## 2 Shock Tube Experimental Setup
### Experimental Results for Case 2  
In case 2, experiments were conducted to examine the effects of sealing the left side of the shock tube driver section. The methodology for case 2-1 involved sealing the driver section, with the TNT placed on the left side. The expansion section was not used, and the target was in contact with the shock tube. Tables 18-20 show the peak incident pressure measured during the test. The COV for these measurements ranged from 0.01 to 0.18. In case 2-2, the driver section was not sealed, with the TNT placed at the left side of the driver section. Similarly to case 2-1, the expansion section was not used, and the target was in contact with the shock tube. Tables 21 and 22 present the peak incident pressure for case 2-2. The COV for these measurements ranged from 0 to 0.14. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Case**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Round**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **TNT** \\ **(kg)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sealing** \\ **Status** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Peak Incident Pressure (MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**COV**} \\ \cline{5-10}  & & & & **Pso 1** & & **Pso 2** & & **Pso 3** & **Pso 4** & **Pso 5** & **Pso 6** & **Pso 7** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{2-1} & 15 & 0.45 & Sealed & 0.42 & 0.34 & 0.20 & 0.19 & \({}^{1}\) & 0.17 & 0.19 \\  & 16 & 0.45 & Sealed & 0.30 & 0.22 & \({}^{1}\) & 0.18 & \({}^{1}\) & 0.18 & \({}^{1}\) \\  & 17 & 0.45 & Sealed & 0.53 & 0.34 & 0.25 & 0.25 & \({}^{1}\) & 0.18 & \({}^{1}\) \\  & 18 & 0.45 & Sealed & 0.41 & 0.36 & 0.25 & 0.24 & \({}^{1}\) & 0.19 & 0.21 \\  & 19 & 0.45 & Sealed & 0.46 & 0.30 & 0.26 & 0.23 & \({}^{1}\) & 0.18 & 0.20 \\  & 20 & 0.45 & Sealed & 0.35 & 0.31 & 0.22 & 0.18 & \({}^{1}\) & 0.18 & \({}^{1}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{COV} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{0.18} & 0.15 & 0.095 & 0.14 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.03} & 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\({}^{1}\) Not measured.  
\end{table} 
Table 18: Measured peak incident pressure in case 2-1 (TNT of 0.45 kg). Figure 8: Reflected pressure measurement results in round 9. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Case**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Round**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **TNT** \\ **(kg)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sealing** \\ **Status** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Peak Reflected Pressure (MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**COV**} \\ \cline{5-10}  & & & **Pr 1** & & **Pr 2** & & **Pr 3** & **Pr 4** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1-2} & 12 & 8.8 & Sealed & 10.82 & 10.13 & 8.54 & 8.55 & 0.10 \\  & 13 & 8.8 & Sealed & 9.31 & 7.71 & 6.65 & 6.59 & 0.15 \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{COV} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{0.075} & 0.14 & 0.12 & 0.13 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\end{table} 
Table 17: Measured peak reflected pressure in case 1-2 (TNT of 8.8 kg). Table 23 represents the average peak incident pressures for case 2. The average peak incident pressures are observed experimental data using comparable TNT masses of 0.45 kg and 0.9 kg. The results show that the peak incident pressures are higher when the driver section is sealed. This is because in the opened state, energy is released through the unsealed portion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Case**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Round**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**TNT (kg)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sealing**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Peak Incident Pressure (MPa)**} \\ \cline{5-10}  & & & **Pso 1** & & **Pso 2** & & **Pso 3** & **Pso 4** & **Pso 5** & **Pso 6** & **Pso 7** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{2-1} & 27 & 1.35 & Sealed & 1.07 & 1 & 0.56 & 0.59 & 1 & 0.45 & 0.44 \\  & 28 & 1.35 & Sealed & 1.01 & 0.83 & 0.71 & 0.61 & 0.45 & 0.46 & 0.41 \\  & 29 & 1.35 & Sealed & 0.97 & 1.05 & 0.68 & 0.65 & 0.46 & 0.45 & 0.45 \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{COV} & 0.04 & 0.12 & 0.10 & 0.040 & 0.011 & 0.010 & 0.040 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Not measured.  
\end{table}