水雾对爆炸冲击波衰减效应的实验研究

赵家兴; 李奇; 张亮; 刘凇含; 姜林

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2023-0108

水雾对爆炸冲击波衰减效应的实验研究

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2023-0108

赵家兴^1,,
李奇²,
张亮²,
刘凇含¹,
姜林^1, ,

1.
南京理工大学机械工程学院，江苏南京 210094
2.
中国船舶集团有限公司第七一三研究所，河南郑州 450015

基金项目: 国家重点研发计划（2020YFC1522800）；国家自然科学基金（52176114, 52111530091）；

详细信息

作者简介:
赵家兴（1996－　），男，博士研究生，Zhaojiaxing@njust.edu.cn

通讯作者:
姜　林（1990－　），男，博士，副教授， ljiang@njust.edu.cn

中图分类号: O383
计量
- 文章访问数: 385
- HTML全文浏览量: 87
- PDF下载量: 86
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-03-27
- 修回日期: 2023-05-27
- 刊出日期: 2023-10-27

Experimental study on mitigation effects of water mist on blast wave

1.
School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, Jiangsu, China
2.
713th Research Institute of China State Shipbuilding Corporation Limited, Zhengzhou 450015, Henan, China

摘要

摘要: 为了探究水雾特性与爆炸载荷衰减效果之间的关系，在爆炸驱动的激波管内两种不同特性的水雾环境下进行了不同强度的爆炸实验，并评估了两种水雾对爆炸冲击波超压和比冲量的衰减效果。实验结果表明：喷雾区域内的压力分为两个上升阶段，第一个阶段为透射冲击波的压力，第二个阶段为液滴二次雾化和弛豫过程导致的压力上升；冲击波掠过的喷雾区域越长，水雾对压力峰值和比冲量的衰减效果越好；冲击波强度的增加将削弱水雾对爆炸载荷的衰减效果；Sauter平均直径为136.04 μm、体积分数为1.72×10⁻³的水雾使压力峰值衰减了34.2%~60.9%，使比冲量衰减了9%到54%；Sauter平均直径为255.34 μm、体积分数为3.43×10⁻³的水雾使压力峰值衰减了48.4%~78.6%，使比冲量衰减了14%~66%；冲击波压力峰值的衰减率随着冲击波-雾滴之间的比例交换面积增加而线性减少。
- 冲击波 /
- 水雾 /
- 爆炸衰减 /
- 超压 /
- 冲量
Abstract: To examine the mitigation characterisitics of blast wave in water mist, a comprehensive series of blast experiments were carried out utilizing a blast-driven shock tube with a 4 m length and 180 mm square inner cross-section. The blast wave was generated by detonating trinitrotoluene charges with masses of 7, 10 and 13 g within the shock tube. Five pressure gauges were installed to measure blast wave pressure within the spray region. In order to create varying water mist properties, a spray system was employed, which covered a distance of 3 m within the experimental setup. Droplet size and distribution were measured using a laser light scattering analyzer. The mitigation effect of water mist with two distinct properties on blast overpressure and impulse was evaluated. Results indicated that the pressure in the spray region raised in two stages. The first stage corresponded to the pressure associated with the transmitted shock wave, while the second stage was attributed to the secondary atomization and relaxation processes of the droplets. The longer the spray region traversed by the blast wave, the greater the mitigation effect on peak overpressure and impulse. Increased shock wave intensity diminished the mitigation effect of water mist on blast loads. Specifically, when water mist with a Sauter mean diameter of 136.04 μm and a volume fraction of 1.72×10⁻³ was employed, peak pressure values experienced a reduction ranging from 34.2% to 60.9%, while impulse values were reduced by 9% to 54%. On the other hand, when water mist with a Sauter mean diameter of 255.34 μm and a volume fraction of 3.43×10⁻³ was used, peak pressure values witnessed a reduction ranging from 48.4% to 78.6%, and impulse values were reduced by 14% to 66%. The mitigation coefficient of peak overpressure decreased linearly with increased scaled exchange surface area between blast wave and droplets.
- shock wave /
- water mist /
- blast mitigation /
- overpressure /
- impulse

HTML全文

图 1 爆炸驱动激波管示意图

Figure 1. Schematic of blast driven shock tube

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 实验装置示意

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of experimental setup

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 喷头A生成的水雾的粒径及其分布

Figure 3. Particle size and distribution of water mistgenerated by nozzle A

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 喷头B生成的水雾的粒径及其分布

Figure 4. Particle size and distribution of watermist generated by nozzle B

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 工况13-N中测点P5的压力曲线

Figure 5. Pressure profile versus time obtained with thepressure gauge P5 in case 13-N

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 工况13-A中测点P5的压力曲线

Figure 6. Pressure profile versus time obtained with thepressure gauge P5 in case 13-A

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 工况13-B中测点P5的压力曲线

Figure 7. Pressure profile versus time obtained with the pressure gauge P5 in case 13-B

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 冲击波在水雾中传播的示意图

Figure 8. Schematic diagram of the propagation of a shock wave in a two-phase liquid-gas mixture

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 激波冲击下典型的液滴变形和雾化过程

Figure 9. Typical deformation and atomization process of droplet under shock wave

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 各压力测点的压力峰值

Figure 10. Peak pressure obtained with each pressure gauge

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 超压峰值的相对变化率

Figure 11. Mitigation coefficient of peak pressure

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 12 衰减系数与比例交换面积之间的关系

Figure 12. Relationship between mitigation coefficient and normalized exchange surface area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 喷头的参数

Table 1. Nozzle parameters

喷头	Q/(L·min^-1)	D/mm	θ/(°)	d₀/μm
A	0.9	1.8	60	136.04
B	4	2.8	120	255.34
注：Q为喷雾流量，D为喷头出口直径，θ为喷雾角度，d₀为水雾液滴的Sauter直径.

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 实验工况

Table 2. Test conditions

工况	TNT质量/g	喷嘴	喷雾时间/s
7-N	7	无	0
10-N	10	无	0
13-N	13	无	0
7-A	7	喷头A	5
10-A	10	喷头A	5
13-A	13	喷头A	5
7-B	7	喷头B	5
10-B	10	喷头B	5
13-B	13	喷头B	5

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 所有试验工况中每个测点的正压持续时间 $t_+ $ 及其相对变化率 $K_{\rm{t}} $

Table 3. Positive pressure duration (t₊) and its relative change ratio (K_t) obtained witheach pressure gauge under all test conditions

工况	t₊₁/ms	K_t1/%	t₊₂/ms	K_t2/%	t₊₃/ms	K_t3/%	t₊₄/ms	K_t4/%	t₊₅/ms	K_t5/%
7-N	7.5	−	6.7	−	5.8	−	5.3	−	3.8	−
10-N	7.2	−	6.2	−	5.8	−	5.1	−	3.6	−
13-N	6.2	−	5.8	−	5.6	−	5.0	−	3.4	−
7-A	7.8	4	7.1	6	6.4	10	6.8	28	4.6	21
10-A	7.8	8	6.5	5	7.2	24	6.4	25	4.1	14
13-A	8.2	32	7.4	28	6.9	23	6.1	22	4.2	24
7-B	10.1	35	9.7	45	9.3	60	7.3	38	4.7	24
10-B	10.2	42	9.4	52	8.4	45	7.3	43	4.6	28
13-B	10.0	61	9.0	55	8.5	52	7.2	44	4.5	32

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 不同测点处的最大比冲量 $I $ 及其相对变化率 $K_{\rm{i}} $

Table 4. Maximum impulse (I) and its relative change ratio (K_i) obtained with each pressure gauge

工况	I₁/(Pa·ms)	K_i1/%	I₂/(Pa·ms)	K_i2/%	I₃/(Pa·ms)	K_i3/%	I₄/(Pa·ms)	K_i4/%	I₅/(Pa·ms)	K_i5/%
7-N	944	−	830	−	735	−	603	−	380	−
10-N	950	−	860	−	769	−	743	−	494	−
13-N	924	−	900	−	966	−	782	−	581	−
7-A	568	−40	490	−41	417	−43	277	−54	184	−52
10-A	615	−35	570	−34	561	−27	455	−39	242	−51
13-A	840	−9	790	−12	727	−25	650	−17	320	−45
7-B	551	−42	520	−37	552	−25	266	−56	131	−66
10-B	765	−19	690	−20	639	−17	380	−49	171	−65
13-B	796	−14	660	−27	552	−43	395	−49	217	−63

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(29)

[1]	SCHUNCK T, BASTIDE M, ECKENFELS D, et al. Blast mitigation by water mist: the effect of the detonation configuration [J]. Shock Waves, 2020, 30(6): 629–644. DOI: 10.1007/s00193-020-00960-1.
[2]	KONG X S, ZHOU H, ZHENG C, et al. An experimental study on the mitigation effects of fine water mist on confined-blast loading and dynamic response of steel plates [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2019, 134. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.103370.
[3]	TAMBA T, SUGIYAMA Y, OHTANI K, et al. Comparison of blast mitigation performance between water layers and water droplets [J]. Shock Waves, 2021, 31(1): 89–94. DOI: 10.1007/s00193-021-00990-3.
[4]	XU H B, CHEN L K, ZHANG D Z, et al. Mitigation effects on the reflected overpressure of blast shock with water surrounding an explosive in a confined space [J]. Defence Technology, 2021, 17(03): 1071–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.dt.2020.06.026.
[5]	孔祥韶, 王子棠, 况正, 等. 密闭空间内爆炸载荷抑制效应实验研究 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2021, 41(16): 062901. DOI: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0193. KONG X S, WANG Z T, KUANG Z, et al. Experimental study on the mitigation effects of confined-blast loading [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2021,41(16): 062901. DOI: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0193.
[6]	JIBA Z, SONO T J, MOSTERT F J. Implications of fine water mist environment on the post-detonation processes of a PE4 explosive charge in a semi-confined blast chamber [J]. Defence Technology, 2018, 14(5): 366–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.dt.2018.05.005.
[7]	PONTALIER Q, LOISEAU J, GOROSHIN S, et al. Experimental investigation of blast mitigation and particle–blast interaction during the explosive dispersal of particles and liquids [J]. Shock Waves, 2018, 28(3): 489−511. DOI: 10.1007/s00193-018-0821-5.
[8]	徐海斌, 张德志, 秦学军, 等. 炸药周围水层对空气冲击波反射超压影响的实验研究 [J]. 兵工学报, 2014, 35(7): 1027–1031. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2014.07.014. XU H B, ZHANG D Z, QIN X J, et al. An investigation on mitigation effect of water surrounding an explosive on reflected overpressure of shock wave. [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2014, 35(7): 1027–1031. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2014.07.014.
[9]	LI C, ZHANG L, FANG Q, et al. Performance based investigation on the construction of anti-blast water wall [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2015, 81: 17–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.03.003.
[10]	JEON H, ELIASSON V. Shock wave interactions with liquid sheets [J]. Experiments in Fluids, 2017, 58(4): 24. DOI: 10.1007/s00348-017-2300-7.
[11]	BAILEY J L, FARLEY J P, WILLIAMS F W, et al. Blast mitigation using water mist: NRL/MR/6410-06-8976 [R]. USA: Naval Research Laboratory, 2006.
[12]	WILLAUER H D, ANANTH R. , FARLEY J P, et al. Blast mitigation using water mist test series II: NRL/MR/6180-09-9182 [R]. USA: Naval Research Laboratory, 2009.
[13]	叶经方, 董刚, 解立峰. 管道内水雾对冲击波衰减作用的实验研究 [J]. 爆破器材, 2006, 35(5): 1-4. YE J F, DONG G, XIE L F, Experimental investigation of shock wave decay by water mist in duct [J]. Explosive Materials, 2006, 35(5): 1-4.
[14]	陈鹏宇, 侯海量, 刘贵兵, 等. 水雾对舱内装药爆炸载荷的耗散效能试验研究 [J]. 兵工学报, 2018, 39(9): 927–933. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2018.05.012. CHEN P Y, HOU H L, LIU G B, et al. Experimental investigation on mitigating effect of water mist on the explosive shock wave inside cabin [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2018, 39(9): 927–33. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2018.05.012.
[15]	张晓忠, 孔福利, 王启睿, 等. 内爆炸情况下通道中水雾对冲击波的衰减效应研究 [J]. 防护工程, 2011(1): 6–10. ZHANG X Z, KONG F L, WANG Q R, et al. Study on shock wave attenuation effects of water fog in channel under internal detonation [J]. Protective Engineering, 2011(1): 6–10.
[16]	ANANTH R, WILLAUER H D, FARLEY J P, et al. Effects of fine water mist on a confined blast [J]. Fire Technology, 2012, 48(3): 641–675. DOI: 10.1007/s10694-010-0156-y.
[17]	SUGIYAMA Y, SHIBUE K, MATSUO A. The blast mitigation mechanism of a single water droplet layer and improvement of the blast mitigation effect using multilayers in a confined geometry [J]. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 2023, 159: 104322. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2022.104322.
[18]	JOURDAN G, BIAMINO L, MARIANI C, et al. Attenuation of a shock wave passing through a cloud of water droplets [J]. Shock Waves, 2010, 20(4): 285–296. DOI: 10.1007/s00193-010-0251-5.
[19]	CHAUVIN A, JOURDAN G, DANIEL E, et al. Experimental investigation of the propagation of a planar shock wave through a two-phase gas-liquid medium [J]. Physics of Fluids, 2011, 23(11): 113301. DOI: 10.1063/1.3657083.
[20]	SHARMA S, PRATAP S A, SRINIVAS R S. , et al. Shock induced aerobreakup of a droplet [J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2021, 929. DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2021.860.
[21]	LING Y, WAGNER J L, BERESH S J, et al. Interaction of a planar shock wave with a dense particle curtain: Modeling and experiments [J]. Physics of Fluids, 2012, 24(11): 113301. DOI: 10.1063/1.4768815.
[22]	SUGIYAMA Y, ANDO H, SHIMURA K, et al. Numerical investigation of the interaction between a shock wave and a particle cloud curtain using a CFD-DEM model [J]. Shock Waves, 2019, 29(4): 499–510. DOI: 10.1007/s00193-018-0878-1.
[23]	王超, 吴宇, 施红辉, 等. 液滴在激波冲击下的破裂过程 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2016, 36(1): 129–134. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2016)01-0129-06. WANG C, WU Y, SHI H H, et al. Breakup process of a droplet under the impact of a shock wave [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2016, 36(01): 129–134. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2016)01-0129-06.
[24]	GUILDENBECHER D R, LóPEZ-RIVERA C, SOJKA P E. Secondary atomization [J]. Experiments in Fluids, 2009, 46(3): 371−402. DOI: 10.1007/s00348-008-0593-2.
[25]	POPLAVSKI S V, MINAKOV A V, SHEBELEVA A A, et al. On the interaction of water droplet with a shock wave: Experiment and numerical simulation [J]. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 2020, 127: 103273. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2020.103273.
[26]	ZHANG A M, LI S M, CUI P, et al. A unified theory for bubble dynamics [J]. Physics of Fluids, 2023, 35(3): 033323. DOI: 10.1063/5.0145415.
[27]	CHAUVIN A, DANIEL E, CHINNAYYA A, et al. Shock waves in sprays: numerical study of secondary atomization and experimental comparison [J]. Shock Waves, 2016, 26(4): 403-415. DOI: 10.1007/s00193-015-0593-0.
[28]	SHIBUE K, SUGIYAMA Y, MATSUO A. Numerical study of the effect on blast-wave mitigation of the quasi-steady drag force from a layer of water droplets sprayed into a confined geometry [J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2022, 160: 491–501. DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2022.02.038.
[29]	SUGIYAMA Y, TAMBA T, OHTANI K. Numerical study on a blast mitigation mechanism by a water droplet layer: Validation with experimental results, and the effect of the layer radius [J]. Physics of Fluids, 2022, 34(7): 076104. DOI: 10.1063/5.0091959.