International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j i m p e n g

On the problem of bare-to-cased charge equivalency

Hezi Grisaro, Avraham N. Dancygier *
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history:
Received 6 January 2016
Received in revised form 27 February 2016
Accepted 4 March 2016
Available online 9 March 2016
Keywords:
Cased charge
Blast wave
Casing effect
Equivalent charge
Numerical simulations
Scaling laws

A B S T R A C T

Many explosives are covered with a steel casing. The fragmentation process of the casing dissipates part
of the detonation energy and therefore cased charges yield lower overpressures and impulses than the
same charges without a casing (bare charges). It is often required to assess the mass of an equivalent
bare charge, which will produce similar impulses (at the same distances) to those of a given cased charge.
Another pertinent parameter is the cased-to-bare impulse ratio, which is a direct measure of the effect
of the casing on the resulted impulse. This paper deals with several aspects of the problem of a cased
charge equivalency. A review of available models for the assessment of the ratio between the masses of
the equivalent bare and cased charges is presented. The current study proposes a procedure to assess
the mass ratio, which consists of relatively simple numerical simulations and of the blast waves scaling
laws. The simulations are veried against experimental data and their results are compared with available models for the mass ratios. A relation between the mass ratio and the impulse ratio is also presented.
Finally, examination of the effect of the casing material properties indicates that the casing-to-charge
mass ratio is a key parameter in the assessment of the mass of an equivalent charge.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The performance of an explosive charge may be quantied by
its pressuretime and impulsetime curves. The impulse is the integration of the pressure with respect to time and it is considered
as a very important parameter in the study and design of protective structures. A common source of explosive and impact load is
a charge with a metal casing. After detonation, the casing expands
and ruptures into many fragments. At this time, the gases are discharged through the spaces in the casing and propagate in the air.
Experimental data show that there is a signicant difference between
the blast wave parameters of cased and bare charges [14]. When
the charge is cased, part of the detonation energy is dissipated
through the expansion and rupture of the casing. As a result, the
blast wave parameters, and especially the peak impulse, will be lower
than those that are caused by the same charge without casing (bare
charge).
Analysis of blast-wave parameters that are caused by bare charges
is commonly done with experimentally veried numerical simulations. Simulations of cased charges, however, are cumbersome and
very expensive in terms of computational resources and time. This
is because the casing has to be modeled with a very ne mesh that

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion

Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel. Tel.: +972 4
8292487; Fax: +972 4 8295697.
E-mail address: avidan@technion.ac.il (A.N. Dancygier).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.03.004
0734-743X/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

requires a very small time step. Yet, the propagation of the blast
wave in the air takes relatively a much longer time than the fragmentation of the casing, and as a result, it is very hard and sometimes
impossible to be simulated. This limitation can be overcome in pertinent analyses by nding a corresponding or equivalent bare charge
(without casing) that will produce a blast wave with the same parameters as that of the cased charge.
As in other engineering problems, scaling a phenomenon is a
common and helpful practice [5]. It is generally employed to resolve
budgetary limitations of full-scale experiments, and particularly those
that involve explosions. The most common scaling form for the latter
type of experiments is the Hopkinson scaling or cube root scaling
[57], which is based on the Buckingham theorem. The scaling
laws can also be used to evaluate the equivalent charge (as will
be shown in the following text). According to these laws, two similar
blast waves (caused by charges that have similar geometries with
different dimensions, at the same atmosphere) will produce similar
scaled parameters (e.g., impulse) at the same scaled distance. The
scaled distance is dened by the ratio R/C1/3, where R is the distance and C is the mass of the charge. The scaling laws described
above are applied in this study in the interpretation of results from
a numerical investigation, for the comparison of the blast parameters of bare and cased charges.
It is evident that two similar bare charges with different masses
will not produce the same impulse at the same distance. However,
the scaling laws show that they will cause impulses that converge
to the same scaled-impulse versus scaled-distance curve. When cased
charges are considered, a common denition for an equivalent bare

14

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

charge mass, Ce, is that at given scaled distances it produces scaled

impulses that are equal to those caused by a given cased charge,
Cc. I.e., Ce satises, at any given standoff distance R, the following
equations:

I (C c )
R I (C )
= f 1 3 = 1e3 I (C e ) = I (C c )
Ce Ce
C e1 3

(1)

where f(R/Ce1/3) is a function of the scaled impulsedistance curve.

Hutchinson argued that this denition could be confusing [8] and
thus he suggested another denition for the estimation of the
impulse reduction due to the effect of the casing, i.e., Hutchinson
suggested to dene the ratio I(Cc)/I(Cb = Cc), where it is noted that
Cb is a bare charge. Hutchinson further argued that both ratios, the
impulse ratio and the mass ratio (Ce/Cc), are equal [8].
The current work examines ways to evaluate the equivalent bareto-cased mass ratio or the cased-to-bare impulse ratio. It consists
of a calculation procedure, which is based on numerical simulations and employment of the scaling laws of blast waves. First, we
review available models for an equivalent charge, Ce. These models
are then examined through the proposed numerical procedure. The
numerical calculations of this procedure are veried against published experimental data for bare charges. Then, the procedure is
used to evaluate the equivalent bare charge masses and the impulse
ratios for particular cases, for which there are also experimental data
that allow further verication of the proposed procedure. The relation between the impulse ratio I(Cc)/I(Cb = Cc) and the equivalent
bare charge-to-cased charge mass ratio Ce/Cc is derived from the numerical results in order to check Hutchinson assumption (that they
are equal). Finally, the effect of the casing material (and therefore,
of its different mechanical properties) was examined through the
numerical procedure.

2. Available models of an equivalent bare charge

Gurney, in his classic work, showed that the fragments velocity of cylindrical and spherical casings can be estimated by using
simple energy balance of the charge and the casing [9]. Fano, as
quoted by Fisher [4], followed Gurneys assumptions and assumed
non uniform velocity of the gases (in a cylindrical charge), being
zero at the center of the charge and increasing linearly up to a certain
value at the chargemetal interface. Using this assumption and a
suitable energy balance, he obtained a formula for the equivalent
charge mass. In addition, he assumed a factor of 0.8 to account for
the fraction of the total detonation energy belonging to the gases
and the case as kinetic energy at time of rupture of the case [4].
In summary, Fano proposed the following equation for the equivalent bare charge:

0.8
Ce
= 0.2 +
1 + 2M C c
Cc

(2)

where M is the mass of the casing.

Fisher modied Fanos formula by making a different assumption of uniform gases velocity and obtained the following expression
[4]:

0.8
Ce
= 0.2 +
1+ M Cc
Cc

(3)

In the same report [4], Fisher modied his own formula and proposed the following empirical equation, which agrees better with
experimental data:

C e 1 + M C c (1 M )
=
1+ M Cc
Cc

(4)

where M is a non-dimensional coecient, equal to the minimum

of M/Cc and 1.0 (note that with M = 0.8, Eq. (4) converges to Eq. (3)).
Hutchinson noted on the above that using the factors 0.8 and
0.2 is redundant, because the derivation already included consideration of the kinetic energy that goes to the fragments [10]. He
further rightfully noted that according to the Fano and Fisher formulas, for very large M/Cc ratios (M/Cc), the equivalent bare charge
does not converge to zero, as expected [11].
Hutchinson proposed another approach to evaluate the equivalent bare charge, according to which, the equivalent bare charge
should be derived based on the conservation of momentum rather
than energy. This approach yielded the following formula for an
equivalent cylindrical bare charge:

0.5
Ce
=
0.5 + M C c
Cc

(5)

The above models depend only on the casing-to-charge mass

ratio. In the same work [11], Hutchinson followed Crowleys approach [12] to consider also the casing material and explosive type
in the estimation of the equivalent bare charge, as follows:

0.5
Ce
= 1 1
fm
0.5 + M C c
Cc

(6)

where fm is a factor that takes into account the casing material yield
stress and the explosive type. Hutchinson derived an analytical expression for the factor fm [11], which was not in good agreement
with experimental data. Still, he showed that for each set of results
with the same casing material and explosive type there is a unique
value of fm that yields good agreement.
In a later work, Hutchinson changed his approach for the equivalent bare charge [8]. He argued that the denition of an equivalent
bare charge that will produce the same impulse at the same distance (see Eq. (5)) is confusing, and suggested the use of the ratio
between the peak blast impulses from two charges with the same
mass cased and bare, Ic/Ib (i.e., I(Cc)/I(Cb = Cc)). He used his previous formula (Eq. (5)) to evaluate the impulse ratio instead of the
equivalent bare-to-cased charges mass ratio, as follows:

0.5
Ic
=
0.5 + M C c
Ib

(7)

Hutchinson also showed that his equations, which do not consider properties of the casing material and the explosive type (Eqs.
(5) and (7)), are valid for very ductile casings. He further argued that
these casings are accelerated up to their ideal Gurney velocity before
they fracture [8]. In many cases, the casing fractures before it is fully
accelerated by the energy available from the explosive, and for these
cases Hutchinson proposed the following formula [8]:

Ic
1 M R0
=
+
Ib
2 C c R f

2( 1)

1 M
+
2 Cc

(8)

where is the heat capacity ratio, R0 is the initial casing radius and
Rf is the radius at fracture. He mentioned that the radius Rf can be
estimated by the fracture strain of the casing material (however,
he did not provide further details for this estimation). In his verication with experimental results, using high speed cameras, Rf/
R0 was assessed to be equal to 2 (i.e., the casing radius was increased
to about twice its initial radius) [8].
In another research, Hutchinson [13] extended his approach to
consider the casing material yield stress, as follows:

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

Fig. 1. The experimental setup reported by Dunnet et al. (Fig. 3 from [2]). (Note that
although the authors reported the usage of a gage at 10 m, they ignored its records
[2].)

Ic
1 M y
=
+
Ib
2 C c P0

1 M
+
2 Cc

(9)

where y is the casing yield stress and P0 is pressure that depends

on the explosive type. This equation was veried with experimental data [13]. Further development of Eq. (9) by the same author
yielded a similar formula, which takes into account a strain energy
dissipation. However, these energy losses were found to be very small
[14].
Finally, the Unied Facilities Criteria (UFC) [3] recommends that
for design purposes, the casing effect can be neglected (i.e., apply
a conservative approach).
3. Numerical simulations of bare charges
The rst step of the current work is to verify the simulation technique we are using. This has been done for the relatively simpler

15

case of a detonated bare charge. Experimental data from Dunnet

et al. include measurements from tests of both bare and cased
charges [2]. The experimental setup is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The explosive type of the bare charge was RX1100 and its mass
was 1 kg. It had a cylindrical shape with a length-to-diameter ratio
of 2, and it was detonated at the cylinder end. Due to the axial symmetry applied in the experiments, it is possible to use 2D
axisymmetric numerical simulations, rather than full and more cumbersome 3D simulations. In these experiments, pressure gauges that
measured the pressuretime history were set at 3, 4.5 and 6 meters
from the charge centroid (the authors have also reported the usage
of a gage at 10 meters; however, they ignored its records [2]). Thus,
in order to compare the measurements at distances up to 6 meters,
the computational domain should be larger than 6 meters. Based
on the authors past experience (e.g. [15]), it was concluded that
for this kind of problems, relatively small cells (~ 2 mm) are required in the vicinity of the charge. However, simulations with a
computational domain of a few meters with such small cells are expected to be very expensive in terms of computational resources.
As a result, the simulation has been divided into two phases: the
rst phase consisted of a relatively small computational domain (up
to 500 mm from the charge center) with a ne mesh, while the
second phase consisted of a larger domain (up to 10 meters from
the charge center) and a coarser mesh. The results that were recorded at the end of the rst phase were the input for the second
one.
The simulations were conducted with the Ansys Autodyn hydrocode [16]. The size of the computational domain in the rst phase
was 1000 500 millimeters, as shown in Fig. 2.
The Eulerian mesh has been divided into 500 and 250 cells in
the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, which yielded
a 2-mm cell size. The C4 material model (with the JWL equation of state, EOS) was chosen from the Ansys Autodyn material
library, to simulate the explosive charge. The C4 and RX1100 charges
comprise about 90% and 88% RDX, respectively. Thus, this was the
best option for the simulation of the actual explosive material (which
proved to be suitable when veried against the reported experimental data; see section 4 in the following text). The air has been
modeled with the Air material model from the Autodyn library
with an ideal gas EOS. For further details regarding the material
models, the reader is referred to reference [16]. The detonation point
in the charge was located at the cylinder end, as in the experiment. Flow out boundary conditions were applied to all boundaries
(except for the symmetry line). Just before the front of the blast wave

Fig. 2. The rst phase of the numerical simulation.

16

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

Fig. 3. The second phase of the numerical simulation.

reached the boundaries, the results were mapped into the second
phase of the simulation. Hence, these boundary conditions did not
in-fact inuence the results.
The size of the computational domain in the second phase was
8 10 meters, as shown in Fig. 3, where the material models and
the boundary conditions were the same as in the rst phase. Numerical gauges were placed along a line, perpendicular to the axis
of the charge, as shown in Fig. 3. The blast wave is expected to propagate in the air, and at some point to reach the boundaries. At this
moment, some of the material ows out out of the Eulerian mesh.
However, the numerical gauges, as noted above, are located along
a central vertical line, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that
they are far enough to be affected from this material loss.
4. Results and verication
The rst simulation was of a 1-kg charge (as in the experiments). The propagation of the blast wave in the air in the rst and
second phases of the simulation is illustrated in Fig. 4, in terms of
pressure contours. Fig. 5 shows an example of the overpressure (relative to the atmospheric pressure) time history from a numerical
gauge, located 3 meters from the charge center (see gauge #31 in
Fig. 3). The overall shape of the calculated curve is as expected, i.e.,
zero overpressure until a certain (arrival) time, and then a sharp
overpressure increase followed by an exponential decay and a negative phase. The integration of this curve yields the blast wave
impulse at this point. Similarly, the peak impulses were calculated from numerical gauges that were set at various distances (here,
every 100 mm; see dashed line in Fig. 3).
The results of the simulation were rst veried against published experimental measurements at various distances from the
charge [2], as shown in Fig. 6. It is evident from the gure that there
is a good agreement between the calculated and measured peak impulses. A second verication has been made by applying the scaling
laws as follows: according to the scaling laws, two charges with different masses will produce the same scaled impulse at the same
scaled distance. Thus, an additional simulation with a charge of the
same type and shape as those of the 1-kg charge, but with a different mass of 477 gr, has been conducted, using the same technique.
Fig. 7a shows the absolute values of the resulted impulses from the

1- and 0.477-kg charges. As expected, the lower mass yielded lower

impulse values. However, when the scaled impulses are plotted
against their scaled distances, the curves of the two masses fall on
the same line, as can be seen in Fig. 7b, and hence, this result serves
as an additional verication of the current calculations. It should
be noted that any mass other than 477 gr should have yielded the
same (scaled) result. Here, the 477-gr mass has been chosen for the
subsequent calculations of a cased charge (as will be shown in section
6).
5. Numerical simulations of cased charges
After the detailed simulations of bare charges and their verications, an effort has been made to consider the casing effect for
the cases that were examined. It is noted that 3D simulations that
include detailed modeling of the fragmentation process are very expensive in terms of computational resources and time, because they
require a very small cell size to properly model the casing material and obtain correct fragmentation results (e.g. [15,17]). This
requirement leads to the use of very small time steps and to timeconsuming simulations. Yet, because this study has focused on the
characteristics of the blast wave, detailed simulation of the casing
fragmentation can be left out and therefore it is out of the scope
of this work. Thus, although 2D simulations cannot model the casing
fragmentation (which is clearly non-symmetric), they were applied
in this study. Hence, for the calculations of the cased charges, a twophase simulation, similar to that described above, has been
conducted, with an additional Lagrangian mesh for the casing. The
cell size in the Lagrangian mesh was relatively large, and it varied
between 3 and 5 cells along the casing thickness in all the cases that
were analyzed. As will be shown, after detonation the casing expands
and at some point of time, the stresses and strains in the casing material are relatively high, leading to numerical erosion of the casing
material. Although erosion is a numerical parameter (rather than
a physical one), it enables modeling of the gases escape through the
spaces generated in the casing. This is an adequate numerical procedure especially because from the point of time when the casing
ruptures, propagation of the blast wave is of the main interest, rather
than the casing fragmentation itself. At this point, the rst phase
of the analysis ends. At the second phase, the results of the rst phase

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

t=0.05 ms

17

t=0.1 ms

(a)

t=4 ms

t=6 ms

(b)
Fig. 4. Contours of overpressure in the (a) rst and (b) second phases.

Fig. 5. Overpressure and impulse time histories at 3 m from the charge.

Fig. 6. Comparison between simulation results and experimental data from Dunnet
et al. [2].

18

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

100
90

1 Kg

Peak impulse (kPa-ms)

80

0.477 Kg

70
60
50
40
30
20

10
0
2

5
6
distance (m)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 7. Numerical results of the 1- and 0.477-kg charges: (a) absolute values (b) scaled values.

are mapped as initial conditions of the following analysis, where

the casing is no longer considered, and the calculation continues
according to the above process.
In this way, the effect of the casing can be taken into account
in the simulations with a minimum burden on the required computational resources. Verication of this methodology has been done
with the measured impulses of cased charges that were reported
by Dunnet et al. [2]. Fig. 8 shows an example of the rst phase mesh,
which includes a Lagrangian mesh for the casing. In the experiment, the casing was made from EN24 steel. In the absence of further
details, the steel 4340 material model from Autodyn library [16]
was chosen to simulate the casing, because the yield stresses of the
two types of steel are very similar (~ 700 vs. 790 MPa). This model
employs the JohnsonCook material model [18], with its constant
parameters taken from the programs default values (which are identical to those proposed in [18]). An additional erosion criterion of
a geometric strain = 5.0, has been adopted for this material. This relatively large value of the erosion criterion enables signicant

distortion of the casing before its rupture starts the fragmentation

process [19].
As mentioned in section 2, works on this subject indicate that
when the casing is relatively ductile its rupture occurs at a relatively late time. At this phase, the velocity of the casing has already
been stabilized at its maximum value and then the casing continues to expand until it ruptures. In these cases (as opposed to brittle
casings), a large portion of the detonation energy goes to the distortion of the casing as kinetic energy (see also a detailed explanation
by Hutchinson [10,13]). If however the casing is relatively brittle,
fragmentation occurs at a relatively early stage, before the casings velocity has reached a maximum value. In this case, less energy
is dissipated as kinetic energy that accelerates the casing and the
blast wave has higher impulse than that caused by a more ductile
casing. This explains why in the former case of ductile casing the
most dominant parameter is the M/C ratio. Indeed, in most available models this ratio is the only parameter that controls the
equivalent charge mass. Furthermore, in Hutchinsons model [13],

Fig. 8. Model of the rst phase of the simulation with a casing.

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

19

Fig. 9. Comparison of the peak impulses of the cased and bare charges with experimental data.
Fig. 10. Calculation methodology of the equivalent bare charge.

which takes into account other parameters (see Eq. (9)) the M/C ratio
is still most dominant. The results of our simulations show that
indeed fragmentation started after the casing velocity has been stabilized, which indicates a ductile behavior of the casing.
Comparison of the numerical results with the experimental data
is shown in Fig. 9. In all cases, the charge mass was 1 kg, and hence,
the graph shows the scaled, as well as the absolute values (in SI
units). It is evident that there is good agreement between the simulation results and the experimental data. Note that the hollow
circular markers in Fig. 9 represent the bare charge and that they
were already plotted in Fig. 6. As expected, lower impulse values
were obtained for larger casing masses, (for the same charge mass).
In summary, the above methodology has been found to be reliable and relatively effective in terms of computational time and
resources for simulations of cased charges.
6. Assessment of an equivalent bare charge
As noted above, using the equivalent bare charge allows a simplied analysis for the estimation of blast wave parameters caused
by cased charges. It is possible to numerically assess the equivalent bare charge mass, by applying the blast waves scaling laws,
according to the following methodology: First, the impulse is calculated from the numerical simulations at various distances (i.e.,
at the locations of the numerical gauges), as described in section
3. Second, the impulses and the distances are scaled according to
the scaling laws (they are divided by C1/3, where C is the charge mass)
in order to generate curves of the scaled impulse against scaled distance. This is done for both the bare and cased charges, where the
curve of the bare charge serves as a reference line. It is noted that
many studies refer to TNT equivalent parameters. However, this
equivalency refers mostly to comparisons between the effects of
various types of explosives. In this study, one needs to know the
equation of the scaled impulsedistance curve of a reference bare
charge (see following text). Therefore, instead of using a reference TNT curve, and since we already have the results of the bare
C4 charge, we can use it (directly) as the reference curve (and there
is no need to refer to a third reference curve).
Once a reference line is known, equivalency factors can be calculated by solving the following equation for Ce, for all points on the
scaled impulsedistance curve of the cased charge (refer also to Fig. 10):

Ic
R
= f 13
Ce
C e1 3

where Ic represents values of the cased charge impulse at locations set at distances R, f is the function of the reference line (i.e.,
of the bare charge scaled impulse vs. distance curve), Ce is the mass
of the equivalent charge, which solves Eq. (10), and the equivalency factor is equal to Ce/Cc (where Cc is the mass of the cased
charge).
This solution assures that the equivalent bare charge Ce, which
substitutes the given cased charge, will produce impulses at given
distances that, when scaled with respect to Ce, will fall on the reference line. This methodology is illustrated in Fig. 10.
In order to nd the above solution of the equivalent bare charge,
the reference line needs to be known. The numerical results of the
1-kg bare charge were in good agreement with the experimental
data (see section 4) and they could, therefore, be used as the reference line. A tted curve has been generated with the least square
method for the calculated points of the bare-charge and its anaB
lytical expression takes the form Ib C b1 3 = A ( R C b1 3 ) , where A and
B are equal to 174.121 and 0.9088, respectively, with a very high
coecient of determination, r2 = 0.999.
Fig. 11 describes the equivalency factors Ce/Cc (where Cc = 1 kg)
as a function of the scaled distance, calculated with the above methodology, from the numerical results for three masses of the casing,
0.5, 2 and 5 kg. For the range used in the simulations, the gure in-

(10)
Fig. 11. Equivalency factors (Ce/Cc) at various distance.

20

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

Fig. 12. Impulse against distance for the 477-gr bare charge and 1-kg charge with
2-kg casing.

dicates unique equivalency factors of 0.770, 0.477 and 0.337 for the
0.5, 2 and 5 kg bare charges, respectively (except for a minor deviation at small distances for the 0.5-kg charge).
Thus, a 1-kg charge, with a 2-kg casing is expected to produce
the same impulses at the same distances as those caused by a 477gr bare charge. The results of the simulation of a 477-gr bare charge
are presented in section 3 and they are compared in Fig. 12 with
the results of the 1-kg charges with the 2-kg casing. It is evident
from the gure that the two sets of results converge to the same
curve. This provides an additional verication for the method presented above for the evaluation of the equivalent bare charge.
7. Comparison with available models
The above results of the equivalent bare charge masses are compared with available models in Fig. 13. As mentioned above,
Hutchinson proposed an analytical expression for the coecient fm
in Eq. (6), yet predictions of this equation did not agree with experimental data. However, Fig. 13 shows that Eq. (6) is still in good
agreement with experimental data for a unique, tted value of 0.87
for fm, as well as Fishers formula (Eq. (3)) and Hutchinsons other
model (Eq. (5)). Note that Eqs. (5) and (7) are identical (and were
proposed by the same author). However, while Eq. (5) predicts the

Fig. 13. Comparison of the equivalent bare charge factor with available models.

Fig. 14. Impulse ratios at various distances.

equivalency factor for the mass of the charge, Eq. (7) predicts the
impulse ratio (Ic/Ib).
All of the charge masses were equal to 1 kg in all simulations
(and only the casing mass was changed). Therefore, it is possible
to calculate the cased-to-bare charge impulse ratios. These Ic/Ib ratios
are plotted in Fig. 14, which indicates a rather constant value for
each mass of the casing.
The calculated Ic/Ib ratios are compared in Fig. 15 with the three
models proposed by Hutchison (Eq. (7), (8) and (9)).
It can be seen in the gure that Eq. (7) is not in good agreement with the (veried) numerical results. Note that the same
equation, for the prediction of the equivalent mass (Eq. (5)) did yield
good agreement with the numerical results (as shown in Fig. 13).
As for Eq. (8), there is no available analytical expression for the ratio
between the initial casing radius and the radius at fracture, R0/Rf,
of the casing. Yet Hutchinson mentioned that from high-speed
camera recordings, this ratio was about 0.5 (i.e., the casing radius
at fracture was double that of the initial radius) [8]. Therefore, Eq.
(8) has been plotted in Fig. 15 with R0/Rf = 0.5, yet it is still not in
good agreement with the numerical results. The yield stress of the
casing material and the parameters P0 and should be known for
Eq. (9). Several sources mention that = 3 for this kind of problem
[8,11,13,20] and therefore this value was adopted here. For an explosive that comprises 88% RDX and 12% wax, P0 was approximated

Fig. 15. Impulse ratio from the numerical results and available models.

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

as 11 GPa in Reference 13, and this value has been adopted here
as well. In Dunnet et al. [2], the yield stress of the metal casing was
not given and therefore, in the current calculations, it was taken as
the default value from Autodyns Johnson-Cook constitutive model
(0.792 GPa). Using the above values, Eq. (9) is found to be in good
agreement with the numerical results (Fig. 15). Hutchinson [13] approximated that the yield stress of the steel case in Dunnet et al.
[2] was 0.95 GPa (based on stress hardening of the material due to
effects of strain rate and the temperature). Thus, Fig. 15 includes also
a plot of Eq. (9) with y = 0.95 GPa. As it can be seen, there is no
signicant difference between the two curves that were obtained
with the two yield stresses.
7.1. Relation between masses and impulse ratios
Essentially, there is a relation between the equivalent bare chargeto-cased charge mass ratio, Ce/Cb, and the impulse ratio Ic/Ib. An
analytical expression for this relation can be derived, if the function of the scaled impulse against the scaled distance is known for
the bare charge. In the current bare charge simulation, it was found
that the scaled impulse takes the following form (see section 6):

Ib
Cb

13

R
= A 13 ,
Cb

(11)

where A and B are constants (e.g., for the above simulations we

found that A = 174.121 and B = 0.9088). The scaled impulse and distance for a given cased charge do not lie on the same curve of the
bare charge. However, when they are scaled with respect to the
equivalent charge Ce (rather than Cc), they satisfy Eq. (11). Hence,
it is possible to write the following expression for the cased charge:

Ic
C e1 3

R
= A 1 3
Ce

(12)

Algebraic manipulations on Eqs. (11) and (12) lead to the following formula:
1

Ic C e 3
=
Ib C b

(B+1)

(13)

Specically for the current numerical results (B = 0.9088), this

expression becomes:

Ic C e
=
Ib C b

0.6363

(14)

Eq. (14) shows that the impulse ratio and the mass ratio (of the
equivalent and cased charges) are not similar, as opposed to Hutchinsons assumption.
8. Effect of the casing and explosive materials
Experimental data [2] and analytical models [11,13] suggest that
the casing material and the explosive type also have an important
inuence on the casing effect (especially when the casing is not
ductile), and not only the M/C ratio (as suggested in Eqs. (2)(5)).
According to Reference 21, the explosive type was found to inuence the casing effect, especially for highly oxygen-decient
compositions such as explosives that are partially lled with aluminum. These explosives generate additional blast energy by
interaction of ammable gases with the air. Hutchinson referred to
the effect of the casing material on the blast wave [8,13]. He argued
that when the casing is less ductile, its effect (which can also be a
result of its relatively low yield strength) is manifested through expansion and subsequent fragmentation at a relatively early stage,

21

leading to the escape of the explosive products through the fragmented casing, and consequently, to higher impulses [8,13].
Results reported by Dunnet et al. demonstrate that there is a combined effect of the explosive type and the casing material on the
equivalent charge [2]. These researchers conducted experiments with
two types of explosive and two casing materials, steel and aluminum (which has a lower yield stress). Although they did not report
measured impulses, they did provide the equivalent bare charge
factors for M/C = 0.5 and 2. When they used an explosive type
RX1100, these reported factors for the aluminum casings were higher
than those reported for the steel casings (of the same casing masses).
However, when another explosive type was used (RX1400), the reported factors for the aluminum casing were lower than those of
the steel casing. Thus, in view of these opposite trends (Fig. 11 in
Reference 2) in the experimental results, Hutchinsons assumption regarding the effect of the casing ductility and yield strength
[8,13] is not conclusive.
Hence, it is interesting to check the numerical simulation
predictions when the casing material model is changed. The
material model ALUMINUM from Autodyn library was chosen to
simulate the aluminum casing [16]. The model includes von
Mises yielding criterion and the failure criterion was chosen to be
a 0.2 plastic strain. The above described two-phase simulation
technique has been adopted here to calculate the impulses at
various distances from the charge. It should be noted that because
the density of aluminum is lower than the density of steel, thicker
casing had to be applied in order to yield the same casing mass
(as it was in Dunnet et al.s experiments [2]). These simulations
were performed with 0.5, 2 and 5 kg aluminum casing masses.
Unexpectedly, the impulses at various distances were the same
for both types of casings, steel and aluminum (with maximum
differences below 1%). One simulation, of the 2-kg aluminum
casing mass, was calculated also with different values of the
material yield stress (Autodyns default value of 290 MPa, as well
as 100, 500 and 1000 MPa). In addition, a failure criterion of
plastic strain of 0.12 was also examined. All of these modications led to very similar results (with up to 1% error). It is noted,
however, that although the aluminum and steel casings that were
examined in these simulations had different thicknesses and
different material models, they had the same total mass.
In summary, our simulations lead to a clear observation: the
casing mass has a pronounced inuence on the impulses caused by
the charge. This can be seen by the (almost) identical results that
were obtained from simulations of two geometries (thicknesses) and
material models, but with the same casing mass. These results were
not changed when the yield stress or the failure plastic strain criteria were modied (as opposed to Hutchinsons predictions [8,13]).
Yet, as stated above, in Dunnet et al.s experimental data, the usage
of one type of explosive has led to higher values of an equivalent
bare charge, while lower values were obtained with another type
of explosive. Therefore, in our opinion, this issue has not been fully
resolved, and it needs further study.
9. Summary and conclusions
This paper deals with several aspects of the problem of a cased
charge equivalency. A review of available models for assessment of
the mass ratio is presented. Another pertinent parameter is the
cased-to-bare impulse ratio, which is a direct measure of the effect
of the casing on the resulted impulse. A numerical study is presented of the ratio between the masses of equivalent bare and cased
charges, which is required to produce similar impulses by both of
them. A 2D numerical technique has been adopted to consider the
charge and the casing material. First, simulations of bare charges
were veried by experimental measurements and by the scaling laws
of blast waves. Next, simulations of cased charges were per-

22

H. Grisaro, A.N. Dancygier/International Journal of Impact Engineering 94 (2016) 1322

formed and their results were also veried by experimental data.

The equivalent bare charge has been calculated from these results
and by using the scaling laws. Thus, further verication of the cased
charge simulation results was available by their comparison with
results of the equivalent bare charge simulation. Based on these
results, a relation between the equivalent charge ratio and the
impulse ratio has been derived. Finally, simulations with different
casing materials were performed to examine their possible effect
on the mass of an equivalent charge. The following conclusions can
be derived from the current study:
1. 2D axisymmetric models can be used to simulate the propagation in the air of a blast wave from a cased charge. They are not
suitable for the fragmentation of the casing. However, the fragmentation process is out of the scope of the current study.
2. The simulation results have been compared with available models,
where most of them consider only the effect of the casing-tocharge mass ratio. Fisher and Hutchinsons formulas (Eqs. (3) and
(5)) were found to be in very good agreement with the simulations data.
3. A derivation process for the relation between the equivalent bareto-cased charge mass ratio, Ce/Cb, and the impulse ratio Ic/Ib is
presented in Eq. (14). These two ratios are not equal to each other
(as hypothesized in previous studies).
4. Simulations with an aluminum casing with the same mass as
that of a steel casing (and therefore, of different thicknesses)
yielded the same results. This indicates that the casing mass (normalized with respect to the mass of the charge) is a very
dominant parameter in the blast performance and in the determination of the equivalent bare charge. Furthermore, the results
of the simulations were not sensitive to various values of the yield
stresses that were used in the material model of these simulations. Experimental observations could have contributed better
understanding of the material effects. However, the limited available experimental results show opposite trends regarding the
effect of the casing ductility and yield strength. Thus, the results
of the current study, together with conicting trends reported
in the literature, indicate that the effects of the casing and explosive properties require further investigation.

References
[1] Hader H. Effects of bare and cased explosives charges on reinforced concrete
walls. In: The interaction of non-nuclear munitions with structures. Colorado,
USA: US Air force Academy; 1983, p. 221226.
[2] Dunnet J, Flynn D, Wharton J. Blast algorithm development: denition of
modied blast algorithms for PBX based explosives, In: Insensitive munitions
and energetic materials technical symposium. Bristol, UK; 2006. p. 110.
[3] U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 2008, Unied Facilities Criteria (UFC) structures
to resist the effects of accidental explosions (UFC 3-340-02).
[4] Fisher EM. 1953, The effect of the steel case on the air blast, White Oak, MD,
USA.
[5] Baker WE. Explosions in air. University of Texas Press; 1973.
[6] Conrath EJ, Karuthammer T, Marchand KA, Marchand PF. Structural design for
physical security: state of the practice. ASCE Publications; 1999.
[7] Cooper PW. Explosives engineering. Wiley-VCH; 1996.
[8] Hutchinson MD. Replacing the equations of fano and sher for cased charge
blast Impulse-II-Fracture Strain Method. Prop, Explos Pyrotech 2012;37(5):605
8.
[9] Gurney RW. 1943, The initial velocities of fragments from bombs, shells,
grenades, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA.
[10] Hutchinson MD. Replacing the equations of fano and sher for cased charge
blast equivalence I ductile casings. Prop, Explos Pyrotech 2011;36(4):31013.
[11] Hutchinson MD. The escape of blast from fragmenting munitions casings. Int
J Impact Eng 2009;36(2):18592.
[12] Crowley AB. The effect of munition casings on reducing blast overpressures.
In: Insensitive munitions and energetic materials technical symposium IMEMTS.
Bristol, United Kingdom; 2006.
[13] Hutchinson MD. Replacing the equations of fano and sher for cased charge
blast impulse III yield stress method. Prop, Explos Pyrotech 2014;39(4):586
9.
[14] Hutchinson MD. The effects of yield stress and casing thickness on blast impulse
and fragment velocity. Prop Explos Pyrotech 2014;39(5):7338.
[15] Grisaro H, Dancygier AN. Numerical study of velocity distribution of fragments
caused by explosion of a cylindrical cased charge. Int J Impact Eng 2015;86:112.
[16] ANSYS AUTODYN 14.0. Theory manual, ANSYS Inc. Pittsburgh.
[17] Kong X, Wu W, Li J, Liu F, Chen P, Li Y. A numerical investigation on explosive
fragmentation of metal casing using smoothed particle hydrodynamic method.
Mater Des 2013;51:72941.
[18] Johnson GR, Cook WA. Fracture characteristic of three metals subjected to
various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech
1985;21(1):3148.
[19] Rosenberg Z, Dekel E. Revisiting the perforation of ductile plates by sharp-nosed
rigid projectiles. Int J Solids Struct 2010;47(2223):302233.
[20] Flis WJ. Analytical models of the projection angle of explosive accelerated liners.
In: 15th international symposium on ballistics. Jerusalem, Israel; 1995. p.
24351.
[21] Hutchinson MD, Locking P, Flynn D. A new contribution to predicting blast
impulse from cased aluminized explosives. In: 27th international symposium
on ballistics. Freiburg, Germany: DEStech Publications; 2013. p. 80511.