水下爆炸对重力坝的毁伤效应及最优爆距

黄谢平; 孔祥振; 陈祖煜; 方秦

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2022-0113

水下爆炸对重力坝的毁伤效应及最优爆距

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2022-0113

1.
浙江大学岩土工程研究所，浙江杭州 310058
2.
陆军工程大学爆炸冲击防灾减灾国家重点实验室，江苏南京 210007

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金（52178515，52078133，51879283）

详细信息

作者简介:
黄谢平（1996－　），男，博士研究生，huangxieping@zju.edu.cn

通讯作者:
孔祥振（1988－　），男，博士，副教授，ouckxz@163.com

中图分类号: O383；TV312
计量
- 文章访问数: 636
- HTML全文浏览量: 131
- PDF下载量: 110
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-03-23
- 修回日期: 2022-05-21
- 网络出版日期: 2022-05-27
- 刊出日期: 2023-05-05

Damage effects of underwater explosions on gravity dams and optimal standoff distances

1.
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China
2.
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention & Mitigation of Explosion & Impact, Army Engineering University of PLA, Nanjing 210007, Jiangsu, China

摘要

摘要: 为研究不同爆距水下爆炸对重力坝的毁伤效应，并探讨是否存在“最优爆距”，基于离心模型试验建立了炸药-库水-空气-重力坝结构的全耦合数值模型，并设计了60组数值计算工况。不同工况水深均为600 mm，炸药量为2.2 g，重力坝模型几何比尺为1/80，包含5组爆深（50～250 mm），每组爆深对应12组爆距，爆距范围为10~200 mm，相应比例爆距范围为0.077~1.54 m/kg^1/3。对比分析了不同爆距水下爆炸对重力坝的毁伤程度，并定量比较了重力坝平均损伤、单元删除率、应力、应变等参数。结果表明，对于重力坝整体结构破坏，如重力坝整体弯曲导致的拉伸破坏，水下爆炸对重力坝的毁伤效应存在“最优爆距”，即随着爆距增加重力坝毁伤程度先增加后降低；与之类似，随着爆距的增加，重力坝上游坝面损伤区域的平均损伤、重力坝单元删除率、坝踵最大拉应力平均值和坝踵最大拉应变平均值先增加后降低且在40 mm爆距附近达到最大值。保持水深、炸药量和重力坝几何模型相同，5组不同爆深近水面水下爆炸对重力坝毁伤效应的“最优爆距”均在40 mm附近，表明近水面水下爆炸时爆深对“最优爆距”不存在显著影响。
- 水下爆炸 /
- 混凝土重力坝 /
- 最优爆距 /
- 数值计算 /
- 离心模型试验
Abstract: To investigate the standoff distance of underwater explosions on the damage to gravity dams and to explore whether there is an “optimal standoff distance”, a numerical model of a fully-coupled explosive-water-air-gravity dam was established. The numerical model was validated by comparing it with centrifuge test results. The results demonstrated that the employed numerical model could predict the dam failures and the effect of bubble pulse well. Then, a numerical scheme including 60 numerical calculations was designed. In these calculations, the water depth is 600 mm, the explosive mass is 2.2 g, and the geometrical scaling factor of the gravity dam model is 1/80. The detonation depth ranges from 50 to 250 mm with five detonation depths. Each detonation depth corresponds to 12 standoff distances ranging from 10 to 200 mm, with the scaled standoff distance ranging from 0.077 to 1.54 m/kg^1/3. The damage degrees to the gravity dam under underwater explosions with different standoff distances are compared. Quantitative comparisons of dam average damage, element erosion rate, stress, and strain are also presented. The results show that for the overall structural failure of the gravity dam, such as the structural bending-induced tensile failure, there is an “optimal standoff distance” for the damage effects of underwater explosions on gravity dams, that is, with the increase of standoff distance, the damage degree of gravity dam increases first and then decreases. The quantitative results also indicate that with the increase of standoff distance, the average damage of the damaged area in the dam upstream face, the element erosion rate, the average value of the maximum tensile stress of the dam heel, and the average value of the maximum tensile strain of the dam heel all increase first and then decrease, and reach their maximum values around a standoff distance of 40 mm. With identical water depth, explosive mass, and geometrical model of gravity dam, the “optimal standoff distances” for the damage effects of near-surface underwater explosions at five different detonation depths on the gravity dam are all near 40 mm. It suggests that for near-surface underwater explosions, the detonation depth owns limited influence on the “optimal standoff distance”.
- underwater explosion /
- concrete gravity dam /
- optimal standoff distance /
- numerical simulation /
- centrifuge model test

HTML全文

图 1 炸药-库水-空气-重力坝结构的全耦合数值模型及大坝尺寸

Figure 1. Numerical model of the fully coupled explosive-water-air-dam system and dam dimension

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 数值预测的大坝破坏与离心模型试验UE-01结果对比^{[6-7, 29]}

Figure 2. Comparison of dam failures obtained by numerical simulations and centrifuge test UE-01^{[6-7, 29]}

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 数值预测的大坝破坏与离心模型试验UE-02结果对比^{[6-7, 29]}

Figure 3. Comparison of dam failures obtained by numerical simulations and centrifuge test UE-02^{[6-7, 29]}

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 数值预测气泡脉动过程^[8]

Figure 4. Bubble oscillation predicted by the numerical simulation^[8]

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 试验、数值和理论预测气泡周期（T_b）和最大半径（R_bm）^[8]

Figure 5. Bubble period (T_b) and maximum size (R_bm) predicted by centrifuge tests, numerical simulations, and the theoretical model^[8]

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 爆深为50 mm时不同爆距水下爆炸下重力坝的损伤

Figure 6. Damage clouds of dams due to underwater explosions at different standoff distances with the detonation depth of 50 mm

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 爆深为100 mm时不同爆距水下爆炸下重力坝的损伤

Figure 7. Damage clouds of dams due to underwater explosions at different standoff distances with the detonation depth of 100 mm

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 150 mm爆深不同爆距水下爆炸下重力坝的损伤

Figure 8. Damage clouds of dams due to underwater explosions at different standoff distances with the detonation depth of 150 mm

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 ψ_R和φ_R与R关系

Figure 9. parameters ψ_R and φ_Rvaries with standoff distance R

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 平均损伤δ与爆距R的关系曲线

Figure 10. Average damage δ versus the standoff distance R

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 50 mm爆深不同爆距水下爆炸下重力坝破坏图（显示侵蚀单元）

Figure 11. Failure patterns of dams due to underwater explosions under different standoff distances with detonation depth of 50 mm (eroded elements shown)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 12 重力坝单元删除率与爆距R的关系曲线

Figure 12. The element erosion rate of the gravity dam versus the standoff distance R

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 13 中间坝对称轴的最大z向应力

Figure 13. The maximum z-stress curve along the axis of the middle dam

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 14 中间坝对称轴坝踵处最大z向应力的平均值与爆距R的关系

Figure 14. Average of the maximum z-stress at the heel of the axis of the middle dam versus the standoff distance R

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 15 左边坝对称轴的最大z向应变

Figure 15. Maximum z-strain curve along the axis of the left dam

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 16 左边坝对称轴坝踵最大z方向最大应变的平均值与爆距R的关系

Figure 16. Average of the maximum z-strain at the heel of the axis of the left dam versus the standoff distance R

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 混凝土本构模型参数

Table 1. Parameters required in the concrete model

a₁	a₂/Pa⁻¹	d₁	d₂	c₁	c₂	ε_frac
0.5876	0.25 × 10^–3	0.04	1.5	3	6.93	0.015

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 离心模型试验方案^{[6-8, 29]}

Table 2. Schemes of the centrifuge tests^{[6–8, 29]}

Test	G/g	W/g	L/mm	R/mm	H_w/mm
UE-01	80	2.2	100	20	600
UE-02	50	1.1	100	100	600
UE-03	50	1.1	300	300	600

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 上游坝面损伤面积占比θ和损伤区域的平均损伤δ

Table 3. The damage area ratio θ and the average damage δ of the dam upstream face

R/mm	θ					δ
R/mm	L=50 mm	L=100 mm	L=150 mm	L=200 mm	L=250 mm	L=50 mm	L=100 mm	L=150 mm	L=200 mm	L=250 mm
10	0.8159	0.8308	0.8597	0.8569	0.8490	0.2451	0.2519	0.2268	0.2310	0.2172
20	0.8272	0.8332	0.8718	0.8675	0.8653	0.2569	0.2733	0.2512	0.2527	0.2263
30	0.8478	0.8526	0.8664	0.8831	0.8754	0.2608	0.2743	0.2642	0.2602	0.2353
40	0.8195	0.8595	0.8745	0.8817	0.8745	0.2611	0.2786	0.2695	0.2643	0.2395
50	0.8305	0.8793	0.8696	0.8989	0.8718	0.2540	0.2649	0.2698	0.2523	0.2362
60	0.8319	0.8415	0.8675	0.8933	0.8771	0.2616	0.2612	0.2673	0.2453	0.2353
70	0.8416	0.8748	0.8785	0.8936	0.8765	0.2453	0.2510	0.2494	0.2309	0.2296
80	0.8418	0.8588	0.8898	0.8668	0.8831	0.2335	0.2443	0.2363	0.1996	0.2156
90	0.8415	0.8664	0.8628	0.8992	0.8873	0.2238	0.2280	0.2265	0.2166	0.2104
100	0.8390	0.8727	0.8693	0.8914	0.8872	0.2086	0.2210	0.2145	0.2098	0.2002

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(30)

[1]	WANG G H, ZHANG S R, KONG Y, et al. Comparative study of the dynamic response of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater and air explosions [J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2015, 29(4): 04014092. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000589.
[2]	WANG G H, LU W B, YANG G D, et al. A state-of-the-art review on blast resistance and protection of high dams to blast loads [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2020, 139: 103529. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103529.
[3]	陈叶青, 吕林梅, 汪剑辉, 等. 爆炸冲击荷载下的大坝抗爆性能及防护研究进展 [J]. 防护工程, 2021, 43(2): 1–10. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1854.2021.02.001. CHEN Y Q, LV L M, WANG J H, et al. Review of blast resistance performance and protection of dams under blast shock load [J]. Protective Engineering, 2021, 43(2): 1–10. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1854.2021.02.001.
[4]	陈叶青, 吕林梅, 王高辉, 等. 大坝抗爆性能评估研究进展 [J]. 土木工程学报, 2021, 54(10): 9–19. DOI: 10.15951/j.tmgcxb.2021.10.003. CHEN Y Q, LV L M, WANG G H, et al. Review on the blast-resistance performance evaluation of dams [J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2021, 54(10): 9–19. DOI: 10.15951/j.tmgcxb.2021.10.003.
[5]	VANADIT-ELLIS W, DAVIS L K. Physical modeling of concrete gravity dam vulnerability to explosions [C]//2010 International Water Side Security Conference. Carrara: IEEE, 2010: 1-11. DOI: 10.1109/WSSC.2010.5730291.
[6]	HUANG X P, HU J, ZHANG X D, et al. Bending failure of a concrete gravity dam subjected to underwater explosion [J]. Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, 2020, 21(12): 976–991. DOI: 10.1631/jzus.A2000194.
[7]	HUANG X P, KONG X Z, HU J, et al. Failure modes of concrete gravity dam subjected to near-field underwater explosion: centrifuge test and numerical simulation [J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2022, 137: 106243. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106243.
[8]	HUANG X P, HU J, ZHANG X D, et al. Effect of bubble pulse on concrete gravity dam subjected to underwater explosion: centrifuge test and numerical simulation [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2022, 243: 110291. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110291.
[9]	ZHANG S R, WANG G H, WANG C, et al. Numerical simulation of failure modes of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion [J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2014, 36: 49–64.
[10]	王高辉, 张社荣, 卢文波, 等. 水下爆炸冲击荷载下混凝土重力坝的破坏效应 [J]. 水利学报, 2015, 46(6): 723–731. DOI: 10.13243/j.cnki.slxb.20140908. WANG G H, ZHANG S R, LU W B, et al. Damage effects of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion [J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2015, 46(6): 723–731. DOI: 10.13243/j.cnki.slxb.20140908.
[11]	LI Q, WANG G H, LU W B, et al. Influence of reservoir water levels on the protective performance of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosions [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2018, 144(9): 04018143.
[12]	WANG C, WEI P Y, WANG X H, et al. Blast-resistance and damage evaluation of concrete gravity dam exposed to underwater explosion: considering the initial stress field [J]. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2021, 25(8): 2922–2935. DOI: 10.1007/s12205-021-1650-0.
[13]	ZHANG Q L, HU Y G, LIU M S, et al. Role of negative pressure in structural responses of gravity dams to underwater explosion loadings: the need to consider local cavitation [J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2021, 122: 105270. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105270.
[14]	SHU Y Z, WANG G H, LU W B, et al. Damage characteristics and failure modes of concrete gravity dams subjected to penetration and explosion [J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2022, 134: 106030. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106030.
[15]	ZHU J G, CHEN Y Q, LYU L. Failure analysis for concrete gravity dam subjected to underwater explosion: a comparative study [J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2022, 134: 106052. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106052.
[16]	REN X D, SHAO Y. Numerical investigation on damage of concrete gravity dam during noncontact underwater explosion [J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2019, 33(6): 04019066. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001332.
[17]	吕林梅, 陈叶青, 魏晓丽, 等. 基于毁伤面积率指标的混凝土重力坝毁伤评估方法研究 [J]. 防护工程, 2020, 42(2): 28–32. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1854.2020.02.005. LV L M, CHEN Y Q, WEI X L, et al. Study of damage assessment method of concrete gravity dam based on damage-area ratio index [J]. Protective Engineering, 2020, 42(2): 28–32. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1854.2020.02.005.
[18]	李麒, 王高辉, 卢文波, 等. 混凝土重力坝水下爆炸毁伤快速识别方法研究 [J]. 振动与冲击, 2020, 39(24): 46–53,62. DOI: 10.13465/j.cnki.jvs.2020.24.007. LI Q, WANG G H, LU W B, et al. A rapid identification method for underwater explosion damage of a concrete gravity dam [J]. Journal of Vibration and Shock, 2020, 39(24): 46–53,62. DOI: 10.13465/j.cnki.jvs.2020.24.007.
[19]	WANG X H, ZHANG S R, WANG C, et al. Blast-induced damage and evaluation method of concrete gravity dam subjected to near-field underwater explosion [J]. Engineering Structures, 2020, 209: 109996. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109996.
[20]	张社荣, 王高辉, 王超, 等. 水下爆炸冲击荷载作用下混凝土重力坝的破坏模式 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2012, 32(5): 501–507. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)05-0501-07. ZHANG S R, WANG G H, WANG C, et al. Failure mode analysis of concrete gravity dam subjected to underwater explosion [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2012, 32(5): 501–507. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)05-0501-07.
[21]	张启灵, 李端有, 李波. 水下爆炸冲击作用下重力坝的损伤发展及破坏模式 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2012, 32(6): 609–615. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)06-0609-07. ZHANG Q L, LI D Y, LI B. Damage propagation and failure mode of gravity dam subjected to underwater explosion [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2012, 32(6): 609–615. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)06-0609-07.
[22]	WANG G H, ZHANG S R. Damage prediction of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion shock loading [J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2014, 39: 72–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.01.018.
[23]	HUANG X P, KONG X Z, HU J, et al. The influence of free water content on ballistic performances of concrete targets [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2020, 139: 103530. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103530.
[24]	ROSSI P. A physical phenomenon which can explain the mechanical behaviour of concrete under high strain rates [J]. Materials and Structures, 1991, 24(6): 422–424. DOI: 10.1007/BF02472015.
[25]	HUANG X P, KONG X Z, CHEN Z Y, et al. Equation of state for saturated concrete: a mesoscopic study [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2020, 144: 103669. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2020.103669.
[26]	KONG X Z, FANG Q, CHEN L, et al. A new material model for concrete subjected to intense dynamic loadings [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2018, 120: 60–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.05.006.
[27]	ZHAO F Q, WEN H M. Effect of free water content on the penetration of concrete [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2018, 121: 180–190. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.06.007.
[28]	XU H, WEN H M. Semi-empirical equations for the dynamic strength enhancement of concrete-like materials [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2013, 60: 76–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.04.005.
[29]	黄谢平, 孔祥振, 陈祖煜, 等. 近水面、库中、库底水下爆炸荷载作用下混凝土重力坝的破坏模式对比 [J]. 土木工程学报, 2023, 56(3): 116–128. DOI: 10.15951/j.tmgcxb.21121206. HUANG X P, KONG X Z, CHEN Z Y, et al. Comparison of failure modes of concrete gravity dams by underwater explosion loads near the water free surface, the middle, and the bottom of the reservoir [J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2023, 56(3): 116–128. DOI: 10.15951/j.tmgcxb.21121206.
[30]	GEERS T L, HUNTER K S. An integrated wave-effects model for an underwater explosion bubble [J]. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2002, 111(4): 1584–1601. DOI: 10.1121/1.1458590.