Analytical assessment of explosive impact on facilities and methodology for planning emergency recovery operations

Introduction. The relevance of the analytical study is explained by the fact that to date the nature and consequences of explosive impact on buildings and protected structures have not been sufficiently investigated and require additional analysis and clarification of the features of emergency recovery operations.

The purpose of the study is an analytical review of the explosive impact on buildings, civil defence protective structures (CDPS) and their entrances (exits), with the development of a methodology for planning emergency recovery operations.

Theoretical foundations. The composition of potential sources of explosive impact is specified. The design scheme of the impact of air shock wave (ASW) and compression wave on the surface building and underground structure, options for the placement of protective structures in different types of soils, as well as the nature of seismic-explosive impact on underground structures are considered.

The results and their discussion. The scheme of ASW impact on above-ground and underground operated capital construction facilities (CCF) was analyzed, including taking into account the possible collapse of the above-ground part of the building at the CDPS placed, as a rule, not separately standing, but as an underground part of the above-ground building. The probability and degree of collapse of above-ground and underground buildings and structures have been analyzed. The options of using entrances (exits) from CDPS for evacuation of people are assessed.

Conclusions. The study allowed us to determine that the extent of damage to the CCF for all types of explosion sources and munitions (conventional and nuclear) is determined by the technical characteristics of the explosive or nuclear charge, the explosion yield, the distance to the explosion site, the location of the explosion (above-ground, underground, airborne), the structural features of buildings and structures, and the presence of barriers (shields). In addition, it is necessary to provide for hazardous conditions of impact on the CCF from the explosion of a nuclear charge. The greatest degree of protection from the impact of ASW is provided by through-entrances of CDPS, as opposed to dead-end, shaft, straight and built-in entrances. In case a CDPS is an underground part of an aboveground building, in case of its destruction by an explosion, it is highly probable that it will be impossible to evacuate people and emergency recovery operations will be required to clear and restore entrances (exits) from the resulting debris.

1. Bolodyan I.A., Vogman L.P., Korolchenko D.A. Experimental and analytical studies of the fire hazard of materials used in equipment with oxygen-enriched media and ways to reduce their flammability. Pozharovzryvobezopasnost/Fire and Explosion Safety. 2023; 3(32):17-30. DOI: 10.22227/0869-7493.2023.32.03.17-30. EDN FOZJMS. (rus).

2. Orlov G.G., Korolchenko D.A., Korolchenko A.Y. Determination of the value and character of the explosive loads in case of using of the inertial safety construction. Pozharovzryvobezopasnost/Fire and Explosion Safety. 2015; 4(24):47-55. EDN TVFFSB. (rus).

3. Stroykov G.A., Babyr N.V., Ilin I.V., Marchenko R.S. System of comprehensive assessment of project risks in energy industry. International Journal of Engineering, Transaction A: Basics. 2021; 34(7):1778-1784. DOI: 10.5829/IJE.2021.34.07A.22. EDN DZMCQN.

4. Srikrishnan V., Lafferty D.C., Wong T.E., Lamontagne J.R., Quinn J.D., Sharma S. et al. Uncertainty Analysis in Multi-Sector Systems: Considerations for Risk Analysis, Projection, and Planning for Complex Systems. Earth’s Future. 2022; 10(8). DOI: 10.1029/2021EF002644. EDN CJZDWL.

5. Arefyeva E.V., Barinov A.V., Bobariko A.V., Boreiko V.Ya., Vinogradov O.V. Protection in emergency situations. EMERCOM of Russia. 2nd revised edition. Moscow, AGZ EMERCOM of Russia, 2018; 400. URL: https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_009934396/ (rus).

6. Ammunition : Study Guide, in 2 vol. / ed. by V.V. Selivanov. 3rd Edition. Moscow, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 2019; 346.

7. Kotlyarevskiy V.A. Strength and protective properties of special structures: calculation methods and software. Magnitogorsk, LLC “VELD”, 2014; 86. URL: https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_007871487 (rus).

8. Mishuev A.V. Air shock wave in structures. Moscow, Library of Scientific developments and Projects of the National Research University MGSU, 2015; 408. EDN XCXUIX. (rus).

9. Baloshin Yu.A., Zarichnyak Yu.P., Uspenskaya M.V. Physical foundations of nuclear energy : textbook. Part II. St. Petersburg, ITMO University, 2015; 88.

10. Baker W., Cox P., Western P., Kulesh D., Strelow R. Explosive phenomena. Assessment of consequences. In 2 books. Book 2 / transl. from English ed. by Ya.B. Zeldovich, B.E. Gelfand. Moscow, Mir, 1986; 382. URL: https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000200_000018_rc_621191/ (rus).

11. Mkrtychev O.V. Safety of buildings and structures under seismic and emergency impacts : monograph. Moscow, MGSU, 2010; 152. EDN RXGPIZ. (rus).

12. Savenkov A.Yu. Calculation of underground reinforced concrete structures for emergency impacts in a nonlinear dynamic formulation : dissertation of the candidate of technical Sciences. Moscow, MGSU, 2023; 143. EDN WPWNCH. (rus).

13. Komarov A.A., Gromov N.V., Korolchenko A.D. The use of mesh screens to protect industrial facilities from unmanned aerial vehicles. Occupational safety in industry. 2025; 1:76-82. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2025-1-76-82.EDN FQFAKL. (rus).

14. Ramalho F.D., Silva I.S., Ekel P.Y., Martins C.A.P. da S., Bernardes P., Libório M.P. Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats. MethodsX. 2021; 8:101371. DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101371. EDN BJGJAK.

15. Podolchak N., Tsygylyk N., Dziurakh Y. Building an effective personnel risks management system of the organization. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 2022; 4(13-118):44-52. DOI: 10.15587/1729-4061.2022.262547. EDN AAOUFS.

16. Niazi M.A. Introduction to the modeling and analysis of complex systems : a review. Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling. 2016; 4(1):1-3. DOI: 10.1186/s40294-016-0015-x. EDN ANLFGU.

17. Mbuli N., Mathonsi M., Seitshiro M., Pretorius Ja.H.C. Decomposition forecasting methods : a review of applications in power systems. Energy Reports. 2020; 6:298-306. DOI: 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.238. EDN WKEWFM.

18. Lastovkin V.F., Kozlov A.P., Zabelin V.A. Сivil defense protective structures. Nizhny Novgorod, NNGASU, 2020; 179. URL: https://bibl.nngasu.ru/electronicresources/uch-metod/health_safety/873922.pdf (rus).

19. Rudenko A.A. Organizational, technological and design solutions for the restoration, repair, strengthening and replacement of damaged building elements : monograph. Kursk, University Book, 2025; 174. (rus).

20. Hernández-Orozco S., Zenil H., Riedel J., Uccello A., Kiani N.A., Tegnér J. Algorithmic Probability-Guided Machine Learning on Non-Differentiable Spaces. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2021; 3:20. DOI: 10.3389/frai.2020.567356. EDN BSPNPV.

21. Ghosh S., Zaboli A., Hong Ju., Kwon Ja. An Integrated Approach of Threat Analysis for Autonomous Vehicles Perception System. IEEE Access. 2023; 11:14752-14777. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3243906. EDN UPQVKP.

22. Mikhno E.P. Elimination of consequences of accidents and natural disasters. Moscow, Atomizdat, 1989; 288. URL: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01007653694 (rus).

23. Dvulit P., Savchuk S., Sosonka I. Accuracy estimation of site coordinates derived from GNSS-observations by non-classical error theory of measurements. Geodesy and Geodynamics. 2021; 12(3):347-355. DOI: 10.1016/j.geog.2021.07.005. EDN VTENPR.

24. Angermeier D., Wester H., Beilke K., Hansch G., Eichler J. Security risk assessments: modeling and risk level propagation. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems. 2023; 7(1):25. DOI: 10.1145/3569458

25. Alamdari A.M., Jabarzadeh Y., Adams B., Samson D., Khanmohammadi S. An analytic network process model to prioritize supply chain risks in green residential megaprojects. Operations Management Research. 2022; 16(9):1-23. DOI: 10.1007/s12063-022-00288-2. EDN UOWIHH.

26. Bjerga T., Aven T., Zio E. Uncertainty treatment in risk analysis of complex systems: The cases of STAMP and FRAM. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2016; 156(1):203-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.004