Dynamic fragmentation of blast mitigants
- First Online:
Experimental evidence from a wide range of sources shows that the expanding cloud of explosively disseminated material comprises “particles” or fragments which have different dimensions from those associated with the original material. Powders and liquids have often been used to surround explosives to act as blast mitigants, and this is the main driver for our research. There are also many other areas of interest where an initially intact material surrounding an explosive charge is dynamically fragmented into a distribution of fragment sizes. Examples of such areas include fuel air explosives and enhanced blast explosives as well as quasi-static pressure mitigation systems, and our studies are thus also relevant to these applications. In this paper, we consider the processes occurring as an explosive interacts with a surrounding layer of liquid or powder and identify why it is important to model these processes as a multiphase material problem as opposed to a single phase, single material velocity problem. We shall present results from this class of numerical modelling. In this paper we shall explore what determines the particle or fragment size distribution resulting from explosive dissemination of a layer of material and discuss reasons why clouds from disseminated liquids and powders look similar. We shall support our analysis with results from recent explosives trials and introduce early results from some ongoing small scale explosive mitigation experiments.
KeywordsModelling Experiment Blast Mitigation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Sedov, L.I.: Prikladnaya Matemetika i Mekhanika 10(2), 241–250 (1946)Google Scholar
- 3.Kuhl A.L.: Spherical mixing layers in explosions. In: Bowen, L.R. (eds) Dynamics of Exothermicity, pp. 291–320. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
- 4.Frost, D.L., Zhang, F.: The nature of heterogeneous blast explosives. In: Julius Meszaros Memorial Lecture, Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock, 1–6 October, Calgary, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
- 5.Ritzel, D.V., Ripley, R.C., Murray, S.B., Anderson, J.: Near field blast phenomenology of thermobaric explosions. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Shock Waves, Göttingen, vol. 1, pp. 305–310 (2007)Google Scholar
- 6.Allen, R.M., Kirkpatrick, D.J., Longbottom, A.W., Milne, A.M., Bourne, N.K.: Experimental and numerical study of free-field blast mitigation. In: Furnish, M.D., Gupta, Y.M., Forbes, J.W. (eds.) Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-2003. American Institute of Physics (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Walker, G.W.: Analysis of the Spray Dome, 1919. In: Underwater Explosion Research: A Compendium of British and American Reports. United States Office of Naval Research vol. 2, pp. 601–610 (1951)Google Scholar
- 8.Taylor, G.I., Davies, W.: Measurement of the pressure close to an explosive underwater, 1944, In: Underwater Explosion Research: A Compendium of British and American Reports. United States Office of Naval Research, vol. 1, pp. 549–568 (1951)Google Scholar
- 10.Cole R.: Underwater Explosions. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1948)Google Scholar
- 14.Gathers G.R.: Shock Wave Physics and Equation of State Modelling. World Scientific, New Jersey (1994)Google Scholar
- 15.Chandrasekhar S.: Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Instability. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1961)Google Scholar
- 16.Milne, A.M., Dunnet, J.D.: Dynamic fragmentation and explosive dissemination. FGE Report CR019/08 (2008)Google Scholar