MSC - Pressure Evolution Inside Complex Corridor System Induced by Blast Action PDF

1
Poznan University of Technology

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Masters Thesis

Pawe Mamrak

Pressure evolution inside complex corridor
system induced by blast action

Supervisors: Marcin Wierszycki, PhD,
Piotr Sielicki, MSc.

Pozna 2011
2

Ewolucja cinie w zoonej strukturze korytarzy budynku

W ostatnich latach nasilenie atakw terrorystycznych zwrcio uwag ludzkoci na
problem wytrzymaoci konstrukcji budynkw na obcienia wyjtkowe wybuchami.
Rwnoczenie brak norm i innych uregulowa prawnych dotyczcych projektowania
budynkw odpornych na te obcienia i bezpiecznych dla ludzi stanowi przeszkod w
skutecznej eliminacji tych, w istocie nowych zagroe. Obecnie, dziki wystarczajco
wydajnym komputerom, jak rwnie zaawansowanemu oprogramowaniu stao si moliwe
symulowanie zjawiska wybuchu w rzeczywistoci wirtualnej. W poniszej pracy skupiono
si w szczeglnoci na analizie rozchodzenia si fali uderzeniowej w strukturach
zamknitych (budynki, tunele).
Na wstpie, celem przedstawienia istoty zjawiska, omwiono kluczowe zagadnienia
zwizane z samym wybuchem jak i z propagacj fali uderzeniowej. W skrcie opisano
klasyfikacj materiaw wybuchowych i specyfik poszczeglnych form fali uderzeniowej.
Za narzdzie do przeprowadzenia oblicze komuterowych posuy Abaqus. W celu
uatwienia i przyspieszenia tworzenia zoonych modeli analizowanych struktur napisano
skrypt w jzyku Python. W niniejszej pracy omwione zostay poszczeglne funkcje
wspomnianego skryptu, poparte dodatkowo przykadami obrazujcymi sposb ich
wykorzystania.
Przeprowadzone w pracy symulacje podzielono na cztery zasadnicze grupy. W
pierwszej z nich skupiono si na analizie szczytowych wartoci cinienia otrzymanych z
analiz numerycznych i porwnaniu ich z wartociami analitycznymi obliczonymi na
podstawie Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Structures to resist the effects if accidental
explosions. Analiza nr 2 dotyczya wybuchu w prostopadociennym pomieszczeniu.
Szczegowemu badaniu poddana zostaa ciana boczna, a wyniki porwnane do
otrzymanych na podstawie algorytmu podanego w UFC. W trzeciej grupie symulacji,
skadajcej si w sumie ze 150 analiz, badaniem objta zostaa propagacja fali uderzeniowej
w zaamujcym si w rodkowym odcinku korytarzu. Redukcja cinienia jako efekt
wystpienia zaamania budzia tu najwiksze zainteresowanie autora. Czwarta symulacja
stanowia numeryczn rekonstrukcj eksperymentu przeprowadzonego w czasie II wojny
wiatowej w zoonej strukturze tuneli podziemnych przez prof. Johoji, a opisanego w [27].
Prac zamykaj najistotniejsze wnioski z przeprowadzonych analiz.

3

Contents
Contents ............................................................................................ 3
1. Introduction ............................................................................. 5
2. Phenomenon of explosion ...................................................... 7
2.1. Definition and classification of explosives ..........................................7
2.2. Blast phenomenon ...............................................................................7
2.3. Blast-loading classification ................................................................ 12
2.4. Calculation methods of blast-loading ............................................... 19
3. Finite Element Analysis techniques ..................................... 22
4. Tools and methods .................................................................23
4.1. Software .............................................................................................. 23
4.2. Creation of CEL model in Abaqus .................................................... 26
4.3. Assumptions and restrictions in the script ...................................... 29
4.4. Simplified block scheme of the script ...............................................30
4.5. Structure of the script ........................................................................ 34
4.6. Problems and difficulties .................................................................. 40
4.7. Further development ......................................................................... 41
5. Analyses ................................................................................. 42
5.1. Benchmarking analysis of blast wave propagation ......................... 42
5.1.1. Description .......................................................................................................... 42
5.1.2. Analytical solution .............................................................................................. 43
5.1.3. Numerical solution ............................................................................................. 43
5.1.4. Discussion of the results .................................................................................... 44
4

5.2. Analysis of the cubicle ...................................................................... 46
5.2.1. Description .......................................................................................................... 46
5.2.2. Analytical solution .............................................................................................. 47
5.3. Shock wave propagation analysis in corridor .................................. 65
5.3.1. Description .......................................................................................................... 65
5.4. Shock wave propagation analysis in tunnel shelter ........................ 74
5.4.1. Description .......................................................................................................... 74
6. Summary ................................................................................ 88
Bibliography .................................................................................... 91
Appendix A .................................................................................... 93
Appendix B ................................................................................... 102

5

1. Introduction
Preface
In recent years one can observe fast development of design methods in the field of civil
engineering. The threat of terrorism (but not only) pointed peoples attention to the
problem of resistance of the buildings to different, extreme kinds of accidental loading.
Among them the most dangerous seem to be explosions, which can seriously damage or
even destroy the structure of the object, forcing it to collapse. Also buildings, where
explosive materials are manufactured and stored should be evaluated against structure's
resistance to the effects of accidental explosions, as concentration of explosives increases
this possibility.
Nowadays computers are sufficiently powerful to successfully deal with these topics.
It is possible to simulate the explosion taking place in a given space, as well as behaviour of
the structure subjected to dynamic loading induced by the explosions (mainly air pressure).
Both analyses are relatively new issue; therefore they are tersely described in national
standards. In case of blast simulations the principal interest is value of loading subjecting
the building. Many engineering methods have been introduced in the past, computing the
load on a basis of weight of the explosive and distance to the structure. Many applications,
e.g. ConWep for years has been serving people as useful tool to predict the influence of the
blast wave. This approach, although widely used all over the world, e.g. to estimate
pressure acting on a structure of tall buildings, is sometimes insufficient, as it does not take
into account individual circumstances.
In this thesis author presents a method of blast wave propagation analysis in Abaqus
Explicit. In order to perform this kind of analyses, so called coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
analysis has been applied. The method allows detailed simulation of blast phenomena,
requires however slightly different approach in modelling elements comparing to standard,
Lagrangian analysis technique. The differences are described in next chapters.
In order to automate the modelling process a special script has been prepared.

Objectives
Within the thesis four groups of simulations are conducted. In the first two, one seeks for
appropriate mesh size on the basis of comparison between the analytical and numerical
results. The parameters describing the shock wave are studied. In third simulation, the
main objective is to obtain information on propagation of shock wave for different
6

conditions (e.g. arrangement and dimensions of corridors, location of explosives). The
fourth simulation concerns analysing explosion in tunnel shelter. The results are compared
to values obtained in experiments by Ishikawa and Beppu [27].

Structure of the thesis
The thesis consists of six chapters, followed by bibliography and one appendix. In the
Chapter 1 the motivation and objectives are briefly discussed. Chapter 2 presents the
theoretical background of explosion phenomenon. The types of explosions are described,
followed by explanation of the crucial shock wave parameters. At the end, the historical
and the current calculation methods of blast wave parameters are briefly described.
Chapter 3 outlines the basic kinematical descriptions of the continuum that are used while
dealing with mechanics of fluids and solids. These issues are described in more detail in
Appendix A. In the Chapter 4 the tools that were used for computations are described, that
is: Abaqus/Explicit, Abaqus Scripting Interface, Python programming language. It is
followed by a short overview of creating CEL model in the mentioned tools. Later, the
script that was prepared for the purpose of easy and fast modelling of complex corridor
systems is described. The issues such as assumptions that have been made in the script, its
structure, as well as problems that have been encountered are discussed. Lastly authors
thoughts on further development of the script are given. Chapter 5 concerns the numerical
simulations that have been conducted. The first simulation is a comparison of results
obtained using Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) methods [7] and Abaqus/Explicit. The
second analysis deals with problem of blast wave propagation in a simple cubicle, where
numerical results are compared to those calculated with use of analytical algorithms. The
third simulation concerns behaviour of blast wave reflecting in a corridor broken by some
angle. The fourth simulation is a numerical reconstruction of experiments performed by
Japanese scientists in a tunnel shelter [27]. Chapter 6 is an ultimate summary of the
information gathered in previous chapter. Appendix A discusses different Finite Element
techniques, presents derivation of important equations of Eulerian, Lagrangian, Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian and Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian descriptions of continuum. Later
the universal conservation laws in the non-conservative and conservative forms are
provided. Appendix B contains UML class diagram of Python script.

7

2. Phenomenon of explosion
2.1. Definition and classification of explosives
Explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner [4].
One can distinguish two types of explosive materials depending on the speed of
propagation of the shock wave, namely "high explosives", if the detonation is supersonic
and low explosives when the burning process is slower. Then this process is known as
deflagration.
Explosives, according to physical state can be classified as solids, liquids or gases.
Solid explosives are mainly high explosives for which blast effects are best known. They can
also be classified on the basis of their sensitivity to ignition as secondary or primary
explosives. The latter are ones that can be easily detonated by simple ignition from a spark,
flame or impact. Secondary explosives when detonated create blast (shock) waves which
can result in widespread damage to the surroundings.
The most common are explosions caused by chemical reactions. The first such a
material was invented in 9
th
century in China and is known as black powder. In the
Industrial Revolution of the 18
th
and 19
th
centuries, when a very significant and rapid
development of chemistry was observed, new explosive materials have been invented. One
can mention here nitro-glycerine, nitrocellulose, smokeless powder, and probably the most
famous one, invented by Alfred Nobel, dynamite. Since World War II one of the most
popular materials has become trinitrotoluene, called shortly TNT. It is a high explosive
solid of yellow colour, an example of secondary explosive, which nature is a chemical event.
The numerous applications of TNT caused that it is considered to be the standard measure
of strength of bombs and other explosives. The method of quantifying the energy released
in explosions is called TNT equivalent. The ton of TNT is a unit of energy equal to the
amount of energy released in the detonation of one ton of TNT (which is approximately
4.184 gigajoules). TNT equivalency is usually based on experimentally determined factors
or the ratio of its heat of detonation to that of TNT [30].

2.2. Blast phenomenon
In the moment of ignition, the explosive charge rapidly releases energy in the forms such as
heat, sound and very dense and high pressure wave. From the viewpoint of influence on the
structure the most important is the latter. The detailed descriptions of detonation process
and blast wave propagation can be found in papers [6] and [7].
8

In this thesis author focuses on the most common chemically induced explosions. In
the process of detonation a very rapid and stable chemical reaction takes place, which
proceeds through the explosive material at a supersonic speed, called the detonation
velocity. Detonation velocities range from 6700 to 8500 meters per second for most high
explosives. The detonation wave rapidly converts the solid or liquid explosive into a very
hot (about 3000- 4000C [6]), dense, high-pressure gas, and the volume of this gas which
had been the explosive material is then the source of strong blast waves in air. Pressures
immediately behind the detonation front range from 19000MPa to 33800MPa [7]. Only
about one-third of the total chemical energy available in most high explosives is released in
the detonation process. The remaining two-thirds are released more slowly in explosions in
air as the detonation products mix with air and burn. This afterburning process has only a
slight effect on blast wave properties because it is much slower than detonation. The blast
effects of an explosion are in the form of a shock wave composed of a high-intensity shock
front which expands outward from the surface of the explosive into the surrounding air.

Figure 2-1. Blast wave pressure-time history [6].

9

The shape of the blast wave is very characteristic its front is very abrupt, reaching a
very high value of pressure, then a rapid decrease is visible after which the pressure returns
to initial value of the ambient atmospheric pressure (Figure 2-1).
After a short time, the pressure behind the front may drop below the ambient
pressure (Figure 2-2). During such a negative phase, called also negative-phase or suction
phase a partial vacuum is created and air is sucked in. This is also accompanied by high
suction winds that carry the debris for long distances away from the explosion source [6].

Figure 2-1. Blast wave propagation [6].

Along with propagation of the wave, following observations can be perceived: the
wave decays in strength (the overpressure decreases steadily), lengthens in duration, and
decreases in velocity. This phenomenon is caused by spherical divergence as well as by the
fact that the chemical reaction is completed, except for some afterburning associated with
the hot explosion products mixing with the surrounding atmosphere.
The scheme describing shock wave propagation is very characteristic. It is usually
called blast wave pressure-time profile, also referred to as overpressure curve. The main
components describing the overpressure curve are (followed by [5]):
- peak positive overpressure,
- peak negative under pressure,
- dynamic pressure,
- positive and negative phase durations,
- positive and negative phase impulses (integrals with respect to time of the
respective pressures).

10

Figure 2-1 shows a typical blast pressure profile of ideal free air blast wave. The
detonation can be considered to take place at time t = 0s. The first important component is
the arrival time that is the time that it takes for the pressure wave to reach the point of
interest. Pressure at that position suddenly increases to a peak value of overpressure; over
the ambient pressure (ambient pressure is marked with dashed line). The pressure then
immediately decays to ambient level (here the point of equalization is at time equal to 1.2
milliseconds), then decays further to an under pressure (creating a partial vacuum) before
eventually returning to ambient conditions at time. The peak pressure is usually referred to
as the peak side-on overpressure, incident peak overpressure or merely peak overpressure.
Throughout the pressure-time profile, two main phases can be observed - portion
above ambient is called positive phase duration, while that below ambient is called
negative phase duration. The negative phase is of a longer duration and a lower intensity
than the positive duration.
The shock wave overpressure curve is important from the standpoint of civil
engineer as it a basis for determination of dynamic pressure. The dynamic pressure
determines the value of loading that is subjecting the structure. Generally blast loading on
a structure caused by a high-explosive detonation is dependent upon several factors:
- the magnitude of the explosion,
- the location of the explosion relative to the structure of interest (unconfined or
confined),
- the geometrical configuration of the structure,
- the structure orientation with respect to the explosion and the ground surface
(above, flush with, or below the ground).
Experiments prove that for each pressure range there is a particle or wind velocity
associated with the blast wave that causes a dynamic pressure on objects in the path of the
wave. In the free field, these dynamic pressures are essentially functions of the air density
and particle velocity. For typical conditions, standard relationships have been established
between the peak incident pressure, the peak dynamic pressure, the particle velocity, and
the air density behind the shock front. The magnitude of the dynamic pressures, particle
velocity and air density is solely a function of the peak incident pressure, and, therefore,
independent of the explosion size. Figure 2-3 gives the values of the parameters versus the
peak incident pressure. The dynamic pressure is the most important parameter for
determining the loads on structures.
11

Figure 2-3. Peak incident pressure versus peak dynamic pressure, density of air behind the
shock front, and particle velocity [7].

Summarizing the size and material of the charge, as well as the stand-off distance
(distance between the detonation point and examined point) and charges shape will all
determine the magnitude and shape of the overpressure curve (the bigger stand-off
distance, the longer duration of the positive-phase, lower amplitude and smaller intensity
of the shock pulse). Additionally, the blast wave and the involved pressure can reflect off of
surfaces (like ground or structures) in various directions, and cause further fluctuations
(and reinforcement) in pressure at a single point. The reinforcement of the blast wave is
described in next paragraph in more details.

12

2.3. Blast-loading classification
Two blast-loading categories have been distinguished (stated after [7]). The division bases
on the confinement of the explosive charge, and so there are unconfined and confined
explosions. These two categories can be further subdivided into next six basing on the
location of the explosives and the structure. The Figure 2-4 presents full classification:

Figure 2-4. Blast loading categories [7].

Free air burst and surface burst are very important because they result in so-called
ideal blast waves.
Of the six categories, those from air bursts are seldom encountered and the free air
burst is the least likely to occur. The possibility of such blast environments exists where
potentially explosive materials are stored at heights adjacent to or away from protective
13

structures such as in manufacturing (process or storage tanks) or missile sites. In the latter,
the rocket propellant would be a source of explosive danger to the ground crew and control
facilities. The other four blast-loading categories can occur in most explosive
manufacturing and storage facilities. In such installations, transportation of explosive
materials between buildings either by rail, vehicle, or in the case of liquid or gases, through
piping, is a possibility. Also, storage and handling of explosives within buildings are
common occurrences.
The Figure 2-4 shows also the five possible pressure loads associated with the blast
load categories, the location of the explosive charge which would produce these pressure
loads, and the protective structures subjected to these loads.

Unconfined explosions
An explosion, which occurs in free air, produces an initial output whose shock wave
propagates away from the centre of the detonation, striking the structure without
intermediate amplification of its wave (Figure 2-5), which takes place during ground
impact (the main part).

Figure 2-5. Free-air burst blast environment [7].

14

As the incident wave moves radially away from the centre of the explosion, it will
impact with the structure, and, upon impact, the initial wave (pressure and impulse) is
reinforced and reflected (Figure 2-6). The reflected pressure pulse of Figure 2-6 is typical
for infinite plane reflectors.

Figure 2-6. Pressure-time variation for a free-air burst [7].

The variation of the pressure and impulse patterns on the surface of a structure
between the maximum and minimum values is a function of the angle of incidence. This
angle is formed by the line which defines the normal distance R
A
between the point of
detonation and the structure, and line R (slant distance) which defines the path of shock
propagation between the centre of the explosion and any other point in question on the
structure surface (Figure 2-5).
The dependency of peak reflected pressure on the angle of incidence can be seen in
Figure 2-7 for a number of different shock strengths.
15

Figure 2-7. Reflected pressure coefficient versus angle of incidence [7].

The reflected overpressure can be much larger than the incident overpressure. For
very strong shocks, where the ideal gas approximation is no longer valid, the predicted
upper limit for reflected overpressure is much as 20 times the incident overpressure. It
means that the objects surrounding a structure can create reflected waves that increase the
loading seen by the structure. Additionally, there can be reinforcement in the corner
geometries where multiple reflected waves can interact [19].

Air Burst Explosion
Air burst explosion is an explosion which is located at a distance from and above the
structure, so that the ground reflections of the initial wave occur prior to the arrival of the
blast wave at the structure. When the incident wave is reinforced by the ground effect, two
phenomena can occur: a classical reflection (Figure 2-8) or a reinforcement reflection
(called Mach Front, Figure 2-9).
16

Figure 2-8. Air burst blast environment classical reflection [8].

Figure 2-9. Air burst blast environment reinforced reflection [7].

The Mach front is formed by the interaction between initial (incident) and reflected
pressure waves. This reflected wave is the result of the reinforcement of the incident wave
by the ground surface. The occurrence of mentioned interaction depends on the angle of
incidence between ground and incident wave. The critical angle is of around 40 (for < 40
regular reflection takes place). The pressure-time variation of the Mach Front is similar to
that of the incident wave except that the magnitude is somewhat larger [8].

17

Surface Explosion
A surface burst explosion occurs when the detonation is located close to or on the ground.
The initial wave of the explosion is reflected and reinforced by the ground surface to
produce a reflected wave. Unlike the air burst, the reflected wave merges with the incident
wave at the point of detonation to form a single wave, similar in nature to the Mach wave
of the air burst but essentially hemispherical in shape (Figure 2-10) [7].

Figure 2-10. Surface burst blast environment [7].

Confined explosions
Confined explosions are a very complex issue. When an explosion occurs inside a building
the presence of the walls and ceiling greatly increases the number of blast wavestructure
interactions. Multiple reflections take place, and many waves coalesce to produce
enhancements in corners and other local constrictions. The reflections can extremely
amplify the peak pressures associated with the initial shock front. In addition, and
depending upon the degree of confinement, the effects of the high temperatures and
accumulation of gaseous products produced by the chemical process involved in the
explosion will exert additional pressures and increase the load duration within the
structure. The biggest difference between internal and external explosions, however, is the
presence of the quasi-static gas pressure. Condensed explosives are approximately a
thousand times denser than air. The detonation of an explosive in a building will introduce
a quantity of hot gas into the building, as well as the shock waves mentioned above.
18

Depending on the relative magnitudes of the mass of the explosive and the volume of the
building, the gas pressure may be the dominant loading mechanism on the building
elements. Because normal buildings (as opposed to containment buildings) have doors,
windows, heating ducts, etc., which allow the gas to vent into adjacent rooms or the
outside world, the gas pressure does not persist. The decay of the pressure, however, takes
place in a time-scale much longer than the duration of the individual shock reflections, and
the overall duration is typically much longer than the structural response time of elements
loaded in the building. For this reason it is referred to as quasi-static gas pressure.
When an explosion occurs within a confined area, gaseous products will accumulate
and temperature within the structure will rise, thereby forming blast pressures whose
magnitude is generally less than that of the shock pressure but whose duration is
significantly longer [7]. The magnitude of the gas pressures as well as their durations is a
function of the size of the vent openings in the structure.

Figure 2-11. Combined shock and gas pressures for small and/or square chamber [7].

Figure 2-11 illustrates an idealized pressure-time curve considering both the shock
and gas pressures. As the duration of the gas pressures approaches that of the shock
pressures, the effects of the gas pressures on the response of the elements diminishes until
the duration of both the shock and gas pressures are equal and the structure is said to be
fully vented.

19

Fully Vented Explosion
A fully vented explosion will be produced within or immediately adjacent to a barrier or
cubicle type structure with one or more surfaces open to the atmosphere. The initial wave,
which is amplified by the nonfrangible portions of the structure, and the products of
detonation are totally vented to the atmosphere (there is no gas pressure build-up) forming
a shock wave (leakage pressures) which propagates away from the structure.

Partially Confined Explosion
A partially confined explosion will be produced within a barrier or cubicle type structure
with limited size openings and/or frangible surfaces. The initial wave, which is amplified by
the frangible and nonfrangible portion of the structure, and the products of detonation are
vented to the atmosphere after a finite period of time. The confinement of the detonation
products, which consist of the accumulation of high temperatures and gaseous products, is
associated with a build-up of quasi-static pressure (gas pressure). This pressure has a long
duration in comparison to that of the shock pressure.

Fully Confined Explosion
Full confinement of an explosion is associated with either total or near total containment
of the explosion by a barrier structure. Internal blast loads will consist of unvented shock
loads and very long duration gas pressures which are a function of the degree of
containment. The magnitude of the leakage pressures will usually be small and will only
affect those facilities immediately outside the containment structure.

2.4. Calculation methods of blast-loading
Empirical and semi-empirical methods
As it can be seen blast loading is a very complex issue. First attempts to describe it
mathematically were started yet in the 1950s. The crucial notion in this matter is
Hopkinsons law [9]. It is the most widely used approach for blast wave scaling. It
establishes that similar explosive waves are produced at identical scaled distances when
two different charges of the same explosive and with the same geometry are detonated in
the same atmosphere [10]. Thus, any distance R from an explosive charge W can be
transformed into a characteristic scaled distance Z:

3
R
Z
W
= (2-1)
20

where W is the charge mass expressed in kilograms of TNT. The use of Z allows a compact
and efficient representation of blast wave data for a wide range of situations.
One of the first methods estimated peak overpressure P
so
due to spherical blast was
introduced by Brode [12] in 1955:

( )
( )
3
2 3
6.7
1 10
0.975 1.455 5.85
0.019 0.1 10
so so
so so
P P bar
Z
P bar P bar
Z Z Z
= + >
= + + < <
(2-2)
Next Newmark and Hansen [13] (1961) introduced a relationship to calculate the
maximum blast overpressure, Pso, (in bars) for a high explosive charge detonates at the
ground surface as:

0.5
3 3
6784 93
so
W W
P
R R
| |
= +
|
\ .
(2-3)
Another expression of the peak overpressure P
so
(in kPa) was introduced by Mills [14]
(1987), in which W is expressed as the equivalent charge weight in kilograms of TNT, and Z
is the scaled distance:

3 2
1772 114 108
so
P
Z Z Z
= + (2-4)
Then the maximum value of dynamic pressure q
s
can be calculated from the
following formula:

( )
2
5
2 7
so
s
so o
P
q
P P
=
+
(2-5)
If the blast wave encounters an obstacle perpendicular to the direction of
propagation, reflection increases the overpressure to a maximum reflected pressure Pr ,
which can be obtained from RankineHugoniot relationships for an ideal gas:

7 4
2
7
o so
r so
o so
P P
P P
P P
+
=
`
+
)
(2-6)
Used symbols:
P
so
- peak overpressure,
P
o
- ambient pressure.

For more methods check paper [32].
Beside methods that try to approximate the maximum value of peak pressure for
different kinds of explosions (as free air burst or surface burst), the methods describing the
shape of the overpressure curve have been developed. One of the methods represents the
21

pressure-time history by linear decay using approximate triangular equivalents. The other
one, probably the most popular represents the pressure-time history by exponential
functions. It is called Friedlanders method [11] and is described by following equation (only
the positive phase):
( )
( )
( )
1
A
o
t t
t A
s so
o
t t
P t P e
t
|
(
(
(

(
=
(

(2-7)
where t is the time, P
so
is the peak overpressure, t
o
is the duration of the positive
phase, t
A
is the arrival time of blast wave, and is a positive constant called the waveform
parameter that depends on the peak overpressure. It is depicted in Figure 2-12.

Figure 2-12. Free-field pressure-time variation [7].

Also many charts and tables predicting the blast pressures and blast durations have
been developed. The method presented in UFC [7] is an example of semi-empirical
method. It will be used in Verification Analysis to obtain peak incident overpressure and
peak reflected pressure.
Nowadays to simulate the blast one can use developed by US Army ConWep [16, 18],
a blast loading predictive tool. It contains a big database of experimental records of blast
loading parameters from a wide range of explosive charge masses and stand-offs produced
by Kingery and Bulmash [15]. The main advantage of this model is that the loading is
applied directly to the structure subject to the blast. There is no need to include the fluid
medium in the computational domain. In the ConWep model, empirical data for two types
22

of waves are available: spherical waves for explosions in midair and hemispherical waves for
explosions at ground level in which ground effects are included [21]. It is also available in
Abaqus.
Also AtBlast program [17] funded by US General Services Administration is available
for free. Both of these applications can calculate free-field and reflected blast pressure
histories (from free-air and surface burst explosions), average peak pressure and impulse
from a hemispherical surface burst on a specified reflected wall area.

Numerical methods
A blast analysis using pressure time history predicted by the ConWep or AtBlast
applications produces reasonable results. However it cannot consider the effects, such as
confinement due to geometry of structure, reflection of multiple blast waves, and
shadowing occurring when an object is blocking a surface of structure from direct blast
wave. These factors can change the blast pressure dramatically. If more accurate results
have to be obtained, also more accurate methods than the semi-empirical ones used in
mentioned applications need to be applied.
One of the possibilities is to use software which supports finite element analysis.
One can mention here Autodyn, Dyna3D, LS-Dyna, and Abaqus. The mentioned software
supports a coupled analysis, for which the blast simulation module is linked with the
structural response module. In this type of analysis the CFD (computational fluid
mechanics) model for blast-load prediction is solved simultaneously with the CSM
(computational solid mechanics) model for structural response. By accounting for the
motion of the structure while the blast calculation proceeds, the pressures that arise due to
motion and failure of the structure can be predicted more accurately.
The similar simulations can be conducted in Abaqus using the Coupled-Eulerian-
Lagrangian (CEL) method.

3. Finite Element Analysis techniques
Choice of an appropriate kinematical description of the continuum is crucial while dealing
with mechanics of fluids and solids because it determines the relationship between the
deforming continuum and the finite grid or mesh of computing zones. The algorithms of
continuum mechanics usually make use of two classical descriptions of motion: the
Lagrangian description and the Eulerian description [20, 21]. Additionally, for use in more
sophisticated problems, when functionality of these two methods is insufficient, two other
23

techniques have been developed: Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian and Arbitrary Eulerian-
Lagrangian. The more detailed description is given in Appendix A.

4. Tools and methods
4.1. Software
The shock wave propagation analyses have been performed with use of three basic tools.
First one was Abaqus/CAE which provided a complete interface for creating simulations,
which then were solved by Abaqus/Explicit. Second one was Python language, one of few
supported languages for the purpose of use in Abaqus. Also Abaqus Scripting Interface was
used. It is, as referenced in [1], an application programming interface (API) to the models
and data used by Abaqus.

Abaqus
Abaqus is commercial software for performing numerical analyses of different physical
phenomena. The most common ones in the case of civil engineering can be simulations of
statics and dynamics of 2D and 3D structures. However Abaqus, originally released in 1978
has a much wider range of application, as it is commonly and successfully used in
automotive, aerospace and industrial products industries. Its important feature is that it
provides numerous multiphysics simulations (that is such, which involve multiple physical
models or multiple simultaneous physical phenomena). By the description of Abaqus often
two shortcuts appear: FEA and CAE. First one is the name of numerical technique (Finite
Element Analysis) for finding approximate solutions of partial differential equations (PDE)
as well as of integral equations which this software uses. The second is abbreviation of
Computer Aided Engineering and refers to a group of software applications that have been
produced to help in engineering tasks.
Abaqus/CAE is an environment that generates an input file (that is a file that
contains all necessary data) that is next submitted to the Abaqus solver.

Abaqus/Explicit
Abaqus/Explicit as its name points uses explicit dynamics analysis procedure. It is based
upon the implementation of an explicit integration rule together with the use of diagonal
24

(lumped) element mass matrices. The equations of motion for the body are integrated
using the explicit central-difference integration rule:

( ) ( )
( )
1
1 1
2 2
2
i i
N N N
i
i i
t t
u u u
+
| | | |
+
| |
\ . \ .
A + A
= + (4-1)

( ) ( ) ( ) 1 1 1
2
N N N
i i i
i
u u t u
+ + | |
+
|
\ .
= + A (4-2)
In the formulas (4-1) and (4-2)
N
u is degree of freedom (a displacement or rotation
component) and the subscript i refers to the increment number in an explicit dynamics
step. The central-difference integration operator is explicit in the sense that the kinematic
state is advanced using known values of
1
2
N
u
u
| |
|
\ .
and
N
i
u from the previous increment.
Explicit procedure uses diagonal element mass matrices. Therefore the accelerations
at the beginning of the increment are computed by:

( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
1
N NJ J J
i i i
u M P I
= (4-3)
where:

NJ
M - Mass matrix,

J
P - Applied load vector,

J
I - Internal force vector.
The benefits of lumped mass matrix are first of all significant computational
advantages of calculations. Lumped mass matrix is a sparse matrix thus it gives much
better performance of computer calculations than a full one. A diagonal mass matrix
negates also the need to integrate mass across the deformed element and to build tangent
stiffness matrix. The internal force vector
J
I is assembled from contributions from the
individual elements such that a global stiffness matrix need not be formed.
To assure the stability of the procedure, which integrates through time by using
many small time increments, special conditions need to be fulfilled. The central difference
operator is conditionally stable, and the stability limit for the operator (with no damping)
is given in terms of the highest frequency of the system as:

max
2
t
e
A s (4-4)
And with damping:

( )
2
max max
max
2
1 t
e
A s + (4-5)
25

where
max
is the fraction of critical damping in the mode with the highest frequency.
An approximation to the stability limit is often written as the smallest transit time of
a dilatational wave across any of the elements in the mesh:

min
d
L
t
c
A ~ (4-6)
where
min
L is the smallest element dimension in the mesh and
d
c is the dilatational wave
speed in terms of
0
and
0
. The current dilatational wave speed
d
c is described by the
formula:

2
d
c

+
= (4-7)
where is the density of the material and
, are effective Lames constants. For an

isotropic, elastic material Lames constants can be defined in terms of Youngs modulus E
and Poissons ratio v by:

( )( )
( )
0
0
1 1 2
2 1
E
E
v

v v

v
= =
+
= =
+
(4-8)
This estimate for t A is only approximate and in most cases is not a conservative
(safe) estimate. In general, the actual stable time increment chosen by Abaqus/Explicit is
less than this estimate by a factor between
1
2
2
and 1 in a two-dimensional model and

between
1
2
3
and 1 in a three-dimensional model. Description is based on [25, 26].

The equations presented above are based on CourantFriedrichsLewy condition
(CFL condition), which is a necessary condition for convergence while solving certain
partial differential equations (usually hyperbolic PDEs) numerically by the method of finite
differences. It arises when explicit time-marching schemes are used for the numerical
solution. As a consequence, the time step must be less than a certain time in many explicit
time-marching computer simulations; otherwise the simulation will produce wildly
incorrect results [31].

Abaqus Scripting Interface
Abaqus Scripting Interface is an application programming interface which is (after [2]) a
particular set of rules and specifications that software programs can follow to communicate
with each other. Entering the data is different - instead of clicking on specific icons and
26

fulfilling numerous boxes, user has to set every parameter using functions provided by ASI.
This way traditional procedure of entering data can be omitted.
As it is written in [1], the Abaqus Scripting Interface is a customized extension of
standard Python. This means that in order to write scripts or programs one has to do it in
Python language. Python is dynamic, interpreted and interactive high-level programming
language. It enables object-oriented, structural and functional programming. It is
developed as an open source project, what means it is free and its source code is publicly
available. The feature distinguishing Python from other languages is its syntax, in which
the scope of the loop or conditional statement is designated through indentation.

4.2. Creation of CEL model in Abaqus
Creating a model in Abaqus requires specifying numerous data. In this part, to show the
concept of Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian analysis technique, individual steps of creating a
fully-working model are described.
As it is written in Chapter 3 and Appendix A, there are significant differences in
Lagrange and Euler descriptions. These differences influence significantly on the creation
of model. The main differences are presented in following paragraphs.
In Lagrange analysis technique nodes are fixed within the material, which fulfils it
entirely, so the element boundary coincides with the material boundary. In Eulerian
analysis nodes are fixed in space, so the material flows through non-deformable elements.
In contrast to Lagrange elements Eulerian ones may not always be 100% full of material -
they can be partially or completely void. The Eulerian material boundary must, therefore,
be computed during each time increment and generally does not correspond to an element
boundary. Eulerian models typically consist of a single Eulerian part, what is the notable
difference comparing to Lagrange models, where several parts are created and then
assembled into one model [21]. This part can be arbitrary in shape but typically it is a
simple rectangular grid of elements. It represents the domain within which Eulerian
materials can flow (area of simulation). The necessity of Eulerian model to consist of a
single part induces the problem of defining different objects. It is solved by creating
multiple regions within the Eulerian-type part instance. Then a particular material is
assigned to a particular region. This way complex body geometry can be defined. Details
can be found in paper [21].

27

Generally, the entire procedure involves accomplishing following steps (from [21]):
1. Create Eulerian-type part/parts that defines/define the geometric region within
which Eulerian materials can flow. Create partitions that will represent the
initial boundaries between different materials in the part (needed if materials
are assigned uniformly across a region).
2. Define materials.
3. Define and assign an Eulerian section for the model.
4. Create an instance of each Eulerian part. Merge instances to obtain single part
instance.
5. Create a field output request (in order to view the deformation of materials in an
Eulerian model, output variable EVF is necessary).
6. Create a predefined field that defines the topology of materials in the initial
configuration of the Eulerian part instance.
7. Define any loads and/or boundary conditions acting on the model.
8. Create a hexagonal mesh for the Eulerian part.

Parameters
During the preparation of the model for blast simulations, following material parameters
have to be set (the given values are for typical air conditions and TNT as an explosive
charge):
1. Air described by following parameters:
a. Density -
3
1.293 kg m (

,
b. EOS parameters for ideal gas:
i. gas constant - ( ) 287 J kg K (

,
ii. ambient pressure -
2
101325 N m (

,
c. Specific heat - ( ) 717.6 J kg K (

,
d. Data describing the viscosity ( ) kg s m (

- temperature dependency | | K
(in tabular form),
e. Physical constants:
i. Stress -
2
101325 N m (

,
ii. Specific energy between | | 193300 J kg and | | 219780 J kg ,
28

2. Explosive charge (TNT):
a. Density -
3
1630 kg m (

,
b. Jones-Wilkins-Lee EOS parameters:
i. detonation wave speed - | | 6930 m s ,
ii. coefficients:
1. A -
11 2
3.7377 10 N m (

,
2. B -
11 2
0.037471 10 N m (

,
3. R
1
- | | 4.15 ,
4. R
2
- | | 0.9 ,
5. e - | | 0.35 ,
iii. detonation energy density | | J kg ,
iv. pre-detonation bulk modulus
2
N m (

,
c. Physical constants:
i. Stress -
2
101325 N m (

,
ii. Specific energy between | | 3680 kJ kg (for classical TNT from
1970s) and | | 5000 kJ kg (in the case of TNT-C4 compounds).

Ideal gas law is used to describe the compressible flow phenomena that include
microscopic properties such as density, pressure and internal energy. The formula of ideal
gas:

( )
Z
A
p p R u u + = (4-9)
where p is current pressure, p
A
is ambient pressure, is density, R is gas constant, is
current temperature,
Z
is the absolute zero on the temperature scale being used.
Jones-Wilkins-Lee equation of state is widely used to model both the detonation and
the expansion phase of the explosion (unlike the ideal gas EOS which can be only used to
model expansions phase) [22]:

1 2
int
1 2
1 1
R R
p A e B e e
R R
q q
eq eq
e

| | | |
= + +
| |
\ . \ .
(4-10)
29

where p is current pressure, coefficients A, B, R1, R2 and are experimentally determined
material constants,
0
q = is the ratio of densities: - of the detonation products,
0
- of
the explosive. e
int
is internal energy per unit mass.
All above values are specified in SI units, that is: length - metres [m], mass -
kilograms [kg], time - seconds [s], thermodynamic temperature - kelvins [K]. Force is given
in newtons (N = kgm/s
2
) while pressure in pascals (Pa = N/m
2
).

4.3. Assumptions and restrictions in the script
Basic elements building the structure are straight sections and connections. In the script
following assumptions have been made:
- Straight sections are defined in their axes, by specifying start and finish points
(hereinafter referred to as important points),
- Sections may intersect freely,
- If two or more sections have to be connected, this connection has to take place
in sections important points only,
- To avoid unpleasant gaps, connection should be in horizontal or vertical plane
only,
- Depending on the type of connection (vertical or horizontal) sections that are
being joined should have respectively same width or height,
- From the fact that it is impossible to obtain horizontal angle from sections
directed vertically (which would sometimes result in inadequate orientation of
this sections faces) an additional, non-vertical section, from which the vertical
one inherits the horizontal angle, has to be specified,
- When sections of different width or height (later called important dimension)
connect at angle 90, the precedent of them is one which has smallest important
dimension it results in smooth connection.

In process of modelling the structure, the user has to have in mind following
limitations:
- Although the sections can intersect at any angle, angles close to 180 will result
in very long connection (because of fact that ( ) tan 180 = ),
30

- If the connecting sections differ in value of important dimension, depending on
the mentioned difference for angles bigger than 90 some strange artefacts may
appear,
- In case of failure to comply with assumption number 5, unpleasant connection
will be created.
Meeting above requirements one can be sure about correctness of the model and its
compatibility with his own assumptions and predictions.

4.4. Simplified block scheme of the script
This script automates operations required to be done in Abaqus/CAE modules, requiring
the user to specify just the key values, like points describing geometry of the structure,
basic material properties and duration of analysis. Although some of the actions can be
done at any time, in this application a certain order of execution of some modules has been
introduced. This treatment results from the fact that for the correct execution of the script
(as well as the Abaqus solver) it is necessary to enter all required data. Some of the
functions are, however, non-obligatory, that is one can choose if any (if yes then which
one) to execute. Figure 4-2 presents applications functioning block scheme.
31

Figure 4-2. Block scheme presenting the functioning algorithm.
32

The first main step is the initialization of applications main class called MyModel
(A). Next one is to define data concerning the arrangement of corridors (B). The more
detailed graph showing this procedure is presented in Figure 4-3.

Figure 4-3. Block scheme presenting major steps of geometry definition.

At the beginning one has to define number of geometry data sets. These sets should
be filled with information on particular corridors and connections. To assure flexibility of
the script, no check of correctness of the input data is performed. While setting the
geometry, data is stored in complex list structures.
33

Figure 4-4. Block scheme presenting draw method execution.

Subsequent step is call to draw method (step C). After some computations each
record from data structures becomes the basis for the creation of corridors and connections
(in both cases firstly sketches, then parts and in the end instances are created). It was one
of the assumed conventions to firstly define all the necessary geometry and then, finally
draw it.
In this place it is important to mention that creation of simple connection of two
corridors is not always a process involving just creation of two cuboids. In order to avoid
gaps or discontinuities in corridors other elements need to be placed. Then, in fact such a
connection can be made even of several elements, which in the end are merged into new
element. The complexity of the connection is dependent on the relative angle between the
corridors. If angle is equal to zero, no additional elements are required. If the angle is
smaller than or equal to 90, two elements are sufficient. The most complex case takes
place when the angle is wider than 90, then four elements have to be used and the
procedure itself involves operations such as merging and cutting, performed in a certain
34

way. When all the declared elements of each set have been drawn, they are merged into
one element.
Next step, which is partitioning of the elements (D), is non-obligatory (denoted as
No partitioning in Figure 4-2). However, usually when the geometry is complex, it is
necessary to execute it. We can choose from two different partitioning algorithms (Auto
partitioning and Raw partitioning), it is recommended to check each one and compare
which one produces better results for particular structure. Unfortunately author cannot
assure that these algorithms will always produce elements appropriate for meshing, as the
complexity of the different connections is unlimited, and list of options available in Abaqus
is very short. Fortunately in many cases just a slight manual alteration may solve the
problem. This issue is described in part Problems and difficulties. Except cutting the model
into regions, this part of script merges all geometry data sets and creates calculation step
(Explicit dynamic), loads acting on the walls (air pressure, including possibility of an inflow
and outflow of air) and boundary conditions (fixed displacements).
In step E user has to specify parameters describing the medium (air) and explosive
charge, like number of explosives, their location and weight. Also moments in time when
the detonations take place have to be specified.
Subsequent step (F) covers declaring the output data one would like to obtain. Two
methods differing in way of data recording are possible to execute. The data recording
frequency can be chosen via appropriate attribute.
The next step is to call mesh method (G). Though the suggestive name, the function
does a bit more than just create a mesh of a specified size, additionally it modifies the
special keywords, what is an important issue.
The penultimate step (H) is optional and related to point (F). It concerns defining
individual finite elements as output data.
The last operation is a call to job method (I), which in this case does nothing else
and nothing more beyond what its name implies. The method allows declaring number of
CPUs and threads involved in process of calculations.

4.5. Structure of the script
One of the properties of Python is that it is an object-oriented programming language. This
important feature has been taken into account while creating the script. Thanks to object-
oriented approach it was possible to divide the code into separate parts classes
consisting of appropriate properties and methods. This way greater clarity of code
35

(comparing to procedural approach) has been achieved. Moreover, it allows easier and
error-free further development. Also the usage is simpler, as the functions being used are
precisely specified.
The application consists of 23 classes, which one can divide into 4 groups: creation of
geometry (marked as B, C in Figure 4-2), partitioning into regions (D), setting material
properties (E) and output parameters (F and H), and job execution (G and I). The classes
and methods, on which user can operate are briefly described below.
The script has been designed in such a way, that all necessary commands (in order to
create a functional and complete Abaqus model) are localized within the main class
MyModel. The object of this class instance is responsible for managing of all data and
subordinate classes. The user can call following methods:

Model object initialization (A)
__init__(name : str)
Constructor method called when the MyModel object is being initialized. The objects of all
subordinate classes are created. The only attribute is the name of the model, under which it
will appear in Abaqus. Exemplary call:
mod = MyModel('Corridor')

Methods for creating geometry (B, C)
addCMs(GDSList : list<str>)
The method generates geometry data sets specified in GDSList list. GDSList should contain
their names. Exemplary execution:
GDSList = ['GeometrySet_1', 'GeometrySet_2']
mod.addCMs(GDSList)
The first line creates list of data sets. Then it becomes an input parameter to addCMs()
method.

addCorridor(name : str, startPoint : vec3f, endPoint : vec3f,
width : float, height : float, oocc : str, addCorr : CorridorData,
newName : str = '') : CorridorData
Method is used to create straight corridor section assigned to set specified by its name
name, with geometry defined by start and end points (startPoint and endPoint) and cross-
36

section dimensions width and height. By parameter oocc user can specify corridors closure.
Possible options are following:
- oo corridor open at both points,
- oc corridor open at start point and closed at end point,
- c0 corridor closed at start point and open at end point,
- cc corridor closed at both points.
addCorridorIndex specifies the corridors parent corridor, from which it will inherit vertical
angle. This parameter shall take value other than None only if the corridor is pointing
vertically. The last parameter is optional and is a new name of the corridor. This option is
useful if geometry data set contains a single corridor section. Example:
Corr1 = mod.addCorridor(GDSList[0], vec3f(0,0,0),
vec3f(10,0,0), 2, 3.5, 'oo', None)
The corridor is created from point [0,0,0] to [10,0,0], with width of 2m and height of 3.5m.
The corridor has both ends open and no parent section. It will be assigned to geometry
data specified by the name contained in GDSList[0].

addConnection(name : str, corr1 : CorridorData, corr2 :
CorridorData, verORhor : str, connType : str)
This method adds connections between corridors. The input parameters are: name of the
geometry data set, to which the connection will be associated, followed by the
CorridorData objects of two corridor sections that the connection will concern. Next
attribute is string specifying the plane in which the connections take places. It can take two
values:
- hor if the connection is in horizontal plane,
- ver if the connection is in vertical plane.
The last parameter concerns which parts of corridors to merge. Possible options:
- sf the part will connect starting point of first specified corridor with ending
point of the second one,
- fs the part will connect ending point of first specified corridor with starting
point of the second one,
- ss the part will connect starting points of both corridors,
- ff the part will connect ending points of both corridors.
Exemplary use:
mod.addConnection('GS1', Corridor2, Corridor1, 'hor',
'sf')
37

The connection is created between starting point of corridor identified by Corridor2 and
ending point of corridor Corridor1. The connection is in horizontal plane. It is saved to
geometry data set specified by name GS1.

draw()
AddCorridor() and addConnection() methods append new elements to appropriate lists,
respectively for sections of corridors and connections between them. Method draw()
executes classes, which relying on the mentioned lists, generate the defined geometry
elements. Finally, after all elements have been drawn, they are merged and the unnecessary
instances are suppressed. The only possible call:
mod.draw()

Methods for partitioning (D)
merge(name : str, timePeriod : float)
First of three alternative methods, it merges all defined geometry sets into a new one. No
partitioning takes place. First argument is name of resulting data set. The second one is
duration of the simulation, needed for dataPrePartition() method, which is executed within
the merge() method. It defines the analysis step (Explicit Dynamics), creates boundary
conditions and loads. Example:
timePeriod = 0.007
mod.merge("Merged", timePeriod)
The method creates data set Merged. The duration of the analysis is 0.007 second.

autoPartitionAndMerge(name : str, PartHeights : list<float>,
timePeriod : float)
Method performs same operations as the above one; additionally it creates regions based
on Abaqus algorithm regarding auto partitioning of faces. This method enhances its usage
to cells. First argument is name of resulting data set. The second is a list of floats, in which
one can define additional horizontal planes for partitioning. The last parameter defines
duration of the simulation. Exemplary use:
timePeriod = 0.07
horPartitions = [-2.0, 2.0, 6.5]
mod.autoPartitionAndMerge("Merged", horPartitions,
timePeriod)
38

In the example data set named Merged is created. The geometry will be cut by three
planes, at heights defined in horPartitions list. The analysis will be performed for 0.07s time
period.

rawPartitionAndMerge(name : str, timePeriod : float, angPart :
bool)
This method performs simple partitioning algorithm, based on planes defined by corridors
faces. The arguments are: name of the new data set, length of the simulation and Boolean
parameter specifying whether the angular partitions should be taken into account.
Example:
timePeriod = 0.07
mod.rawPartitionAndMerge("Merged", timePeriod, False)
In above example the method creates data set Merged. The analysis will be performed for
time equal to 0.07s, the partitioning along bisectors of angles between intersecting
corridors is disabled.

Methods for setting material properties (E)
dataPrePartition(timePeriod : float)
The method shall be considered as private method. It is called by methods belonging to the
group Methods for partitioning. It is responsible for creating Explicit Dynamics step, load
and boundary conditions. The only argument it takes is the duration of analysis.

dataPostPartition(tntLoc : list<vec3f>, tntWeight : list<float>,
detTime : list<float>)
This complex method creates fist of all air and TNT properties and Eulerian section
consisting of these materials. Next it assigns them to the part. Subsequently the space for
explosive charge is cut from the model, thus creating two sets - air and TNT. At the end, in
Abaqus Predefined Field Manager, appropriate section materials are assigned to particular
steps. The method takes following arguments: list of vectors specifying centre points of
explosives, lists of floats describing weight of charges and time of the explosion. Exemplary
call:
tntLoc = [vec3f(3,2.7,1.2), vec3f(15,14.8,0)]
tntWeight = [270, 300]
detTime = [0.01, 0.4]
mod.dataPostPartition(tntLoc, tntWeight, detTime)
39

In this example two explosive charges are created. Their location within the model is set in
tntLoc list, weight (270 and 300kg) in tntWeight list. The explosions take place in moment
of time contained in detTime list.

Methods concerning output data (F, H)
HO(HOPoint : vec3f)
Method for creating history output for specified point (HOPoint). Example:
mod.HO(vec3f(20.3, 14, 27))

FO(numIntervas : int)
This method creates field output for the whole model. The parameter it takes is number of
data recordings the application will take during the simulation. If the value is 0, then all
increments are stored to output file. Example:
mod.FO(700)
Here the field output containing 700 records is created.

FOSet(centrePoints : list<vec3f>, FOSSizes: list<vec3f>,
numIntervals : int)
Method for setting a region of the model as a field output domain. The localizations of
points being centres of these regind and sizes of the sets are defined by the first two
parameters the function takes. The last argument works in the same why as in the function
above. Exemplary use:
centrePoints = [vec3f(3, 0.4, -0.3), vec3f(5, 0.1, 0.3)]
FOSSizes = [vec3f(0.15, 0.15, 0.15), vec3f(0.1, 0.1,
0.1)]
mod.FOSet(centrePoints, FOSSizes, 0)
This call will effect in creation of two field output sets located in points specified by
components of centrePoints list, and with sizes contained in FOSSizes list. The
numIntervals value equal to 0 indicates that every simulations increment will be saved.

elementFOSet(pointList:list<vec3f>, numIntervals : int)
Unlike three methods described above, this one has to be executed after creating mesh. It
generates field output for finite elements defined in pointList list. The second parameter it
takes is number of data recordings the application will take during the simulation. If the
value is 0, then all increments are stored to output file. Example:
40

pList = [vec3f(10,1,0), vec3f(1,1,0.5), vec3f(20,1,0)]
mod.elementFOSet(pList, 123)
In this example three element field output sets are created (defined in pList). The
numIntervals specifies how many increments will be saved (here 123 increments).

Methods related to job execution (G, I)
mesh(meshSize : float)
This method creates mesh of specified size. It edits keywords associated with Explicit
Dynamics step in order to make calculations possible. Example:
mod.mesh(0.15)
The mesh of 15cm size will be created.

job(jobName : str, writeInput : bool, numCpus : int, numDomains :
int, activateLoadBalancing : bool)
The method creates job with name specified by jobName. The second argument is a
Boolean and determines whether to save .inp file. The three recent parameters describe the
parallelization options available in Abaqus. The first of them defines number of CPUs
which will be engaged in calculations, second denotes number of threads for each CPU, the
latter one should be set to True if the dynamic load balancing should be activated. For
more details check Abaqus documentation [21, 26].

save(pathName : str)
This method enables to save .cae file under the named specified by pathName parameter:
mod.save("C:/myAnalysis")

All classes are presented schematically in Appendix B.

4.6. Problems and difficulties
During the preparation of the script several obstacles connected with Abaqus limitations
have been encountered. Certain of them have been just partly resolved and in order to
submit a job some modifications of the model can be required. In many cases they forced
author to revise initial assumptions and modify the code to cooperate with Abaqus more
properly. In this part these issues are extensively described.
41

The script allows to define arbitrary geometry. However because of the necessity to
use single Eulerian part instance, in order to distinguish different objects in its interior, it is
required to cut it with datum planes (partitioning). In the script this method is used to
separate explosives' cubes from the air domain. The problems with this approach arise
during meshing. Eulerian parts use unique meshing rules, which are more restrictive
comparing to those used in Lagrangian ones, that is the finite elements need to form right
prisms (so the faces joining the two bases have to be perpendicular to the bases) with bases
being tetrahedral. In certain cases the algorithm fails to mesh the object. First of it is
impossible to mesh complex 3D shapes (e.g. if corridors are directing at different horizontal
and vertical angles simultaneously). The author has taken efforts to solve these problems.
Despite using three different partitioning procedures, finally not all of them have been
eliminated. Starting from the assumption that the fundamental objective of every computer
script is that it has to work, to make partitioning methods work properly, some usage
limitation have been imposed. Therefore the following structure of the geometric data has
been adapted: elements have to be grouped into so called sets, where each set should
consist of corridors lying in one level (in horizontal plane). Also the vertical distance
between sets should be greater than height of the storey, so that individual sets would not
overlap each other. Then one of two available partitioning methods will result in model
correctly partitioned. As it was mentioned, to assure flexibility, no special restrictions are
set, so one can arrange the geometry arbitrarily. The partitioning methods are non-
obligatory, but before creating mesh and running job, it is possible that one would have to
manually adjust the model for calculations.

4.7. Further development
Now the application supports only cuboids as elements to define geometry. A good
solution would be to add some other methods of the structure generation, for example to
give the possibility to model rooms or halls of more complex shape. As far as creation of
the script, which would handle it, seems not be a huge problem, it appears to be harder to
figure out how to solve the problem of connection with corridors in order to avoid
discontinuities.
Also the script would be more functional if point 5 from part Assumptions and
restrictions would lose its validity. However, this involves solving problem of this matter:
how to model connection of corridors, when each has different height, merging at
horizontal angle different than 0 or 180?
42

Another issue is that now the model consists of only rigid elements, which are fixed
and unable to displace. Adding deformable materials inside the structure (e.g. building)
would be a nice option, which would extend applicability of the script.
The most problematic issue is one related to partitioning of the model. AutoPartition
method is sufficient for structures which consist of horizontal layers of sets of corridors and
additional corridors directed vertically. However for cases described in part Problems and
difficulties this method is insufficient. Implementation of fully working code seems to be
impossible; however this is author's private opinion.
For now all faces of corridors (except the ones which normal vector coincides with
the corridors longitudinal axis) have fixed outflow and inflow of the air. An interesting
option would be to add windows and doors, so that the outflow would be enabled.

5. Analyses
5.1. Benchmarking analysis of blast wave propagation
5.1.1. Description
The analysis is aimed to compare peak incident overpressure obtained using Abaqus
numerical approach and UFC analytical method. The subject of the analysis is a simple air
cuboid with dimensions:
9.2
0.4
0.4
L m
l m
h m
=
=
=

The TNT explosive weights 1kg and is located 1m from one end in centre of the cross
section. The model as shown in Figure 5-1 has been prepared using script. The code can be
found on the CD in folder Models under the name SimpleCuboid.py.

Figure 5-1. Perspective projection of an air cuboid.
43

5.1.2. Analytical solution
Method described in UFC is used. For convenience calculations are performed for points
based on scaled distance Z (here presented for
1 3
0.25
ft
Z
lb
= ). According to UFC guidelines
the charge is increased by 20%.

1 3 1 3
1.2 2.65
0.25 0.0992
0.105
W kg lbs
ft m
Z
lb kg
R m
= =
= =
=

Peak incident overpressure can be calculated from Table 2-7 [7]:
( ) 0.25 4600 31.82
so
P Z psi MPa = = =

Some of the results are shown in Table 5-1.

5.1.3. Numerical solution
The numerical simulations have been performed in Abaqus. Dimensions of the model have
been taken as in the analytical solution. The time of the analysis has been set to 0.1s, while
air and TNT parameters have been set according to chapter 4. Internal energy has been set
to 3680kJ/kg. The pressure has been measured uniformly across the model in elements
located on the longitudinal axis (in red points shown in Figure 5-2). Five different mesh
refinements have been studied: 10, 8, 6, 4and 2cm. The results are given in Table 5-1.
Figure 5-2 shows distribution of points across the model and location of the explosive
charge for model meshed with 2cm elements.

Figure 5-2. Plan view of the air cuboid meshed with 2cm elements. Measuring points are in
red, while blast charge in blue.

44

5.1.4. Discussion of the results
Figure 5-3 shows the comparison of maximum pressures obtained using UFC algorithm
(blue line) and Abaqus.

Figure 5-3. Comparison of peak pressure obtained for each distance from the charge for
UFC solution and Abaqus.

It can be seen that mesh refinement has significant influence on the results.
Generally the finer the mesh the higher values of pressure one obtains. While for stand-off
distance smaller than 2.0m the differences between Abaqus results for all kinds of meshes
are visible, for the remaining part those for 10, 8, 6 and 4cm meshes are minimal, except
0,1
1,0
0,80 1,80 2,80 3,80 4,80 5,80 6,80 7,80
P
e
a
k

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
Distance from the charge R [m]
UFC
10cm, 1473 FE
8cm, 2875 FE
6cm, 6874 FE
4cm, 23000 FE
2cm, 184000 FE
45

the 2cm mesh, which still provides higher results (minimum of 65%). The pressure
differences for 2cm mesh are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5-1. Comparison of peak incident pressure (P
so
) obtained by UFC method and in
Abaqus for selected points.
R [m]
Pso [MPa]
Pressure difference [%]
with respect to UFC
UFC Abaqus 2cm mesh
0.8 1.77097 1.24762 30
0.9 1.36714 1.03842 24
1 1.15650 0.88089 24
1.1 0.96297 0.74037 23
1.2 0.75270 0.61475 18
1.6 0.37646 0.26066 31
2 0.22305 0.11699 48
2.4 0.15001 0.05419 64
2.8 0.10886 0.03204 71
3.2 0.08225 0.02208 73
3.6 0.06420 0.01511 76
4 0.05218 0.01039 80
4.4 0.04495 0.00749 83
4.8 0.04077 0.00562 86
5.2 0.03658 0.00432 88
5.6 0.03239 0.00342 89
6 0.02820 0.00275 90
6.4 0.02444 0.00227 91
6.8 0.02248 0.00198 91
7.2 0.02051 0.00192 91
7.6 0.01856 0.00202 89
8 0.01655 0.00200 88

Basing on Table 5-1 it can be concluded that in the case of 1kg TNT charge, the
convergence of results obtained using UFC method and Abaqus CEL simulations is similar
for stand-off distance smaller than 1.6m. However for R outside this range the differences
grow very significantly. For R = 3.5m pressure calculated using Abaqus with 2cm mesh is
76% smaller than UFC value. For R = 8m pressure calculated using UFC is 14.5kPa, while
using Abaqus is 2.1kPa. The discrepancy is enormous, for example in order to assess the
damage that the pressure can induce. A pressure of 7kPa would already partially demolish
46

houses, while 2.1kPa would only damage windows and ceilings (for more details
check [32]).
It can be assumed that for 1cm mesh the numerical results would be even closer to
the UFC, especially for small stand-off distances, where the biggest disturbances are
observed.

5.2. Analysis of the cubicle
5.2.1. Description
The analysis concerns comparing empirical and numerical computational methods of
calculating blast wave properties induced by an explosion for a simple structure (shown
schematically in Figures 5-4 and 5-5). The calculations presented in subsequent part
Analytical solution are based on methods described in UFC [7]. The numerical simulations
were conducted in Abaqus/Explicit. The main point of this example is to compare values
obtained by these two methods. Also verification of influence of the finite element size on
the accuracy of the results is performed.

Figure 5-4. Cubicle in perspective projection. Explosive charge in red, analysed wall in blue.

16 H ft =
32 L ft =
6 h ft =
12 l ft =
5.33
A
R ft =
47

Figure 5-5. Plan and section view of the cubicle [7].

5.2.2. Analytical solution
The analytical solution is performed using method described in UFC [7]. This approximate
method has been developed using theoretical procedures based on semi-empirical blast
data and on the results of response tests on slabs [7].
The subject of the task is to calculate average peak reflected pressure and average
scaled reflected impulse on the side wall of a structure, which accordingly to the
nomenclature given by UFC is described as a fully vented, three-wall cubicle. A TNT
explosive charge weights 245lbs. Additionally peak incident pressure in line between the
charge and the wall, and peak reflected overpressure on the side wall in 10 points are
calculated.
Data:
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
16 4.87
32 9.75
6 1.83
12 3.66
5.33 1.62
A
H ft m
L ft m
h ft m
l ft m
R ft m
=
=
=
=
=

Charge weight:
( ) W 245 111.13 lbs kg =

48

Calculation of peak incident overpressure
For a freely chosen point located 1m from the charge, the maximum pressure is calculated:

1 3 1 3 1 3
1 3.28
3.28
0.5243
245
R m ft
ft R
Z
W lb
= =
= = =

Peak incident overpressure can be calculated from Table 2-7 [7]:
( ) 0.5243 2150 14.82
so
P Z psi MPa = = =

All the results are shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Peak incident overpressure for different distances from the charge.
Distance from
the charge R [m]
Scaled distance Z
1 3
ft
lb
(
(

P
so
[psi] P
so
[MPa]
0.29 0.15 6850 47.23
0.39 0.20 5500 37.92
048 0.25 4650 32.06
0.58 0.30 3950 27.23
0.66 0.35 3370 23.24
0.76 0.40 2950 20.34
0.86 0.45 2630 18.13
0.95 0.50 2280 15.72
1.05 0.55 2030 14.00
1.14 0.60 1800 12.41
1.24 0.65 1695 11.69
1.33 0.70 1590 10.96
1.43 0.75 1449 9.99
1.53 0.80 1270 8.76
1.61 0.84 1150 7.93

Calculation of peak reflected overpressure
Peak reflected overpressure has been calculated on the side wall in 10 points (9 of them are
distributed evenly) as in the Figure 5-6. The distance from each point to the edge of the
wall has been set to 0.5m.
49

Figure 5-6. The view from the centre of the cubicle towards the wall on the left side
(according to Figure 5-5) - scheme showing analysed points on the wall.

Calculation scheme for point 1 is presented below. The results for all points are given in
Table 5-5.
Coordinates of point 1 relative to the charge:
5.60
1.62
2.55
x m
y m
z m
=
=
=

Distance to the charge:

2 2 2
6.36 R x y z m = + + =
Scaled distance Z:

1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
6.36
1.323 3.335
111.13
ft R m
Z
W kg lb
= = = =
For Z=3.335 one can read from Figure 2-7 [7] peak incident overpressure:
77
so
P psi =
Angle of incidence :

1
2 2
tan 75.21
y
x z
o

| |
= =
|
|
+ \ .

Basing on peak incident overpressure and angle of incidence a peak incident overpressure
multiplier can be obtained (Figure 2-193 [7]):
1.2
r
C =
Peak reflected overpressure:
1.22 77 92.4 0.637
r r so
P C P psi MPa = = = =
50

Table 5-3. Summary of peak reflected overpressure in chosen points on the side wall.
P
r
[psi] P
r
[MPa]
Point
1 92.4 0.637
2 924 6.371
3 283.9 1.957
4 561 3.868
5 4408 30.392
6 119 0.820
7 102.5 0.707
8 3900 26.890
9 462 3.185
10 10005 68.982

Calculation of average peak reflected pressure and scaled average unit
reflected impulse
Average peak reflected pressure and scaled average unit reflected impulse; unlike their
peak reflected equivalents are assumed to act across the whole face.
Calculation of chart parameters h/H, l/L, L/R
A
, and the scaled distance Z
A
:
1 3
1 3 1 3
0.375
0.375
6.00
2.00
5.33
0.85
245
A
A
A
h H
l L
L R
L H
R
Z ft lb
W
=
=
=
=
= = =

Interpolation is required for Z
A
, L/H, l/L, and h/H.
Number of adjacent reflecting surfaces N = 2. Then:
6.00
0.8523
A
A
L R
Z
=
=

The values of
r
P and
1 3
r
i W can be determined and tabulated from Table 2-3 [7] for
calculated above
A
L R and
A
Z and the following variables:

0.625, 1.25, 2.50, and5.00
0.10,0.25,0.50, and0.75
0.10,0.25,0.50, and0.75
L H
l L
h H
=
=
=

The results are given in Tables 5-4 and 5-5.
51

Table 5-4. Average pressure
r
P , part 1.
h H

0.10 0.25
l L

0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75
0.625 L H =

462 569 598 569 533 665 701 665
1.25 L H =

749 932 980 932 943 1178 1238 1178
2.50 L H =

1200 1488 1562 1488 1432 1796 1881 1796
5.00 L H =

2032 2519 2635 2519 1870 2334 2437 2334
Figure [7] 2-64 2-65 2-66 2-67 2-68 2-69 2-70 2-71

r
P , part 2.
h H

0.50 0.75
l L

0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75
0.625 L H =

546 681 718 681 533 665 701 665
1.25 L H =

1017 1267 1333 1267 943 1178 1238 1178
2.50 L H =

1609 2028 2120 2028 1432 1796 1881 1796
5.00 L H =

1987 2456 2563 2456 2623 3119 3210 3119
Figure [7] 2-72 2-73 2-74 2-75 2-76 2-77 2-78 2-79

Table 5-5. Average unit impulses
1 3
r
i W , part 1.
h H

0.10 0.25
l L

0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75
0.625 L H =

73 71 70 66 65 61 59 55
1.25 L H =

96 92 90 84 96 92 90 83
2.50 L H =

126 121 121 111 139 131 129 120
5.00 L H =

172 164 164 153 167 153 154 143
Figure [7] 2-113 2-114 2-115 2-116 2-117 2-118 2-119 2-120

52

1 3
r
i W , part 2.
h H

0.50 0.75
l L

0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75
0.625 L H =

64 61 58 54 59 56 53 49
1.25 L H =

93 87 83 76 87 79 76 70
2.50 L H =

129 120 118 109 117 106 103 95
5.00 L H =

186 168 168 158 201 189 189 179
Figure [7] 2-121 2-122 2-123 2-124 2-125 2-126 2-127 2-128

Plots of
r
P versus L/H for the values: Z
A
= 0.8523, l/L = {0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75} and
constant h/H = {0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75} are shown in Figure 5-7a through d (blue, green and
red lines).

Figure 5-7. Plots of
r
P versus L/H for different values of h/H and l/L [7].
53

Plots of
1 3
r
i W versus L/H for the values: Z
A
= 0.8523, l/L = {0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75}
and h/H = {0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75} are shown in Figure 5-8a through d (blue, green, orange
and red lines).

Figure 5-8. Plots of
1 3
r
i W versus L/H for different values of h/H and l/L [7].

Interpolation of
r
P and
1 3
r
i W for L/H = 2.00, h/H = {0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75}, and l/L
= {0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75} is required (from Figures 5-7 and 5-8 or Tables 5-4 and 5-5). Results
are presented in Tables 5-6 and 5-7.

54

r
P

for L/H = 2.00.
h/H
0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75
l/L
0.10 1031.057 1251.801 1388.087 1251.801
0.25 1279.945 1567.984 1743.014 1567.984
0.50 1344.328 1644.011 1825.852 1644.011
0.75 1279.945 1567.984 1743.014 1567.984

1 3
r
i W for L/H = 2.00.
h/H
0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75
l/L
0.10 115.439 123.386 116.102 106.357
0.25 110.784 116.912 108.198 96.428
0.50 110.003 114.883 105.363 93.397
0.75 101.474 106.571 97.053 86.105

Plots of
r
P and
1 3
r
i W versus l/L for each h/H chart are drawn in Figures 5-7a
through d and 5-8a through d (violet lines; l/L is upper abscissa of mentioned figures).
Graphs base on Tables 5-6 and 5-7.
Interpolation of
r
P and
1 3
r
i W for l/L = 0.375 is required for each h/H (from Tables
5-6 and 5-7). The results are tabularized below.

r
P

and average unit impulses
1 3
r
i W for l/L = 0.375.
h/H | |
r
P psi
( )
1 3
1 3 r
psi ms
i W
lb
(
(

0.10 1317.223 110.326
0.25 1612.019 115.721
0.50 1791.004 106.531
0.75 1612.019 94.643

55

Plots
r
P versus h/H and
1 3
r
i W

versus h/H are shown in Figures 5-9 and 5-10.

Figure 5-9. Plot of
r
P versus h/H [7].

Figure 5-10. Plot of
1 3
r
i W versus h/H [7].

From Figure 5-9 it can be read that for h/H = 0.375:
1714.456 11820758 11.8
r
P psi Pa MPa = = =

From Figure 5-10 it can be read that for h/H = 0.375:

( )
1 3
1 3 1 3
110.253 989359.55
r
psi ms
Pa ms
i W
lb kg

= =

Duration of load on wall:

( )
( ) ( )
1 3
1 3
1 3
0
2
2 110.253 245
0.805
1714.456
r
r
i
W
W
t ms
P
| |

|

\ .
= = =

56

The numerical simulations have been performed in Abaqus. Dimensions of the model have
been taken as in the analytical solution (Figure 5-5). The time of the analysis has been set
to 0.005s, while air and TNT parameters have been set according to chapter 4. The
exception is unknown value of the internal energy that has been used in UFC TNT tests.
Due to the lack of information the simulations have been performed for three most popular
values:
- 3680kJ/kg,
- 4520kJ/kg,
- 5000kJ/kg.
Due to the hardware limitations, described later in this section, the simulation has
been divided into two, simpler analyses. In the first one, one focuses on the pressure in a
point where maximum pressure occurs (number 10), that is in point which normal points
the charge. Therefore the model has been cut thus a significant decrease in number of
finite elements has been achieved. The second simulation covers the pressure distribution
across entire wall the results have been measured similarly as in analytical solution in 10
points as in Figure 5-6.

Simulation 1
Pressure has been measured in point 10 for the following values of mesh size: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8
and 10cm. The results are given in Table 5-9. The model can be found on the CD in folder
Models under the name Cubicle.cae.

Table 5-9. Peak reflected pressure [MPa] for different values of internal energy and mesh
size. Number of elements and memory needed for calculations are given for respective
mesh size as well.

Mesh size [m]
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Internal
energy
[J/kg]
3.68+E6 640.62 280.88 116.20 56.05 29.55 20.54
4.52+E6 - 306.72 127.58 63.41 34.29 25.95
5.00+E6 - 318.96 134.06 68.00 36.91 26.44
Number of elements 1497600 183040 23920 6188 2750 1540
RAM needed to perform
calculations [MB]
6963.2 853.6 113.6 30.3 14.033 10.2
57

One can notice the difference in maximum pressure for analysed point depending on
the mesh size (142% increase of pressure for mesh size reduction from 4cm to 2cm, 128%
increase of pressure for mesh size reduction from 2cm to 1cm). According to these results,
the mesh size of 1cm is still to course in order to provide satisfactory, convergent results.

Figure 5-11. Comparison of RAM used to compute simulations for different mesh sizes.

The analyses for smaller mesh sizes should be performed. The reduction of element
size causes an increase of their number. RAM usage for different FE size is shown in Figure
5-11. For 1cm mesh size the number of elements was 1497600, for mesh size equal to 0.5cm
it would grow approximately eight times (over 12 million elements). Also the memory
needed to conduct the simulation would rise by the same amount (approximately 54GB).
Furthermore one cannot assure results converging to some value. For these reasons
calculations for more refined mesh have been abandoned. Despite significant differences in
results it has been assumed that the results for 1cm mesh shall be closest to the reality.
The element size has also influence on the speed of the shock wave. It is presented in
Table 5-10. Shock wave speed comparison is illustrated in Figure 5-12.

10
100
1000
10000
0,01 0,1
R
A
M

[
M
B
]
Mesh size [m]
RAM usage for
mesh size
58

Table 5-10. Comparison of shock wave arrival time [ms] and wave velocity [m/s] in point 10.
Mesh size [m]
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Wave arrival time [ms] 0.4079 0.427 0.453 0.513 0.593 0.650
Wave speed [m/s] 3971.56 3793.91 3576.16 3157.89 2731.87 2492.31
Wave speed increase [%] 59.3 52.2 43.4 26.7 9.6 reference

Figure 5-12. Comparison of shock wave velocity for different mesh sizes.

It can be seen that the blast wave speed increases almost linearly together with
reduction of element size, up to almost 60% for mesh size reduction from 10cm to 1cm. It is
an expected tendency related to the nature of computational algorithm.

Simulation 2
The simulations of pressure distribution across the entire wall require significantly larger
models; the number of elements increases almost 80 times comparing to the model used in
Simulation 1. Thus the largest analysis has been performed for 4cm mesh size (resulting
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]
Mesh size [m]
Shock wave speed
59

in 1.9 million elements). The distribution of peak reflected pressure on the side wall is given
in Table 5-11.

Table 5-11. Peak reflected pressure [MPa] for e
int
= 3680[kJ/kg] and different mesh sizes.

Mesh size [m]
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Point
1 - - 0.997 0.902 0.837 0.776
2 - - 4.709 4.111 3.692 2.932
3 - - 1.890 2.196 2.117 1.808
4 - - 3.913 3.416 2.862 2.405
5 - - 5.582 5.595 7.027 7.864
6 - - 1.144 1.400 0.996 0.887
7 - - 1.684 2.131 1.806 1.562
8 - - 5.561 5.060 5.275 5.289
9 - - 3.303 3.217 2.761 2.362
10 640.619 280.879 116.199 56.049 29.549 20.539

From the data gathered in above table it is visible that mesh size influences
significantly on the results. Only in point 1 the pressure is similar for all mesh sizes. For the
remaining points the differences are larger, and the biggest one occurs for point 10.
Additionally it is tough to find the trend, as some values grow and some decrease for
constantly changing mesh size. These differences are not a surprise bearing in mind that in
case of Simulation 1 1cm mesh size was even too coarse in order to provide sufficient results.
Therefore it is confirmed that the analyses for smaller mesh sizes should be performed.
Additionally, the dependency of peak incident pressure on the distance from the
charge for different mesh densities in point 10 is presented in Table 5-12.

60

Table 5-12. Peak incident overpressure for different distances from the charge.
Distance from
the charge R [m]
Scaled distance Z
1 3
ft
lb
(
(

P
so
[MPa]
2cm mesh
size
1cm mesh
size
0.75cm
mesh size
0.5cm
mesh size
0.29 0.15 185.239 83.247 58.01678 41.32548
0.39 0.20 50.712 28.269 33.57508 34.90433
0.48 0.25 28.752 29.599 29.85978 28.81383
0.58 0.30 20.330 26.179 25.30278 24.33313
0.66 0.35 21.821 23.739 22.71208 22.27568
0.76 0.40 21.434 21.009 20.43938 20.97018
0.86 0.45 20.669 18.939 18.76051 19.91328
0.95 0.50 18.873 17.569 17.96558 18.94618
1.05 0.55 17.111 16.679 17.29798 17.93453
1.14 0.60 15.753 15.989 17.27698 17.56288
1.24 0.65 13.970 15.469 16.90428 17.34198
1.33 0.70 12.902 14.979 15.92683 16.67223
1.43 0.75 12.179 14.469 14.78708 15.43018
1.53 0.80 11.696 13.799 13.91808 14.10328
1.61 0.84 - 13.179 - 13.28073

One can notice differences in pressure for different FE sizes, however they are not
significant. The biggest differences occur for the smallest value R that is in point closest to
the charge. It is clear that the influence of the mesh size on the results depends on the
distance from the charge. To obtain reliable results closely to the charge, a dense mesh
need to be used. For the remaining points results are similar, especially in the case of mesh
sizes 0.75 and 0.5cm. Symbols (-) were put in the case of elements, where measured results
were completely wrong (for example 8 times higher than they should be).

In the case of numerical computations performed using explicit approach, one can notice
that the denser the mesh the better results one obtains. In the case of shock wave analysis
smaller elements result in higher pressure and better correlation with the analytical results.
Therefore UFC results are always compared to numerical ones performed for the densest
61

possible mesh. All the comparisons shown in this paragraph base on numerical results
obtained for internal energy e
int
= 3680[kJ/kg].

Comparison of peak incident pressure
The comparison of dependency of peak incident pressure on distance from the charge
between Abaqus and UFC is presented in Table 5-13 and shown graphically in Figure 5-13.

Figure 5-13. The dependency between peak incident pressure and distance from the charge
in line from the charge to point 10 obtained using Abaqus (blue line) and UFC (red line).

5
10
20
40
80
160
0,25 0,45 0,65 0,85 1,05 1,25 1,45 1,65
P
e
a
k

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
Distance from the charge [m]
UFC
Abaqus 2cm
Abaqus 1cm
Abaqus 0.75cm
Abaqus 0.50cm
62

Table 5-13. Comparison of peak incident overpressure calculated with UFC algorithm and
Abaqus for different distances from the charge.
Distance from
the charge R [m]
P
so
[MPa]
Pressure difference [%]
with respect to UFC
UFC Abaqus 0.5cm mesh size
0.29 47.23 41.32548 13
0.39 37.92 34.90433 8
048 32.06 28.81383 10
0.58 27.23 24.33313 11
0.66 23.24 22.27568 4
0.76 20.34 20.97018 3
0.86 18.13 19.91328 10
0.95 15.72 18.94618 21
1.05 14 17.93453 28
1.14 12.41 17.56288 42
1.24 11.69 17.34198 48
1.33 10.96 16.67223 52
1.43 9.99 15.43018 54
1.53 8.76 14.10328 61
1.61 7.93 13.28073 67

Basing on Table 5-13 it can concluded that for stand-off distance smaller than 1.0m
numerical results for 0.05cm mesh size are very similar to values obtained using algorithm
given in UFC. For coarser meshes the differences are larger, especially in area close to the
charge. For stand-off distance above 1.0m together with moving away from the charge the
differences between analytical and numerical values of peak incident pressure are
becoming greater and significant. Generally in that range, the numerical simulation
produces greater results, reaching 167% of the analytical value at the penultimate element
before the wall. Also the influence of mesh density in numerical simulations is visible;
however mesh compaction does not cause converging of the numerical results to the
analytical equivalents.
One can compare the conclusions for this simulation with conclusions for
Benchmarking analysis. Previously 2cm mesh size provided sufficient convergence with
analytical results, in this case even 0.5cm elements seem to build to coarse mesh. It is
impossible to find one and only mesh size that would be sufficient for all kinds of analyses,
63

because of large differences in values of parameters. In this case there are two important
differences, namely in charge weight (1kg in Benchmarking analysis and over 90kg in this
one) and distance range (7.5m and 1.6m respectively).

Comparison of peak reflected pressure for point 10
The value of peak reflected pressure (640.721MPa), despite being calculated for the dense
mesh and therefore being probably the value closest to the reality (from all conducted
analyses), is over 9 times higher than the result calculated using method given in UFC
(68.982MPa). The upward trend suggests that for smaller element size this value will be
even greater. Such a big difference, together with the upward trend leads to the conclusion,
that for meshes being not significantly denser than 1cm the result similar to the UFC will
not be obtained.

Comparison of peak reflected pressure on the side wall

Table 5-14. Comparison of peak reflected pressure for 10 points located on the side wall.

P
r
[MPa]
Difference [%]
(UFC - reference)
Abaqus 4cm mesh size UFC solution
Point
1 0.997 0.637 56.5
2 4.709 6.371 26.1
3 1.890 1.957 3.4
4 3.913 3.868 1.1
5 5.582 30.392 81.6
6 1.144 0.820 39.5
7 1.684 0.707 138.2
8 5.561 26.890 79.3
9 3.303 3.185 3.7
10 116.199 68.982 68.4

Table 5-14 is based on Tables 5-3 and 5-11. For points 3, 4 and 9 results obtained by
both methods are similar. The difference of 4% is acceptable. In turn for remaining points
the differences are large, reaching almost 82% for point 5 and 138% for point 7.
Such big differences may be caused by too coarse mesh. Different finite element
sizes, as proven in Table 5-11, provide significantly different values of pressure. As it was
64

mentioned earlier, results obtained for 4cm mesh size seem not to provide sufficient
accuracy.

Comparison of average peak reflected pressure and scaled average unit
reflected impulse
UFC assumes uniform distribution of pressure across the face. Average peak reflected
pressure and scaled average unit reflected impulse are averaged values to represent that
changing distribution. Unfortunately UFC does not mention how to interpret these values,
e.g. whether can it be understood as an integral over a surface created by values of peak
reflected pressure. Therefore the mentioned values cannot be compared to any of values
computed in Abaqus.

Final conclusions
Large differences of all results (of which the most important are peak incident pressure and
peak reflected pressure) might be caused by inappropriate element size, especially in part
close to the charge. Paper [29] suggests using extremely small mesh size (1mm) to obtain
acceptable results. Most of all it presents also the influence of different meshing techniques
(e.g. using tetrahedrons, hexahedrons, cubes and other) on the results. The conclusion can
be formulated that element size has the crucial impact on the quality of results, and the
selection of appropriate meshing algorithm, as well as the density of elements cannot be
overestimated.

65

5.3. Shock wave propagation analysis in corridor
5.3.1. Description
Perform numerical simulations of shock wave propagation as a result of TNT explosion in a
corridor. The model is described by following parameters: weight of explosive charge
(denoted as W), corridors dimensions, as angle between its sections longitudinal axes
( o ), cross-section dimensions (width w, height h), length (L). Analyse how the change of
these parameters affects the peak overpressure. In Figure 5-14 a schematic drawing
presenting all varying parameters is presented.

Figure 5-14. Plan view (left) and section (right) of corridor.

Simulations have been divided into two groups. The detailed description is given below in a
tabularized form. In all cases the explosive charge is located in the centre of cross-section
that is at half height and width of the corridor, 1m before one of its ends. The pressure is
measured 1m before the other end.
Air and TNT parameters have been set according to chapter 4. The mesh size has
been set to 5cm. An exemplary model meshed with 10cm elements is shown in Figure 5-15.
66

Figure 5-15. Abaqus model of a corridor. Dimensions: length = 20m, width = 2m, height =
2m, angle of break = 35. Model is meshed with 5cm elements. Yellow broken lines defining
rectangles perimeters mark partitioning planes.

Simulations group 1
In the first group, the influence of the corridors length and cross-section dimensions on
the pressure is studied. Simulations are performed for charge of 1kg weight, for angles 0,
45 and 90. The code that has been used to generate models and input files (.inp) can be
found on the CD in folder Models under the name: Corridor_analysis_1.py.

Table 5-15a. First peak overpressure for 1kg charge and angle 0.
Length L [m]
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
| |
w h
m m

1 1 0.1323 0.1107 0.0958 0.0850 0.0764 0.0790
1 2 0.0936 0.0852 0.0743 0.0665 0.0608 0.0608
2 2 0.0681 0.0657 0.0584 0.0527 0.0489 0.0453
3 3
0.0193 0.0513 0.0418 0.0338 0.0298 0.0294
4 4
0.0175 0.0125 0.0382 0.0311 0.0269 0.0240

67

Table 5-15b. First peak overpressure for 1kg charge and angle 45.
Length L [m]
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
| |
w h
m m

1 1 0.1309 0.1065 0.1022 0.0927 0.0851 0.0786
1 2 0.0850 0.0838 0.0768 0.0655 0.0607 0.0616
2 2 0.0328 0.0307 0.0516 0.0455 0.0401 0.0372
3 3
0.0212 0.0186 0.0151 0.0124 0.0110 0.0254
4 4
0.0176 No results 0.0113 0.0098 0.0087 0.0077

Table 5-15c. First peak overpressure for 1kg charge and angle 90.
Length L [m]
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
| |
w h
m m

1 1 0.1170 0.1065 0.0981 0.0914 0.0852 0.0794
1 2 0.0756 0.0637 0.0699 0.0664 0.0636 0.0606
2 2 0.0407 0.03089 0.02538 0.02368 0.02768 0.02678
3 3
0.05505 0.03756 0.02501 0.0157 0.0114 0.01128
4 4
0.0547 0.04195 0.02888 0.02007 0.01505 0.01186

Table 5-16a. Maximum peak overpressure for 1kg charge and angle 0.
Length L [m]
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
| |
w h
m m

1 1 0.1368 0.1175 0.1070 0.1021 0.0974 0.0930
1 2 0.0958 0.0879 0.0773 0.0707 0.0653 0.0608
2 2 0.0712 0.0657 0.0584 0.0539 0.0501 0.0472
3 3
0.0647 0.0513 0.0418 0.0338 0.0324 0.0310
4 4
0.0513 0.0422 0.0382 0.0311 0.0269 0.0240

68

Table 5-16b. Maximum peak overpressure for 1kg charge and angle 45.
Length L [m]
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
| |
w h
m m

1 1 0.1309 0.1139 0.1022 0.0927 0.0880 0.0853
1 2 0.0962 0.0838 0.0768 0.0710 0.0658 0.0616
2 2 0.0762 0.0625 0.0516 0.0477 0.0468 0.0452
3 3
0.0435 0.0380 0.0360 0.0328 0.0288 0.0254
4 4
0.03099 No results 0.0344 0.0303 0.0249 0.0202

Table 5-16c. Maximum peak overpressure for 1kg charge and angle 90.
Length L [m]
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
| |
w h
m m

1 1 0.1170 0.1065 0.0981 0.0914 0.0852 0.0794
1 2 0.0827 0.0746 0.0699 0.0664 0.0636 0.0606
2 2 0.0501 0.0441 0.0444 0.0442 0.0432 0.0402
3 3
0.0550 0.0376 0.0250 0.0191 0.0177 0.0171
4 4
0.0547 0.0419 0.0289 0.0201 0.0150 0.0119

Even the smallest pressure that occurred in 4x4 20m long corridor (almost 12kPa)
would cause serious damage to house structures. [32]. 80kPa that has been observed for 1x1
20m long corridor could destroy masonry walls and damage structure of the building.
69

Figure 5-16. Maximum peak pressure for corridors of different length, cross-section and
angle of refraction.

As can be seen in Figure 5-16, pressure reduction arising from increase of length of
the corridor (therefore the distance between the charge and measuring point is bigger) is
quite similar for all analysed cases - except for 4x4, 45 degrees corridor. The influence of
the angle o

on peak pressure is visible the darker plots of each colour (for 90 degrees)
are usually below those related to angles 0 and 45 degrees.

Simulations group 2
The analyses are conducted for varying angle at which the corridor is broken and different
lengths. Assumed following cross-section dimensions: w = 2m, h = 2m. The code that has
been used to generate models and input files (.inp) is available on the CD in folder Models
under the name: Corridor_analysis_2.py. First and maximum peak pressures have been put
in Tables 5-17 and 5-18. For few cases errors have occurred, probably connected with
distribution of finite elements, eventually making impossible to obtain any results.
From 54 data sets, those concerning 10m long corridor have been chosen to be
plotted (Figure 5-17) in this paper.
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
P
e
a
k

o
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
Length L [m]
1x1, 0 deg 1x1,45 deg 1x1, 90 deg
1x2, 0 deg 1x2, 45 deg 1x2, 90 deg
2x2, 0 deg 2x2, 45 deg 2x2, 90 deg
3x3, 0 deg 3x3, 45 deg 3x3, 90 deg
4x4, 0 deg 4x4, 45 deg 4x4, 90 deg
70

Table 5-17. First peak overpressure for cross-section equal to 2x2m and 1kg charge, part 1.
Angle | | o
0 10 20 30 40
Length L
[m]
10.0 0.0681 0.0637 0.0539 0.0751 0.0365
12.0 0.0657 No results 0.0741 0.0688 0.0644
14.0 0.0584 0.0607 No results 0.0614 0.0541
16.0 0.0527 0.0562 No results 0.0547 0.0482
18.0 0.0489 0.0502 No results 0.0488 0.0437
20.0 0.0453 No results No results 0.0443 0.0397

Table 5-17. First peak overpressure for cross-section equal to 2x2m and 1kg charge, part 2.
Angle | | o
50 60 70 80 90
Length L
[m]
10.0 0.0301 0.0256 0.0225 0.0208 0.0183
12.0 0.0273 0.0226 0.0187 0.0351 0.0308
14.0 0.0484 0.0403 0.0351 0.0296 0.0262
16.0 0.0430 0.0359 0.0321 0.0274 0.0239
20.0 0.0356 0.0417 0.0359 0.0310 0.0269

Table 5-18. Maximum peak overpressure for cross-section equal to 2x2m and 1kg charge,
part 1.
Angle | | o
0 10 20 30 40
Length L
[m]
10.0 0.0712 0.0729 0.0746 0.0751 0.0768
12.0 0.0657 No results 0.0741 0.0688 0.0644
14.0 0.0584 0.0607 No results 0.0614 0.0541
16.0 0.0539 0.0562 No results 0.0547 0.0482
18.0 0.0501 0.0502 No results 0.0497 0.0471

71

Table 5-18. Maximum peak overpressure for cross-section equal to 2x2m and 1kg charge,
part 2.
Angle | | o
50 60 70 80 90
Length L
[m]
10.0 0.0733 0.0637 0.0596 0.0601 0.0501
12.0 0.0590 0.0493 0.0507 0.0490 0.0441
14.0 0.0484 0.0465 0.0456 0.0436 0.0444
16.0 0.0466 0.0469 0.0426 0.0450 0.0444
20.0 0.0436 0.0417 0.0395 0.0416 0.0401

Figure 5-17. Pressure-time curve for different values of angle for 10m long corridor.

Figure 5-17 shows how the pressure distribution varies depending on the angle of
break of the corridor. For clarity only 4 plots have been drawn, for angles: 0, 30, 60 and 90
degrees. The first peak incident overpressure values and maximum peak overpressure
values can be found in Tables 5-17 and 5-18. It can be seen that the peak incident pressure
decreases together with increase of angle (30% reduction for angle 90 degrees with respect
to angle 0). For angle 90 degrees the maximum pressure occurred 3ms later than for angle
0 degrees. Also the positive pressure duration grows in this case.
72

Figure 5-18. First peak pressure changes depending on angle o for corridors of different
length.

Figure 5-18 shows the inclination of first peak pressure associated with change of
angle o . Initially an increase of pressure can be observed, from angle 30 degrees begins a
reduction, which is visible for all analysed lengths. However the plots for lengths: 12m, 18
and 20m refract in some places, differing from the general downward trend. In the
Figure 5-19 plots of maximum pressure are presented, which should provide more clear
results.

0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
P
e
a
k

o
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
Angle [deg]
10m
12m
14m
16m
18m
20m
73

Figure 5-19. Maximum peak pressure changes depending on angle o

for corridors of
different length.

The results are truly less unambiguous than those concerning first peak pressure.
Nevertheless, as in previous case, initially the maximum pressure grows together with
increasing angle, the reduction starts more or less from angle 30 degrees; however this
reduction is not as big as in previous considerations, especially for cases where the distance
between the charge and measuring point was large. The biggest changes occurred for
lengths 10 and 12m (respectively 30% and 33% reduction for angle 90 degrees in relation to
0 degrees). In turn the reduction for 18m long structure was 13%, for 20m long 15%.
Despite the differences mentioned above, as the most important observation can be
considered the significant peak pressure reduction occurring for angles close to the right
angle. This reduction is a function of peak pressure, which in this study is related to length
of the structure.

0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
P
e
a
k

o
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
Angle [deg]
10m
12m
14m
16m
18m
20m
74

5.4. Shock wave propagation analysis in tunnel shelter
5.4.1. Description
The simulation is performed for a mesh type tunnel shelter as presented in [27]. Originally
an explosive test has been conducted in the structure in order to determine the effects
upon corners in tunnels under blast pressure. A schematic plan view of the object is
presented in Figure 5-20. The objective is to compare the empirical and numerical results.

Figure 5-20. Mesh type tunnel (figures indicate pressure [MPa]) [27].

A tunnel shelter has a total length of 194 m, with a width of 2m and height of 2m.
The pressure wave caused by the detonation of 1 kg of TNT, exploded in the central
passage, was measured at points ae and at the corners, points 1-12 (in Figure 5-20 placed
in ), as shown in Tables 5-19 and 5-20, respectively. The effect of corners in this tunnel
shelter is illustrated as shown in Table 5-21.

75

Table 5-19. Maximum peak pressure at straight part in tunnel.

Measuring point
a b c d e
Distance from detonation [m] 5.2 6.3 14.8 15.2 25.2
Blast pressure [MPa] 0.494 0.267 0.138 0.124 0.063

Table 5-20. Maximum peak pressure at branch part in tunnel, part 1.

Measuring point
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from detonation [m] 5.8 6.2 14.5 15.8 16.2 19.8
Blast pressure [MPa] 0.079 0.069 0.038 0.036 0.036 0.055

Table 5-20. Maximum peak pressure at branch part in tunnel, part 2.

Measuring point
7 8 9 10 11 12
Distance from detonation [m] 25.8 26.2 29.8 30.2 33.7 40.2
Blast pressure [MPa] 0.030 0.034 0.050 0.028 0.009 0.022

Table 5-21. Effect of corner in a tunnel shelter.

Distance
5 6 15 15 25
Straight point [MPa] a: 0.494 b: 0.267 d: 0.124 c: 0.138 e: 0.063
Corner point [MPa] 2: 0.069 1: 0.079 5: 0.036 4: 0.036 8: 0.034
Pressure reduction [%] 86 70 71 75 46

A numerical model has been prepared in Abaqus using script. The code can be found on
the CD in folder Models under the name TunnelShelter.py. The geometry dimensions have
been set exactly as shown in Figure 5-20. Air and TNT parameters have been set according
to chapter 4. Like in the second analysis, paper [27] does not give any information about
the TNT parameters, thus the simulations have been performed for three most popular
values: 3680kJ/kg, 4520kJ/kg and 5000kJ/kg.
76

Figure 5-21. Abaqus model for a tunnel shelter. Element size 10cm (904722 elements).

Initially it was intended to perform analyses for the whole model, as presented in
Figure 5-21, for the following mesh sizes: 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, and 3cm. Unfortunately, already for
10cm mesh size the model consisted of almost million elements. In combination with long
analysis time needed, which was 0.07s, it has become clear that for denser mesh the
analyses will take too much time, or will not run at all. For instance 4cm mesh would result
in almost 13 million points.

Figure 5-22. A central part of model for an analysis of a tunnel shelter. Element size 5cm
(640000 elements).
77

For these reasons the central part of the model has been separated. It is shown in
perspective projection in Figure 5-22. This small model contains points a, b, 1, and 2. Due
to the uncertainty where the points 1 and 2 were originally located, additionally the
pressure has been measures in two other points, that is in points 1 and 2. They are located
in corridors axes 1m from points without primes. The arrangement of points in presented
in Figure 5-23.

Figure 5-23. A plan view of small model for an analysis of a tunnel shelter. Blue square
location of TNT charge, red squares measuring points.
This manipulation in truncation of models size resulted in over 10 times decrease in
number of finite elements. Also it made possible to reduce the analysis time to only 0.015s.
The simulations were performed in order to compare values obtained for 4 points
with experimental data. On this basis, the most suitable size of finite element in terms of
accuracy of results and efficiency of calculations is chosen, for which analysis of the entire
model is performed.
The peak overpressure values obtained for a small model are given in Tables 5-22
through 5-27, for different internal (specific) energies. The comparison of pressure-time
dependency on mesh size for point 2 is presented in Figure 5-24.

b
TNTcharge
1 '
1
2
2'
a
78

Table 5-22. First peak overpressure values in analysed points for e
int
= 3680kJ/kg.

Pressure [MPa]
Point A Point B Point 1 Point 1 Point 2 Point 2
Mesh size
[m]
0.10 0.0755 0.0605 0.0446 0.0239 0.0434 0.0242
0.08 0.0910 0.0702 0.0491 0.0254 0.0505 0.0254
0.06 0.1151 0.0842 0.0593 0.0291 0.0601 0.0284
0.05 0.1269 0.0926 0.0609 0.0306 0.0599 0.0289
0.04 0.1360 0.0943 0.0675 0.0320 0.0660 0.0299
0.03 0.1345 0.0938 0.0627 0.0306 0.0621 0.0283

Table 5-23. Maximum peak overpressure values in analysed points for e
int
= 3680kJ/kg.

Pressure [MPa]
Mesh size
[m]
0.10 0.0755 0.0605 0.0446 0.0271 0.0434 0.0260
0.08 0.0910 0.0702 0.0491 0.0303 0.0505 0.0290
0.06 0.1151 0.0842 0.0593 0.0337 0.0601 0.0324
0.05 0.1269 0.0926 0.0609 0.0355 0.0599 0.0339
0.04 0.1360 0.0943 0.0675 0.0355 0.0660 0.0344
0.03 0.1345 0.0938 0.0627 0.0325 0.0621 0.0318

int
= 4520kJ/kg.

Pressure [MPa]
Mesh size
[m]
0.10 0.0872 0.0694 0.0521 0.0277 0.0530 0.0275
0.08 0.1041 0.0790 0.0576 0.0290 0.0592 0.0289
0.06 0.1294 0.0918 0.0688 0.0330 0.0699 0.0323
0.05 0.1430 0.1001 0.0699 0.0345 0.0683 0.0326
0.04 0.1493 0.1016 0.0767 0.0361 0.0741 0.0334
0.03 0.1480 0.1029 0.0720 0.0347 0.0696 0.0318

79

int
= 4520kJ/kg.

Pressure [MPa]
Mesh size
[m]
0.10 0.0872 0.0694 0.0521 0.0319 0.0530 0.0307
0.08 0.1041 0.0790 0.0576 0.0352 0.0592 0.0339
0.06 0.1294 0.0918 0.0688 0.0391 0.0699 0.0378
0.05 0.1430 0.1001 0.0699 0.0406 0.0683 0.0390
0.04 0.1493 0.1016 0.0767 0.0405 0.0741 0.0399
0.03 0.1480 0.1029 0.0720 0.0382 0.0696 0.0382

int
= 5000kJ/kg.

Pressure [MPa]
Mesh size
[m]
0.10 0.0930 0.0737 0.0559 0.0294 0.0568 0.0292
0.08 0.1114 0.0833 0.0624 0.0311 0.0643 0.0310
0.06 0.1359 0.0950 0.0734 0.0349 0.0745 0.0341
0.05 0.1523 0.1049 0.0761 0.0372 0.0739 0.0350
0.04 0.1549 0.1053 0.0813 0.0381 0.0782 0.0352
0.03 0.1538 0.1071 0.0762 0.0366 0.0730 0.0334

int
= 5000kJ/kg.

Pressure [MPa]
Mesh size
[m]
0.10 0.0930 0.0737 0.0559 0.0344 0.0568 0.0332
0.08 0.1114 0.0833 0.0624 0.0380 0.0643 0.0367
0.06 0.1359 0.0950 0.0734 0.0417 0.0745 0.0403
0.05 0.1523 0.1049 0.0761 0.0441 0.0739 0.0423
0.04 0.1549 0.1053 0.0813 0.0432 0.0782 0.0428
0.03 0.1538 0.1071 0.0762 0.0410 0.0730 0.0415

80

Figure 5-24. The comparison of pressure-time dependency on internal energy for point a.

Results for internal energy equal to 5000kJ/kg are the closest to the empirical values;
however, one has to remember about insusceptibility of walls in the model - originally part
of the shock wave was damped by the tunnels walls. The mentioned value of energy value
will be taken for further discussion. Also all following figures will be referring to it.

Figure 5-25. The comparison of pressure-time dependency on mesh size for point 2
for e
int
= 5000kJ/kg.
0.2372
so
P MPa =

0.2307
so
P MPa =
0.2164
so
P MPa =
81

Plots for analysed finite element sizes have similar shape. It is seen that together
with increasing the number of finite elements the plot becomes more jagged the
differences between maximum and minimum values of pressure become greater. The
growth of peak incident pressure between 10cm and 6cm is 31%. The plot still does not
provide answer which mesh refinement is sufficient; however the differences in the case of
coarse meshes, like 8 or 10cm seem to be too significant for further considerations. In turn
the simulations performed for meshes 6, 5, 4, and 3cm provide more accurate results.
The comparison of peak incident pressure for different mesh densities has been
performed in order to find the best finite element size for the simulation of the entire
tunnel structure.

Figure 5-26. Dependence of the pressure on the size of the mesh for e
int
= 5000kJ/kg.

In Figure 5-26 the dependence of the pressure on the mesh size is shown. It can be
observed that for all analysed points the pressure increases more or less linearly with
compacting mesh from 10cm to 5cm, however this inclination is different for each point a
relation to the distance from the charge can be noticed. An optimistic remark is that for
denser meshes values of pressure stabilize on the same level. Thus 5cm mesh size can be
considered as the sufficient one for the simulation of entire tunnel structure in order to
obtain accurate results.
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
Mesh size [m]
point a point b
point 1 point 1'
point 2 point 2'
82

Figure 5-27. Effect of cornering in case of points a, 2, and 2.

Figure 5-27 shows the effect of cornering that was the case of original tests that were
conducted by Ishikawa and Beppu [27]. It is clearly seen that the peak pressure is
significantly reduced, already for point 2 (the decrease by 52.5%). The even bigger decay is
seen in point 2, up to 73% comparing to the point a. It is also visible that for both points
the overpressure remains much longer than in point a. It is a result of multiple reflections
that take place from the walls.

Simulation for the entire structure
Next simulation has been performed for the entire model and mesh size equal to 5cm. The
model contained 6.6 million elements. The results have been measured in points according
to empirical tests (a, b, c, d, e in straight part of the tunnel, and points 1-12 in branch part of
the tunnel). They are shown in Table 5-28 and 5-29. The effect of corners in this tunnel
shelter is illustrated as shown in Table 5-30.

0.1743
so
P MPa =
0.1347
so
P MPa =

0.2551
so
P MPa =
0.1428
so
P MPa =
83

For e
int
= 3680kJ/kg:
Table 5-28. Maximum peak pressure at straight part in tunnel, results from Abaqus.

Measuring point
a b c d e

Table 5-28. Maximum peak pressure at branch part in tunnel, results from Abaqus, part 1.

Measuring point
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 4 (4) 5 (5) 6
Distance from
detonation [m]
5.8 6.2 14.5 15.8 16.2 19.8
Blast pressure
[MPa]
0.06211
0.03366
0.0606
0.0322
0.02646
0.02939
0.02276
0.02638
0.02136
0.02311


Measuring point
7 8 (8) 9 10 11 12
Distance from
detonation [m]
25.8 26.2 29.8 30.2 33.7 40.2
Blast pressure
[MPa]
0.01718
0.01516
0.01274
0.0315 0.0121 0.0114 No result

Table 5-30. Effect of corner in tunnel shelter.

Distance
5 6 15 15 25
Corner point [MPa]
2: 0.0606
2: 0.0322
1: 0.06211
1: 0.03366
5: 0.02638
5: 0.02136
4: 0.02939
4: 0.02276
8: 0.01516
8: 0.01274
Pressure reduction [%]
52.5
74.8
33.3
63.8
38.4
50.1
31.8
47.2
41.9
51.2

The pressure reduction is meaningful. Some values of pressure from Tables 5-28 and
5-29 can be compared to Tables 5-22, 5-23 and mesh size 5cm. Both simulations were
conducted for same data. The only difference was the size of the model, despite one can
84

observe slight differences in results for points that were common in both studies. The
differences can be caused by different meshing.

For e
int
= 4520kJ/kg:
Table 5-31. Maximum peak pressure at straight part in tunnel, results from Abaqus.

Measuring point
a b c d e


Measuring point
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 4 (4) 5 (5) 6
Distance from
detonation [m]
5.8 6.2 14.5 15.8 16.2 19.8
Blast pressure
[MPa]
0.07103
0.03347
0.06891
0.03716
0.02985
0.03243
0.02583
0.0294
0.02427
0.02672


Measuring point
7 8 (8) 9 10 11 12
Distance from
detonation [m]
25.8 26.2 29.8 30.2 33.7 40.2
Blast pressure
[MPa]
0.0193
0.01671
0.01438
0.0368 0.0139 0.0127 No result


Distance
5 6 15 15 25
Corner point [MPa]
2: 0.06891
2: 0.03716
1: 0.07103
1: 0.03347
5: 0.0294
5: 0.02427
4: 0.03243
4: 0.02583
8: 0.01671
8: 0.01438
51.7
74.0
29.4
66.7
37.3
48.3
31.4
45.4
41.4
49.5

85

Comparing results for e
int
= 4520kJ/kg to e
int
= 3680kJ/kg one can notice two things:
the pressures are higher (what is nothing unexpected) and similarity in pressure reduction.

For e
int
= 5000kJ/kg:
Table 5-34. Blast pressure at straight part in tunnel, results from Abaqus.

Measuring point
a b c d e

Table 5-35. Blast pressure at branch part in tunnel, results from Abaqus, part 1.

Measuring point
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 4 (4) 5 (5) 6
Distance from
detonation [m]
5.8 6.2 14.5 15.8 16.2 19.8
Blast pressure
[MPa]
0.0757
0.041
0.0732
0.03963
0.03155
0.034
0.02739
0.031
0.02573
0.02848

Table 5-35. Blast pressure at branch part in tunnel, results from Abaqus, part 2.

Measuring point
7 8 (8) 9 10 11 12
Distance from
detonation [m]
25.8 26.2 29.8 30.2 33.7 40.2
Blast pressure
[MPa]
0.02038
0.01789
0.01521
0.0395 0.0155 0.0134 No result


Distance
5 6 15 15 25
Corner point [MPa]
2: 0.0732
2: 0.03963
1: 0.0757
1: 0.041
5: 0.031
5: 0.02573
4: 0.034
4: 0.02739
8: 0.01789
8: 0.01521
51.3
73.6
27.4
60.7
36.6
47.4
31.2
44.6
39.8
48.8

86

The pressure reduction is similar for all analysed internal energies. The corners
efficiently reduce peak pressure, up to 74% in the case of points distributed as a, 2 and 2
(as shown in Figure 5-23).

The results from analyses conducted in Abaqus are different from the ones measured
in test by Ishikawa and Beppu [27]. The biggest differences are observed for points located
in main tunnel of the structure, especially for those being the closest ones to the charge
that is for points a and b. Nevertheless one can observe nice convergence of results for the
following points: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11. Comparison for all points is given in Figure 5-28
(results for points with primes are omitted).

Figure 5-28. Comparison of peak pressure for analysed points.

0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0,45
0,5
a b c d e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Ishikawa and Beppu
Abaqus, 5000kJ/kg
Abaqus, 4520kJ/kg
Abaqus, 3680kJ/kg
87

Table 5-37. Comparison of pressure reduction in corners in tunnel shelter.

Pressure reduction [%] for points:
A, 2 B, 1 D, 5 C, 4 E,8
Ishikawa and Beppu 86 70 71 75 46
Abaqus, e
int
= 3680kJ/kg 52.5 33.3 38.4 31.8 41.9
Abaqus, e
int
= 4520kJ/kg 51.7 29.4 37.3 31.4 41.4
Abaqus, e
int
= 5000kJ/kg 51.3 27.4 36.6 31.2 39.8

For all analysed corner areas, the results of pressure reduction obtained using
Abaqus are different to the values calculated by Ishikawa and Beppu [27] results of tests
have not found confirmation in numerical simulations. The exception is pressure reduction
in points E and 8, where nice convergence can be observed. Although the differences are
significant, the main factor affecting this state is much larger pressure occurring
in points a to e. The differences in results may be caused by following factors:
- Differences in model - tunnels walls are insusceptible,
- The exact location of explosive charge, as well as measuring points is unknown
the points could be set on the ground or at some height above it,
- The shape of the charge has an influence on the propagation of the shock wave
it is not known,
- The mesh, even build of 1cm cubes is still to coarse to obtain accurate results,
- The TNT parameters were different,
- The air parameters (e.g. ambient pressure) were different,
- Individual tests are always affected by a certain amount of error.

The main conclusions proposed by Ishikawa and Beppu in [27] are given below.
It has been proven, that the corners effectively reduce shock wave pressure when the
shock wave travels in a straight line. This is especially true for corners near the detonation
point. In the case of point 2 the pressure reduction was 86%, and it was significantly larger
than at the point farthest from the detonation (number 8) only 46%.

Reductive effect of the corners is obvious; however it is unwise to draw conclusions
about the influence of the distance from the charge on pressure reduction on the basis of
only four corners, which arrangement is not exactly the same. Points b and 1 do not lie in
line perpendicular to the axis passing through point b and the explosion point. In turn
88

points c and 4, as well as e and 8 are situated in more complex embranchment of the
tunnels; hence it is impossible to compare them to previously discussed cases.
Nevertheless, the results presented in part Shock wave propagation analysis in corridor,
especially those shown in Figures 5-18 and 5-19 suggest that the magnitude of peak pressure
influence s on the pressure reduction in corners or embranchments.

6. Summary
The thesis concerned blast wave analysis inside complex corridor system. The tool used to
calculate blast wave propagation was Abaqus Explicit and algorithms classified under the
name Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian. In order to automate the modelling process a special
script has been prepared, which is especially useful, as in this case, when dealing with
dozens of similar models, whose manual creation would be time-consuming.
Within the thesis four groups of simulations have been conducted. In the first one
the numerical techniques were compared to the analytical one, presented in UFC [7]. The
aim was to compare peak incident pressure and study size of the finite element on the
quality of the results. For this analysis the convergence of results obtained using UFC
method and Abaqus CEL simulations was similar for stand-off distance between 0.8m and
1.6m. However for the distance outside this range (from 1.6m up to 8.0m) the differences
grew very significantly. Nevertheless the more refined mesh was studied, the better results
were obtained.
In the second analysis a simple cubicle has been discussed. The goal was also to find
appropriate mesh size on the basis of comparison between the analytical and numerical
results. Different parameters, as peak incident and reflected pressures have been compared
for numerous points. In these simulations, the numerical results of peak incident pressure
obtained using 0.5cm mesh size were very similar to values obtained using algorithm given
in UFC for stand-off distance smaller than 1.0m. Unfortunately for bigger stand-off distance
(up to 1.6m) the differences were much larger; at the penultimate element before the wall
the numerical results reached 167% of the analytical ones. Basing on this simulation and
the earlier one (Benchmarking analysis) it seems to be impossible to find one and only
mesh size that would be sufficient for all kinds of analyses. The reasons are large
differences in values of parameters (charge weight and stand-off distance). The author was
also unable to obtain peak reflected pressure by numerical computations (640.721MPa)
close to the UFC methods result (68.982MPa). The 1cm mesh was not dense enough. Also
89

the comparison of peak reflected pressure in other points on the wall (for 4cm mesh size)
brought mixed results similar values have been obtained for only 3 points from 9.
Generally, large differences of all results might be caused by inappropriate element
size, especially in part close to the charge, where extremely large deformations occur.
Another aspect is the influence of meshing technique on the results. The only technique
supported in Abaqus uses cuboids, while other methods (e.g. using tetrahedrons,
hexahedrons) might bring better results. The main conclusion is that element size has the
crucial impact on the quality of results, and the selection of appropriate meshing
algorithm, as well as the density of elements cannot be overestimated.
The third simulation consisted of 150 analyses. The main objective was to analyse
behaviour of blast wave reflecting in a corridor broken by some angle. Structures with
different dimensions were studied. It has been proven that the angle reduces the peak
pressure significantly depending on the magnitude of peak incident pressure. The
reductions of even 30% and 33% for certain cases have been measured.
The fourth simulation concerned analysing explosion in tunnel shelter. It consisted
of two major parts. Firstly a smaller model has been build in order to find optimal FE size
for simulation of the entire structure. Eventually 5cm mesh size has been selected as the
sufficient one in order to obtain accurate results that subsequently have been compared to
the values obtained in experiments presented by Ishikawa and Beppu [27]. Unfortunately
numerical simulations produced only partly satisfactory results; maximum peak pressure in
8 points from 16 was more or less similar. These points were mainly located away from the
charge; the differences of results for points located close to the explosive were very
significant. Also the calculated pressure reduction was not identical with the experiments.
In the case of this simulation however there are many reasons that could affect the final
results, from which the most important are insusceptible walls of the tunnel, different TNT
parameters and uncertainty of results produced by individual tests. Although the
differences in the results were significant, one can confirm the reductive effect of the
corners on the peak pressure.

90

Based on conducted analyses one can draw following conclusions:
- it seems that Abaqus CEL technique is insufficient for complex gas propagation
analyses (especially due to lack of turbulent fluid flow); the problems have also
arisen for measuring peak reflected pressure, especially for points located near
the charge in these cases one should be especially aware of probable errors,
- mesh refinement has a crucial impact on the quality of the results; before
performing any analysis, a study of the mesh refinement should be performed
for the given parameters (charge weight, stand-off distance),
- the reductive effect of the corners on the peak pressure is confirmed, the
embranchments as those analysed in Shock wave propagation analysis in tunnel
shelter are not necessarily needed, already an ordinary refraction of the
tunnel/corridor causes a pressure reduction.

91

Bibliography
1. Abaqus Scripting Users Manual 6.10, Dassault Systemes SIMULIA Corp., Providence,
RI, USA, 2010.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Application_programming_interface.
3. Abaqus Glossary 6.10, Dassault Systemes SIMULIA Corp., Providence, RI, USA, 2010.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion.
5. P.D. Smith and T.A Rose. Blast loading and building robustness. John Wiley & Sons,
2002.
6. T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta and J. Ramsay. Blast Loading and Blast Effects on
Structures An Overview. EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures, 2007.
7. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC),
3-340-02, 5
th
December 2008.
8. G. LeBlanc, M. Adoum and V. Lapoujade. External blast loads on structures Empirical
approach. 5
th
European LS-DYNA Users Conference.
9. W.E. Baker, P.A. Cox, P.S. Westine, J.J. Kulesz, and R.A. Strehlow. Explosion hazards
and evaluation. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, 1983.
10. B. Luccioni, D. Ambrosini and R. Danesi. Blast load assessment using hydrocodes,
Elsevier, 2006.
11. P.D. Smith and J. G. Hetherington. Blast and ballistic loading of structures.
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Great Britain, 1994.
12. H.L. Brode. Numerical solution of spherical blast waves. Journal of Applied Physics,
American Institute of Physics, Ney York, 1955.
13. N.M. Newmark and R.J. Hansen. Design of blast resistant structures. Shock and
Vibration Handbook, Vol. 3, Eds. Harris and Crede. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. 1961.
14. C.A. Mills. The design of concrete structure to resist explosions and weapon effects.
Proceedings of the 1
st
Int. Conference on concrete for hazard protections, Edinburgh, UK,
1987.
15. C.N.Kingery and G. Bulmash. Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air burst and
hemispherical surface burst. Report ARBL-TR-02555, U.S. Army BRL, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, 1984.
16. D.W. Hyde. Conventional Weapons Program (ConWep). US Army Waterways
Experimental Station, Vicksburg, USA, 1991.
17. http://www.ara.com/products/AT-blast.htm, Applied Research Associates (ARA), Inc.
18. http://www.protection-consultants.com/tools/ConWep_V21.html.
19. C. Mougeotte, P. Carlucci, S. Recchia and H. Ji. Novel Approach to Conducting Blast
Load Analyses Using Abaqus/Explicit-CEL. SIMULIA Customer Conference, 2010.
20. J. Donea, A. Huerta, J.-Ph. Ponthot and A. Rodriguez-Ferran. Arbitrary Lagrangian-
Eulerian methods, Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
2004.
92

21. Abaqus/CAE Users Manual 6.10, Dassault Systemes SIMULIA Corp., Providence, RI,
USA, 2010.
22. J. Park. A Coupled Runge Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin-Direct Ghost Fluid (RKDG-DGF)
Method to Near-field Early-time Underwater Explosion (UNDEX) Simulations. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2008.
23. T. Belytschko, W. K. Liu and B. Moran. Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and
Structures. John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
24. J. Donea and A. Huerta. Finite Element Methods for Flow Problems. John Wiley & Sons,
June 2003.
25. Abaqus 6.10 Theory Manual, Dassault Systemes SIMULIA Corp., Providence, RI, USA,
2010.
26. Abaqus Analysis Users Manual 6.10, Dassault Systemes SIMULIA Corp., Providence, RI,
USA, 2010.
27. N. Ishikawa and M. Beppu. Lessons from past explosive tests on protective structures in
Japan. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 34, 2007.
28. G.C. Bessette, C.T. Vaughan and R.L. Bell. Zapotec: A Coupled Euler-Lagrange Program
for Modeling Earth Penetration. National Laboratories, NM, USA.
29. M. Larcher. Simulation of the Effects of an Air Blast Wave. JRC Technical Notes 41337,
European Communities 2007.
30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ TNT_equivalent.
31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CourantFriedrichsLewy_condition
32. P. Sielicki, Masonry Failure under Unusual Impulse Loading, Politechnika Poznaska,
2011.

93

Appendix A
Finite Element Analysis techniques
Continuum mechanics is concerned with models of solids and fluids in which the
properties and response can be characterized by smooth functions of spatial variables, with
at most a limited number of discontinuities. It ignores inhomogeneities such as molecular,
grain or crystal structures. The objective of continuum mechanics is to provide a
description to model the macroscopic behaviour of fluids, solids and structures.

Coordinates
To distinguish the reference frame, three configurations and coordinates are defined.
According to the mesh motion, one can classify the descriptions into Lagrangian, Eulerian
and Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE).
The motion of a material point O is usually specified with regard to three
configurations: the initial configuration (or undeformed configuration)
0
O is the domain
of a body in the initial state. The current configuration (or deformed configuration) O is
the domain of a body at any moment of time. The reference configuration
O represents
the domain of a body to which governing equations are referred [24, 23]. For example,
either the initial configuration, the current configuration or an arbitrary configuration can
be chosen as the reference configuration. Figure A-1 shows the motion of a material point
O through the initial state in
0
O and the current state in O .

Figure A-1. Deformed (current) and undeformed (initial) configurations of a body [23].

O
O
94

In Figure A.1, the position vector of a material point O in
0
O , X, is called the
material coordinate (or Lagrangian coordinate). The position vector of a material point O
in O , x, is called the spatial coordinate (current or Eulerian coordinate). Similarly, the
position vector of a material point O in
O , _ , is called the reference coordinate (or ALE

coordinate), remaining coincident with the mesh during the computation [23].
The motion of a body is defined as:
( ) ,t | = x X (A-1)
which maps the initial configuration
0
O to the current configuration O in terms of
material coordinate X and time t . The motion of a body can also be expressed as:
( )
,t | = x (A-2)
which maps the reference configuration
O to the current configuration O [23]. The

motion of a mesh point is expressed as:
( ) ,t = X (A-3)
where

is a function of material coordinate X and time t [24, 23].

Figure A.2 represents the one-to-one relationship between configurations via
mapping functions. Note that one point in one configuration corresponds to one point in
other configurations [24, 23].

Figure A-2. Maps between different configurations [22, 23].

( ) , t = X
-
O
Spatial configuration
x
( ) | =

,t x ( ) ,t | = x X
Referenceconfiguration
-
O
0
Initial configuration
-
O
X
95

Descriptions
Lagrangian description
In Lagrangian framework each individual node of the computational mesh follows the
associated material particle during motion (in other words the observer follows an
individual point as it moves through space and time). In this formulation materials are
closely associated with an element, and the materials move only with the deformation of
the mesh. Its weakness is its inability to follow large distortions (they can result in
inaccuracies, negative densities and extremely small time steps) of the computational
domain without recourse to frequent remeshing operations. Therefore they are typically
not used for models which involve flow or large distortion, but used in structural
mechanics to model solids which dont experience severe deformation.

Eulerian description
Here the computational mesh is fixed to spatial points and the continuum moves with
respect to the grid. Unlike it is in the Lagrange technique, in this one materials are allowed
to flow across element boundaries in a rigid mesh. Because the element quality issues
associated with a deformable mesh are not present (the mesh does not deform and
therefore is not subject to the limitations imposed by deformation), the Eulerian technique
can be very effective at treating problems involving very large deformations, material
damage, or fluid materials. Another advantage of Euler solvers is that they allow mixing of
different materials inside the cells. Therefore the shape of material surfaces is not
completely limited by element size. The main problems of Eulerian approach are
connected with the amount of elements they require, and their poor handling of geometry.
Since the space around the object is modelled instead of the object itself, more elements
and therefore more memory as well as more time can be required than in a standard
Lagrange model. Also since the grid does not distort with the object of interest, it becomes
more difficult to track the various components of a part, and therefore observe how a single
piece behaves over time. Therefore, Euler models are typically not used to model solid
objects.

Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian
Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) adaptive meshing is a technique that combines
features of Lagrangian and Eulerian analyses within one model. ALE adaptive meshing is
typically used to control element distortion in Lagrangian parts undergoing large
96

deformations, such as in a forming analysis. In the ALE description, the nodes of the
computational mesh may be either moved with the continuum in normal Lagrangian
fashion, held fixed in Eulerian manner, or moved in some arbitrarily specified way to give a
continuous rezoning capability. Because of this freedom in moving the computational
mesh offered by the ALE description, greater distortions of the continuum can be handled
than would be allowed by a purely Lagrangian method, with more resolution than is
afforded by a purely Eulerian approach. Since the 1970s, the ALE description has received
much attention in a wide range of engineering applications such as fluid mechanics, solid
mechanics and fluid-solid interactions [24].

Fig A-3. Comparison of Lagrangian, Eulerian, and ALE descriptions [23].

The comparison of the Lagrangian, Eulerian, and ALE descriptions is pictorially
depicted in Fig. A-3 by a 4-node one dimensional finite element mesh. The finite element
nodes and the material points are denoted by circles ( ) and solid dots ( -), respectively.

Kinematics
In continuum mechanics, the governing equations are in the form of partial differential
equations (PDEs), and the independent variables depend on the description.

97

Lagrangian description
The material coordinate X and time t are chosen to describe the material motion. As
shown in Figure A-1, the displacement of a material point is the difference between current
coordinate x and initial coordinate X:
( ) ( ) ( ) , , ,0 t t | | = = u X X X x X (A-4)
where ( ) ,t | X maps material coordinate in the initial configuration to spatial coordinate in
the current configuration [100, 143]. At time 0 t = , the spatial coordinate, ( ) , 0 t | = = x X is
usually equal to material coordinate X [23]. Using equation (A-4), velocity corresponding to
the time derivative of displacement is given by:
( )
( ) ( ) , ,
,
t t
t
t t t
| c c
c
= = =
c c c
u X X
x
v X u (A-5)
and acceleration ( ) ,t a X corresponding to the time derivative of velocity is given by:
( )
( ) ( )
2
2
, ,
,
t t
t
t t
c c
= =
c c
v X u X
a X v u (A-6)
Equations (A-5) and (A-6) represent the material time derivatives in the Lagrangian
description resulting in the ordinary time derivatives [23]. Similarly, the material time
derivative for a function ( ) , f t X can be expressed as:

( ) ( ) , , Df t f t
Dt t
c
=
c
X X
(A-7)

Eulerian description
Instead of the material coordinate X, the spatial coordinate x is employed in the Eulerian
description. The velocity in spatial coordinates can be denoted as:
( ) ( ) ( )
, , , t t t | = v x v X (A-8)
By the chain rule, the acceleration ( ) ,t a x is expressed as:
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) , , ,
,
j i i i i
j
j j
x D t v t v t v v
t v
Dt t x t t x
c c c c c
= = + = +
c c c c c
v x x x
a x (A-9)
In above equation the first partial derivative on the RHS is taken with the spatial
coordinate fixed. This is called the spatial time derivative. The second term on the RHS is
the convective term, which is also called the transport term. And in vector notation:

( ) ( ) , , D t t
Dt t
c
= + V
c
v x v x
v v (A-10)
98

Equation (A-10) shows how to define the material time derivative for a function ( ) , f t X as:

( ) ( ) ( ) , , ,
i
i
Df t f t f t f
v f
Dt t x t
c c c
= + = + V
c c c
x x x
v (A-11)
where convection velocity v effects the transport of a function ( ) , f t X from the current
configuration to the initial configuration.

Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian description
The ALE description focuses more on the mesh motion than the material motion. The
material motion, which is a function of reference coordinates and time t , is defined as
(A-2). Similar to Equation (A-4), the displacement of a mesh point is expressed as [23]:
( ) ( ) ( )

, , ,0 t t | | = = u x (A-12)
For a function ( ) , f t , the material time derivative becomes:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , , , , ,
i
i
i i
Df t f t f t f t f t
w
Dt t t t
_
_ _
c c c c c
= + = +
c c c c c

(A-13)
where
i
w is the reference particle velocity [23]. The material time derivative (A-13) is more
complex than those in the other descriptions due to the presence of the convective term
( ) ,
i
f t
_
c
c
. For a simpler form of equation (A-13), we consider the relationship between the
material, mesh and reference velocities. First, we define the material time derivative of
displacement with equation (A-2) as:

( ) ( ) ( )

, , ,
j j j j
i
j j j
i i
t t t x
v v w
t t t
| | |
_
_ _
c c c c
c
= = + = +
c c c c c
X
(A-14)
where ( )
,t | maps the reference configuration to the current configuration. Equation

(A-14) gives the ALE convection velocity m [23] which is the difference between the
material velocities v and the mesh velocities v :

( )
j j
i
j j j j
i i
t x
m v v w
t
|
_
_ _
c c
c
= = =
c c c
(A-15)
The second RHS term in Equation (A-13) can be recast via the chain rule as:

( ) ( ) , ,
j
i j i
x f t f t
x _ _
c c c
=
c c c

(A-16)
99

Substituting Equations (A-15) and (A-16) into Equation (A-13) provides the material time
derivative for a function ( ) , f t as:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , , , , ,
j
j j
j i j
x Df t f t f t f t f t
w m
Dt t x t x _
c c c c c
= = = +
c c c c c

(A-17)
which replaces the derivative to the reference coordinates
j
_ by the derivative to the
spatial coordinate
j
x with the ALE convection velocity
j
m . In vector notation:

( )
, ,
,
grad
j j t
Df t
f m f
Dt
= +
(A-18)
The material time derivatives for a function f are summarized by:

( )
( )
( )
,
, ,
, ,
Lagrangian description in terms of ,
Eulerian description in terms of ,
ALE description in terms of ,
t
i i t
i i t
Df
f t
Dt
Df
f f v t
Dt
Df
f f m t
Dt
=
= +
= +
X
x
X
x
(A-19)
Depending on the independent variables and convection velocity, these various
descriptions may be identical. For example, if we replace = X and m = 0, then the
material time derivative in the ALE description reduces to that in the Lagrangian
description. If we replace = x and m = v, the material time derivative in the ALE
description becomes identical to that in the Eulerian description [24, 23]. As mentioned
previously, no convection occurs in the Lagrangian description because the spatial
coordinate x andmaterial coordinate X remain coincident during the computation. In the
Eulerian description, the convection is due to the difference between the current
configuration and the initial configuration with flow velocity v. In the ALE description, the
convection is due to the difference between the current configuration and the reference
configuration with ALE convection velocity m.
For more details, references [24, 23, 22] are recommended. Material time derivatives
(A-19) play a crucial role in deriving governing equations. The governing equations for
different descriptions of continuum are presented below.

100

Summary of universal conservation laws in the non-conservative and
conservative forms [22]
1. Lagrangian description:
Non-conservative form Conservative form
Continuity
equation
0
J =

0
J =

Momentum
equation
D
Dt
o = +V
v
b

D
Dt
o = +V
v
b
Energy
equation
( )
De
Dt
o = +V v b v

int
:
De
Dt
o = D

2. Eulerian description:
Continuity
equation
0
t

c
+ V + V =
c
v v ( ) 0
t

c
+V =
c
v
Momentum
equation
t
o
c | |
+ V = +V
|
c
\ .
v
v v b

( )
( )
t
o
c
+V = +V
c
v
vv b
Energy
equation
( )
e
e
t
o
c | |
+ V = +V
|
c
\ .
v v b v

( )
( ) ( )
e
e
t
o
c
+V = +V
c
v v b v

3. ALE description:
Continuity
equation
0
t

c
+ V + V =
c
m v ( ) 0
t

c
+V =
c
m
Momentum
equation
t
o
c | |
+ V = +V
|
c
\ .
v
m v b
( )
( )
t
o
c
+V = +V
c
v
vm b
Energy
equation
( )
e
e
t
o
c | |
+ V = +V
|
c
\ .
m v b v
( )
( ) ( )
e
e
t
o
c
+V = +V
c
m v b v

Explanation of symbols used in above equations:
- - density,
- e total energy per unit mass,
- e
int
- internal energy per unit mass,
- v material velocity in the Eulerian description,
- m is the ALE convection velocity,
101

- b body force exerted on a body,
- J Jacobian.

Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) method attempts to capture the strengths of the
Lagrangian and Eulerian methods. It allows Eulerian and Lagrangian bodies within the
same model to interact. In general, a Lagrangian reference frame is used to discretize the
object while an Eulerian frame is used to discretize the space around the object. The
boundary of the Lagrangian domain is typically taken to represent the actual interface
between the object and the space. Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian analysis is typically used to
model problems where the interaction between structures and fluids exists, such as:
- Gas-flow inflated automotive airbags,
- Tire hydroplaning,
- Wave loading on offshore structures,
- Cosmetic product dispensing,
- Fuel tank sloshing,
- High-velocity impact and penetration,
- Soil-structure interaction, such as excavation and gouging.

In terms of implementation CEL utilizes a two-step approach for the solution of the
conservation equations, resulting in a traditional Lagrangian phase followed by an Eulerian
(called also transport) phase. This formulation is known as Lagrange-plus-remap. The
two-step solution approach first involves a Lagrangian step, where nodes are assumed to be
temporarily fixed within the material (elements deform with the material - the Eulerian
mesh is allowed to deform). This deformation provides an indication of material motion
through the fixed, reference mesh. The Lagrangian step is followed by a remap step.
The remap algorithm advects material quantities (i.e., the volume flux, mass,
momentum, and energy) from the deformed Lagrangian configuration back into the fixed
reference mesh [28].

102

Appendix B
Class diagram

MSC - Pressure Evolution Inside Complex Corridor System Induced by Blast Action PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC - Pressure Evolution Inside Complex Corridor System Induced by Blast Action PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Poznan University of Technology

, are effective Lames constants. For an

and 1 in a two-dimensional model and

and 1 in a three-dimensional model. Description is based on [25, 26].

O , _ , is called the reference coordinate (or ALE

O to the current configuration O [23]. The

,t | maps the reference configuration to the current configuration. Equation

You might also like