0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Numerical Investigation of Channel Leak Geometry for Blast Overpressure Attenuation in a Muzzle Loaded Large Caliber Cannon

[+] Author and Article Information
R. A. Carson

US Army/Armament Research,
Development, and Engineering
Center (ARDEC)/Benet Laboratories,
Watervliet Arsenal,
Watervliet, NY 12189

O. Sahni

Mechanical, Aerospace and
Nuclear Engineering Department,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY 12180

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 13, 2014; final manuscript received July 21, 2014; published online September 10, 2014. Editor: Malcolm J. Andrews.

J. Fluids Eng 137(2), 021102 (Sep 10, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1133; doi: 10.1115/1.4028123 History: Received March 13, 2014; Revised July 21, 2014

This study examines the effect of channel leak geometry on blast overpressure attenuation in the rear of a muzzle-loaded large caliber cannon. Effects of three primary geometric parameters including leak volume as well as number and length of channels are studied. Reduction in blast overpressure, and thus peak overpressure, is most influenced by the leak volume; however, leak volume needs to be selected carefully to limit the loss in the projectile exit velocity. Modification of the channel height in the current range has a minimal effect on peak overpressure, but the number of channels can have a significant effect due to the constriction experienced by the leaking flow, thereby limiting the attenuation. Two channel lengths are considered where the longer channel length, is found to be more effective. The best configuration showed over 50% reduction in peak overpressure at all monitored locations with about 4.8% loss in the projectile exit velocity.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Schmidt, E. M., Gion, E. J., and Fansler, K. S., 1980, “Analysis of Weapon Parameters Controlling the Muzzle Blast Overpressure Field,” Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ballistics, Toulouse, France, Apr. 16–18.
Klingenberg, G., 1977, “Investigation of Combustion Phenomena Associated With the Flow of Hot Propellant Gases–III: Experimental Survey of the Formation and Decay of Muzzle Flowfields and of Pressure Measurements,” Combust. Flame, 29(3), pp. 289–309. [CrossRef]
Pater, L. A., and Shea, J. W., 1981, “Techniques for Reducing Gun Blast Noise Levels: An Experimental Study,” Naval Surface Weapons Center, Technical Report No. NSWC TR 81-120.
Phan, K. C., 1987, “On the Use of a Shock Tube as a Blast Simulator to Study the Performance of Muzzle Brake Devices,” Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment, Fort Halstead, UK, Report No. RARDE 7/87.
Phan, K. C., and Hurdle, C. V., 1989, “The Use of a Light Gas Gun as a Blast Simulator,” Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Ballistics, Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium, May 9–11.
Klingenburg, G., Schmolinske, E., Mach, H., and Seiler, F., 1985, “Flow Simulation Experiments in Ballistics,” J. Ballist., 8(4), pp. 2089–2117.
Oertel, F., 1974, “Clean Simulators for Muzzle Blast,” Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Ballistics, American Defense Preparedness Association, Orlando, Florida, Nov. 13–15.
Oertel, F., 1974, “Laser Interferometry of Unsteady, Underexpanded Jets,” U. S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Report No. R-1964.
Erdos, J. I., and Del Guidice, P. D., 1975, “Calculation of Muzzle Blast Flowfields,” AIAA J., 13(8), pp. 1048–1055. [CrossRef]
Maillie, F. H., 1973, “Finite Difference Calculations of the Free-Air Blast Field About the Muzzle of a Simple Brake of a 155-mm Howitzer,” Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA, Report No. TR-2938.
Maillie, F. H., 1973, “Numerical Calculation of a 105-mm Gun Blast With Projectile,” Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA, Report No. TR-3002.
Wang, J. C. T., and Widhopf, G. F., 1990, “Numerical Simulation of Blast Flowfields Using a High Resolution TVD Finite Volume Scheme,” Comput. Fluids, 18(1), pp. 103–137. [CrossRef]
Cooke, C. H., and Fansler, K. S., 1989, “Comparison With Experiment for TVD Calculations of Blast Waves From a Shock Tube,” Numer. Methods Fluids, 9(1), pp. 9–22. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, E. M., and Duffy, S. J., 1985, “Noise From Shock Tube Facilities,” 23rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. [CrossRef]
Jiang, Z., Takayama, K., and Skews, B. W., 1998, “Numerical Study on Blast Flowfields Induced by Supersonic Projectiles Discharged From Shock Tubes,” Phys. Fluids, 10(1), p. 277. [CrossRef]
Widhopf, G. F., Buell, J. C., and Schmidt, E. M., 1982, “Time Dependent Near-Field Muzzle Brake Flow Simulations,” AIAA/ASME 3rd Joint Thermophysics, Fluids, Plasma and Heat Transfer Conference, St. Louis, MS, Paper No. AIAA-82-0973. [CrossRef]
Buell, J. C., and Widhopf, G. F., 1984, “Three-Dimensional Simulation of Muzzle Brake Flowfields,” AIAA Paper No. 84-1641. [CrossRef]
Carofano, G. C., 1990, “A Comparison of Experimental and Numerical Blast Data for Perforated Muzzle Brakes,” U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, Technical Report No. ARCCB-TR-90034.
Carofano, G. C., 1993, “Perforated Brake Efficiency Measurements Using a 20-mm Cannon,” U. S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, Technical Report No. ARCCB-TR-93010.
Kang, K.-J., Ko, S.-H., and Lee, D.-S., 2008, “A Study on Impulsive Attenuation for High-Pressure Blast Flowfield,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 22(1), pp. 190–200. [CrossRef]
Rehman, H., Hwang, S. H., Fajar, B., Chung, H., and Jeong, H., 2011, “Analysis and Atenuation of Impulsive Sound Pressure in a Large Caliber Weapon During Muzzle Blast,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 25(10), pp. 2601–2606. [CrossRef]
Rehman, H., Chung, H., Joung, T., Suwono, A., and Jeong, H., 2011, “CFD Analysis of Sound Pressure in Tank Gun Muzzle Silencer,” J. Cent. South Univ. Technol., 18(6), pp. 2015–2020. [CrossRef]
Zhang, H., Chen, Z., Jiang, X., and Li, H., 2013, “Investigations on the Exterior Flow Field and the Efficiency of the Muzzle Brakes,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 27(1), pp. 95–101. [CrossRef]
Klingenberg, G., and Heimerl, J. M., 1992, Gun Muzzle Blast and Flash, AIAA, Washington, DC.
Carson, R. A., and Sahni, O., 2014, “Numerical Investigation of Propellant Leak Methods in Large Caliber Cannons for Blast Overpressure Attenuation,” Shock Waves (submitted). [CrossRef]
Carson, R. A., and Sahni, O., 2013, “Plume-in-Plume Blast Attenuator,” Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Ballistics, Freiburg, Germany, Apr. 22–26.
Nichols, A. L., 2010, “Users Manual for ALE3D, Vol. 1,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report No. LLNL-SM-433954.
Nichols, A. L., 2010, “Users Manual for ALE3D, Vol. 2,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report No. LLNL-SM-433954.
Hydrodynamics Challenge Problem, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report No. LLNL-TR-490254.
Benson, D., 1992, “Computational Methods in Lagrangian and Eulerian Hydrocodes,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 99(2–3), pp. 235–394. [CrossRef]
Noh, W. F., 1964, “CEL: A Time-Dependent, Two-Space-Dimensional, Coupled Euler-Lagrange Code,” Methods in Computational Physics (3rd Edition), Vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, pp. 117–179.
Kuhl, A. L., 2010, “Thermodynamic States in Explosion Fields,” LLNL-CONF-418405, 14th International Detonation Symposium, Coeur d'Alene, ID, Apr. 11–16.
Fried, L. E., Howard, W. M., and Souers, P. C., 1998, “CHEETAH 2.0 User's Manual,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report No. UCRL–MA–117541 Rev. 5.
Christensen, R. B., 1990, “Godunov Methods on a Staggered Mesh–An Improved Artificial Viscosity,” Proceedings of the Nuclear Explosives Code Development Conference, Monterey, CA, Nov. 6–9.
Sandia National Laboratories, 2012, “The CUBIT Tool Suite,” Accessed April 17, 2013, https://cubit.sandia.gov/
Kenneth Kuo, Penn State University, Email Correspondence, May 30, 2013.
Rajkowski, E. V., 1993, “Alternate Increment Container for the 120-mm Mortar Enhanced Ammunition,” Test Report No. AD-B173 029 (CSTA-7417), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Setup of the projectile and propellant

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Geometric setup for the parametric study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mesh utilized in numerical simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Muzzle exit mesh for different configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Boundary conditions for all simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Burn rate matching the experimental data of breech pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Projectile velocity for baseline numerical simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Schematic of eight positions in the rear of the muzzle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Experimental versus numerical results for peak overpressure at monitored locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Baseline normalized velocity over time and point with slope change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Peak overpressure for varied leak volumes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Normalized pressure versus radial position for heights of 6.7 and 10 calibers above centerline at 0 deg elevation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

FoM versus leak volume

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

FoM versus number of channels for a constant leak volume and two channel lengths

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Precursor shock structure for the baseline, CLM(7.5)(4)(6.7), and CLM(7.5)(8)(6.7)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Pressure over a line that is 1 caliber above the tube centerline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Primary shock structure for the baseline, CLM(7.5)(4)(6.7), and CLM(7.5)(8)(6.7)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Trace of shock structure at 10 calibers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Pressure over a line that is 1 caliber above the tube centerline for the primary shock

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Pressure versus time for position two for the baseline, CLM(7.5)(4)(6.7), and CLM(7.5)(8)(6.7)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In