Measurement of Pressure Variances

Phillip Mulligan1, Caleb Baumgart2, and Dr. Jason Baird3

1

Doctoral Candidate Missouri University of Science and Technology

2
Masters Student Missouri University of Science and Technology
3
Associate Professor Missouri University of Science and Technology
Abstract
This report details the pressure variances, measured at four pressure sensors placed equidistant from the
center of an airburst explosion, as the blast pressure from a single charge expands radially. Many of the
empirically derived equations used for predicting the blast pressures of an explosion, assume a point
source detonation and that the radial pressure expansion is equal. The authors understand that the
equations used to approximate the blast pressure may not have 100 percent agreement with the observed
pressure. However, during previous research at Missouri University of Science and Technology
(Missouri S&T) the pressure variances had a range of 1,200 psi, between the four pressure sensors
placed two feet from the center of a 1/2-pound (226.8 gram) of hand packed C4. The variances indicated
that at the close distance from a suspended explosive charge the pressure does not behave as that
observed from a point source.
The experiments described in this report examine how blast pressure varies radially from a single charge
suspended off the ground at a height equal to the height of the pressure sensors. The authors positioned
pressure sensors at multiple distances. These distances are the original point of interest, the outer edge of
the flame ball and a point beyond the triple point reaching the height of the sensor. When an incident
shock wave reaches the ground, a pressure reflecting off the ground over takes the incident pressure
forming a new pressure front known as a Mach stem. The triple point is the point where the incident,
reflected, and Mach stem come together at the top Mach stem. The authors will analyze the data thus
obtained to determine the statistical significance charge weight and distance have on the pressure
variance of a single explosive charge suspended in the air. Understanding how these variables affect the
pressure will assist in determining the effects of an airburst explosion.
Introduction
The experiments and results discussed in this report are a preliminary research effort for the examining
of the interaction of multiple shock waves converging on a central location. This research will be the
basis for future research examining the interaction of multiple shockwaves as the shockwaves interact
with a pipe. In order to examine the interaction of shock waves from multiple charges it is necessary to
understand how the shock wave from a single charge expands radially. This information will assist in
determining the set-up for examining multiple shockwave interactions and any limitations that may exist
in such an experiment. In addition, understanding how the shock wave expands can assist other
researchers in understanding the pressure variances verses distance to the charge, which might exist in
their research.
Theory states that upon detonation of a spherical explosive charge the Ideal blast wave expands at a
consistent rate in all directions, until the blast wave encounters an obstruction (Explosion Effects and
Properties Part 1: Explosion Effects in Air, 1975). Therefore, the pressure should theoretically be equal
at any two points that are equal distance from the center of the sphere. However, during the initial
attempt to examine the pressure expansion from a single explosive charge, the data gathered showed a
significant variance in the measured pressures. The pressures ranged from 1,400 psi (9.65 MPa) to 200

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

1 of 10

psi (1.38 MPa) for one shot and range from 400 psi (2.76 MPa) to 600 psi (4.14 MPa) for the next. The
variance in pressure was not consistent from sensor-to-sensor and shot-to-shot. No sensor was
consistently high or low. The wind direction and speed had no direct connection to the inconsistencies in
data. The set-up for this test is similar to the set-up shown in Section 3.0.
We utilized two charge weights in the experiments detailed in this report. These charge weights,
pound (113.4 grams) and pound (226.8 grams) of C-4 high explosive, allowed us to have multiple
charges and still remain under the two pound gross explosive weight limit per shot at our facility in
future research. For each charge weight, we tested three standoff distances: the initial distance of
interest, just beyond the flame ball, and just beyond where the triple point reached the sensor height. The
following sections discuss the justification for each distance, and how we calculated each distance.
Initial Distance of Interest
The authors used the Blast Effects Computer (BEC) to determine the initial distance of interest by
identifying a distance that would give a pressure approximately equal 1,500 psi (10.3 Mpa) to 1/4th the
calculated critical collapse pressure of the pipes (6,208 psi, 42.8 MPa) used as the target (Blast Effects
Computer Version 5.0, 2001). This fraction was selected so that when the blast pressure from multiple
1/2-pound (226.8 gram) charges interact with the pipe in the future research, it will not collapse the pipe
and potentially prevent the loss of a pressure sensor due to the collapse of the pipe. The distance
calculated with the BEC was 2 feet (0.6 meters).
Given the BEC calculated distance and the initial charge weight of half a pound (226.8 grams), the
resulting scaled distance is 2.51. The authors used this scaled distance to solve for the corresponding
1/4-pound (113.4 gram) distance, 1.59 feet (0.48 meters).
Flame Ball
The detonation of C-4 results in two flame balls. The first is a result of the detonation of the C-4. The
second is the ignition of carbon monoxide byproduct, generated during the detonation, once it has
reached the right fuel-air mixture (Cooper, 1996). During the detonation process, the pressure and
density gradients are in the same direction when the detonation wave reaches the surface of the charge
(Needham, 2010). The detonation products are at higher pressure than the air, and the detonation
products are denser than the air (Needham, 2010). As the detonation products expand and compress the
air, the pressure gradient reverses directions while the density gradient retains its direction (Needham,
2010). The result is instabilities at the the detonation products-air interface and these instabilities
continure to amplify until the shockwave and flame ball separate. The instability of the detonation
products-air interface makes it difficult to obtain consistent pressure readings with in the initial flame
ball. Figure 1 illustrates the instability of the pressure gradient durring the detonation process. The
authors conducted an experiment to obtain the diameters of the initial flame balls for the and -pound
(113.4 and 226.8 grams) charges.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

2 of 10

Figure 1: SHARC Calculations Showing the Growth of Instabilities at the the Detonation ProductsAir Interface at t = 1ms (Needham, 2010)

Two Casio Exilim EX-FH25 cameras placed with their optical axes perpendicular to each other, set to
record at 400 frames per second (fps), and focused on the charge recorded the carbon monoxide flame
balls resulting from charge detonations see Figure 2.A. In addition to the two Casio cameras, a
Phantom version 10 high-speed camera recorded the detonation (initial) flame balls at 4,200 frames per
second see Figure 2.B When viewing the video data, we observed a focusing effect downward and
upward. Nevertheless, due to the inability to calculate this focusing effect, we assumed spherical
expansion of the fireballs in the radial direction.
To determine the flame ball diameter, we analyzed the Phantom high-speed video as it had the higher
frame rate and better images. In order to determine the flame ball diameters, we went through the video
frame-by-frame, looking for the point at which the flame ball and shockwave separate. At the point
where the shockwave is no longer a part of the flame ball, we used the reference board, seen in Figure
2.A, along with the Phantom software that accompanies the camera to determine the sizes of the flame
ball. The reference board is a 4x8 foot (1.2x2.4 meter) sheet of plywood placed behind the charge, to
allow the video to be scaled in the Phantom software and provide a uniform backdrop for the video.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

3 of 10

A.)
B.)
Figure 2: The initial flame ball generated from the detonation of 1/4-pound (113.4 gram) of C-4 (A) and the
carbon monoxide flame ball (B).

The flame ball in Figure 2.A is 7 feet (2.1 meters) in diameter. With this information, we set the initial
flame ball distance as 7.5 feet (2.3 meters) for the -pound (113.4 gram) charge, so in further tests they
could locate the pressure sensor outside the flame ball and its associated turbulent instability regions
(see Figure 1). The flame ball for the -pound (226.8 gram) charge was 9.5 feet (2.9 meters) in
diameter. Therefore, we set the Flame ball distance for the -pound (226.8 gram) charge at 10 feet (3
meters) from sensor to sensor. Once we discovered these distances, it became clear that the initial
distances of interest calculated previously were within the flame ball. This indicated that the original
measurements were likely in the turbulent instability regions (Figure 1) of each shot, and these
instabilities may have been a cause for the significant pressure variances noted in the test data.
Mach Stem
In a telephone conversation with one of the authors, Dr. Patrick L. Walter, Ph.D., P.E., Professor of
Professional Practice in Engineering at the Texas Christian University Engineering Department and a
measurement specialist/consultant for PCB Piezotronics, Inc., stated that a researcher measuring
pressure from a free air burst should not expect equal radial pressure until the pressure sensors are below
the triple point, so the pressure measurement is associated with the Mach stem. When the reflected
pressure wave catches up to the incident pressure wave, a third pressure wave called the Mach stem
forms. Where these three shockwaves meet is known as the triple point; see Figure 3. The propagation
of the triple point and Mach stem is dependent upon the size of the charge and the height of the charge
above the ground.
Knowing if the sensor placement has to be so that it is measuring pressure associated to the Mach stem,
in order to obtain consistent data with little variance, is critical to determining the success of the future
research examining the interaction of multiple shockwaves. The pressures desired to be tested at
Missouri S&T require the charge placement to be prior to the triple point reaching the sensor height.
Therefore requiring the standoff to be beyond the triple point reaching the sensor height and/or lowering
the charge towards the ground would significantly alter the goal of the research. Therefore, we chose to
examine how the pressure would vary when the sensor is measuring the pressure associated with the
Mach stem.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

4 of 10

Figure 3: Geometry of Mach Reflection (Explosion Effects and Properties Part 1: Explosion Effects
in Air, 1975)

The authors used the BEC for an estimate of the shock velocity of the incident shockwave and doubled
the velocity at the point where the incident wave meets the ground below a suspended charge to obtain
the reflected velocity, as the reflected velocity can be approximated by doubling the incident shockwave
velocity (Cooper, 1996). From that point onward, we assumed that the reflected waves velocity was
constant, which, as they later discovered, was likely an incorrect assumption. The authors used a macrobased spreadsheet program to determine the point at which the triple point was above the sensor height,
see Figure 4.
Because we chose 3.3 feet (1 meter) as the sensor height for these experiments, the triple point had to be
higher than that. Given that height, the macro-based program calculated horizontal distances from the
sensors to the charges of 7.3 feet (2.2 meters) and 9.9 feet (3 meters) for the 1/2-pound (226.8 gram) and
1/4-pound (113.4 gram) charges, respectively. As the scaled height of burst (HOB) is different for the
two charges, 4.15 for the 1/2-pound (226.8 gram) charge and 5.22 for the 1/4-pound (113.4 gram)
charge, it makes sense that the Mach distance for the 1/4-pound (113.4 gram) charge requires a further
distance than the 1/2-pound (226.8 gram) charge. The velocity of the incident wave is slower for the 1/4pound (113.4 gram) charge than it is for the 1/2-pound (226.8 gram), and therefore the reflected velocity
is slower for the smaller charge.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

5 of 10

Figure 4: Aproximation of the Distance Needed for the Triple Point to Reach the Sensor Height.

After conducting the tests, we observed that the triple point did not reach the sensor height. The highspeed video shows the incident wave passing the sensor, and approximately 2.4 milliseconds later, the
reflected wave passed the sensor. The incident wave can be seen clearly in the video and 2.2
milliseconds later the reflective wave is clearly visible, see Figure 5. In addition to the time difference
between the two waves, the direction of travel of the second wave indicates that it is indeed the
reflective wave. However, there is no evidence of the incident wave or Mach stem. In order for the triple
point to have reached the height of the sensor, only one wave should have been evident at the sensor.

Reflected Wave

Sensor

Figure 5: Reflected Wave from a 1/2-pound (226.8 gram) Charge at 7.3 Feet (2.2 Meters).

Because of the test data that showed our previous assumptions to be incorrect as to where the triple point
would form, we performed a further literature review and found Explosion Effects and Properties Part
1: Explosion Effects in Air. This document discusses the triple point height based on the scaled

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

6 of 10

distance HOB and horizontal distance. Knowing the scaled triple point height desired and the scaled
distance HOB, it is possible to solve for the distance that the triple point would be above the sensor
height. The calculated distances are 15.59 feet (4.75 meters) and 20 feet (6.1 meters) for the 1/2-pound
(226.8 gram) and 1/4-pound (113.4 gram) charges, respectively. Therefore, the sensor standoff distances
that the authors initially intended to use for placement of the sensors below the triple point as it passed
were invalid. Sensors in those locations would not give any indication as to whether or not sensor
location relative to the Mach stem position affects the pressure variance.
Experimental set-up
While inhomogeneities of the hand-packed C-4 spheres and the positioning of the detonators within
those spheres are contributers to variances in the airblast pressure distribution, electrical tape used as a
part of the system to suspend the sphere is most likely contributing to these variances as well.
Therefore, the authors made changes to the initial test set-up to try and mititigate these effects. These
changes were based on Charles E. Needhams discussion in his book Blast Waves. He discusses an
experiment in which a 256 pound charge was suspended with seatbelt straps, see Figure 6.A. The straps
impeded the blast wave expansion and could be seen on a high speed camera, see Figure 6.B, as the blast
wave expanded to four times the initial charge diameter. As a result of the seatbelt straps the pressure
was lower directly behind the straps and the pressure was higher in the areas where there were no belts.

A.)

B.)

Figure 6: The initial charge prior to detonation (A) and the blast wave expanision to four times the
initial diameter (B) (Needham, 2010).

Figure 7.A shows the initial charge configuration used by us for the experiments described herein; note
the explosive sphere contained in the palm of a nitrile glove (purple color) and wrapped with black
plastic electrical tape. While any impedance of the blast wave expansion is not evident in Figure 7.B, a
photograph of the blast from one of the experiments, based on Needhams work it is reasonable to
conclude that the alignment of the electrical tape with one of the sensors could contribute to a lower
pressure reading than with a sensor positioned in-between two strands of electrical tape. Therefore, the
authors decided to use thin cardboard shipping tubes as explosive charge containers in an effort to obtain
more uniform blast pressure radial distribution; see Figure 7.C.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

7 of 10

A.)

B.)

C.)

Figure 7: The initial charge confinement/suspnsion (A), the resulting fireball (B) and the New
Shipping Tube Confinement (C).

In addition, the authors changed the explosives loading process to include creating a hole in one of the
shipping tube caps in order to locate the detonator more consistently and precisely than merely inserting
the detonator into a ball of C-4. In addition, packing the C-4 into a cylinder by firmly tamping smaller
spheres of explosive into the shipping tube is a recognized test method that provides more uniform
density and less likelihood of voids throughout the explosives, compared to a hand shaped ball. The
authors used two shipping tube diameters to accommodate the two charge weights, 1.5 inches (3.8
centimeters) and 2 inches (5 centimeters) for the 1/4-pound (113.4 gram) and 1/2-pound (226.8 gram)
charges.
For these tests, we suspended each charge so the center of the charge was 3.3 feet (1 meter) off the
ground. They positioned four pressure sensor stands around the charge at 0, 90, 180, and 270-degree
angular intervals when observed from above; the 0-degree reference was consistent in all tests. The
charge to sensor standoff distance was from the center of the charge. Table 1 lists the distances tested;
we repeated each distance and charge weight combination three times. The authors chose sensors based
on the predicted pressure associated with each distance, as calculated with the BEC, in order to achieve
the best performance from each sensor without damaging it; see Table 1.
Table 1: Test Distances, Predicted Pressure and Associated Sensor.

Half pound charge (226.8 grams) Quarter pound charge (113.4 grams) Sensor
Distance Pressure
Distance
Pressure
Scale
Scale
PCB Sensor
Feet Meters Psi
MPa Distance Feet Meters psi
MPa Distance Model
Initial Interest 2.00 0.61 1424.4 9.82
2.51 1.59 0.48 1477.4 10.19
2.51 102B
Flame Ball
5.00 1.52 101.9 0.70
6.29 3.75 1.14 120.6 0.83
5.93 102B04
Third Distance 7.31 2.23
36.1 0.25
9.19 9.88 3.01 12.5 0.09
15.62 102B15
A make trigger was used to trigger the Data Acquisition System (DAS), set to record at 2 MHz sample
rate from each of the four sensors used in each test. A make trigger, is generated when the current
through two wires is bridged by plasma generated from the explosion. The authors used a Phantom
version 10 camera, placed in a concrete bunker 25 feet (7.62 meters) from the charge and set so that all
of the sensors and the charge were visible, to monitor the initial and flame balls in some of the tests. In
order to allow for a higher frame rate in other tests, we pointed the Phantom camera solely at one sensor

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

8 of 10

and reduced its viewing area. The Phantom camera was set to a frame rate of 7,200 frames per second
for each set-up.
Results
For each experiment, we collected peak pressures from each sensor; Table 2 is a compilation of those
pressures. Each row represents a repetition within each distance. The average pressure from each test is
substantially higher than calculated by the BEC, shown in Table 1. One would expect this, as the
Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board created the BEC for the calculation of pressures if a
munitions dump on the surface detonates, and it utilizes a curve fit equation to calculate the pressures.
The software originators collected pressure data from large hemispherical charges placed on the ground
to generate the curve fit; we extrapolated the data for the close in range. The BEC does not account for
HOB or the shape of the charge, both of which affect the pressure.
Table 2: Data Collected from Pressure Variance Tests

Half Pound Charge

Distance
Average
Feet Meters psi
MPa
2.0
0.6 2416.1
16.7
5.0
1.5 201.0
1.4
7.3
2.2
64.5
0.4
Quarter Pound Charge
Distance
Average
Feet Meters psi
MPa
1.6
0.5 2288.9
15.8
3.8
1.1 202.8
1.4
9.9
3.0
8.1
0.1

Maximum
Minimum
Pressure Variance
psi
MPa
psi
MPa
psi
MPa
3235.0
22.3 1311.0
9.0 1924.0
13.3
423.4
2.9
78.1
0.5 345.3
2.4
84.8
0.6
21.0
0.1
63.8
0.4
Maximum
Minimum
Pressure Variance
psi
MPa
psi
MPa
psi
MPa
2578.0
17.8 1945.0
13.4 633.0
4.4
410.4
2.8
62.6
0.4 347.8
2.4
8.6
0.1
7.6
0.1
1.0
0.0

While sensor 3 in the 1/2-pound (226.8 gram), 7.31 feet (2.2 meters) tests appeared to have
malfunctioned, we made various efforts to identify the issue. We changed the sensor, cables, and
channel on the DAS, with no improvement in the data. As a result, we decided to analyze the data with
the low pressures, rather than removing the data from the analysis. We collected only two data sets for
the 1/4-pound (113.4 gram)-initial distance configuration. This was due to equipment error, as the make
trigger did not trigger for one of the tests and it was decided that due to time constraints the test would
not be repeated.
While significant variance still exists, it is clear that the proximity to the charge influences the spread of
the radial pressure expansion from a single charge. Figure 8 shows the pressure over distance. The
measurements beyond the initial flame ball have a significant improvement in variance over the
measurements taken within the initial flame ball. It is possible that the significant increase in variance
for the pressures measured within the initial flame ball could be due to the turbulent instabilities shown
in Figure 1, unreacted particulates or pieces of the cardboard shipping tubes hitting the sensor, and/or
thermal effects from the blast. Another possible cause for the variances at the initial distance is that the
rise time of the shockwave may be faster than the sensors one microsecond rise time. As the shockwave
travels farther its rise time is slower (Cooper, 1996), so sensors placed at a greater distance from the
charge would have a better chance to catch the peak pressure pulse. As each of the three sensor models
used in this test have the same rise time restrictions, it is a likely possibility as the source of the variance
for the initial flame ball pressures.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

9 of 10

3500
3000

Pressure (psi)

2500
2000

Quarter Pound
Charge

1500
1000
500
0
0

6
Distance (Feet)

10

12

Figure 8: Plot of the Pressure Data vs Distance

The pressure measurements beyond the flame ball show a significant improvement in variance; see
Table 3. The charge weight also appears to have an effect on variance, given that the initial flame ball
distances for both the 1/2-pound (226.8 gram) and 1/4-pound (113.4 gram) charges had the same scaled
distance but the variance for the 1/4-pound (113.4 gram) charge is significantly less than the 1/2-pound
(226.8 gram) charge.
Conclusions
The results indicate that with the instrumentation used and with the set-up detailed in this report, there is
a significant reduction in pressure variance associated with pressure measurements taken from beyond
the initial flame ball. While the variance maybe attributed to several factors, the information is
beneficial as it allows researchers to accommodate these variances. The charge weights effect on
variance can work to ones advantage, as a higher pressure can be generated at the same scaled distance,
and the variance reduced, by using a smaller charge weight.
Future research in this area should examine these pressure distributions at these close standoff distances
with higher frequency sensors. In addition, sensors defended against particulate impacts are well-advised
to avoid pressure variance due to this cause. Based on the data, it appears that the ideal location for
examining the interaction of multiple shockwaves is just beyond the initial fireball.
References
Blast Effects Computer, (2001), Michael M. Swisdak, Jr., Sponsored by: DDESB-KT
Cooper, P. W. (1996). Explosives Engineering. Wiley-VCH
Needham, C. E (2010). Blast Waves
Swisdak, M. M. Explosion Effects and Properties Part 1: Explosion Effects in Air, 1975, White Oak
Laboratory, Naval Surface Weapons Center
Dr. Patrick L. Walter Ph.D., P.E., Professor of Professional Practice in Engineering at the Texas
Christian University Engineering Department
Blast Pressure Variance, 2013

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - Measurement of Pressure Variances

10 of 10