Advertisement

Effects of Surface Explosion on Underground Tunnel and Potential Mitigation Measures

  • Anirban DeEmail author
  • Thomas F. Zimmie
Technical Paper
  • 514 Downloads

Abstract

An explosion on the ground surface can cause significant damage to a tunnel located at a shallow depth below ground. The effects of explosion were studied through a combination of physical model tests and numerical analyses. The physical model tests were conducted on a geotechnical centrifuge, where 1:70 scale models were subjected to 70 g acceleration. Due to centrifuge scaling laws related to explosions, the effects of an explosion, such as cratering and damage, scale as the cube of the g level. Using this scaling relation, it was possible to study the effects of a relatively large explosion in a test, utilizing a small amount of actual explosives. Strain gage readings, collected in real time during the centrifuge tests, provide measurements of damage on the tunnel due to the explosion. Numerical modeling using an explicit dynamic hydrocode allows simulation of the explosion in a three-dimensional model. The results of the numerical model appear to indicate a good match with results of physical model tests. The presence of a compressible barrier immediately outside the tunnel may reduce the damage to the tunnel due to a surface explosion. This was investigated in the physical model tests and numerical models, where a polyurethane geofoam barrier was included. The highest hoop strain at the crown of the tunnel immediately below the explosion reduced from 6.0 to 1.6 % when a 0.9-m-thick polyurethane geofoam barrier was added, in conjunction with a 0.9-m-thick soil cover. The corresponding reduction in vertical displacement was from 1.1 to 0.56 m.

Keywords

Tunnel Explosion Damage Strain Displacement Centrifuge model Numerical model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work reported in this paper was funded by the Geomechanics and Geomaterials Program under CMMI Division of the National Science Foundation (NSF) through grants CMMI-0226864 and CMMI-0928537. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The centrifuge tests were conducted with the assistance of the technical staff of the Geotechnical Centrifuge Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

References

  1. 1.
    ANSYS: Autodyn user manual version 15.0. (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, W.E., Westine, P.S., Dodge, F.T.: Similarity Methods in Engineering Dynamics. Spartan Books, Rochelle Park (1973)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodings, D.J., Fourney, W.L., Dick, R.D.: Geotechnical centrifuge modeling of explosion-induced craters—a check for scaling effects. AFOSR, No. 88–95 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kutter, B.L., O’Leary, L.M., Thompson, P.Y., Lather, R.: Gravity-scaled tests on blast-induced soil-structure interaction. J. Geotech. Eng. 118(4), 431–447 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davies, M.C.R.: Buried structures subjected to dynamic loading. In: Narayanan, R., Roberts, T.M. (Eds.) Structures Subjected to Dynamic Loadings. Elsevier, 271–302 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De, A., Morgante, A.N., Zimmie, T.F.: Mitigation of blast effects on underground structure using compressible porous foam barriers. Proceedings of BIOT 5: 5th Biot Conference on Poromechanics, Vienna (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De, A., Morgante, A.N., Zimmie, T.F.: Numerical and physical modeling of geofoam barriers as protection against effects of surface blast on underground tunnels. Geotext. Geomembr. 44, 1–12 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, H., Nezili, S.: Centrifuge modeling of underground tunnel in saturated soil subjected to internal blast loading. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 06015001 (2015) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000760
  9. 9.
    Charlie, W.A., Dowden, N.A., Villano, E.J., Veyera, G.E., Doehring, D.O.: Blast-induced stress wave propagation and attenuation: centrifuge model versus prototype tests. Geotech. Test. J. ASTM 28(2), 1–10 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, J.: Simulation of landmine explosion using LS-DYNA3D software: benchmark work of simulation of explosion in soil and air. DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Australia (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choi, S., Wang, J., Munfakh, G., Dwyre, E.: 3D Nonlinear Blast Model Analysis for Underground Structures, pp. 1–6. Proceedings of GeoCongress, Atlanta (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, H.: Dynamic analysis of subway structures under blast loading. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 27(6), 699–711 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s10706-009-9269-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    US Department of Army: Technical Manual TM 5-1300: Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. US Army Technical Manual (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, H.: Soil-structure interaction and failure of cast-iron subway tunnels subjected to medium internal blast loading. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 691–701 (2012) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000292
  15. 15.
    De, A., Zimmie, T.F.: Centrifuge modeling of surface blast effects on underground structures. Geotech. Test. J. ASTM 30(5), 427–431 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi, S., Wang, J., Munfakh, G.: Tunnel Stability under Explosion—Proposed Blast Wave Parameters for Practical Design Approach. First International Conference on Design and Analysis of Protective Structures against Impact/Impulsive/Shock Loads, Tokyo (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De, A.: Numerical simulation of surface explosions over dry, cohesionless soil. Comput. Geotech. 43, 72–79 (2012) doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.02.007
  18. 18.
    Laine, L., Sandvik, A.: Derivation of mechanical properties for sand. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Shock and Impact Loads on Structures, pp. 361–368. CI-Premier PTE LTD, Singapore (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K.K., Hossain, M.M., Fruth, L.S.: VELACS: Verification of Liquefaction Analyses by Centrifuge Studies, laboratory testing program, soil data report. Earth Technology Corp.. Project No. 90-0562, Irvine (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagy, A., Ko, W.L., Lindholm, U.S.: Mechanical behavior of foamed materials under dynamic compression. J. Cell. Plast. 10, 127–134 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, J., Kikuchi, N., Li, V., Yee, A., Nusholtz, G.: Constitutive modeling of polymeric foam material subjected to dynamic crash loading. Int. J. Impact. Eng. 21, 369–386 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ouellet, S., Cronin, D., Worswick, M.: Compressive response of polymeric foams under quasi-static, medium and high strain rate conditions. Polym. Test. 25, 731–743 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grujicic, M., Bell, W.C., Pandurangan, B., He, T.: Blast–wave impact–mitigation capability of polyurea when used as a helmet suspension–pad material. Mater. Des. 31, 4050–4065 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nian, W., Subramaniam, K.V.L., Andreopoulos, Y.: Dynamic compaction of foam under blast loading considering fluid-structure interaction effects. Int. J. Impact. Eng. 50, 29–39 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil & Environmental Engineering DepartmentManhattan CollegeBronxUSA
  2. 2.Civil & Environmental Engineering DepartmentRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations