2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.08.084
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of ALE, LBE and pressure time history methods to evaluate extreme loading effects in RC column

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Uncertainty analysis is one of the main components in the decision-making systems of the different engineering sciences (Alam et al 2020a, Yang et al 2020aAbedini et al 2020;Abedini & Zhang 2021;Ouyang et al 2021;Chen et al 2021;Sabernezhad 2021;Rivera-Diaz et al 2021). In hydrological problems, probabilistic planning and fuzzy programming are included as two methods of uncertainty analysis (Wang et al 2018(Wang et al , 2019.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Uncertainty analysis is one of the main components in the decision-making systems of the different engineering sciences (Alam et al 2020a, Yang et al 2020aAbedini et al 2020;Abedini & Zhang 2021;Ouyang et al 2021;Chen et al 2021;Sabernezhad 2021;Rivera-Diaz et al 2021). In hydrological problems, probabilistic planning and fuzzy programming are included as two methods of uncertainty analysis (Wang et al 2018(Wang et al , 2019.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typically, blast loading may be modeled using one of three alternatives: Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE), Load Blast Enhanced (LBE), and pressure-time history methods. Earlier research [20] concluded that using pressure-time history can predict the displacement response due to blast loading with sufficient accuracy as compared to the other two techniques, while providing substantial saving in computational time. Thus, in this research, the pressure-time history analysis technique was adopted, also to be consistent with design guide No.26 [13] and UFC 340-02 [14] analysis methods.…”
Section: Blast-like Load Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the size of the sample, the expansive soil was tested by a laser particle size analyzer, and the iron tailing sand was tested by the sieving method. It can be seen from the figure that the particle size of expansive soil is relatively small and the distribution range is mainly 2-10 μm, while the particle size of ITS is relatively large, mainly 100-1000 μm [40][41][42][43].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%