Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:28:05.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characteristic path analysis of confinement influence on steady two-dimensional detonation propagation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2019

Carlos Chiquete  and
Mark Short Open the ORCID record for Mark Short [Opens in a new window]
Carlos Chiquete
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, NM 87545, USA
Mark Short*
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, NM 87545, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Steady detonation in multi-dimensional flow is controlled by the chemical energy release that occurs in a subsonic elliptic flow region known as the detonation driving zone (DDZ). It is the region encompassing the detonation shock and sonic flow locus (in the frame of the detonation shock). A detonation that is strongly confined by material surrounding the explosive has the shock and sonic locus separated at the material interface. Information about the material boundary is traditionally believed to influence the DDZ structure via the subsonic flow on the boundary ahead of the sonic locus. A detonation that is weakly confined has the detonation shock and sonic locus intersecting at the material boundary. The sonic nature of the flow at the intersection point on the boundary is believed to isolate the DDZ structure from the material properties of the confinement. In this study, we examine the paths of characteristics propagating information about the confinement through the supersonic hyperbolic flow region that exists beyond the sonic locus, and determine whether these paths may impinge on the sonic locus and consequently influence the DDZ structure. Our configuration consists of a solid wall boundary deflected through a specified angle on detonation shock arrival, so that the streamline turning angle of the wall at the explosive edge is unambiguously defined. By varying the wall deflection angle from small through large values, we can systematically capture the evolution of the DDZ structure and the characteristic flow regions that influence its structure for strongly to weakly confined detonations. In all strong and weak confinement cases examined, we find that a subset of characteristics from the supersonic flow regions always impinge on the sonic locus. Limiting characteristics are identified that define the boundary between characteristics that impinge on the sonic surface and those that propagate information downstream of the sonic surface. In combination with an oblique-shock polar analysis, we show that the effects on the DDZ of characteristic impingement can be significant.

JFM classification

Reacting Flows: Detonations
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 863 , 25 March 2019 , pp. 789 - 816
Copyright
© 2019 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bdzil, J. B. 1976 Perturbation methods applied to problems in detonation physics. In Sixth Symposium (International) on Detonation, Office of Naval Research ACR-221, pp. 352–370.Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B. 1981 Steady-state two-dimensional detonation. J. Fluid Mech. 108, 195–226.10.1017/S0022112081002085Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B., Short, M. & Chiquete, C. 2018 The loss of detonation confinement: the evolution from a 1D to a 2D detonation reaction zone. In 16th Symposium (International) on Detonation, Office of Naval Research, (in press).Google Scholar
Bdzil, J. B. & Stewart, D. S. 2007 The dynamics of detonation in explosive systems. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 263–292.10.1146/annurev.fluid.38.050304.092049Google Scholar
Chiquete, C., Short, M., Meyer, C. D. & Quirk, J. J. 2018a Calibration of the pseudo-reaction-zone model for detonation wave propagation. Combust. Theor. Model. 22, 744–766.10.1080/13647830.2018.1453616Google Scholar
Chiquete, C., Short, M. & Quirk, J. J. 2018b The effect of curvature and confinement on gas-phase detonation cellular stability. Proc. Combust. Inst. 37, (in press).Google Scholar
Gamezo, V. N. & Oran, E. S. 1997 Reaction-zone structure of a steady-state detonation wave in a cylindrical charge. Combust. Flame 109, 253–265.10.1016/S0010-2180(96)00154-XGoogle Scholar
Hayes, W. D. & Probstein, R. F. 1966 Hypersonic Flow Theory: Inviscid Flows. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Henrick, A. K.2008 Shock-fitted numerical solutions of one-and two-dimensional detonation. PhD thesis, University of Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. I. & Short, M. 2015 Scaling of detonation velocity in cylinder and slab geometries for ideal, insensitive and non-ideal explosives. J. Fluid Mech. 773, 224–266.10.1017/jfm.2015.240Google Scholar
Romick, C. M. & Aslam, T. D. 2017 High-order shock-fitted detonation propagation in high explosives. J. Comput. Phys. 332, 210–235.10.1016/j.jcp.2016.11.049Google Scholar
Sharpe, G. J. & Braithwaite, M. 2005 Steady non-ideal detonations in cylindrical sticks of explosives. J. Engng Maths 53 (1), 39–58.10.1007/s10665-005-5570-7Google Scholar
Short, M., Anguelova, I. I., Aslam, T. D., Bdzil, J. B., Henrick, A. K. & Sharpe, G. J. 2008 Stability of detonations for an idealized condensed-phase model. J. Fluid Mech. 595, 45–82.10.1017/S0022112007008750Google Scholar
Short, M. & Quirk, J. J. 2018a The effect of compaction of a porous material confiner on detonation propagation. J. Fluid Mech. 834, 434–463.10.1017/jfm.2017.736Google Scholar
Short, M. & Quirk, J. J. 2018b High explosive detonation-confiner interations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 50, 215–242.10.1146/annurev-fluid-122316-045011Google Scholar
Short, M., Quirk, J. J., Chiquete, C. D. & Meyer, C. D. 2018 Detonation propagation in a circular arc: reactive burn modelling. J. Fluid Mech. 835, 970–998.10.1017/jfm.2017.751Google Scholar
Stewart, D. S. & Bdzil, J. B. 1989 Examples of detonation shock dynamics for detonation wave spread applications. In Ninth Symposium (International) on Detonation, Office of the Chief of Naval Research OCNR 113291-7, pp. 773–783.Google Scholar
Vidal, P., Cowperthwaite, M., Presles, H. N. & Bouton, E. 1994 A study of the curvature of a two-dimensional detonation wave at an explosive-confinement interface. In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 309, pp. 1353–1356. AIP.10.1063/1.46471Google Scholar
Watt, S. D., Sharpe, G. J., Falle, S. A. E. G. & Braithwaite, M. 2012 A streamline approach to two-dimensional steady non-ideal detonation: the straight streamline approximation. J. Engng Maths. 75 (1), 1–14.10.1007/s10665-011-9506-0Google Scholar