Transportation accidents frequently involve liquids dispersing in the atmosphere. An example is that of aircraft impacts, which often result in spreading fuel and a subsequent fire. Predicting the resulting environment is of interest for design, safety, and forensic applications. This environment is challenging for many reasons, one among them being the disparate time and length scales that are necessary to resolve for an accurate physical representation of the problem. A recent computational method appropriate for this class of problems has been described for modeling the impact and subsequent liquid spread. Because the environment is difficult to instrument and costly to test, the existing validation data are of limited scope and quality. A comparatively well instrumented test involving a rocket propelled cylindrical tank of water was performed, the results of which are helpful to understand the adequacy of the modeling methods. Existing data include estimates of drop sizes at several locations, final liquid surface deposition mass integrated over surface area regions, and video evidence of liquid cloud spread distances. Comparisons are drawn between the experimental observations and the predicted results of the modeling methods to provide evidence regarding the accuracy of the methods, and to provide guidance on the application and use of these methods.

References

References
1.
Gann
,
R. G.
, ed., 2005, “
Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Report No. NCSTAR 1.
2.
Silde
,
A.
,
Hostikka
,
S.
, and
Kankkunen
,
A.
, 2011, “
Experimental and Numerical Studies of Liquid Dispersal From a Soft Projectile Impacting a Wall
,”
Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
241
, pp.
617
624
.
3.
Jepsen
,
R. A.
,
O’Hern
,
T.
,
Demosthenous
,
B.
,
Bystrom
,
E.
,
Nissen
,
M.
,
Romero
,
E.
, and
S. S.
Yoon
, 2009, “
Diagnostics for Liquid Dispersion due to a High-Speed Impact With Accident or Vulnerablility Assessment Application
,”
Meas. Sci. Technol.
,
20
(
2
), p.
025401
.
4.
Brown
,
A. L.
, 2009, “
Impact and Fire Modeling Considerations Employing SPH Coupling to a Dilute Spray Fire Code
,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Summer Heat Transfer Conference
, San Francisco, CA, July 19–23, ASME SHTC-2009, HT2009-88493.
5.
Edwards
,
H. C.
, 2002, “
SIERRA Framework Version 3: Core Services Theory and Design
,” SAND Report No. SAND2002-3616.
6.
Swegle
,
J. W.
,
Attaway
,
S. W.
,
Heinstein
,
M. W.
,
Mello
,
F. J.
, and
Hicks
,
D. L.
, 1994, “
An Analysis of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
,” Sandia National Laboratories, Report No. SAND93-2513.
7.
Monaghan
,
J. J.
, 2005, “
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
,”
Rep. Prog. Phys.
,
68
, pp.
1703
1759
.
8.
Meyers
,
M. A.
, 1994,
Dynamic Behavior of Materials
,
John Wiley & Sons
,
New York, NY
.
9.
O’Rourke
,
P. J.
, and
Amsden
,
A. A.
, 1987, “
The TAB Method for Numerical Calculation of Spray Droplet Break-Up
,” SAE Technical Paper No. 870289.
10.
DesJardin
,
P. E.
, and
Gritzo
,
L. A.
, 2002, “
A Dilute Spray Model for Fire Simulations: Formulation, Usage and Benchmark Problems
,” SAND Report No. SAND2002-3419.
11.
Guildenbecher
,
D. R.
,
Lopez-Rivera
,
C.
, and
Sojka
,
P. E.
, 2009, “
Secondary Atomization
,”
Exp. Fluids
,
46
, pp.
371
402
.
12.
Brown
A. L.
, and
Jepsen
,
R. A.
, “
An Improved Drop Impact Model for Lagrangian/Eulerian Coupled Codes
,”
The ASME 2009 IMCEC Conference
, Lake Buena Vista, FL, November 13–19, IMECE2009-11675.
You do not currently have access to this content.