0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Blast Wave Interaction With a Three Level Building

[+] Author and Article Information
Jacques Massoni, Laurent Biamino, Georges Jourdan, Lazhar Houas

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Aix Marseille University,
CNRS, IUSTI,
5 rue E. Fermi,
Marseille Cedex 13 13453, France

Ozer Igra

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Ben Gurion University,
Beer Sheva 84105, Israel;
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Peter the Great St. Petersburg
Polytechnic University,
Saint Petersburg 195251, Russia

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 24, 2016; final manuscript received June 24, 2017; published online August 11, 2017. Assoc. Editor: John Abraham.

J. Fluids Eng 139(11), 111106 (Aug 11, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-16-1769; doi: 10.1115/1.4037172 History: Received November 24, 2016; Revised June 24, 2017

The present work shows that weak blast waves that are considered as being harmless can turn to become fatal upon their reflections from walls and corners inside a building. In the experimental part, weak blast waves were generated by using an open-end shock tube. A three level building model was placed in vicinity to the open-end of the used shock tube. The evolved wave pattern inside the building rooms was recorded by a sequence of schlieren photographs; also pressure histories were recorded on the rooms' walls. In addition, numerical simulations of the evolved flow field inside the building were conducted. The good agreement obtained between numerical and experimental results shows the potential of the used code for identifying safe and dangerous places inside the building rooms penetrated by the weak blast wave.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Debien, B. , Leclerc, T. , Clapson, P. , Perez, J.-P. , Lenoir, B. , and Pats, B. , 2006, “ Lésions par Explosion,” MAPAR Conference, June 3–4.
Wright, R. K. , 1983, “ Death or Injury Caused by Explosion,” Clin. Lab. Med., 3(2), pp. 309–319. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6617119 [PubMed]
French Republic, 2004, “ Technical Guide to the Reference Values of Effects Thresholds Accidental Phenomena of Classified Installations,” French Republic, Paris, France.
French Ministry of Ecology, 2003, “ INERIS Report Realized After the Disaster Occurred on the NITROCHIMIE Site on March the 27th 2003,” French Ministry of Ecology, Paris, France.
Ben-Dor, G. , 1992, Shock Wave Reflection Phenomena, Springer-Verlag, New York. [CrossRef]
Igra, O. , Falcovitz, J. , Reichenbach, H. , and Heilig, W. , 1996, “ Experimental and Numerical Study of the Interaction Between a Planar Shock Wave and a Square Cavity,” J. Fluid Mech., 313, pp. 105–130. [CrossRef]
Ben-Dor, G. , Igra, O. , and Elperin, T. , 2001, Handbook of Shock Waves, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Jourdan, G. , Houas, L. , Schwaederlé, L. , Layes, G. , Carrey, R. , and Diaz, F. , 2004, “ A New Variable Inclination Shock Tube for Multiple Investigations,” Shock Waves, 13(6), pp. 501–504. [CrossRef]
Toro, E. F. , 2009, Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Practical Introduction, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. [CrossRef]
van Leer, B. , 1985, “ On the Relation Between the Upwind-Differencing Schemes of Godunov, Enguist-Osher and Roe,” SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 5(1), pp. 1–20. [CrossRef]
Van Leer, B. , 1979, “ Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme V. A Second Order Sequel to Godunov's Method,” J. Comput. Phys., 32(1), pp. 101–136. [CrossRef]
Quirk, J. J. , 1994, “ An Alternative to Unstructured Grids for Computing Gas Dynamic Flows Around Arbitrarily Complex Two Dimensional Bodies,” Comput. Fluids, 23(1), pp. 125–142. [CrossRef]
Toro, E. F. , Spruce, M. , and Speares, W. , 1994, “ Restoration of Contact Surface in the HLL Riemann Solver,” Shock Waves, 4(1), pp. 25–34. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

View of the Plexiglas building model located close to the shock tube exit. For simplicity, both the Plexiglas building and the shock tube are positioned horizontally (gravity effects are negligible in such case).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Description and dimensions of the tested building model: (a) schematic drawing of the model (units are in millimeter), (b) a photo of the Plexiglas model, and (c) its location relative to the shock tube exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Overpressure signals recorded at the center of the ground floor wall , the second floor wall , and the third floor wall , for two different incident shock wave Mach numbers Mis = 1.11 (a) and Mis = 1.27 (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison between computed schlieren (left) and recorded experimentally (right). In cases (a) and (b), the incident shock wave Mach number, inside the shock tube, was Mis = 1.11 and in (c) and (d), it was Mis = 1.27. Left and right scales are exactly the same, showing a perfect agreement in space and time for the evolved wave pattern.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison between experimental and numerically evaluated overpressures at the center of the first and the second floor's rear walls, for two different incident shock wave Mach numbers Mis = 1.11 (left) and Mis = 1.27 (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Representation of the computational domain highlighting the shock tube and the building model with axial symmetry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Sequences of schlieren photos (30,000 f/s) showing the evolution and multiple reflections of the blast wave inside the Plexiglas building. The incident shock wave Mach number inside the shock tube was 1.17.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Numerical simulation (30,000 f/s) of pressure distribution inside the building model showing the evolution and multiple reflections of the entering blast wave. The incident shock wave Mach number inside the shock tube is 1.11.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Numerical simulation (30,000 f/s) of pressure distribution inside the building model showing the evolution and multiple reflections of the entering blast wave. The incident shock wave Mach number inside the shock tube is 1.27.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Numerical simulations showing the overpressure prevailing inside the three floor building model for an incident shock wave, inside the shock tube, having a Mach number of 1.17. Experimental results are shown on the left and appropriate simulations appear on the right.

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