" "

10 12 1390

1 i 2
1 mirzeinaly@gmail.com
2 - far.koli@yahoo.com

.
.

.
. 10
TNT . ) (Z0 ) (Pso
) (tA ) (t0
. .
.
.
.
.
60
. :
. .
40
40 .
50-40 .
.

09166635625 i

 -1



.


.
.
-

.


-
= .<1
UDEC
= .<2 )1998(


= .<3 ( )2004
) (SHI ) (VHI

= .<4 ( )2004


= )2005( .<5


= .<6 ()2006


.

= .<7 ()2007
-
Shis DDA
= .<8 ( )2008

=.<9

2 .
10
TNT
0/2 .

.


.




-

.

UDEC .


. -
.

-2
10
.
20 45
( .)1
)1(
.
30

-
)2( .

.2
.

 ( : )1

( : )2

.
)

(
(

Em Er
Gm Gr
s .

-3
70
. 40 50 60 70
10 20 30 ( .)2

.




( -3) .
()


.
( 3).

( : )3

:
:
: ) (Z :

z r W 1/ 3
; r
; W .
: :
) (Pso ) (ta
) (t0 (.)4

( : )1


)(Er

()

()

(C)

)(

(Em)

2/325 Gpa

15

40

7 Mpa

0/25

5/8 Gpa

)(
2600 Kg/m3

)(JKn

)(JKs

0/425 1011 Mpa/m

1 10 Mpa/m

)(t j

11

)(Cj
1/5Mpa

 ( : )2 -

0/15

)30(cm

)2300 (Kg/m3

)21(Gpa

)25(Mpa

)(Kn

10

)8/410 (pa

TNT

10
22045 .
()4
.

40

.
40 50 .
20

10

)Max : 5.312 E-2 (m

40

)Max : 8.133 E-2 (m

30

)Max : 1.13 E-2 (m

70

60

)Max : 2.67 E-2 (m

50

( : )4 )(US Army

-4

)Max : 0.355 E-2 (m

)Max : 0.652 E-2 (m) Max : 0.492 E-2 (m

( : )5

( )5
.
40 50
1
-
. ()6
.
.
10 40
40 .

()
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

()

0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9

( : )6

80

( : )3

Moment

Axial

Depth

Shear
2.185

0.241

24.375

10

1. 233

0.209

17.761

20

0.869

0.118

8.201

30

0.352

0.050

4.603

40

0.240

0.035

3.360

50

0.208

0.032

2.432

60

0.171

0.029

1.983

70

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

.
)7( ( )9
-
. 40 40

.
40 50
.

-5




= .<10
.

.

()

( : )7

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

()

0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
10

( : )9

()

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

70

60

40
50
()

30

20

10

()

.
)3(


)7( ( )9 .

2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

( ) =.<11
-1-5

4

()

( : )8

 .

)4( .

.

( )10 .

.

( : )4 -

22

1
(
)

2100 Kg/m

()
)(Er
)(Gr
)(
(C)
(Em)
(K)
(Gm)
()
(t)
(c)
)(j
)(Cj
)(t j

Gpa
Gpa
---

() () ()

14
12

2250

2600

2600

10

2/6

4/5

15/4

26/3

1/044

1/68

4/016

9/352

0/33

0/3

0/25

0/25

0/87

1/35

3/62

7/89

1/68

2/81

5/97

11/9

2/341 1/647

3/98

7/93

1/08

2/388

4/76

Gpa
Gpa

16

Mpa
Gpa

18

0/63

--Mpa
Mpa

32

40

50

60

1/13

1/46

2/852

4/54

28

40

70

110

32

40

50

60

0/22

0/3

0/9

1/6

0/22

0/3

0/85

1/53

--Mpa
Mpa

()

20

( : )11

)12( )11( .

.
0.24

( )9 .

.

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12

()

-2-5

0.22

0.1
5

( : )11

()

-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
-5.5
-6
-6.5
-7

)9(
( )12


.

( : )9

()

1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7

40 40

.
40 50
.


-
.
.

( : )12

.

.


.

-7
=<1

=<2

=<3

=<4

-6



.


.
.

60
.

:
.

=<5

=<6

incident boundary for wave propagation in jointed

rock masses using discrete element method,
Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 31, 57-66, 2004.
Morris J.P., Rubin M.B., Blair S.C., Glenn L.A.,
Heuze F.E. (2004), Simulations of underground
structures subjected to dynamic loading using the
distinct element method, Engineering computations,
Vol. 21, pp. 384- 408.
Lu Y. , Underground blast induced ground shock
and its modeling using artificial neural network, J.
Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 32, 164178,
2005.

=<7

Heuze F.E., Morris J.P. , Insights into ground shock

in jointed rocks and the response of structures therein, Int. J. Rock Mech. & Mining Sci., Vol. 44, 647676, 2006.
Jiao Y.Y., Zhang X.L., Zhao J., Q.S. Liu Q.S.,
Viscous boundary of DDA for modeling stress
wave propagation in jointed rock, Int. J. Rock
Mech. & Mining Sci., 44, 10701076, 2007.

=<9

Wang Z., Li Y., Wang J.G., Numerical analysis of

blast-induced wave propagation and spalling damage
in a rock plate, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol.
45, 600-608, 2008.

=<8

Mohard. Robert C,.Explosive and rock blasting

field technical operation atlas powder company
subsidiary of the tylor corporation, atlas powder
company Dallas texas. USA, 1987.
Ma G.W., Hao H., Zhou Y.X., Modeling of wave
propagation induced by underground explosion,
Computer Geotech. J., Vol. 22 (3/4), 283-303, 1998.
Chen S.G., Zhao J., A study of UDEC modeling for
blast wave propagation in jointed rock masses, Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 35, No.1, 93-99, 1998.
.Fan S.C., Jiao Y.Y., Zhao J., On modelling of

=<10

.
) )
1 1386 1 .1-11

=<11

Jimeno, C. L. and Jimeno, E. L., Drilling and

blasting of rocks. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 333365, 1995.

Numerical Simulation Of Tunnel Stability Against Surface Explosion Loading In

Weak Rock Mass Using a Numerical Discrete Element Method
S.H.mirzeinali , F.Kolivand
Malek ashtar University of technology
sahand University of technology

ABSTRACT
Investigating underground structures stability
against Dynamic loads such as earthquake, projectile
impact, surface blast, landslide and etc is required, due
to their vital role in emergency conditions and more
stability than surface structures. its implicate analyzing
of explosion loads effects on this structures using
structure dynamic and determination of internal
dynamic forces. In the recent decades many researches
performed to recognization of underground structures
behavior against waves induced explosion by various
researchers, and those have been presented various
theories for explosive loading analysis. In most studies
performing by researchers, Much effort has been
focused on investigating dynamic response of tunnels
against projectile, rockets, missiles explosive loading,
and less attention has been spent effects of surface
blasts. Thus, in this paper, the surface blast effects of a
10 ton TNT explosive on a tunnel located in a weak and
jointed rock medium has been simulated. Primarily, The
scaled distance (Z0), peak blast pressure (Pso), arrival
time (tA), blast duration (t0) was calculated via empirical
diagrams providing by USA army, and applied on the
model as input. Finally, the wave pressure propagation
through the weak and jointed rock medium was
investigated. Optimal depth to tunnel stability against
surface blast, than, has been determined Based on
displacements induced in tunnel lining. In the present
study, the numerical analysis are carried out using a

numerical Discrete Element Method due to jointed rock

mass medium. Numerical results show in different
depths with Increasing depth, The effect of different
parameters on the increase or decrease pressure on the
tunnel wall is reduced. This can be caused by the
dissolution of the blast wave at most depth. Results
obtained in determining the optimum depth of
underground structures shows that When an explosion
occurs at ground level, At a depth of about 60 m,
Increased pressure from the explosion would not be
sensible. Parameters in the stability of underground
structures against blast effects are included: form,
Structural dimensions and depth, Properties and the type
of the surrounding soil or rock structure, Structural
properties, Intensity blasts. The forces incoming caused
by explosion on the tunnel lining is reduced, With
increasing depth. The slope of curves changes the axial
forces, shear and bending moment on the cover tunnels
at different depths show that To a depth of 40 meters
The slope is reduced with a high rate and then slope is
an almost horizontal and Decrease of Forces are small.
The results of forces and displacements induced in
tunnel lining indicated that Optimal depth to tunnel
stability against surface blast is between 40-50 m. in
fact with Increasing the strength of rock Displacement
is lower in the roof of the tunnel.

KEYWORDS: Surface brust, optimal depth, plastic zone, weak rock mass, Blast wave.
9