Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 15–37 | Cite as

Dynamic failure analysis of concrete dams under air blast using coupled Euler-Lagrange finite element method

  • Farhoud KalatehEmail author
Research Article


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.


air blast loading concrete dams finite element dam-reservoir interaction cavitation concrete damage model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ngo T, Mendis P, Gupta A, Ramsay J. Blast loading and blast effects on structures—An overview. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007, 7: 76–91Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Remennikov A M. A review of methods for predicting bomb blast effects on buildings. Journal of Battlefield Technology, 2003, 6(3): 5–10Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu Y, Wang Z. Characterization of structural effects from aboveground explosion using coupled numerical simulation. Computers & Structures, 2006, 84(28): 1729–1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tian L, Li Z X. Dynamic response analysis of a building structure subjected to ground shock from a tunnel explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008, 35(10): 1164–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jayasooriya R, Thambiratnam D P, Perera N J, Kosse V. Blast and residual capacity analysis of reinforced concrete framed buildings. Engineering Structures, 2011, 33(12): 3483–3492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parisi F, Augenti N. Influence of seismic design criteria on blast resistance of RC framed buildings: A case study. Engineering Structures, 2012, 44: 78–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tang E K C, Hao H. Numerical simulation of a cable-stayed bridge response to blast loads. Part I: Model development and response calculations. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(10): 3180–3192Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hao H, Tang E K C. Numerical simulation of a cable-stayed bridge response to blast loads. Part II: Damage prediction and FRP strengthening. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(10): 3193–3205Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Son J, Lee H J. Performance of cable-stayed bridge pylons subjected to blast loading. Engineering Structures, 2011, 33(4): 1133–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anwarul Islam A K M, Yazdani N. Performance of AASHTO girder bridges under blast loading. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(7): 1922–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu Y, Wang Z, Chong K. 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): 275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang Z, Lu Y, Hao H, Chong K. A full coupled numerical analysis approach for buried structures subjected to subsurface blast. Computers & Structures, 2005, 83(4–5): 339–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ma G, Zhou H, Chong K. In-structure shock assessment of underground structures with consideration of rigid body motion. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2011, 137(12): 797–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li J C, Li H B, Ma G W, Zhou Y X. Assessment of underground tunnel stability to adjacent tunnel explosion. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2013, 35: 227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang A, Zeng L, Cheng X, Wang S, Chen Y. The evaluation method of total damage to ship in underwater explosion. Applied Ocean Research, 2011, 33(4): 240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jin Q, Ding G. A finite element analysis of ship sections subjected to underwater explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011, 38(7): 558–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang A, Zhou W, Wang S, Feng L. Dynamic response of the noncontact underwater explosions on naval equipment. Marine Structures, 2011, 24(4): 396–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang G, Zhang S. Damage prediction of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion shock loading. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2014, 39: 72–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang S, Wang G, Wang C, Pang B, Du C. Numerical simulation of failure modes of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2014, 36: 49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De A. Numerical simulation of surface explosions over dry, cohesionless soil. Computers and Geotechnics, 2012, 43: 72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Falconer J. The Dam Busters Story. London: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 2007Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xue X, Yang X, Zhang W. Numerical modeling of arch dam under blast loading. Journal of Vibration and Control, 2012, 20(2): 256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A simple and robust three dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rabczuk T, Gracie R, Song J H, Belytschko T. Immersed particle method for fluid-structure interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 81(1): 48–71MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hall J F. Study of the earthquake response of pine flat dam. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1986, 14(2): 281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalateh F, Attarnejad R. A new cavitation simulation method: Damreservoir systems. International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics, 2012, 13(3): 161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guzas E L, Earls C J. Air blast load generation for simulating structural response. Steel and Composite Structures, 2010, 10(5): 429–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baker W E. Explosions in Air. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baker W E, Cox P, Westine P S, Kulesz J J, Strehlow R A. Explosion Hazards and Evaluation. New York: Elsevier, 1983Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kinney G F, Graham K J. Explosive Shock in Air. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kingery C N, Bulmash G. Airblast parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface Burst. Army BRL Report ARBRL-TR-02555, 1984Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith P D, Hetherington J G. Blast and Ballistic Loading of Structures. London: Butterworth-Heinemenn, 1994Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Borenstein E, Benaroya H. Sensitivity analysis of blast loading parameters and their trends as uncertainty increases. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2009, 321(3–5): 762–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brode H L. Quick Estimates of Peak Overpressure from Two Simultaneous Blast Waves. Topical Report Oct-Dec 77, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    ANSYS Inc. Theory Reference, Release 10.0 Documentation for ANSYS software ANSYS Inc., 2006Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eibl J, Schmidt-Hurtienne B. Strain-rate sensitive constitutive law for concrete. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1999, 125(12): 1411–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Simulation of high velocity concrete fragmentation using SPH/MLSPH. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2003, 56(10): 1421–1444CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bischoff P H, Perry S H. Compressive behavior of concrete at high strain rate. Materials and Structures, 1991, 24(6): 425–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Malvar L J, Ross C A. Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI Materials Journal, 1998, 95(M73): 735–739Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wu Y, Wang D, Wu C T. Three dimensional fragmentation simulation of concrete structures with a nodally regularized meshfree method. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2014, 72: 89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wu Y, Wang D, Wu C T, Zhang H. A direct displacement smoothing meshfree particle formulation for impact failure modeling. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2016, 87: 169–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhou X Q, Hao H, Deeks A J. 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, 703–710Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhou X Q, Kuznetsov V A, Hao H, Waschl J. Numerical prediction of concrete slab response to blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008, 35(10): 1186–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Herrmann W. Constitutive equation for the dynamic compaction of ductile porous materials. Journal of Applied Physics, 1969, 40(6): 2490–2499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xie W F, Liu T G, Khoo B C. Application of a one-fluid model for large scale homogenous unsteady cavitation: The modified Schmidt model. Computers & Fluids, 2006, 35(10): 1177–1192CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sandberg G. A new finite element formulation of shock-induced hull cavitation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1995, 120(1–2): 33–44CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Brennen C E. Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kalateh F, Attarnejad R. 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): 543–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Xie W F, Liu G, Khoo B C. The simulation of cavitation flows induced by underwater shock and free surface interaction. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 2007, 57(5–7): 734–745MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wallis G B. One-dimensional Two-phase Flow. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tsai C S, Lee G C, Ketter R L. A semi-analytical method for time domain analyses for dam-reservoir interactions. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1990, 29(5): 913–933CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tsai C S, Lee G C, Yeh C S. Time-domain analysis of threedimensional dam-reservoir interaction by BEM and semi-analytical method. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 1992, 10 (2): 107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gogoi I, Maity D. A non-reflecting boundary condition for the finite element modeling of infinite reservoir with layered sediment. Advances in Water Resources, 2006, 29(10): 1515–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bleich H H, Sandler I S. Interaction between structures and bilinear fluids. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1970, 6(5): 617–639CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zienkiewicz O C, Paul D K, Hinton E. Cavitation in fluid-structure response (with particular reference to dams under earthquake loading). Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1983, 11 (4): 463–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Newton R E. 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, 389–397Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hamdi M A, Ousset Y, Verchery G. A displacement method for the analysis of vibrations of coupled fluid-structure systems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1978, 13(1): 139–150CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Felippa C A, Deruntz J A. Finite element analysis of shock-induced hull cavitation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1984, 44(3): 297–337CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sprague M A, Geers T L. Spectral elements and field separation for an acoustic fluid subject to cavitation. Journal of Computational Physics, 2003, 184(1): 149–162CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Luccioni B, Ambrosini D, Danesi R. Blast load assessment using hydrocodes. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(12): 1736–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations