Indian Geotech J
DOI 10.1007/s40098-016-0196-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Evaluation of Appropriate Material Models in LS-DYNA
for MM-ALE Finite Element Simulations of Small-Scale Explosive
Airblast Tests on Clay Soils
Courtney L. Busch1 Rafiqul A. Tarefder1
Received: 13 October 2015 / Accepted: 6 June 2016
Indian Geotechnical Society 2016
Abstract This study conducted finite element simulations
of a small scale, explosive airblast on clay soil in LS-
DYNA using multi-material arbitrary LagrangianEulerian
methods. An explosive mass of 100.9 g with a 7.6 cm blast
height was simulated in this study under two-dimensional
conditions. The study compared four different material
models to evaluate their ability to simulate explosively-
induced airblast loads on cohesive soils. Material models
included the Soil and Foam pressure dependent strength
model, the Pseudo Tensor pressure dependent strength
model, the FHWA DruckerPrager model and the Two-
Invariant Geologic Cap model. Crater dimensions were
measured from the simulations and compared to the results
of airblast experiments performed in another study. Three
material models ran to completion with the exception of
the Geologic Cap model, which terminated early in the
calculation due to plasticity algorithm errors caused by the
large strain increments. While the remaining three models
somewhat over-predicted crater depth, the diameter
dimensions and crater volumes from the Soil and Foam and
particularly the Pseudo Tensor model compared very well
to the experimental data. The crater shape from the FHWA
model did not match particularly well with experimental
results and was larger than the experimental crater. A
simplified, pressure dependent strength model such as Soil
and Foam model or the Pseudo Tensor model is therefore
recommended for modeling small-scale airblast events on
& Courtney L. Busch
vallejo@unm.edu
Rafiqul A. Tarefder
tarefder@unm.edu
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico,
MSC01 1070, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA
cohesive soils. The Pseudo Tensor model compared par-
ticularly well to experimental results and predicted crater
dimensions very well. Additional studies with the Geologic
Cap model implementing smoothed particle hydrodynam-
ics are recommended which may resolve the errors asso-
ciated with large strain increments.
Keywords Airblast  Clay soil  Cratering  MM-ALE 
LS-DYNA  Soil and Foam model  Pseudo Tensor model 
FHWA model  Geologic Cap model
Introduction
Physical Response of Soils to Airblast Loading
An explosive airblast occurs when an explosive is deto-
nated in air, which generates a shock wave that compresses
the air and travels through the medium until the surface of
the ground or a structure is encountered, at which point
energy is transmitted into the structure. Explosive airblast
detonations occurring near earthen materials transmit high-
stress, dynamic loads into the structure that may make
earthen structures (slopes walls, etc.) susceptible to failure.
High yield airblast events could induce large scale defor-
mations and potentially result in failure of the earth
structure. It is therefore of interest to investigate the effects
of airblast loading on earthen materials.
When an explosive airblast occurs over earthen mate-
rials a crater is usually generated as shown in Fig. 1. A
true crater is formed when the initial shock scours and
compacts the soil [29]. Detonation gases and rarefaction
waves are transferred into the soil, ejecting material (which
is termed ejecta) as the gases expand and rarefaction
waves reverse direction [6]. A portion of the ejecta falls
123

Fig. 1 Typical crater geometry
from an explosive event
back into the crater and forms the apparent crater, which
is the final crater observed after a blast event.
During explosive airblast events on earthen materials,
the soil remains in an undrained condition because loading
takes place very rapidly and soil pore pressures cannot
dissipate. The soil response in this high intensity, dynamic
loading environment cannot generally be described by
conventional soil mechanics, in which loading takes place
gradually. For example, the compressibility of the solid
mineral grains, the soil skeleton and the pore water cannot
be neglected as is usually assumed for conventional prob-
lems [4]. To account for these effects, equations for bulk
and constrained compressibility of undrained, saturated
soils were developed by Blouin and Kwang [4] that
account for the compressibility of the different soil phases.
The equation for the fully coupled bulk modulus, which
accounts for the effects of different soil phases and effec-
tive stress on volume strain in the soilwater mixture is
given in Eqs. (1) through (4). An approach such as this
should be used when calculating compressibility parame-
ters for inputs to numerical modeling of undrained soils
subjected to blast loads.
" #
Km Ks  KKm Kg s  Kg
Kf Kp Km Ks 1 Vortman [27] and showed that the ratio of apparent crater
Kg2  Km Ks
Km Ks
Kp Kd  2 [2] performed numerous small scale, elevated explosive
Kg
Kg Kw
Km   3
Kw n Kg  Kw
Kd Km Ks 4 blast height. Ambrosini and Luccioni [3] performed
where:
Kf, Kp, Kd, Km = fully coupled, partially coupled,
decoupled, and mixture model undrained bulk modulus,
Ks = bulk modulus of soil skeleton,
Kg = bulk modulus of solid grains,
Kw = bulk modulus of water,
n = porosity
123
Indian Geotech J
Most experimental studies that involve blast loading of
earthen structures have been performed by government
organizations and many of these results are not open source
literature. The majority of explosive airblast data for soils
in open literature consists of empirically derived relation-
ships that relate explosive mass to crater dimensions. Data
for elevated explosive blasts on soils are particularly sparse
and data from many different soil types such as gravels,
sands and clays are typically lumped together without
detailed laboratory characterization tests. One historical
reference from the Defense Nuclear Agency [9] describes
numerous explosive tests conducted in varying geology to
study cratering efficiency as a function of geology type.
Average craters were compared for near-surface bursts in
materials ranging from hard rock to soft sand and clay.
Another well-known, historical study compiled the
results of 200 accidental, large magnitude surface explo-
sions on soils and developed an empirically derived
equation that estimated the apparent crater diameter to be
equal to eighty percent of the cubed root of the explosive
charge mass [15]. Predicated crater depth was estimated to
be approximately one quarter of the diameter. Results from
high explosive surface blasts in soils were compiled by
radius to depth increased with increasing explosive energy
and varied based on site soil conditions. Ambrosini et al.
tests on in situ, fine grained soils and developed an
empirical relationship that showed an increase in crater
dimensions with increasing explosive mass and decreasing
numerical studies and developed relationships to estimate
crater dimensions from spherical surface blasts.
Numerical Modeling of Soils Subjected to Airblast
Load
The soil behavior under blast loading is difficult to capture
due to the abrupt increase in pressures and large, sudden
Indian Geotech J
strains that develop within the material. Many numerical
material models have been developed to attempt to capture
the behavior of soils under rapid dynamic loading. A dis-
cussion of a select number of models is provided below.
MohrCoulomb Plasticity Model
The classical MohrCoulomb plasticity model is one of the
most commonly used models for describing soil behavior.
The MohrCoulomb shear strength criterion is described in
terms of maximum and minimum principal stresses and is
given in Eq. (5). While this criterion is computationally
simple, it does not account for the effects of intermediate
principal stresses. The three-dimensional MohrCoulomb
yield surface is described in a pressure versus stress devi-
ator space and incorporates a lode angle function, K(h) as
shown in Eq. (6), [1]. The lode angle describes the mag-
nitude of the intermediate principal stress, r2 to the mini-
mum principal stress, r3 and the maximum principal stress,
r1. The lode angle has values of ?30 for triaxial com-
pression since r2 = r3 during this stress state. The lode
angle has a value of -30 for triaxial extension since
r2 = r1 in the stress state [20].
The standard MohrCoulomb surface forms a hexagonal
pyramid in principal stress space, which is deficient for
numerical calculations because of the singularity created at
the pressure axis when the shear strength becomes zero.
This area of the pressure axis is important to capture the
effects of surface explosions in soils with no confining
pressure, and having a singularity in the yield surface at
this point can create numerical instabilities and ineffi-
ciencies. The standard MohrCoulomb surface also has
sharp vertices in the octahedral plane, which can result in
additional numerical instabilities.
ry s  c  r tan / 0 5 stress state reaches the yield surface. Stress states located
where:
ry = yield function,
s = shear stress on the failure plane,
r = normal effective stress on the failure plane,
c = cohesion,
u = angle of internal friction
p
ry P sin / Kh J2  c cos / 0 6 primarily undergo compaction during shear loading [13].
where:
ry = yield function,
P = pressure (mean stress),
u = angle of internal friction,
c = cohesion,
J2 = second invariant of the stress deviator,
K(h) = function of angle h in the deviatoric plane:
Kh cos h  p13 sin / sin h, testing and must be determined through parametric testing.
 p

1 1 3 3J3
h = lode angle: h 3 sin ,
3=2
2J2
J3 = third invariant of the stress deviator
DruckerPrager Plasticity Model
The DruckerPrager plasticity model addresses some of the
deficiencies of the MohrCoulomb model by accounting
for the effects of all principal stresses through the use of
stress invariants [10]. This model can provide a good first
approximation of soil failure [7]. The model is smooth
generalization of the MohrCoulomb model and can cap-
ture elastic soil response, failure and elastic unloading after
yielding. The yield surface is defined by Eq. (7) and plots
p
as a straight line in J2 versus J1 stress space. The surface
plots as a circular cone in three dimensional principal stress
space and a circle in the p plane. While this consistent
surface is computationally efficient, a circular failure sur-
face in the p plane does not accurately represent some
materials such as cohesionless soils [7].
p
ry J2  aJ1  k 7
where:
ry = yield function,
a, k = slope and intercept of yield surface in vs J1 stress
space, respectively,
J = first invariant of the stress tensor,
p1
J2 = square root of the second invariant of the stress
deviator tensor
The total strain for the DruckerPrager model is sepa-
rated into elastic and plastic components. Elastic defor-
mation occurs when the stress state remains below the yield
surface, while plastic deformation accumulates when the
above the yield surface are not permitted. Incremental
plastic strain is described through an associated flow rule
that is normal to the yield surface. The incremental plastic
strain has a negative volumetric component which allows
dilation to occur at failure in both the DruckerPrager and
the MohrCoulomb models [10]. This aspect can cause an
unrealistic response when modeling soils, since most soils
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) soil
model adapted the DruckerPrager model for numerical
simulations to simulate soil-structure interaction of road base
soils and safety structures [18]. The model incorporated the
effects of varying saturation levels, strain hardening, strain
softening and pore water pressure. A major drawback to the
FHWA model is that it requires more than twenty input
parameters, not all of which can be derived from physical soil
123

The FHWA model uses the modified MohrCoulomb
yield surface [1] shown in Eq. (8). A hyperbola is fit to the
standard MohrCoulomb surface, which creates a smooth
surface at the intersection of the pressure axis at zero shear
strength and eliminates the singularity. The AHYP param-
eter controls the shape of the yield surface at the inter-
section; if AHYP is set to zero the standard MohrCoulomb
surface is retained. The shape of the yield surface in the
octahedral plane is corrected through the modification of
the K(h) parameter with a function developed by Klisinski
[16] as shown in Eq. (9).
q that simulates crushing of soil materials through volumetric
ry P sin / J2 Kh2 AHYP2 sin2 /  c cos /
0
41  e2 cos2 h 2e  12
Kh
21  e2 cos h 2e  141  e2 cos2 h 5e2  4e 1=2
where:
e = eccentricity parameter describing the ratio of triax-
ial extension to triaxial compression strength,
AHYP = fit coefficient to determine how closely the
modified surface is fit to the standard MohrCoulomb
surface
The FHWA model modifies the bulk modulus with a
constant, D1, as shown in Eq. (10) to describe the effects of
moisture content and air voids in partially saturated soils.
The equation controls the stiffness of the soil before air
voids are collapsed [21]. The model also simulates the
effects of excess pore water pressure by Eq. (11). An
effective stress is calculated by reducing total pressure by
pore water pressure and decreasing the soil shear strength.
Ksk
K 10
1 Ksk D1 ncur
where:
K = bulk modulus modified for moisture content and air
voids,
Ksk = skeleton bulk modulus,
D1 = parameter that controls the stiffness of the soil
before air voids are collapsed,
ncur = current porosity
Ksk
u ev 11
1 Ksk D2 ncur
where:
u = pore water pressure,
Ksk = skeleton bulk modulus,
ncur = current porosity,
ev = total volumetric strain,
123
Indian Geotech J
D2 = parameter for pore-water pressure before air voids
are collapsed
Simplified Pressure Dependent Strength Models
Pressure dependent strength models can be used to capture
the constitutive response of soils due to the pressure
dependent nature of the soil strength. Strength models of
this type are also commonly used to capture the response of
foam materials. One pressure dependent strength model
deformations, the Soil and Foam model, is discussed in
Hallquist [13]. While the model is one of the most basic
pressure dependent strength models, it is very robust and
8 has been used for a considerable amount of time, thereby
benefitting and improving from user experience and feed-
back [26].
The Soil and Foam model is defined by inputs for mass
9
density, shear modulus, and unloading bulk modulus. The
model is also defined by three coefficients that define the
shear failure surface of the material and a stressstrain
curve that describes the compressibility. In addition, a
maximum pressure cutoff in tension, which represents
tensile fracture, is required for the model. If the pressure in
an element ever reaches the specified value, tension is no
longer allowed in the element.
The shear failure surface for this material model is
described by the second deviatoric stress invariant, J2 as a
function of the mean stress. The failure surface for the
material can be obtained through triaxial compression
laboratory testing and is defined using the pressure-de-
pendent, perfectly plastic yield function shown in Eq. (12),
[13]. The yield surface coefficients a0, a1 and a2, are the
coefficients of the quadratic fit of the J2 versus p yield
surface curve. The ao term is the y-intercept of the yield
curve with the J2 axis, a1 is the initial slope of the yield
curve and a2 is the curvature coefficient of the yield curve
[26].
/s J2  a0 a1 p a2 p2 12
where:
/s = plastic yield function,
J2 = second deviatoric stress invariant,
a0, a1, a2 = yield surface coefficients,
p = pressure (equal to mean stress, positive in
compression)
Volumetric deformation of the Soil and Foam model is
described by a material-specific curve of mean stress ver-
sus volumetric strain. The model requires the stressstrain
curve to be defined by the natural logarithm of volumetric
strain as shown in the following equation:
Indian Geotech J
 
V Cap plasticity models were advanced to include non-
elog ln 13 linear kinematic hardening [14] and capture the effects of
V0
where:
elog = logarithmic strain,
V = current volume,
V0 = initial volume before loading
Another simplified pressure dependent strength model,
the Pseudo Tensor Model, is discussed in Hallquist [13].
This model is commonly used to model soils and other
geologic material subjected to impulse loadings and is a
robust model for simulating high-strain displacements. The
model is capable of running in two different modes to
define the shear failure surface: a simplified pressure-de-
pendent failure surface and a more complex mode that
utilizes two failure surface functions to describe intact and
damaged material. Mode one is generally more suitable to
capture the response of soils, while the second mode is
typically used to describe the response of rigid materials
such as concrete or rock.
Mode one of the Pseudo Tensor model can be used to
implement a MohrCoulomb yield surface with a Tresca
limit. The shear failure surface is defined as a curve of
stress difference, (r1 - r3)/2 versus mean stress, p. The
yield surface coefficients a0, a1 and a2, are the coefficients
of the quadratic fit to the yield surface curve. The model is
also defined by inputs for mass density, shear modulus, and
Poissons ratio.
The Pseudo Tensor model must be coupled with an
equation of state to describe the compaction of the soil.
This generally takes the form of material-specific, tabu-
lated values of pressure versus volumetric strain. Strain is
defined in terms of the natural logarithm of volumetric
strain as shown in Eq. (13).
Cap Plasticity Models
Two-invariant cap plasticity models were initially pro-
posed by Drucker et al. [11] to control the plastic dilatency
and account for hysteresis during hydrostatic loading and
unloading [7]. Cap models treat soil and rock as elastic
plastic, work-hardening materials. The cap model describes
the plastic strain that occurs almost immediately after a soil
is loaded through the use of successive yield surfaces until
the stress state reaches the ultimate yield surface. The yield
surfaces intersect the J1 axis to account for plastic behavior
under hydrostatic loading, forming a convex end cap. As
the soil continues to yield it exhibits work hardening and a
new yield surface is defined when the stress state moves
beyond the current yield surface. The cap surface contracts
through a hardening law and controls the dilatency of the
material [13].
dynamic loads on geologic materials. The Geologic Cap
model is one such inviscid cap plasticity model that
incorporates a two-invariant cap and kinematic hardening
for numerical analyses. The model is based on the non-
linear kinematic hardening models and the formulations of
Simo et al. [24, 25] and Sandler and Rubin [22]. The failure
surface and the cap are defined by Eq. (14). The total
volume strain is separated into elastic and plastic compo-
nents with a hardening function related to the plastic vol-
ume strain by Eq. (15). More recent advances of this type
of model include the incorporation of the third stress
invariant, strain rate effects and damage modeling [23].
p
J2 a  c expbJ1 hJ1 14
where:
p
J2 = square root of the second invariant of the stress
deviator tensor,
J1 = first invariant of the stress tensor,
a, b, h, and c = failure envelope coefficients
epv W f1  expDX j  X0 g 15
where:
epv = plastic volume strain,
W = hardening law coefficient,
D = hardening law exponent,
X0 = hardening law exponent (assumed zero for soil),
j = J1 coordinate of the intersection of cap surface and
failure surface
Objective and Scope
The objective of this study was to compare four different
material models available in the finite element simulation
software LS-DYNA (LSTC [19] and evaluate their ability
to simulate explosively-induced airblast loads on cohesive
soils. Crater size and shape from the finite element calcu-
lations were compared to a small-scale airblast test per-
formed on clay soils as described in Busch et al. [5]. Finite
element simulations of the field experiment were per-
formed and crater geometry and stress response were
compared to data obtained from the experimental blasts.
Material models compared in this study included:
1. Soil and Foam pressure dependent strength model (LS-
DYNA Model 5)
2. Pseudo Tensor pressure dependent strength model (LS-
DYNA Model 16)
3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Drucker
Prager model (LS-DYNA Model 147)
123

4. Two-Invariant Geologic Cap model (LS-DYNA Model
25)
Methodology
Finite element calculations were compared to a small-scale
airblast test performed on homogeneous clay soils. The
experimental program as described in Busch et al. [5]
included laboratory geotechnical characterization tests,
undrained triaxial compression tests, ultrasonic wave
velocity tests, and direct shear tests.
Small-scale explosive airblast tests were conducted on
clay soils in the experiments. Crater dimensions and
ground motions were recorded for the experimental blasts.
The experiment test bed was constructed by excavating a
pit in in situ, sandy soils as shown in Fig. 2. A clay column
was constructed within the excavation using a cylindrical
cardboard form backfilled with homogeneous clay soil.
Triaxial geophones were embedded in the clay column to
measure ground vibrations; airblast sensors were arranged
on the ground to measure air overpressure. The annular
space surrounding the clay column was backfilled with the
site sandy soils placed in a loosely compacted condition to
minimize vibration reflections back into the clay column. A
square clay pad was constructed near the ground surface to
capture blast-induced crater geometries as shown in Fig. 2.
The experimental explosive blasts were conducted with
spherical explosive charges suspended above the clay
surface. The explosive was a two-part binary explosive
composed of solid ammonium nitrate oxidizer and
Fig. 2 Explosive test bed configuration: a profile view, b plan view
123
Indian Geotech J
flammable liquid nitromethane [12]. Constant blast sus-
pension heights of 2.5 and 7.6 cm above the clay surface
were used in the tests and the explosive mass was varied
from 0.9 to 100.9 g. The crater dimensions in the clay
surface pad were measured after each blast using a profil-
ing tool. Crater profiles were digitized into an electronic
format using computer aided drafting software [8] and
electronically rotated to estimate the three-dimensional
crater shape and calculate volumes.
Finite Element Simulations
In this study, finite element simulations were performed of
a single airblast test with an explosive mass of 100.9 g and
a blast height of 7.6 cm above the clay surface as sum-
marized in Table 1. Simulations were performed using the
software LS-DYNA (LSTC [19] using a two-dimensional,
axisymmetric calculation with non-reflecting boundaries as
shown in Fig. 3. The finite element mesh used in the cal-
culations is shown in Fig. 4 and was constructed using two-
dimensional elements that were 5 by 5 mm in size near the
explosive transitioning to 25 by 25 mm in size near the
geometry edges. Element sizes were selected to be small
enough to sufficiently capture crater geometries.
Explicit time integration with a multi-material arbitrary
LagrangianEulerian (MM-ALE) formulation was used to
simulate the explosive blasts. The MM-ALE method
allows the simulated materials to flow across elements
and the computational mesh to move in a manner which is
not equal to the movement of the material. The moving
mesh results in fewer instances where multiple materials
Indian Geotech J

Table 1 Experimental explosive blast parameters modeled in LS- occupy a single element, thus reducing computational
DYNA errors and improving accuracy. During an MM-ALE
Parameter Value analysis, material interfaces are reconstructed for each time
step based on volumes of a material occupying an element.
Explosive mass, W 100.9 g
The explosive was modeled using the Jones Wilkins and
Blast height above clay surface, h 7.6 cm Lee (JWL) equation of state (Eq. 16), which is an empir-
ically derived model developed from cylindrical explosive
test data and is widely utilized due to its simplicity and
Non- computational efficiency. The LS-DYNA high explosive
reflecting burn (HEB) material model was used with the JWL
boundary
equation of state. The HEB model describes the pressure in
Explosive Air the high explosive material and utilizes a burn fraction
during detonation simulations to calculate the amount of
0.46 m 0.3 m
reacted explosive material and control the release of
Clay 0.14 m
chemical energy during the detonation [13]. An LS-DYNA
null material and an ideal gas linear polynomial equation of
Symmetry state were used to model the air in the calculations.
plane Sand    
Non-
x R1 V x xE
reflecting pA 1 e B 1 eR2 V
1.22 m
boundary R1 V R2 V V
16
where:
p = blast pressure,
V = current relative volume (volume of material at
pressure p divided by the initial volume of un-reacted
0.15 m
0.15 m explosive),
E = specific internal energy (internal energy per initial
Fig. 3 Geometry and boundary conditions for finite element simu-
lations (not to scale) volume),

Fig. 4 Finite element mesh

Air

Explosive

Clay Sand

123
 Indian Geotech J

A, B, R1, R2, x = JWL coefficients based on cylindrical 2. Pseudo Tensor pressure dependent strength model (LS-
explosive testing DYNA Model 16)
3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Drucker-
Four material models available in LS-DYNA were
Prager model (LS-DYNA Model 147)
selected to model the clay and compare the results:
4. Two-Invariant Geologic Cap model (LS-DYNA Model
1. Soil and Foam pressure dependent strength model (LS- 25)
DYNA Model 5)
Input parameters for the material models compared in
this study are presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Inputs
were obtained from laboratory test results as described in
Table 2 Geotechnical properties of clayey soils used in experiment
Busch et al. [5]. A few soil properties were estimated based
Parameter Result on engineering judgment by substituting typical properties
Dry density 1.963 g/cm3 based on soil type. The strength inputs for the FHWA
Saturation 98.0 % model deviated slightly from the laboratory test results in
Moisture content 29.0 % order to properly fit the strength envelope by the equations
Liquid limit (LL) 35 used in the model. In addition, some of the more obscure
Plasticity index (PI) 15
input parameters for the FHWA model were obtained from
C0.075 (% passing 0.075 mm) 92 %
an in-depth parametric study performed by Lee [17]. Linear
mm
compressibility was assumed for all models due to the

Table 3 Strength and stiffness properties of clayey soils used in experiment

Parameter Result Obtained from

Cohesion, c 0.021 MPa Triaxial lab testing

Friction angle, u 4.0 Triaxial lab testing
Elastic modulus, E 7.57 MPa Triaxial lab testing
Poissons ratio, m 0.49973 Calculated from wavespeed measurements
Shear modulus, G 2.524 MPa Calculated from E and m
Saturated bulk modulus, K 4673 MPa Calculated by Eq. (1)
Soil skeleton bulk modulus, Ks 355 MPa Estimated
Mineral grain bulk modulus (Kaolinite), Kg 49,000 MPa Wang et al. [28]

Table 4 Input parameters for Soil and Foam material model (LS-DYNA Model 5)
Parameter Input Obtained from

Yield function constant, a0 0.001 MPa2 Fit to strength envelope

Yield function constant, a1 0.0049 MPa Fit to strength envelope
Yield function constant, a2 0.0079 Fit to strength envelope
Tensile pressure cutoff, Pc -0.05 MPa Estimated
Compressibility curve inputs
Pressure, P (MPa) Volume strain, elog

0.0 0.0000 Linear compressibility assumed

100.0 -0.0216
200.0 -0.0437
400.0 -0.0895
600.0 -0.1374
800.0 -0.1878
1000.0 -0.2408
2000.0 -0.5586
3000.0 -1.0272
4000.0 -1.9380

123
Indian Geotech J

Table 5 Input parameters for Pseudo Tensor material model (LS-DYNA Model 16)
Parameter Input Obtained from

Tensile pressure cutoff, Pc -0.15 MPa Estimated

Compressibility curve inputs See Table 4
Strength envelope inputs
Pressure, P (MPa) Yield stress, (r1 - r3) (MPa)

0.0 0.05 Fit to strength envelope

1.0 0.20
2.0 0.36
4.0 0.66
6.0 0.97
10.0 1.59
100.0 15.47
200.0 30.90
300.0 46.32
400.0 61.75
500.0 77.17
600.0 92.60
700.0 108.02
800.0 123.44
2000.0 308.54

Table 6 Input parameters for FHWA material model (LS-DYNA Model 147)
Parameter Input Obtained from

Skeletal bulk modulus, Ksk 0.4673 MPa Estimated as 10 % of K [17]

Specific gravity, csp 2.78 Assumed
Cohesion, c 0.038 MPa Fit to strength envelope
Friction angle, u 5.0 Fit to strength envelope
Residual friction angle, ures 5.0 Assumed
DruckerPrager coeff., AHYP 0.38 MPa Fit to strength envelope

almost fully-saturated, undrained condition of the clay. The
sand backfill material was modeled with the Pseudo Tensor
pressure dependent strength model for all simulations.
Results and Discussion
Numerical simulations with the Soil and Foam, Pseudo
Tensor, and FHWA material models ran to completion and
generated craters in the clay soils. The Geologic Cap
material model did not run to completion but produced a
not a number error (NaN) and terminated approximately
0.3 ms into the calculation. This error was likely generated
due to errors in the plasticity algorithm caused by the large
strain increments in the simulation. The time step was
reduced numerous times and the simulations were re-run to
try and resolve this error with no success. Another
possibility could be incompatibility of the material model
with the MM-ALE solver. The material model has
numerous history variables that perhaps could not be
advected by volume fraction averaging over the mesh
elements.
The simulations utilizing the Soil and Foam, Pseudo
Tensor, and FHWA material models ran successfully to
completion. The finite element simulations resulted in the
creation of craters in the clay soil models. An example of
the resulting crater using the Pseudo Tensor model is
shown in Fig. 5a. The approximately hemispherical-shaped
crater is clearly visible in the figure, with ejected material
pushed up along the side of the crater to form the crater lip.
The ejected clay from the blast event is clearly visible
along the boundaries of the crater and displaced up above
the crater. True crater dimensions were measured by gen-
erating density contours of the post-blast geometries as

123
 Indian Geotech J

Table 7 Input parameters for Geologic Cap material model (LS-DYNA Model 25)
Parameter Input Obtained from

Failure envelope coefficient, a 0.035 MPa Fit to strength envelope

Failure envelope coefficient, b -0.014 MPa-1 Fit to strength envelope
Failure envelope coefficient, h 0.0044 Fit to strength envelope
Failure envelope coefficient, c 0.02 MPa Fit to strength envelope
Tensile pressure cutoff, Pc -0.15 MPa Estimated
Cap surface axis ratio, R 2.0 Assumed from Chen and Baladi [7]
Hardening coefficients W, D, X0 0.0 Linear compressibility assumed
Tensile pressure cutoff, Pc -0.05 MPa Estimated

Fig. 5 Pseudo Tensor model (a) (b)

a blast-induced crater, b density
(g/cm3) contours Displaced
Air 1.96
1.77
Explosive & 1.57
Air 1.37
1.18
0.98
0.79
0.59
Ejecta 0.39
0.20
0.0

Clay
Crater

Sand

shown in Fig. 5b. In the figure the low density, ejected
material does not appear due to the contour range selection
and the crater shape can be clearly distinguished.
Crater geometries obtained from the numerical simula-
tions were compared to the geometry from the experi-
mental explosive blast. Plots of the numerically-simulated
craters are shown in Figs. 6, 7, 8 and 9. The crater mea-
sured from the experimental blast was overlain on the plots
to compare how well the numerically-simulated crater
shape matched the experimental shape. Measurements of
true diameter (DT), apparent diameter (DA) and depth
(d) were obtained for the simulation results and compared
to experimental results as summarized in Table 8. Percent
difference between experimental and simulated dimensions
is shown in Table 9.
The crater shapes from both the Soil and Foam model
and the Pseudo Tensor model compared well to the
experimental crater as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The diam-
eters from these models compared particularly well to the
experiment, with DT values 2.2 cm larger than the exper-
imental DT value for the Soil and Foam Model and only
0.2 cm larger for the Pseudo Tensor model. These values
correspond to a percent difference of 9.6 and 0.9 % com-
pared to experimental values. The crater depths from the
Soil and Foam model and the Pseudo Tensor model were
larger than experimental results. The Soil and Foam model
crater was 1.9 cm deeper (44.2 % difference) and the
Pseudo Tensor crater was 1.6 cm deeper (37.2 % differ-
ence) than experimental depths. However, both models
predicted experimental volume very well due to the sim-
ulated crater shape. The Soil and Foam crater volume was
10.8 % greater than experimental volumes, while the
Pseudo Tensor model volume compared exceptionally well
with only a 0.6 % difference.
The crater shape from the FHWA model did not match
particularly well with experimental results as shown in
Fig. 8. The crater from the simulation had a central
depression with a steep slope transitioning to a more

123
Indian Geotech J

Fig. 6 Soil and Foam model 10

crater profile compared to Soil and Foam Model
experimental crater 7.5 Experimental Crater
5

Distance along Y (cm)

2.5 DA = 29.8 cm

DT = 25.0 cm
0

-2.5 d = 6.2 cm

-5

-7.5

-10

-12.5

-15
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along X (cm)

Fig. 7 Pseudo Tensor model 10

crater profile compared to Pseudo Tensor Model
experimental crater 7.5 Experimental Crater
5
Distance along Y (cm)

2.5 DA = 29.2 cm

DT = 23.0 cm
0

-2.5 d = 5.9 cm

-5

-7.5

-10

-12.5

-15
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along X (cm)

Fig. 8 FHWA model crater 10

profile compared to FHWA Model
experimental crater 7.5 Experimental Crater

5
Distance along Y (cm)

2.5
DT = 33.0 cm
0
d = 5.4 cm
-2.5

-5

-7.5

-10

-12.5

-15
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along X (cm)

123
 Indian Geotech J

Fig. 9 Geologic model crater 10

profile at time = 0.3 ms Geologic Cap Model
compared to experimental crater 7.5
Experimental Crater
(model did not successfully run 5
to completion)

Distance along Y (cm)

2.5
DT = 6.0 cm
0
d = 1.1 cm
-2.5

-5

-7.5

-10

-12.5

-15
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance along X (cm)

Table 8 Simulated crater dimensions compared to experimental crater dimensions

Material model True diameter, DT (cm) Apparent diameter, DA (cm) Depth, d (cm) Volume, V (cm3)

Experiment 22.8 25.5 4.3 930.1

Soil and Foam 25.0 29.8 6.2 1030.6
Pseudo Tensor 23.0 29.2 5.9 936.1
FHWA 33.0 n/a 5.4 741.2
Geologic Cap n/a (calculation did not run to completion)

Table 9 Difference between simulated crater and experimental crater dimensions

Material model Percent difference experimental versus simulated
True diameter, DT (%) Depth, d (%) Volume, V (%)

Soil and Foam 9.6 44.2 10.8

Pseudo Tensor 0.9 37.2 0.6
FHWA 44.7 25.6 20.3
Geologic Cap n/a (calculation did not run to completion)

tapered crater slope as shown in the figure. This result
deviated from the experimental crater, which was more
hemispherical in shape. The tapered outer slopes of the
crater from the FHWA model resulted in a larger diameter
than the experimental crater, with DT values 10.2 cm larger
than experimental values and a corresponding difference of
44.7 %. The simulated crater was also 1.1 cm deeper
(25.6 % difference) than the experimental crater. The
volume of the FHWA crater was 20.3 % larger than
experimental values. The FHWA model did not form ejecta
during the simulations and there was no visible crater lip.
Therefore, apparent diameter (DA) values are not provided
in Table 8.
Crater dimensions from the Geologic Cap model are not
discussed or presented in Tables 8 or 9 since the model did
not successfully run to completion. However, the crater
shape at the time of the simulation crash (t = 0.3 ms) is
shown in Fig. 9. In the figure the crater is beginning to
form and appears to be hemispherical in shape, but it is not
possible to conclude what the final crater dimensions
would be.
Based on the discussion above, the Pseudo Tensor soil
model matched the experimental crater shape best and
had the lowest percent difference as compared to exper-
imental crater dimensions. To investigate the acceptability
of the stress propagation from the simulated blast using

123
Indian Geotech J
Air 0.03 ms 0.04 ms
Explosive
Clay surface pad
Fig. 10 Pressure contours from the Pseudo Tensor model simulation
this soil model, pressure (mean stress) contour plots from
the simulation were created as shown in Fig. 10. The
initial part of the blast can be seen at time equal to
0.03 ms with a spherical pressure pulse propagating away
from explosive. The pressure wave can be seen interact-
ing with the clay surface at 0.04 ms and propagating into
the clay surface pad at 0.08 and 0.13 ms. The pressure
pulse remains approximately spherical in shape as it
propagates into the soil, which is what was expected due
to the hemispherical shape of the experimental crater.
Ground surface interaction can be seen in the later plots at
0.08 and 0.13 ms as the air pressure changes shape at the
soil/air boundary.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This study conducted finite element simulations of a small
scale, explosive airblast on clay soil in LS-DYNA using
multi-material arbitrary LagrangianEulerian (MM-ALE)
methods. The study compared four different material
models to evaluate their ability to simulate explosively-
induced airblast loads on cohesive soils. Material models
included the Soil and Foam pressure dependent strength
model, the Pseudo Tensor pressure dependent strength
model, the FHWA DruckerPrager model and the Two-
Invariant Geologic Cap model. Crater dimensions were
measured from the simulations and compared to the results
of airblast experiments performed in another study [5].
The MM-ALE simulation method predicted the
response of explosive airblast loading on clay soils for the
Soil and Foam model and Pseudo Tensor model as shown
by the formation of hemispherical craters and the ejecta
pushed away from the crater and along the crater walls.
The FHWA model produced a crater shape that was not
similar to the experimental shape and also did not create
ejecta to form an apparent crater. The Geologic Cap
0.08 ms 0.13 ms
material model produced a not a number error (NaN)
and terminated approximately 0.3 ms to the calculation.
This error was likely generated due to the large strain
increments causing errors in the plasticity algorithm. Due
to this early termination, results from this model could not
be used in the material model comparison.
While the remaining three models somewhat over-pre-
dicted crater depth, the diameter and volume values from
the Soil and Foam and Pseudo Tensor models compared
very well to the experimental data. The crater depth from
the Soil and Foam model had a 44.2 % difference in depth
but had only a 9.6 % difference in diameter and 10.8 %
difference in overall crater volume as compared to exper-
imental results. The crater depth generated by Pseudo
Tensor model had a somewhat lower difference in depth
than the Soil and Foam model with a percent difference of
37.2 % from experimental crater depth. The model had
extremely good predictions of crater diameter and depth,
with a difference of only 0.2 % for diameter and 0.6 % in
volume compared to experimental dimensions. Pressure
contours were constructed for the Pseudo tensor model and
were found to compare well to the stress pulse shape
anticipated for the experimental conditions based on the
hemispherical craters observed from the field experiment.
The crater shape from the FHWA model did not match
well with experimental results and had a central depression
with a steep slope transitioning to a more tapered crater
slope, which resulted in an overall larger crater than pre-
dicted. This result did not compare well to the experimental
crater, which was more hemispherical in shape. Percent
differences for the FHWA model compared to experi-
mental results were 25.6 % for depth, 44.7 % for diameter
and 20.3 % for volume.
Based on the results of this study, a simplified, pressure
dependent strength model such as Soil and Foam model or
the Pseudo Tensor model is recommended for modeling
small-scale, explosive airblast loads on cohesive soils. The
123

Pseudo Tensor model compared particularly well to
experimental results and predicted crater dimensions very
well. Furthermore, the simplified, robust nature of these
types of models along with the associated historical user
feedback and improvement make these models well-suited
for simulating soil response to blast-induced dynamic
loading.
Recommended future work includes the simulation of
the additional experimental blasts from Busch et al. [5]
with a pressure dependent strength model to determine if
the material model captures the effects of a wider range of
explosive masses and offset heights. Additional studies
with the Geologic Cap model are also recommended to
determine if the model can be used to describe the response
of cohesive soil to airblast loading. In particular, an
approach implementing smoothed particle hydrodynamics
(SPH) should be investigated as this formulation type is
compatible with the Geologic Cap model. Utilizing the
SPH method would eliminate the need for a mesh grid and
may resolve the errors associated with large strain incre-
ments seen in the MM-ALE calculations of this study.
References
1. Abbo AJ, Sloan SW (1995) A smooth hyperbolic approximation
to the MohrCoulomb yield criterion. Comput Struct
54(3):427441
2. Ambrosini RD, Luccioni BM, Danesi RF, Riera JD, Rocha MM
(2002) Size of craters produced by explosive charges on or above
the ground surface. Shock Waves 12:6978
3. Ambrosini RD, Luccioni BM (2006) Craters produced by
explosions on the soil surface. Trans ASME 73:890900
4. Blouin SE, Kwang JK (1984) Undrained compressibility of sat-
urated soil. DNA-TR-87-42, technical report prepared for the
Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC
5. Busch CL, Aimone-Martin CT, Tarefder RA (2015) Experi-
mental evaluation of cratering and ground vibration in clay soils
subjected to airblast loading. J Test Eval 43(2):111
6. Cooper PW (1996) Explosives engineering. Wiley-VCH Publi-
cations, New York
7. Chen WF, Baladi GY (1985) Soil plasticity theory and imple-
mentation, developments in geotechnical engineering, vol 38.
Elsevier Science, New York
8. Syste`mes Dassault (2013) SolidWorks student edition. Dassault
Syste`mes SolidWorks Corporation, Velizy-Villacoublay
9. Defense Nuclear Agency (1979) Nuclear geoplosics sourcebook,
Volume IV, Part II, empirical analysis of nuclear and high
explosive cratering and ejecta. DNA 6501H-4-2, Washington, DC
10. Desai CS, Siriwardane HJ (1984) Constitutive laws for engi-
neering materials with emphasis on geologic materials. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs
123
Indian Geotech J
11. Drucker DC, Gibson RE, Henkel DJ (1957) Soil mechanics and
work hardening theories of plasticity. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng
122(1):338346
12. Manufacturing Hallowell (2009) KinepakTM technical data sheet.
Hallowell Manufacturing, LLC, Columbus
13. Hallquist JO (2012) LS-DYNA theoretical manual. Livermore
Software Technology Corporation, Livermore
14. Isenberg J, Vaughan DK, Sandler IS (1978) Nonlinear soil
structure interaction. Electric Power Research Institute, Report
EPRI NP-945, Weidlinger Associates
15. Kinney GF, Graham KJ (1985) Explosive shocks in air, 2nd edn.
Springer, Berlin
16. Klisinski M (1985) Degradation and plastic deformation of con-
crete. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Fundamental Technology
Research (IFTR) Report 38, Polish Academy of Sciences
17. Lee WY (2006) Numerical modeling of blast-induced liquefac-
tion. Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
18. Lewis BA (2004) Manual for LS-DYNA soil material model 147.
FHWA-HRT-04-095, Federal Highway Administration, Research
and Development, McLean
19. LSTC (2013) LS-DYNA Version SMP D R7.0.0, Livermore
Software Technology Corporation, Livermore
20. Mellegard KD, DeVries KL, Callahan GD (2005) Lode angle
effects on the deformational properties of natural rock salt. In:
Proceedings of the 40th U.S. symposium on rock mechanics
(USRMS): rock mechanics for energy, mineral and infrastructure
development in the Northern Regions, Anchorage, Alaska
21. Reid JD, Coon BA, Lewis BA, Murray YD (2004) Evaluation of
LS-DYNA soil material model 147. FHWA-HRT-04-094, Fed-
eral Highway Administration, Research and Development,
McLean
22. Sandler IS, Rubin D (1979) An algorithm and a modular sub-
routine for the cap model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
3:173186
23. Schwer LE, Murray YD (1994) A three-invariant smooth cap
model with mixed hardening. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geo-
mech 18:657688
24. Simo JC, Ju JW, Pister KS, Taylor RL (1988) An assessment of
the cap model: consistent return algorithms and rate-dependent
extension. J Eng Mech Eng 114(2):191218
25. Simo JC, Ju JW, Pister KS, Taylor RL (1990) Softening response,
completeness condition, and numerical algorithms for the cap
model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Eng (accepted)
26. Thomas MA, Chitty DE, Gildea ML, TKindt CM (2008) Con-
stitutive soil properties for Cuddeback Lake, California and
Carson Sink, Nevada. CR-2008-215345, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, Hampton
27. Vortman LJ (1977) Craters from surface explosions and energy
dependencea retrospective view. In: Roddy DJ, Pepin RO,
Merrill RB (eds) Impact and explosion cratering. Pergamon
Press, New York, pp 12151229
28. Wang ZZ, Wang H, Cates ME (2001) Effective elastic properties
of solid clays. Geophysics 66(2):428440
29. Zimmie TF, Abdoun T, Tessari A (2010) Physical modeling of
explosive effects on tunnels. In: Fourth international symposium
on tunnel safety and security, Frankfurt, Germany, pp 159168