You are on page 1of 9

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

DSpace Repository

Faculty and Researchers Faculty and Researchers Collection

2010

Vulnerability of mortar projectiles by


intercepting fragmentation warheads

Graswald, Markus
ASME

M. Graswald, R.E. Brown, J.O. Sinibaldi, T. Nolte, H. Rothe, "Vulnerability of mortar


projectiles by intercepting fragmentation warheads," Journal of Applied Mechanics,
v.77 (September 2010) pp. 051804-1/8.
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/55390

Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun


Markus Graswald2
TDW GmbH,
Hagenauer Forst 27,
86529 Schrobenhausen, Germany
e-mail: markus.graswald@mbda-systems.de Vulnerability of Mortar Projectiles
Ronald E. Brown
by Intercepting Fragmentation
e-mail: rebrown@nps.edu

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

Helmut Schmidt University,


Holstenhofweg 85,
22043 Hamburg, Germany

1 Introduction Tarver ignition and growth model 3 and the JonesWilkinsLee


JWL equation of state EOS of explosive detonation products
This article deals with a technical approach for modeling and
4 are used to determine conditions that could lead to detonation.
estimating requirements for countering close-in dynamic threats
from short range rocket, artillery projectile, and mortar projectile Before investigating the behavior of TNT to fragment impact,
RAM attack. The approach is highlighted using a specific solu- computational simulation of experimental results of PBX-9404
tion for defeating a mortar projectile by a fragmenting projectile. conducted by Bahl et al. 5 and also reported by Moulard 6 are
In this case, the defensive action requires close-in engagement, carried out for purposes of verifying modeling techniques. In
fuze activation, and dispersion of fragments of sufficient size and these experiments, flat-nosed steel projectiles of various diameters
velocity to impact initiate the explosive content in the threat mor- d and velocities v, within the range of our interest, were impacted
tar projectile. A typical thick-skin mortar projectile containing into the explosive to determine the 50/50 threshold conditions for
TNT is used as the threat: TNT is chosen because it is less sensi- achieving detonation. The data reported are for discrete conditions
tive to impact initiation than RDX- and HMX-based formulations. of positive reaction go and no reaction no go. The AUTODYN
A 155 mm fragmenting projectile is used as the interceptor. go/no go predictions are found to generally agree with the experi-
The dynamics and effects of near-encounter, projectile casing mental data, as indicated by the least-squares LS fitted curve in
expansion and fragmentation, oblique impact, and threat response Fig. 1. It is important to note, however, that there is always some
are taken into account. The fragmentation and response models uncertainty with respect to explosive response prediction because
are experimentally based. The weapon-target interaction is mod- of the lack of definition of explosive preparation, purity, and den-
eled with a deterministic endgame model. sity. This is even true for pure explosives such as TNT where melt
The approaches for modeling and quantifying fragment impact and solidification processes can affect crystallization, and as a
initiation, the dependence of target-interceptor separation and consequence, sensitivity and detonation behavior.
fragment generation, and the correlations between experimental It was found over the range of impact conditions against TNT
data and simulation are discussed in Secs. 25. The detailed that the time durations to detonation can vary widely based on the
model, experiments, as well as simulation and experimental re- LeeTarver fraction of burn or reaction ratio. The detonation in
sults are described in Ref. 1. a computational cell is predicted when the burn fraction reaches
unity. Sustained detonation is defined at the condition where all
2 Target Response cells behind the detonation front reach unity; however, the time is
limited under which this occurs in the simulations. Observations
The response of the explosive content to the impact of emerg-
by Lee and Tarver 7 as well as James et al. 8 are taken into
ing fragments through the casing of the threat mortar is predicted
account, who concluded that prompt detonation occurs in bare and
using the Lagrangian processor in the ANSYS AUTODYN finite dif-
ference code. Hugoniot parameters from Ref. 2 are taken to lightly covered explosive within 5 s after impact depending on
model the shock response of the unreacted explosive. The Lee the pressure in the explosive high go. In order to increase con-
fidence in the predictions, it is also prescribed that the von Neu-
mann pressure must be reached in this time frame. The build-up to
1
Paper No. ISB 10 05-013. peak pressure between 5 s and 10 s is defined as delayed
detonation low go: It is conservatively assumed that this longer
2
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received August 22, 2009; final manu-
time interval might also result in low-order as well as high-order
script received February 3, 2010; accepted manuscript posted May 5, 2010; pub- reactions depending on run-length. No reaction no go is assumed
lished online June 30, 2010. Assoc. Editor: Bo S. G. Janzon. for conditions in which the burn fraction unity and von Neumann

Journal of Applied Mechanics Copyright 2010 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051804-1

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-


2000 2900
Go Low Go
No Go 2850 No Low Go
Go (LLNL) LS fit
No Go (LLNL) 2800
LS Fit (LLNL)
2750
1500
2700

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

dicted are based on 50/50 go/no go experimental data, i.e., a 50%


spike occur at times longer than 10 s. Experimental values for confidence level CL. The low go and high go thresholds are
the peak pressure pVN and detonation velocity UD 7 correlate eventually interpreted with respect to the response types explo-
reasonably well with simulation results 9, as shown in Table 1. sive reaction levels ERLs in accordance with AOP-39 10:
The requirements for initiating bare and covered cast TNT at Idetonation, IIpartial detonation, IIIexplosion, IV
normal and oblique impact are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respec- combustion/deflagration, and Vcombustion. Response levels I
tively. These estimates result from the aforementioned logic and and II can result in a catastrophic reaction, while levels III and IV
the shock Hugoniot and LeeTarver and JWL parameters outlined could still cause a mission kill of the mortar threat.
in the Appendix. The calculations of TNT, as shown in Fig. 2,
cover a wider range of impact conditions in order to minimize the 3 Endgame Model
interpolation error; i.e., the range exceeds values expected from
the experiment. These results are used to predict a terminal The last phase of an air defense engagement is referred to as
fragment-explosive response after an interceptor-threat engage- endgame beginning typically with the process of target detection
ment and fragment hit. It is important to note, however, that the by the fuze sensor and ending with a direct interceptor hit, frag-
impact initiation thresholds from which the outcomes are pre- ment hits, or fly-by 11,12. The endgame model takes into ac-
count the conditions and geometry of the threat-interceptor en-
gagement, interceptor fragmentation, chances of fragment hit, and
Table 1 Comparing detonation thresholds of simulated 9 hit effectiveness: The latter is based on a target impact response. A
and experimental data in parentheses 7 simplified schematic is shown in Fig. 4.
Since the endgame phase occurs in a very short time frame
0 pVN UD where the target and interceptor cover short distances of several
HE g / cm3 GPa m/s meters only, it is assumed that they move uniformly on straight
lines. All trajectories lie in the same plane due to the axis-
PBX-9404 1.842 50.1 56.3 8930 8800 symmetry of the interceptor projectile with an isotropically radial
Cast TNT 1.630 28.4 28.1 6930 6845
fragment distribution. The interceptor spin can also be disregarded
for assessing fragment densities, so that only translational motions
4500 are modeled.
High Go

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

051804-2 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-


Fig. 4 Simplified schematic of the endgame model depicting the data flow double dashed line: data of characteristic
fragment and dashed line: data of real, fuze dependent hit point. The numbers of effective fragments Nfe and number of hits
Nhit are combined to the number of effective hits Nw.

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

Journal of Applied Mechanics SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051804-3

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-


35
nf

35 m
30 f

nf,l / Nges , mf,l / mf,ges in %


30
25
25

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

numbers. Therefore, late bird intercepts are preferred and should


be taken into account by fire control algorithms and fuzes. The natural fragments. The static number, mass, and velocity distribu-
figures also depict the effects that the number of hits is signifi- tions of the fragments were determined in six arena tests. The data
cantly influenced by the miss distance, while the target response is from these tests in terms of mass class l and spray angle are
strongly impacted by the crossing angle. A further investigation on reported in Figs. 8 and 9. Close to 77% of an approximate total of
these influences and their impact on projectile design can be found 24,000 fragments Nges were found to weigh 1 g or less; i.e., it is
in Ref. 16. the sum of mass classes l = 1 4. The remaining fragments ranged
in mass between 1 g and 400 g. Velocities range between 500 m/s
4 Verification by Static Explosive Tests and 2100 m/s; the fastest fragments were found about the spray
A series of tests was performed for purposes of verifying the angle of = 90 deg in the arena.
response of mortar projectiles by fragment impacts: Both 155 mm The fragment map in Fig. 10 illustrates the fragment character-
interceptor projectile and targets were at rest, enabling repeatable istics by linking impact velocities v fi to logarithmically scaled
test conditions. The interceptors, targets, and distances between mean fragment masses m f and allows a classification of their re-
interceptor and target were varied. sponse against an 82 mm mortar target. It is generated for an early
bird intercept situation = +22.5 deg and Rmiss,R = 3 m. The
4.1 Description of Target and Interceptor Projectiles. Se- penetration and detonation thresholds from Sec. 2 are overlaid by
lected mortar projectile targets were subjected to fragment im- transformation into the v = fm domain with cylinders of ratio
pacts from naturally and controlled fragmenting 155 mm HE pro- l f / d f = 1. Clearly, most fragments can be found below the penetra-
jectiles. Three representative mortar targets with TNT fills, tion thresholds in the no impact/ricochet region, while only a very
differing in caliber and casing thickness, were used. The calibers limited number located above the detonation thresholds may lead
of the mortar projectiles were 60 mm, 82 mm, and 120 mm. The to a prompt detonation.
maximum casing thicknesses were approximately 7 mm, 10 mm, Two controlled fragmenting casing interceptors 2 and 3, con-
and 19 mm. taining TNT and Comp B, respectively, were designed for pur-
Interceptor projectile 1, containing Composition B Comp B, poses of generating fragments closer to l = 9, which would be im-
has a small casing to explosive mass ratio of 2.7. It generates

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

051804-4 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-


1 25
1000 nf (proj. 2)
mf (proj. 2)
500
n (proj. 3)

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.

Journal of Applied Mechanics SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051804-5

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-


Table 2 Evaluable results of the static tests ERL according to AOP-39

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

1 1 60 1 I 4825 92.6 92.6 25.6 Not calculated


60 3 None 536 10.6 10.6 2.9 Not calculated
2 1 82 1 IIIII 4825 121.5 121.5 9.4 0.3 0.1
3 1 82 3 None 536 13.6 8.7 1.0 0 0
4 1 120 3 None 536 41.1 5.2 0.3 Not calculated
5 2 82 3 IIIIV 153 3.9 1.7 1.1 0 0
6 3 82 3 IV 250 6.3 3.2 1.7 0 0

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

051804-6 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-


Table 3 Evaluable results of firings of interceptor 1 against mortar targets ERL response
according to AOP-39

Target Simulated Nw
Shot caliber Standoff Observed Simulated
No. mm Position a
RZ mb ERL hits JMEM THOR

1 60 Right 3 None 14.0 14.0 3.9


2 60 Left 1.5 IIIII 44.0 44.0 12.2
60 Right 3 Unknown 14.0 14.0 3.9
3 60 Left 2 1.5 IIIII 44.0 44.0 12.2
60 Right 3 3.5 None 10.3 10.3 2.8
4 120 Left 2 3 None 42.0 6.4 0.3
60 Right 3 2 None 27.8 27.8 7.7
a
Target located left or right of the line of fire when viewing in direction of fire see Fig. 13.
b
Value in parentheses: Estimate of the real detonation distance by evaluating the hit location on the steel plate.

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.

Journal of Applied Mechanics SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051804-7

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-


Yield stress 0.001 Mbar of Cased Explosives by Projectile Impact, Propellants, Explos., Pyrotech.,
21, pp. 251257.
9 Nolte, T., 2009, Sensitivity Investigation of Explosives With Fragment Im-
Geometric strain erosion model pact Simulation Related to Counter RAM Systems, Technical report, Helmut-
Erosion strain 2.0 Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany.
Type of geometric strain Instantaneous 10 NATO MAS, 1998, AOP-39: Guidance on the Development, Assessment and
Testing of Insensitive Munitions (MURAT), 1st ed., Brussels, Belgium.
11 Ball, R. E., 2003, The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis
and Design, 2nd ed., AIAA, Inc., Reston, VA.
References 12 Lloyd, R. M., 1998, Conventional Warhead Systems Physics and Engineering
1 Graswald, M., 2009, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung und Bewertung von Design, AIAA, Inc., Reston, VA.
Counter-RAM Systemen, Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany Ph.D. thesis, Hel- 13 NATO MAS, 2000, STANAG 4589: Static Testing of High-Explosive Munitions
mut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany. for Obtaining Fragment Spatial Distribution, 1st ed., final draft, Brussels,
2 Cooper, P. W., 1996, Explosives Engineering, Wiley-VCH, New York. Belgium.
3 Tarver, C. M., Hallquist, J. O., and Erickson, L. M., 1985, Modeling Short 14 JTCG/ME, 1985, Penetration Equations Handbook for Kinetic-Energy Pen-
Pulse Duration Shock Initiation of Solid Explosives, Proceedings of the etrators, 61 JTCG/ME-77-16, Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Muni-
Eighth Symposium (International) on Detonation, Albuquerque, NM. tions Effectiveness Anti-Air, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
4 ANSYS, 2005, Explosive Initiation Users Manual (Lee-Tarver Ignition & 15 Ballistics Analysis Laboratory, 1961, Project THOR: The Resistance of Vari-
Growth), revision 4.3, Century Dynamics Inc./ANSYS Inc., Concord, CA. ous Metallic Materials to Perforation by Steel Fragments; Empirical Relation-
5 Bahl, K. L., Vantine, H. C., and Weingart, R. C., 1981, The Shock Initiation ships for Fragment Residual Velocity and Residual Weight, Technical Report
of Bare and Covered Explosives by Projectile Impact, Proceedings of the No. 47, Ballistic Analysis Laboratory, John Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Seventh Symposium (International) on Detonation, Annapolis, MD. MD.
6 Moulard, H., 1981, Critical Conditions for Shock Initiation by Small Projec- 16 Graswald, M., Brown, R. E., and Rothe, H., 2010, Novel Ammunition Con-
tile Impact, Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium (International) on Deto- sumption Model for Vulnerability/Lethality Analysis to Defeat Air Targets,
nation, Silver Spring, MD. Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Ballistics, Beijing, China.
7 Lee, E. L., and Tarver, C. M., 1980, Phenomenological Model of Shock 17 Pearson, J., 1978, The Shear Control Method of Warhead Fragmentation,
Initiation in Heterogeneous Explosives, Phys. Fluids, 2312, pp. 23622372. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Ballistics, Monterey,
8 James, H. R., Haskins, P. J., and Cook, M. D., 1996, Prompt Shock Initiation CA.

051804-8 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jamcav/26794/ on 07/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-