Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:33:30.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geometrical shock dynamics applied to condensed phase materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2017

Brandon Lieberthal Open the ORCID record for Brandon Lieberthal [Opens in a new window] ,
D. Scott Stewart  and
Alberto Hernández
Brandon Lieberthal*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
D. Scott Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Alberto Hernández
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Taylor blast wave (TBW) theory and geometrical shock dynamics (GSD) theory describe a radially expanding shock wave front through an inert material, typically an ideal gas, in the strong blast wave limit and weak acoustic limit respectively. We simulate a radially expanding blast shock in air using a hydrodynamic simulation code and numerically describe the intermediate region between these two limits. We test our description of the intermediate shock phase through a two-dimensional simulation of the Bryson and Gross experiment. We then apply the principles of GSD to materials that follow the Mie–Gruneisen equation of state, such as plastics and metals, and derive an equation that accurately relates the acceleration, velocity and curvature of the shock through these materials. Along with detonation shock dynamics (DSD), which describes detonation shock propagation through high explosive fluids, we develop a hybrid DSD/GSD model for the simulation of heterogeneous explosives. This model enables computationally efficient simulation of the shock front in high explosive/inert mixtures consisting of simple or complex geometric configurations. We simulate an infinite two-dimensional slab consisting of one half explosive, PBXN-9, and one half aluminium and model the boundary angle conditions using shock polar analysis. We also simulate a series of high explosive unit cells embedded with aluminium spherical particles, and we compare the propagation of the detonation shock front with a direct numerical simulation performed with the ALE3D code.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Compressible Flows Mathematical Foundations: Computational methods Compressible Flows: Detonation waves
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 828 , 10 October 2017 , pp. 104 - 134
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2017 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arienti, M., Morano, E. & Shepherd, J. E. 2004 Shock and detonation modeling with the Mie–Gruneisen equation of state. In Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories Report FM99-8, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
Aslam, T.1996 Investigations on detonation shock dynamics. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Aslam, T. & Stewart, D. S. 1999 Detonation shock dynamics and comparisons with direct numerical simulation. Combust. Theor. Model. 3 (1), 77–101.Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B., Lieberthal, B. & Stewart, D. S.2010 Mesoscale modeling of metal-loaded high explosives. Report. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B. & Stewart, D. S. 2012 Theory of Detonation Shock Dynamics, Shock Wave Science and Technology Reference Library, vol. 6, pp. 373–453. Springer, book section 7.Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B., Stewart, D. S. & Jackson, T. L. 2001 Program burn algorithms based on detonation shock dynamics: discrete approximations of detonation flows with discontinuous front models. J. Comput. Phys. 174 (2), 870–902.Google Scholar
Brown, J. L. & Ravichandran, G. 2013 Analysis of oblique shock waves in solids using shock polars. Shock Waves 24 (4), 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, A. E. & Gross, R. W. F. 1961 Diffraction of strong shocks by cones, cylinders, and spheres. J. Fluid Mech. 10 (01), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cates, J. E. & Sturtevant, B. 1997 Shock wave focusing using geometrical shock dynamics. Phys. Fluids 9 (10), 3058–3068.Google Scholar
Chisnell, R. F. 1955 The normal motion of a shock wave through a non-uniform one-dimensional medium. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 232, 350–370.Google Scholar
Drikakis, D., Ofengeim, D., Timofeev, E. & Voionovich, P. 1997 Computation of non-stationary shock-wave/cylinder interaction using adaptive-grid methods. J. Fluids Struct. 11 (6), 665–692.Google Scholar
Hernández, A., Bdzil, J. B. & Stewart, D. S. 2013 An mpi parallel level-set algorithm for propagating front curvature dependent detonation shock fronts in complex geometries. Combust. Theor. Model. 17 (1), 109–141.Google Scholar
Hernández, A., Lieberthal, B. & Stewart, D. S. 2017 An explicit algorithm for imbedding solid boundaries in cartesian grids for the reactive Euler equation. Combust. Theory Model.; (submitted).Google Scholar
Hernández, A. & Stewart, D. S.2013 Newcode-1d [computer software]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Holman, S.2010 On the calibration of some ideal and non-ideal explosives. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Holm, D. D. & Logan, J. D. 1983 Self-similar detonation waves. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 16 (9), 2035–2047.Google Scholar
Hu, X. Y., Adams, N. A. & Shu, C.-W. 2013 Positivity-preserving method for high-order conservative schemes solving compressible euler equations. J. Comput. Phys. 242, 169–180.Google Scholar
Hull, L. M.1997 Detonation propagation and mach stem formation in pbxn-9. Report. Los Alamos National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Jiang, G.-S. & Shu, C.-W.1995 Efficient implementation of weighted eno schemes. Report. DTIC Document.Google Scholar
Kapila, A. K., Bdzil, J. B. & Stewart, D. S. 2006 On the structure and accuracy of programmed burn. Combust. Theor. Model. 10 (2), 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeVeque, R. J. 2007 Finite Difference Methods for Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations: Steady-state and Time-dependent Problems. SIAM.Google Scholar
Lieberthal, B. A., Bdzil, J. B. & Stewart, D. S. 2014 Modelling detonation of heterogeneous explosives with embedded inert particles using detonation shock dynamics: Normal and divergent propagation in regular and simplified microstructure. Combust. Theor. Model. 18 (2), 204–241.Google Scholar
Matalon, M., Cui, C. & Bechtold, J. K. 2003 Hydrodynamic theory of premixed flames: effects of stoichiometry, variable transport coefficients and arbitrary reaction orders. J. Fluid Mech. 487, 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. H. & Puckett, E. G. 1996 A high-order godunov method for multiple condensed phases. J. Comput. Phys. 128 (1), 134–164.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. C. 1981 Shock compression of aluminum, copper, and tantalum. J. Appl. Phys. 52 (5), 3363.Google Scholar
Ofengeim, D. K. & Drikakis, D. 1997 Simulation of blast wave propagation over a cylinder. Shock Waves 7 (5), 305–317.Google Scholar
Saenz, J. A., Taylor, B. D. & Stewart, D. S. 2012 Asymptotic calculation of the dynamics of self-sustained detonations in condensed phase explosives. J. Fluid Mech. 710, 166–194.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. 1996 Equation of State and Strength Properties of Selected Materials. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Tarver, C. M. & Urtiew, P. A. 2010 Theory and modeling of liquid explosive detonation. J. Energetic Materials 28 (4), 299–317.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. 1950 The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion. i. Theoretical discussion. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 201, 159–174.Google Scholar
Whitham, G. B. 1956 On the propagation of weak shock waves. J. Fluid Mech. 1 (03), 290–318.Google Scholar
Whitham, G. B. 1957 A new approach to problems of shock dynamics. J. Fluid Mech. 2 (02), 145–171.Google Scholar
Whitham, G. B. 2011 Linear and Nonlinear Waves. Wiley.Google Scholar
Wilkins, M. L., University of California, Berkeley & Lawrence Livermore, Laboratory 1963 Calculation of Elastic-plastic Flow. University of California Lawrence Radiation Laboratory.Google Scholar
Xu, S., Aslam, T. & Stewart, D. S.1997 High resolution numerical simulation of ideal and non-ideal compressible reacting flows with embedded internal boundaries.Google Scholar
Yao, J. & Stewart, D. S. 1996 On the dynamics of multi-dimensional detonation. J. Fluid Mech. 309, 225–275.Google Scholar