A Summary and Bibliography on Dynamic Behaviors of Shallow-Buried Structures

S.E. Chen Department of Civil Engineering, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223

ABSTRACT This brief bibliography and summary paper documents past efforts in the study of dynamic behaviors of shallow-buried structures. Shallow-buried structures are unique structural systems designed during the cold war for battle operation protections. The complex Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) ensures a load-relief mechanism that enhances the protection of such system and is a function of blast loading duration, structural flexibility and blast wave propagation. Since the 60s, extensive research has been conducted to understand this complex SSI, which can be applied to the design of several other civil structures. The intent of this paper is to provide a comprehensive but not extensive review of the research contributions in this unique area of study. 1. INTRODUCTION Soil-structure interaction problems for underground protective structures under explosive threats have received considerable attention in the past three decades. Numerous static and dynamic tests were conducted in the laboratory, as well as in the field, to study the behavior of buried structures [1][3-5][14][19][22][26][30-36][42][45-47] [50][53][57-59][61-62][64][70-73][78-82][85][91-92]. The importance of the interaction effects at burial depths as shallow as 20% - 50% of the clear span with dynamic loadings was clearly demonstrated through these tests (in particular, the Foam HEST tests conducted by the US Army Waterways Experimental Station) [53][80][92]. It was observed that a temporary load-relief was experienced by the roof of the buried structures, which actually increased the protective capacity of the buried structures [35-36]. The load-relief is related to the interaction between the soil medium and the embedded structure and a rigid-body displacement of the buried structures called soil arching. These same mechanisms have also been identified in small-scale laboratory experiments along with implementations in numerical modeling [2][13][15-17][21][23-25][28][37][38][48-52][54-56][63][65][76-77][89]. Despite the significance of these studies, the research efforts have been annulled following the ending of the cold war era. The lack of interests, however, has not reduced the significance of these studies which represents a unique application of nonlinear structural dynamics. There are also potentials of extending these studies to other civil structure applications, including designs of highway pavements and near-surface underground facilities. This paper presents an overview of this research along with an updated bibliography. The goal of this paper is to bring awareness to the significance of this research and identifying new areas that can potentially expand this research.

2. DYNAMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION INVOLVING A BURIED TRAPDOOR Soil, which is particulate in nature, is composed of a system of discrete mineral particles that are subjected to the adhesion and frictional forces between the particles and to the dimensional constraints imposed by the particle arrangements. In civil engineering application, soil is usually associated with the adjacent structures. Because of its discrete nature, the soil and the adjacent structure create a unique kind of interactions that have been referred to as the Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) [87-88]. Broader sense of SSI can be extended to the behaviors of subsurface structures such as culverts, pavements and bridge abutments and piers, and to the behaviors of underground structures, such as tunnels and buried pipelines. The significance of SSI in the design for shallow-buried structures under explosive loading has been shown to result in significant load-relief on buried structures [6][18][30]. Depending on the design of the structure, different degrees of load-relief have been found. In the static sense, the load relief phenomenon has been contributed to the "arching" effect - quantitative studies on the subject of static soil arching have been conducted in the past [61]. Soil arching was first named by Terzaghi as a process due to the relative displacements of the soil and structure and the granularity of the soil medium, which results in the redistribution of shear stresses in the form of a dome formation [84]. The arching ratio is conveniently quantified by McNulty [61] as:

Arching Ratio =

Overpressure at Ground Zero Pressure on Buried Structure

(1)

Dynamic SSI mechanism is more complex than the static SSI, because it is a time-dependent process. Three physical mechanisms are generally believed to contribute to the load-relief process as a result of the dynamic SSI, namely: (1). Wave propagation in the soil (depending on soil properties, loading function and loading history, etc.). (2). Interaction between the buried structure and soil (such as the wave transmission and reflection at the soil-structure interface and from the bottom of the buried roof). (3). Separation between soil and the buried structure (due to soil arching phenomenon and difference of the traveling velocities in soil and of structure) [15]. The last two mechanisms are interrelated, and the difference between the two is a matter of timing. Should the plate travel at a much faster speed, a complete separation would occur. Otherwise, non-separation interaction or partial separation may be warranted. Important parameters that may influence these mechanisms include the soil and structural relative stiffness, the dynamic loading and the soil dynamic properties. At the present, no satisfactory theories are available to quantify the effects of each of these parameters that may contribute to the overall load-relief. Current state-of-the-art design methodology relies heavily on empirically determined parameters, such as arching ratio, dynamic loading magnitudes, etc., which are derived from the limited available data The load relief can be demonstrated by simplify the problem to a buried trapdoor [15-17][37][42][55][64]. A low-velocity impact test was developed to simulate dynamic soil-structure interaction phenomenon by Chen et al. [15]. Fig. 1 shows the schematics of a ball drop on a target plate that generates a stress wave propagating through the soil medium to a trapdoor. This impact experiment was used to simulate the dynamic phenomenon as

observed from the Foam HEST field test results, such that the wave lengths of the dynamic loading and the burial depths are of the same order of magnitude [16]. considered is the overpressure applied at ground zero level, which will propagate to the level of the buried structure (Fig. 2). The stress wave that propagated to the buried structure is referred to as the free field stress (Pi). The decoupled scheme is dependent on the behavior of an interaction pressure, Pi, which is a function of the surface pressure ( f) and interface pressure acting on the structure. Separation between the soil medium and structure would occur when the free-field stress becomes zero as the trapdoor travels away from the medium:
Fig.1 Ball-Drop Test on a Target Plate [17]

The impact loading, generated by a free-fall of a steel ball, can

be measured with reasonable accuracy, and can also be verified from computation. The dynamic loading generally

P i = 0 as 2 f < ( c)(u - v)

(2)

Using circular plexiglass plates as buried trapdoors, the problem has been simplified into axisymmetric condition [17]. The plates are embedded within a dry sand medium, and the burial depth is about one-half of the clear diameter of the buried plate, representing shallow-burial (20% - 50%). Low-velocity impact tests with circular buried plates of different thicknesses were conducted to simulate the SSI phenomenon that is likely to occur to the roof of a buried structure in the field. The dynamic loading generated by the impact from a dropping ball in the elastic range can be determined from energy balance and assuming Herzian contact [15]. Fig. 3 shows the test results indicating thinner plates would experience higher load relief (smaller interface force) than thicker plates. Generally, separation may occur between individual soil particles (consider soil as a tensionless material), as well as between the soil particles and the adjacent structure.
Fig.3 Measured Interaction Pressures for Different Plates [17] Fig.2 Schematics of Incident Wave and Associated SSI [17]

3. HISTORY OF STUDIES ON SHALLOW-BURIED STRUCTURES Explosions at ground zero causes surface cratering and air-blasting, which results in stress waves propagating into the soil medium [7][27][29][74][90].The wave propagation phenomenon through the soil medium has been addressed by Newmark [68]. The stress wave behavior is dependent on the wave velocity as well as the seismic velocity of the soil [43]. The vertical stress wave is subjected to attenuation through depth, due to the hysteretic nature of soil [10][83]. The depth effect on the pressure wave resulted in longer risetime, lower peak and longer decay of the wave. Soil dynamic properties that are of interest include the shear modulus, the modulus of resilience, the material damping constants and the wave speed. The stress and strain relationship of soil is a function of the rate of loading, to model nonlinear stress/strain relationship, the Ramberg/Osgood model has been adopted [44]. Using a burster slab on the soil surface, the explosion resulted in a distributed loading pressure. The distribution of the loading pressure may influence the responses of the buried structure [41]. Specific SSI problems for underground structures under explosive threats have received considerable attention in the past four decades. Numerous military sponsored static and dynamic tests were conducted during the 60s to 80s [1][3-5][14][19][22][26][30-36][42][45-47][50][53][57-59][61-62][64][70-73][78-82][85][91-92]. Using flush trapdoor tests, McNulty [61] was able to illustrate the effect of depth of cover, the trapdoor displacement and arching ratio. Similar definition of arching has been proposed by Gill [36], who defines arching as a ratio of the measured interaction pressure to the free field stress. The Marston-Spangler theory and the Newmark-Haltiwanger theory are two popular theories for determining static arching effect. From a series of explosive testings on scaled models conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the importance of the SSI effects at burial depths as shallow as 20% to 50% of the clear span with dynamic loadings was clearly demonstrated (the FOAM-HEST tests [31-33][53]). These tests constitute the most extensive large scale testing to date. The FOAM-HEST test results indicated that cohesive and cohesionless soils behaved differently and each with different degrees of load relief. Cohesionless soil has a better arching effect than the cohesive soil. Similar observations have been made in static arching tests [84]. Results of field tests on scaled shallow-buried Reinforced Concrete (RC) box-type structures also concluded that the impulse at the roof center was much lower than the impulse at the supporting walls and different failure modes were associated with structures of different depths of burial [30]. The field tests are targeted at studying the effects of backfill type, depth of burial, structural stiffness, concrete compressive strength, dynamic load intensity and test configuration. To study wave propagation in soil, Newmark [69] proposed a mass-spring model in spherical coordinates for axially symmetric problems. Baron et al. suggests an innovative discrete element approach to simulate shock wave propagation through soil media [11]. This model can be related to the current Discrete or Distinct Element Method (DEM). Numerous analytical models have been proposed to analyze the experimental results, including Finite Element (FE) models [34][94] and Single-Degree-Of-Freedom (SDOF) models [56][87-88]. Wong and Weidlinger [94] simulate the SSI problem by using FEM to model the buried structure and used a decoupled scheme to simulate the separation process. Static undrained stability of a trapdoor was studied using FEM by Koutsabeloulis et al. [55]. Getzler et al. [31-33] used a finite difference model to simulate static soil arching problem for a trapdoor experiment. In their study, stress distribution in the form of an actual arch is shown. SSI effect is included in the Weidlinger and Hinman's model by considering the decoupling of the structure and the free field stress. These models typically tackle the nonlinear problem by including some soil/structure interface conditions. Since it is nearly impossible to actually carry out the explosion tests, currently, these models have only

been used to compare with available field data. Other issues related to actual field tests include measurement inaccuracies [39], scale effects on gravity [40], structural similitude issues [66] and the characterization of real soils [60]. Structural behaviors are typically recommended as a single mode vibration using approximations as recommended by Biggs [12]. 4. DISCUSSION Since the ending of cold war, the amount of attention paid to the study of SSI has significantly reduced. Currents practices on designing buried structures against weaponry can be found in ASCE manuals [8-9] and the manual for protective structural design published by the US Army of Engineering [86] and the US Air Force [20]. Issues about assessment of post-blast shelters have been addressed by Wong [93] and a rule-based damage assessment Expert System has been proposed by Savage et al. [75]. However, with recent terrorist activities, it may be time to revisit this subject of study. Several possible research subjects may include the use of nonlinear numerical codes such as AUTODYN to simulate the structural responses under extreme loadings; smart materials for the design of underground protective structures; use of computational fluid mechanics or discrete element method to simulate complex soil-structure-interactions. With advanced modal testing and monitoring techniques such as scanning laser vibrometry and wireless sensing, the possibility of more accurate measurements during full-field tests has improved. Modal identification during soil-structure interaction is also another study that can potentially help scientists to understand better the complex SSI phenomenon. 5. SUMMARY This paper summarizes past efforts in the study of dynamic behaviors of shallow-buried structures which are designed for battle operation protections. The complex Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) such as the arching mechanism ensures a load-relief that enhances the protection of such system. Since the 60s, extensive research has been conducted to understand this complex SSI. This effort, however, has been discontinued after the cold war. The understanding of SSI can be nonetheless applied to the design of several other civil structures. With the new testing techniques, construction materials and simulation tools, there is a need to revisit this subject in order to better understand SSI involving buried systems. REFERENCE [1] Abott, PA, Nonlinear Static Arching for Vertically Buried Prismatic Structures, AFWLTR-65-160, 1966. [2] Abott, PA, "Arching for Vertically Buried Prismatic Structures," J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, v93, SM5, p.233-255, 1967. [3] Abbott, PA and Mitchell, SC, Static Arching Tests on Cylinders Buried Vertically in a Partially Saturated Low-Plasticity Soil, US Airforce, AFWLTR-68-1, 1968. [4] Albritton, GE, Behavior of Flexible Cylinders Buried in Sand under Static and Dynamic Loading, AEWES-TR-1-821, 1968. [5] Allgood, JR, Blast Loading of Small Buried Arches. U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Lab., Tech. Rep. R-216, 1963. [6] Allgood, JR, the Behavior of Shallow-Buried Cylinders a Synthesis and Extension of Contemporary Knowledge, Naval Civil Engineering Lab., Y-F008-08-02-108, 1965.

[7] Allgood, JR, Carter, WO, Predicting Blast-Induced Body Motions of a Buried Structure with Footings, NCEL-TR-539, 1967. [8] American Society of Civil Engineers, Design of Structures to Resist Nuclear Weapons Effects, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice- No. 42, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 1964. [9] American Society of Civil Engineers, Design of Structures to Resist Nuclear Weapons Effects, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice- No. 42, Revised Ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y. 1985. [10]Atktsh, RS, Role of Soil Hysteresis in Impedance Testing as Applied to Buried Arches, report number DNATR-88-212, 1990. [11] Baron, ML, Christian, CE and Skidan, O, "Particle-in-Cell Method in Shock Propagation Problems," Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. EM6, p.205-228, 1966. [12] Biggs, JM, Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Pub., N.Y, 1964. [13] Bultmann, EH, Jr., McDonough, GF and Sinnamon, GK, Loading on Simulated Buried Structures as High Incident Overpressures, DASAWT1406, 1960. [14] Bultmann,EH, McDonough,GF and Sinnamon,GK, Operation Hardtack Project 1.9. Loading on Buried Simulated Structures in High-Overpressure Regions, DOEWT-1614 (EX), 1984. [15] Chen, HL, Lin, W, Keer, LM and Shah, SP, "Low Velocity Impact of an Elastic Plate Resting on Sand." ASME J. of Applied Mechanics, 55, 887-894, 1988. [16] Chen, HL, Shah SP and Keer, LM, "Dynamic Response of Shallow-Buried Cylindrical Structures." J. Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 116(1). pp. 152-171, 1990. [17] Chen, HL and Chen, SE "Dynamic Responses of Shallow-Buried Flexible Trap-Doors Subjected to Impact Loading," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, v. 122, no. 1, p.55-70, Jan 1996. [18] Chiapetta,RL and Costantino,CJ, A Bibliography on the Response of Earth Media and Buried Structures to Ground Loading, WESCR-3-168, 1967. [19] Coltharp, DR, Blast Response Tests of Reinforced Concret Box Structures, Proceedings, the Interaction of Non-Nuclear Munitions with Structures Symposium, Colorado, p.133-138, 1983. [20] Crawford, RE, Higgins, CJ and Bultmann, EH, the Air Force Manual for Design and Analysis of Hardened Structure, AFWLTR-74-102, 1974. [21] Cunningham,CH., Townsend,FC and Fagundo,FE, The Development of Micro-Concrete for Scale Model Testing of Buried Structures, AFESC/ESLTR-85-49, 1986. [22] Dallriva, FD and Slawson, TR, Large-Scale Shallow-Buried Structure Test, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, technical report SL-86-3, 1986.

[23] Dancygier, AN, Response of Shallow-Embedded Structures to Surface Impact Loading, Dissertation, Northwestern U. Evanston, IL, 1991. [24] Dancygier, AN "Quantitative Evaluation of Effects of Gravity on Small-Scale Modeling." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, vol. 121, no. 7, pp. 773-778, 1995. [25] Denton, DR and Flathau, WJ, Model Study of Dynamically Loaded Arch Strucrtures,

AEWES-Misc-Paper-1-742, 1966. [26] Dove, RC, Evaluation of In-Structure Shock Prediction Techniques for Buried Structures, WES. WES/TR/SL-91-20, 1991. [27] Drumm, EC, Constitutive Modeling for Blast-Induced Wave Propagation, AFESC/ESLTR-84-45, 1985. [28] Farhoomand, I and Wilson, E, Nonlinear Finite Element Code for Analyzing the Blast Response of Underground Structures, AEWESCR-N-70-1, 1970. [29] Fuehrer, HR, Keeser, JW, Investigation of Oblique Shocks and Edge Effects for Underground Targets, AFATLTR-77-1, 1977. [30] Getchell, JV., Kiger, SA, Slawson, TR and Hyde, DW, Vulnerability of Shallow-Buried Flat-Roof Structures. Rept SL-80-7, WES, 1980-1984. [31] Getzler, Z, Kormonik, A, and Mazurik, A, "Model Study on Arching above Buried Structures." J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, v94, SM5, pp.1123-1141, 1968. [32] Getzler, Z, Gellert, M, and Eitan, R, "Analysis of Arching Pressures in Ideal Elastic Soil." Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, vol. 96, no. SM4, pp. 1357-1372, 1970. [33] Getzler, Z, Lupu, L, "Experimental Study of Buckling of Buried Domes," J. Soil Mech. Foun. Div., ASCE, v95, SM3, p.605-624, 1969. [34] Ghaboussi, J, Millavec, WA, and Isenberg, J, "R/C Structures Under Impulsive Loading." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, v110, n3, p. 505-521, 1984. [35] Gill, HL, True, DG, Active Arching of Sand During Static Loading, US Naval Civil Engrg. Laboratory, NCEL-TN-759, 1965. [36] Gill, HL, Active Arching of Sand During Dynamic Loading, US Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, report R541, 1967. [37] Gladwell, GML and Iyer, KRP, "Unbonded Contact between a Circular Plate and an Elastic Half-Space." J. Elasticity, v4, n2, p.115-130, 1974. [38] Hall, RL, Importance of Rigid-Body Motions on a Single-Degree-Of-Freedom Model, WES-TR-SL-87-27, 1987. [39] Haltiwanger, JD and Blackburn, TO, Effects of Gross Inaccuracies in Structure Alignment and Soil Resistance Properties on the Response of Buried Structures to Nuclear Blast Loadings, AFWLTR-67-7, 1967.

[40] Haltiwanger, JD and Hall, WJ, Scale Effects on the Behavior of Shallow-Buried Structures, and Criteria for Shock Effects on Ground-Supported Equipment, DNATR-85-324, 1985. [41] Havers, JA, Structural Materials for Hardened Personnel Shelters. XAOCD, 1963. [42] Hayes, PG, Backfill Effects on Response of Buried Reinforced Concrete Slabs, WES. WES/TR/SL-89-18, 1989. [43] Hoeg, K, Pressure Distribution on underground structural cylinders, AFWLTR-65-98, 1966. [44] Hoff, GC, Shock-Absorbing Materials: Backpacking Materials for Deeply Buried Protective Structures. WES-TR-6-763, 1967. [45] Holmes, RL, Slawson, TR and Harris, AL, Dynamic Test of a Corrugated Steel Keyworker Blast Shelter Misty Picture, WES/TR/SL-87-31, 1987. [46] Ito, YM, England, RH and Kreyenhagen, KN, Investigation of Environmental and Response Phenomena for Buried Target Structures in Crater Margins, DNATR-84-54, 1981. [47] Jester, GE, An Experimental Investigation of Soil-Structure Interaction in a Cohesive Soil,

AEWES-TR-N-70-7-vol-1, 1970. [48] Keer, LM, Shah, SP and Dancygier, AN, dynamic response of embedded structures, AFOSRTR-91-0674, 1991. [49] Kennedy, TE, Comparison of Simulation and Field Tests of a Buried Concrete Arch Structure, WES, AEWES-Misc-Paper-1-963, 1968. [50] Kennedy, TE, Dynamic Response of a Model Buried Field Shelter, Project LN314, Operation Prairie Flat, AEWES-TR-N-70-6, 1970. [51] Kennedy, TE, Dynamic Tests of a Model Flexible-Arch-Type Protective Shelter, AEWES-MISC-Paper-N-71-3, 1971. [52] Kennedy, TE, the Dynamic Response of a Simulated Buried Arch to Blast Loading, AEWES-TR-N-71-9, 1971. [53] Kiger,SA, Use of a Foam Hest to Simulate Low-Yield Nuclear Overpressures, WES/MP/SL-81-12, 1981. [54] Ko, HY, Centrifugal and Numerical Modeling of Buried Structures. Multiple Volumes, AFOSR-84-0300, 1987. [55] Koutsabeloulis, NC, Griffiths, DV, "Numerical Modeling of the Trap Door Problem," Geotechnique, v39, n1, p. 77-89, 1989. [56] Krauthammer, T, Bazeos, N and Holquist, TJ, "Modified SDOF Analysis of RC Box-Type Structures." J. Struct. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 112(4), p. 726-744, 1986. [57] Kvammen, A, an experimental investigation of shock shield, AFWLTR-69-65, 1969.

[58] Leskys, AG, Albritton, GE, Behavior of Circular Tubes Buried in Sand under Dynamic Loading, AEWES-Misc-Paper-1-964,1968. [59] Linger, DA, Effect of Backpacking on Structure-Medium Interaction, AFWLTR-68-40, 1968. [60] Mason, HG, Criner, OH, Waisser, R. and Wallace, N.R, A Study of the Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Characteristics of Real Soil Media, US Airforce, RTDTDR633075, 1963. [61] McNulty, JW, An Experimental Study of Arching in Sand, WES, Vicksburg, MS, report 1-674, 1965. [62] McPherson, RB, Investigation of Buried Domes, Phase IV: Static Response of Flexible Domes Buried in Sand, AFWLTR-68-99, 1968. [63] McVay, MC and Zalzman, S, Finite Element Analysis of an Underground Structure, US Airforce, AFESC/ESLTr-87-05, 1988. [64] Mosborg, RJ and Talda, PM, An Experimental Investigation of the Arching Phenomenon Occurring over a Buried Rectangular Plate, US Airforce, AFWLTR-65-78, 1966. [65] Murphy, G, Young, DF and Martin, CW, Use of Models to Predict the Dynamic Response of Dynamically Loaded Underground Structures, RTDTDR63-3064, 1963. [66] Murphy, G, Young, DF and McConnell, KG, Similitude of Dynamically Loaded Buried Structures, AFWLTR-64-142, 1965. [67] Newmark, NM and Sinnamon,GK, Air Blast Effects on Underground Structures, AECWT-727, 1954. [68] Newmark, NM, "The Basis of Current Criteria for the Design of Underground Protective Constructions." Symposium on Soil-Structure Interaction, Tucson, Arizona, p. 1-24, 1964. [69] Newmark, NM, "State-of-the-Art in Dynamic Analysis and Techniques for the Design of Underground Protective Construction." Symposium Protective Structures for Civilian Populations, NRC, p. 166-179, 1965. [70] Phillip, AA and Stephen, MC, Static Arching Tests on Cylinders Buried Vertically in a partially Saturated Low-Plasticity Soil, AFWLTR-68-1, 1968. [71] Pickett, SF, Development and Evaluation of Measurement Systems for Blast-Induced Motions in Buried Structures, AFWLTR-73-230, 1974. [72] Poplin, JK and Hadala, PF, Effects of Relative Density and Pulse Duration on Dynamic Response of Footings Buried in Sand, AEWES-TR-S-69-6, 1969. [73] Reiff, CM and McPherson, RB, Investigation of Buried Domes, Phase II, Static Pressure Distribution on Small Rigid Domes, WLCTM-70-009, 1970. [74] Robinson, RR, Theoretical Investigation of Loads on Buried Structures. AFWLTR-78-6, 1978.

[75] Savage, SJ, Ross, T, Sorenson, H, Carson, J and Satterthwaite, B, Development of a Rule-Based Structural Damage Assessment Code, New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, report number AFWLTR-87-19, 1988. [76] Sevin, E, Use of Physical Models in Development of the M-X Protective Shelters, Ballistic Missile Office, BMO-82-126, 1983. [77] Shin, CJ, Centrifugal and Numerical Modeling of Buried Structures, AFOSRTR-87-1446, 1987. [78] Slawson, TR, Dynamic Shear Failure of Shallow-Buried Flat-Roofed Reinforced Concrete Structure Subjected to Blast Loading. Rept. SL-84-7, WES, 1984. [79] Slawson, TR, Taylor, HM, Jr., Dallriva, FD and Kiger, SA, Structural Element Tests in Support of the Keyworker Blast Shelter Program, WES/TR/SL-85-8, 1985. [80] Slawson, TR, Garner, SB, Woodson, SC, Yield Effects on the Response of a Buried Blast Shelter, WES/TR/SL-86-5, 1986. [81] Sorrell, FY, Horie, Y., Whitfield, JK, Lee, SH, Park, JK Scaling Problems for Wave Propagation in Layered Systems, Report No. AFESC/ESLTR-87-73, 1988. [82] Sweet,J, Nonlinear Response of Buried Structures in a Stress Wave Environment., SBIAD-E300 067, 1977. [83] Takahashi, SK and Murtha, RN, Reduction of Stresses in Buried Structures, NCEL-TN-1199, 1971. [84] Terzaghi, K, Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley, N.Y, 1943. [85] Triandafilidis, GE, Hampton, D and Spanovich, M, Experimental Study of Arching Stresses on Buried Vertical Cylinders, AFWLTDR-63-3106, 1964. [86] US Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons, TM5-855-1, Vicksburg, Miss, 1984. [87] Weidlinger, P, Hinman, E, "Analysis of Underground Protective Structures." J. Struc. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 114(7), 1658-1672, 1988. [88] Weidlinger, P and Hinman, E, "Cavitation in Solid Medium." J. Engrg. Mech. Div., ASCE, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 167-183, 1990. [89] Whittaker, JP, Centrifugal and Numerical Modeling of Buried Structures. Volume 3. A Centrifuge Study of the Behavior of Buried Conduits under Airblast Loads, AFOSRTR-87-1448, 1987. [90] Wiedermann, AH, The Interaction of Buried Structures with Ground Shock of Concepts of Preliminary Design of Structure Projects for Underground Nuclear Detonations, AFSWCTR-60-3, 1960. [91] Windham,JE and Curtis,JO, Effect of Backfill Property and Airblast Variations on the External Loads Delivered to Buried Box Structures, WES-TR-S-78-5, 1978.

[92] Windham, JE, Stress Transmission during Foam HEST Tests of Sand-Covered Box Structures: Analysis Using a One-Dimensional Plane Wave Code. WES, 1980. [93] Wong, FS, Modeling and Analysis of Uncertainties in Survivability and Vulnerability Assessment, AFWLTR-85-84, 1986. [94] Wong, FS, Weidlinger, P. "Design of underground protective structures." J. Struct Engrg, ASCE, 109(8), p.1972-1979, 1983.