Journal of Civil Engineering and Urbanism  
Volume 8, Issue 2: 17-24; Mar 25, 2018  
ISSN-2252-0430  
Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots  
in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement against  
Explosion Force  
3
3
Mehdi Mirzaee1, Mostafa Vaezi2 , Saeid Mamandi and Omid Abdolrahman  
1Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran  
2Department of Maritime Engineering, Amir Kabir University, Tehran, Iran  
3Faculty of Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Mahabad Branch, Iran  
Corresponding author’s Email: mvaezi7067eng@aut.ac.ir  
ABSTRACT: Nowadays, due to the development of missiles with high power of destruction and accuracy as well as  
the increase in terrorist attacks, it is better to keep military equipment in the depth of the ground. Using the  
underground structures (US) has been interested in shelters and ammunition depots for many years. But these  
structures should also be resistant to surface explosions. For this purpose, the structure must be constructed at high  
depths or the structure protected by the specific coating. The aim of this study was introduced and evaluates the  
performance of a combined coating containing crumb rubber cement (CRC) to prevent the transmission of  
compression waves. Hence, to check the effectiveness of this coating by modeling a buried structure in ANSYS LS-  
DYNA at a depth of 5 meters from the ground surface and placing crumb rubber cement CRC at a depth of 2 meters  
from the ground surface and above the structure, the model was subjected to an explosion equivalent to 100 kilograms  
of TNT was analyzed for 25 milliseconds. The results showed that by inserting crumb rubber cement CRC, because of  
high elasticity with large deformations of crumb rubber (CR), adding it into concrete can absorb energy and reduce its  
transfer to the Layers down, and therefore lead to a reduction in the amount of failure and pressure which applies to  
the structure. To investigating the effect of the thickness of the CR layer, the pressure, and failure rate of the structure  
was analyzed for 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 m thickness layers. The results indicated that by increasing the thickness of the  
CR from 0.1 m to 0.5 m, the pressure and failure rate is reduced. But the intensity of this decrease of 0.4 meters later  
is very low so that it can be ignored. It is concluded that, CR with a thickness of 0.4m with concrete cover can be  
considered as a recommended optimal design and an applicable strategy in the construction of buried structures on the  
ground against the explosion forces.  
Keywords: Ammunition depots, Crumb rubber, Concrete cover, Explosion, TNT  
INTRODUCTION  
Various structures ranging from coastal structures to  
damage caused by land, air, and naval attacks is a  
fundamental issue that broadly covers all key infras-  
tructures, vital and important military and civilian centers  
buried concrete depots, as one of the strategic structures,  
play a significant role in the military and economic  
purposes of a country, which should be given special  
attention to their reinforcement. Accordingly, the opti-  
mum design of structures such as coastal structures,  
concrete structures have been among the main concerns of  
Passive defense is one of the most effective and  
stable defense against threats has always been the focus of  
most countries in the world. These structures should also  
be resistant to surface explosions. Therefore, it is  
important to identify and investigate the parameters that  
affect the performance of these structures and increase the  
safety of these structures (Feldgun et al., 2011). A lot of  
research has been carried out on this subject, that in the  
below some of them being mentioned. Feldgun et al.  
(2011) presented a comprehensive approach to simulating  
Conducting passive defense measures in today's  
wars to confront enemy invasions and mitigate the  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and Abdolrahman O (2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber  
Cement against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
17  
the distribution of explosive pressure on a flexible or hard  
flat barrier in porous soils. Yang and Wang (2006)  
investigated the effect of air blast on surface structures  
with regard to Shock in the soil. In this research, he also  
used the LS-DAYNA finite element software and  
modeled the soil into a three-phase mode equation. Lu and  
Wang (2006) presented a model for nonlinear dynamical  
analysis of explosion and distribution of pressure of it in  
the soil. They have modeled by using non-linear analysis  
of LS-DYNA software and an appropriate state equation  
and behavioral model for materials, soil, explosives, and  
structures in an environment. Naghizadeh et al. (2010)  
performed numerical modeling of the effect of the surface  
explosion on buried structures. They also used a model  
similar to the model provided by Lu and Wang for  
modeling of geometry. Gholizadeh and Rajabi (2013) in  
addition to studied the effects of surface and subsurface  
blast on buried structures and their modeling, they have  
also predicted strategies for improving the safety of these  
structures and their efficiency.  
As a result of the explosion, the gas pressure is  
formed, which increases with the release of the explosion  
source and increases to a maximum positive PSO+  
pressure, and then decreases to an ambient pressure  
Which this phase is called positive phase. As a result of  
the wave propagation, the gases produced by the  
explosion are cooled down and pressures are slightly less  
than atmospheric pressure. Because of this pressure  
difference, it is reversed to the center of the explosion.  
The result will be a reduction in pressure or suction which  
is called a negative phase. The negative phase suction is  
relatively small and gradual so that it is often neglected to  
design explosion-resistant structures. The maximum  
pressure from the explosion )PSO+( significantly  
decreases when it is away from the explosion center  
(Corresponding to the third power to the explosion  
center), but contrary to that, the loading period (the time  
of the load caused by the explosion on the structure)  
increases with the increasing distance from the explosion  
center (Figure 1) (UFC, 2008).  
In this study, to prevent the transmission of pressure  
waves from the explosion through the soil, and  
consequently, to reduce the damage of buried ammunition  
depots, a special cover CRC is evaluated. The reason for  
using this coating is the high elasticity of the rubber in  
absorption and damping the energy of surface explosions.  
We will study first the modeling of the LS-DYNA finite  
element software, and then introduce the geometric shape  
of the model and finally, the results of the research are  
discussed.  
The TNT element was used to model the explosion  
by using the Jones-Wilkins-Lee (JWL) equation. This  
model is widely used that in which the pressure caused by  
the explosion is defined by (Eq. 1) (Wang et al., 2005).  
0
0
2
(R  
)
(R  
)
w  
w  
w  
1
2
P A (1   
) e  
B (1   
) e  
E
m0  
(1)  
R   
R
1 0  
2
0
0
In which A, B, R1, R2, and w are the material  
constants. Parameters of 0 and are the initial density  
and the product density of the explosion process  
respectively. The initial ratio of the is considered  
MATERIAL AND METHODS  
 0  
equal to one. The parameter of Emo is the Primary energy.  
The parameters of (Eq. 1) are given in (Table 1) (Wang et  
Numerical modeling in LS-DYNA software  
In this study, the LS-DYNA software was used to  
model, analyze and evaluate the results. This software  
uses the finite element method. In this study, the structure  
and surrounding soil are modeled in 2-D. In the following,  
the equations of the states and the properties of the  
materials used to model the soil, structure, air and  
explosion phenomenon will be investigated, and then the  
geometric of the model with dimensions of modeling is  
presented. In the end, the results will be examined.  
Explosion  
The explosion is characterized by the sudden and  
rapid release of sound a large amount of energy,  
producing light, heat, sound, and wave at speeds around  
the speed of sound (Ngo et al., 2007).  
When an explosion occurs, the energy is released  
suddenly in a very short time (several milliseconds), and  
the effect of this energy release is seen in the form of  
thermal radiation and the propagation of compressive  
waves in space.  
Figure 1. Diagram of pressure-time wave explosion  
Table 1. Parameters related to JWL  
C
Energy/vol  
(KJ/m3)  
6e6  
pressure  
(MPa)  
2.1e4  
Em0  
(KJ)  
Parameter  
Value  
(m/s)  
6930  
3.681e6  
A
B
R1  
-
R2  
W
Parameter  
Value  
(MPa)  
3.737e5  
(MPa)  
3.747e3  
-
-
4.15  
0.9 0.35  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and AbdolrahmanO(2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement  
against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
18  
is calibrated based on the explosion loading rate and its  
results have been tested and approved by the TM5-855-1  
and laboratory results (Leong et al., 2007). Also, MO  
Granular and Failure model were used to consider the  
soil-resistance behavior and the failure model. The  
parameters of the equation of state and resistance behavior  
are given in Tables 2 and 3.  
Soil  
The soil used in this study is sandy clay (10% sand)  
that surrounds the structured environment. For modeling  
the soil against the explosive load it is necessary to  
consider its state equation. In this study, based on  
Fiserova's research (Fiserova 2005-2006), a compaction  
state equation for Sandy clay has been used. This equation  
Table 2. Parameters of the dense state equation -linear  
Density parameter )g/cm3(  
10  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Value  
1.674  
1.740  
1.847  
1.997  
2.144  
2.25  
2.38  
2.485  
2.585  
2.6713  
Pressure parameter (MPa)  
Value  
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10  
0
4.577  
14.98  
29.1  
59.1  
98.1  
179.4  
290  
450.2  
650.7  
Density parameter )g/cm3(  
Value  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10  
1.674  
1.746  
2.086  
2.15  
2.3  
2.57  
2.598  
2.635  
2.641  
2.8  
Sound speed (m/s)  
Value  
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10  
265.2  
852.1  
1721.7  
1875.5  
2264.8  
2956  
3112  
4600  
4634  
4634  
Table 3. Parameters of strength model - MO Granular  
Pressure parameter (MPa)  
Value  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10  
0
3.4  
35  
101.3  
184  
500  
0
0
0
0
Yield stress (MPa)  
Value  
Y 3  
44.6  
Y1  
Y 2  
Y 4  
Y 5  
Y 6  
Y 7  
Y 8  
Y 9  
Y10  
0
4.23  
124  
226  
226  
0
0
0
0
Density parameter (g/cm3)  
Value  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10  
1.674  
1.74  
2.086  
2.15  
2.3  
2.57  
2.598  
2.635  
G8  
2.641  
2.8  
Shear modulus (MPa)  
Value  
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10  
76.9  
869  
4030  
4900  
7770  
14.8e3  
16.5e3  
36.7e3  
37.3e3  
37.3e3  
equation is suitable for explicit dynamic analysis and  
provides accurate behavior of materials in high stresses.  
The RHT model is an advanced model for plastic material  
behavior that is designed for brittle materials by Riddle et  
al (1999). This model is especially useful for modeling  
concrete with dynamic loading. This model is also  
suitable for modeling brittle materials such as rocks and  
ceramics. The strength model uses three strength surfaces  
(Figure 2) an elastic limit surface, a failure surface and the  
remaining strength surface for the crushed material.  
Usually, there is a cap on the elastic strength surface.  
Wave propagation in the soil  
The propagation of the waves caused by the  
explosion in the soil in two forms: the volumetric  
(pressure) and the surface wave (Riley), which the most  
destructive of these is the pressure wave for a buried  
structure close to the explosion site. The propagation of  
this wave in continuous and free environments can be  
calculated by (Eq. 2, Eq. 3) (Lu et al. 2005):  
n  
2.52R  
u 160 f (  
)
1
c
(2)  
3
w
p
.C.u  
g
(3)  
Where fc is the coefficient of connection between the  
ground and explosive, w is the explosive mass to Kg, R is  
the distance from the explosion to meter, C is the velocity  
of the explosion wave in meters per second, P pressure in  
soil to kg / m2,  
is the density Soil to kg/m3and n is the  
soil parameters that can be calculated from TM5-855-1  
Concrete  
For concrete modeling, the P-alpha equation  
(Herrmann, 1969) and RHT resistance model are used to  
describe the deviation results of concrete. The P-alpha  
Figure 2. Three strength surfaces for concrete (Lu et al.,  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and AbdolrahmanO(2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement  
against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
19  
mf in  
Following the hardening phase, additional plastic  
straining of the material leads to damage and strength  
reduction. Damage is accumulated by (Eq. 4, Eq. 5).  
Where D1 and D2 are damage constants,  
is the  
minimum strain to reach failure, pl and p* is the  
*
pspall p* ( ft fc )  
pressure normalized by fc , and  
where ft  
  
pl  
D    
(4)  
(5)  
failure  
p
and fc are tensile and compressive strength, respectively.  
Tables 4 and 5 shows the parameters used for the P-Alpha  
equation and the RHT resistance model Respectively:  
D
failure  
pd  
*
*
spall  
min  
f
2
D (p p  
)
  
1
Table 4. Parameters of the state equation- P-Alpha  
Porous dens  
(g/cm3)  
Ref. dens  
(g/cm3)  
2.75  
Porous sound speed  
Init. Com. pr.  
Sol. Com. Pr.  
(KPa)  
Parameter  
(m/s)  
(KPa)  
Value  
2.314  
2.92e3  
23.3e3  
6e6  
n
-
A1  
A2  
A3  
B1,B2  
-
Parameter  
Value  
MPa  
MPa  
MPa  
904e4  
3
35.27e3  
39.58e3  
1.22  
Table 5. Parameters of strength model - RHT  
Shear modul.  
fc  
ft/fc  
fs/fc  
A
Parameter  
(Mpa)  
16.7e3  
N
(Mpa)  
35  
-
0.1  
-
-
1.6  
Value  
0.18  
Gelas/Gplas  
2
Parameter  
Value  
Q
Brit. To Duc. Trans.  
0.0105  
Elas. Stre./ft  
0.7  
0.61  
0.68  
Parameter  
Elas. Stre./fc  
B
M
Com. Stre. Exp  
Tens. Stre. Exp.  
Value  
0.53  
1.6  
0.61  
0.032  
0.036  
Parameter  
D1  
D2  
-
-
f ,min  
Value  
0.04  
1
0.01  
-
-
state equations for ideal gases, which has been used in  
many applications that include gas movement. This  
equation is defined as (Eq. 7).  
Reinforcement steel bar  
The steel 1006, with a linear equation and the  
Johnson-Cook resistance model, were used with regard to  
the failure due to the strain of the plastic (Autodyn help,  
2005). The Johnson-Cook model is a rate dependent,  
elastic-plastic model. The model defines the yield stress Y  
P (1).e  
Where  
(7)  
,
and  
e
Are adiabatic exponent,  
density and special air temperature. The parameters of  
(Eq.7) are given in Table 7.  
n
P
*
p
m
H
(6)  
Y [Y B.][1 C log ][1 T  
]
0
Table 6. Linear Equation and Johnson-Cook Resistance  
Model  
p  
Where Y0 is the initial yield strength,  
is the  
Shear  
yield  
Yield  
Stre.  
Hard. Hard.  
Stra.Rat.  
Cons.  
*p  
Cons  
Exp.  
effective plastic strain,  
is the normalized effective  
Parameter  
(Mpa)  
(Mpa)  
-
-
-
plastic strain rate, B,C,n, m are material constants. TH is  
homologous temperature, TH (T Troom ) (Tmelt Troom  
Value  
81.7e3  
350  
275  
0.36  
0.022  
)
Ref. Stra.  
Rat.  
-
Ultimate Plastic Strain  
Parameter  
with Tmelt being the melting temperature and Troom the  
ambient temperature. The parameters of the linear  
equation and the reinforcing resistance model are given in  
(Table 6).  
-
-
-
-
Value  
1
0.2  
Table 7. Parameters of the ideal gas state equation  
Atmosphere  
Ref. Dens.  
(g/cm3)  
Ref. Temp.  
Parameter  
Value  
Ideal gas state equation was used to model the air  
around the model. This equation is one of the simplest  
-
(K)  
1.4  
1.225e-3  
288.2  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and AbdolrahmanO(2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement  
against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
20  
transmit air pressure and the transmission element was  
used around the soil environment.  
Crumb rubber (CR)  
For CR modeling, rubber element with mechanical  
properties of NBR rubber was used with state equation  
and hyperelastic resistance model (Autodyn help, 2005,  
Pornprasit et al., 2016). This equation is suitable for  
modeling materials with high strain range. There are  
several models in the hyperelastic resistivity model for  
solving the problem. In this study, we used the Ogden  
model. The Ogden model is suitable for materials with a  
range of strain energy potentials of over 700% (Autodyn  
help, 2005). Due to the high rubber capability in energy  
absorption, this model is suitable. The strain energy  
potential of the Ogden model is defined as Eq. (8):  
Geometric of the model  
For modeling of concrete structures, soil, explosives,  
and air were used from Lagrangian, ALE and Eulerian,  
respectively. The model used consists of three parts:  
structure, soil, air. The explosive is equivalent to 100  
kilograms of TNT. Figure  
3 shows a graphical  
representation of the modeling geometry in the software.  
1  
1  
1  
1  
1  
  
2  
(1 2 3 3)  
2  
2  
2  
(1 2 3 3)  
2  
(8)  
3  
3  
3  
3  
3  
(1 2 3 3)  
1
1
1
(J 1)2  
(J 1)4  
(J 1)6  
d1  
d2  
d3  
Where  
strain energy potential  
and J are  
p  
Figure 3. Modeling geometry in the software  
deviatoric principal stretches of the leftCauch -Green  
tensor and determinant of the elastic deformation gradient  
Sensitivity analysis  
To test the sensitivity of the results to the size of  
p p  
d p  
are material constants. In  
respectively.  
,
and  
(Tables 8 and 9), the parameters used for the Hyperelastic  
state equation and Hyperelastic-Ogden 3rd Order strength  
model are expressed.  
mesh, the pressure output at a depth of 3 meters from the  
soil surface was compared for different sizes of the mesh  
(Figure 4). As shown in Figure 4, with a reduction in the  
size of the elements from 0.5 m to 0. 1 m, significant  
changes are made to the results. On the other hand, by  
reducing the size of the elements from 0.125 meters later,  
the output pressure is very small and can be ignored. So  
the mesh size of 0.125 m was chosen as the optimal mesh.  
Table 8. Parameters of Hyperelastic state equation  
Ref. Dens.  
Parameter  
(g/cm3)  
Value  
1
Table 9. Parameters of Hyperelastic-Ogden 3rd Order  
element size=0.1(m)  
element size=0.125(m)  
element size=0.25(m)  
element size=0.5 (m)  
4
3.5  
3
strength model  
Mu1  
Alpha1  
d1  
Mu2  
Alpha2  
Parameter  
(Kpa)  
-
(1/Kpa)  
(Kpa)  
-
Value  
5
1.18  
4.82e-6  
1.3  
618.03  
2.5  
2
d2  
(1/Kpa)  
0
Mu3  
(Kpa)  
-9.81  
Alpha3  
d3  
(1/Kpa)  
0
-
-
-
Parameter  
Value  
-
1.5  
1
-2  
Boundary condition of the model  
0.5  
0
In this study, the flow-out and transmission elements  
were used to create a semi-infinite environment and to  
prevent the return of the explosive pressure waves. These  
elements provide the pass of flow and materials from the  
boundaries of the model. The flow out element was used  
at the boundaries of the space around the model to  
0
5
10  
15  
-0.5  
Time (ms)  
Figure 4. Variations of Pressure vs. time for different  
sizes of elements  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and AbdolrahmanO(2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement  
against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
21  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
Distribution of wave explosion in the soil  
To investigate the propagation of the wave explosion  
in the soil and the pressure at different depths, gauges  
were placed at depths of one meter at a distance. Figure 5  
shows the pressure against time at depths of 1 and 2  
meters from the soil surface for 25 milliseconds of  
analysis.  
Figure 5 showed that the intensity of the pressure  
caused by the explosion has been reduced by increasing  
the distance from the soil surface (the explosion site).  
A
B
C
A
Figure 6. Graphical pattern of failure in model A: in the  
absence of concrete cushions and rubber substrates; B: in  
the presence of concrete cushions and no substratum; C:  
in the presence of rubber substrates and concrete cushions  
B
Figure 5. Pressure diagrams in soil A: At a depth of 1  
meter from the ground B: At a depth of 2 meters from the  
ground  
Also, to investigate the effect of the protective  
layer CRC pressure and failure at a depth of 3 m below  
the protective layer were measured at gauge No. 3 at  
different times. The pressure and failure variations  
diagram at a depth of 3 meters and above the structure are  
showen in Figures 7 and 8 for different states of the CR  
substrate.  
As shown in Figures 7 and 8, the presence of a  
single concrete cover only has a very small effect on the  
results. While modeling of CR has achieved significant  
changes in the number of results. On the other hand, the  
amount of pressure and damage decreases with the  
increase in the thickness of the CR layer. Also, according  
to the results, it can be seen that the reduction of pressure  
Impact of crumb rubber cement (CRC) on results  
In order to investigate the effect of CRC on the  
results, by modeling concrete cover and CR at a depth of 2  
m from the ground surface and by comparing the results  
of pressure at a depth of 3 m (under the sub-layer of CR in  
the presence and absence of these layers effect these  
layers were examined. Figure 6 illustrated the graphic  
failure of the structure in the presence and absence of CR  
and concrete cover.  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and AbdolrahmanO(2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement  
against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
22  
and damage is a slight decrease after 0.4 m thickness.  
Therefore, the thickness of 0.4 m can be determined as  
optimal thickness.  
CONCLUSION  
In this study, the effect of crumb rubber cement (CRC)  
on reducing the amount of failure and pressure caused by  
the explosion phenomenon was investigated. Therefore,  
the geometric model of the structure and its surrounding  
soil, as well as the explosion phenomenon, was analyzed  
in the LS-DYNA finite element software. The results  
showed that despite the CR and with an increase in the  
thickness of the CR layer, the amount of the failure and  
pressure applied to the structure caused by the explosion  
wave is greatly reduced. But this reduction is very small  
and can be ignored after 0.4 meters in thickness.  
Therefore, 0.4 m thickness of the CR was selected as the  
optimum thickness of the CR layer to control the failure  
and pressure.  
In order to check the accuracy of maximum  
explosion pressure, using the (Eq. 2, Eq. 3) and also the  
parameters of Table 10 (TM5-855-1, 1984), the maximum  
value of the pressure from the results of the software is  
compared with the experimental results as follows.  
As can be seen in table 10, the maximum value of  
the pressure from the experimental relation is  
conservative, which can be due to the linearity of the  
equation.  
Without concrete cover and rubber crumb"  
4.5  
With concrete cover and without rubber crumb  
4
with concrete cover and rubber crumb=0.1(m)  
with concrete cover and rubber crumb=0.2(m)  
3.5  
with concrete cover and rubber crumb=0.3(m)  
3
According to the results of this research, it can be  
seen that the reason for the high performance of the crumb  
rubber in absorption and damping of energy is its high  
elasticity. Therefore, high- elasticity polymeric materials  
can be used to absorb more energy.  
with concrete cover and rubber crumb=0.4(m)  
2.5  
with concrete cover and rubber crumb=0.5(m)  
2
1.5  
1
0.5  
0
0
5
10  
15  
20  
DECLARATIONS  
-0.5  
Time (ms)  
Authors’ contribution  
Figure 7. Pressure changes vs. time in different modes of  
All authors contributed equally to this work.  
existence and absence of (CR) and concrete cover at a depth of 3  
meters  
Competing interests  
The authors declare that they have no competing  
interests.  
Without concrete cover and crumb rubber  
With concrete cover and without crumb rubber  
with concrete cover and crumb rubber=0.1(m)  
with concrete cover and crumb rubber=0.2(m)  
with concrete cover and crumb rubber=0.3(m)  
with concrete cover and crumb rubber=0.4(m)  
REFERENCES  
with concrete cover and crumb rubber=0.5(m)  
0.35  
Amir SD, sahman S, hesam K. (2017). A modal nonlinear  
static analysis method for assessment of structures  
under blast loading. Journal of Vibration and  
Control, 64: 124-137.  
Feldgun V.R, Karinski Y.S, Yankelevsky D.Z.z. (2011).  
Blast Pressure Distribution on a Buried Obstacle in a  
2: 45-69.  
Lu Y, Wang Z. (2006). Characterization of Structural  
Effects from Above-Ground Explosion Using  
Coupled Numerical Simulation. Comput. Struct, 84:  
1729- 1742.  
Lu Y, Wang Z, Chong K. (2005). A comparative study of  
buried structure in soil subjected to blast load using  
2D and 3D numerical simulations. Soil Dynamics  
and Earthquake Engineering, 25: 275288.  
Nagy N, Mohamed M, Boot J. C. (2010). Nonlinear  
Numerical Modeling for the Effects of Surface  
Explosions on Buried Reinforced Concrete  
Structures. Geomechanics and Eng., an Int. J. Techn,  
2: 1- 18.  
0.3  
0.25  
0.2  
0.15  
0.1  
0.05  
0
0
5
10  
15  
Time (ms)  
20  
25  
30  
Figure 8. Failure diagram vs. time in different modes of  
existence and absence of CR and concrete cover on top of  
the structure  
Table 10. The experimental parameters of the TM-5-855-  
1 instructions to calculate the pressure caused by the  
explosion at a distance of 3 meters  
Amin G, Mohsen R. (2013). Secure concrete structures  
buried against the explosive load. Scientific Journal  
of Passive Defense Science and Technology, 3: 167-  
179.  
Ngo T, Mendis P, Gupta A. (2007). Blast loading and  
blast effects on structuresan overview.  
Connection  
factor  
Scaled  
distance  
W
R
n
ρ
C
Pmax  
Soil  
type  
-
(Kg)  
(m)  
-
-
(Kg/m2)  
(m/s)  
(Mpa)  
Sand  
clay  
0.4  
100  
3
0.4  
2.4  
1670  
549  
4.53  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and AbdolrahmanO(2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement  
against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
23  
Vaezi M, Pourzangbar A, Fadavi M, Rahbar Rangi A.  
(2016). Impact of different configurations and  
increasing difficulty bracing elements in viscous  
damper performance. The 18th Marine Industries  
Conference (MIC2016). Kish Island. Iran (Oral  
presentation).  
Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 7: 76–  
91.  
Department of Defense, Unified facilities criteria. 2008.  
Structures to resist the effects of accidental  
explosions, UFC, 3: 340-02.  
Wang Z.Q, Lu Y, Hao H, Chong K. (2005). A full  
coupled numerical analysis approach for buried  
structures subjected to subsurface blast. Comput.  
Struct, 83(4-5): 339-356.  
TM5-855-1. 1984. Fundamental of protective design for  
conventional weapons. US Army Engineer  
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.  
Fiserova D. (2005-2006). Numerical Analyses of Buried  
Mine Explosions with Emphasis on Effect of Soil  
Properties on Loading. Cranfield University.  
Leong E.C, Anand S, Cheong H.K, Lim C.H. (2007). Re-  
examination of peak stress scaled distance due to  
ground shock. International Journal of Impact  
Engineering, 34: 1487-1499.  
Yeganeh-Bakhtiary A, Pourzangbar A, Hajivalie F.  
(2015). Genetic Programming to predict scour depth  
at coastal structures. Journal of Civil and  
Environmental Engineering, 45(78): 115-122.  
Herrmann W. (1969). Constitutive Equation for the  
Dynamic Compaction of Ductile Porous Materials, J.  
Appl. Phys, 40 (6): 2490-2499.  
Riedel W, Thoma K, Hiermaier S, Schmolinske E. (1999).  
Penetration of Reinforced Concrete by BETA-B-  
500, Numerical Analysis using a New Macroscopic  
Concrete Model for Hydrocodes. Internationales  
Symposium, Interaction of the Effects of Munitions  
with Structures, Berlin Strausberg, 03.-07: 315 –  
322.  
Autodyn help. (2005). Theory Manual.  
Dynamics INS: Revision.  
Century  
Pornprasit R, Pornprasit P, Boonma P, Natwichai J.  
(2016). Determination of the Mechanical Properties  
of Rubber by FT-NIR, Journal of Spectroscopy. 247-  
255.  
Pourzangbar A. (2012). Determination the most effective  
parameters on scour depth at seawalls using genetic  
programming (GP). The 10th international  
conference on coasts. Ports and marine structures  
(ICOPMASS  
presentation).  
2012).  
Tehran.  
Iran  
(Oral  
Pourzangbar A, Saber A, Yeganeh-Bakhtiary A, Rasoul  
Ahari L. (2016). Predicting Scour Depth at Seawalls  
using GP and ANNs. Journal of Hydroinformatics,  
19(2).  
Pourzangbar A, Brocchini M, Saber A, Mahjoobi J,  
Mirzaaghasi M, Barzegar M. (2017). Prediction of  
scour depth at breakwaters due to non-breaking  
waves using machine learning approaches. Journal of  
Applied Ocean Research, 68: 120-128.  
Pourzangbar A, Losada M.A, Saber A, Rasoul Ahari L,  
Larroudé F, Vaezi M, Brocchini M. (2017).  
Prediction of non-breaking wave-induced scour  
depth at the trunk section of breakwaters using  
Genetic Programming and Artificial Neural  
Networks. Journal of Coastal Engineering, 121: 107-  
118.  
Vaezi M, Pourzangbar A, Fadavi M, Rahbar Rangi A.  
(2016). Configuration effects on the performance of  
viscous dampers (Text in Persian). 4th International  
Congress on Civil Engineering Architecture and  
Urban Development 27-29 December 2016, Shahid  
Beheshti  
University.  
Tehran.  
Iran  
(Oral  
presentation).  
To cite this paper: Mirzaee M, Vaezi M and Mamandi S and AbdolrahmanO(2018). Reduction of Damage of Buried Ammunition Depots in the Ground by Crumb Rubber Cement  
against Explosion Force. J. Civil Eng. Urban., 8 (2): 17-24. www.ojceu.ir  
24