ISSUES IN DESIGN OF PROTECTIVE GEAR FOR BLAST APPLICATION

21  Download (0)

Full text

(1)

ISSUES IN DESIGN OF PROTECTIVE GEAR FOR BLAST APPLICATION

KANHAIYA LAL MISHRA

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

JUNE 2021

(2)

©Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IITD), New Delhi, 2021

(3)

ISSUES IN DESIGN OF PROTECTIVE GEAR FOR BLAST APPLICATION

by

KANHAIYA LAL MISHRA Department of Mechanical Engineering

Submitted

in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy To the

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

June 2021

(4)

i

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled Issues in design of protective gear for blast application being submitted by Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Mishra to the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in Department of Mechanical Engineering is a record of bonafide research work carried out by him. He has worked under my guidance and has fulfilled the requirements for the submission of thesis, which, in my opinion, has reached the requisite standard.

The results contained in this thesis have not been submitted in part or full, to any University or Institute for the award of degree or diploma

(Anoop Chawla) (Sudipto Mukherjee)

Professor, Professor,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

New Delhi-110 016 New Delhi-11

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my Ph.D. supervisors, Prof. Anoop Chawla and Prof. Sudipto Mukherjee, for their meticulous guidance, constant encouragement and continuous support and patience.

I would also like to sincerely thank the Student Research Committee (SRC) members, Prof. S.P. Singh (SRC Chairman), Prof. Suhail Ahmad, and Prof. Devendra Kumar Dubey, for their valuable comments that helped me to outline and improve the content of the thesis.

I would like to acknowledge the support received from my organization Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. R.K. Tiwari of DMSRE (DRDO laboratory) Kanpur, for inspiring me to work on, ceramic honeycomb material application in mine blast environment. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Sri Manpreet Singh and Ms Ipsita Biswas of TBRL (DRDO laboratory) Chandigarh, for material testing.

Thanks, are also due to all the faculty members of Mechanical Engineering Department, I.I.T. Delhi who had supported me, at various stages of my research.

I am also thankful to Mr. Piyush gaur, Mr. Devendra Kumar, Mr. Sanyam Sharma, Mr. Kuldeep singh, Mr. Aman Vikram for helping me in my thesis. In addition,

(6)

iii during my visit to Impact lab.

Thanks, can never express my deep gratitude for my ever-loving parents, Sri R.C.

Mishra and Smt Mansa Devi. I am deeply indebted to my big brother Late Ashtha Bhuja Mishra for his support and care. Words cannot express my thanks to my ever-loving wife Dr. Sonal Mishra and my daughter Kavya Mishra, for their endless love and support, the sacrifices they made and the patience they maintained throughout these years without which I could have never been able to reach this stage. At the same time, I acknowledge the love and support; I received from my dear in laws Dr. V.K.D. Tripathi and Smt. Shespati Tripathi who always encouraged me.

Finally, I thank all those people, who knowingly or unknowingly inspired me in many ways throughout these years.

Kanhaiya Lal Mishra Indian Institute of Delhi I am thankful to Mr. Rabindra Kar, Mr. Kamal Rana and all project staff for constant support

(7)

ABSTRACT

Anti-mine boots protect lower limbs of soldier, paramilitary and demining forces from accidental detonation of mine. These Anti-Mine Boots, which have blast reflecting and absorbing layers in the sole and minimize the physical damage to the lower limb. New design of Anti-Mine Boots involves new materials, in different layering pattern. These materials need testing in blast field environment as well as FEM simulation environment.

FEM simulations reduced the mine field testing but for this validated material modal and material properties are required at high strain rate. Ceramic honeycomb structure has found importance, for its use in AMB for blast pressure attenuation. This thesis contributes to the development of methodology for finding the material modal and material properties of brittle ceramic honeycomb at high strain rate with validation check in mine blast experimental setup, for optimizing Anti-Mine boot design in thoroughly optimized FEM simulation environment.

Material properties of ceramic honeycomb is obtained through FEM inverse material mapping of SHPB experimental results. Material was modeled as linear brittle modal with failure stress and strain. Mine blast experiments were done to test the material alone and in sandwich structure form in blast environment and measured blast pressure was compared with FEM simulation result to draw the conclusion regarding ceramic honeycomb material use in design of AMB. All the parameters affecting output of FEM simulation were thoroughly investigated for valid simulation environment, with simulation of published mine blast experiments.

(8)

ºÉÉ®ÉƶÉ

àÉÉ<xÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ®ÉävÉÉÒ VÉÚiÉä ºÉèÉÊxÉBÉEÉå +ÉÉè® +ÉvÉǺÉèÉÊxÉBÉEÉå BÉEä ÉÊxÉSÉãÉä +ÉÆMÉ BÉEÉÒ àÉÉ<xÉ Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä]

ºÉä ®FÉÉ BÉE®iÉå cé * àÉÉ<xÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ®ÉävÉÉÒ VÉÚiÉä Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä] BÉEÉÒ =VÉÉÇ BÉEÉä +ɴɶÉÉäÉÊ-ÉiÉ BÉE®BÉEä ÉÊxÉSÉãÉä +ÉÆMÉ BÉEÉÒ ¶ÉÉ®ÉÒÉÊ®BÉE FÉÉÊiÉ BÉEÉä BÉEàÉ BÉE®iÉä cé* xɪÉä àÉÉ<xÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ®ÉävÉÉÒ VÉÚiÉä xɪÉä ºÉÉàÉÉOÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®

xɪÉä ÉÊ´ÉÉÊ£ÉxxÉ ãÉäªÉÉË®MÉ BÉEÉ ={ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉE®iÉä cé * <xÉ ºÉàÉÉÉÊOɪÉÉå BÉEÉä Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä] FÉäjÉ BÉEä

´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ FÉäjÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ-ºÉÉlÉ A{ÉE <Ç AàÉ ÉʺÉàÉÖãÉä¶ÉxÉ ´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ àÉå {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* A{ÉE <Ç AàÉ ÉʺÉàÉÖãÉä¶ÉxÉ xÉä JÉÉxÉ FÉäjÉ {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉEÉä BÉEàÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA =SSÉ iÉxÉÉ´É {É® àÉÉxªÉ ºÉÉàÉÉOÉÉÒ àÉÉbãÉ +ÉÉè® £ÉÉèÉÊiÉBÉE MÉÖhÉÉå BÉEÉÒ +ɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè ÉʺɮäÉÊàÉBÉE cxÉÉÒBÉEÉà¤É ºÉÆ®SÉxÉÉ BÉEÉä àÉÉ<xÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ VÉÚiÉä àÉå Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä]

n´ÉÉ´É FÉÉÒhÉxÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ={ɪÉÉäMÉ àÉå àÉci´É ÉÊàÉãÉÉ cè* ªÉc FÉÉÒÉÊiÉºÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉä +ÉxÉÖBÉÚEÉÊãÉiÉ A{ÉE <Ç AàÉ ÉʺÉàÉÖãÉä¶ÉxÉ ´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ àÉå àÉÉ<xÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ®ÉävÉÉÒ VÉÚiÉä BÉEä ÉÊbVÉÉ<ÇxÉ BÉEÉä +ÉxÉÖBÉÚEÉÊãÉiÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA àÉÉ<xÉ Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä] |ÉɪÉÉäÉÊMÉBÉE ºÉè]+É{É àÉå ºÉiªÉÉ{ÉxÉ VÉÉìSÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ =SSÉ iÉxÉÉ´É {É® £ÉÆMÉÚ® ÉʺɮäÉÊàÉBÉE cÉÊxÉBÉEÉà¤É BÉEä ºÉÉàÉÉOÉÉÒ àÉÉìbãÉ +ÉÉè® £ÉÉèÉÊiÉBÉE MÉÖhÉÉå BÉEÉä JÉÉäVÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉEɪÉÇ|ÉhÉÉãÉÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉºÉ àÉå ªÉÉäMÉnÉxÉ näiÉÉ cè*

ÉʺɮäÉÊàÉBÉE cÉÊxÉBÉEÉà¤É BÉEä £ÉÉèÉÊiÉBÉE MÉÖhÉ AºÉ ASÉ {ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉÒ |ɪÉÉäMÉÉiàÉBÉE {ÉÉÊ®hÉÉàÉå BÉEä A{ÉE

<Ç AàÉ |ÉÉÊiÉãÉÉäàÉ ºÉÉàÉÉOÉÉÒ àÉÉxÉÉÊSÉiÉ®hÉ BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä |ÉÉ{iÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉä VÉÉiÉä cé * ºÉÉàÉÉOÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ÉÊ´É{ÉEãÉiÉÉ iÉxÉÉ´É +ÉÉè® iÉxÉÉ´É BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ®èÉÊJÉBÉE £ÉÆMÉÖ® àÉÉìbãÉ BÉEä °ó{É àÉå iÉèªÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ* àÉÉ<xÉ Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä] |ɪÉÉäMÉ +ÉBÉEäãÉä ºÉÉàÉÉOÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ºÉébÉÊ´ÉSÉ ºÉÉàÉÉOÉÉÒ ºÉÆ®SÉxÉÉºÉ BÉEÉ {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ÉÊBÉEªÉä MɪÉä lÉä * Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä] ´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ àÉå ºÉébÉÊ´ÉSÉ ºÉÆ®SÉxÉÉ BÉEä °ó{É àÉå àÉÉ<xÉ

|ÉÉÊiÉ®ÉävÉÉÒ VÉÚiÉä BÉEä ÉÊbVÉÉ<xÉ ={ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ÉÊxÉ-ÉBÉE-ÉÇ ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA A{ÉE <Ç AàÉ {ÉÉÊ®hÉÉàÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ |ÉɪÉÉäÉÊMÉBÉE àÉÉ{É Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä] n¤ÉÉ´É BÉEÉÒ iÉÖãÉxÉÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ* A{ÉE <Ç AàÉ ÉʺÉàÉÖãÉä¶ÉxÉ BÉEä {ÉÉÊ®hÉÉàÉ BÉEÉä |É£ÉÉÉÊ´ÉiÉ BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä ºÉ£ÉÉÒ àÉÉ{ÉnhbÉå BÉEÉÒ ´ÉètÉ ÉʺÉàÉÖãÉä¶ÉxÉ

´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA {ÉÚ®ÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉä VÉÉìSÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ* ÉÊVɺÉàÉå |ÉBÉEÉÉʶÉiÉ àÉÉ<ÇxÉ Éʴɺ{ÉEÉä]Éå BÉEÉ +ÉxÉÖBÉE®hÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ*

(9)

Table of Contents

CERTIFICATE ... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ii

ABSTRACT ... iv

Table of Contents ... v

LIST OF FIGURES ... xi

LIST OF TABLES ... xv

NOMENCLATURE ... xvii

INTRODUCTION ... 1

... 1

1.1 Background ... 1

1.2 Organization of thesis ... 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5

Introduction ... 5

2.1 5 2.2 Explosives ... 6

2.2.1 Detonator ... 7

2.2.2 Detonation wave theory ... 8

2.2.3 Unconfined and confined Explosion ... 8

2.2.4 Scaled Distance ... 8

(10)

vi

2.3 Physics of Explosion ... 9

2.3.1 Blast Pressure calculations and prediction ... 14

2.4 BLAST MINE ... 18

2.4.1 Types of Anti Personal Mines ... 19

2.4.2 Surrogate mines ... 20

2.4.3 Explosion mechanism of mines ... 20

2.5 Wave Propagation through soil ... 21

2.5.1 Soil- Air interface ... 23

2.6 Wave propagation through solid ... 23

2.7 Blast mine injuries to Lower and upper body ... 26

2.7.1 Blast effect on lower leg: ... 27

2.7.2 Blast effect on upper body ... 28

2.7.3 Injury Risk Evaluation (IRE) and injury criterion ... 28

2.8 Surrogate leg ... 30

2.8.1 Mechanical Legs: ... 30

2.8.2 Frangible leg ... 32

2.8.3 Human Cadavers ... 33

2.9 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Anti-Mine Boots ... 33

2.9.1 Combat Boot (CB) ... 33

2.9.2 Over boot (OB) ... 35

2.9.3 Spider Boot ... 35

2.9.4 Anti-mine Boot (AMB) ... 36

2.10 Experimental Testing of Ant-Mine Boots ... 37

2.11 Simulation: Testing of AMB Boots ... 38

(11)

2.11.1 Mine-Blast Simulation Environment ... 40

2.12 Equation of states ... 41

2.12.1 Air ... 41

2.12.2 Explosives: ... 41

2.12.3 Soil ... 41

2.12.4 Solid ... 43

2.13 Blast attenuation Methods ... 45

2.14 High Strain Rate Experiments: ... 46

2.14.1 Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Test: ... 47

2.14.2 Flyer Plate Impact and Inverse Flyer Impact tests ... 50

2.15 Summary: ... 52

RESEARCH PROBLEM, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ... 53

3.1 Introduction ... 53

3.2 Research Problem ... 53

3.3 Objectives ... 53

3.4 Methodology ... 54

3.1 Summary ... 56

BLAST ENVIRONMENT SIMULATION AND BLAST PRESSURE SENSITIVITY ... 57

4.1 Introduction ... 57

4.2 Validation of simulation environment: soil buried explosive experiment and simulations ... 57

4.2.1 Deviations in simulation environment: ... 62

4.3 Validation of simulation environment: air blast and plate deflection ... 63

(12)

viii

4.4 Blast pressure sensitivity ... 65

4.4.1 Convergence analysis-element size ... 65

4.4.2 Detonation point effect on peak pressure ... 68

4.4.3 Depth of Burial effect on peak pressure ... 69

4.4.4 Obstruction effect on reflected overpressure ... 69

4.4.5 Obstruction material effect on reflected overpressure ... 72

4.4.6 Effect of boundary conditions of obstruction on peak pressure... 74

4.5 Summary ... 75

STATIC COMPRESSION AND DYNAMIC SHPB TESTING OF CERAMIC HONEYCOMB ... 77

5.1 Introduction ... 77

5.2 Material Description ... 77

5.3 Compression Test ... 81

5.3.1 Sample preparation ... 81

5.3.2 Sample Testing ... 81

5.3.3 Result and discussion ... 81

5.3.4 Material Property ... 84

5.3.5 Ceramic honeycomb properties ... 85

5.4.1 Sample preparation: ... 86

5.4.2 Sample Testing ... 87

5.4.3 SHPB result ... 89

5.4.4 Material Property ... 92

5.5 FEM Inverse material mapping ... 92

5.5.1 Simulation Environment: ... 93

(13)

5.5.2 Initial material property and SHPB simulation ... 94

5.5.3 FEM Inverse material mapping: Elastic region ... 97

5.5.4 FEM Inverse material mapping: Plastic region ... 99

5.6 Equivalent material property of ceramic honeycomb ... 100

5.6.1 Ceramic honeycomb properties at higher strain rate( 103 order) (SHPB Test) ... 100

5.7 Summary ... 101

MINE BLAST EXPERIMENT WITH CERAMIC HONEY COMB AND ITS SIMULATION ... 102

6.1 Introduction ... 102

6.2 Experimental setup ... 102

6.2.1 Sample preparation: ... 104

6.2.2 Experimental result ... 104

6.2.3 Simulation environment of experimental setup ... 105

6.3 Experimental and simulation results ... 110

6.4 Critical analysis of experimental results: ... 110

6.1.1 Ceramic Sample experimental result: FEM analysis ... 110

6.1.2 Sandwich sample experimental result: FEM Analysis ... 111

6.1.3 Other Reason of variations with experimental result ... 111

6.5 Summary ... 112

CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES ... 113

7.1 Introduction ... 113

7.2 Summary ... 113

7.3 Conclusions ... 115

(14)

x

7.4 Limitations and future scope ... 116

REFERENCES ... 118

ANNEXURE ... 123

Material Name: Air ... 123

(15)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Pressure-time history of an air blast in free air of modified air-Friedlander equation 11 Figure 2.2: Blast wave propagation-Decreasing amplitude over distance (Karlos & Solomos,

2013) ... 12

Figure 2.3: Incident, reflected and dynamic pressure time histories (Karlos & Solomos, 2013) .. 13

Figure 2.4: Blast Parameters of positive phase of shock wave of TNT charges from free-air burst (Karlos & Solomos, 2013) ... 15

Figure 2.5: Blast parameters of positive phase of shock hemispherical wave of TNT charges from the surface bursts (Karlos & Solomos, 2013) ... 16

Figure 2.6: Comparison of peak incident overpressure prediction in free-air bursts (Karlos & Solomos, 2013) ... 17

Figure 2.7: Anti-Personnel Mine (Blast) component (Wikipedia) ... 21

Figure 2.8: In soil effects of detonation of Soil buried explosives (Braid & Bergeron, 2001) ... 22

Figure 2.9: Material pre-requisite for formation of shock wave: pressure-volume relationship under high pressure (NATO, 2004) ... 25

Figure 2.10: Pressure-Volume (Hugoniot) curve and Rayleigh line (NATO, 2004) ... 25

Figure 2.11: The Nether land Mechanical Leg (NATO, 2004) ... 31

Figure 2.12: DRDC Mechanical leg (NATO, 2004) ... 31

Figure 2.13: Frangible Surrogate Leg- Bone Structure (Left) and casted Product (right) (NATO, 2004) ... 32

Figure 2.14: Mk III Combat boot of Canadian Army (Bergeron et al., 2006) ... 34

Figure 2.15: Wellco Over boot (Bergeron et al., 2006) ... 34

Figure 2.16: Wellco spider boot (Bergeron, D. et al., 2006) ... 35

Figure 2.17: Anti Mine Boot (Avantek.in) ... 36

Figure 2.18: Indian AMB (A) with ceramic inserts (Zee, 2017) and Wellco AMB metallic insert (Bergeron et al., 2006) ... 37

Figure 2.19: Graphical representation of Anti-Mine Boot testing rig ... 38

Figure 2.20: Simulation of APM (Cronin, 2003) ... 39 Figure 2.21: Lagrangian, Eulerian and ALE meshes and material movement (Cheng et al., 2013)

(16)

xii

... 40

Figure 2.22: Soil Pressure and density Relation (Laine & Larsen, 2012) ... 42

Figure 2.23: Schematic of compressive SHPB experiment ... 47

Figure 2.24: (a) Plate Impact test experimental setup (b) VISAR measurement (Rosenberg et al., 1985) ... 51

Figure 3.1: Block diagram of proposed research methodology ... 56

Figure 4.1: DRES, Canada mine blast experimental setup with transducers positions ... 59

Figure 4.2: Simulation environment of DRES C4 blast experiments ... 60

Figure 4.3: Laterally offset, in soil pressure sensors mounted on U-shaped frame (Bergeron et al., 1988) ... 60

Figure 4.4: Schematic of experimental setup, showing (a) cross section view of explosive configuration, and (b) 3-D view of the clamped v- plate test (Yuen et al., 2012) ... 64

Figure 4.5: 2-D axis symmetric AUTODYN simulation environment for circular flat plate under air blast ... 65

Figure 4.6: Near field burst and simulation output with varying mesh element size (0.3 mm to 0.03 mm) (Cheng et al., 2013) ... 66

Figure 4.7: Explosive-air interaction Simulation for convergence analysis ... 67

Figure 4.8: Explosive-sand-air interaction Simulation for convergence analysis ... 68

Figure 4.9: AUTODYN-Surface air blast simulations for detonation point effect... 68

Figure 4.10: Simulation: Peak pressure results with varying location of detonation point ... 69

Figure 4.11: Influence of angle of incidence on reflected overpressure coefficient (Karlos & Solomos, 2013) ... 70

Figure 4.12: Air Blast Pressure- Mine blast 40 gm C4 (Depth of burial 20 mm) ... 71

Figure 4.13: Reflected Air Blast Pressure: Mine blast 40 gm C4 (Depth of burial 20 mmc) 20 mm thick steel at 250 mm (B.C.: side fixed) ... 72

Figure 4.14: Sand buried mine blast simulation (2D) with obstruction ... 73

Figure 4.15: Simulation environment for B.C. and weight effect on transmitted pressure ... 75

Figure 5.1: Ceramic Honeycomb sample (Sourced from: ARCI Hyderabad) ... 79 Figure 5.2: Effect of orientation and rubber encapsulation on compression behavior of ceramic

(17)

honeycomb (A) and on critical stress of ceramic honeycomb and foam (B) (Jain et al., 2003) .... 80

Figure 5.3: Compression test (A) Ceramic Honeycomb block, (B) Cylindrical samples, (C) Circular Composite strips, (D) Composite-ceramic-composite sandwiched samples, (E) Ceramic sample on UTM before failure and (F) after failure ... 83

Figure 5.4: Stress-strain response at varying compression rate (0.3mm/ minute to 300 mm/ minute) ... 84

Figure 5.5: Ceramic honeycomb samples of different diameters and composite ceramic sandwich sample. ... 85

Figure 5.6: Poisson’s ratio vs engineering strain curve for aluminum foam (Nasser et al., 2007) 86 Figure 5.7: Schematic of compressive SHPB experiment ... 88

Figure 5.8: SHPB sample and SHPB set up for test ... 88

Figure 5.9: SHPB experimental result of incident (Blue) and transmitted (Pink) pulse at oscilloscope and monitor (sample L: 10 mm, D: 5 mm, maraging steel bars) ... 90

Figure 5.10: SHPB strain rate (A) and stress-strain (B) results (sample L: 10 mm, D: 5 mm, maraging steel bars) ... 90

Figure 5.11: SHPB (steel bar) experimental response (A) and corresponding stress-strain prediction with copper pulse shaper ... 91

Figure 5.12: Stress- strain response of ceramic from SHPB test (L/D = 0.5)... 91

Figure 5.13: Schematic of compressive SHPB simulation ... 94

Figure 5.14: Trial input material properties of sample in simulations (linear elastic) ... 95

Figure 5.15: Effect of sample material’s Young’s modulus on output bar response ... 96

Figure 5.16: Effect of material’s failure strain on output bar response ... 96

Figure 5.17: Simulation Input bar response (incident and reflected pulse) ... 98

Figure 5.18: Simulation output bar response (Transmitted pulse) with varying material model .. 98

Figure 5.19: Simulation Input bar response (incident and reflected pulse) ... 99

Figure 5.20: Simulation output bar response (Transmitted Pulse: axial micro deformation vs millisecond time) ... 100

Figure 5.21: Dynamic and quassi-static stress-strain curve of Indiana limestone (Chen & Song, 2010) ... 101

(18)

xiv

Figure 6.1: Mine blast experimental setup ... 104

Figure 6.2: Ceramic samples for mine blast experiment ... 105

Figure 6.3: 1 mm thick glass- epoxy composite use in mine blast experiment ... 105

Figure 6.4: simulation environment representing experimental setup of Figure 6.1 ... 107

Figure 6.5: (B) represents testing environment of ceramic honeycomb sample and (B1) represents simulation environment for testing environment of B ... 108

Figure 6.6: Graphical (C) representation for composite-ceramic-composite sandwich testing and simulation environment (C1) for the same ... 109

(19)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: TNT equivalent for Different explosives (Energy based) (Larcher, 2018) ... 7

Table 2.2: TNT equivalent of some explosives based on Peak pressure and impulse methods ... 7

Table 2.3: JWL Parameters for TNT (Larcher, 2018) ... 10

Table 2.4: Kingery and Bulmash general polynomial form (UNODA, 2016) ... 14

Table 2.5: 12 Most affected Nations: Estimated Number of Land Mines (United States Department of State, 1998 (Braid & Bergeron, 2001) ... 18

Table 2.6: Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) (NATO, 2004) ... 29

Table 2.7: Mine Trauma Score for the Lower Extremity (NATO, 2004)... 29

Table 4.1: DRES experimental and Simulation result: Air TOA and peak pressure ... 61

Table 4.2 : DRES Experimental and simulation result: In-soil TOA and peak pressure ... 62

Table 4.3: Experimental and simulation result of plate deflection (Yuen et al., 2012) ... 64

Table 4.4: Element size effect on peak pressure in air-explosive environment... 66

Table 4.5: Element size effect on peak pressure in explosive-sand-air environment ... 67

Table 4.6: Pressure amplification by steel at different standoff distance from soil ... 72

Table 4.7 : Peak Pressure: Interacting Material Effect in sand buried mine blast ... 74

Table 5.1: Properties of Ceramic honeycomb and foam (Jain et al., 2003) ... 78

Table 5.2: Description of honeycomb and foam samples for mechanical property (Jain et al., 2003) ... 80

Table 5.3: Failure stress of bare ceramic honeycomb ceramic with channel orientation and composite sandwich ceramic honeycomb ... 84

Table 5.4: SHPB Sample geometrical Description ... 87

Table 5.5: SHPB experiments: stress and strain result ... 92

Table 5.6: SHPB _Simulation Component description ... 93

Table 6.1: Mine blast experimental and simulation result ... 110

Table 6.2: Obstruction material effect on Reflected overpressure at standoff distance of 250 mm ... 111

(20)

xvii

NOMENCLATURE

SYBMOLS

Pso Peak overpressure

tA Time of arrival

to+ Positive phase duration

to- Negative phase duration

Pr Reflected overpressure

P0 Ambient pressure

εP Effective plastic strain

P Effective plastic strain rate

ABBREVIATIONS

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

APM Anti-Personal Mine

SSL Simplified Lower Leg

(21)

CLL Complex Lower Leg

FSL Frangible Lower Leg

FE Finite Element

FEM Finite Element Method

DOB Depth of Burial

TSS Trauma Scoring System

AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale

MTS Mine Trauma Score

MES Mangled Extremity Score

Figure

Updating...

References

Related subjects :