Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SAND88 - 1790 UC - 35
Unlimited Release
Printed September 1988
Manuel G. Vigil
Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque , New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550
for the United States Department of Energy
under Contract DEAC0476DP00789
',I
SF2900Q(SS l )
SAND88-1790
Unlimited Release-UC35
Printed September 1988
Manuel G. Vigil
Explosive Subsystems Division
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800
ABSTRACT
The Shaped Charge Analysis Program (SCAP) is used to analytically model and
optimize the design of Conical Shaped Charges (CSC). A variety of existing CSCs are
initially modeled with the SCAP code and the predicted jet tip velocities, jet
penetrations, and optimum standoffs are compared to previously published
experimental results. The CSCs vary in size from 0.69 inch (1.75 cm) to 9.125 inch
(23.18 cm) conical liner inside diameter. Two liner materials (copper and steel) and
several explosives (Octol, Comp B, PBX-9501) are included in the CSCs modeled. The
target material was mild steel. A parametric study was conducted using the SCAP code
to obtain the optimum design for a 3.86 inch (9.8 cm) CSc. The variables optimized in
this study included the CSC apex angle, conical liner thickness, explosive height,
optimum standoff, tamper/confinement thickness, and explosive width. The nondimensionalized jet penetration to diameter ratio versus the above parameters are
graphically presented.
"
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank A. C. Robinson for his efforts in developing the SCAP code which
is a very useful aid in the design of Conical Shaped Charges.
."
...
CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................
Introduction.................................................................................................................
Analytical-Experimental Comparison.....................................................................
10
10
FIGURES
Figure
Page
11
14
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
10
29
11
30
12
35
13
36
14
37
,...
TABLES
12
16
18
Introduction
The Shaped Charge Analysis Program (SCAP)l is used to analytically model and
optimize the design of Conical Shaped Charges (CSC). SCAP is an interactive
modeling code developed (Robinson, 1985) at Sandia National Laboratories for the
purpose of assisting in the design of conical shaped charge components. Design
requirements for Sandia applications need not correspond to typical conventional
shaped charge requirements. Miniaturized components, specialized materials and nonstandard designs open the way for possible unique modeling requirements. The need
for an in-house Sandia code with maximum modeling flexibility and ease of use has led
to the development of SCAP.
SCAP is user friendly and very inexpensive to run. It is designed for flexibility in shaped
charge device configuration, choice of competing modeling techniques, and
implementation of new models for various parts of conical shaped charge jet formation
and penetration phenomena. The code at present contains models for liner
acceleration, jet formation, jet stretching and breakup, jet penetration and confinement
motion. Different models are available for some portions of the code and may be
chosen via a menu format. Few a priori assumptions are built into the code with the
intent that the program structure should allow the modeling of devices of nonstandard
design. The code is conceptually simple and well structured.
The SCAP code was used to model some existing conical shaped charges (CSC) of
various sizes and materials. The resultant analytical penetration versus standoff and jet
tip velocities are compared to experimental data. The CSCs vary in size from 0.69 inch
(1.75 cm) to 9.125 inch (23.18 cm) conical liner inside diameter. Copper and steel liner
materials and Octol, Comp Band PBX-9501 explosives are included in the CSCs
modeled. The target material was mild steel.
Additionally, a parameteric study was conducted with the code to determine the
optimum design for a CSC with a copper liner. The CSC variables optimized in this
study included liner apex angle, liner thickness, explosive height, tamper/confinement
thickness, explosive width and standoff. For the optimized CSC design, jet penetration
data are presented for the secondary explosives LX-13/XTX-8003, Comp B, Octol,
PBX-9501, and RDX, The CSC jet penetration versus standoff data are presented for
both copper and steel liners.
8
SCAPTheory
The basic modeling theory and format for the SCAP code are described in
References 1-3. The SCAP code was developed at Sandia National Laboratories 1 to
provide design guidance for CSC components. The SCAP code includes the following
features:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Interactive,
Modeling flexibility,
Ease of use,
User friendly,
Analytical code,
Fortran 77 computer language,
Currently run on VAX computer,
Inexpensive (compared to hydro-codes),
Competing modeling techniques,
Liner acceleration modeling,
Jet formation modeling,
Jet stretching and breakup modeling,
Jet penetration modeling,
Tamping or confinement modeling
Menu format,
Hardcopy output listing and plotted output, and
Movie output of jet formation process using
DISSPLA plotting package.
The code does not include detailed equation of state material description
capability. However, the code is very useful in establishing a preliminary design of a
CSC and for parametric studies. Conducting parametric studies of CSC designs with
hydro-codes is not normally affordable. The current version of the code is called
XSCAP20 and is an updated version of the SCAP 1.01 version.
Background
It is assumed that the reader has some knowledge of the functioning of conical
shaped charges. Chou and Flis, Reference 4, present a review of recent developments
in shaped charge technology and include ninety-nine references on the theory of shaped
charges.
9
The relatively long high velocity metallic jet produced by the explosively collapsed
conical liner is useful for many applications because of its good penetration capability.
CSCs have historically found utility in many applications including oil well perforating,
underwater trenching, demolition, mining work, and conventional military applications
requiring the penetration of various barriers.
Analytical-Experimental Comparisons
A general cross-section with the many variables required to model a CSC are
shown and defined in Figure 1. The SCAP code was used to model the CSCs with liner,
explosives and tamper parameters as listed in Table AI in Appendix A. The crosssections for the CSCS listed in Table AI are shown in Figures AI-AS in Appendix A.
The SCAP input parameter data files are listed in Tables AlII - A VII. The parameters
listed in Tables AlII - A VII are described and defined in Reference 1. The SCAP
modeled half cross-sections (assuming symmetry) are shown in Figures A6-AIO. The
SCAP code jet penetration into mild steel versus standoff output are compared to
experimental data in Figures All-AI5. The analytical (SCAP) data is in good
agreement with the experimental data. The maximum jet penetration and optimum
standoff values from Figures All-AI5 were tabulated in Table All for the above five
CSCs. The analytical-experimental values of the jet tip velocities are also listed in
Table All. The calculated and experimental jet tip velocities agree within 10%.
The optimal design of a CSC can become very complex because of the many
geometric material variables involved as illustrated in Figure 1. Therefore, conducting
a parametric study to determine the optimum value for each of the variables shown in
Figure I is not a trivial matter. Ideally, one would like to vary one variable at a time
while holding the remaining variables constant in determining the optimum value.
However, the order for varying each of the variables and the fIxed value for the
remaining variables is not obvious.
The procedure used to obtain the results for the parametric study was to initially
fix the SCAP input variables listed in Table I. Octol is a secondary explosive with
relatively high metal driving ability. Copper conical liners have a reasonably high
density and are very ductile, thus producing the relatively long jets necessary for
10
,
I
HH
I
EXPLOSIVE
I I
---ioITC_
01
RLI RLO RCI RCO HI
HA H
HCI HCO HE HH TL TC R1 R2 1
2
3
4
8
8
11
TABLE I.
Fixed SCAP Variables for CSC Geometrical Parameter Study
Explosive:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Octol
1.81 g/cc
0.848 cm/microsecond
Gurney Velocity (2E)o.5 = 0.278 cm/microsecond
Explosive Exponent = 2.79
Conical Liner:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Copper
Inside Cone Diameter = 9.8 cm (1 CD)
8.96 g/cc
Bulk Sound Speed = 0.394 cm/microsecond
Tar&et:
1.
2.
Mild Steel
7.86 g/cc
Aluminum
2.7 g/cc
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
12
1)
H=2CD=2D
t = 0.01 CD = O.OlD
Tc = 0.02 CD = 0.02D
We = Liner Outside Diameter
The liner apex angle f3 was then varied between 20 and 120 degrees. The jet
penetration to diameter ratio (P/D) as a function of liner apex angle (Beta) and
standoff (S.O. in cone diameters) data are shown in Figure 3 and Table II. The curves
for P /D versus Beta were identical for standoff (S.O.) between 4 and 6 cone diameters.
Maximum P /D values then steadily decreased beyond standoffs by 6 cone diameters.
The additional curves for standoffs greater than 4 cone diameters were not shown.
However, for all standoffs, the optimum liner apex angle (Beta) was about 45 degrees,
and this value was used for the remainder of this parametric study. Bi-conic and
trumpet liner configurations 5 have been shown to improve jet penetration, however,
only conical liner geometries were considered in this study.
Liner Thickness:
The liner thickness (t) was next varied between 0.25% and 5% of the cone inside
diameter (D). The resultant jet penetration to diameter ratio (P /D) versus liner
thickness to diameter ratio (t/D) are shown in Figure 4. The optimum liner thickness
occurs at about a value of O.OlD or about 1% of the cone diameter. The explosive
width, jet penetration, optimum standoff, and jet tip velocity data are listed in Table III.
The jet tip velocity versus liner thickness is shown in Figure 5.
13
EXPLOSIVE
LINER
~---w e - - - - + - I
TARGET
STANDOFF
0
t-I
I-
a:
ft:
ft:
IW
I:
a:
t-I
c
0
I-
5
4
S.O.
.:s----.r, ..
t-I
I-
a:
ft:
IW
a..
,...
c
a..
o-
SCAP
~B
'oJ
20
40
60
a0
100
120
0
i-'
U1
FIGURE
f~
0)
TABLE II.
CD
.,
20
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
2.3
3.8
4.1
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.0
2.9
4.0
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.6
3.7
4.7
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.7
5.5
2.2
3.8
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.4
1.5
3.0
3.7
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.5
1.0
2.3
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.3
2.9
0.7
1.9
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.2
0.5
1.5
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.3
1.8
8
0
~
I([
n:
n:
l.&.I
Il.&.I
1:
7
6
([
1:1
I-
Z
0
I([
n:
Il.&.I
l.&.I
0...
,..
1:1
2
1
o-
0...
SCAP CODE
.....
0
.01
.02
.0S
i-'
-.J
F'IGURE
t-'
(Xl
TABLE III.
CSC Jet Penetration and Liner Thickness Data
LINER
THICKNESS
(em)
(CD)
JET
PENETRATION
(em)
(CD)
.0246
.0492
.0980
.1970
.2950
.3930
.4920
39.0
49.7
56.5
51.3
46.7
42.9
39.4
.0025
.0050
.0100
.0200
.0300
.0400
.0500
3.97
5.06
5.75
5.22
4.75
4.36
4.00
JET TIP
VELOCITY
(em/I'S)
.833
.842
.799
.675
.602
.551
.511
..
"
c
o
o
1.2
I)
"o
L
,E
oE
>....
t;
.6
...J
>
Q.
.4
1-1
....
....W
...,
.2
...,
>
oo
o
i--'
'"
FIGURE
.01
.02
.03
SCAP CODE
.04
.05
Explosive Height:
Using a liner apex angle of 45 degrees and a liner thickness of O.OlD, the explosive
height (H) was varied between O.5D and 3D. The resultant P ID versus HID data are
shown in Figure 6. The jet penetration increases as the explosive height increases,
however, there is no significant increase in jet penetration for explosive heights greater
than about 1.5D. Therefore, a value for H of 1.5D to 2D appears to be sufficient. The
explosive height, jet penetration, and jet tip velocity are listed in Table IV. The jet tip
velocity does not vary significantly with explosive height. In the SCAP code, the
explosive height only effects the liner collapse angle. The smaller values of H result in
larger collapse angles and, therefore, lower jet tip velocities.
Explosive Width:
Using a liner apex angle (Beta) of 45 degrees, liner thickness (t) of O.OlD,
explosive height (H) of 2D, and a tamper thickness (Tc) of O.02D, the explosive width
(We) was varied from 1.05D to l.4lD. The resultant P ID versus WelD data are shown
in Figure 8. The P ID values increase significantly (38%) from 5.8 to 8 for WelD values
from 1.05D to lAID, respectively. Therefore, the value of We selected will be more
dependant on explosive and total component weight and shock-shrapnel constraints.
The explosive width, jet penetration, optimum standoff and jet tip velocity values are
listed in Table VI. The jet tip velocity (Vj) versus explosive width to diameter ratio
(WelD) data are shown in Figure 9. For values of (WelD) > 1, significant forward
explosive detonation gas product venting could occur which might degrade the
performance of Gurney modeling. Therefore, the significant gain in penetration for
larger WelD values may not be realized.
20
'
9
0
1-1
l-
a:
LoJ
I-
LoJ
1:
a:
1-1
CI
I-
Z
0
1-1
5
4
I-
a:
I-
Q..
LoJ
Z
LoJ
,...
CI
....
o - . SCAP
Q..
e
e
r-l
I-'
F"IGURE
CODE
3
r-..J
r-..J
TABLE IV.
EXPLOSIVE
HEIGHT
(CD)
(em)
4.9
9.8
14.7
19.6
26.5
29.4
49.0
"
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
5.0
JET
PENETRATION
(em)
(CD)
.38.9
53.2
56.9
57.5
57.6
57.6
57.0
3.96
5.41
5.79
5.85
5.86
5.86
5.80
JET TIP
VELOCITY
(emil'S)
.777
.831
.832
.832
.840
.843
.845
0
.....
I-
a:
It:
It:
W
IW
1:
a:
.....
0
I-
.....
I-
a:
It:
I-
W
Z
W
n.
,...
o-
n.
...,
SCAP CODE
11\
N
W
FIGURE
IV
TABLEV.
"""
Tamper
Thick
(cm)
.0005
.0050
.0898
.1290
.2230
.8680
(CD)
.00005
.00050
.00910
.01300
.02300
.08800
Jet
Penetration
(cm)
57.3
57.4
57.6
57.4
58.3
60.1
(CD)
5.83
5.83
5.84
5.86
5.93
6.11
....
I-
LINER: COPPER,D-9.8cm,8.96g/cc,.B98cm
EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, 1.8Ig/cc, .8Scm/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/cc
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.86 g/cc
a:
~
~
1&1
I1&1
1:
....a:
c
0
I-
....0
Ia:
~
I1&1
1&1
Q..
,...
...
o-
Q..
Ie
.8
,."
1 , .
.9
SCAP CODE
1.1
1.2
Ie
"'.c',,,"""''""
1.3
1.4
U1
FIGURE
0'1
TABLE VI.
10.2
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
14.0
1.04
1.07
1.12
1.17
1.22
1.42
JET
PENETRATION
(em) (CD)
56.9
58.6
61.6
64.6
67.6
75.8
5.79
5.96
6.27
6.57
6.88
7.99
OPTIMUM
STANDOFF
(em) (ed)
52.6
52.6
63.2
63.2
63.2
105.0
5.35
5.35
6.43
6.43
6.43
10.6
JET TIP
VELOCITY
(em/ILS)
0.805
0.810
0.818
0.826
0.833
0.855
."
C
0
II
lit
.9
0
C-
E
E
>I-
.8
1-4
...J
IoJ
>
0..
1-4
l-
.7
.,
I-
IoJ
I
..,
o-
>
.6
.9
1.1
SCAP CODE
1.2
1.3
.8
'"
-..J
F"IGURE
The geometrically optimized CSC for the fixed parameters listed in Table I should
be configured as shown in Figure 10. The 1.21D vertical height for the tamper and 22.5
degree upper taper of the tamper were found to be near optimum if a centered single
point detonation of the explosive is assumed.
Using a copper liner, a secondary explosive with properties similar to Octol, and an
aluminum (or some equivalent weight and thickness of a different material) tamper, the
optimized configuration shown in Figure 10 can be scaled to any diameter CSC desired
to obtain scaled penetrations into mild steel targets. Dimensional analysis and
similarity methods 6-11 have been used to derive scaling laws that are commonly
accepted and have been verified experimentally.
Different esc Liner Materials
28
EXPLOSIVE
TAMPER
LINER
20
11.-
~II
~1.00-1.40~
/.-00020
TARGET
20-60
...,
o
....o
Ia:
D::
D::
W
IW
1:
....a:
LINER
MATERIAL
I-
....o
I-
"'
COPPER
a:
D::
IW
STEEL
W
0..
.,
IW
o-
SCAP CODE
0..
.....
o
FIGURE
11
TABLE VII.
Copper Versus Steel Liner Data
9.8 em, Octol Explosive, Aluminum Tamper
Configuration - Figure 10
= =
CD D
Liner
Material
Density
(g/Cc)
Copper
Steel
8.96
7.86
Bulk
Sound
Speed
(cm/~S)
0394
0.456
Max Jet
Penetration
(em) (CD)
56.8
43.1
5.8
4.4
Optimum
Standoff
(em) (CD)
52.6
42.5
5.4
4.3
Jet Tip
SCAP Variable:!
Veloci~
(em/~S)
0.805
0.826
UMIN
TBCON
5
7
YLIN
(cm/~S)
.0022
.0079
.14
.14
32
Conclusions
The SCAP code has been shown to be a useful tool in the design of conical shaped
charges (CSC). Parametric studies of CSC designs can be quickly and inexpensively
conducted with the SCAP code. The code generated jet penetration versus standoff
and jet tip velocity were shown to compare well with experimental data.
The CSC geometrical parametric study for a copper liner, aluminum tamper, and a
secondary explosive (Octol) produced the following optimal CSC design parameters
relative to the conical liner inside diameter (D):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Apex angle
Liner thickness
Explosive height
Tamper thickness
Explosive width
Optimum standoff
=
=
=
=
=
=
45 degrees,
O.OlD,
(LSD - 2D),
0.020,
(lD - 1.40)
(2D-6D)
Using similar liner, explosive and tamper materials, the optimal geometry shown in
Figure 10 can be scaled to any diameter (D) CSC to produce a scaled jet penetration in
mild steel targets.
-.
33
I,;>
.I>.
TABLE VIII.
'.
Density
De
Vg
Explosive
(glee)
(emIJLS)
(CMIJLS)
Gamma
Vg/De
LX-13
Octol
CompB
PBX-9501
RDX
1.53
1.81
1.72
1.84
1.80
0.726
0.848
0.802
0.883
0.880
0.240
0.278
0.272
0.290
0.286
2.77
2.79
2.76
2.66
2.82
0.331
0.328
0.339
0.328
0.325
De
Vg = (2E)o.5
gamma
= Detonation velocity
= Gurney velocity
= Explosive Exponent
1-4
I-
a:
IW
1:
a:
1-4
1=1
0
I-
1-4
I-
a:
~
IW
Q..
I-
...,W
o-
.....
SCAP CODE
1=1
...,
Q..
'W'
.2
Vl
~IGURE
0..
t-
o:
It:
It:
LoJ
t-
LoJ
EXPLOSIVE
%:
0:
RDX
PBX-9se1
OCTOl
tZ
t-
o:
It:
t-
LoJ
~
a..
t-
..,
LoJ
..
o-
.....
SCAP
cone:
a..
.....
:3
.s
.8
.4
FIGURE
.'
t-
a:
IX
EXPLOSIVE
IX
.....a
RDX
PBX-95Bl
tW
1:
a:
H
OCTOL
t-
EJ
Z
0
t-
a:
IX
t-
Q.
t-
W
...,
o-
....Q
Q.
v.>
....,
SCAP CODE
2.7
-.I
rIGURE
00
TABLE IX.
Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration versus Standoff and Explosive Data
Liner:
Tamper:
Target:
CD
Explosive
LX-13
CompB
Octol
RDX
PBX-9501
Copper, 45 degree apex angle, .098 in thick, 8.90 glee, 9.8 em I.D.
Aluminum, 2.7 glee,
Milt Steel, 7.86 glee
Cone Inside Diameter (9.8 em)
Vg
(g/cc)
0.240
0.272
0.278
0.286
0.290
Vj
(cm!J.'S)
0.650
0.749
0.787
0.814
0.812
.,
Jet
Penetration
(CM)
(CD)
Optimum
Standoff
(cm)
(CD)
42.6
51.4
54.3
56.3
56.3
42.1
52.6
52.6
52.6
52.6
4.33
5.23
5.52
5.73
5.72
4.28
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
V/Vg
2.708
2.754
2.831
2.846
2.800
APPENDIX A
Section I.
Section II.
Section III.
CSC Cross-sections
Section IV.
Sectuib V.
39
APPENDIX A
Section I
40
TABLE A I.
LINER
.I:>
i-"
D
(in)
Material
0.690
3.230
3.860
4.660
9.125
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
STEEL
EXPLOSIVE
Thick
(in)
Apex
Angle
!.QW
.030
.081
.082
.105
.158
42
42
42
60
60
Height
(in)
1.10
3.84
4.75
4.10
7.25
Weight
TXVe
PBX-9501
OCTaL
OCTaL
OCTaL
COMPB
.Qhl
0.60
1.90
3.54
5.33
30.00
Dia
(in)
.69
3.20
3.86
4.87
9.13
TAMPER
Height
(in)
1.51
5.51
7.45
6.70
15.50
Material
Thick
(in)
PMMA
AL
AL
AL
STEEL
.250
.090
.080
.065
.024
TABLEAU.
"'tv
D
(in.)
.690
3.200
3.860
4.660
9.125
*
D
OSO
P
0.620
0.838
*
*
0.700
.564
.800
.837
.775
.694
No data available
- CSC Conical liner inside diameter
- Optimum Standoff
- CSC jet penetration
-.
OSO (in.)
Meas.
SCAP
*
20.5
30.0
32.0
16.0
17.7
20.7
24.9
31.0
Meas.
*
17.5
22.5
25.0
30.0
P (in)
SCAP
14.5
18.1
22.6
24.3
29.7
APPENDIX A
Section II
43
TABLE AlII .
.::.
.::.
7-JUN-88
INPUT DECK MASS
GM
LENGTH
CM
DRAG42CUST.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC
14:28:31
XSCAP 2
THIS FILE -
IACCEL lGURZN
4
1
DRAG42CUST.LIS
IGEOM NZ
ETYPE
DEXP
OET
RT2E
GAMMA
2 78 OCTOL
1.81.E+ee 8.480E-81 2.780E-01 2.790E.ee
DLIN
VBLKL
CUTJET
TB
T1
YLIN
8.988E+ee 3.940E-01 1.808E+ee 1.268E+.2 2.260E+02 2.2eeE-83
LINER PARAMETERS
2.26.E+.1 4.982E+ee 2.260E+.l 6.106E+ee
Nt..
TBCON
4 6.808E+ee
DCON
NC
2.700E+ee
4
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
8.808E+ee 6.186E+ee ....0[.00 6.108E+ee
HDET
RDET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
1.986E+01 808E+ee 1.232E l 8.808E+00 2.&00E+82
NSOFF
20
NTL
1
DTAR
THICK
UWIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.880E+00 8.6eeE+81 1.400E-81 6.400E+00 8.&00E+ee
CPRINT
PRINT
CPLOT
NOPLOT
CSHADE
SPARSE
CMOVIE
NOMOVIE
CSETUP
NOPLOT
CCNVEL
NOPLOT
C.JTVEL
NOPLOT
CAJTWS
NOPLOT
CPDETL
NONE
CSOUT.
CSNPST
NOSNAP
NPP
8
XMAX
XMIN
YMAX
XYFAC
3.784E.81-7.878E+00 1.841E.01 1.808E.00
CAJTt.lM
NOPLOT
CAJTKE
NOPLOT
CBREAK
NOPLOT
CPNSFF
NOPLOT
TOUT
2.000E.01 . 00.E+ee 0.000E+ee 0.0eeE+00 . 0 E+.E
.'
TABLE A IV.
7-JON-88
INPUT DECK .....SS
CM
LENCTH
CM
ToweecUST.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC
14:36:38
XSCAP 2.e
THIS FILE -
IACCEL lCURZN
4
1
ToweecUST.LIS
ICEOM NZ
ETYPE
DEXP
VDET
RT2E
CAMMA
2 7e OCTOL
I.BleE.00 B.48eE-el 2.800E-et 3.e7eE+00
DLIN
YBLKL
CUT JET
TB
T1
YLIN
8.oseE.08 3.94eE-el l.eeeE.00 1.7eeE.e2 2.26eE.e2 2.208E-e3
LINER PARAMETERS
3.eeeE.el S.18SE+ee 3.8eeE.el S.3seE.08
TBCON
4 6.8eeE.08
NI..
DCON
NC
2.7eeE.08
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
e.08eE.08 S.46eE+ee e.8eeE.ee S.7e4E.ee 1.7eeE.el 1.7esE.el 2.I08E.el 2.1eeE.el
HDET
ROET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
2.3seE.el e.8eeE.ee 1.leeE.el e.eeeE.08 2.eeeE+e2
NSOFF
2e
NTL
1
DTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
YMIN
7.8seE.08 9.608E.el 1.4eeE-el 6.4eeE.ee e.e.eE.ee
4>-
tn
CPRINT
PRINT
CPLOT
PLOT
CSHADE
SPARSE
CMOYIE
NOMOYIE
CSETUP
PLOT
CCNVEL
NOPLOT
CJTVEL
NOPLOT
CAJTVS
NOPLOT
CPDETL
NONE
CSOUT.
CSNPST
NOSNAP
NPP
e
XMAX
XMIN
YMAX
XYFAC
3.94eE+el-8.9geE.ee 1.27eE.el l.eeeE.08
CAJT"""
NOPLOT
CAJTKE
NOPLOT
CBREAK
NOPLOT
CPNSFF
NOPLOT
TOUT
e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.08 e.eeeE.ee
.,.
TABLEAV
0'1
M3STEEL.DAT
INPUT DECK MASS
GM
IGEOM NZ
2 62
LENGTH
CM
7-JUN-88
M3STEEL.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC
14:4e:62
XSCAP 2.e
M3STEEL.LIS
THIS FILE -
"
RT2E
GAMMA
DEXP
VDET
ETYPE
1.72eE+ee 7.9geE-e1 2.S8eE-el 2.9geE+ee
COMP B
YLIN
VBLKL
T1
OLIN
CUTJET
TB
7.86eE+ee 4.67eE-e1 1.BeeE+ee 2.26eE+e2 2.26eE+e2 7.geeE-e3
LINER PARAMETERS
3.eeeE+el 1.2e6E+e1 3.eeeE+e1 1.26lE+el
TBCON
4 7.BeeE+ee
NL
DCON
NC
7.860E+ee
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
0.ee0E+ee l.26lE+el e.eeeE+ee l.268E.el l.7seE.el l.782E+el 3.eeeE+el 3.BeeE+el
HDET
RDET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
3.e6eE+el e.eeeE+0e l.86.E+el ee0E.ee 2.60eE+e2
NSOFF
2e
NTL
1
DTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.86eE+0e l.eeeE.e2 l.7eeE-0l 6.4eeE.ee e.eeeE+08
"
"
CPRINT
PRINT
CPLOT
PLOT
CSHADE
SPARSE
CWOVIE
NOWOVIE
CSETUP
PLOT
CCNVEL
NOPLOT
CJTVEL
NOPLOT
CAJTMS
NOPLOT
CPDETL
NONE
CSOUT-
- - - -
CSNPST
NOSNAP
NPP
e
XMAX
XWIN
YMAX
XYFAC
6.674E.el-l.12eE+el 2.618E+el 1.eeeE.08
CAJTMM
NOPLOT
CAJTKE
NOPLOT
CBREAK
NOPLOT
CPNSFF
NOPLOT
TOUT
e.000E.ee e.e0eE.0e e.000E+08 e.eeeE+ee e.ee0E+ee 0.eeeE.ee
TABLE A VI.
382CU42ST.DAT
INPUT DECK MASS
GM
IGEOM
2
LENGTH
CM
7-JUN-88
382CU42ST.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC
14:42:68
XSCAP 2.8
382CU42ST.LlS
THIS FILE -
IACCEL lGURZN
4
1
NZ
ETYPE
DEXP
VDET
RT2E
GAMMA
39 OCTOL
1.818E+ee 8.480E-81 2.788E-81 2.778E+ee
DLIN
VBLKL
CUTJET
TB
TI
YLIN
8.980E+ee 3.948E-el 1.888E+ee 1.03eE+82 1.830E+e2 2.2eeE-03
LINER PARAMETERS
2.leeE+81 4.182E+ee 2.1eeE+81 4.318E+ee
NL
TBCON
4 6.ee8E+ee
DCON
NC
2.7eeE.ee
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
8.eeeE.ee 4.318E+ee 8.888E+ee 4.647E.ee 9.7eeE+ee 1.889E+81 2.1eeE+81 2.1eeE+81
HDET
RDET
H
SOFMIN
SDFMAX
1.397E+81 8.880E.ee 1.112E+81 8.8e0E+ee 1.4eeE+82
NSOFF
28
NTL
1
DTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.8S8E+88 S.8eeE+81 1.4eeE-0I 6.4eeE+ee 8.888E+ee
"""
--..]
CPRINT
PRINT
CPLOT
PLOT
CSHADE
SPARSE
CMOVIE
NOMOVIE
CSETUP
PLOT
CCNVEL
NOPLOT
CJTVEL
PLOT
CAJTMS
NOPLOT
CPDETL
NONE
CSOUT.
CSNPST
NOSNAP
NPP
8
XMAX
XYFAC
XMIN
YMAX
2.794E+81-2.728E+ee 9.894E+ee 1.8eeE+ee
CAJTMM
NOPLOT
CAJTKE
NOPLOT
CBREAK
NOPLOT
CPNSFF
NOPLOT
TOUT
1.6e0E+01 0.000E+00 8.e00E+e0 8.800E+00 e.ee0E+e0 8.00eE+08
TABLE A VII
.;.
<Xl
S9CU42STPB.OAT
7-JUN-88
S9CU42STPB.OAT
LENGTH
CM
TIME
~C~SEC
14:44:18
S9CU42STPB.LIS
THIS FILE -
IACCEL lGURZN
4
1
XSCAP 2 .
ICEOM NZ
ETYPE
OEXP
VOET
RT2E
GAMMA
2 2. PBX96.1
1.84.E... 8.83.E-.1 2.BS.E-.l 2.SS.E...
Nt..
OLIN
VBLKL
CUT JET
TB
T1
YLIN
8.98.E... 3.94.E-.1 1 ....E... 2.8..E l 1 ....E4 2.2E-.3
LINER PARAMETERS
2.1 ..E1 9.34.E-e1 2.1 ..E.e1 1.e1SE."
TBCON
4 6 ....E. . .
OCON
NC
1.l8eE.e.
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
.....E... 1.27.E... e.888E." l.986E." 1.888E." 3.9B.E... 2.1.eE.el .....E...
HOET
ROET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
3.9BeE." e ....E... 2.2e9E." e ....E... 4.e..E.el
NSOFF
2e
NTL
1
OTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.8seE." 2 ....E1 l.4"E-el 6 ....E........E...
..
CPRINT
PRINT
CPLOT
PLOT
CSHADE
SPARSE
CMOVIE
NOMOVIE
CSETUP
PLOT
CCNVEL
NOPLOT
CJTVEL
PLOT
CAJTMS
NOPLDT
CPOETL
NONE
CSOUT.
CSNPST
NOSNAP
NPP
XMAX
XMIN
YMAX
XYFAC
.....E........E... e .eeE." e ....E...
CAJTMM
NOPLDT
CAJTKE
NDPLDT
CBREAK
NDPLDT
CPNSFF
NDPLDT
TOUT
.E........E e .E........E* .E........Ee
APPENDIX A
Section III
Selected esc Cross-sections
49
0.18._
IH'~~---L
0.88"
OCTOl
EXPLOSIVE
7.75'
COPPER
CONICAL
5.18"
l~ER
...II~- ...-!I~
0.078"
I - ".02" - l ~",-O.o82"
1 - - - - - ... 10"
..,
...
8.5"
5l
15.5'
S"
STEEL
CONICAL
LINER
7.0"
,
1------8.125 " - - - . - . l
1-----Sl.515"====:J
1-----8.563"
0.3"
1.258"
4.850"
3.84"
4.25'
4.38"
t
-
i:
f
0.563"
COPPER
LINER
0.081 "
THICK
3.23"
3.4
0.090"
3.58
Figure A4. 3.23 Inch Diameter Conical Shaped Charge Cross-section
53
v.
LEXAN
PBX9S01
EXPWSIVE
COPPER
1.566"
I
1.691"
0.63" .
0.754"
0.183"
,..
,..
'II(
1.001"
1.250"
1.5"
j.--0.75"
.-1
.-,
APPENDIX A
Section IV
55
VI
OJ
7.50
6.25
~
......
1
I
3.75
2.50
1.25
0
-6
-4
AXIS (CM)
12
16
@)
INITIATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
IBREAK. =3 IAXIS =2 nNTER 2
10
.....
4:
fg
01
-15
j,v
-10
-5
o
AXIS (eM)
-..J
10
15
\.n
co
~
INmATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
!BREAK =3 IAXIS -2 lINTER -2
20
16
a~
12
"
oI
-20
)(
-10
o
AXIS(CM)
10
esc
20
~
INITIATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
8.25
!BREAK
S"
g
rg......
=3 IAXIS =2 lINTER =2
3.75
o 1)(
-4
r--=
AXIS (eM)
lJ1
\0
12
(j\
~
INmATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
lACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
!BREAK =3 IAXIS =2 lINTER =2
2.5
en
;:,
1.15
o I )(
-2
-1
AXIS (CM)
APPENDIX A
Section V
61
m
"-l
g
90
LEGEND
80
= SCAP MODELING
0=
DRAGON,42,CU,OCT,ST DAT
70
60
50
40
Z
~ 30
20
to
0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
STANDOFF (CM)
(@J
100
LEGEND
c = SCAP MODELING
0 = TOW.60.CU.OCT.ST D~TA
80
~
~
~
~
O+,----~---.----._---.----._--_r----._--_,
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
STANDOFF (eM)
'"w
0'\
.;.
OJ
100
LEGEND
o = SCAP MODELING
o = M3,60DEG ST LINER,COMPB
80
Q
Z
S.<s!
60
40
20
O~I--------.--------r-------.--------.-------~
50
100
150
200
250
STANDOFF (CM)
(@])
LEGEND
o = SCAP MODELING
0= 3.3IN ID.CU.42APEX DATA
o
reZ
3.
20
10
041-----T-----r----~----~----~----T_--~
60
80
100
120
STANDOFF (CM)
(J\
(/I
Figure A14. 3.23 Inch Diameter CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff
Analytical-Experimental Comparison
140
'"'"
OJ
LEGEND
o = SCAP MODELING
o = .691N lD, CU, 42 APEX,
S'
g
~
~
z
re
0~1----~---T----r----r----r----r--~r---~
15
20
25
3D
35
40
5
10
STANDOFF (CM)
Figure AIS. .69 Inch Diameter CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff
Analytical.Experimental Comparison
.,
APPENDIXB
67
Cl'I
00
OJ
6-NOV-87 - 14:52:46 - XSCAP 2.0
INITIATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
IBREAK =1 IAXIS =2 lINTER =2
7.50
6.25
S?
g
fI)
3.75
2.50
1.25
0
-8
-4
AXIS (cM)
12
16
7-JUN-88 -
14:47:31 -
XSCAP 2.0
0.5-
G-e-e
e e LEGEND
SXJ3<E6 0
o=XI>O
G'
cr
0.4-
.~~
e3
.....
~
g
0.3-
E-<
.....
U
0.2-
0::
re
0.1-
0.0 ,
-7.5
,
-5
,
-2.5
-.
-- I
o
2.5
5
INITIAL X (CM)
7.5
,
10
m
\D
12.5
"
-...]
LEGEND
D=V
o =VO
6. = VJET
+
EQUILIBRATED
x = VSLG
VJET
E'en
o
~:;>
0.0
I"
~f
lC i H
)( 1 H
0.3
0.4
1H
0.5
)(1 H 1 u
0.6
0.7
~
0.8
)( 1 )(
0.9
~
1
INITIAL X / H (ND)
(rtij
7-JUN-88 -
14:47:31 -
XSCAP 2.0
140
120
~
~
CIl
100
80
;6.
~
oI
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC)
-.J
I-'
III
0.8
-..J
N
7-JUN-BB -
14:47:31 -
-.
~ 45
~ 40~
~
::s
a-*
r;
........
35
30
::s
I
~
o
::J
u
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC;)
7-JUN-88 -
14:47:31 -
XSCAP 2.0
W 12
*
'()
P:l
~ 10-p
8 __
~
g
g.
~
:x=
~o
::>
3
~
~ oI
0.1
0.2
0.3
OA
0.5
VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC)
o..J
!!II
OB
-..J
"'"
800
LEGEND
700
D=T_B
U'
~
5
~
rxl
III
oI
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC)
"
.>
w,
0.8
\!I!J
t:i:\
7-JUN-88 -
14:47:31 -
XSCAP 2.0
100
LEGEND
0 - P(T)
0 = P(V)
~
S
~
~z
rt
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
TIME (MICROSEC)
-..J
U1
Figure 88. Jet Penetration Versus TIme and Velocity at Zero eM StandofT
[tid
......
0'\
7-JUN-88 - 14:47.31NDOFF
.
- XSCAP 2.0 ~
..
PENETRATION AT 21.1
(eM) STA
'1'1
120
LEGEND
0=
100
pet)
o=PM
Q
~
~z
[f
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
TIME (MICROSEC)
Figure 89. Jet Penetration Versus TIme and Velocity at 21.1 eM StandolT
, ,
PENET~ATION
7-JUN-88 -
AT
63.2
r.
. - XSCAP 2.0 ~
14:47.31NDOFF
..
(CM) STA
'I
120
LEGEND
o=P(T)
0=
100
P(V)
80
80
r:q
40
~Z
c..
20
o Ie'
100
ii
125
ii
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
~I
325
TIME (MICROSEC)
-...J
-...J
Figure 810. Jet Penetration Versus Time and Velocity at 63.2 eM StandotT
-...I
00
7-JUN-88
PENETRATION AT 105.
1447:31 - XSCAP2.0 ~
-(CMj SfANDOFF
...
120
LEGEND
a-Pm
0=
100
'S?
g
P(V)
80
~
~
i
c..
60
40
20
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
TIME (MICROSEC)
Figure Btl. Jet Penetration Versus Time and Velocity at lOS eM Standoff
,,
.. .II.
"
7-JUN-88
PENETRATION AT 189. -
. 7'31 - XS
14..f ''ANDOFF CAP2.0 ~
..
(CM) ST
rl"
120
LEGEND
0=
100
~
.......
~
~
0=
P(T)
P(V)
80
60
I
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
TIME (MICROSEC)
-:J
\0
Figure B12. Jet Penetration Versus Time and Velocity at 189 eM StandofT
...
OJ
~
7-JUN-88 - 14:47:31
TIME = 10.0
MICROSEC
XSCAP 2.0
~
rg
-.;;;;;
o .' ......... . . . . . . . . . . .
o
-7.5
-5
-2.5
AXIS2.5(eM)
7.5
.,
..
10
12.5
... '
XSCAP 2.0
lri!J
12
....
o.
8-1 .....................................................
Q
~
. . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................................
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~i
.
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-1,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,
. . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................................
.... '.' ................................. ..
.....................................
..................................... ..
................................... ..
...................................
..................................
................................. ..
o I' ...................
,
,.
-7.5
-5
-2.5
.
2.5
o.
7.5
AXIS (CM)
00
I-'
:>
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
10
12.5
..
(Xl
'"
7-JUN 8
TIME = 60.0- 8 MICROS~J6
- 14-0 - XSCAP 2.0
~rIt;lij
30
...
.. ...... ..... ... .. . . ....
. .. .
.....
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . ..
...............
,
%
.......
20
e
~
...................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
....................
.
..................
...................
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.................. .
................. ...
..................
..................
................................................ ....... ......., ...... ....
..................
............................... .....................
.
.... ...... ... ............ ...........................
. .. . . .. . ... ..... .
..... - .. - ...... .
'1
................
.
...............
.............
- .. ...
...............
................ .
10
I .................
....... '
O
I
-10
0
OJ
$ 5 S S SSS~S'S S ,
10
20
30
40
50
AXIS (eM)
".
(.
~_
,-
7-JUN-BB - 14-
TIME =
100.
MICROS~~16
30
40
XSCAP 2.0
(til]
50
~.'.'.'.'.
:-:-:'>:-~.'.'.'.'.'
37.5
..............
......................... ....
..............
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . ...
............
. . . . . . . . . . . ...
.............
............
. . ... ... ....
.......
............
.... ...
..........
...........
... -.
25
'
.......... .
...........
......... ..
12.5
I ............
.
.
O
-10
'SSSSS\
10
20
50
60
AXIS (eM)
co
Figure 816.
70
80
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
84
,.
DISTRIBUTION:
Aerojet Ordnance Co.
Attn:
J. Carleone
2521 Michelle
Tustin, CA 92680
Joseph Backofen
P. O. Box 1925
Washington, DC 20013
Battelle Columbus Laboratory (2)
Attn:
J. White
D. R. Trott
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Ctr for Explosives Tech. Research
New Mexico Technical Institute
Attn:
Per-Anders Persson
Socorro, NM 87801
~
.-
85
, ..
Teledyne (3)
Attn:
B. Heideman
D. F. Elliott
W. B. Richardson
3601 Union Road
Hollister, CA 95023
U.S. Army Armament Research
and Development Center
A Garcia
Attn:
Building 354
Dover, NJ 07801
86
..
Ensign-Bickford Co (4)
Aerospace Division
Attn:
L. Mecca
B. B0PsS
K. Pu s
E. Tarca
660 Hopmeadow St.
Simsbury, CT 06070
Jet Research Center, Inc.
P.O.Box246
Arlington, TX 76010
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co (5)
W. E. Moffatt
Attn:
R. Weinheimer
J. Meeks
J. P. Beck
N. Markovich-Cottong
1111 Lockheed Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Southwest Research Institute
Attn:
A B. Wenzel
6220 Culebra Road
PO Drawer 28510
San Antonio, TX 78284
Strategic Systems Project Office
Department of the Navy
Attn:
D. Kenemuth, 27314
Washington, DC 20376
...
"'
,
Distribution:
....
..
.,.r
1131
1413
1500
1510
1512
1513
1521
1522
1523
1524
1530
1531
1531
1531
1531
1533
1533
1533
1534
1534
1534
1534
2500
2510
2512
2512
2512
2512
2512
2512
2513
2513
2513
2514
2514
2515
2515
2542
2600
3141
3151
B. Morosin
3154-1
G. G. Weigand
W.Herrmann
J. W. Nunziato
J. C. Cummings
D. W. Larsen
RD. Krieg
R C. Reuter
J. H. Biffle
D. B. Longscope
L. W. Davison
S. L. Thompson
T. K Bergstresser
S. L. Passman
J. W. Swegle
P. Yarrington
M. E.Kipp
A. C. Robinson
J. R Asay
D. E. Grady
T. G. Trucano
J. L. Wise
D. B. Hayes, Actg
D. H. Anderson
J. G. Harlan
D. R Begeal
S. G. Hallett
R G. Jungst
D. L. Marchi
M. G. Vigil (15)
D. E. Mitchell
S. G. Barnhart
T. L. Garcia
P. L. Stanton
L. L.Bonzon
P. D. Wilcox
M. R Kopczewski
W. N. Sullivan
L. D. Bertholf
S. A. Landenberger (5)
W. I. Klein (3)
5120
5121
5121
5121
5121
5128
5128
5165
5165
5165
5165
5165
5165
5251
5251
5262
6230
6320
6321
6321
6322
6323
6323
6400
6416
6416
6416
7130
7133
7133
7133
7170
7173
7173
7533
7533
7535
8524
C. H. Dalin (8)
For DOEjOSTI
W. R Reynolds
D. F. McVey
O. R Berg
D. L. DeWerff
M. M. Plugge
B. E. Bader
KE.Mead
S.D. Meyer
RK Thomas
N.R Hansen
W. J. Errickson
W. J. Patterson
L. B. Traylor
T. A. Sellers, Actg
L. A. Suber
J. W.Kane
W. C. Luth
J. E. Stiegler
R E. Luna
R P. Sandoval
J. M. Freedman
G. C. Allen
H.R. Yoshimura
D. J. McCloskey
R M. Cranwell
E. L. Emerson
J. S. Philbin
J. D. Kennedy
O. L. Burchett
P. W. Cooper
S. R Kurowski
R D. Bentley
G. L. West
H. D. Smith
F. H. Mathews
J.P. Weber
D. C. Bickel
P. W. Dean
"'
87