Comparison of reactive burn equilibrium closure assumptions in CTH

For reactive burn models in hydrocodes, an equilibrium closure assumption is typically made between the unreacted and product equations of state. In the CTH [1] (not an acronym) hydrocode the assumption of density and temperature equilibrium is made by default, while other codes make a pressure and temperature equilibrium assumption. The main reason for this difference is the computational efficiency in making the density and temperature assumption over the pressure and temperature one. With fitting to data, both assumptions can accurately predict reactive flow response using the various models, but the model parameters from one code cannot necessarily be used directly in a different code with a different closure assumption. A new framework is intro-duced in CTH to allow this assumption to be changed independently for each reactive material. Comparisons of the response and computational cost of the History Variable Reactive Burn (HVRB) reactive flow model with the different equilibrium assumptions are presented.