THE SHAPE OF THE BLAST

WAVE: STUDIES OF THE

FRIEDLANDER EQUATION

by

John M. Dewey
Dewey McMillin & Associates
1741 Feltham Road, Victoria BC Canada

(www.blastanalysis.com)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 Characteristic Shape
80
Hydrostatic Overpressure (kPa)

60
Ps

40

20

tt++
0

-20
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 Friedlander 1946
Friedlander suggested that the classic
pressure time-history could be described by

t
   t 
P  PS e t
1   
 t 
MABS 21 2010 Israel
Press. vs Time 523.5m SB ANFO 2.205 kt (MINOR UNCLE)

80
Hydrostatic Overpressure (kPa)

60

40

20

-20
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 Friedlander Fit
80

60 Least squares fit to Friedlander equation

Pressure gauge signal

Overpressure (kPa)

40

20

-20
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 Density vs Time
0.8

0.6 Measured Density

Least Squares fit to Friedlander Equation
Density (kg m )
-3

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

Total (Pitot) Pressure vs Time
80

60
Friedlander Fit
Total Overpressure (kPa)

Measured Total Pressure

40

20

-20
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

Dynamic Pressure (½ρu2) vs Time
16

14

12

10
Dynamic Pressure (kPa)

8 Friedlander Fit
Dynamic pressure

-2

-4
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

Friedlander Fails at Higher
Overpressures
4
Hydrostatic Overpressure (atm)

Friedlander Fit
AirBlast Overpressure (FF1.3m)
2 Modified Friedlander Fit

-1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 t
P  PS e t (1  )
t 

Modified Friedlander Equation

Additional coefficient α

t t
P  PS e (1   )
t
MABS 21 2010 Israel
 t t
 t 
I    PS e  t  1     0.368PS t


0  t 

Properties of Friedlander Equation

Impulse in positive phase

t t
 t 
I    PS e 
t 
1     0.368PS t


0  t 

MABS 21 2010 Israel

Properties of Friedlander Equation
Total Impulse

 t
  t 
I Tot   PS e 1   0

t

0  t 

MABS 21 2010 Israel

Properties of Friedlander Equation
Minimum Pressure


t min  2t
2
Pmin   PS e  0.135PS
MABS 21 2010 Israel
 Blast Wave Profile
2.0

1.8

1.6
1 kg TNT FF at 2 ms
1.4
Friedlander Fit
Overpressure (atm)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

Radius (m)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 Blast Wave Profile
Low Overpressures
0.4
Hydrostatic Overpressure (atm)

0.3
1 kg TNT FF at 10 ms
Modified Friedlander Fit
Friedlander Fit
0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6

Radius (m)
MABS 21 2010 Israel
Particle Tracer Photogrammetry

MABS 21 2010 Israel

Spherical Piston Path

MISERS GOLD
2.445 KT ANFO
SURFACE BURST

MABS 21 2010 Israel

Friedlander Fit to Piston Path
100

80
Friedlander Fit
Misers Gold Piston Path
Inverse Radius (m)

60

40

20

0
0 100 200 300 400

Time (ms)

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 Conclusions
1. The time histories of the physical
properties of centered blast waves are
well described by the Friedlander
equation at peak overpressures less than
1 atm.
2. The wave profiles of the physical
properties are well described by the
Friedlander equation at peak
overpressures greater than 1 atm.

MABS 21 2010 Israel

 Conclusions
3. The trajectory of the spherical piston that
drives a centered blast wave has the
form of the Friedlander equation
4. Are there physical reasons why it should
be expected that a point source release
of energy would generate a spherical
piston path of this shape?

MABS 21 2010 Israel

MABS 21 2010 Israel
Properties of Friedlander Equation
Relaxation Time t*

   
* *
PS t t
 PS t 1   
e  t 

t  2.31t *
MABS 21 2010 Israel