Structure Blast Wave

Structural Response to Explosions
Joseph E Shepherd
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA USA 91125
Presented at
1st European Summer School on Hydrogen Safety

University of Ulster, August 2007
Structural Response - Shepherd 1

Summary
This lecture will cover the fundamentals of structural

response to internal and external loading of structures by
explosions of fuel-air mixtures. There will be two parts to
the lecture. The first part will review the generation and
characterization of pressure waves by deflagrations,
detonations, transition from deflagration to detonation
inside of vessel, and blast waves from unconfined vapor
cloud explosions and detonations of fuel-air clouds. The
second part will cover structural response of simple
structures with an emphasis on single degree of freedom
models and integral characterization of the pressure
loading.

Outline
Overview
Determining Structural Loads
Determining Structural Response
Examples

Overview
Why carry out structural response analysis?

How do explosions damage structures?
Motivations for considering structural failure in a
safety assessment
Elements of a structural response analysis

Why Study Structural Response?
Before an event as part

of a safety assessment
activity
Will structural failure
happen?
After an event as part of

an incident investigation
Why did structural failure
happen?

How do explosions damage structures?
Bend, break, or displace load-bearing panels, posts, and
beams, possibly causing structural collapse
Distort and possibly rupture pressure vessels. pipes,
valves, and instrumentation, releasing hazardous (toxic
or explosive) materials into the environment
Shock and vibration can break nonstructural components
(e.g., glass windows) far from incident.
Create fragments which can travel long distances,
causing facility damage and bodily injury.
Start fires due to thermal radiation from fireballs and heat
transfer from combustion products.

Pasadena TX 1989 C2H4 Flixborough 1974 - cyclohexane
(20 Kg H2 )
Port Hudson 1974 C3H8

Nuclear Blast Wave Damage 5 psi (34 kPa)

Nuclear Blast Wave Effects
5 psi (34 kPa) 1.7 psi (11.7 kPa)

Motivations for studying structural response
Immediate life safety consequence damage to critical
structures will lead to injury or death. Examples:
Pressure vessels and piping systems containing toxic
materials.
Creating a potential hazard release of combustible or
flammable material could result in fire or explosion that
has life safety and secondary hazard generation
consequences.
Economic loss destruction of high value processing
equipment, loss of product, plant downtime,
environmental cleanup, compensation of victims,
litigation costs.

Pasadena TX 1989

Elements of Structural Response Analysis
Define explosion hazard or sequence of events in an
actual accident.
HAZOP or FEMA
Develop a model for the type of explosion that takes
place.
Validate explosion model against existing data or new tests
Estimate the structural loading
Develop a model for the structure and loading capacity
Estimate response of structure to loading
Validate structural model against existing data or new tests
Establish pass-fail criteria based on material properties
and maximum deformations or stresses
Use existing databases or carry out material testing

Related Subjects
Earthquake engineering
Strong ground motion excites building motion
Terminal ballistics
Projectile impact creates stress waves and vibration
Crashworthiness
Vehicle crash mitigation
Weapons effects
Conventional (High explosive and FAE)
Nuclear and nuclear simulation testing
TIP Many recent studies on structural response to blasts have been
sponsored to counter terrorism the results are often restricted to
government agencies or official use only.
Determining structural loads
Load generally means applied force in this

context. The primary load is usually thought of
as due to pressure differences created by the
explosion process. Pressure differences
across components of a structure create
forces on the structure and internal stresses.
Three simple cases
External explosion
Blast wave interaction
Internal explosion

External Explosion
Explosion due to accidental
vapor cloud release and
ignition source starting a
combustion wave
Flame accelerates due to
instabilities and turbulence
due to flow over facility
structures
Volume displacement of
combustion (source of
volume) compresses gas
and creates motion locally
and at a distance
Blast wave propagates away
from source
Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosion (UVCE)

Blast Wave Interaction
Blast wave consists of
Leading shock front
Flow behind front
Pressure loading
Incident and reflected
pressure behind shock
Stagnation pressure from
flow
Factors in loading
Blast decay time
Diffraction time
Distance from blast origin

Internal Explosion
Can be deflagration or detonation

Deflagration
Pressure independent of position, slow
Detonation
Spatial dependence of pressure
Local peak associated with detonation wave
formation and propagation

Type of Combustion
The computation of structural loading requires determining the time history of
the pressure applied to the structure. There are two generic situations
Internal explosion
External explosion
The mode of combustion is important in both situations
Deflagration slow speed combustion (1-1000 m/s)
Detonation high speed combustion (1500-3000 m/s)
Deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) accelerating combustion wave with
localized pressure spikes
The mode of combustion depends on many factors
Composition of mixture: amount of fuel, oxidizer and diluent
Initial temperature and pressure
Type of ignition source
Presence of flame accelerating elements such internal obstructions in tubes, pipe
racks, grates, etc.
Distance of propagation (size of pipe, vessel, or fuel-air cloud)

Pressure Generation Mechanism
Volume expansion due to combustion

Displaces surrounding gas
Confinement due to
Inertia of gas
Surrounding structure limits motion
Pressure rise due to
Confinement
Compression of surrounding gas
Generation of blast waves

Combustion and Pressure Waves
Overall Combustion Reaction major species

H2 + (O2 + 3.76 N2) H2O + 1.88N2
Combustion results in temperature rise due to
conversion of chemical to thermal energy
Temperature rise creates
Volume expansion (low speed flames)
Pressure rise in constant volume combustion
Pressure rise and flow in detonation and high speed
flames

Creation of Pressure Waves by Explosions
Expansion of combustion
products due to conversion of
chemical to thermal energy in
combustion and creation of
gaseous products in high
explosives
Expansion ratio for gaseous
explosions depends on
thermodynamics
Expansion rate depends on
chemical kinetics and fluid
mechanics
Flame speeds
Detonation velocity

Creation of flow by Explosions I.
Flames create flow due to expansion of products
pushing against confining surfaces
Consider ignition at the closed-end of a tube
Expansion ratio = u
b
Flame velocity V f = ST A f / A = STeff
Flow velocity U = V f STeff = ( 1) STeff
ST
Burned (u =0) Vf Unburned u > 0 u=0
flame Blast wave

Creation of flow by Explosions II
Detonations and shock waves create flow due to
acceleration by pressure gradients in waves
Consider ignition of detonation at the closed-end of a
tube
Expansion wave
Burned (u =0) Burned u >0 Unburned u = 0
Detonation
wave
u
x
Loading Histories
Pressure-time histories can be derived from several
sources
Slow flame in vessel
Experimental measurements
Analytical models with thermodynamic computation of
parameters
Detailed numerical simulations using computation fluid

High speed flame in vessel
dynamics
Empirical correlations of data
Approximate numerical models of blast wave
propagation (Blast-X)
Characterizing pressure-time histories
Single peak or multiple peaks
Rise time
Nonideal vapor cloud explosion
Peak pressure
Duration

Ideal vapor detonation
Pressure Loading Characterization
load unload
Structural response time T vs. loading and unloading time scales I

Peak pressure P vs. Capacity of structure
Loading regimes
Slow (quasi-static), typical of flame inside vessels T << L or u
Sudden, shock or detonation waves L << T
Short duration Impulsive U << T
Long duration - Step load T << U
Preview
Structural response in simplistic terms
What are structural response times?
Large spectrum for a complex structure
Single value for simple structure
How do these compare to loading and unloading times of
pressure wave?
Loading time
Unloading time
Estimate peak deflection and stresses based on these time scale
comparisons and peak load
Compare capacity of structure with expected peak load. Failure
can occur to do either
Excessive stress plastic deformation or fracture makes structure
too weak for service
Excessive deformation structure not useable due to leaks in fittings
or misfit of components (rotating shafts, etc).

Ideal Blast Wave Sources
Simplest form of pressure loading due concentrated, rapid release of energy
High explosive or prompt gaseous detonation. Main shock wave followed by
pressure wave and gas motion, possibly secondary waves.

Blast Wave from Hydrogen-Air Detonation

Blast and Shock Waves
Leading shock front
P pressure jump determined
by wave speed shock
+ - Mach number.
Gas is set into motion by
shock then returns to rest
Wave decays with
distance
Loading determined by
Peak pressure rise
Impulse
Positive and negative
phase durations
Specific impulse!
Scaling Ideal Blast Waves I.
Dimensional analysis (Hopkinson 1915, Sachs 1944,
Taylor-Sedov)
Total energy release E = Mq
M = mass of explosive atmosphere (kg)
q = specific heat of combustion (J/kg)
Initial state of atmosphere Po or o and co
Limiting cases
Strength of shock wave
Strong P >> Po
Weak P << Po
Distance from source
Near R ~ Rsource
Far R >> Rsource

Scaling Ideal Blast Waves II.
Scale parameters
Blast length scale Rs = (E/Po)1/3
Time scale Ts = Rs/co
Pressure scale
Close to explosion Pexp (usually bounded by PCJ)
Far from explosion Po
Nondimensional variables Relationships:
pressure P/Po P/Po = F(R/Rs)

distance R/Rs I/( P Ts) = G(R/Rs)
time t/Ts
Impulse (specific) I/(Po Ts)

Cube Root Scaling in Standard atmosphere
Simplest expression of scaling (Hopkinson)

At a given scaled range R/M1/3, you will have the same
scaled impulse I/M1/3 and overpressure P
When you increase the charge size by K, overpressure
will remain constant at a distance KR, and the duration
and arrival time will increase by K.

TNT Equivalent
Ideal blast wave from gaseous explosion equivalent to
that from High Explosive (TNT) when energy of gaseous
explosive is correctly chosen
Universal blast wave curves in far field when expressed
in Sachs scaled variables
For ideal gas explosions (detonations) E is some fixed

fraction of the heat of combustion (Q = qM)
For nonideal gas explosions (unconfined vapor clouds), E
is quite a bit smaller. Key issues:
How to correctly select energy equivalence?
How to correctly treat near field?
Scaling of Blast Pressure Ideal Detonation
Comparison of fuel-air
bag tests to high explosives
Work done at DRES

(Suffield, CANADA) in 1980s

Scaling of Impulse Ideal Detonation
Surface burst
Air burst
For the same overpressure or scaled impulse at a given distance, M(surface) = 1/2 M(air)
Energy scaling of H2-air blast
Energy Equivalence
100 MJ/kg of H2
or
2.71 MJ/kg of fuel-

air mix for
stoichiometric.

Hydrogen-air Detonation in a Duct
Blast waves in ducts
decay much more slowly
than unconfined blasts
P ~ x-1
Multiple shock waves
created by reverberation
of transverse waves
within duct
Pressure profile
approaches triangular
waveshape at large
distances.

Interaction of Blast Waves with Structures
Blast-wave interactions with multiple

structures LHJ Absil, AC van den
Berg, J. Weerheijm p. 685 - 290,
Shock Waves, Vol. 1, Ed. Sturtevant,
Hornung, Shepherd, World Scientific,
1996.

Idealized Interactions
Enhancement depends:
Incident wave strength
Angle of incidence

Nonideal Explosions
Blast pressure depends on magnitude of
maximum flame speed
Flame speed is a function of
Mixture composition
Turbulence level
Extent of confinement
There is no fixed energy equivalent
E varies from 0.1 to 10% of Q
Impulse and peak pressure depend on flame
speed and size of cloud Sachs scaling has to
be expanded to include these
Pressure Waves from Fast Flames
Sachs scaling with addition parameter effective flame Mach number Mf. Numerical
simulations based on porous piston model and 1-D gas dynamics.
Tang and Baker 1999

What is Effective Flame Speed?
Consider volume displacement

of a wrinkled (turbulent) flame growing in
a mean spherical fashion.
Expansion
ratio
Dorofeev 2006

Internal Explosion - Deflagration
Limiting pressure determined by thermodynamic

considerations
Combustion wave
Adiabatic combustion process
Chemical equilibrium in products
Constant volume
Pressure-time history determined
Products
by flame speed
S
Vf = Sf + u L
fuel-air mixture

Burning Velocity
Depends on substance, composition, pressure, temperature

Expansion ratio and Flame temperature
Related to flame temperature

through gas law
PV= NRT
E will depend on composition
For fuel-air mixtures, Emax ~7
V products N productsTproducts
E= =
Vreactants N reactantsTreactants

Expansion ratio

Adiabatic Flame Temperature
Temperature of products if there are no heat losses

Hreactants(Treactants) = Hproducts(Tproducts)
Simple approximation for lean mixture:
Tproduct ~ Treactants + fHc/Cp
Hc = heat of combustion of fuel (42 MJ/kg fuel)
Cp = heat capacity of products (including N2, )
For stoichiometric HC fuel-air mixtures: Tproducts ~ 2000oC
Decreases for off-stoichiometric, and diluted mixtures, 1100-
1400 oC at flammability limit.
Values are similar for all HC fuels when expressed in terms of
equivalence ratio.

Pressure in Closed Vessel Explosion
Peak pressure limited by heat transfer during burn and any
Venting that takes place due to openings or structural failure

Adiabatic Explosion Pressure
Pressure of products if there are no heat losses and complete reaction
occurs
Energy balance at constant volume
Ereactants(Treactants) = Eproducts(Tproducts)
Vreactants = Vproducts
Pp = Pr (NpTp/NrTr)
Products in thermodynamic equilibrium
For stoichiometric HC fuel-air mixtures: Pp ~ 8-10 Pr
Decreases for off-stoichiometric, and diluted mixtures,
Values are similar for all HC fuels when expressed in terms of
equivalence ratio.
Upper bound for peak pressure as long as no significant flame
acceleration occurs

Measured Peak Pressure vs Calculated

Forces, Stresses and Strains
Loading becomes destructive when forces are

sufficient to displace structures that are not
anchored or else the forces (or thermal
expansion) create stresses that exceed yield
strength of the material.
Important cases
Rigid body motion fragments and overturning
Deformation due to internal stresses
Bending, beams and plates
Membrane stresses, pressure vessels

Rigid Body Forces due to Explosion
Pressure varies with
position and time over
surface has to be
measured or computed
Local increment of force

on surface due to
pressure only in high
Reynolds number flow
Geometry and distribution of pressure

will result in moments as well as forces!
Be sure to add in contributions from
Structural Response - Shepherd body forces (gravity) to get total force.54
Consequence of Forces I.
Rigid body motions

Translation
Rotation
X = X Xcm distance from center of mass

Internal Forces Due to an Explosion
Force on a surface element dS
Stress tensor

Consequence of forces small strains (<0.2 %)
Elastic deformation
Elastic strain
Elastic shear
Youngs modulus E, shear modulus E, and Poisson ratio are material properties

Consequences of forces large strains
Onset of yielding for
~ Y
Necking occurs in
plastic regime > Y
Plastic instability
and rupture
for > u
Energy absorption
by plastic
deformation Plot is in terms of engineering stress and strain, apparent
maximum in stress is due to area reduction caused by necking

Stress-Strain Relationships

Yield and Ultimate Strength
Yield point YP determined by uniaxial tension test
Yielding is actually due to stress differences or shear.
Extension of tension test to multi-axial loading:
Maximum shear stress model max < YP/2
Von Mises or octahedral shear stress criterion
Onset of localized permanent deformation occurs well

before complete plastic collapse of structure occurs.

Some Typical Material Properties
E G y u rupture
Material (kg/m3) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
3
Aluminum 6061-T6 2.71 x 10 70 25.9 0.351 241 290 0.05
3
Aluminum 2024-T4 2.77 x 10 73 27.6 0.342 290 441 0.3
3
Steel (mild) 7.85 x 10 200 79 0.266 248 410-550 0.18-0.25
3
Steel stainless 7.6 x 10 190 73 0.31 286-500 760-1280 0.45-0.65
3
Steel (HSLA) 7.6 x 10 200 0.29 1500-1900 1500-2000 0.3-0.6
3
Concrete 7.6 x 10 30-50 20-30 - 0
3
Fiberglass 1.5-1.9 x 10 35-45 - 100-300 -
3
Polycarbonate 1.2-1.3 x 10 2.6 55 60 -
3
PVC 1.3-1.6 x 10 0.2-0.6 45-48 - -
3
Wood 0.4-0.8 x 10 1-10 - 33-55 -
3
Polyethylene (HD) 0.94-0.97 x 10 0.7 20-30 37 -

Internal Forces due to Explosions
Stress waves
Longitudinal or transverse
Short time scale
Flexural waves
Shock or detonation propagation inside tubes
Vibrations in shells
tension or compression
Deforms shells
shearing loads
Bends beams and plates

Statics vs. Dynamics
Static loading T >> l, u

Loading and unloading times long compared to
characteristic structural response time
Inertia unimportant
Response determined completely by stiffness,
magnitude of load.
Dynamic loading T
Loading or unloading time short compared to
characteristic structural response time
Inertia important
Response depends on time history of loading
Static Stresses in Spherical Shell
Balance membrane
stresses with internal
pressure loading
Force balance on equator R
Membrane stress
Validate only for thin-wall vessels h < 0.2 R

Static Stresses in Cylindrical Shells
Biaxial state of stress
Longitudinal stress due to
projected force on end
caps.
Radial (hoop) stress due

to projected force on
equator

Bending of Beams
Force on beam due to
integrated effects of
pressure loading
Pure bending has no net

longitudinal stress
Deflection for uniform
loading

Stress Wave propagation in Solids
Dynamic loading by impact or high explosive detonation in contact with

structure
Two main types
Longitudinal (compression, P-waves)
Transverse (shear, S-waves
Stress-velocity relationship (for bar P-waves) Cl exact for bar

Is direct stress wave propagation important?
Time scale very fast compared to main
structural response T ~ L/C
Cl (m/s) Cs(m/s)
Steel 6100 3205
Aluminum 3205 3155
Average out in microseconds (10-6 s)
Stress level low compared to yield stress
~ P ~ 10 MPa << Y = 200- 500 MPa

Direct stress propagation within the structural elements is usually
not relevant for structural response to gaseous explosions.

Structural motions
Element vibrations
Membranes or shells
Plates or beams
Modes of flexural motion

Standing waves, frequencies i
Propagating dispersive waves (k)
Coupled motions of entire structure

Two Special Situations
Loading on small objects
Represent forces as drag coefficients dependent on shape and
orientation and function of flow speed.
F = V2 CD(Mach No, Reynolds No) x Frontal Area
Thermal stresses.
Thermal stresses are stresses that are created by differential
thermal expansion caused by time-dependent heat transfer from
hot explosion gases. This is distinct from the loss of strength of
materials due to bulk heating, which is a very important factor in
fires which occur over very much longer durations than
explosions.
= /E + T

Determining structural response
Issues
Static or dynamic
depends on time scale of response compared to that of load
impulsive (short loading duration)
sudden (short rise time)
quasi-static (long rise time)
Elastic or elastic-plastic
depends on magnitude of stresses and deformation
yield stress limit appropriate for vessels designed to contain
explosions
maximum displacement or deformation limit appropriate for
determining or preventing leaks or rupture under accident
conditions

Simple estimates
Strength of materials approach assuming equivalent static load
Useful only for very slow combustion (static loads) and negligible thermal load
Theory of elasticity and analytical solutions
static solutions for many common vessels and components (Roarkes Handbook)
dynamic solutions available for simple shapes mode shapes and vibrational periods are tabulated.
Energy methods with assumed mode shapes (Baker et al method)
Analytical models for traveling loads available for shock and detonation waves
Transient thermo-elastic solutions available for simple shapes
Theory of plasticity
rigid-plastic solutions available for simple shapes and impulsive loads.
Energy methods can provide quick bounds on deformation
Empirical correlations
Test data available for certain shapes (clamped plates) and impulsive loads
Pressure-impulse damage criteria have been measured for many items and people subjected to blast
loading
Spring-mass system models
single degree of freedom
multi-degree of freedom
elastic vs plastic spring elements

Simple Structural Models
Ignore elastic wave propagation within structure
Lump mass and stiffness into discrete elements
Mass matrix M
Stiffness matrix K
Displacements Xi
Applied forces Fi
Equivalent to modeling structure as coupled spring-
mass system
Results in a spectrum of vibrational frequencies I

corresponding to different vibrational modes
Fundamental (lowest) mode usually most relevant

Single Degree of Freedom Models (SDOF)
Example - radial oscillation of
h
a shell. x R
p
Allow only for radial
displacement x of tube P(t)
surface
t
Assumes radial and axial
symmetry of load
Elastic oscillations only
Results in harmonic oscillator
equation (no damping)
frequency period
SODF - Square Pulse
Pulse length : 10s Pulse length : 100s

SDOF Static Regime
Very slow application of load (quasi-static) no

oscillations
T << u or L
Static deflection
l
FMax
force
displacement
time
T
SDOF -Impulsive Regime
Sudden load application, short
duration of loading << T
Linear scaling between
maximum strain/ displacement
and impulse in elastic regime:
Impulse generates initial
velocity
Energy conservation
determines maximum
deflection

SDOF Sudden regime
Quick application of load and long duration
u >> T
Peak deflection is twice static value for same
maximum load

FMax
force
displacement
time
T
SDOF - Dynamic load factor (DLF)

Considerations about material properties
Simple models:

perfectly plastic,
elastic perfectly plastic

More realistic models .

Strain hardening Y ()

.
Strain rate effects, Y(d/dt)

Temperature effects (T)

Y

SDOF - Plasticity
Replace kX with nonlinear
relationship based on flow
stress curve ()
Energy absorbed by
plastic work is much
higher than elastic work
Peak deformation for
impulsive load scales with
impulse squared.

SDOF Pressure- Impulse (P-I)
Alternative representation of response
For fixed Xmax and pulse shape, unique relation
between peak pressure (P) and impulse (I)
Shock wave with

exponential tail

Numerical simulation
Finite element models

static
vibration: mode shape and frequencies
dynamic
transient response to specified loading
elastic
plastic/fracture
Numerical integration of simple models with

complex loading histories
spring-mass systems
Elasticity with assumed mode shape
Example
Blast loading of a
cantilever beam
Giordona et al elastic
response
Van Netton and Dewey
plastic response
Baker et al energy
method

Initial stages of shock diffraction over a cantilever beam
Structural Response - Shepherd Giordano et al, Shock Waves 14 (1-2), 103-110, 2005. 85
Later stages of diffraction over a cantilever beam
Structural Response - Shepherd Giordano et al, Shock Waves 14 (1-2), 103-110, 2005. 86
Applied Load and Oscillations of Beam
Giordano et al, Shock Waves 14 (1-2), 103-110, 2005.

Plastic Deformation of Blast loaded Cantilever
Structural Response - Shepherd Van Netten and Dewey, Shock Waves (1997) 7: 175190 88
Blast Loading
Structural Response - Shepherd Van Netten and Dewey, Shock Waves (1997) 7: 175190 89
Shock tube experiments
Van Netten and Dewey, Shock Waves (1997) 7: 175190

Structural Response of Piping to
Internal Gaseous Detonation

Detonations in Piping
Accidental explosions
Potential hazard in
Chemical processing plants
Nuclear facilities
Waste processing
Fuel and waste storage
Power plants
Test facilities
Detonation tubes used in laboratory facilities
Field test installations (vapor recovery systems)

Recent Accidental Detonations
Hamaoka-1 NPP
Brunsbuettel KBB
Both due to generation of H2+1/2O2 by radiolysis and accumulation in

stagnant pipe legs without high-point vents or off-gas systems.
Outline
Basic detonation facts
Elastic response of tubes to detonation
Fracture of tubes with detonation loading
Bounding loads
Deflagration to detonation transition
Reflection of detonation
Plastic deformation
Interaction with bends and tees
Role of ASME code

What is a Detonation Wave?
A supersonic combustion wave

characterized by a unique coupling
between a shock front and a zone of
chemical energy release referred to as
the reaction zone.

Detonation Concepts
Steadily propagating wave (CJ)

Shock-induced chemical reaction (ZND)
Propagating pressure wave
Induces a flow and pressure variation behind
detonation
Instability of front

Chapman-Jouguet (CJ) Model
Combustion wave moves at minimum speed consistent with conservation of

Thermodynamics and elementary gas dynamics
mass, momentum and energy across the wave front. Equivalent to products
Adequate
away from wave front with to predict
a relative idealequal
velocity wave speed
to the speed of sound sonic
or CJ condition

ZND Model
Steady reactive flow behind nonreactive shock
Shock-induced chemical reaction
1D smooth flow no instabilities
UCJ
Products Products
Radicals Reactants
shock

Chemical Length and Time Scales

3000 0.05
T
0.04
OH mole fraction
Temperature, K
2000
0.03
OH
0.02
1000
0.01
0 0
0 0.5 1
Distance, cm
Induction Zone length, cm
2H2-O2-60%N2
10 0
10 -1
-2
10
0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Normalized velocity, U/UCJ

Measured Pressures in Tube

Taylor-Zeldovich Expansion Wave
t
particle path
open end
closed end
3
Stationary region
expansion fan
1 - at rest
0 x
L
Structural Response - Shepherd detonation 102

Propagating Pressure Wave

Wave Front Has Structure
End plate soot foil

Summary on Detonation Facts
Detonations have
Characteristic minimum speed (CJ model)
Characteristic peak pressure (CJ model)
Characteristic length scale (ZND model)
Measure cell width
Imposes traveling load on tube
Sudden jump in pressure
Decrease in pressure followed by uniform region

Detonations Excite Elastic Waves

Modeling Structural Response To Detonations
SDOF model for hoop oscillations

Simplified traveling wave model
Beam on an elastic foundation
Analytical shell models
(Tang) with rotary inertia
Numerical simulation
Shell models (Cirak)
FEM models (LS-Dyna)
Need to add mathematical equations

Flexural Waves in Tubes
Measured strain (hoop)
10-4
Coupled response due to hoop 0 2 4 6 8

oscillations and bending t (ms)
Traveling load can excite
resonance when flexural wave
group velocity matches wave
Amplification factor
speed
Can be treated with analytical
and FEM models
U (m/s)
Measuring Elastic Vibration

Precision test rig
rigid collets
strain
gages
stiff I-Beam

Gage locations
120o
D=41mm
vibrometer S2
S4 S3 S5 Detonation
wave
S1
20mm 20mm
vibrometer
Strain gages:
radial spacing: S1, S2, S3 S4 S5
axial spacing: S3, S4, S5 S3

Comparison of shell model with experiment
15o location

Fracture
External Blast
Fracture

Strain
StrainResponse
Responseof
ofFracturing
FracturingTubes
Tubes
Strain
Gage
Locations

Fracture Behavior is a Strong Function of Initial Flaw Length
Outer diameter: 41.28 mm, Wall thickness: 0.89 mm, Length: 0.914 m
Surface notch dimensions: Width: 0.25 mm, Notch depth: 0.56 mm, Lengths: 1.27 cm, 2.54 cm, 5.08
cm, 7.62 cm
Post-test Al 6061-T6
Specimens (Pcj = 6.2 MPa)
Surface Notch Length = 1.27 cm

Detonation wave direction
Fracture Threshold Model
Flat Plate
Model
analyzed by
Newman and
Raju (1981)
Approximate
Fracture Condition:
(pR/h)(d)/KIc > (Q)/F
where Q, F = functions of flaw length
(2a), flaw depth (d), and wall Actual
thickness (h) tube
surface
Fracture Threshold of Flawed Tubes under Detonation Loading
P = Pcj - Patm
R = Tube mean radius
h = Tube wall thickness
d = Surface notch depth
Rupture 2a = Surface notch length
No Rupture KIc = Fracture toughness
= Dynamic
Threshold Theory Amplification factor
Tube material: Al6061-T6

Wall thickness: 0.089 to 0.12
cm
d/h: 0.5 to 0.8
Pcj: 2 to 6 MPa
Axial Flaw Length: 1.3 to 7.6
cm
O.D.: 4.13 cm
Note:
1) Parameters on the axes are
non-dimensional
2) Threshold is a 3-D surface
Using Prestress to Control Crack Propagation Path
Detonation
direction

Incipient Crack Kinking
Detonation Direction
Initial Notch
Hoop Shear Hoop Shear Torque Direction

Stress Stress Stress Stress (right-hand rule)
Initial Notch
Image from Shot 153

Kinked Incipient Forward
and Backward
Structural Response - Shepherd Cracks 120
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Stress Intensity Factors
Experimental data are

compared with
numerical data by
Melin (1994) using a
local kII = 0 criteria
Circles: Forward Cracks

Structural Response - Shepherd
Deltas: Backward Cracks
121
Effect of Reflected Shear Wave: Crack Path Direction Reversal
Shot 143
Cracks initially kinked at

angles consistent with
principal stresses
The cracks then reversed
directions due to reflected
shear waves
Shear wave travel time:
150 s

Effect of Reflected Shear Wave: Crack Path Direction Reversal
Shear Strain Reversal
Rosette 1 (solid) Rosette 2 (dotted)

Detonation Wave Direction
Effect of Reflected Shear Wave: Additional Kinked Crack
Structural Response - Shepherd Shot 142 124

Application to Pulse Detonation
Pulse detonation engine use repeated

detonations to generate thrust
In development as primary thrust generator
(ramjet-type device) and high pressure
combustion chamber for jet engines

Testing at WPAFB
Thanks to John Hoke, Royce Bradley and Fred Schauer

Crack Opening deep flaw
After 4700 cycles After 7500 cycles

DDT
Deflagration to detonation transition is a common

industrial hazard with gaseous explosions
Compression of gas by flame increases pressure
when detonation finally occurs pressure piling.
Represents upper bound in severity of pressure
loading.

The path of DDT

burned unburned
1. A smooth flame with laminar flow ahead
2. First wrinkling of flame and instability of upstream flow
3. Breakdown into turbulent flow and a corrugated flame
4. Production of pressure waves ahead of turbulent flame
5. Local explosion of vortical structure within the flame
6. Transition to detonation

Slow Flame (Deflagration)

Fast Flame

DDT after Flame Acceleration Period

Rapid onset of DDT

Structural Response to DDT
Thick walled vessels for elastic response
Thin-walled vessels for plastic response and failure
Use bars or tabs as obstacles to cause flame acceleration

Reflection of near-CJ Detonation
30% H2 in H2-N2O mixture at 1 atm initial pressure

DDT near end flange
15% H2 in H2-N2O at 1 atm initial pressure

Summary of results for H2-O2 Mixtures
Strains and pressures are a strong function of composition, peak occurs when
DDT is close to the end of the tube.

Computations of Detonation Reflection
3-in Schedule 40 316L
pipe 1-m long, 38 mm
diam, 4.5 mm wall 240
MPa yield stress
Reflected CJ detonation.
CJ Velocity 2600 m/s,
PCJ/Po = 26
Three initial pressures 3,
6, 9 atm
LS-DYNA simulation with
traveling load model of
waves

Structural Response - Shepherd 3 atm 141
Structural Response - Shepherd 6 atm 142
9 atm
Spatial distribution of Effective Plastic Strain
6 atm
3 atm
9 atm

Plastic Deformation
It is useful to use plastic
deformation to
accommodate rare
events.
Need to have more data
and modeling to
determine peak allowable
impulses and pressures
to avoid rupure.

Bends and Tees
Limited data available
Important for plants and facilities
Some enhancement of hoop load due to wave
reflections
Transverse loads can be quite significant
Creates bending in tubes
Supporting structures (hangers) can fail
Flange bolts can fail in shear due to transverse loads

Detonations and ASME Code Rules
Not covered under current BPVC VIII or Piping Code B31

Proposed code case for impulsively loaded vessels is under
development by ASME Task Force on Impulsively Loaded Vessels,
SWG/HPV, ASME VIII.
Current impulsive loading code case intended to cover vessels used
to contain high explosive detonation.
many common elements associated with dynamic loading
Further work needed to treat gas detonation specific issues

Issue for Gaseous Detonation
Loading is more difficult to define for gases than
for HE detonation
More testing is needed to have generic results
Mixed loading regime, not purely impulsive.
Plastic deformation will require considering entire
loading history.
Traveling load aspects of gaseous detonation

Extending the Code
Ad hoc design practices can be standardized
Analysis of accidents and DDT harder to standardize
Designers and analysts might be able to use extended code as a basis for building vessels and
piping to contain gaseous detonation
Elastically for high frequency or intentional events
Plastically for rare events or one-time use
Much work has already been done for impulsively loaded vessels code case development
Dynamic response of materials
Stain hardening, strain rate effects
Fracture safe design
Plastic instability limits (incomplete)

Structure Blast Wave

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Structure Blast Wave

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Structural Response to Explosions

1st European Summer School on Hydrogen Safety

Structural Response - Shepherd 1

This lecture will cover the fundamentals of structural

Structural Response - Shepherd 2

Structural Response - Shepherd 3

Why carry out structural response analysis?

Structural Response - Shepherd 4

Before an event as part

After an event as part of

Structural Response - Shepherd 5

Structural Response - Shepherd 6

Port Hudson 1974 C3H8

Structural Response - Shepherd 8

5 psi (34 kPa) 1.7 psi (11.7 kPa)

Structural Response - Shepherd 9

Structural Response - Shepherd 10

Structural Response - Shepherd 11

Structural Response - Shepherd 12

Load generally means applied force in this

Structural Response - Shepherd 15

Structural Response - Shepherd 16

Structural Response - Shepherd 17

Can be deflagration or detonation

Structural Response - Shepherd 18

Structural Response - Shepherd 19

Volume expansion due to combustion

Structural Response - Shepherd 20

Overall Combustion Reaction major species

Structural Response - Shepherd 21

Structural Response - Shepherd 22

Flame velocity V f = ST A f / A = STeff

Flow velocity U = V f STeff = ( 1) STeff

flame Blast wave

Analytical models with thermodynamic computation of

Detailed numerical simulations using computation fluid

Empirical correlations of data

Approximate numerical models of blast wave

Characterizing pressure-time histories

Single peak or multiple peaks

Structural Response - Shepherd 25

Structural response time T vs. loading and unloading time scales I

Structural Response - Shepherd 27

Structural Response - Shepherd 28

Structural Response - Shepherd 29

Structural Response - Shepherd 31

pressure P/Po P/Po = F(R/Rs)

Structural Response - Shepherd 32

Simplest expression of scaling (Hopkinson)

Structural Response - Shepherd 33

For ideal gas explosions (detonations) E is some fixed

Work done at DRES

Structural Response - Shepherd 35

2.71 MJ/kg of fuel-

Structural Response - Shepherd 37

Structural Response - Shepherd 38

Blast-wave interactions with multiple

Structural Response - Shepherd 39

Incident wave strength

Structural Response - Shepherd 40

Tang and Baker 1999

Structural Response - Shepherd 42

Consider volume displacement