0
Research Papers

Effect of Standoff on Near-Field Blast Mitigation Provided by Water-Filled Containers

[+] Author and Article Information
Huon Bornstein

Defence Science and Technology Group,
506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend,
Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
e-mail: huon.bornstein@dst.defence.gov.au

Sam Di Placido

Sir Lawrence Wackett Aerospace Research Centre,
School of Engineering,
RMIT University,
GPO Box 2476,
Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
e-mail: s3433184@student.rmit.edu.au

Shannon Ryan

Defence Science and Technology Group,
506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend,
Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
e-mail: shannon.ryan@dst.defence.gov.au

Adrian C. Orifici

Sir Lawrence Wackett Aerospace Research Centre,
School of Engineering,
RMIT University,
GPO Box 2476,
Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
e-mail: adrian.orifici@rmit.edu.au

Adrian P. Mouritz

Sir Lawrence Wackett Aerospace Research Centre,
School of Engineering,
RMIT University,
GPO Box 2476,
Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
e-mail: adrian.mouritz@rmit.edu.au

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Applied Mechanics. Manuscript received January 14, 2019; final manuscript received March 17, 2019; published online April 12, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Yong Zhu. This work was prepared while under employment by the Government of Australia as part of the official duties of the author(s) indicated above, as such copyright is owned by that Government, which reserves its own copyright under national law.

J. Appl. Mech 86(7), 071003 (Apr 12, 2019) (10 pages) Paper No: JAM-19-1021; doi: 10.1115/1.4043258 History: Received January 14, 2019; Accepted March 17, 2019

Water-filled containers placed externally on an armored vehicle offer a potentially low cost, light-weight, and simple technique to mitigate near-field explosive blast, although the use of a gap or standoff between the container and target has not been studied. This paper uses experimental testing and numerical simulations to characterize the influence of this container standoff on the mitigation of near-field blast effects. The addition of the container standoff was not found to generally increase the blast mitigation effect provided by water-filled containers on the deformation caused to a steel target plate. While the container standoff was found to enhance the spreading and shadowing blast mitigation mechanisms provided by the water-filled container, this was offset by an increase in blast loading due to the container being closer to the explosive charge. A new mitigation mechanism was identified as the time delay between the initial loading of the steel plate by the blast wave and the subsequent impact of water ejected from the container. The results from this work provide engineers guidance into the design of water-filled containers for near-field blast protection of armored vehicles.

Copyright © 2019 ASME and The Crown Copyright
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Ritzel, D., 2010, Course Notes: Basics of Blast Physics, DynFX Consulting Ltd.
Haskell, D., 1972, “Deformation and Fracture of Tank Bottom Hull Plates Subjected to Mine Blast,” Army Ballistic Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
Langdon, G., Lee, W., and Louca, L., 2015, “The Influence Material Type on the Response of Plates to Air-Blast Loading,” Int. J. Impact Eng. 78, pp. 150–160. [CrossRef]
Anderson, C., Behner, T, and Weiss, C., 2011, “Mine Blast Loading Experiments,” Int. J. Impact Eng. 38(8–9), pp. 697–706. [CrossRef]
Fox, D., Huang, X., Jung, D., Fourney, W., Leiste, U., and Lee, J., 2011, “The Response of Small Scale Rigid Targets to Shallow Buried Explosive Detonations,” Int. J. Impact Eng. 38(11), pp. 882–891. [CrossRef]
Chung Kim Yuen, S., Langdon, G., Nurick, G., Pickering, E., and Balden, V., 2012, “Response of V-Shape Plates to Localised Blast Load: Experiments and Numerical Simulation,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 46, pp. 97–109. [CrossRef]
Zhu, F., Zhao, L., Lu, G., and Wang, Z., 2008, “Structural Response and Energy Absorption of Sandwich Panels With an Aluminium Foam Core Under Blast Loading,” Adv. Struct. Eng. 11(5), pp. 525–536. [CrossRef]
Bornstein, H., Phillips, P., and Anderson, C., 2015, “Evaluation of Blast Mitigating Effects of Fluid Containers,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 75, pp. 222–228. [CrossRef]
Bornstein, H., Ryan, S., and Mouritz, A., 2016, “Physical Mechanisms for Near-Field Blast Mitigation With Fluid Containers: Effect of Container Geometry,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 96, pp. 61–77. [CrossRef]
Bornstein, H., Ryan, S., and Mouritz, A., 2017, “Quantification of Mechanisms for Blast Mitigation With Water-Filled Containers,” 30th International Symposium on Ballistics, Long Beach, CA, Sept. 11–15, pp. 1403–1414.
Bornstein, H., Ryan, S., and Mouritz, A., 2018, “Blast Mitigation With Fluid Containers: Effect of Mitigant Type,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 113, pp. 106–117. [CrossRef]
Bornstein, H., Ryan, S., and Mouritz, A., 2019, “Evaluation of Blast Protection Using Novel-Shaped Water-Filled Containers: Experiments and Simulations,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 127, pp. 41–61. [CrossRef]
Yuan, Y., Tan, P., Shojaei, K., and Wrobel, P., 2018, “On Momentum Transfer and External Work Done to Clamped Elasto-Plastic Beams in an Air Blast,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 146–147, pp. 377–385. [CrossRef]
McShane, G., Deshpande, V., and Fleck, N., 2010, “Underwater Blast Response of Free-Standing Sandwich Plates With Metallic Lattice Cores,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 37(11), pp. 1138–1149. [CrossRef]
Schiffer, A., and Tagarielli, V., 2015, “The Response of Circular Composite Plates to Underwater Blast: Experiments and Modelling,” J. Fluids Struct., 52, pp. 130–144. [CrossRef]
Chen, L., Zhang, L., Fang, Q., and Mao, Y., 2015, “Performance Based Investigation on the Construction of Anti-Blast Water Wall,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 81, pp. 17–33. [CrossRef]
Dobratz, B., and Crawford, P., 1985, LLNL Explosives Handbook—Properties of Chemical Explosives and Explosive Simulants, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
Bogosian, D., Yokota, M., and Rigby, S., 2016, “TNT Equivalence of C4 and PE4: A Review of Traditional Sources and Recent Data,” 24th Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock, Halifax, Canada, Sept. 18–23.
Matsuka, D., 1984, Hull Users’ Manual, Air Force Armament Laboratory, Eglin Airforce Base, FL.
Boteler, J., and Sutherland, G., 2004, “Tensile Failure of Water Due to Shock Wave Interactions,” J. Appl. Phys., 96(11), pp. 6919–6924. [CrossRef]
Denefeld, V., Heider, N., and Holzwarth, A., 2017, “Measurement of the Spatial Specific Impulse Distribution Due to Buried High Explosive Charge Detonation,” Def. Technol. 13(3), pp. 219–227. [CrossRef]
Elgy, I., Pope, D., and Pickup, I., 2006, “A Study of Combined Particle and Blast Wave Loading of Structures,” J. Phys. IV France, 134, pp. 467–471. [CrossRef]
Sternberg, H., and Hurwitz, H., 1976, “Calculated Spherical Shock Waves Produced by Condensed Explosives in Air and Water,” 6th International Symposium on Detonation, Coronado, CA, Aug. 24–27, pp. 528–539.
Hyde, D., 1986, “Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons,” US Army Corps of Engineers, No. TM-5-855-1.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic (left) and photo (right) of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Numerical simulation setup with a 100 mm container SOD and a 600 mm charge SOD. The container has a height of 200 mm and a radius of 150 mm, resulting in a face SOD of 300 mm. Note: There are no voids present at the start of the simulation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the numerical model for the flying ring arrangement. The numbers within the flying rings refer to the numbers used in the following figures, with “c” representing the central disc. Note: The figure is not to scale.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Experimental (Exp) and numerical (Model) center-point deflection results: (a) 600 mm charge SOD, 100 mm container SOD and (b) 800 mm charge SOD, 100 mm container SOD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison between the water container and target loading for a 150r × 200h water-filled container in contact with the target (a)–(e) and at a standoff distance of 100 mm from the target (f)–(j)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison between the effectiveness of 150 mm radius, 200 mm high water-filled containers and equivalent mass and area steel appliques in reducing the peak deformation imparted to a steel plate by an explosive charge at a range of charge standoff distances. Note: All mitigants are in contact with the target.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of container standoff distance on the vertical momentum transferred to the target within the shadow region using a pseudo-rigid body. The spatial location on the target is described by the distance from the edge of the container.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of charge standoff distance on the vertical momentum transferred to the target within the shadow region using a pseudo-rigid body

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Maximum vertical and radial momentum of water for each container standoff distance for the 600 mm charge standoff distance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Target deformations for water and pseudo-rigid body container standoff distances

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Target deformations for water and pseudo-rigid body mitigants at a range of charge standoff distances. Note: Both mitigants had a radius of 150 mm and a height of 200 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of container standoff distance on the increase in loading at different spatial locations on the target. The spatial locations are normalized by the radius of the container used in each simulation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of charge SOD on the increase in momentum transfer to the top surface of the water-filled container. The spatial locations are normalized by the radius of the container used in each simulation. The total momentum increase due to the reduction in standoff distance at the surface of the container is also shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of a time delay at the target center in terms of the target deflection for charge SODs of 600 mm and 800 mm for a 20 kg spherical charge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Effect of time delay on the deformation-time history at the target center for a 20 kg spherical charge at a charge SOD of 600 mm

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In