Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 30, No. 5 Paper ID GTJ100656 Available online at: www.astm.

org

TECHNICAL NOTE
Anirban De1 and Thomas F. Zimmie2

Centrifuge Modeling of Surface Blast Effects on Underground Structures

ABSTRACT: The effects of surface blasts on underground structures were studied through centrifuge model tests. Centrifuge scaling relationships make it possible to model the effects of large explosions, using a relatively small quantity of explosives under a high g-level. Centrifuge tests, conducted at 70 g, using 2.6 mg of TNT equivalent of explosives, resulted in explosions equivalent to those using 8.7 kN (0.9 tons) of TNT equivalent under normal (1 g) gravity. Strains induced at different locations of the model structure due to the explosion were measured using strain gages. Results indicated that the strains depend on the thickness and nature of the intervening medium. The presence of a polyurethane geofoam compressible inclusion barrier appeared to mitigate the impact of the explosion. Centrifuge model testing is useful in determining the effectiveness of different design alternatives, in studying the mitigating effects of different barrier systems, and in verifying and calibrating results of numerical models related to explosions and underground structures.

KEYWORDS: centrifuge, tunnels, explosion, blast, underground structures

Introduction
Underground structures, such as tunnels and pipelines, are critical elements of modern transportation infrastructure and represent potential targets of terrorist attacks. A surface explosion, set off by a mobile source (such as a truck or a bus laden with explosives) is generally difcult to deter. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the damage to underground structures from explosions on the ground surface. Full-scale eld tests to study the effects of explosions are extremely risky and expensive. Complex numerical models are sometimes used to simulate explosions, but they need to be calibrated and validated against physical model tests before their results are useful in practice. In the study reported here, geotechnical centrifuge tests were used to investigate the effects of surface blasts on underground structures. A blast detonated at the ground surface causes shock waves to travel through the subsurface and potentially damage underground structures that the waves encounter. The extent of damage to the structures depends on the distance as well as the properties of the material through which the shock waves travel from the source to the structure where damage is caused. In this study, the inuence of these factors, as well as the potential mitigating inuence of compressible inclusion barriers installed outside the structure, was investigated.

Centrifuge Modeling Background

Tests under a high gravitational eld, utilizing a geotechnical centrifuge, make it possible to model phenomena which are either extremely difcult or impossible to model in full-scale. Researchers such as Schmidt and Holsapple (1980), Cheney and Fragaszy (1984), Kutter et al. (1988), and Goodings et al. (1988) have reported on scale effects of blasting, through both dimensional analyses and centrifuge experimental modeling. An explosion is fundamentally a volumetric phenomenon (Taylor 1995) and it has been established that the effects of a blast are related to the third power of the gravitational acceleration involved. A smaller mass of explosive, in a model detonated at a proportionately higher gravitational acceleration will have the same effects as a full-scale prototype explosive, detonated under the earths normal gravitational eld. Kutter et al. (1988) conducted centrifuge model tests to investigate the effects of underground explosions on exible, shallow tunnels. Buried explosives were detonated near the underground tunnels. The tests used dry sand and scaling factors of 1:97 and 1:48.5. Davies (1994) reported centrifuge experiments in which protective barriers were included in the model between the source of explosion and the underground structure. The results indicated that expanded polystyrene sheets were highly effective in attenuating the effects of shock waves, but provided only limited resistance to inertial loading. On the other hand, reinforced concrete and composite barriers provided only limited attenuation from shock waves, but provided signicant reduction in the inertial loading. Charlie et al. (2005) compared results of centrifuge model tests with prototype tests in which they studied stress wave propagation and attenuation as a function of water content and degree of saturation of sand.

Manuscript received May 25, 2006; accepted for publication March 7, 2007; published online May 2007. 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY10471. 2 Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY12180.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Harbor Jan 21 18:47:24 EST 2013 Copyright 2007 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Downloaded/printed by Swets pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 2Schematic diagram of model, showing instrument locations (gure not drawn to scale).

FIG. 1Experimental setup (gure not drawn to scale; all dimensions in prototype scale; model scale= 1 / 70 prototype scale).

Scaling of Explosions
The centrifuge tests reported in this paper were all conducted at 70 g, on board a 150 g-ton geotechnical centrifuge located at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY. In each test two exploding bridgewire (EBW) charges were exploded simultaneously. Each charge contained 1.031 g of cyclotrimethylene trinitramine (RDX) and 0.080 g of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). The trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent of each EBW charge was 1.3 g. Since two such charges were exploded in each test, the TNT equivalent used in each test was 2.6 g under normal gravity 1 g. Since the effects of a blast scale in proportion to the third power of the acceleration level, 2.6 g of explosives detonated in each test under a 70 g environment produced the same effects as would 703 times 2.6 g or 888 kg, i.e., 8.7 kN (0.9 tons) of explosives under normal gravity 1 g.

The diameter and thickness scale linearly with respect to the acceleration level, N, when the model and prototype have the same material density. At 70 g, the model represented a prototype with an outer diameter of 5.5 m, thickness of 0.133 m, and exural stiffness (EI) of 13 106 kN m2. The prototype properties calculated above represent those of typical steel-lined concrete tunnel structures, used for both road and rail transportation, especially those used in urban underground transit systems (i.e., subways). They also approximate the properties of large diameter metal pipelines, typically used for fuel and water conveyance over long distances. Therefore, the model tests presented in this paper apply to both tunnel and pipeline prototype structures.

Experimental Setup Model Structure and Soil

The model structure was a 610-mm long copper pipe with an outer diameter of 76 mm and a wall thickness of 2.5 mm. The model was located within an aluminum model container, with side walls reinforced to withstand stresses anticipated under high accelerations with minimal deformation. A homogeneous, ne sand (Nevada #120), characterized by Arulmoli (1992), was used as the soil material supporting the structure, as well as the backll and cover material. The sand was placed dry and compacted in place to achieve a uniform target unit weight of 15.7 kN/ m3, which corresponds to a relative density of approximately 60 %. Figure 1 shows the experimental setup, including location of explosives with respect to the model pipe structure.

Modeling of Underground Structures

Scaling in centrifuge tests is generally reported in relation to the centrifuge acceleration as a multiple of normal 1 g gravity. The scaling factor for tests conducted at an acceleration of N g is N. In the case of tests reported in this paper, N = 70. Underground structures of cylindrical shape were modeled in the centrifuge tests reported here. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. The structure was completely buried under soil and was supported continuously along its base. Bending along the longitudinal axis of the structure was considered to be the primary mode of deformation and similitude with respect to exural stiffness, EI was required in the tests. It has been shown (Javenmard and Valsangkar 1994; Taylor 1995) that exural stiffness scales as the third power of the centrifuge acceleration level. In the tests reported in this paper, no specic prototype structure was modeled; rather the characteristics of a wide range of prototype structures were studied and a model was selected such that it represented the behavior of an average prototype structure. Similarly, the centrifuge acceleration level of 70 g was selected based on practical considerationsit allowed modeling an average prototype structure while ensuring safe and efcient centrifuge and blasting operations.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 21 18:47:24 EST 2013 Downloaded/printed by Swets pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

Instrumentation
Each model structure was instrumented with up to 19 strain gages. Axial and circumferential strains at different locations on the structure were measured during each test. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the model, along with strain gage locations. Two different types of strain gages were used in the tests. Four rosettes, each containing three strain gages, were installed at the top and the bottom at the center span of the structure, at the top at the rst quarter span, and at the bottom of the second quarter span. The axial, circumferential, and shear strains at each location were calculated from the three strain measurements on a rosette following equations of basic solid mechanics. The second type of strain gage used in the tests was a longitudi-

DE AND ZIMMIE ON SURFACE BLAST EFFECTS

FIG. 3Plots comparing effects of soil covers of 3.6 and 1.8 m on axial strains measured at Q1T2, for explosions directly over the centerline.

nal strain gage, used to measure the circumferential strains at two locations at the mid-span and at two to three locations at each end of the model structure.

Data Acquisition
Strain gage measurements were acquired and saved at a rate of 15 000 points per second (i.e., 15 kHz) for each strain gage, for a total of up to 19 strain gages per test. This relatively high rate was necessary to ensure that the peak strains during the explosion were adequately captured. The plots obtained from the tests conrm that the peaks were indeed recorded in each case. In each test, data were acquired over a 15 second period, with the explosion occurring in the rst few seconds. This allowed for sufcient time to record data before the explosion, during the explosion, and after conditions returned to steady state following the explosion.

type of sealant is commonly used as insulation material in household applications. The impact due to the explosion was expected to induce deformations in the geofoam layer and, in turn, reduce the intensity of the load that was transferred to the model underground structure, resulting in reduced levels of strain on the structure as a result of the explosion. Measured strains at different locations of the underground structure from tests with and without the geofoam cover were compared to study the possible effectiveness of a compressible inclusion cover.

Results
Strains at various locations in the underground structure were continuously measured during each test. The inuence of factors such as cover thickness (1.8 or 3.6 m, in prototype scale) and cover material (soil or soil and geofoam) were studied by comparing strains measured at the same location in identical tests when select parameters were varied.

Cover Above Buried Structure Cover Material and ThicknessThe model structure was buried with a cover having a thickness of either 1.8 or 3.6 m (in prototype scale) between the ground surface and the top of the structure. In some of the tests, the intervening medium between the ground surface and the structure was soil. In other tests, the model structure was rst enclosed in a geofoam layer and then buried in soil. The latter tests were designed to study the effectiveness of a compressible inclusion barrier layer between the source of explosion and the structure in reducing the impact of surface explosions. Geofoam CoverGeofoam materials have been used as compressible inclusion barriers in geotechnical engineering to reduce earth pressure on structures. Such inclusions, when placed behind earth retaining structures, beneath foundations, and above pipelines and tunnels, compress readily and thereby reduce earth pressures on the structure (Horvath 1997). The application of controlled deformations in reducing pressures on retaining walls and buried underground structures has been documented by researchers and practitioners (Karpurapu and Bathurst 1992; Vaslestad et al. 1993). A geofoam layer was installed around the model structure by applying a spray-on expanding polyurethane foam sealant. This
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 21 18:47:24 EST 2013 Downloaded/printed by Swets pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

Effects of Soil Cover Thickness (1.8 m Versus 3.6 m, Prototype Scale)

Plots of axial strains measured in strain gages mounted on the top of the model, 10.6 m (prototype scale) from the centerline (location Q1T2, according to Fig. 2) are shown in Fig. 3. A peak axial strain equal to 1020 microstrain was induced at this location when a soil cover of 1.8 m was used. When the soil cover was doubled to 3.6 m, the peak axial strain at the same location reduced to 630 microstrain. A measurable permanent axial strain was measured in the case where a lower cover thickness was utilized. This comparison indicates that increasing the soil cover reduces the strains on the structure. The strains induced due to explosion were found to be approximately two to three orders of magnitude greater than the static stresses, caused by in-situ overburden.

Effects of Cover Material (Soil Versus Soil and Geofoam)

The effects of different cover materials (of same total thickness) on the underground structure were studied by comparing the strains

4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 4Plots comparing effects of soil cover with soil plus geofoam cover, both to total thickness of 3.6 m, on axial strains measured at Q1T2, for explosions directly over the centerline.

induced in tests having only a soil cover with strains from tests where a combination of soil and geofoam cover was used. In each case, a total thickness of 3.6 m (prototype scale) of cover was modeled. In one case, the cover consisted of a uniform soil layer. In the second case, a 0.9-m (prototype scale) geofoam layer was rst installed directly over the structure and then the entire assembly was backlled with a soil cover of 2.7 m, thereby providing a total cover of 3.6 m. Plots of axial strains measured in strain gages mounted on the top of the model, 10.6 m (prototype scale) from the centerline (location Q1T2, according to Fig. 2) are shown in Fig. 4. A peak axial strain equal to 630 microstrain was induced at this location when only a soil cover was used. When a combination of 2.7 m of soil and 0.9 m of geofoam were used in the cover, the peak axial strain at the same location reduced to 230 microstrain. This comparison demonstrates the effectiveness of compressible inclusion barrier material, such as geofoam, in reducing the impacts of explosions on underground structures. It should be noted that in the test with 1.8 m (prototype scale) of soil cover, the strain gage rosette located on the top of the centerspan (i.e., located closest to the source of explosion) was damaged and rendered useless as a result of the explosion. Upon completion of the test, a distinct permanent dimple was noticed on the crown of the structure along the centerline, immediately below the location of the explosion. Therefore, the maximum strains recorded in the test with 1.8 m (prototype scale) cover were higher than 2200 microstrain, but could not be measured.

The magnitudes of strains induced in the structure due to explosions depend on the nature and thickness of the intervening medium between the structure and the explosion. Tests in which a polyurethane geofoam cover was installed around the structure indicate that the magnitudes of induced strains were smaller than those in tests without the geofoam, even with the same total cover. Therefore, it appears that the presence of a compressible inclusion barrier, such as geofoam, may have some benecial effects in mitigating the impact of an explosion. This aspect may have practical signicance in the design of underground structures which are made more resistant to explosions.

Acknowledgments
The work reported in this paper was funded through a Small Grants Exploratory Research (SGER) grant and a Research Opportunity Award (ROA) grant provided by the Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS) Program of the National Science Foundation (NSF), Dr. Richard J. Fragaszy, Program Director.

References
Arulmoli, K., 1992, VELACS: Verication of Liquefaction Analyses by Centrifuge Studies, Laboratory Testing Program, Soil Data Report, Report, Project No. 90-0562, The Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine, CA. Charlie, W. A., Dowden, W. A., Villano, E. J., Veyera, G. E., and Doehring, D. O., 2005, Blast-Induced Stress Wave Propagation and Attenuation: Centrifuge Model Versus Prototype Tests, Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 110. Cheney, J. A., and Fragaszy, R. J., 1984, The Centrifuge as a Research Tool, Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 182187. Davies, M. C. R., 1994, Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction Resulting from Blast Loading, Proceedings, Centrifuge 94, C. F. Leung, F. H. Lee, and T. S. Tan, Eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 319324. Goodings, D. J., Fourney, W. L., and Dick, R. D., 1988, Geotechnical Centrifuge Modeling of Explosion-induced CratersA

Conclusions
Centrifuge testing provides a viable method to model the effects of explosions on underground structures. Centrifuge scaling relationships for explosion effects make it possible to model relatively large explosions, while using small quantities of explosives in the tests. Results of centrifuge model tests can be used to verify and calibrate numerical models which are frequently utilized to study the effects of explosions. The generally high costs and risks associated with full-scale eld tests make centrifuge model tests attractive alternatives in this regard.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 21 18:47:24 EST 2013 Downloaded/printed by Swets pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

DE AND ZIMMIE ON SURFACE BLAST EFFECTS

Check for Scaling Effects, U.S. Air Force Ofce of Scientic Research, Washington D.C., Report No. AFOSR-86-0095. Horvath, J. S., 1997, The Compressible Inclusion Function of EPS Geofoam, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 15, Nos. 13 (Special Issue on Geofoam), pp. 77120. Javanmard, M., and Valsangkar, A. J., 1994, Soil Structure Interaction of Partially Buried Pipes, Proceedings, Centrifuge 94, C. F. Leung, F. H. Lee, and T. S. Tan, Eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 733738. Karpurapu, R., and Bathurst, R. J., 1992, Numerical Investigation of Controlled Yielding of Soil Retaining Wall Structures, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 115131. Kutter, B. L., OLeary, L. M., Thompson, P. Y., and Lather, R.,

1988, Gravity-scaled Tests on Blast-induced Soil-structure Interaction, J. Geotech. Engrg., American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 431447. Schmidt, R. M., and Holsapple, K. A., 1980, Theory and Experiments on Centrifuge Cratering, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 235. Taylor, R. N., Ed., 1995, Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology, Blackie Academic & Professional, Chapman and Hall, Glasgow. Vaslestad, J., Johansen, T. H., and Holm, W., 1993, Load Reduction on Rigid Culverts Beneath High Fills: Long-term Behavior, Transp. Res. Rec., Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 5868.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jan 21 18:47:24 EST 2013 Downloaded/printed by Swets pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.