An Analysis of the Different Flow Characteristics of a Closed Bomb Test in Cylindrical and Spherical Closed Vessels

  • Doo-Hee Han
  • Young-Lin Yoo
  • Hong-Gye SungEmail author
Original Paper


A zirconium/potassium perchlorate (ZPP) mixture is ignited inside cylindrical and spherical closed vessels. The performance of an explosive is measured via pressure histories. Each experiment maintains the same conditions (other than vessel shape), but the outputs indicate different pressure characteristics. The cylindrical vessel shows oscillating pressure values, while the spherical vessel exhibits dampened pressure values. A 2-D numerical simulation and a 0-D performance analysis are thus utilized to reveal the physical phenomena inside the vessels and select the adequate vessel shape for the test. It is determined that the different pressure characteristics occur due to the different pressure shock wave movements generated by the rapid ZPP combustion. The cylindrical vessel retains its shock longer than the spherical vessel because the cylinder has a constant cross-sectional area. The spherical vessel has a narrow–wide–narrow shape, which consistently reflects the side of the shock wave along with its propagation. A flow visualization inside the thick closed vessel provides elementary understandings on the closed bomb test that helps to interpret the combustion characteristics.


Closed bomb test (CBT) Pyrotechnics Reactive two-phase flow 



This work was supported by the Agency for Defense Development under the ‘A precise energy release for the pyrotechnic mechanical device’ program.


  1. 1.
    Homan BE, Juhasz AA, XLCB: A new closed-bomb data acquisition and reduction program. Army research laboratory public release document, ARL-TR-2491Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Konecny P, Krizan Z (2008) Determination of Black Powder Burning Rate. Adv Milit Technol 3(2):11–18Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Han D, Sung H, Ryu B (2017) Numerical simulation for the combustion of a zirconium/potassium perchlorate explosive inside a closed vessel. Propellants, Explos, Pyrotech 42:1168–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paul BH, Gonthier KA (2010) Analysis of gas-dynamic effects in explosively actuated valves. J Propul Power 26(3):479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradley HH, Mechanical design requirements for closed combustion bomb,” Naval Weapons Center Public Release Document, NWC-TM-3037Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bougamra A, Lu H (2016) Determination of pressure profile during closed-vessel test through computational fluid dynamics simulation. J Thermal Sci Eng Appl 8:21005–21006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee HS (2004) Unsteady gas dynamic effects in pyrotechnic actuators. J Spacecraft Rockets 41(5):877–886MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang LC (2011) “Effects of fuel particle size and impurity on solid-to-solid pyrotechnic reaction rate”, 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit. San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poulsen BL, Rink KK (2011) “Modeling the energy release and burn rate characteristics of ZPP based initiators”, 49th AIAA aerospace science meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition. Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CEA, chemical equilibrium application, 1994, NASA reference publication 1311Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosin P, Rammler E (1933) The laws governing the fineness of powdered coal. J Inst Fuel 7:29–36Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spalart PR, Shur ML, Squires KD, Strelets MK, Travin AK (2006) A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theoret Comput Fluid Dyn 20:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menter FR (1994) Two equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32:1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jian GS, Shu CW (1996) Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J Comput Phys 126:202–228MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    White FM (2006) Viscous fluid flow, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han D, Sung H, Jang S, Ryu B (2016) Parametric analysis and design optimization of a pyrotechnically actuated device. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 17(3):409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jang S, Lee H, Oh J (2014) Performance modeling of a pyrotechnically actuated pin puller. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 15(1):102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace and Mechanical EngineeringKorea Aerospace UniversityGoyangSouth Korea
  2. 2.School of Aerospace and Mechanical EngineeringKorea Aerospace UniversityGoyangSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations