Shock Waves (2010) 20:263–267
DOI 10.1007/s00193-010-0248-0
TECHNICAL NOTE
Penetration of shaped charge jets with tungsten–copper
and copper liners at the same explosive-to-liner mass ratio
into water
Xiangrong Zhang · Cheng Wu · Fenglei Huang
Received: 3 August 2008 / Revised: 18 September 2009 / Accepted: 2 March 2010 / Published online: 19 March 2010
© Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract Jets from shaped charges with the liners made
of tungsten–copper and copper and having the same mass
ratio of explosive to liner are compared. They are found to
have the same tip velocities in air, before reaching a steel tar-
get. When water target layers are added in front of the same
steel target, it is observed in experiments and in numerical
simulations that the tip velocity of the tungsten–copper jet
diminishes less rapidly than that of the copper jet, so that the
tungsten–copper jet velocity upon encountering the steel is
higher. These phenomena are also explained by theoretical
analysis.
Keywords Shaped charge jet · Penetration in water ·
Decrease rate · Residual velocity
1 Introduction
When the target is much more compressible than the jet,
the effect of compressibility on penetration is not negligible
[1–3]. Using the incompressible hydrodynamic penetration
theory, the penetration through water would be overpredicted
[2,4]. In this paper, we compare the difference between cop-
per (Cu) and tungsten–copper alloy (W–Cu) jets under the
same mass ratio of explosive to liner when penetrating into
water.
By numerical simulations, it was found that the jet tip
velocity almost does not change when the mass ratio of explo-
sive to liner remains the same [5], which was also validated
Communicated by N. Thadhani.
X. Zhang (B) · C. Wu · F. Huang
State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology,
Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
e-mail: zhang_xiangrong@yahoo.com.cn
experimentally by comparing jets of W–Cu with those of Cu
[6]. However, this conclusion is obtained for formation of jet
and penetration in air. In the present paper, we consider the
case when, after the jets have been formed in air, they pass
through water of a certain depth and then penetrate the steel
targets. In this case, the question arises whether the jet tip
velocity near the water–steel boundary remains the same for
different jets if the mass ratio of explosive to liner is kept
constant.
2 Experiments
Figure 1 shows a cross-sectional schematics of the penetra-
tion test arrangement and a corresponding photograph. There
are eight parallel electric probes for testing the jet tip veloc-
ity, with 50 mm distance between each of them. The first two
probes are used for testing the jet tip velocity in air, and the
others are in water. The distance from the bottom surface of
the liner to the first probe (i.e., standoff distance) is 150 mm,
and the distance from the last probe to the top surface of steel
is 50 mm. The geometry of explosive (Comp B) is 100 mm
in length and 80 mm in diameter. It is initiated at a single-
point by an electric detonator. The liners have a 121◦ cone
angle with an outer diameter of 80 mm. The liner thickness
is 2.03 mm for W–Cu jet and 3.21 mm for Cu jet. The mass
ratio of explosive to liner was 5.0 for both W–Cu and Cu
liners. For W–Cu liner, the mass ratio of W to Cu was 60–40.
The electric probe consists of two layers of aluminum foil
and three layers of plastic membranes. The two layers of foil
are separated by a layer of plastic membrane, and the electric
probe is insulated from water by another two layers of plas-
tic membranes. The whole electric probe is connected to a
RC-circuit functioning as an open switch. Once the probe has
been penetrated by a shaped charge jet, the two layers of foil
123
264 X. Zhang et al.

3 Numerical simulations

The comparison of the penetration velocities in water for

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram and photograph of penetration test set-up
for shaped charge in water
W–Cu jet with those for Cu jet can also be carried out with
AUTODYN software [7]. A computational model is designed
to be compared with the experimental results. The standoff
distance is 150 mm and the water depth is 350 mm; the mass
ratio of explosive to liner is 5.0 for both W–Cu and Cu jets;
the explosive is Comp B and the liner is conical with a 121◦
cone angle, the charge diameter is 80 mm.
The model above involve six materials: air, water, Cu,
W–Cu, explosive (Comp B), and steel. A 2D axially sym-
metric multi-material Euler solver is used for the numeri-
cal simulation. Between the Euler materials and Lagrange
material (steel), an Euler/Lagrange coupling method is used.
The material parameters of air, water, Cu (shock), Comp B,
and steel (4340) are determined by the data from AUTO-
DYN [7]. The Comp B is modeled as high explosive by using
Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL) equation of state (EOS); the air is
modeled using an ideal gas EOS, the steel is modeled as elas-
tic–plastic (Johnson–Cook model) with a linear EOS; both
water and Cu are modeled using a shock EOS. The shock
parameters of W–Cu alloy are obtained according to the prin-
ciple of superposition for mixture, which is given by [8]:

are shorted and the capacitor of the RC-circuit is discharged. 

n
As a result, there is a pulse signal output to an oscilloscope. u2 = αi u i2 , (1)
A typical signal is illustrated in Fig. 2. i=1
Based on the pulse signal (Fig. 2), the velocities for W–Cu V02 n
αi Vi02
jet (3.27 km/s) and Cu jet (3.31 km/s) in air before penetrating = , (2)
D2
i=1
Di2
into water are obtained. Figure 3 shows the experimental jet
tip velocity in water for W–Cu and Cu jets. It can be seen from 
n
V0 = αi Vi0 , (3)
Fig. 3 that the velocity for W–Cu jet diminishes exponentially
i=1
at a lower rate than that for Cu jet when penetrating into
V0 n
αi Vi0
water, although their initial penetrating velocities in water = . (4)
are almost equal. Therefore, the residual velocity (the veloc- γ0 γi0
i=1
ity of the jet as it exits the water and impacts on the steel) in
water for W–Cu jet is higher than that for Cu jet. The ratio where u, D are the particle velocity and shock velocity
of the penetration depth into steel for W–Cu jet and Cu jet for mixture, and V0 , γ0 are the initial specific volume and
is 1.29. Gruneisen coefficient of mixture; the subscript 0 denotes the

Fig. 2 Typical signal wave

recorded by the oscilloscope

123
Penetration of shaped charge jets
3.6
Jet velocity in water (km/s)
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0 50 100 150
Distance from water surface to tip of jet (mm)
Fig. 3 Experimental data of jet tip velocities in water for W–Cu and
Cu jets
initial state. Here, shock velocity is supposed to be a linear
function of particle velocity, i.e., Di = Ci0 + λi u i , where
λ is the coefficient of the slope of the D − u curve. For
W–Cu mixture, if i = 1 stands for W, and i = 2 stands for
Cu, then C10 = 4.03 km/s, λ1 = 1.24, V10 = 0.052 cm3 /g,
γ10 = 1.54 and C20 = 3.94 km/s, λ2 = 1.49, V20 =
0.112 cm3 /g, γ20 = 1.99 [7]. The mass ratio of W to Cu in
the mixture is 60/40; therefore, α1 = 0.6, α2 = 1−α1 = 0.4;
then according to (3), V0 = 0.076 cm3 /g. Combining (1)–
(3), C0 and λ of the W–Cu mixture are linearly fitted as
3.65 km/s and 1.33. γ0 for the W–Cu mixture is 1.78 as
determined by (3) and (4).
The finite element models for jet formation and penetra-
tion are built, respectively. For the first stage, i.e., jet forma-
tion, the Euler mesh for air, liner, and explosive are shown in
Fig. 4. The whole model is 300×150 mm and the grid depen-
dence is checked by comparing three kinds of grid spac-
ing (0.3, 0.4, 0.5 mm) near the liner. The maximum relative
deviation among the jet tip velocities for the three kinds of
grid spacing is <4%. Therefore, considering the numerical
precision and efficiency, we choose 0.4 mm as the charac-
teristic grid spacing near the liner. For the second stage, i.e.,
jet penetration into water and steel, the mesh grid size in the
direction of jet penetration is 2 and 1 mm for water and steel,
respectively.
The numerical jet tip velocities in water for W–Cu and Cu
liners are shown in Fig. 5. Compared with the experimen-
tal results (Fig. 3), the jet velocities in water are about 18%
higher. However, the velocity for W–Cu jet diminishes expo-
nentially at a lower rate than that for Cu jet when penetrating
into water, although the initial velocity into water for W–Cu
jet (3.45 km/s) and Cu jet (3.44 km/s) are almost equal. Thus,
the residual velocity in water for W–Cu jet is higher than that
for Cu jet, which is consistent with the experimental results.
W-Cu liner with 151g
Fitting curve for W-Cu liner
Cu liner with 151g
Fitting curve for Cu liner
200 250 300
265
The numerical simulation also shows that the penetration
depth into steel (4340) for W–Cu jet is larger than that for Cu
jet. Although the numerical penetration depth ratio of W–Cu
jet to Cu jet is 1.48, i.e., about 15% higher than that in the
experiment, they are qualitatively the same.
4 Analysis of jet velocity in water
Based on the experimental and numerical results, it can be
seen that the initial velocities into water for both W–Cu
and Cu liners are almost equal (their relative deviation is
350 <0.5%), if the mass ratio of explosive to liner is kept constant.
Figure 6 shows the jet tip velocities in air for W–Cu and Cu
jets with the same mass ratio of explosive to liner. When
the shaped charge jet is formed in air, the velocity of its tip
rapidly increases to a maximum and then decreases in air
(Fig. 6). The jet tip velocities in air for W–Cu and Cu lin-
ers, however, are almost equal with the same mass ratio of
explosive to liner, which agrees with Chanteret’s numerical
analysis [5].
When penetrating into water, according to the classical
hydrodynamic penetration law [1], the residual velocity is
lower for Cu jet because of its lower density as compared with
W–Cu jet, which is true for jets having the same velocity dis-
tribution and lengths. In this situation, however, the lengths of
Cu and W–Cu jets in water are not necessarily equal because
the jets are still stretching when penetrating water. Therefore,
we will explain our experimental and numerical results from
the flow resistance point of view as a supplement.
Due to cavitation effect, the jet is almost surrounded by
air except for its tip when penetrating water. Thus, the flow
acceleration only exerts on the tip of jet, which can also be
confirmed by numerical simulation (Fig. 7). The dimensions
and conditions for the calculation in Fig. 7 are the same as
those in Fig. 4. The resistance is proportional to the cross-
sectional area of jet tip and to the square of jet tip velocity,
which is given by
F ∝ Av 2 , (5)
where F is the resistance, A is the sectional area, and v is
the jet tip velocity. According to Newton’s second law, and
selecting unit length of jet tip, F = ρ Aa, where ρ and a are
density and acceleration of the shaped charge jet. Combining
with (5), the resistance can be expressed as
v2
a∝ . (6)
ρ
Therefore, the acceleration ratio of W–Cu jet to Cu jet can
be given by
aW–Cu v2 ρCu
= W–Cu . (7)
aCu vCu ρW–Cu
2
123
266 X. Zhang et al.

Fig. 4 Finite element model

for the jet formation

3.6 3.7
W-Cu liner with 151g W-Cu liner with 151g
3.4 Cu liner with 151g Cu liner with 151g
Jet velocity in water (km/s)

3.6
Jet velocity in air (km/s)

3.2

3.0 3.5

2.8
3.4
2.6

2.4 3.3

2.2
3.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from water surface to tip of jet (mm) Distance from the bottom of liner (mm)

Fig. 5 Numerical results of jet tip velocities in water for W–Cu and Fig. 6 Numerical results of velocities in air for W–Cu and Cu jets
Cu jets
Explosive Air Jet Water

where aW–Cu , vW–Cu , ρW–Cu , are the acceleration, jet tip

velocity, density of W–Cu jet, and aCu , vCu , ρCu are the accel-
eration, jet tip velocity, and density of Cu jet.
From Fig. 6 and Chanteret’s numerical analysis [5], the jet
tip velocity in air almost does not change when the mass ratio
.
of explosive to liner remains the same, i.e., vW–Cu = vCu .
Combing with (7), the acceleration ratio of W–Cu jet to Cu
Fig. 7 Local schematic diagram of jet penetration into water
jet can be expressed as
aW–Cu ρCu
= < 1. (8) sive to liner, the velocity in water for W–Cu jet diminishes
aCu ρW–Cu
more slowly than that for Cu jet because the acceleration in
Based on (8), the experimental and numerical results can water of W–Cu jet is lower than that of Cu jet. Therefore, the
be explained. Although the initial jet velocities for W–Cu and W–Cu jet has higher residual velocity after penetrating the
Cu jets are almost equal under the same mass ratio of explo- water.

123
Penetration of shaped charge jets
5 Conclusion
For shaped charge jets, if the mass ratio of explosive to liner
remains the same, the jet velocities of different metal mate-
rials in air are almost the same as well. On the other hand,
when the jet penetrates into water, the larger the density of
jet material, the lower the jet velocity decay rate in water, the
higher the residual velocity when the jet has penetrated the
water, and therefore the stronger the penetration power into
the steel.
References
1. Walters, W.P., Zukas, J.A.: Fundamentals of Shaped Charges.
Wiley, New York (1989)
2. Held, M., Backofen, J.E.: Penetration of shaped charge into water.
In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Ballistics,
vol. II, pp. 30–40. San Antonio, Texas (1990)
267
3. Chick, M.C., Frey, R.B., Trimble, J.J., Bines, A.: Jet penetration in
Plexiglas. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on
Ballistics, vol. II, pp. 21–26. Orlando, Florida (1984)
4. Lee, E.S., Oh, K.H., Song, S.Y.: Penetraion of particulated shaped
charge jet into water. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 2513, pp. 975–
981. High-Speed Photography and Photonics: 21st International
Congress, Ung Kim (1995)
5. Chanteret, P.Y.: Theoretical consideration about jet density and
shaped charge performance. In: Proceedings of 17th International
Symposium on Ballistics, pp. 373–380. Midrand, South Africa
(1998)
6. Lee, S., Kim, E.P., Kim, Y., Lee, S.H., Hong, M.H., Noh, J.W.:
Penetration performances of tungsten–copper shaped charge liner.
In: Proceedings of 22nd International Symposium on Ballistics,
pp. 437–443. Vancouver BC, Canada (2005)
7. AUTODYN Explicit Software for Nonlinear Dynamics, v6.1 (2005)
8. Zukas, J.A., Walters, W.P.: Explosive Effects and Applications.
Springer, New York (1998)
123