All Issue

2025 Vol.2, Issue 4 Preview Page

Case Study

Analysis of Cratering and Ground Shock Mechanisms for Earth-Cover Protection

복토 방호에서의 폭발구 및 지반충격에 대한 메커니즘 분석

Sangyoung Han1
,
Jinho Ahn2
,
Kukjoo Kim3
,
Sangwoo Park4*
한 상영1
,
안 진호2
,
김 국주3
,
박 상우4*
1Assistant Professor, Department of ICT Integrated Ocean Smart City Engineering, Dong-A University, Busan, 49315, Rep. of Korea
2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Korea Military Academy, Seoul, 01805, Rep. of Korea
3Protective Structure Analysis Engineer, Department of Defense Facility Development, Defense Installations Agency, Seoul, 04353, Rep. of Korea
4Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Korea Military Academy, Seoul, 01805, Rep. of Korea
1동아대학교 ICT융합해양스마트시티공학과 조교수
2육군사관학교 토목·환경학과 조교수
3국방시설본부 방호시설발전과 방호구조분석관
4육군사관학교 토목·환경학과 교수
*Corresponding Author
19 November 2025. pp. 213-221
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of earth-cover on cratering and ground shock using case studies together with empirical charts and relations. First, the case review confirms that soil type, degree of compaction, and moisture content govern the protective performance of earth-covers. Based on these findings, we derived design variables for earth-cover impact assessment and conducted performance evaluations against cratering and ground shock for two representative threats: a 155 mm projectile and a GP 1,000 air-delivered bomb. Crater size was dominated by moisture content, and the minimum earth-cover thickness required to prevent crater penetration was estimated as 0.65 m for the 155 mm projectile and 2.20 m for the GP-1,000 bomb. For ground shock, denser sands were more critical in terms of peak stress, leading to the conclusion that an effective section consists of a loose, dry sandy sacrificial layer at the top, a dense granular core, and drainage and filter layers at the interface with the structure. Using a 0.50 m slab as the reference, the minimum earth-cover thickness to keep ground shock within allowable limits was estimated as 0.50 m for the 155 mm projectile and 3.00 m for the GP 1,000 bomb. The study provides a practical, rapid framework for estimating minimum earth-cover requirements, while highlighting the need for further experimental and analytical verification under diverse field conditions.

Keywords
earth-cover protection
blast crater
ground shock
soil penetration depth
minimum earth-cover thickness

본 연구에서는 복토가 폭발구와 지반충격에 미치는 영향을 사례 분석과 경험도표 및 경험식을 바탕으로 평가하였다. 먼저, 사례 분석을 통해 토질의 종류와 다짐도, 그리고 함수비가 복토의 방호 성능을 좌우함을 확인하였다. 이를 바탕으로 복토 영향 분석을 위한 설계 변수를 도출하였고, 155 mm 포탄과 GP1,000 항공탄을 주요 위협군으로 하여 폭발구와 지반충격에 대한 복토 성능 평가를 실시하였다. 폭발구 크기는 함수비의 영향이 가장 지배적이었으며, 폭발구에 의한 관통 억제를 위한 최소 복토 두께는 155 mm 포탄은 0.65m, GP1,000 항공탄은 2.20m로 산정되었다. 지반충격에 대해서는 밀한 사질토일수록 취약하였고, 이에 따라 상부는 느슨하고 건조한 사질토의 희생층, 본체는 밀한 조립질 복토, 그리고 구조체와의 경계면에는 배수 및 필터층을 갖추도록 하는 것이 가장 효과적이라는 결론이다. 0.5m 슬래브를 기준으로 지반충격을 허용치 이내로 제한하기 위한 최소 복토두께는 155 mm 포탄은 0.50m, GP1,000 항공탄은 3.00m로 추정되었다. 본 연구는 최소 복토두께를 빠르게 산정하는 실무 프레임을 제시하며, 향후 다양한 현장 조건을 반영한 추가 실험적, 해석적 검증이 요구된다.

키워드
복토 방호
폭발구
지반충격
지반 관입길이
최소 복토두께
References
1

Ahmad Mohamed, H. and Abdolreza, T. (2023) Study on Blast Proof Composite Plate Structures. Journal of Innovation and Technology 6, 1-12.

10.61453/joit.v2023no06
2

Børvik, T., Dey, S., and Olovsson, L. (2015) Penetration of Granular Materials by Small-Arms Bullets. International Journal of Impact Engineering 75, 123-139.

10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.07.016
3

Bragov, A. M., Balandin, V. V., Igumnov, L. A., Kotov, V. L., Kruszka, L., and Lomunov, А. K. (2018) Impact and Penetration of Cylindrical Bodies into Dry and Water-Saturated Sand. International Journal of Impact Engineering 122, 197-208.

10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.08.012
4

Cui, Y., Li, Z., Fang, J., and Zhao, B. (2023) Crater Effects of Shallow Burial Explosions in Soil Based on SPH-FEM Analysis. Frontiers in Earth Science 10, 1114178.

10.3389/feart.2022.1114178
5

Due-Hansen, M. E. and Dullum, O. (2017) Review and Analysis of the Explosion Accident in Drevja, Norway: A Consequence of Fre in a Mobile Explosives Manufacturing Unit (MEMU) Carrying Precursors for the On-site Production of Bulk Explosives. Safety Science 96, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.003

10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.003
6

Hatzor, Y. H., Gvirtzman, H., Wainshtein, I., and Orian, I. (2009) Induced Liquefaction Experiment in Relatively Dense, Clayrich Sand Deposits. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 114(B2), 1-22.

10.1029/2008JB005943
7

Kuwik, B. S., Moreno, J., Shaeffer, M., Simpson, G., and Hurley, R. C. (2024) The Response of Dry and Wet Silica Sand to High Velocity Impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering 186, 104883.

10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.104883
8

Lane, R., Craig, B., and Babcock, W. (2002) Materials for Blast and Penetration Resistance. AMPTIAC Quarterly 6(4), 39-45.

9

Li, C., Chen, Y., Yao, Y., Gou, Y., Wang, Q., Guo, J., Xie, X., and Wang, X. (2024) Field Test and Numerical Research on Explosion Crater in Calcareous Sand. Scientific Reports 14(1), 25626.

10.1038/s41598-024-75737-y39463403PMC11514283
10

Mandal, J., Goel, M. D., and Agarwal, A. K. (2021) Surface and Buried Explosions: An Explorative Review with Recent Advances. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 28(7).

10.1007/s11831-021-09553-2
11

Manjusha, M. and Althaf, M. (2020) Numerical Analysis on Fexural Behaviour of GFRP Sandwich Roof Panel with Multilayer Core Material. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 491(1), 012025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/491/1/012025

10.1088/1755-1315/491/1/012025
12

Pan, Y., Zong, Z., QIAN, H., Huang J., and Shan Y. (2023) Experimental Study on Blast Wave Propagation in Calcareous Sand. Explosion And Shock Waves 43(5), 053201.

13

Qi, C., Remennikov, A., Pei, L. Z., Yang, S., Yu, Z. H., and Ngo, T. D. (2017) Impact and Close-in Blast Response of Auxetic Honeycomb-Cored Sandwich Panels: Experimental tests and numerical simulations. Composite Structures 180, 161-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.08.020

10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.08.020
14

Rigby, S. E., Fay, S. D., Clarke, S. D., Tyas, A., Reay, J. J., Warren, J. A., Gant, M., and Elgy, I. (2016) Measuring Spatial Pressure Distribution from Explosives Buried in Dry Leighton Buzzard sand. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 96, 89-104.

10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.05.004
15

Sun, G., Zhang, J., Li, S., Fang, J., Wang, E., and Li, Q. (2019) Dynamic Response of Sandwich Panel with Hierarchical Honeycomb Cores Subject to Blast Loading. Thin Walled Structures 142, 499-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.04.029

10.1016/j.tws.2019.04.029
16

TM-5-855-1 (1986) Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons. Washington D.C.: Technical Manual: US Department of the Army.

17

UFC 3-340-02 (2008) Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense.

18

West, M., Al-Douri, A., Hartmann, K., Buttner, W., and Groth, K. M. (2022) Critical Review and Analysis of Hydrogen Safety Data Collection Tools. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47, 17845-17858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.03.244

10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.03.244
19

Yu, X., Chen, L., Fang, Q., Zhang, J., Guo, D., and Hou, X. (2019) Determination of Attenuation Effects of Coral Sand on the Propagation of Impact-Induced Stress Wave. International Journal of Impact Engineering 125, 63-82.

10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.11.004
Information
  • Publisher :Korea Protective Facility Institute
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국방호시설학회
  • Journal Title :Protective Facility
  • Journal Title(Ko) :방호시설
  • Volume : 2
  • No :4
  • Pages :213-221
  • Received Date : 2025-10-27
  • Revised Date : 2025-11-06
  • Accepted Date : 2025-11-07
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.23310/PF.2025.2.4.213
Journal Informaiton Protective Facility Protective Facility
Online Submission & Review System
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close