Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:29:05.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of compaction of a porous material confiner on detonation propagation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2017

Mark Short Open the ORCID record for Mark Short [Opens in a new window]  and
James J. Quirk
Mark Short*
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, NM 87545, USA
James J. Quirk
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, NM 87545, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: short1@lanl.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fluid mechanics of the interaction between a porous material confiner and a steady propagating high explosive (HE) detonation in a two-dimensional slab geometry is investigated through analytical oblique wave polar analysis and multi-material numerical simulation. Two HE models are considered, broadly representing the properties of either a high- or low-detonation-speed HE, which permits studies of detonation propagating at speeds faster or slower than the confiner sound speed. The HE detonation is responsible for driving the compaction front in the confiner, while, in turn, the high material density generated in the confiner as a result of the compaction process can provide a strong confinement effect on the HE detonation structure. Polar solutions that describe the local flow interaction of the oblique HE detonation shock and equilibrium state behind an oblique compaction wave with rapid compaction relaxation rates are studied for varying initial solid volume fractions of the porous confiner. Multi-material numerical simulations are conducted to study the effect of detonation wave driven compaction in the porous confiner on both the detonation propagation speed and detonation driving zone structure. We perform a parametric study to establish how detonation confinement is influenced both by the initial solid volume fraction of the porous confiner and by the time scale of the dynamic compaction relaxation process relative to the detonation reaction time scale, for both the high- and low-detonation-speed HE models. The compaction relaxation time scale is found to have a significant influence on the confinement dynamics, with slower compaction relaxation time scales resulting in more strongly confined detonations and increased detonation speeds. The dynamics of detonation confinement by porous materials when the detonation is propagating either faster or slower than the confiner sound speed is found to be significantly different from that with solid material confiners.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Compressible Flows Compressible Flows: Detonation waves Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 834 , 10 January 2018 , pp. 434 - 463
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2017 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahrens, T. J. & Gregson, V. G. 1964 Shock compression of crustal rocks: data for quartz, calcite, and plagioclase rocks. J. Geo. Res. 69 (22), 4839–4874.Google Scholar
Aslam, T. D. & Bdzil, J. B.2002 Numerical and theoretical investigations on detonation-inert confinement interactions. In Twelfth International Symposium on Detonation, pp. 483–488. Office of Naval Research ONR 333-05-2.Google Scholar
Aslam, T. D. & Bdzil, J. B.2006 Numerical and theoretical investigations on detonation confinement sandwich tests. In Thirteenth International Detonation Symposium, pp. 761–769. Office of Naval Research ONR 351-07-01.Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B., Aslam, T. D., Henninger, R. & Quirk, J. J. 2003 High-explosives performance: understanding the effects of a finite-length reaction zone. Los Alamos Sci. 28, 96–110.Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B., Menikoff, R., Son, S. F., Kapila, A. K. & Stewart, D. S. 1999 Two-phase modeling of deflagration-to-detonation transition in granular materials: a critical examination of modeling issues. Phys. Fluids 11 (2), 378–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bdzil, J. B. & Stewart, D. S. 2007 The dynamics of detonation in explosive systems. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 263–292.Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B. & Stewart, D. S. 2011 Theory of detonation shock dynamics. In Detonation Dynamics (ed. Zhang, F.), Shock Waves Science and Technology Library, vol. 6, pp. 373–453. Springer.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, M. & Sharpe, G. J. 2013 Non-ideal detonation behavior in commercial explosives. In Performance of Explosives and New Developments (ed. Mohanty, B. & Singh, V. K.), pp. 11–16. Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Chiquete, C., Short, M., Meyer, C. D. & Quirk, J. J.2017 Calibration of the Pseudo-Reaction-Zone model for detonation wave propagation (submitted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. C. 1997 Shock waves; rarefraction waves; equations of state. In Explosive Effects and Applications (ed. Zukas, J. A. & Walters, W. P.), pp. 47–113. Springer.Google Scholar
Davison, L. 2008 Fundamentals of Shock Wave Propagation in Solids. Springer.Google Scholar
Fedkiw, R. P., Aslam, T. D., Merriman, B. & Osher, S. 1999 A non-oscillatory Eulerian approach to interfaces in multimaterial flows (the ghost fluid method). J. Comput. Phys. 152 (2), 457–492.Google Scholar
Fickett, W. & Davis, W. C. 1979 Detonation. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fredenburg, D. A. & Chisolm, E. D.2014 Equation of state and compaction modeling for $\text{CeO}_{2}$ . Tech. Rep. LA-UR-14-28164. Los Alamos National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Fredenburg, D. A., Koller, D. D., Coe, J. D. & Kiyanda, C. B. 2014 The influence of morphology on the low- and high-strain-rate compaction response of CeO2 powders. J. Appl. Phys. 115, 123511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredenburg, D. A., Lang, J. M., Coe, J. D., Scharff, R. J., Dattelbaum, D. M. & Chisolm, E. D. 2017 Systematics of compaction for porous metal and metal-oxide systems. In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1793, art. 120018. American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
Hagan, T. N. 1979 Rock breakage by explosives. Acta Astron. 6 (3–4), 329–340.Google Scholar
Hill, L. G.2011 Detonation confinement sandwich tests: the effect of single and multiple confining layers on PBX 9502 detonation. Tech. Rep. LA-UR-11-05298. Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. I. & Short, M. 2015 Scaling of detonation velocity in cylinder and slab geometries for ideal, insensitive and non-ideal explosives. J. Fluid Mech. 773, 224–266.Google Scholar
Li, J., Mi, X. & Higgins, A. J. 2015 Geometric scaling for a detonation wave governed by a pressure-dependent reaction rate and yielding confinement. Phys. Fluids 27, 027102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mamalis, A. G., Vottea, I. N. & Manolakos, D. E. 2001 On the modelling of the compaction mechanism of shock compacted powders. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 108 (2), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, J. M., Stewart, D. S. & Krier, H. 1989 Analysis of steady compaction waves in porous materials. J. Appl. Mech. 56 (1), 15–24.Google Scholar
Prümmer, R. 1983 Powder compaction. In Explosive Welding, Forming and Compaction (ed. Blazynski, T. Z.), pp. 369–395. Applied Science Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, J. J. 1996 A parallel adaptive grid algorithm for computational shock hydrodynamics. Appl. Num. Math. 20 (4), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, J. J. 1998a AMRITA: a computational facility (for CFD modelling). In 29th Computational Fluid Dynamics, VKI LS 1998-03 (ed. Deconinck, H.). Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics.Google Scholar
Quirk, J. J. 1998b Amr_sol: Design principles and practice. In 29th Computational Fluid Dynamics, VKI LS 1998-03 (ed. Deconinck, H.). Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics.Google Scholar
Quirk, J. J.2007 amr_sol::multimat. Tech. Rep. LA-UR-07-0539. Los Alamos National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Sharpe, G. J. & Bdzil, J. B. 2006 Interactions of inert confiners with explosives. J. Engng Maths 54 (3), 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, G. J. & Braithwaite, M. 2005 Steady non-ideal detonations in cylindrical sticks of explosives. J. Engng Maths 53 (1), 39–58.Google Scholar
Short, M., Anguelova, I. I., Aslam, T. D., Bdzil, J. B., Henrick, A. K. & Sharpe, G. J. 2008 Stability of detonations for an idealized condensed-phase model. J. Fluid Mech. 595, 45–82.Google Scholar
Short, M., Fredenburg, D. A., Lang, J. M., Gambino, J., Kapila, A. K. & Schwedeman, D.2015 Comparison of models for compaction of porous cerium oxide. Presented at the 19th International Conference of the American Physical Society Topical Group on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
Short, M. & Quirk, J. J. 2018 High explosive detonation-confiner interactions. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 50, 215–242.Google Scholar
Short, M., Quirk, J. J., Kiyanda, C. K., Jackson, S. I., Briggs, M. E. & Shinas, M. A.2010 Simulation of detonation of ammonium nitrate fuel oil mixture confined by aluminum: edge angles for DSD. In Fourteenth International Detonation Symposium, pp. 769–778. Office of Naval Research ONR-351-10-185.Google Scholar
Zel’dovich, Ya. B. & Raizer, Yu. P. 2002 Physics of Shock Waves and High-temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena. Dover Publications.Google Scholar