Advertisement

Dynamic material performance of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review

  • Cameron B. Ritchie
  • Jeffrey A. Packer
  • Xiao-Ling Zhao
  • Amin Heidarpour
  • Yiyi Chen
Review

Abstract

This paper presents a literature review focused on the material performance of cold-formed, carbon steel, hollow structural sections under impulsive (highly dynamic) loading. Impulsive loading, represented by impact and blast, is characterized by a very rapid, time-dependent loading regime in the affected members and materials. Thus, the effect of high-strain-rate loading is initially reviewed. Next the material toughness, an important energy-absorption property and one measure of a material’s ability to arrest fracture, is considered by means of studying the Charpy V-notch behavior. The response of hollow sections under axial and lateral impact loading is then reviewed.

Studies of blast on hollow sections, most of which fall under the categories of contact/near-field loading or far-field loading are presented. Under large-scale field blast experiments, cold-formed hollow sections have shown excellent behavior. Software for modeling blast loading and structural response, the latter including single degree of freedom analysis and explicit finite element analysis, is described and discussed.

Keywords

cold-formed steel hollow structural sections composites impulsive loading impact blast experimentation analysis material properties 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Comité International pour le Développement et l’ Étude de la Construction Tubulaire (CIDECT) Programme 16G, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Explora Foundation, and the Tsinghua Initiative Scientific Research Program (No. 20131089347).

References

  1. 1.
    Liew J Y R. Survivability of steel frame structures subject to blast and fire. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2008, 64(7–8): 854–866Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luecke WE, McColskey J D, McCowan C N, Banovic SW, Fields R J, Foecke T J, Siewert T A, Gayle FW. Mechanical properties of structural steels–federal building and fire safety investigation of the world trade center disaster. NIST NCSTAR 1–3D Report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilsanz R, Hamburger R, Barker D, Smith J L, Rahimian A. Design of blast resistant structures. Steel Design Guide No. 26, American Institute of Construction, Chicago, IL, USA, 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DOD. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. UFC 3–340–02, Department of Defense, Washington, DC, USA, 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASCE. Design of blast resistant buildings in petrochemical facilities. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA, 2010Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASCE. Blast protection of buildings. ASCE/SEI 59–11, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA, 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CSA. Design and assessment of buildings subjected to blast loads. S850–12, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Canada, 2012Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rao, N R N, Lohrmann, M, Tall, L. Effect of strain rate on the yield stress of structural steel. Journal of Materials, ASTM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Publication No. 293, 1966Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soroushian P, Choi K. Steel mechanical properties at different strain rates. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1987, 113(4): 663–672Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kassar M, Yu W. Effect of strain rate on material properties of sheet steels. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1992, 118(11): 3136–3150Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malvar L J, Crawford J E. Dynamic increase factors for steel reinforcing bars. 28th. Department of Defence Explosive Safety Board Seminar, Orlando, FL, USA, 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filiatrault A, Holleran M. Stress-strain behaviour of reinforcing steel and concrete under seismic strain rates and low temperatures. Materials and Structures, 2001, 34(4): 235–239Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sun M, Packer J A. High strain rate behaviour of cold-formed rectangular hollow sections. Engineering Structures, 2014, 62–63: 181–192Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ritchie C B, Gow M I, Packer J A, Heidarpour A. Mechanical properties of hollow structural sections under elevated strain rates. Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Structural Steel Conference, Shanghai, China, 708–714, 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mirmomeni M, Heidarpour A, Zhao X L, Hutchinson C R, Packer J A, Wu C. Mechanical properties of partially damaged structural steel induced by high strain rate loading at elevated temperatures–An experimental investigation. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2015, 76: 178–188Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mirmomeni M, Heidarpour A, Zhao X L, Hutchinson C R, Packer J A, Wu C. Fracture behaviour and microstructural evolution of structural mild steel under the multi-hazard loading of high-strainrate load followed by elevated temperature. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 122: 760–771Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson G R, Cook W H. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1985, 21(1): 31–48Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cowper G R, Symonds P R. Strain hardening and strain-rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever beams. Division of Applied Mathematics Report, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA, 1957Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elfahal M M, Krauthammer T, Ohno T, Beppu M, Mindess S. Size effect for normal strength concrete cylinders subjected to axial impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2005, 31(4): 461–481Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    CEB. Concrete structures under impact and impulsive loading. CEB Bulletin 187, Comité Euro-International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1988Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xiao Y, Shan J, Zheng Q, Chen B, Shen Y. Experimental studies on concrete filled steel tubes under high strain rate loading. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2009, 21(10): 569–577Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malvar L J. Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars. Materials Journal. American Concrete Institute, 1988, 95(5): 609–616Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sedlacek G, Feldmann M, Kühn B, Tschickardt D, Höhler S, Müller C, Hensen W, Stranghöner N, Dahl W, Langenberg P, Münstermann S, Brozetti J, Raoul J, Pope R, Bijlaard F. Commentary and Worked Examples to EN 1993–1-10. Material Toughness and Through Thickness Properties and other Toughness Oriented Rules in EN 1993. JRC Scientific and Policy Report No. 47278, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg, 2008Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feldmann M, Eichler B, Kühn B, Stranghöner N, Dahl W, Langenberg P, Kouhi J, Pope R, Sedlacek G, Ritakallio P, Iglesias G, Puthli R S, Packer J A, Krampen J. Choice of steel material to avoid brittle fracture for hollow section structures. JRC Scientific and Policy Report No. 72702, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg, 2012Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dagg H M, Davis K, Hicks J W. Charpy impact tests on coldformed RHS manufactured from continuous cast fully killed steel. Proceedings of the Pacific Structural Steel Conference, Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Queensland, Australia, 1989Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soininen R. Fracture behaviour and assessment of design requirements against fracture in welded steel structures made of cold-formed hollow sections. Tieteellisiä Julkaisuja Research Papers 52, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, 1996Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ritakallio P. Ruukki cold-formed hollow sections–Grade S355J2H–Random samples. Private Communication, Rauterruukki Oyj, Confidential Test Data, 12 April, 2010Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kosteski N, Packer J A, Puthli R S. Notch toughness of coldformed hollow sections. Final (Revision 2) Report to CIDECT on Programme 1B, CIDECT Report 1B–2/03, October, 2003Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Puthli R, Herion S, Boellinghaus T, Florian W. Welding in coldformed areas of rectangular hollow sections. Draft Final Report on Programme 1A, CIDECT Report 1A–5/04, March, 2004Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stranghöner N, Lorenz C, Berg J. Zähigkeitsuntersuchungen an warmgefertigten hohlprofilen. Versuchsbericht für Vallourec & Mannesmann, Düsseldorf, Institut für Metall- und Leichtbau, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Germany, 2010Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kosteski N, Packer J A, Puthli R S. Notch toughness of internationally produced hollow structural sections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2005, 131(2): 279–286Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stranghöner N, Krampen J, Lorenz C. Impact toughness behaviour of hot-finished hollow sections at low temperatures. Proceedings of the 22nd. International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece, 118–125, 2012Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sun M, Packer J A. Charpy V-notch impact toughness of coldformed rectangular hollow sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 97: 114–126Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ritakallio P, Björk T. Low-temperature ductility and structural behaviour of cold-formed hollow section structures–progress during the past two decades. Steel Construction, 2014, 7(2): 107–115Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    CEN. Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels–Part 1: Technical Delivery Conditions. EN10219–1:2006(E), European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2006Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    CEN. Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels–Part 2: Tolerances. EN10219–2:2006(E), European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2006Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Puthli R, Packer J A. Structural design using cold-formed hollow sections. Steel Construction, 2013, 6(2): 150–157Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sun M, Packer J A. Direct-formed and continuous-formed rectangular hollow sections–Comparison of static properties. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 92: 67–78Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ASTM. Standard specification for cold-formed welded and seamless carbon steel structural tubing in rounds and shapes. ASTM A500/A500M–13, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    MOC. Cold formed steel hollow sections for building structures. JG/T 178–2005. Ministry of Construction, Beijing, China, 2005Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    ASTM. Standard specification for cold-formed welded carbon steel hollow structural sections (HSS). ASTM A1085–13, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 7th ed, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA, 2016Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    ASTM. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel products. ASTM A370–09a. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ritakallio P. The effect of steel strip on the quality of cold-formed hollow sections. In: Proceedings of the 15th. International Symposium on Tubular Structures. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 605–612, 2015Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bambach M R, Elchalakani M. Plastic mechanism analysis of steel SHS strengthened with CFRP under large axial deformation. Thinwalled Structures, 2007, 45(2): 159–170Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Abramowicz W, Jones N. Dynamic axial crushing of square tubes. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1984, 2(2): 179–208Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kohar C P, Mohammadi M, Mishra R K, Inal K. Effects of elastic–plastic behaviour on the axial crush response of square tubes. Thinwalled Structures, 2015, 93: 64–87Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pipkorn B, Håland Y. Proposed variable stiffness of vehicle longitudinal frontal members. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 2005, 10(6): 603–608Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Abramowicz W, Jones N. Transition from initial global bending to progressive buckling of tubes loaded statically and dynamically. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1997, 19(5–6): 415–437Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grzebieta R H. An alternative method for determining the behaviour of round stocky tubes subjected to an axial crush load. Thin-walled Structures, 1990, 9(1–4): 61–89Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Maduliat S, Ngo T D, Tran P, Lumantarna R. Performance of hollow steel tube bollards under quasi-static and lateral impact load. Thin-walled Structures, 2015, 88: 41–47Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chen L, Xiao Y, Xiao G, Liu C L, Agrawal A K. Test and numerical simulation of truck collision with anti-ram bollards. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2015, 75: 30–39Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yousuf M, Uy B, Tao Z, Remennikov A, Liew J Y R. Transverse impact resistance of hollow and concrete filled stainless steel columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013, 82: 177–189Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bambach M R, Jama H, Zhao X L, Grzebieta R H. Hollow and concrete filled steel hollow sections under transverse impact loads. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(10): 2859–2870Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Han L H, Hou C C, Zhao X L, Rasmussen K J R. Behaviour of high-strength concrete filled steel tubes under transverse impact loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 92: 25–39Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Remennikov A M, Kong S Y, Uy B. Response of foam- and concrete-filled square steel tubes under low-velocity impact loading. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2011, 25(5): 373–381Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Deng Y, Tuan C Y, Xiao Y. Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled circular steel tubes under high-strain rate impact loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012, 138(3): 449–456Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang R, Han L H, Hou C C. Behavior of concrete filled steel tubular (CFST) members under lateral impact: Experiment and FEA model. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013, 80: 188–201Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang Y, Qian X D, Liew J Y R, Zhang M H. Experimental behavior of cement filled pipe-in-pipe composite structures under transverse impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2014, 72: 1–16Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang Y, Qian X D, Liew J Y R, Zhang M H. Impact of cement composite filled steel tubes: An experimental, numerical and theoretical treatise. Thin-walled Structures, 2015, 87: 76–88Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zeinoddini M, Parke G A R, Harding J E. Axially pre-loaded steel tubes subjected to lateral impacts: An experimental study. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2002, 27(6): 669–690Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jama H H, Bambach M R, Grzebieta R H, Zhao X L. Flexural response of fixed-ended tubular steel beams strengthened with CFRP subjected to impact loads. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Steel, Space & Composite Structures, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 229–235, 2006Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wu C Q, Hao H, Deeks A J. Numerical analysis of the two-rail steel RHS traffic barrier to vehicle impact. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 2005, 6(1): 63–76Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hao H, Deeks A J, Wu C Q. Numerical simulations of the performance of steel guardrails under vehicle impact. Transactions of Tianjin University, 2008, 14(5): 318–323Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fan Z H, Shen J J, Lu G X, Ruan D. Dynamic lateral crushing of empty and sandwich tubes. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2013, 53: 3–16Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wang H B, Yang J L, Liu H, Sun Y X, Yu T X. Internally nested circular tube system subjected to lateral impact loading. Thinwalled Structures, 2015, 91: 72–81Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Elchalakani M, Zhao X L, Grzebieta R H. Bending tests to determine slenderness limits for cold-formed circular hollow sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2002, 58(11): 1407–1430Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Poonaya S, Teeboonma U, Thinvongpituk C. Plastic collapse analysis of thin-walled circular tubes subjected to bending. Thinwalled Structures, 2009, 47(6–7): 637–645Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Elchalakani M, Zhao X L, Grzebieta R H. Plastic mechanism analysis of circular tubes under pure bending. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2002, 44(6): 1117–1143Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Al-Thairy H, Wang Y C. An assessment of the current Eurocode 1 design methods for building structure steel columns under vehicle impact. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013, 88: 164–171Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Al-Thairy H, Wang Y C. A simplified analytical method for predicting the critical velocity of vehicle impact on steel columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 92: 136–149Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wegener R B, Martin J B. Predictions of permanent deformation of impulsively loaded simply supported square tube steel beams. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 1985, 27(1–2): 55–69Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jama H H, Bambach M R, Nurick G N, Grzebieta R H, Zhao X L. Numerical modelling of square tubular steel beams subjected to transverse blast loads. Thin-walled Structures, 2009, 47(12): 1523–1534Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jama H H, Nurick G N, Bambach M R, Grzebieta R H, Zhao X L. Steel square hollow sections subjected to transverse blast loads. Thin-walled Structures, 2012, 53: 109–122Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bambach M R. Design of metal hollow section tubular columns subjected to transverse blast loads. Thin-walled Structures, 2013, 68: 92–105Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Karagiozova D, Yu T X, Lu G. Transverse blast loading of hollow beams with square cross-sections. Thin-walled Structures, 2013, 62: 169–178Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bambach MR. Behaviour and design of aluminum hollow sections subjected to transverse blast loads. Thin-walled Structures, 2008, 46(12): 1370–1381Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Karagiozova D, Yu T X, Lu G, Xiang X. Response of a circular metallic hollow beam to an impulsive loading. Thin-walled Structures, 2014, 80: 80–90Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bambach M R, Zhao X L, Jama H H. Energy absorbing characteristics of aluminium beams strengthened with CFRP subjected to transverse blast load. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2010, 37(1): 37–49Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Fujikura S, Bruneau M, Lopez-Garcia D. Experimental investigation of multihazard resistant bridge piers having concrete-filled steel tube under blast loading. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2008, 13(6): 586–594Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Remennikov A, Uy B. Explosive testing and modelling of square tubular steel columns for near-field detonations. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 101: 290–303Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ngo T, Mohotti D, Remennikov A, Uy B. Numerical simulations of response of tubular steel beams to close-range explosions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2015, 105: 151–163Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Song K, Long Y, Ji C, Gao F. Plastic deformation of metal tubes subjected to lateral blast loads. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Zhang F, Wu C, Wang H, Zhou Y. Numerical simulation of concrete filled steel tube columns against BLAST loads. Thinwalled Structures, 2015, 92: 82–92Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zhang F, Wu C, Li Z X, Zhao X L. Residual axial capacity of CFDST columns infilled with UHPFRC after close-range blast loading. Thin-walled Structures, 2015, 96: 314–327Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zhang F, Wu C, Zhao X L, Xiang H, Li Z X, Fang Q, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Heidarpour A, Packer J A. Heidarpour, A., Packer, J A. Experimental study of CFDST columns infilled with UHPC under close-range blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2016, 93: 184–195Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Zhang F, Wu C, Zhao X L, Heidarpour A, Li Z. Experimental and numerical study of blast resistance of square CFDST columns with steel-fibre reinforced concrete. Engineering Structures, 2017 (in press)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chen W, Guo Z, Zhang T, Zou H, Gu J. Near-field blast test on reactive powder concrete-filled steel tubular columns after exposure to fire. International Journal of Protective Structures, 2016, 7(2): 193–212Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Clubley S K. Steel sections subject to a long-duration blast. Structures and Buildings. Institution of Civil Engineers, 2012, 166 (SB6): 273–281Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zhai X, Wang Y, Huang M. Performance and protection approach of single-layer reticulated dome subjected to blast loading. Thinwalled Structures, 2013, 73: 57–67Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ding Y, Wang M, Li Z X, Hao H. Damage evaluation of the steel tubular column subjected to explosion and post-explosion fire condition. Engineering Structures, 2013, 55: 44–55Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Walker M, Ritchie C, Spiller K, Seica M V, Packer J A, Eytan A. Challenges and outcome of fullscale blast experimentation on structural steel members and glass elements. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with Structures, Potsdam, Germany, Paper No. 126, 2013Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ritchie C, Packer J A, Seica M, Yankelevsky D. Field blast testing and SDOF analysis of unfilled and concrete-filled RHS members. In: Proceedings of the 23rd. International Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock, Oxford, United Kingdom, Paper No. 31, 2014Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Ritchie C, Packer J A, Seica M, Zhao X L. Field blast testing and FE modelling of concrete-filled RHS members. In: Proceedings of the 3rd. International Conference on Protective Structures. Newcastle, Australia, 478–485, 2015Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ritchie C, Packer J A, Seica M, Zhao X L. Field blast testing and FE modelling of RHS members. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 211–218, 2015Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ritchie C, Packer J A, Seica M, Zhao X L. Field blast testing of concrete-filled double-skin tube members. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Protective Structures. Beijing, China, 546–555, 2016Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Theobald M D, Nurick G N. Experimental and numerical analysis of tube-core claddings under blast loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2010, 37(3): 333–348Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Shen J, Lu G, Zhao L, Zhang Q. Short sandwich tubes subjected to internal explosive loading. Engineering Structures, 2013, 55: 56–65Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Langdon G S, Ozinsky A, Chung Kim Yuen S. The response of partially confined right circular stainless steel cylinders to internal air-blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2014, 73: 1–14Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Hyde D. Microcomputer programs CONWEP and FUNPRO, applications of TM 5–855–1. Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons. (User’s Guide). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1988Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    USACE. Single-degree-of-freedom blast effects design spreadsheets (SBEDS). PDC-TR 05–01. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USA, 2005Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    LSTC. LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, USA, 2014Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Simulia. ABAQUS Theory Manual. Providence, RI, USA, 2014Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    ANSYS. ANSYS Autodyn user’s guide. Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cameron B. Ritchie
    • 1
  • Jeffrey A. Packer
    • 1
  • Xiao-Ling Zhao
    • 2
  • Amin Heidarpour
    • 2
  • Yiyi Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.College of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations