4.7 Article

Experimental testing and numerical modeling of soil-filled concertainer walls

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 30, Issue 12, Pages 3545-3554

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.030

Keywords

Blast load; Soil-filled wall; Finite element model; Experimental validation

Funding

  1. Military Engineering Section

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is to construct and validate a finite element model for predicting the response of soil-filled concertainers subjected to blast loading based on experimentally measured displacement-time histories. The concertainers are foldable welded-wire mesh geotextile-lined cubical connected baskets. When filled with soil they form thick protective walls and structures. Three full-scale experiments consisting of air-blast loading simple free-standing soil-filled concertainer walls were conducted at DRDC Suffield and reported in this paper. The pressure-time histories of the blast loads and displacement-time histories of walls were recorded. Soil densities and Moisture contents were measured. Soil samples were collected and specimens were prepared to the closest conditions experienced in the field. The specimens underwent a series of UU triaxial tests to obtain soil properties used in a finite element analysis. This finite element model was formulated using the LS-Dyna software. The numerical responses of the walls obtained from the analysis were compared with the experimentally measured responses. A good agreement was achieved. The numerical model of a soil-filled wall demonstrated slightly lower blast resistance than the experimental results. Various sources of discrepancies are discussed. The study helps to provide a good understanding of the response and the failure mechanism of the walls, and is useful in the development of analytical models for design purposes. Crown Copyright (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available