Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (1) : 15-37     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-018-0465-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Dynamic failure analysis of concrete dams under air blast using coupled Euler-Lagrange finite element method
Farhoud KALATEH()
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz 5166616471, Iran
Download: PDF(7703 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

In this study, the air blast response of the concrete dams including dam-reservoir interaction and acoustic cavitation in the reservoir is investigated. The finite element (FE) developed code are used to build three-dimensional (3D) finite element models of concrete dams. A fully coupled Euler-Lagrange formulation has been adopted herein. A previous developed model including the strain rate effects is employed to model the concrete material behavior subjected to blast loading. In addition, a one-fluid cavitating model is employed for the simulation of acoustic cavitation in the fluid domain. A parametric study is conducted to evaluate the effects of the air blast loading on the response of concrete dam systems. Hence, the analyses are performed for different heights of dam and different values of the charge distance from the charge center. Numerical results revealed that 1) concrete arch dams are more vulnerable to air blast loading than concrete gravity dams; 2) reservoir has mitigation effect on the response of concrete dams; 3) acoustic cavitation intensify crest displacement of concrete dams.

Keywords air blast loading      concrete dams      finite element      dam-reservoir interaction      cavitation      concrete damage model     
Corresponding Authors: Farhoud KALATEH   
Just Accepted Date: 12 February 2018   Online First Date: 19 April 2018    Issue Date: 04 January 2019
 Cite this article:   
Farhoud KALATEH. Dynamic failure analysis of concrete dams under air blast using coupled Euler-Lagrange finite element method[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 15-37.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-018-0465-7
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2019/V13/I1/15
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Farhoud KALATEH
Fig.1  Concrete dam-reservoir finite element model subjected to air blast loading. (a) Arch dam-reservoir; (b) gravity dam-reservoir
Fig.2  Schematic of a typical air blast profile
Range (m/kg1/3) a0 a1 a2 a3
0.3Z2.4 1.769362e–2 –2.032568e–2 5.395856e–1 –3.010011e–2
2.4Z12 –2.251241 1.765820 1.140477e–1 –4.066734e–3
12Z500 –6.852501 2.907447 9.466282e–5 –9.344539e–8
Tab.1  Fitted polynomial coefficients to define the arrival time [28]
Range (m/kg1/3) c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
0.3Z0.95 308.473000 –2146.9200000 5953.29000000 –8226.0300000 5687.43000000 –1573.41
0.95Z2.4 17.607400 –26.7855000 17.86070000 –5.6555700 0.69416000 0.00
2.4Z6.5 4.432160 –2.7187700 0.74197300 –0.0934132 0.00446971 0.00
6.5Z40 0.711610 –0.0626846 0.00332532 –8.2404900e–5 7.61885000e–7 0.00
40Z500 0.251614 –0.00176758 9.51638000e-6 –2.1971200 1.7913500e–11 0.00
Tab.2  Fitted polynomial coefficients to define the decay coefficient [28]
Parameter Value
Parameters for EOS
Reference concrete densoity ρ s (kg/m3) 2750
Porous density ρ 0 (kg/m3) 2314
Initial sound speed C 0 (m/s) 2920
Initial compaction pressure p e (MPa) 23.3
Solid compaction pressure p s (GPa) 6
Polynomia EOS parameters A 1 (GPa) 151.3
Polynomia EOS parameters A 2 (GPa) 39.58
Polynomia EOS parameters A 3 (GPa) 9.04
Polynomia EOS parameters B 0 1.22
Polynomia EOS parameters B 1 1.22
Polynomia EOS parameters T 1 (GPa) 151.3
Polynomia EOS parameters T 2 (GPa) 0
Parameters for strength
Damage parameters αt,αc 0.5
Static tensile threshold strain in uniaxial tension εst0 3.5× 10 4
Static tensile threshold strain in uniaxial compression εsc0 3.5× 10 3
Tensile strength ft (MPa) 4
Compressive strength fc (MPa) 50
Tab.3  Material parameter for ordinary concrete [46]
Fig.3  (a) Wall structure and fluid domain; (b) ramp base acceleration; (c) finite element discretization
Fig.4  (a) Hydrodynamic pressure time history at the bottom of flexible wall subjected to ramp acceleration; (b) horizontal displacement time history at the top of the flexible wall structure subjected to ramp acceleration
Fig.5  Comparison of results at the bottom of vertical wall subjected to ramp acceleration, using proposed method with analytical solution
Fig.6  (a) One-dimensional of the cavitation model implementation with the Bleich and Sandler problem; (b) finite element model
Fig.7  Velocity response history of a floating structure subjected to a shock wave-effects of cavitation
Fig.8  Finite element model of concrete gravity dam and relevant dimensions and arrangement of target points and target element. (a) Coarse mesh; (b) refined mesh
Fig.9  Finite element model of concrete arch dam and relevant dimensions and arrangement of target points and target element. (a) Coarse mesh; (b) refined mesh
Fig.10  Affected zone of concrete gravity dam by air blast loading. (a) Upper part; (b) middle part
Fig.11  Comparison of Konya concrete gravity dam crest displacement time history subjected to air blast loading for coarse and refined FE meshes
Fig.12  Crest displacement time histories at the Point A for different dam heights subjected to air blast at the upper part of downstream face of gravity dam. (a) H=150 m; (b) H=110 m; (c) H=80 m; (d) H= 50 m
Fig.13  Time history of cavitating nodal point number in the reservoir during air blast shock loading at the upper part of dam: (a) H=150 m; (b) H=110 m
Fig.14  Hydrodynamic pressure time histories at the Point C for different dam heights. (a) Charge at the upper part of gravity dam; (b) charge at the middle part of gravity dam
Fig.15  The damage propagation process of concrete gravity dam subjected to air blast loading close to upper part of downstream face of dam for different height of dam. (a) H=150 m; (b) H = 110 m; (c) H =80 m; (d) H =50 m
Fig.16  Crest displacement time histories at the Point A for different dam heights subjected to air blast located at the middle part of downstream face of gravity dam. (a) H=150 m; (b) H =110 m; (c) H =80 m; (d) H = 50 m
Fig.17  The damage propagation process of concrete gravity dam subjected to air blast loading close to middle part of downstream face of dam for different height of dam. (a) H=150 m, (b) H= 110 m; (c) H=80 m; (d) H=50 m
Fig.18  Affected zone of concrete arch dam by air blast loading. (a) Upper part; (b) middle part
Fig.19  Comparison of Morrow point concrete arch dam crest displacement time history subjected to air blast loading for coarse and refined FE meshes
Fig.20  Crest displacement time histories at the point A for different dam heights subjected to air blast located at the upper part of downstream face of arch dam: (a) H=250 m; (b) H=200 m; (c) H=150 m; (d) H=100 m
Fig.21  The damage propagation process of concrete arch dam subjected to air blast loading close to upper part of downstream face of dam for different height of dam. (a) H=250 m; (b) H= 200 m; (c) H=150 m; (d) H=100 m
Fig.22  Crest displacement time histories at the Point A for different dam heights subjected to air blast located at the middle part of downstream face of arch dam. (a) H=250 m; (b) H=200 m; (c) H=150 m; (d) H=100 m
Fig.23  The damage propagation process of concrete arch dam subjected to air blast loading close to middle part of downstream face of dam for different height of dam. (a) H=250 m; (b) H= 200 m, (c) H=150 m, (d) H=100 m
Fig.24  Hydrodynamic pressure time histories at the Point C for different dam heights. (a) Charge at the upper part of arch dam; (b) charge at the middle of arch dam
Fig.25  Extremes of maximum principal stress due to dynamic response of Morrow Point arch dam to air blast loading close to the upper part of dam for different height. (a) H=250 m; (b) H=200 m; (c) H=150 m; (d) H=100 m
Fig.26  Extremes of maximum principal stress due to dynamic response of Morrow Point arch dam to air blast loading close to the middle part of dam for different height. (a) H=250 m; (b) H=200 m; (c) H=150 m; (d) H=100 m
1 TNgo, P Mendis, AGupta, JRamsay. Blast loading and blast effects on structures—An overview. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007, 7: 76–91
2 A MRemennikov. A review of methods for predicting bomb blast effects on buildings. Journal of Battlefield Technology, 2003, 6(3): 5–10
3 YLu, Z Wang. Characterization of structural effects from above-ground explosion using coupled numerical simulation. Computers & Structures, 2006, 84(28): 1729–1742
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.05.002
4 LTian, Z X Li. Dynamic response analysis of a building structure subjected to ground shock from a tunnel explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008, 35(10): 1164–1178
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.01.010
5 RJayasooriya, D P Thambiratnam, N J Perera, V Kosse. Blast and residual capacity analysis of reinforced concrete framed buildings. Engineering Structures, 2011, 33(12): 3483–3492
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.07.011
6 FParisi, N Augenti. Influence of seismic design criteria on blast resistance of RC framed buildings: A case study. Engineering Structures, 2012, 44: 78–93
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.046
7 E K CTang, HHao. Numerical simulation of a cable-stayed bridge response to blast loads. Part I: Model development and response calculations. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(10): 3180–3192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.06.007
8 HHao, E K C. Tang Numerical simulation of a cable-stayed bridge response to blast loads. Part II: Damage prediction and FRP strengthening. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(10): 3193–3205
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.06.006
9 JSon, H J Lee. Performance of cable-stayed bridge pylons subjected to blast loading. Engineering Structures, 2011, 33(4): 1133–1148
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.031
10 A K MAnwarul Islam, NYazdani. Performance of AASHTO girder bridges under blast loading. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(7): 1922–1937
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.014
11 YLu, Z Wang, KChong. A comparative study of buried structure in soil subjected to blast load using 2D and 3D numerical simulations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 25(4): 275–288
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.007
12 ZWang, Y Lu, HHao, KChong. A full coupled numerical analysis approach for buried structures subjected to subsurface blast. Computers & Structures, 2005, 83(4–5): 339–356
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.08.014
13 GMa, H Zhou, KChong. In-structure shock assessment of underground structures with consideration of rigid body motion. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2011, 137(12): 797–806
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000300
14 J CLi, H B Li, G W Ma, Y X Zhou. Assessment of underground tunnel stability to adjacent tunnel explosion. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2013, 35: 227–234
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.07.005
15 AZhang, L Zeng, XCheng, SWang, Y Chen. The evaluation method of total damage to ship in underwater explosion. Applied Ocean Research, 2011, 33(4): 240–251
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2011.06.002
16 QJin, G Ding. A finite element analysis of ship sections subjected to underwater explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011, 38(7): 558–566
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.11.005
17 AZhang, W Zhou, SWang, LFeng. Dynamic response of the non-contact underwater explosions on naval equipment. Marine Structures, 2011, 24(4): 396–411
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2011.05.005
18 GWang, S Zhang. Damage prediction of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion shock loading. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2014, 39: 72–91
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.01.018
19 SZhang, G Wang, CWang, BPang, C Du. Numerical simulation of failure modes of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2014, 36: 49–64
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.10.001
20 ADe. Numerical simulation of surface explosions over dry, cohesionless soil. Computers and Geotechnics, 2012, 43: 72–79
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.02.007
21 JFalconer. The Dam Busters Story. London: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 2007
22 XXue, X Yang, W.Zhang Numerical modeling of arch dam under blast loading. Journal of Vibration and Control, 2012, 20(2): 256–265
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546312461031
23 TRabczuk, T Belytschko. A three dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2006.06.020
24 TRabczuk, G Zi, SBordas, HNguyen-Xuan. A simple and robust three dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.03.031
25 TRabczuk, R Gracie, J HSong, TBelytschko. Immersed particle method for fluid-structure interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 81(1): 48–71
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.2670
26 J FHall. Study of the earthquake response of pine flat dam. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1986, 14(2): 281–295
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290140208
27 FKalateh, R. Attarnejad A new cavitation simulation method: Dam-reservoir systems. International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics, 2012, 13(3): 161–183
https://doi.org/10.1080/15502287.2012.660232
28 E LGuzas, C J Earls. Air blast load generation for simulating structural response. Steel and Composite Structures, 2010, 10(5): 429–455
https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2010.10.5.429
29 W EBaker. Explosions in Air. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973
30 W EBaker, PCox, P SWestine, J J Kulesz, R AStrehlow. Explosion Hazards and Evaluation. New York: Elsevier, 1983
31 G F,Kinney K J Graham. Explosive Shock in Air. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 1985
32 C NKingery, G Bulmash. Airblast parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface Burst. Army BRL Report ARBRL-TR-02555, 1984
33 P DSmith, J G Hetherington. Blast and Ballistic Loading of Structures. London: Butterworth-Heinemenn, 1994
34 EBorenstein, H Benaroya. Sensitivity analysis of blast loading parameters and their trends as uncertainty increases. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2009, 321(3–5): 762–785
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2008.10.017
35 H LBrode. Quick Estimates of Peak Overpressure from Two Simultaneous Blast Waves. Topical Report Oct-Dec 77, 1977
36 ANSYS Inc. Theory Reference, Release 10.0 Documentation for ANSYS software ANSYS Inc., 2006
37 JEibl, B Schmidt-Hurtienne. Strain-rate sensitive constitutive law for concrete. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1999, 125(12): 1411–1420
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1999)125:12(1411)
38 TRabczuk, J Eibl. Simulation of high velocity concrete fragmentation using SPH/MLSPH. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2003, 56(10): 1421–1444
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.617
39 P HBischoff, S H Perry. Compressive behavior of concrete at high strain rate. Materials and Structures, 1991, 24(6): 425–450
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472016
40 L JMalvar, C A Ross. Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI Materials Journal, 1998, 95(M73): 735–739
41 YWu, D Wang, C TWu. Three dimensional fragmentation simulation of concrete structures with a nodally regularized meshfree method. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 89–99
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2014.04.006
42 YWu, D Wang, C TWu, HZhang. A direct displacement smoothing meshfree particle formulation for impact failure modeling. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2016, 87: 169–185
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.03.013
43 X QZhou, H Hao, A JDeeks. Modelling dynamic damage of concrete slab under blast loading. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Shock and Impact Loads on Structures. Perth: CI-Premier, 2005, 703–710
44 X QZhou, V A Kuznetsov, H Hao, JWaschl. Numerical prediction of concrete slab response to blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008, 35(10): 1186–1200
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.01.004
45 WHerrmann. Constitutive equation for the dynamic compaction of ductile porous materials. Journal of Applied Physics, 1969, 40(6): 2490–2499
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1658021
46 W FXie, T G Liu, B C Khoo. Application of a one-fluid model for large scale homogenous unsteady cavitation: The modified Schmidt model. Computers & Fluids, 2006, 35(10): 1177–1192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.05.006
47 GSandberg. A new finite element formulation of shock-induced hull cavitation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1995, 120(1–2): 33–44
https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(94)00050-W
48 C EBrennen. Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995
49 FKalateh, R Attarnejad. Finite element simulation of acoustic cavitation in the reservoir and effects on dynamic response of concrete dams. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2011, 47(5): 543–558
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2010.12.004
50 W FXie, G Liu, B CKhoo. The simulation of cavitation flows induced by underwater shock and free surface interaction. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 2007, 57(5–7): 734–745
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2006.07.014
51 G BWallis. One-dimensional Two-phase Flow. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969
52 C STsai, G C Lee, R L Ketter. A semi-analytical method for time domain analyses for dam-reservoir interactions. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1990, 29(5): 913–933
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620290502
53 C STsai, G C Lee, C S Yeh. Time-domain analysis of three-dimensional dam-reservoir interaction by BEM and semi-analytical method. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 1992, 10(2): 107–118
https://doi.org/10.1016/0955-7997(92)90039-A
54 IGogoi, D Maity. A non-reflecting boundary condition for the finite element modeling of infinite reservoir with layered sediment. Advances in Water Resources, 2006, 29(10): 1515–1527
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.11.004
55 H HBleich, I S Sandler. Interaction between structures and bilinear fluids. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1970, 6(5): 617–639
https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(70)90034-X
56 O CZienkiewicz, D KPaul, EHinton. Cavitation in fluid-structure response (with particular reference to dams under earthquake loading). Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1983, 11(4): 463–481
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290110403
57 R ENewton. Finite element study of shock induced cavitation. In: Oñate E, Periaux J, Samuelsson A, eds. The Finite Element Method in the 1990’s. Berlin: Springer, 1991, 389–397
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10326-5_39
58 M AHamdi, Y Ousset, GVerchery. A displacement method for the analysis of vibrations of coupled fluid-structure systems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1978, 13(1): 139–150
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620130110
59 C AFelippa, J A Deruntz. Finite element analysis of shock-induced hull cavitation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1984, 44(3): 297–337
https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(84)90134-8
60 M ASprague, T L Geers. Spectral elements and field separation for an acoustic fluid subject to cavitation. Journal of Computational Physics, 2003, 184(1): 149–162
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9991(02)00024-4
61 BLuccioni, D Ambrosini, RDanesi. Blast load assessment using hydrocodes. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(12): 1736–1744
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.02.016
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Saleh YAGHOOBI, Ahmad SHOOSHTARI. Joint slip investigation based on finite element modelling verified by experimental results on wind turbine lattice towers[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 341-351.
[2] Pengfei LIU, Dawei WANG, Frédéric OTTO, Markus OESER. Application of semi-analytical finite element method to analyze the bearing capacity of asphalt pavements under moving loads[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 215-221.
[3] P. ZAKIAN. An efficient stochastic dynamic analysis of soil media using radial basis function artificial neural network[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 470-479.
[4] Il-Sang AHN, Lijuan CHENG. Seismic analysis of semi-gravity RC cantilever retaining wall with TDA backfill[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 455-469.
[5] Ulf Arne GIRHAMMAR, Per Johan GUSTAFSSON, Bo KÄLLSNER. Modeling of shear walls using finite shear connector elements based on continuum plasticity[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 143-157.
[6] Ben DAEE,Hesham El NAGGAR. 3D finite element analysis of composite noise barrier constructed of polyurethane products[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(1): 100-110.
[7] Abbas PARSAIE,Sadegh DEHDAR-BEHBAHANI,Amir Hamzeh HAGHIABI. Numerical modeling of cavitation on spillway’s flip bucket[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 438-444.
[8] M. H. NGUYEN-THOI,L. Le-ANH,V. Ho-HUU,H. Dang-TRUNG,T. NGUYEN-THOI. An extended cell-based smoothed discrete shear gap method (XCS-FEM-DSG3) for free vibration analysis of cracked Reissner-Mindlin shells[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(4): 341-358.
[9] B. R. JAYALEKSHMI,S.V. JISHA,R. SHIVASHANKAR. Response in piled raft foundation of tall chimneys under along-wind load incorporating flexibility of soil[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(3): 307-322.
[10] Xi F. XU. Multiscale stochastic finite element method on random field modeling of geotechnical problems – a fast computing procedure[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 107-113.
[11] Xiaonong GUO,Zhe XIONG,Zuyan SHEN. Flexural-torsional buckling behavior of aluminum alloy beams[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 163-175.
[12] Witarto WITARTO,Liang LU,Rachel Howser ROBERTS,Y. L. MO,Xilin LU. Shear-critical reinforced concrete columns under various loading rates[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(4): 362-372.
[13] Haitham DAWOOD,Mohamed ELGAWADY,Joshua HEWES. Factors affecting the seismic behavior of segmental precast bridge columns[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(4): 388-398.
[14] Kristine VANDENBOER,Vera van BEEK,Adam BEZUIJEN. 3D finite element method (FEM) simulation of groundwater flow during backward erosion piping[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(2): 160-166.
[15] Yiyi CHEN,Wei SUN,Tak-Ming CHAN. Cyclic stress-strain behavior of structural steel with yield-strength up to 460 N/mm2[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(2): 178-186.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed