Rock Mech Rock Eng (2010) 43:777–787
DOI 10.1007/s00603-009-0062-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Analysis of Blast Wave Interaction with a Rock Joint
Jianchun Li Æ Guowei Ma
Received: 11 May 2009 / Accepted: 23 July 2009 / Published online: 9 August 2009
Ó Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract The interaction between rock joints and blast
waves is crucial in rock engineering when rock mass is
suffered from artificial or accidental explosions, bursts or
weapon attacks. Based on the conservation of momentum
at the wave fronts and the displacement discontinuity
method, quantitative analysis for the interaction between
obliquely incident P- or S-blast wave and a linear elastic
rock joint is carried out in the present study, so as to deduce
a wave propagation equation. For some special cases, such
as normal or tangential incidence, rigid or weak joint, the
analytical solution of the stress wave interaction with a
rock joint is obtained by simplifying the wave propagation
equation. By verification, it is found that the transmission
and reflection coefficients from the wave propagation
equation agree very well with the existing results. Para-
metric studies are then conducted to evaluate the effects of
the joint stiffness and incident waves on wave transmission
and reflection. The wave propagation equation derived in
the present study can be straightforwardly extended for
different incident waveforms and nonlinear rock joints to
calculate the transmitted and reflected waves without
mathematical methods such as the Fourier and inverse
Fourier transforms.
Keywords Blast induced wave 
Oblique incident P- and S-waves  Rock joint 
Wave propagation  Wave fronts 
Conservation of momentum
J. Li  G. Ma (&)
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798,
Singapore
e-mail: cgwma@ntu.edu.sg
1 Introduction
The safety and stability of underground structures are often
affected by blast-induced waves, which may come from an
accidental explosion, the drill and blast excavation or
weapon attacks. Since the underground structures are sur-
rounded by jointed rock mass, the blast wave propagation
in the rock mass is significantly influenced by the joints.
The vastly existed joints in rock mass not only affect the
mechanical properties of rock mass, but also their dynamic
response (Goodman 1976). Therefore, studying the inter-
action between blast wave and joints has been drawing
more and more attention (Berta 1994).
The blast wave due to an explosion moves outward from
the source rapidly and acts on the surrounding media by an
effectively instantaneous rise in pressure followed by a
decay of wave propagation in the rock mass (Henrych
1979). From a relative distance of the explosive centre, the
blast wave is changed to an elastic wave and finally
attenuated completely because of the energy dissipations,
both geometrically and mechanically. The interaction
between a blast-induced stress wave and rock joints, which
relies on the impinging angle, type of the incident wave
and the joint property mechanically, dissipates the blast
energy (Henrych 1979; Ma and An 2008). The rock joint
acts as a wave filter to filter out high frequency waves
instead of the low frequency waves. A blast wave usually
consists of a shock wave and a pressure wave with high
frequency, its energy is distributed over a wider frequency
band and its duration is very short from tens of microsec-
onds to a few milliseconds, while its amplitudes could be
very large, which made the characteristics of the blast wave
quite different from that of seismic waves (Singh 2005).
The influence of joints on blast wave propagation can be
found from the results of in situ blasting tests at a jointed
123
778
rock site (Hao et al. 2001), which concludes that the dif-
ferent angle of an incident wave impinging rock joints will
cause different stress wave attenuation, and the normal
incident wave causes the stress wave attenuates fastest.
According to the direction of an incident wave, the
interactions of the incident wave and a rock joint can be
normal or oblique. The normally incident wave propaga-
tion across rock joints has been studied by many
researchers when the rock joints are linear or nonlinear,
filled or unfilled. For example, Miller (1977, 1978) pre-
sented theoretical studies on normally incident S-wave
transmission across a single joint, where the shear stress
was assumed to be a nonlinear function of the frictional
slip. Based on the characteristic line theory (Ewing et al.
1957; Bedford and Drumheller 1994) and the displacement
discontinuous method (Miller 1977; Schoenberg 1980),
Zhao and Cai (2001) and Zhao et al. (2006a, b) conducted
the study for the wave propagation of normally incident
P- and S-waves across a single or a set of parallel unfilled
rock joints, and Li et al. (2009) analyzed the normal P-wave
propagation across a single rock joint with filling materials.
Compared to the normal incidence case, the problem for
oblique incident wave is much more complicated. The
analysis of the interaction between an obliquely incident
wave and a welded interface of two media was first con-
ducted by Kolsky (1953) and Johnson (1972), who estab-
lished the relation between the propagation speeds and the
angles of the incident, transmitted and reflected waves, i.e.,
the Snell’s law. In their research works, harmonic waves,
which were the particular solutions of the equation of
motion, were adopted to make the problem simplified. The
natural joints appear in fact to be a non-welded interface,
large in extent with void spaces and asperities of contact
(Gentier et al. 1989; Hakami and Barton 1990; Cook 1992;
Pyrak-Nolte and Morris 2000; Hopkins 2000). Compared
with the wavelength, the thickness of joints is very small
and usually regarded to be zero. So the rock joints are
considered two non-welded faces and the thickness of the
joint is ignored. Based on the displacement discontinuous
method and the Snell’s law, the reflection and transmission
coefficients for harmonic plane waves impinging at an
arbitrary angle upon a plane linear slip interface were
derived (Schoenberg 1980). Close-form solutions in a
matrix form for a normally impinging with a linear joint
were obtained subsequently (Pyrak-Nolte et al. 1990; Cook
1992; Gu et al. 1996). These methods were based on the
fundamental solutions of the equation of motion and were
limited to linear elastic medium and simpler waveforms.
Based on the conservation of momentum at the wave
fronts, the relations for the stresses at the wave fronts and
the joint interfaces are established in the present study.
Using the displacement discontinuous method, the inter-
action of incident P- and S-blast waves and a linear elastic
123
J. Li, G. Ma
rock joint is analyzed and expressed as a wave propagation
equation for an incident wave with arbitrary impinging
angles. The method proposed in the present study is veri-
fied by comparing it with the existing results. The special
cases, such as the normal and tangential impinging, rigid
and weak joint, etc. are also investigated. Finally, para-
metric studies with respect to the joint stiffness, the inci-
dent angle and waveform of the incident wave on wave
transmission and reflection are carried out. It provides a
theoretical background of blast wave obliquely interaction
with a rock joint.
2 Interaction of Incident Blast Wave and Rock Joint
2.1 Reflection and Transmission for Oblique Incident
Waves Across a Joint
When a plane wave of either P- or S-wave impinges on the
interface of two media, both reflection and transmission
take place (Kolsky 1953; Johnson 1972). In the most
general case (0 B a B ac, 0 B b B bc), four separate
waves are generated, i.e., reflected P- and S-waves and
transmitted P- and S-waves, where a and b are, respec-
tively, the emergence angles of the incident P- and
S-waves, ac and bc are, respectively, the critical angles of
the incident P- and S-waves. For the present problem, the
joint is considered zero thickness and composed by two
non-welded planar interfaces. The two half-spaces of the
rock media beside the joint are identical and considered to
be ideally elastic intact medium. Taking the propagation
direction of the incident blast wave to be in the x–z plane
and the joint interfaces to be the x–y plane, the relation
between the incident, reflected and transmitted waves can
be illustrated in Fig. 1, where the symbols ‘‘-’’ and ‘‘?’’
represent the left and right interfaces of the joint. The
obliquely incident blast waves in the following analysis are
P- and S-blast waves, while the shear wave polarized
normal to the x–z plane is not considered. According to the
Snell’s law, the reflection and transmission emergence
angles must be equal to the incidence angles, that is, the
angles of the incident, reflected and transmitted P-blast
waves are equal with each other, so do the emergence
angles of the incident, reflected and transmitted S-blast
waves. In the far field from the explosive charge, the blast
wave can be assumed to be a plane wave.
2.2 Incident P-blast Wave
When an incident P-blast wave beam, as shown in Figs. 1a
and 2a, impinges the left interface of a joint, there is a tiny
element ABC composed by AB, AC and BC, which are the
left interface of the joint, the wave front and the side of the
Analysis of Blast Wave Interaction with a Rock Joint 779

Fig. 1 Scheme of incident, x

reflected and transmitted waves (a) (b)
on a single rock joint (a) x RP
RP - + TP
Incident P-wave (b) Incident TP
- +
S-wave
RS
RS TS β α α β
TS
βα α β β B
α B Is C
IP
RP RP
C TP TP
D F D F
RS
RS β Eα G β TS
β E G β TS α
α α β A z
α A z
Is
IP - +
- +
Joint
Joint

incident P-blast wave beam, respectively. There are also r2 ¼ rRp cos2b; s2 ¼ rRp sin2btgbctga ð5Þ
some other tiny elements on the interfaces of the joint
r3 ¼ sRs sin2b; s3 ¼ sRs cos2b ð6Þ
which are formed by the four transmitted and reflected
P- and S-waves and the two interfaces of the joint, as r4 ¼ rTp cos2b; s4 ¼ rTp sin2btgbctga ð7Þ
shown in Fig. 2b–e. In Fig. 1a, line AC is the wave front of
r5 ¼ sTs sin2b; s5 ¼ sTs cos2b ð8Þ
the incident P-wave, line BD and BE are the wave front of
the reflected P- and S-waves, line BF and BG are the wave To simplify the problem, the compressive stress is
front of the transmitted P- and S-waves. Since the present defined to be positive in the present study. According to
2D problem can be considered as a plane strain problem, the conservation of momentum on the wave fronts, there
m are rIp = zpvIp, rRp = zpvRp, sRs = zsvRs, rTp = zpvTp
the stress on the side BC is 1m rIp , where rIp is the normal
stress of the incident P-wave on its wave front and m is the and sTs = -zsvTs, where vIp vRp and vTp are the particle
Poisson’s ratio of the intact rock. Not considering the body velocities of the incident, reflected and transmitted
force, the stress states for the tiny elements ABC can be P-waves, respectively; vRs and vTs are the particle
described in Fig. 2a, where r1 and s1 are the stresses on the velocities of the reflected and transmitted S-waves,
left interface of the joint. For equilibrium, these stresses on respectively. Hence, the relation between the stresses on
the element ABC must satisfy the two interfaces of the joint and the particle velocities
m is then established. Defining zp = qcp and zs = qcs,
r1  rIp cos2 a  rIp sin2 a ¼ 0; along z direction where q is the density of the intact rock; cp and cs are
1m
ð1Þ the velocities of P- and S-waves in the intact rock,
m the stresses on the left interface of the joint can be
s1  rIp sinacosa þ rIp cosasina expressed as
1m
¼ 0; along x direction: ð2Þ r ¼ r1 þ r2 þ r3
¼ zp cos2b  vIp þ zp cos2b  vRp  zs sin2b  vRs ð9Þ
From the Snell’s law, there is
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi s ¼ s1 þ s2 þ s3 ¼ zp sin2btgbctga  vIp
sinb cs 1  2m
¼ ¼ ð3Þ  zp sin2btgbctga  vRp  zs cos2b  vRs ð10Þ
sina cp 2ð1  mÞ
and the stresses on the right interface of the joint can be
where cp and cs are, respectively, the P- and S-wave expressed as
propagation speeds in the intact rock. From Eq. 3, Eqs. 1
rþ ¼ r4 þ r5 ¼ zp cos2b  vTp þ zs sin2b  vTs ð11Þ
and 2 can be written as
r1 ¼ rIp cos2b; s1 ¼ rIp sin2btgbctga: ð4Þ sþ ¼ s4 þ s5 ¼ zp sin 2btgbctga  vTp  zs cos 2b  vTs :
ð12Þ
Similarly, for the elements ABD, ABE, ABF and ABG
in Fig. 2b–e, the stresses ri and si (i = 2–5) on the two The normal components of the velocities on the left and
interfaces of the joint can be expressed as right interfaces of the joint in Fig. 1a can be expressed as,

123
780 J. Li, G. Ma

(a) (b) (c)

ν Joint Joint
τ Is
Joint
σ Ip – –
1 −ν RP RS
B B B
σ Rp B
C τ Rs
α β σ3 C
σ1 RP
IP α σ2 τ3
τ1 σ1
τ Is β
D
σ Ip τ2 RS E
A τ Rs A Is
A
IP ν
σ Rp τ1
Joint 1 −ν – –
Joint Joint Join t
A
(d) Joint (e) Joint
+ +
TP Is Joint
TS
B σ Tp B
α Fig. 3 Stresses on the wave front for incident S-blast wave and rock
σ4 σ5 β τ Ts joint surface
TP
τ4 τ5
F TS
G
A ν A τ Ts
σ Tp are sIs = -zsvIs, rRp = zpvRp, sRsv = zsvRsv, rTp = zpvTp
+ 1 −ν + and sTs = -zsvTs, where vIs is the particle velocity of the
Joint Joint
incident S-wave. Hence, the stresses on the left interface of
Fig. 2 Stresses on the wave-front and rock joint two surfaces for the joint can be expressed as
incident P-blast wave (a) Incident P-blast wave (b) Reflected P-wave
(c) Reflected S-wave (d) Transmitted P-wave (e) Transmitted S-wave r ¼ r1 þ r2 þ r3
¼ zs sin2b  vIs þ zp cos2b  vRp  zs sin2b  vRs ð18Þ
v
n ¼ cosa  vIp  cosa  vRp þ sinb  vRs ð13Þ
s ¼ s1 þ s2 þ s3
vþ
n ¼ cosa  vTp þ sinb  vTs : ð14Þ ¼ zs cos2b  vIs  zp sin2btgbctga  vRp  zs cos2b  vRs
The tangential components of the velocities on the two ð19Þ
interfaces of the joint in Fig. 1a can also be written as and the stresses on the right interface of the joint are
vþ
s ¼ sina  vIp þ sina  vRp þ cosb  vRs ð15Þ rþ ¼ r4 þ r5 ¼ zp cos2b  vTp þ zs sin2b  vTs ð20Þ
vþ
s ¼ sina  vTp  cosb  vTs : ð16Þ sþ ¼ s4 þ s5 ¼ zp sin2btgbctga  vTp  zs cos2b  vTs :
2.3 Incident S-blast Wave ð21Þ
The normal components of the velocities on the left and
When an incident S-blast wave beam with an angle b right interfaces of the joint in Fig. 1b satisfy
(0 B b B bc) impinges the joint, there are also four waves
emitted from the joint interfaces, that is, the transmitted v
n ¼ sinb  vIs  cosa  vRp þ sinb  vRs ð22Þ
P- and S-waves, the reflected P- and S-waves, as shown in vþ ¼ cosa  vTp þ sinb  vTs : ð23Þ
n
Fig. 1b. Not considering the body force, the stresses on the
tiny elements ABC composed by the left interface of the The tangential components of the velocities on the two
joint and the wave front and the side of the incident wave interfaces of the joint in Fig. 1b are
beam in Fig. 1b can be described in Fig. 3, where sIs is the v
s ¼ cosb  vIs þ sina  vRp þ cosb  vRs ð24Þ
shear stress of the incident S-blast wave on its wave front.
According to equilibrium of the element ABC in Fig. 3, the vþ
s ¼ sina  vTp  cosb  vTs : ð25Þ
stresses r1 and s1 on the left side of the joint can be 2.4 Wave Propagation Equation
expressed as
r1 ¼ sIs sin2b; s1 ¼ sIs cos2b: ð17Þ Assume there is a linear elastic joint, as shown in Fig. 4,
with normal stiffness kn and shear stiffness ks. At the joint
The stresses on the other tiny elements in Fig. 1b are the
interfaces, the stresses and displacements satisfy the dis-
same as those in Fig. 2b–e. So, the other stresses on the two
placement discontinuous boundary condition, i.e.,
interfaces of the joint are the same as Eqs. 5–8. According
to the conservation of momentum on the wave fronts, there r ¼ rþ ¼ r; s ¼ sþ ¼ s ð26Þ

123
Analysis of Blast Wave Interaction with a Rock Joint 781

Fig. 4 Scheme for a linear

" # " #
vTpðiþ1Þ 1 1
vRpðiÞ
elastic joint ¼ G DvIpðiÞ þ G E
vTsðiþ1Þ vRsðiÞ
" #
vTpðiÞ
þ G1 F ð34Þ
ks vTsðiÞ

where
" #
zp cos2b
A¼ ð35Þ
zp sin2btgbctga
kn  
zp cos2b zs sin2b
B¼ ð36Þ
zp sin2btgbctga zs cos2b
Joint
 
r s zp cos2b zs sin2b
u þ
n  un ¼ ; u þ
s  us ¼ ð27Þ C¼
zp sin2btgbctga zs cos2b
ð37Þ
kn ks
" #
where u þ
n and un are the normal displacement on the left and kn Dtcosa
right interfaces of the joint, respectively; u þ D¼ ð38Þ
s and us are the ks Dtsina
shear displacement on the left and right interfaces of the joint,  
respectively. When Eq. 27 is differential to time t, there is kn Dtcosa kn Dtsinb
E¼ ð39Þ
ks Dtsina ks Dtcosb
1 or 1 rðiþ1Þ  rðiÞ
v þ
nðiÞ  vnðiÞ ¼ ¼ ;  
kn ot kn Dt ð28Þ kn Dtcosa þ zp cos2b kn Dtsinb þ zs sin2b
1 os 1 sðiþ1Þ  sðiÞ F¼
v þ ks Dtsina þ zp sin2btgbctga ks Dtcosb  zs cos2b
sðiÞ  vsðiÞ ¼ ¼ :
ks ot ks Dt
ð40Þ
For an incident P-blast wave, Eq. 26 can be rewritten  
zp cos2b zs sin2b
from Eqs. 9–12 as G¼ : ð41Þ
zp sin2btgbctga zs cos2b
zp cos2b  vIp þ zp cos2b  vRp  zs sin2b  vRs
¼ zp cos2b  vTp þ zs sin2b  vTs ð29Þ Similarly, the wave propagation equation for an incident
S-blast wave across a single rock joint can also be
zp sin2btgbctga  vIp  zp sin2btgbctga  vRp  zs cos2b  vRs expressed as the matrix form of Eqs. 33 and 34, while
¼ zp sin2btgbctga  vTp  zs cos2b  vTs ð30Þ " #
zs sin2b
If the time interval Dt is very small, substituting A¼ : ð42Þ
 zs cos2b
Eqs. 11–16 into Eq. 28, there is
The other matrices from B to G for the incident S-blast
kn Dtcosa  vIpðiÞ  kn Dtcosa  vRpðiÞ þ kn Dtsinb  vRsðiÞ
wave case are the same as Eqs. 36–41 and not listed.
þ ðkn Dtcosa þ zp cos2bÞ  vTpðiÞ Therefore, the interaction between the blast-induced wave
þ ðkn Dtsinb þ zs sin2bÞ  vTsðiÞ and the rock joint is analyzed and expressed as the
¼ zp cos2b  vTpðiþ1Þ þ zs sin2b  vTsðiþ1Þ ð31Þ corresponding wave propagation equation 33 and 34,
where Eqs. 35–41 are for an incident P-blast wave and
ks Dtsina  vIpðiÞ þ ks Dtsina  vRpðiÞ þ ks Dtcosb  vRsðiÞ Eqs. 42 and 36–41 are for an incident S-blast wave. When
þ ðks Dtsina þ zp sin2btgbctgaÞvTpðiÞ the incident wave at the left interface of joint and the
initial condition are known, the transmitted and reflected
þ ðks Dtcosb  zs cos2bÞvTsðiÞ
waves can be calculated. To describe the wave
¼ zp sin2btgbctga  vTpðiþ1Þ  zs cos2b  vTsðiþ1Þ : ð32Þ propagation across a single rock joint, the transmission
Equations 29–32 can be expressed in matrix forms as, coefficients, Tpc and Tsc, for P- and S-blast waves and
" # " # reflection coefficients, Rpc and Rsc, for P- and S-blast
vRpðiÞ 1 1
vTpðiÞ waves are defined as,
¼ B AvIpðiÞ þ B C ð33Þ
vRsðiÞ vTsðiÞ
maxjvTk j maxjvRk j
Tkc ¼ ; Rkc ¼ ; ðk ¼ p; sÞ: ð43Þ
and maxjvIk j maxjvIk j

123
782
3 Special Cases
3.1 Case I (a?0° or b?0°)
If an incident P- or S-blast wave normally impinges the
joint, i.e., a?0° or b?0°, the relation among the five
waves, i.e., an incident wave, two reflected waves and two
transmitted waves, can be derived from Eqs. 33 and 34 as
2kn Dt   vTpðiÞ ¼ vIpðiÞ and vTsðiÞ ¼ vRsðiÞ ¼ vRpðiÞ ¼ 0:
vTpðiþ1Þ ¼ vIpðiÞ  vTpðiÞ þ vTpðiÞ ; vIpðiÞ þ vRpðiÞ
zp
¼ vTpðiÞ ; vRsðiÞ ¼ vTsvðiÞ ¼ 0
for an incident P-blast wave, and
2ks Dt
vTsðiþ1Þ ¼ ðvIsðiÞ  vTsðiÞ Þ þ vTsðiÞ ; vIsðiÞ þ vRsðiÞ
zs
¼ vTsðiÞ ; vRpðiÞ ¼ vTpðiÞ ¼ 0
for an incident S-blast wave. So, the wave propagation
equations for normal incident P- and S-blast waves are
illustrated as Eqs. 44 and 45, respectively. By comparison,
it is found that the first equation in Eq. 44 is identical to the
one dimensional wave propagation equations by Zhao and
Cai (2001) if the joint is linear elastic and that given by
Zhao et al. (2006a). Similarly, the first equation in Eq. 45 is
in the same form of the previously derived wave propa-
gation equation (by Zhao et al. 2006b) before the Coulomb
slip occurs.
3.2 Case II (a = 90°)
If the incident P-blast wave is parallel to the joint, i.e.,
a = 90°, the relation among the incident, transmitted and
reflected waves can be derived from Eqs. 29–32 as,
vIpðiÞ ¼ vRpðiÞ ; vTpðiÞ ¼ vRsðiÞ ¼ vTsðiÞ ¼ 0:
For this case, the incident wave completely transforms
into a reflected P-wave and propagates along the joint left
interface, and neither transmitted P- and S-waves nor
reflected S-wave are caused.
3.3 Case III (kn ? 0 and k s? 0)
When kn ? 0 and ks ? 0, the transmitted waves can be
derived from Eqs. 31 and 32 for an incident P- and S-blast
waves to be
vTpðiÞ ¼ 0 and vTsðiÞ ¼ 0
which means there are no transmitted waves emitted from
the interfaces of the joint. Substituting Eq. 47 into Eq. 33,
the reflected waves can be calculated. For this case, kn ? 0
and ks ? 0, the joint is like a free surface, from which only
reflected P- and S-waves existed.
123
J. Li, G. Ma
3.4 Case IV (kn ? ? and ks ? ?)
When kn ? ? and ks ? ?, the right sides of Eq. 28
become zero, that is,
v þ
v þ
nðiÞ  vnðiÞ ¼ 0; sðiÞ  vsðiÞ ¼ 0: ð48Þ
Substituting Eqs. 13–16 into Eq. 48 and considering
Eqs. 29 and 30 for an incident P-blast wave, there is
ð49Þ
Similarly, the wave propagation of an incident S-blast
wave for kn ? ? and ks ? ? can also be derived from
ð44Þ Eqs. 20–25, 33 and 48 to be
vTsðiÞ ¼ vIsðiÞ and vTpðiÞ ¼ vRsðiÞ ¼ vRpðiÞ ¼ 0: ð50Þ
Hence, when the joint is much stiffer, there is no
reflected wave caused for any incident P- or S-blast waves,
ð45Þ
and the wave propagation is not influenced by the joint. In
other words, for a much stiffer joint either an incident
P-blast wave or an incident S-blast wave still propagates
without any changes. For this case, the joint can be
regarded as the two completely welded interfaces.
4 Verification
When a single linear elastic joint is normally impinged by a
P-wave, Zhao and Cai (2001) derived the wave propagation
equations for an arbitrary incident waveform. Besides the
normal cases, the transmission and reflection coefficients
are also analytically calculated by Pyrak-Nolte et al.
(1990), Cook (1992) and Gu et al. (1996), when a simply
harmonic P- or S-wave obliquely impinges a single rock
joint. The special cases in Sect. 3 have shown that the wave
ð46Þ propagation equation can be simplified as those derived by
Zhao and Cai (2001) and Zhao et al. (2006b) for normal
incident P- and S-waves, respectively. In order to further
verify the wave propagation equations, it is still necessary
to carry out the comparison for cycle sinusoidal incident
P- and S-waves. Define the normalized normal and tan-
gential joint stiffness are Kn = kn/(zpx) and Ks = ks/(zsx),
respectively, where x is the angle frequency of the incident
waves. The parameters adopted here are the same as those
by Gu et al. (1996), that is, m = 0.2, Kn = Ks, and
bc = sin-1(cs/cp) = 37.8°. It is also assumed the incidence
is sinusoidal P- or S-waves.
ð47Þ
4.1 Normally Incident Wave
If a ? 0°, the transmitted and reflected waves can be
calculated from Eqs. 33 and 34. From Eq. 43, the variation
of the transmission and reflection coefficients, Tpc and Rpc,
with the normalized joint stiffness, Kn and Ks, can be
Analysis of Blast Wave Interaction with a Rock Joint 783

(a) (a)
1.0
Transmission and reflection coefficients

Transmission and refraction coefficients

1.0
Tpc (calculated)
0.8 Tpc (Gu et al. 1996)
0.8 Tpc (Cook 1992)
Tsc (calculated)
Tpc (calculated)
Tsc (Gu et al. 1996)
Rpc (Cook 1992) 0.6
0.6 Rpc (calculated)
Rpc (calculated) Rpc (Guet al. 1996)
Rsc (calculated)
0.4 0.4 Rsc (Guet al. 1996)

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
Normalized Stiffness Kn Normalized Stiffness Kn
(b)
(b) 1.0

Transmission and refraction coefficients

Transmission and reflection coefficients

1.0
Tpc (calculated)
0.8
Tpc (Gu et al. 1996)
0.8 Tsc (Cook 1992) Tsc (calculated)
Tsc (calculated) Tsc (Gu et al. 1996)
Rsc (Cook 1992) 0.6 Rpc (calculated)
0.6
Rsc (calculated) Rpc (Gu et al. 1996)
Rsc (calculated)
0.4 0.4 Rsc (Gu et al. 1996)

0.2 0.2

0.0
0.0
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4
Normalized Stiffness Ks
Normalized Stiffness Ks
Fig. 6 The relation between transmission and reflection coefficients
Fig. 5 Verification for the wave propagation equations (a) Normally and normalized joint stiffness (a) Normally incident P-wave (b)
incident P-wave (b) Normally incident S-wave Normally incident S-wave

obtained for a normally incident P-wave, as shown in
Fig. 5a. Similarly, the transmission and reflection coeffi-
cients, Tsc and Rsc, for a normally incident S-wave can also
be calculated from Eqs. 33, 34 and 43, as shown in Fig. 5b.
By comparison, it can be seen from Fig. 5 that the results
from the wave propagation equation derived in Sect. 2
agree very well with those calculated from the close-form
solutions for normal incident waves (Cook 1992).
4.2 Obliquely Incident Wave
For oblique incidence, the transmission and reflection
coefficients can be calculated from Eqs. 33–41 for the
incident P-wave and calculated from Eqs. 33, 34 and 42,
36–41 for the incident S-wave. Figure 6 illustrates the
relation between the transmission and reflection coeffi-
cients with the normalized stiffness for a given incident
angle, i.e., a = 20° for Fig. 6a and b = 20° for Fig. 6b. It
is found from Fig. 6 that the transmission coefficients, Tpc
and Tsc, and the reflection coefficients, Rpc and Rsc, change
with the variation of the normalized joint stiffness. And
effects of the normalized joint stiffness on the transmission
and reflection coefficients are different, which will be
discussed later. Figure 7 shows the relation between inci-
dent angle and transmission and reflection coefficients
when Kn = Ks = 1. By comparison, it can be seen from
Figs. 6 and 7 that the present results are very close to the
reflection coefficients given by Gu et al. (1996), which are
plotted as the discrete points in the two figures. According
to the energy conservation law for the wave propagation
across joints, the corresponding reflection coefficients will
also agree with the results by Gu et al. (1996) and they are
thus not compared in the figures to avoid redundancy.
Therefore, the wave propagation equations derived in the
present study are proved to be effective to study plane
wave propagation through a single rock joint at an arbitrary

123
784 J. Li, G. Ma

(a) coefficients Tsc caused by the incident P-wave and Tpc

1.2 caused by the incident S-wave increase at low values of the
Transmission and reflection coefficients

Tpc (calculated), Tsc (calculated)

Rpc (calculated), Rpc (Gu et al.1996)
normalized joint stiffness, and then decrease slowly at a
1.0 relative higher value of the normalized joint stiffness. The
Rsc (calculated), Rsc (Gu et al.1996)
comparison for the transmission and reflection coefficients
0.8 in Fig. 6 shows that Tsc caused by the incident P-wave and
Tpc caused by the incident S-blast wave are much smaller.
0.6 For weak joints, i.e., kn ? 0 and ks ? 0, there is only
reflected waves produced, which can be seen from the
0.4 calculated results shown in Fig. 6. This kind of joint is like
a vacuum free surface, and the normal and tangential
0.2 stresses on the surface are zero, so any incident waves are
completely reflected, which has also been verified in
0.0 Eq. 47. If the joint stiffness becomes larger, such as
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Incident angle α (°) Kn = Ks = 3 in Fig. 6, Tpc for an incident P-wave and Tsc
for an incident S-wave approach to 1, while the other three
(b) coefficients are very small. According to the curve ten-
1.0
Transmission and reflection coefficients

dency in Fig. 6, the conclusion from the case study IV in

0.8
Tpc (calculated),
Rpc (calculated),
0.6 Rsc (calculated),
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10
Incident angle β (°)
Fig. 7 The relation between incident angle and transmission and
reflection coefficients (a) Incident P-wave (b) Incident S-wave
angle. The effect of the incident wave and the rock joint
behavior on wave propagation will be discussed in the
following section.
5 Parametric Studies and Discussion
5.1 Effect of Normalized Joint Stiffness
In Figs. 6a and b, the transmission and reflection coeffi-
cients corresponding to the incident angle of 20° are shown
to be a function of the normalized joint stiffness. It illus-
trates that the transmission coefficients Tpc caused by the
sinusoidal incident P-wave and Tsc caused by the sinusoidal
incident S-wave increases with increasing normalized joint
stiffness, while the reflection coefficients Rpc and Rsc
caused by the incident P- or S-wave decrease with the
increasing normalized joint stiffness. The transmission
Sect. 3 can also be obtained.
Tsc (calculated)
Rpc (Gu et al. 1996) 5.2 Effect of Incident Angle
Rsc (Gu et al. 1996)
The transmission and reflection coefficients are also
shown as a function of the incident angle in Fig. 7a for
the sinusoidal incident P-wave and Fig. 7b for the sinu-
soidal incident S-wave. Compared to the reflection coef-
ficients in Fig. 7, the transmission coefficients caused by
the incident P-wave or S-wave does not change very
much with the incidence angle until closed to the critical
20 30 40 angles, that is, ac = 90° and bc = 37.8°. The transmission
coefficients Tsc caused by the incident P-wave is much
smaller than the others in Fig. 7a. The reflection coeffi-
cient Rpc caused by the incident P-wave in Fig. 7a and the
reflection coefficient Rsc caused by the incident S-wave in
Fig. 7b decrease with the increase of the incident angle
when a is smaller than 55° or b is smaller than 26°. The
reflection coefficient Rsc caused by the incident P-wave in
Fig. 7a increases with the increase of the incident angle
first, then decreases from around the incident angle of
45°. The reflection coefficient Rpc caused by the incident
S-wave in Fig. 7b increase with increasing angle of the
incident wave. The transmission and reflection coeffi-
cients by using the wave propagation equation are very
close to the results by Gu et al. (1996).
5.3 Effect of Incident Waveform
For any arbitrary incident waveform, the transmitted and
reflected waves can be calculated by employing the Fourier
and inverse Fourier transforms (Pyrak-Nolte et al. 1990;
Cook 1992; Gu et al. 1996). In the present study, the
transmitted and reflected waveforms for an incident
blast induced wave can be directly calculated by using the

123
Analysis of Blast Wave Interaction with a Rock Joint 785

(a) 1.2 (a) 1.2

Incident P-wave Incident P-wave
Transmitted P-wave Transmitted P-wave
0.8 Transmitted S-wave 0.8 Transmitted S-wave
Reflected P-wave Reflected P-wave
Velocity (m/s)

Reflected S-wave Reflected S-wave

0.4

Velocity (m/s)
0.4

0.0 0.0

-0.4 -0.4

-0.8 -0.8
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Time (s) Time (s)

(b) 1.2
Incident S-wave (b) 1.2
1.0
Transmitted P-wave Incident S-wave
0.8 Transmitted S-wave Transmitted P-wave
0.8 Transmitted S-wave
0.6 Reflected P-wave
Velocity (m/s)

Reflected S-wave Reflected P-wave

0.4 Reflected S-wave
Velocity (m/s) 0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 -0.8
Time (s) 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Time (s)
Fig. 8 Transmitted and reflected waves for a half-cycle sinusoidal
incident wave (a) Incident P-blast wave (b) Incident S-blast wave Fig. 9 Transmitted and reflected waves for a triangular incident wave
(a) Incident P-blast wave (b) Incident S-blast wave

wave propagation equations 33 and 34. A blast wave is

normally simplified as a half-cycle sinusoidal, triangular or
rectangular pulse by giving the peak value, rise time and
duration for the convenience of analysis. Assume the joint
stiffnesses are kn = ks = 3.5 GPa, rock density q is
2,650 kg/m3, P-wave velocity ap is 5,830 m/s and shear
wave velocity as is 2,940 m/s, the angles for the incident
P- and S-blast waves are a = 30° and b = 17.8°. The
transmitted and reflected waves are calculated and shown
in Figs. 8 and 9 for a half-cycle sinusoidal incident wave
and a triangular incident wave, respectively. It can be seen
from the two figures that the transmitted waves for the two
types of incident waves are sleekly continuous, while the
reflected waves have an inflexion point when the incident
waves turn from unloading path into zero. Figures 8 and 9
also show that the absolute values of the transmitted
P-wave caused by an incident S-blast wave and the trans-
mitted S-wave caused by an incident P-blast wave are
much smaller than those of the other three emitted waves.
The results for a rectangular blast wave are calculated and
drawn in Fig. 10, which illustrates that the transmitted
P- and S-waves have an inflexion while there is a jump for
the reflected P- and S-waves at the sharply unloading point
of the incident waves.
5.4 Effect of the Duration of Incident Waves
Adopting the same parameters in Sect. 5.3 and defining the
duration for the positive phase of an incident wave is td, the
relation curves between the transmission and reflection
coefficients and td for a half-cycle sinusoidal incident blast
waves are calculated, as shown in Fig. 11. It can be
observed from the figure that the transmission and reflec-
tion coefficients can be described as a function of the
duration td. The transmission coefficients Tpc caused by the
incident P-blast wave and Tsc caused by the incident S-blast
wave increases with the increasing duration td, while the
reflection coefficients Rpc and Rsc caused by the incident
P- and S-blast waves decrease with the increasing duration

123
786 J. Li, G. Ma

(a) (a)
1.2 1.0

Transmission and reflection coefficients

Incident P-wave
Transmitted P-wave
0.8 Transmitted S-wave Tpc
0.8
Reflected P-wave Tsc
Velocity (m/s)

0.4 Reflected S-wave Rpc

0.6 Rsc

0.0
0.4
-0.4
0.2
-0.8

0.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Time (s)
td (s)
(b) 1.2 (b)
1.0
Incident S-wave

Transmission and reflection coefficients

Transmitted P-wave
0.8
Transmitted S-wave Tpc
0.8
Reflected P-wave Tsc
Velocity (m/s)

0.4 Reflected S-wave Rpc

0.6 Rsc
0.0

0.4
-0.4

0.2
-0.8

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.0

Time (s)
Fig. 10 Transmitted and reflected waves for a rectangular incident
wave (a) Incident P-blast wave (b) Incident S-blast wave
td. Comparing with the other three curves, Tsc caused by the
incident P-wave in Fig. 11a are the smallest, so do Tpc
caused by the incident S-blast wave in Fig. 11b.
5.5 Discussions for Effective Incident Angles
When an incident blast wave normally impinges a single
rock joint, i.e., a = b = 0°, the interaction between the
blast wave and the rock joint are analyzed and can be
expressed as a wave propagation equation 44 for an inci-
dent P-wave and Eq. 45 for an incident S-wave. When the
incident angle is a = 90°, the incident P-blast wave
becomes a surface wave propagating along the joint
interface, likes Rayleigh wave propagating on the surface
of media. When an incident S-blast wave for b [ bc
impinges a joint, the emergence angle of reflected and
transmitted P-waves is no longer real-valued and a surface
wave is produced due to the interaction of the joint and the
incident wave. Hence, the wave propagation equations 33
and 34 are effective only when a = 0–90° and b = 0–bc.
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
td (s)
Fig. 11 Transmission and reflection coefficients versus duration td
for half-cycle sinusoidal incident blast waves (a) Incident P-blast
wave (b) Incident S-blast wave
In this range, the waves with different incident angles
obviously influence the wave propagation across a rock
joint, which has been shown in Fig. 7 for the transmission
and reflection coefficients.
Although the above-proposed method is used to analyze
the interaction between rock joints and blast waves, the
method is also applicable to other waves, e.g., earthquake
wave and impact wave, when the impinging angle is less
than the critical angle.
6 Conclusions
The interaction between blast waves with arbitrary
impinging angles and a rock joint are analyzed in this
paper. The two interfaces of the joint are considered as
displacement discontinuous boundaries. The wave propa-
gation equations for P- and S-blast waves across a linear

123
Analysis of Blast Wave Interaction with a Rock Joint
elastic joint are deduced. By verification, the wave propa-
gation equation proposed in this paper is effective to study
oblique wave interaction with a single rock joint. The
parametric studies show that the wave transmission and
reflection is affected by the incident angles, duration, and
the normalized joint stiffness, which is related to the fre-
quency of incident waves, the joint stiffness, and the
seismic impedance of rock. Any possible blast waveforms
can be directly applied in the wave propagation equation.
From the special case study, it is found that the wave
propagation equations can be simplified to those derived in
the literatures. The present study assumes that the blast
wave is planar which is true only when it propagates in the
far field of the charge. In the near field, the blast wave is
usually spherical and the interaction of a spherical wave
and a rock joint will be studied in the future.
References
Bedford A, Drumheller DS (1994) Introduction to elastic wave
propagation. Wiley, Chichester
Berta G (1994) Blasting-induced vibration in tunneling. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 1994(9):175–187
Cook NGW (1992) Natural joint in rock: mechanical, hydraulic and
seismic behaviour and properties under normal stress. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 29(3):198–223
Ewing WM, Jardetzky WS, Press F (1957) Elastic wave in layered
media. McGraw-Hill, New York
Gentier S, Billaux D, van Vliet L (1989) Laboratory testing of the
voids in a fracture. Rock Mech Rock Eng 22:149–157
Goodman RE (1976) Methods of Geological engineering in discon-
tinuous Rock. West Publishing, St. Paul
Gu BL, Suárez-Rivera R, Nihei KT, Myer LR (1996) Incidence of
plane wave upon a fracture. J Geophys Res 101(B11):25337–
25346
787
Hakami E, Barton N (1990) Aperture measurements and flow
experiments using transparent replicas of rock joints. In: Barton,
Stephannson (eds) Rock joints. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 383–
390
Hao H, Wu YK, Ma GW, Zhou YX (2001) Characteristics of surface
ground motions induced by blasts in jointed rock mass. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Eng 21:85–98
Henrych J (1979) The dynamics of explosion and its use. Elsevier,
New York
Hopkins DL (2000) The implications of joint deformation in
analyzing the properties and behavior of fractured rock masses,
underground excavations and faults. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
37:175–202
Johnson W (1972) Impact strength of materials. Edward Arnold
Publishers, London
Kolsky H (1953) Stress waves in solids. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Li JC, Ma GW, Huang X (2009) Analysis of wave propagation
through filled rock joint. Rock Mech Rock Eng (in press)
Ma GW, An XM (2008) Numerical simulation of blasting-induced
rock fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45(6):966–975
Miller RK (1977) An approximate method of analysis of the
transmission of elastic waves through a frictional boundary.
J Appl Mech (ASME) 44(4):652–656
Pyrak-Nolte LJ, Morris JP (2000) Single fractures under normal
stress: the relation between fracture specific stiffness and fluid
flow. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:245–262
Pyrak-Nolte LJ, Myer LR, Cook NGW (1990) Anisotropy in seismic
velocities and amplitudes from multiple parallel fractures.
J Geophys Res 95(B7):11345–11358
Schoenberg M (1980) Elastic wave behavior across linear slip
interfaces. J Acoust Soc Am 68(5):1516–1521
Singh SP (2005) Blast damage control in jointed rock mass. Fragblast
9(3):175–187
Zhao J, Cai JG (2001) Transmission of elastic P-blast waves across
single fracture with a nonlinear normal deformational behaviour.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 34:3–22
Zhao J, Zhao XB, Cai JG (2006a) A further study of P-blast wave
attenuation across parallel fractures with linear deformational
behaviour. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:776–788
Zhao XB, Zhao J, Hefny AM, Cai JG (2006b) Normal transmission of
S-wave across parallel fractures with coulomb slip behavior.
J Eng Mech ASCE 132(6):641–650
123