I What areas of maths and physics do I need to understand explosion physics?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ax_xiom
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Understanding explosion physics requires a solid grasp of fluid dynamics and the mathematical principles behind blast wave behavior, particularly in relation to air speed and overpressure. Key discussions revolve around the derivation of equations from Jorge S. Diaz's seminar, where participants express confusion over specific mathematical steps and constants involved in the calculations. The conversation highlights the importance of foundational knowledge in compressible fluid dynamics, as well as the need for additional resources to clarify complex concepts. Participants also explore the relationship between explosion size, distance from the epicenter, and resulting overpressure, noting discrepancies with existing models like Nukemap. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the intricate nature of blast wave physics and the necessity for further study and collaboration to deepen understanding.
Ax_xiom
Messages
58
Reaction score
4
I was watching Jorge S. Diaz's Seminar on blast waves where he derived a formula for the position of a blast wave in respect to time. Despite learning multivariable and vector calculus, I'm still confused about some of the steps he takes to derive the final expression. So what other areas of mathematics do I need to know?

Is it also fine for me to ask questions about specific steps he took in the video?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
berkeman said:
What is your interest in studying blast physics? Are you wanting to better understand blast injuries? Or are you wanting to understand something else about explosions and the resulting blast wave?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064416310319
I more want to understand how air speed and overpressure scale with the size of the explosion and the distance from the epicentre (and maybe use fluid dynamics to create an equation for both). I wanted to look at the video to see what I need to know and I don't understand everything yet
 
Ax_xiom said:
I more want to understand how air speed and overpressure scale with the size of the explosion and the distance from the epicentre
What is your interest in this topic?
 
berkeman said:
What is your interest in this topic?
Just a general curiosity, why do you ask?
 
In addition to being an EE, I'm also a Medic. My interests in explosion physics are from the blast injury angle. When others express interests in explosives, my other trainings kick in and I ask questions. I don't believe you just have a general curiosity about blast physics, to be honest. Do you want links to the fluid dynamics involved, or do you just want simple equations to do some blast injury calculations?

What is your physics and math training level so far in case you want the former?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Likes DOGE3500 and symbolipoint
berkeman said:
In addition to being an EE, I'm also a Medic. My interests in explosion physics are from the blast injury angle. When others express interests in explosives, my other trainings kick in and I ask questions. I don't believe you just have a general curiosity about blast physics, to be honest. Do you want links to the fluid dynamics involved, or do you just want simple equations to do some blast injury calculations?

What is your physics and math training level so far in case you want the former?
I want more links to the fluid dynamics involved. I know some vector and multivariable calculus although I could just learn whatever extra maths is needed later
 
berkeman said:
Then follow the links at the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_wave

I'll also ping our local blast physics expert @Dr. Courtney in case he is still monitoring PF.
Ok, Is it alos fine if I ask question about specific steps Jorge takes in the video?
 
  • #10
Ax_xiom said:
Ok, Is it alos fine if I ask question about specific steps Jorge takes in the video?
Probably, but don't make us watch the video to help you. Take screenshots of the equations or reproduce them here using LaTeX (see the LaTeX Guide link below the Edit window).
 
  • #11
Try
explosive shocks in air by Kinney
Blast waves by needham
Introduction to simple shock waves in air by Prunty
Gas Dynamics of Explosion by Lee

It’s technically compressible fluid dynamics, but scaling laws and approximations can take you a long way
 
Last edited:
  • #12
berkeman said:
Probably, but don't make us watch the video to help you. Take screenshots of the equations or reproduce them here using LaTeX (see the LaTeX Guide link below the Edit window).
Alright.

The first step that confuses me is this:
1752854396031.webp

I fully understand the left hand side, as he just found the value of the integral, but what confuses me is the right hand side and specifically the ##\frac{\gamma}{2}\psi\phi^{2}## term. I'm pretty sure that what he did is made some substitutions and moved the constants ##\frac{4 \pi R^{3}P_{0}}{\lambda}## out of the integral, but when I do that I can't get those constants to come out of the integral.
 
  • #13
What is a0 (it is some sort of velocity)? If Ms is the mach number, I am unsure why one can pull it outside the integral.
 
  • #14
Frabjous said:
What is a0?
I don't think he explains in the video but I think it's the speed of sound in the medium based on what he says about the final equation. He did mention that he would use these equations:
1752874900707.webp

And the Rankine-Hugonoit boundary conditions to solve the equations so maybe that is what he did there.
 
  • #15
Ax_xiom said:
I don't think he explains in the video but I think it's the speed of sound in the medium based on what he says about the final equation. He did mention that he would use these equations:
View attachment 363424
And the Rankine-Hugonoit boundary conditions to solve the equations so maybe that is what he did there.
If the video does not define everything, trying to fill in the steps is going to be really difficult. I would suggest finding another reference.
 
  • #16
Last edited:
  • #17
Frabjous said:
Diaz has a paper on archive.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.09488
It assumes that you already know a lot.
Ok thanks, I'll see what I can do here
 
  • #18
1752922746333.webp

I wonder if it's possible to use these equations to calculate the air velocity and pressure of a blast wave at a given distance with a given energy. ##M_{s} = a_{0}^{-1}(\frac{dR}{dt})## and we already have an expression for ##\frac{dz}{d\tau}## which is the scaled distance over the scaled time.
 
  • #19
You can calculate them at the shock front.
 
  • #20
Frabjous said:
Diaz has a paper on archive.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.09488
Thanks for citing the Diaz & Rigby paper. We had a poster some time back who vehemently insisted that a blast-wave shock-front could propagate at the speed-of-sound ##c## and cited data from the 2020 Beirut chemical explosion to back his claim. But the analysis in this paper clearly demonstrates that the Beirut shock front traveled supersonically and only approached ##c## ("acoustic wave") as ##t\rightarrow\infty##:
1752936927278.webp
 
  • #21
Frabjous said:
You can calculate them at the shock front.
I did it with overpressure and I'm getting some odd results:
dR/dt transforms with the chain rule like this:
$$\frac{dR}{dt} = \frac{dR}{dz}\frac{dz}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{dt}$$
And our variables are these:
$$
\begin{align*}
R_{0}z &= R \\
\tau &= \frac{a_{0}t}{R_{0}}
\end{align*}
$$
So their final derivatives and the final value of dR/dt is as follows:
$$
\begin{align*}
\frac{dR}{dz} &= R_{0}\\
\frac{d\tau}{dt} &= \frac{a_{0}}{R_{0}}\\
\frac{dR}{dz}\frac{dz}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{dt} &= R_{0}\frac{dz}{d\tau}\frac{a_{0}}{R_{0}} = a_{0}\frac{dz}{d\tau}
\end{align*}
$$
We know what ##\frac{dz}{d\tau}## is as that is the final result of the paper and earlier in the paper we get this expression $$P(R) = (\frac{2 \gamma M_{s}^{2}-(\gamma-1)}{\gamma+1})P_{0}$$ for the pressure at the shock front where $$M_{s} = a_{0}^{-1}\frac{dR}{dt}$$ this means $$M_{s} = \frac{dz}{d\tau}$$ The rest of what I did is just agebraic manipulation to get it into units that aren't dimensionless.
$$
\begin{align*}
\frac{dz}{d\tau} &= (1+\frac{1}{K_{0}z^{3}})^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
z &= \frac{RP_{0}^{\frac{1}{3}}}{E_{0}^{\frac{1}{3}}} \\
\frac{dz}{d\tau} &= (1+\frac{E_{0}}{K_{0}R^{3}P_{0}})^{\frac{1}{2}} = M_s\\
P(R) &= (\frac{2 \gamma(1+\frac{E_{0}}{K_{0}R^{3}P_{0}})-(\gamma-1)}{\gamma+1})P_{0}\\
&= (\frac{\frac{2 \gamma E_0}{K_{0}R^{3}P_{0}}+\gamma+1}{\gamma+1})P_{0}\\
&= (\frac{2 \gamma E_0}{K_{0}R^{3}P_{0}(\gamma+1)}+1)P_0\\
&= \frac{2 \gamma E_0}{K_{0}R^{3}(\gamma+1)}+P_0
\end{align*}
$$
Overpressure is just ##P-P_0## so the expression for overpressure is $$\frac{2 \gamma E_0}{K_{0}R^{3}(\gamma+1)}$$ which implies that overpressure increases linearly with explosion size, which looking at nukemap doesn't seem to be true
 
  • #22
What nukemap? Overpressure going as E/R3 is common result.
 
  • #23
Frabjous said:
What nukemap? Overpressure going as E/R3 is common result.
This one by Alex Wellerstein. The dimensional analysis makes sense but plotting yield and overpressure on a graph shows that it isn't linear:
1752967342326.webp

Taking the logarithm of both sides and checking the gradient of the line makes the non-linear trend of the line even more clear:
1752967452572.webp

It looks more like a square root relationship rather than a linear one based on the line

Edit: The sample points were taken 4.78km away from the blast site, if that information is relevant
 
Last edited:
  • #24
You have nukemap and you have an equation. Have you tried plotting nukemap using the equation?

The distance matters.

Does nukemap have mach reflection?
 
  • #25
Frabjous said:
You have nukemap and you have an equation. Have you tried plotting nukemap using the equation?
Yeah, I've done the same for distance and the equation also disagrees:
ModelFail.webp

The overpressure seems to be decreasing similarly to the inverse square law but my model predicts a cubic decrease.

Frabjous said:
Does nukemap have mach reflection?
It does, that's why it can also model airbursts aswell
 
  • #26
In the language of the paper, is nukemap using the STvN solution or something more complicated? One also needs to think about the error bars of the synthetic data.

To confirm, mach reflection is turned off in the nukemap numbers?

The hugoniot equation is a thermodynamic equation, so one would expect that a good mach number will result in a good pressure. On the other hand, the paper does not make pressure comparisons at all and ultimately was not published, so there might be some loose ends that the authors still need to address. For example: On page two, there is the description of the auxillary function K. In figure 1, the particle velocity does not have a negative region at late times, which is not adequately discussed.
 
  • #27
Frabjous said:
In the language of the paper, is nukemap using the STvN solution or something more complicated? One also needs to think about the error bars of the synthetic data.
What Nukemap does is that it takes Glasstone and Dolan's data on nuclear weapons and interpolates between them to allow Nukemap to simulate airbursts.
1753092991211.webp

More detail about nukemap can be found here.

Also isn't the STvN solution for the position of a shockwave? How would you use it for the overpressure?
Frabjous said:
To confirm, mach reflection is turned off in the nukemap numbers?
Again, since nukemap can simulate airbursts and the data it's built from has mach reflections I'd assume its turned on.
Frabjous said:
For example: On page two, there is the description of the auxillary function K.
How does that change things? Should I find what ##z## is with that in mind?
 
  • #28
Ax_xiom said:
Again, since nukemap can simulate airbursts and the data it's built from has mach reflections I'd assume its turned on.
The paper is describing spherical explosions. So you are calculating two different things.

Do you have access to the book by Kinney? The first edition has a table for a one ton explosion as a point source and as a spherical charge. The second edition has a table for a 1 kg and a 1 kt tnt explosion. Try comparing the code and the paper to either of these data sets
 
  • #29
Frabjous said:
The paper is describing spherical explosions. So you are calculating two different things.
Do mach reflections affect the overpressure that much? Even when the explosion is on the ground? I reasoned that the effects would only be some sort of scaling factor as the solution that Diaz came up with was able to model surface bursts by dividing the calculated yield by 1.8 to account for reflections
Frabjous said:
Do you have access to the book by Kinney? The first edition has a table for a one ton explosion as a point source and as a spherical charge. The second edition has a table for a 1 kg and a 1 kt tnt explosion. Try comparing the code and the paper to either of these data sets
Unfortunately not, could you link the table here by any chance?
 
  • #30
Ax_xiom said:
Unfortunately not, could you link the table here by any chance?
Give me a day or two.
 
  • #31
Frabjous said:
Give me a day or two.
Alright, thanks!
 
  • #32
Kinney "Explosive Shocks in Air" 1962
 

Attachments

  • V1.1.webp
    V1.1.webp
    22.4 KB · Views: 4
  • V1.2.webp
    V1.2.webp
    21.3 KB · Views: 10
  • #33
Kinney and Graham "Explosive Shocks in Air" 1985

V2.1.webpV2.2.webpV2.3.webpV2.4.webp
 
  • #35
What does the mach number comparison look like?
 
  • #36
Frabjous said:
What does the mach number comparison look like?
Do you mean compare overpressure to the mach number of the shockwave?
 
  • #37
Try to follow the analysis in the paper.
It starts with z vs t
Then comes mach number.
Then comes pressure.
 
  • #38
Frabjous said:
Try to follow the analysis in the paper.
It starts with z vs t
Then comes mach number.
Then comes pressure.
Isn't that what I did when I got the result I'm currently testing? I took the result for ##\frac{dz}{dt}## and changed it to an expression of the mach number, then used that expression to calculate the pressure (and overpressure)
 
  • #39
Ax_xiom said:
Isn't that what I did when I got the result I'm currently testing? I took the result for ##\frac{dz}{dt}## and changed it to an expression of the mach number, then used that expression to calculate the pressure (and overpressure)
You want to see where the disagreement starts. Then you try to figure out the discrepancy there.
 
  • #40
Frabjous said:
You want to see where the disagreement starts. Then you try to figure out the discrepancy there.
So plot overpressure against mach number?
 
  • #41
No. Start with position vs time. Figure 3 of the paper.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Ok, is ##t_0## or ##t_d## the column I should be looking at for this?
 
  • #44
ta
Use the nondimensional forms like in the paper.
 
  • #45
renormalize said:
Thanks for citing the Diaz & Rigby paper. We had a poster some time back who vehemently insisted that a blast-wave shock-front could propagate at the speed-of-sound ##c## and cited data from the 2020 Beirut chemical explosion to back his claim. But the analysis in this paper clearly demonstrates that the Beirut shock front traveled supersonically and only approached ##c## ("acoustic wave") as ##t\rightarrow\infty##:
View attachment 363466
I mean, the definition of a blast wave requires it to be supersonic. It will eventually weaken into an acoustic wave. So that was pretty silly by said poster.
 
Back
Top