Jones-Wilkins-Lee Parameters

for Civil Explosives

R Castedo1, J A Sanchidrin2, L M Lpez3, P Segarra4 and A P Santos5

ABSTRACT
The cylinder test allows us to determine the expansion of a copper cylinder by the detonation of
an explosive charge inside. This test, originally designed for military explosives, has been adapted
for industrial explosives with non-ideal behaviour. From data obtained with this test and known
physical relationships, an analytical procedure has been developed to calculate the Jones-Wilkins-
Lee (JWL) equation of state parameters for five ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) and six
emulsion-type explosives. A new radial wall expansion function is proposed considering a non-
zero initial velocity with the consequent positive Gurney energy at unit relative volume. A set of
equations is established to determine the JWL parameters, three of them obtained at the Chapman-
Jouguet (CJ) point and the other three at different relative volumes. These equations, along with
some constraints to ensure a physically sound solution, are solved for the JWL parameters by a
non-linear least squares scheme. A 2D Lagrangian axisymmetric finite elements (FE) numerical
model is developed for each tested explosive to validate the analytical results, in terms of
expansion histories, with good agreement. This confirms that the set of conditions, constraints
on the parameters and least squares calculation used constitute a robust methodology that fully
captures the physics of the detonation products expansion involved in the cylinder test.

INTRODUCTION
An empirical equation of state (EOS) used in an explosive
simulation with a computer code needs to be calibrated to
the detonation energy densities at various volumes of the
adiabatic expansion of the gaseous products. The cylinder test,
developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is the
classical way to quantify these energy densities by measuring
the velocity of the expanding metal wall when the explosive
inside the copper cylinder is detonated (Lee, Hornig and
Kury, 1968; Souers and Kury, 1993; Souers et al, 2011). Once
this velocity is measured, a new radial expansion curve is
calculated by fitting a combined linear and exponential function
to the data (following the idea of Hornberg and Volk, 1989).
The expansion radius history curve can be then related with
the relative expansion volume and the Gurney-type energy
density to calibrate an empirical EOS, of which the Jones-
Wilkins-Lee (JWL) is the most widely used (Lee, Hornig and
Kury, 1968). The JWL is a pressure-energy-volume description
of explosive expansion. It contains two exponentials, high-
pressure and medium-pressure coefficients, and one power
term, which represents low-pressure behaviour.
While originally designed for military explosives, the
cylinder test is the most suitable means of measuring the initial
work capacity of commercial explosives in a realistic geometry
and charge size (Nyberg et al, 2002, 2003; Esen et al, 2005;
Hansson, 2009; Lpez et al, 2013). A practical approach to the
numerical modelling of these explosives and their interaction
with rock or structures is to have a library of EOS parameter
sets for a sufficiently ample range of densities, diameters
and detonation velocities. Since these characteristics are
usually known for a given blasting application, the modelling
can be accomplished selecting a parameter set of a similar
composition, with properties and test characteristics as close
as possible to the ones of the explosive in the application
concerned.
This work presents a new methodology, based on known
characteristics, to obtain the JWL equation of state parameters
from cylinder test data for a number of ammonium nitrate/
fuel oil (ANFO) and emulsion-type compositions conducted
by Swebrec in Sweden (Nyberg et al, 2002) and the Polytechnic
University of Madrid (UPM) in Spain (Lpez et al, 2013).
These tests were conducted in the frame of an EU project on
rock fragmentation by blasting (Moser, 2003).
CYLINDER TEST SET-UP
A total of 11 explosives, five ANFOs and six emulsions, has
been used in this work. Ten of these tests were conducted at
Swebrec, and the other one at the UPM following the same
methodology. The explosive charge was located inside a
copper cylinder with a diameter of 100 mm and initiated
with a 250 g pentolite booster. Two wooden discs were used
to maintain the cylinder upright until detonation. A set of

1. Research Assistant, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid ETSI Mines and Energy, Ros Rosas 21, Madrid CP 28003, Spain. Email: ricardo.castedo@upm.es
2. Professor, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid ETSI Mines and Energy, Ros Rosas 21, Madrid CP 28003, Spain. Email: ja.sanchidrian@upm.es
3. Associate Professor, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid ETSI Mines and Energy, Ros Rosas 21, Madrid CP 28003, Spain. Email: lina.lopez@upm.es
4. Associate Professor, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid ETSI Mines and Energy, Ros Rosas 21, Madrid CP 28003, Spain. Email: pablo.segarra@upm.es
5. Associate Professor, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid ETSI Mines and Energy, Ros Rosas 21, Madrid CP 28003, Spain. Email: tasio.santos@upm.es

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 57
R CASTEDO et al

ten pins were radially mounted on a pin support specially the Gurney-type equation at each relative volume (Souers et
designed for the test to measure the tube wall expansion. The al, 2011, 2013):
contact pins, manufactured by Dynasen Inc, were connected
R+x 2
Ed = =t d R cos i n ln b R + x l + 0 b R + x l G u n2
to a pin-mixer, which sends a signal to an oscilloscope each t 2
(1)
time the pin is ionisated. Along with this, the velocity of m 0 R 4 R
detonation was also measured. Figure 1 shows the set-up of where:
one of the cylinder tests conducted at the UPM.
m is the initial metal density
A representation of the expanded cylinder wall is shown 0 is the initial explosive density
in Figure 2 for a detonation moving downwards. The left un is the normal wall velocity
vertical line is the cylinder axis of symmetry, being the angle
Ed can also be written as a function of the measured value r
that forms with the metal wall. At the initial time, the inner
and the radial wall velocity um:
and outer radii of the wall at a given axial position are R0 and
R0+x0 respectively. As the test evolves, the inner radius is R R0 + x0 + r 2
Ed = * t f n4
R +x +r t R +x +r 2
and the outer is R + x. The radial displacement of the outer p ln d 0 0 n+ 0d 0 0
m R0 cos i R 4 R (2)
wall (which is the magnitude measured) is designated as r.
_um cos i i
2
Due to test settings, the velocity measured is the radial um as
the sensors are radially mounted in the same plane.
The wall angle , can be determined by (see Figure 2):

GURNEY-TYPE EXPANSION ENERGY
The Gurney model allows the estimation of the velocity
of a metal that is in contact with a detonating charge. After
the detonation and during the gas expansion, the explosive
chemical energy available is transformed into kinetic energy,
producing radial cylinder expansion. The wall velocity is
related with the detonation products energy density, Ed, by
] R + xg - _ R0 + x0i
tan i = =
r (3)
Dt Dt
where:
D is the detonation velocity
t is the time after the wall starts to expand
The classical cylinder wall expansion curves (Hornberg and
Volk, 1989) are fitted with a combined linear and exponential
function. These equations result in a zero-velocity at time zero,
resulting in Ed = 0 at V = 1. However, following Souers (2005),
the crossover from negative to positive Ed occurs somewhere
around V 0.9, which means that Ed is already positive at
V= 1 when the wall begins to move. Therefore, a new fitting
function is necessary to describe the wall displacement (r)
time (t) data:

r = a _t - t0i + 1 _ u0 - a i71 - e-b_t - t0iA (4)

FIG 1 Test set-up made at the Universidad
Politcnica de Madrid (Lpez et al, 2013).
b
where:
a, b, u0 and t0 are fitting parameters
The value of u0 is the initial velocity of the cylinder
expansion, being 1/b the length of the acceleration phase. The
radial wall velocity, um, is then obtained by differentiating
Equation 4 with respect to time:
um = dTr = a ^1 - e-bt h + uoe-bt (5)
dt
From Equation 1, the relative volume V can be estimated
along R in Figure 2 that extends the normal direction from
the cylinder wall back to form a cone, which becomes longer
as the wall expands. The cone geometric relative volume can
be defined and written as a function of r as follows:

_ R0 + x0 + r i + R02 - _ R0 + x0i
2 2
rRRi rR 2
V= = = (6)
rR02 rR02 cos i R02 cos i

Equations 2 and 6 relate, for each radius r and time t, the

relative volume V with the expansion energy Ed.

FIG 2 Schematic of the cylinder wall expansion.
JONES-WILKINS-LEE CALCULATION
The JWL EOS is commonly used in hydrodynamic
calculations as it accurately predicts the results for
experimental geometries, emphasising the early and large
expansion products (Lee, Hornig and Kury, 1968). Due to its
high number of parameters, it allows a flexible calibration

58 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015

from experimental data. The JWL equation writes pressure as
a function of volume V and internal energy E:
P = A d 1 - R V n e-R1V + B d 1 - R V n e-R2V + ~E
~ ~
1 2 V works when working with conical geometrical volume
It derives from the pressure-volume expression for the
detonation products isentrope:
P = Ae-R1V + Be-R2V + CV- ]~ + 1g (8)
where:
A, B, C, R1, R2 and are constants to be determined
Different methods have been published to determine the
JWL constant parameters (Merchant, White and Collyer, 2002;
Souers, 2005). These methodologies used fixed data to obtain
some parameters like R1, R2, E and , based on Chapman-
Jouguet (CJ) state conditions and expansion measurements
(ie the cylinder test), the adjusted values for A, B and C and
modifying them if necessary to fix any deficiency in the
numerical results to match the test data. Before proceeding
with the JWL parameters calculation is useful to recall that
constants A, B, C, R1, R2, E and should be considered as a
set of interdependent parameters, and one constant cannot
be changed unilaterally without considering the effect of this
change on the others (Merchant, White and Collyer, 2002).
The following conditions must be met to find the JWL
parameter set:
The JWL EOS is met at the CJ state, where
E = E0 + 1 PCJ _ 1 - VCJ i with E being the total available
2 0
energy, so Equation 7 results in:
C1pv / A d 1 - R V n e-R1VCJ + B d 1 - R V n e-R2VCJ + ~
~ ~
1 CJ 2 CJ V CJ
_E0 + 1 PCJ _1 - VCJ ij = PCJ
2
E0 is, in principle, unknown. pv is the unknown vector and
is composed of A, B, C, R1, R2, E0 and . The PCJ is calculated
from the isentrope Equation 8:
-R V -R V - ]~ + 1g
PCJ = Ae 1 CJ + Be 2 CJ + CVCJ
The CJ pressure is using the detonation products isentrope
at the CJ state:
C2 ^ pvh / Ae-R1VCJ + Be-R2VCJ + CVCJ - ]~ + 1g = t0 _VCJ - 1i D2 (11)
The CJ state (ie pressure and relative volume) is
calculated from a thermodynamic code W-DETCOM
(Sanchidrin and Lpez, 2006) complying with the
measured detonation velocity D. Also from this code, the
CJ isentrope is calculated and then can be obtained
from the adiabatic coefficient at large expansions along
this isentrope. Therefore, the new unknown vector is pv =
(A, B, C, R1, R2, E0).
At the CJ point, the slope of the isentrope must be equal
to the slope of the Rayleigh line (0D2), differentiating
Equation 8:
C3 ^ pvh / R1Ae-R1VCJ + R2Be-R2VCJ + ]~ + 1g CVCJ - ]~ + 2g = t0D2 (12)
The detonation energy density (Ed Equation 2) obtained
from the cylinder test is drawn from the isentropic
expansion:
11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
JONES-WILKINS-LEE PARAMETERS FOR CIVIL EXPLOSIVES
C4j ^ pvh / E0 - A e-R1Vj - B e-R2Vj - C V j- ~ = Ed _Vj i
R1 R2 ~ (13)
The volumes used here are 2.4, 4.4 and 7.0, according with
(7)
(Souers et al, 2011, 2013).
Equations 9, 11, 12 and 13 form a system of four equations
with six unknowns. An approximate solution has been
obtained by an ordinary least squares scheme considering the
following restrictions:
The available energy cannot be greater than the heat of
the explosion:
E0 # Q (14)
where the heat of the explosion Q is the ideal detonation
value instead of the heat released in the actual CJ state so
as not to restrict E0 unnecessarily.
For high expansion volumes (V > 7), the exponential
terms of the JWL formulation must be lower than the ideal
gas power addend (Souers et al, 2013). As an example,
this condition is always fulfilled in the parameter sets
reported in Dobratz and Crawford (1985). These result in
the following relation in terms of energy:
A e-7R1 B e-7R2 1 C 7- ~ (15)
+
R1 R2 ~
To ensure that the first exponential term (A, R1) represents
the high-pressure expansion, while the second represents
the mid-pressure expansion at V = VCJ:
Ae-R1VCJ 2 Be-R2VCJ (16)
(9) In contrast, the second term dominates at expansions
equal to two:
A e-2R1 1 B e-2R2 (17)
R2
R1
This condition is also met by the data reported in Dobratz
and Crawford (1985).
(10)
All the unknowns (A, B, C, R1, R2, E0) must be positive.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A summary of the properties of the explosives used in this
work is presented in Table 1. Where more than one test was
carried out, mean velocity of detonation D and density 0 are
given. Pressure (PCJ) and relative volume (VCJ) are calculated
values for a CJ state complying with the measured detonation
velocity using W-DETCOM (Sanchidrin and Lpez, 2006).
Heat of explosion (Q) is the ideal detonation value.
Cylinder test characteristics and Jones-Wilkins-
Lee parameters
As mentioned previously, cylinder radial expansion is obtained
by fitting the time-displacement points recorded during the
test according to Equation 4. In the case of tests with more
than one shot (ie Lambrit see Table 1), an expansion curve is
obtained for each shot then the shift t = t - t0 makes comparable
expansion curves at t = 0 and r = 0. With the fitting parameters
a, b, u0 and t0 for each individual shot, the new data curves can
be represented at the same time origin and then a unique and
definitive parameters set and expansion curve is obtained by
using a least squares method (Table 2). Table 2 also shows
59
R CASTEDO et al

TABLE 1
Explosives properties.

Explosive Number of Explosive type o D PCJ VCJ Q

tests kg/m3 m/s GPa GPa kJ/kg
Lambrit 2 ANFO 776 4084 3.455 0.733 3875
Prillit A 3 ANFO 850 3854 3.278 0.740 3881
Nagolita 1 ANFO 902 4426 4.503 0.745 3885
Alnafo 3 ANFO/Al 910 4193 4.292 0.732 4945
A-UPM 5 ANFO 830 3879 3.253 0.739 3890
Titan E1 1 Emulsion 890 4688 4.961 0.746 3228
Titan E6 1 Emulsion 1130 6031 9.558 0.767 3232
Titan E4 1 Emulsion 80%/AN prill 20% 750 4131 3.220 0.736 3420
Titan E12 1 Emulsion 80%/AN prill 20% 1140 5573 8.401 0.763 3424
Titan E7 1 Emulsion 80%/AN prill 20% 1260 5270 8.127 0.768 3424
Titan E9 1 Emulsion 80%/AN prill 20% 1260 5765 10.187 0.757 3424

TABLE 2
Radial expansion curve parameters, Equation 4 and Gurney-type energy at different relative volumes.

Explosive a b u0 R2 Ed (V = 2.4) Ed (V = 4.4) Ed (V = 7.0)

mm/s 1/s mm/s GJ/m3 GJ/m3 GJ/m3
Lambrit 1.210 0.041 0.332 0.9916 1.168 1.475 1.585
Prillit A 1.135 0.045 0.271 0.9856 1.113 1.367 1.444
Nagolita 1.266 0.043 0.319 0.9998 1.318 1.662 1.786
Alnafo 1.515 0.031 0.454 0.9911 1.459 1.994 2.276
A-UPM 1.133 0.050 0.291 0.9912 1.155 1.387 1.447
Titan E1 1.273 0.037 0.614 0.9998 1.324 1.636 1.768
Titan E6 1.421 0.055 0.498 0.9999 1.879 2.281 2.406
Titan E4 1.110 0.040 0.223 0.9999 1.000 1.255 1.340
Titan E12 1.432 0.054 0.637 0.9998 1.930 2.314 2.438
Titan E7 1.553 0.057 0.369 0.9999 2.187 2.728 2.908
Titan E9 1.588 0.058 0.600 0.9999 2.364 2.883 3.055

the determination coefficients R2 of the fitting analysis, which
are high in all cases, confirming a good representation of the
radius-time expansion data by Equation 4.
Once this data is processed, it is possible to calculate the
energy density Ed from Equation 2 and the expansion ratio V
from Equation 6. For all tests, the maximum relative volume
reached during the expansion was higher than 7.16, so the
maximum value used for the energy density calculation
(V=7) can be used with confidence. The Ed values at the three
expansion ratios used for the JWL parameters calculation are
given in Table 2, and the resulting functions Ed (V) are plotted in
Figure 3. Alnafo has the higher Ed and consequently the fastest
wall velocity. Prillit A and A-UPM exhibit analogous expansion
behaviour as might be expected from their similar detonation
velocity and density (Table 1). Figure 4 shows that the
maximum Ed values (known as the Gurney energy) are closely
related with density (higher densities tend to produce higher Ed
values) in combination with the detonation velocity (ieLambrit
versus Prillit A). The same behaviour can be observed with the
emulsions as higher explosives densities correspond to higher
Ed values and, for the same density, higher detonation velocity
also increases the energy density (see Titan E7 and E9 as an
example; Table 2 and Figures 3 and4). According to the curves
in Figure 3, most of the expansion work has been done by the
time that V is equal to five. This is in accordance with other data
published (Nyberg et al, 2002, 2003).
Jones-Wilkins-Lee calculation
The JWL parameters obtained from the constrained least
squares scheme described previously are compiled in Table3.
Figure 5 shows, as examples, the three pressure terms and
the total pressure of the isentropes obtained for four of the
explosives calculated from Equation 8 at any relative volume.
At low relative volumes, the main contribution is the first term
according to restriction number three; at moderate relative
volumes, the second term gives the major contribution
according to restriction number four; and, finally, at large
relative volumes, the last term gives the major contribution
according to restriction number two.
In general, the pressures generated with Equation 8 for the
JWL parameters set are higher for the emulsion mixtures
than for ANFOs. As an example, the Titan E6 and TitanE12
are very similar explosives, with the first having higher
D and producing higher initial pressure (see Figure 5).
However, the higher pressure of the Tital E6 decreases faster
upon expansion so that P = 0.1 GPa and is reduced at a
lower expansion than Titan E12. These results are supported
by similar works (Nyberg et al, 2003), which state that the

60 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 JONES-WILKINS-LEE PARAMETERS FOR CIVIL EXPLOSIVES

FIG 5 Jones-Wilkins-Lee isentropes, where high, medium

and low refer to the pressure terms from Equation 8.

emulsion with prills (Titan E12) works on the copper tube for
a longer period of time. However, the new data sets provided
in this work describe a much slower pressure decrease than
Esens data does and finds that the new detonation energies
are substantially higher (Esen et al, 2005).

LS-DYNA simulations
A 2D axisymmetric Lagrangian formulation has been
developed in the hydrodynamic code LS-DYNA to assess the
JWL parameter sets obtained. A 2D simulation has been used
FIG 3 Expansion energy (Equation 2) during detonation product expansion. as the utilisation of rotational symmetry significantly reduces
the computational resources needed for the simulations when
compared to 3D simulations. The cylinders had a 100mm inner
diameter filled with explosive and a copper wall thickness
of 5 mm. The explosive elements size (axial radial) was
11mm for all tests, while for the copper wall the elements
were 1 0.5 mm. The initial detonation points are located at
the top row of nodes of the explosive material mesh. To be
faithful to the tests, the measurement nodal point is situated
290 mm above the bottom of the tube for all the tests (Nyberg
et al, 2003; Lpez et al, 2013).
The explosive material is introduced into the LS-DYNA
model using the *High_Explosive_Burn material model,
FIG 4 Gurney energy versus density () and detonation velocity (D). which requires the explosive density, velocity of detonation
and pressure at the CJ point. Table 1 shows these data for all
the tests. The EOS used to model the explosive is obviously
TABLE 3
the *EOS_JWL and needs the values summarised in Table3.
Calculated parameters of the Jones-Wilkins-Lee equation of state. The oxygen-free high thermal conductivity (OHFC) copper
used in the cylinder test is modelled with the empirical
Explosive A B C R1 R2 E0
material *Johnson_Cook. The data used are the original
GPa GPa GPa - - GPa - ones provided by Johnson and Cook (1985) and detailed in
Lambrit 482.68 4.95 0.12 8.14 1.20 1.69 0.39 Table4; an EOS is needed to complete the simulation with
the *Johnson_Cook model. Therefore, the *EOS_Gruneisen
Prillit A 251.82 3.71 0.02 6.85 1.07 1.43 0.39 is used with shock hugoniot parameters c = 3910m/s and s =
Nagolita 353.05 5.17 0.19 6.87 1.18 1.97 0.40 1.51 (Marsh, 1980) and a Gruneisen parameter of = 2.02 +
Alnafo 206.27 3.25 0.15 6.13 0.84 2.38 0.32 0.47V (V being the relative volume), which is valid for the
range of pressures that this copper will work (Steinberg,
A-UPM 276.42 4.13 0.00 7.09 1.12 1.42 0.36 1991; Vignjevic et al, 2008). The standard LS-DYNA hourglass
Titan E1 172.49 3.40 0.01 5.28 1.00 1.69 0.39 viscosity form has been used, with the same parameters for
the explosive and copper material for all runs. Finally, the
Titan E6 398.87 3.58 0.05 5.15 0.89 2.54 0.23
contact between the explosive and copper wall has been
Titan E4 321.05 4.42 0.15 7.53 1.24 1.50 0.38 defined as *Contact_2D_Automatic_Surface_To_Surface.
Titan E12 315.78 3.96 0.07 5.09 0.96 2.58 0.25 An interesting parameter that can be studied from the
Titan E7 483.23 4.80 0.07 5.80 0.89 3.05 0.24 simulation results is the detonation pressure obtained with
the hydrodynamic code in comparison with the calculated
Titan E9 757.01 17.17 0.23 6.79 1.62 3.01 0.42
JWL parameters. The pressure of each modelled explosive

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 61
R CASTEDO et al

TABLE 4
Parameters used to define oxygen-free high thermal conductivity copper with Johnson-Cook material model.

m G E v A B n C m Tmelt Troom Cp
kg/m 3
GPa GPa - MPa MPa - - - K K J/(kgK)
8960 46 124 0.34 90 292 0.31 0.025 1.09 1356 293 383
G shear modulus; E Youngs modulus; v Poisson ratio; A, B, n, C and m strength constants; Tmelt melting temperature; Troom room temperature; Cp specific heat.

has been measured at a point of the symmetry axis (explosive
material) located at 290 mm from the cylinder bottom. Table 5
shows the pressure values calculated with data from Table 3
into Equation 7 (PJWL) the peak pressures obtained within the
LS-DYNA model (PLS-DYNA) and the relative error committed
between them. Both pressures should be the same as the
LS-DYNA pressure is released by the EOS JWL. However,
small errors can arise, but most of these values are lower than
five percent with the only exception being the Titan E1, which
goes up to eight percent.
A fitting function is calculated from each of the numerical
wall expansion data (ie LS-DYNA model) following an
Equation 4-type function and is then compared with the
experimental ones. Figure 6 shows both expansion history
curves for all the explosives analysed. As can be readily seen,
the numerical methodology used reproduces the expected
behaviour of the cylinder test with ANFO and emulsion
explosives outstanding. This is in accordance with previous
results (Nyberg et al, 2003). The goodness of the test has
been assessed in terms of a determination coefficient R2 (see
Figure6), which is calculated from the residuals of the model
results with respect to the experimental radius-time data.
These coefficients are very high in all cases with a minimum
of 0.998. As these values are quite good, no attempt has
been made to improve the match (Souers, 2005; Hansson,
2009), which means that the methodology presented here is
physically sound and robust.
CONCLUSIONS
A series of cylinder tests has been used to calculate the JWL
EOS parameters for 11 civil explosives mixtures. From the
methodology and results, it is possible to conclude that:
A new wall expansion fitting function is proposed,
including a non-zero initial velocity and an expansion
energy positive at a relative volume equal to one. The
TABLE 5
Pressure values and relative error for all data sets.
Explosive PJWL PLS-DYNA
GPa GPa
Lambrit 3.22 3.25
expansion energy density, described following a new
conical relative expansion volume (Souers et al, 2011, 2013),
has been used, perfectly matching the new proposed wall
expansion function.
In terms of explosives behaviour, although a simple
relationship is not observed, the explosive density may
have a greater influence on the energy density than the
detonation velocity. Prilled emulsion has slower pressure
decrease than straight emulsion.
The methodology used to determine the JWL parameters
consists of four conditions and five restrictions based on
physical relationships and measured data.
The resulting JWL parameter sets have been used to
model the cylinder test with LS-DYNA and compare the
calculated wall expansion histories with the experimental
ones. The matching obtained is excellent so no fine tuning
was necessary.
The data sets presented here based on finite element
methods (FEM) simulations may be used as first
approximations to model ANFO and emulsion explosives.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been partially funded by the Government of
Spain, project no. IPT-20120845370000, and by MAXAM
Civil Explosives, whose support is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Dobratz, B M and Crawford, P C, 1985. LLNL Explosives Handbook,
Properties of Chemical Explosives and Explosive Simulants, Report
UCRL-52997 Change 2 (University of California, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore).
Esen, S, Nyberg, U, Arai, H and Ouchterlony, F, 2005. Determination
of the energetic characteristics of commercial explosives using
the cylinder expansion test technique, Swedish Blasting Research
Centre och Lule Tekniska Universitet, Stockholm och Lule,
Sweden.
Hansson, H, 2009. Determination of properties for emulsion
explosives using cylinder expansion tests and numerical
simulation, Swebrec report 2009:1, Stockholm och Lule,
Sweden.
Error
Hornberg, H and Volk, F, 1989. The cylinder test in the context of
% physical detonation measurement methods, Propellants Explos
0.96 Pyrotech, 14:199211.

Prillit A 3.04 2.98 1.87 Johnson, G R and Cook, W H, 1985. Fracture characteristics of three
metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and
Nagolita 4.10 4.21 2.71 pressures, J Eng and Fract Mech, 21(1):3148.
Alnafo 4.06 3.95 2.77 Lee, E L, Hornig, H C and Kury, J W, 1968. Adiabatic expansion of
A-UPM 3.03 3.04 0.47 high explosive detonation products, Report UCRL-50422,
University of California, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,
Titan E1 4.54 4.92 8.36 Livermore.
Titan E6 9.13 8.77 3.95 Lpez, L M , Sanchidrin, J A , Segarra, P and Ortega, M F, 2013.
Evaluation of ANFO performance with cylinder test, in
Titan E4 2.94 2.90 1.32
Proceedings Tenth International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation
Titan E12 8.15 8.23 0.95 by Blasting Fragblast 10 (eds: P K Singh and A Sinha), pp 579586
(CRC Press: Boca Raton).
Titan E7 7.74 8.04 3.83
Marsh, S P, 1980. LASL Shock Hugoniot Data, volume 5, 658 p
Titan E9 9.32 8.11 5.43
(University of California Press: Oakland).

62 11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015
 JONES-WILKINS-LEE PARAMETERS FOR CIVIL EXPLOSIVES

FIG 6 Wall expansion comparison between experimental and simulated data.

Merchant, P W, White, S J and Collyer, A M, 2002. A WBL-consistent Souers, P C, 2005. JWL calculating, Lawrence Livermore National
JWL equation of state for the HMX-based explosive EDC37 from Laboratory, Report UCRL-TR-211984.
cylinder tests, in Proceedings 12th Int Det Symp 2002, Maryland,
Souers, P C, Garza, R, Hornig, H, Lauderbach, L, Owens, C and
pp632641 (University of Maryland: Maryland).
Vitello, P, 2011. Metal angle correction in the cylinder test,
Moser, P, 2003. Less fines production in aggregate and industrial Propellants Explos Pyrotech, 36(1):915.
minerals industry, in Proceedings Second World Conference on
Souers, P C and Kury, J W, 1993. Comparison of cylinder data and
Explosives and Blasting Technique (ed: R Holmberg), pp 335343,
code calculations for homogenous explosives, Propellants Explos
Prague (Taylor & Francis: Lisse).
Pyrotech, 18(4):175183.
Nyberg, U, Arvanitidis, I, Olsson, M and Ouchterlony, F, 2003. Large
Souers, P C, Lauderbach, L, Garza, R, Ferranti, L and Vitello, P, 2013.
size cylinder expansion tests on ANFO and gassed bulk emulsion
Upgraded analytical model of the cylinder test, Propellants Explos
explosives, in Proceedings Second World Conference on Explosives
Pyrotech, 38(3):419424.
and Blasting Technique (ed: R Holmberg), pp 181191, Prague
(Taylor & Francis: Lisse). Steinberg, D J, 1991. Equation of state and strength properties
of selected materials, Report UCRL-MA-106439, Lawrence
Nyberg, U, Arvanitidis, I, Ouchterlony, F and Olsson, M, 2002.
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore.
Cylinder expansion tests on reference explosives from production,
Technical report No. 21/Deliverable 54. EU Project GRD-2000 Vignjevic, R, Campbell, J C, Bourne, N K and Djordjevic, N, 2008.
25224 Less Fines, SveBeFo, Stockholm. Modeling shock waves in orthotropic elastic materials, J Appl
Phys, 104(4):044904.
Sanchidrin, J A and Lpez, L M, 2006. Calculation of the energy
of explosives with a partial reaction model. Comparison with
cylinder test data, Propellants Explos Pyrotech, 31(1):2532.

11TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ROCK FRAGMENTATION BY BLASTING / SYDNEY, NSW, 2426 AUGUST 2015 63