Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41803383›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Comparison of explosively driven shock tube and open-air blast wave propagation.

Rachel L Bauer, Catherine E Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rachel L BauerMining and Explosives Engineering Department, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 1400 North Bishop Ave, Rolla, MO, 65409, USA.
Catherine E JohnsonMining and Explosives Engineering Department, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 1400 North Bishop Ave, Rolla, MO, 65409, USA. catherine.johnson@mst.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Blast protectionOpen-airShock tubeShock wavesVortex flow

Identifiers

PMID41803383
PMCPMC13096656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.