Page 27 - 《含能材料》2018年优秀论文

Experimental Study and Numerical Simulation of CL‑20‑Based Aluminized Explosive in Underwater Explosion 693

histories of shock wave and bubble pulsation calcu‑ with an average error of bubble period approxi‑
lated using AUTODYN. From Fig.8a and Fig.9a，we mately 1.79%，peak pressure of bubble 3.70%，and
could see that the peak pressure of shock wave in maximum radius 2.30%. The results of the simulat‑
water were 15.01 MPa and 14.80 MPa，respective‑ ed exam are similar to that of the experimental de‑
ly. The relative error of the experimental results and sign which approves the rightness of the numerical
numerical ones is 3.10% and 2.12%，respectively. model. It implies that the JWL ‑Miller model could
Table 6 shows the experimental and numerical well describe the non ‑ ideal detonation expansion
results for the period ， peak pressure and maxi‑ process of the aluminized explosives. In some suit‑
mum radius of the bubbles and the peak pressure able numerical conditions to the model，it could
of shock wave. The numerical results of the bubble be reasonably reproduced in shallow underwater
pulse properties agree with the experimental data ， explosion about shock wave and bubble pulse.

Table 6 Comparison of the shock wave and bubble pulse properties in the numerical analysis case and in the experiment
peak pressure of shock wave peak pressure of bubble pulses
sample
p exp /MPa pFEA/MPa error/% p exp /MPa pFEA /MPa error/%
1 # 15.52 15.17 -2.26 2.36 2.27 -3.81
2 # 15.49 15.11 -2.45 2.34 2.27 -2.99
3 # 15.20 14.92 -1.84 2.27 2.16 -4.84
4 # 15.12 14.88 -1.59 2.23 2.16 -3.14
bubble period maximum radius of bubble
sample
t exp /ms tFEA/ms error/% R exp /cm RFEA/cm error/%
1 # 46.75 45.90 -1.81 60.62 58.89 -2.85
2 # 46.76 45.90 -1.84 59.93 58.89 -1.74
3 # 49.97 49.32 -1.30 68.11 66.32 -2.63
4 # 50.43 49.32 -2.20 67.64 66.32 -1.95
Note：p FEA is peak pressure obtained from finite element analysis.

The pressure histories of shock wave were mea‑
5 Conclusion sured by sensor. After the above methods and re‑
sults，the different parameters of underwater explo‑
In this paper，we designed an experimental in‑ sion and underwater explosion energy were ob‑
stallation to study CL‑20‑based explosive and CL‑20‑ tained. The addition of aluminum powder could at‑
based aluminized explosive in underwater explosion. tain the purpose to increase time constant，bubble

The images of gas bubble in underwater explo‑ pulse period，maximum radius of bubble and explo‑
sion were obtained by high‑speed photography. The
sion energy. Compared with CL‑20‑based explosive，
pictures showed the bubble generation，expansion the bubble pulse period，maximum radius of bub‑
and contraction. Meanwhile， the difference be‑ ble，shock wave energy，bubble energy and total
tween CL‑20‑based explosive and CL‑20‑based alu‑ underwater explosion energy increase by about
minized explosive about bubble had been shown. 7.4%，12.6% ，15.9%，33.3%，22.6% respectively.
When the time was from 49.5 ms to 49.8 ms，the The underwater explosive energy of CL‑20‑based ex‑
bubble of CL ‑ 20 ‑ based aluminized explosive had plosive is 1.4 times TNT equivalent. The total under‑
light inside，but the CL ‑20 ‑based explosive had no water explosion energy of CL ‑ 20 ‑ based aluminized
light in bubble. The point was that the energy re‑ explosive with 15% aluminum is 1.7 times TNT
leased by secondary reactions could heat detonation equivalent.
products. The entire evolution of the bubble was well‑sim ‑

CHINESE JOURNAL OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS 含能材料 2018 年 第 26 卷 第 8 期 （686-695）