Protocols for Modeling Explosive Threats in Urban Environments 3/25/2017 3/25/2017 CRTI-06-0252RD Protocols for Modeling Explosive Threats in Urban Environments R.C. Ripley, F. Zhang, D. Whitehouse, L. Donahue, K. Scherbatiuk, F.-S. Lien, P. Caron CRTI Summer Symposium 2009, 15-16 June, Ottawa 1

Project Team Public Safety Canada (Lead Dept.): 3/25/2017 Project Team Public Safety Canada (Lead Dept.): Pierre Caron (PM), Tim Patraboy (DPM), Glenn Flood DRDC Suffield: Fan Zhang (SA), Kevin Scherbatiuk (Structural) Martec Limited: David Whitehouse (Protocols), Robert Ripley (Models & UE Solutions), Laura Donahue, Eric Li (PV), Tim Dunbar (SV) University of Waterloo: Prof. Fue-Sang Lien (Models), T. Xu, H. Ji RCMP: Sgt. J.-Y. Vermette

3/25/2017 Introduction Modeling is a key tool to support analysis of terrorist explosive threat impact on Canadian urban targets Need reliable approaches for generating and delivering information to decision makers

Blast Interaction Regimes 3/25/2017 Blast Interaction Regimes Suffield Scaled Urban Street Unconfined Free-Field Blast

Urban Street Explosion 3/25/2017 Urban Street Explosion

3/25/2017 High Confinement Subway Train Station Parkade Tunnel

Simple Models are Not Always Sufficient 3/25/2017 Simple Models are Not Always Sufficient Oklahoma City (1995) Moscow (1998) Risk Management Series FEMA 426 (2003)

3/25/2017 Urban Blast Modeling High-fidelity, first-principles model

Capability and Knowledge Gaps 3/25/2017 Capability and Knowledge Gaps Fast and approximate modeling tools do not properly address near-field scenarios found in urban environments Lack of physical models for non-ideal explosives in close proximity to urban structures Lack of supporting documentation and corresponding guidelines for effective use of modeling tools

3/25/2017 Objective of CRTI-06-0252RD To develop protocols serving as standards and guidelines for modeling both ideal and non-ideal explosive threats in close proximity to urban structures and environments

What are the Blast Modeling Protocols? 3/25/2017 What are the Blast Modeling Protocols? Guidelines to be followed when performing/evaluating blast analyses for threats in urban environments A series of sequential steps which cover the blast analysis process Consider best-practice modeling while not restricting analyses to specific approaches A key feature is a set of baseline urban test cases Database of accurate pre-computed urban scenarios for quick analyses Used to evaluate the range of applicability of any blast modeling approach for a specific urban blast event

3/25/2017 Project Roadmap

Eight Protocols Steps Define and Interpret Pre-Calculation Guidance 3/25/2017 Eight Protocols Steps Define and Interpret Pre-Calculation Guidance Calculation Steps Analyze and Summarize

Who are the Protocols Users? 3/25/2017 Who are the Protocols Users? Performers Focus on performing and delivering results from a specified blast analysis Consumers Understand the context of blast problem which needs to be solved Provide advice to outside groups Manage the resources on projects addressing security issues, which may include the blast analysis Decision Makers Take action based on the analysis results Interested in how protocols reduce their risk

Pre-Calculated Scenario Matrix 3/25/2017 Pre-Calculated Scenario Matrix A total of 300 scenarios are planned Include range of targets and threats

Fundamental Urban Elements 3/25/2017 Fundamental Urban Elements U1: Straight Street U2: Single Building U5: Street Intersection U3: Urban Bay U4: Urban Corner U6: Alley Intersection

3/25/2017 Structural Elements

Classes of Explosives (Tentative) 3/25/2017 Classes of Explosives (Tentative) HE (C4, TNT) Energetic Liquids (TATP etc.) Slurries (ANFO) Energetic Liquid/Metal Particles (NM/Al, Mg, Ti, Zr) Aluminized AN Organic Powder – Based Mixes (Corn Starch) Granular Explosive (pipe bombs) FAE (Liquid HC Fuel into Air) Coordinated with CRTI-06-0204RD ‘Improvised Explosive Assessment’ and CRTI-07-0153RD ‘Transport of Combustible Liquids’

Preliminary User Survey Results 3/25/2017 Preliminary User Survey Results Urban Environments Description Rating (5 high) 4-Way Street Intersection 4.7 Parkade (small and large) Straight Street 4 Internal Blast 3.8 Side-Street Alley 3.7 Urban Bay 3.6 Bridge Underpass 3.5 Tunnel Entrance 3.4 Single Building Façade 3.2 Bridge Tunnel Blast Threats Type Rating (5 high) ANFO 5.0 TNT 4.8 AN+other Liquid Hydrocarbon 3.9 Liquid (NM, IPN) 3.3 Aluminized 3.1 TATP 3.0 Additional user surveys planned within the CRTI community

Blast Enhancement Table 3/25/2017 Blast Enhancement Table # Walls 1 2 3 … 4 5 6 Elements → Free-Field Single Building Parkade Street Tunnel Courtyard/ Market Interior Room Threats ↓ TNT 1.0 6.0 10.0 11.0 C4 1.2 7.2 11.5 12.0 ANFO 0.8 4.5 7.8 8.4 Aluminized Explosive 1.5 FAE

Blast Enhancement Table 3/25/2017 Blast Enhancement Table # Walls 1 2 3 … 4 5 6 Elements → Free-Field Single Building Parkade Street Tunnel Courtyard/ Market Interior Room Threats ↓ TNT 1.0 6.0 10.0 11.0 C4 1.2 7.2 11.5 12.0 ANFO 0.8 4.5 7.8 8.4 Aluminized Explosive 1.5 FAE

3/25/2017 Physical Models Required for simulating detonation and near-field blast from classes of conventional and non-ideal explosive threats, and their interaction with confined urban environments

Confined Explosive Afterburning 3/25/2017 Confined Explosive Afterburning

Confined Explosive Afterburning 3/25/2017 Confined Explosive Afterburning Donor Chamber t = 5.7 ms t = 10.7 ms t = 20.7 ms Acceptor Chamber t = 50.7 ms

Aluminum Detonation in Air 3/25/2017 Unconfined Detonation Aluminum Detonation in Air Micrograph of particles Abrupt DDT DDT process in a closed tube Ea=71 kJ/mol Ea=120 kJ/mol

Non-Ideal Explosive Analysis 3/25/2017 Non-Ideal Explosive Analysis

Dense Multiphase Flow Mixing Models 3/25/2017 Dense Multiphase Flow Mixing Models Particle jetting / wake and boundary layer interaction D.L. Frost, MABS 19

Status and Plan FY08-09 Physical models implemented (Del #3 and 4) 3/25/2017 Status and Plan FY08-09 Physical models implemented (Del #3 and 4) Protocol prototype design complete (Del #5) First user meeting completed (users and scenarios) FY09-10 Physical models validation underway Scenario calculations to begin after matrix finalization Protocol platform selection under review Additional user feedback meetings Protocol process requires testing and design iteration Final Protocols ~ June 2011

3/25/2017 Questions?

Vulnerability Guidelines 3/25/2017 Vulnerability Guidelines Structural Response for Non-Uniform and Complex Blast Combined Human Injury Chart

Particle Fragmentation 3/25/2017 Particle Fragmentation Detonation Fragmentation Thermal Cracking Impact Fragmentation Aerodynamic Fragmentation Reflection Wall Coating

Protocols Steps – Top Level 3/25/2017 Protocols Steps – Top Level There are 8 steps for performing blast analyses: Attributes Sequential Modular Reproducible Auditable Define and Interpret Pre-Calculation Guidance Calculation Steps Analyze and Summarize

Protocols Steps – Process Details 3/25/2017 Protocols Steps – Process Details