Advertisement

Shock Tubes: A Tool to Create Explosions Without Using Explosives

  • I. Obed Samuelraj
  • G. JagadeeshEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering book series (STICEE)

Abstract

Experiments are imperative to study and understand the process of blast interaction with structures and to develop strategies for mitigating a blast wave. Since working with explosives in the outdoors is not a viable option for careful experimentation, alternate laboratory-based techniques to recreate this event have been proposed. These experiments are usually carried out on scaled-down models, and if the experimental data is to be correlated with the prototype, careful attention needs to be paid to the pressure and impulse characteristics of the loading pulse that is produced by a given technique. This chapter reviews some aspects of scaling and some features of fluid–structure interaction that are pertinent to the task at hand, bringing out the importance of obtaining the correct impulse and pressure values using geometric scaling. Shock tubes being devices that can reproduce these values, a brief introduction to their working and tailoring for blast research is provided, following which, some of the shock tubes that are being used for blast testing purposes at our laboratory are then described in detail alongside some correspondence that has been established with existing small-scale explosion-based tests.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), New Delhi for funding the research reported in this work. The help received from the staff at the Laboratory for Hypersonic and Shock wave Research (LHSR), IISc is acknowledged with thanks. We also wish to thank Dr. Janardhanraj and Mr. Anuj Bisht of our laboratory, and Mr C J Reddy of DMRL, Hyderabad for sharing some of their data and figures for this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, C. E. (2003). From fire to ballistics: a historical retrospective. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 29(1), 13–67.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J. C., & Naeim, F. (2012). Basic structural dynamics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ansar, M., Xinwei, W., & Chouwei, Z. (2011). Modeling strategies of 3D woven composites: a review. Composite Structures, 93(8), 1947–1963.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkins, A. (1999). Scaling laws for elastoplastic fracture. International Journal of Fracture, 95(1), 51.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aune, V., Fagerholt, E., Langseth, M., & Borvik, T. (2016). A shock tube facility to generate blast loading on structures. International Journal of Protective Structures, 7(3), 340–366.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Celander, H. (1955). The use of a compressed air operated shock tube for physiological blast research. ACTA Physiologica Scandinavica, 33, 6–13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coutinho, C. P., Baptista, A. J., & Rodrigues, J. D. (2016). Reduced scale models based on similitude theory: a review up to 2015. Engineering Structures, 119, 81–94.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deshpande, V., Heaver, A., & Fleck, N. A. (2006). An underwater shock simulator. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 462, 1021–1041.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fallah, A. S., Nwankwo, E., & Louca, L. A. (2013). Pressure-impulse diagrams for blast loaded continuous beams based on dimensional analysis. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 80(5), 051011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ikui, T., & Matsuo, K. (1959). Investigations of the aerodynamic characteristics of shock tubes. Bulletin of JSME, 12(52), 774–782.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jahnke, D., Azadeh-Ranjbar, V., Yildiz, S., & Andreopoulos, Y. (2017). Energy exchange in coupled interactions between a shock wave and metallic plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 106, 86–102.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janardhanraj, S., & Jagadeesh, G. (2016). Development of a novel miniature detonation-driven shock tube assembly that uses in situ generated oxyhydrogen mixture. Review of Scientific Instruments, 87(8):085114Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, N. (1989). Structural impact. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, N. (2009). Hazard assessments for extreme dynamic loadings. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 6, 35–49.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, N., & Kim, S. B. (1997). A study on the large ductile deformations and perforation of mild steel plates struck by a mass—Part II: Discussion. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 119(2), 185–191.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kambouchev, N., Noels, L., & Radovitzky, R. (2006). Nonlinear compressibility effects in fluid-structure interaction and their implications on the air-blast loading of structures. Journal of Applied Physics, 100(6), 063519.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kong, X., Li, X., Zheng, C., Liu, F., & Guo Wu, W. (2017). Similarity considerations for scale-down model versus prototype on impact response of plates under blast loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 101, 32–41.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    LeBlanc, J., Shukla, A., Rousseau, C., & Bogdanovich, A. (2007). Shock loading of three-dimensional woven composite materials. Composite Structures, 79(3), 344–355.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, Q. M., & Meng, H. (2002). Pressure-impulse diagram for blast loads based on dimensional analysis and single-degree-of-freedom model. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(1), 87.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menkes, S. B., & Opat, H. J. (1973). Broken beams—tearing and shear failures in explosively loaded clamped beams. Experimental Mechanics, 13(11), 480–486.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagaraja, S. R., Prasad, J. K., & Jagadeesh, G. (2012). Theoretical and experimental study of shock wave-assisted metal forming process using a diaphragmless shock tube. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 226(12), 1534–1543.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neuberger, A., Peles, S., & Rittel, D. (2007). Scaling the response of circular plates subjected to large and close-range spherical explosions. Part I: Air-blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 34(5), 859–873.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olson, M., Nurick, G., & Fagnan, J. (1993). Deformation and rupture of blast loaded square plates-predictions and experiments. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 13(2), 279–291.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oshiro, R., & Alves, M. (2009). Scaling of structures subject to impact loads when using a power law constitutive equation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 46(18–19), 3412–3421.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pankow, M., Justusson, B., & Waas, A. M. (2010). Three-dimensional digital image correlation technique using single high-speed camera for measuring large out-of-plane displacements at high framing rates. Applied Optics, 49(17), 3418–3427.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reddy, C. J., & Madhu, V. (2017). Dynamic behaviour of foams and sandwich panels under shock wave loading. Procedia Engineering, 173, 1627–1634.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reddy, K. P. J. (2007). Hypersonic flight and ground testing activities in India. In: Peter Jacobs, Tim McIntyre, Matthew Cleary, David Buttsworth, David Mee, Rose Clements, Richard Morgan, Charles Lemckert (Ed.), 16th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference (AFMC), Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, pp. 32–37, 3–7 Dec.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Samuelraj, I. O., & Jagadeesh, G. (2015). Development of a liquid blast tube facility for material testing. In: R. Bonazza & D. Ranjan (Eds.) 29th International Symposium on Shock Waves 1. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Samuelraj, I. O., & Jagadeesh, G. (2017). Development of a vertical shock tube facility for blast testing applications. In: 30th International Symposium on Shock Waves (to be published)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Samuelraj, I. O., Jagadeesh, G., & Kontis, K. (2013). Micro-blast waves using detonation transmission tubing. Shock Waves, 23(4), 307–316.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schleyer, G., Hsu, S., & White, M. (2004). Scaling of pulse loaded mild steel plates with different edge restraint. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 46(9), 1267–1287.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simitses, G. J., Starnes, J. H, Jr., & Rezaeepazhand, J. (2000). Structural similitude and scaling laws for plates and shells: a review. 41st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2000–1383 (pp. A00–24525). GA: Atlanta.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Snyman, I. (2010). Impulsive loading events and similarity scaling. Engineering Structures, 32(3), 886–896.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sorrell, F. Y., & Smith, M. D. (1991). Dynamic structural loading using a light gas gun. Experimental Mechanics, 31(2), 157–162.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stoffel, M., Schmidt, R., & Weichert, D. (2001). Shock wave-loaded plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38, 7659–7680.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Teeling-Smith, R., & Nurick, G. (1991). The deformation and tearing of thin circular plates subjected to impulsive loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 11(1), 77–91.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xue, Z., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2003). Preliminary assessment of sandwich plates subject to blast loads. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 45(4), 687–705.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xue, Z., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2004). A comparative study of impulse resistant metal sandwich plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 30(10), 1283–1305.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zare-Behtash, H., Gongora-Orozco, N., Kontis, K., & Jagadeesh, G. (2014). Detonation-driven shock wave interactions with perforated plates. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 228(5), 671–678.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations