Rock Mech Rock Eng (2016) 49:4441–4458

DOI 10.1007/s00603-016-1043-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected

to Internal Blast Loading
Rohit Tiwari1 • Tanusree Chakraborty1 • Vasant Matsagar1

Received: 4 November 2015 / Accepted: 25 June 2016 / Published online: 5 July 2016
Ó Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Abstract The present study deals with three-dimensional higher attenuation of shock wave. Higher amount of
nonlinear finite element (FE) analyses of a tunnel in rock ground shock wave propagation is observed in case of less
with reinforced concrete (RC) lining subjected to internal weathered rock. Ground heave is observed under blast
blast loading. The analyses have been performed using the loading for tunnel close to ground surface.
coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian analysis tool available in FE
software Abaqus/Explicit. Rock and RC lining are modeled Keywords Blast loading  Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian
using three-dimensional Lagrangian elements. Beam ele- analysis  Finite element method  Rock  Strain rate 
ments have been used to model reinforcement in RC lining. Tunnel
Three different rock types with different weathering con-
ditions have been used to understand the response of rock List of symbols
when subjected to blast load. The trinitrotoluene (TNT) / Angle of internal friction
explosive and surrounding air have been modeled using the w Dilation angle at mean stress–deviatoric
Eulerian elements. The Drucker–Prager plasticity model stress plane
with strain rate-dependent material properties has been e Eccentricity parameter
used to simulate the stress–strain response of rock. The e Dimensionless plastic strain
concrete damaged plasticity model and Johnson–Cook e_ Strain rate
plasticity model have been used for the simulation of e_0 Reference strain rate
stress–strain response of concrete and steel, respectively. pl Tensile plastic strain
et
The explosive (TNT) has been modeled using Jones– ecpl Compressive plastic strain
Wilkins–Lee (JWL) equation of state. The analysis results m Poisson’s ratio
have been studied for stresses, deformation and damage of qc Density of concrete
RC lining and the surrounding rock. It is observed that qs Density of steel
damage in RC lining results in higher stress in rock. Rocks q Current density
with low modulus and high weathering conditions show q Ratio of density of explosive in the solid
state to current density
qsol Density of explosive in the solid state
& Tanusree Chakraborty b Parameter related to the angle of internal
tanusree@civil.iitd.ac.in
friction
Rohit Tiwari r Dynamic yield stress (J–C) model
rohit19862009@gmail.com
rt Tensile stress
Vasant Matsagar rc Compressive stress
matsagar@civil.iitd.ac.in
^
rmax Maximum principal effective stress
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of rb0 Initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress
Technology (IIT) Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016, rc0 Initial uniaxial compressive yield stress
India

123
4442 R. Tiwari et al.

rt0 Uniaxial tensile stress at failure weathering and effect of confining pressure in rock.
r1 , r2 , r3 Effective stress in x, y and z directions, Explosion inside tunnel causes multiple reflections of
respectively shock wave and channeling of wave inside the tunnel,
A, B Magnitude of pressure (JWL EOS) which further complicate the problem. Experimental
A, B, C, m, n Model parameters (J–C) model investigations to understand the response of tunnel in rock
c Cohesion subjected to blast loading are difficult because of the social
cv Speed of sound wave and political issues as well as the difficulties involved in
d Hardening parameter conducting such tests. Therefore, systematic parametric
dt Damage variable for tension studies of tunnels situated in different types of rock masses
dc Damage variable for compression and subjected to internal blast loading are required.
Delo
Undamaged initial elastic modulus Many studies have been conducted to understand the
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete effect of explosion in underground structures. Dowing
Es Modulus of elasticity of steel (1996) analyzed the response of rock subjected to blast
eint Specific internal energy at atmospheric loading. It was concluded that the response of rock against
pressure blast loading depends on the material properties of the rock
fck Compressive strength of concrete and can be represented by the overpressure induced by
fs Tensile yield strength blast and particle velocity, also known as peak particle
Gp Plastic potential function velocity (PPV). Liu and Ahrens (1997) reviewed different
l Smallest element dimension empirical equations and performed experiments for
K Scalar parameter understanding the attenuation of shock wave in the rock
Kc Ratio of second deviatoric stress invariant mass. Chille et al. (1998) investigated dynamic response of
on the tensile meridian to that on the an underground electric power plant subjected to internal
compressive meridian at initial crushing explosive loading using three-dimensional (3D) numerical
for any given value of effective mean analysis procedure. Coupled fluid–solid interaction was
stress considered in their study; however, the nonlinearity and
p Pressure failure behavior of rock and concrete as well as the inter-
p Effective mean pressure action between different solid media were not simulated.
p0 Mean stress Ma et al. (1998) used a continuum damage model for
q Deviatoric stress failure of rock mass to analyze the damage zone, ground
R1, R2, x Material constants (JWL EOS) motion and plastic zone due to underground explosions by
r Third invariant of the deviatoric stress comparing the experimental results and numerical simu-
tensor lations. However, an isotropic homogeneous and continu-
s Deviatoric stress tensor ous medium was assumed in their investigations. Wu et al.
T* Homologous temperature (1998) investigated the propagation of blast-induced shock
Dt Time increment wave in jointed rock mass using accelerometers and found
tw Thickness of concrete lining that the attenuation of the shock wave is completely
U Displacement perpendicular to plane dependent on the distance from the charge weight, the
UR Out-of-plane rotations angle between the strike of rock strata and the direction of
x, y, z Cartesian directions wave propagation. Moreover, shock wave propagation in
W Charge weight the rock mass is proportional to the PPV in rock and the
amount of explosive used for explosion. In many investi-
gations, it has been observed that shock wave travels faster
in the saturated rock mass as compared to dry rock con-
1 Introduction dition (Berta 1994; Guldemeister et al. 2011; Babanouri
et al. 2013). Eitzenberger (2012) observed through exper-
The underground transportation system plays a key role in imental and numerical investigations that the attenuation of
the modern civil infrastructure. In recent decades, man- the shock wave is controlled by the texture of the rock
made disaster in underground metro systems caused by mass. Liang et al. (2013) investigated the response of an
bomb blast has become a major concern to the human existing tunnel subjected to blast-induced vibrations from a
civilization, explosion in London underground metro in newly constructed tunnel placed adjacent to the existing
2005 is one such example. Prediction of the response of tunnel. However, advanced 3D nonlinear dynamic analyses
tunnel in rock against internal blast loading is a complex of tunnel in rock with varying rock conditions, rigorous
phenomenon due to orientation of joints, extent of modeling of the reinforcement cage inside the concrete

123
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading
lining, explosive modeled using Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL)
equation of state (EOS), interaction between the explosive
cloud and surrounding tunnel lining are rather unavailable
in the literature.
The specific objectives of the present study are to
develop a 3D nonlinear finite element (FE) model for
simulating trinitrotoluene (TNT) explosion inside a tunnel
and studying the dynamic response of reinforced concrete
(RC) lining and rock mass subjected to blast loading for
different weathering conditions of the rock. A 50 kg TNT
charge weight has been placed inside the tunnel in the
present work. Numerical simulations are performed using
the commercially available FE software Abaqus version
6.11 (Abaqus/Explicit User Manual 2011). The coupled
Eulerian–Lagrangian (CEL) analysis tool available in
Abaqus is used to simulate the explosion. The reinforced
concrete (RC) lining and the surrounding rock mass are
modeled using the Lagrangian elements. The explosive and
surrounding air are modeled using the Eulerian elements.
Blast load may generate strain rate up to 104/s in the sur-
rounding medium (Ngo et al. 2007; Dusenberry 2010). In
order to simulate the strain rate-dependent stress–strain
response of rock, concrete and steel, different constitutive
models such as Drucker–Prager plasticity model, concrete
damaged plasticity model and Johnson–Cock (J–C) plas-
ticity model have been used, respectively, with strain rate-
dependent material properties (Lee and Salgado 1999; Liu
2009; Johnson and Cook 1983; Chakraborty et al. 2013).
The pressure volume behavior of TNT explosive is simu-
lated using JWL EOS. In order to understand the behavior
of the rock mass under blast load for varying rock condi-
tions, quartzite rock mass with three different weathering
conditions (R1, R2 and R3) has been used herein (Yadav
2005), where R1 represents rock mass with slightly to
moderately weathered, R2 and R3 represent rock masses
with moderately to highly and highly to completely
weathered conditions, respectively. The analysis results
have been studied for (1) stresses and deformation in the
rock mass and RC lining, (2) ground heave due to the
explosion, (3) pressure exhibited on lining and rock sur-
rounding the lining, (4) damage and plastic strain in the
lining, (5) attenuation of shock wave velocity in rock with
distance and (6) strain energy and kinetic energy responses
in rock.
2 Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modeling
2.1 Finite Element Modeling of Rock and RC
Lining
The 3D FE model of rock and RC lining is prepared
using the Abaqus/CAE tool and the Lagrangian elements.
4443
The FE mesh of the rock, tunnel lining and reinforce-
ment inside the lining are shown in Fig. 1a–c. A 20-m-
long tunnel geometry has been considered in rock with
the central axis of the tunnel placed at a depth of 12.5 m
from the ground surface as shown in Fig. 1a. Figure 1b
presents an enlarged mesh and the points in the mesh
where results have been studied. The steel reinforcement
in the RC lining has been modeled with 10-mm-diameter
and 12-mm-diameter bars in the longitudinal and the
hoop reinforcement directions, respectively, using steel
with yield strength of 300 MPa. Two layers of hoop
reinforcement have been used herein with a spacing of
120 mm center to center between the inner and the outer
reinforcement layers. The hoop reinforcement rings are
placed at a distance of 250 mm center to center. The
longitudinal reinforcement bars are placed at a radial
distance of 850 mm center to center as shown in Fig. 1c
(Design specifications 2015 for Delhi Metro Rail Cor-
poration Ltd.). The stress and displacement results are
studied at the tunnel crown, tunnel side wall, lining at
tunnel crown and lining at tunnel side wall. Here, tunnel
crown and tunnel side wall represent the locations in the
rock at the lining–rock interface, whereas lining at tunnel
crown and lining at tunnel side wall represent the loca-
tions on the inner surface of the lining as shown in
Fig. 1b. The length of the lining is also 20 m, and
thickness of lining (tw) is kept 350 mm in all analyses.
The internal diameter of tunnel is 5 m. The rock domain
has a square cross section of 25 m 9 25 m. The domain
size is determined through boundary convergence studies.
The bottom boundary of the rock domain is fixed in all
Cartesian directions, x, y and z. The front and back side
boundaries of the rock domain, lining and the vertical
side boundaries of rock are constrained the normal dis-
placements perpendicular to the plane (Ux, Uy and Uz)
and the out-of-plane rotations (URx, URy and URz) as
detailed in Fig. 1a.
The 3D part option in Abaqus/CAE is used to develop
FE models of the rock and concrete lining, and 3D mesh
of rock and lining is achieved using eight-node brick
element (C3D8R) with reduced integration, hourglass
control and finite membrane strains. For maintaining
accuracy of analysis, mesh convergence studies have been
performed with incorporation of higher mesh density in
tunnel lining and rock close to the lining. The steel
reinforcement has been meshed with two-node beam
elements (B31), and the steel reinforcement is embedded
in concrete. Proper bond between the reinforcement bar
and concrete is ensured by applying the embedment
constraint. The general contact option in Abaqus has been
used to model contact between tunnel lining and rock with
hard contact in the normal direction and frictionless
contact in the tangential direction.
123
4444 R. Tiwari et al.

(a) 20 m 25 m

12.5 m 25 m

y
Ux = 0, URy = URz = 0
Uz = 0, URx = URy = 0 (Both Sides)
(Front and Back)
x
z Ux = Uy = Uz = 0,
URx = URy = URz = 0
(Bottom)

(b) Tunnel Crown

Lining at Tunnel Crown

Tunnel Left Side Wall

Lining at Tunnel Left Side Wall

d= 5 m

(c) (d)

RC Lining Thickness (tw )

120 mm
12 mm Diameter
Bar @ 250 mm
c/c

18 Nos. 10 mm
Diameter Bar

Fig. 1 a Typical geometry, mesh and boundary conditions for tunnel in rock, b enlarged mesh for tunnel with tunnel lining, c tunnel lining and
reinforcement details and d explosive inside tunnel

123
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading 4445

2.2 Eulerian Finite Element Modeling of Explosive
The Eulerian modeling technique has been used to model
the TNT explosive material. A typical location for the
explosive is shown in Fig. 1d. The Eulerian material can
flow through the Lagrangian mesh. Thus, this technique is
very useful for the simulations that generate a large amount
of deformation and stress in the elements. In the present
study, explosive material and the surrounding air domain
inside the tunnel are modeled using the Eulerian continuum
3D eight-node reduced integration elements (EC3D8R). In
CEL analysis, Eulerian elements may be fully or partially
filled with material, and this material fraction can be tracked
by the Eulerian volume friction (EVF) tool, i.e., EVF = 0
representing completely void elements and EVF = 1 rep-
resenting element completely filled with material. The
explosive modeled herein is completely filled with Eulerian
elements with EVF = 1 (zero voids). Air around the
explosive is modeled with EVF = 0.8 (20 % voids). As the
material flows through the Eulerian mesh, the boundary of
Eulerian material may not match with the element geometry
during the analysis and has to be recomputed at each time
instant. After explosion, artificial loss of kinetic energy and
consequent reduction in accuracy of the analysis may occur
due to loss of air from the Eulerian grid. In order to prevent
the loss of air, larger size of the grid containing Eulerian
elements is taken. The general contact is defined between
during explosion and the last term on right-hand side is a
low pressure term, which deals with high volume due to
explosion. The material properties used herein for the JWL
EOS are listed in Table 1.
2.3 Constitutive Model of Materials
2.3.1 Constitutive Model of Concrete
Concrete in RC lining has been modeled with M30 grade
(maximum compressive strength 30 MPa) using the con-
crete damaged plasticity model in Abaqus. The stress–
strain relation of concrete damaged plasticity model is
given by:
 
pl
rt ¼ ð1  dt ÞDel
0 : e  et ð2Þ
 
rc ¼ ð1  dc ÞDel pl
0 : e  ec ð3Þ
where t and c represent tension and compression behavior,
respectively. Here, rt and rc are tensile and compressive
stress vectors, respectively; epl pl
t and ec are plastic strains; dt
and dc are the damage variables which are considered
functions of plastic strain; Del 0 is the undamaged initial
elastic modulus. The yield function in the concrete dam-
aged plasticity model is given by Lubliner et al. (1989) and
later modified by Lee and Fenves (1998), as given by:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

explosive, air and tunnel lining surfaces for enabling proper F¼ 3=2 s : s  3a p þ b r^max  c r^max
interaction between Eulerian and Lagrangian elements. The  ð1  aÞrc
air domain is modeled with non-reflecting, free outflow ¼0 ð4Þ
boundary condition. Thus, blast pressure can propagate
freely out of the air domain when it reaches the boundaries where
of air domain without any kind of reflection. To efficiently ðrb0 =rc0 Þ  1
capture the propagation of blast wave through air and a¼ ð5Þ
2ðrb0 =rc0 Þ  1
through the surrounding concrete lining and rock, a fine
mesh of Eulerian elements is necessary. The smallest ele- rc
b¼ ð 1  aÞ  ð 1 þ aÞ ð6Þ
ment size of 20 mm has been decided herein through mesh rt
convergence study. 3ð 1  K c Þ
The pressure (p) for the TNT explosive can be calcu- c¼ ð7Þ
2Kc  1
lated using the Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL) equation of state rc
(EOS) (Larcher and Casadei 2010) as given by rc ¼ ð8Þ
    ð1  dt Þ
x x rt
p¼A 1 eR1 q þ B 1  eR2 q þ xq eint rt ¼ ð9Þ
R1 q R2 q ð 1  dt Þ
ð1Þ
where r^max is the maximum principal effective stress; s is
where A, B, R1, R2 and x are material constants for TNT the deviatoric stress tensor; rb0 =rc0 is the ratio of initial
explosive. Parameters A and B represent the magnitudes of equibiaxial compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial
pressure, q is the ratio of the density of the explosive in the compressive yield stress; dt is the damage variable and Kc
solid state (qsol ) to the current density (q) and eint is the is the ratio of the second deviatoric stress invariant on the
specific internal energy at atmospheric pressure. In the tensile meridian to that on the compressive meridian at
JWL equation of state, the first two exponential terms on initial crushing for any given value of effective mean
the right-hand side represent high pressure generated stress, p ¼ ðr1 þ r2 þ r3 Þ=3.

123
4446 R. Tiwari et al.

Table 1 JWL material properties for TNT explosive (Larcher and Casadei 2010)
Density ðqsol Þ (kg/m3) Detonation wave speed (vdet) (m/s) A (MPa) B (MPa) x R1 R2 Detonation energy density (eint) (kJ/kg)

1630 6930 3,73,800 3747 0.35 4.15 0.9 3680

The concrete damaged plasticity model assumes a non-
associated plastic flow rule. The plastic potential function
Gp used for this model is given by:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
2 3
Gp ¼ ðert0 tan wÞ þ s : s  p tan w ð10Þ
2 crete, respectively.
where w is the dilation angle at mean stress–deviatoric
stress plane; rt0 is the uniaxial tensile stress at failure the
value of which is set by the user and e is the eccentricity
parameter. If the eccentricity is zero, the plastic potential
function becomes straight line. In the present study, the
modulus of elasticity of concrete Ec = 27.4 GPa, com-
pressive strength of concrete fck = 30 MPa, mass density
qc = 2400 kg/m3 and Poisson’s ratio mc = 0.2 are consid-
ered. Figure 2a, b shows the stress–strain curves for M30
concrete in compression and tension, respectively (Carreira
and Chu 1985, 1986). Figure 2c, d shows the damage
density–strain curves for M30 concrete in compression and
tension, respectively (Al-Rub and Kim 2010). Damage
density is defined as the ratio of the total damaged area to
the whole cross-sectional area. The damage density value
varies from 0 to 1 with damage density 0 meaning the
material is undamaged and damage density 1 meaning the
material is completely damaged. The strain rate-dependent
strength properties of concrete and the dynamic increment
factor (DIF) under compressive and tensile loading are
obtained from Bischoff and Perry (1991). Herein, DIF
values of 2.1 and 6 at 100/s strain rate have been used on
the static compressive and tensile strength values of con-
2.3.2 Constitutive Model of Steel
The stress–strain behavior of steel reinforcement has been
modeled using the Johnson–Cook (J–C) model (Johnson
and Cook 1983). The dynamic yield stress (r)–strain (e)
relationship of the J–C model is given by:
r ¼ ðA þ Ben Þð1 þ C loge e Þð1  T m Þ ð11Þ

where e is the dimensionless plastic strain; e ¼ e= 
_ e_0 in
which e_ is the equivalent plastic strain rate and e_0 = 1/s is
the reference strain rate. Here, A, B, C, m and n are the
model parameters; T*is the homologous temperature. In the
present study, temperature dependence of material stress–
strain response has not been considered. For steel, the
modulus of elasticity Es = 210 GPa, tensile yield strength
fs = 300 MPa, density qs = 7800 kg/m3 and Poisson’s
ratio m = 0.3 have been considered. For strain rate-de-
pendent modeling using the J–C model, the material

Fig. 2 a, b Static stress–strain (a) (b)

curves under compression and 40 2.5
tension, and c, d damage–strain Compression Tension
curves under compression and 2.0
30
Stress (MPa)

tension at 100/s strain rate for

M30 grade of concrete (Carreira 1.5
and Chu 1985, 1986; Al-Rub 20
and Kim 2010) 1.0

10
0.5

0 0.0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.004

(c) (d)
0.8 0.8
Damage Density

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.002 0.004
Strain Strain

123
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading 4447

constants were obtained from mechanical testing and
adopted herein for strain rate of 100/s, as, A = 360 MPa,
B = 635 MPa, n = 0.114, C = 0.075. These values are
computed based on the tensile test data of the material as
per the J–C model by neglecting the temperature effects
(Goel et al. 2012).
pressure obtained from triaxial test (Yadav 2005). The
strain rate-dependent strength properties of rock and the
dynamic increase factor (DIF) under compressive loading
are obtained from Zhao and Hao (2008). Herein, DIF value
of 1.23 at 100/s strain rate has been used on the static
compressive strength value of rock.

2.4 Types of Analyses

2.3.3 Constitutive Model of Rock
The validity of the present numerical simulations is
The stress–strain response of rock has been simulated using
ensured by comparing the current simulation results of
the Drucker–Prager plasticity model. The yield criteria of
blast loading on a concrete slab using the CEL technique
the Drucker–Prager model are given by:
" with (1) results obtained by simulating blast load as a
  3 #
q 1 1 r pressure pulse calculated using UFC 3-340-02 and the
F¼ 1þ  1  p0 tan b  d ¼ 0
2 K K q modified Friedlander’s equation, (2) results reported by Du
and Li (2009) from their numerical investigations and (3)
ð12Þ
results of experimental and numerical investigations car-
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ried out by Zhao and Chen (2013). Further, parametric
where q is the deviatoric stress ¼ 3=2 sij : sij , sij is the
deviatoric stress tensor, p0 is the mean stress = (r0 1 ? -
r0 2 ? r0 3)/3, K is a scalar parameter that determines the
shape of the yield surface and maintains the convexity of
the yield surface in the deviatoric (p) plane, r is the third
invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor. The parameter b is
related to the angle of internal friction / at the stage of no
dilatancy (the critical state of sand) using a correlation
given by:
pffiffiffi
3 sin /
tan b ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ ð1=3Þ sin2 /
and d is the hardening parameter related to cohesion, c is
through a correlation given by
pffiffiffi
d 3 cos /
¼ q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð14Þ
c of the tunnel. In order to properly capture the propagation
1 þ ð1=3Þ sin2 /
A non-associated flow rule is considered in the present
analysis by considering the dilatancy angle of rock to be
different from the angle of internal friction. The quartzite
rock mass with different weathering conditions as defined
in Table 2 has been considered in the analyses. In Table 2,
R1 represents a quartzite rock mass with slightly to mod-
erately weathering condition, and R2 and R3 represent
quartzite rock masses with moderately to highly and highly
to completely weathering conditions, respectively. The R1
rock mass has the maximum values of rock quality desig-
nation (RQD) and rock mass rating (RMR) among the three
rock types considered herein, with RQD of R1, R2 and R3
being 75–80, 30–40 and 10–20, respectively, and RMR of
R1, R2 and R3 being 47, 33 and 20, respectively. The
material properties used for quartzite rock mass are given
in Table 2. Figure 3 shows the stress–strain curves for
different rock weathering conditions at 0.5 MPa confining
sensitivity studies are carried out for quartzite rocks with
three different weathering conditions, with RC lining
thickness (tw) = 350 mm, and subjected to a charge weight
of (W) = 50 kg TNT.
2.5 Solution Scheme
The dynamic explicit analyses in the CEL approaches have
been performed using central difference integration
scheme in single step. This scheme uses a time increment
ð13Þ
(Dt) that is smaller than the Courant time limit, Dt B l/cv,
where l is the smallest element dimension and cv is the
speed of sound wave in the medium in which it travels. For
studying the response of complete 20 m tunnel section, the
duration of analysis is maintained at 16 ms (msec) such
that the shock wave can travel through the complete length
of the blast-induced compressive stress wave, artificial bulk
viscosity is activated by employing quadratic and linear
functions of volumetric strain rates with default values of
1.2 and 0.06, respectively (Abaqus/Explicit User Manual
2011).
3 Validation of FE model and CEL procedure
3.1 Validation for Capability of JWL EOS in Blast
Simulation
Herein, a 1.2 m 9 1.2 m 9 90 mm concrete slab sub-
jected to blast load caused by 1.69 kg TNT charge
weight (W) at three different scaled distances of 0.5, 1
and 2 m/kg1/3 is analyzed numerically using the CEL
method. In the CEL method, the TNT explosive has
been simulated using the JWL EOS. The M25 concrete
123
4448 R. Tiwari et al.

Table 2 Quartzite rock

Description Weathering condition of quartzite rock
properties (Yadav 2005)
R1 R2 R3

Weathering conditions Slightly to moderately Moderately to highly Highly to completely

Specific gravity (G) 2.65 2.65 2.65
Density (qr ) (kg/m3) 2550 2420 2350
Elastic modulus (ER) (GPa) 28 14 4
Poisson’s ratio (m) 0.25 0.28 0.40
Angle of internal friction (u) 42° 39° 33°
In situ stress ratio (K0) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Dilation angle (w) 5° 5° 5°
Cohesion (c) (MPa) 2.3 1.54 1.40
rc (MPa) 40 28 10.5
RQD range 75–80 30–40 10–20
RMR 47 33 20

3.2 Validation for Blast Analysis using JWL

R1 σ3 = 0.5 MPa with the Numerical Analysis Results
60
R2
Stress, σ1 (MPa)

R3
The validity of the current modeling approach using the
40
CEL method and the JWL EOS for explosive is also
ensured by comparing the current simulation results with
20
the numerical simulation results collected from Du and Li
(2009). Du and Li analyzed dynamic behavior of RC slabs
0 under blast loading. A RC slab of size
2 m 9 1 m 9 100 mm is used in these analyses. The slab
0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010
has been reinforced with 10- and 12-mm-diameter bars
Axial Strain
with 100-mm center-to-center spacing, in both directions
Fig. 3 Static stress–strain curve from triaxial test data for quartzite placed at the mid-depth. A charge weight of 1000 kg TNT
rock for different weathering conditions at 0.5 MPa confining was placed at a stand-off distance of 10 m from the center
pressure (Yadav 2005) of the slab. The boundaries of the concrete slab are
restrained in three Cartesian directions, e.g., x, y and z. The
has been modeled with a compressive strength of
FE software LS-Dyna was used for the analysis performed
25 MPa, mass density of 2500 kg/m3, Young’s modulus
by Du and Li (2009). The Johnson–Holmquist material
of 25 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.2. The boundaries of
model was used to simulate concrete stress–strain response,
the concrete slab are restrained in all three Cartesian
whereas the Cowper and Symond’s model was used for
directions, e.g., x, y and z. In another set of analysis, the
steel. In the present study, the RC slab model with the same
blast load is calculated using the UFC 03-340-02 (2008)
explosive charge weight and scaled distances as considered
manual and the modified Friedlander’s equation for the
by Du and Li (2009) is prepared using the CEL procedure.
same scaled distances mentioned above and the same
The JWL EOS has been used to model the explosive
charge weight of 1.69 kg. Figure 4a–c shows the com-
material. The material properties of steel and concrete have
parison of central node displacement of the concrete slab
been considered to be the same as that assumed by Du and
calculated from the analysis results using the JWL model
Li (2009). The concrete damaged plasticity model has been
and its comparison with the results obtained from the
used to simulate the stress–strain response of concrete,
simulation using UFC 03-340-02. From Fig. 4, it is
whereas the von Mises model has been used for steel. The
observed that the results obtained from both the analyses
concrete in the RC slab has been modeled with a com-
compare with reasonable accuracy. Figure 5a–c shows
pressive strength of 23.7 MPa, mass density of 2400 kg/
the pressure time histories calculated using the JWL
m3, shear modulus of 12.7 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.2
EOS. The peak pressure values are compared with the
as given in Du and Li (2009). The steel reinforcement in
pressure magnitudes obtained from UFC 3-340-02 man-
RC slab has been modeled with yield strength of 335 MPa,
ual. Both the pressure magnitudes are observed to be in
mass density of 7800 kg/m3, Young’s modulus of 207 GPa
close agreement.

123
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading 4449

Fig. 4 Comparison of central (a) (b)

node displacement time

Central Node Displacement (mm)

histories for simulations using 4 4
Simulations using JWL
JWL EOS and pressure time Simulations using pressure time history
0 0
history calculated from UFC
3-340-02 and modified -4 -4
Friedlander’s equation for
-8 -8
different scaled distances (Z).
a Z = 0.5 m/kg1/3, b Z = 1 m/ -12 -12
kg1/3 and c Z = 2 m/kg1/3
-16 -16
Z = 0.5 m/kg1/3 Z = 1 m/kg1/3
-20 -20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (msec) Time (msec)
(c)

Central Node Displacement (mm)

6

-2

-4
Z = 2 m/kg1/3
-6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (msec)

and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. Figure 6 shows the maximum results compare with that from the literature with reason-
displacement of the concrete slab when subjected to blast able accuracy duly validating the CEL method-based
load for different slab thicknesses. The current simulation simulation procedure adopted herein.

(a) 3.3 Validation of Blast Analysis Using JWL

6
with the Experimental Data
Pressure (MPa)

1/3
Maximum Pressure Z = 0.5 m/kg
4 UFC 3-340-02 = 3.473 MPa
Current Simulation = 5.459 MPa
The CEL simulation results have also been compared with
2
the experimental data for different charge weights, e.g.,
0 0.2, 0.31 and 0.46 kg placed at a stand-off distance of
(b)
0 1 2 3 4 5 400 mm from a center of slab as reported by Zhao and
1.5 Chen (2013). A RC slab of size 1 m 9 1 m 9 40 mm was
Pressure (MPa)

Maximum Pressure Z = 1 m/kg1/3

1.0 used for the analyses performed by Zhao and Chen (2013).
UFC 3-340-02 = 0.839 MPa
0.5 Current Simulation = 1.378 MPa
Maximum Displacement (mm)

0.0
25 Simulation by Du and Li (2009)
0 1 2 3 4 5
(c) Simulations using JWL
Pressure (MPa)

20
0.15 Z = 2 m/kg1/3
Maximum Pressure
0.10 15
UFC 3-340-02 = 0.177 MPa
0.05
Current Simulation = 0.156 MPa
10
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 5
Time (msec) 80 90 100 110 120
Slab Thickness (mm)
Fig. 5 Pressure time histories obtained from CEL simulations using
JWL EOS and comparison of peak pressure obtained from UFC Fig. 6 Variation of maximum displacement for different concrete
3-340-02 for different scaled distances (Z). a Z = 0.5 m/kg1/3, slab thicknesses obtained from CEL simulations using JWL EOS with
b Z = 1 m/kg1/3 and c Z = 2 m/kg1/3 the results reported by Du and Li (2009)

123
4450
The RC slab was reinforced with 6-mm-diameter bars, at
75-mm center-to-center spacing in both the directions. The
boundaries of the RC slab were restrained in three Carte-
sian directions, e.g., x, y and z along two sides. In the
present study, a similar model has been prepared using the
CEL procedure and the charge weights same as considered
by Zhao and Chen (2013). The material properties for steel
and concrete are also considered to be the same as assumed
by Zhao and Chen (2013). The concrete in RC slab has
been modeled with a compressive strength of 39.5 MPa
and Young’s modulus of 28.3 GPa. The steel reinforce-
ment in RC slab is modeled with yield strength of 600 MPa
and Young’s modulus of 200 GPa. The concrete damaged
plasticity model has been used for concrete, whereas the
von Mises model has been used for steel. Table 3 compares
the central node displacement of the concrete slab under
blast load for different slab thicknesses. The current sim-
ulation results show reasonable agreement with the
experimental and numerical results reported by Zhao and
Chen (2013).
4 Results and Discussion on Parametric Studies
Parametric sensitivity studies of tunnel in rock subjected to
internal blast loading have been carried out for different
rock weathering conditions. Due to the explosion of 50 kg
TNT, an explosion gas cloud is generated, which causes
damage of the tunnel and propagation of stress wave
through rock. The expansion of gas cloud at different time
instances, e.g., 0, 0.4 and 1.2 ms, is shown in Fig. 7. Fig-
ure 8 shows the paths in the tunnel geometry, which are
used to extract the analysis results and presented herein. It
may be noted that only central 10 m path length of tunnel
has been considered for extracting results in order to
minimize the boundary effect. Here, tensile stresses are
considered positive and displacement values in the direc-
tion of the positive x, y and z axes are considered positive.
4.1 Displacement in Lining and Rock
Displacement of RC lining is shown in Fig. 9a, b for three
quartzite rock types, R1, R2 and R3 along the two paths—
one along tunnel crown and the other along tunnel side wall,
Table 3 Comparison of numerical simulation results with experimental data (Zhao and Chen 2013)
Charge weight (kg) Central node displacement (mm)
Experiment by Zhao and Chen Numerical simulation by Zhao and Chen
0.2 10 8.8
0.31 15 12.7
0.46 35 31.1
123
R. Tiwari et al.
respectively, for 350 mm RC lining thickness and at 1.2 ms.
From Fig. 9a, it is observed that displacement of lining along
crown in the R1 rock mass is lesser than the displacement of
lining in the R2 and R3 rock masses. Upward displacement in
RC lining is observed along the crown path, and the mag-
nitudes of deformation in the lining at tunnel crown in R1
rock mass are almost 50 % lesser than that in R2 and R3 rock
masses. Due to higher density, elastic modulus, RQD and
RMR of R1 rock mass, lesser deformation are observed in the
R1 rock. Figure 9b shows the displacement of RC lining
along the path defined at the left side wall of tunnel. The
linings in R2 and R3 rock masses show higher displacement
as compared to that in R2 rock mass along the tunnel left side
wall. The tunnel left side wall moves outward, i.e., in neg-
ative x direction at 1.2 ms. Hence, displacement of the left
side wall is negative. The maximum displacement is
observed close to the middle of the path because the explo-
sive is placed at the center of the tunnel and displacement
decreases from the center of the tunnel toward the end of path
as shock wave dissipates toward tunnel boundary. Figure 9c,
d shows the displacement in rock along the crown and the left
side wall at 1.6 ms. The displacement pattern observed at
rock crown exhibits similar trend as that observed in the rock
lining. The R3 rock mass exhibits maximum displacement
and a small heave immediately above the explosive in the
tunnel crown.
Figure 10a shows the displacement time histories of RC
lining surrounded by R1, R2 and R3 rock masses along
tunnel crown immediately above the explosive. It is
observed from Fig. 10a that lining inside the R1 rock mass
exhibits downward displacement and lining inside the R2
rock mass shows almost same displacement as that in the
R1 rock mass but in the upward direction. Due to different
stress wave velocities in the rock and wave attenuation
pattern in rock, deformed shape of lining changes accord-
ing to the deformation of the surrounding rock mass. Fig-
ure 10b shows the maximum displacement time history of
rock at the tunnel crown. For all rock types at crown level
immediately above the explosive, shock wave propagates
through rock and pushes the rock in the upward direction.
The deformed shape of the tunnel cross section can be seen
in the inset of Fig. 10b. The tunnel crown moves down-
ward, i.e., in negative y direction at 20 ms. Hence, dis-
placement of the crown is negative.
Numerical simulation in present study
7.7
13.2
29.5
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading
(a) (b)
x 0 msec
Fig. 7 Propagation of explosion cloud for 50 kg TNT at a 0 ms, b 0.4 ms and c 1.2 ms
Fig. 8 Paths defined for
visualization
Figure 11a–c shows the deformation contours for all
three rock masses, R1, R2 and R3. The contours were
plotted at the central part of the tunnel where explosion was
initiated. From the contours, it is clear that due to the high
elastic modulus and thus higher stress wave velocity, R1
rock mass shows an increase in deformation toward the
ground surface. Higher amount of shock wave attenuation
is observed in the R2 and R3 rock masses toward the
ground surface due to their lower RMR values and the
modulus of elasticity, which results in crushing of rock
mass and as a consequence lesser stress wave velocity in
these rocks. Figure 12 shows the y-directional deformation
contours in all three rock masses, R1, R2 and R3, along the
tunnel length. Upward displacement at the rock crown and
downward displacement at the bottom of tunnel is observed
from Fig. 12a. Ground heave due to explosion is observed
in the R1 rock mass due to higher RMR and modulus of
elasticity of R1 rock mass. The R2 and R3 rocks show
maximum y-directional deformation and minimum ground
4451
(c)
0.4 msec 1.2 msec
Path at Ground Surface along
Tunnel Direction
Path at Ground Surface
Perpendicular to Tunnel Direction
Path from Tunnel Crown to Ground
Path along Tunnel Crown
at RC Lining and Rock Level
Path Along Tunnel Left Side Wall
at RC Lining and Rock Level
heave as observed from Fig. 12b, c. Figure 13a–c shows
the deformed tunnel cross sections in rocks for different
rock conditions at 20 ms. It is clear from Fig. 13a that R1
rock mass shows the least deformation surrounding the RC
lining; however, undulation in the ground is observed in
case of R1 rock mass, less damage of RC lining and sur-
rounding rock mass is observed in R1 rock, which is due to
higher RMR and greater shock wave velocity. The R2 rock
mass shows some amount of deformation in the sur-
roundings of the RC lining as seen in Fig. 13b. From
Fig. 13c, it is observed that R3 rock mass shows the
maximum deformation near the RC lining, which gradually
decreases toward the ground surface. Figure 14a–c shows
the deformation contours in steel reinforcement of RC
lining for different rock conditions at 20 ms. Due to the
higher confinement and lesser displacement of RC lining,
small amount of deformation of reinforcement is observed
in all cases. It is also observed that the deformation in steel
reinforcement increases with increase in time.
123
4452 R. Tiwari et al.

Fig. 9 Displacement of RC (a) (b)

Displacement in RC Lining (mm)

lining and rock for different
rock types at for 50 kg charge At Crown 1.2 msec At Left Side Wall 1.2 msec
0.12 R1
weight and 350 mm lining 0.00
R2 y
thickness a radial displacement
0.08 R3
along tunnel crown, b radial -0.04
displacement along tunnel left z
side wall, c radial displacement y
0.04 x -0.08
along tunnel crown, and d radial
displacement along tunnel left y y
side wall 0.00 -0.12
x

z
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

(c) (d)
0.3
Displacement in Rock (mm) At Crown 1.6 msec At Left Side Wall 1.6 msec
0.0

0.2
-0.1

0.1
-0.2

0.0
-0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (m) Distance (m)

Fig. 10 Maximum (a) (b)

displacement at tunnel crown
Displacement in RC Lining (mm)

25
for 50 kg charge weight and
20 R1 Displacement in Rock (mm)
350 mm lining thickness a in R2 20
RC lining and b in rock y
10 R3
15 x
0
10

-10
y 5
x
-20 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (msec) Time (msec)
Maximum Displacement Observed Maximum Displacement Observed

Figure 15a shows the deformation of rock from the 4.2 Stresses in Lining and Rock
tunnel crown to the ground level for different rock types.
Figure 15b, c shows the deformation of rock at the ground Figure 16a, b shows the hoop stress time histories in tunnel
level along the rock crown path and perpendicular to rock lining for three different rock conditions, at crown and left
crown path, respectively. The R1 rock type shows maxi- side wall, respectively, with 350 mm lining thickness and
mum displacement at the ground level at 20 ms due to high 50 kg charge weight. It is observed from the time history
RMR value, low weathering conditions and higher modu- plots that the hoop stress increases with increase in time. In
lus of elasticity and thus lower attenuation of stress wave. the tunnel lining surrounded by R1 rock mass, maximum of
The magnitudes of rock deformation from the tunnel crown 68 MPa stress is observed, which is higher than the ulti-
to the ground level for R3 rock mass are almost 63.4 % mate dynamic strength of concrete, i.e., 63 MPa, at a strain
lesser than that of R1 rock mass. Ground heave is observed rate of 100/s. Figure 16c, d presents the hoop stress time
for all rock types. history at the rock–lining interface for crown and left side

123
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading 4453

Fig. 11 Deformation contours in rock with different rock weathering conditions a R1, b R2 and c R3 for 50 kg charge weight and 350 mm
lining thickness (deformation in m)

Fig. 12 Displacement in y direction in rocks with different weathering conditions a R1, b R2 and c R3 (deformation in m)

123
4454 R. Tiwari et al.

Fig. 13 Deformation in rocks with different weathering conditions a R1, b R2 and c R3 at 20 ms

Fig. 14 Deformation in lining reinforcement at 20 ms for different rock weathering conditions a R1, b R2 and c R3

(a) (b) (c)

Displacement in Rock (mm)

60 60 60
R1
50 50 50
R2 y
40 R3 40 40
z x
30 30 30 x
20 20 z 20
z
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Length from Rock Crown Length along Tunnel Lining Length Perpendiculer to Tunnel Lining
to Ground (m) at Ground (m) at Ground (m)

Fig. 15 Vertical displacement in rock at crown and ground level for different rock weathering conditions a R1, b R2 and c R3 (deformation in
m)

123
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading 4455

wall, respectively. The hoop stress generated in rock is
lesser as compared to the lining due to the high stiffness of
rock mass.
Figure 17a–f presents the pressure generated in the RC
lining at the central 10 m length along tunnel crown for six
different time instances, i.e., 0.8, 2, 5, 10, 15 and 20 ms. A
maximum blast pressure of 5.4 MPa is generated at 2 ms. At
20 ms, a maximum residual pressure of 0.18 MPa is induced
on the tunnel lining. Figure 18a–f presents the pressure
generated in rock for the central 10 m length along the tunnel
crown for six different time instances as mentioned above. In
case of rock, the pressure gradually increases due to the
damage of lining and propagation of shock wave inside the
rock mass. Maximum blast pressure in rock is generated at
15 ms, i.e., 13.43 MPa for R1 rock mass type. It is observed
that pressure in rock depends on the amount of damage in the
lining and the stiffness of the rock. The R1 rock mass has the
highest elastic modulus among the three rock types; there-
fore, it is subjected to the maximum pressure due to explo-
sion. In case of R2 and R3 rock masses, pressure due to shock
wave is reduced because of lower modulus of these rocks.
4.3 Velocity in Rock
Figure 19 shows the y-directional velocities in rock at
different distances from tunnel crown level toward the
ground surface. Figure 19a shows the y-directional velocity
in the tunnel crown. The maximum spatial velocity at rock
crown is observed in the R1 rock mass because of least
weathering and high modulus that result in least crushing
of rock and higher stress wave velocity. As waves travel
away from the source, the wave velocity decreases due to
adjustment of particles in rock, which leads to attenuation
of shock wave (Zhou and Zhao 2011). The R3 rock mass
shows minimum spatial velocity due to high weathering
and least modulus value, which lead to higher crushing of
rock and higher attenuation of shock wave velocity. Fig-
ure 19b–e shows the y-directional velocities at a distance
of 1, 2, 4 and 6 m from the tunnel crown. In all the cases, it
is observed that the R1 rock mass shows higher spatial
velocity than R2 and R3 rock masses due to its higher
modulus and lesser crushing of rock. Figure 19f shows the
y-directional velocities at the ground surface. It is observed
that maximum spatial velocity at the ground level occurs in
the R1 rock mass, whereas the velocities remain nearly
same in the R2 and R3 rock masses.
4.4 Energy Responses in Rock
Figure 20a, b shows the strain energy and kinetic energy
time history plots in three rock types. It is observed from
Fig. 20a that the R1 rock shows the maximum strain
energy of 24.71 MJ. The strain energy in the R1 rock mass
increases with time. The R2 and R3 rock masses exhibit
lesser strain energy than the R1 rock mass. The magnitudes
of strain energy in rocks in the R1 rock mass are almost 50

Fig. 16 Hoop stress at (a) (b)

reinforced concrete (RC) lining 20 20
crown and sidewall (a–b) and RC Lining RC Lining
rock crown and sidewall (c–
Hoop Stress (MPa)

0 0
d) for different rock weathering
conditions -20 -20

-40 -40
y
R1

-60
R2 -60
R3 y
-80 -80
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

(c) (d)
0 0
Hoop Stress (MPa)

-5 -5
x x

-10 -10

Rock Rock
-15 -15
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (msec) Time (msec)
At Crown At Left Side Wall

123
4456 R. Tiwari et al.

(a) (b) (c)

Pressure at Lining (MPa)

6 1.6
0.06 R1 0.8 msec 2 msec 5 msec
R2 1.2 y
4
0.04 R3
0.06 MPa 5.4 MPa z
0.8
1.26 MPa
2
0.02 0.4

0 0.0
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

(d) (e) (f)

Pressure at Lining (MPa)

0.10 0.10 0.20

10 msec 15 msec
0.16 0.18 MPa 20 msec
0.08 0.07 MPa 0.08
0.06 MPa 0.12
0.06 0.06
0.08
0.04 0.04
0.04
0.02 0.02
0.00
0.00 0.00
-0.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Length along Crown (m) Length along Crown (m) Length along Crown (m)

Fig. 17 Pressure in reinforced concrete lining for different rock weathering conditions at a 0.8 ms, b 2 ms, c 5 ms, d 10 ms, e 15 ms and
f 20 ms

(a) (b) (c)

Pressure at Rock (MPa)

0.0020 6
0.8 msec R1 2 msec 5 msec
0.0015 MPa 10
0.0015 R2 3.35 MPa
4 9.69 MPa
R3
0.0010 5
2
0.0005
0 0
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

(d) (e) (f)

Pressure at Rock (MPa)

6 15 6
10 msec 15 msec 5.1 MPa 20 msec
5 5
10 y
4 4
5.26 MPa 13.43 MPa
z
3 3
5
2 2

1 0 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Length along Crown (m) Length along Crown (m) Length along Crown (m)

Fig. 18 Pressure in rock for different rock weathering conditions at a 0.8 ms, b 2 ms, c 5 ms, d 10 ms, e 15 ms and f 20 ms

and 220 % more than that of the R2 and R3 rock masses, 5 Conclusions
respectively. It is observed that the R3 rock mass with
highly to completely weathered conditions shows higher Dynamic response of tunnel in rock with different weath-
strain energy than the R2 rock mass. Similar to strain ering conditions of rock mass has been analyzed herein.
energy, the R1 rock mass also exhibits highest amount of Three-dimensional nonlinear FE analyses of tunnel sub-
kinetic energy. Kinetic energy in the R2 rock mass is jected to blast loading have been performed using the
observed to be higher than that in the R3 rock mass. coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian technique. Air and explosive

123
Dynamic Analysis of Tunnel in Weathered Rock Subjected to Internal Blast Loading 4457

(a) (b) (c)

12 5 5

Spatial Velocity (m/sec)

At Crown 1 m from Crown 2 m from Crown
10 4 4
8
3 3
6 R1
R2 2 2
4
R3 1 1
2
0 0 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

(d) (e) (f)

2.0 2.0 10
Spatial Velocity (m/sec)

4 m from Crown 6 m from Crown At Ground

1.6 1.6 8

1.2 1.2 6 y

0.8 0.8 4
z

0.4 0.4 2

0
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (msec) Time (msec) Time (msec)

Fig. 19 Velocity in vertical direction in rock for different rock weathering conditions a at tunnel crown, b 1 m above, c 2 m above, d 4 m above,
e 6 m above tunnel crown and f at ground level

Fig. 20 a Strain energy and (a) (b)

b kinetic energy in rock for 30 30
different rock weathering Strain Energy R1 Kinetic Energy
conditions R2
R3
Energy (MJ)

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (msec) Time (msec)

have been modeled using the Eulerian elements. Rock mass 2. Pressure in the rock depends on its weathering
and reinforced concrete lining have been modeled using the condition; rocks with higher modulus of elasticity
Lagrangian elements. The parametric sensitivity studies values are subjected to higher pressure due to blast.
have been performed for quartzite rock with three different 3. Blast-induced velocity of shock wave in rock attenu-
weathering conditions. Following conclusions are drawn ates from the tunnel surface to the ground surface
based on the results of parametric studies. faster in highly and completely weathered rock.
However, in case of slightly weathered rock, shock
1. The magnitudes of deformation in the lining at tunnel
velocity increases when shock wave reaches the
crown in R1, i.e., less weathered rock mass is almost
ground surface.
50 % lesser than that in R2 and R3, i.e., medium to
4. Crushing of rock depends on the rock type and shock
completely weathered rock masses. The magnitudes of
wave velocity in the rock. Ground heave is observed in
rock deformation from the tunnel crown to the ground
all rock types, which can be reduced by adequate
level for R3 rock mass are almost 63.4 % lesser than
design of tunnel support system and concrete lining
that of R1 rock mass.
thickness.

123
4458
5. The magnitudes of strain energy in the R1 rock mass is
almost 50 % and 220 % more than that of the R2 and
R3 rock masses, respectively.
6. Overall, the tunnel safety is higher in the R1 rock mass
as compared to the R2 and R3 rock masses due to
lesser deformation in the R1 rock mass.
6 Design Perspective
In case of tunnel in rock, the response of tunnel depends on
the rock type and amount of rock weathering conditions. In
case of less weathered rock, shock wave travels faster,
resulting in higher amount of ground heave, whereas highly
weathered rock exhibits more damage. Hence, ground
modification is required even in case of less weathered rock
to avoid significant damage to the above ground structures.
In case of highly weathered rock, it is essential to design
adequate tunnel support system for minimizing damage to
the RC lining and surrounding rock.
References
Abaqus/Explicit User’s Manual, version 6.11 (2011) Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corporation, Providence
Al-Rub RKA, Kim SM (2010) Computational applications of a
coupled plasticity-damage constitutive model for simulating
plain concrete fracture. Eng Fract Mech 77:1577–1603
Babanouri N, Mansouri H, Nasab SK, Bahaadini M (2013) A coupled
method of study blast wave propagation in fractured rock masses
and estimate unknown properties. Comput Geotech 49:134–142
Berta G (1994) Blasting-induced vibration in tunneling. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 9(2):175–187
Bischoff PH, Perry SH (1991) Compressive behavior of concrete at
high strain rates. Mater Struct 24:425–450
Carreira DJ, Chu K (1985) Stress strain relationship for plain concrete
in compression. ACI J 82(6):797–804
Carreira DJ, Chu K (1986) Stress strain relationship for reinforced
concrete in tension. ACI J 83(1):21–28
Chakraborty T, Larcher M, Gebbeken N (2013) Comparative
performance of tunnel lining materials under blast loading. In:
Proceedings of 3rd international conference on computational
methods in tunneling and subsurface engineering, Ruhr Univer-
sity Bochum, Germany, 17–19 Apr 2013
Chille F, Sala A, Casadei F (1998) Containment of blast phenomena
in underground electrical power plants. Adv Eng Softw
29(1):7–12
Design specifications (2015) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited,
Barakhamba road, New Delhi, India
Dowing CH (1996) Construction vibrations. Prentice-Hall Englewood
Cliffs Comite Euro-International du Beton. CEB-FIP model code
1990, Redwood Books, Trowbridge
123
R. Tiwari et al.
Du H, Li Z (2009) Numerical analysis of dynamic behavior of RC
slabs under blast loading. Trans Tianjin Univ 15(1):61–64
Dusenberry DO (2010) Handbook for blast resistant design of
buildings, 1st edn. Wiley, Hoboken
Eitzenberger A (2012) Wave propagation in rock and the influence of
discontinuities. Doctoral thesis, Luleal University of Technol-
ogy, Sweden
Goel MD, Matsagar VA, Gupta AK, Marburg S (2012) An abridged
review of blast wave parameters. Def Sci J 62(5):300–306
Guldemeister N, Durr N, Wunnemann K, Elbeshausen D, Hiermaier S
(2011) Propagation of impact-induced shock waves in hetero-
geneous rocks using mesoscale modeling. In: 42nd lunar and
planetary science conference, The Woodlands Texas, 7–11 Mar
2011
Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for
metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high
temperatures. In: Proceedings of 7th international symposium on
ballistics, Hague, Netherlands, 19–21 Apr 1983, pp 541–547
Larcher M, Casadei F (2010) Explosions in complex geometries—
comparison of several approaches. European Commission, Joint
Research Centre, Institute for Protection and Security of the
Citizen, Italy
Lee J, Fenves GL (1998) Plastic damage model for cyclic loading of
concrete structures. J Eng Mech 124(8):892–900
Lee JH, Salgado R (1999) Determination of pile base resistance in
sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 125(8):673–683
Liang Q, Li J, Li D, Qu E (2013) Effect of blast-induced vibration
from new railway tunnel on existing adjacent railway tunnel in
Xinjiang, China. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(1):19–39
Liu H (2009) Dynamic analysis of subway structures under blast
loading. Geotech Geolog Eng ASCE 27(6):699–711
Liu C, Ahrens TJ (1997) Stress wave attenuation in shock-damaged
rock. J Geophys Res 102(B3):5243–5250
Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E (1989) A plastic damage model
for concrete. Int J Solids Struct 25(3):299–329
Ma GW, Hao H, Zhou YX (1998) Modeling of wave propagation
induced by underground explosion. Comput Geotech
22(3–4):283–303
Ngo T, Mendis P, Gupta A, Ramsay J (2007) Blast loading and blast
effects on structures—an overview. Electron J Struct Eng 76–91
(special issue: loading on structures)
UFC 03-340-02 (2008) Structures to resist the effects of accidental
explosions. Unified Facilities Criteria, US Departments of Army
and Navy and Air Force, USA
Wu YK, Hao H, Zhou YX, Chong K (1998) Propagation character-
istics of blast induced shock waves in a jointed rock mass. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 17(6):407–412
Yadav HR (2005) Geotechnical evaluation and analysis of Delhi
metro tunnels. Doctoral thesis, Indian Institute of Technology
(IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, India
Zhao CF, Chen JY (2013) Damage mechanics and mode of square
reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast loading. Theor Appl
Fract Mech 63–64:54–62
Zhao XQ, Hao H (2008) Modeling of compressive behavior of
concrete like materials at high strain rates. Int J Solids Struct
45(17):4648–4661
Zhou Y, Zhao J (2011) Advances in rock dynamics and applications.
Taylor and Francis, London