Submitted to ANS/NT (2021) LA-UR-20-30042 (v3) On the Symmetry of Blast Waves Roy S. Baty (XTD-PRI)*and Scott D. Ramsey (XTD-NTA) Applied Physics Theoretical Design Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Abstract— This article presents a brief historical review of G. I. Taylor’s solution of the point blast wave problem which was applied to the Trinity test of the first atomic bomb. Lie group symmetry techniques are used to derive Taylor’s famous two-fifths law that relates the position of a blast wave to the time after the explosion and the total energy released. The theory of exterior differential systems is combined with the method of characteristics to demonstrate that the solution of the blast wave problem is directly related to the basic relationships that exist between the geometry (or symmetry) and the physics of wave propagation through the equations of motion. The point blast wave model is cast in terms of two exterior differential systems and both systems are shown to be integrable with local solutions for the velocity, pressure, and density along curves in space and time behind the blast wave. Endorsement: Len G. Margolin (XCP-5) I. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION the Trinity test is 24:8 (±1:98) kilotons, which is pre- In 1950, the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- sented in this issue by Selby, et al. [5]. Given the physical don published two papers by Sir Geoffrey Taylor [1] and complexity of the atomic explosion, the fact that Taylor’s [2]: the main purpose of these papers was to develop, blast wave solution accurately bounded and predicted the solve, and apply the results of a so-called point blast wave Trinity yield is remarkable. problem to the determination of the energy released in an The historical details surrounding the genesis of the intense explosion. These papers are of enduring historical intense explosion model are fascinating in their own right, significance for many reasons; and not the least of which though the full story is too lengthy to be reproduced in being, in the second paper, Taylor’s provision of an esti- this short note. A full account of the effort is provided mate of the yield of the explosion of the Trinity atomic by Clark [6]; see also the books by Barenblatt [3] and test conducted July 16, 1945. As noted by Barenblatt [3], [7] for shorter summaries and attendant technical insight into the implications of the work. A discussion of Tay- lor’s technical contributions to the blast wave problem “... Taylor’s prediction of the value ... caused, in his in contrast with parallel analyses is discussed by Deakin words, ‘much embarrassment’ in American government [8]. However, by all accounts, a central question surround- circles ...” ing the investigation involved the potential mechanical effects associated with an intense explosion, namely the as the yield of the Trinity explosion was still, at the time, generation of a powerful blast (or shock) wave. Given the a closely guarded secret; even though the length and time- well-established difficulties associated with solving any stamped high-speed photographic stills of the Trinity fire- set of fluid mechanical equations involving shock waves, ball (owing to Julian Mack, among others) used as an again according to Barenblatt [3], essential component of Taylor’s analysis had otherwise been declassified and released to the public, Fig. 1. “... in the whole of Britain there was only one man able arXiv:2103.05710v1 [physics.hist-ph] 9 Mar 2021 Taylor compared his solution of the evolution of the to solve this problem – Professor G. I. Taylor.” blast wave to the published photographs to estimate the initial energy release as a function of the specific heat Indeed, given his expertise in fluid mechanics honed ratio for an ideal gas, γ. The blast wave analysis produced over the course of nearly three decades, Taylor recognized the following yield estimates: 34 kilotons for γ = 6=5, that a mathematical model of the minimum required fi- 22.9 kilotons for γ = 13=10, 16.8 kilotons for γ = 7=5, delity for characterizing shock wave propagation in air is and 9.5 kilotons for γ = 5=3. The historical yield of the represented by the spherically symmetric compressible Trinity test published by the U.S. Department of Energy Euler equations in an ideal gas, namely is 21 kilotons, [4]. The modern estimate of the yield of ρu * ρ + uρ + ρu + 2 = 0; (1) corresponding author: [email protected] t x x x Submitted to ANS/NT (2021) LA-UR-20-30042 (v3) Figure 1: Photograph of the Trinity atomic test showing a blast wave. ρut + ρuux + px = 0; (2) to the shock wave location, and Rt is the shock wave u speed. p + up + γp u + 2 = 0; (3) t x x x In the 1940s, even Eqs. (1) through (6) – themselves a drastic simplification of vastly more complicated entities where x and t denote the spherical radial position co- such as the multi-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes ordinate and time, respectively, ρ, u, and p denote the equations – proved impossible to solve in general (either fluid density, radial flow velocity, and isentropic pressure, analytically or numerically) without resorting to a variety respectively, subscripts denote partial derivatives with re- of additional simplifying assumptions. At this point, as spect to the indicated variables, and γ is the specific heat noted by Barenblatt [3], ratio of an ideal gas, further assumed to be a given con- stant for air. By the 1940s it was already well established “... G. I. Taylor, however, was astute. His ability to deal that in the absence of dissipative mechanisms Eqs. (1) to with seemingly unsolvable problems, by apparently minor (3) admit weak or piecewise continuous solutions, with adjustment converting them to problems admitting simple discontinuities that are interpreted as shock waves of in- and effective mathematics, was remarkable ...” finitesimal width. In shock wave solutions of Eqs. (1) to (3), the differen- Indeed, Taylor’s astonishing physical insight allowed tial equations themselves are taken to hold on either side him to formulate the blast wave problem as depicted in of the discontinuity, but not at the location of the discon- Fig. 2. In this scenario, for t ≥ 0 the air exterior to the tinuity itself, x = R(t). To ensure conservation of mass, blast wave is assumed to be quiescent and of constant momentum, and energy across this discontinuity, the ideal density, namely gas Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions must be enforced at the boundary of the blast wave (x = R(t)), given by u0 = u(x > R) = 0; (7) ρ0(u0 − Rt) = ρ1 u1 − Rt ; (4) ρ0 = ρ(x > R); (8) where ρ0 is a fixed positive constant; these conditions 2 2 p0 + ρ0(u0 − Rt) = p1 + ρ1(u1 − Rt) ; (5) present little conceptual difficulty. However, perhaps less intuitively obvious are Taylor’s two additional key assump- 2 tions, including for t ≥ 0, γp0 1 + u0 − Rt (γ − 1)ρ0 2 p0 = p(x > R) = 0; (9) 2 γp1 1 = + u1 − Rt ; (6) indicating that the ambient counter-pressure p of the (γ − 1)ρ1 2 0 air into which the blast wave propagates is negligible in where the subscripts 0 and 1 denote, respectively, the un- comparison to the pressure in the region bounded by the perturbed and perturbed fluid state immediately adjacent blast wave. Submitted to ANS/NT (2021) LA-UR-20-30042 (v3) Figure 2: Diagram defining Taylor’s point blast wave problem. Finally, Taylor assumed the initial length scale R0 of cally referred to as the Sedov-Taylor-von Neumann point the rapidly exploding object is negligible in comparison to blast wave (or point explosion) problem; for additional the spherical blast wave radius R evaluated at some later details see Korobeinikov, [11], or Kamm, [12]. time, so that the finite initial blast energy E0 (or yield) is assumed to be instantaneously released at an infinitesimal II. SYMMETRY ANALYSIS point in space and time (x = 0 and t = 0). Among other With implicit relevance to Taylor’s analysis of the blast consequences this assumption results in the formulation wave, Garrett Birkhoff published his classic work Hydro- of the so-called energy integral given by dynamics: A Study in Logic, Fact, and Similitude, [13], also in 1950. With much reference to an earlier seminal Z R p 1 2 2 E0 = 4π + ρu x dx; (10) text on dimensional analysis by Percy Bridgman [14], one 0 γ − 1 2 of the stated objectives of Birkhoff’s work is to provide indicating the total energy interior to R is the initial blast “... a critical account ... of dimensional analysis. This energy E0, and is conserved for all times. This final assumption also lends itself to the more precise name of is usually invoked in justifying model experiments; it has the model depicted in Fig. 2, Taylor’s point blast wave the advantage of requiring no mathematical background problem. beyond high-school algebra, but has the disadvantage of With Eqs. (1) through (9) and the point blast wave needing additional postulates, whose physical validity assumption, Taylor famously used dimensional analysis must be tested independently. [Birkhoff] give[s] these techniques to reduce and ultimately produce a numerical postulates a group-theoretic formulation, in terms of the solution of Eqs. (1) to (6) for not only the blast wave tra- dimensional group of all changes of fundamental units.” jectory, R(t), but also the space time distributions for the velocity, u, pressure, p, and density, ρ, for the flow field The ultimate success of Birkhoff’s systemization of di- at positions behind the blast wave x < R(t).