Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Grmnd, MD 21005-5066 

ARL-CR461 March 2001 

Numerical Modeling of Buried 

Mine Explosions 

Gerald I. Kexley, Consultant 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

I . 

for nublic release: distribution is unlimited. 
Abstract 

The effects of buried mine explosions in various soil media are investigated by 

numerical hydrocode simulations. Tabular equations of state (EOS) for dry and wet 

sand are constructed. These EOS are used in CTH calculations of a steel plate 

suspended over the detonation of a TNT explosive charge buried in both media. Wet 

sand imparts significantly higher momentum to the plate than dry sand. Calculations in 

both two and three spatial dimensions are compared. 

. 

. 

ii 
, 

Contents 

List of Figures 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Material Models 2 

2.1 Dry Sand. ......................................................................................................... 2 

2.2 Wet Sand .......................................................................................................... 3 

2.3 TNT Explosive. ............................................................................................... 4 

2.4 RHA Steel ........................................................................................................ 4 

2.5 Air .___._...__.__...........*-...-....-.--- 5 ................... .......................................................... 

3. CTH Calculations 5 

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 9 

5. References 11 

Distribution List 

Report Documentation Page 

13 

19 
. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Hugoniot for sand, initial density 1.6 g/cc. . . . . .._.___..........._...___._.. __.......f_f. 3 

Figure 2. Hugoniots for wet and dry sand. Both curves were calculated 

from the models described in the text . . . ..f.....____________._...f............._____f.~........f.f_._...._ 4 

Figure 3. 2-D CTH calculations of a buried mine explosion in dry sand. 

Zone size was 1 cm. ._______. e . . . . . . . . . . ..f..______.______f.f.............fff.f.f__________.f..........._________~..__. 6 

Figure 4. Effect of zone size on vertical momentum of plate. Calculations 

are for a buried mine in dry sand. Results are shown for three zone 

sizes,i .f__._........,,._____...f..,.._..____: ___..._....f......f....._.__.___..____________..f.........f...____________.f...f..._. 7 

Figure 5. Effect of geometry on vertical momentum of plate. Calculations 

are for a buried mine in dry sand. Zone size was 3 cm in both 3-D 

and 2-D calculations. ______...........fff__._____.________..f___._.......f........__....._______..f.............._____ 8 

Figure 6. Effect of soil type on vertical momentum of plate. Calculations 

were 2-D, with zone size of 2 cm _..ff.f...........ff*. + ...f.__________.___.f.._......~......~..f..___________ 9 

V 
, 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

vi 
, 

1. Introduction 

Numerical simulation of the effects of buried mine explosions on armored 

vehicles is a topic of considerable interest to the U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

(ARL). Recent CTH hydrocode calculations by ARL personnel are discussed in 

the literature [l, 21. It has been discovered that a lack of good equations of state 

(EOS) for various soil types is a major cause of uncertainty in the calculated 

results. 

The present work was commissioned to support ARL personnel in their studies 

of this problem. One of the immediate needs of the ARL program is to simulate 

experiments that will be carried out at the Vertical Impulse Measurement Facility 

(VIMF) under development at ARL. VlMF will measure the loading of a steel 

plate suspended over mines exploded in various types of soil. The vertical 

momentum imparted to the plate is a quantity of particular interest, along with 

the plate distortion and rotation. 

The present study was preliminary and exploratory. The principal goals 

included the following. 

l Assist in setting up CTH input files [3-71 for simulating a VIMF test. 

l Develop preliminary EOS models for soil types of interest. 

l Make sensitivity studies of the CTH predictions to various aspects of the 

model. 

l Make recommendations for follow-on work, where appropriate. 

In Section 2, the material models used in the calculations are discussed. After 

some study of the existing models, we decided to use a recently-developed EOS 

table for fused quartz [8], together with the p-alpha porosity model [6, 71, to 

model dry sand. This table, existing models for water, and the PANDA code [9] 

were also used to construct a new EOS table for wet sand. 

In Section 3, CTH calculations of a buried mine explosion using the new EOS 

models are discussed. Calculations were made in both two and three spatial 

dimensions for varying zone sizes, and for both dry and wet sand. A mine 

buried in wet sand is much more lethal than one in buried dry sand; wet sand 

produced three times as much vertical plate momentum as dry sand. This result 

disagrees with previous calculations made with other soil models. 

The results of this work should be regarded as preliminary. Recommendations 

for additional studies are given in Section 4. 
2. Material Models 

In this section, we describe the equations of state and other constitutive model 

parameters used for the materials in this study-dry sand, wet sand, TNT, RHA 

steel, and air. 

. 

2.1 Dry Sand 

Sand is a porous aggregate of particles of various minerals, most commonly silica 

(fused quartz). The properties of sand can vary, depending on the degree of 

compaction, the minerals present, and the moisture content. In this study, fused 

quartz is assumed to be the only mineral present. A typical density for quartz 

sand is about 16g/cc; that corresponds to a porosity of 27.4%, assuming an 

initial density of 2.2g/cc for solid silica. 

The p-alpha model, together with a tabular EOS for the solid, or “matrix” 

material is used to model sand. Two E0S tables for the matrix material were 

considered-one available in the standard CTH database (EOS no. 7100 on file 

“seslan” [lo]), and a new EOS for fused quartz, which was recently developed 

for another application [8]. 

Figure 1 compares Hugoniots for the two EOS tables with experimental data [ll] 

for quartz sand; the initial densities were in the range l-58-1.65 g/cc. Our new 

fused quartz EOS (no. 7010) gives good agreement with the data; it gives the 

correct densiq at low pressures and reproduces the phase transition in the 

pressure range. The seslan table gives only fair agreement that is not as good as 

our new EOS table. 

Another problem with the seslan table is that it does not include the Maxwell 

constructions that are necessary to model vaporization behavior. CTH 

calculations using this table exhibited tie step problems, evidently due to 

problems in the tension/vaporization region, and would not run to completion. 

Most (but not all) of these problems were eliminated when we modified the table 

to include the Maxwell constructions. In this report, the calculations using the 

seslan table are not discussed. 

The p-alpha model was used to treat the porosity. The initial density was taken 

to be 1.6 g/cc. We used the default crush pressure (I’S = l.OE9 dynes/cmz) and 

did not include an elastic crush region. It may be desirable to improve upon this 

aspect of the model in future work; however, the details of the crushing behavior 

are of secondary importance in predicting the loading of the steel plate (see 

Section 3). 

. 
Figure 1. Hugoniot for sand, initial dens& 1.6 g/cc. Circles represent experimental data 

from van Thiel 1111; solid curve represents new EOS table no. 7010 for fused 

quartz; dashed curve represents seslan EOS table no. 7100 for sand. 

Because sand is so porous, it is not expected to support much elastic deformation 

or tension. Therefore, we used only nominal values for the material strength and 

fracture parameter -the elastic perfectly plastic model with a yield strength of 

LOE9 dynes/cm2 and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, and a fracture strength of -1.OE6 

dynes/cmz. Here again, these features of the model can be improved in future 

work, but are of secondary importance now. 

2.2 Wet Sand 

For a porosity of 27.4%, fully-saturated wet sand would have a composition of 

85.5% silica/14.5% water by weight and a density of 1.87 g/cc. We constructed 

an EOS table for this composition using the PANDA mixture model [9]. The 

procedure was similar to that used for dry sand (fused quartz), except that water 

and hydrogen were added. Hence, the calculations included the following 

species: fused quartz, liquid quartz, stishovite, water, liquid silicon, molecular 

and atomic oxygen, and molecular and atomic hydrogen. 

Figure 2 compares the calculated Hugoniot for wet sand (EOS table no. 7011) 

with that for dry sand (EOS table no. 7010). While the Hugoniots for the two 

materials are not very different in the pressure-density plane, the porosity of dry 

sand has a significant effect on the Hugoniot energy. As shown in Figure 2, the 

energy of dry sand is 50-100% greater than for wet sand at the same shock 

pressure. For this reason, dry sand is able to absorb more of the explosive energy 

3 
Figure 2. Hugoniots for wet and dry sand. Both curves were calculated from the models 

described in the text. 

than wet sand in a buried mine explosion. As we will show in Section 3, an 

explosion in dry sand produces less acceleration of the steel plate than an 

explosion in wet sand. 

Because of its water content, wet sand is not expected to support significant elastic 

deformation or tension. Therefore, the yield strength was set to zero. Since the 

EOS does not have a tension region, except at very low temperatures, we have not 

allowed it to fracture. The p-alpha model was not used because the material is 

not porous. 

2.3 TNT Explosive 

The explosive was modeled using the default JWL EOS for TNT. It was detonated 

by programmed burn at the bottom center, with a detonation velocity of 4.93E.5 

cm/s [12]. 

2.4 RHA Steel 

The default SESAME tabular EOS was used for RHA steel. As shown by Kerley 

[13], this EOS treats the polymorphic and melting transitions in iron, and it gives 

very good agreement with shock wave and penetration experiments. We also 

used the same material strength and fracture parameters as Kerley [13]- 

the elastic-perfectly plastic model with a yield strength of 1.5ElO dynes/cm* and 

Poisson’s ratio of 0.285, and the Johnson-Cook fracture model with a fracture 

strength of -3.8ElO dynes/cmz. 

4 
2.5 Air 

The default SESAME tabular EOS [6] was used for air 

.3. CTH Calculations 

r 

To test the model and examine trends, both two-dimensional (2-D) and 

three-dimensional (3-D) versions of the following problem were considered. 

l The explosive was modeled as a disk of TNT, 30 cm in diameter and 8 cm 

in thickness, with no case. The initial explosive density was 1.63g/cc, 

giving a total explosive weight of 9217g (20.32 lb). 

l The top of the explosive charge was 16 cm (6.3 in) from the soil surface. 

l The RHA steel plate was 46 cm (18 in) from the soil surface. 

. In the 3-D problem, the center of the plate was offset 61 cm (24 in) from 

the center of the explosive charge. In the 2-D problem, the plate was 

positioned directly over the explosive. 

l In the 3-D problem, the plate was 244 cm (8 ft) square and 20 cm (8 in) 

thick. In the 2-D problem, the plate was a disk, 276 cm (9 ft) in diameter 

and 20 cm thick, giving the same mass as in the 3-D problem. 

Calculations were carried out with the February 99 version of CTH, except that a 

more recent version of routine SESESX was used. The modified routine had 

corrections to the p-alpha model, and so it could have some effect on the 

calculations reported here. (The modified routine has been provided to ARL.) 

Figure 3 shows snapshots of a 2-D calculation in dry sand six times from 

0 to 2 ms. The thickness of the sand layer between the explosive and the plate 

drops markedly as the porosity is crushed out and the explosive products 

expand. Only a thin layer of sand actually impacts the plate. For this reason, we 

believe that the explosive gases, not the sand, deliver most of the impulse to the 

plate. If so, the results should not be very sensitive to the properties of the thin 

sand layer. Therefore, details of the porosity crushing and fracture should be of 

secondary importance to the predictions. 

By contrast, the initial porosity of the sand is very important. As shown in 

Figure 2, porosity increases the Hugoniot energy at a given shock pressure, so 

that more porous soils will absorb more of the explosive energy. Note that the 

composition of the soil below the explosive will also have an important effect on 

impulse delivered to the plate. A rock layer, or even a wet sand layer, 

underneath the charge will reflect more of the explosive energy upward, giving a 

greater impulse. 

5 

In the calculations for wet sand, the soil layer does not thin down as it does in 

dry sand. One reason for this fact is that wet sand is not porous and therefore 

does not compress as much as dry sand when shocked. In that case, the sand 

makes a larger contribution to the impulse delivered to the plate. 

Figure 4 shows the vertical momentum delivered to the plate as a function of 

time for a calculation in dry sand. The predictions are compared for three 

different zone sizes-l, 2, and 3 cm. The results show that the very coarse 

zoning gives reasonable results at late times. The results at early times are most 

sensitive to the zone size. 

Figure 4. 

------- --- 2 pm m-s 

.--.--.--.l.t.. 3 cm mne8 

Effect of zone size on vertical momentum of plate. Calculations are for a 

buried mine in dry sand. Results are shown for three zone sizes. 

Figure 5 compares the predictions for 2-D and 3-D calculations in dry sand.* The 

same zone size, 3 cm, was used in both cases. The results show that the 2-D 

model is satisfactory for predicting the vertical momentum. Of course, 3-D effects 

would be more important for other quantities, especially those involving the 

rotational motion of the plate. 

* The 3-D calculation used an axis of symmetry at z = 0, y being the vertical direction, so only half 

of the plate was actually included in the calculation. The momentum calculated by the code had 

to be multiplied by a factor of two to account for the full mass of the plate. 

7 
I I I I I I 

Figure 5. Effect of geometry on vertical momentum of plate. Calculations are for a 

buried mine in dry sand. Zone size was 3 cm in both 3-D and 2-D 

calculations. 

Finally, Figure 6 compares the vertical momentum of the plate for dry and wet 

sand. Both calculations were made in 2-D geometry, with a zone size of 2 cm. 

The momentum for an explosion in wet sand is roughly three times higher than 

it is for dry sand. This difference is surprising because it is so much higher than 

has been predicted in earlier calculations with other soil models [l, 2]- It can be 

attributed, at least in part, to the following two factors. 

(1) As shown in Figure 2, the porous dry sand can absorb roughly twice as 

much energy of the explosive charge as the nonporous wet sand. 

(2) The sand layer in front of the expanding explosive reaction products is 

thicker for wet sand than it is for the porous dry sand, which compresses 

so much more once it is shocked. However, this result should be 

regarded as preliminary until additional studies are made. 
i I I rn I I I 

Figure 6. Effect of soil type on vertical momentum of plate. Calculations were 2-D, with 

zone size of 2 cm. 

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 

We constructed new EOS tables for dry and wet sand and then used these tables 

in calculations of buried mine explosions. Calculations were made of the vertical 

momentum imparted to a steel plate positioned over the exploding mine. It was 

shown that 2-D and 3-D versions of the problem give quite similar results for the 

vertical momentum. 

The calculations for wet and dry sand gave dramatically different results. The 

vertical momentum for the wet sand was about three times larger than it was for 

dry sand-a much greater difference than has been observed in previous 

calculations [I, 21. These results are preliminary, and further studies are needed 

to confirm them. 

The following matters should be investigated in future work. 

(1) The sand models should be tested further and improved, if needed. 

9 
(2) The densities and water contents of the soil samples should be checked 

against those to be used in the experiments and revised, if necessary. 

(3) Sensitivity studies should be made to identify what other factors in the 

numerical model are most important and where further improvements 

are needed. 

(4) EOS tables for additional soil types (e.g., dry and wet clay) should be 

constructed. 

(5) Further studies of the explosive model should be made-sensitivity tests 

to the detonation products EOS, an analysis of the effects of secondary 

reactions with air, and analysis of the effects of the case. 

(6) Comparisons with VIMF test data will. also indicate areas where the 

modeling needs improvement. 

10 
5. References 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

_. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

Gniazdowski, N., F. Gregory, A. D. Gupta, and I’. W. Kingman. 

“Techniques for Landmine-Structure Integration Modeling.” ARL-TR-2376, 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 

January 2001. 

Gupta, A. D. “Modeling and Analysis of a 3-D Asymmetric 

Mine-Soil-Structure Interaction Problem With Mine Buried in Dry Sand.” 

71st Shock & Vibration Symposium Proceedings, SAMAC, Falls Church, VA, 

November 2000. 

McGlaun, J. M., F. J+ Ziegler, S. L. Thompson, L. N. Kmetyk, and 

M. G. Elrick. “CTH-User’s Manual and Input Instructions.” Sandia 

National Laboratories Report, SAND88-0523, April 1988. 

McGlaun, J. M., S. L. Thompson, and M. G. Elrick. 

“CTH: A Three-Dimensional Shock Wave Physics Code.” IntemationaZ 

Journal of Impact Engirzeering, vol. 10, pp. 351-360,199O. 

McGlaun, J- M., S. L. Thompson, L. N. Krnetyk, and M. G. Elrick. “A Brief 

Description of the Three-Dimensional Shock Wave Physics Code CTH.” 

Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND89-0607, July 1990. 

Hertel, Jr., E. S., and G. I. Kerley. “CTH EOS Package: Introductory 

Tutorial.” Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND980945,1998. 

Hertel, Jr., E. S., and G. I. Kerley. “CTH Reference Manual: The Equation of 

State Package.” Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND98-0947,1998. 

Kerley, G. I. “Equations of State for Composite Materials.” Kerley 

Publishing Services Report, KPS994, Albuquerque, NM, December 1999. 

Kerley, G. I. “User’s Manual for PANDA II: A Computer Code for 

Calculating Equations of State.” Sandia National Laboratories Report, 

SAND88-2291,199l. 

Kerley, G. I., and T. L. Christian-Frear. “Sandia Equation of State Database: 

sedan File.” Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND93-1206,1993. 

van Thiel, M., editor. “Compendium of Shock Wave Data.” Lawrence 

Livermore Laboratory Report, UCRL-50108, Rev. 1, June 1977. 

Dobratz, B. M., and ,I’. C. Crawford. “LLNL Explosives Handbook.” 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRL-52997, January 

1985. 

Kerley, G. I. “Multiphase Equation of State for Iron.” Sandia National 

Laboratories Report, SAND93-0027,1993. 

11 
12 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

2 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

INFORMATION CENTER 

DTIC DDA 

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

S-IT 0944 

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

1 HQDA 

DAM0 FDT 

400 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20310-0460 

1 OSD 

OUSD(A&T)/ODDDR&E(R) 

RJTREW 

THE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20301-7100 

1 DPTY CG FOR RDA 

US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

AMCRDA 

5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT 

AUSTIN 

POBOX202797 

AUSTIN TX 78720-2797 

1 DARPA 

B KASPAR 

3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

1 US MILITARY ACADEMY 

MATHSCICI-ROF 

EXCELLENCE 

MADN MATH 

MAJ HUBER 

THAYER HALL 

WEST POINT NY 109961786 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL D 

DRSMlTH 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL DD 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI AI R (RECORDS 

MGMT) 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 207831145 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI LL 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1145 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI AP 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 

4 DIR USARL 

AMSRL a LP (BLDG 305) 

13 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

1 PM TMAS 

SFAE GSSC TMA SMD 

R KOWALSKI 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

0780~5oocl 

3 I PEO FIELD ARTILLERY SYS 

SFAE FAS PM 

H GOLDMAN 

T MCWILLIAMS 

T LINDSAY 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5000 

2 PM CRUSADER 

G DELCOCO 

J SHIELDS 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5000 

2 NASA LANGLEY RSRCH CTR 

MS 266 

AMSRL VS 

W ELBER 

F BARTLETT JR 

HAMF’TON VA 23681-0001 

2 COMMANDER 

DARPA 

J KELLY 

B WILCOX 

3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

6 COMMANDER 

WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB 

WLFIV 

A MAYER 

WL MLBM 

S DONALDSON 

T BENSON-TOLLE 

C BROWNING 

J MCCOY 

F ABRAMS 

2941 PST STE 1 

DAYTON OH 45433 

1 OFFICE OF NAVAL RSRCH 

MECH DIV CODE 1132SM 

Y RAJAPAKSE 

ARLINGTON VA 22217 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

CRANE DIVISION 

M JOHNSON CODE 2OH4 

LOUISVILLE KY 402145245 

DAVID TAYLOR RSRCH CTR 

SHIP STRUCTURES & PROT DEFT 

J CORRADO CODE 1702 

BETHESDA MD 20084 

DAVID TAYLOR RSRCH CTR 

R ROCKWELL 

W PHYILLAIER 

BETHESDA MD 2005p5000 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGCY 

INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS DIV 

R ROHR 

6801 TELEGRAPH RD 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22310-3398 

EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE 

DIV N85F SHOUP 

2000 NAVY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20350-2000 

OFC OF NAVAL RSRCH 

D SIEGEL 351 

800 N QUINCY ST 

ARLINGTON VA 22217-5660 

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CT-R 

R HUBBARD G33 C 

DAHLGREN DIVISION 

DAHLGREN VA 

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

J H FRANCIS CODE G30 

D WILSON CODE G32 

R D COOPER CODE G32 

E ROWE CODE G32 

J FRAYS&E CODE G33 

T DURAN CODE G33 

L DE SIMONE CODE G33 

DAHLGREN VA 2244X 

COMMANDER 

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS CMD 

D LIESE 

2531 JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY 

ARLINGTON VA 22242-5160 

14 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

3 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR FSA 

AWARNASH 

B MACHAK 

M CHIEFA 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

0780&5000 

1 COMMANDER 

SMCWV QAE Q 

B VANINA 

BLDG 44 

WATERVLIET ARSENAL 

WATERVLIET NY 12189-1050 

1 COMMANDER 

WATERVLIET ARSENAL 

SMCWV SPM 

T MCCLOSKEY 

BLDG 2.53 

WATERVLTET NY 121894050 

8 DIRECTOR 

BENET LABORATORIES 

AMSTA AR CCB 

J KEANE 

J BATTAGLIA 

J VASILAKIS 

G FFIAR 

V MONTVORI 

G DANDREA 

R HASENBEIN 

SMCAR CCB R 

s SOPOK 

WATERVLIET NY 12189 

1 COMMANDER 

WATERVLLEI’ ARSENAL 

SMCWV QA QS 

KINSCO 

WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

PRDCTN BASE MODERN ACTY 

AMSMC PBM K 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07&0&5ooo 

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY BELVOIR RD&E CTR 

STRBE JBC 

FL BELVOLR VA 22060-5606 

NO. OF 

COPIES 

2 

3 

6 

5 

ORGANIZATION 

COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR FSB G 

M SCIUKSNIS 

D CARLWCCI 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5000 

US ARMY COLD REGIONS RSRCH & 

ENGINEERING LAB 

P DTJTTA 

72 LYME RD 

HANOVER NH 03755 

DIRECTOR 

USARL 

AMSRL WT L 

D WOODBURY 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1145 

COMMANDER 

US ARMY AMCOM 

AMSMI RD 

W MCCORKLE 

AMSMI RD ST 

P DOYLE 

AMSMI RD ST CN 

T VANDIVER 

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5247 

US ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE 

A CROWSON 

J CHANDRA 

J PRATER 

R SINGLETON 

G ANDERSON 

KIYER 

PO BOX 12211 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

27709-2211 

PROJECT MANAGER 

TANK MAIN ARMAMENT SYSTEMS 

SFAE GSSC TMA 

COL PAWLICKI 

K KlMKER 

E KOPACZ 

R ROESER 

B DORCY 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5ooo 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

16 

1 DIRECTOR 

USARL 

AMSRL Cl? CA 

D SNIDER 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPM MD 20783 

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR FSE 

T GORA 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5000 

3 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR TD 

R PRICE 

V LINDNER 

c SPINELLI 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

0780&5000 

5 US ARMY TACOM 

AMSTA JSK 

S GOODMAN 

J FLORENCE 

AMSTA TR D 

B RAJU 

L HINOJOSA 

D OSTBERG 

WARREN MI 48397-5000 

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

SFAE FAS PM 

F MCLAUGHLIN 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

078065000 

5 PM SADARM 

SFAE GCSS SD 

COL B ELLIS 

M DEVINE 

W DEMASSI 

J PRITCHARD 

S HROWNAK 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

0780~5000 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

4 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR CCH 

S MUSALLI 

R CARR 

M LUCIANO 

T LOUCEIRO 

PICATINNY ARSENAL- NJ 

078065000 

4 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR (2 CI=S) 

E FENNEL (2 CPS) 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

078065000 

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY APDEC 

AMSTA AR CCH P 

J LUTZ 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5000 

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR FSF T 

C LIVECCHIA 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5000 

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR QAC T C 

C PATEL 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

078065000 

2 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

AMSTA AR M 

D DEMELLA 

F DIORIO 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

078065000 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

3 SANDIA NATL LAB 

E HERTEL JR 

I’ YARRINGTON 

P TAYLOR 

PO BOX 5899 MS-0820 

ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185-0820 

2 APPLIED RSRCH ASSOCIATE-S 

D GRADY 

N WINFREE 

4300 SAN MATE0 NE 

SUITE A-220 

ALBUQUERQUE NM 87llO 

2 KERLEY PUBLISHING SERVICES 

GI KERLEY 

PO BOX 13835 

ALBUQUERQUE NM 87192 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 

15 DIR USARL 

AMSRL WM MA 

P KINGMAN 

H MEYER 

AMSRL WM MB 

G GAZONAS 

A FRYDMAN 

M BERMAN 

AMSRL WM TD 

A DIETRICH 

F GREGORY 

A GmA 

N GNIAZDOWSKI 

R BJTTING 

D DANDEKAR 

S SCHOENFELD 

T SCOTT 

S SEGLETES 

TCLINE 

17 
c 

INTENTIONALLYLEETBLANK. 

18 
. 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Ap~oved 

OMB No. 07WOl88 

Numerical Modeling of Buried Mine Explosions AIUAPO101600 

Albuquerque, NM 87 192 

U. S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRL-WM-TD 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 2 10055066 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

l Kerley Publishing Services, P.O. Box 13835, Albuquerque, NM 87192 

12~1. DlSTRlBUTlON/AVAllABlLlrY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

12b. DlSTRlBUTlON CODE 

13. A.BSTRACT(Maximum 200 words) 

The effects of buried mine explosions in various soil media are investigated by numerical hydrocode simulations. 

Tabular equations of state (EOS) for dry and wet sand are constructed. These (EOS) are used in CTH calculations of a 

steel plate suspended over the detonation of a TNT explosive charge buried in both media. Wet sand imparts 

significantly higher momentum to the plate than dry sand. Calculations in both two and three spatial dimensions are 

compared. 

14. SUBJECTTERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

numerical modeling, buried mine, TNT charge, wet and dry sand, vertical momentum RIIA 21 

plate 16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSlFlCATlON 18. SECURITY CLASSlFlCATlON 19. SECURI-W CLASSIFICATION 20. LlMlTATlON OF ABSTRACT 

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 19 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-l 02 
20 
USER EVALUATION SHEET/CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

This Laboratory undertakes a continuing effort to improve the quality of the reports it publishes. Your comments/answers to 

the items/questions below will aid us in our efforts. 

1 _ ARL Report Number/Author ARL-CR-461 (POC: A. Gupta) Date of Reporf March 200 1 

2. Date Report Received 

3. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, or other area of interest for which the report will be 

used.) 

r 

4. Specifically, how is the report being used? (Information source, design data, procedure, source of ideas, etc.) 

c 

5. Has the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as far as man-hours or dollars saved, operating costs 

avoided, or efficiencies achieved, etc? If so, please elaborate. 

6. General Comments. What do you think should be changed to improve future reports? (Indicate changes to organization, 

technical content, format, etc.) 

CURRENT 

ADDRESS 

Organization 

Name E-mail Name 

Street or P.O. Box No. 

City, State, Zip Code 

7. If indicating a Change of Address or Address Correction, please provide the Current or Correct address above and the Old or 

Incorrect address below. 

Organization 

OLD 

ADDRESS 

Street or P.O. Box No. 

City, State, Zip Code 

(Remove this sheet, fold as indicated, tape closed, and mail.) 

(DO NOT STAPLE) 
DEPARTMENTOFTHEARMY 

m[ 

OFRCIAL BUSINESS 

I BUSINESS REPLY MAIL 

FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO 0001 ,APG,MD I 

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY 

AITN AMSRL WM TO 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 210055066