You can also use Autodyn which is now part of ANSYS WORKBENCH. It also provides SPH-FEM/FVM/FEM coupling making it possible to simulate not only blast in air (Airex) but also underwater (undex). Different solvers and ALE adaptive coupling with a huge material data base for modelling different explosives anx their interaction with metallic/composite panel structures makes it one of the most powerful and unique Simulation tools for explicit dynamics out there. Just google AUTODYN to find more !

Good luck!

You can also use Autodyn which is now part of ANSYS WORKBENCH. It also provides SPH-FEM/FVM/FEM coupling making it possible to simulate not only blast in air (Airex) but also underwater (undex). Different solvers and ALE adaptive coupling with a huge material data base for modelling different explosives anx their interaction with metallic/composite panel structures makes it one of the most powerful and unique Simulation tools for explicit dynamics out there. Just google AUTODYN to find more !

Good luck!

Dear Sidney,

What is the basis of selecting 30kPa pressure? Is it obtained from some standard? Or is it assumed? One way to check it is to understand the source of blast. Is there any explosion taking place because of explosive or electrical spark? Depending upon the source of the pressure pulse, one of the following methods can be used to solve this problem.

1. Static analysis (Implicit) - This is a simplest analysis provided we know the blast pressure on the surface of the structure without much details about variation in the pressure. This analysis addresses possible stress in the structure and can give initial estimate for the structural design. This analysis can also be extended to optimise the structure for stiffness and stress. However, this structure will be overdesigned as it does not consider variation in pressure with respect to time.

2. Dynamic analysis (Implicit) - This method is better than the previous one. In this method, a pressure pulse need to be defined with respect to time. However, this method cannot capture damping effect and subsequent loading of the structure due to wave propagation.

3. Dynamic analysis (Explicit) - If we know the amount of explosive and its location with respect to structure, we can model the explosive as a point source (in LS-Dyna). In this case, there is no need to model the air or water or explosive. This method is better than previous methods as it also captures variation in pressure on the structure with respect to location of the explosive. In the previous case, we need to assume the pressure distribution over the structure. However, in this case the variation in pressure along the surface is automatically computed by the software. In this method, meshing is critical as the element with smallest timestep governs the compute time.

4.Blast simulation (Explicit) - This is the most accurate method to simulate the blast. In this case, the explosive can be modeled using ALE or Eulerian or SPH method depending upon the case. It should be noted that shape, size and location of explosive affects the pressure acting on the structure. Typically, explosive is modeled using JWL model. The air or water and explosive domain need to be modeled in case of ALE or Eulerian method. Point or line of detonation alongwith delay in multiple detonations can also be considered. This method can also capture wave propagation. However, the model size will be large and compute time will be much more compared to all other previous methods. Typical software in which blast simulation possible are Radioss, Autodyn, LS-Dyna etc.

5. Fluid structure interaction (Explicit) - If the source of blast is other than explosive (say, compressed/pressurized fluid or electrical spark), ALE or Euler method can be used to capture effect of pressure fluctuation.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar