83CH 3J IK ICH F7

6 9ghi4
199-209 1392 3

2
2 *1
( )-2 -1
(92/09/12 : 92/02/01 :)

.


. - .
.
.
.

. :

Blast Loading Effect on the Bearing

Capacity of Shallow Foundations
M. Amini Mazraeno, A. Ravanbakhsh, Gh. Dehghan Niri
Imam Hossein University
(Received: 21/04/2013; Accepted: 03/12/2013)

Abstract
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations under blast loading depends on various factors such as the severity of the
explosion, buried depth of the foundation and its materials, but comprehensive study hasnt been done on the impact of
these factors on the bearing capacity of this kind of foundations. The method of calculating bearing capacity of
foundations under blast loading follows that after applying initial stress due to the soil gravity, during different loading
in each step, the foundation will be placed by uniform stress. After analysis of the model in the static mode, the model
will be analyzed under the blast loading again, and then the average settlement of points below the foundation is
calculated. This procedure is performed for various stress levels and finally the settlement-stress graphs are plotted.
This stress increasing continues until the soil failed under the blast loading. Then bearing capacity of the foundation
under the blast loading is estimated by the cross-tangent method on the settlement-stress graph. The results indicate
reduction of the bearing capacity and the asymmetrical settlement of the foundation under blast loading. Also under the
blast loading like the static condition, bearing capacity is increased by increasing the buried depth.

Keywords: Bearing Capacity, Explosion, Numerical Modeling, Shallow Foundation.

*
Corresponding Author E-Mail: maminimz@ihu.ac.ir Passive Defence Sci. & Tech., 2013, 3, 199-209
 3 1392 200

. .1


70 90
.
.
1939 ) 1945 ( .
] [4 ABAQUS )
(

. . 1938
.
] [5 FLAC2D

]. [1


.
].[2


.

.
] .[4 1986


. ].[2

] [3

.
.
.
] [6
.
.
.


.

. ].[4
) (1 .




.
.

.
-
] [5
] 7 .[ 8

201

.

.
.



.
.

FLAC
.

.

.1 ][9
Researcher Code/software )Cell size (mm Explosive Soil
)Polyak and Sher (1978 Mathematical model - Solid liquid model Rigid surface
)Rodinnov and Terentev (1985 Mathematical model - Solid liquid model Rigid surface
)Absil et al. (1997 AUTODYN 2 475 g composition B -
)Dorn et al. (1999 FLUENT and LS-DYNA - - -
)Williams and Poon (2000 LS-DYNA - 7.5 k g C4 Cohesion less soil
)Laine and Sandvik (2001 AUTODYN 8 10.4 kg composition B Cohesion less soil
)Niekerk (2001 MSC. Dytran - 800 g Pentolite -
)Wang (2001 LS-DYNA - 100 g C4 Cohesion less soil
)Cheng et al. (2002 AUTODYN and MSC. Dytran 10 5 kg TNT
)Fairlie and Bergeron, (2002 AUTODYN 25 1 kg C4 Cohesion less soil
)Gupta (2002 LS-DYNA - 907.2 g Pentolite -
)Jacko et al. (2002 AUTODYN - 500 gr TNT -
)Persson et al.(2003 AUTODYN - 0.125/0.5/1/4 kg PETN -
)Rhijnsburger (2003 LS-DYNA - 10 kg TNT Rigid surface
)Fiserova et al. (2004 AUTODYN - 100 g TNT Cohesion less soil
)Olofsson (2007 FLAC - - -
)Niroumand and Kassim (2009 AUTODYN 10 100 g TNT Cohesion less soil

- .2

FLAC .
.

.
.
.1-2
.
3 -
. .

. t
1 .
.
. FLAC
50 54
. 2 .
) (
20 CONWEP
5020 .
1
Update
3 2
Near-field Crater
 3 1392 202

vs  v>

N
)(2
Ps  P> N

)(3 .
s  > N

)(4

]>  ]  10 
\ QL.NNN
/.L
)(5 ) (x
) (x, y ) (1
.4-2
].[10
.
) (
.
.


.



.
.1
FLAC
.2-2
.
FLAC
.5-2
.



. 2 -
1973 . -
) (L ) ( ) (K ) (G
]: [11 ) ( ) (C ) (
L

L/
)(6 .
.
.3-2
0/5 :


.

L/
 > 
L/ 2 0/5
m
m
)(7

.
C T . 2/51010 Pa 0/2
1000 m/s FLAC
3
0/005 s . :
 E   2.60_10
. L/
L&K L&/.K
FLAC )(1
1
. FLAC
.
:
 aA
G
Q
.
)(8
$ ].[11

2
Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer
3 1
Time step Interface
203

A L
) (td . K G
- ) .(3 . t A
t A
.

.

.6-2

.
1
.
.3 .

/  = P o

] .[12 FLAC 'f2A
)(10
)a  2/ // (10 )(11 ) ( ') 2A
C m/s
kg/m3 V2
( .

m/s ) (12 :
&

 V2  4.8 %
. 
#
)(12 ] .[11
$
.
fc )(4
R . n .7-2
) (2 .
FLAC
i0 ) (13 :

/  = P o )(13 ) .(2
X 2
) (14
:
L&
 60  %
nk  . 
# #
m
)(14
$ $

.2
.2 ) (n ][13
)(n
1/5 .
2/5 TNT
2/5 ) ( ) (9 ]:[13
2/75 ) ( D=0.65w1/3 )( 9
3 ) ( D w
3/25 ) ( TNT . ) 10 (11
) (P0

1
Hysteretic
 3 1392 204

FLAC
.

CONWEP .

.

.
.

] .[15 .4
][13
) .(6
.8-2

1 .
- ].[14
-



.
-
.6
) .(5
) (15 -18

.
]: [15
For 0     :
)(15
 
0
For     1.1 :
 )(16

     
.
1.1   :
[[

For
.
   
 1  0.4   )(17

""#$.$
!.
"

'
%/ )(18 .5 ][14

Vr .3
V)*+, ta
C R
.
1
Tangent Interaction Method
205

250
) (3
CONWEP
P1 P2 ) (4
.

.3 ][16
c E urref d
ur
)
( )(

)(kPa )(kPa ) (kN/m 3

0/2 0 30 0 2/5105 18

.8 - ][16
)(15 -18

) (9
) (7 .
FLAC ) (15 -18 P1 P2
. FLAC
.

5
FLAC P1
4
P1
)(m/s

3
FLAC P2
2
P2

1
][16 .7
0

[16] CONWEP .4

V
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
X Y

)(ms )(m )(m )(m/s
.9 P1 P2 P1 0/0 -4/0 3/93
P2 0/0 -6/0 0/62

.4 FLAC 2020
) (4
250
. ) (8
2 .
) (8 ) (10-14
.1-4
) (9 .

1500 kg/m3 40 P1 P2 FLAC ) (9
40 kPa 2 . .
2300 kPa 50
) (q ) (18 ]: [10 .
 3 1392 206

q  B N  C N
L

)(18
. Nc N
.
]:[17
qN  109.3 N  75.25
) (11

q

.
:
q   1500 9.81 2 109.3  40000 75.25
. ) 12 (13
L

q  4618350 Pa
. ) (14 10
. ) (w 50
. .
) (2 fc
0/4 . ) (9
2 1000 m/s
) (n ) (2 2/75
.

) (
) (10-14
) (10 .

0/005
0/5
) (5 -2 .

.11 2.E+04

1.E+04
)(kpa

8.E+03

4.E+03

0.E+00
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
)(s

.10

) (11 .


.12 .
 2 1392 208

2 1.E+04

P0
8.E+03
td .

)(kPa
6.E+03
100

90
4.E+03
80
70 2.E+03
60 R=1.5m
)(MPa

R=2m 0.E+00
50
R=2.5m 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
40
R=3m
)(m
30 .17 F2
20 50kg
10

0 35
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
)(s 30
.19 1/5 3

25
F1
20

0.4 15
F1 CF1 C1
10
0.3
5
)(m

0.2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
)(m
0.1
.18
0
1.5 2 2.5 3
)(m

.23
.

.4-4
.5

.
) (9 -16
. 2/5 2 1/5 3 P0
td .
5 ) (2  f 1
) (n ) (2 2/75


. w 50

. ) (19
.
F1 .

) (23
.

.
1/5
.
3 10 .
209
[7] Jayasinghe, L. B.; Thambiratnam, D. P.; Perera, N. Blast
Induced Ground Shock Effects on Pile Foundations; World
Academy of Sci., Eng. & Tech. 2013, 76, 139-143.
[8] Jayasinghe, L. B.; Thambiratnam, D. P.; Perera, N.
Computer Simulation of Underground Blast Response of Pile
in Saturated Soil; Computers and Structures Archive 2013,
120, 86-95.
[9] Niroumand, H.; Anuar, K. Simulation Comparison of the
Dispersion Behavior of Dry Sand Subjected to Explosion; Int.
J. Phy. Sci. 2011, 6, 1583-1590.
[10] Bowels, J. E. Foundation Analysis and Design;
Mc-Graw-Hill, 1996
[11] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. FLAC: Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua User Manual; Minnesota, USA. 2008.
[12] Das, B. M. Principles of Soil Dynamics; PWS-KENT
Publishing Company, Boston, Second Ed., Taylor and Francis,
1997.
[13] Smith, P. D.; Hetherington, J. G. Blast and Ballistic Loading
of Structures; Butterworth- Heinemann, 1994.
[14] Drescher, A.; Detournay, E. Limit Load in Translational
Failure Mechanisms for Associative and Non-Associative
Materials; Geotechnique 1993, 43, 443-456.
[15] TM5-855-1. Fundamentals of Protective Design for
Conventional Weapons; Headquarters, Dep't of the Army,
1986.
[16] Olofsson, S. O.; Rosengren, L.; Svedbjrk, G. Modeling of
Ground-Shock Wave Propagation in Soil Using FLAC; In
FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics 1999, 21,
401-405.
[17] Blanchat, T. K. Development of Explosive Event Scale Model
Testing Capability at Sandias Large Scale Centrifuge Facility;
Sandia National Laboratories, 1998.
.
.) (
.
.
.
.6
[1] Remennikov, A. A Review of Method for Predicting Bomb
Blast Effects on Building; J. Battlefield Tech. 2003, 6, 5-10.
[2] Dallriva, F. D. Data Report for FY 86 Dynamic Shallow -
Buried Arch Test; U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Experiment
Station Preliminary Report, Vicksburg, Miss., 1986.
[3] Ishikawa, N. Lessons from Past Explosive Tests on Protective
Structures in Japan; Int. J. Impact Eng. 2007, 34, 1535-1545.
[4] Lu, M.; Wang, Z.; Chong, K. A Comparative Study of Buried
Structure in Soil Subjected to Blast Load Using 2D and 3D
Numerical Simulations; Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Eng.
2005, 25, 275-288.
[5] GUI, M. W. Blast-Resistant Analysis for a Tunnel Passing
Beneath Taipei Shongsan Airport-a Parametric Study;
Geotech. Geological Eng. 2006, 24, 227-248.
[6] Nagy, N.; Eltehawy, E. A.; Eldesouky, A. Numerical
Modeling of Geometrical Analysis for Underground
Structures; 13th Int. Conf. on Aerospace Sci. & Aviation
Tech. 2009.