This paper aims at assessing a custom numerical procedure built to predict the level of stress in the structural components and equipment in proximity of a cannon-like weapon system when firing. In such a blast scenario, the structures adjacent to a gun may undergo sudden and unwanted damages, since they are commonly subjected to the blast load due to the impingement and propagation of the shock waves expanding from the weapon muzzle. The proposed procedure pertains the coupled use of an in-house developed tool (GUNWave3D) based on the power-law scaling technique and a general-purpose commercial fast dynamic solver to compute the structural response of the loaded components. The in-house tool, in particular, allows one to rapidly calculate the blast parameters over the surfaces of the items of interest in the function of the weapon characteristics and launch conditions, also accounting for the asymmetric shape characterizing the gun blast wave. Taking as reference the numerical free field peak overpressure profiles of a 30 mm gun, whose blast quantities were already validated in a previously published work, the final stage of the assessment was accomplished. Such an estimation consists of the comparison between the structural stresses calculated using the blast loads predicted through the in-house tool and those computed adopting the free spherical air blast of the tri-nitro-toluene model. This operation has the objective to quantify the discrepancy between the computational results of two Lagrangian techniques that can be alternatively adopted in industrial gun blast design procedures and methodologies.
UFC-3-340-02:2008. Unified facilities criteria (UFC) structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, DoD, USA, 5 December 2008.
2.
U.S. Department of Army. Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons, technical Manual 5-855-1, 1986.
3.
U.S. Department of Army Technical Manual (TM5-1300) 1990/NAVFAC P-397/AFR 88–22. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, Washington, D.C., 1990.
4.
KingeryCNBulmashG. Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air bursts and hemispherical surface bursts. ARBRL-TR-02555. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: US Army Armament and Development Center, Ballistic Research Laboratory, 1984.
WilkinsML. Calculation of elastic-plastic flow. In: AlderBFernbackSRotenbergM (eds) Methods of computational physics, 3. New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp.211–263.
9.
WilkinsMLBlumRECronshagenE, et al. A method for computer simulation of problems in solid mechanics and gas dynamics in three dimensions and time. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Report, UCRL-51574, 1974.
10.
WilkinsML. Use of artificial viscosity in multidimensional fluid dynamic calculations. J Comp Phys1980; 36: 281–303.
11.
Randers-PehrsonGBannisterKA. Airblast Loading Model for DYNA2D and DYNA3D. Army Research Laboratory, ARL-TR-1310, 1997.
12.
WinslowAM. Equipotential zoning of two-dimensional meshes. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, UCRL-7312, 1963.
13.
WinslowAM. Equipotential zoning of the interior of a three-dimensional mesh. Report to LSTC, 1990.
14.
LucyLB. Numerical approach to testing the fission hypothesis. Astron J1977; 82: 1013–1024.
15.
GingoldRAMonaghanJJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc1977; 181: 375–389.
16.
MonaghanJJGingoldRA. Shock simulation by the particle method of SPH. J Computat Phys1983; 52: 374–381.
17.
JiangZ. Wave dynamic processes induced by a supersonic projectile discharging from a shock tube. Phys Fluid2003; 15: 1665–1675.
18.
JiangXChenZFanB, et al. Numerical simulation of blast flow fields induced by a high-speed projectile. Shock Wave2008; 18: 205–212.
19.
BinJKimMLeeS. A numerical study on the generation of impulsive noise by complex flows discharging from a muzzle. Int J Numer Meth Eng2008; 75: 964–991.
20.
DayanYTouatiD. Simulation of unsteady muzzle flow of a small caliber gun. Adv Fluid Mech2006; VI: 165–171.
21.
ClerDLChevaugeonNShephardMS, et al. CFD application to gun muzzle blast–a validation case study. In: Proceedings of 41st aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 6–9 January 2003, pp.2003–1142. Reno: AIAA.
22.
Hong-xiaLJun-liZZhi-junW. Numerical simulation and experiments on muzzle blast overpressure in large-caliber weapons. J Eng Sci Technol Rev2016; 9: 111–116.
23.
HopkinsonB. British Ordnance Minutes. No. 13565, 1915.
24.
BakerWE. Explosions in air. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973, pp.54–77.
WestineP. The blast field about the muzzle of guns. Shock Vibrat Bull1969; 39: 139–149.
27.
Soo HooGMooreGR. Scaling of naval gun blast peak overpressures. TN-T7-72, Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA, August1972.
28.
SchmidtEMGionEJFanslerKS. Analysis of weapon parameters controlling the muzzle blast overpressure field. In: Proceedings of 5th symposium on ballistics, Toulouse, France, 16–18 April 1980, http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/539466662.pdf.
29.
SchmidtEMGionEJFanslerKS. A parametric study of the muzzle blast from a 20mm cannon. Technical report ARBRL-TR-02355, 1981.
KietzmanJFanslerKSThompsonWG. Muzzle blast from 105 mm M735 round. ARLBR-MR 3957, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005, 1992.
32.
FanslerKSThompsonWPCarnahanJS, et al. A parametric investigation of muzzle blast. ARL-TR-227, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, September1993.
33.
CostaELagascoF. Development of a 3d numerical methodology for fast prediction of gun blast induced loading. Shock Wave2014; 24: 257–265.
34.
ArmendtBFSperrazzaJ. Air blast measurements around moving explosive charges. Part III, BRL-MR 1019, U.S. Army Ballistic Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1956.
35.
SmithF. A theoretical model of the blast from stationary and moving guns. In: First international symposium on ballistics, Orlando, FL, 13–15 November 1974.
36.
FanslerKSSchmidtEM. The prediction of gun muzzle blast properties utilizing scaling. U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, BRL Technical Report ARBRL-TR-02504 (AD B075859L), 1983.
CostaE. Coupled approach to evaluate gun blast induced stress in combat systems. In: Proceedings of the international CAE conference 2016, Parma, Italy, 2016, https://www.enginsoft.com/.
42.
SchmidtEM. Muzzle blast pressure loadings on aircraft surfaces. U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, ARBRL-MR-03336 (AD A 139132), 1984.
43.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation. LS-PrePost, http://www.lstc.com/lspp/ (accessed 29 September 2017).
RigbySETyasAFaySD, et al. Validation of semi-empirical blast pressure predictions for far field explosions - is there inherent variability in blast wave parameters? In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on protection of structures against hazards, Tianjin, China, 16–17 October 2014.
