Case Studies
Peer-reviewed research case demonstrating Abaqus/Explicit CEL blast modelling, detailed masonry bridge representation, CFRP strengthening comparison and advanced material models for blast-resilience assessment.
Masonry arch bridges are vulnerable to impulsive loading because their response can be controlled by local cracking, spalling, arch damage, support interaction, and brittle failure mechanisms that are not represented by simplified static checks.
The research used Abaqus/Explicit with coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian blast modelling, FARO laser scanning geometry, detailed bridge micro-modelling, JH-II damage modelling for masonry units, Mohr–Coulomb backfill representation, JWL equation of state for TNT, and VUMAT implementation for the JH-II model.
Damage propagation, displacement response, blast wave interaction, critical scenario identification, and comparison of bridge response before and after CFRP strengthening were evaluated.
For clients, this case demonstrates the ability to model extreme dynamic loading, complex masonry behavior, retrofit concepts, and damage-mechanism interpretation using advanced Abaqus workflows.
Case-study depth
Masonry arch bridges may fail through local cracking, spalling, arch-ring damage, backfill interaction and support-zone vulnerability under close-range blast. The engineering question is not only whether the bridge collapses, but how damage initiates, where it propagates and whether a retrofit strategy changes the failure mechanism.
The published research used Abaqus/Explicit with coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian blast modelling. Geometry was supported by FARO laser scanning; masonry units were represented through a Johnson–Holmquist II damage formulation; the backfill used Mohr–Coulomb behaviour; TNT was represented with a Jones–Wilkins–Lee equation of state; and a VUMAT implementation supported the material model workflow.
The case assessed blast-induced damage propagation, displacement response, location-dependent vulnerability and the effect of CFRP strengthening. It demonstrates how simulation can compare baseline and retrofitted configurations before physical intervention is selected.
For Axis clients, this case is a proof of modelling depth: dynamic analysis, complex material behaviour, blast–structure interaction and retrofit comparison. It is not presented as a universal bridge template; every commercial bridge, retrofit or blast problem still needs project-specific scoping, data review and verification.
Professional caveat
The case is a peer-reviewed research example. Use in client work would require project-specific geometry, material data, load definition, acceptance criteria and verification checks.
Technical interpretation
This case is used on the Axis website as evidence of modelling depth, not as a universal template. Similar client work would be scoped around project-specific geometry, data availability, material calibration, load definition, reporting needs and verification requirements.
Send the engineering question, available data and expected deliverable level for scoping.