1

2008 International
ANSYS Conference
Development of a 3-D Blast Overpressure
Modeling Capability Utilizing Fluent
Daniel L. Cler - U.S. Army RDECOM/ARDEC/WSEC/Benet Labs
Mark Doxbeck - U.S. Army RDECOM/ARDEC/WSEC/Benet Labs
2
Blast Waves - Examples
Gun blasts Firearm firing
Blast wave effects on buildings
CFD animation of blast wave
3
Blast Waves
A blast wave is the pressure and flow resulting from the
deposition of a large amount of energy in a small very localized
volume.
Flow field can be approximated as a lead shock wave, followed by a 'self-
similar' subsonic flow field
Shock waves cause a virtually instantaneous jump in pressure at
the shock front
The combination of the pressure jump (called the overpressure)
and the dynamic pressure causes blast damage
It is necessary to understand blast wave to
Estimate the damage that will result from an explosion
To devise mechanisms for mitigating the blast
4
Simulation Objective
Accurate, effective and efficient CFD approach to simulation of
transient shock discontinuities
Shock wave identification and tracking
Shock front resolution
Interaction of shocks with objects
CFD image of a blast wave
Blast wave resulting from a pipe burst
in the bleed system of a jetliner
5
Simulation Approach
CFD finite-volume utilized rather than Lagrangian
Lower computational overhead.
Better flow prediction capabilities.
Solution based grid adaption.
Best in situations where blast does not cause
structural deformation.
Can be coupled to FEA solvers to determine
deformations and loading of structural
components
Significant improvements to adaptation schemes
are required to make CFD simulations feasible.
6
Modeling Blast Waves
FLUENT has capability of tracking and
resolving traveling blast waves and
shocks by means of dynamic adaption
Both refinement and coarsening of the
mesh is performed
Refinement captures traveling shocks
Coarsening avoids excessive mesh
resolution away from discontinuities
Refinement parameters based on
Gradient of static pressure gradient:
Static pressure has largest gradient across
shock front
Solution-based adaption criterion
In combination, these tools make it
possible to:
Model the initial combustion
Track associated blast wave
Determine the pressure load history on
nearby objects
7
Validation 1 Small Caliber Gun
Modeling of blast wave associated with a bullet fired
from 7.62 mm NATO G3 rifle with DM 41 round
Modeling 1
st
and 2
nd
precursor and main propellant gas
plume without bullet
Ref: Gun Muzzle Blast and Flash, Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics, Vol. 139; Klingenberg, Gunter, Heimerl,
Joseph M., Seebass, A. Richard Editor-in-Chief, AIAA
CFD Analysis Process
2-D Axisymmetric
Fluent 6.1
Density-based explicit solver with explicit time stepping
Second-order upwind scheme
Inviscid
Species transport of 2 non-reacting ideal gases (propellant &
air)
Time varying pressure inlet (12.5 mm upstream of the muzzle)
Existing experimental static pressure as a function of time
Pressure outlets at computational domain boundaries
Gun barrel walls are modeled
Mesh adaption based on pressure gradient
8
Validation 1 Preprocessing and Results
1st Pre-Cursor
FLUENT: t = -350 sec t = -5 sec t = -+120 sec
2nd Pre-Cursor Main blast wave
Experiment
Quad-paved grid with coarse
spacing near outlet; structured
grid in barrel and tight spacing
near muzzle
Pressure
outlet
Pressure
outlet
Pressure-inlet Pressure-inlet
9
BWIP Development Rationale
Standard Gradient Adaption Limitations
Poor Coarsening after Wave Passes
Loss of Adaption as Blast Wave Weakens
Over-adaption in Uncritical Areas
Unable to Utilize Advance Register Combinations to
Improve Performance
Blast Wave Identification Parameter (BWIP)
Track Primary and Reflected Waves
Ignore Other Pressure Gradients
Fine Control of Adaption Level on Shock Fronts
10
Validation 2 - 3D Tank Gun Blast


Experimental set-up of 120 mm
Advanced Technology
Demonstrator (ATD)
Structures of blast waves associated with
firing of a ballistic weapon are very
complicated
In different regions, shockwaves can have
quite different strengths
There are no universal criteria for the
accurate numerical detection of
shockwaves
U.S. Army has been studying blast wave
propagation numerically to propose
methods of minimizing the impact of gun
blasts on tank crews
New blast wave identification parameter
(BWIP) based on the flow physics capable
of locating traveling shocks with disparate
strengths automatically with minimal user
set-up is used
Ref: Kurbatskii, K. A., Montanari, F., Cler, D. L., and
Doxbeck, M., Numerical Blast Wave Identification and
Tracking Using Solution-Based Mesh Adaptation
Approach, AIAA Paper 2007-4188
11
Validation 2 Mesh and Solution-based
Adaption Parameter
Initial mesh: 330,000
tetrahedral cells
Solution-based Blast Wave Identification
Parameter (BWIP)
For any shock, the Mach vector normal to the shock
has a value of at least one just before the shock
This normal Mach number is used as a test value for
determining the shock location
Pressure gradient is always normal to the shock, and
it is used to find the shock orientation
Dot product of the pressure gradient with the Mach
number vector is used to calculate a shock test value
in each cell
Locations where the test value equals to one forms a
boundary surrounding the shock locations
A correction is applied to the test equation to account
for the moving shock
Utilize user defined functions.
12
Validation 2 - CFD Analysis Process
FLUENT 6.3 or later
Density-based explicit double-precision solver
Inviscid flow
Species transport of two non-reacting ideal
gases (propellant and air)
1
st
-order upwind scheme
Standard upwind flux-difference splitting of
Roe to evaluate fluxes
Green-Gauss node-based gradient evaluation
Explicit time stepping approach
time step determined by the CFL condition
4-stage Runge-Kutta scheme with standard
coefficients for time integration
Mesh adaption based on the BWIP function
Outflow boundary is a pressure outlet
Computations are completed before
propagating shocks reach outflow boundaries


120 mm ATD firing
FLUENT simulation
13
Validation 2 - Results
Mesh Static pressure
Static pressure on tank chassis
14

h09
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
t, sec
P
s
Fluent with adaption
Fluent without adaption
test

h10
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
t, sec
P
s
Fluent with adaption
Fluent without adaption
test
h13
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
t, sec
P
s
Fluent with adaption
Fluent without adaption
test
h14
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
t, sec
P
s
h14 - Fluent with adaption
h14 - Fluent without adaption
h14 - test
Numerical and experimental time histories of pressure at four hull locations. Also shown
numerical results computed on the original mesh without adaption

Validation 2 - Results
15
Advanced BWIP Development
Utilizes to determine shock location.
Identifies shock center based on above.
Marks cells a prescribed distance from shock center.
Mark cells based on mass fraction of propellant.
Combines registers.
Creates a buffer zone in front of shock based on dot
product of vector defined by two cell centroids and a
velocity vector
Grid adaption frequency controlled based on time for shock
to pass to edge of buffer zone.
U.S. Patent Application # 60/944,612 Filed on 6/18/07
min V p max

16
Validation 3 LAEP 6
New Muzzle Brake
Improved Experimental
Instrumentation
Field Probes
Advanced BWIP
Improved Chemical
Species Determination
17
Validation 3 Side-on Pressure
18
Validation 3 Adaption Capabilities
19
Validation 3 Maximum Overpressure
20
Validation 3 Animation 1
21
Validation 3 Animation 2
22
Validation 3 Animation 3
23
Validation 4 Fixed Mesh vs BWIP
Fixed Mesh - 976,422 cells
Adaption Mesh - 94,344 cells
24
Validation 4 Performance Comparison
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Flow Time (ms)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
P
U

T
i
m
e

(
d
a
y
s
)


Fixed Mesh
BWIP
Advanced BWIP
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 10
5
Flow Time (ms)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
e
l
l
s


BWIP
Advanced BWIP
25
Validation 4
Static Pressure Probe Comparison
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
0
5
10
15
Time (ms)
O
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
f02


Fixed Mesh
BWIP
Advanced BWIP
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Time (ms)
O
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
f06


Fixed Mesh
BWIP
Advanced BWIP
26
Validation 4 Performance Comparison
2-D Comparison
Advanced BWIP is 8 times faster.
Slight reduction in quality at farfield locations.
3-D Comparison
Advanced BWIP would be 2 orders of
magnitude faster than fixed mesh based on 2-
D performance comparison.
Quality should only be slightly degraded.
Advanced BWIP makes 3-D blast simulation
feasible.
27
Conclusions
High-quality 3-D blast analysis capability in
Fluent through Advanced BWIP user defined
function with very low computational overhead.
Better solution accuracy and lower computational
cost than traditional Lagrangian blast simulation
methods.
Validated against real world problems with good
prediction accuracy.
Technology is licensable from RDECOM.