Experimental Investigation of Blast Mitigation for Target Protection

  • S. F. Son
  • A. J. Zakrajsek
  • E. J. Miklaszewski
  • D. E. Kittell
  • J. L. Wagner
  • D. R. Guildenbecher


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.


Shock Tube Blast Wave Standoff Distance Weak Shock Wave Normal Shock Wave 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



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.


  1. Aizik F, Ben-Dor G, Elperin T, Igra O, Mond M, Groenig H (1995) Attenuation law of planar shock waves propagating through dust-gas suspensions. AIAA J 33(5):953–955MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alley MD (2009) Explosive blast loading experiments for TBI scenarios: characterization and mitigation. M.S. Thesis, Purdue University, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JA (1990) Modern compressible flow: with historical perspective. Mc-Graw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremond N, Villermaux E (2005) Bursting thin liquid films. J Fluid Mech 524:121–130MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Britan A, Ben-Dor G, Igra O, Shapiro H (2001) Shock waves attenuation by granular filters. Int J Multiphase Flow 27(4):617–634MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouillette M (2002) The RICHTMYER-MESHKOV instability. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 34(1):445–468MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng M, Hung K, Chong O (2005) Numerical study of water mitigation effects on blast wave. Shock Waves 14(3):217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawford D (2012) CTH shock physics, Sandia National Laboratories. Accessed 14 Dec 2011.
  9. Freiwald DA (1972) Approximate blast wave theory and experimental data for shock trajectories in linear explosive-driven shock tubes. J Appl Phys 43(5):2224–2226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gel’fand BE, Gubanov AV, Timofeev EI (1983) Interaction of shock waves in air with a porous screen. Fluid Dyn 18(4):561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haas J-F, Sturtevant B (1987) Interaction of weak shock waves with cylindrical and spherical gas inhomogeneities. J Fluid Mech 181:41–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henderson LF, Jia-Huan M, Akira S, Kazuyoshi T (1990) Refraction of a shock wave at an air–water interface. Fluid Dyn Res 5(5–6):337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Igra O, Takayama K (1993) Shock tube study of the drag coefficient of a sphere in a non-stationary flow. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci 442(1915):231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobs JW, Krivets VV (2005) Experiments on the late-time development of single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys Fluids 17(3):034105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jourdan G, Houas L, Igra O, Estivalezes J-L, Devals C, Meshkov EE (2007) Drag coefficient of a sphere in a non-stationary flow: new results. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci 463(2088):3323–3345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kailasanath K, Tatem PA, Mawhinney J (2002) Blast mitigation using water – A status reportGoogle Scholar
  17. Leinov E, Malamud G, Elbaz Y, Levin LA, Ben-dor G, Shvarts D, Sadot O (2009) Experimental and numerical investigation of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability under re-shock conditions. J Fluid Mech 626:449–475MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levy A, Ben-Dor G, Skews BW, Sorek S (1993) Head-on collision of normal shock waves with rigid porous materials. Exp Fluids 15(3):183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lyon SP, Johnson JD, (1992) Group T-1, SESAME: The Los Alamos National Laboratory equation of state database, Report number LA-UR-92–3407
  20. Masten DA, Hanson RK, Bowman CT (1990) Shock tube study of the reaction hydrogen atom + oxygen.fwdarw. hydroxyl + oxygen atom using hydroxyl laser absorption. J Phys Chem 94(18):7119–7128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meekunnasombat P, Oakley J, Anderson M, Bonazza R (2006) Experimental study of shock-accelerated liquid layers. Shock Waves 15(6):383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michael JV, Sutherland JW (1986) The thermodynamic state of the hot gas behind reflected shock waves: implication to chemical kinetics. Int J Chem Kinet 18(4):409–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monti R (1970) Normal shock wave reflection on deformable solid walls. Meccanica 5(4):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Motl B, Oakley J, Ranjan D, Weber C, Anderson M, Bonazza R (2009) Experimental validation of a Richtmyer–Meshkov scaling law over large density ratio and shock strength ranges. Phys Fluids 21(12):126102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Needham CE (2010) Blast waves. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orlicz GC, Balakumar BJ, Tomkins CD, Prestridge KP (2009) A Mach number study of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability in a varicose, heavy-gas curtain. Phys Fluids 21(6):064102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Radulescu MI, Lee JHS (2002) The failure mechanism of gaseous detonations: experiments in porous wall tubes. Combust Flame 131(1–2):29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwer D, Kailasanath K (2006) Blast mitigation by water mist (3) Mitigation of confined and unconfined blasts. NRL memorandom Report 6410–06–8976Google Scholar
  30. Sedov LI (1959) Similarity and dimensional methods in mechanics. Academic, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Selberg B, Nicholls J (1968) Drag coefficient of small spherical particles. AIAA J 6(3):401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Settles GS (2006a) Schlieren and shadowgraph techniques: visualizing phenomena in transparent media. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Settles GS (2006b) High-speed imaging of shock waves, explosives, and gunshots. Am Sci 94(1):22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shin YS, Lee M, Lam KY, Yeo KS (1998) Modeling mitigation effects of watershield on shock waves. Shock Vib 5(4):225–234Google Scholar
  35. Skews BW (1967) The shape of a diffracting shock wave. J Fluid Mech 29(02):297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skews BW, Atkins MD, Seitz MW (1993) The impact of a shock wave on porous compressible foams. J Fluid Mech 253:245–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sommerfeld M (1985) The unsteadiness of shock waves propagating through gas-particle mixtures. Exp Fluids 3(4):197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sun M, Takayama K (2003) Vorticity production in shock diffraction. J Fluid Mech 478:237–256MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Takayama K, Itoh K (1986) Shock waves and shock tubes. Proceedings of the fifteenth international symposium. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. Tanno H, Itoh K, Saito T, Abe A, Takayama K (2003) Interaction of a shock with a sphere suspended in a vertical shock tube. Shock Waves 13(3):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor G (1950a) The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion. I. Theoritical discussion. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci 201(1065):159–174MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor G (1950b) The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion. II. The atomic explosion of 1945. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci 201(1065):175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Teodorczyk A, Lee JHS (1995) Detonation attenuation by foams and wire meshes lining the walls. Shock Waves 4(4):225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Wagner J, Beresh S, Kearney S, Trott W, Castaneda J, Pruett B, Baer M (2012) A multiphase shock tube for shock wave interactions with dense particle fields. Exp Fluids 52(6):1507–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. F. Son
    • 1
  • A. J. Zakrajsek
    • 1
  • E. J. Miklaszewski
    • 1
  • D. E. Kittell
    • 1
  • J. L. Wagner
    • 2
  • D. R. Guildenbecher
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations