BLAST LOAD ASSESSMENT BY SIMPLIFIED AND ADVANCED METHODS

Prepared by Dr Peter D Smith Reader in Protective Structures, Cranfield University, Defence Academy, Shrivenham, UK Dr Andrew Tyas Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Structural, Engineering University of Sheffield, UK

Data sheet components

Aim of data sheet - to outline methods of assessing the characteristics of a blast wave produced by the detonation of a high explosive charge. Empirical techniques methods based on the concept of scaled distance Semi-empirical techniques methods for use in more complex geometries (e.g. explosions inside buildings) Numerical techniques Computational fluid dynamics software References

Empirical techniques

Based on cube root or third power scaling The general Sachs scaling laws are simplified in Hopkinson-Cranz scaling The non-dimensional Sachs scaled distance is
1/ 3 Rp 0 R = 1/ 3 E

This can be reduced to the Hopkinson-Cranz scaled distance Z, given by:

R Z = 1/ 3 W

R = range (m) and W is charge mass (kg) expressed in terms of an equivalent TNT charge.

Charge configurations

SPHERICAL FREE AIR BURST the charge detonates above the ground and the blast wave propagates with a spherical wave front Aerially-delivered munitions with fuses designed to operate above the ground would be so classified HEMISPHERICAL SURFACE BURST the charge detonates in contact with the ground and the blast wave propagates with a hemispherical wave front Terrorist vehicle bombs or military munitions fused to detonate on impact with the ground would be so classified

Sources of information
Those in YELLOW are commercially available Those in WHITE are of more restricted availability 1. TM5-1300: Design of Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions US Department of Defense, 1991 2. TM5-855-1: Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons. US Dept of the Army Technical Manual, US Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 3. Baker WE, Cox PA, Westine PS, Kulesz JJ, Strehlow RA Explosion hazards and evaluation Elsevier, New York, 1983 4. Smith PD, Hetherington JG Blast and ballistic loading of structures Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1994 5. Mays GC, Smith PD Blast effects on buildings Thomas Telford, London, 1995 [New edition (ed by D Cormie, GC Mays and PD Smith) is in preparation publication Spring 2009] 6. ConWep: Conventional weapons effects program. Prepared by DW Hyde, ERDC Vicksburg MS, 1991 7. PSADS: Protective structures automated design system v1.0 US Army Corps of Engineers, 1998

Blast parameters vs. scaled distance

Figure 3-7. Shock wave parameters for hemispherical
TNT surface bursts at sea level

1.E+6 1.E+5 10000 1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 .01 .001 0.1 1.0

P r , psi P so , psi I r , psi-ms/lb 1/3 I s , psi-ms/lb 1/3 t a , ms/lb 1/3 t o , ms/lb 1/3 U, ft/ms

10

100

Scaled Distance, R/W 1/3

Figure taken from Reference 7

Pressure vs. Range

Hemispherical Surface Burst
1000 500 300 200 100 50 30 20 10 Incident Pressure, MPa Reflected Pressure, MPa

5 3 2 1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.5 0.7 Charge weight 1000 kilograms TNT

Output from ConWep (Ref 6) for 1000kg TNT hemispherical charge

Pressure, MPa

4 5 6 7 8 910

20

30 40 50 70 100

200 300

500

Range, meters

ConWep compared with experimental data (Ref 8)

1200 Experimental data (270mm square target - Optical gauge at mid-point) ConWep prediction Reflected Ovepressure (kPa) 800

1000

600

400

200

0 0 -200 Time (ms) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Semi-empirical techniques

Blast assessment is based on scaled distance in conjunction with an analytical approach (to deal with shock wave addition). For an explosion occurring inside a building, a complex blast pressure-time loading develops on the walls and other reflecting surfaces. In addition, detonation products also contribute to the loading: the gas pressure or quasi-static load. The complete pressure-time history (a series of blast wave-fronts + quasi-static loading) at a particular location can be calculated Software routines such as BLASTXW (for multipleroomed buildings) and SPIDS (for tunnel and ducting complexes) are available as part of Ref 7

BLAST WAVE + QUASI-STATIC LOAD CALCULATION IN CUBIC BUILDING

TARGET POINT (MONITORING LOCATION)

EXPLOSION AT CENTRE OF BUILDING

P vs t history output from BLASTXW (Ref 9)

REVERBERATING SHOCKS

GAS PRESSURE LOADING

Comparison of semi-empirical prediction with experimental data [Ref 4]

Numerical techniques

In highly complex geometries (eg an urban environment or in a building of complex internal geometry), a fully-analytical approach may be necessary. Eulerian numerical techniques have been developed employing finite volume and finite difference solvers including SHAMRC (Ref 10), ANSYS AUTODYN (Ref 11) and Air3d (Ref 12) among others. In such codes, air is treated as an ideal gas and the detonation is modeled using an appropriate suitable equation of state for the explosive material.

Comparison of experimental data (from Sheffield University) and AUTODYN (Ref 11) for blast inside a vented room

Blast wave propagation in an urban environment: Aird3d (Ref 12) simulation compared with experimental data (from Cranfield University)

EXPERIMENT and Air3d SIMULATION

120 100 80 60 Experiment 4 levels

Pressure (kPa)

40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Time (msec)

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION! ANY QUESTIONS?