Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DSpace Repository
2010
Graswald, Markus
ASME
Jose O. Sinibaldi
Warheads1
A general methodology for estimating the requirements for defeating an explosive-
Department of Physics, containing mortar threat by an intercepting array of explosively generated natural and
Naval Postgraduate School, controlled fragments is discussed along with the experimental data supporting quantita-
833 Dyer Road, tive interpretation. The target response of covered TNT impacted by single fragments is
Monterey, CA 93943 predicted through numerically determined shock-to-detonation thresholds as well as em-
pirical penetration equations. Included in the methodology is a comprehensive, determin-
istic endgame model that consists of an intercept model, a static and dynamic fragment
Timo Nolte model, and a hit model generating the number of effective hits for arbitrary intercept
situations. Experimental data supporting the assumptions of the models are reported. The
Hendrik Rothe model is also useful in establishing interceptor requirements. DOI: 10.1115/1.4001713
Journal of Applied Mechanics Copyright 2010 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051804-1
v in m/s
v in m/s
2650
2600
1000
2550
2500
2450
500 2400
0 5 10 15 20 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
d in mm in
Fig. 1 Experimental LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Fig. 3 Initiation threshold as a function of impact angle
Laboratory 5 and simulated detonation threshold curves for NATO
PBX-9404 shock initiated by steel projectiles
4000
No High Go 3.1 Description of Submodels. The intercept model de-
Low Go
No Low Go
scribes the positions and attitudes of the interceptor, the target,
3500 Go, bare TNT and fragments, as well as their equations of motion. A specific
No Go, bare TNT intercept situation can be unambiguously given by the crossing
3000
angle and the miss distance at the hit point Rmiss,R, as depicted
in Fig. 5. Basically, three intercept situations influence the even-
v in m/s
2500
tual fragment impact against the target casing: early birds, late
birds, and antiparallel intercepts. As an early bird, the interceptor
2000
passes in front of the target, i.e., too early, and as a late bird,
behind the target, i.e., too late 11. Therefore, the conditions for
1500
an early bird are 0 and for a late bird 0, where 0 is the
angle of sight at the beginning of the endgame if 0,
1000 = + . Antiparallel intercepts do not occur in practice.
The equations of motions are solved eventually, providing the
500 hit point of a fragment and the target. From that, the miss distance
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Rmiss,R, as well as the impact velocity v fi and the impact angle
d in mm
NATO of a fragment, can be determined.
Fig. 2 Initiation thresholds at 50% CL as a function of the frag- The fragment model includes the exterior ballistics of the frag-
ment diameter d for the impact of cylindrical steel fragments ments. Static characteristics including fragment numbers n f i , l,
into bare cast TNT and cast TNT covered by a 10 mm steel plate mean masses m f i , l, and initial velocities v f i , l as functions of
the spray angle zone i and mass class l are experimentally deter- depends on the fragment density in a spray zone and the vulner-
mined from fragment capture e.g., arena tests for any given in- able projected area. This area is affected by the target attitude
terceptor projectile of interest 13. Dynamic characteristics, i.e., and position relative to this spray zone.
velocities and spray angles, are obtained by superimposing the In order to maximize the numbers of fragment hits and target
relative motions of the interceptor and threat target with the static response, it is favorable that the target is located within the main
fragment capture data. Fragment deceleration is taken into consid- fragment spray zone. This zone marks the sector around the inter-
eration based on assumed fragment drag coefficients. ceptor with most fragments and highest fragment velocities that is
Furthermore, a fragment cross-sectional area is required since stretched forward with an increasing relative velocity. For the re-
this information enters both the drag and penetration equations. sults presented in this article, the fuzing activation is incorporated
For natural fragments in general and rotating and/or tumbling by an optimal detonation point chosen so that the target is located
fragments, this value also changes with orientation. Hence, a in the main spray zone.
mean cross-sectional area is usually calculated by transferring For the target response model, the aforementioned go/no go
fragments to bodies of a regular shape e.g., spheres, cylinders, or detonation threshold data are least-squares fitted for easier han-
cubes with the same mass and volume, such as the given frag- dling and cover the typical range of interest see Figs. 2 and 3.
ment, and applying Cauchys surface area formula. This is treated Additionally, fragment-threat target encounters are examined us-
in the geometric fragment model. ing the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual JMEM 14 and
The hit model generates the number of fragments Nhit hitting THOR 15 penetration models. JMEM provides the numbers of
the vulnerable area of the target. The number of fragment hits hits and THOR provides the means for estimating the fraction of
hits that lead to target casing perforation.
3.2 Typical Endgame Results. By applying the models of
Secs. 2 and 3, the number of hits and target response are simulated
for a Russian 82 mm mortar projectile O-832 moving at 150 m/s.
This threat is intercepted by a naturally fragmenting 155 mm high
explosive HE projectile with a velocity of 800 m/s.
The effects of the intercept situation on fragment hits and target
response in terms of the fraction of effective fragments as a func-
tion of the selected threshold, here THOR are depicted in Figs. 6
and 7, respectively. White colors mark maximum values and
black, minimum values. The fragment hit numbers are reduced
quadratically with increasing miss distance, while the influence of
the crossing angle is relatively small. The maximum can be found
at = 22.5 deg corresponding to late birds. With an increasing
miss distance, the number of effective fragments is lowered due to
the air drag, resulting in reduced impact velocities Fig. 7. How-
ever, the number of effective fragments is more influenced by the
Fig. 5 Early bird Intercept situation of interceptor and target crossing angle. Its maximum is also located at = 22.5 deg.
Rintercept point of fragment and target, Ztarget position at Generally, late birds are more effective than early birds since
the optimal detonation point, and 0refers to the target loca- they benefit from both smaller impact angles affecting the target
tion at the beginning of the endgame response as well as a larger vulnerable area resulting in higher hit
35 m
30 f
20 20
Hit
N
15
15
10
5
10
0
20 2 5
0 4
20 6
8 0
R in m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
in miss,R l
Fig. 6 Influence of the miss distance Rmiss,R and the crossing Fig. 8 Distribution of cumulated numbers nf and masses mf of
angle on the number of hits Nhit all natural fragments of interceptor 1 as a function of the mass
class l
1
vmax
0.9 vmean
0.8
12
0.7
10
0.6
in %
8
vf / vf,n
0.5
ges
6
N /N
0.4
4
fe
2 0.3
2 4
0.2
0 6
30 20 10 8 0.1
0 10 20 30 R in m
miss,R
in 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
in
Fig. 7 Fraction of effective fragments as a function of the in-
tercept situation Rmiss,R and for the THOR penetration Fig. 9 Measured maximum and mean fragment velocities as a
threshold function of the mean spray angle for interceptor 1
in %
100 20 f
0.1 10 m (proj. 3)
f
f,Zone
15
f,n
, m /m
m /m
0.01
f,l
f
10
Zone
n /N
0.001
High Go
f,l
5
Low Go
B. L. (THOR)
B. L. (JMEM)
0.0001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
vfi / vfi,n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
l
Fig. 10 Fragment map with response plot of interceptor pro- Fig. 12 Relative distribution of cumulated fragment numbers
jectile 1 intercepting an 82 mm mortar projectile as a function nf and masses mf versus mass class l in the main spray zone of
of normalized impact velocities vfi / vfi,n and normalized average controlled fragmenting interceptors 2 cast TNT and 3 Comp
fragment masses mf / mf,n; the circles represent fragment num- B
bers nf
provements over the natural fragmenting interceptor. Fragment classes l = 1 4 with almost similar masses to interceptor 2, while
mass was controlled by selective hardening of the case. The cas- fragment masses of interceptor 2 are primarily heavier in mass
ing thicknesses were identical to interceptor 1. The actual frag- classes l = 7 10.
ment masses and numbers were measured from recovered samples Compared with approximately 10,500 natural fragments with a
of the main fragment zone, and the fragment mass and number mean mass of 0.6 g in the main spray zone, the mean fragment
distributions were estimated for the total spherical main frag- masses of interceptors 2 and 3 are increased. The Pearson shear-
ment zone according to arena assessments. Since fragment ve- control method 17 would probably lead to more accurate frag-
locities were not measured, the Gurney equations for a cylindrical ment distribution predictions.
configuration were used to estimate maximum velocities 2.
Cauchy cylinders with l f / d f = 2 are selected for transferring frag- 4.2 Experimental Results of Static Tests. The test setups
ment masses and cross-sectional areas that are justified by pictures usually consisted of an interceptor projectile and two mortar pro-
of recovered controlled fragments. jectiles, each 180 deg apart and separated from the interceptor by
Interceptor 2 produces less, heavier fragments with a smaller a given standoff distance RR. One of the mortar charges contained
impact velocity than interceptor 3: The actual mean masses are live explosive and the other, inert fill for purposes of determining
1.8 g versus 1.0 g, with a total of approximately 1500 fragments the average number and distribution of hits. The targets were lo-
versus 2500 fragments also see Fig. 11. This can be attributed to cated in the same horizontal plane in the main fragment spray
the lower performance of TNT compared with Comp B in terms zone of the HE projectile showing their largest projected area. The
of detonation velocity and pressure. Figure 12 further indicates test data along with observed and simulated results are tabulated
that interceptor 3 produces more fragments especially in mass in Table 2.
Fragments from interceptor 1 are found to be capable of initi-
ating the 60 mm and 82 mm mortar targets at 1 m see test 1
target 1 and test 2. Against the thinner 60 mm caliber mortar
target, high-order reaction ERL I occurs; against the 82 mm
target, initiation is better described as a type IIIII in accordance
with AOP-39. In both cases, the fuze and tail sections were mostly
torn off as a result of the violent responses. At 3 m, explosion type
responses did not occur against these targets, and there was no
evidence of body perforations along the casing, except about the
tail section and/or the fuze of the targets test 1 target 2 and
test 3. Similar results were observed against the 120 mm mortar
projectile at a 3 m standoff test 4.
Type III and IV responses resulted from interceptor 2 and 3
fragments against the 82 mm mortar target at a 3 m standoff, even
though the number of fragments emanating from the controlled
fragmenting skins of these interceptors was an order of magnitude
less. Substantial fuze damage also resulted, unlike that resultant
from the dispersed naturally formed fragments from interceptor 1
at this standoff.
Uncertainties of the test results are introduced by the fragmen-
tation process, chemical response reactions, and the test site no
Fig. 11 Fragments vertically lined-up group of fragments on laboratory conditions. Fragment hit data are inappropriate for fur-
left side: interceptor 2 and right group: interceptor 3 of the ther evaluation since only a few target parts were recovered due to
main fragment spray zone with thresholds against a mortar heavier response reactions as well as unclear and partly impass-
threat fragments modeled as cylinders with lf / df = 2, Cauchy able terrain.
Simulated
Target Standoff fragment Simulated effective hits Nw
Test Interceptor caliber RR = RZ Observed density Simulated
No. No. mm m ERL 1 / m2 hits JMEM THOR Low go High go
4.3 Verification of Static Results by Simulation. The end- Concluding simulation and experiment are consistent for both
game model including the target response models of Secs. 2 and 3 natural and controlled fragmentations. Since the observed types of
are now verified with the experimental data given above. The responses for controlled and natural fragments were qualitatively
number of effective fragment hits Nw is applied as the primary correctly predicted, the low go detonation threshold may be used
measure of performance, which is a function of the number of as a design criterion for interceptor projectiles with controlled
fragment hits Nhit from the hit model and the number of effective fragments 16. Nevertheless, more experimental and simulation
fragments N fe from the target response models. Through the data are required to back up the results of this report.
latter, it depends on the response thresholds: JMEM, THOR, low
go, or high go; i.e., effective always refers to the response model 5 Verification by Semidynamic Firing Tests
chosen.
The potential, i.e., simulated, number of effective hits Nw by the For more realistic engagements, semidynamic firing tests were
JMEM penetration equation equals, in most cases, the number carried out with a tank howitzer PzH 2000 firing naturally frag-
of hits, while the THOR predictions lead to reduced numbers menting 155 mm projectiles identical to interceptor 1 of Sec. 4.
see Table 2. The trend in the THOR prediction of Targets were represented by static mortar projectiles of 60 mm
Nw = 25.6, 9.4, 1.1, 1.7 is consistent with the response levels of I, and 120 mm caliber with TNT charges.
IIIII, IIIIV, and IV see tests 1 target 1, 2, 5, and 6. This is The setup consists of a steel plate activating the impact fuze
also indicated by the shape of the curves of THOR, low go, and with a time delay function and symmetrically positioned mortar
high go thresholds; however, both detonation thresholds are projectiles see Fig. 13. The resulting distance between the steel
moved to higher fragment mass and velocity combinations see plate and the detonation point of the 155 mm projectile is referred
Figs. 10 and 11. to as xZV. This distance depends on the interceptor velocity at the
According to THOR predictions, approximately 28% of the to- plate impact and the time delay tZV. The velocity is determined by
tal hits are effective against 60 mm, 8% against 82 mm, and 1% the measured muzzle velocity and the known firing distance.
against the 120 mm caliber target when considering natural frag- The intercept situation is set up with the desired detonation
menting interceptors. For the interceptors 2 and 3, approximately distance RZ and angle Z referring to the theoretically calculated
17% and 15% of the total hits, respectively, can penetrate the detonation point xZV estimate. The parameter RZ is varied, while
casing. Despite lower fragment densities 153 or 250 versus 536 the detonation angle is kept constant and selected to locate the
and hit numbers 3.9 or 6.3 versus 13.6, the designed controlled target in the main fragment spray zone by applying the endgame
fragments are more effective than natural fragments, allowing an model see Sec. 3. The mortar projectiles are fixed at wooden
increase in the effective standoff from 1 m to 3 m. piles and aligned to maximize their vulnerable areas.
Furthermore, recovered targets with inert fills at a 3 m standoff 5.1 Experimental Results of Firing Tests. The experimental
suggest that the simulated effective hit numbers by THOR corre- results indicate that detonation distances up to approximately
late to observed casing perforations 1.0 versus 2 and 0.3 versus 1.5 m may lead to target responses of types II and III, according to
0, while JMEM numbers can be generally recognized as observed AOP-39 see Table 3, shots 2 and 3 left. At larger distances, hits
casing hits 8.7 versus 7 and 5.2 versus 4. penetrating the shell, the fuze, and/or the tail section are only
The effect of air drag leading to reduced fragment impact ve- observed.
locities can be recognized by tests 36, since the effective JMEM For the first shots 2 and 3 right, the mortar projectiles were
hits are lower than the simulated number of hits. At standoffs of fixed on top of wooden piles in a way where they were partly
1 m or thinner casing thickness, those numbers are equal tests 1 screened from fragment trajectories. In these cases, the detonation
and 2.
Considering the low go threshold, the model cannot exactly
predict it, but indicates the right trend tests 2, 3, 5, and 6: At a
distance of 1 m, 0.3 fragments result in a partial detonation test
2, while at 3 m, zero fragments lead to no response test 3.
Strictly speaking, the low go response model is based on the
shock initiation theory and appropriate in predicting responses of
types I and II. The low go detonation threshold, therefore, marks
the upper limit of the burn-to-violent reaction BVR zone,
wherein responses of types IIIV, i.e., no prompt detonations, oc-
cur. This is the reason why zero fragments for the low go thresh-
old of tests 5 and 6 are predicted with the responses of IIIIV and
IV clearly lower than the one observed in test 2. Calibers of
60 mm and 120 mm could not be verified, since the data of dif- Fig. 13 Experimental setup with steel plate and mortar
ferent casing thicknesses 7 mm and 19 mm were not calculated. projectiles
Target Simulated Nw
Shot caliber Standoff Observed Simulated
No. mm Position a
RZ mb ERL hits JMEM THOR
points were located below the horizontal plane of the target pro- Acknowledgment
jectiles, leading to a smaller number of observed hits. The evalu-
The authors would like to thank the Federal Ministry of De-
ation was also handicapped by targets and their separated parts
fense BMVg and the International Programs Office of the Naval
that were spread out over a wide area already consisting of older
Postgraduate School for enabling the student exchange and the
ammunition parts and impassable terrain.
Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement BWB
Despite those facts, the results are also consistent with the static
for supporting the experimental part of the study.
results where an effective distance of approximately 1 m for the
natural fragmenting interceptor was observed.
5.2 Comparison to Simulation Results. As already stated Appendix: Parameters of Cast TNT
above, detonation thresholds were not calculated for the investi-
gated targets, so that penetration thresholds are only verified see Density 1.63 g / cm3
Table 3. THOR predictions indicate the response results reason-
ably well Nw = 12.2 for a type IIIII response and therefore agree Gaseous JWL EOS
with static results. A 3.712 Mbars
Stochastic deviations of the interceptor hit point on the steel B 0.032306 Mbar
plate result in a deflection from the theoretical detonation point R1 4.15
and therefore different detonation distances and angles. This leads R2 0.95
to different fragment densities, impact velocities, and angles at the 0.3
target location, and finally, different numbers of effective target C-J detonation velocity 0.693 cm/ s
hits. The deviations are caused by the atmosphere, the effector, C-J energy/unit volume 0.07 Mbar
and the projectile. However, the endgame model is a deterministic C-J pressure 0.21 Mbar
model; i.e., the effect of uncertainties is not regarded in calculat-
ing effective fragment hit numbers. Therefore, the repeatability of Reaction zone width 2.5
the firing test results is limited. Nevertheless, it points out the Maximum change in reaction ratio 0.1
importance of high delivery accuracy and adequate fuze logic in
delivering as many effective fragments to the target as possible. Reaction rate parameters
Ignition parameter I 50/ s
Ignition reaction ratio exp. 0.222
6 Conclusions Ignition critical compression 0
A general methodology for assessing the time critical defeat of Ignition compression exp. 4
dynamic explosive-containing targets by an intercepting array of Growth parameter G1 0
explosively generated natural and controlled fragments is pre- Growth reaction ratio exp. c 0
sented. The semi-empirical and numerical target response models Growth reaction ratio exp. d 0
and the newly developed deterministic endgame model can be Growth pressure exp. y 0
applied to complicated vulnerability/lethality problems of counter- Growth parameter G2 40
ing RAM threats. The low go and high go detonation thresholds Growth reaction ratio exp. e 0.222
are numerically determined considering oblique impacts as well. Growth reaction ratio exp. g 0.666
The examples of model utility are provided for predicting the Growth pressure exp. z 1.2
effectiveness of the engagement of three mortar threats by a natu- Maximum reaction ratio: ignition 0.3
rally fragmenting interceptor. It is shown that the models predict Maximum reaction ratio: growth G1 0
AOP-39 level I and II responses and nondetonation responses that Maximum reaction ratio: growth G2 0
would otherwise be designated as levels IIIV. Based on these
results, two interceptors are modified by heat treatment to produce Maximum rel. vol. in tension 1.1
a larger albeit smaller number of fragments that appear to be
sufficient to cause explosive rupture of the selected threats at a Unreacted shock EOS
longer standoff. Parameter C1 0.257 cm/ s
Additional response thresholds to assess other warhead mecha- Parameter S1 1.88
nisms and/or other threats can be easily integrated into the end- Reference temperature 293 K
game model. Furthermore, the results can be used for
vulnerability/lethality programs providing kill probabilities and Von Mises strength model
enabling the optimization of projectiles and other weapon sub- Shear modulus 0.029 Mbar
systems see Ref. 16.