Shock wave characteristics in a conical water explosion shock tube under cylindrical charge condition

ZHENG Jian; LU Fangyun; CHEN Rong

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2020-0316

Volume 41 Issue 10

Oct. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Article Navigation > Explosion And Shock Waves > 2021 > 41(10): 103201

ZHENG Jian, LU Fangyun, CHEN Rong. Shock wave characteristics in a conical water explosion shock tube under cylindrical charge condition[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2021, 41(10): 103201. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0316

Citation:

ZHENG Jian, LU Fangyun, CHEN Rong. Shock wave characteristics in a conical water explosion shock tube under cylindrical charge condition[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2021, 41(10): 103201. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0316

Citation:

PDF( 1884 KB)

Shock wave characteristics in a conical water explosion shock tube under cylindrical charge condition

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0316

College of Liberal Arts and Science, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, Hunan, China

Received Date: 2020-09-04
Rev Recd Date: 2021-03-03

Available Online: 2021-09-16

Publish Date: 2021-10-13

Abstract

Abstract

A conical shock tube is a kind of underwater explosive devices which uses small conical explosive charge to form high intensity shock pressure. Theoretically, the shock wave pressure in the conical shock tube is the same as that generated by a virtual spherical explosive charge in free field water. However, considering the effect of practical factors, the characteristics of shock wave in the actual device and the theoretical device are different to some extent. In order to investigate the shock wave characteristics in the conical water explosion shock tube under a cylindrical charge condition, and to obtain the variation rules of the peak pressure value, the specific impulse and the energy flux density, a series of numerical calculations with different cone angles and different quality of cylindrical charges were conducted. The reliability of the simulation methods was verified by comparing with the published experimental data. Through the analysis of the pressure data obtained by the validated simulation method, it is found that the shock wave in the tube follows the same scaling law as it is in the free field underwater explosion. The constants k and n of the empirical expressions for peak pressure, the impulse and the energy flux density for the shock wave in shock tube are obtained by data fitting. Furthermore, the relationships among the coefficient k, index n and cone angle α were deduced, and the result shows that the coefficients k have well linear relationship with constructed angle coefficient β, and the indexes n can be quantitatively expressed by cone angle α. Regarding the free field as a special case with a cone angle of 360°, it’s constants k and n also conform to the obtained relationships. It is also found that the secondary pulsation pressure period shows an anomalous change rule with explosive mass, which can be well explained by the significant increasement of the equivalent hydrostatic pressure depth. The ratio between the secondary impulse pressure peak and initial pressure peak is bigger than that in free field while the ratio between the secondary impulse pressure’s impulse to the initial pressure impulse is almost the same. These results can provide support for the application of conical shock tubes.
- underwater explosion,
- conical shock tube,
- shock wave,
- secondary impulse

FullText(HTML)

References(18)

References

[1]	RAMAJEYATHILAGAM K, VENDHAN C P. Deformation and rupture of thin rectangular plates subjected to underwater shock [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2004, 30(6): 699–719. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2003.01.001.
[2]	HUNG C F, HSU P Y, HWANG-FUU J J. Elastic shock response of an air-backed plate to underwater explosion [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2005, 31(2): 151–168. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2003.10.039.
[3]	汪斌, 张远平, 王彦平. 水中爆炸气泡脉动现象的实验研究 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2008, 28(6): 572–576. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2008)06-0572-05. WANG B, ZHANG Y P, WANG Y P. Experimental study on bubble oscillation formed during underwater explosions [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2008, 28(6): 572–576. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2008)06-0572-05.
[4]	朱凌, 段沐德, 黄骏德. 固支方板对水下爆炸的塑性动力响应 [J]. 海军工程大学学报, 1987(3): 1009–3486.
[5]	LEE J J, SMITH M J, HUANG J, et al. Deformation and rupture of thin steel plates due to cumulative loading from underwater shock and bubble collapse [J]. Shock and Vibration, 2011, 18(3): 459–470. DOI: 10.3233/SAV-2010-0526.
[6]	郑监, 卢芳云, 李翔宇. 金属板在水下爆炸加载下的动态响应研究进展 [J]. 中国测试, 2018, 44(10): 20–30. DOI: 10.11857/j.issn.1674-5124.2018.10.004. ZHENG J, LU F Y, LI X Y. Research progress on dynamic response of metal plate in underwater explosion loading [J]. China Measurement & Test, 2018, 44(10): 20–30. DOI: 10.11857/j.issn.1674-5124.2018.10.004.
[7]	张效慈. 水下爆炸试验相似准则 [J]. 船舶力学, 2007, 11(1): 108–118. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-7294.2007.01.014. ZHANG X C. Similarity criteria for experiment of underwater explosion [J]. Journal of Ship Mechanics, 2007, 11(1): 108–118. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-7294.2007.01.014.
[8]	LEBLANC J, GARDNER N, SHUKLA A. Effect of polyurea coatings on the response of curved E-Glass/Vinyl ester composite panels to underwater explosive loading [J]. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2013, 44(1): 565–574. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.02.038.
[9]	LEBLANC J, SHUKLA A. Dynamic response of curved composite panels to underwater explosive loading: experimental and computational comparisons [J]. Composite Structures, 2011, 93(11): 3072–3081. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.04.017.
[10]	LEBLANC J, SHUKLA A. Response of E-glass/vinyl ester composite panels to underwater explosive loading: effects of laminate modifications [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011, 38(10): 796–803. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.05.004.
[11]	DESHPANDE V S, HEAVER A, FLECK N A. An underwater shock simulator [J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2006, 462(2067): 1021–1041. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2005.1604.
[12]	ESPINOSA H D, LEE S, MOLDOVAN N. A novel fluid structure interaction experiment to investigate deformation of structural elements subjected to impulsive loading [J]. Experimental Mechanics, 2006, 46(6): 805–824. DOI: 10.1007/s11340-006-0296-7.
[13]	FILLER W S. Propagation of shock waves in a hydrodynamic conical shock tube [J]. The Physics of Fluids, 1964, 7(5): 664–667. DOI: 10.1063/1.1711266.
[14]	ZALESAK J F, POCHÉ JR L B. The shock test facility: an explosive-driven, water-filled conical shock tube [C]// Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Energy. Virginia Beach, 1989: 73−76.
[15]	HESHMATI M, ZAMANI J, MOZAFARI A. The experimental and numerical impacts of geometrical parameters of conical shock tube on the function, maximum pressure and generative impulses to expose equivalent mass and behavioral equation [J]. Materials Science & Engineering Technology, 2016, 47(7): 623–634. DOI: 10.1002/mawe.201600510.
[16]	BJØRNØ L, LEVIN P. Underwater explosion research using small amounts of chemical explosives [J]. Ultrasonics, 1976, 14(6): 263–267. DOI: 10.1016/0041-624X(76)90033-0.
[17]	库尔 P. 水下爆炸[M]. 罗耀杰, 韩润泽, 官信, 等, 译. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 1960: 167−168; 219.
[18]	KEIL A H. The response of ships to underwater explosions [R]. New York: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1961: 43.

Relative Articles

[1]	CHEN Yang, TANG Jie, YI Guo, WU Liang, JIANG Gang. Simulation analysis on impact resistance of aluminum foam sandwich structures using peridynamics[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2023, 43(3): 034202. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2022-0110
[2]	SU Xingya, ZHOU Lun, JING Lin, DENG Guide, ZHAO Longmao. Dynamic compressive mechanical properties and constitutive models of flexible polyurethane foam[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2022, 42(9): 091410. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2022-0201
[3]	XU Linfeng, CHEN Li, LI Zhan, YUE Chengjun. Experimental and analytical study on blast resistance performance of brick infill walls strengthened with polyuria[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2022, 42(7): 075102. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2021-0332
[4]	XIE Fupei, XU Fei, ZENG Zhuo, ZHOU Zhongyu, GU Zhuowei. Numerical simulation on stability of composite cylindrical shell under impact compression[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2021, 41(11): 112201. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0431
[5]	GONG Xiangfei, LIU Wentao, ZHANG Shudao, YANG Jiming. Numerical simulation of peak pressure in near-field underwater explosion[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2019, 39(4): 041409. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2017-0262
[6]	QIANG Hongfu, SUN Xinya, WANG Guang, HUANG Quanzhang. Numerical simulation on steel box damage under internal explosion by smoothed particle hydrodynamics[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2019, 39(5): 052201. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2017-0439
[7]	ZHANG Chunbo, SONG Zhenfei, GU Zhuowei, LU Ji, ZHAO Shicao. Numerical simulation of the multilayer coiled solenoid under implosive compression[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2018, 38(5): 999-1005. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2016-0052
[8]	ZHOU Xiaosong, MEI Zhiyuan, ZHANG Yanbing. Research progress of composite sandwich structure in ship collision protection[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2018, 38(3): 696-706. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2016-0303
[9]	Zhang Yong, Chen Li, Chen Rong-jun, Xie Wei-hong. Dynamic mechanical property experiment and constitutive model establishment of polyurethane foam aluminum[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2014, 34(3): 373-378. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2014)03-0373-06
[10]	XIAO Yi-hua, HU De-an, HAN Xu, YANG Gang. AnadaptiveaxisymmetricFEM-SPHcouplingalgorithmand itsapplicationtohighvelocityimpactsimulation[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2012, 32(4): 384-392. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)04-0384-09
[11]	SONG Yan-Ze, WANG Zhi-Hua, ZHAO Long-Mao, ZHAO Yong-Gang. Dynamic response of foam sandwich plates subjected to impact loading[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2010, 30(3): 301-307. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2010)03-0301-07
[12]	JIANG Da-zhi, GUO Yang, LI Chang-liang, XIAO Jia-yu. Experimental investigation on response of two-core sandwich composite structures under transverse impact[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2009, 29(6): 590-595. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2009)06-0590-06
[13]	WANG Dai-hua, LIU Dian-shu, DU Yu-lan, LIU Hui-peng. Numerical simulation of anti-blasting mechanism and energy distribution of composite protective structure with foam concrete[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2006, 26(6): 562-567. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2006)06-0562-06
[14]	XU Zhi-hong, TANG Wen-hui, LUO Yong. Applications of the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method to hypervelocity impact simulations[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2006, 26(1): 53-58. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2006)01-0053-06
[15]	FU Yu, JIANG Ping, XIE Ruo-ze, TIAN Chang-jin, TAO Jun-lin, ZHANG Fang-ju, NIU Wei. Experimental investigation on static compressive behavior and energy-absorption performance of closed cellular Al-Cu alloy[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2006, 26(5): 416-422. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2006)05-0416-07

Supplements(0)

Cited By

Cited by

Periodical cited type(9)

1.	赵崇林，赖富文，孔凡胜，唐宇琦，王文廉. 爆炸环境气体测试防护结构的数值模拟. 自动化与仪器仪表. 2024(01): 160-165+171 .
2.	吕永琪，游晓红，王录才. 泡沫铝夹芯板弯曲行为的仿真模拟. 金属功能材料. 2024(03): 74-79 .
3.	刘进，张芸，马衍轩，李梦瑶，王鹏，张建，王公斌，张鹏，高嵩. 钢筋混凝土的负泊松比设计与抗高速冲击性能. 硅酸盐通报. 2024(08): 2858-2870 .
4.	胡钰彬，游晓红，王录才，米渊聪. 泡沫铝夹芯结构抗冲击性能数值模拟. 金属功能材料. 2024(04): 24-30 .
5.	刘志东，赵小华，方宏远，王高辉，石明生. 高聚物牺牲包层对钢筋混凝土板的爆炸毁伤缓解效应. 爆炸与冲击. 2023(02): 89-105 . 本站查看
6.	赵浩楠，方宏远，赵小华，王高辉. 接触爆炸作用下高聚物复合板毁伤特性分析. 爆炸与冲击. 2023(05): 3-19 . 本站查看
7.	周颖，黄广炎，王涛，解亚宸，张旭东. 多孔聚氨酯基复合削爆屏障的防护性能. 爆炸与冲击. 2023(10): 138-151 . 本站查看
8.	周宏元，杜文钊，王小娟，张雪健，余尚江，张宏. 地冲击下新型脆断构件防护性能实验研究. 爆炸与冲击. 2022(07): 115-125 . 本站查看
9.	周辉，任辉启，吴祥云，易治，黄魁，穆朝民，王海露. 成层式防护结构中分散层研究综述. 爆炸与冲击. 2022(11): 3-28 . 本站查看