11th World Congress on Computational Mechanics (WCCM XI)

5th European Conference on Computational Mechanics (ECCM V)

6th European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ECFD VI)
R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF UNDERGROUND TUNNELS SUBJECTED

TO INTERNAL BLAST LOADING
ROHIT TIWARI1*, TANUSREE CHAKRABORTY2, VASANT MATSAGAR3
1
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016, India.
E-mail: rohit19862009@gmail.com.
*
Corresponding Author
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016, India.
E-Mail: tanusree@civil.iitd.ac.in.
3
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016, India.
E-Mail: matsagar@civil.iitd.ac.in.

Key words: Blast Loading, Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian Analysis, Finite Element Method,
Strain Rate, Underground Tunnel.

ABSTRACT

The present work deals with three dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) analyses of
underground tunnels in soil subjected to internal blast loading. The coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
(CEL) analysis tool in finite element software Abaqus/Explicit has been used for the analysis
purpose. The soil and reinforced concrete lining has been modeled using the Lagrangian
elements. The explosive TNT has been modeled using the Eulerian elements. The stress-strain
response of soil, concrete and reinforcement has been simulated using strain rate dependent
Drucker-Prager plasticity, concrete damaged plasticity and Johnson-Cook plasticity models,
respectively. The pressure-volume relationship of TNT explosive has been simulated using the
JWL equation-of-state. Parametric sensitivity studies have been performed for different (i) tunnel
lining thicknesses, (ii) charge weights and (iii) friction angles of soil. It is observed from the
results that pressure acting on the tunnel lining increases with the increase in charge weight. Both
the lining and the surrounding soil undergo significant deformation. Deformation of the tunnel
lining decreases with increasing lining thickness. Also, deformation of tunnel lining and soil
decrease with increasing friction angle of soil.

1. INTRODUCTION

Underground tunnels used for roadway and railway, utility lines and water pipelines are
indivisible part of the modern civil infrastructure. In the recent decades, explosion incidents
caused by terrorist activities have proved to be a growing threat to the human civilization and the
civil infrastructure. Internal explosion in a tunnel may lead to multiple reflections of the blast
induced shock wave and thus channeling of the shock wave. Hence, in order to safeguard the
tunnels, it is necessary to understand the response of these structures when subjected to blast.
Experimental determination of the response of underground tunnels under blast loading often
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

becomes difficult due to socio-political issues. Thus, advanced numerical analysis of tunnels
subjected to blast loading is of utmost importance.
In the literature, analyses on the effect of blast loading on underground structures have been
carried out by many researchers. Chille et al. (1998) investigated the dynamic response of
underground electric plant subjected to internal explosive loading using three dimensional
numerical analysis methods. For traffic tunnels in rock mass, Choi et al. (2006) performed three-
dimensional finite element (FE) analyses to study the blast pressure and resulting deformation in
concrete lining. They found that the blast pressure on tunnel lining was not the same as the
normally reflected pressure obtained using CONWEP (Department of the Army, the Navy, and
the Air Force 1990). Lu et al. (2005) and Gui and Chien (2006) used FE procedure to perform
blast analysis of tunnels subjected to external blast loading. Feldgun et al. (2008) used the
variational difference method to analyze underground tunnels and cavities subjected to blast
loads. Subway tunnels under explosive load have been analyzed by Liu (2009) using the FE
method. Explosive load was modeled using CONWEP reflected pressure. The analysis performed
by Liu did not consider the high strain rate behavior of soils under explosive loading. The effect
of blast loading on tunnel considering the high strain rate behavior of soils has been studied in by
Higgins et al. (2012). However, their study considered only elastic stress-strain response of
concrete lining in the tunnel. The explosive was modeled using JWL equation-of-state.
Chakraborty et al. (2013) compared the performance of different shock absorbing foam materials,
steel and concrete tunnel linings under blast loading. The blast load was calculated through a
coupled fluid dynamics simulation in their analyses. However, rigorous three dimensional
simulations of lined underground tunnels in soil with properly simulated explosive load using
JWL equation-of-state is rather unavailable in the literature due to the challenging nature of the
problem.
The specific objectives of the present study are to perform three dimensional (3D) nonlinear
finite element analysis underground tunnel subjected to internal blast loading and to understand
the response of tunnel lining and surrounding soil when subjected to blast loading. The finite
element (FE) analyses have been performed using the commercially available FE software
Abaqus Version 6.11 (Abaqus manual version 6.11). Herein, finite element model of soil and
reinforced concrete (RC) lining of the tunnel have been prepared using the Lagrangian analysis
tool in Abaqus. Soil stress-strain behavior has been modeled using the Drucker-Prager
constitutive model (Liu 2009). The RC lining has been modeled using the concrete damaged
plasticity model (Chakraborty et al. 2013). The steel reinforcement is modelled using the
Johnson-Cook (JC) plasticity (Johnson and Cook 1985) model. In case of blast loading the strain
rate can reach upto 102 to 104 per second (Ngo and Mendis. 2008). Hence, strain rate dependent
stress-strain response have been used for soil, steel and concrete. The TNT explosive and the
surrounding air have been modeled using the Eulerian analysis tool in Abaqus. The pressure-
volume relationship of the explosive is simulated using the Jones Wilkens Lee (JWL) (Zukas and
Walters 2003) equation-of-state. Parametric sensitivity studies have been performed by varying
(i) the concrete lining thickness (tw), (ii) the weight of explosive (TNT) used and (iii) the angle of
internal friction of soil (ϕ). The analysis results have been studied for stresses and deformation in
soil and tunnel lining and damage of RC lining.

2 THREE DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

2.1 Lagrangian Finite Element Modelling of Soil and RC Concrete Lining

The three dimensional finite element model of the tunnel in soil has been developed using
Abaqus with the Lagrangian analysis option. The FE mesh of the soil, tunnel lining, and
reinforcement are shown in Figures 1(a) to 1(c). A 20 m long tunnel has been modeled in soil
with reinforced concrete lining thickness of 350 mm with the center point of the tunnel at a
minimum depth of 7.5 m from the ground surface. The reinforcement has been modeled with 10
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

mm and 12 mm diameter Fe415 bars in longitudinal and hoop reinforcement directions,

respectively. The hoop reinforcement rings are placed at 250 mm center to center spacing. The
longitudinal reinforcement bars are placed at a distance of 850 mm along inner arc. The distance
between inner and outer hoop reinforcement is 120 mm. The 20 m long tunnel is placed in a soil
domain of 20 m long, and 15 m  15 m cross section. The FE models of the soil and RC lining
geometry has been developed using the three dimensional part option in Abaqus/CAE using eight
node reduced integration brick element with hourglass control and finite membrane strains
(C3D8R). Mesh convergence and boundary convergence studies have been performed and higher
mesh density has been used in tunnel lining and soil close to lining. The minimum element size in
tunnel lining is considered 60 mm. The steel reinforcement has been embedded in tunnel lining
and modeled using the two node beam elements (B31). Proper bonding between concrete and
reinforcement bars has been assured by applying embedded region constraints option available in
Abaqus. The bottom plane of the soil domain has been fixed in all Cartesian directions, x, y and z.
The vertical side planes and the front and back side planes of the soil domain and tunnel lining
have been provided with pinned support as detailed in Figure 1 by constraining the normal
displacements perpendicular to the plane (U) and the out-of-plane rotations (UR). The contact
between tunnel lining and soil has been modeled with the general contact option in Abaqus with
hard contact in the normal direction and frictionless contact in the tangential direction.

2.2 Eulerian Finite Element Modelling of Explosive

The explosive material has been modeled using the Eulerian modeling technique in Abaqus.
Figure 1(d) shows a typical FE mesh of explosive. To model Eulerian explosive material and the
surrounding air domain inside the tunnel, Eulerian continuum three dimensional eight node
reduced integration elements (EC3D8R) have been used. The Eulerian and Lagrangian elements
can interact with each other through the general contact defined between explosive, air and tunnel
lining surface. Free outflow boundary condition has been defined at the boundary of air domain,
thus, blast pressure when reaches boundaries of air domain, it propagates freely out of the air
domain without any kind of reflection. A fine mesh of Eulerian elements is necessary to
efficiently capture the propagation of blast wave through air, the surrounding concrete lining and
the soil. Mesh convergence study has been performed in the present study to decide the smallest
element size as 35 mm. The pressure-volume relation of explosive has been simulated using
Jones Wilkens Lee (JWL) equation-of-state. In this model, the pressure (Ps)-volume (v)
relationship can be represented as the sum of functions given by
 1 ω 
 R1V  R 2V v
Ps  Ae  Be  C  (1)
 v0 
where v0 is the initial specific volume of explosive material. The parameters A, B, C, R1, R2 and 
are material constants in which A, B and C have dimensions of pressure and rest of the constants
are dimensionless. In JWL equation of state, the first two exponential terms are high pressure
terms and the last term on the right hand side is a low pressure term which deals with the high
volume of cloud due to explosion. The material properties used herein for JWL has been listed in
Table 1 as obtained from Zukas and Walter (2003) and Abaqus manual version 6.11.

3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

3.1 Mateial Properties for Concrete

The concrete in tunnel lining has been modelled as M30 grade (ultimate compressive strength
of 30 MPa) using the concrete damage plasticity model in Abaqus. The yield function in the
concrete damaged plasticity model is given by Lubliner et al. (1989). The elastic properties of
concrete are listed in Table 2. For concrete, modulus of elasticity Es = 27.4 GPa, compressive
strength of concrete fck = 30 MPa, mass density  = 2400 kg/m3 and Poisson’s ratio  = 0.2 have
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

been considered. Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show the stress-strain curves for M30 concrete in
compression and tension, respectively (Carreira and Chu 1985, 1986). Similarly, Figures 2(c) and
2(d) show the damage-strain curves for M30 concrete in compression and tension, respectively
(Carreira and Chu 1985, 1986). For strain rate dependent material properties, dynamic increase
factors (DIF) of 2.1 and 6 have been used for compressive and tensile stress-strain responses,
respectively at 100/sec strain rate (Bischoff and Perry 1991).

3.2 Material Properties for Steel

The stress-strain behavior of steel reinforcement has been modelled using Johnson-Cook (JC)
model (Johnson and Cook 1985). The Fe 415 grade of steel has been considered for the lining
reinforcement. The elastic material properties of steel are given in Table 2. For steel, modulus of
elasticity Es= 200 GPa, tensile yield strength fy= 415 MPa, mass density  = 7800 kg/m3 and
Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3 have been considered. For strain rate dependent modeling as per JC
model, the material constants are obtained from mechanical testing and adopted herein for strain
rate of 100/sec, as, A = 360 MPa, B = 635 MPa, n = 0.114, C = 0.075. These values are computed
based on tensile test data of the material as per the JC model (Goel et al. 2011). The effect of
temperature on JC model has been neglected herein.

3.3 Material Properties of Soil

The soil surrounding the tunnel has been modeled using the Drucker Prager plasticity model.
Here, linear Drucker Prager criteria has been used in the modelling of soil which provides a
noncircular yield surface in the deviatoric plane to match different yield values in triaxial tension
and compression. A non-associated flow rule is considered in the present analysis by considering
the dilatancy angle of sand to be different from the friction angle. The material properties used for
sand are given in Table 3. For sand, modulus of elasticity Esoil = 28 MPa, mass density  = 1560
kg/m3, Poisson’s ratio  = 0.2, friction angle ϕ = 30 and dilation angle  = 5 have been
considered. The strain rate dependent stress-strain response of sand has been obtained from
Veyera and Ross (1995).

4. TYPES OF ANALYSES

The numerical simulations have been performed for two RC lining thicknesses - 350 mm and
550 mm for 50 kg TNT explosive and 30 friction angle of sand. Parametric studies have been
performed for three different charge weights of 25 kg, 50 kg and 100 kg for 350 mm lining
thickness and 30 friction angle of sand. Analyses have also been carried out for three different
angles of friction - 25, 30, 35 for 50 kg charge weight and 350 mm lining thickness. The
analyses have been performed in a single dynamic explicit step. Gravity loading has been applied.
For studying the response of the complete 20 m tunnel section, the duration of analysis is
maintained such that the shock wave can travel through the complete tunnel length. Analysis
duration of 16 msec has been maintained in all simulations.

5. VALIDATION OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

To ensure the validity of the numerical simulations, the results of CEL simulation for blast
loading on a concrete slab has been compared with the results where blast loading is simulated
using TM5-1300. A 1.2 m  1.2 m  0.09 m reinforced concrete (RC) slab has been analyzed
numerically using the CEL method. The slab is subjected to a blast loading caused by 1.69 kg
TNT charge weight at three different scaled distance of 0.5, 1.0, 5 m/kg1/3. In CEL, TNT
explosive has been simulated using JWL equation-of-state. The boundaries of the concrete slab
are restrained in three Cartesian directions, e.g., x, y and z. In another analysis, the blast load has
been calculated using TM5-1300 (Departments of the Army and Navy and the Air Force 1990)
and the modified Friedlander’s equation (Goel et al. 2012) for the same charge weight and scaled
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

distances as mentioned above. Figure 3 shows the comparison of central node displacement
calculated through CEL simulation and the simulation using TM5-1300. It is clearly seen from
the figure that both the results compare with reasonable accuracy.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF PARAMETRIC STUDIES

Parametric sensitivity studies of an underground tunnel in soil has been carried out for
different (i) concrete lining thickness (tw), (ii) weight of explosive (TNT) used and (iii) angle of
internal friction of soil mass (ϕ). Figure 4 shows the paths in the tunnel along which the results
are extracted. It may be noted that for minimizing the boundary effect only central 10 m path
length has been considered for extracting the results.

6.1 Variation of RC Lining Thickness

Figures 5 (a) and 5(b) show the displacement of reinforced concrete lining along two paths -
one along tunnel crown and the other along tunnel sidewall, for 350 mm and 550 mm RC lining
thicknesses at 16 msec for 50 kg TNT charge weight. Higher displacement is observed in the 350
mm lining along both tunnel crown and sidewall which may be attributed to higher damage of the
350 mm tunnel lining when subjected to blast loading as compared to the 550 mm tunnel lining.
The displacement is negative at the crown and positive at the side wall which signifies that the
tunnel crown moves downward and the left sidewall moves inward under blast loading. The 550
mm lining exhibits almost 90% lesser displacement as compared to the 350 mm lining. The
deformed shape of the tunnel cross section is inserted in Figure 5(c). Figure 5(c) shows the
displacement time history at the tunnel crown in the lining just above the explosive. For both the
lining thicknesses, displacement along tunnel crown increases with time. Higher displacement is
observed for 350 mm thick lining as compared to the 550 mm thick lining which is reasonable.
Figures 5(d) and 5(e) show the displacement of soil along the crown and the left side wall
surrounding the RC lining. Irregular displacement pattern is observed in soil for 350 mm tunnel
lining due to complete damage of the lining. The 550 mm lining exhibits comparatively lesser
damage which is expected. Figure 5(f) shows the displacement time history of soil at the tunnel
crown. At tunnel crown, soil exhibits almost 40% lesser displacement when 550 mm lining is
used as compared to that for 350 mm lining. Figure 6 shows the displacement at 250 mm inside
soil from the tunnel lining and along a path from tunnel crown. High displacement in soil is
observed even at 250 mm away from the lining. Up to 250 mm, the shock wave pushes tunnel
lining and soil together. However, above 250 mm, the soil moves downward under gravity.
Hence, the displacement is positive for the first 250 mm and then negative.

6.2 Variation of Charge Weights

Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show the displacement response at the tunnel crown and the left side
wall for three different charge weights of 25 kg, 50 kg, 100 kg. Higher displacement is observed
for 100 kg charge weight as compared to 25 kg charge weight which is expected. It may be
however noted that at tunnel crown, 50 kg explosive produces highest displacement whereas at
tunnel sidewall, 100 kg explosive produces the maximum displacement which may be attributed
to irregular damage pattern of the tunnel wall when subjected to blast loading. For 50 kg
explosive, almost 75% higher displacement at tunnel crown is observed as compared to 25 kg
explosive. Figure 7(c) shows displacement time history plot at tunnel crown. The displacement at
the crown increases with increasing time for all charge weights. Figures 7(d) and 7(e) show the
displacement response in soil both at the crown and at the sidewall. In both the cases, higher
displacement is observed for 100 kg charge weight as compared to that for 25 kg charge weight.
However, for 50 kg charge weight, more noise in displacement response is observed. Almost 78%
higher displacement is observed in soil for 50 kg explosive as compared to that for 25 kg
explosive. Figure 7(e) shows displacement time history plot in soil. The displacement in the soil
increases with increasing time for all charge weights.
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

6.3 Variation of Soil Friction Angle

Figures 8(a) and 8(b) show the deformation of RC lining for the paths along the tunnel crown
and the left sidewall for three different angle of friction of soil - 25, 30, 35. The results show
clearly that the deformation of the lining decreases with increasing angle of friction. In tunnel
lining, almost 23% and 56% lesser displacement is exhibited for  = 35 as compared to that for 
= 30 and  = 25. Figure 8(c) shows the time history of deformation at the tunnel crown. Here
also, the deformation decreases with increasing friction angle. Thus, sands with higher friction
angle may be used in blast resistant design of tunnels underground. Figures 8(d) and 8(e) show
the deformation in soil. Soil deformation decreases significantly for 30, 35 friction angles as
compared to that for 25 friction angle. In soil, almost 38% and 60% lesser displacement is
exhibited for  = 35 as compared to that for  = 30 and  = 25. Figure 9 shows the displacement
contour in soil for different soil friction angles. Maximum influence zone for displacement is
observed in soil with 25friction angle.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, three dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) analyses of underground
tunnels in soil subjected to internal blast loading have been carried out. The coupled Eulerian-
Lagrangian (CEL) analysis tool in finite element software Abaqus/Explicit has been used for the
analysis purpose. The explosive TNT has been modeled using the Eulerian elements. The stress-
strain response of soil, concrete and reinforcement has been simulated using strain rate dependent
Drucker-Prager plasticity, concrete damaged plasticity and Johnson-Cook plasticity models,
respectively. The pressure-volume relationship of TNT explosive has been simulated using the
JWL equation-of-state. Parametric sensitivity studies have been performed for different (i) tunnel
lining thicknesses, (ii) charge weights and (iii) friction angles of soil. It has been concluded from
the analyses that blast induces damage in tunnel lining decreases with increasing lining thickness.
The 550 mm lining exhibits almost 90% lesser displacement as compared to the 350 mm lining.
Lining and soil displacement increases with increasing charge weight. Almost 78% higher
displacement is exhibited in soil for 50 kg explosive as compared to that for 25 kg explosive. The
displacement in the soil increases with increasing time for all charge weights. Lining and soil
displacement decreases with increasing friction angle of soil. In soil, almost 38% and 60% lesser
displacement is exhibited for  = 35 as compared to that for  = 30 and  = 25.

TABLES
Table 1 JWL material properties for TNT explosive
Density () Detonation Wave Detonation Energy
A (MPa) B (MPa)  R1 R2
(kg/m3) Speed (V) (m/sec) Density (d) (J/kg)
1630 6930 373800 3747 0.35 4.15 0.9 3680000

Table 2 Concrete and steel material properties

Yield Strength (fy) Elastic Modulus
Material Poisson’s Ratio () Strain Rate
(MPa) (Ec) (GPa)
Concrete (M30) 30 27.4 0.2 100/Sec
Steel (Fe415) 415 200 0.3 100/Sec

Table 3 Ottawa sand material properties

Density () Elastic Modulus Poisson’s Ratio Friction Dilation angle
Strain rate
(kg/m3) (Esoil) () angle () ()
1560 28 (MPa) 0.2 30 5 1000/sec
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

FIGURES

20 m 15 m

15 m

Ux = 0, URy = URz = 0
(Both Sides)

Uz = 0, URx = URy = 0 Ux = Uy = Uz = 0,
URx = URy = URz = 0
(Front and Back)
(Bottom)

(a) Tunnel with reinforced concrete lining in soil

Tunnel Crown at Soil Level

Tunnel Crown at Lining Level

Left Side Wall at Soil Level

Left Side Wall at Lining Level

(b) Enlarged mesh with geometrical detailing

RC Lining Thickness tw
120 mm
12 mm diameter
bar @ 250 mm
c/c

18 Nos. 10 mm
diameter bar

(c) Reinforcement details (d) Explosive inside tunnel

Figure 1: Tunnel geometry and reinforcement details.
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

40 2.0
Compression Tension
30 1.5

Stress (MPa)
20 1.0

10 0.5

0 0.0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.004

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Damage

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.002 0.004
Strain Strain

Figure 2: Stress-strain and damage-strain curves for M30 grade of concrete in compression and tension
(Carreira and Chu 1985, 1986).
Central Node Displacement (mm)

4 4
Current Simulations
0 Simulations using TM5-1300 0

-4 -4

-8 -8

-12 -12

-16 -16
Z = 0.5 m/kg1/3 Z = 1.0 m/kg1/3
-20 -20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (msec) Time (msec)
6
Central Node Displacement (mm)

-2

-4
Z = 2.0 m/kg1/3
-6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (msec)

Figure 3: Comparison of central node displacement time histories for simulations using CEL and TM5-1300.
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

Path from Tunnel Crown

(at Soil Level) to Ground
Path Inside Soil
Path Along Tunnel Crown
at RC Lining / Soil Level
Path Along Tunnel Left Side Wall
at RC Lining / Soil Level

Figure 4: Paths defined for visualization.

50
50 20
20
(mm)

t = 16 msec t = 16 msec
(mm)

50 20
00
Lining(mm)

0 40 00
40
RC Lining

-40 40 0
-40
RCLining

-40 -20
-20
-80 30
30 -20
-80 30
-80 -40
-40
inRC

-40
Displacement in

-120
-120 20
Displacementinin

-120 20
20 -60
-60
Displacement

Y
Displacement

-160
-160 -60
10 Y X
-160 twtww==350mm
350mm 10 -80 Y X
t = 350mm 10 -80 X
-200
-200 twwtww==550mm
550mm -80
-200 tw = 550mm 00 -100
-100
0 0 22 44 66 88 10 10 000 22 44 66 88 10
10-10000 55 10
10 15
15
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15

100
100
120
120 120
120 100
120 120
(mm)
(mm)

80
80
Soil (mm)
Soil(mm)

80
80
80 80
80
80 80
80 80
4040 4040 60
60
60
40 40
in Soil

40 40 60
DisplacementininSoil

000 000 40
40
Displacementin

0 0 40
40
Displacement
Displacement

-40
-40
-40 -40
-40
-40 20
20
-40 -40 20
20
-80-80
-80 -80
-80
-80
-80 -80 000
0
-120
-120
-120 -120
-120
-120
-120 -120 -20
-20
-20
10 -20
2222 4444 6666 8888 10
10
10
10 0000 2222 4444 6666 88 10
88 10
10 000
0
5
555
10
10
10
15
15
15
Lengthalong
Length
Length alongCrown
along Crown(m)
Crown (m)
(m) Lengthalong
Length
Length alongLeft
along LeftSide
Left SideWall
Side Wall(m)
Wall (m)
(m) Time(msec)
Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Length along Crown (m) Length along Left Side Wall (m) Time (sec)
Displacementinin
Displacement in Y
YDirection
Direction Displacementin inXX X Direction
Direction Displacement at at Crown
Crown
Displacement
Displacement inYY Direction
Direction Displacement
Displacement
Displacement in
in X Direction
Direction Displacement
Displacement
Displacement at Crown

Figure 5: Displacement of RC lining and soil for different lining thicknesses.

 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

0 300
000 350
350
350
tw = 350mm25
25 Kg
25Kg
Kg
400
400
400 50 Kg 300
tw = 550mm
5050Kg
Kg 300
250
300
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
Soil(mm) 100
100 Kg
100KgKg -100
-100
-100
-100 250
250
250
300
300
300 200
Soil
inSoil

200
200
200
-200
-200 150
in

-200
Displacementin

200 -200
200 150
Displacement

200 150
Displacement

150
100
100
100
100
100 -300
-300
-300
-300
100
100 50
50
5050

0000 -400
-400
-400
-400 000
0
00 2222 4444 6666 8888 10 1010 0000 2222 4444 6666 8
10 888 1010
10
10 0 000 1
111 2222 3333 4444
Length
Length
Lengthalong
along
along Crown
Crown
Crown
Length along Crown (m) (m)
(m)
(m) Length
Length along
along
alongLeft
Left
Left Side
Side
SideWall
Wall
Wall(m)
(m)
(m) Length
Lengthfrom
Lengthfrom Crown
fromCrown
Length along Left Side Wall (m) Length from Crown toto
Length Crownto
to Ground
Ground(m)
Ground
Ground (m)
(m)
(m)
Displacement
Displacement
Displacementin
Displacement in
ininYY Direction
YYDirection
Direction
Direction Displacement
Displacement
Displacementin
Displacement in XXXDirection
ininX Direction
Direction
Direction

Figure 6: Displacement in soil 250 mm away from the lining at crown and left side wall for different lining
thicknesses at 16 msec.

100
100
100 20
20
20
(mm)

t = 16 msec t = 16 msec
Lining(mm)

00 75
75
75 00
0
RCLining

-50
-50 50
50 -20
-20
50 -20
-100
inRC

-100 25
25
25 -40
-40
-40
Displacementin

-150
-150 000 -60
-60
-60
Displacement

25 Y
W=Kg
25 25 kg
Kg X
-200
-200 50
W=Kg
50 50 kg
Kg -25
-25
-25 -80
-80
-80
100
W= Kg
100 100 kg
Kg
-250
-2500 -50
-50
-50 -100
-100
-100
0 22 44 666 888 10
10
10 000 2
22 4
44 6
66 8
88 10
10 0
10 00 55
5 10
10
10 1515
15

100
100
100
120
120 120
120
120 75
75
75
(mm)
(mm)
Soil(mm)

60
60 80
80
80 50
50
50
Soil
DisplacementininSoil

00 40 25
40
40 25
25
-60
-60 0
000 00
Displacement

-120
-120 -25
-25
-25
-40
-40
-40
-180
-180 -50
-50
-50
-80
-80
-80
-240
-240 -75
-75
-75
00 22 44 666 888 10 10
10 000 2
22 444 6
66 8
88 10 10 0
10 00 55
5 10
10
10 1515
15
Length
Length along
along Crown
Crown
Crown (m) (m)
(m) Length
Length along
along Left
Left Side
Side Wall
Wall
Length along Left Side Wall (m)(m)
(m) Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Time (msec)
Displacement
Displacement in
in Y
in Y Direction
Y Direction
Direction Displacement
Displacementin
Displacement ininX
XXDirection
Direction
Direction Displacement
Displacement atatCrown
Displacementat Crown
Crown

Figure 7: Displacement of RC lining and soil for different charge weights.

 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

0 50 250 20

Displacement in RC Lining (mm)

Displacement in RC Lining (mm)
t = 16 msec t = 16 msec
0 200 0
40 0
-100
-40
150 -20 -40
-80 -200 30
100 -40 -80
-120 20
-300 25
0
5050 -60 20 Y
Displacement in RC Lining (mm)

-160 -120
Y X
tw0= 350mm
0
30 10 0
40
-80 0X
-200 -400
tw = 550mm
35
0
-40 -160
0 -50 -100
0 2 0 4 2 6 4 8 6 10 8 0 10 30
2 04 26 48 610 8 0 10-20 5 0 105 1510 15
-80
-40
-120
160 20 100 100
120 120 120 -60
-160
80 Y
Displacement in Soil (mm)
Displacement in Soil (mm)

tw = 350mm 1060 80 50 X
80 80 -80
-2000 tw = 550mm
40 40 0 60
0 -100 0
-80
0 2 4 6 8 10 0
-60 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15
0 0 40
-160 -50
-40 -40 -120
100 20
-100 -240
120 120
-180
-80 -80
Displacement in Soil (mm)

0 80
80
-320 80
-240
-120 -120 -150
404 0 -20 60
2 62 48 6 10 8 0 10 402 0 4 2 6 4 8 610 8 0 10 5 0 105 1510 15
Length
0 along
Length along
Crown Crown (m)
(m) 0 Length
Length along Leftalong Left Side
Side Wall (m) Wall (m)40 Time (sec)Time (msec)
Displacement
Displacement in Y Direction
in Y Direction Displacement
Displacement in X DirectionDisplacement
in X Direction Displacement
at Crown at Crown
-40 -40 20
-80 Figure 8: Displacement of
-80RC lining and soil for different soil friction angles.
0
-120 -120
-20
2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15
Length along Crown (m) Length along Left Side Wall (m) Time (sec)
Displacement in Y Direction Displacement in X Direction Displacement at Crown

 = 25  = 30  = 35

Figure 9: Deformation contour in soil for different friction angles at 15 msec, for 50 kg charge weight and 350
mm lining thickness.
 R. Tiwari, T. Chakraborty and V. Matsagar

REFERENCES
[1] Abaqus/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.11. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation,
Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
[2] Bischoff, P. H. and Perry, S. H. Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates.
Materials and Structures, Materiaux et Constructions (1991) 24:425-450.
[3] Carreira, D. J. and Chu, K. Stress strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. ACI
Journal, November-December (1985) 82-72:797-804.
[4] Carreira, D. J. and Chu, K. Stress strain relationship for reinforced concrete in tension. ACI
Journal, January-Febuary (1986) 83-3:21-28.
[5] Chakraborty, T., Larcher, M. and Gebbeken, N. Comparative performance of tunnel lining
materials under blast loading. 3rd International Conference on Computational Methods in
Tunnelling and Subsurface Engineering, Ruhr University Bochum (2013).
[6] Chille, F., Sala, A. and Casadei, F. Containment of blast phenomena in underground
electrical power plants. Advances in Engineering Software (1998) 29:7-12.
[7] Choi, S., Wang, J., Munfakh, G. and Dwyre, E. 3D nonlinear blast model analysis for
underground structures. GeoCongress 2006 ASCE (2006):1-6.
[8] Du, H. and Li, Z. Numerical analysis of dynamic behaviour of rc slabs under blast loading.
Trans. Tianjin University (2009) 15:061-064.
[9] Feldgun, V. R., Kochetkov, A. V., Karinski, Y. S. and Yankelevsky, D. Z. Internal blast
loading in a buried lined tunnel. International Journal of Impact Engineering (2008)
35:172-183.
[10] Goel, M. D., Matsagar, V. A. and Gupta, A. K. Dynamic response of stiffened plates under
air blast. International Journal of Protective Structures (2011) 2:139-155.
[11] Goel, M. D., Matsagar, V. A., Gupta, A. K. and Marburg, S. An abridged review of blast
wave parameters. Defence Science Journal (2012) 62:300-306.
[12] Gui, M.W. and Chien, M. C. Blast resistant analysis for a tunnel passing beneath Taipei
Shongsan airport - a parametric study. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2006)
24:227-248.
[13] Higgins, W., Chakraborty, T. and Basu, D. A high strain-rate constitutive model for sand
and its application in finite element analysis of tunnels subjected to blast. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics (2012) 37:2590-2610.
[14] Johnson, G. R., and Cook, W. H. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to
large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. Proceedings of 7th International
Symposium on Ballistics Hague, Netherlands (1983) 541-547.
[15] Liu, H. Dynamic analysis of subway structures under blast loading. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering (2009) 27:699-711.
[16] Lu, Y. Underground blast induced ground shock and its modelling using artificial neural
network. Computers and Geotechnics (2005) 32:164-178.
[17] Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S. and Onate, E. A plastic damage model for concrete.
International Journal of Solids and Structures (1989) 25:299-329.
[18] Ngo, T. and Mendis, P. P. Modelling reinforced concrete structures subjected to impulsive
loading using concrete lattice model. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering (2008)
8:80-89.
[19] TM5-1300 Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. US Departments of the
Army and Navy and the Air Force (1990).
[20] Veyera, G. E. and Ross, C. A. High strain rate testing of unsaturated sands using a split-
hopkinson pressure bar. 3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics (1995) 1.11.
[21] Zukas, J. A. and Walters, W. P. Explosive effects and applications. Springer-Verlag New
York, 1998 (2003).