Lee Tarver Solving in Autodyn

AUTODYN
Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics
Explosive Initiation Users Manual

(Lee-Tarver Ignition & Growth)
Revision 4.3
www.century-dynamics.com
AUTODYN is a trademark of Century Dynamics, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Century Dynamics Inc. All Rights Reserved
Century Dynamics is a subsidiary of ANSYS Inc, www.ansys.com
Century Dynamics Incorporated
Century Dynamics Limited
1001 Galaxy Way
Dynamics House
Suite 325
Hurst Road
Concord
Horsham
CA 94520
West Sussex, RH12 2DT
U.S.A.
England
Tel: +1 925 771 2300
Tel: +44 (0) 1403 270066
Fax: +1 925 771 2309
Fax: +44 (0) 1403 270099
E-mail: customer@centdyn.com
E-mail: all@centdyn.demon.co.uk
Century Dynamics
16350 Park Ten Place
Century Dynamics
Houston
Rntgenlaan 15
TX 77084
2719 DX Zoetermeer
The Netherlands
USA
Tel: +1 281 398 6113
Fax: +1 281 398 6061
E-mail: cdhouston@centdyn.com
Tel: +31 79 36 20400

Fax: +31 79 36 30705
E-mail: sales@centurydynamics.nl
autodyn.support@century-dynamics.com
www.century-dynamics.com
www.ansys.com
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Mr. David Davison of Shock Transients, Inc. for the creation of this
document. The Lee-Tarver ignition and growth explosive initiation model has been
implemented in AUTODYN with the support of Shock Transients, Inc., PO Box 5357,
Hopkins, MN 55343 USA (Tel: 612-944-3539 / Fax: 612-944-8170)
This page intentionally blank
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... 3
Chapter 1. Introduction............................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2. Ignition and Growth Model of Explosive Initiation ................................... 8
Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes ............................................... 9
1. Pressure Equilibrium .................................................................................. 10
2. Explosive Equation of State and Related Parameters ................................ 11
3. Ignition and Growth Model Parameter Values for PBX-9404...................... 14
Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations....................................................................... 17
1. Flyer Plate Impact Calculations .................................................................. 17
2. Wedge Test (Pop Plot) Calculations........................................................... 21
3. Review of Computations............................................................................. 28
Chapter 5. References ........................................................................................... 30
Chapter 6. Symbols................................................................................................ 32
APPENDIX A: ERROR MESSAGES AND ERROR HANDLING ............................ 34
APPENDIX B: LEE AND TARVER MODEL PARAMETER SETS .......................... 36
APPENDIX C: SUBROUTINE EXEDIT .................................................................. 47
This page intentionally blank
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction
There have been many attempts to characterize hazards associated with explosives. The
primary motivation for this work is to determine the circumstances under which the
explosives can be safely and reliably handled and used. Simple models such as the P
[Walker & Wasley, 1969] and the Vd [Held, 1984] criterion, where the initiation threshold is
characterized by values of the impact pressure P and its duration or by values of an
impacting projectile's velocity V and diameter d, have been successful in providing criteria
for initiation with simple geometries, but they have not been shown to be reliable for more
complex problems.
The Forest Fire model [Mader & Forest, 1976] was an early model of explosive initiation,
developed for hydrodynamic codes, that made use of Pop plots (of run distance to
detonation versus shock pressure) [Ramsay & Popolato, 1965] in deriving model
coefficients. The Forest Fire model is able to match the Pop plots, but it is not as successful
in matching pressure-time data obtained from gauges embedded in the explosive. Recent
extensions of the Forest Fire model ([Johnson et al., 1985] and [Tang, 1991]) may improve
its ability to match a broader set of experiments.
The ignition and growth model described below is able to match gauge data as well as the
Pop plots. This document describes the background of this model and its implementation in
the AUTODYN codes (Version 3.0 and 4.1). It concludes with a description of calculations
done to evaluate the model and a discussion of the results of the analysis.
Chapter 2. Ignition and Growth Model of Explosive Initiation
Chapter 2. Ignition and Growth Model of Explosive Initiation

E.L. Lee and C.M. Tarver discussed the ignition and growth model of explosive
initiation in detail in 1980 [Lee & Tarver, 1980]. The model was based on the assumption,
supported by considerable experimental data, that ignition starts at hot spots and grows
outwards from these sites. Lee and Tarver described a two-step reaction rate model with a
term for ignition of the explosive and a term for growth; the two-step approach was later
replaced by the three-step model implemented in AUTODYN (see below). The reaction rate
in this early model was given by:
F t = I (1 F ) x r + G (1 F ) x F y P z ,
(2.1)
where the compression was:
= / 0 1
(2.2)
( and 0 were the current and ambient densities). In Equation (2.1) F was the reaction ratio
(ratio of the mass of the gaseous explosive to the total mass of the explosive), P was the
pressure in the explosive, and I, x, r, G, y, and z were constants. In this model, r 4 , so the
ignition term depended on the fourth power of the explosive compression.
Later, C.M. Tarver et al. [Tarver et al., 1985] improved the explosive initiation model,
conceiving it as a three-step process (ignition, growth, and completion). The newer model
overcame the discrepancies observed with the earlier model for very short shock pulse duration initiation data. In this model (implemented in AUTODYN), the reaction rate is given by:
F t = I (1 F ) b ( a ) x + G1 (1 F ) c F d P y
+ G2 (1 F ) e F g P z ,
(2.3)
where F, , and P are defined as above, and I, b, a, x, G1, c, d, y, G2, e, g, and z

are constants. The model represented by Equation (2.3) gives a quick pressure
spike on ignition, followed by a slow growth of the reaction that accelerates when the
regions around the hot spots begin to coalesce. Processes represented by Equation
(2.1) are a subset of those represented by Equation (2.3), i.e., the latter supersedes
the former.
Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

The Lee and Tarver ignition and growth model of explosive initiation in the
AUTODYN codes determines the pressure, internal energy, sound speed, and
reaction ratio at the end of the time step. The reaction ratio F is stored in AUTODYN
variable ALPHA.
The model adjusts the sound speed to be consistent with the user-defined reaction
zone width (Wreac) and maximum reaction ratio increment (Fmax). It does not
adjust the sound speed when a cell contains either fully unreacted (F = 0) or fully
gaseous (F = 1) explosive.
The pressure iteration converges when the difference between the unreacted and
gaseous pressures is less than 10-4PCJ. For the unreacted explosive (F = 0), when
Vu > Vu, max, Pu(Vu) = 0, where the value Vu, max 1 is the user-defined maximum
relative volume, i.e., the explosive can produce a tensile stress when appropriate.
During iteration the relative volume of the unreacted explosive Vu is bounded below
by the value Vu, min. Vu, min = (s - 1)/s for the shock EOS, where s is the slope of
the shock velocity/particle velocity fit, and Vu, min = VVNS /1.10 for the JWL EOS,
where VVNS is the user-defined Von Neumann spike volume.
On the first call, AUTODYN lists the ignition and growth parameters on the log file.
On the first call and whenever parameter values change (as when the calculation is
restarted and when the calculation contains more than one explosive), AUTODYN
initializes control values and produces an appropriate message if any parameter
values are out of range. For pressure-volume relationship of the unreacted
explosive, one of the two following requirements must be met:
(1) When modeled with the shock EOS, the user-defined slope of the shock
velocity/
particle velocity fit s is not allowed to take on values in the range 0 < s <
1.
(2) When modeled with the JWL EOS,
(a) VVNS < VCJ, where VVNS is the user-defined Von Neumann spike
volume and the Chapman-Jouguet volume is defined as
VCJ ( 0 uD2 PCJ ) ( 0 uD2 ) , for user-defined values of ambient density
0 and detonation velocity uD.

(b) Pg(VCJ, ECJ) PCJ, where Pg is the pressure evaluated with the
gaseous equation of state and ECJ is the internal energy consistent
1
with VCJ. Here E CJ = E 0, g PCJ (VCJ 1) . AUTODYN accepts PCJ
2
when P VCJ , ECJ PCJ PCJ < 0.01 .
The first requirement follows from properties of all materials; the second, from the physics of
detonations; if either is violated, pressure equilibrium cannot be assured. To satisfy the
second requirement, the Chapman-Jouguet pressure and the detonation velocity must be
consistent with the gaseous equation of state.
The ignition and growth model in AUTODYN achieves rapid, graceful convergence
when using the JWL unreacted EOS by limiting the range of pressures considered. It
does this by restricting the values of iterated specific volumes to Vu > VVNS /1.10.
The user can select any value for VVNS less than VCJ and greater than zero, but a
value only slightly less than VCJ (for example, the actual Von Neumann spike
volume, if known) will give the best results.
The AUTODYN implementation of the ignition and growth model has been tested
and calibrated without error with common explosives such as PBX-9404. The model
has gone through a reasonable amount of testing, but there may be sets of
parameter values that cause AUTODYN to make inexact estimates. For example, in
the unusual situation of an explosive that has just begun to react (F 0.01) and is
highly expanded (V 1.6), the unreacted and gaseous equations of state can have
multiple intersections, causing difficulty in convergence.
AUTODYN monitors activity and counts the number of times errors occur. When
errors occur, the program puts the message "<> L&T EOS Log File Dump <>" at the
bottom of the screen and writes diagnostic information to the log file. When the
number of errors equals a multiple of 100, AUTODYN wraps up the calculation.
Some errors sensed by AUTODYN have no effect on the integrity of a calculation.
For example, with the case described above, the condition is likely to occur at the
edge of an unconfined explosive that is some distance from the region of interest.
Error messages and steps to eliminate them are listed in Appendix A. Users who
may have missed an on-screen message can check the log file when finished with a
calculation to determine whether or not an error was detected.
1.
Pressure Equilibrium
For the ignition and growth model in AUTODYN, the unreacted explosive is
characterized with either the shock equation of state (EOS) or with the JWL EOS.
The gaseous explosive is characterized with the JWL equation of state. The model
computes a pressure that is the same in both the unreacted and the gaseous phases
of the explosive, consistent with the required values of the relative density = / 0 ,
the reaction ratio F, and the internal energy per unit mass E.
For the model in the AUTODYN codes, the computed change in internal energy in a given
time step is consistent with the change in pressure. Note that this implies that the unreacted
and gaseous phases are not necessarily in thermal equilibrium in a cell; a reasonable
assumption for explosives undergoing fast reaction. Another alternative is to assume thermal
equilibrium (as in the DYNA codes) and to divide the internal energy between unreacted and
gaseous phases consistent with this assumption. J. Wackerle and A.B. Anderson [Wackerle
10
& Anderson, 1984] studied both alternatives and obtained essentially equivalent results with
each. For the present time, there appears to be no advantage to one approach or the other,
but, if, in the future, heat conduction is implemented along with the ignition and growth
model to study problems such as the deflagration-to-detonation transition, the approach in
AUTODYN may have the advantage of finer resolution of the thermal flux.
The pressures in the unreacted and the gaseous phases of the explosive depend on
the relative densities of the explosive in these two phases (Figure 1). The model
iterates on the relative density of the unreacted explosive u until it achieves
pressure equilibrium, and it returns the so-derived pressure P. Given the relative
density of the unreacted explosive u, the relative density of the gaseous explosive
g is:
g = F u / [ u (1 F )] .
(3.1)
Gaseous
Unreacted
Figure 1. Computational cell containing unreacted and gaseous explosive. The

subscript "u" designates unreacted material, and the subscript "g", gaseous
material.
2.
Explosive Equation of State and Related Parameters
The explosive in the ignition and growth model can be unreacted, gaseous, or both.
The gaseous explosive is modeled with the JWL equation of state (EOS). The
unreacted explosive can be modeled with either the shock or the JWL EOS. The
user selects the shock EOS by choosing c0 > 0 and by setting appropriate values for
the parameters s and ; when c0 = 0, the user supplies instead the parameters for
the JWL unreacted EOS.
Shock Equation of State The shock EOS can be written as:
P (Vu , E ) = PH (Vu ) +
0
Vu
[ Eu (Vu , E ) E H (Vu )] ,
(3.2)
where PH (Vu ) is the Hugoniot pressure, Eu (Vu , E ) = (EVu E 0,g ) 0 is the internal
energy per unit mass for the unreacted explosive, E is the current internal energy per
11
unit volume in a cell, E0, g is the initial internal energy per unit volume, E H (Vu ) is the
Hugoniot energy per unit mass, Vu = 0 / u = 1 / u is the relative volume of the
unreacted ("u") explosive, and is the Grneisen coefficient. The Hugoniot pressure
and energy are defined as follows:
2
PH (Vu ) = 0c0 (1 Vu ) / [1 s(1 Vu )] and

1
E H (Vu ) = {c0 (1 Vu ) / [1 s(1 Vu )]}2 = PH (Vu ) (1 Vu ) / 0 ,

2
2
(3.2')
(3.2")
where c0 is the ambient bulk sound speed and s is the slope of the shockvelocity/particle-velocity fit ( us = c0 + s u p ). These equations imply that Vu > ( s 1) / s .
AUTODYN recognizes this limitation of the shock equation of state. As it iterates
towards convergence, it does not allow Vu to become smaller than ( s 1) / s .
Typically, s 2. 5 for explosives, so this means that Vu must be greater than
approximately 0.60, a reasonable limit. AUTODYN accepts all values for s 1 and
the value s = 0. In the latter case the pressure-volume relationship is linear with the
bulk modulus equal to 0 c02 .
The sound speed cex for the shock EOS is given by the following relationship:
P
cex = =
E
1 P
dV P
, where
=V
0 V E
d V E
P

dP
= H + 0
Vu
V E dV
Eu
1
dE
H [Eu (Vu , E) E H (Vu )] .
V E dV Vu
(3.3)
(3.3a)
In this equation,
dPH
= [1 + s (1 Vu )] PH (Vu ) /{(1 Vu ) [1 s(1 Vu )]},
dV
(3.3b)
E
E u
, and
=
V E 0
(3.3c)
dE H
= PH (Vu ) { 0 [1 s (1 Vu )]}.
dV
(3.3d)
A JWL form for the unreacted explosive was reported in both [Lee & Tarver, 1980] and
[Tarver et al., 1985]. AUTODYN allows the shock form in addition to the JWL form because
the shock EOS coefficients for unreacted explosives are more widely available than are the
JWL coefficients. As more data on the response of unreacted explosives is collected, more
accurate fits, such as those possible with the JWL form, can be obtained.
12
JWL Equation of State (EOS) The JWL EOS can be written as:
P (V , E ) = PAB (V ) +
E
V
, where
(3.4)
R 1V
R
e
+ B 1
PAB (V ) = A 1
e
R1 V
R2 V
2 V
(3.4a)
and A, B, R1, R2, and are parameters. Defining

E1
P1 = P1 (V1 , E 1 ) = PAB (V1 ) +
and
V1
P2 = P2 (V2 , E
) = PAB (V2 ) +
E2
V2
(3.5')
(3.5")
E 2 = E 1 P V , where P = 12 (P1 + P2 ) and V = V2 V1 .
(3.6)
Equation (3.6), known as the Hugoniot relation [Courant & Friedrichs, 1948], states that the
change in internal energy across a shock front is equal to the product of the average
pressure and the change in volume (the "PdV" work). Generally, as the volume increases,
the internal energy decreases. Equation (3.5") can be substituted into Equation (3.6) to
obtain the following relationship:
E 2 = E 1 12 [P1 + PAB (V2 )] V
1 + 2V V .
2
(3.7)
This equation gives the change in energy resulting from a change in volume from some
reference state at which the pressure is known.
Equation (3.4) is the generalized form of the JWL EOS. For the unreacted
phase,
Pu (Vu , E ) = PAB ,u (Vu ) +
Pg (Vg , E ) = PAB , g (Vg ) +
E u (E
Vu
E g (E
Vg
) , where E (E ) = E (E
u
) , where E (E ) = E
g
0,g
E 0,u ) V , and
, for the gaseous
phase.
For the ambient, unreacted explosive (denoted with the subscript "u"), Pu = 0 when
Vu = 1. For this case, Equation (3.4) reduces to the relationship E 0,u = PAB ,u (1) u ,
where E 0,u is the ambient internal energy. For the unreacted explosive the ambient
internal energy is simply a parameter that causes the pressure to be zero when the
density equals the reference density 0. For the gaseous explosive, the ambient
internal energy is the amount of energy available from the reaction of the explosive
constituents.
13
The isentropic form of the JWL equation of state is as follows:

PS (V ) = A e R 1V + B e
2 V
+ C V ( +1) ,
(3.8)
The sound speed is given by:

cex =
dPS
=
d
1 dPS
dV dPS
, where, for the JWL EOS,
=V
d dV
0 dV
dPS
R
= A R1 e R 1V B R 2 e
dV
2 V
(3.9)
( + 1) C V ( + 2 ) .
(3.10)
For the gaseous JWL equation of state the analysis requires the Chapman-Jouguet
pressure PCJ, the detonation velocity uD, and the ambient internal energy per unit
volume E 0,g ; for the unreacted JWL EOS, the analysis requires the Von Neumann
spike volume VVNS and the ambient internal energy per unit volume E 0,u
Whether the unreacted explosive is modeled with the shock or the JWL equation of
state, the analysis requires values for the maximum volume in tension (Vu, max), the
nominal reaction zone width (Wreac), and the maximum change in the reaction ratio
in
a
time
step
(Fmax), as well as the reaction parameters for Equation (2.3).
3.
Ignition and Growth Model Parameter Values for PBX-9404
The units ( mm-mg-s) in the table below were chosen to reduce roundoff errors in the
verification calculations described in Section 4. For mm-mg-s units, pressures are in GPa
and energies, in Joules. The equation of state, control, and reaction rate parameters, their
ranges, and some values for the explosive PBX-9404 are as follows:
Index
1
Symbol
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
9
21
A
B
R1
R2
uD
E0, g
PCJ
Wreac
AUTODYN
Name
RHOREF
Accepted
Range
(0, ]
Value for
PBX-9404
1.842 mg/mm3
A
B
R1
R2
W
DETV
EZIG
PCJ
WREAC
[0, ]
[0, ]
[0, ]
[0, ]
[0, ]
(0, ]
(0, ]
(0, ]
[2, ]
852.4 Gpa
18.02 Gpa
4.6
1.3
0.38
8.80 mm/s
10.2 Gpa
37.0 Gpa
2.5
14
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Fmax
I
b
a
x
G1
c
d
y
G2
e
g
z
FI, max
FG1,max
FG2,min
20
1
Vu, max
14
15
16
17
18
10
13
19
Au
Bu
R1, u
R2, u
u
c0
0, u
VVNS
DFMAX
[0.01, 0.5]
0.10
RRI
[0, ]
7.431011/s
RRB
0.667
[0, ]
RRA
0.0
[-, ]
RRX
20.0
[0, ]
RRG1
[0, ]
0.031/GPas
RRC
0.667
[0, ]
RRD
0.111
[0, ]
RRY
1.0
[0, ]
RRG2
[0, ]
0.040/GPas
RRE
0.333
[0, ]
RRG
1.0
[0, ]
2.0
RRZ
[0, ]
FIGMAX
[0, 1]
0.3
FG1MAX
[0, 1]
0.5
FG2MIN
[0, 1]
0.0
Unreacted EOS (JWL Explosive)
VUMAX
1.1
[1, ]
RHOREF
1.842
mg/mm3
(0, ]
[0, ]
[-, ]
[0, ]
[0, ]
[0, ]
[0, ]
[-, ]
(0, VCJ)
AUR
BUR
R1U
R2U
WU
SHKC0
EZIU
VVNS
15
9.522105 GPa
-5.944 GPa
14.1
1.41
0.8867
0.0
-0.15 GPa
0.7210
The range [0, ] signifies all values greater than or equal to zero; the range (0, ]
signifies all values greater than zero. Other ranges are defined by analogy. The
gaseous JWL equation of state parameters (indexed 2 to 9 in the above table) are
from [Tarver & Hallquist, 1981]. For PBX-9404, AUTODYN initializes internal
energies (per unit mass) in cells to be 5.53746 GPamm3/mg (10.2 GPa/1.842
mg/mm3). The unreacted JWL equation of state parameters (called JWL #2 in
section 4.2 and indexed 13 to 19 in the above table, activated by the value c0 = 0.0)
are from [Tarver & Hallquist, 1981]. The reaction rate parameters (indexed 23 to 37
in the above table) are from [Tarver et al., 1985] , converted to mm-mg-s units. The
reaction rate symbols are those in Equation (2.3). Appendix B lists Lee & Tarver
EOS parameters for several explosives and variants; the above model is identified
there as PBX9404JJ2.
The parameters FI, max, FG1,max, and FG2,min are cutoffs on the three terms in
Equation (2.3): the first term is set to zero when F exceeds FI, max ; the second term
is set to zero when F exceeds FG1,max ; and the third term is set to zero when F is
less than FG2,min .
16
Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

This section describes benchmark calculations of two types of explosive initiation
experiments to demonstrate the Lee and Tarver model in Version 3 of both AUTODYN 2D
and AUTODYN 3D. The calculations verified that the codes could simulate threshold
behavior observed in wedge tests and in flyer plate experiments. The section concludes with
a review of the calculations, to guide further study and applications.
1.
Flyer Plate Impact Calculations
Figure 2 illustrates the flyer plate impact experiment [Weingart et al., 1976]. An exploding foil
drives a polyethylene terepthalate (PET or Mylar) flyer into an explosive sample, which
initiates when the velocity of the flyer exceeds a threshold value. For a flyer thickness of
0.25 mm, the threshold velocity for PBX-9404 was measured to be 1.9 0.2 mm/s. The
analysis reported in [Tarver et al., 1985] gave a threshold of 2.55 0.05 mm/s. Calculations
of flyers at velocities of 2.6 and 2.8 mm/s are reported here that suggest a threshold
greater than 2.6 mm/s but less than 2.8 mm/s.
Barrel
Explosive
Pellet
Foil-Flyer
Laminate
Mylar
Flyer
Layer
Conductor
Bridge Foil
Figure 2. Exploded view of flyer plate impact experiment. The bridge foil vaporizes
when a large current is dumped across the conductors, driving the Mylar
(PET) flyer up the barrel onto the lower surface of the explosive pellet. The
opposite (upper) surface has a coating that flashes when shocked to a
pressure of 20 GPa. A streak camera records a bright flash on the upper
surface when initiation occurs.
17
The calculations described in this section were made with the three-term, 1985 model for
PBX-9404 (with an ignition term that depends on the 20th power of the explosive
compression) and the JWL equation of state (EOS) for the unreacted explosive. With the
shock EOS for the unreacted explosive, pressures were slightly higher.
The flyer plates in the experiments were thin. The initial shock wave was followed by a
rarefaction wave that had the potential of quenching the buildup to detonation. The buildup
could also be quenched by the rarefaction wave that occurred when the initial shock wave
reflected from the upper surface of the explosive (the aft surface, relative to the shock wave).
These calculations show how the rarefaction wave from the aft surface affected the pressure
buildup.
The observed threshold velocity depended on the thickness of the explosive and on
the experimental approach for detecting initiation. The samples in the experiments
were 19 mm thick. They were coated on the aft surface with Al2(SiF6)3, which flashes
at a pressure of 20 GPa. Hence, the criterion for initiation in the experiments (and in
the calculations) was a pressure of 20 GPa at the aft surface of a 19 mm-thick
sample.
The flyer plate impact experiment is a one-dimensional phenomenon represented in
AUTODYN 2D as indicated in Figure 3. The Mylar (PET) flyer was modeled with a
hydrodynamic strength model, a density of 1.40 mg/mm3, and a shock equation of
state (EOS) with c0 = 2.54 mm/s and s = 1.49. The Lee and Tarver parameters for
the PBX-9404 explosive were those listed in Section 3.3. The JWL form for the
unreacted EOS was used, and the explosive had a Von Mises strength model, with a
shear modulus G = 4.54 GPa and a yield strength Y = 0.2 GPa (the value used in
[Tarver & Hallquist, 1981], about twenty times the high strain rate tensile strength
[Dobratz & Crawford, 1985]).
(-0.02, 2.00)
Mylar Flyer
[6X2 Cells]
(-0.27, 0.00)
Flyer Velocity
[1, 1]
(2.6 or 2.8 mm/s)
PBX-9404 Explosive
[381X2 Cells]
(19.00, 2.00)
[381, 2]
(0.00, 0.00)
Figure 3. AUTODYN 2D setup for the calculations of the flyer plate impact experiment. The calculations were made with two, interacting Lagrange meshes
in planar symmetry. The zoning was uniform in the x-direction; all cells
were 0.05 mm in size. The cell size was five times greater than those
reported in [Tarver et al., 1985]; check calculations with smaller cells did
not change the run distances. Indices are in square brackets, and
coordinates (mm units) are in parentheses on the figure. Moving target
points were located at increments of 1.0 mm, ending 0.5 mm from the aft
(right) surface of the PBX-9404 explosive.
18
Target points were placed 0.5 mm from the aft surface and at 1.0 mm increments from this
point. In particular, target point number 21 was 0.5 mm from the aft surface, and target point
number 20 was 1.5 mm from the aft surface. In the case of the 2.6 mm/s velocity, the
pressure exceeded the 20 GPa threshold for all target points other than the one numbered
21; at this location, the pressure history had two peaks, one from the initial shock and one
from the quenched detonation (Figure 4a). In the case of the 2.8 mm/s velocity, the
pressure exceeded 20 GPa at all points (Figure 4b). The reaction ratio histories show
incomplete burning near the aft surface for V = 2.6 mm/s (Figure 5a) but complete burning
for 2.8 mm/s (Figure 5b). The detonation outran the rarefaction wave in the latter case. The
compressions were close to the nominal 0.30 value expected for initiation of PBX-9404
(Figures 6a and 6b).
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pressure (GPa)
20
15E
19
Threshold
18
21
(20 GPa)
Quenched Detonation
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Time (s)
4.8
5.0
Pressure (GPa)
35
20
15F
30
21
25
Threshold
19
20
18 (20 GPa)
15
10
5
0
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
Time (s)
a. Calculation 15E: flyer velocity of 2.6 b. Calculation 15F: flyer velocity of 2.8
mm/s. The pressure reached the
mm/s. The pressure exceeded the
20 GPa threshold for all points other 20 GPa threshold at all points.
than the one 0.5 mm from the aft
edge (numbered 21).
Figure 4. Pressures at moving target points in the flyer plate impact calculations with
flyer velocities of 2.6 and 2.8 mm/s. Target point 21 was initially 0.5 mm
from the aft surface of the explosive. The initial spacing between sequential
pairs of target points numbered 18 to 21 was 1.0 mm. The curves above
are denoted with the target point indices.
19
1.2
Reaction Ratio
19
1.0
1.2
15E
20
1.0
18
0.8
Reaction Ratio
15F
19 20 21
0.8
Inflection
0.6
0.6
21
0.4
0.2
0.0
4.0
0.4
0.2
4.2
4.4
4.6
Time (s)
4.8
5.0
0.0
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Time (s)
4.8
5.0
mm/s. Complete reaction occurred
mm/s. Complete reaction occurred
for all target points other than
for all points.
number 21. The inflection at t 4.3
s was caused by the rarefaction
wave arriving from the aft surface.
Figure 5. Reaction ratios at target points in the flyer plate impact calculations with
flyer velocities of 2.6 and 2.8 mm/s. The caption to Figure 4 describes the
initial target point locations.
0.3
0.2
0.1
Compression
21
20
18
Compression
21
0.2
20
19
0.1
0.3
15E
19
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
4.0
0.0
4.4
4.6
Time (s)
18
-0.1
Arrival of
Rarefaction Wave
4.2
15F
-0.2
4.8
5.0
-0.3
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Time (s)
4.8
5.0
mm/s.
mm/s.
Figure 6. Relative compressions at target points in the flyer plate impact calculations
with flyer velocities of 2.6 and 2.8 mm/s. The caption to Figure 4
describes the initial target point locations. The maximum compression
reached 0.28. The compression curves reveal the structure of the
rarefaction wave from the aft surface.
Validation with AUTODYN 3D Flyer plate calculations at 2.6 and 2.8 mm/s were
repeated with AUTODYN 3D, Version 3.0. The zoning was as depicted in Figure 3,
20
except that there was a third (z) dimension. To increase the time step, the cells were
made approximately cubical (y = z = 0.05 cm). Figure 7 shows the pressure
histories from the calculations. They compare favorably with the equivalent twodimensional calculations in Figure 4.
Pressure (GPa)
35
20
30
19
25
18
20
15
21
10
5
0
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Time (s)
1C
4.8
5.0
Pressure (GPa)
35
21
30
20
25
19
20
15
18
10
5
0
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
Time (s)
1A
4.8
5.0
a. 3D Calculation 1C: flyer velocity of b. 3D Calculation 1A: flyer velocity of

2.6 mm/s.
2.8 mm/s.
Figure 7. Pressures at moving target points in the AUTODYN 3D flyer plate impact
calculations with flyer velocities of 2.6 and 2.8 mm/s. Target point 21 was
initially 0.5 mm from the aft surface of the explosive. The initial spacing
between sequential pairs of target points numbered 18 to 21 was 1.0 mm.
The curves above are denoted with the target point indices.
2.
Wedge Test (Pop Plot) Calculations
Figure 8 is a diagram of the wedge test [Gibbs & Popolato, 1980]. The wedge test
determines the run distance to detonation for a given level of pressure in an explosive. By
contrast to the impacts of thin flyers on an explosive, such as those described in Section 4.1,
there is no rarefaction wave that may quench the detonation in the wedge test.
The calculations of the wedge test were made with Euler as well as Lagrange zoning in
AUTODYN 2D. One calculation with Lagrange zoning was also made with AUTODYN 3D.
Figure 9 shows the setup for the calculations. Subroutine EXEDIT (Appendix B) recorded the
maximum pressure in each cell and the location and the time at which the maximum
occurred. Initiation was assumed to have occurred when the pressure exceeded 37 GPa, the
detonation pressure of PBX-9404.
The brass attenuator impacting the explosive was modeled with a shock equation of
state (EOS). The density was 8.45 mg/mm, and the shock EOS parameters were:
c0 = 3.726 mm/s, s = 1.434, and = 2.04. The shear modulus for the Von Mises
strength model was G = 37.3 GPa, and the yield strength, Y = 2.0 GPa. The PBX9404 explosive also had a Von Mises strength model, with shear modulus G = 4.54
GPa and yield strength Y = 0.20 GPa. Several variants of the explosive EOS were
tried.
21
Plane Wave Lens

Explosive Layers
Attenuator Layers
Explosive
Sample
Detonation Breakout
Observed on
This Surface
Figure 8. Arrangement for the wedge test. The explosive and attenuator layers tailor
the shock into the explosive sample; the emerging pressure is constant
over the time frame of interest. The test is repeated for two or more levels
of pressure acting within the sample. The sloping surface of the sample is
coated with a reflective layer. Light does not reflect off the layer after the
passage of the shock through the sample; the breakout of the shock is
recorded on film in a streak camera. The velocity of the shock is
determined from the slope of the thickness/time curve. After detonation of
the sample, the velocity of the shock equals the detonation velocity. The
run distance to detonation is the thickness at which the transition to
detonation occurs.
22
(-0.02, 4.00)
(15.00, 4.00)
[301,2]
[31,2]
PBX-9404 Explosive
Brass Flyer
[1,1]
[1,1]
(-6.02, 0.00)
(0.00, 0.00)
a. Lagrange zoning (two interacting subgrids).

(0.00, 4.00)
[31,2]
Brass Flyer
(15.00 , 4.00)
[331,2]
PBX-9404 Explosive
[1,1]
(-6.00, 0.00)
b. Lagrange flyer, Euler explosive. Lagrange and Euler cells were

superimposed between x = -6.00 cm and x = 0.00 cm. An interface polygon
ran along the right edge of the flyer.
Figure 9. Lagrange and Lagrange/Euler zoning for the wedge test (Pop plot)
analyses. Coordinate locations are in parentheses, and subgrid node
indices are in brackets. The cells were 0.05 mm wide in the explosive. The
cell width in the brass flyer varied from 0.48 mm at the left edge to 0.05 mm
at the right edge; the cell width varied in the same way for the (covered)
explosive between indices I = 1 and I = 31. The calculations were made in
planar symmetry.
Pop Plot Comparisons There are ten AUTODYN 2D calculations of the wedge test
reported in this section, eight of which are characterized as follows:
Calcu
lation
9A
9B
9F
9G
9K
9L
9M
9N
I&G
Parameter
s
1985
1985
1980
1980
1981
1981
1980
1980
Unreacte
d
EOS
JWL #2
JWL #2
JWL #1
JWL #1
JWL #2
JWL #2
Shock
Shock
Model
JJ2
JJ2
JJ4
JJ4
JJ3
JJ3
SJ2
SJ2
Attenuato
r
Velocity
(mm/s)
0.55
1.40
0.55
1.40
1.40
0.55
1.40
0.55
The above calculations were made with AUTODYN 2D 3.0.
23
Initial
Pressur
e
(GPa)
3.2
11.3
3.0
10.2
11.3
3.2
11.0
3.0
Run
Distanc
e
(mm)
11.1
4.2
5.2
1.7
1.2
4.5
2.7
7.0
The (two-term) "1980" parameters for PBX-9404 are defined in [Lee & Tarver, 1980];
The (two-term) "1981" parameters are from [Tarver & Hallquist, 1981]; and the
(three-term) "1985" parameters for PBX-9404 are from [Tarver et al., 1985]. "JWL
#1" refers to JWL EOS values for PBX-9404 published in [Lee & Tarver, 1980]; "JWL
#2" refers to values published in [Tarver & Hallquist, 1981]. The unreacted shock
equation of state parameters are from Table 7-5 of [Dobratz & Crawford, 1985]; the
value of was estimated from tabulated values for similar explosives. The entries in
the "Model" column of the table above are the suffixes to the PBX-9404 models in
Appendix B, e.g., "JJ2" refers to model "PBX9404JJ2."
The relationship between attenuator velocity and initial pressure was determined from
AUTODYN 2D analysis in which the ignition and growth coefficients were set to zero. The
run distances were obtained either from interpolation (looking for the location at which the
Chapman-Jouguet pressure, 37 GPa, was first exceeded) on pressure-time histories or from
profiles of maximum pressure and time at maximum pressure. Both methods gave the same
run distances.
An alternative and more time-consuming approach to finding the run distance was to look for
points of inflection on plots of shock arrival time versus location (much like looking for points
of inflection on streak records from the wedge test). This was tried in a few cases (for
example, Figure 10), and it gave results that agreed with the methods described above.
DYNA shock arrival values were not available; hence the former methods were used so that
DYNA and AUTODYN could be directly compared.
Location at Pmax (mm)

15
11A
14
13 Run Distance
12
(11.1 mm)
11
10
9
8
7
6
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8
Time at Pmax (s)
Location at Pmax (mm)

10
11B
9
8
7
6
5
4
Run Distance
3
(4.2 mm)
2
1
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Time at Pmax (s)
a. Calculation 11A (V = 0.55 mm/s). b. Calculation 11B (V = 1.40 mm/s).

Figure 10. Plots of time at maximum pressure versus the location at maximum
pressure for Pop plot calculations with the 1985 ignition and growth
parameters, the JWL #2 unreacted EOS, and an explosive strength of
0.20 GPa. The run distances from these plots are the locations at which
the detonation becomes steady and the curves becomes straight. Run
distances obtained from interpolation on the Chapman-Jouguet pressure
are shown by comparison. The "kink" in the curve for Calculation 11A
results from a double peak in certain pressure histories.
24
Figure 11 summarizes the results of the Lagrange calculations listed in the table
above. DYNA and AUTODYN calculations with equivalent models are represented
with open and closed circles and boxes in Figure 10. The agreement between
analytical approaches is good, but the slopes of the curves do not match the
experimental slope. Further study of the computed values such as with the
alternative approach outlined above may yield better correspondence between the
calculations and the experiments.
20
Pressure (GPa)
AUTODYN
10
KO
Experiments
DYNA
2
5
10
20
Run Distance (mm)
Figure 11. Pop plots for the AUTODYN 2D analyses of PBX-9404 using Lagrange
zoning and comparison to other analytical approaches and to the
experimental data. The meanings of the symbols are listed in the table
below. The 1980 and 1981 models had two terms, and the 1985 model
had three (see Section 2.0). The equation of state (EOS) for the
unreacted explosive was either shock or JWL (Section 3.2). The
experimental data was for wedge tests with brass flyer plates. [Lee &
Tarver, 1980] reported calculations with the KO code represented by the
dotted line. The KO calculations used the 1980 parameters and the JWL
#1 unreacted EOS; they can be compared to the AUTODYN calculations
represented with the triangles. DYNA calculations with open symbols can
be compared to AUTODYN calculations with closed symbols. The cell
size for the DYNA calculations was 0.01 mm; it was 0.05 mm for the
AUTODYN calculations.
25
Symbol Table for Figure 11

Code
Symbol
DYNA
DYNA
AUTODYN
AUTODYN
AUTODYN
AUTODYN
I&G
Unreacted
Parameters
EOS
1981
JWL #2
1985
JWL #2
1980
Shock
1980
JWL #1
JWL #2
1981
1985
JWL #2
Lagrange and Euler Calculations of Explosives In addition to the eight Lagrange Pop
plot calculations described above, made with AUTODYN 2D , v. 3.0, two calculations
were also, one (11A) with the explosive modeled using Lagrange cells as in Figure
9a (made with AUTODYN 2D v 3.0, v 3.1, and v 4.1), and one (12A) with the
explosive modeled using Euler cells as in Figure 9b (made with AUTODYN 2D v 3.0
and v 3.1). Both used PBX9404JJ2, the same parameter set as in calculation 9A
(1985 ignition and growth parameters and JWL #2 unreacted EOS).
The peak pressure in the Lagrange calculation was about 45 GPa; it was about 50 GPa in
the Euler calculation (Figure 12). Although the peak pressures were higher in the Euler
calculation, the initiation threshold occurred at about the same time and at the location as in
the equivalent Lagrange calculation. The run distance for the Lagrange calculation, 11A,
was 11.1 mm; for the Euler calculation, 12A, it was 10.4 mm. The reaction ratio curves were
almost identical (Figure 13). Post-initiation compressions were about 0.35 in the Lagrange
calculation and were about 0.40 in the Euler calculation (Figure 14). Initial locations of target
points indicated on Figures 12, 13, and 14 are as follows:
Target Point Number
Initial Location x (mm) 1.025
50
3.025
5.025
7.025
Pressure (GPa)
40
30
11A
10 12
Threshold
(37 GPa)
20
0.5
1.0
14
30
1.5 2.0
Time (s)
0
0.0
10
8
Threshold
(37 GPa)
0.5
12
14
6
2
10
3.0
14
9.025 11.025 13.025
12A
20
2.5
12
Pressure (GPa)
40
8
2
10
0
0.0
50
10
1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (s)
2.5
3.0
a. Calculation 11A (Lagrange zoning). b. Calculation 12A (Euler zoning).

Figure 12. Pressure histories at moving target points in the wedge test calculations
with an attenuator velocity of 0.55 mm/s and an impact pressure of 3.2
GPa. The peaks of curves above are denoted with their target point
26
indices. Initiation occurred near point 12 for Calculation 11A and between
points 10 and 12 for Calculation 12A.
1.2
Reaction Ratio
11A
1.0
6 8 10 12
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (s)
2.5
12A
3.0
12
14
6 8 10
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
Reaction Ratio
1.0
14
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (s)
2.5
3.0

Figure 13. Reaction ratios FN at target points in the wedge test calculations with an
attenuator velocity of 0.55 mm/s and an impact pressure of 3.2 GPa.
The curves are for target points numbered 2 to 14. The table above
Figure 12 lists the initial target point locations.
0.5
Compression
11A
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (s)
2.5
12A
14
10 12
0.3
0.0
-0.1
0.0
Compression
0.4
10 12 14
0.3
0.2
0.5
3.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (s)
2.5
3.0

Figure 14. Relative compressions at target points in the wedge test calculations
with an attenuator velocity of 0.55 mm/s and an impact pressure of 3.2
GPa. The curves are for target points numbered 2 to 14. The table above
Figure 12 lists the initial target point locations.
Validation with AUTODYN 3D Wedge test calculation 11A was repeated with
AUTODYN 3D, Version 3.0. The zoning was as depicted in Figure 9a, except that
there was a third (z) dimension. To increase the time step, the cells were made
approximately cubical (y = z = 0.05 cm). Figure 15 shows the pressure histories
from the calculation. They compare favorably with the equivalent two-dimensional
27
calculations in Figure 12. The estimated run distance was 11.0 mm, close to the 11.1
mm value obtained with AUTODYN 2D.
50
Pressure (GPa)
2A
40
20
10
0
0.0
10
8
Threshold
(37 GPa)
30
0.5
12
14
6
4
1.0 1.5 2.0

Time (s)
2.5
3.0
Figure 15. Pressure histories at moving target points in an AUTODYN 3D wedge test
calculation with an attenuator velocity of 0.55 mm/s and an impact
pressure of 3.2 GPa. The peaks of curves above are denoted with their
target point indices. Initiation occurred near point 12.
3.
Review of Computations
The calculations presented in subsections 4.1 and 4.2 show that the Lee and Tarver ignition
and growth model, as implemented in the AUTODYN codes, Version 3.0 and v 4.1, faithfully
detects the initiation threshold for PBX-9404 in the wedge test and in the flyer plate
experiment.
The three-term model is recommended when an explosive has been thoroughly

characterized (for example, with embedded gauges) or when its primary constituents
react with two time-scales. Otherwise, when there is only limited data available, the
two-term model is recommended. With the AUTODYN codes, the user has greater
flexibility in the development of an ignition and growth model with the shock form of
equation of state (EOS) for the unreacted explosive as an option. Examples of
ignition and growth models for the explosives Octol, Composition B, and H6 in which
the shock form of the unreacted explosive has been used are in [Davison, 1992],
[von Rosen, 1994] and [von Rosen, 1997]. Parameter values are listed in Appendix
B.
The calculations verified the following features of the ignition and growth computational
approach in AUTODYN:
AUTODYN can compute explosive initiation in problems requiring either

Lagrange or Euler zoning (or both);
The shock equation of state model for the unreacted explosive is a proven,
practical alternative to the JWL form when little performance data is
available for an explosive; and
28
The model is valid for both two-dimensional and three-dimensional

analysis.
29
Chapter 5. References
[Courant & Friedrichs, 1948] R. Courant and K.O. Friedrichs, Supersonic Flow and
Shock Waves, Wiley Interscience, 1948.
[Davison, 1992] D.K. Davison, "Predicting the Initiation of High Explosives in
Components Subjected to High-Velocity Projectile Impact/Part 1 - Computer
Model of Initiation of Octol Explosive," Proceedings of the Insensitive Munitions
Technology Symposium, ADPA, Jun 92, p. 423.
[Dobratz & Crawford, 1985] B.M. Dobratz and P.C. Crawford, LLNL Explosives
Handbook, UCRL-52997, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, January
1985.
[Gibbs & Popolato, 1980] LASL Explosive Property Data, T.R. Gibbs and A.
Popolato, eds., University of California Press, 1980.
[Held, 1984] M. Held, "Critical Area for the Initiation of High Explosive Charges,"
Shock Waves in Condensed Matter, Elsevier, 1984, p. 555.
[Johnson et al., 1985] J.N. Johnson, P.K. Tang, and C.A. Forest, "Shock-Wave
Initiation of Heterogeneous Reactive Solids," J. Appl. Phys., 57 (9), May 1985, p.
4323.
[Lee & Tarver, 1980] E.L. Lee and C.M. Tarver, "Phenomenological Model of Shock
Initiation in Heterogeneous Explosives," Phys. Fluids, 23 (12), December 1980,
p. 2362.
[Mader & Forest, 1976] C.L. Mader and C.A. Forest, Two-Dimensional
Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Detonation Wave Propagation, Los Alamos
Report LA-6259, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, June 1976.
[Murphy et al., 1993] M.J. Murphy, E.L. Lee, A.M. Weston, and A.E. Williams,
"Modeling Shock Initiation in Composition B," Proceedings of the 10th
Symposium on Detonation, July 1993, p. 963.
[Ramsay & Popolato, 1965] J.B. Ramsay and A. Popolato, "Analysis of Shock Wave
and Initiation Data for Solid Explosives," Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on
Detonation, October 1965, p. 233.
[Simpson et al., 1996] R.L. Simpson, P.A. Urtiew, and C.M. Tarver, "Shock Initiation
of 1,3,3-Trinitroazetidine (TNAZ)," Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1995, S.C. Schmidt & W.C. Tao, eds., American Institute of Physics, New York,
1996, p. 883.
[Tang, 1991] P.K. Tang, "Modeling Hydrodynamic Behaviors in Detonation,"
Propellants, Explosives, and Pyrotechnics, 16, 1991, p. 240.
[Tarver & Hallquist, 1981] C.M. Tarver and J.O Hallquist, "Modeling TwoDimensional Shock Initiation and Detonation Wave Phenomena in PBX 9404
and LX-17," Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Detonation, June 1981, p.
488.
30
[Tarver et al., 1984] C.M. Tarver, L.M. Erickson, and N.L. Parker, "Shock Initiation,
Detonation Wave Propagation, and Metal Acceleration Measurements and
Calculations for RX-26-AF," Shock Waves in Condensed Matter - 1983, J.R.
Asay, R.A. Graham, & G.K. Straub, eds., Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1984, p.
609.
[Tarver et al., 1985] C.M. Tarver, J.O. Hallquist, and L.M. Erickson, "Modeling Short
Pulse Duration Shock Initiation of Solid Explosives," Proceedings of the 8th
Symposium on Detonation, July 1985, p. 951.
[Tarver et al., 1993] C.M. Tarver, P.A. Urtiew, S.K. Chidester, and L.G. Green,
"Shock Compression and Initiation of LX-10," Propellants, Explosives, &
Pyrotechnics, 18, 1993, p. 117.
[Tarver et al., 1996a] C.M. Tarver, D.M. Hoffman, P.A. Urtiew, and W.C. Tao,
"Shock Initiation of TATB/FEFO Formulations," Journal of Energetic Materials,
14, 1996, p. 217.
[Tarver et al., 1996b] C.M. Tarver, R.L. Simpson, and P.A. Urtiew, "Shock Initiation
of an -CL-20 Formulation," Shock Compression of Condensed Matter - 1995,
S.C. Schmidt & W.C. Tao, eds., American Institute of Physics, New York, 1996,
p. 891.
[Tarver et al., 1996c] C.M. Tarver, P.A. Urtiew, and W.C. Tao, "Shock Initiation of a
Heated Ammonium Perchlorate-Based Propellant," Combustion & Flame, 105,
1996, p. 123.
[Tarver, 1997] Unpublished Composition B model from C.M. Tarver, February 1997.
[Urtiew et al., 1996] P.A. Urtiew, C.M. Tarver, and R.L. Simpson, "Shock Initiation of
an 2,4-Dinitroimidazole (2,4-DNI)," Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1995, S.C. Schmidt & W.C. Tao, eds., American Institute of Physics, New York,
1996, p. 887.
[von Rosen, 1994] Unpublished Composition B model from B. von Rosen,
September 1994.
[von Rosen, 1997] Unpublished H-6 model from B. von Rosen, February 1997.
[Wackerle & Anderson, 1984] J. Wackerle and A.B. Anderson, "Burning Topology in
the Shock-Induced Reaction of Heterogeneous Explosives," Shock Waves in
Condensed Matter - 1983, Elsevier, 1984, p. 601.
[Walker & Wasley, 1969] F.E. Walker and R.J. Wasley, "Critical Energy for Shock
Initiation of Heterogeneous Explosives," Explosivestoffe, v. 17, no. 9, 1969, p. 9.
[Weingart et al., 1976] R.C. Weingart, R.S. Lee, R.K. Jackson, and N.L. Parker,
"Acceleration of Thin Flyers by Exploding Metal Foils: Application to Initiation
Studies," Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Detonation, August 1976, p.
653.
31
Chapter 6. Symbols
Chapter 6. Symbols
Index
1
Symbol
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
9
A
B
R1
R2
uD
0, g
PCJ
21
22
Wreac
Fmax
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
I
b
a
x
G1
c
d
y
G2
e
AUTODYN
Name
RHOREF
Description
Reference density
A
B
R1
R2
W
DETV
EZIG
PCJ
JWL gas high pressure coefficient

JWL gas medium pressure coefficient
JWL gas high pressure exponent
JWL gas medium pressure exponent
JWL gas low pressure coefficient
Detonation velocity
JWL gas chemical energy/volume
Chapman-Jouguet pressure
WREAC
DFMAX
RRI
RRB
RRA
RRX
RRG1
RRC
RRD
RRY
RRG2
RRE
Reaction zone width

Maximum reaction ratio increment
Coefficient for ignition term
Exponent for F factor in ignition term
Critical compression for ignition term
Exponent for factor in ignition term
Coefficient for growth term #1
Exponent for (1 - F) factor in growth term #1
Exponent for F factor in growth term #1
Exponent for P factor in growth term #1
Coefficient for growth term #2
Exponent for (1 - F) factor in growth term #2
32
Chapter 6. Symbols
33
34
35
g
z
RRG
RRZ
Exponent for F factor in growth term #2

Exponent for P factor in growth term #2
FI, max
FIGMAX
Maximum F for ignition term
36
FG1,max
FG1MAX
Maximum F for growth term #1
37
20
14
15
16
17
18
FG2,min
FG2MIN
VUMAX
AUR
BUR
R1U
R2U
WU
Minimum F for growth term #2

Unreacted maximum relative volume
JWL unreacted high pressure coefficient
JWL unreacted medium pressure coefficient
JWL unreacted high pressure exponent
JWL unreacted medium pressure exponent
JWL unreacted low pressure coefficient
10
13
c0
SHKC0
EZIU
Shock unreacted ambient bulk sound speed

JWL unreacted ambient internal
energy/volume
19
VVNS
VVNS
JWL unreacted Von Neumann spike volume
Vu, max
Au
Bu
R1, u
R2, u
u
0, u
33
Appendix A. Error Messages and Error Handling
APPENDIX A: ERROR MESSAGES AND ERROR HANDLING

Initialization Errors: Parameters for The Lee & Tarver equation of state are allowed
to take on the limited ranges indicated on the table in Section 3.3. When a value falls
outside the range prescribed, the user is prompted to choose a more suitable value.
Run Time Errors: The following "LT" messages are written to the log file when "<>
L&T EOS Log File Dump <>" appears onscreen. The other messages, also written to
the log file, clarify the "LT" messages. "LI" messages report problems with pressure
and energy iterations. "PI" messages report specifics related to the pressure
iteration.
Message
Cause
Action to Be Taken
LI180: L&T EOS

Energy Iteration Error
Pressure iteration error at the

beginning of the energy iteration.
See the "PI" errors below.
See below, under "PI"

errors.
LI410: L&T EOS

Energy Iteration Error
Pressure iteration error during the

energy iteration. See the "PI" errors
below.
See below, under "PI"

errors.
LI890: L&T EOS

Energy Convergence
Error .. (E,P) Pair of
Highest Pressure
Selected
Energy iteration fails. Can occur for

highly expanded states (V > 2).
Improve the model of the

explosive at free
boundaries. Increase
WREAC.
LT432: Large Change The test F 3Fmax fails. Can

in Reaction Ratio in
occur for highly expanded states.
L&T EOS
Increase WREAC.
LT434: Large Change The test |V| 0.30V fails. Can

in Relative Volume in occur for highly expanded states.
L&T EOS
Increase WREAC.
LT436: L&T EOS

Iteration Error
Associated with "LI" errors above.
See the associated "LI"

error.
LT439: Error Count

Exceeds Limit in L&T
EOS
The number of Lee & Tarver errors

equals a multiple of 100.
Check parameter values.

Increase WREAC.
PI920: Value Out of

Range for L&T
Pressure Iteration
Very highly compressed explosive.

The test [1 - s(1-Vu)] 10-3 fails.
Increase WREAC.
34
Appendix A. Error Messages and Error Handling
PI930: Value Out of

Range for L&T
Pressure Iteration
Pressure iteration convergence

jeopardized by near-parallel
unreacted and gas equation of state
curves.
PI940: Pressure
Pressure iteration unable to find a
Iteration Limit
crossing of the unreacted and gas
Exceeded in L&T EOS equation of state curves.
35
Avoid highly expanded

states.
Avoid highly expanded

states.
Appendix B. Lee and Tarver Model Parameter Sets
APPENDIX B: LEE AND TARVER MODEL PARAMETER SETS

The following pages list equation of state parameters for 24 Lee & Tarver equation of state
models. These parameters are the same as those found in the LEETAR material library
supplied with the AUTODYN codes. An abbreviated reference is cited for each model; the
following table identifies the reference (in Section 5.0) corresponding to each abbreviation.
Abbreviation
Reference from Section 5
Explosive(s)
[This report]
PBX-9404
B&, 81
[Bahl et al., 1981]
PBX-9404
D, 92
[Davison, 1992]
Octol 70/30
LT, 80
[Lee & Tarver, 1980]
PBX-9404, PETN,
TATB, Cast TNT
M&, 93
[Murphy et al., 1993]
Composition B
S&, 96
[Simpson et al., 1996]
TNAZ
TH, 81
[Tarver & Hallquist, 1981]
PBX-9404, LX-17
T&, 83
[Tarver et al., 1984]
RX-26-AF
T&, 85
PBX-9404, LX-17
T&, 93
LX-10
T&, 96a
[Tarver et al., 1996a]
TATB/FEFO
T&, 96b
[Tarver et al., 1996b]
CL-20
T&, 96c
[Tarver et al., 1996c]
ANB-3066
U&, 96
[Urtiew et al., 1996]
2,4-DNI
T, 97
[Tarver, 1997]
Composition B, H-6
VR, 94
[von Rosen, 1994]
Composition B
VR, 97
[von Rosen, 1997]
H-6
In the following tables values in bold typeface are different from those in the
references cited. They are improvements to the values originally used.
36
AUTODYN
Index
Name
1
RHOREF
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
A
B
R1
R2
W
DETV
EZIG
PCJ
Units
gm/cm3
Mbar
Mbar
cm/s
Mbar
Mbar
PBX9404- PBX9404- PBX9404- PBX9404- PBX9404JJ2

JJ3
JJ4
JJ5
SJ2
1.842
1.842
1.842
1.842
1.842
8.524
0.1802
4.6
1.3
0.38
0.8800
0.102
0.370
WREAC
2.5
DFMAX
0.10
RRI
1/s
7.43E+11
RRB
0.667
RRA
0.000
RRX
20.0
y
RRG1 1/Mbar s
3.1
RRC
0.667
RRD
0.111
RRY
1.0
z
RRG2 1/Mbar s
400
RRE
0.333
RRG
1.000
RRZ
2.0
FIGMAX
0.3
FG1MAX
0.5
FG2MIN
0.0
8.524
0.1802
4.6
1.3
0.38
0.8800
0.102
0.370
8.524
0.1802
4.6
1.3
0.38
0.8800
0.102
0.370
8.524
0.1802
4.6
1.3
0.38
0.8800
0.102
0.370
8.524
0.1802
4.6
1.3
0.38
0.8800
0.102
0.370
2.5
0.10
44
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
850
0.222
0.666
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
44
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
200
0.222
0.666
1.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
1899
1.000
0.000
3.2
24
1.000
1.000
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
44
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
200
0.222
0.666
1.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
37
20
1
14
15
16
17
18
VUMAX
RHOREF
AUR
BUR
R1U
R2U
WU
SHKC0

1.10
1.10
1.10
gm/cm3
1.842
1.842
1.842
Mbar
9522
9522
69.69
Mbar
-0.05944 -0.05944
-1.727
14.1
14.1
7.8
1.41
1.41
3.90
0.8867
0.8867
0.8578
cm/s
0.8800
0.8800
0.8800
Mbar
-1.50E-03 -1.50E-03 2.16E-03
0.7210
0.7210
0.6057
1.10
1.10
1.842
1.842
9522
0
-0.05944
0
14.1
0.0
1.41
0.00
0.8867
0.0000
0.8800
0.8800
-1.50E-03 0.00E+00
0.7210
0.0000
13
19
EZIU
VVNS
SHRMOD
YLDSTR
Mbar
Mbar
0.0454
0.002
0.0454
0.002
0.0454
0.002
0.0454
0.002
0.0454
0.002
Reference
T&, 85
TH, 81
LT, 80
B&, 81
38
AUTODYN
Index
Name
1
RHOREF
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
A
B
R1
R2
W
DETV
EZIG
PCJ
Units
gm/cm3
PETNJJ1
1.75
TATBJJ1
1.90
Mbar
Mbar
cm/s
Mbar
Mbar
5.892
0.16926
4.4
1.2
0.25
0.8210
0.101
0.327
6.5467
0.071236
4.45
1.2
0.35
0.7596
0.069
0.275
6.452346
0.107208
4.6
1.21
0.35
0.7590
0.066
0.260
3.712
0.032306
4.15
0.95
0.30
0.6930
0.070
0.210
8.807
0.1836
4.62
1.32
0.38
0.8820
0.104
0.375
2.5
0.10
20
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
400
0.222
0.666
1.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
50
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
125
0.222
0.666
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
4.00E+07
0.667
0.230
7.0
63000
0.667
0.667
4.0
400
0.333
1.000
3.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
2.5
0.10
50
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
40
0.222
0.666
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
7.43E+11
0.667
0.000
20.0
3.1
0.667
0.333
2.0
400
0.333
1.000
2.0
0.3
0.5
0.5
WREAC
DFMAX
RRI
1/s
RRB
RRA
RRX
RRG1 1/Mbarys
RRC
RRD
RRY
RRG2 1/Mbarzs
RRE
RRG
RRZ
FIGMAX
FG1MAX
FG2MIN
-
39
TATBFEF- TNTCASTJJ1
JJ1
1.78
1.63
LX10JJ1
1.865
20
1
14
15
16
17
18
10
13
19
VUMAX
RHOREF
AUR
BUR
R1U
R2U
WU
SHKC0
EZIU
VVNS
gm/cm3
Mbar
Mbar
cm/s
Mbar
-
1.10
1.75
37.46
-1.313
7.2
3.60
1.1730
0.8210
6.61E-04
0.6068
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.90
1.78
1.865
1.63
108.2
40000
17.98
9522
-2.406
-0.055039
-0.931
-0.05944
8.2
20.0
6.2
14.1
4.10
2.00
3.10
1.41
1.2510
0.8938
0.8926
0.8867
0.7596
0.7590
0.6930
0.8820
2.02E-03 4.52E-03 -1.54E-03 -1.50E-03
0.6757
0.7000
0.6285
0.7210
SHRMOD
YLDSTR
Mbar
Mbar
0.0470
0.002
0.0220
0.001
0.0354
0.002
0.0290
0.001
0.0500
0.002
Reference
LT, 80
LT, 80
T&, 96a
LT, 80
T&, 93
40
AUTODYN
Index
Name
1
RHOREF
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
A
B
R1
R2
W
DETV
EZIG
PCJ
Units
gm/cm3
LX17JJ1
1.895
LX17JJ2
1.895
Mbar
Mbar
cm/s
Mbar
Mbar
6.5467
0.071236
4.45
1.2
0.35
0.7596
0.069
0.275
6.5467
0.071236
4.45
1.2
0.35
0.7596
0.069
0.275
7.1395
0.1289
4.5
1.2
0.38
0.8330
0.0918
0.320
5.242
0.07678
4.2
1.1
0.34
0.7980
0.085
0.295
5.308
0.0783
4.5
1.2
0.34
0.7576
0.081
0.265
2.5
0.10
50
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
500
0.222
0.667
3.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
4.00E+06
0.667
0.220
7.0
0.6
0.667
0.111
1.0
400
0.333
1.000
3.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
2.5
0.10
44
0.222
0.000
4.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
1300
0.222
0.667
2.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.10
44
0.222
0.010
4.0
414
0.222
0.667
2.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
2.5
0.10
44
0.222
0.010
4.0
514
0.222
0.667
2.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
WREAC
DFMAX
RRI
1/s
RRB
RRA
RRX
RRG1 1/Mbarys
RRC
RRD
RRY
RRG2 1/Mbarzs
RRE
RRG
RRZ
FIGMAX
FG1MAX
FG2MIN
-
41
OCT7030- COMPBSJ3
JJ1
1.804
1.717
COMPBJJ2
1.63

1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
gm/cm3
1.895
1.895
1.804
1.63
1.717
Mbar
778.1
778.1
0
778.1
1479
Mbar
-0.05031 -0.05031
0
-0.05031 -0.05261
11.3
11.3
0.0
11.3
12.0
1.13
1.13
0.00
1.13
1.20
0.8939
0.8939
0.0000
0.8938
0.9120
cm/s
0.7596
0.7596
0.8330
0.7980
0.7576
Mbar
-6.12E-03 -6.12E-03 0.00E+00 -6.12E-03 -5.04E-03
0.6954
0.6954
0.0000
0.6933
0.7000
20
1
14
15
16
17
18
10
13
19
VUMAX
RHOREF
AUR
BUR
R1U
R2U
WU
SHKC0
EZIU
VVNS
SHRMOD
YLDSTR
Mbar
Mbar
0.0354
0.002
0.0354
0.002
0.0496
0.002
0.0350
0.002
0.0350
0.002
Reference
TH, 81
T&, 85
D, 92
M&, 93
M&, 93
42
AUTODYN
Index
Name
1
RHOREF
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
A
B
R1
R2
W
DETV
EZIG
PCJ
Units
gm/cm3
COMPBJJ3
1.717
Mbar
Mbar
cm/s
Mbar
Mbar
5.242
0.07678
4.2
1.1
0.34
0.7980
0.085
0.295
WREAC
2.5
DFMAX
0.10
RRI
1/s
4.00E+06
RRB
0.667
RRA
0.000
RRX
7.0
y
RRG1 1/Mbar s
850
RRC
0.222
RRD
0.667
RRY
2.0
z
RRG2 1/Mbar s
660
RRE
0.333
RRG
1.000
RRZ
3.0
FIGMAX
0.022
FG1MAX
0.6
FG2MIN
0.0
COMPB- ANB3066SJ1
JJ1
1.63
1.80
5.5748
0.0783
4.5
1.2
0.34
0.7700
0.081
0.250
16.23
0.55051
6.7542
2.27583
0.3131
0.7000
0.074
0.220
2.5
0.10
44
0.222
0.010
4.0
111
0.222
0.667
1.77
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
2.5
0.10
1.1
0.667
0.000
4.0
0.2
0.667
0.111
1.0
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
0.04
1.0
0.0
43
CL20JJ1
1.942
TNAZJJ1
1.83
16.379
1.8629
6.5
2.7
0.55
0.9210
0.115
0.390
12.80
0.9057014
6
2.6
0.57
0.8400
0.100
0.3228
2.5
2.5
0.10
0.10
7.43E+11 4.00E+13
0.667
0.667
0.000
0.000
20.0
20.0
150
230
0.667
0.667
0.333
0.333
2.0
2.0
400
3000
0.333
0.667
1.000
0.667
2.0
3.0
0.3
0.02
0.5
0.35
0.5
0.35

1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
778.1
0
70
4444
3300
-0.05031
0
-0.01674 -0.0513014 -0.0452515
11.3
0.0
13.5
13.5
10.0
1.13
0.00
1.00
1.35
1.35
0.8938
0.0000
0.8000
0.8695
0.8695
0.000
0.271
0.000
0.000
0.000
-6.12E-03 0.00E+00 -2.12E-03 -1.11E-03 -6.60E-05
0.6933
0.0000
0.5700
0.6900
0.6800
20
14
15
16
17
18
10
13
19
VUMAX
AUR
BUR
R1U
R2U
WU
SHKC0
EZIU
VVNS
Mbar
Mbar
cm/s
Mbar
-
SHRMOD
YLDSTR
Mbar
Mbar
0.0350
0.002
0.0350
0.002
0.0350
0.002
0.0450
0.002
0.0300
0.001
Reference
T, 97
VR, 94
T&, 96c
T&, 96b
S&, 96
44
AUTODYN
Index
Name
1
RHOREF
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
A
B
R1
R2
W
DETV
EZIG
PCJ
Units
gm/cm3
24DNIJJ1
1.67
H6JJ1
1.76
H6SJ1
1.75
RX26AFJJ1
1.836
Mbar
Mbar
cm/s
Mbar
Mbar
4.728
0.1065
4.4
1.2
0.32
0.7500
0.089
0.260
7.5807
0.08513
4.9
1
0.20
0.7470
0.103
0.240
7.5802
0.08513
4.9
1.2
0.20
0.7367
0.103
0.245
8.018
0.5264
5
2.1
0.34
0.8239
0.085
0.325
2.5
0.10
400
0.222
0.020
4.0
377
0.222
0.667
2.2
0
0.000
0.000
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
2.5
0.10
14
0.667
0.000
4.0
488
0.667
0.333
2.0
500
0.222
0.667
3.0
0.05
0.5
0.0
WREAC
2.5
2.5
DFMAX
0.10
0.10
RRI
1/s
2.00E+08 4.00E+08
RRB
0.667
0.667
RRA
0.000
0.000
RRX
15.0
7.0
y
RRG1 1/Mbar s
9.5
6
RRC
0.667
0.667
RRD
0.667
0.667
RRY
1.0
1.0
z
RRG2 1/Mbar s
25
5500
RRE
0.667
0.333
RRG
0.667
1.000
RRZ
2.0
3.0
FIGMAX
0.3
0.02
FG1MAX
1.0
0.5
FG2MIN
0.3
0.0
45

1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
gm/cm3
1.67
1.76
1.75
1.836
Mbar
2700
152.7
0
2011
Mbar
-0.0519165 -0.05175
0
-0.05204
13.0
9.5
0.0
12.4
1.30
0.95
0.00
1.24
0.9000
0.9760
0.0000
0.8867
cm/s
0.7500
0.7470
0.7367
0.8239
Mbar
-1.47E-03 -1.11E-02 0.00E+00 -3.83E-03
0.6600
0.0000
0.7000
0.6900
20
1
14
15
16
17
18
10
13
19
VUMAX
RHOREF
AUR
BUR
R1U
R2U
WU
SHKC0
EZIU
VVNS
SHRMOD
YLDSTR
Mbar
Mbar
0.0350
0.002
0.0400
0.002
0.0400
0.002
0.0404
0.002
Reference
U&, 97
T, 97
VR, 97
T&, 84
46
Appendix C. Subroutine EXEDIT
APPENDIX C: SUBROUTINE EXEDIT

EXEDIT retains the maximum pressure and the time and location at which the
maximum pressure occurs for all cells. Versions for AUTODYN 2D and 3D follow:
SUBROUTINE EXEDIT
! ************************************************************************
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
THIS IS A USER SUPPLIED SUBROUTINE WHICH CAN BE USED TO PROVIDE

SPECIAL CUSTOM EDITING. THE FREQUENCY AT WHICH THIS SUBROUTINE
IS CALLED IS DEFINED THROUGH INPUT (GLOBAL-EDIT-USER). WHEN
REQUESTED, IT IS CALLED BY THE EDIT PROCESSOR AT THE END OF A
COMPUTATIONAL CYCLE. THE ROUTINE IS CALLED BEFORE ANY OTHER
TYPES OF STANDARD EDITS ARE CALLED FOR THAT CYCLE (EG. PRINT,
SAVE, HISTORY, DISPLAY, ETC), SO IT MAY ALSO BE USED TO SET UP
DATA TO BE PROCESSED BY OTHER EDIT TYPES.
FOR 2D VERSION 4.1 (FORTRAN 90)
! ************************************************************************
USE
USE
USE
USE
USE
USE
mdgrid
ranges
kindef
cycvar
wrapup
subdef
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER (INT4) ::
REAL (REAL8) ::
I,
J,
PRESSURE
NS,
IJK
! ************************************************************************
! THIS SUBROUTINE ATTAINS MAXIMUM PRESSURE FOR EACH CELL (2D)
!
!
VAR01
ARRAY STORING MAXIMUM PRESSURE
!
VAR02
ARRAY STORING TIME WHEN MAXIMUM PRESSURE OCCURS
! ************************************************************************
! INITIALIZATION OF ARRAYS
IF (NCYCLE == 1) THEN
! LOOP OVER ALL SUBGRIDS
DO NS = 1, NUMSUB
CALL GETSUB
! LOOP OVER ALL CELLS
DO I = 1,IMAX
DO J = 1,JMAX
47
IJK
= IJSET(I,J)
VAR01(IJK)
= - BIG
VAR02(IJK)
= - BIG
! END LOOP ON CELLS
END DO
END DO
! END LOOP ON SUBGRIDS
END DO
END IF
! GET MAXIMUM PRESSURE
! LOOP OVER ALL SUBGRIDS
IF (NCYCLE > 1) THEN
DO NS = 1, NUMSUB
IF (NS/=NSUB) THEN
NSUB = NS
CALL GETSUB
END IF
! LOOP OVER ALL CELLS
DO I = 1,IMAX
DO J = 1,JMAX
! GET MAXIMUM PRESSURE FOR EACH CELL
IJK = IJSET(I,J)
PRESSURE = PN(IJK)
IF(PRESSURE >= VAR01(IJK)) THEN
VAR01(IJK) = PRESSURE
VAR02(IJK) = TIME
END IF
!
END LOOP ON CELLS

END DO
END DO
! END LOOP ON SUBGRIDS
END DO
END IF
RETURN
END SUBROUTINE EXEDIT
48
SUBROUTINE EXEDIT
C
C
STORE THE MAXIMUM PRESSURE AND THE TIME AND LOCATION OF
C
THE MAXIMUM PRESSURE *** FOR AUTODYN 3D *** VERSION 3.1 (F77)
C
INCLUDE 'implic.cmn'
! VARIABLE TYPES
INCLUDE 'cycvar.cmn'
! GET NCYCLE & TIME
INCLUDE 'subdef.cmn'
! GET NUMSUB
INCLUDE 'locsub.cmn'
! SET NSUB; GET IMAX & JMAX
INCLUDE 'grid.cmn'
! VARIABLE ARRAYS
C
INCLUDE 'pn.eqv'
INCLUDE 'xn.eqv'
INCLUDE 'yn.eqv'
INCLUDE 'zn.eqv'
INCLUDE 'var08.eqv'
! Z@PMAX
INCLUDE 'var09.eqv'
! PMAX
INCLUDE 'var10.eqv'
! X@PMAX
INCLUDE 'var11.eqv'
! Y@PMAX
INCLUDE 'var12.eqv'
! T@PMAX
C
IF(NCYCLE.GT.0) GO TO 400
DO 280 NSUB=1,NUMSUB
! INITIALIZE ARRAYS
CALL GETSUB
! GET IMAX, JMAX, & KMAX
DO 280 I2=2,IMAX
DO 280 J2=2,JMAX
DO 280 K2=2,KMAX
I2J2K2=IJKSET(I2,J2,K2)
VAR08(I2J2K2)=0.
VAR09(I2J2K2)=0.
VAR10(I2J2K2)=0.
VAR11(I2J2K2)=0.
VAR12(I2J2K2)=0.
280 CONTINUE
GO TO 800
C
400 DO 480 NSUB=1,NUMSUB
CALL GETSUB
! GET IMAX, JMAX, & KMAX
DO 480 I2=2,IMAX
DO 480 J2=2,JMAX
DO 480 K2=2,KMAX
IF(PN(I2J2K2).LE.VAR09(I2J2K2)) GO TO 480
VAR09(I2J2K2)=PN(I2J2K2)
I1=I2-1
J1=J2-1
K1=K2-1
49
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
C
480 CONTINUE
VAR10(I2J2K2)=0.125*( XN(I1J1K1)+XN(I2J1K1)+
XN(I1J2K1)+XN(I2J2K1)+
XN(I1J1K2)+XN(I2J1K2)+
XN(I1J2K2)+XN(I2J2K2) )
VAR11(I2J2K2)=0.125*( YN(I1J1K1)+YN(I2J1K1)+
YN(I1J2K1)+YN(I2J2K1)+
YN(I1J1K2)+YN(I2J1K2)+
YN(I1J2K2)+YN(I2J2K2) )
VAR08(I2J2K2)=0.125*( ZN(I1J1K1)+ZN(I2J1K1)+
ZN(I1J2K1)+ZN(I2J2K1)+
ZN(I1J1K2)+ZN(I2J1K2)+
ZN(I1J2K2)+ZN(I2J2K2) )
VAR12(I2J2K2)=TIME
800 RETURN
END
50

Lee Tarver Solving in Autodyn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Tarver Solving in Autodyn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Tarver Solving in Autodyn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUTODYN

Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics

Explosive Initiation Users Manual

Century Dynamics Incorporated

Century Dynamics Limited

1001 Galaxy Way

West Sussex, RH12 2DT

Tel: +1 925 771 2300

Tel: +44 (0) 1403 270066

Fax: +1 925 771 2309

Fax: +44 (0) 1403 270099

Tel: +31 79 36 20400

This page intentionally blank

This page intentionally blank

Chapter 2. Ignition and Growth Model of Explosive Initiation

Chapter 2. Ignition and Growth Model of Explosive Initiation

where the compression was:

where F, , and P are defined as above, and I, b, a, x, G1, c, d, y, G2, e, g, and z

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

0 and detonation velocity uD.

when P VCJ , ECJ PCJ PCJ < 0.01 .

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

Figure 1. Computational cell containing unreacted and gaseous explosive. The

Explosive Equation of State and Related Parameters

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

PH (Vu ) = 0c0 (1 Vu ) / [1 s(1 Vu )] and

E H (Vu ) = {c0 (1 Vu ) / [1 s(1 Vu )]}2 = PH (Vu ) (1 Vu ) / 0 ,

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

and A, B, R1, R2, and are parameters. Defining

E 2 = E 1 P V , where P = 12 (P1 + P2 ) and V = V2 V1 .

E 2 = E 1 12 [P1 + PAB (V2 )] V

Pu (Vu , E ) = PAB ,u (Vu ) +

Pg (Vg , E ) = PAB , g (Vg ) +

, for the gaseous

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

The isentropic form of the JWL equation of state is as follows:

The sound speed is given by:

Ignition and Growth Model Parameter Values for PBX-9404

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

Chapter 3. Implementation in the AUTODYN Codes

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

Flyer Plate Impact Calculations

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

(2.6 or 2.8 mm/s)

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

a. 3D Calculation 1C: flyer velocity of b. 3D Calculation 1A: flyer velocity of

Wedge Test (Pop Plot) Calculations

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

Plane Wave Lens

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

a. Lagrange zoning (two interacting subgrids).

b. Lagrange flyer, Euler explosive. Lagrange and Euler cells were

The above calculations were made with AUTODYN 2D 3.0.

Chapter 4. Benchmark Calculations

Location at Pmax (mm)