Surface and Buried Explosions: An Explorative Review with Recent Advances

Abstract

Partially or fully buried explosive on detonation releases a large amount of kinetic energy a part of which gets dissipated during creation of crater and the rest gets converted into ground shock. Both phenomena are of complex nature with involvement of non-linearity in both loading and material characteristics. This review aims at providing an insight into mechanisms involved during an event of buried explosion with varying degree of confinement. Factors affecting crater formation and ground shock propagation in media are discussed in detail. An overview of various prediction methods developed over the years based on dimensional analysis and theory of similarity to estimate crater dimensions and magnitude of ground shock and ground motion along with their limitations is presented. Prediction models used to define and optimise rock fragmentation distribution in surface mining operations are additionally reviewed and discussed. Various state-of-the-art experimental and numerical techniques are discussed in brief. Finally, it discusses the challenges involved in both experimental and numerical analysis and thereby provides alternative solutions and suggestions for further investigations in specific areas of lacuna.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

modified from Smith and Hetherington [54])

Fig. 9

modified from TM5-855–1 [55])

Fig. 10

modified from TM5-855–1 [55])

Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Availability of Data and Materials

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.

    Goel MD, Matsagar VA (2014) Blast-resistant design of structures. Pract Period Struct Des Constr. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Nordyke MD (1961) Nuclear craters and preliminary theory of the mechanics of explosive crater formation. J Geophys Res 66:3439–3459. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ066i010p03439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Nordyke MD (1961) On cratering: a brief history, analysis, and theory of cratering. Livermore, CA (United States)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Violet CE (1961) A generalized empirical analysis of cratering. J Geophys Res 66:3461–3470. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ066i010p03461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Chadwick P, Cox AD, Hopkins HG (1964) Mechanics of deep underground explosions. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser A, Math Phys Sci 256:235–300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1964.0006

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chabai AJ (1965) On scaling dimensions of craters produced by buried explosives. J Geophys Res 70:5075–5098. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ070i020p05075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    White JW (1973) An empirically derived cratering formula. J Geophys Res 78:8623–8633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Westine PS (1978) Ground shock from the detonation of buried explosives. J Terramechanics 15:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4898(78)90025-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Holsapple KA, Schmidt RM (1980) On the scaling of crater dimensions: 1 explosive processes. J Geophys Res 85:7247. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB085iB12p07247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Zou D (2017) Mechanisms of rock breakage by blasting. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Blastronics Pty Ltd. (2000) Methods of assessment and monitoring of the effects of gas pressures on stability of rock cuts due to blasting in the near-field. GEO Report No. 100. Geotechnical Engineering Office. Hong Kong

  12. 12.

    Torbica S, Lapčević V (2018) Rock fracturing mechanisms by blasting. Podzemn Rad. https://doi.org/10.5937/PodRad1832015T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Glasstone S, Dolan PJ (1977) The effects of nuclear weapons, 3rd edn. United States Department of Defense and the Energy Research and Development Administration

  14. 14.

    Cooper Jr HF (1977) A summary of explosion cratering phenomena relevant to meteor impact events. Impact Explos Cratering 11–44

  15. 15.

    Ambrosini D, Luccioni B (2019) Effects of underground explosions on soil and structures. Undergr Sp. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2019.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hlady S (2004) Effect of soil parameters on land mine blast. In: 18th Military aspects of blast and shock (MABS). Bad Reichenhall, Germany

  17. 17.

    Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Cheeseman BA (2006) A computational analysis of detonation of buried mines. Multidiscip Model Mater Struct 2:363–387. https://doi.org/10.1163/157361106778554851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Huang Y et al (2007) Impulse loading resulting from shallow buried explosives in water-saturated sand. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl 221:21–35. https://doi.org/10.1243/14644207JMDA96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Clarke SD, Warren JA, Tyas A (2011) The influence of soil density and moisture content on the impulse from shallow buried explosive charges. In: Shapiro J (ed) 14th International symposium on the interaction of the effects of munitions with structures (ISIEMS). Seattle, USA

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dillon LA (1972) The influence of soil and rock properties on the dimensions of explosion-produced craters

  21. 21.

    Roger E (2015) Mines buried in dry and saturated soils : blast experiments, soil modeling and simulations

  22. 22.

    Knock C, Davies N (2013) Blast waves from cylindrical charges. Shock Waves 23:337–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-013-0438-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hamilton J, Coleman D (2018) Effect of explosive charge geometry on boundary surface peak pressure with regard to standoff distance. In: Fifteen international LS-DYNA users conference. Detroit, pp 1–6

  24. 24.

    Fiserova D (2006) Numerical analysis of buried mine explosions with emphasis on effect of soil properties on loading. Cranfield University, Defence College of Management and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Bergeron D, Walker R, Coffey C (1998) Detonation of 100-gram anti-personnel mine surrogate charges in sand: A test case for computer code validation. Technical Report 668, Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Ralston, Alberta, Canada

  26. 26.

    Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Cheeseman BA (2006) The Effect of degree of saturation of sand on detonation phenomena associated with shallow-buried and ground-laid mines. Shock Vib 13:41–61. https://doi.org/10.1155/2006/652405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kuchuk-Katalan I, Asaf Z, Ran E et al (2012) The influence of water saturation in soil on blast effect. 28th International symposium on shock waves. Springer, Berlin, pp 81–86

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Payne JE, Myers WS, Ehrgott JQ et al (2019) Investigation of relationships between soil type and condition and crater size for shallow-buried explosive charges. Int J Prot Struct 10:135–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041419618798382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cooper Jr HF (1976) Estimates of crater dimensions for near-surface explosions of nuclear and high-explosive sources

  30. 30.

    Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Mocko GM et al (2008) A combined multi-material euler/lagrange computational analysis of blast loading resulting from detonation of buried landmines. Multidiscip Model Mater Struct 4:105–124. https://doi.org/10.1163/157361108784050086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Clarke SD, Rigby SE, Fay SD, et al (2015) “Bubble-type” vs “shock-type” loading from buried explosives. In: 16th International symposium on interaction of the effects of munitions with structures (ISIEMS16). Florida, USA

  32. 32.

    Ehrgott JQ, Akers SA, Windham JE et al (2011) The influence of soil parameters on the impulse and airblast overpressure loading above surface-laid and shallow-buried explosives. Shock Vib 18:857–874. https://doi.org/10.3233/SAV-2010-0609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cheeseman BA, Wolf S, Yen CF, Skaggs R (2006) Blast simulation of explosives buried in saturated sand. Fragblast 10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13855140500432045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Stoner RG, Bleakney W (1948) The attenuation of spherical shock waves in air. J Appl Phys 19:670–678. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1698189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Price MA (2005) Effects of cylindrical charge geometry and secondary combustion reactions on the internal blast loading of reinforced concrete structures

  36. 36.

    Wu C, Fattori G, Whittaker A, Oehlers DJ (2010) Investigation of air-blast effects from spherical-and cylindrical-shaped charges. Int J Prot Struct 1:345–362. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.1.3.345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Johnson C, Mulligan P, Williams K, et al (2018) Effect of explosive charge geometry on shock wave propagation. In: AIP Conference proceedings. p 150021

  38. 38.

    Wisotski J, Snyer WH, Institute DR (1965) Characteristics of blast waves obtained from cylindrical high explosive charges (U).: Final report

  39. 39.

    Shirbhate PA, Goel MD (2020) A critical review of blast wave parameters and approaches for blast load mitigation. Arch Comput Methods Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09436-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Bajic Z, Bogdanov J, Jeremic R (2009) Blast effects evaluation using TNT equivalent. Sci Tech Rev 59:50–53

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Shin J, Whittaker AS, Cormie D (2015) TNT Equivalency for overpressure and impulse for detonations of spherical charges of high explosives. Int J Prot Struct. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.6.3.567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Bogosian D, Yokota M, Rigby SE (2016) TNT equivalence of C-4 and PE4: a review of traditional sources and recent data. In: 24th Military aspects of blast and shock. 24th military aspects of blast and shock. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

  43. 43.

    Konarzewski R, Trypolin M (2017) Analysis of criteria for determining a TNT equivalent. Strojniški Vestn - J Mech Eng 63:666–672. https://doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2016.4230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hopkinson B (1915) British ordnance board minutes. Report 13565. British Ordnance Office. London, UK

  45. 45.

    Cranz C (1926) Lehrbuch der Ballistik. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lampson CW (1946) Explosions in earth. Eff Impact Explos. Office of Technical Services, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Morrey CB (1952) Underground explosion theory. Operation Jangle, Office of Technical Services, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Henrych J (1979) The dynamics of explosion and its use. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Haskell NA (1955) Some consideration on the modeling of crater phenomena in earth. Air Force Surv Geophys

  50. 50.

    Sedov LI (1959) Similarity and dimensional methods in mechanics. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Baker WE, Westine PS, Dodge FT (1991) Scaling of Air Blast Waves, in: Similarity Methods in Engineering Dynamics. Elsevier, pp 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-88156-4.50010-5

  52. 52.

    Cooper Jr HF, Sauer M (1977) Crater-related ground motions and implications for crater scaling. Impact explos cratering 1133–1163

  53. 53.

    Odello RJ, Price P (1976) Ground shock effects from accidental explosions

  54. 54.

    Smith PD, Hetherington JG (1994) Blast and ballistic loading of structures

  55. 55.

    Drake JL, Little CD (1983) Ground Shock from Penetrating Conventional Weapons

  56. 56.

    Lu Y, Wang Z, Chong K (2005) A comparative study of buried structure in soil subjected to blast load using 2D and 3D numerical simulations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Leong EC, Anand S, Cheong HK, Lim CH (2007) Re-examination of peak stress and scaled distance due to ground shock. Int J Impact Eng 34:1487–1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Yang Y, Xie X, Wang R (2010) Numerical simulation of dynamic response of operating metro tunnel induced by ground explosion. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2:373–384. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1235.2010.00373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Feldgun VR, Karinski YS, Yankelevsky DZ (2011) Blast pressure distribution on a buried obstacle in a porous wet soil. Int J Prot Struct 2:45–69. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.2.1.45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Koneshwaran S, Thambiratnam DP, Gallage C (2015) Performance of buried tunnels subjected to surface blast incorporating fluid-structure interaction. J Perform Constr Facil 29:04014084. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Mobaraki B, Vaghefi M (2015) Numerical study of the depth and cross-sectional shape of tunnel under surface explosion. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 47:114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Mobaraki B, Vaghefi M (2016) Effect of the soil type on the dynamic response of a tunnel under surface detonation. Combust Explos Shock Waves 52:363–370. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010508216030175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Mussa M, Mutalib A, Hamid R, Raman S (2018) Blast damage assessment of symmetrical box-shaped underground tunnel according to peak particle velocity (PPV) and single degree of freedom (SDOF) criteria. Symmetry (Basel) 10:158. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10050158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Mussa MH, Mutalib AA, Hamid R et al (2017) Assessment of damage to an underground box tunnel by a surface explosion. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 66:64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Mandal J, Agarwal AK, Goel MD (2020) Numerical modeling of shallow buried tunnel subjected to surface blast loading. J Perform Constr Facil. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Nagy N, Mohamed M, Boot JC (2010) Nonlinear numerical modelling for the effects of surface explosions on buried reinforced concrete structures. Geomech Eng 2:1–18. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2010.2.1.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Yankelevsky DZ, Karinski YS, Feldgun VR (2011) Re-examination of the shock wave’s peak pressure attenuation in soils. Int J Impact Eng 38:864–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Butkovich TR (1971) Effects of water saturation on underground nuclear detonations

  69. 69.

    Crowley BK (1973) Effects of porosity and saturation on shock-wave response in tuffs. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 10:437–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(73)90027-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Kurtz SR (1975) Medium properties and total energy coupling in underground explosions

  71. 71.

    Drake JL, Smith EB, Blouin SE (1989) Enhancements of the prediction of ground shock from penetrating weapons. In: 4th International symposium on the interaction ofnon-nuclear munitions with structures. Citeseer, Panama City Beach, Fla, USA

  72. 72.

    Laine L, Larsen OP (2007) Numerical study of how the ground shock coupling factor is influenced by soil properties. In: 78th Shock and vibration symposium

  73. 73.

    Shelton TW, Ehrgott JQ, Moral RJ, Barbato M (2014) Experimental and numerical investigation of the ground shock coupling factor for near-surface detonations. Shock Vib 2014:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/789202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Laine L, Johansson M, Larsen OP (2016) 3D FE and 2DOF simulations of ground shock experiments—reflection pressure time history dependency due to the structure ’ s stiffness and mass. In: 87th Shock and vibration symposium, shock and vibration exchange. New Orleans, Louisiana

  75. 75.

    Kansake BA, Temeng VA, Afum BO (2016) Comparative analysis of rock fragmentation models—a case study. In: 4th UMaT Biennial international mining and mineral conference. MP 1–11

  76. 76.

    Babaeian M, Ataei M, Sereshki F et al (2019) A new framework for evaluation of rock fragmentation in open pit mines. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 11:325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Rosin P, Rammler E (1933) Laws governing the fineness of powdered coal. J Inst Fuel 7:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Ouchterlony F, Sanchidrián JA (2019) A review of development of better prediction equations for blast fragmentation. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 11:1094–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Cunningham C (1983) The Kuz-Ram model for production of fragmentation from blasting. In: 1st International symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting. 439–453

  80. 80.

    Kanchibotla SS, Valery W, Morrell S (1999) Modelling fines in blast fragmentation and its impact on crushing and grinding. Explo 99:137–144

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Jug J, Strelec S, Gazdek M, Kavur B (2017) Fragment size distribution of blasted rock mass. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/95/4/042013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Bond FC, Whitney BB (1959) The work index in blasting. 3rd U.S. Symp. rock mech. 6

  83. 83.

    Hjelmberg H (1983) Some ideas on how to improve calculations of the fragment size distribution in bench blasting. In: 1st International sym- posium on rock fragmentation by blasting. 469–494

  84. 84.

    Kou S, Rustan A (1993) Computerized design and result prediction of bench blasting. In: Rossmanith HP (ed) 4th International symposium on rock fragmentation by blasting. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 26–271

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Thornton DM, Kanchibotla SS, Esterle JS (2001) A fragmentation model to estimate ROM size distribution of soft rock types. 27th Annual conference on explosives and blasting techniques. Orlando, Florida, pp 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Djordjevic N (1999) A two-component model of blast fragmentation. AusIMM Proc 304:9–13

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Ouchterlony F (2005) The swebrec© function: linking fragmentation by blasting and crushing. Min Technol 114:29–44. https://doi.org/10.1179/037178405X44539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Gheibie S, Aghababaei H, Hoseinie SH, Pourrahimian Y (2009) Modified Kuz-Ram fragmentation model and its use at the sungun Copper Mine. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:967–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Viktorov VV, Stepenov RD (1960) Modeling of the action of an explosion with concentrated charge in homogeneous ground. Inzh. Sb 28:87–96

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Pokrovskii GI, Fyodorov IS (1969) Centrifugal model testing in the construction industry. Niedra Publishing House, Moscow, Vols. I and II

  91. 91.

    Piekutowski AJ (1980) Formation of bowl-shaped craters. In: Lunar and planetary science conference. 2129–2144

  92. 92.

    Housen KR, Schmidt RM, Holsapple KA (1983) Crater ejecta scaling laws: fundamental forms based on dimensional analysis. J Geophys Res 88:2485. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB088iB03p02485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Holsapple KA, Schmidt RM (1987) Point source solutions and coupling parameters in cratering mechanics. J Geophys Res 92:6350. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB092iB07p06350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Tabatabai H (1987) Centrifugal modeling of underground structures subjected to blast loading. University of Florida

  95. 95.

    Sausville MJ, Zimmie T, Simpson PT, Abdoun T (2005) Geotechnical centrifuge modeling of explosions of earth embankments. In: Dam safety 2005 conference

  96. 96.

    Ma L, Zhang J, Hu Y, Zhang L (2010) Centrifugal model tests for responses of shallow-buried underground structures under surface blasting. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 29:3672–3678

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Fan YK, Chen ZY, Liang XQ et al (2012) Geotechnical centrifuge model tests for explosion cratering and propagation laws of blast wave in sand. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 13:335–343. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A1100227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Suits LD, Sheahan TC, De A, Zimmie TF (2007) Centrifuge modeling of surface blast effects on underground structures. Geotech Test J 30:100656. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ100656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Hansen C, Pak RYS (2016) Centrifuge characterization of buried, explosive-induced soil ejecta kinematics and crater morphology. J Dyn Behav Mater 2:306–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870-016-0067-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Steedman RS (1991) Centrifuge modeling for dynamic geotechnical studies. Second international conference on recent advance in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics. St. Louis, Missouri, pp 2401–2417

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Sadovskii MA, Adushkin VV, Rodionov VN, Startsev GN (1969) A method of modeling large cratering explosions. Combust Explos Shock Waves 3:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00741616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Adushkin VV, Pernik LM (1976) Large-scale blasting-down in opening-up the tyrnyauz deposit. Sov Min Sci 12:381–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Wang M, Qiu Y, Yue S (2018) Similitude laws and modeling experiments of explosion cratering in multi-layered geotechnical media. Int J Impact Eng 117:32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Brezinski C, Wuytack L (2001) Numerical analysis in the twentieth century. In: Brezinski C, Wuytack L (eds) Numerical analysis: historical developments in the 20th century. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-50617-7.50003-3

    Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Goel MD (2014) Blast: characteristics, loading and computation - an overview. In: Matsagar V (ed) Advances in structural engineering. Springer India, New Delhi, pp 417–434

    Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Wang Z, Lu Y (2003) Numerical analysis on dynamic deformation mechanism of soils under blast loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:705–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(03)00076-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Wang Z, Hao H, Lu Y (2004) A three-phase soil model for simulating stress wave propagation due to blast loading. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 28:33–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.325

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Murray Y (2007) Users manual for LS-DYNA concrete material model 159. Fed Highw Adm 77

  109. 109.

    Tong X, Tuan CY (2007) Viscoplastic cap model for soils under high strain rate loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133:206–214. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:2(206)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Coutris N et al (2009) Derivation and validation of a material model for clayey sand for use in landmine detonation computation analyses. Multidiscip Model Mater Struct 5:311–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    An J (2010) Soil Behavior under Blast Loading. University of Nebraska

  112. 112.

    An J, Tuan CY, Cheeseman BA, Gazonas GA (2011) Simulation of soil behavior under blast loading. Int J Geomech 11:323–334. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Higgins W, Chakraborty T, Basu D (2012) A high strain-rate constitutive model for sand and its application in finite-element analysis of tunnels subjected to blast. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37:2590–2610. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Lu G, Fall M, Cui L (2017) A multiphysics-viscoplastic cap model for simulating blast response of cemented tailings backfill. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:551–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Wang Z, Lu Y, Hao H (2004) Numerical investigation of effects of water saturation on blast wave propagation in soil mass. J Eng Mech 130:551–561. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:5(551)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Wang Z, Lu Y, Bai C (2008) Numerical analysis of blast-induced liquefaction of soil. Comput Geotech 35:196–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Feldgun VR, Kochetkov AV, Karinski YS, Yankelevsky DZ (2008) Internal blast loading in a buried lined tunnel. Int J Impact Eng 35:172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Feldgun VR, Karinski YS, Yankelevsky DZ (2014) The effect of an explosion in a tunnel on a neighboring buried structure. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 44:42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Desmet B, François S, Vantomme J, Degrande G (2014) Coupled underground blast simulation using a 2D axisymmetric lagrangian finite difference time domain solver with a perfectly matched layer. Proc Int Conf Struct Dyn , EURODYN 2014-Janua:

  120. 120.

    Laine L, Sandvik A (2001) Derivation of mechanical properties for sand. In: 4th Asia-Pacific conference on shock and impact loads on structures. Singapore, 361–368

  121. 121.

    Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Coutris N et al (2010) Derivation, parameterization and validation of a sandy-clay material model for use in landmine detonation computational analyses. J Mater Eng Perform 19:434–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-009-9509-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Yankelevsky DZ, Feldgun VR, Karinski YS (2008) Underground explosion of a cylindrical charge near a buried wall. Int J Impact Eng 35:905–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Karinski YS, Feldgun VR, Yankelevsky DZ (2009) Explosion-induced dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis with the coupled Godunov-variational difference approach. Int J Numer Methods Eng 77:824–851. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.2436

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Karinski YS, Feldgun VR, Yankelevsky DZ (2009) Effect of soil locking on the cylindrical shock wave’s peak pressure attenuation. J Eng Mech 135:1166–1179. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Feldgun VR, Karinski YS, Yankelevsky DZ (2013) A Coupled approach to simulate the explosion response of a buried structure in a soil-rock layered medium. Int J Prot Struct 4:231–292. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.4.3.231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Bloom F (2006) Constitutive models for wave propagation in soils. Appl Mech Rev 59:146–174. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2177685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Lee WY (2006) Numerical modeling of blast induced liquefaction. Brigham Young University, Provo

    Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Busch CL, Aimone-Martin CT, Tarefder RA (2016) Experimental evaluation and finite-element simulations of explosive airblast tests on clay soils. Int J Geomech 16:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Schwer LE, Murray YD (1994) A three-invariant smooth cap model with mixed hardening. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 18:657–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610181002

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Gu Q, Lee FH (2002) Ground response to dynamic compaction of dry sand. Geotechnique 52:481–493. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.7.481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Ghassemi A, Pak A, Shahir H (2010) Numerical study of the coupled hydro-mechanical effects in dynamic compaction of saturated granular soils. Comput Geotech 37:10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Ma GW, Hao H, Wang F (2011) Simulations of explosion-induced damage to underground rock chambers. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 3:19–29. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1235.2011.00019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Prapaharan S, Chameau JL, Holtz RD (1989) Effect of strain rate on undrained strength derived from pressuremeter tests. Geotechnique 39:615–624. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1989.39.4.615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Coutris N et al (2008) Computer-simulations based development of a high strain-rate, large-deformation, high-pressure material model for STANAG 4569 sandy gravel. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Feldgun VR, Kochetkov AV, Karinski YS, Yankelevsky DZ (2008) Blast response of a lined cavity in a porous saturated soil. Int J Impact Eng 35:953–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Luccioni B, Ambrosini D, Nurick G, Snyman I (2009) Craters produced by underground explosions. Comput Struct 87:1366–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    An J (2010) Soil Behaviour Under Blast Loading

  138. 138.

    Roger E, Loret B, Calvel JP (2015) Field tests and computational simulations of the explosion of buried charges. EPJ Web Conf 94:04004. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20159404004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Lu G, Fall M (2017) Modelling blast wave propagation in a subsurface geotechnical structure made of an evolutive porous material. Mech Mater 108:21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2017.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jagriti Mandal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mandal, J., Goel, M.D. & Agarwal, A.K. Surface and Buried Explosions: An Explorative Review with Recent Advances. Arch Computat Methods Eng (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-021-09553-2

Download citation