Optimization of shock mitigation

capability of shielding structure

against blast

Group D27

Project Supervisor Group Members

Dr. Abinash Kumar Swain Prateek Kumar Vijay (16119020)
Niket Kumar (16117057)
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

We hereby declare that the work carried out in this report entitled, “Optimization of
shock mitigation capability of shielding structure against blast”, is presented for
the subject MIN-400A B.Tech Project submitted to the Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (India), is an authentic
record of our own work carried out under the supervision of Dr. Abinash Kumar Swain,
Assistant Professor, MIED, IIT Roorkee.

Date: 27th November, 2019

Prateek Kumar Vijay Niket Kumar

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidates is correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.

Dr. Abinash Kumar

Swain
Assistant Professor
MIED, IIT Roorkee

1
 ABSTRACT

For the protection of an object against the shock waves produced from blast is very
essential to use a proper energy absorbing structure. Energy absorbing structure
finds its application in cars, ships, spaceships, etc. to protect against collision, and
especially used for military purpose in vehicles and other structures to protect it
against blast. The validations by experimental results are always expensive so there
is immense need for its simulation using software. This project is to evaluate the
mitigation capability of different energy absorbing structure under blast loading,
and the change in mitigation capability by changing different parameters. On
observing the effect of the changes in the parameters on the mitigation capability
of structure, we can establish some relation between the parameters & the
mitigation capability, and then optimize the parameters for efficient use of
material. After optimizing we can validate our model by experiment.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express my utmost gratitude to the Department of Mechanical and

Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (India), for providing us
with this golden opportunity to work on the project “Optimization of shock mitigation
capability of shielding structure against blast ”.

We convey our sincere gratitude to Dr. Abinash Kumar Swain (Supervisor) for guiding
us throughout the course of the project and providing us with invaluable advice at every
step. Without his kind guidance and direction, the project would have been of little
success.

Further, we are grateful to our colleagues for their constant encouragement and
motivation during the project. We would also like to thank our family and friends for their
moral support.

Finally, we would like to thank the scores of well-wishers for their contributions in their
own ways which made the successful completion of the project a reality.

3
TABLE OF CONTENT

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………....2
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………...3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...5
Purpose of the project…………………………………………………………5
Blast Mitigation............................................................................................5
Outline of the project….……………………………………………………….5
Literature review………………………………………………………………………..6
Blast Phenomena………………………………………………………………6
Energy absorbing material…………………………………………………….7
Material modeling (EOS, Strength model, failure model)............................8
Effect of different ALF parameters on stress wave attenuation………….. 10
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….11
Simulation & Results…………………………………………………………………...13
CAD Model……………………………………………………………………..13
Analysis & Result………………………………………………………………14
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...............16

References……………………………………………………………………………....17

4
INTRODUCTION:

Purpose of the project:

A blast can cause severe damage to structures in the range of high intensity shock waves, so to
withstand this damage our structures have to absorb huge amount of energy, in order to make
our material withstand this without being deteriorated or destroyed we need to work on
material/structure for shock(energy) absorption and its optimization.
Also, it is very important to find the right balance between bulkiness and strength for the
material because there should be practicality in every solution. So, the identification of
relationship of different parameters with energy absorbing capacity and optimization of its value
for insignificant damage to the material while having light weight & thin structure is the sole
purpose and motivation of this project.

Blast mitigation:

During a blast, fragments, sound, shock waves and other forms of energy are released into the
atmosphere. These effects cannot be stopped but the intensity can be reduced so as to reduce
the number of casualties and injuries.

The preparation is characterized by evaluating, assessing and testing the systems. In glass, the
mitigation is achieved by products that do not shutter but crumple upon impact. Reinforcements
such as anchor systems are used to hold structure components into the walls so that they do
not collapse.

The effectiveness of the systems are proved before use by open air or enclosed (shock tube)
test methods that include explosives. This means that reinforcements, composite materials,
sandwich materials and metals like steel are used to ensure that most of the energy is absorbed
or reflected.

A blast mitigation capability is achieved when all elements or composition of an explosion and
hazards are known. When coating is involved, the system caters for corrosion management.
The glazing industry is deeply into this concept to ensure that fragmentation does not occur.

Outline of the project :

The project is divided into 3 phases, the first one consists of study of different energy absorbing
material followed by simulation and analysis, and the second one is finding parameters & its
effect on energy absorption and then optimization of these parameters, and the third one is to
validate our model by experimental method.

5
LITERATURE REVIEW:

Blast Phenomena:

In [6], blast phenomena is explained as an explosion occurs when a gas, liquid or solid material
goes through a rapid chemical reaction. When the explosion occurs, gas products of the
reaction are formed at a very high temperature and pressure at the source. These high pressure
gasses expand rapidly into the surrounding area and a blast wave is formed. Because the
gases are moving, they cause the surrounding air move as well. The damage caused by
explosions is produced by the passage of compressed air in the blast wave. Blast waves
propagate at supersonic speeds and reflected as they meet objects. As the blast wave
continues to expand away from the source of the explosion its intensity diminishes and its effect
on the objects is also reduced. However, within tunnels or enclosed passages, the blast wave
will travel with very little diminution. Close to the source of explosion the blast wave is formed
and violently hot and expanding gases will exert intense loads which are difficult to quantify
precisely[6]. Once the blast wave has formed and propagate away from the source, it is
convenient to separate out the different types of loading experienced by the surrounding
objects. Three effects have been identified in three categories. The effect rapidly compressing
the surrounding air is called “air shock wave”. The air pressure and air movement effect due to
the accumulation of gases from the explosion chemical reactions is called “dynamic pressure”
and the effect rapidly compressing the ground is called “ground shock wave”. The air shock
wave produces an instantaneous increase in pressure above the ambient atmospheric pressure
at a point some distance from the source. This is commonly referred to as overpressure. As a
consequence, a pressure differential is generated between the combustion gases and the
atmosphere, causing a reversal in the direction of flow, back towards the center of the
explosion, known as a negative pressure phase[6]. This is a negative pressure relative to
atmospheric, rather than absolute negative pressure. Equilibrium is reached when the air is
returned to its original state.

Fig. Blast wave pressure plotted against time[6]

6
Energy absorbing structure:

The aim of this structure is to dissipate energy. The energy conversion by the
structures/materials should be irreversible so that the structures/materials should be able to
convert most of the input energy into inelastic energy by plastic deformation or other dissipation
processes, rather than storing it elastically[5].
The design of energy-absorbing structures and the selection of energy-absorbing materials
should suit the particular purpose and circumstances under which they are to work.

Circular tubes

Most composite tubes are made from high strength, high stiffness fibres (glass, carbon and
Kevlar), embedded in rigid cross-link thermosetting resins such as polyester and epoxy. The
fibres and resins are brittle and they fail by fracture after an initial elastic deformation
It may appear that they would absorb less energy than conventional metals. But, they actually
perform much better when comparison is made in terms of the specific energy absorbed[7]
(energy per unit mass).

Aluminum Foam

Al foam sandwiched with two metal plates is widely used for absorbing energy in different areas,
but the strength and mitigation capability of aluminum is limited.

Fig. Al foam sandwich(source-google image)

7
To strengthen the structure, the foam is filled with stainless steel tube into a pre-perforated hole
and fixed by epoxy glue. Experimental results indicated that the tub e enhanced foam can
doubled the specific compressive strength & energy absorption of that of the Al foam[7].

Fig. Al foam reinforced with tube [7]

Material Modeling:

Equation of State

The equation of state describes the hydrodynamic response of a material. The solids behaves
hydrodynamically at high strain rate. Generally this equation gives the relationship between
pressure, internal energy(temperature) and density.

a. JWL Equation of state

This EOS is used to describe the behaviour of TNT under detonation.

Where,
p = Pressure
V = Volume
e = Internal energy per unit volume
A,B, , , = Parameters defined for different explosive material

8
Strength Models

The material models predict the strength behaviour of materials subjected to large strains, high
strain rates and high temperatures. Such behaviour might arise in problems of intense impulsive
loading due to high velocity impact and explosive detonation.

a. Johnson-cook Material model

It is a strain rate and temperature-dependent (adiabatic assumption) visco-plastic
material model. This model is suitable for problems where strain rates vary over a large
range and temperature change due to plastic dissipation causes material softening.
This model describes large strains, high strain rates and high temperature response of
metallic materials[1].

where * is the dimensionless strain rate, T* is the homologous temperature, Tm is the melting
temperature of the material, and T is the deformation temperature. o and Tr are the reference
strain rate and the reference deformation temperature, respectively.

Failure Model

The failure models predict the material fracture and they are developed based on three broad
approaches such as physical, micro-statistical and phenomenological. The damage of a
material is defined by the loss of cohesion in its interior, leading to either its complete
disintegration or to some inner damage which is manifested by the appearance of new free
surfaces inside the material specimen

a. Johnson Cook Damage model

This failure model is generally considered as a fracture criterion for ductile materials. It is
based on continuum damage mechanics. Actually it is derived from the results of the
void growth model and fracture strain model[1].

9
 The J-C failure criterion assumes a damage parameter D which represents a continuous
degree of damage in the element under consideration and failure occur when D reaches
1.

Where,

= the equivalent strain to fracture under the present conditions of stress, strain rate and
temperature
= Equivalent plastic strain at fracture
̅̅̅= Effective plastic strain
,..., = Empirical parameters calibrated for each material

Effect of Aluminum Foam Parameters on the Stress Wave Attenuation

(A)Effect of ALF Relative Density on the Stress Wave Attenuation

The attenuation factor trends of ALF and sandwich structure vary inversely with the relative
density of the ALF. As the relative density of ALF increases, its attenuation coefficient tends to
increase. However, the attenuation coefficient of sandwich structure tends to decrease.

(B)Effect of ALF Thickness on the Stress Wave Attenuation

The attenuation factor trends of ALF and sandwich structure are similar. As the thickness
increases, the attenuation coefficients of ALF and sandwich structure tend to increase.

10
METHODOLOGY:

1. STUDY

1.1 Study of blast phenomena

In order to reduce the effect of blast and its shock wave a proper understanding
of blast phenomena should be clear.

1.2 Study of Energy absorbing structure

Energy absorbing structure is generally used in military specially for blast
mitigation, and in cars and ship to reduce the damage in case of accident. The
design of energy-absorbing structures and the selection of energy-absorbing
materials is different for different applications. Various design aspects were
considered like load distribution, energy dissipation,etc.

1.3 Study of different material used in blast mitigation

From ceramics to foam based materials were taken into consideration and
conclusion was drawn from this study that foam based material is ideal for blast
mitigation. In many cases aluminium foam sandwiched between steel plate is
used for mitigating blast. Our initial simulation starts with a comparison between
steel plate & aluminium foam.

2. Modeling of material in numerical based software considering blast loading

In high strain rate, material behaves hydrodynamically and to model these

materials properly we have to define its equation of state, strength behavior and
condition of failure.
a. Defining equation of state(eos)
b. Defining Strength model
c. Defining Failure model

3. Simulation of blast loading on different energy absorbing structure

Various energy absorbing structures were formed in solidworks and these

structures were tested by blast loading in Explicit Dynamics just to compare
these structures’ structural strength against blast load and to investigate which
structural design would be ideal blast. Structures like trusses, tubes, honeycomb
lattices,etc were tested to find their structural integrity.

11
4. Material Property Optimization

Material properties or parameters having blast mitigation capabilities are optimized with
the help of optimization tool in MATLAB. This is done to get the maximum output in
terms of the improving/optimizing capability of material properties for blast mitigation[3].

Fig. Flow chart of material property optimization process

5. Optimised material simulation and analysis

Blast loading Simulations will be performed in Autodyn on optimised material and

number of observations would be made like how much energy would be absorbed, how
much deformation happened at the back plate, stress and strain variation on the
plate,etc. Results and plots were noted for validation and verification of the model.

6. Validation of the model by experiment

This is the final step that is the validation step, by performing experiments and
comparing the results obtained we can validate weather our model is correct or nor.
Blast loading experiments can be carried out in two ways[2], one is open area test
method and the other one is shock tube test method, former can only be carried out at
open blast site with detonation of actual explosives whereas latter can be done safely in
a more controlled accredited laboratory setting[2]. Experimental setup would require
transducers to note the voltages which can be related to stresses in the material during
blast. These results will help in comparing simulation results and validating the model.

12
SIMULATION & RESULT

CAD Model

For comparing shock mitigation capability, we use 4 types of structure as follows

1. Simple Steel plate (A)

a. Dimension of plate 100*100*2.3 mm^3

2. Tubes sandwiched between steel plate (B)

a. Dimension of each plate 100*100*1 mm^3
b. Dimension of each tube OD(outer dia.)=5mm, ID(inner dia.)=3mm
c. No. of tubes 81 ( 9*9)

3. Tubes sandwiched between steel plate ( C)

a. Dimension of each plate 100*100*1 mm^3
b. Dimension of each tube OD=5mm, ID=3mm
c. No. of tubes 225 ( 15*15)

4. Tubes sandwiched between steel plate (D)

a. Dimension of each plate 100*100*1 mm^3
b. Dimension of each tube OD=10mm, ID=8mm
c. No. of tubes 64 (8*8)

Total thickness of sandwiched structure (B,C,D) = 5.5 mm

Fig. Blast set-up ( green- TNT, grey- structure)

13
Analysis Result

Analysis of the 4 structure is done in ANSYS 18.1. We evaluated the structure after detonation
for a certain time interval. The time is selected such that we can compare all the 4 structures
because after some time some structure starts eroding, making it difficult to compare the
deformation.

Fig. Total deformation in structure A after detonation ( avg. 21.11 mm)

Fig. Total deformation in structure B after detonation ( avg 17.22 mm)

14
 Fig. Total deformation in structure C after detonation ( avg. 16.14 mm)

Fig. Total deformation in structure D after detonation ( avg. 17.91 mm)

Structure A B C D

Total 21.11 mm 17.22 mm 16.14 mm 17.91 mm

deformation

Table. Showing Total deformation in different structures

15
Conclusion:

Deformation of all sandwiched structure is less than the single plate of steel, therefore we can say
that sandwiched structure are better energy absorber than a single plate.
On comparing B & C , both has similar tube, but C has more density of no. of tube in the sandwich
( no. of tubes in B=81, C=225), and deformation in C is less than that of B, so we can conclude
that increasing the density of no. of tube in the structure increases its energy absorbing capacity.
On comparing B & D, D has tubes of larger diameter and there is not much difference in no. of
tubes in these two structures. The deformation of B is slightly lower than that of D, so we can
conclude that on increasing diameter of tube & keeping no. of tubes have less significant effect on
energy absorbing capacity.
On comparing C & D, C has higher density of no. of tube and has tubes of less diameter. The
deformation of C is less than that of D, so we can conclude that on increasing no. of tubes and
decreasing the diameter of tube, improves the energy absorption capacity of the structure.

16
References:

[1] Applied Impact Mechanics C. Lakshmana Rao, V. Narayanamurthy, K. R. Y. Simha

[2] https://www.grahamwindows.com/architectural-resources/blast-mitigation/
[3] Zhang, X. J., Chen, K. Z., & Feng, X. A. (2004). Optimization of material properties needed for material
design of components made of multi-heterogeneous materials. Materials & design, 25(5), 369-378.
[4] Xu, J., Liu, J., Gu, W., Liu, X., & Cao, T. (2018). Shock Wave Attenuation Characteristics of Aluminum
Foam Sandwich Panels Subjected to Blast Loading. Shock and Vibration, 2018.
[5] Energy Absorption of Structures and Materials,G Lu T X Yu
[6] https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/1835/blast-mitigation
[7] Yan, L. L., Zhao, Z. Y., Han, B., Lu, T. J., & Lu, B. H. (2018). Tube enhanced foam: A novel way for
aluminum foam enhancement. Materials Letters, 227, 70-73.
[8] Liu, H., Cao, Z. K., Yao, G. C., Luo, H. J., & Zu, G. Y. (2013). Performance of aluminum foam–steel panel
sandwich composites subjected to blast loading. Materials & Design, 47, 483-488.

17