Gunaryo et al.

International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering

(2020) 15:4
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40712-020-0116-3

ORIGINAL PAPER Open Access

Experimentation and numerical modeling

on the response of woven glass/epoxy
composite plate under blast impact loading
Kasmidi Gunaryo, Heri Heriana, M. Rafiqi Sitompul, Andi Kuswoyo and Bambang K. Hadi*

Abstract
Background: Composite material is being used in vehicles for protective structures against blast loading. Limited
data is available which compare experimental works and numerical analysis in the open field environment. More
data is needed in this area in order to be able to predict and use composite materials safely.
Methods: In this work, the response of woven glass/epoxy composite plates under blast loading was investigated,
both experimentally and numerically. The plate was manufactured using glass/epoxy woven Cytec 120 °C curing
system. The explosive material was Tri-Nitro-Toluen (TNT) with different masses, which are 60, 80, and 100 g. The
stand-off distance was also varied, ranging from 300 up to 1000 mm. In the experimental work, a sewing needle
pin was put under the plate to record the maximum deformation of the plate during TNT explosion. In the
numerical analysis, LS-DYNA was used extensively. The composite plate was modeled as shell elements using
MAT54, and the failure criteria was Chang-Chang failure criteria. The explosive TNT material was modeled in two
different ways. First, it was modeled using CONWEP and the second was modeled using Smooth Particle
Hydrodynamics (SPH). The numerical analysis results were then compared with the experimental data for the case
of maximum deformation.
Results: Experimentally, the sewing needle method was able to measure the plate maximum deformation during
the explosion. The numerical analysis showed that the SPH model gave better agreement with experimental results
compared with CONWEP method. The SPH results were in the range of 8–18% compared to experimental data,
while the CONWEP results were in the range of 14–43%.
Conclusion: Albeit its simplicity, sewing needle method was able to measure the maximum deformation for blast
loading experimentation. The SPH model was better compared with CONWEP method in analyzing the response of
composite plate subjected to blast loading.
Keywords: Glass/epoxy composite plate, Blast loading, Smooth particle hydrodynamics, CONWEP

Background Therefore, there is an urgent need for blast protection

The need for blast protection in vehicles as well as in ci- structures.
vilian structures has increased during combat or due to Due to its lightness and high strength, composite mate-
terrorist attack. In the case of terrorism during the rials are being used for ballistic and blast protection struc-
period of 1970–2016, there were 23,352 terrorist attack tures, such as in armored vehicle. In this case, the
against civilian targets worldwide, with 78,772 deaths composite structures should be able to withstand blast
(Magnus, Khan, & Proud, 2018). The attacks targeted ci- loading, as required during their operational duties.
vilian vehicles such as bus, train, taxi and buildings. Therefore, the behavior of composite structures due to
blast loading should be understandable. The effect of blast
loading on structures generally depended on explosive’s
* Correspondence: bkhadi@ae.itb.ac.id; bambang.hadi60@gmail.com
mass and the stand-off distance between the explosive de-
Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Institut Teknologi vices and the structures [Ngo, Mendis, Gupta, & Ramsay,
Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia

© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 2 of 9

Fig. 1 Experimental set-up a table design and b experimental set-up

2007]. A 100-Kg TNT explosion at a Stand-off Distance structures to be used in the blast mitigation and the re-
(SoD) of 15 m will severely damage most buildings, and search gave criteria and data for the design of naval struc-
casualities are significantly high. tures. Batra and Hassan (2008) conducted a research on the
Several researches have been done in the past to study blast effect to unidirectional fiber composite structure using
the blast loading effect on composite structures. The testing finite element method. From the numerical simulation ana-
of E-glass/epoxy and S-glass/phenol plates under blast load- lysis, they found that the fiber orientation strongly influ-
ing has been performed by Giversen, Berggreen, Benjamin, ences the energy absorption. Liang, Wang, and Wang
and Hayman (2014), and the deformation was measured (2007) conducted research regarding optimization of com-
using Digital Image Correlation (DIC) method. The numer- posite structure wall under blast loading. The experiment
ical analysis used Load Blast Enhanced (LBE) and Fluid was done with variation of explosive power. Baker (1973)
Structure Interaction (FSI) in LS-DYNA. The explosive found out that composite blast-resistant wall tends to have
mass was 25 g, and the SoD was 100 mm. The difference a localized center failure on the surface subjected to lower
on the plate’s displacement between the numerical model level blast loading. Meanwhile, designing containment box
and the numerical model was around 19%. The plate was for aircraft in-flight operation due to explosive loading
able to withstand the blast loading. In the design of marine using composite materials was also been done (Burns &
structures, Avachat (2015) investigated composite sandwich Bayandor, 2011).

Fig. 2 a The actual blast table. b The TNT used in the experiment
Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 3 of 9

Table 1 Blast experiment parameters

No. Thickness (mm) Material Number of Layer TNT (gram) SoD (mm)
1 1.9 Fabric Glass (0/90) 10 60 1000
2 1.9 Fabric Glass (0/90) 10 60 500
3 2.3 Fabric Glass (0/90) 12 80 300
4 2.3 Fabric Glass (0/90) 12 100 300

In the numerical analysis, several methods have been amount of a standard granade. The current research aims
used, mostly using LS-DYNA platform. Multi Material to fill the gap.
Arbitrary Language Euler (MM-ALE) and Smoothed The scope of the current research was to conduct ex-
Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) have been used by perimentation and numerical modeling of woven glass/
Trajkovski (2017), while Tabatabaei and Volz (2012) epoxy response to blast loading in the open field. TNT
compared LBE which is also called CONWEP method, was used with different mass, which were 60, 80, and 100
MM-ALE, and the couple between LBE and MM-ALE g, which is larger or equivalent to standard granede. The
methods. The modeling of blast in LS-DYNA is per- SoD was also varied, which were 300, 500, and 1000 mm.
formed by Slavik (2012), while the SPH method is given The limitation of the current research was that during the
by Liu and Liu (2003). The explosive material data is experimental works, only the maximum deformation of
given in Dobratz (1981). LSTC (2017) explained the the plate was captured and measured afterwards. This is
modeling of explosive material in LS-DYNA. due to the nature of the experiments which were carried
The above studies showed that composite materials are out in the open field not in the contained laboratory. The
gaining significant importance in blast resistance struc- maximum deformation was then compared with the nu-
tures for armored vehicle, marine structures, and aircraft merical result.
structures. Therefore, studies on this field should be given
more attention. Apart from Giversen et al. (2014), experi-
mental data was lacking, especially on the plate deform- Research methodology
ation during blast loading. Deformation analysis is Experimental set-up
important since it will affect the safety of the person dur- The composite plate was made from woven glass/epoxy
ing blast. It should be noted that Giversen et al. (2014) materials with (0/90)n lay-ups. The plate dimension was
used a small amount of TNT, and the experiment was 250 × 250 mm, and the number of layers was 10 and 12
conducted in a container box. Lack of experimental data layers. The plate was manufactured in an autoclave using
on the real blast loading in open field using TNT in the Cytec 120 °C curing system. The 10 and 12 layers are
chosen based on the numerical analysis of Sitompul
(2018) which concluded that these layers were safe and
able to withstand 100grams TNT with SoD of 1000 mm.
The design of the experimental set-up is given in Fig. 1,
while Fig. 2 shows the actual table and the TNT used
during the blast experimentation. Note that in Fig. 1 it
shows the set-up for SoD of 300 mm, while in the

Table 2 Material properties of woven glass/epoxy

Property Symbol Value Unit
Density RO 1900 kg/m3
Young‘s modulus longitudinal direction E11 13259 MPa
Young‘s modulus transverse direction E22 13259 MPa
Shear modulus G12 3032 MPa
Longitudinal compressive strength XC 307 MPa
Longitudinal tensile strength XT 261 MPa
Transverse compressive strength YC 307 MPa
Transverse tensile strength YT 261 MPa

Fig. 3 Sewing pin needle system for maximum plate’s Shear strength SC 80 MPa
deformation measurement Poison ratio PRBA 0.159 –
Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 4 of 9

Table 3 Material properties and JWL equation of state

parameter for TNT
ρ(kg/m3) D(m/s) PCJ(GPa) A (GPa) B (GPa) R1 R2 ω E(J/m3)
1540 6930 21 3.712 3.231 4.15 0.95 0.3 7E+09

needle pad method as is shown in Fig. 3. The sewing

needle pad was placed under the specimen. The pad was
made of Styrofoam, and the sewing needle was stuck in
the foam. When the specimen deformed due to blast
loading, the deformation will be recorded by the dis-
placement of the needle when it sank to the Styrofoam.
Fig. 4 Modeling glass/epoxy plate shell elements. Element size was
3 × 3 mm
Numerical analysis
In the numerical analysis using LS-DYNA software, the
experimentation the SoD was varied from 300, 500, glass/epoxy plate was modeled using shell elements in
and 1000 mm. The other dimension was the same. the type of MAT54 or MAT Enhanced_Composite_
Two load cells were installed in the two of the table Damage. The material property of the glass/epoxy is
legs. The load cells were used to record the load his- given in Table 2.
tory during the blast. The boundary conditions were clamped at all edges.
As in Fig. 2, the plate was bolted into the table to act The optimum element size was determined during the
as a rigid body boundary condition. Since there are bolt convergence test. It was found that the ideal mesh size
connection, the working area of the composite plate was was 3 × 3 mm. Figure 4 shows the plate mesh element
reduced to 250 × 250 mm. The high-explosive TNT was and the boundary conditions. Both LBE and SPH
hanged at support rod at the centre of the specimen. methods used the same shell elements model for the
The TNT was in the form of cylinder with the diameter glass/epoxy plate. The element formulation used fully in-
of 37 mm, and the height was 38, 50, and 63 mm to give tegrated shell element, ELFORM = 16.
the TNT mass of 60, 80, and 100 g, respectively.
The experimental configuration is given in Table 1.
Due to limited number of TNT available, since it is a Load blast enhanced model
military explosive, only four experimental configurations LBE is an empirical pressure load calculation which is pro-
were tested, with variation of number of layers 10 and vided based on experimental database which has roots
12, the explosive mass, which are 60, 80, and 100 g and similar to CONWEP. Blast loading model using LBE is
the stand-off distance (SoD) of 300, 500, and 1000 mm quite simple. The only one that needs to be discretized is
as shown in Table 1. The different variations aimed at the plate structure. In LS-DYNA, *LOAD_BLAST_EN-
getting as much as possible the experimental data that HANCED card is used to define the blast loading. The in-
can be compared with the numerical analysis. put data are the equivalent mass of TNT and explosive
In the experimental work, the focus was on the meas- charge coordinate. The UNIT has to be selected correctly,
urement of the maximum deformation at the centre of and the blast type chosen is spherical-free air burst as de-
the plate during explosion. The maximum deformation fault, BLAST = 2. Empirical air blast model is calculated
was recorded using a simple method called sewing by Friedlander equation (Baker, 1973):

Fig. 5 Discretization of explosive TNT by SPH method

Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 5 of 9

  Table 4 Material property and linear polynomial equation of

t −btt
Pðt Þ ¼ P SO 1− e 0 ð1Þ state for air
t0
ρ (kg/m3) γ C0 C1–C3, C6 C4, C5 E0 (J) V0
−6
When a shock wave hit the surface of the plate, it may 1.29 1.4 − 1 × 10 0 0.4 2.5 × 10 5
1
face an oblique angle of incidence. Then, the effective
pressure of this model described the blast load equation
is (Slavik, 2012):
case of 60-g TNT. During the convergence test, it was


Pðτ Þ ¼ Pr cos θ þ Ps 1 þ cos θ−2cosθ
2 2
ð2Þ found that it needed 65,727 nodes to model the explo-
sive TNT.
where θ is the angle of incidence. Pr is the peak reflected Explosive material TNT is modeled by using *MAT_
pressure, and Ps is the peak of incident pressure. In HIGH_EXPLOSIVE_BURN card and its properties is in
*LOAD_BLAST_ENHANCED keyword model, the in- Table 3. The equation of state (EOS) that represents the
puts are the equivalent mass of TNT, the coordinate lo- pressure as function of density and internal energy has
cation of explosion, and the time-zero of explosion that to be defined in numerical model. *EOS_JWL card is
describes when the blast will start. The load blast need used on this purpose. The pressure equation of state is
to be applied on all composite elements as a segment; given by Dobratz (1981):
hence, *LOAD_BLAST_SEGMEN_SET card has to be
defined. This card registers the set of shell element and    
ωη −Rη1 ωη −Rη2
recall *LOAD_BLAST_ENHANCED card. p ¼ A 1− e þ B 1− e þ ωηρ0 e ð3Þ
R1 R2
Smooth particle hydrodynamics model
Smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH) method is a
mesh-free method which is discretised by unconnected where η is the ratio of density of explosive gas to initial
particles for describing physical governing equation. The density of explosive material, e is internal energy per
body that uses SPH state system is represented by a set unit mass, A, B, R1, R2, and ω are the coefficients that
of particles that have individual physical properties and extracted from fitting curve of experimental data. The
freely move according to governing conservation equa- input parameter of Jones-Wilkins-Lee (JWL) is given in
tion (Liu and Liu & Liu, 2003). The SPH of explosive Table 3 (Trajkovski, 2017).
model is generated by using SPH generation with cylin- This research compared the blast loading simulation
der method in LS-DYNA software. For example, SPH with and without the SPH of air model. The air of envir-
model of the TNT explosive is shown in Fig. 5 for the onment condition is assumed to be an ideal gas.

Fig. 6 Glass/epoxy and SPH explosive model: a without air model and b with air model
Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 6 of 9

Fig. 7 Deformation of specimen code S4 a contour and b displacement point measured by the sewing needle

Therefore, pressure equation of state for perfect gas is and smoothing length coefficient (CSHL) were investi-
given in Eq. 4 [LSTC, 2017]: gated in those various values.

ðγ−1Þρ
Results and discussion
p¼ E ð4Þ Experimental results
ρ0
In all the tests, the specimens did not fail or rupture
after the blast loading. Thus, the specimens were able to
where E is the specific internal energy, ρ is the current withstand the blast loading. The displacement of each
density, ρ0 is the initial density of air, and γ is the ratio of point measured in each sewing pin were collected and
the specific heat. The material model for air used *MAT_ represented as a contour. Figure 7a is an example of dis-
NULL card, and the equation of state definition used placement contour for specimen having 12 layers and
*EOS_LINEAR_POLINOMIAL card. The material prop- 100-gram TNT with 300 mm stand-off distance, while
erty and equation of state of air were given in Table 4 Fig. 7b gives the displacement point of the needle along
(Trajkovski, 2017). the plate’s central line. From Fig. 7b, the experimental
The contact definition used *AUTOMATIC_NODES_ maximum deformation of the plate during the TNT ex-
TO_SURFACE_SMOOTH to define particles of SPH plosion can be determined.
and the shell surface. The particles approximation be- The summary of the experimental maximum deform-
tween two different SPH parts is computed (CONT = 0) ation measured by the sewing pin needle is given in
and the space dimension of SPH particles is 3D prob- Table 5.
lems (IDIM = 3). The final model of glass/epoxy under Table 5 shows that experimentally, the plate maximum
blast loading with and without SPH model is given in deformation during the blast loading depended on the
Fig. 6. plate thickness, the mass of TNT, and the SoD. The lar-
The parametric studies in numerical model must be ger TNT mass and the shorter SoD will produce higher
conducted to get the robust model. The shell mesh size deformation. It shows that shortening the SoD by half
and the number of particles of SPH were varied to gain and keeping the same number of layers and the mass of
convergence value. The time step coefficients (TSSFAC) TNT will produce an increase of the deformation by
Table 6 Comparison of plate’s maximum deformation result
Table 5 Maximum deflection during explosion for different between experimental data and SPH simulation without air
configuration model
Specimen Number Mass of Stand-off- Experimental Maximum deformation
code of plies TNT distance maximum
(grams) (mm) deformation (mm) Number TNT SoD Experiment Numerical (SPH Difference
of plies (gram) (mm) (mm) simulation without (%)
S1 10 60 1000 11.1 air model)
S2 10 60 500 13.8 10 60 500 13.8 3.75 73
S3 12 80 300 20.3 12 80 300 20.3 8.17 60
S4 12 100 300 22.3 12 100 300 22.2 8.95 60
Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 7 of 9

Table 7 Comparison of plate’s maximum deformation results between experimental data and SPH simulation with air model
Maximum deformation
Number of plies TNT (gram) SoD (mm) Experiment (mm) Numerical (SPH simulation Difference (%)
with air model), mm
10 60 1000 11.1 9.11 18
10 60 500 13.8 12.68 8
12 80 300 20.3 18.19 10
12 100 300 22.2 19.18 14

24%. Therefore, SoD gives significant factor on the max- the TNT explosion was not transferred perfectly to the
imum deformation. plate, resulting in the much lower maximum deform-
ation of the plate.
Numerical analysis results The second model is the inclusion of air model into
SPH methods the SPH method, as in Fig. 5b. The result is given in
The glass/epoxy composite structure under blast loading Table 7. It shows that the resulted maximum deforma-
has been simulated numerically with SPH method. The tions are closer to the experimental ones. The error is
first model is without modeling the air. The numerical re- between 8 and 18% compared to the experimental data.
sults are compared with the experimental data for differ- Therefore, the inclusion of air model into the SPH
ent test conditions. Table 6 shows this comparison. It method is necessary to get better results.
shows that the SPH numerical model without modeling
the air predict the maximum plate deflection much lower Comparison between LBE and SPH methods
compared with maximum deflection measured during ex- Figure 8 compares experimental data with both LBE and
perimentation. The difference was as high as 70%. SPH method for the maximum deformation of woven
Table 6 shows that the SPH method excluding air glass/epoxy plate during the explosion. It shows that the
modeling are inaccurate for all the specimen configur- SPH method predicts maximum deformation better than
ation. It seems that without air model, the pressure from the LBE method when these compared with experimental

Fig. 8 Experimental vs numerical deflection results using LBE and SPH methods
Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 8 of 9

Table 8 Comparison of maximum deformation of central line of specimen experiment and LBE simulation result
Maximum deformation
Number of Layer TNT (gram) SoD (mm) Experiment (mm) LBE method (mm) Diff. (%) SPH method (mm) Diff. (%)
10 60 1000 11.1 8.47 27 9.11 18
10 60 500 13.8 11.83 14 12.68 8
12 80 300 20.3 12.54 38 18.19 10
12 100 300 22.3 12.66 43 19.18 14

data. Overall, LBE method gives lower maximum deform- The numerical analysis used LBE and SPH methods. It
ation compared with SPH method and experimental data. was found that SPH method give better prediction com-
Note that SPH method included air model in the pared to the experimental data compared to the LBE
calculation. method. The maximum difference was 18%, less than
The summary of glass/epoxy plate’s maximum de- the results of Giversen et al. (2014). The error of using
formation is given in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, the LBE method varied from 14 to 38% compared with the
SPH method is more accurate than the LBE method. experimental data, while the error in using SPH method
The maximum deformation of SPH method is closer was less than 10%. In modeling the blast using SPH
with the experiment data with error less than 18%. method, it was necessary to include air model in the
Table 8 shows that numerical analysis gives smaller analysis. Excluding air model grossly underestimated the
deformation compared with the experimental results. maximum deflection of the plate.
Numerical analysis produces higher stiffness compared Further experimentations shoud be carried out to
to the real structures. LBE method produces even complete the present findings.
smaller deformation compared to SPH method. LBE
Acknowledgements
method does not consider the air which transmit blast The numerical analysis was done at Lightweight Structures Research Division,
loading from the TNT to the plate. It should be noted Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Institut Teknologi
that without modeling the air even in SPH method will Bandung. The experimentation was conducted in a special blast loading
facility in PT. PINDAD, Bandung, Indonesia. The authors wish to thank the
also produce smaller deformation, as is given in Tables 6 Institute for providing the research grant numerical analysis laboratory and
and 7. Therefore, including the air model is important in PT. PINDAD for providing experimental research facility.
producing maximum deformation which is comparable
Authors’ contributions
with the experimental data.
GK and HH did experimentation; MRS and AK conducted numerical analysis.
Table 8 shows that the SoD was the dominant factor GK was the coordinator for the work and reported to BKH. BKH is GK’s PhD
in the blast loading. The same number of layers, 12 supervisor, who guided and supported his work. BKH is also MSc supervisor
for HH, MRS, and AK. BKH wrote the major part of the paper. All authors read
layers, with the same SoD, 300 mm, and increasing the
and approved the final manuscript.
amunt of TNT by 25% (80 to 100 g) will increase the
maximum deformation by 10% (20.3 to 22.3 mm). On Funding
the other hand, keeping the same number of layers (10 The research was funded by the university, Institut Teknologi Bandung
through the Faculty of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering using P3MI
layers) and TNT (60grams), while shortening the SoD scheme year 2019.
50% (1000 mm to 500 mm), produced the increase of
deformation of the plate by 24%. Further studies should Availability of data and materials
The raw data is available at https://sites.google.com/view/glass-fiber-blast-
be carried out to investigate this finding, both experi- test/beranda
mentally and numerically.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Conclusion
Experimentation and numerical modeling on the re- Received: 2 December 2019 Accepted: 28 January 2020
sponse of woven glass/epoxy composite plate under
TNT blast loading has been conducted. The lay-up was
References
[0/90]n and the number of layers were 10 and 12 layers. Avachat, S. (2015) Design of composite structures for blast mitigation. PhD.
The dimension of the plate was 250 × 250 mm. The Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.
mass of TNT were varied which were 60, 80, and 100 g, Baker, W. E. (1973). Explosion in Air. Austin TX USA: University of Texas Press.
Batra, R. C., & Hassan, N. M. (2008). Blast resistance of unidirectional fiber
while the stand-off distance was 300, 500, and 1000 mm. reinforced composite. Composite Part B, 39, 513–536.
No rupture was found in all specimens. The woven Burns GN and Bayandor J. Analysis and modelling of explosive containment box
glass/epoxy was able to sustain the blast loading. The of aircraft in-flight operation. AIAA 2011-802. 49th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting. Orlando, Florida (2011).
maximum deflection at the centre of the specimens was Dobratz, B. M. (1981). LLNL Explosive handbook, UCRL-52997. Livermore, CA:
recorded using sewing needle pin technique. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Gunaryo et al. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering (2020) 15:4 Page 9 of 9

Giversen, S., Berggreen, C., Benjamin, R. and Hayman, B. (2014) Blast testing and
modelling of composite structures. DTU Mechanical Engineering. (DCAMM
Special Report; No. S167).
Liang, X., Wang, Z. and Wang, R. (2007) Deformation model and performance
optimization research of composite blast resistant wall subjected to blast
loading. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 326-341.
Liu, G. R., & Liu, M. B. (2003). Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: a mesh free particle
method. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
LSTC. (2017). LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual, Volume II: Material Model.
Livermore, California: Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Magnus, D., Khan, M. A., & Proud, W. G. (2018). Epidemiology of civilian blast
injuries inflicted by terrorist bombings from 1970 – 2016. Defence Technology.
, 14, 469–474.
Ngo, T., Mendis, P., Gupta, A., and Ramsay, J. (2007) Blast loading and blast effect
on structures – an overview. EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures.
Sitompul, M.R. (2018) Numerical study on blast loading of glass fiber reinforced
polymer using LBE and SPH Method. MSc Thesis, Faculty of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia.
Slavik, T. P. (2012). Blast loading in LS-DYNA. San Diego: University of California.
Tabatabaei, Z.S. and Volz, J.S. (2012) A comparison between three different blast
methods in LS-DYNA : LBE, MMALE, coupling of LBE and MM-ALE. 12th
International LS-DYNA Users Conference.
Trajkovski, J. (2017) Comparison of MM-ALE and SPH methods for modelling blast
wave reflections of flat and shaped surfaces. 11 th European LS-DYNA
Conference, Salzburg, Austria.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.