MODELLING OF DEFLAGRATION,

ESTABLISHING MATERIAL DATA INTO ANSYS

AUTODYNS POWDER BURN MODEL
Eimund Smestada , John F. Moxnesb , and Gard degrdstuena
a
Nammo Raufoss AS, P.O. Box 162, N-2831 Raufoss, Norway
b
FFI (Norwegian Defence Research Establishment), P.O. Box 162, N-2831 Raufoss, Norway
Email: eimund.smestad@nammo.com, John-F.Moxnes@ffi.no, gard.odegardstuen@nammo.com
Thanks to: Alice Atwood, Gunnar O. Nevstad and Tomas Lunde

Abstract

FFI and Nammo developed a model for calculating deflagrating of particles where the
propagation of the ignition is convective. This model, the Slow Burn model, is based on
the assumption that the particles follow the gas flow, which makes it possible to
calculating deflagration without taking multiphase flow into account. This enables codes,
which is not able to generate new compounds, to compute the propagation of deflagrating
material.

ANSYS Autodyn has implemented a beta version of the Slow Burn model into its code,
which is called the Powder Burn model. The purpose of this paper is to simulate
deflagration in ANSYS Autodyn and establish Powder Burn material data for some well
known compounds within different regimes of function, for instance explosive,
pyrotechnical compound and gunpowder. Furthermore will these examples serve as a
template for how to obtain your own material data for a desired compound, and can then
be used in ANSYS Autodyns Powder Burn model.

To verify the material data which is inputted into the Powder Burn model, we use a close
bomb modelled with simply one cell model, to look at the pressure build up as a function
of time of a deflagrating material.

1 Overview of the mathematical model

When establishing material data for ANSYS Autodyns Powder Burn model, a
clear view of the mathematical model of Slow Burn is of importance [1]. The
Slow Burn consists of a solid equation of state, a reaction ratio and a gaseous
equation of state for the reaction products.

1.1 Reaction ratio Given the solid mass ms (t) at time t, then the reaction
ratio F is defined by

ms t0 ms (t)
F (t) =
.
ms t0
Definition

An exponential equation of state is used to describe the gaseous reaction products

for the compounds we will look into in this paper. Exponential equation of state
gives the gas pressure, which could be used in Vieilles law to give the burn rate
of the solid. The reaction rate is then found by the burn rate and geometric shape
of the solid.

1.2 Gas pressure in exponential equation of state Given a density g

and a internal energy per mass eg , then the gas pressure Pg in exponential
equation of state is given by

Pg = g eg e g /D , where D is constant.

Definition

1.3 Vieilles law extended Given the gas pressure Pg , then the burn rate b
is as follows
 
b Pg = aPg n + c, where a, c and n are constants.

Postulate

1.4 Reaction rate Given reaction ratio F and a gas pressure of Pg which
will give rise to a burn rate b, then the reaction rate will be

 
F = G 1 F c b Pg ,
where the growth parameter G, the growth reaction ratio exponent c and the
reaction ratio factor are constants.
Theorem

The constants G, c, and in T :1.4 are determined by the geometric shape of the
solid. For the compounds that we are going to investigate in this paper we need
G, c and for spherical and hollow cylindrical particles.
 1.5 Spherical particles Given a spherical shape A with a radius of r, which
burns uniformly from the surface with the burn rate b (t) over time t. Then
the growth parameter, the growth reaction ration exponent and the reaction
ratio factor for A is given respectively by
3 2
G= , c= and = 1.
r 3
Theorem

1.6 Hollow cylindrical particles Given a cylindrical shape A with an inner

radius of R1 , outer radius of R2 and length L, which burns uniformly from all
surfaces with the burn rate b (t) over time t. Then the growth parameter, the
growth reaction ration exponent and the reaction ratio factor for A is given
respectively by
!

1 1 1 4 R2 R1 L
G=2 + , c= and =
.
R2 R1 L 2 L + R2 R1 2
Theorem

Lastly we are going to take a quick look into ANSYS Autodyns ability to model
convective burning.

1.7 Speed of ignition front Given a gas pressure Pg and a solid density
   
s . Pg will give rise to a burn rate b Pg and s will give a s , then the
velocity v of the ignition front will be
   
v = C1 + C2 b Pg 1 + s , where C1 and C2 are constants.

Theorem

2 Obtaining material data

Three compounds with different application will be fitted to the Powder Burn
model: an explosive, a pyrotechnical compound and a gun powder. Our main
focus in this paper is to feed ANSYS Autodyns Powder Burn model with data
which enables Autodyn to model the gas pressure versus time in deflagration. For
this job we have used a single celled closed bomb, which means boundary
conditions with zero velocity. A step in constructing such data for Powder Burn
we computed gas pressure versus density [2], collected burn rate versus gas
pressure data from closed bomb experiments, and determined geometry and size
of the particles. This was done for each of the three compounds, see section 3, 4
and 5, and the data was fitted to D:1.2 , P:1.3 and T :1.4 in the Slow Burn
model.

When fitting the data to the Slow Burn model we used least squares, but since
least squares may give more than one solution, we derived an expressions for
finding the solution to the least square. The solution was then found by plotting
these expressions and picking the solution which is most physical.

2.1 Approximation of gas pressure versus gas density Given that g 7

Pg with the function Pg = g eg e g /D , then least squares gives eg and D by
solving following equation with regard of D
PN
N P e j /D
X
j=1 j j
i 2 e i /D Pi i e i /D PN = 0,
2 e 2 j /D
i=1 j=1 j
and putting it into
PN
Pi i e i /D
eg = Pi=1
N
,
2 e 2i /D
  i=1 i

where i , Pi | i N1N is the dataset to be fitted by least squares.

Theorem

2.2 Approximation of burn rate versusgas pressure to Vieilles

 
law Given the dataset Pi , bi  i N1N were Pg 7 b with the function

 
b Pg = aPg n + c, then least squares gives a, c and n by solving following
equation with regard of n
P  
N N N n PN N
X X
j=1 P j N b j k=1 b k
X
Pi n ln Pi NPi n P j n P

N b b = 0,



N P j n NP j n PN Pk n
 i j
i=1 j=1 j=1
j=1 k=1

and putting it into

PN  PN 
N
1 X j=1 P j n N b j k=1 bk
c= bi Pi n P   ,
N i=1 N n
P j NP j n PN n
Pk
j=1 k=1

and lastly putting c and n into

PN  PN 
n
P
i=1 i N bi b
j=1 j
a= P  .
N n n PN n
i=1 Pi NPi j=1 P j

Theorem
In T :2.1 the internal energy per mass eg is the physical criteria for picking the
best solution if there are more than one solution. For T :2.2 the physical criteria
is that the burn rate b is always positive, since the burning process is irreversible.
Since the gas pressure Pg is positive, then a and c also needs to be positive. The
constant c was included in Vieilles Law because of the fact that just before the
burn process starts, there is no gas generated and hence zero gas pressure. Which
would then again result in zero burn rate and the burn process would never start.
By introducing a positive c as an initial value would ensure that the burning
process starts.

3 Explosive HMX (95%) / HTPB (5%)

Compound Weight [ % ] Formula H f [ kJ/mol ] Reference
HMX 95 C4 H8 N8 O8 75.02 ICT-database
HTPB 5 C10 H15.714 N0.131 O0.12 51.88 Nammo

Tab. 3.1: Chemical composition of HMX (95%) / HTPB (5%)

Spherical particles with average diameter of 1 [ mm ] (Table 3.1.1.b), then
geometric parameters would be c = 2/3, G = 6 [ 1/mm ] and = 1.

3.1 Measurements
a) Density g [ kg/m3 ] Pressure Pg [ GPa ] c) Pressure Pg [ MPa ]
Burn rate b [ m/s ]
0.09 0.0001 ambient 100 [ C ] 50 [ C ]
1 0.0012 0.588 0.0015 0.0017 0.00126
5 0.0065 0.588 0.0016 0.0017
10 0.0131 0.588 0.0014
50 0.0697 1.28 0.0025 0.00277 0.00239
100 0.1474 1.28 0.00264 0.00284
500 1.1053 1.28 0.003
1000 3.6387 1.62 0.00200
1500 8.937 2.66 0.0046 0.0048 0.003973
2000 19.6660 2.66 0.00488 0.0048 0.003879
2300 30.4711 2.66 0.00447
2500 40.4045 3.35 0.005077
4.04 0.0064 0.00668 0.005408
b) Size [ mm ] Quota [ % ] 4.04 0.00630 0.00665 0.005471
4.04 0.00627
4.8 100
5.41 0.00871 0.0099 0.00747
1.7 97.3
5.41 0.00744 0.00942 0.0079
0.425 3.5
5.41 0.00841
6.794 0.00975 0.0109
6.794 0.00993 0.0110
6.794 0.00996
6.794 0.0101
10.24 0.0136 0.0153
10.24 0.0136 0.0150
10.24 0.0137

Tab. 3.1.1: a) Gas density g vs. pressure Pg in the generated gas from HMX
(95%) / HTPB (5%) [2]. b) Particle size distribution for PBXN-5 [6].
c) Burn rate b vs. pressure Pg in the generated gas from PBXN-5 [4].
3.2 Fit to model

From Table 3.1.1.a we can use least squares T :2.1 to find the best fit of D and eg
in D:1.2 to describe how the gas pressure Pg is a function of gas density g for
the HMX (95%) / HTPB (5%) compound. And similarly for Table 3.1.1.c we can
use T :2.2 to find the best fit of n, a and c in P:1.3 to describe how the burn rate
b depends on gas pressure Pg for PBXN-5 which is similar to HMX (95%) /
HTPB (5%).
a) b)
eg [J/kg] 400 0.02

1e+006 1.5e+006 300

1e+016 80 0.015
D: 1004.5455
eg: 1341931.2589 Data 200

Deviation
60

b [m/s]
Deviation

Fit
Pg [GPa]

0 100 0.01
40 Fit
0
1e+016 n: 0.88369 0.005 Ambient
20 a: 4.0211e006 100C
100
c: 0.00027284
50C
2e+016 0 200 0
900 950 1000 1050 0 1000 2000 3000 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5000 10000 15000
D [kg/m3 ] g [kg/m3 ] n Pg [kPa]

Fig. 3.2.1: a) Fitting gas pressure Pg vs. gas density g for HMX (95%) / HTPB
(5%). The plot on the left showing values for D and eg is the best fit
for Table 3.1.1.a to D:1.2 , which is plotted on the right. b) Fitting
burn rate b vs. gas pressure Pg for PBXN-5. The plot on the left
showing values for n, a and c is the best fit for Table 3.1.1.c to P:1.3 ,
which is plotted on the right.

3.3 ANSYS Autodyn input

1 3
ref = 2.325 [ g / cm ]

EOS: Powder Burn

Solid Unreacted EOS Linear Reacted EOS Exponential
Bulk Modulus 1.35 107 [ kPa ] G 6 [ 1 / mm ] Pg [ kPa ] b [ m / s ] s [ g / cm3 ] 2

Reference Temperature 293 [ K ] c 0.667 1 105 2.728 104 1 106 1

Specific Heat 0 [ J / kg K ] 2C 500 [ m / s ] 6.25 106 4.0721 1 1
1
Thermal Conductivity 0[J/K m s] 2C 0 1.27 107 7.6194 2 1
2
D 1.004545 [ g / cm3 ] 1.875 107 10.7506 3 1
eg ref 3.12078 106 [ kJ / m3 ] 2.5 107 13.8624 4 1
3.125 107 16.8840 5 1
3.75 107 19.8357 6 1
4.375 107 22.7303 7 1
5 107 25.5772 8 1
1 109 361.0399 9 1

Strength: von Mises Cutoffs

Shear Modulus 1.38 106 [ kPa ] Maximum Expansion 0.01
Yield Stress 2 103 [ kPa ] Minimum Density Factor 1 104
Minimum Soundspeed 1 106 [ m / s ]
Maximum Soundspeed 1 104 [ m / s ]
Maximum Temperature 1.01 1020 [ K ]

Tab. 3.3.1: ANSYS Autodyn material: HMX (95%) / HTPB (5%).

1
Assumed grain compaction to 93 [ % ].
2
These values are just chosen and dont affect the single celled closed bomb model.
3.4 ANSYS Autodyn results

For the single celled closed bomb we expect the terminal gas pressure Pg,T , when
g = ref , to be
2325
Pg,T = ref eg e ref /D = 2325 1341931 e 1005 [ Pa ] = 32 [ GPa ],

which corresponds to the terminal pressure in Figure 3.4.1.

2500 1 40

2000 0.8
30
s [kg/m3 ]

Pg [GPa]
1500 0.6
20
F

1000 0.4
10
500 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4
t [ms] t [ms] t [ms]

Fig. 3.4.1: ANSYS Autodyn Lagrange 2D results for the HMX (95%) / HTPB
(5%) compound in a single celled closed bomb.

4 Pyrotechnical composition KClO4 (50%) / Al (25%) / Mg (25%)

Formula Weight [ % ] H f [ kJ/mol ] Reference
KClO4 50 432.79 ICT-database
Al 25 0.00 CEA
Mg 25 0.00 CEA

Tab. 4.1: Chemical composition of KClO4 (50%) / Al (25%) / Mg (25%)

Spherical particles with average diameter of 0.1 [ mm ] (Table 4.1.1.b), then
geometric parameters would be c = 2/3, G = 60 [ 1/mm ] and = 1.

4.1 Measurements
a) Density g [ kg/m3 ] Pressure Pg [ GPa ] c) Pressure Pg [ MPa ] Burn rate b [ m/s ]
0.5 0.0001 5.41 0.01656
1 0.0005 6.794 0.029276
5 0.0026 6.794 0.01366
10 0.0054 6.794 0.02369
50 0.0284 6.794 0.02349
100 0.0601 6.794 0.034966
500 0.4275 6.794 0.033881
1000 1.0354 10.24 0.02967
1500 1.9451 10.24 0.02753
1900 3.1457 10.24 0.02644
10.24 0.07257
b) Size [ mm ] Quota [ % ]
0.125 100
0.063 6.15

Tab. 4.1.1: Pyrotechnical composition KClO4 (50%) / Al (25%) / Mg (25%):

a) Gas density g vs. gas pressure Pg [2]. b) Particle size distribution
[7]. c) Burn rate b vs. gas pressure Pg [5].
4.2 Fit to model
For the pyrotechnical composition KClO4 (50%) / Al (25%) / Mg (25%) we can
from Table 4.1.1.a use least squares T :2.1 to find the best fit of D and eg in
D:1.2 to describe how the gas pressure Pg is a function of gas density g . Fitting
burn rate b and gas pressure Pg for this composition is different than for the
compounds in section 3 and 5. First off the data in Table 4.1.1.c has great
dispersion due to measuring difficulties, therefore care should be exercised when
fitting these data. In theory this compound is very pressure independent, therefore
we choose n = a = 0 and the least squares for finding c simply is the average of
burn rate in Table 4.1.1.c.
a) b)
eg [J/kg] Data c = 0.030158 [m/s]
100000 1.5e+006 Fit 0.08
5e+014 4 Fit
D: 1868.7869
eg: 595291.0519 0.06 Ambient
3
Deviation

b [m/s]
Pg [GPa]

0
2 0.04
5e+014 0.02
1

1e+015 0 0
1500 2000 0 1000 2000 0 5000 10000 15000
D [kg/m3 ] g [kg/m3 ] Pg [kPa]

Fig. 4.2.1: Pyrotechnical composition KClO4 (50%) / Al (25%) / Mg (25%):

a) Fitting gas pressure Pg vs. gas density g . The plot on the left
showing values for D and eg is the best fit for Table 4.1.1.a to D:1.2 ,
which is plotted on the right. b) Average fitting of burn rate b vs. gas
pressure Pg .

4.3 ANSYS Autodyn input 1 3

ref = 1.766 [ g / cm ]

EOS: Powder Burn

Solid Unreacted EOS Linear Reacted EOS Exponential
Bulk Modulus 1.35 107 [ kPa ] G 60 [ 1 / mm ] Pg [ kPa ] b [ m / s ] s [ g / cm3 ] 2

Reference Temperature 293 [ K ] c 0.667 1 105 0.030158 1 106 1

Specific Heat 0 [ J / kg K ] 2C 500 [ m / s ] 5 105 0.030158 1 1
1
Thermal Conductivity 0[J/K m s] 2C 0 1 106 0.030158 2 1
2
D 1.868787 [ g / cm3 ] 1.5 106 0.030158 3 1
eg ref 1.05128 106 [ kJ / m3 ] 2 106 0.030158 4 1
2.5 106 0.030158 5 1
3 106 0.030158 6 1
3.5 106 0.030158 7 1
4 106 0.030158 8 1
1 109 0.030158 9 1

Strength: von Mises Cutoffs

Shear Modulus 1.38 106 [ kPa ] Maximum Expansion 0.01
Yield Stress 2 103 [ kPa ] Minimum Density Factor 1 104
Minimum Soundspeed 1 106 [ m / s ]
Maximum Soundspeed 1 104 [ m / s ]
Maximum Temperature 1.01 1020 [ K ]

Tab. 4.3.1: ANSYS Autodyn material: Pyrotechnical composition KClO4 (50%) /

Al (25%) / Mg (25%).
1
Assumed grain compaction to 93 [ % ].
2
These values are just chosen and dont affect the single celled closed bomb model.
4.4 ANSYS Autodyn results

For the single celled closed bomb we expect the terminal gas pressure Pg,T , when
g = ref , to be

1766
Pg,T = ref eg e ref /D = 1766 595291 e 1869 [ Pa ] = 2.7 [ GPa ],

which corresponds to the terminal pressure in Figure 4.4.1.

2000 1 3

0.8
1500
s [kg/m3 ]

Pg [GPa]
0.6
1000
F

0.4
1
500
0.2

0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
t [ms] t [ms] t [ms]

Fig. 4.4.1: ANSYS Autodyn Lagrange 2D results for the pyrotechnical

composition KClO4 (50%) / Al (25%) / Mg (25%) in a single celled
closed bomb.

5 12.7mm NEXPLO double base propellant

Compound Weight [ % ] Formula H f [ kJ/mol ]

Nitrocellulose 85.92 C6 H7.31 N2.68 O10.38 -683.605
Nitroglyserine 7.13 C3 H5 N3 O9 -378.44
Diphenylamine 0.79 C12 H11 N 131.50
Graphite 0.10 C 0
Centralite I 0.30 C17 H20 N2 O -120.46
Paraffin 2.77 C18 H38 -538.049
Potbitartr 1.98 C4 H5 O6 K -1536.86
Water 1.01 H2 O -287.10

Tab. 5.1: Chemical composition of 12.7mm NEXPLO double base propellant [3].

From the report by Gunnar Nevstad [3], 12.7mm NEXPLO double base
propellant is cylindrical with a hole in the center, where the length
L = 1.71 [ mm ], outer radius R2 = 0.69 [ mm ] and inner radius R1 = 0.1 [ mm ].
Since ANSYS Autodyn only supports = 1 for reaction rate T :1.4 , the only
hollow cylindrical shape possible to enter into ANSYS Autodyn is when
L = R2 R1 , see T :1.6 . By approximating to L = R2 R1 = 1.15 [ mm ] we get
the growth reaction ratio exponent c = 1/2, and the growth parameter
G = 52.17 [ 1/mm ].
5.1 Measurements

a) Density Pressure b) Pressure

Burn rate b [ m/s ]
g [ kg/m3 ] Pg [ GPa ] Pg [ MPa ]
0.1 0.000095 40.0 0.0355
1 0.000986 50.0 0.0467
5 0.0050 60.0 0.0590 0.0557
10 0.0101 70.0 0.0684
50 0.0530 80.0 0.0862 0.0778 0.0740 0.0740
100 0.1116 90.0 0.0999 0.0961
500 0.8323 100.0 0.1070 0.1019 0.1002
1000 2.7411 110.0 0.1266 0.1247
1250 4.3961 120.0 0.1387 0.1352 0.1288 0.1254
1500 6.7682 130.0 0.1518
1750 10.1310 140.0 0.1583
2000 14.8542 150.0 0.1654 0.1757 0.1761 0.1678 0.1653
170.0 0.1736 0.1963 0.2010 0.1915 0.1862
180.0 0.1738
190.0 0.2121
200.0 0.2328 0.2220 0.2177
210.0 0.2221
220.0 0.2501 0.2386 0.2342
230.0 0.2251
250.0 0.2686 0.2564 0.2522
270.0 0.2761 0.2637 0.2590
300.0 0.2773 0.2650 0.2600
320.0 0.2524

Tab. 5.1.1: 12.7mm NEXPLO double base propellant: a) Gas density g vs. gas
pressure Pg [2]. b) Burn rate b vs. gas pressure Pg [3].

5.2 Fit to model

The steps in finding the best fit for the Slow Burn model to Table 5.1.1 is the same
as in section 3.
a) b)
eg [J/kg] 600000 0.4
Fit
100000 1.5e+006 500000 Ambient
5e+016 20 0.3
D: 1003.2803 Data 400000
eg: 1011748.8579
Deviation

15 Fit
b [m/s]
Deviation

300000
Pg [GPa]

0 0.2
10 200000
n: 0.92359
5e+016 100000 a: 2.5094e006
0.1
5 c: 0.0070952
0
1e+017 0 100000 0
500 1000 0 1000 2000 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 200000 400000
D [kg/m3 ] g [kg/m3 ] n Pg [kPa]

Fig. 5.2.1: 12.7mm NEXPLO double base propellant: a) Fitting gas pressure Pg
vs. gas density g . The plot on the left showing values for D and eg is
the best fit for Table 5.1.1.a to D:1.2 , which is plotted on the right.
b) Fitting burn rate b vs. gas pressure Pg . The plot on the left showing
values for n, a and c is the best fit for Table 5.1.1.b to P:1.3 , which is
plotted on the right.
5.3 ANSYS Autodyn input
1 3
ref = 1.86 [ g / cm ]

EOS: Powder Burn

Solid Unreacted EOS Linear Reacted EOS Exponential
Bulk Modulus 1.35 107 [ kPa ] G 52.17 [ 1 / mm ] Pg [ kPa ] b [ m / s ] s [ g / cm3 ] 2

Reference Temperature 293 [ K ] c 0.5 1 105 0.0071 1 106 1

Specific Heat 0 [ J / kg K ] 2C 500 [ m / s ] 2.5 106 2.0432 1 1
1
Thermal Conductivity 0[J/K m s] 2C 0 5 106 3.8692 2 1
2
D 1.0033 [ g / cm3 ] 7.5 106 5.6236 3 1
eg ref 1.88185 106 [ kJ / m3 ] 1 107 7.3329 4 1
1.25 107 9.0095 5 1
1.5 107 10.6606 6 1
1.75 107 12.2906 7 1
2 107 13.9029 8 1
1 109 515.2780 9 1

Strength: von Mises Cutoffs

Shear Modulus 1.38 106 [ kPa ] Maximum Expansion 0.01
Yield Stress 2 103 [ kPa ] Minimum Density Factor 1 104
Minimum Soundspeed 1 106 [ m / s ]
Maximum Soundspeed 1 104 [ m / s ]
Maximum Temperature 1.01 1020 [ K ]

Tab. 5.3.1: ANSYS Autodyn material: 12.7mm NEXPLO double base propellant.

5.4 ANSYS Autodyn results

For the single celled closed bomb we expect the terminal gas pressure Pg,T , when
g = ref , to be
1860
Pg,T = ref eg e ref /D = 1860 1011748 e 1003 [ Pa ] = 12 [ GPa ],

which corresponds to the terminal pressure in Figure 4.4.1.

2000 1 15

0.8
1500
s [kg/m3 ]

10
Pg [GPa]

0.6
1000
F

0.4
5
500
0.2

0 0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1
t [ms] t [ms] t [ms]

Fig. 5.4.1: ANSYS Autodyn Lagrange 2D results for the 12.7mm NEXPLO double
base propellant in a single celled closed bomb.

6 Further work

The last part of the Slow Burn model which we have not established data for yet
is the speed of the ignition front T :1.7 . This part makes the Slow Burn able to
1
Assumed grain compaction to 93 [ % ].
2
These values are just chosen and dont affect the single celled closed bomb model.
model convective burning. The ignition front has a constant velocity parameter
   
C1 , it also depends on the burn rate b Pg and a solid part s . The burn rate
 
we already have, so the main work will be to establish material data for s .
Since the materials we have used in this paper are powders, we would need to
 
look at a powder model like Compaction to find tabular values for s .

7 Conclusion

We have been able to establish material data for Slow Burn model for three
different compounds were all the particles are ignited at the same. It has been
taken into account how the pressure builds with time, how fast the material burns
and the shape of the particles. Results from ANSYS Autodyn regarding terminal
pressure in a closed bomb are as expected when we compare them with the input
data to the Slow Burn model. The time that it takes for the particles to completely
burn up is in the regime that we expect, from a few 10th of a microsecond to a
millisecond, which is much slower than a detonation which is fractions of a
microsecond.

[1] Atwood, A., Friis, E. K., Moxnes, J. F., 2003, A Mathematical Model for Combustion
of Energetic Powder Materials, 34rd International Annual Conference of ICT
[2] Sanford G., McBride B.J., (1994), Computer Program for Calculation of Complex
Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Applications I. Analysis, vol. 1331, NASA
Reference Publication1
[3] Nevstad, Gunnar O., (2001), Karakterisering av brennegenskaper til noen krutt,
FFI/RAPPORT-2001/05202, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment
[4] D. T. Bui, A. I. Atwood, and P. O. Curran. Burning Rate Studies of Plastic Bonded
Explosive PBXN-5 and Composition A-4 Explosives, 1999 JANNAF Propulsion
Systems Hazards Subcommittee Meeting, Cocoa Beach, FL, October 1999
[5] A. I. Atwood, P. O. Curran, K. P. Ford, S. A. Baynar, J. F. Moxnes, and G.
Odegardstuen. "Convective Burning Studies of Pyrotechnic Powders," Eighth
International Symposium on Special Topics in Chemical Propulsion (8-ISICP), Cape
Town, South Africa, November 2009.
[6] Control - report, Requisition number 16398, from institution AFKL, Nammo Raufoss
AS
[7] Control - report, Requisition number 8089, from institution AFK, Nammo Raufoss
AS

1
We have corrected for the covolum with methods by FFI, John F. Moxnes and Tomas Lunde
Jensen.