Undergrad How fast does a blastwave travel?

Click For Summary
Shockwaves from explosions, such as C4 detonations, can initially travel at speeds significantly exceeding the speed of sound, with estimates suggesting speeds around Mach 10 at the detonation front. However, as the shockwave propagates through the air, it loses speed and eventually transitions to a normal sound wave, typically traveling at Mach 1. Observations from high-speed videos indicate that shockwaves can arrive at targets simultaneously with bullets, raising questions about their relative speeds. The temperature and composition of the gases produced during an explosion play crucial roles in determining the speed of the shockwave. Ultimately, the phenomenon of shockwaves is complex, involving interactions between pressure, temperature, and the surrounding environment.
  • #121
Drakkith said:
I'm unsure of what you want. A mathematical explanation of the negative phase? A plain-English explanation? A full derivation? I feel like most of these have been given already, either in the posts themselves or in their references. 'Inertial effects' is a pretty good explanation to me. What is confusing about it? The blast throws material outwards, leaving a rarified section until the material can be slowed down and its direction reversed. What more do you want?
The range of “explanations” on his thread so far indicates a lack of consensus on the matter, merely suggesting several alternative and contradictory descriptions of the effect (ranging from “the partial vacuum pulled by the outward momentum“, to “inertia”, to “simple harmonic motion”.)
I'm looking for an explanation which uses standard physics terms and which is consistent with modern scientific theory.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Sad
Likes hmmm27 and Motore
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Squizzie said:
I'm looking for an explanation which uses standard physics terms and which is consistent with modern scientific theory.
In an attempt to enlighten @Squizzie, I present here a proof that blast waves always include regions of low pressure. (Inspired by the reasoning used by Penney and Bethe in https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA384954.pdf.)

For simplicity, consider the case of a spherically-symmetric explosion into a static atmosphere of uniform density ##\rho_0##. Denote by ##\text{X}## the center of the explosion and draw around it a spherical outer surface of arbitrary radius ##r=R_o##, as shown in the following figure:
1697530224867.png

Before the explosion, the total mass of atmosphere contained within the outer surface is simply:$$M_{o}^{\text{BE}}=\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{0}R_{o}^{3}\tag{1}$$Now trigger the explosion to produce a blast wave (BW), that is, a spherical shell of disturbed atmosphere of fluctuating density ##\rho\left(r\right)##, propagating outward and characterized by a leading and a trailing edge. Focus on the instant that the leading edge of the BW reaches the outer surface, and label the radius of the trailing-edge at that instant to be ##R_i##, as depicted here:
1697530375129.png

For ##r<R_i##, the atmosphere is undisturbed and has settled back to its prior uniform density ##\rho_0##. (Similarly, for radii larger than ##R_o##, the atmosphere is undisturbed and uniform because the leading edge of the BW has not yet reached there.) In contrast, for the region ##R_i<r<R_o## within the blast wave, the atmospheric density ##\rho\left(r\right)## is unknown without solving a complex problem in fluid dynamics. But even so, after the explosion it's still possible to formally express the the total atmospheric mass within the outer surface as:$$M_{o}^{\text{AE}}=\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{0}R_{i}^{3}+4\pi\intop_{R_{i}}^{R_{o}}\rho\left(r\right)r^{2}dr$$$$=\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{0}R_{i}^{3}+\frac{4\pi}{3}\overline{\rho}_{\text{BW}}\left(R_{o}^{3}-R_{i}^{3}\right)\tag{2}$$in terms of the average density ##\overline{\rho}_{\text{BW}}## within the blast wave, defined as:$$\overline{\rho}_{\text{BW}}\equiv\frac{\intop_{R_{i}}^{R_{o}}\rho\left(r\right)r^{2}dr}{\frac{1}{3}\left(R_{o}^{3}-R_{i}^{3}\right)}\tag{3}$$Everything to this point is just describing the system and performing some simple math manipulations. But now enters the single fact from physics that is crucial to the proof: conservation of matter as applied to the atmosphere. That is, both theory and experiment dictates that a disturbance like a blast wave can neither create nor destroy atmospheric material. In particular, this means the total mass of the atmosphere is unchanged by a BW, which says in our notation:$$M_{o}^{\text{BE}}=M_{o}^{\text{AE}}\tag{4}$$Putting eqs.(1), (2) into this gives:$$\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{0}R_{o}^{3}=\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{0}R_{i}^{3}+\frac{4\pi}{3}\overline{\rho}_{\text{BW}}\left(R_{o}^{3}-R_{i}^{3}\right)$$or more simply:$$\overline{\rho}_{\text{BW}}=\rho_{0}\tag{5}$$In other words, no matter how wildly the density varies inside a blast wave from point to point, the average density is always exactly the same as that of the undisturbed atmosphere. In particular, maintaining this average within a BW requires that every region of compression (higher density/above atmospheric pressure) must be balanced by one or more regions of rarefaction (lower density/below atmospheric pressure). That's why in an earlier post I drew a comparison to sound waves, where each compression is always followed by rarefaction. All due to conservation of (fluid) matter!
 
  • #123
renormalize said:
In an attempt to enlighten @Squizzie, I present here a proof that blast waves always include regions of low pressure. (Inspired by the reasoning used by Penney and Bethe in https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA384954.pdf.)

But now enters the single fact from physics that is crucial to the proof: conservation of matter as applied to the atmosphere. That is, both theory and experiment dictates that a disturbance like a blast wave can neither create nor destroy atmospheric material. In particular, this means the total mass of the atmosphere is unchanged by a BW, which says in our notation:

renormalize said:
In other words, no matter how wildly the density varies inside a blast wave from point to point, the average density is always exactly the same as that of the undisturbed atmosphere. In particular, maintaining this average within a BW requires that every region of compression (higher density/above atmospheric pressure) must be balanced by one or more regions of rarefaction (lower density/below atmospheric pressure). That's why in an earlier post I drew a comparison to sound waves, where each compression is always followed by rarefaction. All due to conservation of (fluid) matter!
But this is manifestly false!
Because when a bomb goes off, the explosive, previously solid or liquid, becomes gas. Thereby causing increase of atmospheric mass in any volume enclosing the bomb.

However, rarefaction might indeed happen in case of sufficient inertia.
Suppose that you fire a gun but the bullet is stuck in the barrel. Then there will be a high pressure in the chamber when the powder has turned into gas. The pressurized gas would leak out of the chamber slowly, through the touchhole; but there would never be a rarefaction. The pressure inside the chamber would approach the external pressure asymptotically from above - but it would never fall below the external pressure.
However, if there is enough inertia... Suppose the bullet is free to travel but the charge is insufficient to fill the barrel. Then the bullet is accelerated along the barrel, but as the gases expand, their pressure drops (also the air in barrel ahead of bullet is compressed), so eventually the pressure in chamber drops below the pressure ahead and starts to decelerate the bullet.
Now, in free air, the pressure behind the bullet equalizes with the ambient pressure when the bullet stops, so the bullet will remain at rest there. Not so in a barrel, because the barrel cannot be emptied or refilled except by moving the bullet - if the bullet stops in the barrel because the charge does not fill the barrel, the bullet would be sucked back into the barrel. And depending on the means of damping (side friction, gas leaks...) the bullet might oscillate repeatedly.

Just as the rarefaction behind a bullet in flight will NOT exist when the cartridge is first fired (the explosion gases are at high pressure throughout, if the charge is sufficient then rarefaction will form only when the bullet flies ahead of muzzle blast), an explosion propelling ambient gas only will start out as pure overpressure. Its evolution to contain one or several underpressure zones will happen by inertia and will depend on the relation of inertia and friction (sufficient friction will prevent any underpressure occurring).
 
  • #124
snorkack said:
But this is manifestly false!
Because when a bomb goes off, the explosive, previously solid or liquid, becomes gas. Thereby causing increase of atmospheric mass in any volume enclosing the bomb.
True enough. But fortunately, an explosion freely expanding into the atmosphere rapidly dilutes the combustion gas to irrelevance within a relatively short distance. For example, consider a hypothetical detonation that releases a gas mass ##M_{X}=\text{100 US tons}##. (Note that this represents several times the mass of the "Gadget" bomb and support tower that were vaporized in the Trinity test.) The ratio of ##M_{X}## to atmospheric mass ##M_{A}=\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{0}R^{3}## versus ##R## is shown below:
1697565201189.png

At just ##130\:\text{m}## from the blast center, the explosive gas component comprises less than ##1\%## of the total atmosphere and rapidly becomes negligible further out.

So beyond some minimal distance, I stand by my "conservation of mass" proof of low pressure regions in a blast wave.
 
  • #125
A colleague has drawn my attention to Springer Link Shock Waves Journal and The International Shock Wave Institute. It seems most of the publications are behind a paywall which limits their accessibility to citizen scientists, but I suspect we are just scratching the surface of the problem.
Is this an "acceptable source" for PF? Is it worth further investigation?
 
  • #126
I haven't fully digested this paper yet, but a scan of the figures and a text search fails to reveal any "negative overpressure" in their experiments.
I am not denying the existence of negative overpressure - the Beirut explosion and atomic blasts clearly indicate its presence.
I wonder if there is a missing controlling influence? Critical size of the blast, type of explosive, distance from blast centre, ...?
 
  • #127
Squizzie said:
A colleague has drawn my attention to Springer Link Shock Waves Journal and The International Shock Wave Institute. It seems most of the publications are behind a paywall
Can you see if your local library can help you gain temporary access to those resources? They may be able to help arrange an inter-library loan or similar.
 
  • #128
berkeman said:
Can you see if your local library can help you gain temporary access to those resources? They may be able to help arrange an inter-library loan or similar.
I have found some open access papers in their collection, and an interesting one noted above.
 
  • #129
Your wonderment at water condensing from the air, and negative pressure gradients can mostly be answered by looking in Wikipedia for articles related to "weather" and "sound", respectively.
 
  • #130
hmmm27 said:
Your wonderment at water condensing from the air, and negative pressure gradients can mostly be answered by looking in Wikipedia for articles related to "weather" and "sound", respectively.
Thanks, but that is not my wonderment.
The creation of the cloud, as explained here, is not, in itself complicated, as it is due to the adiabatic cooling of the humid air in the low pressure region, leading to condensation.
My wonderment is the cause of the "negative overpressure" itself.
 
  • #131
Squizzie said:
My wonderment is the cause of the "negative overpressure" itself.
Doesn't seem complex : air behind the wavefront is colder than the wavefront, so has a lower speed of sound... it literally can't keep up with the wavefront, thus underpressure. I guess you can add that one to the list of possibilities.

What does Kinney have to say about it ?
 
  • #132

hmmm27 said:
What does Kinney have to say about it ?
"the inertial effects responsible for the negative phase " Kinney & Graham referenced in #116
 
  • #133
hmmm27 said:
Doesn't seem complex : air behind the wavefront is colder than the wavefront, so has a lower speed of sound... it literally can't keep up with the wavefront, thus underpressure. I guess you can add that one to the list of possibilities.
In case of a live load, the muzzle blast is pressing and accelerating the bullet out of the barrel. But soon after the bullet exits the muzzle, the blast spreads out and is slowed, while the bullet is not spread out and for that reason is not slowed so much.
How about the case of blank load? The smoke will undergo adiabatic cooling. When the pressure of the smoke comes to match that of ambient air, is the temperature of the smoke lower than that of ambient air, or still higher?
What happens to the clean air that was in the barrel before shooting the blank? It must have been compressed and heated adiabatically when pushed ahead of the smoke. When the blast exits the muzzle, is the (adiabatically heated) clean air hotter or cooler than the (adiabatically cooled) smoke?
 
  • #134
Does anyone have access to this paper by Rigby et. al? The Negative Phase of the Blast Load.?
From the summary, I think it might be interesting:
"Following the positive phase of a blast comes a period where the pressure falls below atmospheric pressure known as the negative phase. Whilst the positive phase of the blast is well understood, validation of the negative phase is rare in the literature, and as such it is often incorrectly treated or neglected altogether. Herein, existing methods of approximating the negative phase are summarised and recommendations of which form to use are made based on experimental validation. Also, through numerical simulations, the impact of incorrectly modelling the negative phase has been shown and its implications discussed."

Rigby SE, Tyas A, Bennett T, Clarke SD, Fay SD. The Negative Phase of the Blast Load. International Journal of Protective Structures. 2014;5(1):1-19. doi:10.1260/2041-4196.5.1.1
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #136
Brilliant, many thanks.
 
  • #137
The closest the Rigby paper comes to providing an explanation in which uses standard physics terms and which is consistent with modern scientific theory is, in the introduction:
"Following the positive phase comes a period of ‘negative’ pressure (below atmospheric); a partial vacuum caused by over-expansion of the shocked air" (my emphasis)
Which raises the question: what is meant by "over-expansion"? I have written privately to Dr. Rigby for elucidation.
[EDIT] Doesn't the ideal gas law insist that the adiabatic expansion of air will generate a low pressure, and vice versa: an adiabatic lowering of the pressure of air will be associated with its expansion?
Is that not just a restatement of the ideal gas law, rather than an explanation of the phenomenon of the "'negative' pressure"?
 
Last edited:
  • #138
Consider the case of the squib again.
If the bullet seizes at the breech then there would be no blastwave: the overpressure in the chamber would leak out gradually through touchhole and windage and asymptotically approach ambient pressure from above.
If the bullet moves along the barrel then as the bullet moves, the smoke behind the bullet expands and the air ahead of the bullet is compressed. But if the pressure of the expanding smoke becomes equal to pressure of air ahead while the bullet is in the barrel, at that point the bullet only stops accelerating but is at top speed. Therefore the smoke goes on expanding, and the inertia of bullet in barrel can cause the smoke to expand till its pressure is below ambient.
 
  • #139
snorkack said:
Consider the case of the squib again.
If the bullet seizes at the breech then there would be no blastwave: the overpressure in the chamber would leak out gradually through touchhole and windage and asymptotically approach ambient pressure from above.
No, the gun explodes.
 
  • #140
Squizzie said:
The closest the Rigby paper comes to providing an explanation in which uses standard physics terms and which is consistent with modern scientific theory is, in the introduction:
"Following the positive phase comes a period of ‘negative’ pressure (below atmospheric); a partial vacuum caused by over-expansion of the shocked air" (my emphasis)
Which raises the question: what is meant by "over-expansion"? I have written privately to Dr. Rigby for elucidation.
He has replied with a description as follows:
"The negative phase is really just a response (of the air) to the positive phase. The two are interlinked.
Consider a point in free air, some distance from the centre of an explosive. Let's define a frame of reference where "forwards" is the direction of travel of the blast wave, and "backwards" is back towards the explosive.
The positive phase imparts a forwards particle velocity to the air. Pressure and particle velocity are two sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other, so if a pressure is acting it is also moving the particles. So all the while the positive phase is acting, our point is moving away from the explosion centre. Once the positive phase has completed, that point temporarily reaches ambient pressure, but since it has moved away from the blast, the air between it and the blast centre has overexpanded, therefore reduced in pressure, and left a partial vacuum.
The negative phase sees the "blast wind" changing direction and the particle rushing back to where it came from, to equilibrate. "


I have replied:
"May I ask for clarification on your use of particle velocity please?
If you are referring to individual molecules as particles, then my understanding is that, according to statistical mechanics, the molecules are individually moving in random directions at a mean speed of around Mach 1, and that the pressure in the blast wave is being transmitted by the molecules imparting momentum to their neighbours through their collisions over the distance of the few nanometers of their mean free path. That is, the individual molecules don't travel any significant distances in the direction of the blast front, rather it is the transient concentration of these molecules that is the pressure wave that travels out from the blast centre."


I'll keep you posted.
 
  • #141
Squizzie said:
If you are referring to individual molecules as particles, then my understanding is that, according to statistical mechanics, the molecules are individually moving in random directions at a mean speed of around Mach 1, and that the pressure in the blast wave is being transmitted by the molecules imparting momentum to their neighbours through their collisions over the distance of the few nanometers of their mean free path.
You are ignoring the rise in temperature of the air due to the shock front pressure rise. The speed of sound in hot air is greater than in ambient air. So the average speed of the molecules in the shock front is supersonic, >M1.
Indeed, all shock fronts that arise from an explosion are supersonic.
See: Kinney and Graham; Equation 4-34 .
 
  • #142
Baluncore said:
You are ignoring the rise in temperature of the air due to the shock front pressure rise.
But isn't it the drop in temperature to below the dew point (and below ambient) in the negative phase that causes the condensation?
 
Last edited:
  • #143
Squizzie said:
But isn't it the drop in temperature to below the dew point (and below ambient) in the negative phase that causes the condensation?
That does not happen at, nor in, the shock front.
After the explosion, the outward momentum of the shock front, and the blast wave, have removed most of the combustion products and air from the site of the explosion. That volume is cooling and contracting to create the partial vacuum with condensation. The speed of the condensation wave front is slower than M1 because the front is hotter than the rear, which makes a ramp, not a step.

The blast wave will reverse at some point, flowing back in to fill the condensing gas and the partial vacuum that also causes. The wave that flows back in may again develop a step shock front, since it raises the pressure and temperature again at the site of the original explosion. That second wave is closer to ambient pressure and temperature, so the speed does not rise anywhere near the original explosive shock front.

Do not mix your viewpoints. You must decide to observe and discuss the shock front from a fixed position relative to the explosion, or travelling with the front itself, from the point of the greatest pressure step.

Do not mix your gas models. You must analyse the gas using statistical mechanics, or fluid mechanics.

Do not forget that a rise in pressure, causes a rise in temperature, which causes the speed of sound to increase, which steepens the pressure step of a shock front.
 
  • #144
Baluncore said:
That does not happen at, nor in, the shock front.
Correct, and I am not suggesting that it does. Recall fig 6-32 from Kinney:
1697782601400.png

The negative phase ("-")is behind the positive phase (+) which commences at the instantaneous shock front at time ta.
 
  • #145
Squizzie said:
... , according to statistical mechanics, the molecules are individually moving in random directions at a mean speed of around Mach 1, ...
That is a truism. I wonder what you really mean there by Mach 1.
The mean speed is temperature dependent.

The speed of sound at any temperature is Mach 1. If a vehicle travels at twice the (temperature dependent) speed of sound, it is doing Mach 2.

Indeed, I would argue that every pressure disturbance travels through the air at Mach 1, the speed of sound, corrected for the immediate local temperature.

A shock front travels at the speed of sound at its peak absolute temperature. That temperature is greater than the ambient atmosphere it propagates through, or it would not remain as an almost instant shock-step.

We need to restrict the use of the Mach scale to objects moving through a fluid, and avoid the use of Mach 1 to mean the speed of sound at STP.
 
  • #146
Baluncore said:
I wonder what you really mean there by Mach 1.
I am using Mach 1 in its standard physics context: the speed of sound in the medium that is under discussion. In air at STP, the speed is around 340 m/s. At different temp's and pressures, and in different gases, it's different. And, for the purpose of this thread, I would like the discussion to address gases in particular, not fluids in general.
I assure you I am not re-defining the Mach scale.
 
  • #147
Squizzie said:
I assure you I am not re-defining the Mach scale.
Every pressure disturbance must propagate at Mach 1, so why do you need to use the dimensionless term "Mach" anywhere in this discussion.
 
  • #148
Baluncore said:
You are ignoring the rise in temperature of the air due to the shock front pressure rise. The speed of sound in hot air is greater than in ambient air. So the average speed of the molecules in the shock front is supersonic, >M1.
Indeed, all shock fronts that arise from an explosion are supersonic.
See: Kinney and Graham; Equation 4-34 .
Does the shock front ever become subsonic? If yes, how?
It is clear how the bullet becomes subsonic. It is actually moving its bulk relative to air and experiencing drag even when subsonic. A bullet that moved at 400 m/s and has decelerated to 350 m/s will go on experiencing drag to decelerate to 340 m/s, then 330 m/s, 300 m/s, 30 m/s et cetera. The drag decreases but it does not jump to zero at nonzero speed.
But the muzzle blast?
If the ambient air ahead of the bang is at 101 325 Pa and the muzzle blast is at 201 325 Pa, rather hotter and supporting higher sound speed behind the shock than ahead, the shock peak clearly catches up with the shock front, and the pressure jumps over air molecule free path (micrometres?).
But when the muzzle blast spreads out, the pressure drops. The sound speed behind the shock front decreases as the pressure in the peak decreases - from 440 m/s to 350 m/s to 341 m/s to 340,01 m/s - but it still remains higher or equal than the sound speed ahead of the front. Since the wave started as a sudden increase across micrometres, does it remain such a sudden increase no matter how weak it gets? Or does it eventually spread out, and then how?
 
  • #149
Baluncore said:
Every pressure disturbance must propagate at Mach 1
Not only pressure disturbance, but density and conduction temperature disturbances as well.
I suspect the reason that blast waves move faster than Mach 1 (of the ambient air) in the milliseconds immediately after the detonation could be due to local heating of the air due to the radiant heat (infra red) from the explosion raising the air temperature and thus the speed of sound in the immediate vicinity.
 
  • #150
snorkack said:
Since the wave started as a sudden increase across micrometres, does it remain such a sudden increase no matter how weak it gets? Or does it eventually spread out, and then how?
As we have discussed on this thread, when the observer is close to an lightning strike, the sound is a crack. Further away, it becomes a rumble. I suspect the abrupt energy increase at the shock front becomes less and less sharp as the wave propagates outwards.
The Fourier analysis of a sharp wave form (square , triangle etc) reveals a lot of high frequency signals are required to maintain the sharpness. I suspect those high frequencies decay more quickly over time and distance than the low frequency ones, which would tend to smooth out the wave form. And of course the energy of the wave diminishes due not just to the square root of the distance, but also the absorption of the energy by the stuff in its way.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
17K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
10K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K