TY - JOUR
T1 - UDEC-AUTODYN hybrid modeling of a large-scale underground explosion test
AU - Deng, Xifei
AU - Chen, Shougen
AU - Zhu, J B
AU - Zhou, Yingxin
AU - Zhao, Zhiye
AU - Zhao, Jian
PY - 2015/3
Y1 - 2015/3
N2 - In this study, numerical modeling of a large-scale decoupled underground explosion test with 10 tons of TNT in Älvdalen, Sweden is performed by combining DEM and FEM with codes UDEC and AUTODYN. AUTODYN is adopted to model the explosion process, blast wave generation, and its action on the explosion chamber surfaces, while UDEC modeling is focused on shock wave propagation in jointed rock masses surrounding the explosion chamber. The numerical modeling results with the hybrid AUTODYN–UDEC method are compared with empirical estimations, purely AUTODYN modeling results, and the field test data. It is found that in terms of peak particle velocity, empirical estimations are much smaller than the measured data, while purely AUTODYN modeling results are larger than the test data. The UDEC–AUTODYN numerical modeling results agree well with the test data. Therefore, the UDEC–AUTODYN method is appropriate in modeling a large-scale explosive detonation in a closed space and the following wave propagation in jointed rock masses. It should be noted that joint mechanical and spatial properties adopted in UDEC–AUTODYN modeling are determined with empirical equations and available geological data, and they may not be sufficiently accurate.
AB - In this study, numerical modeling of a large-scale decoupled underground explosion test with 10 tons of TNT in Älvdalen, Sweden is performed by combining DEM and FEM with codes UDEC and AUTODYN. AUTODYN is adopted to model the explosion process, blast wave generation, and its action on the explosion chamber surfaces, while UDEC modeling is focused on shock wave propagation in jointed rock masses surrounding the explosion chamber. The numerical modeling results with the hybrid AUTODYN–UDEC method are compared with empirical estimations, purely AUTODYN modeling results, and the field test data. It is found that in terms of peak particle velocity, empirical estimations are much smaller than the measured data, while purely AUTODYN modeling results are larger than the test data. The UDEC–AUTODYN numerical modeling results agree well with the test data. Therefore, the UDEC–AUTODYN method is appropriate in modeling a large-scale explosive detonation in a closed space and the following wave propagation in jointed rock masses. It should be noted that joint mechanical and spatial properties adopted in UDEC–AUTODYN modeling are determined with empirical equations and available geological data, and they may not be sufficiently accurate.
UR - http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00603-014-0600-2.pdf
U2 - 10.1007/s00603-014-0600-2
DO - 10.1007/s00603-014-0600-2
M3 - Article
VL - 48
SP - 737
EP - 747
JO - Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
JF - Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
SN - 0723-2632
IS - 2
ER -