See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267998794

CFD approach to firearms sound suppressor design

Article · July 1996

DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-3020

CITATIONS READS
7 4,771

4 authors, including:

Mitchell Keith Hudson Keith Clutter

University of Arkansas at Little Rock SciRisq
67 PUBLICATIONS   363 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   222 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High Energy Materials and Rocket Fuel Studies View project

AP modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mitchell Keith Hudson on 09 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AIAA 96–3020

CFD APPROACH TO FIREARMS SOUND SUPPRESSOR DESIGN

M. Keith Hudson* and Chris Luchini

Department of Applied Science
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas

J. Keith Clutter and Wei Shyy

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics & Engineering Science,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Abstract dertaken [4, 5, 6] but have been limited primarily to

large caliber gun systems.
Suppression of muzzle blast is important in both large In the case of small caliber guns, suppressors have been
and small caliber gun designs. Key goals in the case of widely used as clandestine devices in sniper and other
small caliber systems are the reduction in the incidence roles in warfare to avoid detection of the shooter. While
of hearing loss due to the acoustic signal and signature this role has been widely accepted for many years other
reduction for military applications. Various devices applications of suppression are being sought, particular-
have been used to reduce the muzzle blast and the design ly to reduce the acoustic pressure levels from small arms
of these devices have relied heavily on experimental in- firing to address hearing loss disability. Interestingly,
vestigation. The current study evaluates the utility of while suppression for hearing loss reduction has re-
computational models in the design of suppressors for ceived some study, there has been little reported in the
small caliber guns. Experimental measurements are open literature over the many years that these devices
made for a representative suppressor design and simula- have seen use. This is most likely due to strict US regu-
tions are performed to determine the level of model so- lation of these devices in civilian applications.
phistication needed to correctly predict the effects of the
As in the case of the large caliber suppressors, the design
device. The current simulations correctly capture both
process for the suppressors has depended heavily on ex-
the levels and characteristics of the acoustic signal gen-
periments and a cut–and–try procedure. Unlike the large
erated by the bare muzzle and suppressor configura-
caliber work, no significant computational effort has
tions. These findings support the use of computational
been undertaken. Therefore, the goal of the current
models in the suppressor design process.
study is to determine the applicability of computational
tools developed for the large caliber suppressors to the
Introduction small caliber suppressors. Of primary concern is the
scaling of the blast phenomena and the identification of
Devices for the suppression of overpressures from fire- the driving physics which dictates the peak overpressur-
arms have been known and utilized for some time dating es and pressure signals. These two factors are key to the
back to the work of Maxim around the turn of the centu- acoustic signature of the suppressor and need to be cap-
ry [1]. Currently, suppressors are used on both large and tured by any computational code to be used for suppres-
small caliber guns for somewhat different purposes. In sor design.
the case of large caliber guns, the primary goal of over-
This report summarizes the initial experimental and
pressure suppression is to reduce the effects of blast on
computational investigation into suppressors for 22 and
structures and supporting vehicles. The design process
38 caliber / 9 mm guns. The experimental effort tested
of the suppression devices has relied heavily on exper-
a commercial suppressor as well as a cylindrical baffle
imental work and the development of empirical data-
design used to evaluate the computational code. The re-
bases [2, 3]. Some computational efforts have been un-
mainder of this document first discusses the experimen-
* Associate Professor, Member AIAA.
tal details and highlights some of the predominate

Research Associate, currently at NASA Jet Propulsion Lab physical occurrences identified. Next the computational

Doctoral Student, Member AIAA. model is reviewed and the simulations for the cylindri-

Professor and Chairman, Associate Fellow AIAA. cal baffle suppressor are presented and discussed. Con-
Copyright
1996 by M. Keith Hudson. Published by the clusions are then drawn as to the utility of computational
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. codes in small caliber suppressor design and the driving
with permission. physics behind the acoustic signal.

1
 AIAA 96–3020

Experimental Investigation inder body with one copper baffle held in place one third
of the distance down the suppressor body by aluminum
1. Experimental Setup and Description spacers (Figure 3). Limiting firing has been carried out
using the commercial suppressor on the 22 to show the
Firearms suppressor data collection requires that the re- cylindrical suppressor to be used in the computational
searcher have a sound insulated laboratory with ade- code evaluation produce similar pressure reductions.
quate backdrop for projectile containment, or have the
ability to set up on an outdoor range which has adequate 2. Experimental Results and Discussion
facilities to support the planned experiment. A suitable
All the experimental measurements are presented in
range has been located which offerers a sheltered area
Table 2 where ‘‘Sup” denotes the cylindrical baffled
with utilities, but provides an adequate acoustic envi-
suppressor and ‘‘Com” the commercial suppressor.
ronment to make sound measurements. All testing has
Scope traces from the unsuppressed firearms show a
been performed with the instrumentation sheltered from
single high–intensity peak with only minimal ringing
direct sunlight, but with the firearms muzzle and micro-
type peaks seen over the rest of the measurement period.
phone located just outside of the shelter to avoid direct
This of course correlates with the sharp, high–intensity
sound reflection effects on the collected data.
crack heard by the ear upon firearms discharge. For the
Figure 1 shows the general layout of the equipment and positions further from the muzzle the sound is seen to di-
tested firearm for all experimental trials. The equip- minish with distance from the microphone, as would be
ment used includes a Competitor Corp. 38 Special cali- expected, and the tracing pattern remains essentially the
ber action for all nominally 38 caliber / 9 mm testing and same except for the overall intensity changes.
a AMT Lightning rifle for all 22 LR testing. Both ac- Scope traces for the firearm firings using the cylindrical
tions have been modified to allow fitting of a commer- baffle suppressor show a characteristic intensity spread-
cial suppressor shell, utilizing a GEMTECH Model Vor- ing. The large single peak seen with the bare muzzle is
tec 9 for 38 / 9 mm and a Vortec 2 for all 22 LR testing. gone, replaced typically by a set of peaks of similar in-
Barrel length on the Competitor action is 10 inches tensity, often by two peaks of almost the same amplitude
while the 22 rifle has a length of 20 inches. The cylindri- especially in the 38 / 9 mm data. The values of the two
cal baffle suppressor dimensions are given in figure 2. peaks are given in Table 2 and are denoted with the 1 and
Handloaded ammunition has been used in the 38 / 9 mm 2 following the suppressor designation. Also for the sup-
unit consisting of a 160 grain Speer jacketed bullet in a pressor configuration, the smaller peaks which appear
38 Special casing, over 8.6 grains of Alliance Blue Dot as ringing type peaks in the bare muzzle tests are rela-
Powder. The 22 LR has used commercially available tively larger when compared to the peak signals. This
CCI Blazer brand ammunition. During firing, the 38 / is in agreement with the suppressor acting to ”spread”
9 mm unit is held on a sandbag, while the 22 rifle is the discharge sound out over a larger time scale, mini-
shoulder fired in the normal manner. Care is taken to en- mizing the peak value, but giving a longer duration to
sure the same relative alignment of the pressure gages the overall sound. Audibly, this is heard by the authors
for each firing. as a change in the characteristics of the sounds to less of
Acoustic data is collected using a Bruel and Kjaer 4135 a crack and more of a loud hissing noise. Also, audibly,
condenser microphone powered by a 2801 power sup- the sound is suppressed to a level where it is not objec-
ply. Calibration data indicated that this unit is accurate tionable to the un–protected ear. The control firings
to 100 KHz and provides an output of 3.39 mV/Pa. The made using the full commercial set of baffles is noted to
microphone is positioned upright (pointed up) on a tri- be very quiet, although still sounding like a firearm in
pod and positioned between 3 and 20 inches from the general. Another distinct acoustic signal noted during
muzzle. The firearm is then positioned to a point paral- testing is the sonic crack generated by the supersonic
lel to the microphone, and then pulled back up to 10 in- bullet. This is especially true in the 22 LR trials.
ches from the microphone to establish a grid of measure-
Computational Model
ments (Table 1). The microphone is read by a LeCroy
Model 9400A, 175 MHz 8–bit digital storage scope. 1. Governing Equations
Computer readouts of the sound tracings during firings
are not available so peak data is recorded by hand. If The computational model used for the current study is
there appeared to be two major sound peaks, each peak a finite volume based computational fluid dynamics
is recorded. Measurements from three firings are made (CFD) code developed to aid in the design of gun
at each gage position. Firings are made with the bare muzzle devices. The governing equations for the gun
muzzle in all positions, followed by a similar set of fir- blast problem are the full Navier–Stokes equations for
ings with the suppressor attached. For all experimental a multi–species chemically reacting flow. The current
firings, the suppressors consisted of a right circular cyl- study focuses on the inviscid and real gas aspects of the

2
 AIAA 96–3020

problem to determine their relative role in the genera- able surface boundary conditions are applied to model
tion of the acoustic signature. Therefore, the equations the projectile’s surface.
to be solved are the Euler equations for a multi–species
flow with variable specific heats. When discretized, the 2. Gas Properties
equations take the form The equation of state is derived by assuming the ideal
gas equation is valid for each species and has the form
J Q J F J G



J H0 (1) [7]
t  
 Mi
NS
where the dependent variable and flux vectors are P  R uT (4)
i1 i

u  U  The temperature during the calculations must be ex-

uU
 xP
 v  
vU
 yP

tracted from the conserved quantity of internal energy

 
Q  E  ,
 
F  U E
P
 ,
using the relationship

 1U   ihi  P
NS
 1    e
     
NS1
i1

 NS1U 
T

 Cp dT
(5)
(2) hi  h o


uVV

 xP
 uvv

fi i


vV
yP
TR
 
 v2  
 
G  V E
P , H  y v E
P  .
 where TR is the reference temperature for the gas prop-

 1
  v 

 1V   1 
erties. The specific heat, Cpi, of each species is a known
    
function of temperature. The representation of specific
   heats can vary from assuming they remain constant to

 NS1V 
  NS1v  a quadratic dependence on T. If a high order function is
used for Cpi then an iterative procedure must be used to
extract the temperature in each cell at each time level.
The dependent variable i is the mass fraction of ith spe- Here, a compromise between efficiency and sophistica-
cies with the fluid being defined by NS total species. tion is made by representing Cp as a linear function of
Note that the mass fraction of the NSth species is not ex- T over the temperature range to be encountered during
plicitly modeled since the total density is included and the simulations. By using the linear relationship, the

 i holds.
NS temperatures at each point in the field can be extracted
the relationship   by solving a simple equation while introducing the ef-
i1 fects of varying specific heats.
The suppressor design to be simulated are axisymmetric 3. Fluid Dynamics Operator
and therefore the axisymmetric form of the equations is
used and the effects of the third dimension are included The fluid dynamics aspects of the problem are modeled
by incorporating the source term H. using an explicit schemes. To maintain second–order
accuracy, the fluid dynamics operator must be second
The grid Jacobian J and the contravariant velocities are order and here a prediction–correction scheme is used
defined as of the form [8]

J  x y   x y 
Q *  Q n 
t  F (1)
 G(1)
Hi , j
n
U   xu
 yv . (3) 2
V   xu
 yv (6)
Q n
1  Q n 
t F (2)
 G (2)
H i , j
*

The effects of the projectile are included in the simula-

tion by making a constant velocity assumption and de- with
termining at each time interval the appropriate location F  F i
1 , j  F i1 , j
of the projectile. The cells which contain the projectile 2 2
 G  G (7)
are identified and an additional source term is added to 1  G
i , j
2 i , j12
denote the appropriate volumetric change and imperme-

3
 AIAA 96–3020

and where the superscripts * and n denote the time level The above formulation gives K=F when k=c and K=G
at which the fluxes are computed and the superscripts when k=h. For the multi–species chemically reacting
(1) and (2) denote the spatial order of the numerical flow, c is the frozen speed of sound where
fluxes. Note the fluxes in c and h are computed at the c 2 + g ǒPńrǓ and g is the effective specific heat ra-
cell faces and the axisymmetric source term is com- tion.
puted based on the cell average.
As indicated in equation 7, the fluxes are evaluated at
The scheme used to define the inviscid numerical fluxes the cell faces and are either 1st or 2nd order representa-
is the Steger–Warming flux vector splitting algorithm tions. The flux at the face is a function of the states in
which has been extended to model multi–species flows the neighboring cells and can be symbolically repre-
[9]. The flux vector splitting algorithm decomposes the sented by
inviscid fluxes into non–negative (K+) and non–positive
(K–) components based on the eigenvalues of the Jaco-
ēF and likewise for G. The split fluxes take
F
i)12 , j
ǒ
+ F ) QL
i)12 , j
Ǔ ) F ǒQ Ǔ * R
i)12 , j
(12)
bian A +
ēQ
the form If a 1st order spatial representation is used, then
Q L 1 + Q i , j , Q R 1 + Q i)1 , j . To achieve
K " + l " 1K 1 ) l " 2K 2 ) l " 3K 3 (8)
i)2 , j i)2 , j
2nd order accuracy, a MUSCL approached is used in
where the eigenvalues are which cell–center values are extrapolated to the inter-
faces [10]. Also, to guard against the interpolation
l " k + 1 ǒlk " |lk|Ǔ introducing any nonphysical extremes into the field in
2 the region of large gradients, a limiter must be used. The
l1 + bk formula for the neighboring states takes the form
(9)
l2 + b k ) c|ʼnk|
QL + Qi , j ) F*
i)1 , j
l3 + b k * c|ʼnk| i)12 , j 2
(13)
QR 1 + Q i)1 , j * F ) 1
with i)2 , j i)2 , j

~ ~ where the limiting function is

q k + k xu ) k yv
l i)1 , j
mmodƪDQ ) i)1 , j, DQ * i)1 , jƫ
~ k ~ ky
kx + x ky + (10) F) 1 +
|ʼnk| |ʼnk| i)2 , j 2
|ʼnk| +Ǹk2 x ) k 2 y li , j
F*
i)12 , j
+ mmodƪDQ * i , j, DQ ) i , jƫ
2
The split flux components are (14)
r
ȱ ru ȳ with

ȧ rv ȧ 2ǒQ i)1 , j * Q i , jǓ
ȧ ȧ DQ ) i , j +
K 1 + g ȧr h t * g * 1Ǔȧ
g * 1ȧ ǒ c 2 ȧ l i)1 , j ) li , j
ȧ ra ȧ 2ǒQ i , j * Q i*1 , jǓ
(15)
ȧ ȧ DQ * i , j +
ȧ L
1
ȧ l i , j ) li*1 , j
Ȳ raNS*1 ȴ Here the popular minmod limiter is used where
ȱ r ȳ
(11)
mmod [X, Y] +
ȧrǒu " kxcǓȧ
~
sign(X) max[0., min(|X|, Ysign(X))] . (16)
ȧrǒv " kycǓȧ ~

K 2,3 + ȧ ǒ
ȧ ȧ
1
2gȧ t
r h " q k ȧ
c Ǔȧ Note l i,j , the cell–length, is used to provide weighting
for nonuniform grid spacing. The same extrapolation
ȧ ra1 ȧ procedure is carried out for the fluxes in h and can be
ȧ L ȧ performed on either the dependent or primitive vari-
Ȳ raNS*1 ȴ ables. Previous investigations have shown that using
primitive variables gives better performance for flows

4
 AIAA 96–3020

with strong shocks and this is the method used here [10]. acoustic signal. This data can also be used to determine
if the inviscid and real gas effects being modeled are
dominate players in the determination of the peak pres-
4. Boundary Conditions sures and the acoustic signals. The data from the experi-
ments and simulations are presented with respect to the
The present predictive code has been designed to model
the launch phase of the ballistics problem and therefore, gage location. The locations of the gages are given in
it is assumed that boundary conditions near the muzzle table 1. The distances are measured from the exit of the
exit are known. This alleviates the need to recompute muzzle in the cases with no suppressor and from the exit
of the suppressor when it is used.
the interior ballistics phase for each computations
which reduces the computational time when conducting A comparison between the simulated and measured
design studies for muzzle devices. Typical boundary pressures for the bare muzzle 38 / 9 mm is presented in
condition information needed includes temperature, figure 4 as well as data for the 38 / 9 mm with the sup-
pressure, and velocity time histories near the muzzle pressor present. The curves denoting the experimental
exit as well as the gun propellant used. This information measurements are fit to the average of the three firings
can be obtained either from an interior ballistic code or made for each configuration and gage location. During
from experimental measurements. For the current study, the firing with the suppressor, two distinct peaks were
the simulations were carried out in parallel to the experi- measured by the gages and these are denoted wave 1 and
ments so some assumptions had to be made as to the wave 2 with wave 1 being the peak which arrived first.
boundary conditions. The exact boundary conditions Likewise, the simulations showed the initial peak to be
achieved during the experiments may vary somewhat accompanied by a second peak or plateau (figure 5).
from those assumed, however, the relative effects of the However, in the simulations the larger of the two peaks
muzzle device should be evident in the simulations. always arrived first where as in the experiments the larg-
er of the two peaks arrived second. This discrepancy
The particular boundary conditions used for the simula-
may results from the assumptions about the projectile
tions of the 38 / 9 mm are a peak pressure of 6,000 psi,
flight velocity since the interaction of the projectile with
peak velocity of 1000 fps, and a peak temperature of
the pressure field as it is evolving in the suppressor can
2400 F. It is assumed that all quantities decayed to atmo-
effect the resulting pressures. Previous studies [6] have
spheric conditions over a time period of approximately
shown that neglecting the projectile can affect the pre-
4 ms. For the 22, the peak pressure is lowered to 2,000
dicted overpressures and the same results would be ex-
psi but the remaining variables were kept the same.
pected if there is error in the projectile velocity. Howev-
The simulations presented here model the flow field as er, the simulated pressure levels agree quite well with
a combination of three species, these being the O2 and the experiments and do indeed convey the effect of the
N2 found in the ambient air and the gun propellant gas. suppressor in reducing the pressure and in turn the level
The properties for oxygen and nitrogen are available in of sound generated.
various sources [11]. The gun propellant is known to be The peak pressures from the simulation for the 22 cali-
composed primarily of the active agents CO and H2 as ber case are presented in figure 6 with the nomenclatural
well as the inert N2 and to a smaller extent the combus- the same as earlier. The first observation is that even
tion products H2O and CO2 resulting from the interior though the simulation captures the trend in overpressur-
ballistic process. Therefore, the properties used for the es for the bare muzzle case, the values are lower than
gun propellant (F) are formulated to represent a mixture those measured at all gage locations. This indicates ei-
of CO and H2 and the boundary conditions imposed near ther the pressure assumed for the boundary conditions
the muzzle exit specify the mass fraction to be in the simulation was somewhat lower than those

F
.64 and
N2
.36. These assumptions which achieved during the experiments or the inviscid non–
simplify the gun gas composition are done to reduce the reacting flow model is not capturing some of the driving
number of governing equations. Similar processes have physics. It has been shown that by including the chemi-
been used previously with good results even when fur- cal reaction processes higher overpressures are seen in
ther combustion is included in the modeling [6]. simulations for gun blast [6]. However, before adding
reaction for the cases in the current study, a closer as-
5. Results and Discussions sessment of the true boundary conditions should be
The only experimental data available for code evalua- made.
tion is the peak pressures measured in the experiments. The simulations of the 22 with suppressor do capture the
Therefore, the only judgement as to the utility of the general trend of the baffle design producing lower pres-
computational code that can be made is whether the sures and in turn lower sound levels. However, the simu-
code correctly simulates the general effect of the sup- lated peak pressure values are somewhat larger than the
pressors in reducing the pressure levels and in turn the measurements for gages 3 and 6. Again it is believed

5
 AIAA 96–3020

that some of the discrepancy is due to the assumed pro- plications. To correct some of the discrepancies identi-
jectile velocity but further investigation is needed. Even fied here in the prediction of pressure and sound
given these regions of over prediction, the simulation generation, more attention should be paid to the projec-
does capture the effects of the baffle design in reducing tile flight parameters with one option being to use the
the pressure levels and in turn the sounds generated. simulated pressures on the projectile to dictate its flight
velocity. However, any increase to the model sophis-
As in the case of the 38 / 9 mm with suppressor, the mea- tication should be weighed against its robustness and ef-
surements for the 22 also showed a coupling of high ficiency for the task at hand. The current study does
pressure peaks. But here the variation in the magnitudes show the utility of computational modeling in the design
were much less and the larger of the two was not always process of suppressors which is needed to reduce the
the peak which arrived first. In the simulations, the pre- reliability on empirical databases and the expensive
dominate peak was followed by a lower peak or plateau cut–and–try procedure.
in pressure (figure 7) much as the case for the 38 simula-
tions. As mentioned earlier, when fired the baffle design Acknowledgements
generates a sequence of pressure waves emitted from
The authors wish to thank Armond Tomany for work in
the suppressor with magnitudes larger than the ringing
modifying the firearms to accept the suppressor units
noted in the bare muzzle case. This phenomena is also
and to Philip H. Dater, M.D., of GemTech Division of
seen in the simulations and can be seen in Figure 8 which
Gemini Technologies and Antares Technologies for
shows a pressure contour at one instance in time during
supplying the suppressors used in this study.
the firing of the 22 with suppressor. The contour levels
have been set to highlight the pressure spectrum around References
1 atmosphere. Evident in the figure is a sequence of
[1] E.C. Ezell, Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed.,
pressure pulses emitted from the suppressor. Points A,B,
Barnes and Noble, New York, 1993.
and C denote the peaks of the pulses where A is a pulse
just being emitted while B and C are pulses which have [2] L. Stiefel, Gun Propulsion Technology, Vol 109
traveled outward into the field. If the time evolution of Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA,
the suppressor’s internal flow field is viewed, it is evi- Washington D.C., 1988 pp. 183–259.
dent that shocks are continuously reflecting off the face [3] G Klingenberg, J.M.Heimerl, Gun Muzzle Blast
of the suppressor walls normal to the line of fire. This is and Flash, Vol 139 Progress in Astronautics and Aero-
most likely the driving force behind the pulsating pres- nautics, AIAA, Washington D.C., 1992 pp. 197–338.
sure signature. [4] G.C. Carofano, ‘‘Blast Field Contouring Using
Upstream Venting,” ARCCB–TR–93009, US Army
Conclusions Armament Research, Development and Engineering
Center, March 1993.
Many types of muzzle devices are used to reduce the [5] G.C. Carofano, ‘‘A Note On The Blast Signature
overpressures generated during the gun firing process. of a Cannon,” ARCCB–TR–92014, US Army Arma-
An example of these type devices is the baffle configu- ment Research, Development and Engineering Cen-
ration tested here. Both the experiments and simulations ter, March 1992.
show such a design reduces the level of overpressures.
[6] J.K. Clutter, G. Abate, W. Shyy, & C. Segal ‘‘Study
The fact that the current simulations captures this phe-
Of Fast Transient Flow Phenomenon For Munition
nomena infers that the reduction in sound by muzzle de- Application,” AIAA Paper 96–0829.
vices such as the baffle design are due in a large part to
the inviscid aspects of the flow. This as well as the good [7] J. Anderson, Hypersonic and High Temperature
comparisons with the measured peak pressures is en- Gas Dynamics, McGraw–Hill New York, 1989.
couraging to the engineer tasked to design muzzle de- [8] R.J. LeVeque and H.C. Yee, ‘‘A Study of Numeri-
vices since all these simulations have been carried out cal Methods for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws with
modeling only the inviscid and real gas aspects of the Stiff Source Terms,” Journal of Computational Phys-
problem. Further accuracy can be achieved by including ics, Vol 86, 1990, pp 187–210.
the chemical reactions and turbulence and this would be [9] M.S. Liou, B. Van Leer, and J.S. Shuen, ‘‘Splitting
required to model muzzle flash. Also, phenomenon such of Inviscid Flues for Real Gases,” Journal of Com-
as suppressor erosion would require some accounting putational Physics, Vol. 87, 1990 pp 1–24.
for the particle loading and heat transfer to the walls. [10] J.S. Shuen ‘‘Upwind Differencing and LU Factor-
Any investigation into these phenomena should be ac- ization for Chemical Non–equilibrium Navier–Stokes
companied with a more detailed model of the internal Equations,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol
flow field to include the modeling of the turbulence. 99, 1992, pp 233–250.
Further investigation is needed to determine to what lev- [11] Stull, D.R. and Prophet, H., ”JANAF Thermo-
el these aspects need to be modeled for engineering ap- chemical Tables,” NSRDS–NBS 37, June 1971.

6
 AIAA 96–3020

Caliber Gage X (in) Y (in)

22 1 0 7.5
22 2 3.5 7.5
22 3 7 7.5
22 4 0 10
22 5 5 10
22 6 10 10
38 1 0 10
38 2 5 10
38 3 10 10

Table 1. Placement of pressure gages for the experiments and simulations.

Cal Y X Bare Sup (1) Sup (2) Com (1) Com (2)
22 7.5 0.0 1.0505 1.0074
22 7.5 3.5 1.0604 1.0098 1.0125
22 7.5 3.5 1.0658 1.0119 1.0113
22 7.5 3.5 1.0621 1.0106 1.0135
22 7.5 7.0 1.0757 1.0123 1.0169 1.0082 1.0061
22 7.5 7.0 1.0749 1.0124 1.0130 1.0071 1.0053
22 7.5 7.0 1.0782 1.0124 1.0139
22 10.0 0.0 1.0387 1.0048 1.0056
22 10.0 0.0 1.0391 1.0055 1.0053
22 10.0 0.0 1.0366 1.0051 1.0043
22 10.0 5.0 1.0511 1.0092 1.0097
22 10.0 5.0 1.0532 1.0087 1.0098
22 10.0 5.0 1.0536 1.0075 1.0094
22 10.0 10.0 1.0501
22 10.0 10.0 1.0583 1.0128
22 10.0 10.0 1.0600 1.0109
22 10.0 10.0 1.0565 1.0128
38 10.0 0.0 1.1500 1.0300 1.0416
38 10.0 0.0 1.1636 1.0266 1.0281
38 10.0 0.0 1.1670 1.0203 1.0237
38 10.0 5.0 1.1936 1.0479 1.0542
38 10.0 5.0 1.2105 1.0392 1.0532
38 10.0 5.0 1.1922 1.0489 1.0523
38 10.0 10.0 1.1704 1.0610 1.0987
38 10.0 10.0 1.1554 1.0629 1.0799
38 10.0 10.0 1.1626 1.0658 1.0842

Table 2. Experimental measured peak pressures in atmospheres for all configurations.

7
 AIAA 96–3020

O–scope Microphone
pre–amp (vertical)

y – distance

table

x – distance
firearm sandbag suppressor

Figure 1. Schematic of experimental layout.

L
.22 .38
L/3 We L = 4.316” 6.373”
Wi Di = .749” .995”
Di
De = .263” .442”
De De
Center Line / Line of Fire Wi = .25” .25”
We = .36” .36”

Figure 2. Schematic of cylindrical baffle suppressors cross section and specific distances.

8
 AIAA 96–3020

Figure 3. Picture of the cylindrical baffle suppressor and 38 action used in the tests.

1.4
’38_bare.dat’
’38_sup_wave_1.dat’
’38_sup_wave_2.dat’
1.35 ’38.sim’
’38_sup_wave_1.sim’
’38_sup_wave_2.sim’
1.3

1.25
P (atm)

1.2

1.15

1.1

1.05

1
1 2 3
gage

Figure 4. Comparison of peak pressures from the experiments and the simulations for the 38 / 9 mm
with and without suppressor.

9
 AIAA 96–3020

1.25
’38_bare’
’38_sup’

1.2

1.15
P (atm)

1.1

1.05

0.95
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time (~ms)
Figure 5. Simulated pressure time history at gage location 3 for the 38 with and without suppressor.

1.12
’22_bare.dat’
’22_sup_wave_1.dat’
’22_sup_wave_2.dat’
’22.sim’
1.1 ’22_sup.sim’

1.08
P (atm)

1.06

1.04

1.02

1
1 2 3 4 5 6
gage

Figure 6. Comparison of peak pressures from the experiments and the simulations for the 22
with and without suppressor.

10
 AIAA 96–3020

1.07
’22_bare’
’22_sup’
1.06

1.05

1.04

1.03
P (atm)

1.02

1.01

0.99

0.98
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
time (~ms)

Figure 7. Simulated pressure time history at gage location 2 for the 22 with and without sup-
pressor.

11
 AIAA 96–3020

Scale : .5 – 3. atm
(a)

(b)
Figure 8. Simulated pressure contour at one instant in time for the 22 with suppressor. In (b) the scale has
been set to highlight the pressure spectrum around 1 atm. Pressure peaks are denoted with A, B, and C.

12

View publication stats