Simulation of blast action on civil structures using ANSYS Autodyn

N. N. Fedorova, , S. A. Valger, , and A. V. Fedorov,

Citation: 1770, 020016 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4963939

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4963939
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1770/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Simulation of Blast Action on Civil Structures
Using ANSYS Autodyn
N.N. Fedorova 1,2, a), S.A. Valger1,2, b), A.V. Fedorov 1,2,c)

1
Khristianovich Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, ,
4/1, Institutskaya st., Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
2
Novosibirsk State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (Sibstrin), 630008, Novosibirsk, Russia
a)
Corresponding author: [email protected]
b)
[email protected]
c)
[email protected]

Abstract. The paper presents the results of 3D numerical simulations of shock wave spreading in cityscape area. ANSYS
Autodyne software is used for the computations. Different test cases are investigated numerically. On the basis of the
computations, the complex transient flowfield structure formed in the vicinity of prismatic bodies was obtained and
analyzed. The simulation results have been compared to the experimental data. The ability of two numerical schemes is
studied to correctly predict the pressure history in several gauges placed on walls of the obstacles.

INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, a lot of industrial accidents accompanied by explosions are happening throughout the world. Also,
increase in the number of terrorist acts committed by means of explosions is observed. For improving safety of
buildings and structures it is necessary to raise their resistance to explosive effects, as well as to be able to predict
degree of potential damage upon explosive loads of various intensities [1 - 3]. One of the principal goals in de-
signing the structure resistant to explosive effects is to determine the dynamic response of structures to the impact of
the blast wave. To this end, the transient pressure loads on the walls of the civil engineering structures are to be
determined.
The simulation of explosion is highly complicated, involving an explosion causing the shock wave propagation
in air and then interaction with a structure. In recent years, many efforts have been devoted to the development of
reliable methods and algorithms for a more realistic analysis of structures subjected to blast loading. Blast
predictions are most commonly conducted in one of two ways: simplified analytical and engineering methods [4 - 6]
or sophisticated CFD models [7, 8].
The engineering-level techniques permit one to estimate an explosive shock impact only for isolated buildings.
The complexity of the building, the presence of nearby structures and the surrounding environment can’t be taken
into account. To overcome these limitations, various CFD instrumentations are used for blast impact on the civil
engineering objects including in-house and commercial software. Advanced computer aid engineering software
techniques combined with the latest methods of discrete three-dimensional city modeling permits one to simulate
and analyze the effects of explosions in urban areas with a precision which previously was not possible [9, 10].
In the previous papers by the authors [11, 12], the adaptation of LS-DYNA and AUTODYN software was
performed for the 3D problem of the blast wave impact on the single prism installed on the flat plate. Comparison of
the simulation results to the experimental data [13] has shown that LS-DYNA and AUTODYN allow one to perform
numerical modelling of explosive impact on the environment with an acceptable accuracy. The simplified

International Conference on the Methods of Aerophysical Research (ICMAR 2016)

AIP Conf. Proc. 1770, 020016-1–020016-10; doi: 10.1063/1.4963939
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1428-0/$30.00

020016-1
engineering formulas gave a good coincidence with the experimental data only for the gauges situated on the
windward surface of the model.
In the paper, ANSYS AUTODYN software was tested on the problems of blast wave propagation in the open
space. The simulation results are compared to the experimental and numerical data [13 - 16]. The ability of two
numerical schemes [17, 18] is studied to predict the pressure history in gauges placed on walls of obstacles.

PROBLEM SETUP
Three different test cases are investigated numerically. In all the computations performed, the computational
domains were the volume of air with the initial parameters corresponding to the normal atmospheric conditions,
namely, density ρ = 1.225 kg/m3, temperature T = 298.15 K, static pressure P = 101325 Pa, the heat capacity
Cp = 1004 J/kg∙K. The geometries, problem setup and computational grids for the test cases are described below.

Test Case 1

The example has been taken from [13]. The prismatic body with 0.163u0.061 m cross-section and of 0.163 m
height is placed on a flat plate. The charge of 23.7 g Demex explosive that corresponds to 27.26 g of TNT is situated
0.1 m above the ground at a distance of 1.5 m from the body. The geometry is shown in Figure 1. Two pressure
gauges T1 and T2 are installed on the windward and leeward faces of the prism. Due to symmetry, only half of the
physical domain was modeled to reduce the computation costs.

b c
FIGURE 1. Plane view (a), central y cross-section (b) and 3D computational domain (c) for the test case #1

Test Case #2
This case has no any experimental data. The example was proposed and studied numerically in [14]. Two prisms
(A and B) of different heights are installed on the plate substrate. The geometry is shown in Figure 2. At initial
moment, the charge of 189 g TNT explosive is detonated at the point placed on the ground by a distance of 0.2 m
from the front face of the smaller prism A. The virtual gauges are put on the windward and leeward faces of the
prisms. This case has also been computed for a half of the domain taking into account symmetry of the problem.

020016-2
 a b
FIGURE 2. Prism geometry (a), and computational domain for the test Case #2

Test Case #3
The test Case #3 was experimentally studied in [15, 16]. Seven building imitated a cityscape (Figure 3) were
placed on the plate surface. The heights of the prisms were as follows: HA = HG = 0.45 m; HD = HF = 0.3m, HB = HC
= HE = 0.4 m; The TNT charge of 16.0 g capacity is detonated at the point located by 0.04 m above the ground
between buildings C and F. The distance between adjacent objects is less than or comparable to a linear scale of the
prisms. In contrast to the test problems #1 and #2, simulations cannot be carried out in a symmetrical approach for
this configuration and requires full 3D consideration. The static pressure behavior was recorded in several gauges
placed at the prism walls and com-pared to the experimental data [15].

a b
FIGURE 3. Plane (a) and isometric (b) views of test Case #3 geometry

MATHEMATICAL MODEL AND METHODS OF COMPUTATIONS

The air region was generated around the prismatic bodies including the explosive charge. At the initial time t = 0
the charge detonates, and detonation and shock wave spreads in open space. Blast wave formation and propagation
were computed with the AUTODYN ANSYS software on the basis of a hydrodynamic multi-material approach. The

020016-3
 air and TNT properties used in the computations were retrieved from the standard AUTODYN library. The 3D Euler
equations were used for the computations complemented with the ideal gas equation of state for air and the JWL
equation of state [19] for TNT:
R1 R2
§ OK ·  K § OK ·  K (1)
U A¨¨1  ¸¸e  B¨¨1  ¸e  OUe,
© R1 ¹ © R2 ¸¹
The values of the empirical constants A, B, R1, R2, O are shown in Table1, e is the specific internal energy and
K = U/U0 is the relative density.
TABLE 1. Values of empirical constants in (1)
А, kPa B, kPa R1 R2 O E, kJ/m3 kg/m3
8 6 6
3,7377·10 3,7471·10 4,15 0,9 0,35 6,0·10 1630

At the external boundaries chosen far enough from the region of interest, so called “soft” boundary conditions
were set. All walls were supposed to be rigid and ideally reflective. The “symmetry” conditions were used at the
walls that guaranteed the absence of the flow through these boundaries. The second-order Godunov [17] and FCT
[18] finite-difference schemes were applied for space approximation. For the temporal approximation, the explicit
scheme of the second order was used in compliance with the stability conditions. As the initial process of detonation
in the open space is well described in the assumption of axial symmetry, to the moment when the primary shock
wave reaches the plate or some prism surface, it is carried out in a 2D approximation. Then, the data obtained in the
2D calculations are interpolated at a 3D computational domain and simulations were continuing taking into account
the shock wave interaction with the substrate and the prism surfaces.

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS

Test Case #1
The grid convergence study was first performed using the second order sequel to Godunov’s type finite
difference scheme. Four various grids with hexagonal cells of equal size were used. Table 2 shows the details of the
grids.
TABLE 2. Computational grids for test case #1
Cell size in Cell size in Cell size in Total cell
Grid # Nx Ny Nz
x-direction, cm y-direction, cm z-direction, cm number
1 1 1 1 260 60 60 9.36E+05
2 0.5 1 1 520 60 60 1.872E+06
3 0.25 1 1 1040 60 60 3.744E+06
4 0.5 0.5 0.5 520 120 120 7.488E+06
The computed pressure history in the T1 gauge placed at the windward prism face presented in Figure 4 shows
that all the grids give similar results. All further computations were performed on the grid #4.

FIGURE 4. Grid convergence study for test case #1

020016-4
 Figure 5 shows the computed static pressure fields in the symmetry plane at various time moments. Pressure
histories written in gauges T1 and T2 are shown in Figure 6. As can be seen from Figure 5,a, the shock (1) has
reached the substrate and been reflected regularly from its surface. In Figure 5, b, one can see the later moment,
when the shock is reflected from the substrate in an irregular mode with formation of the Mach stem (2) and the
reflected shock. Two reflected shocks (3) and (4) are moving toward the epicenter. After their interaction, a new
secondary shock (5) is formed. The wave front consisted of the primary shock (1), the Mach stem (2) following by
the secondary shock (5) propagates toward the prism (Fig. 5, e).
In Figure 5, f, pressure contours are shown at the moment when the primary shock (2) reaches the front face of
the prism. After the reflection, the shock (6) appears, and negative phase is observed in the vicinity of the front face
with the pressure level lower than 1 atm. Figures 5, g, h show the diffraction of shock wave (2) along the prism
surface and spreading of the reflected shock (6) toward the epicenter. Further, the shocks (6) and (5) interfere that
leads to formation of secondary wave of lower intensity.

1
1
2

a b
1
3 4

5 2

c d

5 5
2
2

e f

5 2 5 2

6
6

g h
FIGURE 5. Instantaneous pressure fields for test case #1 at various time moments: 0.018 (a), 0.13 (b); 0.36 (c);
0.62 (d); 2.32 (e); 2.45 (f); 2.72 (g); 2.95 (h) ms

020016-5
 In Figure 6, besides the experimental data, three computation results are shown. The lines present simulation
results obtained on the basis of the 3D Euler equations using the Godunov-type scheme of the second approximation
order [17, 18] and the FCT scheme [19]. The data obtained with the empirical CONWEP function [4] are also
revealed. It can be seen that engineering-based approach permits one to predict the pressure maximum and shock
arrival time to the frontal face of the prism which is in direct view of the explosion epicenter. But the CONWEP
function is not able to describe the shielding effects as well as the secondary front formation. So an implementation
of this approach is only possible to determine impact of a primary shock on a single building.
As Figure 6 shows, there are several pressure peaks at frontal and rare faces of the prism. The first maximum
Pmax ≈ 213 kPa (Figure 7, a), is due to the impact of the shock (2) on the frontal face of the prism. The secondary
shocks (5) and (6) cause the local pressure maxima of 115 kPa amplitude on the pressure history taken at the T1
gauge. It should be noted that Godunov-type scheme underpredicts the pressure peaks and gives some delay in the
shock arrival times on the windward and leeward faces. The first pressure peak on the leeward face is caused by
action of primary shock wrapped the prism surface, while the second peak is due to the action of the same wave
reflected from the ground surface. The second maximum is significantly underpredicted by both schemes.
Nevertheless, the plot shows that FCT scheme works better comparing to the Godunov-type scheme and gives
adequate prediction of the main pressure peaks and the shock arrival times.

a b
FIGURE 6. Computed (lines) and experimental (symbols) pressure history in T1 (a) and T2 (b) gauges

Test Case #2
The computation domain was of 1.4 × 2.8 × 1.4 m size and consisted of 3.8 million cells with the cell size of
5 mm. Visualization of pressure contours available during the post-processing stage allows a better understanding of
the complex process of blast pressure inter-action with a group of buildings. Figure 7 shows the computed static
pressure at the ground level (z = 0) for various time moments after detonation. The pressure histories in the gauges
placed at the front faces of the buildings are shown in Figure 8.
From Figure 7, it could be seen that the shock (1) is spherically propagating till it reaches the front surface of the
first building (t=0.076 ms). Pressure history written in the gauges placed on the front face of the first building shows
that maximal pressure of 8.5e+3 kPa is observed at the gauge #1 placed at the very internal corner of the
configuration. The shock (1) interacts with shock (2) formed as a result of its reflection (Figure 7, b, c). The
common wave front propagates along the wall and wraps the smaller building 1. During the diffraction, in a vicinity
of the front face of the smaller building pressure falls below the atmospheric level. High pressure levels at the points
shown in figures by red circles are observed in the triple points formed as a result of shock interaction and
reflections from the walls and the symmetry plane. These high pressure values causes the second peaks observed at
the gauges 1 - 5 (t | 0.8 ms). After shock coming to the frontal face of the larger building, pressure increases
significantly at all the gauges placed on the face.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that amplitudes of the peaks here is lower by the order of magnitude comparing
those on the frontal face of the smaller building due to the shield effect. Because of a narrow space between the
buildings, some additional shocks of lower intensity arise due to multiple reflections from the canyon walls. The

020016-6
traces of these secondary shocks can be seen in the pressure history plots shown in Figure 8, b. It should be noted
that a negative phase observed at the gauges 11 – 18 is rather long (Figure 8,b).

a b c

d e f

g h i
FIGURE 7. Instantaneous pressure fields for test case 2 at z=0 for various time moments: 0.07 (a), 0.1 (b); 0.2 (c); 0.3(d);
0.5 (e); 0.8 (f); 1.04 (g); 1.4 (h), 1.8 (i) ms

a b
FIGURE 8. Computed (lines) pressure history in gauges places on the front face of Building A (a)
and front face of Building B (b)

020016-7
 Test Case #3
The computations of this test case were performed in the computational domain with about 6 million hexa-cells
each of 1×1×1 cm size. The comparison of the computed results and the experimental data is shown in Figure 9. The
symbols stand for the experimental data [15] and the lines show the pressure history computed with the two different
schemes. The picture shows that both schemes predict the positive and negative phases of the pressure loads on the
building walls. The FCT scheme, as in previous case, is better in predicting the peak amplitudes and the secondary
waves.

a b
FIGURE 9. Computed (lines) and experimental (symbols) pressure history in T1 (a) and T21 (b) gauges

In Figure 10, the instantaneous static pressure contours are presented at a horizontal plane-section z = 0.105 m.
The spherical shock (1) formed as a result of detonation is spreading in an open space till it reaches the corner of the
building F (Figure 10, a). After the reflection, the shock wave intensity is about 6 MPa. Later on, the shock (1) falls
on the wall of the building C and the corner of the building E from which it reflects by an irregular manner forming
the triple points denoted by 3, 4 and 5 in Figure 10, b. The shock (2) formed in result of reflection of the shock (1)
from the building C propagates toward the epicenter. The interaction of shocks (6) and (2) leads to a formation of
the shock (7). At the same time, as Figures 10, c, d show, the shock (2) goes around a sharp corner of the building C
and interacts with the shock (1).
In Figures 10, e, one can see how the joint front of the shocks 1 and 2 comes through the channel formed by the
faces of the building B and D. The action of this front leads to a fast pressure rise at the gauge T1 that can be
observed in Figure 9, a. The second pressure peak is produced due to the action of the secondary shocks (11) formed
at the epicenter in result of numerous interactions of reflected shocks.
The first peak in the pressure history plot at the T21 gauge (Figure 9, b) is a result of the shock (8) passage
between the buildings E and G. Afterwards, a negative phase is observed. Corresponding rarefaction wave formed in
a result of shock diffractions can be seen in Figure 10, h. Further wave structure analysis is complicated by a large
number of shocks and rarefaction waves formed in result of numerous interferences, reflections and diffraction of
the waves.

CONCLUSIONS

x Three different test cases of explosive charge detonation and blast wave propagation in open space were
investigated numerically using ANSYS AUTODYN software. On a basis of simulation results, a complex
wave structure was analyzed, and all the peculiarities of flows and pressure history records on building /
room walls were described and explained.
x Juxtaposition of simulation results with the available experimental data were performed showing a
satisfactory agreement. The comparison of two numerical schemes has shown the better FCT properties to
predict fine flow details.

020016-8
 a b

c d

e f

g h
FIGURE 10. Instantaneous pressure fields for test case #3 at various time moments: 0.1 (a), 0.2 (b); 0.3 (c); 0.4 (d); 0.7 (e);
0.9 (f); 1.3 (g); 1.7 (h) ms

020016-9
 x The use of ANSYS AUTODYN tool can provide an effective approach to determining blast loads in an
urban environment.
x The results indicate the necessity to take all the surrounding buildings into account when computing the
blast loads on buildings in an urban environment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation (Project No. 211, Task
No. 2014/140 for executing scientific activities within the basic part of government order) and by the Russian
Foundation for Basic Research, grant No. 15-07-06581.

REFERENCES
1. Donald O. Dusenberry, ed., Handbook of blast resistant design of buildings (John Wiley & Sons, 2010).
2. W. E. Baker, P. A. Cox, P. S. Westine, J. J. Kulesz, and R.A. Strehlow, Explosion Hazards and Evaluation
(Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1983).
3. T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta, and J. Ramsay. EJSE international, Special Issue: Loading on structures, 76 – 91,
(2007).
4. Hyde D., Users Guide for Microcomputer Programs CONWEP and FUNPRO – Applications of TM 5-855-1.
(U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, 1988).
5. Kingery C.N. and Bulmash G., Airblast Parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface
Burst, Report ARBL-TR-02555 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, U.S. Army BRL, 1984).
6. Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures to Conventional Weapons Effects. (Washington, DC. The
Departments of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Defense, DSWA, 1998).
7. Randers-Pehrson G. Airblast Loading Model for DYNA2D and DYNA3D. ARL-TR-1310 (Army Research
Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1997).
8. Rose T. A. A Computational Tool for Airblast Calculations, Air3d Version 9 Users’ Guide, Engineering
Systems Department Cranfield University, 2006.
9. Smith, P. D. and Rose, T. A. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 8, 16 – 28 (2006).
10. http://www.virtualcitysystems.de/en/114-english/references/research/352-detorba-2
11. Valger S.A., Danilov M.N., Fedorov A.V., and Fedorova N.N. News of Higher Educational Institutions.
Construction, No. 11 (671), 77 – 92 (2014).
12. Fedorov A.V., Fedorova N.N., Fomin P.A., and Valger S.A. Propagation of explosive shock waves in block-up
spaces. (Novosibirsk, NSUACE (Sibstrin), 2015).
13. Rose T.A. An approach to the evaluation of blast loads on finite and semi-infinite structures. PhD thesis,
Engineering Systems Department, Cranfield University, Royal Military College of Science, 2001.
14. Remennikov A. M., Rose T. A., Journ. Computers and Structures, 83 (27), 2197 - 2205 (2005).
15. Matthew A. Brittle. “Blast propagation in a geometrically complex environment. MSc dissertation, Cranfield
University, Defense College of Management and Technology, Defense Academy of the UK, Shrivenham,
Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK, Jul 2004.
16. Smith P.D., Rose T.A., and Brittle M.A. “Analysis of a generic cityscape using an adaptive mesh CFD code.”
In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of Munitions with
Structures, New Orleans, USA, 13th–16th September. 2005.
17. Van Leer B., Journ. Comput. Phys. 32, 101 – 136 (1983).
18. Zalesak S. T., Journ. Comp. Phys. 31, 335–362 (1979).
19. Baum F.A., Orlenko L.P., Stanukevich K.P., Chelyshev V.P., Shaehter B.I. Physics of explosion. (Moscow,
Nauka, 1975).

020016-10