A full coupled numerical analysis approach

for buried structures subjected to subsurface blast

Zhongqi Wang
a
, Yong Lu
a,
*
, Hong Hao
b
, Karen Chong
c
a
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore
b
Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
c
Defense Science and Technology Agency, Ministry of Defense, 1 Depot Road, Singapore 109679, Singapore
Received 5 September 2003; accepted 31 August 2004
Available online 26 November 2004
Abstract
The physical processes during an explosion in soil and the subsequent response of buried structures are extremely
complex. Combining all these processes into a single analysis model involves several numerical diculties but such a
model will enable more realistic reproduction of the underlying physical processes. This paper presents a full coupled
numerical analysis approach, in which the SPH (smooth particle hydrodynamics) method is adopted to model the near
eld medium to cater for large deformation, while the conventional FEM is used to model the intermediate and the far
eld soil medium and the structural response. A robust three-phase soil model developed by the authors is employed to
model the soil mass. The numerical model is veried against empirical predictions and the comparison shows a favor-
able agreement.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Buried structure; Subsurface blast; SPHFEM coupled method; Stress wave; Structural response; In-structure shock
1. Introduction
Underground reinforced concrete structures are used
for essential installations protected against the eects of
conventional weapons. Usually such structures are box
shaped, partially or fully buried. The physical processes
that govern the response of the underground structure
are very complex, involving dynamic interactions among
the explosive, the soil and the underground structure.
Major phenomena include the formation of the crater
or camouet by the explosion; the propagation of the
shock wave and elasticplastic wave in the soil; and
the interaction between soil and the structure. The non-
linear properties and large deformation of the soil and
reinforced concrete make the whole physical process
highly nonlinear, both in terms of the material and
geometric nonlinearities. Consequently, a numerical
approach is necessary in order to fully describe the entire
process.
Two kinds of numerical methods are usually used to
analyze the response of an underground structure under
blast loading, namely the uncoupled method and the
coupled method. In the uncoupled method, the main
physical process is divided into several consecutive
phases; the output of one phase is the input of the next
0045-7949/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.08.014
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6790 5272; fax: +65 6791
0676.
E-mail address: cylu@ntu.edu.sg (Y. Lu).
Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc
phase. In this respect, the problem under consideration
can be divided into three phases: (1) the detonation of
charge and the formation of crater or camouet; (2)
the propagation of blast wave; and (3) the response of
the structure. The coupled method can be divided into
two categories, namely the partial coupled method
and the full coupled method. In the partial coupled
method, the aforementioned three phases are reduced
into two phases, with either the rst two or the last two
phases being merged. The full coupled method com-
bines all three phases together in a single model.
Many research works on the numerical analysis of
blast loaded underground structures have been reported
[16]. Most of these studies are based on either the
uncoupled method or the partial coupled method. In
these methods a fundamental question lies on the ade-
quacy of dening the loads on the structure. In the
uncoupled method, the histories of stress or velocity
in the free eld are calculated rst. These time histories
are then applied on the structure as boundary conditions
for analyzing the response of the structure. As such, the
interaction between the soil and the structure cannot be
considered in a realistic manner. Hamdan and Dowling
[7] pointed out that the uncoupled method may result in
an unsafe structure if resonance at the interface occurs.
Henrych [8] also suggested that the coupling eect could
be signicant, especially when the structure is in a dense
medium (e.g. water, soils). In addition, the interfacial
eects, such as slippage, separation, and rebond, are also
important factors that inuence the response of the
structure. To take these eects into account, several cou-
pled analysis techniques emerged. Nelson [9] used a soil
island approach to analyze the wall of buried structures,
whereby a small portion of the soil in front of the struc-
ture was modeled and the stresses were input onto the
free surface of the soil island. Stevens and Krauthammer
et al. [1,10] adopted a hybrid approach which merges the
nite dierence technique (FDT) with the nite element
method (FEM), such that the soil is modeled by FDT
which is suited for analyzing wave propagation in con-
tinuous nonlinear media, while the structure is modeled
by the FEM. These coupled approaches considered the
dynamic interaction and the coupling eect between
the soil and structure, but the blast loading still needs
to be dened in terms of stress or pressure time histories.
While it may be considered appropriate to dene the
blast loading for relatively simple and symmetric situa-
tions, it becomes questionable in cases where the shape
of the structure is not regular or the ground surface
eect becomes signicant as in the case of shallow buried
structures. In these situations, a full coupled approach
including the explosion source is desired [6].
Few studies can be found from the existing literature
to have incorporated the explosion source. Besides the
problem with high computational cost, the diculties
associated with modeling the dynamic interaction be-
tween the explosion and the soil medium is a major bar-
rier. As the stress condition varies drastically in the near
eld of the charge, it is very dicult to model the behav-
iour of soil in this region, especially in view of the multi-
phase nature of the soil medium.
The present study aims to establish a fully coupled
numerical approach for analyzing the response of under-
ground structures subjected to blast loading. In this
approach, the explosion source, the propagation of
stress wave in the soil and the interaction between soil
and the structure are integrated into a single model.
The state-of-the-art hydrodynamic numerical techniques
and material models are adopted. In the aspect of
numerical techniques, the smooth particle hydrody-
namic method (SPH) is merged with the Lagrangian -
nite element method (FEM), whereby the SPH is used
to model the near eld response and the FEM is used
to model the intermediate and far eld ground move-
ment and the structural response. On the material mod-
eling, a robust three-phase soil model developed by the
authors for shock loading [11,12] is employed to model
the soil mass. For the buried structure, the Riedel
ThomaHiermaier (RHT) concrete model [13] is applied
for modeling the concrete, while an elasticplastic hard-
ening model is used for the steel. The JWL (Jones
WilkinsLee) equation of state is adopted for simulating
the detonation of the charge.
A numerical example is given to demonstrate the
implementation of the proposed approach. The numeri-
cal results are veried against some empirical and engi-
neering observations.
2. Basic considerations on SPHFEM coupled analysis
To incorporate the explosion source in the numerical
analysis of structural response is beyond the capacity of
common structural analysis codes because these codes
usually do not include the energy conservation consider-
ation. The hydrocodes (or wave codes) are suited for
simulating such complex processes as the present case
which involves the explosion and blast wave propa-
gation in soil, the soilstructure interaction and the
response of the structure. The explosion product ex-
pands enormously. The soil in the vicinity of the charge
undergoes large deformation. Large deformation can
also occur in the structure if it is located close to the
charge. On the other hand, the response of the structure
depends on the interfaces and boundaries and the eects
associated with them.
There are two major ways of describing the contin-
uum media based on the relative movement between
the material particles and the mesh; one is the Eulerian
description, the other is the Lagrangian description. In
the Eulerian description, the mesh is xed in space and
dierent material particles move through it. In the
340 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
Lagrangian description, the mesh and the material par-
ticles coincide. The Eulerian description is suited for sit-
uations where the mesh may be highly distorted; but
modeling of the material boundary conditions such as
slippage and contact surface using Eulerian method is
very dicult. The Lagrangian description is more suit-
able for situations where the deformation is not large
but the eects of interface and free boundaries are signif-
icant. To take advantage of both descriptions, the Arbi-
trary Lagrangian Eulerian description (ALE) has been
put forward, such that the analyst can choose if the
mesh should follow the material (i.e. Lagrangian) or
be xed (i.e. Eulerian). This approach involves a compli-
cated rezoning technique, the rezoning procedure often
requires interventions from experienced users [14]. Fur-
thermore, it does not totally prevent the problem with
severe mesh distortion and the subsequent sharp reduc-
tion of the time step, which in turn reduces the compu-
tational eciency.
The diculty in combining the Eulerian and Lagrang-
ian methods is primarily due to the mesh. Once a mesh is
produced, the elements or grids that represent the
physical region cannot be changed easily. For a Lagrang-
ian mesh, large deformations can result in a severe mesh
distortion and hence reduce the accuracy and the time
step sharply. In the Eulerian mesh mixed cells could
appear, whereby two or more than two kinds of materials
come together. The mixed cell will blur interface and
boundary among materials, so the Eulerian mesh is di-
cult to be coupled with the Lagrangian mesh.
To get rid of the diculties arising from the mesh,
some meshless methods have been put forward. One of
the most important meshless methods is the SPH
(smooth particle hydrodynamics) method. The advan-
tage of the SPH method is that there is no need to track
the materials interface (in this sense the SPH can be
looked upon as a special Lagrangian method), and
hence avoids the aforementioned diculty with the
Eulerian method. The calculation can continue regard-
less of the amount of turbulence in the solution, so it
can deal with large deformation. It also avoids the di-
culty with severe mesh distortion as in the Lagrangian
mesh because there is no real mesh in the SPH method.
Currently the SPH technique has been incorporated
into several hydrocodes [15,16]. Although most problems
can be modeled by the SPH method, certain limitations
exist. As mentioned by Attaway et al. [17], modeling thin
walled structures by smooth particles is inecient since
many small particles would be required and the time step
would become very small. In this regard, coupling the
SPH and the Lagrangian method appears to be an eec-
tive solution, so that part of a problemsuch as a structure
can be modeled by solid or shell elements, while other
parts can be simulated using smooth particles. This cou-
pling approach is expected to be highly eective for the
type of problems under consideration.
3. Computational framework
3.1. Conservation equations
In three-dimensional realm, the conservation equa-
tions of mass, momentum and energy are expressed as
[18]
Mass : q =
q
0
V
0
V
=
m
V
(1)
Momentum : q_ u
i
= r
ij;j
qf
i
(2)
Energy : q_ e = r
ij
_ e
ij
qf
i
u
i
(3)
where q is density, V is the volume, the subscript 0 indi-
cates the initial value, m is the mass, r
ij
are the stresses,
e
ij
are the strains, u is the spatial velocity, e is the energy,
f is the body force, the mark is the rst derivative of
time, i and j range from 1 to 3.
The strain is expressed by the deformation,
e
ij
=
1
2
oW
j
oX
i

oW
i
oX
j
_ _
(4)
where X is spatial coordinates, W = W
i
(X
j
) is position
vector.
In general the stresses and strains can be separated
into two parts, a hydrostatic component and a devia-
toric component. The former corresponds to the volume
deformation, the latter is related to the shear
deformation.
r
ij
= s
ij

1
3
r
kk
d
ij
(5)
e
ij
= e
ij

1
3
e
kk
d
ij
(6)
d
ij
=
1 i = j
0 i ,= j
_
where s
ij
is deviatoric stress, e
ij
is deviatoric strain.
The constitutive relations which relate the stress and
the strain can also be divided into two part, the strength
model and the equation of state (EOS), describing
respectively the shear deformation and the volume
deformation. The boundary conditions are either the
specic displacements or traction,
x
i
(X; t) = g
i
(X; t) on C
x
; r
ij
n
j
= s
i
on C
s
(7)
where x is the current coordinate of a point, X is the ref-
erence coordinate, t is time, n is the exterior normal, g is
the specic displacement function, C
x
or C
s
denotes the
surface where the displacement or traction boundary
condition are applied.
3.2. The smooth particle hydrodynamic (SPH) method
SPH is a meshless Lagrangian technique which orig-
inated for an application in astrophysics in 1977 [19].
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 341
The main advantage of the method is to bypass the
requirement for a numerical grid to calculate spatial
derivatives. This avoids the severe problems associated
with mesh tangling and distortion which usually occur
in Lagrangian analyses involving large deformation
impact and explosive loading events. Although the name
includes the term hydrodynamic, in fact the material
strength can be incorporated [16].
In SPH methodology, the material is represented by
xed mass particles to follow its motion. Unlike the grid
based methods, such as the Lagrangian or the Eulerian,
which assumes a connectivity between nodes to construct
spatial derivatives, SPH uses a kernel approximation,
which is based on randomly distributed interpolation
points, with no assumptions about which points are
neighbors, to calculate the derivatives.
The particles carry material quantities such as mass
m, velocity vector v, position vector x etc., and form
the computational frame for the conservation equations.
In this method, each particle I interacts with all other
particles J that are within a given distance (usually as-
sumed to be 2h) from it. The distance h is called the
smooth length. The interaction is weighted by the func-
tion W(x x
/
, h) which is called the smoothing (or ker-
nel) function. Using this principal, the value of a
continuous function, or its derivative, can be estimated
at any particle I based on known values at the sur-
rounding particles J using the following kernel
estimates:
f (x) ~
_
f (x
/
)W (x x
/
; h) dx
/
(8)
\ f (x) ~
_
\ f (x
/
)W (x x
/
; h) dx
/
(9)
where f is a function of three-dimensional position
vector x, dx
/
is a volume.
Fig. 1(a) illustrates the concept of a kernel estimate.
Full details of the mathematical derivation of the kernel
approximation can be found in [20]. One of the com-
monly used symmetric formulation for Eq. (9) is
\ f (x
I
) ~
1
q
I

N
J=1
m
J
(f (x
I
) f (x
J
)) \W(x
I
x
J
; h)
(10)
where the gradient $W is with respect to x
J
, m is the
mass, q is the density. Function f can be any variants
in the computation, e.g., the density, stress, or strain
etc. Note that no connectivity or spatial relation of the
interpolation points is assumed in the derivation of the
SPH equations, and this avoids the mesh tangles. An-
other important point is that the SPH nodes can use
the same constitutive models as used for the FEM
element.
3.3. The coupled SPH and FEM method
Accurate SPH simulations require large number of
particles throughout the SPH region. Hence if high accu-
racy is sought or some special geometry is required, such
as thin walls etc., large run time can become a problem.
The joining of SPH to Lagrange FEM is a potentially
good solution to this problem. The materials in the
low deformation regions can be modeled using the
FEM element. The size of the particles in the SPH
region can also be graded, thus reducing the computa-
tional demand. Fig. 1(b) shows the basic concept on
how the SPH particles can be embedded into a tradi-
tional Lagrange FEM mesh.
There are two dierent ways that the SPH particles
can be coupled with the FEM elements. When they are
attached to the FEM elements, the SPH particles and
the FEM element will be joined together, then the force
from other SPH particles as well as from the FEM ele-
ments act on the particle for the equations of motion.
If the SPH particles and FEM element are not attached,
they will slide along the surface of the FEM element, in
this case, a special sliding interface algorithm must be
used [15]. In the present study, the SPH particles are
joined together with the FEM elements because the
SPH particles herein represent the near-eld soil med-
2h
J
I
x-x
(a)
(b)
Neighboring particles of a kernel estimate
Coupled mesh of SPH particles and FEM elements
Fig. 1. SPH approximation and coupling of SPH and FEM elements.
342 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
ium; the interface between the SPH mesh and the FEM
mesh is not a material interface.
4. Material models
There are four kinds of materials involved in the
problem under investigation, namely the soil mass, the
concrete and reinforcing steel in the structure, and
the high energy charge. The models used to describe
these materials are as follows.
4.1. Three-phase soil model
A number of distinctive approaches have been pro-
posed for modeling the static and dynamic response of
soils, including elasticity model, endochronic model,
plasticity with rate-independent and rate-dependent
models, viscoplasticity model, critical state model, etc.
[21]. But for concerns of explosion in soils and the sub-
sequent blast wave propagation, the range of variation
of stress in soils is much larger than what is usually
encountered in the common soil dynamics. The pressure
in the vicinity of a charge can reach several GPa (giga
pascal) and it attenuates rapidly with the increase of
the distance from the charge. As soil is a multi-phase
mixture composed of solid mineral particles, water and
air, the deformation mechanism and the contribution
of dierent phases vary with abrupt change of the stress
condition. Therefore, to model a blast event in soil, a
robust soil model is required to cater for the whole range
of loading condition; to this end, a realistic reection of
the deformation mechanisms is necessary. Unfortu-
nately, none of the established soil models seems to meet
the above requirements. To ll in this gap, the authors
recently developed a three-phase soil model for simulat-
ing blast wave propagation in soils [11,12].
In this model, which stems from the conceptual
model introduced in [8], the soil is considered as an
assemblage of solid particles with dierent sizes and
shapes that form a skeleton and their void are lled with
water and air. The solid particles, water, air as well as
the skeleton formed by the solid particles deform under
dierent laws when external load acts on the soil mass.
Fig. 2 illustrates the basic idea of the three-phase soil
model and its mathematical representation, where ele-
ments A, B, C correspond to the deformation of the
solid particles, water and air respectively, and elements
D, E describe the friction and the resistance of the bond
connection between the solid particles. The bonds be-
tween the solid particles are represented by a series
of laments. The model formulation can be roughly
divided into two main parts; the equation of state and
the strength model. The volumetric ratios of the solid,
air and water phases are assumed to be a
1
, a
2
, a
3
, respec-
tively. The following gives an overview of the three-
phase soil model formulation.
4.2. The equation of state (EOS)
To satisfy the continuity requirements, the total vol-
ume change of a multi-phase system must be equal to the
sum of volume changes associated with each phase, i.e.
DV
V
0
=
DV
w
V
0

DV
g
V
0

DV
s
V
0
(11)
where V is the volume of a soil element, V
0
is the initial
total volume of the element, V
w
is the volume of water,
V
g
and V
s
are volumes of air and soil particles, respec-
tively. Denote the volume of voids as V
p
, V
p
= V
g
+ V
w
,
and hence V = V
s
+ V
p
.
The pressure load causes deformation in each phase,
as well as friction between the solid particles and defor-
mation of the bond between the solid particles. The fric-
tion force and the force due to the bond are all exerted
on the solid phase. Satisfying the equilibrium leads to
dp dV
oV
s
op
dp
_ _
oV
g
op
b

oV
w
op
b
_ _
1

op
a
oV
p

op
c
oV
p
_ _
=0
(12)
Solid particles
Void
Bond
P
Solid particles
A
B
b a
c
C
D
E Water
Air
Elastobrittle
linkage
between
blocks
Friction
between
blocks
(a)
(b)
Conceptual model
Mathematical model
Fig. 2. Concept of the three-phase soil model for shock loading.
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 343
where p is the total hydrostatic pressure, p
s
is the pres-
sure exerted on the solid phase, p
a
is the pressure borne
by the friction between the solid particles, p
b
is the pres-
sure borne by the water and gas, or the pore pressure,
p
c
is the pressure borne by the bond between the solid
particles, and p
e
is the pressure carried by the soil skele-
ton which is equal to the sum of p
a
and p
c
.
Eq. (12) describes the volumetric deformation under
the hydrostatic pressure, in which
oV
s
op
;
oV g
op
b
;
oV
w
op
b
;
op
a
oV p
;
op
c
oV p
can be obtained from their independent equa-
tions of state or stressstrain relationship.
The following equation of state is adopted for water
[22]:
p
w
= p
w0

q
w0
c
2
w0
k
w
q
w
q
w0
_ _
kw
1
_ _
(13)
where p
w
, p
w0
are the current and initial pressure of
water, respectively; c
w0
is the initial sound speed of
water, q
w0
is the initial density of water, q
w
is the current
density; and k
w
is a constant.
For solid particles, a similar equation of state is rec-
ommended by Lyakhov (in Henrych [8]) with the sub-
scripts w replaced by s,
p
s
= p
s0

q
s0
c
2
s0
k
s
q
s
q
s0
_ _
k
s
1
_ _
(14)
When a pressure wave propagates in soil the air bub-
bles are compressed suddenly, thus, the equation of state
for a polytropic gas can be used to model air in the voids
[8],
p
g
= p
g0
q
g
q
g0
_ _
kg
(15)
where p
g0
is the initial pressure of air; q
w0
is the density
of air at initial pressure, q
g
is the density of air at pres-
sure p
g
, and k
g
is the isentropic exponent.
In the skeleton of soil, the friction between the solid
particles, p
a
, is dependent on the normal stress between
the particles. Generally, it can be assumed that the nor-
mal stress is proportional to the deformation of the soil
skeleton. Hence,
p
a
= fK
p
DV
p
(16)
where f is the friction coecient of the solid particles, K
p
is the coecient of proportionality, DV
p
is the incremen-
tal volume of voids in the soil, DV
p
= V
p
V
p0
, with V
p
,
V
p0
being the current and initial volume of voids,
respectively.
The bonds between the solid particles, on the other
hand, can be represented by a series of elastic brittle l-
aments. The resisting stress in each lament obeys the
Hookes law until the lament breaks. Introducing a
damage variable D, we have
p
c
= E
0
(1 D)DV
p
=V
p
(17)
where E
0
is the initial modulus of the bonds.
With the above denitions and the initial condition
p(V
0
) = p
0
, the pressure p at any time instant can be
obtained from Eq. (12).
4.3. Damage for soil
The continuum damage model is applied to describe
the damage of the soil skeleton. Based on the lament
breaking model, the damage can be dened as
D = 1 exp
1
g
(be
eff
)
g
_ _
(18)
where B, g are constants related to the properties of the
soil, b is a constant, e
e
is the eective strain,
e
eff
=

2
_
3
e
1
e
2
( )
2
e
2
e
3
( )
2
e
3
e
1
( )
2
_ _
1=2
(19)
It should be pointed out that in the present model the
nonlocal eect due to the heterogeneous microstructure
of the material is not included. This issue is to be inves-
tigated when pertinent experimental data on soil mass
under shock loading become available.
4.4. The strength model for soils
In the soil model, the viscosity of the water and air is
neglected, so the total shear stress is borne by the soil
skeleton formed by the solid particles. To include the
eect of hydrostatic stress on the shearing resistance of
the soil, the modied von Mises yield criterion [23] is
adopted, as follows:
f =

J
2
_
aI
1
k = 0 (20)
in which a and k are material constants related to the
frictional and cohesive strengths of the material, respec-
tively; and I
1
, J
2
are the rst and deviatoric stress invari-
ant, respectively.
Under shock loading, the strain rate is a very impor-
tant factor to the strength of the soil. A number of inves-
tigators have reported that the undrained shear strength
of the soil increases linearly with the increase of the log-
arithm of the strain rate [24]. To take the strain rate ef-
fect into account, the yield function is modied as
f =

J
2
_
(aI
1
k) 1 bln
_ e
eff
_ e
0
_ _
= 0 (21)
where _ e
0
is the reference eective strain rate, b is the
slope of the strength against the logarithm of strain rate
curve, _ e
eff
is the eective strain rate dened as
_ e
eff
=

2
3
d_ e
ij
d_ e
ij
_
(22)
344 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
The plastic potential function for soils is dierent
from the yield function as the direction of the plastic
strain increment de
p
ij
is not normal to the yield surface.
Most hydrocodes employ the nonassociated ow rule.
The plastic potential function employed in this study
is the PrandtlReuss type
Q

J
2
_ _ _
=

J
2
_
Y = 0 (23)
where Y is the yield limit dened by the yield function.
4.5. Concrete model
The response of the concrete under shock loading is a
complex nonlinear and rate-dependent process. A vari-
ety of constitutive models for the dynamic and static
response of concrete have been proposed over the years.
The RHT model is adopted in the present study.
The RHT model is a new model for general brittle
materials, developed by Riedel, Hiermaier and Thoma
[13], and it contains many features common to various
similar constitutive models found in the literature,
namely pressure hardening, strain hardening, strain
rate hardening, third invariant dependence for compres-
sive and tensile meridians, and cumulative damage
(strain softening). It can be used in conjunction
with the existing tensile crack softening algorithm. In
this model the Pa equation of state for volumetric
compaction is also included, which will be discussed
later.
The material model uses three strength surfaces: an
elastic limit surface, a failure surface and the remaining
strength surface for the crushed material. Often there is
a cap on the elastic strength surface. Fig. 3(a) shows
these strength surfaces.
4.6. The failure surface
The failure surface Y is dened as a function of pres-
sure p, the lode angle h and strain rate _ e,
Y
fail
= Y
TXC(p)
R
3(h)
F
RATE(_ e)
(24)
where Y
TXC
= f
c
[A(p
+
p
+
spall
F
RATE(_ e)
)
N
[, with f
c
being
the compressive strength, A the failure surface constant,
N the failure surface exponent, p* the pressure normal-
ized by f
c
, p
+
spall
= p
+
(f
t
=f
c
). F
RATE(_ e)
is the strain rate
function. R
3
(h) denes the third invariant dependency
of the model as a function of the second and third stress
invariants and a meridian ratio Q
2
. Fig. 3(b) illustrates
the tensile and compressive meridian on the stress p
plane.
4.7. The elastic limit surface and strain hardening
The elastic limit surface is scaled from the failure
surface,
Uniaxial Compression
Failure Surface
Elastic Limit Surface
Residual Surface
Uniaxial Tension
P
Tensile
Elastic
Strength
Compressive
Elastic Strength
f
c
f
t
Y
(a)
(c) (b)

1
Compressive
meridian
Tensile
meridian
0 . 1
2
= Q
5 . 0
2
= Q
) ( soft pre pl
pl
*
Y
fail
Y
elastic
Y
Three strength surfaces
The stress plane The stain hardening
Fig. 3. The RHT material strength model.
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 345
Y
elastic
= Y
fail
F
elastic
F
CAP(p)
(25)
where F
elastic
is the ratio of the elastic strength to failure
surface strength, F
CAP(p)
is a function that limits the elas-
tic deviatoric stresses under hydrostatic compression,
and it varies in the range of (0, 1) for pressure between
initial compaction pressure and the solid compaction
pressure.
Linear hardening is used prior to the peak load. Dur-
ing hardening, the current yield surface (Y*) is scaled be-
tween the elastic limit surface and the failure surface via
Y
+
= Y
elastic

e
pl
e
pl(pre-softening)
(Y
fail
Y
elastic
) (26)
where e
pl
, e
pl(pre-softening)
are the current and pre-soften-
ing plastic strain. Fig. 3(c) shows this relationship
schematically.
4.8. Residual failure surface
A residual (frictional) failure surface is dened as
Y
+
resid
= B + p
+M
(27)
where B is the residual failure surface constant, M is the
residual failure surface exponent.
4.9. Damage for concrete
Following the hardening phase, additional plastic
straining of the material leads to damage and strength
reduction. Damage is accumulated via
D =

De
pl
e
failure
p
(28)
e
failure
p
= D
1
(p
+
p
+
spall
)
D
2
Pe
min
f
(29)
where D
1
and D
2
are damage constants, e
min
f
is the min-
imum strain to reach failure.
The post-damage failure surface is then interpolated
via
Y
+
fracture
= (1 D)Y
+
failure
DY
+
residual
(30)
and the post-damage shear modulus is interpolated via
G
fracture
= (1 D)G
initial
DG
residual
(31)
where G
initial
, G
residual
, G
fracture
are the shear moduli.
4.10. Pa equation of state
Herrmanns Pa model [25] is a phenomenological
approach to devising a model which gives the correct
behavior at high stresses but at the same time it provides
a reasonably detailed description of the compaction pro-
cess at low stress levels. The principal assumption is that
the specic internal energy for a porous material is the
same as the same material at solid density under the
same conditions of pressure and temperature.
Dening the porosity by a = v/v
s
, where v is the spe-
cic volume of the porous material and v
s
is the specic
volume of the material in the solid state and at the same
pressure and temperature. a becomes unity when the
material compacts to a solid. If the equation of state
of solid material is given by
p = f (v
s
; e) (32)
Then the equation of state of the porous material is
simply
p = f
v
a
; e
_ _
(33)
Carroll and Holt [26] modied the above equation to
yield
p =
1
a
f
v
a
; e
_ _
(34)
where the factor 1/a was included to allow for their argu-
ment that the pressure in the porous material is nearly 1/
a times the average pressure in the matrix material. The
function f can be any form of equations of state, in this
paper the polynomial form of equation is adopted, as
p = A
1
l A
2
l
2
A
3
l
3
with l =
v
0
v
1 P0
p = T
1
l T
2
l
2
with l =
v
0
v
1 < 0
(35)
where A
1
, A
2
, A
3
, T
1
, T
2
are constants, v
0
is the initial
specic volume of the porous material.
The RHT model for concrete has been evaluated suc-
cessfully in the modeling of concrete perforation under
shock loading, and systematic parameters have been
obtained for several kinds of concrete [27].
4.11. Elasticstrain hardening plastic model for steel
Under blast loading, the reinforcing steel may be sub-
ject to strain hardening, strain rate hardening and heat
softening eects. In this study, the JohnCook model
[18] is adopted to model the response of the steel bars
in the concrete. The JohnCook model is a rate-depen-
dent, elasticplastic model. The model denes the yield
stress Y as
Y = [Y
0
Be
n
p
[[1 C log e
+
p
[[1 T
m
H
[ (36)
where Y
0
is the initial yield strength, e
p
is the eective
plastic strain, e
+
p
is the normalized eective plastic strain
rate, B, C, n, m are material constants. T
H
is homolo-
gous temperature, T
H
= (T T
room
)/(T
melt
T
room
),
with T
melt
being the melting temperature and T
room
the ambient temperature. The expression in the rst set
of brackets gives the eect of strain hardening. The
expressions in the second and third sets of brackets rep-
resent the eects of strain rate and temperature,
respectively.
346 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
4.12. JWL equation of state for explosive
The JonesWilkensLee (JWL) equation of state [28]
models the pressure generated by the expansion of the
detonation product of the chemical explosive, and it
has been widely used in engineering calculations. It
can be written in the form
P = C
1
1
x
R
1
v
_ _
exp(r
1
v)
C
2
1
x
R
2
v
_ _
exp(r
2
v)
xe
v
(37)
where v is the specic volume, e is specic energy. The
values of constants C
1
, R
1
, C
2
, R
2
, x for many common
explosives have been determined from dynamic
experiments.
Nodal velocities
& displacement
Element volumes
& strain rates
Nodal acceleration
Element Pressure
& stresses
Integration
Conservation equations
Material
model
Deformation strain relation
Boundary forces
Fig. 4. Illustration of the computational cycle.
Fig. 5. Conguration of the numerical example.
Fig. 6. The SPHFEM coupled model zoning.
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 347
4.13. The interface model
An accurate representation of the interface between
the structure and the surrounding medium is crucial to
a successful analysis of the structural response. Accord-
ing to the experimental results from Huck et al. [29], the
soil/structure (concrete) interface strengths may be de-
scribed by Coulomb failure laws. On a smooth soilcon-
crete interface failure is initiated when the shear stress
parallel to the surface exceeds the failure law; whereas
Table 1
Soil prole considered in the numerical simulation
Soil description Dry density
(kg/m
3
)
Density
(kg/m
3
)
Air-lled
void (%)
Seismic
velocity (m/s)
Acoustic impedance
(MPa/m/s)
Attenuation n
Sandy clay ~1530 ~1920 ~4 1400 2.14 22.5
Table 5
JWL parameters used for modeling TNT in the present study
C
1
(GPa) C
2
(GPa) R
1
R
2
x e
0
A (MJm
3
) VOD (ms
1
) q
0
(kgm
3
)
3.738e2 3.747 4.15 0.9 0.35 6.0e3 6.93e3 1.63e3
e
0
: the initial CJ energy per volume; VOD: the CJ detonation velocity.
Table 2
Parameters used in the three-phase soil model for numerical
calculations
Soil Air phase
a
1
= 0.58 q
g0
= 1.2kg/m
3
a
2
= 0.38 c
g0
= 340m/s
a
3
= 0.04 k
g
= 1.4
q
0
= 1.92 103kg/m
3
Soil skeleton
Solid particles phase G = 55MPa
q
s0
= 2.65 103kg/m
3
K
p
= 165MPa
c
s0
= 4500m/s f = 0.56
k
s
= 3 a = 0.25
Water phase k = 0.2
q
w0
= 1.0 103kg/m
3
_ e
0
= 1%= min
c
w0
= 1500m/s b = 0.1
k
w
= 7 g = 1.0
E
0
= 20MPa
b = 5.0
Table 3
Parameters used in the RHT model for concrete
Initial density q
0
(kgm
3
) 2.314e3 Specic heat C
v
(J/kgK) 6.54e2
Reference density q
s
(kgm
3
) 2.75e3
The RHT strength model
f
c
(MPa) 35 e
pl(elasticplastic)
1.93e3
A 1.6 B 1.6
N 0.61 M 0.61
f
t
(MPa) 3.5 D
1
0.04
n1 0.036 D
2
1.0
n2 0.032 e
min
f
0.01
Q
2,0
0.6085 P
e
(MPa) 2.33e1
G
initial
(MPa) 1.67e4 P
s
(MPa) 6.0e3
G
residual
(MPa) 2.17e3
Pa EOS
A
1
(MPa) 3.527e4 T
1
(MPa) 3.527e4
A
2
(MPa) 3.958e4 T
2
(MPa) 0.0
A
3
(MPa) 9.04e3 n 3.0
Table 4
Parameters used for modeling reinforcement steel bar
Reference density q
0
(kgm
3
) 7.896e3 B (MPa) 2.75e2
Bulk modulus K (MPa) 2.0e5 C 0.022
Specic heat C
v
(J/kgK) 4.52e2 n 0.36
Shear modulus G (MPa) 8.18e4 m 1.0
Y
0
(MPa) 3.5e2 T
room
(K) 3.0e2
T
melt
(K) 1.811e3
348 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
Fig. 7. Computed formation of crater in soil.
Ground surface
Charge
Target points
Group B
Group A
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Function 2
Function 1
Group A targets
Group B targets
S
t
r
e
s
s
/
M
P
a
Scaled Distance/m.kg
-1/3
(a) (b) Arrangement of field target points Attenuation of stress
Fig. 8. Arrangement of target points in soil and calculated attenuation of stress.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
S
t
r
e
s
s
/
M
P
a
Time/ms
Distance from charge = 4m
Group A target
Group B target
Distance from charge = 4m
Group A target
Group B target
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
/
m
/
s
Time/ms
(a) (b) Stress histories
Velocity histories
Fig. 9. Comparison of typical stress and velocity time histories between Group-A and Group-B targets.
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 349
on a rough soilconcrete interface failure is initiated
when the maximum soil shear stress exceeds the failure
law. The experimental results from Mueller [30] indicate
that the strength properties of the interface are close to
the strength properties of the soil. For this reason, in
the present study the interface between the (rough) con-
crete and soil is modeled using regular FEM elements
with completely joined surface, whereby the nodes from
soil grid are joined (fused) to the nodes from the
structure grid at the interface between them. The nodes
will remain joined throughout the calculation. Another
numerical interface method is the so-called slide surface,
in which a contact interface is formed between the soil
grid and the structure grid. The slide surface allows
for separation, recontacting, and sliding (with friction
by a friction coecient) of the two surfaces, using a
complex contact algorithm [31]. If the interface is
smooth, the slide surface will be more appropriate.
4.14. The computational cycle
The conservation equations, the material models as
well as the boundary conditions describe the whole
physical problem. These equations are solved to
update the solution in successive time steps. The oper-
ational procedure will not be presented in detail but a
general computational cycle is described in what fol-
lows. Fig. 4 shows the series calculations that are car-
ried out in each incremental time step. Starting at the
bottom of the gure the boundary forces are updated
and combined with the forces for the element com-
puted during the previous time cycle. Then the acceler-
ations, velocities and positions are computed from the
momentum conservation equations and a further inte-
gration. From these values the new element volumes,
strain and strain rate are calculated. With the use of
the material model together with the energy equation
the element pressure, stresses and energies are calcu-
lated, providing forces for use at the start of the next
computational cycle. The majority part of the proce-
dure for the FEM mesh is the same as that for the
SPH mesh. Only the formulas for calculation of the
volume, strain and strain rate from the velocities and
position of the element (in FEM mesh) or particle
(in SPH mesh) are dierent.
5. Numerical example
A numerical example is presented to demonstrate the
implementation of the proposed full coupled approach
combining the SPH and FEM methods. The example
scenario is a shallow-buried generic reinforced concrete
box structure subjected to a side burst. From the calcu-
lation, it will be shown that the approach is ecient and
several potential numerical diculties are avoided. The
proposed numerical approach can be applied both in
2-D and 3-D analyses. Since many practical problems
can be simplied into 2-D axisymmetric cases and a 2-
D analysis is sucient to test the numerical model, the
example problem is analyzed using 2-D axisymmetric
model. The calculations are performed using a commer-
cial hydrocode Autodyn [32] with necessary user
subroutines.
1
2
7
7 3 5
6
9
8
Reinforced bar
Target
points
In-1
In-2
In-3
Out-1
Out-2
Out-3
(a)
(b)
Target points in concrete
Target points in reinforcing bars
Fig. 10. Arrangement of target points within the structure.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
S
t
r
e
s
s
/
M
P
a
Time/ms
Interface stress (at target 9)
Fig. 11. Interface stress at middle-height of the front wall.
350 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
5.1. Buried structure conguration and numerical model
setup
A common class of underground structures can be
simplied into a generic box type structure. Fig. 5 de-
picts the example box unit subjected to a subsurface side
burst.
In the numerical model, the SPH mesh is used to
model the area surrounding the explosion charge where
severe deformation of soil occurs. The FEM mesh is
used to model the intermediate and far eld soil med-
ium, as well as the soilstructure interface and the
underground structure itself. Fig. 6 shows the zoning
of the mesh, where AB is the axis of revolution, BC
and CD are transmission boundaries which help mini-
mize the wave reection eect.
The coupling of SPH mesh with the FEM mesh is
illustrated in Fig. 6(a) and (b). Within the SPH mesh,
the size of the SPH particles is graded, with the smallest
particles around the charge center. In the FEM mesh,
smaller elements are used in the region adjacent to the
SPH zone as well as for the structure, while larger size
elements are used in the remaining region. Within the
RC structure walls, the reinforcing steel grids are simpli-
ed into thin steel shell with equal volume of steel and
assuming a perfect bond between the steel and concrete
elements at the node points. Preliminary trial runs were
performed in choosing adequate mesh sizes.
The material models for the soil, concrete, reinforc-
ing steel bars and TNT charge described in the preceding
section are implemented in the calculation. The relevant
parameter values for these material models are summa-
rized in Tables 15. The parameters about the soil pro-
le and the soil skeleton (Table 1) are based on
experimental data [8], the parameters on the solid parti-
cle, water and air phase (Table 2) are recommended val-
ues from literature [8]. The data for the concrete (Table
3), reinforcing steel bars (Table 4) and the TNT charge
are also based on relevant literature [13,18,28].
A series of cases with dierent charge proles were
analyzed. For illustration purpose, only the results from
one particular case are presented and discussed here.
The weight of the charge is 100kg TNT, embedded at
a depth of 0.5m. The distance from the charge to the
nearest edge of the structure is 6m. The top of the struc-
ture is leveled at the ground surface. The structure unit
has a length of 4m, height of 1m and a uniform wall
thickness of 100mm.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
2
4
6
8 Target 3
Target 1
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

R
/
m
m
Time/ms
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
5
10
15
20
25
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

Z
/
m
m
Time/ms
Target 1
Target 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Target 1-3
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

d
r
/
m
m
Time/ms
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Target 5-4
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
/
m
m
Time/ms
Target 3-4
(a)
(b)
Total displacement on front wall (horizontal, vertical)
Lateral deflections (front wall-horizontal, floor slab-vertical)
Fig. 12. Displacements and deections in front wall and oor slab.
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 351
5.2. The crater formation
A shallow explosion in soils can form a crater while a
deep explosion usually forms a camouet. In the process
of the crater formation, the soil will be ejected away
from the blast. As mentioned earlier, simulating this
process is very dicult with the continuous Lagrangian
FEM mesh, as the mesh will tangle due to large defor-
mation while the time step can reduce sharply. Now with
the SPH mesh this problem no longer exists. Fig. 7
shows the computed formation of the crater during the
explosion.
5.3. The propagation of blast wave in soil
To monitor the propagation of the blast wave in the
soil, two rows of target points are arranged as shown in
Fig. 8(a). Group-A targets are arranged parallel to the
ground surface, while Group-B are located along a 45
inclined line to capture the free eld wave propaga-
tion. Fig. 8(b) shows the attenuation of the peak
pressure as a function of the scaled distance for the
group-A and group-B targets, respectively. Shown in the
gure are also two straight lines, denoted as Function 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Target 1
Target 2
Target 3
S
t
r
e
s
s

z
z

/
M
P
a
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
Target 1
Target 2
Target 3
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
r

/
M
P
a
(a)
(b)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.0012
-0.0011
-0.0010
-0.0009
-0.0008
-0.0007
-0.0006
-0.0005
-0.0004
-0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
L
o
n
g
.

S
t
r
a
i
n

z
z
Time/ms
Target Out-1
Target Out-2
Target Out-3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.0002
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
0.0009
L
o
n
g
.

S
t
r
a
i
n

z
z
Time/ms
Time/ms
Time/ms
Ta rget I n-1
Ta rget I n-2
Ta rget I n-3
Concrete stresses (front wall)
Reinforcing bar longitudinal strains (outer layer,inner layer)
Fig. 13. Typical concrete stress and reinforcing strain histories.
Fig. 14. Distribution of cumulative damage in concrete.
352 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
and Function 2, which correspond to the TM-5 [33]
empirical equations of free eld pressure for the kind
of soils considered in this example,
Function 1 : p = f 15 (R=

W
3
_
)
2:5
(38)
Function 2 : p = f 22 (R=

W
3
_
)
2
(39)
where R is the distance from the charge centre, W is the
weight of charge in kilograms, and f is the coupling fac-
tor which reects the eect of the buried depth of the
charge. For the current example, f = 0.6.
These two functions can be looked upon as the upper
and lower limits within which the particular type of soil
used in the current example should fall. From the gure
it can be seen that the attenuation law of group B tar-
gets, which represent the free eld, lies between these
two limit curves. The attenuation curve from Group A
targets shows a notably quicker attenuation rate. This
is reasonable because these targets are near the ground
surface and it reects the inuence of the ground surface
on the propagation of the blast wave.
Fig. 9 shows a comparison of the typical stress and
velocity time histories between Group-A and Group-B
targets at the same distance from the charge.
5.4. Response of the structure
A number of target points are arranged to record the
response of the structure and the interface load, as
shown in Fig. 10.
Fig. 11 shows the computed interface stress at the
mid-height of the front wall (target point 9). The reload-
ing phenomenon [34] is clearly seen in the simulation re-
sult, and it reects reasonably the characteristics
observed from experiments [1,10].
The displacement time histories computed on the
front wall (targets 1, 2, 3) are shown in Fig. 12(a).
As can be seen, marked permanent displacements of
the structure occur in both horizontal (order of 5
10mm) and vertical directions (order of 1530mm).
The dierential displacements between dierent targets
indicate the deformation of the structure. Fig. 12(b) de-
picts the front wall deection (horizontal) and the bot-
tom plate deection (vertical) time histories. The
maximum deection in the front wall reaches about
0.2% of its height, while in the bottom plate the
maximum deection is about 1% of its length. The
residual deections indicate the occurrence of plastic
deformation.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-2
-1
0
1
2
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

V
z
z

/
m
/
s
Time/ms
Target 1,2,3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Target 3
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

V
r
r

/
m
/
s
Time/ms
Target 1,2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-100
0
100
200
300
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
z
z

/
g
Time/ms
Target 1,2,3
0 5 10 15 20 25
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
r

/
g
Time/ms
Target 1,2
Target 3
(a)
(b)
Velocity (Vertical, horizontal)
Acceleration (Vertical, horizontal)
Fig. 15. Velocity and acceleration time histories of the front wall.
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 353
Regarding the material response, Fig. 13 shows
typical time histories of stress in concrete and strain
in the reinforcing bars at several target points. As
can be expected from the displacement response, the
material stress and strain histories vary signicantly
from one target to another within the structure. The
longer period oscillations that follow the initial pulses
indicate the participation of the structural response.
Unfortunately the experimental data on stress and
strain are scarce. Stevens et al. [10] reported some time
histories of strain in reinforcing bars. The characteris-
tics of the measured steel strain histories exhibit favor-
able agreement with the computed ones shown in
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14 depicts the cumulative damage status at a
particular time. Apparently the eect of the ground sur-
face results in a shift of the most serious damage zone
from the center to the lower part of the front wall.
5.5. In-structure shock
An important aspect of the buried structure response
to blast loading is the in-structure shock, which consti-
tutes the basis for evaluating the survivability and func-
tionability of the equipment housed in the structure. The
in-structure shock environment can be described by the
velocity and acceleration at dierent locations around
the structure. In the current example, the response of
the front wall and the bottom plate are expected to be
more critical than the remaining part of the structure,
so only the computed shock histories on these two
components are discussed here.
Fig. 15 shows the computed velocity and acceleration
histories on the front wall. As expected, the vertical mo-
tion at dierent target points are almost identical, while
the horizontal motion at the mid-height of the wall (tar-
get 2) exhibit a marked dierence from that at the corner
(target 3), indicating signicant response of the wall
panel. The computed velocity and acceleration histories
on the bottom plate are shown in Fig. 16. As can be ex-
pected from the bending response of plate and the eect
of wave propagating rightward, signicant dierence
can be observed in the vertical motion among targets
3, 4 and 5. Even the horizontal motion within the plate
plane exhibit some dierence and time delay from target
3 onward to target 5.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Target 5
Target 4
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

V
z
z

/
m
/
s
Time/ms
Target 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
1
2
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

V
r
r

/
m
/
s
X Axis Title
Target 3
Target 4
Target 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
z
z

/
g
Time/ms
Target 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
r
r
/
g
Time/ms
Target 4
(a)
(b)
Velocity (Vertical, horizontal)
Acceleration (Vertical, horizontal)
Fig. 16. Velocity and acceleration time histories of the oor.
354 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356
The code TM-5 [33] provides a simple method for a
crude estimation of the in-structure acceleration and
velocity based on free-eld ground shock. Using the
empirical formulas for the free-eld ground shock, the
average value of acceleration can be derived by integrat-
ing the acceleration-range function over the span of the
structure. This average acceleration is regarded as the
nominal in-structure shock acceleration, and similarly
is the velocity. For the kind of soil considered in the cur-
rent example, the empirical formulas for the free-eld
velocity and the acceleration, according to TM-5, are
in the range of
V
avg1
= f 7:38
R

W
3
_
_ _
2
V
avg2
= f 4:62
R

W
3
_
_ _
2:5
a
avg1
= f 2338
R

W
3
_
_ _
3
a
avg2
= f 1464
R

W
3
_
_ _
3:5
where V
avg1
, a
avg1
correspond to the attenuation coe-
cient n = 2, V
avg2
, a
avg2
correspond to the attenuation
coecient n = 2.5. The average velocity and acceleration
of the structure, estimated from the integration of these
functions over the span of the structure, are found
to be V
avg1
= 1.59m/s, V
avg2
= 0.78m/s (velocity), and
a
avg1
= 311g, a
avg2
= 154g (acceleration).
Comparison of the above estimates and the average
peak values from the numerical results show a reason-
able agreement. The numerical results allow for a detail
characterization of the in-structure shock environment
for design considerations.
5.6. Conclusions
A full coupled numerical approach for simulating the
response of underground structure subjected to blast
loading is presented in this paper. The combined SPH
and FEM method overcomes many diculties that are
known to be associated with other coupling methods.
In the proposed approach, the large movement and
deformation in the near-eld soil medium around the
charge is modeled by the SPH mesh, whereas the FEM
mesh is used for intermediate and farther eld soil med-
ium as well as for the RC structure. This combination
incorporates the merits from the two distinctive methods
in representing dierent physical processes. Besides the
computational considerations, the proposed approach
makes use of various state-of-the-art material models,
particularly noteworthy are the three-phase soil model
and the RHT concrete model, to enhance the reliability
of the simulation results. The numerical example shows
that the proposed approach is capable of reproducing
the physical processes in a realistic manner and the
numerical execution is smooth. With this full coupled
model, a wide range of problems related to subsurface
blast can be investigated numerically. The model can
also be used for parametric studies and verication of
practical models, and in special design situations where
great details of the responses are required.
For the underground structure considered in the
numerical example, the results reveal signicant struc-
tural responses that aect the distribution of deforma-
tion and damage within the structure as well as the
in-structure shock environment. A full characterization
of these response features can be obtained through sys-
tematic numerical calculations using the proposed full
coupled model.
References
[1] Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T. Analysis of blast-loaded,
buried RC arch response. Part I: Numerical approach.
J Struct Eng, ASCE 1991;117(1):197212.
[2] Hinman EE. Eect of deformation on the shock response
of buried structures subject to explosions. In: Structures
under shock and impact. Elservier; 1989. p. 45565.
[3] Zhang YD, Fang Q, Liu JC. Experimental and numerical
investigations into responses of buries RC frames subjected
to impulsive loading. In: Structures under shock and
impact VII. Elservier; 2002. p. 6978.
[4] ODaniel JL, Krauthammer T. Assessment of numerical
simulation capabilities for mediumstructure interaction
systems under explosive loads. Comp Struct 1997;63(5):
87587.
[5] Weidlinger P, Hinman E. Analysis of underground pro-
tective structures. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1987;114(7):
165873.
[6] Yang Z. Finite element simulation of response of buried
shelters to blast loadings. Finite Element Anal Des 1997;
24:11332.
[7] Hamdan FH, Dowling PJ. Fluid-structure interaction:
Application to structures in an acoustic uid medium, part
1: an introduction to numerical treatment. Eng Comput
1995;12:74958.
[8] Henrych J. The dynamics of explosions and its use.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1979.
[9] Nelson I. Numerical solution of problems involving
explosive loading. Proceedings dynamic methods in soil
and rock mechanics, vol. 2. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema;
1977. p. 23997.
[10] Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T, Chandra D. Analysis of
blast-loaded, buried arch response. Part II: Application.
J Struct Eng, ASCE 1991;117(1):21334.
[11] Wang Z, Lu Y. Numerical analysis on dynamic deforma-
tion mechanism of soils under blast loading. Soil Dynam
Earthqu Eng 2003;23:70524.
[12] Wang Z, Hao H, Lu Y. A three-phase soil model for
simulating stress wave propagation due to blast loading.
Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2004;28:3356.
Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356 355
[13] Riedel W, Thoma K, Hiermaier S. Numerical analysis
using a new macroscopic concrete model for hydrocodes.
In: Proceedings of 9th international symposium on inter-
action of the eects of munitions with structures, 1999.
p. 31522.
[14] Benson DJ. Computational methods in Lagrangian and
Eulerian hydrocodes. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng
1992;99:235394.
[15] Hayhurst CJ, Clegg RA. Cylinderically symmetric SPH
simulations of hypervelocity impacts on thin plates. Int J
Impact Eng 1997;20:33748.
[16] Johnson GR, Petersen EH, Stryk RA. Incorporation of an
SPH option into the EPIC code for a wide range of
high velocity impact computations. Int J Impact Eng
1993;14:38594.
[17] Attaway SW, Heinstein MW, Mello FJ, Swegle J. Coupling
of smooth particle hydrodynamics with PRONTO, AMD-
Vol 171. Advances in numerical simulation techniques for
penetration and perforation of solids. ASME; 1993.
[18] Meyers MA. Dynamic behavior of materials. New York:
John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
[19] Lucy LB. A numerical approach to the testing of the ssion
hypothesis. The Astron J 1977;82(12):101324.
[20] Swegle JW, Attaway AW, Heinstein MW, Mello FJ, Hicks
DL. An analysis of smoothed particle hydrodynamics.
Sandia Report SAND93-2513, UC-705, March, 1995.
[21] Chen WF, Baladi GY. Soil plasticity theory and imple-
mentation. Elsevier; 1985.
[22] Cole RH. Underwater explosions. Princeton, New Jer-
sey: Princeton University Press; 1948.
[23] Drucker DC, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis
or limit design. Q Appl Math 1952;10(2):15764.
[24] Prapahanran S, Chameau JL, Holtz RD. Eect of strain
rate on undrained strength derived from pressuremeter
tests. Geotechnique 1989;39(4):61524.
[25] Herrmann W. Constitutive equation for the dynamic
compaction of ductile porous materials. J Appl Phys
1969;40(6):24909.
[26] Carrol MM, Holt AC. Static and dynamic pore collapse
relations for ductile porous materials. J Appl Phys
1972;43(4):1626. et seq.
[27] Hansson H. Modelling of concrete perforation. In:
Structures under shock and impact VII. Elservier; 2002.
p. 6978.
[28] Lee EL, Hornig HC, Kury JW. Adiabatic expansion of high
explosive detonation products. UCRL-50422, Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory, University of California, 1968.
[29] Huck PJ et al. Dynamic response of soil/concrete interac-
tions at high pressure. AFWL-TR-73-264, Air Force
Weapons Laboratories Defense Nuclear Agency, 1974.
[30] Mueller CM. Shear friction tests support program; labo-
ratory friction test results for WES ume sand against steel
and grout: Report 3, USAE WES, Technical Report,
SL-86-20, 1986.
[31] Casadei F, Halleux JP, Sala A, Chille F. Transient uid
structure interaction algorithms for large industrial appli-
cations. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng 2001;190:3081310.
[32] AUTODYN Theory Manual, revision 3.0, Century
Dynamics, San Ramon, California, 1997.
[33] TM-5-855-1: Fundamentals of Protective Design for Con-
ventional Weapons, Department of the Army, November
1986.
[34] Baylot JT. Eect of soil ow changes on structure loads.
J Struct Eng 2000;126(12):143441.
356 Z. Wang et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 339356