Physical Mechanisms for Near-Field Blast Mitigation With Fluid Containers

A description of the current state of understanding of the physical mechanisms responsible for near-field blast mitigation with fluid containers is presented in this chapter. From an applications perspective, the benefits of using fluid-filled containers for blast protection are significant with reductions in the dynamic deformation of a steel target of 50%. Experiments are presented that highlight the importance of the container geometry on the mitigation provided. The experimental data is combined with numerical simulations to identify some of the key mitigation mechanisms responsible for blast mitigation with fluid containers. Shadowing, rarefaction waves, and mitigant mass all have an influence on the target response. In addition to the presence of mitigation mechanisms, the containers also reduce the standoff to the charge and hence their geometry affects the input loading to the system. The trade-offs between these mitigation and loading mechanisms results in an optimum width of container for a given loading scenario. While significant progress has been made to understand the mechanisms for near-field blast mitigation with fluid containers, there are still a number of areas where further knowledge is required. Spreading of the fluid was observed in addition to the formation and collapse of cavitation bubbles. It is suggested that future work focus on quantifying the relative importance of each of the mitigation mechanisms.

[1]  Li Zhang,et al.  Performance based investigation on the construction of anti-blast water wall , 2015 .

[2]  Mica Grujicic,et al.  A Computational Investigation of Various Water-Induced Explosion Mitigation Mechanisms , 2007 .

[3]  Shannon Ryan,et al.  Physical mechanisms for near-field blast mitigation with fluid containers: Effect of container geometry , 2016 .

[4]  Paul Phillips,et al.  Evaluation of the blast mitigating effects of fluid containers , 2015 .

[5]  K. C. Hung,et al.  Numerical study of water mitigation effects on blast wave , 2005 .

[6]  Vikram Deshpande,et al.  One-dimensional response of sandwich plates to underwater shock loading , 2005 .

[7]  T. E. Dunbar,et al.  Ground reflection interaction with height-of-burst metalized explosions , 2009 .

[8]  M. D. Thouless,et al.  Design of armor for protection against blast and impact , 2015 .

[9]  Josette Bellan,et al.  Evaluation of equilibrium and non-equilibrium evaporation models for many-droplet gas-liquid flow simulations , 1998 .

[10]  A. Schiffer,et al.  The response of circular composite plates to underwater blast: Experiments and modelling , 2015 .

[11]  J. B. Martin,et al.  Deformation of thin plates subjected to impulsive loading—a review Part II: Experimental studies , 1989 .

[12]  Y. S. Karinski,et al.  Afterburning Aspects in an Internal TNT Explosion , 2013 .

[13]  Vikram Deshpande,et al.  Underwater blast response of free-standing sandwich plates with metallic lattice cores , 2010 .

[14]  Wensu Chen,et al.  Numerical investigation of a water barrier against blast loadings , 2016 .

[15]  Andrew Argyle,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THE BLAST & FRAGMENT MITIGATION PERFORMANCE OF SEVERAL STRUCTURALLY WEAK MATERIALS , 2007 .

[16]  R. Schmehl,et al.  CFD Analysis of Fuel Atomization, Secondary Droplet Breakup and Spray Dispersion in the Premix Duct of a LPP Combustor , 2000 .