Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Defence Technology
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/defence-technology

Modeling the blast load induced by a close-in explosion considering

cylindrical charge parameters
Yi Fan a, Li Chen b, *, Zhan Li a, Heng-bo Xiang a, Qin Fang a
a
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention & Mitigation of Explosion & Impact, Army Engineering University of the PLA, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210007, China
b
Engineering Research Center of Safety and Protection of Explosion & Impact of the Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211189,
China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Structural damage is significantly influenced by the various parameters of a close-in explosion. To
Received 29 October 2021 establish a close-in blast loading model for cylindrical charges according to these parameters, a series of
Received in revised form field experiments and a systematic numerical analysis were conducted. A high-fidelity finite element
22 December 2021
model developed using AUTODYN was first validated using blast data collected from field tests conducted
Accepted 15 February 2022
Available online xxx
in this and previous studies. A quantitative analysis was then performed to determine the influence of
the charge shape, aspect ratio (length to diameter), orientation, and detonation configuration on the
characteristics and distributions of the blast loading (incident peak overpressure and impulse) according
Keywords:
Cylindrical charge
to scaled distance. The results revealed that the secondary peak overpressure generated by a cylindrical
Secondary peak overpressure charge was mainly distributed along the axial direction and was smaller than the overpressure generated
Aspect ratio by an equivalent spherical charge. The effects of charge shape on the blast loading at 45
and 67.5
in the
Orientation axial plane could be neglected at scaled distances greater than 2 m/kg1/3; the effect of aspect ratios
Detonation initiation point greater than 2 on the peak overpressure in the 90
(radial) direction could be neglected at all scaled
Blast loading model distances; and double-end detonation increased the radial blast loading by up to 60% compared to single-
end detonation. Finally, an empirical cylindrical charge blast loading model was developed considering
the influences of charge aspect ratio, orientation, and detonation configuration. The results obtained in
this study can serve as a reference for the design of blast tests using cylindrical charges and aid engineers
in the design of blast-resistant structures.
© 2022 China Ordnance Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications
Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The characteristics of blast loading play a key role in structural
damage, which has long been a concern in the design of protective
structures [1e3].
Yet current methods for the design of protective structures such
as UFC 3-340-02 [4] (referred to as UFC in this paper) still essen-
tially assume that the charges are either spherical (for free-air
bursts) or hemispherical (for surface bursts), and that all detona-
tions are centrally initiated. However, many explosive charges used
in military and civilian applications are cylindrical or rectangular
Abbreviations: FEM, finite element model; TNT, trinitrotoluene; UFC, United
Facilities Criteria.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: li.chen@seu.edu.cn (L. Chen).
Peer review under responsibility of China Ordnance Society
rather than spherical [5]. Indeed, conventional weapons are mostly
shaped as slender cylinders with typical aspect ratios (defined as L/
D, where L is the length of the cylinder and D is its diameter) of 2e6
up to a maximum of 10 [6], as shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, non-
spherical charge geometries will produce different spatial distri-
butions of overpressure and impulse than spherical charge geom-
etries of the same mass, especially within the close-in range. The
“close-in explosion” has been defined as the detonation of an
explosive charge at a scaled distance Z < 1.2 m/kg1/3 [7,8] or
Z < 1.054 m/kg1/3 [9], in which Z can be obtained as R/W1/3, where R
is the standoff distance from the center of the charge to the face of
the structure and W is the charge mass.
Thus, considerable research has been dedicated to the blast
loadings generated by cylindrical charges; such research has pri-
marily been conducted through physical experimentation. How-
ever, the experimental approach for the investigation of blast
loading is typically quite expensive and risky, and the tests are

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2022.02.005
2214-9147/© 2022 China Ordnance Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al., Modeling the blast load induced by a close-in explosion considering cylindrical charge
parameters, Defence Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2022.02.005
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 1. Cylindrical aerial bomb.
affected by complex factors, so the results generally exhibit
considerable scatter that is unfavorable for analysis and subsequent
conclusions [6]. However, with the advent of high-speed, low-cost
computing technologies, finite element software has increasingly
been employed to study the properties of blast loading and provide
insights into the conclusions drawn by experimental studies. Thus,
experimental and numerical analysis results can verify and com-
plement each other.
The differences in the shapes of cylindrical and spherical
explosive charges have been observed to result in considerable
differences in the characteristics of the resulting blast waves [10], as
shown in Fig. 2. The overpressureetime history curves generated
by cylindrical charges have frequently been observed to include
secondary shocks [6], a behavior that differs from the typically
assumed Friedlander curve for spherical charge detonations. Knock
et al. [11] reported that blast tests using single-end detonated cy-
lindrical PE4 explosive charges with L/D ¼ 4 produced secondary
shock waves in the axial direction (0
), and found that it was very
difficult to predict the secondary peak overpressure from the
existing test data.
The secondary shock wave phenomenon has also been reported
in numerical analysis results by Sherkar et al. [12], Xiao et al. [13],
and Gao et al. [14] using cylindrical charges with L/D ¼ 1e5, 1e5,
and 1e8, respectively, at Z ¼ 0.53e4.22, 0.5e10, and 0.3e10 m/kg1/
3
, respectively. However, note that Sherkar et al. [12] and Gao et al.
[14] did not account for the secondary shock waves in their impulse
calculations, whereas Xiao et al. [13] did. Furthermore, only the
maximum values of the primary and secondary peak overpressures
(Pcyl and P2nd, respectively) were discussed by Sherkar et al. [12],
Xiao et al. [13], and Gao et al. [14] in their analyses of the effects of
the secondary shock waves. Sherkar et al. [12] found that the axial
peak overpressure and impulse associated with the secondary
shock wave exceeded those associated with the primary shock
wave for cylindrical charges with L/D ¼ 2e5 when Z > 3.9 m/kg1/3.
Fig. 2. Charge shape has a significant effect on the blast loading.
2
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
As a cylinder is symmetrical about its longitudinal axis, the
resulting blast loadings are the same regardless of the angle relative
to this axis at the same scaled distance. Existing research on the
blast loading induced by cylindrical charges at different orienta-
tions has therefore focused on the blast loading along various an-
gles in the axial plane of symmetry (plane XOY in Fig. 2).
Furthermore, most previous studies, especially those including
experimental investigations, only reported results obtained at a
small range of Z values. Their conclusions may therefore be
different or contradictory.
Some studies have found that for cylindrical charges with large
L/D values, more energy is directed in the radial direction (90
),
whereas for those small L/D values, more energy is directed in the
axial direction (0
) [1]. Plooster [6] and Esparza [15] measured the
pressure and impulse data along eight angles in the axial plane in
22.5
increments for single-end detonated cylindrical explosives
with L/D ¼ 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 at 1.39 < Z < 6.15 m/kg1/3. They
found that the Pcyl and impulse (Icyl) close to the charge reached
their maxima in the direction of the largest presented area, defined
as the surface area of the charge visible in the radial and axial di-
rections. For cylindrical charges with L/D > 1, Pcyl was the highest in
the radial direction; for L/D < 1, Pcyl was the highest in the axial
direction. Wisotksi and Snyer [16] found that the Pcyl from the
curved surface of a cylindrical charge increased with increasing L/D,
with the optimum Pcyl occurring at L/D ¼ 6. Wu et al. [1] conducted
an experimental investigation detonating spherical and cylindrical
charges (L/D ¼ 1) of the same mass at 2 m/kg1/3, finding that the
peak reflected overpressures and impulses produced in the axial
direction of the cylindrical charge were much greater than those
produced in its radial direction, as well as those produced by the
spherical charge. McNesby et al. [17] measured the peak pressures
around single-end detonated TNT cylindrical charges with L/D ¼ 4
using a high-speed camera, observing that the axial pressure
(farthest from the detonator) was stronger than the radial pressure
from 0 to 35 ms following detonation. Note that Z in their study
appears to have been less than 0.2 m/kg1/3; however, this was not
specifically mentioned by the authors. Held [18] designed a novel
system to measure the momentum distribution around the close-in
(0.27 < Z < 1.1 m/kg1/3) single-end detonation of a cylindrical high-
explosive charge consisting of 775 g of TNT/HMX (30/70) with L/
D ¼ 1.35. The momentum was obtained as the product of the initial
velocity and mass of steel or aluminum cylinders lined up in
semicircles placed at 0.25 m and 1 m from the explosion. The axial
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
momentum at 0
(opposite the detonation end) was found to be
8e10 times higher than that at 180
(the detonation end).
Furthermore, the momentum in the axial direction was greater
than that in the radial direction, both of which were considerably
larger than those in the diagonal directions in the axial plane.
Langran-Wheeler et al. [19] measured the reflected overpressures
and impulses produced by centrally detonated spherical and cy-
lindrical charges (L/D ¼ 7) at Z ¼ 0.45 m/kg1/3 using the Hopkinson
pressure bar, demonstrating that the radial Icyl was twice the im-
pulse induced by the spherical charge.
Indeed, there have been many studies investigating the blast
loading produced by cylindrical charges oriented in the axial and
radial directions; however, the blast loading produced in other
directions also requires attention. Plooster [6] and Esparza [15]
accordingly recorded the pressureetime history curves produced
by cylindrical charges in various orientations. Furthermore, Xiao
et al. [13] and Gao et al. [14] conducted simulations to compare
cylindrical charge blast loadings according to their orientation. All
four studies found that the blast loading decreased at measurement
angles farther from the axial and radial directions at the same
scaled distance.
The effect of detonation configuration has also been studied.
Cylindrical charges are most easily (and therefore most often)
detonated from one end. Wu et al. [1] and Plooster [6] observed
that the pressure field resulting from single-end detonation was
not symmetrical and Pcyl was higher on the end opposite the
detonator. Anastacio and Knock [20] found that the Pcyl in the radial
direction resulting from the double-end detonation of cylindrical
charges with 0.27  L/D  5.75 at 1.4  Z  5.5 m/kg1/3 were 1.6
times those resulting from the single-end detonation of the same
charges, whereas Icyl was consistent irrespective of configuration.
Tham [21] performed simulations of the experiments conducted by
Held [18] to predict the interactions of blast waves produced by
single-end and double-end detonated cylindrical charges and
compared the results, finding that different detonation times at
each end of the explosive charge attenuated the maximum impulse.
Fan et al. [22] found the maximum amplification ratio of the Pcyl
induced by a double-end detonation to that induced by a central
detonation was around 1.6 at 90
for Z ¼ ~1 m/kg1/3.
Thus, the blast loading produced by a cylindrical charge is
determined by its L/D, orientation, and detonation configuration,
especially in the close-in range. Yet there exists a critical Z value
beyond which these influence factors can be neglected and the
blast loads can instead be determined according to a spherical
charge with equal mass. Therefore, the influence range of these
factors have been numerically investigated in many studies. Sher-
kar et al. [12] found that the effects of charge shape and detonation
configuration can be neglected at Z > 3 m/kg1/3, though orienta-
tions at angles between the radial and axial directions were not
examined. Xiao et al. [13] found that the effect of charge shape on
Icyl (Pcyl) can be neglected at Z > 5.7 (3.2) m/kg1/3, while the effect of
detonation configuration on Icyl (Pcyl) can be neglected at Z > 5.7
(3.9) m/kg1/3. Gao et al. [14] found that as L/D increased from 2 to 5,
the range of influence of charge shape on Pcyl decreased to Z < 5 m/
kg1/3; this critical distance should be more accurate. Furthermore,
they found that the effects of charge shape on Icyl can be neglected
for L/D  2 at Z > 3 m/kg1/3. However, these models were not
verified using experimental data describing the detonations of cy-
lindrical charges, and only the central detonation configuration was
studied. Critically, different conclusions were drawn from these
three studies [20e22] owing to the different approaches they
employed to consider the effects of the secondary shock wave, as
discussed previously in this section.
Previous studies have focused on the influence of explosive
charge L/D, orientation, and detonation configuration on blast
3
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
loading. However, few empirical equations have been proposed to
predict the blast load produced by cylindrical charges and even
fewer have considered the influence of the charge L/D and orien-
tation in their equations, likely owing to the large dispersion and
small quantity of test data. Knock et al. [11,20,23e25] proposed the
equation Pcyl ¼ a=Z þ b=Z 2 þ c=Z 3 to predict the Pcyl in the axial and
radial directions, where a, b, and c are constants obtained from the
least-square fitting of the equation to experimental data. Further-
more, reference [25] replaced Z in Knock et al.’s equation with
ZðL=DÞ1=9 to consider the effect of L/D. Another equation consid-
ering L/D in the prediction of the radial Pcyl was developed in
Ref. [26] (cited in Ref. [27]), but it employs the ratio of Pcyl to the
overpressure induced by an equivalent spherical charge as
Pcyl =Psph ¼ 5:53ðL=DÞ0:308 =Z 0:998 þ ðZ  L =DÞ=24:99. Gao et al. [14]
developed an extremely complex equation for predicting the Pcyl
and Icyl that considers the influences of both L/D and orientation:
when fitting the pressure (impulse) data curves, 90 (30) constants
must be determined, and the fitting error is quite evident at some
distances, particularly in the close-in range. In addition, the im-
pulse fitting equation is unable to consider any orientations from
0 to 25
owing to the complexity of the data.
As shown in the above literature review, the effects of L/D,
orientation, and detonation configuration on the blast loading
distribution around a cylindrical charge are complex but crucial,
and must especially be considered in the close-in range. The
shortcomings in the existing research can be broadly summarized
as follows.
(1) The conclusions drawn by experimental studies in the past
may be not completely accurate. Finite element simulations
can be used to analyze these conclusions, but the model must
undergo rigorous experimental verification to ensure suffi-
cient accuracy.
(2) Existing studies typically focused only on distinguishing
between the blast behaviors of cylindrical and spherical
charges; quantitative comparisons of the differences among
the blast loadings induced by cylindrical charges with
different L/D values are currently lacking.
(3) There is presently no systematic quantitative description of
the magnitude and extent of P2nd influence.
(4) A simple and practical method for the prediction of blast
loading considering the different relevant influencing factors
is still unavailable.
This study therefore developed a high-fidelity finite element
model (FEM) using AUTODYN and validated it using the data
collected from two close-in blast tests of single-end and double-
end detonated cylindrical charges, as well as previously published
test data. Next, intensive finite element simulations were con-
ducted to evaluate the mechanism governing P2nd, and its magni-
tude and distribution were quantitatively estimated. The influences
of L/D, orientation, and detonation configuration on the distribu-
tions of incident overpressure and impulse were then investigated
at 0.42 < Z < 4.2 m/kg1/3. Finally, an empirical model was derived to
predict the blast loading according to L/D, orientation, and deto-
nation configuration.
2. Development of a high-fidelity fem
Hydrocode AUTODYN has remapping capabilities [28] that allow
for the first stage of the detonation process to be modeled at
extremely high mesh resolutions, realizing accurate and efficient
computation. Thus, AUTODYN was employed in this study to
conduct intensive calculations modeling the detonation of cylin-
drical charges.
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

2.1. Geometry, domain, and boundary conditions
An overview of the two-dimensional (2D) FEM constructed in
AUTODYN is shown in the example in Fig. 3, which represents a
cylindrical charge with L/D ¼ 4. The X-axis and Y-axis were
respectively defined as the axial and radial directions, upon which
the axial and mirror symmetry conditions were respectively
imposed to represent the three-dimensional cylinder, allowing the
computation time to be further reduced by modeling only half of
the axisymmetric charge and air domains. Transmission boundary
conditions were imposed on all other planes. Central, single-end,
and double-end detonation configurations were evaluated using
the model; the central detonation configuration (i.e. at the origin of
the model, X ¼ 0 and Y ¼ 0) is shown in Fig. 3.
The remapping methodology in AUTODYN was performed in
two stages. In the first stage, a fine mesh resolution was employed
to simulate the initial 0.07 ms of the explosion, during which the
shock wave front traveled a distance approximately three times the
maximum size of the charge [12]. At this time, a remap file was
created containing the mesh data from the first stage simulation. In
the second stage, the data from this remap file was fed into a larger
2D computational domain defined using a coarser mesh at a lower
resolution to simulate the explosion in the later stages.
The incident overpressures and impulses were monitored at
0.42 < Z < 4.2 m/kg1/3. Pressure measurement points were placed at
22.5
increments in the axial plane, as shown in Fig. 3(d), where
0
denotes the axial direction of the charge (positive X-axis) and
90
denotes the radial direction of the charge, perpendicular to the
axial direction (positive Y-axis) for the central, single-end, and
double-end detonation configurations. Additionally, for the single-
end detonation configuration, 180
denotes the axis end at which
the detonation was initiated (negative X-axis). Analyses were per-
formed using cylindrical charges of the same mass (1 kg) with L/
D ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The actual dimensions of the spherical charge (Sph)
and five cylindrical charges (Cyl_1e5) are listed in Table 1. The
element sizes near the origin were altered to suit the dimensions of
the cylindrical charge. Owing to the associated modeling con-
straints, the dimensions of the cylindrical charges in the models
differ from the target values by extremely small percentages.
2.2. Material model and parameters
AUTODYN contains its own material library [29] with default
parameters for various equations of state. In the present model, the
air was modeled as an ideal gas with an initial pressure of 101.3 kPa
by specifying an initial temperature of 288 K (15
C). The air pres-
sure is related to the energy by
p ¼ ðg  1Þre (1)
where g is a constant, r is the air density, and e is the specific in-
ternal energy.
The JoneseWilkinseLee (JWL) state equation was used to model
the TNT, and describes a pressureevolume relationship given by



u R1 v u R2 v uE
p¼A 1 e þB 1 e þ (2)
R1 v R2 v v
where p is the pressure; v is the relative volume; e is the specific
internal energy; and A, B, R1, R2, and u are constants calibrated from
test data. The multi-material Eulerian solver was used for both the
air and explosive. The detailed model parameters of the air and TNT
are listed in Table 2.
2.3. Mesh resolution convergence
The simulation results will be strongly influenced by the reso-
lution of the model mesh owing to the extremely short duration of
the blast wave and the energy transmission between different
meshes. Thus, a mesh resolution that is acceptable for one blast
case might not be suitable for another; for example, a sufficiently
fine mesh when predicting the blast overpressure at a large Z might
be too coarse at a small Z. Though an excessively coarse mesh will
inevitably lead to errors and makes it difficult to capture higher
load peak characteristics [30], it is sometimes impossible to use a
sufficiently fine mesh owing to limitations of the computer or
software.
Furthermore, as AUTODYN-2D only supports the use of rectan-
gular meshes for Eulerian models, differences will arise between
shockwaves propagating in different directions (i.e., along di-
rections at different angles relative to the vertexes of the rectan-
gular mesh) [31] because the shockwave will pass through different
numbers of cells along the same physical distance. Though these
differences were not considered in previous simulation analyses
[12e14], a sufficiently fine mesh was applied in this study to reduce
their impact.

Table 1
Dimensions and L/D of charges in FEM simulations.

Notation Dimensions L/D

L/mm D/mm

Sph Radius ¼ 52.7 mm e

Cyl_1 92.1 92.1 1
Cyl_2 146.2 73.1 2
Cyl_3 191.7 63.9 3
Fig. 3. AUTODYN model (1 kg TNT, L/D ¼ 4): (a) explosive charge model mesh and
Cyl_4 232.0 58.0 4
detonation point; (b) first stage detonation model; (c) first stage detonation result; and
Cyl_5 269.5 53.9 5
(d) second stage detonation model with first stage remap. (dimensions in mm).

4
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Table 2
Model parameters of TNT and air in the FEM [29].
Parameter TNT
A/MPa 3.7377  105
R1 4.15
B/MPa 3.7471  103
R2 0.9
u 0.35
r/(kg$m3) 1630
e/(kJ$kg1) d 2.068  105
g d
To this end, unlike previous researchers [12e14] who estab-
lished one-dimensional (1D) models during the first stage to
conduct their mesh convergence studies, this study employed 2D
models in the mesh convergence studies of both the first and sec-
ond stages using spherically shaped charges, as shown in Fig. 4.
Mesh resolutions of 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm were
evaluated in the first stage, while resolutions of 5 mm, 10 mm, and
20 mm were evaluated in the second stage. During the first stage,
measurements were collected at two points equally distant from
the center of the charge along the 0
and 45
directions. Theoret-
ically, the difference resulting from the adoption of a rectangular
mesh would be the largest between these two directions. The
distribution of measurement points in the second stage was similar
to that in the first stage, with three measurement points in each
direction at different distances, as shown in Fig. 4. Subsequently,
the sensitivity of the simulation results to the mesh resolution was
assessed by comparing the resulting pressureetime history curves,
Psph, and Isph to determine a suitable resolution.
The pressureetime history curves resulting from the simulated
detonation of the spherical charges are shown in Fig. 5, in which the
rising sections of the curves grow steeper with finer mesh resolu-
tions, and the arrival time of Psph decreases accordingly. Moreover,
Psph can be observed to arrive sooner in the 45
direction than in
the 0
direction when the mesh resolution and measurement dis-
tance are the same.
The relationship between the blast loading (Psph and Isph) and
the mesh resolution is depicted according to Z in Fig. 6, in which the
mesh resolution exerted a greater influence on Psph than Isph. The
Psph and Isph at all measurement points converged as the mesh
resolution decreased. The figure shows that the predictions ob-
tained using mesh resolutions of 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm were nearly
identical in the first stage, with a maximum difference of only 2.9%,
Fig. 4. FEM used in mesh resolution evaluation: (a) first stage; (b) first stage result; (c) second stage with first stage remap (dimensions in mm).
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
as were the predictions obtained using mesh resolutions of 0.5 mm
and 1 mm, with a maximum difference of only 5.5%. Considering
Air both the numerical accuracy and computation cost, a mesh reso-
d
lution of 0.5 mm was tentatively selected for the first stage. In the
d second stage, the maximum difference between the predictions
d obtained using mesh resolutions of 5 mm and 10 mm was only 7.1%.
d Therefore, a mesh resolution of 10 mm was tentatively selected for
d
the second stage considering computational costs, although a mesh
1.225
resolution of 5 mm would produce more accurate predictions.
1.4 However, Fig. 6 shows that a significant difference existed be-
tween the simulation predictions in the 0
and 45
directions, and
this difference decreased as the mesh resolution became finer.
When a mesh resolution of 0.5 mm was used in the first stage, the
maximum difference between the simulation predictions in the
0
and 45
directions was only 4.3%. When a mesh resolution of
10 mm was used in the second stage, the maximum difference
between the predictions in the two directions was 14.5%, which is
relatively large, but the difference was only 7.3% when using a mesh
resolution of 5 mm. Thus, final mesh resolutions of 0.5 mm and
5 mm were selected for use in the first and second stages, respec-
tively, of the simulations conducted in this study.
For comparison, Sherkar et al. [12] and Gao et al. [14] also used
AUTODYN to perform their simulations. Both studies used a mesh
resolution of 5 mm in the first stage and resolutions of 12.5 mm and
10 mm, respectively, in the second stage. The results of the mesh
resolution study presented herein indicate that these resolutions
were not fine enough to ensure accuracy.
3. Field test and fem validation
To validate the developed FEM, two close-in blast tests were
conducted using single- and double-end detonated cylindrical
charges. The resulting data were used together with previously
published data describing cylindrical charge explosions to validate
the constructed FEM.
3.1. Single-end detonated cylindrical charge
3.1.1. Test scheme and FEM
Blast tests of five different single-end detonated cylindrical
charges were conducted. Each cast TNT explosive cylinder was
supported by a light wooden rod that elevated the centroid of the
cylinder 1500 mm above the ground, as shown in Fig. 7. A PCB B102
pressure transducer was mounted on a steel frame at the same
height as the centroid of the cylinder to measure the resulting
5
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 5. Simulated pressureetime history curves according to mesh resolution at Z values of: (a) Z ¼ 0.32 m/kg1/3; (b) Z ¼ 1 m/kg1/3; (c) Z ¼ 2 m/kg1/3; and (d) Z ¼ 3 m/kg1/3.
pressureetime history curves.
The axis of the cylindrical TNT charge was kept perpendicular to
the ground, and the detonation was initiated at its top end using an
electric detonator. The diameter of the charge cylinder was main-
tained at 120 mm while L/D was varied from 1.84 to 4.60 by
changing only the cylinder height L. Information pertaining to the
parameters of the test program is summarized in Table 3.
An axisymmetric 2D FEM consisting of 1,479,200 elements was
constructed based on the blast test parameters and is shown for
Test 1 and Test 2 in Fig. 8. To reduce the computational cost, the
ground and steel frame were modeled as rigid bodies, and the blast
wave interactions with these rigid bodies were controlled by the
fluidestructure interaction algorithm in AUTODYN. The other as-
pects of the model were the same as those shown in Fig. 3.
3.1.2. Comparison and verification
The experimentally observed pressureetime history curves are
compared in Fig. 9 with those generated by the corresponding FEM.
The ratios of the reflected Pcyl and Icyl induced by the cylindrical
charge in the test and FEM to those of an equivalent spherical
charge from Ref. [4] at same distance are compared in Fig. 10. The
differences in the reflected Pcyl ratios obtained by the test and FEM
were less than 10%, indicating that the proposed model can
adequately reproduce the overpressure peaks. However, the
calculated reflected Icyl ratios were up to 198.3% higher than the test
results because the steel frame in this FEM was represented as a 2D
approximation of a large, 3-m diameter cylinder for consistency
with the axisymmetric modeling approach. In the actual tests,
however, the steel frame was a square column, the edges of which
rapidly relieved the initial reflected pressure through wave
diffraction. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Icyl values measured
in the tests were lower than those indicated by the simulation
6
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
results [32].
Further, Fig. 10 shows that the blast loadings generated by the
cylindrical charges were all greater than those generated by the
spherical charges, with ratios up to 2.5 for an L/D ¼ 4.6 at
Z ¼ 1.38 m/kg1/3 in the radial direction.
3.1.3. Comparison with existing test data
To further verify the reliability of the model, the axial and radial
Pcyl and Icyl obtained by the FEM were compared with previously
published test data. The developed axisymmetric 2D model is
shown in Fig. 11, the shape of which is same as that of model Cyl_4
detailed in Table 1. The other aspects of the model were the same as
those shown in Fig. 3.
Plooster [6], Knock and Davies [23], Wisotski and Snyer [16]
(cited in Ref. [23]), and Knock et al. [11] reported various test data
for single-end detonated cylindrical charges, as listed in Table 4.
The TNT equivalents of the different explosives for Pcyl (EP) and Icyl
(EI) are also provided according to UFC [4]. Fig. 12 compares the
simulated changes in incident Pcyl and Icyl according to Z in the
radial direction with the previously published test data.
As shown in Fig. 12, the test data for Pcyl and Icyl are evenly
distributed around the simulated curve, indicating that the devel-
oped FEM can accurately reproduce the radial incident Pcyl and Icyl
registered across a wide range of Z values. Further, Fig. 12(b) shows
that the radial Icyl initially increased and then decreased as Z
increased. This trend can also be observed in the calculations of
Sherkar et al. [12] and Xiao et al. [13].
In the axial direction, the test data obtained by Plooster [6] and
Knock et al. [11] were employed to validate the results from the
developed FEM, all of which are compared in Fig. 13. The solid and
dashed lines in Fig. 13(a) represent Pcyl and P2nd, respectively, as
obtained by the simulation. The secondary shocks are caused by
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. Simulated (a) Psph and (b) Isph according to mesh resolution at different Z values.

Fig. 7. Test of single-end detonated cylindrical charge (4.1 kg, L/D ¼ 1.84).

bridge waves generated along the axial direction of the cylindrical
charge. Fig. 13(a) shows that the P2nd values obtained by the
experiment and simulation both initially increased rapidly, then
slowly decreased at Z > 2 m/kg1/3. Additional P2nd values can be
observed in the simulation results within a range of
Z ¼ ~0.5e2.0 m/kg1/3; however, they are not present in the test
data. This is because the experimental pressureetime history
curves in Refs. [6,11] showed multiple overpressure peaks, espe-
cially at small Z values, making it impossible to accurately deter-
mine the true P2nd value.
As shown in Fig. 13(b), the differences between the test data
obtained by both Knock et al. [11] and Plooster [6] and the simu-
lated results were less than 20% in most cases. Therefore, the
simulation results agreed well with the test data.

7
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Table 3
Test program parameters.
Test no. W/kg Z/(m$kg1/3) L/mm
1 4.1 1.87 221
2 4.1 1.87 221
3 6.1 1.64 331.5
4 10.2 1.38 552.5
5 10.2 1.38 552.5
3.2. Double-end detonated cylindrical blast test
3.2.1. Test scheme and FEM
Six tests using double-end detonated cylindrical charges were
conducted at Z < 1 m/kg1/3, as shown by the test configuration in
Fig. 14. As summarized in Table 5, two quantities of cylindrical rock
emulsion explosives (13.4 kg and 18.2 kg) with different di-
mensions were detonated in the blast tests. The cylindrical charge
was suspended 1.5 m above the ground and its axis was strictly
parallel to the ground. One electric detonator was located at each
end of the cylinder; the two detonators were adjusted precisely to
ensure simultaneous initiation. Three PCB B102-series pressure
transducers, P1, P2, and P3, were spaced 0.38 m apart on the ground
surface to record the reflected pressureetime history curves, with
P1 mounted at the projection of the center of the cylindrical charge
onto the ground.
The FEM was constructed as shown in Fig. 15, in which the
ground was modeled as a rigid body, 1.5 m away from the cylin-
drical explosive. The rock emulsion explosive was converted to TNT
according to an average TNT equivalent of 0.609 [2], with the
conversion results listed in Table 5.
3.2.2. Comparison and verification
The simulated pressureetime history curves are compared with
the experimental results in Fig. 16, and the averages and standard
deviations of Pcyl are presented in Fig. 17(a). The figures show that
the differences between the average test results and the simulation
results were less than 6% at P1, and only slightly higher at P2 and P3,
remaining in an acceptable range.
As shown in Fig. 17(b), however, there were considerable dif-
ferences in the reflected Icyl, which could be caused by the use of
different explosives (rock emulsion and TNT). As shown in Fig. 16,
an evident “hump” following the primary peak exists in the pres-
sureetime history curves for the TNT explosives, especially at P1;
the magnitude of this “hump” is much higher than that for the rock
emulsion explosives. This results in a larger simulated Icyl at P1 than
the test results indicated.
Further, Fig. 17 shows that the blast loadings generated by the
Fig. 8. First stage (left) and second stage (right) of the single-end detonated cylindrical charge simulation (4.1 kg TNT, L/D ¼ 1.84).
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
double-end detonated cylindrical charges were all greater than
those generated by equivalent spherical charges [4]; cylindrical
D/mm L/D charge to spherical charge peak overpressure (impulse) ratios of up
120 1.84
to 3.7 (2.6) can be observed for L/D ¼ 2 at Z ¼ 0.67 m/kg1/3 in the
120 1.84 radial direction.
120 2.76 Thus, the developed FEM can be confidently used to reproduce
120 4.60 the blast loads generated by close-in cylindrical explosives deto-
120 4.60
nated using either the single-end or double-end configurations.
4. Analysis of P2nd
Existing studies on the phenomenon of secondary shock waves
were briefly discussed in the introduction, and the characteristics
of P2nd were described in section 3.1.3. In this section, the mecha-
nism of secondary shock wave formation is introduced and the
magnitude and distribution of the associated P2nd values are
quantitatively analyzed.
4.1. Generation of secondary shock waves
The complex interaction of the shock waves generated by the
detonation of a cylindrical charge is shown in Fig. 18(a); they have
been observed in various numerical and experimental in-
vestigations, as shown in Fig. 18(b) and Fig. 18(c). First, primary
spherical waves are generated in both the radial and axial di-
rections, denoting the primary side wave and primary end wave,
respectively. As the shock waves expand outward, the primary side
and end waves meet and reflect off of each other, forming bridge
waves between them and reflected waves behind them in each
direction. These reflected waves are known as secondary shock
waves [16]. Thus, the presence of secondary shock waves can be
explained by the interaction of energy: when two shock waves
meet, their energies are either reflected or transmitted across the
boundary between them, with the stronger shock wave trans-
mitting its energy across the collision interface. Generally, the
shock wave in the direction of the maximum presented area is the
strongest, and for a cylindrical charge with L/D > 1, the curved
surface has the largest presented area. Thus, the energy will be
transmitted from the radial direction to the axial direction when
the two shock waves meet. Hence, secondary shock waves can be
clearly observed in the axial direction of a cylindrical charge with L/
D > 1 [16].
4.2. Magnitude and distribution
A series of pressureetime history curves from the detonations of
spherical and cylindrical charges in the close-in and far-field ranges
8
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison of experimentally and numerically obtained pressureetime history
curves for TNT charge quantities of (a) 4.1 kg; (b) 6.1 kg; and (c) 10.2 kg.
are presented in Fig. 19. The curves generated by the cylindrical
charges include secondary shock waves that differ from those
generated by the spherical charges. Indeed, there are significant
differences between the arrival times, peak overpressures, and
9
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 10. Ratios of reflected Pcyl and Icyl from the tests and the FE models to those of an
equivalent spherical charge.
curve shapes for the spherical charge and for the cylindrical charges
with different L/D values. Critically, the simulation results pre-
sented in this paper demonstrate that secondary shock waves were
present only at 0
and 22.5
in the axial plane (with the exception of
Cyl_1, for which secondary shock waves were also present at 90
).
Fig. 20(a) shows that the ratio P2nd/Pcyl at 0
was less than 0.25 at
Z < 2 m/kg1/3 in most cases but increased up to 3.5 with increasing
Z > 2 m/kg1/3. Furthermore, P2nd/Pcyl increased with L/D for the
same Z. Similarly, Sherkar et al. [12] found that P2nd/Pcyl > 1 with L/
D ¼ 2e5 when Z > 3.9 m/kg1/3, which can also be observed in
Fig. 20(a). Fig. 20(b) shows that the ratio of P2nd to the peak over-
pressure of the spherical charge (Psph) at 0
was less than 0.73 at
Z < 2 m/kg1/3 and gradually increased beyond 1 as Z increased. The
difference between P2nd and Psph was less than 20% at Z > 3.55 m/
kg1/3.
Fig. 21(a) and Fig. 21(b) show that the change trends of P2nd/Pcyl
and P2nd/Psph at 22.5
were similar to those at 0
. However, for the
same L/D, the greatest Z at which P2nd was observed at 22.5
was
smaller than that at 0
. Furthermore, both ratios were consistently
smaller at 22.5
than at 0
given the same L/D at the same Z. Finally,
Fig. 21(b) shows that P2nd was less than Psph at all Z values. Radial
P2nd was only observed in the simulation of Cyl_1 at
Z ¼ 2.42e3.79 m/kg1/3, as shown in Fig. 19(c), where P2nd/Psph
ranged from 0.1 to 0.4 and P2nd/Pcyl ranged from 0.1 to 0.47.
The impulse is also influenced by the complex waveforms sur-
rounding the cylindrical charges upon detonation. Negative pres-
sures existed between the two peak overpressures in several of the
pressureetime history curves showing a P2nd at 0
and 22.5
. In this
case, independent primary and secondary impulses (Icyl and I2nd,
respectively) should be considered in the analysis. The I2nd was
mainly located at the individual measurement points at Z < 1 m/
kg1/3, and its magnitude was nearly equal to that generated the
spherical charge at the same Z. However, I2nd only existed in the far-
field range for Cyl_1 at 0
, as shown in Fig. 19(c). Note that when
analyzing the results in section 5, I2nd will be added to Icyl following
the approach taken by Xiao et al. [21]. In other conditions, however,
the impulse associated with the two overpressure peaks cannot be
clearly distinguished, as shown in Fig. 18.
Finally, note that the dynamic response of the structure under
explosive load is directly related to the shape of the pressureetime
history curve [3]. Thus, when using cylindrical explosives, the in-
fluence of the secondary shock waves on the shape of the load
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 11. First stage (left) and second stage (right) simulation of single-end detonated cylindrical charge (1 kg TNT, L/D ¼ 4).
Table 4
Existing test data.
Data source Explosive
Simulation TNT
Plooster [9] Pentolite
Knock and Davies [23] PE4
Knock et al. [11] PE4
Wisotski and Snyer [16] Composition B
EP ¼ TNT equivalent pressure; EI ¼ TNT equivalent impulse.
curve must be considered, so it is insufficient to consider only the
difference in the magnitudes of Pcyl and Icyl relative to a reference
spherical charge (Psph and Isph, respectively).
5. Analysis of parameter influence
A 10% difference is generally considered of little consequence to
the overall design in engineering applications [12]. Sherkar et al.
[12] proposed that the effect of charge shape could be neglected
when Pcyl and Icyl were no more than 10% greater than Psph and Isph,
as did Xiao et al. [13]. However, the P2nd at 0
of Cyl_2 in this study
was ~20% greater than Psph at Z ¼ 4.2 m/kg1/3, and the Icyl at 0
of
Cyl_5 was over 30% less than Isph at Z ¼ 2.1 m/kg1/3. Thus, the
conclusion based on the investigation conducted by Sherkar et al.
[12] should not be considered strictly applicable to all scenarios.
Indeed, the influences of P2nd, I2nd, and orientation should be dis-
cussed and analyzed in detail. Therefore, the results of this study
suggest that the effect of charge shape can be neglected when the
absolute value of the differences between the peak overpressures
and impulses of the cylindrical and spherical charges in all di-
rections are less than 10%, as proposed by Gao et al. [14].
5.1. Influence of detonation configuration
Several FEMs of cylindrical explosives with 1.84  L/D  4.6
were established in section 3 to preliminarily analyze the influence
of the detonation configuration (single-end and double-end) on the
blast loading. Furthermore, Sherkar et al. [12] analyzed the blasts
generated by single-end detonated cylindrical explosives with L/
D ¼ 1, 3, and 5, while Xiao et al. [13] analyzed the blasts generated
by single-end and double-end detonated cylindrical charges with 1
 L/D  5. Therefore, only model Cyl_4 was used in this section to
study the effect of the different detonation configurations shown in
Fig. 22 on the resulting blast characteristics.
The detonation configuration exerted no influence on the range
of angles in the axial plane within which P2nd existed (0e22.5
) in
any case. In the 0
direction, the double-end detonation configu-
ration resulted in the largest P2nd, followed by the single-end
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
W/kg L/D Z/(m$kg1/3) EP EI
1.00 4 0.42e4.22 1.00 1.00
3.63e7.26 4 1.39e6.15 1.38 1.14
0.4e5.0 4 1.00e20.36 1.37 1.19
0.21e0.46 4 0.91e9.29 1.37 1.19
0.72e3.70 2e10 1.71e9.39 1.11 0.98
detonation configuration and then the central detonation config-
uration. Notably, for the single-end detonation configuration, P2nd
was higher in the 180
direction than in the 0
direction.
As shown in Fig. 23 and Fig. 24, the single-end detonation
configuration resulted in a ~10% larger blast loading in the 0
di-
rection compared with that resulting from the central detonation
configuration, with similar trends in the variation of loading with Z.
However, the resulting blast loading in the 180
direction was
considerably less than that in the 0
direction for the single-end
detonation configuration. Furthermore, the blast loading in the
180
direction was drastically less than that of the spherical charge
in most cases, as was similarly observed in previous tests [1,6]. At
the same time, the radial blast resulting from the single-end
detonation configuration was essentially the same as that result-
ing from the central detonation configuration, with a difference of
less than 10% in most cases. According to the calculation results of
Sherkar et al. [12], the conclusions in this paragraph are also
applicable to the case with L/D ¼ 1, 3, and 5.
Compared with the central detonation configuration, the
double-end detonation configuration showed a drastically smaller
axial blast loading and a considerably larger radial blast loading.
When 0.42 < Z < 2.4 m/kg1/3, the blast loading induced in the
0
direction by the double-end detonation configuration was very
similar to that induced in the 180
direction by the single-end
detonation configuration in terms of magnitude and variation
with Z. This interesting trend was similarly observed by Anastacio
and Knock [20] in their experiments.
When Z < 2 m/kg1/3, the radial blast loading induced by the
double-end detonation configuration was consistently larger than
that induced by the single-end detonation configuration. The ratios
of the Pcyl and Icyl induced by the double-end detonation configu-
ration to those induced by the single-end detonation configuration
reached their maximum values of 1.57 at Z ¼ 1.26 m/kg1/3 and
1.61 at Z ¼ 0.84 m/kg1/3, respectively. According to Anastacio and
Knock [20], the ratio of Pcyl induced by the double-end detonation
configuration to that induced by the single-end detonation
configuration was 1.6 in the radial direction, while the values of Icyl
induced by the two configurations in the radial direction were the
10
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 12. Comparison between simulated and previously reported (a) Pcyl and (b) Icyl
obtained in the radial direction.
same (a ratio of 1). This conclusion is clearly not rigorous, as the
authors failed to consider the differences owing to cylindrical
charge L/D values and the dispersion of the experimental data
during their analysis.
5.2. Influence of charge shape
5.2.1. Difference to spherical charge
The changes in Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph for each orientation of each
cylindrical charge are shown in Fig. 25 and Fig. 26, respectively.
These figures show that when Z < 2 m/kg1/3, the blast loadings
(peak overpressure and impulse) induced by the cylindrical and
spherical charges differed significantly, whereas these differences
were considerably reduced when Z > 2 m/kg1/3. In addition, the
loading curves for different models can be observed to share a
similar profile when L/D  2. Furthermore, the blast loading
decreased with increasing L/D for angles between 0
and 45
and
increased with increasing L/D for angles between 45
and 90
.
These conclusions are based on approximations, and a detailed
analysis of the governing laws should also consider the actual
orientation and Z value. A detailed analysis was therefore per-
formed and discussed in sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.3, and 5.4 according
11
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 13. Comparison between simulated and previously reported (a) Pcyl and (b) Icyl
obtained in the axial direction.
to the results in Fig. 25 and Fig. 26.
Note that Wisotksi and Snyer [16] found that the radial Pcyl
increased with increasing L/D when Z > 1.7 m/kg1/3, which can
indeed be observed in Fig. 25(e). Furthermore, Langran-Wheeler
et al. [19] found the reflected radial Icyl was significantly larger
than Isph (L/D ¼ 7, Z ¼ 0.45 m/kg1/3), which can be observed in
Fig. 26(e).
As shown in Fig. 25(b), the Pcyl values of all models with L/D  2
were less than Psph in the 22.5
direction in the axial plane. How-
ever, a sharp increase in Pcyl/Psph can be observed at Z > 2 m/kg1/3
owing to the merger of the Pcyl and P2nd as the former gradually
catches up with the latter. Indeed, Fig. 25(f) shows that as Z
increased, the two peaks gradually merged and the secondary peak
disappeared.
5.2.2. Influence range
When the blast loading (Pcyl and Icyl) of a cylindrical charge can
be predicted using a spherical charge of equal mass as a substitute,
the effect of charge shape can be neglected altogether. Table 6
presents the range of influence of Z, beyond which the effect of
charge shape can be neglected. Because the blast loading condition
is special when L/D ¼ 1, it is analyzed separately. The table indicates
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 14. Test of double-end detonated cylindrical charge.

Table 5
Test program parameters.

Test No. Rock emulsion explosive/kg Dimensions/mm Equivalent TNT/kg Dimensions/mm Z/(m$kg1/3) L/D

1 13.4 L ¼ 400 8.2 L ¼ 289 0.74 1.94

D ¼ 206 D ¼ 149
2
3
4

5 18.2 L ¼ 450 11.1 L ¼ 326 0.67 1.99

6 D ¼ 226 D ¼ 163

Fig. 15. First stage (left) and second stage (right) simulation of double-end detonated cylindrical charge (8.2 kg TNT, L/D ¼ 1.94).

that the effect of charge shape can be neglected for a cylindrical
charge in the 45
and 67.5
directions when Z > 2 m/kg1/3. Indeed,
comparing the pressureetime history curves of all models in the
45
and 67.5
directions when Z ¼ 2.1 m/kg1/3 in Fig. 27, it can be
observed that, apart from small differences in the arrival times of
the shock waves, the curves of all models are very similar to that of
the spherical charge.
However, owing to the presence of secondary shock waves, the
effect of charge shape on Pcyl cannot be neglected in any directions
in the axial plane other than 45
and 67.5
within the Z range
analyzed in this study, i.e., Z < 4.2 m/kg1/3. For comparison, Gao
et al. [14] proposed that the effect of charge shape Pcyl could not be
neglected even at Z > 10 m/kg1/3. However, Sherkar et al. [12] and
Xiao et al. [13] suggested that the effect of charge shape on the Pcyl
could be neglected when Z > 3.06 m/kg1/3 and Z > 3.2 m/kg1/3,
respectively, because their studies used different criteria than Gao
et al. [14], as explained in the beginning of section 5.1.
Furthermore, the results of this study indicate that the effect of
charge shape on Icyl can be neglected in all directions when
Z > 3.2 m/kg1/3, which agrees well with the result from Gao et al.

12
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 16. Comparison of simulated and experimentally obtained pressureetime history curves for (a) Test 1 (13.4 kg rock emulsion) and (b) Test 5 (18.2 kg rock emulsion).

Fig. 17. Comparison of simulated and experimentally obtained (a) reflected peak overpressure and (b) reflected impulse. Points report the average of two tests and bars show the
standard deviations of their results.

Fig. 18. Shock waves induced by a cylindrical charge at 0
: (a) development of shock waves (adapted from Ref. [16]), (b) pressure contour, and (c) high-speed video still (adapted
from Ref. [11]).

[14], who reported a value of Z > 3.0 m/kg1/3. However, Sherkar
et al. [12] suggested that the effect of charge shape on Icyl is
negligible when Z > 2.11 m/kg1/3, a much smaller threshold value
than that identified in this study because they did not consider I2nd.
On the contrary, Xiao et al. [13] suggested that the effect of charge
shape on Icyl is negligible when Z > 5.7 m/kg1/3, a much larger
13
threshold value than that identified in this study; the reason for this
difference will be explained in detail at the end of section 5.2.3.
5.2.3. Maximum blast loading
The maximum Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph values are compared in
Fig. 28 according to the Z values at which they occurred. The ratios
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

exhibited a maximum value of 3.11 and an average value of ~2.5 in

the axial direction, with the maximum ratio occurring in the range
of Z < 1 m/kg1/3. In this case, a larger L/D resulted in: (1) a larger Pcyl/
Psph, (2) a smaller Icyl/Isph, and (3) a smaller Z corresponding to each
maximum ratio.
Indeed, both Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph reached their maxima in the
0
direction in this study. The calculation results of Gao et al. [14]
showed that the maximum values of Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph for
models with 1  L/D  5 ranged from 2.1e2.8 and 1.6e3.0,
respectively. Although Sherkar et al. [12] did not report the
maximum values of Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph in their paper, ranges of
approximately 2e3 for Pcyl/Psph and 1e3 for Icyl/Isph were obtained
by the present authors using the reported pressure and impulse
curves, respectively. These values are very close to the results ob-
tained in this paper and shown in Fig. 28. However, Xiao et al. [13]
found that the maximum values of Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph for models
with 1  L/D  5 ranged from 3e6.5 and 1.5e3.5, respectively.
Although these maximum ratios were also obtained in the 0
di-
rection at around Z ¼ 1 m/kg1/3, the value of Pcyl/Psph is significantly
larger than the results obtained in this study, by Gao et al. [14], and
by Sherkar et al. [12]. Previously published data from the explosion
tests of cylindrical charges has shown that the maximum value of
Pcyl/Psph was 2.9 [33], which was also obtained at around Z ¼ 1 m/
kg1/3. The maximum value of Pcyl/Psph obtained by Xiao et al. [13] is
also significantly larger than 2.9. This difference is possibly a result
of the different software used to perform the simulations. Specif-
ically, Xiao et al. [13] used LS-DYNA in their study, which may
provide a larger calculation result than AUTODYN. The FEM
developed by Xiao et al. [13] should thus be validated against
experimental data.
The ratio between the radial blast loading induced by the cy-
lindrical and spherical charges exhibited a maximum value of 1.86
and an average value of ~1.5, with the maximum ratio also occur-
ring within the range of Z < 1 m/kg1/3. In this case, a larger L/D
resulted in larger Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph values. In the other di-
rections, the maximum ratios were essentially 1 and mostly
occurred at Z > 2 m/kg1/3. This indicates that the blast enhancement
effect of the charge shape is primarily concentrated along the axial
and radial directions.

5.3. Influence of L/D

When proposing predictive equations for Pcyl and Icyl based on

Fig. 19. Pressureetime history curves for centrally detonated cylindrical charges ac-
cording to L/D at (a) 0
and Z ¼ 0.63 m/kg1/3, (b) 22.5
and Z ¼ 1.48 m/kg1/3, and (c)
0
and Z ¼ 3.06 m/kg1/3.
14
experimental data, researchers have considered the L/D in some
cases but disregarded it in others. Hence, a detailed analysis of the
influence of the L/D on cylindrical charge blast loading is required.
The analysis performed in this study indicated that the loading
curves for different models exhibited similar trends when L/D  2.
Therefore, the results for Cyl_2 were chosen as the basis of com-
parison to determine the percentage difference in the calculated
Pcyl and Icyl. When the calculated difference is less than 10%, the
effect of L/D can be neglected; in other words, the blast loading
from cylindrical charges with different L/D values can be predicted
using a cylindrical charge of equal mass with an L/D ¼ 2 as a
substitute.
Fig. 29 shows a comparison of the calculated Pcyl for Cyl_2 with
those for the other charges according to L/D in various directions.
The differences between the Pcyl values of the various charges in the
0
and 22.5
directions in the axial plane were generally greater
than 20% for most L/D values, indicating that L/D exerts a very
strong influence in these two directions. In the 90
direction, the
difference was less than 10% in most cases when L/D  2; thus, the
effect of L/D can essentially be neglected in this direction when L/
D  2. However, larger differences of ~20% were observed between
the Pcyl values of Cyl_2 and Cyl_1. For comparison, Wisotski and
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 20. (a) P2nd/Pcyl at 0
; (b) P2nd/Psph at 0
.

Fig. 21. (a) P2nd/Pcyl at 22.5
; (b) P2nd/Psph at 22.5
.

Fig. 22. Three different detonation configurations evaluated in this study.

Snyer [16] observed that when L/D  2, the experimentally deter-
mined radial Pcyl exhibited no significant differences irrespective of
L/D and could be fitted using a single curve. Furthermore, Knock
and Davies [23] experimentally determined that there were no
significant differences between the radial Pcyl values of PE4 charges
with L/D ¼ 4 and L/D ¼ 6. The simulation-derived findings pre-
sented in this section are therefore consistent with the experi-
mental results of previous studies obtained using different L/D
values, suggesting that the proposed simulation can be used to
overcome the limitations of discrete experimentation.
Fig. 30 shows a comparison of calculated Icyl values according to
L/D in various directions. The comparison indicates that the effects
of L/D can be neglected in the axial direction when L/D  2 at
Z > 1.97 m/kg1/3. However, considerable differences in Icyl according
to L/D were again consistently observed between Cyl_2 and Cyl_1,
reaching nearly 50% in the far-field range. Nevertheless, if I2nd is
added to the calculation of Icyl for Cyl_1, the L/D can be considered
to have a negligible effect on the axial Icyl for all models when
Z > 2.5 m/kg1/3. The value ranges within which the L/D was
observed to affect the Pcyl and Icyl in the different evaluated di-
rections are tabulated in Table 7.
Table 7 summarizes that the effect of L/D on Icyl can be neglected
in all directions when L/D  2 at Z > 2.2 m/kg1/3. The effect of L/D on
the radial Pcyl can be neglected at all Z values when L/D  2;
however, the effect of L/D on axial Pcyl must be considered at all Z
for all L/D values.

15
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 24. Icyl/Isph values according to Z and orientation of cylindrical charges detonated
Fig. 23. Pcyl/Psph values according to Z and orientation of cylindrical charges detonated using the (a) central, (b) single-end, and (c) double-end configurations.
using the (a) central; (b) single-end; and (c) double-end configurations.

16
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 25. Pcyl/Psph according to Z at (a) 0
; (b) 22.5
; (c) 45
; (d) 67.5
; (e) 90
; and (f) change in pressure over time.
5.4. Influence of charge orientation
Fig. 31 and Fig. 32 show the values of Pcyl/Psph and Icyl/Isph,
respectively, for cylindrical charges with the same L/D in varying
orientations relative to the measurement point at different Z values.
The figures show that when L/D ¼ 1 and Z > 1 m/kg1/3, there was
minimal variation in the magnitude of the Pcyl and Icyl for orienta-
tions in the axial plane within the 22.5e67.5
range. When L/D  2
and 1 < Z < 2 m/kg1/3, the Pcyl and Icyl values were greater for larger
angles within the 22.5e90
range at any given Z.
Further, Fig. 31 shows that the axial Pcyl was greater than the
radial Pcyl within a small range when L/D  2, whereas this rela-
tionship was reversed for the farther-field distances. The Pcyl values
in the two directions were identical at a certain scaled distance
17
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
around Z ¼ 1 m/kg1/3 that decreased with increasing L/D. When the
axial P2nd exceeded the axial Pcyl at Z ¼ ~2.5 m/kg1/3, the radial Pcyl
was then exceeded by the axial P2nd at Z ¼ ~3.5 m/kg1/3. Further-
more, as shown in Fig. 31(a), when L/D ¼ 1, the axial peak over-
pressure was greater than the radial peak overpressure in most
cases.
Additionally, Fig. 32 shows that the axial Icyl was greater than
the radial Icyl within a small range near Z ¼ 1 m/kg1/3 and at
Z > ~3 m/kg1/3, and that this relationship was reversed outside this
range. Therefore, the relationship between the axial and radial Pcyl
and Icyl must consider the specific L/D and Z.
According to the conclusions presented in section 5.1, the dis-
tribution law of the blast loading induced by single-end detonation
is very similar to that induced by central detonation. The most
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 26. Icyl/Isph according to Z at (a) 0
, (b) 22.5
, (c) 45
, (d) 67.5
, and (e) 90
.

Table 6
Influence range of charge shape on the blast loading.

Orientation/(
) L/D ¼ 1 L/D  2

Applicable Z for Pcyl Applicable Z for Icyl Applicable Z for Pcyl Applicable Z for Icyl

0 >3.72 >2.80 d >2.95

22.5 d >1.77 >4.20 >3.20
45 >1.15 >1.02 >1.88 >1.42
67.5 >2.00 >1.16 >0.67 >1.13
90 d >1.82 >3.22 >1.91

18
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 27. Pressureetime history curves of spherical charge and cylindrical charges with
different L/D values at 45
and 67.5
when Z ¼ 2.1 m/kg1/3.
commonly used method of detonation in explosion tests is the
single-end detonation.
Note that McNesby et al. [17] found that axial Pcyl is greater than
the radial Pcyl (L/D ¼ 4, Z ¼ 0.2 m/kg1/3). It can be seen from
Fig. 31(d) that although the minimum calculated Z was 0.42 m/kg1/
3
, the load trend still indicates that the conclusion of McNesby et al.
[17] is reasonable. Furthermore, Wu et al. [1] found that the re-
flected Pcyl and Icyl in the axial direction are greater than those in
the radial direction (L/D ¼ 1, Z ¼ 2 m/kg1/3). It can be seen from
Fig. 31(a) and Fig. 32(a) that the difference between the incident
blast loadings is the same as the conclusion of Wu et al.: the inci-
dent load is proportional to the reflected load, indicating that the
conclusion of Wu et al. [1] is reasonable.
However, Plooster [6] found that the radial blast loading is
greater than the axial blast loading (L/D > 1, Z > 1.39 m/kg1/3). The
analysis results presented in this section indicate that this conclu-
sion is accurate when Z is small, but when Z is greater than
approximately 3.5 m/kg1/3, the conclusion is the opposite. There-
fore, the conclusion of Plooster [6] is not completely accurate,
potentially owing to the large dispersion of experimental data.
Similarly, the conclusion that large L/D values mean more energy is
directed in the radial direction is not rigorous, owing to the lack of
Fig. 28. Maximum values of (a) Pcyl/Psph and (b) Icyl/Isph at corresponding Z values.
19
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
close-in explosion test data.
Held [18] found that the reflected axial Icyl is greater than the
reflected radial Icyl (L/D ¼ 1.35, Z ¼ 0.27e1.1 m/kg1/3). It can be seen
from Fig. 32(a) and Fig. 32(b) that when L/D ¼ 1 and 2, the axial Icyl
is larger near 1 m/kg1/3, but the axial Icyl is smaller when Z is
smaller. The reason these experimental conclusions were not
exactly the same as the conclusions obtained in this section is that
Held analyzed Icyl indirectly by measuring the flight distance of
cylinders arranged in a semicircle surrounding the explosive; the
interaction between the cylinders and the explosion wave was
complex, such that the flight distance of the cylinders may not only
be related to Icyl but also to Pcyl. Indeed, it can be seen from Fig. 31(a)
and Fig. 31(b) that the axial Pcyl is much larger than the radial Pcyl
when Z < 1.1 m/kg1/3.
6. Empirical cylindrical charge blast loading model
6.1. Model considering the effects of detonation configuration and
charge orientation
Considering the results from previously published studies
together with those obtained in this research, a blast load calcu-
lation model was derived as shown in Table 8, which summarizes
the relationships between the blast load, detonation configuration,
and charge orientation in the axial plane, as well as the corre-
sponding Z ranges. In the table, Pcyl and Icyl represent the incident
peak overpressure and impulse, respectively, for a centrally deto-
nated cylindrical charge, and were obtained by multiplying the
ratios presented in section 5 by the respective results for a UFC
sphere [4], defined as Psph and Isph, respectively; P1 and I1 are the
incident peak overpressure and impulse, respectively, of a single-
end detonated cylindrical charge; P2 and I2 are the incident peak
overpressure and impulse, respectively, of a double-end detonated
cylindrical charge; and P3 and I3 represent the incident peak
overpressure and impulse, respectively, of a cylindrical charge
oriented in 22.5
e67.5
directions in the axial plane, which was
shown to be independent of detonation configuration.
Table 8 provides approximate ranges for the incident peak
overpressure and impulse loads, allowing for the rapid estimation
of their magnitudes. Note that this load estimation model is only
applicable for 1  L/D  5 at Z ¼ 0.42e4.2 m/kg1/3. The FEM
developed in this paper should be employed if an exact value is
desired. In particular, when the response of a structure must be
analyzed under the load induced by a cylindrical explosive, it is
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 29. Differences between Pcyl of Cyl_2 (L/D ¼ 2) and other cylindrical charges at (a) 0
, (b) 22.5
, (c) 45
, (d) 67.5
, and (e) 90
.
insufficient to consider only the magnitudes of the peak over-
pressure and impulse; a complete pressureetime history curve
must be obtained when considering the existence of secondary
shock waves. Furthermore, if the structure is complex, a complete
FEM should be constructed for analysis.
6.2. Model considering the effect of L/D
If a calculation equation for the blast loading of a cylindrical
explosive is established, it will be more convenient to directly
calculate the magnitude of the blast loading rather than using the
20
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
approach in Table 8. However, owing to the complexity of the blast
load distribution, a simple and practical equation that is applicable
to all scenarios cannot be developed while retaining sufficient ac-
curacy. Therefore, using numerical data for TNT explosions, equa-
tions were fitted to the Pcyl data from the sources detailed in Section
6.1 to obtain equations to predict the Pcyl and Icyl according to L/D
and Z. Only the Pcyl values in the axial (0
) and radial directions
(90
) of the cylindrical charge with the central detonation config-
uration were considered. Referring to existing research results,
which indicated that Z 0 ¼ ZðL=DÞ1=12 , the best fit for the radial Pcyl
is given by
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 30. Differences between Icyl of Cyl_2 (L/D ¼ 2) and other cylindrical charges at (a) 0
, (b) 22.5
, (c) 45
, (d) 67.5
, and (e) 90
.

Table 7
Influence range of aspect ratio on the blast loading. 8 124


>
>
>
>
P0 "
0 2 #1:5 ; 0:4 < Z < 2
Orientation ( ) Pcyl condition Applicable Z Icyl condition Applicable Z >
> Z
>
> 1þ
0 I all III >2.5 >
> 0:511
>
>
>2.19 <

0 2 #
22.5 I all III
45 III >1.6 III >1.27 Pcylð90Þ ¼ h Z (3)
67.5 III >1.93 III all >
> 13500 1 þ
>
> 4
90 II all III >1.95 >
>
>
> P0 " # ; 2  Z <4
>
>
 2 1:5
For Z ¼ 0.42e4.2 m/kg1/3. >
> Z 0
I: Effect of L/D must be considered. : 1þ
II: Effect of L/D can be neglected when 2. 0:098
III: Effect of L/D can be neglected.
P0 is the standard atmospheric pressure, which is 101.332 kPa.
The simulation results are compared in Fig. 33(a) with those
21
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 31. Pcyl/Psph values according to Z and orientation of cylindrical charges with L/D values of (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, and (e) 5.

calculated using Eq. (3); the differences between the two results in which the effect of L/D is considered using the constants
shown in Fig. 33(b) are less than 10% in most cases. a ¼ 0:848 þ 0:0867L=D and b ¼ 1:2804  0:3a.
The research results presented in section 4 demonstrated that However, to ensure an accurate prediction of axial Pcyl when
P2nd is extremely small compared with the axial Pcyl when Z < 2 m/ Z > 2 m/kg1/3, separate equations are required to consider Pcyl and
kg1/3. Therefore, an empirical equation is proposed to predict the P2nd. Such equations are not proposed in this paper owing to the
axial Pcyl when Z < 2 m/kg1/3 as follows: highly discrete data available as a basis for doing so [11].
The simulation results are compared in Fig. 34(a) with those
355 calculated using Eq. (4); the differences between the two results
Pcylð0Þ ¼ P0   2a 1:5 0:4 < Z < 2 (4)
shown in Fig. 34(b) are less than 10% in most cases. The results of
1þ bZ
0:38 the comparison therefore indicate that the empirical Eq. (3) and Eq.
(4) proposed in this paper can effectively predict the Pcyl in the

22
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 32. Icyl/Isph values according to Z and orientation of cylindrical charges with L/D values of (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, and (e) 5.
radial and axial directions according to L/D and Z.
7. Conclusions
In this study, a series of explosion tests were conducted using
cylindrical charges. Within the close-in range, the reflected loading
induced by the cylindrical charges was much greater than that
induced by an equivalent spherical charge. Indeed, the maximum
radial peak overpressure resulting from a double-end detonated
cylindrical explosive was 3.7 times that of resulting from a centrally
detonated spherical charge. The results of these explosion tests
were used to rigorously validate a high-fidelity FEM, which was
then employed to explore the relationships between the blast
23
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
characteristics and various charge parameters such as shape, L/D,
orientation, and detonation configuration. The results were inves-
tigated according to each parameter, and notable phenomena
observed in the existing experiments were analyzed to propose
empirical models for calculating the blast load according to cylin-
drical charge detonation configuration, L/D, and Z in radial and axial
orientations (90
and 0
in the axial plane). The main conclusions of
this study are as follows:
(1) The secondary shock waves induced by cylindrical charges
mainly occurred within a range of 0
e25
in the axial plane,
and the magnitude of the induced P2nd was generally smaller
than the peak overpressure induced by an equivalent
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al. Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 8
Empirical model for incident peak overpressure and impulse considering the effects of detonation configuration and orientation.

Detonation configuration (points) and orientation to measurement point (arrows) Incident peak overpressure (applicable Z in Incident impulse (applicable Z in
m/kg1/3) m/kg1/3)


P1 ¼ 1:1Pcyl ; ð0:42e4:2Þ 1:1Icyl ; ð0:42e2Þ
I1 ¼
0:95Icyl ; ð2e4:2Þ

P1 ¼ Pcyl ; ð0:42e4:2Þ I1 ¼ Icyl ; ð0:42e4:2Þ


P1 ¼ 0:33Psph ; ð1e3Þ ð0:5e1:25ÞIsph ; ð0:42e2Þ
I1 ¼
Isph ; ð2e4:2Þ

 
0:33Psph ; ð1e3Þ ð0:5e1:25ÞIsph ; ð0:42e2Þ
P2 ¼ I2 ¼
Psph ; ð3e4:2Þ Isph ; ð2e4:2Þ

 
1:5Pcyl ; ð0:42e2Þ ð1e2:5ÞIsph ; ð0:42e2Þ
P2 ¼ I2 ¼
0:7Pcyl ; ð2e4:2Þ Icyl ; ð1:47e4:2Þ


Other orientations (22.5e67.5
)a P3 ¼ ð0:5e1:1ÞPcyl ; ð0:42e4:2Þ ð0:5e1:1ÞIsph ; ð0:42e2Þ
I3 ¼
ð0:8e1:1ÞIsph ; ð2e4:2Þ

Note: Pcyl and Icyl represent the blast loading of a cylindrical charge in this paper, but specifically represent the blast loading of a centrally detonated cylindrical charge only in
this table.
a
The effect of detonation configuration is not considered.

Fig. 33. (a) Comparison and (b) percentage differences between simulation- and equation-obtained results for Pcyl in the radial direction according to L/D.

spherical charge. In the radial direction, secondary shock
waves were only observed when the cylindrical charge L/
D ¼ 1. The ratio P2nd/Pcyl increased with increasing L/D.
(2) Under certain conditions, the blast loading induced by a cy-
lindrical charge (Pcyl and Icyl) can be substituted by the blast
loading induced by a spherical charge (Psph and Isph) of equal
mass; i.e., the effect of the charge shape on the blast loading
can be neglected. In the 45
and 67.5
directions in the axial
plane, the effect of the charge shape on the blast loading can
be neglected at Z > 2 m/kg1/3. In other directions, the effect of
the charge shape on Pcyl cannot be neglected over the entire
range of Z values investigated (i.e., Z < 4.2 m/kg1/3) owing to
the presence of secondary shockwaves. When Z > 3.2 m/kg1/
3
, the effect of the charge shape on Icyl can be neglected in all
directions.
(3) Under certain conditions, the blast loading induced by a cy-
lindrical charge (Pcyl and Icyl) with L/D ¼ 2 can be used as a
substitute for that of other cylindrical charges with the same
mass but different L/D values; i.e., the effect of L/D on the
blast loading can be neglected. When L/D  2 and Z > 2.2 m/
kg1/3, the effect of L/D on Icyl can be neglected. When L/D  2,
its effect on the radial Pcyl can be neglected for the entire
range of Z values investigated (i.e., Z < 4.2 m/kg1/3). In
contrast, the effect of L/D on Pcyl must be considered in the
axial direction for the entire range of Z values investigated.
(4) The average maximum ratio of the blast loading induced by a
cylindrical charge (Pcyl and Icyl) to that induced by a spherical
charge (Psph and Isph) was approximately 2.5 (1.5) in the axial
(radial) direction, with both maxima occurring within

24
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
Fig. 34. (a) Comparison and (b) percentage differences between simulation- and equation-derived axial Pcyl according to L/D.
Z < 1 m/kg1/3. The maximum ratios in the other directions
were essentially 1, and mostly occurred within Z > 2 m/kg1/3.
(5) For the close-in range, the Pcyl in the axial direction was
greater than that in the radial direction, while the opposite
was true for the far-field range. The axial Icyl was greater than
the radial Icyl within a small range around Z ¼ 1 m/kg1/3,
while the opposite was true outside this range.
(6) When Z < 2 m/kg1/3, the single-end detonation configuration
resulted in average increases in axial Pcyl and Icyl of 10%
compared with the central detonation configuration, but
there were hardly any changes in the radial Pcyl and Icyl, and a
considerable decrease was observed in the opposite axial
(180
) direction. The double-end detonation configuration
increased the radial Pcyl and Icyl by a maximum of ~60%
compared with the central detonation configuration.
Note that this study was limited to the investigation of blast
loadings induced by cylindrical charges with 1  L/D  5 at a
relatively close Z < 4.2 m/kg1/3. Furthermore, the proposed empir-
ical equation for the axial Pcyl was limited to Z < 2 m/kg1/3 owing to
the complexity of considering the primary and secondary shock
waves as well as the limitations associated with discrete experi-
mental data at far-field distances. In future work, the authors
intend to expand upon the constructed FEM and proposed empir-
ical equations by analyzing the size and distribution of the reflected
load from the detonation of a cylindrical charge on a rigid plane.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China [No. 51978166]. We would like to
thank Editage [www.editage.cn] for English language editing.
References
[1] Wu C, Fattori G, Whittaker A, Oehlers DJ. Investigation of air-blast effects from
spherical-and cylindrical-shaped charges. Int J Prot Struct 2010;1(3):345e62.
https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.1.3.345.
[2] Hu Y, Chen L, Fang Q, Xiang H. Blast loading model of the RC column under
close-in explosion induced by the double-end-initiation explosive cylinder.
25
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
Eng Struct 2018;175:304e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engstruct.2018.08.013.
[3] Chen L, Hu Y, Ren H, Xiang H, Zhai C, Fang Q. Performances of the RC column
under close-in explosion induced by the double-end-initiation explosive
cylinder. Int J Impact Eng 2019;132:103326. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijimpeng.2019.103326.
[4] DoD. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, UFC 3-340-02.
Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Defense; 2008.
[5] Hryciow Z, Borkowski W, Rybak P, Wysocki J. Influence of the shape of the
explosive charge on blast profile. J Kones 2014;21(4):169e76. https://doi.org/
10.5604/12314005.1130466.
[6] Plooster MN. Blast effects from cylindrical explosive charges: experimental
measurements. Report NWC TP 6382. China Lake, California 93555: Naval
Report Centre; 1982.
[7] Enstock LK, Smith PD. Measurement of impulse from the close-in explosion of
doped charges using a pendulum. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34(3):487e94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2005.12.005.
[8] Blast protection of buildings. Canonsburg, PA, Century Dynamics: AUTODYN
[Computer software]; 2011. ASCE 59-11, Reston, vol. A.
[9] Gel'fand BE, Voskoboinikov IM, Khomik SV. Recording the position of a blast-
wave front in air. Combust Explos 2004;40(6):734e6. https://doi.org/10.1023/
B:CESW.0000048281.33696.
[10] Rigby SE, Osborne C, Langdon GS, Cooke SB, Pope DJ. Spherical equivalence of
cylindrical explosives: effect of charge shape on deflection of blast-loaded
plates. Int J Impact Eng 2021;155:103892. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijimpeng.2021.103892.
[11] Knock C, Davies N, Reeves T. Predicting blast waves from the axial direction of
a cylindrical charge. Propellants, Explos Pyrotech 2015;40(2):169e79. https://
doi.org/10.1002/prep.201300188.
[12] Sherkar P, Shin J, Whittaker A, Aref A. Influence of charge shape and point of
detonation on blast-resistant design. J Struct Eng 2016;142(2):04015109.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001371.
[13] Xiao W, Andrae M, Gebbeken N. Effect of charge shape and initiation
configuration of explosive cylinders detonating in free air on blast-resistant
design. J Struct Eng 2020;146(8). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-
541x.0002694.
[14] Gao C, Kong X, Fang Q, Hong J, Wang Y. Numerical investigation on free air
blast loads generated from center-initiated cylindrical charges with varied
aspect ratio in arbitrary orientation. Def Technol 2021. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dt.2021.07.013.
[15] Esparza ED. Spherical equivalency of cylindrical charges in free-air. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 25th departmentof defense explosives safety seminar; 1992
aug 18e20. USA: Anaheim; 1992. p. 403e28.
[16] Wisotski J, Snyer WH. Characteristics of blast waves obtained from cylindrical
high explosive charges. Denver, CO, USA: Report. University of Denver, Denver
Research Institute; 1965. p. 20e3. 18.
[17] McNesby KL, Homan BE, Benjamin RA, Boyle VM, Densmore JM, Biss MM.
Invited Article: quantitative imaging of explosions with high-speed cameras.
Rev Sci Instrum 2016;87(5):051301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4949520.
[18] Held M. Impulse method for the blast contour of cylindrical high explosive
charges. Propellants, Explos Pyrotech 1999;24(1):17e26. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(sici)1521-4087(199902)24:1<17::Aid-prep17>3.0.Co;2-d.
[19] Langran-Wheeler C, Rigby S, Clarke SD, Tyas A, Stephens C, Walker R. Near-
field spatial and temporal blast pressure distributions from non-spherical
charges: horizontally-aligned cylinders. Int J Prot Struct 2021. https://
doi.org/10.1177/20414196211013443.
[20] Anastacio AC, Knock C. Radial blast prediction for high explosive cylinders
initiated at both ends. Propellants, Explos Pyrotech 2016;41(4):682e7.
https://doi.org/10.1002/prep.201500302.
Y. Fan, L. Chen, Z. Li et al.
[21] Tham CY. Numerical simulation on the interaction of blast waves with a series
of aluminum cylinders at near-field. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36(1):122e31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.12.011.
[22] Fan Y, Chen L, Fang Q, Xiang H. Influence of detonation point on blast loads
induced with cylindrical charges. In: 16th east asia-pacific conference on
structural engineering & construction (EASEC16); 2021. p. 749e57. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8079-6_71. Brisbane, Australia.
[23] Knock C, Davies N. Predicting the peak pressure from the curved surface of
detonating cylindrical charges. Propellants, Explos Pyrotech 2011;36(3):
203e9. https://doi.org/10.1002/prep.201000001.
[24] Knock C, Davies N. Blast waves from cylindrical charges. Shock Waves
2013;23(4):337e43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-013-0438-7.
[25] Stoner RG, Bleakney W. The attenuation of spherical shock waves in air. J Appl
Phys 1948;19(7):670e8. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1698189.
[26] JMEM. The joint munitions effectiveness manual. Report USAF -61A1-3-7;
NAVY NAVAIR 00e130-ASR-2-1; USMC FMFM 5e21; ARMY FM 101e51-3.
Revision 2 1989.
[27] Victor AC. Warhead performance calculations for threat hazard assessment.
In: Proceedings of the 27th departmentof defense explosives safety seminar;
26
Defence Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
1996 aug 20e26; 1996. p. 2e26. Las Vegas, USA.
[28] Century Dynamics. AUTODYN remapping tutorial (Revision 4.3). Century
Dynamics, Inc.; 2005.
[29] Century Dynamics. AUTODYN theory manual (Revision 4.3). Century Dy-
namics, Inc.; 2009.
[30] Shi Y, Li Z, Hao H. Mesh size effect in numerical simulation of blast wave
propagation and interaction with structures. Trans Tianjin Univ 2008;14(6):
396e402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12209-008-0068-9.
[31] Kakogiannis D, Hemelrijck DV, Wastiels J, Palanivelu S, Paepegem WV,
Vantomme J, Kotzakolios T, Kostopoulos V. Assessment of pressure waves
generated by explosive loading. CMES-Comp Model Eng Sci 2010;65(1):
75e93.
[32] Shi Y, Hao H, Li Z-X. Numerical simulation of blast wave interaction with
structure columns. Shock Waves 2007;17(1e2):113e33. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00193-007-0099-5.
[33] Simoens B, Lefebvre M. Influence of the shape of an explosive charge: quan-
tification of the modification of the pressure field. Cent Eur J Energ Mater
2015;12(2):195e213.