Analysis of EFP and Single Sandwich ERA

Interaction

Muhammad Farrukh Rasheed; Wu Cheng Ali Raza; Sheikh Muhammad Zakir

Department of Mechatronics, Beijing Institute of Center of Excellence in Sciences & Applied Technologies
Technology, Beijing, China (CESAT), Islamabad, Pakistan
E-Mail: farrukh@bit.edu.cn

Abstract— Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) are used to interaction between EFP and ERA has been recently studied by
attack armored vehicles, on the other hands the armored vehicles Linden et al[6]. The work was with tantalum EFP which broke
use Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) to enhance their protection. in two pieces after interacting with light ERA. This work
Using LS-DYNA software, this paper studies the problem of included experimental as well as numerical work. Another
interaction of EFP with single sandwich ERA. The effect of work undertaken by Wang Jian et al [7] was related to EFP as
various ERA configurations like the thickness of metal flyer front charge in a tandem warhead configuration, in which the
plates/explosive and the inclination angle of ERA is analyzed main aim was to generate a hole through ERA without
against an EFP. The study concludes that the effect of light ERA initiating it, so that the rear shaped charge jet could easily go
i.e. with flyers upto 5mm is limited and the residual EFP still has
through it without disturbance.
enough energy to penetrate significant thickness of steel target,
however when the ERA configuration is changed to heavier steel This paper attempts to analyze the interaction of copper
plates, most of the EFP is consumed during interaction with the EFP with single layer ERA sandwich of varying configurations
ERA and only a small portion reaches the steel target, which does at various angles so that an analysis of the degradation of EFP
not have sufficient energy to penetrate the target. The simulation performance can be made.
results were validated by testing the EFP against ERA.
II. EFP DESIGN
Keywords—Explosively Formed Projectile; Explosive Reactive
Armor; Penetration; Numerical Analysis; Anti-Armor Warhead The EFP design used for the simulation and experiments
was selected using the literature and data provided by
I. INTRODUCTION Weimann et al [8, 9]. The idea of the design selection was to
generate an EFP design which should be able to penetrate to its
Explosively formed Projectiles (EFPs) are used as anti-
maximum capability at large standoff distance. This required
armor warheads in various types of weapons, e.g. top attack
the EFP to be one piece, non-stretching, coherent, uniform and
smart munitions, and overfly shoot down missiles. On the other
stable. Various simulations were run to refine the design to
hand Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) is deployed by most of
obtain a reasonably solid high velocity EFP.
modern armored vehicles to add to their baseline protection
capability for defeating long rod penetrators and shaped charge The selected design is shown in Figure 1. The charge is
munition. Since EFPs are being increasingly used as anti-armor selected as composition A3 and its diameter has been selected
warheads, this paper presents the study on the interaction of as 100mm, as it would make it easy to scale the design up and
EFP with ERA at various interaction conditions. down for future studies. The EFP has a hemispherical copper
liner with a radius of curvature of 0.85 times the charge
Interaction of shaped charges and long rod penetrators with
diameter. The liner is 4mm thick copper and the casing is 5mm
ERA has been extensively studied [1-5] over the years as these
thick steel. The selected EFP design has the ability to penetrate
were the most common types of anti-armor weapons. However
through more than 100mm Steel and the same was
these differ from EFPs as shaped charges have thin stretching
demonstrated using simulation and field experiment (Figure 1).
jets of copper with tip velocities in the region of 9-11km/s and
long rod penetrators are usually made of high density materials
like tungsten and are fired at velocities of approx. 1600m/s
from tank guns. They have high L/D ratio of the order of 38.
Generally shaped charge jets can be much easily disrupted by
even light ERAs, however disturbance of long rod penetrators
generally requires heavy ERA or more complex designs like
multiple sandwiches etc.
EFPs on the other hand are made of either copper or
heavier metals like tantalum. They have L/D ratio of 4-6
typically and travel at a velocity of 2-3km/s. Since the EFPs
have become a common top attack warhead for anti-armor FIGURE 1 EFP AND ITS PENETRATION IN STEEL TARGET (NO ERA)
munitions and weapons especially at long standoff, the
 III. ERA DESIGN A 50mm steel target was also modeled in the simulations after
Generally modern ERAs consist of complex designs the ERA, to analyze the penetration capability of the residual
including multiple ERA sandwiches. Moreover these are EFP.
usually encased in steel casing to prevent initiation by small
arms fire. In order to study the effect of ERA a simple single
sandwich design without outer casing was selected for this
study, to simplify the problem and understand the interaction at
basic level. This paper analyzes three different single sandwich
ERA designs for their interaction with EFP. Two of the designs
are light symmetric sandwiches, whereas the third is an
asymmetric sandwich (Table 1). The velocity of ERA flyer
plates can be estimated using Gurney Equations (1) and (2) for FIGURE 2 EFP AND ERA INTERACTION SIMULATION SCHEME
symmetric and asymmetric flyer plates respectively[10]. Table
1 also compares the velocities of the flyer plates calculated
using Gurney method and obtained during simulation. The
dimensions of each ERA design is 150x150mm. TABLE 2 ERA CONFIGURATIONS USED IN SIMULATIONS

ERA ERA Angle ERA Standoff

CASE
Configuration θ from EFP
1 15°
(1) 2 3/3/3 30°
3 60°
4 30° 400
5/3/5
5 60°
(2)
6 30°
10/5/15
TABLE 1 ERA CONFIGURATIONS AND FLYER PLATE VELOCITIES 7 60°

Plate Velocity
ERA Gurney Method Simulation
Config Front Rear Front Rear
(m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
3/3/3 933 933 888 923
5/3/5 642 642 626 690
10/5/15 641 434 560 463
The velocities obtained from simulation are slightly FIGURE 3 SIMULATION SETUP, ALE DOMAIN FOR SIMULATING EFP AND
different from those calculated using Gurney equation. This LAGRANGIAN ERA
phenomenon is caused by 1) interaction of EFP and ERA plate A. Model Formulation and Material Models
and 2) edge effects or end losses of gases which are not catered
Explosive, Liner and Air three have been modeled using
for in Gurney equation as it is one dimensional. As the EFP
Euler formulation. The material model used to describe the
and ERA plate interact in simulation the inertia of the EFP
explosive is High Explosive Burn combined with JWL
adds to the rear plate velocity and reduces the front plate
equation of state. The EFP liner is modeled using Steinberg
velocity due to relative motion. Also the elements of the plate
material model with Gruneisen equation of state. The air is
experience failure based on Johnson-Cook strength model,
modeled using null material and linear polynomial equation of
therefore the velocity of forward moving plate is lower than
state.
predicted by Gurney equation whereas the velocity of back
plate is slightly higher than Gurney equation. Casing, Target and ERA have been modeled using
Lagrange formulation. This enabled removal of these items
IV. SIMULATION MODEL when the interaction was completed. The metal parts were all
The simulations were carried out in LS-DYNA, the modeled using Johnson-Cook model (3) combined with
simulation schemes and configurations analyzed are Gruneisen equation of state.
summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2. Simulation domain is
shown in Figure 3, where the EFP formation has been modeled (3)
using ALE formulation to avoid the large deformations likely
to occur during EFP formation. Casing of the EFP and the ERA Where, εp is the effective plastic strain, ε* is the strain rate
has been modeled using Lagrangian formulation. and A, B, C, n and m are input constants. T* is homologus
temperature and is given by the following relation.
Due to symmetry conditions, only half model is necessary to
analyze the formation of EFP and subsequent interaction with
ERA at various conditions. Table 2 lists the inclination angles
of ERA for which the simulations were run.
 Where Tref, Tmelt are reference and melting temperatures. A. EFP against 3/3/3 ERA
The explosive in the ERA has been modeled using Ignition VI. THE FIRST SET OF SIMULATION WAS CARRIED OUT WITH
and Growth equation of state, which is used to calculate the 3/3/3 ERA, WHICH CAN BE CATEGORIZED AS LIGHT ERA. THIS
shock initiation (or failure to initiate) and detonation wave TYPE OF ERA IS VERY EFFECTIVE AGAINST SHAPED CHARGES,
propagation of solid high explosives. The unreacted and HOWEVER THE NUMERICAL SIMULATION RESULTS SHOW THAT
reacted explosive are modeled using JWL equation of state (4)
ITS EFFECT ON EFP IS LIMITED. DUE TO THE LARGE INERTIA PER
in this model.
UNIT LENGTH OF THE EFP THE LIGHT ERA ONLY DAMAGES THE
FRONT PART OF THE EFP (FIGURE 4), LEAVING A LARGE PART
(4) STILL FLYING AT THE INITIAL VELOCITY OF 2100M/S. FOR THIS
CASE THREE DIFFERENT ANGLES (15°, 30° AND 60°) WERE
Where p is pressure, V is relative volume, ω is the
SIMULATED. THE SIMULATIONS SHOWED THAT AS THE ERA
Gruineisen coefficient, Cv is the average heat capacity, T is
INCLINATION ANGLE INCREASES OVERALL REDUCTION IN
temperature, and A, B, R1, and R2 are constants.
RESIDUAL EFP LENGTH INCREASED FROM 22% TO 33%.
The chemical reaction rate i.e. rate of conversion of RESULTS OF ARE SUMMARIZED IN SIMULATION RESULTS
unreacted explosive to reaction products is divided in three SUMMARY
parts in ignition and growth model. An ignition term in which a
small amount of explosive reacts soon after the shock wave Simulation results are summarized in Table 3 below, which
compresses it; a slow growth term as this initial reaction shows that the light ERA plates (upto 5mm) only erode less
spreads; and a rapid completion term at high pressure and than 35% of the EFP, which leaves the remaining EFP flying
temperature[11, 12]. with initial velocity. Only heavy ERA 10/5/15 causes erosion
of the EFP of the order of 75%.
Table 3.
(5)
Where F is fraction reacted, t is time, ρ is the current
density, ρo is the initial density and p is pressure. I, G1, G2, a, b,
c, d, e, g, x, y and z are constants.
B. EFP Formation
The EFP formation was completed in initial 150µs, which
resulted in a penetrator with approx. 2100m/s. The distance
travelled by the EFP during the formation is approx. 330mm.
In the simulation the ERA was placed at a standoff of 400mm
to ensure complete formation of the EFP.
C. ERA Functioning
As described earlier, the simulations were carried out
against three different thickness combinations of ERA. Each
simulation resulted in successful initiation, growth and
subsequent completion of detonation for the explosive in the
ERA. This indicates that in each configuration under study the
EFP impact generates enough shock pressure to initiate the
ERA and accelerate the Flyer plates.

V. SIMULATION RESULTS
Following sections discuss results of each simulation
carried out to study the interaction.

 

FIGURE 4 INTERACTION OF EFP WITH 3/3/3 ERA AT 15, 30 AND 60 DEGREE
INCLINATION
A. EFP Against 5/3/5 ERA
After first set of simulation resulted in limited damage to
the EFP, the thickness of the ERA plates was increased to 5mm
each to study the effect caused by increased mass of the ERA
plates. The simulations (Figure 5) at various angle show that
increase in the thickness damages the EFP to a greater extent as
the dynamic thickness that the EFP has to overcome increases.
Increase in angle also increases erosion in the length of the EFP
from 26.8% to 34.75% as in the first simulation case. However
even with increased thickness a significant chunk (approx.
65%) remains which combined with its high velocity of
2100m/s has enough energy to penetrate through light armor.
FIGURE 5 INTERACTION OF EFP WITH 5/3/5 ERA AT 30° AND 60°
B. EFP Against 10/5/15 ERA
VII. BASED ON THE RESULTS OF FIRST AND SECOND SETS OF
SIMULATIONS THE THICKNESS OF THE ERA PLATES WAS
FURTHER INCREASED TO A CONFIGURATION OF 10/5/15. THIS
CONFIGURATION WAS ALSO SIMULATION AT 30 AND 60°
INCLINATION. THE RESULTS SHOW THAT WITH THIS
CONFIGURATION MORE THAN 75% OF THE EFP IS CONSUMED
DURING INTERACTION WITH THE ERA (FIGURE 6). IN THIS CASE
ALSO THE DAMAGE TO THE EFP INCREASES WITH INCREASE IN
ANGLE AS EVIDENT FROM FIGURE 6 AND SIMULATION RESULTS
SUMMARY
Simulation results are summarized in Table 3 below, which
shows that the light ERA plates (upto 5mm) only erode less
than 35% of the EFP, which leaves the remaining EFP flying
with initial velocity. Only heavy ERA 10/5/15 causes erosion
of the EFP of the order of 75%.
Table 3. The residual EFP has lower velocity than the
initial impact velocity of 2100m/s and gives only limited
energy to the residual EFP.
 VIII. SIMULATION RESULTS SUMMARY
Simulation results are summarized in Table 3 below, which
shows that the light ERA plates (upto 5mm) only erode less
than 35% of the EFP, which leaves the remaining EFP flying
with initial velocity. Only heavy ERA 10/5/15 causes erosion
of the EFP of the order of 75%.

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF EFP AND ERA INTERACTION SIMULATION RESULTS

Case ERA Config Remaining % consumed

Length during
(mm) interaction
1 3/3/3 @ 15° 61 25.6%
2 3/3/3 @ 30° 59 28%
3 3/3/3 @ 60° 55 32.9%
4 5/3/5 @ 30° 60 26.8%
5 5/3/5 @ 60° 53.5 34.75%
6 10/5/15 @ 30° 20 75.6%
7 10/5/15 @ 60° 18 78%
A. Experimental Correlation
FIGURE 6 INTERACTION OF EFP WITH 10/5/15 ERA AT 30° & 60°
Experiment was carried out with a 3/3/3 ERA against EFP
A. Simulation of Residual EFP Penetration inclined at 30 degrees. This test was carried out to validate the
A steel target 50mm thick was modeled after the ERA, to results of the simulation. As predicted in the simulation the
analyze penetration capability of the residual EFP after residual EFP after interaction with ERA had sufficient residual
interaction with ERA. The EFPs interacting with 3/3/3 and mass and velocity to penetrate through the steel target. The
5/3/5 ERAs were able to penetrate through the 50mm RHA target used in the experiment was 100mm thick (5x 20mm
target, whereas the residual EFP after interaction with 10/5/15 thick plates) mild steel target as shown in Figure 9. The
ERA only did surface damage at both inclination angles. impression of ERA plate striking the target plate is also visible,
which shows that ERA explosive was successfully initiated and
Figure 7 shows the simulation results of the penetration of the EFP interacted with ERA successfully.
residual EFP through 50mm of RHA steel target. The case
shown is for 5/3/5 ERA tilted at 60°. Figure 8 shows the
superficial penetration in 50mm RHA target by residual EFP
after interacting with 10/15/15 ERA tilted at 30°.

FIGURE 7 RESIDUAL EFP AFTER INTER ACTION WITH 60° TILTED 5/3/5 ERA,
PENETRATING THROUGH 50MM RHA STEEL TARGET

FIGURE 9 PENETRATION OF EFP IN STEEL TARGET AFTER INTERACTION WITH

30° INCLINED ERA, IMPRESSION OF ERA PLATE IS ALSO VISIBLE

IX. CONCLUSIONS
From the simulations and the experiment undertaken,
following can be concluded:
1. Light ERA 3/3/3 and 5/3/5 only erode small portion of
the EFP during interaction, thereby leaving a
significant piece which can penetrate through 50mm of
FIGURE 8 ONLY SUPERFICIAL PENETRATION IN 50MM RHA BY RESIDUAL EFP
RHA steel. During the experiment it was demonstrated
AFTER INTERACTION WITH 10/5/15 ERA AT 30°
 that the energy of the residual EFP against a 3/3/3 ERA
was sufficient to penetrate 100mm of mild steel.
2. Heavier ERA 10/5/15 significantly consumes the EFP
and the residual EFP causes only superficial damage to
the steel target. Therefore heavier ERA is better at
stopping EFP attack than light ERA.
3. As the angle of inclination increases, damage to the
EFP also increases slightly, however, the ability to
disrupt the EFP is effected more by the thickness of the
ERA, rather than the inclination angle for the
conditions studied.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. Sajid Raza, Dr. An
FengJiang and Mr. Muhammad Amin for their valuable
guidance, technical and administrative support during the
course of this research, without which this work would not
have been possible.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Held, "Stopping Power of Explosive Reactive Armours Against
Different Shaped Charge Diameters or at Different Angles," Propellants,
Explosives, Pyrotechnics, vol. 26, pp. 97-104, 2001.
[2] M. Held, "Time-distance plots for ERA-design," Propellants,
Explosives, Pyrotechnics, vol. 26, pp. 258-262, 2001.
[3] M. Held, "Comparison of Explosive Reactive Armour Against Different
Threat Levels," Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, vol. 24, pp. 76-
77, 1999.
[4] L. Beisuo, W. Cheng, and S. Jian, "A Proposed Principle for the Design
of Reactive Armor," ACTA Armamentarii, 1994.
[5] W. Cheng, J. J. F. Shunshan, and R. Xiaoxue, "A Study on the Moving
Features of Explosive Reactive Armor by Numerical Simulation and
Experiments," ACTA Armamentarii, vol. 23, 2002.
[6] E. Lidén, J. Lundgren, and M. Bergh, "EFP Warheads Against Explosive
Reactive Armour," presented at the 28th International Symposium on
Ballistics, Atlanta, GA, 2014.
[7] W. Jian, C. Hong-gen, and Z. Jian-long, "EFP Penetrating Explosive
Reactive Armor," Journal of Nanjing University of Science and
Technology(Natural Science), vol. 32, pp. 9-12, 2008.
[8] K. Weimann, "Research and development in the area of explosively
formed projectiles charge technology," Propellants, Explosives,
Pyrotechnics, vol. 18, pp. 294-298, 1993.
[9] K. Weimann, "Performance of Tantalum, Copper, and Iron EFP's
Against Steel Targets," presented at the 15th International Symposium
on Ballistics, Jerusalem, Israel, 1995.
[10] J. A. Zukas and W. P. Walters, Explosive Effects and Applications:
Springer, 1998.
[11] LS-DYNA R7.1 Keyword User's Manual: Material Models vol. II:
Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), 2014.
[12] C. M. Tarver, P. A. Urtiew, S. K. Chidester, and L. G. Green, "Shock
Compression and Initiation of LX-10," Propellants, Explosives,
Pyrotechnics, vol. 18, pp. 117-127, 1993.