Abstract
Explosive research hinges on the comprehension of shock waves, characterized by rapid pressure spikes and an exponential decay back to ambient conditions. Despite the foundational role of shock waves in understanding high-energy events, consistently replicating them accurately remains a challenge. Real-world scenarios rarely conform to the idealized Friedlander waveform, and obstacles such as terrain and structures often introduce complex shock wave interactions. This study examines the dynamics of shock waves, exploring how their propagation and pressure profiles are shaped by distinct test configurations: unconfined, partially confined, and confined charges. Unconfined configurations have charges situated directly on the ground, and produced shock waves marked by a consistent velocity of 400 ± 1.7 m/s and statistically similar Friedlander waveforms. Partially confined tests, featuring an elevated explosive source, had comparable velocities to unconfined charges, but introduced ground reflections, resulting in positive phase impulses up to 16.5% higher than unconfined tests and were not significantly similar. Peak pressures from the partially confined tests varied with charge height, with some 43.9% lower and others 9.5% higher than the unconfined tests. Confined configurations, created within shock tubes, demonstrated a wide range of variability due to vortex rings and internal reflections, ultimately resulting in positive phase impulse 67.5% higher and peak pressure 2% lower than the unconfined configuration and were not statistically similar when the full waveform was considered. These findings underscore the fundamental role of test configuration in shaping shock wave characteristics and the need to understand the full waveform rather than just the initial peak.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Artero-Guerrero, J., Pernas-Sánchez, J. & Teixeira-Dias, F. Blast wave dynamics: The influence of the shape of the explosive. J. Hazard. Mater. 331, 189–199 (2017).
Langenderfer, M., Williams, K., Douglas, A., Rutter, B. & Johnson, C. E. An evaluation of measured and predicted air blast parameters from partially confined blast waves. Shock Waves. 31, 175–192 (2021).
Needham, C. E. Blast Wave Reflections. in Blast Waves (ed Needham, C. E.) 197–225 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65382-2_13.
Ibolja, C. Blast Injuries and Blast-Induced Neurotrauma: Overview of Pathophysiology and Experimental Knowledge Models and Findings. in Brain Neurotrauma: Molecular, Neuropsychological, and Rehabilitation Aspects (CRC, 2015).
Rutter, B. et al. Shock wave physics as related to primary non-impact blast-induced traumatic brain injury. Mil. Med. 186, 601–609 (2021).
Cooper, P. W. Explosives Engineering (VCH, 1996).
Tasissa, A. F., Hautefeuille, M., Fitek, J. H. & Radovitzky, R. A. On the formation of Friedlander waves in a compressed-gas-driven shock tube. Proc. Royal Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 472, 20150611 (2016).
Wiri,S. & Needham, C. E. Reconstruction of improvised explosive device blast loading to personnel in the open. Shock Waves. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-016-0644-1.
Goodrich, G. L., Flyg, H. M., Kirby, J. E., Chang, C. Y. & Martinsen, G. L. Mechanisms of TBI and visual consequences in military and veteran populations. Optom. Vis. Sci. 90, 105–112 (2013).
Gupta, R. K. & Przekwas, A. Mathematical models of blast-induced TBI: Current status, challenges, and prospects. Front. Neurol. 4, 59 (2013).
Needham, C. E., Ritzel, D., Rule, G. T., Wiri, S. & Young, L. Blast testing issues and TBI: Experimental models that lead to wrong conclusions. Front. Neurol. 6, 72 (2015).
Tham, C. Y., Tan, V. B. C. & Lee, H. P. Ballistic impact of a KEVLAR® helmet: Experiment and simulations. Int. J. Impact Eng. 35, 304–318 (2008).
Trélat, S., Sochet, I., Autrusson, B., Cheval, K. & Loiseau, O. Impact of a shock wave on a structure on explosion at altitude. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 20, 509–516 (2007).
Bryden, D. W., Tilghman, J. I. & Hinds, S. R. Blast-related traumatic brain injury: Current concepts and research considerations. J. Exp. Neurosci. 13, 1179069519872213 (2019).
Bochorishvili, N., Akhvlediani, I., Chikhradze, N. & Mataradze, E. Study of the impact of mine blast on armored vehicle occupants by the physical modelling. IOP Conf. Ser. : Earth Environ. Sci. 221, 012107 (2019).
Shi, Y., Wang, N., Cui, J., Li, C. & Zhang, X. Experimental and numerical investigation of charge shape effect on blast load induced by near-field explosions. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 165, 266–277 (2022).
Xiao, W., Andrae, M. & Gebbeken, N. Effect of charge shape and initiation configuration of explosive cylinders detonating in free air on blast-resistant design. J. Struct. Eng. 146, 04020146 (2020).
Williams, K., Langenderfer, M. J., Olbricht, G. & Johnson, C. E. Blast wave shaping by altering cross-sectional shape. Propellants, Explos., Pyrotech. 46, 926–934 (2021).
Xiao, W., Andrae, M. & Gebbeken, N. Influence of charge shape and point of detonation of high explosive cylinders detonated on ground surface on blast-resistant design. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 181, 105697 (2020).
BlastExposures, C., of, H. L. T. E., Populations, B. & on the on G. W. and H. of S. & Medicine, I. of. Pathophysiology of Blast Injury and Overview of Experimental Data. in Gulf War and Health, Volume 9: Long-Term Effects of Blast Exposures (National Academies Press (US), 2014).
Wiri, S. et al. Dynamic monitoring of service members to quantify blast exposure levels during combat training using BlackBox biometrics blast gauges: Explosive breaching, shoulder-fired weapons, artillery, mortars, and 0.50 caliber guns. Front. Neurol. 14, 1175671 (2023).
Kamimori, G. H., Reilly, L. A. & LaValle, C. R. Olaghere Da Silva, U. B. Occupational overpressure exposure of breachers and military personnel. Shock Waves. 27, 837–847 (2017).
Chen, Y. & Constantini, S. Caveats for using shock tube in blast-induced traumatic brain injury research. Front. Neurol. 4, 117 (2013).
Reneer, D. V. et al. A multi-mode shock tube for investigation of blast-induced traumatic brain injury. J. Neurotrauma. 28, 95–104 (2011).
Skotak, M., Alay, E., Zheng, J. Q., Halls, V. & Chandra, N. Effective testing of personal protective equipment in blast loading conditions in shock tube: Comparison of three different testing locations. PLOS ONE. 13, e0198968 (2018).
Bauer, R. L., Johnson, E. M., Douglas, A. D. & Johnson, C. E. Effect of shock tunnel geometry on shockwave and vortex ring formation, propagation, and head on collision. Phys. Fluids. 35, 085136 (2023).
Johnson, E. M. et al. An experimental and simulated investigation into the validity of unrestricted blast wave scaling models when applied to transonic flow in complex tunnel environments. Int. J. Protective Struct. 14, 165–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/20414196221095252 (2022).
Sochet, I. et al. Propagation of shock waves in two rooms communicating through an opening. in Direct Numerical Simulations - An Introduction and Applications (IntechOpen, 2019). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87190.
Fang, Y. et al. Field tests on the attenuation characteristics of the blast air waves in a long road tunnel: A case study. Shock Vib. 2019, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9693524 (2019).
Long, J. B. et al. Blast overpressure in rats: Recreating a battlefield injury in the laboratory. J. Neurotrauma. 26, 827–840 (2009).
Perez-Garcia, G. et al. PTSD-related behavioral traits in a rat model of blast-induced mTBI are reversed by the mGluR2/3 receptor antagonist BCI-838. eNeuro 5, ENEURO0357–ENEURO0317 (2018).
Kovesdi, E. et al. Acute minocycline treatment mitigates the symptoms of mild blast-induced traumatic brain injury. Front. Neurol. 3, 111 (2012).
VandeVord, P. J., Leonardi, A. D. C. & Ritzel, D. Bridging the gap of standardized animals models for blast neurotrauma: Methodology for appropriate experimental testing. Methods Mol. Biol. 1462, 101–118 (2016).
Cho, H. J., Sajja, V. S. S. S., Vandevord, P. J. & Lee, Y. W. Blast induces oxidative stress, inflammation, neuronal loss and subsequent short-term memory impairment in rats. Neuroscience 253, 9–20 (2013).
Cernak, I., Wang, Z., Jiang, J., Bian, X. & Savic, J. Ultrastructural and functional characteristics of blast injury-induced neurotrauma. J. Trauma. 50, 695–706 (2001).
Bauer, R. L. et al. Shock wave formation from head-on collision of two subsonic vortex rings. Sci. Rep. 12, 7492 (2022).
Gharib, M., Rambod, E. & Shariff, K. A universal time scale for vortex ring formation. J. Fluid Mech. 360, 121–140 (1998).
Bauer, R. L. & Johnson, C. E. Blast tube design: How shape and size influence the resultant shock wave. AIP Adv. 15, 025030 (2025).
Lurski, A. et al. Comparing Laboratory Blast Simulators and Exploring Influence on Helmet Test and Evaluation 332–341 (Bruges, 2025). https://doi.org/10.52202/081621-0035.
Jackson, M. et al. Quantitative proteomic profiling in brain subregions of mice exposed to open-field low-intensity blast reveals position-dependent blast effects. Shock Waves. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-024-01169-2 (2024).
Kumar, R. et al. Open-field blast injury disrupts corneal gene expression linked to ion transport, sensory perception, and neural signaling. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 66, 68 (2025).
Konan, L. M. et al. Multi-focal neuronal ultrastructural abnormalities and synaptic alterations in mice after low-intensity blast exposure. J. Neurotrauma. 36, 2117–2128 (2019).
Esparza, E. D. Blast measurements and equivalency for spherical charges at small scaled distances. Int. J. Impact Eng. 4, 23–40 (1986).
Wu, C., Fattori, G., Whittaker, A. & Oehlers, D. J. Investigation of air-blast effects from spherical-and cylindrical-shaped charges. Int. J. Protect. Struct. 1, 345–362 (2010).
Wang, F. Q. et al. Propagation rules of shock waves in confined space under different initial pressure environments. Sci. Rep. 12, 14352 (2022).
Rae, P. J. & Rettinger, R. C. The effects of electrically exploding gold bridgewires into inert and explosive powder beds. Shock Waves. 31, 887–900 (2021).
Rae, P. J. & Dickson, P. M. A review of the mechanism by which exploding bridge-wire detonators function. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 475, 20190120 (2019).
Hernández Garcia, F., Rojas Mata, S., Apazidis, N. & Liverts, M. Characterization of underwater blast waves from Cu wire explosions using high-resolution pressure measurements. Phys. Fluids. 37, 086115 (2025).
Mellor, W. et al. Design of a multiple exploding wire setup to study shock wave dynamics. Exp. Tech. 44, 241–248 (2020).
Ram, O. & Sadot, O. Implementation of the exploding wire technique to study blast-wave–structure interaction. Exp. Fluids. 53, 1335–1345 (2012).
Ram, O., Nof, E. & Sadot, O. Dependence of the blast load penetrating into a structure on initial conditions and internal geometry. Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 78, 65–74 (2016).
McNesby, K. L., Biss, M. M., Benjamin, R. A. & Thompson, R. A. Optical Measurement of peak air shock pressures following explosions. Propellants, Explos., Pyrotech. 39, 59–64 (2014).
Phantom v (2012). https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/products/cameras/ultrahighspeed/%20v2012.
PCB Piezotronics | Model 102B18. https://www.pcb.com/products?m=102B18.
Hyper Vision HPV-X2 High-Speed Video Camera: SHIMADZU (Shimadzu Corporation). https://www.shimadzu.com/an/products/materials-testing/high-speed-video-camera/hyper-vision-hpv-x2/index.html.
PCC Software. https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/resourcesandsupport/phantomresources/pccsoftware.
Johnson, C. E. & Williams, K. Evaluating blast wave overpressure from non-spherical charges using time of arrival from high-speed video. Propellants, Explos., Pyrotech. 48, e202200346 (2023).
Xiao, W., Andrae, M. & Gebbeken, N. Development of a new empirical formula for prediction of triple point path. Shock Waves. 30, 677–686 (2020).
Boutillier, J. et al. Evaluation of the existing triple point path models with new experimental data: proposal of an original empirical formulation. Shock Waves. 28, 243–252 (2018).
UFC 3-340. -02 Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, with Change 2 | WBDG - Whole Building Design Guide. https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-3-340-02.
McKinzie, M. G., Cochran, T. B., Norris, R. S. & Arkin, W. M. The U.S. Nuclear War Plan: A Time for Change (2001).
Kinney, G. F., Graham, K. J. & Raspet, R. Explosive shocks in air. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80, 708–708 (1986).
Chen, M. et al. Proteomic Profiling of mouse brains exposed to blast-induced mild traumatic brain injury reveals changes in axonal proteins and phosphorylated tau. J. Alzheimer’s Disease. 66, 751–773 (2018).
Song, H. et al. Proteomic analysis and biochemical correlates of mitochondrial dysfunction after low-intensity primary blast exposure. J. Neurotrauma. 36, 1591–1605 (2019).
Kuriakose, M. et al. Tailoring the blast exposure conditions in the shock tube for generating pure, primary shock waves: The end plate facilitates elimination of secondary loading of the specimen. PLOS ONE. 11, e0161597 (2016).
Gan, E. C. J., Remennikov, A., Ritzel, D. & Uy, B. Approximating a far-field blast environment in an advanced blast simulator for explosion resistance testing. Int. J. Protective Struct. 11, 468–493 (2020).
Sutar, S. & Ganpule, S. G. Assessment of compression driven shock tube designs in replicating free-field blast conditions for traumatic brain injury studies. J. Neurotrauma. 38, 1717–1729 (2021).
Bass, C. R. et al. Brain Injuries from Blast. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 40, 185–202 (2012).
Acknowledgements
This work was conceptualized after numerous discussions with the late Dr. Ralph G. DePalma, Air Force Veteran and Special Operations Officer: Office of Research and Development at the Department of Veterans Affairs, about the use of shock tubes in traumatic brain injury research and their relevance to open air shock propagation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.L.B. and C.E.J. performed formal analysis, investigation, methodology design, and writing of the original draft and review and editing. C.E.J additionally provided supervision, resources, project administration, and funding.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bauer, R.L., Johnson, C.E. Comparison of explosively driven shock tube and open-air blast wave propagation. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42282-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42282-9
