Blast response of a lined cavity in a porous saturated soil
V.R. Feldgun
a
, A.V. Kochetkov
b
, Y.S. Karinski
a
, D.Z. Yankelevsky
a,Ã
a
National Building Research Institute, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
b
Research Institute for Mechanics, Nizhnii Novgorod State University, Russia
Received 24 March 2007; accepted 20 June 2007
Available online 14 July 2007
Abstract
The paper proposes a comprehensive approach to simulate the blast response of a lined cavity in a porous soil. To calculate the
soil–structure contact pressure, the coupled Godunovvariationaldifference approach was developed. The lining is modeled by a
Timoshenko elastic–plastic shell with kinematic linear hardening. To solve the problem in the lining domain, the variationaldifference
method is applied. The soil is modeled by the Lyakhov threephase model that takes into account both bulk and shear elastic–plastic
behavior, including the effect of soil pressure on the yield strength for the stress tensor deviator. The problem of blast wave propagation
within the soil medium is solved by the Godunov method. The coupled approach to calculate the soil–lining contact pressure is based on
the relationships on the shock and rarefaction waves with ﬁnitedifference equations of the shell motion using a simple iteration method.
It allows the reduction of the contact problem to the selfsimilar symmetric Riemann problem. Solution of the problem of an explosion in
a porous medium, and analysis of the soil–obstacle interaction under the blast action using the proposed method show good
correspondence with available experimental results. Also, the plane problem of blast response of the circular cavity lined by a thin steel
lining was solved. The effect of the gas volumetric content in the soil on the incident shock wave pressure as well as on the contact
pressure and lining meridian strain was studied.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Soil–structure interaction; Porous saturated medium; Variationaldifference method; Godunov method; Shock wave diffraction
1. Introduction
The dynamic response of a buried structure in general,
and its blast response in particular, is of much interest
[1–3]. In many cases (tunnels, pipelines, etc.), the cavity is
lined by an appropriate lining [4–6]. Hence there is a need
to develop appropriate techniques to study this dynamic
soil–structure interaction [7–10]. Analytical solutions were
proposed for relatively simple dynamic soil–structure
interaction problems utilizing simple soil models and
considering simple cavity crosssection shapes (circular,
spherical) [7,11]. In general, numerical methods should be
applied to solve the problem [12–15]. The important factors
that affect the interaction process and the structural
response are the interfacial effects such as slippage,
separation, rebound, etc. In most of the past investigations,
the contact between the soil and the structure was assumed
as ‘‘rigid’’ (i.e. equal normal and tangent displacements are
assigned to the lining and to the soil in contact) or as
‘‘sliding’’ (the lining and the soil in contact have equal
normal displacements whereas the contact shear stress is
zero and relative tangential displacements are allowed)
[16,17]. To take into account the soil–structure contact gap
open/closure process, various coupled methods have been
used [5,6,8,18,19].
Dynamic response of buried structures and soil–struc
ture interaction are signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by the med
ium’s porosity and its gas and liquid saturation. The linear
models [20–22] may be used for relatively slow processes
(such as seismic response), but for the highvelocity regime
(explosion, blast, impact, etc.) the nonlinear models taking
into account the medium compaction [23–28] must be used.
In doing so, both twophase [29–32] and threephase
[26,33–35] theories are used.
The simulation of an underground explosion and the
resulting stress wave propagation in porous saturated soils
is a signiﬁcant part of a study of blast waves’ diffraction on
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng
0734743X/$  see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.06.010
Ã
Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 4 8292242; fax: +972 4 8324534.
Email address: davidyri@technion.ac.il (D.Z. Yankelevsky).
buried structures. Analytical solutions were proposed
for relatively simple bilinear soil compaction models
excluding shear effects [36–39]. For more complex soil
constitutive equations, various numerical methods are
utilized [17,28,30,35,40,41] among which is the Godunov
method [42,43].
The recently published papers [40,41] deal with an
explosion occurring inside a lined cavity buried in a
compressive elastic–plastic soil. The variationaldifference
method has been applied to analyze both soil and lining
behavior. The wave processes in explosive products and
internal gas were simulated by using the onedimensional
(1D) Godunov’s method with mixed cell approach.
The present paper addresses the nonstationary soil–
structure interaction problem including a detonation of the
explosive charge and the blast wave propagation in the
porous saturated soil, where the lined cavity is subjected to
external blast loading. In the proposed planar numerical
simulation, the lining is modeled by an elastic–plastic
Timoshenko shell model and the soil is modeled by the
threephase Lyakhov medium model. The Chapman–Jou
get model [44] is used to simulate the explosive loading.
The coupled twodimensional (2D) Gogunov (for the soil)
and variationaldifference (for the lining) method has been
applied to simulate soil–structure interaction.
2. The model
Consider a plane cavity (Fig. 1) in a homogeneous
isotropic elastic–plastic soil. The cavity is lined with an
elastic–plastic lining. An external explosion occurs and
the resulting blast loading hits the lining. The lining is
surrounded by the porous saturated soil, which is modeled
with the Lyakhov model (see below) with a shear modulus
G
s
, Poisson’s ratio n
s
, initial density r
0
, cohesion Y
0
, internal
friction coefﬁcient m
Y
and shear strength Y
max
. The lining’s
structure is modeled as a thinwalled smooth shell with a
Young’s modulus E
l
, Poisson’s ratio n
l
, constant density r
l
,
yield strength s
Ly
and hardening modulus g
YL
. To study the
geometrically and physically nonlinear dynamic processes
in the shell, Timoshenko shell theory is applied.
The soil–structure boundary conditions allow separation
of the contact surfaces in the corresponding regions. The
contact limit condition is q
x
¼ q
cr
x
where q
x
is the normal
contact pressure and q
cr
x
is the contact tensile strength.
When the contact normal stress that is acting at a certain
boundary region exceeds the limit value in tension, the
corresponding boundary normal and tangent stresses drop
to zero. The contact is restored when the soil S
soil
and the
lining S
lining
surfaces are intersected: S
soil
\ S
lining
af+g.
For zones where contact exists (the gap is closed), the
rigid contact in the normal direction and ideal slippage
(sliding) in the tangential direction satisﬁes the following
conditions:
v
x
¼ u
x
; q
soil
y
¼ q
lining
y
¼ 0, (1)
where v
x
, u
x
are respectively the soil boundary and the shell
normal velocities and q
soil
y
; q
lining
y
are the soil and the shell
tangential contact pressures.
The external blast loading is produced by an explosion of
a blastline charge (Fig. 1). Initial ﬁelds of the gas dynamics
parameters (density r
e
, pressure p
e
and velocity u
e
) are
obtained by solving the detonation problem described by
the Chapman–Jouget model [44]. The following process of
wave propagation in the soil towards the lining is described
in an Eulerian approach using the Godunov method
[42,43]. The lining behavior is simulated in a Lagrangian
approach, using the variationaldifferences method [45].
2.1. Modeling of detonation and wave process in the
extended charge cavity
To describe the detonation phenomenon, the Chapman–
Jouget theory [44] is used. The theory assumes that the
detonation wave is steady and is 1D and it is modeled as a
hydrodynamic discontinuity, across which the energy release
occurs. The following Euler equations describe the process:
qu
D
qt
þ u
D
qu
D
qr
þ
c
2
D
r
D
qr
D
qr
¼ 0,
qr
D
qt
þ r
D
qu
D
qr
þ u
D
qr
D
qr
þ
dr
D
u
D
r
¼ 0. ð2Þ
where the index ‘‘D’’ denotes the gaseous products of the
detonation, c
D
¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
ðqp
D
=qr
D
Þ
_
is the speed of a sound, r
D
is
the density, p
D
(r
D
) is the pressure which depends on r
D
through a given relationship, u
D
is the mass velocity and
d ¼ 0,1,2 for the plane, cylindrical and spherical waves,
respectively. In the present paper, the pressure depends on
the density through the polytropic relationship:
p
D
¼ p
H
r
D
r
H
_ _
3
, (3)
where p
H
¼ 4r
D0
Q
v
and r
H
¼ (4/3)r
D0
are the pressure and
density on the detonation wave front, Q
V
is the heat of
explosion at a constant volume and r
D0
is the initial density
of the condensed explosion charge.
The selfsimilar form of Eq. (2) is as follows:
du
D
dx
¼ À
dc
2
D
u
D
xðc
2
D
À ðu
D
À xÞ
2
Þ
;
dr
D
dx
¼ À
r
D
ðu
D
À xÞ
c
2
D
du
D
dx
.
(4)
where x ¼ r/t.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. The soil–structure model.
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 954
The boundary conditions for Eq. (3) are given on the
wave front:
r
D
¼ r
H
; u
D
¼ u
H
¼ U
D
=4. (5)
where U
D
is the detonation velocity.
The solution of Eq. (4) in view of Eq. (5) yields the
initial conditions for the nonlinear gas dynamic problem
in the charge cavity, written in the following Eulerian
form:
q
qt
ðr
d
r
G
Þ þ
q
qr
ðr
d
r
G
u
G
Þ ¼ 0,
q
qt
ðr
d
r
G
u
G
Þ þ
q
qr
ðr
d
ðp
G
þ r
G
u
2
G
ÞÞ ¼ dr
dÀ1
p
G
,
q
qt
r
d
r
G
e þ
u
2
G
2
_ _ _ _
þ
q
qr
r
d
r
G
u
G
e þ
u
2
G
2
_ _
þ p
G
u
G
_ _ _ _
¼ 0.
ð6Þ
Eqs. (6) are closed by the equation of state in the form
e ¼ e(p
G
,r
G
), where e is the internal energy per unit mass.
In the present paper it is expressed as
e ¼ p
G
ðg À 1Þr
G
_ ¸
À1
, (7)
where g is the adiabatic gas index. Ahead of the shock front
the initial conditions are zero.
The solution of the gas dynamics Equations (6) and (7)
yields the boundary conditions for the problem of shock
wave propagation within the soil medium.
2.2. The medium’s equations of motion
Porous saturated soil is simulated by using the Lyakhov
model [26,27] that was developed for a threephase medium
(elastic–plastic matrix, ideal liquid, ideal gas) that under
goes both shear and bulk irreversible deformations.
The approach assumes that the compaction process
starts from the initial density r
0
(i.e. it neglects the
initial linear elastic bulk behavior). The pressure–density
relationship is shown in Fig. 2. An increase of pressure
leads to the plastic (irreversible) compression until the full
compaction (deﬁned by the pair (r
FC
, p
FC
)) is reached
(segment ABC). An increase in pressure beyond r
FC
leads to a nonlinear elastic compaction with a constant
irreversible density (segment C
1
CD). The process along
the segment ABCD is denoted as ‘‘active loading’’ and the
soil pressure p ¼ (Às
xx
+s
yy
+s
zz
)/3 in this case is deﬁned
as a inverse function of the following rp relationship
[26,27]:
r ¼ r
0
3
i¼1
a
i
g
i
p À p
0
_ _
r
i0
c
2
i0
þ 1
_ _
À1=g
i
_ _
À1
, (8)
where p
0
is an initial pressure that is equal to the
atmospheric pressure (i.e. 0.1 MPa), a
1
, a
2
, a
3
are the
volumetric contents of the gaseous, liquid and solid
components, r
01
, r
02
, r
03
are the initial densities of this
components and c
10
, c
20
, c
30
, g
1
, g
2
, g
3
are the correspond
ing initial sound velocities and isentropic indexes. The total
initial density is calculated as follows:
r
0
¼ a
1r01
þ a
1
r
02
a
2
þ a
3
r
03
. (9)
Unloading/reloading processes (for instance, segments
B
1
B, C
1
C) are nonlinear elastic processes that are
simulated as follows. It is considered that the bulk
compaction during the active process occurs as a result of
free porous space (gas component) closure only (the liquid
and solid components are deformed reversibly) and
unloading occurs according to the following relationships:
1
¼
g
R
ðp À p
0
Þ
r
0
c
2
R
þ 1
_ _
À1=g
R
þ
g
1
ðp À p
0
Þ
r
10
c
2
10
þ 1
_ _
À1=g
1
À
g
R
ðp
n
À p
0
Þ
r
0
c
2
R
þ 1
_ _
À1=g
R
À 1, ð10Þ
n
1
ðr
n
Þ ¼
g
1
ðp
n
À p
0
Þ
r
10
c
2
1
þ 1
_ _
À1=g
1
À 1, (11)
where e
1
is the free porous bulk space strain and
n
1
; p
n
; r
n
are the gas volumetric strain, total pressure and density
corresponding to the instant at which the last unloading
begins (Fig. 2).
If it is assumed that the soil has no tensile resistance,
during unloading, therefore, from a compression state of
stress, the soil’s total density reaches a permanent density
r
p
(Fig. 2), a discontinuity in the soil occurs and all the
stresses (both spherical and deviatoric parts) drop to zero.
The problem of shock wave propagation within the
elastic–plastic soil is solved here in an Eulerian coordinate
system x0y because this approach allows the avoidance of
mesh distortions and degeneration at large velocities and
straining ratios. Therefore, it is necessary to describe the
transfer of the density r
Ã
through the ﬁxed mesh. Because
this value remains constant during the entire unloading/
reloading process (Fig. 2), it satisﬁed to the equation:
dr
n
dt
¼
qr
n
qt
þ v
x
qr
n
qx
þ v
y
qr
n
qy
¼ 0, (12)
where v
x
, v
y
are the soil velocities in the Eulerian
coordinate system.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. Pressure–density relationship.
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 955
The deviatoric strain rates tensor e
ij
¼ _
ij
À _ =3 depends
on the deviatoric stress tensor s
ij
¼ s
ij
+p according to the
modiﬁed Prandtl–Reuss theory.
The full deviator strain rate tensor is deﬁned as a sum of
elastic and plastic terms
e
ij
¼
qv
i
qx
j
þ
qv
j
qx
i
_ _
¼ e
e
ij
þ e
p
ij
, (13)
and is deﬁned in the following form [46,47]:
G e
ij
À
1
3
e
kk
d
ij
_ _
¼
Ds
ij
dt
þ ls
ij
, (14)
where G is the matrix shear modulus and
Ds
ij
Dt
¼
ds
ij
dt
À s
ik
o
jk
À s
jk
o
ik
. (15)
Eq. (15) is the Jaumann derivative [46,47] of the stress
deviator that is implemented in the Eulerian approach and
o
ij
are the rotation tensor components where
2o
ij
¼
qv
i
qx
j
À
qv
j
qx
i
, (16)
l is a scalar parameter, which equals to zero under purely
elastic strain and is greater than zero if the plasticity
condition is satisﬁed. In this case l may be obtained in
terms of the work W from
2GW Gs
ij
e
ij
À
1
3
e
kk
d
ij
_ _
¼ Gs
ij
e
ij
¼ s
ij
Ds
ij
dt
þ ls
ij
s
ij
,
(17)
where the Jaumann derivative has the following form:
s
ij
Ds
ij
dt
¼ s
ij
ds
ij
dt
¼
1
2
dðs
ij
s
ij
Þ
dt
¼
d
dt
1
3
s
2
Y
ðpÞ
_ _
. (18)
In the present paper, the von Mises criterion is applied and
therefore in the plastic domain the value in the second term
of Eq. (17) is as follows:
s
ij
s
ij
¼
2
3
s
2
Y
ðpÞ, (19)
where the yield strength s
Y
depends on the soil pressure as
follows [47]:
s
Y
ðpÞ ¼ Y
0
þ m
Y
p=ð1 þ m
Y
p=ðY
max
À Y
0
ÞÞÞ. (20)
Therefore Eq. (17) may be rewritten as follows:
l ¼
6GW À ðd=dpÞs
2
Y
ðpÞðdp=dtÞ
2s
2
Y
ðpÞ
. (21)
Eqs. (8), (10)–(12), (14), (18) and (19) represent the
complete system of constitutive equations for the medium
being investigated.
Equations of continuity and motion in an Eulerian
coordinate system are represented in the following form:
qr
qt
þ
q
qx
k
ðrv
k
Þ ¼ 0 ðk ¼ x; yÞ, (22)
r
qv
i
qt
þ v
k
qv
i
qx
k
_ _
¼
qs
ik
qx
k
ði; k ¼ x; yÞ. (23)
Here and below, the Einstein summation convention
ðA
k
B
k
¼
k
A
k
B
k
Þ is used.
Eq. (22) enables Eq. (23) to be rewritten in the following
form:
q
qt
ðrv
i
Þ þ
q
qx
k
ðrv
i
v
k
Þ þ
qp
qx
i
À
qs
ik
qx
k
¼ 0 ði; k ¼ x; yÞ. (24)
Multiplication of Eq. (12) by r6¼0 yields:
r
qr
n
qt
þ v
x
qr
n
qx
þ v
y
qr
n
qy
_ _
¼ 0. (25)
On the other hand, multiplication of Eq. (22) by r6¼0
yields:
r
n
qr
qt
þ
qrv
x
qx
þ
qrv
y
qy
_ _
¼ 0. (26)
Summation of Eqs. (25) and (26) converts Eq. (12) to the
following form:
qðrr
n
Þ
qt
þ
q
qx
k
ðrr
n
v
k
Þ ¼ 0 ðk ¼ x; yÞ. (27)
Note that Eq. (27) has a form that is similar to the equation
of conservation of mass (22).
The complete system of equations for the medium
consists of the algebraic Eqs. (8), (10), (11), (18) and (19)
and the differential equations (14), (22), (24) and (27). The
system of these differential equations may be rewritten in
the following vector form [42]:
q
qt
N þ
q
qx
Wþ
q
qy
H ¼ C, (28)
where
N ¼ fr; rv
x
; rv
y
; s
xx
; s
yy
; s
xy
; rr
n
g
T
, (29)
W ¼ rv
x
; rv
2
x
þ p À s
xx
; rv
x
v
y
À s
xy
; v
x
s
xx
À
4
3
G
_ _
;
_
Âv
x
s
yy
þ
2
3
G
_ _
; v
x
s
xy
À v
y
G; rr
n
v
x
_
T
, ð30Þ
H ¼ rv
y
; rv
x
v
y
À s
xy
; rv
2
y
þ p À s
yy
; v
x
s
xx
þ
2
3
G
_ _
;
_
Âv
x
s
yy
À
4
3
G
_ _
; v
y
s
xy
À v
x
G; rr
n
v
y
_
T
, ð31Þ
C ¼ 0; 0; 0; ~ s
xx
; ~ s
yy
; ~ s
xy
; 0
_ _
T
, (32)
where
~ s
xx
¼ s
xx
qv
x
qx
þ
qv
y
qy
_ _
þ s
xy
qv
x
qy
À
qv
y
qx
_ _
À ls
xx
, (33)
~ s
yy
¼ s
yy
qv
x
qx
þ
qv
y
qy
_ _
þ s
xy
qv
y
qx
À
qv
x
qy
_ _
À ls
yy
, (34)
~ s
xy
¼ À s
xx
qv
x
qy
À
qv
y
qx
_ _
þ s
yy
qv
x
qy
À
qv
y
qx
_ _
þ s
xy
qv
x
qx
þ
qv
y
qy
_ _
À ls
xy
. ð35Þ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 956
2.3. Godunov method for the soil medium
The problem of shock wave propagation within the soil
is solved numerically using the Godunov method. To
construct a ﬁnitedifference scheme of the method, the
following integral form of the system of differential
equation (28) is used:
a
qO
Ndxdy þWdy dt þHdxdt ð Þ ¼
___
O
Cdxdy dt. (36)
Here, O is an arbitrary volume bounded by the regular
surface qO. The ﬁnitedifference approximation of the
integral equation (36) is developed using the approach
appearing in [43]. The computational domain is discretized
into quadrilateral cells (Fig. 3). The integral equations are
written for each space–time cell (STC) (Fig. 4) with the
bottom base A ¼ (x,y)
iÀ1,jÀ1
, B ¼ (x,y)
iÀ1,j
, C ¼ (x,y)
i,j
,
D ¼ (x,y)
i,jÀ1
and with the top base A
0
¼ (x,y)
iÀ1,jÀ1
,
B
0
¼ (x,y)
iÀ1,j
, C
0
¼ (x,y)
i,j
, D
0
¼ (x,y)
i,jÀ1
. In the following,
the subscripts in the ﬁnitedifference equations correspond
to the time t
i
and the superscripts denote the time
t
i+1
¼ t
i
+Dt, where Dt is the time step. It is assumed that
the soil variables remain constant in every STC base
(bottom and top) and are denoted by the following semi
integer indexes:
z
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
¼ r; p; u; v; s
xx
; s
yy
; s
xy
; r
n
_ _
iÀ1=2; jÀ1=2
for the bottom STC base ABCD; ð37Þ
z
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
¼ r; p; u; v; s
xx
; s
yy
; s
xy
; r
n
_ _
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
for the top STC base A
0
B
0
C
0
D
0
. ð38Þ
The corresponding variables at the lateral STC faces
(Fig. 4) are also assumed constant at each face. They are
denoted by capital letters and are marked by integer
indexes as follows:
Z
k
¼ ðR; P; U; V; S
xx
; S
yy
; S
xy
; R
Ã
Þ
k
, (39)
where k ¼ 1,2,3,4 and correspond to the faces ABB
0
C
0
,
BCC
0
B
0
, CDD
0
C
0
, ADD
0
A
0
, respectively (see Fig. 4).
The problem is solved by the predictorcorrector
procedure for every time step. In the predictor stage,
the variables Z
k
(39) at each lateral STC face are
computed by the solving of the Riemann problem [43] for
two neighboring STCs adjoining this face. The values z
ij
(Eq. (37)) at the previous time step (the bottom bases of the
corresponding STC) serve as the initial conditions for this
problem. These values Z
k
allow the calculation of the
vectors N
l
(Eq. (29)), W
l
(Eq. (30)) and H
l
(Eq. (31)) at
the STC lateral faces (l ¼ 1,2,3,4). The vectors N
iÀ1/2,jÀ1/2
(Eq. (29)) at the bottom base of the STC are known from
the previous time step.
In the corrector stage, the values ~ s
xx
; ~ s
yy
; ~ s
xy
(Eqs. (33)–(35)) are calculated based on the solution at
the previous time step (small letters—see Eq. (37)) and on
the predictor results (capital letters—see Eq. (39)) as
follows:
~ s
xx
¼ ðs
xx
Þ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
4
l¼1
ðUO
yt
þ VO
xt
Þ
l
À ðs
xy
Þ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
4
l¼1
ðÀUO
xt
þ VO
yt
Þ
l
À ðls
xx
OÞ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
Dt, ð40Þ
~ s
yy
¼ ðs
yy
Þ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
4
l¼1
ðUO
yt
þ VO
xt
Þ
l
À ðs
xy
Þ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
4
l¼1
ðUO
xt
À VO
yt
Þ
l
À ðls
yy
OÞ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
Dt, ð41Þ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 3. The Godunov method’s mesh.
Fig. 4. Space–time cell (STC) for the Godunov method.
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 957
~ s
xy
¼ À ðs
xx
Þ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
4
l¼1
ðUO
xt
À VO
yt
Þ
l
À ðs
yy
Þ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
4
l¼1
ðVO
yt
À UO
xt
Þ
l
À ðs
xy
Þ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
4
l¼1
ðU O
yt
þ V O
xt
Þ
l
À ðls
xy
OÞ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
Dt, ð42Þ
where O
iÀ1/2,jÀ1/2
is the STC bottom base ABCD area (see
Fig. 4) given by
O
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
¼
1
2
½ðx
iÀ1;jÀ1
À x
i;j
Þðy
i;jÀ1
À y
iÀ1;j
Þ
þ ðx
iÀ1;j
À x
i;jÀ1
Þðy
iÀ1;jÀ1
À y
i;j
Þ, ð43Þ
and (O
xt
)
l
, (O
yt
)
l
and (O
xy
)
l
are the projections of the STC
lateral face l on the corresponding coordinate plane (xt, yt
or xy, respectively) that are obtained as follows (the nodes
local numbering are shown in Fig. 5):
O
xt
ð Þ
l
¼
1
2
Dt x
ðlÞ
À x
ðlþ1Þ
þ x
ðlÞ
À x
ðlþ1Þ
_ _
,
O
yt
_ _
l
¼
1
2
Dt y
ðlþ1Þ
À y
ðlÞ
þ y
ðlþ1Þ
À y
ðlÞ
_ _
,
O
xy
_ _
l
¼
1
2
x
ðlÞ
À x
ðlþ1Þ
_ _
y
ðlÞ
À y
ðlþ1Þ
_ _ _
þ x
ðlþ1Þ
À x
ðlÞ
_ _
y
ðlÞ
À y
ðlþ1Þ
_ __
. ð44Þ
Here (l) ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4 and (l+1) ¼ 2, 3, 4, 1, respectively.
This allows the righthand side of the integral equation
(36) C to be obtained from Eq. (32) and the vector N
iÀ1/
2,jÀ1/2
(Eq. (29)) at the current time step (the top STC
bases A
0
B
0
C
0
D
0
—see Fig. 4) is obtained by solving the
following ﬁnitedifference vector analog of this integral
equation:
ðNOÞ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
¼ ðNOÞ
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
À
4
l¼1
ðNO
xy
Þ
l
À
4
l¼1
ðWO
yt
Þ
l
À
4
l¼1
ðHO
xt
Þ
l
þC, ð45Þ
where O
iÀ1/2,jÀ1/2
is the STC top base area given by
O
iÀ1=2;jÀ1=2
¼
1
2
x
iÀ1;jÀ1
À x
i;j
_ _
y
i;jÀ1
À y
iÀ1;j
_ _ _
þ x
iÀ1;j
À x
i;jÀ1
_ _
y
iÀ1;jÀ1
À y
i;j
_ _¸
. ð46Þ
Finally vector z
iÀ1/2,jÀ1/2
(Eq. (38)) at the top base
A
0
B
0
C
0
D
0
of the STC (Fig. 4) is calculated using the
vector N
iÀ1/2,jÀ1/2
.
Note that Eq. (27) remains valid for the unloading/
reloading process in the region of the soil compaction
(r4r
FC
—point C in Fig. 2) such as for instance the
segment B
1
B in Fig. 2. Therefore the parameter r
Ã
calculated above (the seventh component of the vector z
(Eq. (38)) must be corrected as follows:
– if the calculated density r (the ﬁrst component of the
vector z) is larger than the full compaction density r
FC
(nonlinear elasticity of the spherical tensor components
after the soil full compaction—segment CD in Fig. 2)
then r
Ã
¼ r
FC
;
– if the calculated current density r is larger than the
calculated parameter r
Ã
(the active loading process—
segment ABC in Fig. 2), then r
Ã
¼ r;
– otherwise (the unloading/reloading process in the
compaction area—segment B
1
B in Fig. 2) the r
Ã
value
remains unchanged.
2.4. Comparison with experimental data: explosion in a
porous medium
To examine the above procedure, a comparison with
available experimental results [48] of an explosion in a
saturated clay has been carried out. The blast loading
results from an explosion of an explosiveline charge of
TNT with a radius of R
E
¼ 0.01 m. The porous soil
properties (see Eq. (8)) are the follows:
– The pore gas properties: r
10
¼ 1.29 kg/m
3
, g
1
¼ 1.4,
c
10
¼ 330 m/s and a
1
¼ 0.03.
– The pore liquid properties: r
20
¼ 1000 kg/m
3
, g
2
¼ 7.15,
c
20
¼ 1500 m/s and a
2
¼ 0.33.
– The matrix properties: r
30
¼ 2650 kg/m
3
, g
3
¼ 4,
c
30
¼ 5000 m/s and a
3
¼ 0.64.
In this experiment, the pressure at the shock wave
front has been measured depending on the front coordi
nates. In the numerical simulations, the procedure de
scribed above used 1000 cells and was applied without
considering shear effect. Fig. 6 shows that for the near
zone, that is close to the charge (the relative distance r/R
E
is
smaller than about 30), very good correspondence was
obtained. In the intermediate zone (304r/R
E
440) the
experimental data are about 4 MPa nighe (25%) than the
predicted values. At a larger distance this difference
remains about the same.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 5. Lateral STC face.
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 958
2.5. The lining’s equations of motion and the variational
difference method
The method and the equations have been described in
detail in recently published papers [40–41] and therefore
only its principles will be presented in this section.
The lining is modeled as a thinwalled elastic–plastic
Timoshenko shell [49].
The variational equations of the thinwalled shell in the
plane problem take the form:
_
L
0
N
1
a þ Qb ð Þdu
z;s
þ r
L
h_ u
z
À p
z
_ _
du
z
_ ¸
ds
À P
z
du
z
½
s¼o;L
¼ 0,
_
L
0
N
1
b À Qa ð Þdu
r;s
þ r
L
h_ u
r
À p
r
_ _
du
r
_ ¸
ds
À P
r
du
r
½
s¼o;L
¼ 0,
_
L
0
M
1
du
j;s
þ Q þ
r
L
h
3
_ u
j
12
_ _
du
j
_ _
ds
À M
0
du
j
_ ¸
s¼o;L
¼ 0, ð47Þ
where p
r
, p
z
, are the surface loads acting on the curved
segment 0pspL (see Fig. 7) of the median surface and
P
r
(t), P
z
(t), M
0
(t) are the ﬁxed forces and moment acting
on the segment’s boundary at points s ¼ 0 and s ¼ L.
N
1
,Q, M
1
are the axial and shear forces and the bending
moment, u
z
(s,t), u
r
(s,t) are the velocities of the middle
surface in the global coordinate system r0z, u
j
(s,t) is the
angular velocity of the shell crosssection’s rotation, L is
the contour length and a,b are the coordinates of the
normal vector to the median surface in the global system
where a ¼ z(s,t)
,s
, b ¼ r(s,t)
,s
.
The plastic state of the shell is described by von Mises
theory with linear hardening. To describe the large
displacements and longitudinal strains of the shell, the
approach presented by Witmer et al. [49] is applied.
According to this approach, all the deformation process
is subdivided into small intervals and at each interval the
geometrical linear problem is solved. The structure’s
geometry is recalculated after every time step and the
solution of the previous step becomes the initial condition
for the following step.
The shell behavior simulation has been performed using
the variationaldifference method [49]. The ﬁnitedifference
equations of motion of the shell node at the time step
n+1/2 were obtained by this procedure as follows:
u
nþ1=2
x
¼ u
nÀ1=2
x
þ
F
L
x
M
L
t
nþ1=2
; u
nþ1=2
y
¼ u
nÀ1=2
y
þ
F
L
s
M
L
t
nþ1=2
,
(48)
where M
L
( ¼ 0.5r
L
[(h Ds)
i+1/2
+(h Ds)
iÀ1/2
]) is the nodal
mass, h is the shell’s element thickness and Ds is the shell
element length in the meridian direction. F
L
x
and F
L
s
are the
generalized normal and tangent nodal forces, depending on
the given external normal and tangential loads p
0
x
; p
0
s
, the
shell axial and shear forces and bending moment, as well as
the contact soil–lining pressure (Àqx). F
L
x
and F
L
s
are
calculated using the special coupling approach:
ðF
x
Þ
i
¼ ½N
1
a À Qb
iþ1=2
À ½N
1
a À Qb
iÀ1=2
þ
½ðp
0
x
þ q
x
Þ Ds
iþ1=2
þ ½ðp
0
x
þ q
x
Þ Ds
iÀ1=2
2
;
ðF
s
Þ
i
¼ ½N
1
a þ Qb
iþ1=2
À ½N
1
a þ Qb
iÀ1=2
þ
½p
0
s
Ds
iþ1=2
þ ½p
0
s
Ds
iÀ1=2
2
. ð49Þ
2.6. Deﬁnition of the soil–lining contact pressure
In the case when the soil–lining gap is open, the contact
load is q
x
¼ 0, and when the gap is closed (sliding contact
Eq. (1)) the following procedure to couple the two above
methods (i.e. Godunov’s for the soil and variational
differences for the lining) is applied.
The contact soil–structure interaction load q
nþ1=2
x
depends on the type of the reﬂected wave: the shock
wave (when the shell’s normal velocity exceeds the soil’s
velocity such that u
nþ1=2
x
À v
nÀ1=2
x
X0) or the rarefaction
wave (when u
nþ1=2
x
À v
nÀ1=2
x
o0). The parameters for both
wave types are obtained by solving the selfsimilar
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
r/R
E
P
f
(
M
P
a
)
1
2
Fig. 6. Pressure at the shock wave front P
f
: 1—experimental data; 2—the
present approach.
Fig. 7. Timoshenko shell element.
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 959
Riemann problem with the following initial conditions:
(s
xx
, r, r
Ã
, u
x
–v
x
) on the lefthand side of the discontinuity
(soil–lining interface) and (s
xx
, r, r
Ã
, À(u
x
–v
x
)) on its right
hand side. Here s
xx
is the normal stress in the soil contact
cell.
When the reﬂected wave is a shock wave, the following
relationships are satisﬁed on the wave front:
rðD À v
x
Þ ¼ RðD À u
x
Þ, (50)
Àq
x
þ s
xx
¼ rðD À v
x
Þðu
x
À v
x
Þ, (51)
where D is the front velocity, R is the density at the shock
wave front (Ror) that is calculated by Eq. (8), where
p ¼ Àq
x
.
Eqs. (50) and (51) yield:
u
x
À v
x
¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
ðÀq
x
þ s
xx
Þ
1
r
À
1
R
_ _
¸
, (52)
D ¼ v
x
þ
1
r
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
Àq
x
þ s
xx
_ _
_
1
r
À
1
R
_ _
¸
. (53)
Eq. (52) may be rewritten as follows:
Àq
x
þ s
xx
aðq
x
Þ
¼ u
x
À v
x
, (54)
where [50] a(q
x
) ¼ r(D–v
x
) is the generalized mass velocity
that, with respect to Eq. (53), was obtained in the form:
aðq
x
Þ ¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
Àq
x
þ s
xx
_ _
_
1
r
À
1
R
_ _
¸
. (55)
When the reﬂected wave is a rarefaction wave (R4r), the
condition of the Riemann invariant continuity is valid.
Thus:
u
x
¼ v
x
þ
_
R
r
cðr; r
n
Þ=rdr, (56)
where c(r, r
Ã
) is the sound velocity in the soil that is
obtained using Eq. (10) (unloading/reloading process). In
this case, the contact normal load (which depends on the
soil–lining relative velocity) may also be written in the form
Eq. (54) if the generalized mass velocity is represented as
follows:
aðq
x
Þ ¼ ðÀq
x
þ s
xx
=ÞIðr; r
n
; RÞ, (57)
where
Iðr; r
n
; RÞ ¼
_
R
r
cðr; r
n
Þ=rdr, (58)
and R is calculated by Eq. (10) where p ¼ Àq
x
.
Finally, the equation for the soil–lining contact pressure
calculation at the current time step (n+1/2) is the
following:
Àq
nþ1=2
x
þ s
nÀ1=2
xx
aðq
nþ1=2
x
Þ
À u
nþ1=2
x
þ v
nÀ1=2
x
¼ 0, (59)
where
aðq
nþ1=2
x
Þ ¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
Àq
nþ1=2
x
þ s
nÀ1=2
xx
1=r
nÀ1=2
À 1=RðÀq
nþ1=2
x
Þ
¸
¸
¸
_
u
nþ1=2
x
À v
nÀ1=2
x
X0;
Àq
nþ1=2
x
þ s
nÀ1=2
xx
Iðr
nÀ1=2
; r
nnÀ1=2
; RðÀq
nþ1=2
x
ÞÞ
u
nþ1=2
x
À v
nÀ1=2
x
o0;
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
(60)
To obtain the lining velocities as well as the soil–lining
contact pressure, Eqs. (48), (49) and (59) are solved
together using a simple iteration method. The shell velocity
u
nÀ1=2
x
at the previous time step is chosen as the initial
estimate.
2.7. Comparison with experimental data: soil–obstacle
interaction
To examine the above coupled procedure, a comparison
with available experimental results [51] of contact pressures
under blast action has been carried out. The planar
blast loading is obtained from an explosion of a planar
TNT charge resting on the soil top surface. A 1 m thick
elastic plate is buried in a saturated soil medium
and is supported by the same soil underneath. For this
1D model the elastic plate parameters are: Young’s
modulus E ¼ 40 GPa, Poisson ratio n ¼ 0.15 and density
r
L
¼ 1600 kg/m
3
.
The soil properties (see Eq. (8)) are:
– pore gas properties: r
10
¼ 1.29 kg/m
3
, g
1
¼ 1.4,
c
10
¼ 330 m/s and a
1
¼ 0.02.
– pore liquid properties: r
20
¼ 1000 kg/m
3
, g
2
¼ 7.15,
c
20
¼ 1500 m/s and a
2
¼ 0.38.
– matrix properties: r
30
¼ 2650 kg/m
3
, g
3
¼ 4,
c
30
¼ 5000 m/s and a
3
¼ 0.6.
In this experiment, the obstacle velocities as well as the
contact pressure in the front and behind the obstacle had
been measured. Ref. [51] does not provide information
concerning the charge thickness and the obstacle depth.
Therefore, the solution procedure adopted the measured
pressure signal on the plate top surface (line1—Fig. 8) and
calculated the contact pressure at the rear plate–soil
interface (line 2—Fig. 8). Also, the velocity time history
of the plate’s center of mass was predicted (line 3—Fig. 8).
In the numerical simulation, 600 cells for the soil and 60
cells for the plate were used disregarding shear effects. The
predicted results are found to be in good correspondence
with the measured data. The maximum difference for the
contact pressure prediction is about 10% and the
maximum difference for the obstacle velocity prediction
is about 4%.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 960
2.8. Study of wave diffraction around a lined cavity
This section deals with dynamic response of a lined
circular cavity buried in porous threephase compressible
soil to an external underground explosion.
Consider the problem of blast response of a circular
cavity of radius R
L
¼ 0.36 m, lined by a thin steel lining of
thickness 1.8 cm (Fig. 1). The structure is subjected
to an external blast due to the explosion of a line charge
of TNT (density 1600 kg/m
3
). The line charge radius is
R
E
¼ 1.8 cm. The distance from the charge center C to the
lining front point A is L
E
¼ 2.64 m.
The blast is simulated by an initial pressure
p
H
¼ 9600 MPa. The current pressure r
D
(t) is calculated
according to Eq. (3) in which the detonation products
density r
D
is obtained using the charge mass conservation
A
D
ðtÞr
D
ðtÞ ¼ pR
2
E
r
H
, (61)
where A
D
is the charge crosssection area.
The lining is represented as an elastic–plastic shell (von
Mises yield condition with kinematic linear hardening)
with the following properties:
Young’s modulus E
L
¼ 2.1 Â10
5
MPa, Poisson’s ratio
n
L
¼ 0.29, yield stress s
YL
¼ 300 MPa, hardening modulus
g
L
¼ 2830 Mpa and density r
L
¼ 7880 kg/m
3
.
The soil medium is simulated as a threephase porous
medium Eq. (8) with the following data:
– pore gas properties: r
10
¼ 1.29 kg/m
3
, g
1
¼ 1.4, and
c
10
¼ 330 m/s.
– pore liquid properties: r
20
¼ 1000 kg/m
3
, g
2
¼ 7.15,
c
20
¼ 1500 m/s and a
2
¼ 0.4Àa
1
.
– matrix properties: r
30
¼ 2650 kg/m
3
, g
3
¼ 4,
c
30
¼ 5000 m/s and a
3
¼ 0.6.
The pore gas volumetric content is varied from 0 to 0.05.
The problem is calculated using the variationaldiffer
ence method with 50 cells for the lining and the Godunov
method with 876 cells for the soil.
Fig. 9 shows the pressure distribution behind the
incident wave at the instant when its front arrives at the
lining. Fig. 9(a) corresponds to the fully saturated medium
(a
1
¼ 0, a
2
¼ 40%) and Fig. 9(b) refers to the partially
saturated medium (with various volumetric gas contents so
that a
1
6¼0). It can be seen that the gas content has an effect
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 6
t (m/sec)
P
(
M
P
a
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
u
ξ
(
m
/
s
e
c
)
1
2
2
3
3
1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 8. Soil–obstacle interaction: 1—pressure in the obstacle’s front; 2—
pressure behind the obstacle: dotted line—experimental data; solid line—
the present approach; 3—the obstacle velocity: dotted line—experimental
data, solid line—the present approach.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1
r (m)
P
(
M
P
a
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
r (m)
P
(
M
P
a
)
1
2
3
0.5 1.5 2.5 2 3
0 1 0.5 1.5 2.5 2 3
Fig. 9. Incident wave pressure distribution: (a) without pore gas: a
1
¼ 0,
a
2
¼ 40%; (b) with pore gas: 1—a
1
¼ 0.74%, a
2
¼ 39.26%; 2—a
1
¼ 3.1%,
a
2
¼ 36.9%; 3—a
1
¼ 5%, a
2
¼ 35%.
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
α
1
(%)
(
M
P
a
)
1
2
Fig. 10. The maximum pressure dependence on the soil porosity: 1—
incident wave front pressure (P
f
); 2—the lining front point A (Fig. 1)
contact pressure (Àq
x
).
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 961
on both the qualitative and quantitative behavior of the
pressure magnitude. When a
1
increases (a
2
¼ 0.4Àa
1
), the
pressure gradient behind the wave front decreases. Line 1
in Fig. 10 shows the dependence of the wave front pressure
P
f
on a
1
. A sharp decrease in the peak pressure by a factor
of 60 occurs when a
1
varies from 0% to 1%. For larger
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
tt* (m/sec)

q
ξ
(
M
P
a
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1
2

e
1
1
(
%
)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8
Fig. 11. Time histories in the lining front point A (Fig. 1) for a
1
¼ 0, a
2
¼ 40% (without pore gas): 1—contact pressure (Àq
x
); 2—meridian strain (Àe
11
).
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.6
6
6.4
6.8

q
ξ
(
M
P
a
)
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.017
1
2

e
1
1
(
%
)
tt* (m/sec)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Fig. 12. Time histories in the lining front point A (Fig. 1) for a
1
¼ 0.74%, a
2
¼ 39.26%: 1—contact pressure (Àq
x
); 2—meridian strain (Àe
11
).
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 962
values of a
1
the peak pressure decreases moderately and
when a
1
exceeds about 3%, the peak pressure is insensitive
to any further increase in a
1
.
The time histories of the contact pressure in the lining
front point A (see Fig. 1) as well as the corresponding
shell meridian strain for various values of a
1
are shown in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2

q
ξ
(
M
P
a
)
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
1
2

e
1
1
(
%
)
tt* (m/sec)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8
Fig. 13. Time histories in the lining front point A (Fig. 1) for a
1
¼ 3.1%, a
2
¼ 36.9%: 1—contact pressure (Àq
x
); 2—meridian strain (Àe
11
).
0
0.15
0.3
0.45
0.6
0.75
0.9
1.05
1.2
1.35
1.5

q
ξ
(
M
P
a
)
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
1
2

e
1
1
(
%
)
tt* (m/sec)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8
Fig. 14. Time histories in the lining front point A (Fig. 1) for a
1
¼ 5%, a
2
¼ 35%: 1—contact pressure (Àq
x
); 2—meridian strain (Àe
11
).
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 963
Figs. 11–14. Here t
Ã
is the moment when the wave
front meets the lining. Note that this time is affected
by both the shock wave velocity and the initial sound
velocity which in turn depend on the soil porosity, as
shown in Fig. 15.
Fig. 11 corresponds to the fully saturated medium
without pore gas (a
1
¼ 0, a
2
¼ 40%, t
Ã
¼ 1.47 ms) and
Figs. 12–14 correspond to the following cases: a
1
¼ 0.74%
(a
2
¼ 39.26%, t
Ã
¼ 2.93 ms), a
1
¼ 3.1% (a
2
¼ 36.9%,
t
Ã
¼ 13 ms) and a
1
¼ 5% (a
2
¼ 35%, t
Ã
¼ 14.1 ms).
The maximum contact pressure (at t–t
Ã
¼ 0) depends on
a
1
, similar to maximum pressure in the incident wave (see
line 2 in Fig. 10).
When the gas volumetric content is small (Figs. 11 and
12), the contact pressure reduces quickly (within about
0.2 ms) from its maximum magnitude to a relatively small
value (smaller by a factor of 3–12) and thereafter varies
only slightly with time. When the gas volumetric content is
relatively large (Figs. 13 and 14), the pressure gradually
decreases with time and decreases by a factor of 1.2–1.5.
Line 2 in Fig. 11 shows the plastic deformation of the
lining. It should be noted that even a small amount of pore
gas (Fig. 12) considerably affects the response, and elastic
vibrations may be observed in the overall response.
When a
1
increases (Figs. 13 and 14), the strain amplitudes
decrease.
Fig. 16 demonstrates the contact pressure distribution
along the lining at the instant at which the incident wave
front meets the lining middle point B (s ¼ pR
L
/2, see
Fig. 1). Fig. 16(a) corresponds to the fully saturated
medium (a
1
¼ 0, a
2
¼ 40%) and Fig. 16(b) corresponds to
the partially saturated medium (with various volumetric
content (i.e.a
1
6¼0)). It can be seen that when a
1
increases,
the peak contact pressure decreases and is closer to the
lining front point A (s ¼ 0, see Fig. 1). When a
1
¼ 0, the
peak pressure point is located close to the lining’s crown
(point B, s ¼ pR
L
/2, see Fig. 1) and when a
1
¼ 5% it is
located at the point s ¼ pR
L
/4.
3. Conclusions
The paper presents a comprehensive approach to
simulate the blast response of a lined structure surrounded
by a porous (threephase) soil. To calculate the soil–struc
ture contact pressure, the coupled Godunovvariational
difference approach was developed.
The lining is modeled as a Timoshenko elastic–plastic
shell with kinematic linear hardening. To solve the problem
in the lining (shell) domain, the variationaldifference
method is applied. It allows the large elastic–plastic strains
and displacements to be taken into account.
The soil is modeled by the Lyakhov threephase model
that takes into account both bulk and shear elastic–plastic
behavior, including the effect of soil pressure on the yield
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
α
1
(%)
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s
(
m
/
s
e
c
)
1
2
0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 5.5 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 15. 1—shock wave front velocity (D); 2—sound velocity (c
p
).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32

q
ξ
(
M
P
a
)

q
ξ
(
M
P
a
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
s/π R
L
s/π R
L
1
2
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fig. 16. Contact pressure distribution: (a) without pore gas: a
1
¼ 0,
a
2
¼ 40%; (b) with pore gas: 1—a
1
¼ 0.74%, a
2
¼ 39.26%; 2—a
1
¼ 3.1%,
a
2
¼ 36.9%; 3—a
1
¼ 5%, a
2
¼ 35%.
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 964
strength for the stress tensor deviator. The problem of blast
wave propagation within the soil is solved by the Godunov
method.
The coupled approach to calculate the soil–lining
contact pressures is based on the relationships of the shock
and rarefaction waves with ﬁnitedifference equations of
the shell motion using a simple iteration method. It allows
the reduction of the contact problem to the selfsimilar
symmetric Riemann problem.
Solution of a problem of an explosion in a porous
medium, and of the soil–obstacle interaction under the
blast action using the proposed method shows good
correspondence with available experimental results.
The plane problem of blast response of the circular
cavity lined by a thin steel lining that is surrounded by a
porous saturated elastic–plastic soil was solved. The effect
of the gas volumetric content on the incident shock wave
pressure as well as on the contact pressure and lining
meridian strain was studied. It was shown that the contact
pressure decreases with increase of the pore gas content. Its
effect is especially signiﬁcant for low gas content. In this
case, the contact pressure quickly decreases with time.
When the volumetric content of the gas is relatively large,
the pressure decreases slightly with time at an almost
constant gradient. It was also shown that the point of
maximum peak pressure depends on a
1.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a joint grant from the
Centre for Absorption in Science of the Ministry of
Immigrant Absorption and the Committee for Planning
and Budgeting of the Council for Higher Education under
the framework of the KAMEA Program.
References
[1] Moser AP. Buried pipe design. New York: McGraw Hill; 1990. p.
1–219.
[2] Bulson PS. Explosive loading of engineering structures. London:
Spon Press; 1997. p. 1–236.
[3] Hetherington JG, Smith PD. Blast and ballistic loading of structures.
Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann; 1994. p. 1–336.
[4] Davis CA, Lee VW, Bardet JP. Transverse response of underground
cavities and pipes to incident SV waves. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2001;30(3):383–410.
[5] Yong Lu, Zhonghi Wang, Karen Chong. A comparative study of
buried structure in soil subjected to blast load using 2D and 3D
numerical simulations. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2005;25(4):275–88.
[6] Zhonghi Wang, Yong Lu, Hong Hao, Karen Chong. A full coupled
numerical analysis approach for buried structures subjected to
subsurface blast. Comput Struct 2005;83(4–5):339–56.
[7] Glenn NA, Kidder RE. Blast loading of a spherical container
surrounded by an inﬁnite elastic medium. J Appl Mech 1983;50:723–6.
[8] Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T. Analysis of blastloaded, buried RC
arch response. Part 1: Numerical approach. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1991;117(1):197–212.
[9] Zhang YD, Fang Q, Liu JC. Experimental and Numerical investiga
tions into responses of buried RC frames subjected to impulsive
loading. In: Jones N, Brebbia CA, Rajendran AM, editors. Structures
under shock and impact VII. Southampton: WIT Press; 2002.
p. 69–78.
[10] O’Daniel JL, Krauthammer T. Assessment of numerical capabilities
for medium–structure interaction systems under explosive loads.
Comput Struct 1997;63(5):875–87.
[11] Hurty WC, Rubinstein MF. Dynamics of structures. London:
PrenticeHall; 1964. p. 1–455.
[12] Zienkiewicz OC. The ﬁnite element method. London: McGrawHill;
1977. p. 1–787.
[13] Belytschko T, Hughes TJR. Computational methods for transient
analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1983. p. 1–523.
[14] Lewis RW, Bettess P, Hinton E. Numerical methods in coupled
systems. Chichester: Wiley; 1984. p. 1–618.
[15] Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T. Combined ﬁnite difference/ﬁnite
element analysis for soil structure interaction. In: Roesset JM,
editor. Proceedings of the structures congress, Orlando (FL, USA).
New York: ASCE; 1987. p. 485–96.
[16] Nogami T, Kazama M. Thin layer element method for dynamic
soil–structure interaction analysis of axisymmetric structure in
submereged soil. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 1997;16:337–51.
[17] Gurevich B, Sadovnichaja AP, Lopatnikov SL, Shapiro SA.
Scattering of a compressional wave in a poroelastic medium by an
elipsoidal inclusion. Int Geophys J 1998;133:91–103.
[18] Nelson I. Numerical solution of problems involving explosive
loading. Proceedings dynamic methods in soil and rock mechanics,
vol. 2. Rotterdam: AA Balkema; 1977. p. 239–297.
[19] Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T, Chandra D. Analysis of blastloaded,
buried arch response. Part 2: application. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1991;
117(1):213–34.
[20] Biot MA. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in ﬂuidsaturated
porous solid. J Acoust Soc 1956;28:168–91.
[21] Nikolaevskii VM. Mechanics of porous and fractured media.
Singapore: World Scientiﬁc; 1990. p. 1–472.
[22] Stamos AA, Theodorakopoulos DD, Beskos DE. Harmonic wave
response of tunnels in poroelastic saturated soil. Earthquake
Resistant Eng Struct Adv Earthquake Eng 1995;2:101–12.
[23] Prakash S. Soil dynamics. New York: McGrawHill; 1981. p. 1–419.
[24] Henrych J. The dynamics of explosion and its use. New York:
Elsevier; 1979. p. 1–576.
[25] Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H. Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils.
Chichester, England: Wiley; 1993. p. 1–544.
[26] Lyakhov GM, Okhitin VN. Nonstationary plane waves in media with
bulk viscosity. J Appl Mech Tech Phys 1977;18(5):693–700.
[27] Lyakhov GM, Okhitin VN. Plane waves in nonlinear viscous
multicomponent media. J Appl Mech Tech Phys 1977;18(2):241–8.
[28] Nikolaevskiy VN, Kapustyansky SM, Thiercelin M, Zhilinkov AG.
Explosion dynamics in saturated rocks and solids. Transport Porous
Media 2006;65:485–504.
[29] Zienkiewicz OC, Shiomi T. Dynamic behaviour of saturated porous
media the generalized biot formulation and its numerical solution. Int
J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1984;8:71–96.
[30] Kim SH, Kim KJ. Twophase ﬁnite element procedures for dynamic
analysis of saturated porous media. Eng Comput 2000;17(6–7):758–74.
[31] Chitty DE, Blouin SE, Kim KJ, Rauch AF. Dynamic response of
multiphase porous media. Final Report ADA272915, US Air Force
Ofﬁce of Scientiﬁc Research, Washington, DC, 1993.
[32] Lewis RW, Schreﬂer BA. The ﬁnite element method in the static and
dynamic deformation and consolidation in porous media. Chichester:
Wiley; 1987. p. 1–500.
[33] Zhonghi Wang, Yong Lu. Numerical analysis on dynamic deforma
tion mechanism of soil under blast loading. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2003;23(8):705–14.
[34] Zhonghi Wang, Yong Lu, Hong Hao. Numerical investigation of
effects of water saturation on blast wave propagation in soil mass.
J Eng Mech 2004;130(5):551–61.
[35] Zhonghi Wang, Hong Hao, Yong Lu. A threephase soil model for
simulating stress wave propagation due to blast loading. Int J Numer
Anal Methods Geomech 2004;28(1):33–56.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 965
[36] Gajo A, Mongiovi L. An analytical solution for the transient
response of saturated linear elastic porous media. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 1995;19:399–413.
[37] Wlodarczyk E. Concentrated explosion in watersaturated soil.
Part 1: Analytic solution of the problem. J Tech Phys 1987;28(3):
221–41.
[38] Wlodarczyk E. Reﬂection of a stationary shock wave from a rigid
partition in a threecomponent medium. J Tech Phys 1982;23(3–4):
309–22.
[39] Wlodarczyk E. Exact solution to the formation and propagation
problem of a nonstationary shock wave in bilinear media. J Tech
Phys 1981;22(4):391–406.
[40] Feldgun VR, Kochetkov AV, Karinski YS, Yankelevsky DZ.
Internal blast loading in a buried lined tunnel. Int J Impact Eng
2007; in press. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.01.001.
[41] Feldgun VR, Kochetkov AV, Karinski YS, Yankelevsky DZ.
A coupled simulation of an explosion inside a lined cavity
surrounded by a plastic compressible medium. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2007 [In press].
[42] Miller GH, Corella P. A highorder Eulerian Godunov method for
elastic–plastic ﬂow in solids. J Comput Phys 2001;167:131–76.
[43] Abuzyarov MKh, Bazhenov VG, Kotov VL, Kochetkov AV, Krylov
SV, Feldgun VR. A godunovtype method in dynamics of elasto
plastic media. Comput Math Math Phys 2000;40(6):900–13.
[44] Courant R, Friedrichs KO. Supersonic ﬂow and shock waves.
New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc.; 1967. p. 1–464.
[45] Washizu K. Variational methods in elasticity and plasticity. Oxford:
Pergamon Press; 1982. p. 1–540.
[46] Prager W. An elementary discussion of deﬁnitions of stress rate.
Dr Appl Math 1961;8:403–7.
[47] Grigoryan SS. Basic concepts of soil dynamics. Prikl Mat Mekh
1960;24(6):1057–72 [In Russian].
[48] Vovk AA, Luchko IA, Lyakhov GM, Plaksii VA, Remez NS.
Cylindrical blast waves in soils. J Appl Mech Tech Phys 1986;27(4):
571–6.
[49] Witmer EA, Balmer HA, Leech JW, Pian TH. Large dynamic
deformation of beams, rings, plates and shells. AIAA J 1963;1(8):
1848–57.
[50] Godunov SK, et al. Moscow: Nauka Press; 1976.
[51] Kuznetsov VI, Lyakhov GM. Experimental investigations of the
interaction of shock waves in soils containing obstacles. J Appl Mech
Tech Phys 1966;7(2):60–3.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.R. Feldgun et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 953–966 966