Experimental Investigation of Blast Mitigation for Target Protection
An explosion yielding a blast wave can cause catastrophic damage to a building and its personnel. This threat defines an immediate importance for understanding blast mitigation techniques via readily available materials. An unconfined mass of water in the form of a free flowing sheet is one possible readily available mitigant. This chapter focuses narrowly on the protection of high-valued structures and other large targets where removal from the threat zone is often impossible. In these situations, methods are needed to dissipate and reflect incoming blast waves and mitigate damage potential. Any proposed mitigation method must be evaluated for effectiveness, and while steady advances in computational physics have been made in this area, experimentation remains crucial. Therefore, this chapter emphasizes experimental methods for evaluation of blast mitigation, both from a practical and fundamental standpoint. In addition, some of the capabilities of current computational methods are highlighted. The chapter begins with a review of the underlying physics. This is followed by a brief overview of experimental methods. Finally, the remainder of the chapter is dedicated to recent experimental and computational results for a potential configuration involving protective water sheets.
KeywordsShock Tube Blast Wave Standoff Distance Weak Shock Wave Normal Shock Wave
We would like to thank the Department of Homeland Security and the Center of Excellence for Explosive Detection, Mitigation and Response, Sponsor Award No. 080409/0002251. Additionally, special thanks to Matthew Massaro and Jesus Mares who assisted with experiments.
Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
- Alley MD (2009) Explosive blast loading experiments for TBI scenarios: characterization and mitigation. M.S. Thesis, Purdue University, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
- Anderson JA (1990) Modern compressible flow: with historical perspective. Mc-Graw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Crawford D (2012) CTH shock physics, Sandia National Laboratories. Accessed 14 Dec 2011. http://www.sandia.gov/CTH/
- Kailasanath K, Tatem PA, Mawhinney J (2002) Blast mitigation using water – A status reportGoogle Scholar
- Lyon SP, Johnson JD, (1992) Group T-1, SESAME: The Los Alamos National Laboratory equation of state database, Report number LA-UR-92–3407 http://t1web.lanl.gov/doc/SESAME_3Ddatabase_1992.html.
- National Research Council (1995) Protecting buildings from bomb damage: transfer of blast-effects mitigation technologies from military to civilian applications. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Schwer D, Kailasanath K (2006) Blast mitigation by water mist (3) Mitigation of confined and unconfined blasts. NRL memorandom Report 6410–06–8976Google Scholar
- Settles GS (2006a) Schlieren and shadowgraph techniques: visualizing phenomena in transparent media. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Shin YS, Lee M, Lam KY, Yeo KS (1998) Modeling mitigation effects of watershield on shock waves. Shock Vib 5(4):225–234Google Scholar
- Takayama K, Itoh K (1986) Shock waves and shock tubes. Proceedings of the fifteenth international symposium. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
- Todd SN, Anderson MU, Caipen TL (2011) Model ms for Non-shock Initiation. In Dynamic Behavior of materials, Vol.1, proceedings of the 2010 Annual conference on Experimental and Applied Mechanics. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wagner J, Beresh S, Kearney S, Pruett B, Wright E (2011) Shock tube investigation of unsteady drag in shock-particle interactions. AIAA 2011–3910, 41 st AIAA Flold Dynamic conference and ExhibitGoogle Scholar