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

net/publication/362787083

Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry and unreinforced masonry

compound walls under blast loading, Afghanistan scenario

Article  in  International Journal of Masonry Research and Innovation · October 2022

DOI: 10.1504/IJMRI.2022.10049968

CITATIONS READS

19 633

3 authors:

Emal Ahmadi Mehtab Alam

Jamia Millia Islamia Netaji Subhas University of Technology Delhi
2 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    118 PUBLICATIONS   2,042 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

S M Anas
Jamia Millia Islamia
49 PUBLICATIONS   1,275 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

RG Achievement View project

Blast loading and blast effects on structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S M Anas on 19 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Masonry Research and Innovation, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx 1

Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry

and unreinforced masonry compound walls under
blast loading, Afghanistan scenario

Emal Ahmadi
Department of Civil Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
Jamia Millia Islamia (A Central University),
New Delhi, 110 025, India
Email: emalahmadi149@gmail.com

Mehtab Alam
Department of Civil Engineering,
Netaji Subhas University of Technology (West Campus),
New Delhi, 110 073, India
Email: mehtab.alam@nsut.ac.in

S.M. Anas*
Department of Civil Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
Jamia Millia Islamia (A Central University),
New Delhi, 110 025, India
Email: mohdanas43@gmail.com
* Corresponding author

Abstract: Afghanistan being the most suffered nation by wars, terrorism and
counter-terrorism, its common people are sick of subsequent attacks and
counter-attacks by warlords. Even places of worship and worshippers are not
spared from these attacks. Compound walls enclosing such religious structures
are found targeted by explosive blasts for the last many years. In this study,
blast performance of free-standing compound URM walls commonly
used in Afghanistan of one brick thickness and one-half brick thickness, made
of 220 mm × 110 mm × 70 mm red clay bricks, is investigated using the
ABAQUS/Explicit code by doing nonlinear analysis. The walls have also been
retrofitted with the laminate of high-strength C-FRP on the explosion face only
and on both faces. Macro-modelling strategy is chosen to optimise the
computational time. Comparable blast performance of the strengthened walls
exhibits that laminate on both the faces rules out the requirement of the higher
thickness of the masonry wall.

Keywords: blast loading; C-FRP laminate; CDP model; damage; masonry

walls; numerical simulations; Afghanistan.

Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 E. Ahmadi et al.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ahmadi, E., Alam, M. and
Anas, S.M. (xxxx) ‘Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry and
unreinforced masonry compound walls under blast loading, Afghanistan
scenario’, Int. J. Masonry Research and Innovation, Vol. X, No. Y,
pp.xxx–xxx.

Biographical notes: Emal Ahmadi completed his Master’s from Jamia Millia
Islamia in Earthquake Engineering. He is a Civil Engineer with good
experience in structural analysis, blast simulation, and finite element modelling.

Mehtab Alam is currently a Professor Emeritus in the Civil Engineering

Department, Netaji Subhas University of Technology, West Campus,
New Delhi-110073. He is a member of several societies such as the Indian
Society of Earthquake Technology (IIT-Roorkee), the Indian Society of
Technical Education, the Ferro cement Society of India, and so on. His
teaching and research are in structural behaviour and design, structural
mechanics, construction materials, recycling of demolished concrete waste,
skin reinforced concrete, earthquake disaster, and crisis management with
emphasis on reinforced concrete slab systems, fibre reinforced concrete
materials and their structural applications, structural safety and design code
development.

S.M. Anas is a PhD Scholar at the Department of Civil Engineering within the
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia (A Central
University), Jamia Nagar, New Delhi – 110 025, India. He has a Bachelor of
Technology (Civil) degree from Sharda University and a Master of Technology
(Earthquake Engineering) degree from Jamia Millia Islamia. His research
interests: strengthening techniques, finite element modeling, structural
performance, composite materials, FRP, AFRP, BFRP, CFRP, GFRP, steel
tubes, metallic foams, pre-tensioned concrete girders, blast-resistant shelters,
heritage masonry buildings, masonry walls, underground blasting, ground
shock, impact-resistant structures, among others.

1 Introduction

In old cities, particularly, masonry structures are found to be in more number than
reinforced cement concrete (RCC) buildings (Ahmad et al., 2014; Ul Ain et al., 2021;
Anas et al., 2020c). Many of them are historical buildings with artistic architecture and of
country’s heritage. Under the prevailing circumstances of Afghanistan, building
structures are under the threat, particularly, from extreme loadings of impact and
explosions (Anas et al., 2021e). Free-standing masonry compound wall around the
building periphery serving as a crash barrier in mitigating the explosive-induced load to
the building is of great significance (Anas and Alam, 2021a). Retrofitting/Strengthening
strategies for existing masonry buildings against blast loading using high-strength
composite polymers are adopted by several researchers in recent years (Ul Ain et al.,
2021, Anas and Alam, 2021a; Anas et al., 2021c; Pereira et al., 2015). Glass fibre
reinforced polymer (GFRP) and carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) are the
composites most commonly used by the researchers for this purpose (Pereira et al., 2015).
C-FRP being strong as well as ductile material has been used in the form of sheet (or
laminate) in the present work (Hao, 2009).
 Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry 3

Several studies were conducted addressing the behaviour of compound masonry walls
under blast loading (Ahmad et al., 2014; Pereira et al., 2015 Hao, 2009; Chiquito et al.,
2021; Schneider et al., 2019; Silva et al., Wang et al., 2009; Joao et al., 2014; Masi et al.,
2020). Wang et al. (2009) proposed a predictive method based on the theories of
continuum damage mechanics and mechanics of micro-crack development. The results
indicated that smaller fragments were formed when the wall was subjected to a blast load
at smaller scaled distance. Hao (2009) performed numerical modelling of masonry wall
response to blast loads. Developed homogenised orthotropic masonry material model
with strain rate effect is used to model masonry material damaged. The scaled distance
was less than 4 m/kg1/3. The masonry wall was completely blown off. When the scaled
distance was more than 7 m/kg1/3, no crack was generated on the wall. Ahmad et al.
(2013) investigated the brick masonry wall which was exposed to blast loads at different
scaled distances. It was observed that the time lag was not only related to scaled distance
but also the wave propagation velocity in the air and at the site. Pereira et al. (2015)
examined the behaviour of masonry infill walls subjected to out-of-plane blast loading
using confined under water blast wave generators (WBWG). The obtained result was
used to calibrate a numerical model using ABAQUS Explicit dynamics software. Silva
et al. (2017) examined the rigid block and spring homogenised models (HRBSM) of
masonry wall subjected to impact and blast loadings. A simple and reliable HRBSM
accounting for high strain rate effects was utilised to analyse the walls. The results
showed that a satisfactory agreement with ones obtained experimentally for both cases.
The total required time for the impact and blast load was calculated to be 12.38 min and
3.35 min. Schneider et al. (2019) conducted an experiment to investigate the
characterisation of debris throw from masonry walls section subjected to blast loads. The
peak overpressures in the test ranged from 100 to 150 Kips. Furthermore, the velocity
increased with peak overpressures and corresponding impulses. With increased loading,
launch angles could be expected to move with less horizontal and vertical spread. Joao
et al. (2019) investigated the experimental study on masonry infill walls under blast
loading. The obtained results were used to calibrate a numerical model using ABAQUS
Explicit dynamics software. Masi et al. (2020) analysed the effect of non-standard,
curvilinear masonry geometries, such as vaults, subjected to blast loading. Then the
response of a curved masonry structure subjected to blast loading was investigated.
Masonry joints with zero dilatancies (non-associative plastic behaviour) led to reduced
membrane forces, hence to an increase in out-of-plane deflections of the structure (14%
large with respect to the associative case). Chiquita et al. (2021) investigated the
performance of different protective solutions applied on brick masonry walls subjected to
blast loads. The results of the numerical models were compared with the result of the
field tests carried out at full scale. The comparison was made in terms of pressure,
acceleration, and permanent displacement.
In the present investigation, blast performance of free-standing compound masonry
walls of two thicknesses, 225 mm and 335 mm made from red clay bricks of size
220 mm × 110 mm × 70 mm has been investigated using the professional software,
ABAQUS/CAE by doing non-linear analysis. The walls have also been analysed with
2 mm thick CFRP sheet /laminate on explosion face only, and on explosion and remote
faces of the wall.
4 E. Ahmadi et al.

Figure 1 (a) Idealised history of chemical explosion and (b) estimated history (see online version
for colours)

(a)

(b)

2 Numerical modelling

2.1 Blast loading

Figure 1(a) shows the ideal wave pressure-time history of air-blast wave pressure
proposed by Wu and Hao (2005). In general, the blast load is characterised by two phases
namely, negative and positive pressure phases, the magnitude of peak overpressure in the
negative phase is smaller than the positive phase, where Pi (or POP) is the peak
overpressure, tA is the arrival time of shock wave, t1 is the rising time, t2 is the decreasing
time, td is the duration of positive phase, Po is the standard atmospheric pressure
 Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry 5

(0.1 Mpa), and t– is the negative phase duration (Anas and Alam, 2022a; Anas et al.,
2022h, 2022g, 2022b; Anas and Alam, 2022c). The blast loading current guidelines of
blast design available in IS 4991 (1968) and TM-5-1300 (1990) for criteria for blast
resistance design of structures for explosion above ground, suggests that the effect of
negative phase on the performance of concrete structures should be neglected as it does
not contribute to the response of the structure in blast analysis and design and only
consider the positive pressure phase in the design and analysis of concrete structures by
assuming that the negative pressure phase is much weaker and does not effect on the
structural damage response (Ul Ain et al., 2021; Anas et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2021a,
2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2021e, 2021f; Anas and Alam, 2021a, 2021b). Hence, the effect of
the negative pressure phase on the behaviour of RCC wall under blast loading has been
neglected (Anas et al., 2020c). The values of blast wave parameters such as arrival time
of blast wave, rising time, and duration of positive phase have been calculated by using
empirical formulas given by Wu and Hao (2005) for different scaled distances. The
values of tA, t1, t2, and total duration (t) are calculated using empirical relations given by.
An explicit solver in ABAQUS/CAE (2017) has been used to simulate the blast. The
calculated blast time histories are shown in Figure 1(b).

2.2 Masonry modelling

In the current study, the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model in ABAQUS/CAE
provides a general capability for modelling masonry and other quasi-brittle materials
(Anas and Alam, 2021a; Anas et al., 2021c; TM 5-1300, 1990; Valente and Milani,
2016). CDP model is a damage-plasticity model that considers the tensile cracking and
compressive crushing as two possible failure mechanisms of masonry (ABAQUS/CAE
FEA program, 2017). The damaged variables can take values from 0 which represents
undamaged material to 1 that represents the damaged material (TM 5-1300, 1990,
ABAQUS/CAE FEA program, 2017). The evaluation of the yield or failure surface
controlled by two hardening variables, namely compressive equivalent plastic strain
(εcpl ,h ) and tensile equivalent plastic strain ( εtpl , h ) (ABAQUS/CAE FEA program, 2017).
In this model, the plastic hardening strain in compression plays a key role to describe the
relationship between the compressive strength of the masonry and damage parameters
(ABAQUS/CAE FEA program, 2017). These two variables are connected to the failure
mechanisms under compression and tension loadings. It is assumed that the uniaxial
stress-strain curves can be replaced into the stress versus inelastic strain curves. This
conversion is executed automatically by the ABAQUS/CAE from the user-provided
stress versus plastic-strain data (Anas and Alam, 2022a; Anas et al., 2022a, 2022b,
2022c, 2022d, 2022e, 2022f, 2022g, 2022h, 2022i; Anas and Alam, 2022b, 2022c;
ABAQUS/CAE FEA program, 2017; Shariq et al., 2022; Tahzeeb et al., 2022a; 2022b,
2022c; Ul Ain et al., 2022). Parameter values for CDP model of brick masonry are taken
from Valente and Milani (2016a, 2016b), and Ahmadi et al. (2021).

3 Results and discussion

From the dynamic analyses conducted, following are the worth noting observations:
6 E. Ahmadi et al.

 Maximum transverse permanent displacement of 220 mm and 330 mm unreinforced

masonry (URM) walls are found to be 130.68 mm and 75.65 mm, respectively, and
their corresponding damage dissipation energy (DDE) are 370.95 and 255.76 J,
Table 1 and Figure 2 to Figure 5.

Figure 2 Z-displacement (mm) profile of the walls (a) 220-UR (b) 220-R-CFRP-1
(c) 220-R-CFRP-2 (d) 330-R (e) 330-R-CFRP-1 (f) 330-R-CFRP-2 (see online version
for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
 Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry 7

Figure 2 Z-displacement (mm) profile of the walls (a) 220-UR (b) 220-R-CFRP-1
(c) 220-R-CFRP-2 (d) 330-R (e) 330-R-CFRP-1 (f) 330-R-CFRP-2 (continued)
(see online version for colours)

(e) (f)

Figure 3 DDE profile of the walls (see online version for colours)
8 E. Ahmadi et al.

Figure 4 Normal stress (MPa) contour on the walls’ blast face (a) 220-UR (b) 220-R-CFRP-1
(c) 220-R-CFRP-2 (d) 330-R (e) 330-R-CFRP-1 (f) 330-R-CFRP-2 (see online version
for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
 Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry 9

Figure 5 Normal stress (MPa) contour on the walls’ remote face (a) 220-UR (b) 220-R-CFRP-1
(c) 220-R-CFRP-2 (d) 330-R (e) 330-R-CFRP-1 (f) 330-R-CFRP-2 (see online version
for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

 No noticeable crushing of the masonry is observed, Figure 6.

10 E. Ahmadi et al.

Figure 6 Compression damage profiles (a) 220-UR (b) 220-R-CFRP-1 (c) 220-R-CFRP-2
(d) 330-R (e) 330-R-CFRP-1 (f) 330-R-CFRP-2 (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
 Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry 11

 Large number of horizontal and vertical cracks on the remote face near the free
edges of the 220 mm and 330 mm URM walls develop with average crack depths of
155 mm and 132 mm, respectively, Figure 7.

Figure 7 Tension damage profiles (a) 220-UR (b) 220-R-CFRP-1 (c) 220-R-CFRP-2 (d) 330-R
(e) 330-R-CFRP-1 (f) 330-R-CFRP-2 (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
12 E. Ahmadi et al.

 The URM walls having thickness 220 mm and 330 mm experience maximum
compressive stress of 0.54 MPa and 0.43 MPa which are less than the permissible
compressive stress (1.10 MPa) given in IS 1905:1987, Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of the responses obtained

Maximum Average
Maximum transverse Maxm. *DDE
Wall no. principal flexural crack
Z-displacement (mm) (J)
stresses (MPa) depth (mm)
220-UR 130.68 +0.03; –0.54 155 370.95
220-S-CFRP-1 27.52 (a79) +0.04; –0.23 40 (a74) 122.63 (a67)
220-S-CFRP-2 11.58 (a91) +0.03; –0.14 No cracking 21.86 (a94)
330-UR 75.65 +0.03; –0.43 132 255.76
330-S-CFRP-1 24.01 (b68) +0.04; –0.18 32 (b76) 76.38 (b70)
330-S-CFRP-2 10.81 (b86) +0.03; –0.13 No cracking 14.35 (b94)
Notes: * + ve stress represents tensile; *DDE: damage dissipation energy; *a percentage
decrease w.r.t. 220-UR; *b percentage decrease w.r.t. 330-UR.
 Application of CFRP sheet of tensile strength 2,050 MPa having thickness 2 mm on
the explosion face of the 220 mm thick URM wall reduces the maximum
displacement, DDE, and average crack depth by 79%, 67%, and 74%, respectively,
with respect to un-retrofitted URM wall of the same thickness, Table 1. The
percentage reductions of these parameters for 330 mm thick CFRP retrofitted wall
are 68, 76, and 70%, respectively, with respect to 330 mm thick un-retrofitted wall,
Table 1. However, the use of CFRP laminate on explosion face only is found not
much effective in reducing the cracking on the tension side of the walls, Figure 7.
 Application of CFRP sheet on both faces of the walls significantly reduces the
maximum displacement, damage, and cracking, Table 1.
 Performance of 330 mm thick unreinforced brick masonry wall retrofitted with
CFRP sheet of 2 mm thickness on both explosion and remote faces, is found to be
the most superior with regards to maximum displacement and cracking.
 Response of the masonry walls with CFRP laminate on explosion face only is found
to be more effective than on the rear face for both the walls, Table 1. However, the
sheets on both the faces significantly improve their blast performance.
 Results show that the thicker wall is not required with the application of CFRP sheet
on both the faces as the performance of 220 mm and 330 mm thick walls is
comparable with CFRP sheet on both faces under the considered explosive weight
and standoff distance, Table 1.

3.1 Load-carrying mechanism

 With the application of CFRP sheet on explosion face only- sheet carries the
explosion energy and dissipates its major component through in-plane action.
Consequently, less explosion energy is transferred to the masonry wall, and the wall
undergoes lesser displacement and suffers significantly less damage than the un-
strengthened wall.
 Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry 13

 With the application of CFRP sheet on both explosion and rear faces-sheet on the
rear face provides a partial restraint to the wall and dissipates energy further and
therefore considerably enhances the blast resistance of the masonry wall.

4 Conclusions

This study presents numerical simulations of 220 mm and 330 mm thick free-standing
compound masonry walls subjected to the explosive load of 7.20 kg TNT at 3.50 m
standoff distance and 1.50 m height of burst using ABAQUS software. To improve wall
response, C-FRP sheet (or laminate) of 2 mm thickness is used on the explosion face
only, and on both faces of the walls. Numerical results reveal that the used C-FRP sheet
dissipates most part of the explosive energy by undergoing in-plane plastic deformation.
The remaining energy is transferred to the wall, and the performance of the wall
improves. Walls with sheet on the explosion face only significantly reduce the
displacement but not much effectively reduce the cracking on the rear face. However, the
sheets on both the faces of the walls significantly improve the cracking resistance as well
as displacement response. Furthermore, it is found that the thicker wall is not required as
the performance of 22 mm and 330 mm thick walls is comparable with the application of
the sheet on both the faces under the considered peak overpressure.

References
ABAQUS/CAE FEA program (2017) Concrete-Damaged Plasticity Model, Explicit Solver, Three
Dimensional Solid Element Library, ABAQUS DS-SIMULIA User Manual.
Ahmad, S., Elahi, A., Pervaiz, H., Rahamn, G.A. and Barbhuiya, S. (2014) Investigated the brick
masonry wall which was exposed to blast loads at different scaled distances’, Materials de
Construction, Vol. 64, No. 313, pp.1–11.
Ahmadi, E., Alam. M. and Anas, S.M. (2021) ‘Blast performance of RCC slab and influence of its
design parameters’, in Kolathayar, S., Ghosh, C., Adhikari, B.R., Pal, I. and Mondal, A.
(Eds.): Resilient Infrastructure, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, Vol. 202, pp.389–402,
Springer, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6978-1_31.
Anas, S.M. and Alam, M. (2021a) ‘Air-blast response of free-standing: (1) Unreinforced Brick
Masonry Wall, (2) Cavity RC Wall, (3) RC Walls with (i) Bricks, (ii) Sand, in the cavity: a
macro-modeling approach’, in Marano, G.C., Ray Chaudhuri, S., Unni Kartha, G., Kavitha,
P.E., Prasad, R. and Achison, R.J. (Eds.): Proceedings of SECON’21, SECON 2021, Lecture
Notes in Civil Engineering, Vol. 171, pp.921–930, Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-80312-4_78.
Anas, S.M. and Alam, M. (2021b) ‘Comparison of existing empirical equations for blast peak
positive overpressure from spherical free air and hemispherical surface bursts’, Iranian
Journal of Science Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 46, pp.965–984,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-021-00718-4.
Anas, S.M. and Alam, M. (2022a) ‘Performance of brick-filled reinforced concrete composite wall
strengthened with C-FRP laminate(s) under blast loading’, Materials Today: Proceedings,
Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.162.
Anas, S.M. and Alam, M. (2022b) ‘Performance of simply supported concrete beams reinforced
with high-strength polymer re-bars under blast-induced impulsive loading’, International
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.62–76, doi/abs/10.1504/IJSTRUCTE.
2022.119289.
14 E. Ahmadi et al.

Anas, S.M. and Alam, M. (2022c) ‘Role of shear reinforcements on the punching shear resistance
of two-way RC slab subjected to’, Impact Loading Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier,
(article in press).
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2020a) ‘Performance of one-way composite reinforced
concrete slabs under explosive-induced blast loading’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, 1st International Conference on Energetics, Civil and Agricultural
Engineering 2020, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Vol. 614, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/614/1/012094.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2020b) ‘Performance of one-way concrete slabs reinforced
with conventional and polymer re-bars under air-blast loading’, in Chandrasekaran, S., Kumar,
S. and Madhuri, S. (Eds.): Recent Advances in Structural Engineering. Lecture Notes in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 135, pp.179–191, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6389-2_18.
Anas, S.M., Ansari, M.I. and Alam, M. (2020c) ‘Performance of masonry heritage building under
air-blast pressure without and with ground shock’, Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.329–344, https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2020.1842581.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2021a) ‘Air-blast and ground shockwave parameters,
shallow underground blasting, on the ground and buried shallow underground blast-resistant
shelters: a review’, International Journal of Protective Structures, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.99–139,
https://doi.org/10.1177/2F20414196211048910.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2021b) ‘Influence of charge locations on close-in air-blast
response of pre-tensioned concrete U-girder’, in Kolathayar, S., Ghosh, C., Adhikari, B.R.,
Pal, I. and Mondal, A. (Eds.): Resilient Infrastructure, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering,
Vol. 202, Springer, Singapore, pp.513–527, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6978-1_40.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2021c) ‘Out-of-plane response of clay brick unreinforced
and strengthened masonry walls under explosive-induced air-blast loading’, in Kolathayar, S.,
Ghosh, C., Adhikari, B.R., Pal, I. and Mondal, A. (Eds.): Resilient Infrastructure, Lecture
Notes in Civil Engineering, Vol. 202, pp.477–491, Springer, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-981-16-6978-1_37.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2021d) ‘Performance of on-ground double-roof RCC shelter
with energy absorption layers under close-in air-blast loading’, Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 22, pp.1525–1549, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-021-00395-8.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2021e) Experimental and Numerical Investigations on
Performance of Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Explosive-induced Air-blast Loading: A
State-of-the-Art Review Structures, Vol. 31, pp.428–461, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.istruc.2021.01.102.
Anas, S.M., Ansari, M.I. and Alam, M. (2021f) ‘A study on existing masonry heritage building to
explosive-induced blast loading and its response’, International Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.387–412, doi/abs/10.1504/IJSTRUCTE.2021.118065.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Shariq, M. (2022a) ‘Behavior of two-way RC slab with different
reinforcement orientation layouts of tension steel under’, Drop Load Impact Materials Today:
Proceedings, Elsevier, (article in press).
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Shariq, M. (2022b) Damage Response of Conventionally Reinforced
Two-way Spanning Concrete Slab under Eccentric Impacting Drop Weight Loading Defence
Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2022.04.011.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2022c) ‘Air-blast response of axially loaded clay brick
masonry walls with and without reinforced concrete core’, in Fonseca de Oliveira Correia,
J.A. et al. (Eds.): ASMA 2021, Advances in Structural Mechanics and Applications, STIN 19,
pp.1–18, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98335-2_4 (article in press).
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2022d) ‘Effect of design strength parameters of conventional
two-way singly reinforced concrete slab under concentric impact loading’, Materials Today:
Proceedings, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.441.
 Behaviour of C-FRP laminate strengthened masonry 15

Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2022e) ‘Performance based strengthening with concrete
protective coatings on braced unreinforced masonry wall subjected to’, Close-in Explosion
Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.206.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2022f) ‘Performance of (1) concrete-filled double-skin steel
tube with and without core concrete, and (2) concrete-filled steel tubular axially loaded
composite columns under close-in blast’, International Journal of Protective Structures,
https://doi.org/10.1177/2F20414196221104143.
Anas, S.M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2022g) ‘Strengthening of braced unreinforced brick masonry
wall with (i) C-FRP Wrapping, and (ii) steel angle-strip system under’, Blast Loading
Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.335.
Anas, S.M., Shariq, M. and Alam, M. (2022h) ‘Performance of axially loaded square RC columns
with single/double confinement layer(s) and strengthened with C-FRP wrapping under’,
Close-In Blast Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.
2022.01.275.
Anas, S.M., Shariq, M., Alam, M. and Umair, M. (2022i) ‘Evaluation of critical damage location of
contact blast on conventionally reinforced one-way square concrete slab applying CEL-FEM
blast modeling technique’, International Journal of Protective Structures, https://doi.org/10.
1177/2F20414196221095251.
Chiquito, M., Castedo, R., Santos, A.P., Lopez, L.M. and Perez-Caldentey, A. (2021) ‘Numerical
modelling and experimental validation of the behaviour of brick masonry walls subjected to
blast loading’, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 148, No. 1, pp.1–12.
Hao, H. (2009) ‘Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads’, Australian Journal
of Structure Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.37–52.
IS 4991 (1968) Criteria for Blast Resistant Design of Structures for Explosions Above Ground,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Joao, P., Jose, C. and Paulo, B.L. (2014) ‘Experimental study on masonry infill walls under blast
loading’, 9th International Masonry Conference 2014 in Guimaraes.
Masi, F., Stefanou, L., Maffi-Berther, V. and Vannucci, P. (2020) ‘Analyzed the effect of
non-standard, curvilinear masonry geometries, such as vaults, subjected to blast loading’,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 216, No. 4, pp.20–27.
Pereira, J.M., Campos, J. and Lourenco, P.B. (2015) ‘Masonry infill walls under blast loading using
confined underwater blast wave generators’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 92, No. 1,
pp.69–83.
Schneider, J.M., Von Ramin, M., Stottmeister, A. and Stolz, A. (2019) ‘Characterization of debris
throw from masonry wall sections subjected to blast’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.1–18.
Shariq, M., Alam, M., Husain, A. and Anas, S.M. (2022) ‘Jacketing with steel angle sections and
wide battens of RC column and its influence on blast performance’, Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-022-00437-9.
Silva, L.C., Lourenco, P.B. and Milani, G. (2017) ‘Rigid block and spring homogenized model for
masonry subjected to impact and blast loading’, International Journal of Impact Engineering,
Vol. 109, No. 4, pp.14–28.
Tahzeeb, R., Alam, M. and Mudassir, S.M. (2022a) ‘A comparative performance of columns:
reinforced concrete, composite, and composite with partial C-FRP wrapping under contact
blast, Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.367.
Tahzeeb, R., Alam, M. and Mudassir, S.M. (2022b) ‘Effect of transverse circular and helical
reinforcements on the performance of circular RC column under high explosive loading’,
Materials Today: Proceedings, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.676.
Tahzeeb, R., Alam, M. and Mudassir, S.M. (2022c) ‘Performance of composite and tubular
columns under close-in blast loading: a comparative numerical study’, Materials Today:
Proceedings, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.587.
View publication stats

16 E. Ahmadi et al.

TM 5-1300 (1990) ‘Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions’, Technical Manual,
Joint Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, US.
Ul Ain, Q., Alam, M. and Anas, S.M. (2021) Behavior of ordinary load-bearing masonry structure
under distant large explosion, Beirut scenario’, in Kolathayar, S., Ghosh, C., Adhikari, B.R.,
Pal, I. and Mondal, A. (Eds.): Resilient Infrastructure, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering,
Vol. 202, Springer, Singapore, pp.239–253, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6978-1_19.
Ul Ain, Q., Alam, M. and Anas, S.M. (2022) ‘Response of two-way RCC slab with
unconventionally placed reinforcements under contact blast loading’, in Fonseca de Oliveira
Correia, J.A. et al. (Eds.): ASMA 2021, Advances in Structural Mechanics and Applications,
STIN 19, pp.1–18, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04793-0_17.
Valente, M. and Milani, G. (2016a) ‘Non-linear dynamic and static analyses on eight historical
masonry towers in the north-east of Italy’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 114, No. 1,
pp.241–270.
Valente, M. and Milani, G. (2016b) ‘Seismic assessment of historical masonry towers by means of
simplified approaches and standard FEM’, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 108,
No. 1, pp.74–104.
Wang, M., Hao, H., Ding, Y. and Xian Li, Z. (2009) ‘Prediction of fragment size and ejection
distance of masonry wall under blast load using homogenized masonry material properties’,
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.808–820.
Wu, C. and Hao, H. (2005) ‘Modeling of simultaneous ground shock and airblast pressure on
nearby structures from surface explosions’, International Journal of Impact Engineering,
Vol. 31, No. 6, pp.699–717.