Materials Science Forum Vols 465-466 (2004) pp 163-168 Online: 2004-09-15

© (2004) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.465-466.163

A numerical study of sympathetic detonation in gap test

Shiro Kubota1,a, Zhiyue Liu1,b, Masato Otsuki2,c,

Yoshio Nakayama1,d, Yuji Ogata1,e and Masatake Yoshida1,f
1
Research Center for Explosion and Safety, National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8569, Japan
2
Zephyr Co. (Ltd.), Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-0804, Japan
a b c
kubota.46@aist.go.jp, z-liu@aist.go.jp, KGE02573@nifty.ne.jp,
d e
y-nakayama@aist.go.jp, yuji-ogata@aist.go.jp, f m-yoshida@aist.go.jp

Keywords: Sympathetic detonation, Card gap test, Eulerian code, CIP method, Ignition and Growth
model, Effect of size in card gap test

Abstract. Numerical simulations of sympathetic detonation in gap test were carried out by Eulerian
hydrodynamic code. In this computer code, a less diffusive and stable algorithm, CIP method, has
been adopted, and the Ignition and Growth reactive flow model was added to solve shock initiation
phenomena. Both of the donor and the acceptor charges were Composition B, and gap material was
PMMA. The set up of gap test was varied to understand the size effect. We found that the critical gap
length and the charge diameter have linear relationship with logarithmic scale.

Introduction
In a plants or a storage space for high energetic materials, if the accident of explosion happens,
sympathetic detonation has to be prevented to avoid further damage due to chain reaction. Therefore
understanding the sympathetic detonation of the energetic materials is very important from the point
of the view of the safety engineering. The card gap test is one of the most major and simple technique
to estimate the sensitivity of energetic materials. In general, the dimension of the diameter of the
donor charge is one of the most important factors in gap test [1], because the characteristic of the
sympathetic detonation on high energetic materials is not only affected by peak pressure, but also
duration of incident shock pulse. When we estimate worst case for the accidents in chemical plants or
a storage space for high energetic materials, it is necessary to consider the sympathetic detonation
which is caused by a large scale explosion. It must be difficult to do such a large scale experiments.
Therefore, in this numerical study, we have examined the effect of size in card gap test. The Eulerian
hydrodynamic code [2] which is based on CIP method [3] has been developed to calculate the
problem on large deformation and multi-material flow, and the Ignition and Growth reactive flow
model have added to solve shock initiation process. The dimension of the set up of gap test was varied
in this calculation for understanding the effect of size in the gap test. The set up of gap test which is
subjected this numerical study is shown in Fig. 1. Both of the donor and the acceptor charges are
composition B and have cylindrical geometry, and gap material is PMMA. The ratio of length and
diameter of both charges is set to 1, and size of charge diameters are varied, 20, 32, 64, 126 and 260
mm.

Numerical procedure
We have developed a 2 dimensional Eulerian code to estimate explosion phenomenon of high
energetic materials which include multi-material flow, large material deformation and shock
initiation problems.

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.ttp.net. (ID: 129.22.154.224, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA-10/06/15,07:56:42)
164 Explosion, Shock Wave and Hypervelocity Phenomena in Materials

Fig.1 Computational model of card gap test

In our computer code, CIP method has adopted to reduce the numerical diffusion caused by the
calculation of advection term. The governing equations are

∂f α r  K  r
+ u ⋅ ∇f α = f α  − 1∇ ⋅ u (1)
∂t  Kα 
∂f α ρ α r r
+ u ⋅ ∇( f α ρ α ) = − f α ρ α ∇ ⋅ u ( 2)
∂t
r
∂u r r 1
+ u ⋅ ∇u = − ∇p (3)
∂t ρ
∂f α ρ α eα r r r
+ u ⋅ ∇( f α ρ α eα ) = − f α ρ α eα ∇ ⋅ u − ηα p∇ ⋅ u . ( 4)
∂t

Where u is the velocity vector for x and radial directions, fα, ρα and eα are the volume fraction, density
and internal specific energy of the component α. K is average bulk modulus for mixture cell. By
introducing above equations, the pressure in mixture cell can be briefly calculated using following
equation [4].

Pα f α
P = K∑ . (5)
Kα
In addition, the reaction rate model is necessary to estimate the degree of decomposition of energitic
materials. The ignition and growth model [5] have been applied, and expressed as

dλ
= I (1 − λ ) 2 / 9 η 4 + G (1 −λ ) 2 / 9 λ 2 / 3 P z , (6)
dt

where λ is the mass fraction of detonation products; λ = 0 corresponds to the unreacted state and λ=1
to the completely reacted state, and η = ρ /ρ 0 - 1. The parameters z, G, I depend on the explosive
properties and are chosen as giving the best agreement with shock initiation experimental data. The
advection term of Eq.6 is also solved by CIP method. In order to calculate the pressure of reacting
explosive, the simple mixture theory, in which the reacting explosive is regarded to be a simple
mixture phase of reactant and product components, has been adopted.
 Materials Science Forum Vols. 465-466 165

The equations of state for materials are also necessary. For unreacted and reacted phases, JWL
equation of state [6] is employed. The expression is given in the below,

ω ω ω
P = A(1 - ) exp( − R1ζ ) + B (1 − ) exp( − R 2ζ ) + E (7)
R ζ
1 R 2ζ ζ

where ζ is ρ 0/ρ, subscript 0 indicates initial state of condensed explosive. A, B, R1, R2, are constants,
ω is the Gruneisen coefficient. The JWL parameters of Composition B are shown in Table 1 [7]. For
air and PMMA, ideal gas and Hugoniot Mie Gruneisen form equations of state are employed,
respectively.

Table 1. JWL parameters for Composition B

Explosive Phase A(GPa) B( GPa ) R1 R2 ω
Composition B Reacted 524 7.678 4.2 1.1 0.34
Unreacted 788 -5.03 11.3 1.13 0.894

COMP B(1.72)
Run distance (mm)

1
10

experiment
calculation
0
10

–1 0 1
10 10 10
Pressure (GPa)

Fig. 2 Pop plot for composition B

Results and discussion

In older to obtain the parameters of reactive model we calculated the one dimensional shock initiation
problem. The parameters of reactive flow mode were chosen as giving the best agreement with the
experimental data. Fig.2 indicates the pop plot for composition B. The solid line correspond to the
experimental results [8], and symbol △ is the calculation result. The good agreement between the
experimental and the numerical results can be confirm from Fig. 2. In the case of 32 mm charge
diameter, the propagation process of shock wave in acceptor charge along the axis is shown in Fig. 3
(a) and (b). When the shock wave passed through the PMMA gap reaches the interface of the PMMA
and the accepter charge, the pressure at the shock front is about 6 GPa as shown in Fig. 3 (a). After the
shock wave propagates about 10 mm from the interface, the shock to detonation transition (SDT)
occurs. While in the case of Fig. 3 (b) SDT point is more than 25 mm from the interface.
166 Explosion, Shock Wave and Hypervelocity Phenomena in Materials

Charge diameter : 32 mm Gap length : 15 mm Charge diameter : 32 mm Gap length : 20 mm

Initial interface Initial interface

30 30
of PMMA and Acceptor Time interval of PMMA and Acceptor
Time interval 1 μ s 2μ s interface of Acceptor
and witness plate
Pressure (GPa)

Pressure (GPa)
20 20

10 10

0 0
40 60 80 100 40 60 80 100
Position (mm) Position (mm)
(a) gap length 15mm (b) gap length 20mm

Fig. 3 Propagation of shock wave in acceptor charge in the case of 32mm charge diameter
Position from the ignition point of donor (mm)

Charge diameter : 126 mm

Charge diameter : 32 mm

Gap : 25 mm gap length : 195 mm

SDT point
Gap : 20 mm
20
Gap : 15 mm
80
Pressure(GPa)

5 mm
gap length : 205 mm

10
40 15 mm
Initial interface of
Donor and PMMA
steady detonation
of composition B

0 0
0 10 20 90 100 110 120
Time (μ s) Time (μ s)

Fig. 4 Distance vs. time wave diagram along Fig. 5 Pressure profile at the middle point of witness
axis in the case of 32 mm charge diameter plate in the case of 126 mm charge diameter

Fig .4 shows the x-t diagram for the shock front along the axis. Both of the 15 mm and 20 mm gap
cases, SDT have occurred. However, since there is the difference of the distance of run to detonation,
damage to the witness plate is also difference. It is difficult to examine the extent of damage to the
witness plate for judging the sympathetic detonation of acceptor charge, so in this calculation the
following approach was employed in judgment of sympathetic detonation. When SDT occur before
the shock front arrives at the interface of witness plate and acceptor charge, the sympathetic
detonation occurs in the acceptor charge. In the case of 32 mm charge diameter and 25 mm gap length,
there is no SDT point, so the sympathetic detonation does not occur.
 Materials Science Forum Vols. 465-466 167

Critical incident pressure to acceptor (GPa)

600
In the case of critical condition
( no detonation ) 8

Critical gap length (mm)

pressure
400 gap length

4
200

0 0
0 100 200
Charge diameter (mm)

Fig. 6 Critical gap length and critical incident pressure to acceptor charge vs. charge diameter

Charge diameter :
20, 32, 64, 126 and 260 mm
Critical gap length (mm)

Comp. B　(ρ o=1.712 g/cc)

calculation
2 no sympathetic detonation
10
Sympathetic detonation

Gap test
1 Gap material : PMMA
10

1 2
10 10
Charge diameter (mm)

Fig. 7 The condition for sympathetic detonation based on this numerical work

Fig. 5 indicates the pressure profiles at the middle point of witness plate. In the case of 195 mm gap
length, SDT occurs before the shock wave reaches the witness plate, while in the case of 205 mm gap
length SDT could not be confirmed. It is noted that in the latter case the peak value of the profile is
about 10 GPa. The reason why such high pressure is occurred in spite of no sympathetic detonation is
that after the shock wave interacts with witness plate, reflection wave occurs in the acceptor end, and
the decomposition of composition B is accelerated because of the pressure rinsing at the interface of
witness plate and acceptor charge. Fig. 6 indicates the relationship between the pressure at the PMMA
end and charge diameter together with critical gap length. In this figure all data obtained under the
critical condition in which the sympathetic detonation does not occur. As the scale of gap test
increases the shock wave from the donor has long duration and little attenuation behind the shock
front, so the critical pressure decreases as the charge diameter increases. Critical gap lengths are 13,
25, 70, 205 and 550 mm for charge diameter 20, 32, 64, 126 and 260 mm respectively.
168 Explosion, Shock Wave and Hypervelocity Phenomena in Materials

Fig. 7 shows the relationship of critical gap length and charge diameter with logarithmic plot. This
figure indicates the condition for sympathetic detonation when the both of the donor and the acceptor
is composition B, L/D of both charges is set 1 and PMMA is used as the gap material. Our calculation
results show that the critical gap length and the charge diameter approximately have linear
relationship with logarithmic scale.

Summary
Numerical simulations of sympathetic detonation in gap test were carried out by Eulerian
hydrodynamic code. CIP algorithm and ignition and growth model have adopted to solve shock
initiation phenomena. Both of the donor and the acceptor charges were Composition B, L/D is set 1
and gap material was PMMA. The set up of gap test was varied to understand the size effect in this
numerical study. As the results we could found that the critical gap length and the charge diameter
approximately have linear relationship with logarithmic scale.

References
[1] W. W. Brandon and K. F. Ockert: third symposium (international) on detonation (1960), p. 822.
[2] Z. Liu, S. Kubota, M. Otsuki, K. Yoshimura, K. Okada, Y. Nakayama, M. Yoshida, S. Fujiwara:
Journal of The Japan Explosives Society, Vol.63(2002), p.264
[3] T. Yabe, T. Ishikawa, P.Y. Wang, T. Aoki, Y. Kadota and F. Ikeda: Computer Physics
Communications, Vol.66 (1991), p. 233.
[4] O. Yu Vorobiev and I. N. Lomov: Advances in Computational Engineering & Science 2000, Vol.1
(2000), Tech Science Press, p. 922.
[5] E. L. Lee and C. M. Tarver: Phys. Fluids, 23(1980), p.2362
[6] E.Lee, M.Finger: LLNL report, UCID-16189(1973)
[7] M.J.Murphy, E.L.Lee, A.M.Weston and A.E. Williams: Tenth Symposium (International) on
Detonation (1993), p.963
[8] P.W. Cooper: Tenth Symposium (International) on Detonation (1993), p.960
Explosion, Shock Wave and Hypervelocity Phenomena in Materials
10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.465-466

A Numerical Study of Sympathetic Detonation in Gap Test

10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.465-466.163

DOI References
[3] T. Yabe, T. Ishikawa, P.Y. Wang, T. Aoki, Y. Kadota and F. Ikeda: Computer Physics ommunications,
Vol.66 (1991), p. 233.
doi:10.1016/0010-4655(91)90072-S
[8] P.W. Cooper: Tenth Symposium (International) on Detonation (1993), p.960
doi:10.1097/00008877-199308000-00035
[3] T. Yabe, T. Ishikawa, P.Y. Wang, T. Aoki, Y. Kadota and F. Ikeda: Computer Physics Communications,
Vol.66 (1991), p. 233.
doi:10.1016/0010-4655(91)90072-S