Numerical investigation of explosive bare charge equivalent weight

Grisaro, Hezi Y.; Edri, Idan E.

doi:10.1177/2041419617700256

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within this observation, the EFs of C4 and COMP-B increases as the scaled distance Z increases, while it was found that the EF for ANFO decreases as Z increases. Our values for the EF for ANFO, C4 and COMP-B in the far-field regime are 0.0%, -2.5% and -2.4% lower than the values obtained by (Grisaro and Edri, 2017), respectively.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 83%

“…Opposed to the EF values derived in previous studies for the far-field (e.g. Grisaro and Edri, 2017), the calculated EF values for the three examined explosives vary with the scaled distance Z, for a given scaled target size z. However, the variations are quite moderate with the scaled distance.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 69%

“…An interesting observation in this study shows that the EF values for these three explosives converge to these values, as the scaled distance increases (see Figure 9 and Table 4). ANFO converges more closely to the far-field EF values, whereas C4 and COMP-B converge to a value slightly below the (Grisaro and Edri, 2017) values. Within this observation, the EFs of C4 and COMP-B increases as the scaled distance Z increases, while it was found that the EF for ANFO decreases as Z increases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Numerical simulations using hydro-codes (e.g. Grisaro and Edri, 2017;Shin et al, 2015). Although this approach is expensive in terms of computational time and resources, it provides more accurate results for complex geometries, various charge shapes, and close-in detonations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Calculated EF values for (a) ANFO, (b) C4, and (c) COMP-B EF=0.66 for the far-field regime(Grisaro and Edri, 2017) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

TNT equivalency analysis of specific impulse distribution from close-in detonations

Grisaro

Edri

Rigby

2020

International Journal of Protective Structures

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detonation of a high explosive close to a structural component results in a blast load that is highly localized and nonuninform in nature. Prediction of structural response and damage due to such loads requires a detailed understanding of both the magnitude and distribution of the load, which in turn are a function of the properties and dimensions of the structure, the standoff from the charge to the structure, and the composition of the explosive. It is common to express an explosive as an equivalent mass of TNT to facilitate the use of existing and well-established semi-empirical methods. This requires calculation of a TNT equivalency factor (EF), that is, the mass ratio between the equivalent mass of TNT and the explosive mass in question, such that a chosen blast parameter will be the same for the same set of input conditions aside from explosive type. In this paper, we derive EF for three common explosives: C4, COMP-B, and ANFO, using an equivalent upper bound kinetic energy approach. A series of numerical simulations are performed, and the resultant magnitudes and distributions of specific impulse are used to derive the theoretical upper bound kinetic energy that would be imparted to a flexible target. Based on the equivalent mass of TNT of each explosive, which is required to impart the same kinetic energy for a given target size and standoff distance as of TNT, the EF is calculated. It is shown that in the near-field, the EFs are non-constant and are dependent on both standoff and target size. The results in the current study are presented in a scaled form and can be used for any practical combination of charge mass, distance from the charge to the target, target size, thickness, and density.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 83%

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 69%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Calculated EF values for (a) ANFO, (b) C4, and (c) COMP-B EF=0.66 for the far-field regime(Grisaro and Edri, 2017) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%