consistent
were consistent with the with
othertheresearch
other research parameters,
parameters, and real
and reflected reflected
cases. real
The
cases.
resultsThe results above
presented presented above
ensured thatensured
all the that
panels all would
the panels would
survive survive
a blast loadathat
blast load that
would would
result from
result
50 kg from
of TNT 50 without
kg of TNT anywithout
failure.any failure. the
However, However, the differences
differences between the between
variousthedesigns
variouswere
designs
the
were the distribution of plastic deformation region and the maximum deformation
distribution of plastic deformation region and the maximum deformation values. The concept of values. The concept
of placing
placing a solid
a solid barrier
barrier to to decrease
decrease thethe effect
effect of of a blast
a blast load
load presented
presented many
many promising
promising results.
results.
The
The robust
robust design
design ofof the
the panels
panels showed
showed great
great performance,
performance, notnot only
only in
in resisting
resisting aa blast
blast wave
wave
but also in providing protection from fragments. This will help in improving the
but also in providing protection from fragments. This will help in improving the safety and security safety and security
of
of critical
critical infrastructures
infrastructures without
without having
having such
such protection
protection panels
panels visible.
visible. The
The comparison
comparison of of various
various
panel
panel designs
designs allowed
allowed thethe authors
authors toto select
select the
the more
more robust
robust design
design and
and examine
examine it it against
against aa higher
higher
explosive
explosive charge quantity. This resulted in the design withstanding the extreme loading but with
charge quantity. This resulted in the design withstanding the extreme loading but with
total
total failure
failure ofof the
the front
front plate.
plate. With
With all
all being
being said,
said, the
the presented
presented designs
designs showed
showed outstanding
outstanding blast
blast
wave mitigation capabilities. Moreover, the AUTODYN software showed great ability in studying
air–structure interactions with a high-level of accuracy.

Author Contributions: E.F. and M.E.; methodology, E.F. and M.E; software, E.F; M.E; and M.H analyzed the
data; E.F. and M.E; validation, E.F; M.E; and M.H; formal analysis, E.F. and M.E investigation, A.A., E.F, M.E.,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 16 of 18

wave mitigation capabilities. Moreover, the AUTODYN software showed great ability in studying
air–structure interactions with a high-level of accuracy.

Author Contributions: E.F. and M.M.E.; methodology, E.F. and M.M.E.; software, E.F.; M.M.E.; and M.H. analyzed
the data; E.F. and M.M.E.; validation, E.F.; M.M.E.; and M.H.; formal analysis, E.F. and M.M.E. investigation,
A.A., E.F., M.M.E., and M.H.; resources, E.F. and M.M.E.; data curation, E.F. and M.M.E.; writing—original draft
preparation, E.F., M.M.E., and M.H., writing—review and editing, E.F., and M.M.E.; supervision. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to Taif University (Taif, KSA), Military Technical College (Cairo,
Egypt), the knowledge Hub Universities, and Mansoura University (Mansoura, Egypt) for providing all the
required facilities to carry out the present research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Abbas, A.; Adil, M.; Ahmad, N.; Ahmad, I. Behavior of reinforced concrete sandwiched panels (RCSPs)
under blast load. Eng. Struct. 2019, 181, 476–490. [CrossRef]
2. Draganić, H.; Gazić, G.; Varevac, D. Experimental investigation of design and retrofit methods for blast load
mitigation—A state-of-the-art review. Eng. Struct. 2019, 190, 189–209. [CrossRef]
3. Li, Z.; Chen, W.; Hao, H. Numerical study of sandwich panel with a new bi-directional Load-Self-Cancelling
(LSC) core under blast loading. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 127, 90–101. [CrossRef]
4. Helal, M.M.K.; Elsayed, F. Dynamic behavior of stiffened plates under underwater shock loading. Mater.
Test. 2015, 57, 506–517. [CrossRef]
5. Fathallah, E.; Qi, H.; Tong, L.; Helal, M. Numerical Simulation and Response of Stiffened Plates Subjected to
Non-Contact Underwater Explosion. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 752586. [CrossRef]
6. Fathallah, E.; Qi, H.; Tong, L.; Helal, M. Numerical investigation of the dynamic response of optimized
composite elliptical submersible pressure hull subjected to non-contact underwater explosion. Compos.
Struct. 2015, 121, 121–133. [CrossRef]
7. Xu, J.; Liu, J.; Gu, W.; Liu, X.; Cao, T. Shock Wave Attenuation Characteristics of Aluminum Foam Sandwich
Panels Subjected to Blast Loading. Shock Vib. 2018, 2018, 2686389. [CrossRef]
8. Liu, H.; Cao, Z.K.; Yao, G.C.; Luo, H.J.; Zu, G.Y. Performance of aluminum foam–steel panel sandwich
composites subjected to blast loading. Mater. Des. 2013, 47, 483–488. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, C.; Xu, B.; Chung Kim Yuen, S. Numerical analysis of cladding sandwich panels with tubular cores
subjected to uniform blast load. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2019, 133, 103345. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, D.; Jing, L.; Yang, F. Optimal design of sandwich panels with layered-gradient aluminum foam cores
under air-blast loading. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 166, 169–186. [CrossRef]
11. Helal, M.; Huang, H.; Fathallah, E.; Wang, D.; ElShafey, M.M.; Ali, M.A.E.M. Numerical Analysis and Dynamic
Response of Optimized Composite Cross Elliptical Pressure Hull Subject to Non-Contact Underwater Blast
Loading. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3489. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Cui, C.; Zhao, B. Investigating Different Grounds Effects on Shock Wave Propagation
Resulting from Near-Ground Explosion. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3639. [CrossRef]
13. Zhou, X.Q.; Hao, H. Prediction of airblast loads on structures behind a protective barrier. Int. J. Impact Eng.
2008, 35, 363–375. [CrossRef]
14. Elsayed, F.; Nagy, N.M.; Lili, T. Numerical Evaluation of Composite Plates Performance under the Effect
of Underwater Explosion. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Aerospace Sciences &
Aviation Technology, Military Technical College, Kobry Elkobbah, Cairo, Egypt, 29 May 2013; pp. 1–15.
15. Abdel Wahab, M.M.; Mazek, S.; Abada, M.M. Effect of blast wave on lightweight structure performance.
J. Eng. Sci. Mil. Technol. 2017, 1, 1–6. [CrossRef]
16. Alqwasmi, N.; Tarlochan, F.; Alkhatib, E.S. Study of Mild Steel Sandwich Structure Energy Absorption
Performance Subjected to Localized Impulsive Loading. Materials 2020, 13, 670. [CrossRef]
17. Maňas, P. The Protection of Critical Infrastructure Objects—Technical Principles. In Durability of Critical
Infrastructure, Monitoring and Testing; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 239–248.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 17 of 18

18. Li, J.; Wu, C.; Hao, H.; Liu, Z. Post-blast capacity of ultra-high performance concrete columns. Eng. Struct.
2017, 134, 289–302. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, H.; Wu, C.; Zhang, F.; Fang, Q.; Xiang, H.; Li, P.; Li, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J. Experimental study
of large-sized concrete filled steel tube columns under blast load. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 134, 131–141.
[CrossRef]
20. Elshafey, M.M.; Braimah, A.; Abd El Halim, A.O.; Contestabile, E. Aluminum Foam-Lined Suppressive
Shields for Safe Transport of Explosives: Experimental Investigation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 2288, 91–102.
[CrossRef]
21. Braimah, A.; Elshafey, M.; Halim, A.E.H.O.A.E.; Contestabile, E. Experimental Investigation of Aluminum
Foam Lined Suppressive Shield Containment Vessels. Int. J. Prot. Struct. 2012, 3, 193–220. [CrossRef]
22. Peña, M.E.A.C. Blast Loading Retrofit of Unreinforced Masonry Walls. Struct. Perform. Artic. 2009, 4, 16–20.
23. Langdon, G.S.; Lee, W.C.; Louca, L.A. The influence of material type on the response of plates to air-blast
loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2015, 78, 150–160. [CrossRef]
24. McDonald, B.; Bornstein, H.; Langdon, G.S.; Curry, R.; Daliri, A.; Orifici, A.C. Experimental response of high
strength steels to localised blast loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2018, 115, 106–119. [CrossRef]
25. Sun, G.; Wang, E.; Zhang, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Q. Experimental study on the dynamic responses of foam
sandwich panels with different facesheets and core gradients subjected to blast impulse. Int. J. Impact Eng.
2019. [CrossRef]
26. Jacob, N.; Nurick, G.N.; Langdon, G.S. The effect of stand-off distance on the failure of fully clamped circular
mild steel plates subjected to blast loads. Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 2723–2736. [CrossRef]
27. Mehreganian, N.; Fallah, A.S.; Louca, L.A. Inelastic dynamic response of square membranes subjected to
localised blast loading. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2018, 148, 578–595. [CrossRef]
28. Zong, R.; Hao, H.; Shi, Y. Development of a New Fence Type Blast Wall for Blast Protection: Numerical
Analysis. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2017, 17, 1–29. [CrossRef]
29. Xia, Y.; Wu, C.; Zhang, F.; Li, Z.-X.; Bennett, T. Numerical Analysis of Foam-Protected RC Members under
Blast Loads. Int. J. Prot. Struct. 2014, 5, 367–390. [CrossRef]
30. Wu, C.; Sheikh, H. A finite element modelling to investigate the mitigation of blast effects on reinforced
concrete panel using foam cladding. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2013, 55, 24–33. [CrossRef]
31. Palta, E.; Gutowski, M.; Fang, H. A numerical study of steel and hybrid armor plates under ballistic impacts.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 2018, 136–137, 279–294. [CrossRef]
32. Fallon, C.; McShane, G.J. Fluid-structure interactions for the air blast loading of elastomer-coated concrete.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 2019, 168, 138–152. [CrossRef]
33. Baker, W.E. Explosions in Air; University of Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA; London, UK, 1973.
34. Cai, S.; Liu, J.; Zhang, P.; Li, C.; Cheng, Y. Dynamic response of sandwich panels with multi-layered aluminum
foam/UHMWPE laminate cores under air blast loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2020, 138, 103475. [CrossRef]
35. Liang, M.; Li, X.; Lin, Y.; Zhang, K.; Lu, F. Dynamic Compressive Behaviors of Two-Layer Graded Aluminum
Foams under Blast Loading. Materials 2019, 12, 1445. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Cheng, Y.; Zhou, T.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, P. Numerical investigation on the dynamic response of
foam-filled corrugated core sandwich panels subjected to air blast loading. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2019, 21,
838–864. [CrossRef]
37. Yazici, M.; Wright, J.; Bertin, D.; Shukla, A. Experimental and numerical study of foam filled corrugated core
steel sandwich structures subjected to blast loading. Compos. Struct. 2014, 110, 98–109. [CrossRef]
38. Xue, Z.; Hutchinson, J.W. A comparative study of impulse-resistant metal sandwich plates. Int. J. Impact Eng.
2004, 30, 1283–1305. [CrossRef]
39. Zhang, L.; Hebert, R.; Wright, J.T.; Shukla, A.; Kim, J.-H. Dynamic response of corrugated sandwich steel
plates with graded cores. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2014, 65, 185–194. [CrossRef]
40. Abdel Wahab, M.; Mazek, S.; Abada, M.; Abdel Shafy, M. Blast hazard impact on V-shape composite panel
performance. J. Eng. Sci. Mil. Technol. 2018, 2, 90–99. [CrossRef]
41. Hussein, A.; Heyliger, P.; Mahmoud, H. Blast response of a thin oriented strand board wall. Eng. Struct.
2019, 201, 109835. [CrossRef]
42. Goswami, A.; Adhikary, S.D. Retrofitting materials for enhanced blast performance of Structures: Recent
advancement and challenges ahead. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 204, 224–243. [CrossRef]
43. Bulson, P.S. Explosive Loading of Engineering Structures; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2121 18 of 18

44. Fekry, M.; Mahmoud, G.; Elshafey, M. Protective Panels Design against Blast Loads. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci.
2017, 11, 143–156.
45. Fedorova, N.; Valger, S.; Fedorov, A. Simulation of blast action on civil structures using ANSYS Autodyn.
In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Perm Krai, Russia, 27 June–3 July 2016; pp. 1–10.
46. Zheng, C.; Kong, X.-S.; Wu, W.-G.; Xu, S.-X.; Guan, Z.-W. Experimental and numerical studies on the dynamic
response of steel plates subjected to confined blast loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2018, 113, 144–160. [CrossRef]
47. Wu, C.; Lu, Y.; Hao, H. Numerical prediction of blast-induced stress wave from large-scale underground
explosion. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 2004, 28, 93–109. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).