See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/244364108

Computer simulation of shock waves transmission in obstructed terrains

Article  in  Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · November 2004

DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2004.07.005

CITATIONS READS

20 54

2 authors:

Spyros Sklavounos Fotis Rigas

19 PUBLICATIONS   569 CITATIONS   
National Technical University of Athens
158 PUBLICATIONS   2,036 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation of environmental impacts from major industrial accidents View project

Pesticides Hazards View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fotis Rigas on 27 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417
www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Computer simulation of shock waves transmission in obstructed

terrains
Spyros Sklavounos, Fotis Rigas

National Technical University of Athens, School of Chemical Engineering, Polytechnioupolis, 15700 Athens, Greece

Received 2 June 2004; received in revised form 21 July 2004; accepted 27 July 2004

Abstract

Generation and transmission of blast waves in real terrains is of major importance for risk analysis procedures involving acci-
dental explosion scenarios. The problem arises from the impact of overpressure wave on people and structures that may be lethal
or catastrophic under certain conditions. In this paper, a CFD simulation of shock wave propagation in obstructed terrain is
attempted. Overpressure histories as well as a series of critical parameters, namely the positive and negative peak overpressure,
the arrival time, and the positive and negative phase duration at specific points within the domain were obtained during the simu-
lation. Their comparison with experimental measurements from field-scale high explosive blast tests performed by HSE showed a
reasonably good agreement indicating that CFD computer programs provide reliable tools for estimating explosive shocks in
complex terrains.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Shockwave; Detonation; Explosion simulation; Overpressure; CFD; Explosives; Complex terrain

1. Introduction values with a particular degree of damage. Pertinent

Explosion hazard assessment is frequently an impor-
tant safety issue that many process industries have to
take seriously into account. Several explosion incidents
that occurred recently in several stages of a product
life-cycle (production, warehousing, transportation) led
to serious property damage in addition to human lives
losses (Guoshun, 2000; Lees, 1996; Owens & Hazel-
dean, 1995).
One of the main effects of an explosion is the cre-
ation of a shock wave (for condensed explosives) or a
pressure wave (for gas and dust explosions) (Baker &
Tang, 1991; TNO, 1989). Shock waves generate notice-
ably higher overpressures leading thus, to more exten-
sive damage. The most common approach to
estimating the consequences of explosion events is the
use of empirical data from explosion records and
observations, which correlate certain overpressure


Corresponding author. Tel.: +30210-772-3267; fax: +30210-772-
3163.
E-mail address: rigasf@central.ntua.gr (F. Rigas).
0950-4230/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2004.07.005
quantitative criteria may be found in the literature
(CCPS, 1996, 2000).
A large variety of methods has been established on
modeling the effects of potential gas explosions (TNO
multi-energy, Baker–Strehlow, TNT equivalence).
Actually, only the latter can be applied as far as dense
explosives are considered (Phillips, 1994). This method
assumes that the energy being released is equated to a
mass of TNT, which would give an equivalent amount
of damage in case of explosion (Crowl, 2003; Formby
& Wharton, 1996). However, the assumption of an
equivalent mass of TNT does not allow for the char-
acteristics of the explosion, whilst the way it affects the
surroundings is independent of the explosion source. In
fact, material physical properties play an important
role in blast wave characteristics; for example, higher
explosive density entails higher detonation velocity and
hence greater rate of energy release resulting in
enhanced overpressure levels (Mader, 1996).
In last years, the rapid increase of computational
power played a catalytic role in the accomplishment of
a more precise approach to explosion related phenom-
408 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417

Nomenclature

C constant (dimensionless)
Ce1 k–e turbulence model unitless constant equal to 1.44
Ce2 k–e turbulence model unitless constant equal to 1.92
Cl k–e turbulence model unitless constant equal to 0.09
Er energy release rate (J/s)
h specific static (thermodynamic) enthalpy (m2 s2)
htot specific total enthalpy (m2 s2)
k turbulence kinetic energy per unit mass (m2 s2)
p static (thermodynamic) pressure (kg m1 s2)
p0 modified pressure (kg m1 s2)
P total pressure (kg m1 s2)
Pex power of explosion (J/s)
Pk production rate of turbulence (kg m1 s3)
Pkb buoyancy production term (kg m1 s3)
Prt turbulent Prandtl number (dimensionless)
SE energy source (kg m1 s3)
SM momentum source (kg m2 s2)
T static thermodynamic temperature (K)
t time (s)
t0 time of release initiation equal to 0 s
t1 detonation phase duration (s)
tc time constant equal to 1 s
u fluctuating velocity component in turbulent flow (m s1)
u
near-wall velocity (m s1)
us friction velocity (m s1)
U velocity vector (m s1)
Ut velocity tangent to the wall (m s1)
V volume of integrated cell (m3)
X, Y horizontal coordinates (m)
y
reduced distance from the wall (dimensionless)
Z vertical coordinate (m)

Greek letters
e turbulence eddy dissipation rate (m2 s3)
d the identity matrix or Kronecker delta function (dimensionless)
j the von Karman constant
k dimensionless parameter
leff effective viscosity accounting for turbulence, l þ lt (kg m1 s1)
l molecular (dynamic) viscosity (kg m1 s1)
lt turbulence dynamic viscosity (kg m1 s1)
q density (kg m3)
rj dimensionless turbulence model constant for the k equation equal to 1.0
re dimensionless constant in the j–e turbulence model equal to 1.3
sx the wall shear stress (kg m1 s2)
/ general scalar variable
/0 solution field in the first order Backward Euler scheme
/00 solution field in the second order Backward Euler scheme

Superscripts
T transpose of matrix
 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417
ena by means of computational fluid dynamics (CFDs).
Such numerical techniques have shown good perform-
ance in simulating overpressure waves in confined com-
plex environments (Miura et al., 2004; Powers & Krier,
1986; Pritchard, Freeman, & Guilbert, 1996). Their
flexibility to provide solutions for user-defined geome-
tries of any kind is of great importance, since they
allow the realistic representation of obstructed terrains
found in practical applications.
In this paper, a three-dimensional simulation of
shock waves spread in complex topography was
attempted via the use of the CFD code CFX-5.6. The
main purpose was to validate computational results
against published experimental data from field-scale
explosion tests executed by Health and Safety Execu-
tive (HSE, 2001). The test took place in an obstructed
terrain aiming at studying the sheltering effects on
shock wave transmission. The energetic material used
in the experiment was the high explosive PE4.
The PE4 is a highly plasticized RDX-based dense
explosive. It is a mixture of several ingredients with
mass ratios typically equal to 88% RDX (cyclo-
trimethylenetrinitramine) and 12% plasticizer (8% par-
affin, 3% lithium stearate, 1% pentaerythritol dioleate),
whose use is exclusively restricted to military purposes.
Like most dense explosives, it has the property of
exploding at essentially constant rate, namely with con-
stant detonation velocity (Baker, Cox, Westine, Kulesz,
& Strehlow, 1983).
The computational procedure concerned the evalu-
ation of several critical explosion parameters (positive
and negative peak overpressure, wave front arrival
time, positive and negative phase duration), in addition
to the determination of overpressure histories at spe-
cific points presented between or on the backside of the
intervening obstacle array. The comparison of the
obtained results with the experimental measurements
demonstrated a fairly good agreement encouraging
substantially the use of CFD techniques in explosion
consequence analysis procedures.
2. Numerical methods
2.1. Building the geometry
This is the first step in a CFD simulation project
including the definition of the current region geometry,
namely the computational domain, in addition to the
sub-division of the domain into a number of smaller
control volumes (cells). The geometry comprises a uni-
fied set of parametric surfaces built in an appropriate
CAD interface.
Mesh generation is a crucial process during the prob-
lem setup, since it affects substantially the final solution
accuracy. In general, the larger the number of cells the
409
Fig. 1. Selective mesh refinement on and near the obstacles surfaces.
better the solution accuracy, but actually the mesh
refinement is restricted by the computational power
available. In practice, instead of uniformly refined
grids, it is preferable adaptive meshes to be con-
structed. This feature permits the optional refinement
of the grid in regimes where large variations occur
from point to point allocating a relatively coarse grid
in the rest of the domain (Fig. 1).
The current version of CFX code incorporates the
ANSYS ICEM CFD 4 meshing tool, in which the full
assembly of the unstructured mesh is performed in two
steps: initially, the domain volume is filled with tetra-
hedral cells, whilst a triangular surface mesh is gener-
ated on the overall object surface. For improving cells
quality, a power smoothing algorithm as well as a var-
iety of tools for local mesh adaptation and refinement
is available. In the second step, the generation of
hybrid tetrahedral grids (the so-called inflation layers)
consisting of layers of triangular prism elements on the
boundary surfaces and tetrahedral elements in the
interior is carried out. In contrast with pure tetrahedral
meshes, hybrid tetrahedral meshes with near-surface
prism layers allow for better modeling of the close-to-
wall physics in the flow field (i.e. sharp velocity chan-
ges) giving rise to more accurate results.
2.2. Governing equations
2.2.1. Transport equations
Empirical models consist of correlations of process
variables and the output to describe a physical
phenomenon and they are usually derived by para-
meterization of the investigated process on the basis of
experimental observations. On the contrary, CFD tools
follow a more general deterministic procedure to
approximate a problem: they consider the fundamental
Navier–Stokes equations for mass, momentum, and
heat transfer processes ((2.1)–(2.3), respectively), in
conjunction with other partial differential equations for
410 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417

describing further processes such as turbulence. In The role of the k–e model is to introduce two new
CFX 5.6, the unsteady Navier–Stokes equations in variables into the transport equations: the turbulence
their conservation form are implemented (Versteeg & kinetic energy (k) and the turbulence eddy dissipation
Malalasekera, 1995): (e), leading to the following forms:
@q=@t þ rðqUÞ ¼ 0 ð2:1Þ
Continuity equation
@ðqUÞ=@t þ rðqU UÞ
@q=@t þ rðqUÞ ¼ 0 ð2:4Þ
¼ r½  pd þ lðrU þ ðrUÞT Þ þ SM ð2:2Þ
Energy equation
@ðqhtot Þ=@t  @p=@t þ rðqUhtot Þ
@ðqhtot Þ=@t  @P=@t þ rðqUhtot Þ
¼ rðkrðTÞÞ þ SE ð2:3Þ
¼ r½krðTÞ þ ðlt =Prt ÞrðhÞ þ SE ð2:5Þ
The main characteristic of explosions is the sudden The mean total enthalpy (htot) is given by:
release of substantial energy amounts heating the sur-
rounding air, which expands and propagates in three htot ¼ h þ 1=2ðU 2 Þ þ k ð2:6Þ
dimensions in wave form. Therefore, a heat transfer where the contribution from the turbulent kinetic
model needs to be used for predicting heat transfer by energy (k) is provided by:
conduction, convection and turbulent mixing. For this
purpose, two models are currently available: the ther- k ¼ 1=2ðuÞ2 ð2:7Þ
mal energy and the total energy models (ANSYS, Momentum equation
2003). It should be noted that, in front of high-speed
@qU=@t þ rðqU UÞ  rðleff rUÞ
gas flows (Mach number > 0:2) normally presented in
explosion events, kinetic energy effects on the transport ¼ rp0 þ rðleff rUÞT þ B ð2:8Þ
of enthalpy through the fluid domain become signifi- where B is the sum of body forces and (p0 ) is the
cant and cannot be neglected as for low-speed flows. modified pressure given by
This feature, which constitutes the determinant
between the two models, led to the adoption of the p0 ¼ p þ 2=3ðqkÞ ð2:9Þ
total energy model. Besides kinetic energy effects, this and
model takes into account buoyancy effects arisen by
hot spots in the domain (i.e. due to thermal sources) leff ¼ l þ lt ð2:10Þ
and hence large local density variations.
The k–e model assumes that the turbulence viscosity
is linked to the turbulence kinetic energy and dissi-
2.2.2. Turbulence modeling
pation via the relation:
Generally speaking, turbulence is the random and
chaotic way with which the properties of a general fluid lt ¼ Cl qj2 =e ð2:11Þ
change in three dimensions. Turbulence consists of The values of k and e are directly calculated from the
fluctuations in the flow field in time and space; it is a differential transport equations for the turbulence kin-
complex, actually three-dimensional dynamic physical etic energy and turbulence dissipation rate:
process with a wide range of length scales, which may
have significant effect on the characteristics of the flow. @ðqkÞ=@t þ rðqUkÞ ¼ r½ðl þ ls =rj Þrk þ Pj  qe
Turbulence occurs when the inertia forces in the fluid ð2:12Þ
become significant compared to viscous forces and is @ðqeÞ=@t þ rðqUeÞ ¼ r½ðl þ ls =re Þre
usually characterized by high Reynolds numbers.
þ e=kðCe1 Pj  Ce2 qeÞ ð2:13Þ
To enable the effects of turbulence to be predicted, a
large variety of statistical models have been developed where Pj is the turbulence production due to viscous
seeking to solve a modified set of transport equations and buoyancy forces, which is modeled using:
by introducing averaged and time varying components
into the original transport equations. In this work, the Pj ¼ lt rUðrU þ rU T Þ  2=3ðrUÞð3lt rU
k–e eddy viscosity turbulence model was utilized. This þ qkÞ þ Pkb ð2:14Þ
family of models suggests that turbulence consists of The k–e model as well as the rest of two-equation
small eddies which are continuously forming and dis- family models offers a good compromise between
sipating, and in which the Reynolds stresses are numerical effort and computational accuracy.
assumed to be proportional to mean velocity gradients. Especially, the k–e model has been implemented in
Both the velocity and length scale are solved using sep- most general purpose CFD codes being one of the
arate transport equations, hence they are named two- most prominent models in turbulence simulation field.
equation models. It has proven to be stable and numerically robust able
 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417
to provide good turbulence estimations in explosion
cases (Pritchard et al., 1996).
The k–e model uses the gradient diffusion hypothesis
to relate the Reynolds stresses to the mean velocity
gradients and the turbulent viscosity. Within CFX–5.6,
it utilizes the scalable wall-function approach to
improve robustness and accuracy when the near-wall
mesh is very fine.
The wall-function approach employs empirical for-
mulas that provide near-wall boundary conditions for
the mean flow and turbulence transport equations.
Thus, the following logarithmic correlation applies:
ðUt =us Þ ¼ ð1=jÞlogðy
Þ þ C
The value of the wall shear stress (sx) is obtained from:
sx ¼ qus u

where
y
¼ ðqu
DyÞ=l
and
u
¼ ðCl Þ1=4 ðkÞ1=2


In the scalable wall-function approach, the (y ) value
used in the logarithmic correlation (2.15) is limited by a
lower value of y
l ¼ maxðy
;11:06Þ, where 11.06 repre-
sents the intersection between the logarithmic and the
linear near-wall profile. As a result, the computed y
l
value is not allowed to fall below this limit and there-
fore, all mesh points are outside the viscous sublayer.
The scalable wall functions allow solution on arbi-
trarily fine near-wall grids, which is a significant
improvement over standard wall functions (ANSYS,
2002).
2.3. Discretization and solution of the governing
equations
The solution process goes on by discretizing the
three-dimensional spatial domain into finite control
volumes using the mesh constructed in the pre-
processor stage. The numerical technique employed
in this work was the finite volume method (FVM)
(Versteeg & Malalasekera, 1995), which has been
successfully applied in two-dimensional explosion cal-
culations (Huld, Peter, & Stadtke, 1996). The govern-
ing equations ((2.4), (2.5), (2.8)) are integrated over
each control volume, such that the relevant quantity
(mass, momentum or energy) is conserved in a discrete
sense for each cell. Each control volume surrounds a
unique node, in which all solution variables and fluid
properties are stored. Afterwards, the integral equa-
tions obtained are converted to a system of algebraic
equations via the substitution of a variety of finite-
difference-type approximations for the terms in the
411
integrated equation representing flow processes such as
convection, diffusion and sources. The latter are solved
iteratively at nodal points inside each cell aiming at
minimization of the root mean square (RMS) residuals
(iteration loop error) until the desired convergence be
satisfied.
For non-steady state, the transient terms are
approximated using the first and second Backward
Euler schemes, applicable for constant and variable
step sizes. The second order Backward Euler method is
a robust, implicit timestepping scheme and, in contrast
with that of first order, is second order accurate in
ð2:15Þ time. However, it is not monotonic and therefore inap-
propriate for some quantities that must remain boun-
ded, such as turbulence quantities. Consequently, the
ð2:16Þ first order Backward Euler scheme applies in turbu-
lence equations. It is robust, as well as the second
order scheme, fully implicit, bounded, conservative in
ð2:17Þ time, and does not create a timestep limitation. The
transient term has no bearing on the steady state sol-
ution, but it is only first order accurate in time and
ð2:18Þ therefore may induce numerical diffusion in time.
The first order Backward Euler scheme approximates
the transient term as:
ð 
@ q/ dv =@t ¼ qV ðu  u0 Þ=Dt ð2:19Þ
v
and the second order scheme as:
ð 
@ q/ dv =@t ¼ qV =Dtð1:5u  2u0 þ 0:5u00 Þ ð2:20Þ
v
The numerical technique utilized for the completion
of the advection term discretization was the first order
upwind differencing scheme (UDS) (Chung, 2002). Dif-
ference schemes in their majority are based on series
expansion approximations (such as the Taylor series)
for continuous functions. UDS is very robust, namely
numerically stable, and is guaranteed to not introduce
non-physical overshoots or undershoots in the solution.
In contrast with central differencing scheme, UDS
takes into account the flow direction when determining
the value at a cell face being able to produce reason-
able results even though strongly convective flows
occur in the domain.
Several solvers employ a solution strategy according
to which the momentum equations are first solved for a
guessed pressure and an equation for a pressure correc-
tion is obtained leading to a guess-correction process
that typically requires a large number of iterations. On
the contrary, CFX 5.6 employs a coupled solver which
solves the hydrodynamic equations for pressure and
velocity components as a single system. This solution
approach uses a fully implicit discretization of the
equations at any given timestep and, as a result, redu-
412 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417

ces the number of iterations required for calculating positioned above them. These conclusions are sub-
the transient solutions in a time-dependent analysis. stantiated computationally as discussed hereinafter.

3. Field-scale trials outline 4. Preparing the run

The simulated experiment belongs to a series of field- The computational domain was built in ANSYS
scale explosion tests performed four years ago, on the Design Modeler CAD tool that accompanies the CFX
Blast Range of the Health and Safety Laboratory at
Buxton, Derbyshire. The main purpose was to study
the sheltering effects of solid obstacles presented on
ground surface during high explosive (HE) detona-
tions, in association with a subsequent modification to
TNT methodology establishing it able to account for
the presence of obstructions. The obstacles in the trials
were identical equidistant concrete blocks of square
cross-section, while the energetic material utilized was
the plastic explosive PE4 with a TNT equivalence of
approximately 1.3. The explosive mass had been
formed into a hemisphere and activated remotely
through a detonator inserted into the top of the HE
load.
Overpressure time histories were obtained using
piezo-electric gauges, which were positioned in several
locations among the obstructions along or offset from
the central axis. The exact dimensions of the experi-
mental arrangement illustrated in Fig. 2 were:
L1 ¼ 1:7 m, A ¼ H ¼ 0:6 m, L2 ¼ 1:2 m, B ¼ 8:5 m
and L3 ¼ 1:8 m. Gauges 1, 2 and 4 were positioned 0.3
m above ground along central axis; gauge 3 was found
along central axis but at 0.9 m height, while gauge 5 at
0.3 m height and 2.125 m offset.
Further parameters studied during the experiments
were the positive and negative phase duration, the posi-
tive and negative peak overpressure and the shock
front arrival time. Generally, the experimental data
gave complicated pressure wave forms at measurement
points indicating that complex interactions occur
between the air shockwave and the obstructions. More-
over, gauges positioned at the half height of the blocks
recorded notably lower pressure values than gauges
Fig. 2. Computational domain sketch representing the experimental arrangement.
software, with dimensions 80 m  45 m  5 m. The
relatively large extent that domain occupies was deliber-
ately decided to ensure that the flow profile is not chan-
ging across the boundaries, but stays far away from any
zone of influence, which could be for example a recircu-
lation area. Such a situation will probably entail conver-
gence problems and hence solver failure. On the other
hand, excessive dimensions will entail large computa-
tional time for a certain mesh refinement, so the user
should be careful while setting the computational field.
As mentioned above, mesh generator provide the
ability of mesh adaptation at certain domain regimes.
Because the interest is focalized in the street canyons
among the obstacles, a very refined mesh was con-
structed in this region. The grid consisted of 195 433
volume elements (from which 57 768 were prisms) con-
stituting a total number of 57 146 nodes. The gener-
ation of prismatic elements was prescribed for ground
and obstacles surfaces, where sharp changes in velocity
vectors are expected.
The explosion energy release (Er) within the domain
was given through a properly adapted step function
under the form:
Er ¼ Pex
step½  ðt  t0 Þ
ðt  t1 Þ=t2c  ð4:1Þ
where Er is the energy release rate (J/s), t the time vari-
able (s), t1 the detonation phase duration (s), t0 ¼ 0 s, tc
¼ 1 s and Pex the power of the explosion (J/s). Experi-
mental data for explosive material properties are found
in the literature and can be used for the calculation of
Eq. (4.1) parameters as shown in Table 1. The assump-
tion of the stepwise energy production is a good approxi-
mation of the real process, since dense explosives possess
 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417 413

Table 1
PE4 properties and calculated parameters entered into the step function (4.1)

Step function terms Properties Calculated parameters

3
Physical quantities Mass specific energy Density (kg/m ) Detonation velocity Detonation duration (s) Power of explosion
(kJ/kg) (m/s) (J/s)
Input values 5876 1560
the attribute of exploding at constant rate, namely with
stable detonation velocity (Baker et al., 1983).
Before performing the execution of the problem in
transient form, a steady state run was executed with
zero energy source term for obtaining an initial values
file. Afterwards, the transient problem was solved for a
number of very small timesteps as the rapid progress of
the phenomenon impose. The timesteps sequence used
8500 5:3  106 3:6  1011
peak values, but for arrival times, too. The code, in
accordance with the experiment, predicted a re-shock
that follows the initial positive phase yielding a con-
siderable overpressure. Consequently, once an
explosion event takes place, material structures sur-
rounded by others are subject to more than one shock
impact, which may result in extensive damages.
On the other hand, the computational wave form
was initially 9  108 s, followed by 9  107 and seems to be smooth compared to that obtained from
9  106 s to include the energy release phase, and then the experiments. Thus, the experimental shape, show-
ing a sharp increase of pressure in the shockwaves, is
2999  105 s until the final time of 30 ms was com-
not reproduced sufficiently well by the numerical pro-
pleted. The convergence criterion was the RMS resi-
duals to be less than 104, while two iterations per
timestep were demanded by the solver to achieve that.
The complete execution required 11 days and 19 h
clock time (CPU time: 11 days and 5 h) on an 800
MHz Intel1 Celeron processor with 512 MB RAM.

5. Evaluating the results

5.1. Comparison with experimental data

Computational overpressure traces at monitor points

1–5 are compared versus experimental measurements in
Figs. 3–7, respectively. It is evident from these figures
that computational results provide a good approxi-
mation of overpressure histories, not only about the
Fig. 4. Computational versus experimental overpressure plots at
gauge 2.

Fig. 3. Computational versus experimental overpressure plots at Fig. 5. Computational versus experimental overpressure plots at
gauge 1. gauge 3.
414 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417

Although the ground shock signals are smaller than the

air shock waves, may have augmentative effect on air-
borne peak overpressures.
The relative errors between experimental and compu-
tational values concerning peak overpressure, arrival
time and phase duration are summarized in Tables 2–6.
Through the comparison, it can be said that the com-
putational code generally underestimates the over-
pressure maxima and overestimates the blast wave
positive phase duration. On the contrary, it predicts the
shock front arrival time with small errors. Likewise,
the relative pressure computed at point 4 located at the
half height of the obstacles is lower than that at point 3
positioned above it. This conclusion is found in accord-
ance with the experimental observations and may be
justified since the height of the obstacles (0.6 m) is
Fig. 6. Computational versus experimental overpressure plots at
smaller than that of point 3 (0.9 m). In the main, it can
gauge 4.
be inferred that the CFD code is able to perform
explosion related computations with a practically
acceptable accuracy.

Table 2
Relative errors between computational and experimental positive
peak overpressures

Gauges Experimental Computational Relative error

value (kPa) value (kPa) (%)
Gauge 1 21.2 15.9 25.0
Gauge 2 10.0 7.8 22.0
Gauge 3 7.8 4.2 46.1
Gauge 4 5.0 3.9 22.0
Gauge 5 5.1 3.8 25.5

Table 3
Fig. 7. Computational versus experimental overpressure plots at
Relative errors between computational and experimental negative
gauge 5.
peak overpressures

cedure, due probably to the shortcomings of the mod- Gauges Experimental Computational Relative
value (kPa) value (kPa) error (%)
eling or the time-averaging process performed through-
out the calculation procedure. It might be possible that Gauge 1 12.7 12.5 1.6
Gauge 2 6.7 7.1 +5.9
a much more refined mesh would yield a more precise
Gauge 3 2.4 2.6 +8.3
solution to the problem, but this would lead to a sig- Gauge 4 2.5 3.4 +36.0
nificant increase of the computational time. The small Gauge 5 3.4 2.5 23.5
perturbations in the experimental curves appear rather
due to sensor noise.
Moreover, it seems that there is a discrepancy
between computed and experimentally acquired peak Table 4
overpressure referring at monitor point 3. It is possible Relative errors between computational and experimental arrival times
that the code failed to approximate the overpressure Gauges Experimental Computational Relative
rise, still imponderable factors may misquoted the value (ms) value (ms) error (%)
measurement. The presence of signals before the arrival Gauge 1 3.8 3.6 5.3
of the air blast clearly shown on the experimental curve Gauge 2 8.8 8.0 9.1
of Fig. 6, indicates that the shockwaves are also being Gauge 3 17.3 16.0 7.5
transmitted through the ground indeed at a faster rate Gauge 4 17.4 16.3 6.3
Gauge 5 18.0 16.8 6.7
than shockwave propagation in air as expected.
 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417 415

Table 5 passing over the obstacles, but also alongside the

Relative errors between computational and experimental positive
ground surface with a jump overpressure appearing at
phase duration
the back base corners of the obstacles. Thus, the rear
Gauges Experimental Computational Relative
faces of the intervening obstacles are subject to high
value (ms) value (ms) error (%)
overpressures, although they are not directly exposed
Gauge 1 5.2 6.5 +25.0
to the blast wave. This shockwave front jump can be
Gauge 2 6.0 7.7 +28.3
Gauge 3 6.4 8.4 +31.3 explained by the impingement of the incoming air upon
Gauge 4 6.6 7.9 +19.7 the front sides of the second (Fig. 9a) and the third
Gauge 5 6.6 8.0 +21.2 obstacle (Fig. 9b) that causes the inversion of the flow
towards the backside of the antecedent obstacle as
Table 6 shown in Figs. 9b and c, respectively.
Relative errors between computational and experimental negative Overpressure contour snapshots in early stages after
phase duration the explosion phase are displayed in Figs. 10a–d. The
Gauges Experimental Computational Relative contour plots show clearly that pressure wave arriving
value (ms) value (ms) error (%) on the front side of the first obstacle gradually spreads
Gauge 1 8.9 9.3 +4.5 alongside preserving at the same time high over-
Gauge 2 11.8 9.2 22.0 pressure levels. Therefore, the offset regions of the
Gauge 3 N/A – –
Gauge 4 N/A – –
Gauge 5 N/A – –

5.2. Shock wave propagation

In Fig. 8, two different snapshots of overpressure

isosurfaces are illustrated. As shown in these snap-
shots, the shockwave front propagates not only by

Fig. 8. Overpressure isosurfaces at 5.8 ms (a), and 11.2 ms (b) Fig. 9. Normalized velocity vector plots on the centerline plane at 5
representing the values of 15 500 and 7000 Pa, respectively. ms (a), 10 ms (b), and 16 ms (c).
416 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417
Fig. 10. Overpressure contour plots on the ground surface at 2 ms (a), 5 ms (b), 7 ms (c), and 13 ms (d).
front surface are liable to damage potential of the same
order with the centerline position.
6. Conclusions
In this work, a CFD approach of shockwave propa-
gation in complex terrain was attempted. The purpose
was to validate computed shockwave parameters with
experimental data from field-scale dense explosive
trials, in addition to studying the pressure wave spread-
ing in the obstructed flow field.
The visualization of the results allowed some major
observations to be drawn. First, the percussion of the
pressure wave to the front sides of the obstacles does
not only imply the reflection of the pressure wave
backwards, but in addition, it spreads alongside preser-
ving at the same time high overpressure levels. Thus,
the offset regions of the surface are liable to damage
potential similar to that corresponding to the centerline
location. Moreover, the rear faces of the intervening
obstacles are subject to high overpressures, although
they are not directly exposed to the blast wave. This
may be attributed to the way a pressure wave seems to
transmit in presence of obstacles, specifically, in a
direction parallel to the upper obstacle surface as well
as alongside the perimeter of the obstacles near the
ground surface.
Overpressure traces were computed in several points
within the domain showing good agreement with the
experimental records. Both of them revealed that the
initial positive phase is followed by a strong secondary
shock in the regions between the obstacles, which will
likely enhance the effects on nearby structures in acci-
dental explosions. The discrepancies ascertained by the
comparison of computed results with the experimental
ones, concerned the underestimation of peak over-
pressures and overestimation of the pulse positive
phase durations. Yet, it seems that CFD numerical
approach can be effectively used in explosion hazard
assessment procedures providing reliable engineering
simulations for real environments.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Ministry of
National Education and Religious Affairs (Community
Support Framework 2000–2006) under the HER-
ACHITUS research program.
References
ANSYS Corporation. (2002). CFX-5 solver theory manual. Oxford-
shire: CFX Ltd.
ANSYS Corporation (2003). Heat transfer predictions using
advanced two-equation turbulence models. Report CFX-VAL 10/
0404, ANSYS Ltd, Canonsburg.
Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kulesz, J. J., & Strehlow,
R. A. (1983). Explosion hazards and evaluation. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
 S. Sklavounos, F. Rigas / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 17 (2004) 407–417
Baker, W. E., & Tang, M. J. (1991). Gas, dust and hybrid explosions.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
CCPS. (1996). Guidelines for evaluating process plant buildings for
external explosions and fires. New York: AIChE.
CCPS. (2000). Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analy-
sis. (2nd ed.). New York: AIChE.
Chung, T. J. (2002). Computational fluid dynamics. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Crowl, D. A. (2003). Understanding explosions. New York: AIChE.
Formby, S. A., & Wharton, R. K. (1996). Blast characteristics and
TNT equivalence values for some commercial explosives detonated
at ground level. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 50(2–3), 183–198.
Guoshun, Z. (2000). Causes and lessons of five explosion accidents.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 13(3–5), 439–442.
HSE (2001). Explosion hazard assessment: a study of the feasibility
and benefits of extending current HSE methodology to take
account of blast sheltering. Report HSL/2001/04, Sheffield.
Huld, T., Peter, G., & Stadtke, H. (1996). Numerical simulation of
explosion phenomena in industrial environments. Journal of Haz-
ardous Materials, 46(2–3), 185–195.
Lees, F. P. (1996). Loss prevention in the process industries. (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
View publication stats
417
Mader, C. L. (1996). Numerical modeling of explosives and pro-
pellants. (2nd ed.). New York: CRC press.
Miura, A., Mizukaki, T., Shiraishi, T., Matsuo, A., Takayama, K.,
& Nojiri, I. (2004). Spread behavior of explosion in closed
spaces. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 17(1),
81–86.
Owens, K. A., & Hazeldean, J. A. (1995). Fires, explosions and
related incidents at work in 1992–1993. Journal of Loss Prevention
in the Process Industries, 8(5), 291–297.
Phillips, H. (1994). Explosions in the process industries. (2nd ed.).
Warwickshire: IChemE.
Powers, J. M., & Krier, H. (1986). Attenuation of blast waves when
detonating explosives inside barriers. Journal of Hazardous Mate-
rials, 13(2), 121–133.
Pritchard, D. K., Freeman, D. J., & Guilbert, P. W. (1996). Predic-
tion of explosion pressures in confined spaces. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 9(3), 205–215.
TNO (1989). Methods for the determination of possible damage.
Report CPR 16E, Voorburg.
Versteeg, H. K., & Malalasekera, W. (1995). An introduction to com-
putational fluid dynamics—the finite volume method. New York:
Longman.