Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Defence Technology
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/defence-technology

A novel method for determination of lethal radius for high-explosive

artillery projectiles
Alan Catovic a, *, Elvedin Kljuno b
a
Mechanical Engineering Faculty (Defense Technology Department), University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
b
Mechanical Engineering Faculty, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new model has been defined that enables the estimation of the lethal radius (radius of efficiency) of HE
Received 11 January 2020 (High Explosive) artillery projectiles against human targets. The model is made of several modules: CAD
Received in revised form (Computer Aided Design) modeling, fragment mass distribution estimation, fragment initial velocity
9 June 2020
prediction, fragment trajectory calculation, effective fragment density estimation, and high explosive
Accepted 17 June 2020
Available online 30 June 2020
projectile lethal radius estimation. The results were compared with the experimental results obtained
based on tests in the arena used in our country, and the agreement of the results was good. This model
can be used in any terminal-ballistics scenario for high explosive projectiles since it is general, para-
Keywords:
High explosive projectiles
metric, fast and relatively easy to implement.
Lethal radius © 2020 China Ordnance Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications
Fragments Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
Modeling licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction incapacitation due to shockwave and probability due to fragments.

High explosive projectile lethal radius is an important terminal-
ballistics parameter. When the projectile has a larger lethal radius,
fewer artillery projectiles are necessary to eliminate the targets.
From a tactical point of view, this can be significant since it reduces
logistical burden. There are many factors influencing projectile ef-
ficiency and because of the complexity of these parameters, there is
currently no comprehensive model for estimation of its terminal-
ballistics parameters.
In the literature, one can find different models for prediction of
high explosive projectile efficiency, and one of the notable is
american model [1], which defines a lethal area as a measure of the
fragment casualty producing potential of an exploding projectile
when employed against soldiers. Lethal area in this model is the
expected number of incapacitations, after the detonation of a single
projectile, using the certain level of density of enemy soldiers.
Incapacitation refers to a debilitating injury (ie, hit into a vital body
area after which the soldier is inacapable of fighting). This american
model is a probability model, where a probability that the person
will be incapacitated is calculated using the probability of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: catovic@mef.unsa.ba (A. Catovic), kljuno@mef.unsa.ba
(E. Kljuno).
Peer review under responsibility of China Ordnance Society
Zecevic et al. [2,3] were also developing a terminal-ballistics model
for high explosive projectiles, where a lethal zone of naturally
fragmenting high explosive warheads was determined using the
coupled numerical-CAD (Computer Aided Design) technique. These
models and several other models mentioned in the literature [4e6]
depend primarily on experimental data from the arena fragmen-
tation test. These tests are very expensive, time consuming and
labor intensive.
Our approach was to develop a new analytical model for pre-
diction of high explosive projectiles lethal radius, where there is no
need for experimental tests in inital phase of design. This way an
ammunition designer is provided with preliminary projectile effi-
ciency data before conducting large scale experimental fragmen-
tation tests (pit and arena), which saves both money and time.
Some of the major contributions in the paper are related to the
calculation of the movement of fragments: 1) using aerodynamic
forces and moments rather than the force coefficient(s), and 2)
using complete 6DOF (Six Degrees of Freedom) equations for
fragment trajectory estimation.
The model, presented in this work, is in some ways similar to
fragment hazard method (DDESB; Department of Defense Explo-
sives Safety Board) adopted by US DoD (United States Department
of Defense) and other similar organizations years ago which is
detailed in many technical reports (ie reference [8]). The major
difference between the method described herein and the widely

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.06.015
2214-9147/© 2020 China Ordnance Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1218 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233
accepted method is the trajectory module in our model, whereby
the kinetic energy of fragment is calculated accurately during the
ballistic travel of fragment, by solving all necessary dynamic
equations (fully coupled 6DOF/Six Degrees of Freedom equations),
whereas the DDESB (Department of Defense Explosives Safety
Board) methods employ an analytic expression of kinetic energy as
a function of distance and some other approximations which can
lead to errors.
In that regard, we observed following possible deficiencies in
the currently accepted DDESB/Department of Defense Explosives
Safety Board fragment hazard model:

It considers only the drag force and the force of gravity. Since
this is a 2-dimensional model it cannot resolve the spatial mo-
tion of fragments (ie it cannot model side drift of the body).

The aerodynamic moment is not calculated, so the equation of
change of angular momentum is not taken into account. This
means that the model does not address body rotation; and even
if it is to take the moment into account, with the 2D model -
spatial rotation cannot be solved, but only rotation about an axis
perpendicular to the plane of motion.

The drag force coefficient (CD) is taken as a constant value (ie a
rather small value of 0.8) which can introduce large errors in the
estimation of aerodynamic force, especially in the calculation of
entire trajectories (where the CD (Mach) curve varies consider-
ably, especially in a transonic zone). It is known that the CD
changes due to a change in the shape of the exposed surface of
the body in the current direction of movement due to its rota-
tion and due to a change in the speed of the body.

DDESB/Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board model
uses fragment form factor k with values from 2609 kg/m3
(forged projectiles) to 4740 kg/m3 (steel spheres). This means
that for the lower boundary of the shape factor it takes into
account the type and method of processing the body material,
and for the upper boundary it takes the shape of the fragment,
which means that it is not a unique parameter taken for com-
parison. This factor is also taken as a constant value, and these
approximations can lead to further calculation errors.

DDESB (Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board) model
is applicable only for the high-order detonation of a cylindrical
casing with evenly distributed explosives. The more an item
deviates from this ideal, the less reliable this methodology be-
comes [8].

This model does not consider the fragment hazard presented by
base plates, nose plugs, boattails, or other fragments from the
non-cylindrical portions of the case. These unique fragments
can travel to significantly greater distances (distances greater
than 3050 m). These special fragments should be considered on
a case-by-case, site-specific analysis [8].

To determine the maximum fragment range, the range of the
maximum mass fragment for each region of the model can be
calculated using the initial velocity for that region and the
largest of these ranges is defined as the maximum fragment
range of the munition. Since upper bound estimates are used,
the resulting range that is computed represents a conservative
estimate. In all cases where the data allow the comparisons to be
made, the methodology in DDESB/Department of Defense Ex-
plosives Safety Board produces conservative results, i.e. ranges
greater than the measured range [8].

The program (code) is not available for public use, and the
literature does not cite comparisons of results obtained from
this model with numerical simulations for fragments.

Crull & Swisdak [8] report validation of DDESB (Department of
Defense Explosives Safety Board) model by comparing the re-
sults to the distances listed in several literature references for
several munitions. Comparisons have been made for both the
Hazardous Fragment Distance and the Maximum fragment
Range. In all cases where the data allow the comparisons to be
made, the DDESB (Department of Defense Explosives Safety
Board) model produces conservative results, i.e., ranges greater
than the measured range. For example, for 105 mm M1 artillery
projectile relative difference for maximum fragment range be-
tween DDESB model and literature data is around 90%, and for
81 mm M56 mortar projectile this difference is 110% [8].
2. Physical model
The lethal radius of a high explosive projectile against human
targets in the model is defined as a distance from the explosion at
which there is an efficient fragment (with a kinetic energy of at
least 80 J) density of 1 frag/m2. It is assumed that the human target
exposed area (to the projectile) is 1 m2. This area can be reduced (ie
when it is assumed the soldier is in prone or some other position on
the ground). Incapacitation in the model is related to a hit into a
human target with a fragment of 80 J kinetic energy (adopted NATO
inacapacitation criterium). The model does not take into account
the condition and age of the human target, its protection, and the
location of the impact of the fragment into the human body.
It is assumed that the position of a projectile upon detonation is
vertical to the ground. That means lethal radius represents a radius
of a circular lethal zone - a maximal possible lethal zone of pro-
jectile on the ground (real artillery projectiles have smaller impact
angles). This parameter (lethal radius) can be used in an initial
phase of design to compare the efficiency of different high explo-
sive projectiles.
Our model for evaluating the fragmentation efficiency is based
on analytical, numerical and CAD/Computer Aided Design methods,
and consists of several modules:
1. CAD (Computer Aided Design) modeling module (high explosive
projectile).
2. A module for estimation of mass distribution of fragments.
3. A module for predicting the initial velocity of fragments.
4. Fragment trajectory calculation module.
5. Module for estimating the density of efficient fragments, and
6. Module for estimating the lethal radius of high explosive
projectiles.
2.1. Module for CAD (Computer Aided Design) modeling
Within this module, in some of the CAD (Computer Aided
Design) software, one determines the mass (body masses and ex-
plosives and mass ratio C/M) and the geometric ratio t/d (average
body thicknes to average explosive diameter ratio). The CAD
(Computer Aided Design) method is also used to split the 3D model
of the projectile into cylindrical segments (Fig. 1). We have
segmented projectile bodies into a large number of segments
because of their variable geometry. In this way, an attempt was
made to appreciate the geometry of the body as close as possible to
reality (especially when the geometry is rapidly changing, ie at the
end of ogive part).
The geometric parameter t/d, using the body and explosive
charge volume data obtained from CAD (Computer Aided Design)
software, is analytically determined by first calculating the equiv-
alent diameter of the explosive d (the explosive charge is converted
to a cylinder):
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233 1219

Fig. 1. Drawing, 122 mm OF-462 projectile model (3-Dimensional) and central body segments (up to the rotating band, 16e31 segments) used in the model to evaluate its efficiency.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi projections [7], or indirectly after 3D scanning.

4Vexp
d¼ (1)
pLexp
Here Lexp is explosive charge length and Vexp is explosive charge 2.2. A module for estimation of mass distribution of fragments
volume, determined based on the CAD (Computer Aided Design)
model of the projectile. To estimate the number N(m) of fragments from a high explo-
The average (so-called equivalent) thickness t of the projectile sive projectile, for each quasi-cylindrical segment of the body, the
body is given by: Mott formula is used [9,16]:

1  m1=2

t ¼ ðD
dÞ (2) M
e

m
2 NðmÞ ¼ (4)
ð2mÞ
Here D is the average (equivalent) diameter of the projectile,
determined by the expression: The mass M of the projectile body is known, based on CAD/
Computer Aided Design model of projectile (this information is
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi given in the test protocol, for example, in the fragmentation pit, but
4Vt also in the factory prospects of ammunition). Based on expression
D¼ þ d2 (3)
pLexp (4), for the condition when m / 0, a formula is obtained for the
total number of fragments N0 resulting from the fragmentation of
Here Vt is the volume of high explosive projectile body con-
the body of a high explosive projectile:
taining the explosive (determined by the Computer Aided Design
method). The volume of the body Vt can also be determined
M
analytically by dividing the projectile into segments and summing N0 ¼ (5)
2m
the volumes of the segments. CAD (Computer Aided Design)
models of projectiles (such as one in Fig. 1) are also used for Expression (5) is also used to estimate the total number of
calculation of the initial velocity of projectile fragments (splinters), fragments from certain cylindrical segments of the projectile
as well as to define initial conditions (the initial coordinates of wherein then the mass M corresponds to the mass of the given
fragments, depending on their position on the body of the projec- segment. Using Mott’s formula (4), when N ¼ 1, the expression for
tile) in a generalized mechanics model (6DOF/Six Degrees of calculating the mass of the largest fragment from the body of a
Freedom model) for fragment trajectory. CAD (Computer Aided given projectile can be obtained:
Design) models are also used to evaluate, in a real (1:1 scale)
fragmentation test (arena) model, depending on the calculated   
pffiffiffi M 2
range of fragments, whether fragments of individual masses can mf ðmaxÞ ¼ m ln (6)
2m
reach arena panels. Here, the Computer Aided Design model is used
to calculate the polar angles that appear in expressions for esti- This mass can later be also used to estimate the maximum
mation of the density of efficient fragments. CAD (Computer Aided possible range of fragments resulting from fragmentation of a given
Design) software can also be used to model the fragments them- projectile. The characteristic Mott parameter m from the above
selves (stochastic shape), either by drawing a fragment, based on its expressions is determined by the formula:
1220 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233
 2
t The initial velocities of fragments are estimated by the Gurney
m ¼ BM 2 t 3 d3 1 þ
5 2
d model [17]:
Here BM is the Mott constant that depends on the material of the
projectile body and the explosive charge, while t is the equivalent
thickness of the projectile body and d is the equivalent diameter of
the explosives determined by the previously described method
(Computer Aided Design modeling of the projectile). When frag-
mentation data is available for a projectile (testing in the pit),
optimization of the Mott constant (for a given projectile) can be
performed, using the expression:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u M
BM_opt ¼ u
u  2
t The Gurney constant can be determined analytically, e.g. based on
2N0 t 5=3 d2=3 1 þ dt
In this way (by optimizing the Mott constant) the agreement
between the experimental data obtained in the pit test and the
Mott model is better than using the value of the BM constant re-
ported in the available literature. Data on the values of the opti-
mized BM_opt constant for individual high explosive projectiles used
in our country can be found in Refs. [7].
When analyzing the parameters of a new projectile (eg in the
preliminary design process for new ammunition), it is suggested
that if the experimental data obtained by fragmentation a given
projectile in the pit are not available, the averaged values of the BMsr
constant be adopted for the given projectile caliber and appropriate
explosive charge for projectiles of the same (or closest) caliber of
the same type of ammunition and of the same explosive charge and
body material.
Since the Mott constant is not the same for any one projectile
(even for the same type of ammunition, in different tests), it is
possible, for example, to use the Monte Carlo method to estimate
the value of a given constant in the appropriate BM range obtained
experimentally using a random number method.
When all the necessary parameters are known, the Mott mass
distribution parameter m for a given projectile is first determined.
Therefore, based on the model, it is possible to calculate the average
mass of fragments (2m) obtained by fragmentation (this data can be
compared with the data from the tests, if available).
The next step in the model is to apply the Mott method to
selected segments of high explosive projectiles that presumably
participate in penetrations into the target (Fig. 1, for example,
segments 16e31 on the projectile body to the rotating band). In this
way, the cumulative distribution of the number of fragments for the
given segments is obtained, using the Mott formula (expression 4).
These data are used further in the model when estimating the
density of efficient fragments.
The model assumes that only fragments from the central part of
the body to the rotating band (Fig. 1) are involved in penetrations, ie
it is assumed that fragments from the front and rear spray do not
significantly contribute to the efficiency of the high explosive
projectile.
The model assumes that the projectile is in a vertical position
(90 impact angle simulation). In this way, the lethal radius of the
projectile is ultimately obtained, and the results can be compared,
for example, with the results from the quarter-circle arena used in
our country.
2.3. A module for predicting the initial velocity of fragments
When, based on the Mott method, the number of fragments
from individual projectile segments is known, the initial velocity of
these fragments, required to calculate their trajectory through the
atmosphere to the target, is determined.
(7)
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
2E
vM ¼ (9)
ðM=C þ 0; 5Þ1=2
Here, M and C are the masses of the projectile body and
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
explosive, respectively, and 2E is Gurney’s constant. Detonation
velocity D of explosive charge can be determined by software (in
EXPLO5 [12], for a given charge density - determined from the table
data for charge mass and charge volume determined in the CAD
(8) (Computer Aided Design) system - based on projectile drawings).
detonation velocity of explosives, using the expression
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
2E ¼ 0:338D [13], where Cooper averaged test data for a twenty-
five conventional explosives. In our country mainly TNT and Comp.
B were used in the projectiles mentioned in the paper so we limited
the model for these explosives (as per Cooper suggestion). This
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
relationship is capable of accurately predicting 2E of sensitive and
moderately sensitive near ideal explosives; however, this equation
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
is somewhat unsuitable for predicting 2E of insensitive and
nonideal explosives (ie. NTO, PBX-9502, AFX-902), because it
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
overestimates 2E of some insensitive explosives. As a result, the
model may overestimate the lethal radius of projectiles containing
insensitive explosives such as the new M795 155 mm artillery
projectile filled with IMX-101 (DNAN/NTO/NQ) or even the lethal
radius of the 122 mm OF-462 filled with amatol (nonideal
explosive).
In the model presented in the paper, a simultaneous overall
detonation of explosive is assumed, and initial velocity varies along
the axial coordinate of projectile only due to the varying shell
thickness (ratio C/M). Regarding accuracy of the Gurney model,
Walters and Zukas [14] state: “The Gurney approximation is based
on the conservation of momentum and energy, and the results
represent excellent engineering approximation, within 10% of the
experimental results or detailed numerical result.
Basically, none of the Gurney-like (modifications) models pro-
vide significant improvement over the basic Gurney expressions,
but they serve to extend the Gurney method to geometries not
covered by the Gurney assumptions, for example, implosive ge-
ometries, or extension of the M/C range of validity. Karpp and
Predebon showed that fragment velocity predictions based on
Gurney formula is adequate for cases when flow is onedimensional
(radial) and for practical ranges of charge to metal ratios (0.1 < C/
M < 2).”
Fig. 2 shows the curve of the fragment’s initial velocity for the
122 mm high explosive OF-462 projectile as a function of position
along the projectile (relative centers of segments on the projectile
body). With this projectile, the wall in the central part of the body is
Fig. 2. Initial velocities of fragments for projectile 122 mm OF-462.
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233
relatively thick (relative to, for example, a 122 mm M76 projectile),
so in these body segments, the initial velocities of the fragments are
slightly less than in some segments on the frontal part.
The front part of the 122 mm OF-462 projectile (Fig. 2) has
slightly higher initial velocities, but for the assumed position of the
projectile (90 impact angle), most of this forward spray of frag-
ments, as previously assumed, ends in the ground and does not
reach the target (e.g., quarter-arena panels). The model assumes
that there is no ricochetting of fragments, which is a reasonable
assumption for terrestrial terrain, but in urban conditions, rico-
chetting from the ground can occur, especially if the soil is very
hard (eg granite slabs). On the other hand, Fig. 2 shows that the end
spray of fragments has much less initial velocity. It is assumed that
this part of the beam of fragments does not affect the parameters of
the efficiency of the projectile, although fragments from the bottom
of the projectile may have a relatively long range (some authors
report the range of fragments from the bottom of the projectile over
3 km).
The initial velocity of fragments, determined by the Gurney
method, for quasi-cylindrical projectile elements (ratio of body
mass to mass of explosive charge M/C greater than 0,5 - usually the
case for high explosive projectiles) represents the upper limit
(maximum) of the fragment velocity because there are energy
losses due to the fracture of the projectile body and the early
leakage of gaseous detonation products. On the other hand, for
relatively thin projectile walls, where M/C < 0.5 (which is rarely the
case in practice), the real initial velocities of the fragments are
slightly higher than obtained using the Gurney method.
Similar to the research performed by Crull and Swisdak for US
DDESB (Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board) [8], pro-
jectile segments are also approximated by cylindrical elements in
this model, with the initial velocity fragment vector perpendicular
to the projectile axis. The expansion of the projectile body is not
taken into account. The obtained data on the initial velocities of
fragments are further used in the model for the calculation of the
trajectory of fragments, for realistic initial conditions.
Fig. 3 provides a different way of displaying the initial velocities
of high explosive projectile fragments (comparing to Fig. 2), rep-
resented via a polar diagram (Grapher© software was used) in
which one axis represents the initial velocities of the fragment
(units m/s) and the angular axis of the diagram represents the
angles measured from the projectile axis to the centers of the
Fig. 3. Variation of initial fragment velocity for 122 mm OF-462 projectile as a function
of segment position, presented in the polar diagram.
1221
individual projectile segments. The point of origin (lower part of
Fig. 3) is represented by the center of mass of the projectile. The
directions in the lower part of Fig. 3 (on the projectile) should not
be confused with the initial velocity vectors; they serve here only to
estimate the angles measured from the projectile axes to the cen-
ters of the individual projectile segments (in order to construct the
diagram in Fig. 3) Such diagrams can serve to better visualize the
parameters of the terminal ballistics of a high explosive projectile.
2.4. Fragment trajectory calculation module
Trajectories are calculated for representative fragments by
geometrically arranged segments per projectile body, with a
discrete variation of the mass of fragments by mass groups, so that
the computation of trajectories for all fragments is reduced to an
acceptable number of trajectories, much smaller than the actual
number of fragments. The projectile body is divided into a number
of segments, and then a representative fragment is determined at
the center position of each body segment. Projectile segments are
broken down into numerous fragments, which are divided into a
number of mass groups. The calculation of the trajectories of all
fragments for one segment of the projectile body is reduced to the
calculation of the trajectory of one representative fragment, with
the variation of mass by a certain number of mass groups.
There are two variations in the number of fragment trajectories:
a) position of fragments representative for each projectile
segment,
b) a representative mass of a particular mass group of fragments.
For example, if the projectile body is divided into 6 segments
and the mass of fragments into 5 mass groups, this means that a
total of 30 representative trajectories must be calculated. Since the
program calculates a single trajectory in a relatively short time (less
than a minute), then the automated process of calculating all
representative trajectories is performed within the acceptable
operating time.
The intensity of the initial velocity of a representative fragment
is determined algorithmically according to formula (9) and Fig. 2,
and the direction of the initial velocity is algorithmically deter-
mined according to the relative position of the fragment on the
projectile body, according to Fig. 3. Based on these initial kinematic
conditions, with the variation of mass by mass groups, all repre-
sentative trajectories are determined.
Thus, fragment trajectories were obtained for each segment of
the projectile’s body, for several characteristic mass groups, so that
the total number of trajectories to be determined is reduced to a
significantly reduced number relative to the actual total number of
fragments.
The calculation of the trajectory and changes in the kinetic en-
ergy of fragments as they move through the atmosphere is deter-
mined on the basis of a parametric 6DOF (Six Degrees of Freedom)
model of fragment flight mechanics.
Generally, determining the position of the body during the
motion through atmosphere includes determining the position of
the moving coordinate system (fixed to the rigid body) in relation
to the fixed (inertial) reference (coordinate) system. The orientation
of the body in relation to the reference coordinate system is
determined by three Euler angles (j, 4, q) and three coordinates (x,
y, z) that define the position of the body relative to the given
system.
Fig. 4 shows the coordinate system tied to the Earth (xyz) and
the moving system tied to the fragment (xhz). The figure also shows
the vectors of the total aerodynamic force F ad and moment M ad
(determined using our model described in earlier paper [11]),
1222 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233

Fig. 4. Visualization of coordinate systems, dynamic and kinematic parameters during the movement of fragment through the atmosphere.

gravity force mg, and angular velocity vectors u in the initial and
arbitrary times, and Euler’s angles: j (angle of precession), q (angle
of nutation) and f (angle of intrinsic rotation). These angles
determine the spherical movement around the center of the body
mass, i.e., defines the position of the body relative to the reference
coordinate system tied to the Earth.
Differential equations of the translational motion component in
a coordinate system rigidly connected to the body, are set using the
law of the body center of mass movement:
dV X n
mac ¼ m ¼ Fi
dt
i¼1
where: F i is external forces, m is body (fragment) mass, a and V are
acceleration and velocity of the body center of mass.
External forces acting on a fragment are an aerodynamic force
and a force of gravity, so the expression (10) can be expressed as:
where the surface of the irregularly shaped body is approximated,
via continuous surface, by a triaxial ellipsoidal surface (b.) aero-
dynamic force modeling based on momentum change of fluid
particles colliding with the irregularly shaped body at high velocity.
This elemental effect (momentum change) is integrated over the
exposed surface of the moving body and obtain the total aero-
dynamic force and the total aerodynamic moment for the center of
mass. In this way, the model does not require force coefficients but
directly obtains the drag force. The kinetic energy of the fragment
(parameter important for lethal radius estimation) at different
distances was determined using this model, as the fragment mass
(10)
and its velocity during a flight are known. This model has been
validated with experimental data and numerical simulations using
Ansys Fluent. More details on this model can be found in our pre-
vious paper [11].
Differential equations of rotation around the body center of the
mass are obtained using the law of change of angular momentum:

mac ¼ F ad þ mg (11) dLc X n

¼ Mi (13)
By projecting equation (11) on axes of the inertial (fixed) coor- dt i¼1
dinate system oxyz (Fig. 4), the following expressions are obtained:
Here M is vector of the aerodynamic moment, a L is angular
mx€c ¼ Fadx (12a) momentum vector in moving coordinate system tied to the body.
Aerodynamic moment M ad acts on a fragment, so expression
(13) can be written as:
my€c ¼ Fady (12b)

dLc
mz€c ¼ Fadz
mg (12c) ¼ Mad (14)
dt
The model uses a novel approach, in the first place in defining After the neccesary tranformations and kinematic expressions
the aerodynamic force that was used for trajectory calculations. We for (13), j is angle of precession, q isangle of nutation and f is angle
defined our model for aerodynamic force and moment estimation of intrinsic rotation are obtained.
based on several geometrical body parameters, as well as several In order to obtain the value of the aerodynamic force F ad , pro-
kinematic and parameters of the media where the body motion jected on the fixed coordinate system oxyz, the transformation
occurs. This model has two major parts: (a.) geometrical modeling, matrix R is used:

2 3
cos j cos 4
sin j cos q sin 4
cos j sin 4
sin j cos q cos 4 sin j sin q
R ¼ 4 sin j cos 4 þ cos j cos q sin 4
sin j sin 4 þ cos j cos q cos 4
cos j sin q 5 (15)
sin q sin 4 sin q cos 4 cos q
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233 1223

So the aerodynamic force is obtained by: individual mass groups) may correspond to the mean masses of

2 3 2 3
F adx ðcos j cos 4
sin j cos q sin 4ÞF adx ð
cos j sin 4
sin j cos q cos 4ÞF adh ðsin j sin qÞF adz
4 F ad 5 ¼ 4 ðsin j cos 4 þ cos j cos q sin 4ÞF ad ð
sin j sin 4 þ cos j cos q cos 4ÞF adh ð
cos j sin qÞF adz 5 (16)
y x
F adz ðsin q sin 4ÞF adx ðsin q cos 4ÞF adh ðcos qÞF adz

Similarly, the following can be written for the aerodynamic fragments obtained after fragmentation of this projectile in the
moment: pit or taken arbitrarily for a given mass group. Fragments of all

2 3 2 3
M adx ðcos j cos 4
sin j cos q sin 4ÞM adx ð
cos j sin 4
sin j cos q cos 4ÞM adh ðsin j sin qÞM adz
4 M ad 5 ¼ 4 ðsin j cos 4 þ cos j cos q sin 4ÞM ad ð
sin j sin 4 þ cos j cos q cos 4ÞM adh ð
cos j sin qÞМ adz 5 (17)
y x
M adz ðsin q sin 4ÞM adx ðsin q cos 4ÞM adh ðcos qÞM adz

mass groups up to 100 g are considered in the analysis. It is

The model assumes that the fragments are approximated using
the triaxial ellipsoid. An ellipsoid has three pairwise perpendicular
axes of symmetry which intersect at a center of symmetry, called
the center of the ellipsoid. The line segments that are delimited on
the axes of symmetry by the ellipsoid are called the principal axes.
If the three axes have different lengths, the ellipsoid is said to be
triaxial, and the axes are uniquely defined. Semi-axes of the ellip-
soid, a, b, c are half the length of the principal axes. They correspond
to the semi-major axis and semi-minor axis of an ellipse. Dimen-
sion a is the largest, and c the smallest. More details on fragment
shape and determination of fragment reference area (projected
exposed area) can be found in our earlier paper [15].
This module for determination of fragments trajectory is
implemented in Matlab program, written by authors. The basic
parameters of the fragments (the dimensions of the half-axis of the
ellipsoid by which the fragment is approximated) can be arbitrarily
changed in the analysis. Based on their values and values of initial
conditions (direction of the initial velocity vector, components of
initial translational and angular velocity, orientation and position of
fragments with respect to coordinate origin), the trajectory of
fragments and changes of its kinetic energy during flight through
the atmosphere are determined. The calculation of path elements is
obtained by software, eg in Matlab.
From the point of view of evaluating the effectiveness of high
explosive projectiles against human targets, it is important to
evaluate the trajectory elements of fragments at ranges up to
40e50 m. In this regard, the calculation of trajectory elements for a
particular projectile is performed for fragments that start from the
segment centers on a given projectile. The calculation should try to
get as close as possible to the real conditions that may occur after
the detonation of fragments. For example, the following initial
conditions can be set in the calculation:

The shape of fragments is defined according to the dimensions
of the real fragments that are available (eg. by measuring frag-
ments - by measuring the maximum dimensions of fragments in
three mutually perpendicular directions) generated by detona-
tion of a particular high explosive projectile, the mean values of
the a/b and a/c dimension ratios for real fragments are obtained.
In this regard, in the calculation of the trajectories, for each mass
group, the shapes (dimensions) of the fragments corresponding
to the real relations a/b and a/c are defined. Fragment masses (in
assumed that fragments of mass above 100 g do not significantly
affect the efficiency of the high explosive projectile.
If one, for example, looks at the fragmentation data of the
122 mm OF-462 projectile in the pit [7], it can be concluded that
this projectile has the highest number of fragments of very low
mass (<0.5 g), so that the assumption of using fragments of mass
less than 0,5 g for the purpose of calculating the trajectories of the
fragments is justified. In addition, these fragments, although of very
low mass, have relatively high kinetic energy and can be effective
against unprotected human targets (for cases where Ekin > 80 J).

The initial height of the fragments should correspond to the
position of the center of each segment separately (eg. segments
16e31, Fig. 1) on the cylindrical part of the projectile, which is
positioned vertically (top down) with respect to the ground
(with the fuze). A stationary coordinate system is placed at the
top of the fuze, on the ground. For each segment of the pro-
jectile, calculations of the trajectories of fragments of all mass
groups are performed (for given dimensions of the fragments)
and the level of their kinetic energy is estimated at certain
distances from the center of the explosion.

The initial elevation angle of the fragments is assumed to be
zero in the trajectory simulations - because the projectile is
positioned vertically with respect to the ground, and it is
assumed that the initial velocity vectors of the fragments (which
are perpendicular to the axis of the projectile) of the cylindrical
part of the projectile are parallel to the ground (plane xy of a
fixed coordinate system, Fig. 5).

The initial translational velocity vector is set in the positive di-
rection of the x-axis (Fig. 4). The intensities of the initial velocity
are given exactly for each segment of the projectile, according to
the values obtained by calculation using the Gurney method
(Fig. 2).

The initial angular velocity of fragments can have any value (it is
presumed that the order of magnitude of the maximum in-
tensity value of the initial angular velocity is 50 rev/s). In the
videos, recording the process of fragmentation of the high
explosive projectile, one can observe the general trend of
movement of individual fragments in the first phase after the
detonation. The footage shows that the fragments rotate at a
certain angular velocity (mostly around all three axes). Angular
1224 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233
Fig. 5. Initial orientation of fragments (vector of fragment initial translational velocity is in the direction of x-axis).
velocity values cannot be determined precisely because frag-
ments are moving at high velocities and the ability to estimate
angular velocities based on videos depends primarily on the
frame rate per second the camera enables. For example, it may
be possible to rotate a fragment several times while changing
one frame on the camera and to prevent proper estimation of
the angular velocity of the body. If professional ultra-fast cam-
eras are available, this information can be more accurately
determined. In the model, for example, it can be assumed that
all components of the initial angular velocity are the same and
have a value of 50 rev/s (314.16 rad/s). In this case, the total
intensity of the initial angular velocity is 544.14 rad/s.

The initial orientation of the fragments (Fig. 5) is also a sto-
chastic parameter and, in general, the initial roll angle a0, pitch
angle b0, and the yaw angle g0 can take on any value. The
fragment is unlikely to start from an idealized orientation when,
for example, its initial projected surface (surface in a plane
perpendicular to the velocity direction) is minimal
(a0 ¼ b0 ¼ g0 ¼ 0) or when its initial exposed surface is
maximum (a0 ¼ g0 ¼ 0 , b0 ¼ 90 ) - these orientations (and
angles) refer to the given initial conditions when the initial
velocity vector is directed in the positive direction of the x-axis
(Fig. 5). It can be assumed in the analysis (within the model) that
the fragments begin their movement from an arbitrarily chosen
orientation (eg, these can be angles a0 ¼ g0 ¼ b0 ¼ 45 ; Fig. 5,
right). It should be noted that a0, g0, and b0 do not represent the
angles of the longitudinal axis of the fragment according to the
coordinate axes, i.e., cosa0 þ cosg0 þ cosb0 s 1. At this orien-
tation, the projected surface of the fragment is neither maximal
Fig. 6. Trajectories of fragments of different masses and shapes, starting from a segment on the cylindrical part of the 122 mm OF-462 projectile body.
nor minimal but represents the stochastic (random) value of the
exposed surface.
After defining the initial geometric-inertial and kinematic con-
ditions, it is possible to calculate the trajectories and changes in the
kinetic energy of fragments of high explosive projectiles. Thus, for
example, Fig. 6 shows the trajectories of fragments of different
masses and shapes, which begin the movement from a particular
segment on the cylindrical part of the body of the 122 mm OF-462
projectile. The diagram in Fig. 6 is shown (without sacrificing de-
tails) to see the trajectories as closely as possible, but it should be
borne in mind that in this case the maximum value at the ordinate
is 0.25 m and the abscissa is 35 m. Based on the results of the
program for calculation of the trajectories of fragments of indi-
vidual masses and shapes, and for the given initial conditions, it is
possible to estimate which fragments can reach certain distances,
and on this basis, also the data on the number of fragments from
individual segments of the projectile (Mott method), to estimate
the density of efficient fragments in space.
Based on the data obtained, the change in kinetic energy of the
fragments during the flight can also be estimated. Thus, for
example, Fig. 7 shows the drop in kinetic energy of fragments of
different mass and shape, which begin their movement from
segment no. 16 (Fig. 1) on the cylindrical part of the 122 mm OF-462
projectile body. The diagram shows that fragments (especially
fragments of larger masses) have high kinetic energy and do not
lose it significantly up to a distance of 30 m through the
atmosphere.
In order to better see the kinetic energy drop curves for smaller
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233 1225

Fig. 7. Drop in kinetic energy of fragments of different masses and shapes, starting from the segment on the cylindrical part of the 122 mm OF-462 projectile body.

Fig. 8. The drop in kinetic energy of fragments of different masses and shapes, which
start their movement from segment no. 16 on the cylindrical part of the 122 mm OF-
462 projectile body. Fig. 9. Computer Aided Design model of projectile fragment, approximated with an
ellipsoid.

mass fragments (up to 2 g), the ordinates and abscissas of Fig. 7 can First, the results of our model for estimation of aerodynamic
be scaled and presented in another way. Thus, in Fig. 8 (Fig. 8 is just force (where fragment is approximated with triaxial ellipsoid,
“zoomed in” Fig. 7, where we tried to better represent (visualize) Fig. 9) will be compared with the results obtained by CFD (eng.
the trajectories of smaller fragments) it can be seen that even a Computer Fluid Dynamics) numerical simulations (Ansys Fluent)
fragment of mass 0.28 g has kinetic energy sufficient to incapacitate for aerodynamic forces acting on an irregularly shaped fragment
human targets (Ekin > 80 J). However, smaller mass fragments also with jagged, iregular surface (Fig. 10). The flow was directed to-
have a smaller range, which is particularly important, for example, wards positive and negative y and z axes (shown in Fig. 9).
for the 122 mm OF-462 projectile, which after fragmentation has a Table 1 shows comparisons of results for the aerodynamic force
very large number of fragments (about 40% of all fragments) with a acting on the fragment (Fig. 9) obtained by numeric simulations
mass below 0.5 g, which can significantly affect the effectiveness of (for real fragment) with the results for force obtained using the our
projectiles because fragments of a given mass group generally have aerodynamic force model (correction due to compressibility of air
a short range. taken into account).
Based on the results of the kinetic energy levels of fragments of The results in Table 1 show there are no large deviations (rela-
given shapes, for given initial conditions, it is possible, using the tive difference of 5.3%e23.6%) for flow in the direction of z axis for
Mott method, to estimate the density of efficient fragments at this fragment (flow towards largest exposed area of fragment). In
certain distances from the detonation center and subsequently the
lethal radius of this projectile. For the 122 mm OF-462 projectile,
for example, in which 16 segments on the body are analyzed
(16e31, Fig. 1), and for the given mass groups (12 of them), a total of
192 trajectory calculations were performed.
The calculation of the trajectories for the given fragments, under
such initial conditions defined, takes very short time - about 1 s (the
initial coordinates z0 have low values and the flight time of the
fragments is short), with trajectories for each projectile segment
(12 trajectories because there are 12 mass groups) are written to a
single document (MS Excel) for easier analysis.
We will give here a comparison between our model for deter-
mining aerodynamic force (necessary for trajectory calculations)
and model where the force is determined via drag coefficient, since
determining the aerodynamic force is the single most important
task when estimating the trajectory of a body and hence model
accuracy. Our model also includes compressibility effects which are
important in supersonic flow of high explosive projectile
fragments. Fig. 10. Refinement of mesh around irregularly shaped fragment (Ansys Fluent).
1226 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233

Table 1
Comparison of results for aerodynamic force acting on fragment, obtained by nu-
merical simulations and developed model.

Velocity Fragment
/Ma
Airflow in direction of y axis Airflow in direction of z axis

F_model F_simul rel. diff. F_model F_simul rel. diff

/N /N /% /N /N /%

1 58.38 82.33 41.02 108.26 113.95 5.25

1.2 81.89 118.65 44.89 152.55 166.15 8.92
1.3 94.86 138.30 45.79 177.12 194.48 9.80
1.5 123.08 179.67 45.98 230.94 255.12 10.47
2 206.29 302.30 46.54 391.62 432.21 10.37
3 423.78 641.11 51.28 820.49 904.52 10.24
4 707.68 1129.3 59.58 1390.4 1541.4 10.86
Velocity Airflow in direction of -y axis Airflow in direction of -z axis Fig. 12. Experimental data for drag force coefficient CD for fragments [18].
/Ma F_model F_simul rel. diff. F_model F_simul rel. diff.
/N /N /% /N /N /%
1 58.38 71.98 23.30 108.26 120.09 10.94
1.2 81.89 105.11 28.36 152.55 174.34 14.28 surfaces were considered so the results can also be compared with
1.3 94.86 123.31 29.99 177.12 204.83 15.65 results obtained with our model (shown in Table 1). Dimensions of
1.5 123.08 159.99 29.98 230.94 271.26 17.46 the fragment were the same as in Fig. 9. Air density was taken as
2 206.29 265.27 28.59 391.62 462.37 18.07 value at sea level, r ¼ 1.225 kg/m3.
3 423.78 524.68 23.81 820.49 982.39 19.73
4 707.68 890.58 25.85 1390.4 1718.3 23.58
Experimental [18] values (CDmax, CDaver) were taken as an
approximate CD values for this fragment. Fig. 12 presents these data.
It is assumed that values of CDmax correspond for the case when the
fragment was exposed to flow with the largest surface projection
case of flow towards the smaller exposed surface of the fragment
(Amax), and CDaver for the case when the fragment was exposed to
(ie in the direction of the positive and negative y axis; Table 1,
flow with an average surface projection (Aaver).
Fig. 9), the relative differences are somewhat larger (23.3%e59.6%).
Table 2 presents the comparison of results for the aerodynamic
Also for different directions of fluid flow, even in the same direction
force acting on the fragment (from Fig. 11), obtained by numerical
(same axis), the results may be significantly different (Table 1). It
simulations (Fig. 10), and results using the “classical” model (force
should be noted that every possible fragment (even with the same
determined via drag force coefficient), for two directions of flow
general dimensions) will have somewhat different values of these
(towards positive/negative y and z axis, Fig. 11). Relative differences
forces because of the stochastic nature of the natural fragmentation
between the results for aerodynamic force obtained by the “clas-
process.
sical” approach and numerical simulation (for a fragment) for flows
Next, the results from numerical simulations for real fragments
towards the y axis were from 192.8% to 386.3% and for flow towards
were then compared with the results for the aerodynamic force
the z axis from 128.5% to 206.5% (Table 2). These errors can be larger
acting on fragment - determined using the “classical” model (F ¼
or smaller depending on adopted CD values as well as adopted
0:5rACD v2 ) where force is determined via drag force coefficient (to values of the reference area (ie. projected area of a body). When CD
establish the order of errors). In this analysis, the fragment was values are adopted as constant (ie such as in DDESB/Department of
approximated with parallelepiped (Fig. 11), as this shape approxi- Defense Explosives Safety Board model), the errors can grow
mation is suggested by some authors. The largest projection of the significantly.
exposed surface of the fragment was represented with Amax ¼ ab As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, using the “classical”
(Fig. 11), the average projection of fragment exposed surface is approach for the determination of aerodynamic force acting on a
assumed Aaver ¼ ac; smallest projection of the exposed surface of fragment can give significantly larger errors (192%e386%) than
the fragment, in this case, is Amin ¼ bc (Fig. 11). These projected using our physical model (where rel. differences were <60%,
Table 1), which can lead to erroneous (less accurate) results for
fragment trajectory.

2.5. Module for estimating the density of efficient fragments

In order to be able to estimate the efficiency zone of a high

Fig. 11. Fragment approximated with a parallelepiped.
explosive projectile, with the knowledge of the above parameters,
it is necessary to first determine the density of effective fragments
at different distances from the detonation point.
The estimation of the efficiency of a high explosive projectile is
based, first of all, on the knowledge of the density function of
efficient fragments from a high explosive projectile depending on
the distance from the explosion center. The model assumes that the
distribution of fragments in space is symmetrical with respect to
the axis of symmetry of the projectile (Fig. 13).
Previous models of researchers in the world, which defined the
density of efficient fragments in space, are based largely on the
results of experimental studies in fragmentation arenas, which,
although irreplaceable, are quite expensive and time-consuming,
and in addition require the work of larger number of people
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233 1227

Table 2
Comparison of results for force acting on fragment, obtained by “classical” model (force determined via drag force coefficient) and numerical simulations.

Velocity Fragment
/Ma Airflow in direction of y axis Airflow in direction of z axis
F_classical model F_simul rel. diff. F_classical model F_simul rel. diff
/N /N /% /N /N /%

1 16.93 82.33 386.29 39.18 113.95 190.83

1.2 27.77 118.65 327.25 60.43 166.15 174.94
1.3 34.27 138.31 303.55 73.57 194.48 164.34
1.5 49.41 179.67 263.70 104.33 255.12 144.53
2 82.52 302.31 266.33 176.01 432.21 145.57
3 171.26 641.11 274.34 379.66 904.52 138.24
4 304.14 1129.3 271.30 674.47 1541.46 128.54

Velocity Airflow in direction of -y axis Airflow in direction of -z axis

/Ma F_classical model F_simul rel. diff. F_classical model F_simul rel. diff.
/N /N /% /N /N /%

1 16.93 71.98 325.16 39.18 120.09 206.50

1.2 27.77 105.11 278.50 60.43 174.34 188.49
1.3 34.27 123.31 259.81 73.57 204.83 178.41
1.5 49.41 159.99 223.86 104.33 271.26 160.00
2 82.52 265.27 221.46 176.01 462.37 162.71
3 171.26 524.68 206.36 379.66 982.39 158.75
4 304.14 890.58 192.81 674.47 1718.36 154.77

fragments of a certain mass - fragments that, based on the results of

Fig. 13. Polar zones in determining the number of fragments in space.
(counting penetrations in wooden panels).
The total number of fragments Nuk in space can be estimated by
summing the number of fragments Ni in projectile segments: Nuk ¼
Pn
i¼1 Ni , where Ni ¼ ni SUi =Sm , where ni is the number of fragments
hitting the target Sm, and SUi is the surface area of a sphere cut off by
the model for estimating the trajectory of fragments, reach the
distance for which the density of fragments is determined.
The target surface Sm from expression (18) is taken arbitrarily,
and this area may be the area of the panel in the semicircular arena,
the area of the sector in the quarter-circular arena, the exposed
surface of the standing man, or any other value. The ratio SUi/Sm
from expression (18) is the ratio of the surface area of a part of a
sphere cut off by a spatial angle in a given polar zone to the surface
of the target (eg. panel or arena sector).
The general expression for defining the area of a part of a sphere
cut off by two adjacent space angles for the i-th polar zone (Fig. 13)
is given by the expression SUi ¼ 2pRk 2 ðcos qi
cos qiþ1 Þ, where the
angles q define the angular width of the target (eg. panel, sector),
looking from the projectile segments [7].
Fig. 13 shows the geometric parameters (polar angles - q, areas
of part of a sphere cut off by the spatial angle U in a given polar zone
- SU, target surface - Sm, distance to the target - Rk) required to
determine the total number of fragments that occur after frag-
mentation of high explosive projectile.
The formula for determining the number of fragments ni in i-th
polar zone hitting the target with area Sm at the distance Rk can be
represented in the form:
Sm
ni ¼ Ni (19)
2pRk ðcos qi
cos qiþ1 Þ
2

a spatial angle in a given polar zone. These methods for estimating

the density of fragments are generally based on knowing (experi-
mentally - via tests in the fragm. arena) the parameter ni - number
of fragments that hit the arena panels. In our new model, on the
other hand, it is necessary to determine exactly the number of
fragments ni in the i-th polar zone that hit the target, for the known
total number of fragments Ni in the i-th polar zone, using the
expression:
When the value of the number of fragments ni in i-th polar zone
is known, estimation of the density of fragments at a certain dis-
tance from the detonation center can be determined. Namely, the
density of fragments qi at a certain distance from the center of
detonation can be expressed via the formula qi ¼ ni =Sm , so the
density of (all) fragments qi at a certain distance from the center of
detonation, and for the i-th polar zone, can be written in the form:

Sm Ni
ni ¼ Ni (18) qi ¼ (20)
S Ui 2pRk ðcos qi
cos qiþ1 Þ
2

The total number of fragments Ni from expression (18) is In our model it is necessary to determine the density of efficient
determined by the Mott method, in interaction with the module for (energies greater than 80 J) fragments qef-i, so expression (20) can
predicting the trajectory of fragments, taking into account only be represented in the following form:
1228 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233
Fig. 14. Example of determination of polar angles - angles measured from the axis of a 122 mm OF-462 projectile to the top and bottom of the 1st sector of the quarter-circular arena
(10 m).
Nef
i
qef
i ¼
2pRk 2 ðcos qi
cos qiþ1 Þ
Here Nef-i is the total number of effective fragments in a given
polar zone around the projectile. In the model, polar angles qi are
measured from the projectile axis to the directions connecting the
centers of the selected segments with the top and bottom of the
arena (Fig. 14). These angles are precisely determined in CAD
(Computer Aided Design) software, based on the projectile and
arena drawings (1: 1 scale). Fig. 14 shows, for example, that the
angles q1 ¼ 81.2 and q2 ¼ 91.4 for the first sector of the arena
(distance from the projectile is 10 m), for the case of the 122 mm
OF-462 projectile. The angles for the other two sectors of the
quarter-circular arena (used in our country) are similarly deter-
mined. These angles, together with information for the radius of
fragm. arenas, are used in an expression (21).
The total number of effective fragments Nef-i from expression
(21) is determined using the mass distribution estimation module
(Mott’s method) and the fragment trajectory prediction module.
Specifically, the Mott method estimates the number of fragments of
a given mass group, as well as the total number of fragments Ni for a
given projectile segment (the projectile is divided into a larger
number of segments in CAD (Computer Aided Design) software,
Fig. 1).
When the total number of fragments (and the number of frag-
ments by specific mass groups, ie the number of fragments of mass
greater than mass m) generated from a given segment of the HE
projectile is known, the trajectory simulations for different mass
groups (and fragments shapes) determine the trajectory and a
decrease in the velocity and kinetic energy of the fragments for
each segment of the projectile body. The kinetic energy of a frag-
ment at a certain distance can be determined, using the model
results for estimating the fragment trajectory, since the mass of the
fragment and its translational velocity during flight at any given
time are known. The rotational kinetic energy of a fragment is
negligible relative to its translational kinetic energy [7].
The next step in the model is to determine, based on the results
obtained from the calculation in the fragment trajectory program,
which fragments have kinetic energy greater than 80 J (from frag-
ments whose range is greater than the distance for which the
density of efficient fragments is considered) for incapacitation of
human targets (eg. soldiers on the battlefield).
After the values of the number of effective fragments for certain
segments of the projectile at a given distance are known, the
density of effective fragments at that distance (expression 21), for a
given polar zone, is determined. The density function of efficient
fragments has a declining character, and in the regression analysis
it is usually an exponential or power function (depending on the
correlation coefficient).
Regarding the criteria of the kinetic energy of the fragments
(80 J) used in the model, this is the energy level required for the
fragment to be considered effective (incapacitating human targets)
and has been accepted in most NATO countries. Also, in the arena
tests in the former Yugoslavia, it was considered that only frag-
ments with energy greater than 80 J could penetrate 2.5 cm thick
(21)
wooden panels.
A number of parameters affect the efficiency of fragments, the
most important being the kinetic energy, the shape of the fragment,
the current orientation of the fragment at the time of impact, and
the location of the impact of the fragment. Since it is almost
impossible to predict precisely all these parameters, the procedure
is simplified by determining the reference level of kinetic energy.
All fragments with kinetic energy above the reference are consid-
ered effective in the stated sense of penetration efficiency of
wooden panels of a certain thickness.
2.6. Module for estimating the lethal radius of HE projectiles
Based on the known value of effective fragments density, it is
possible to determine the lethal radius (and area of the high
explosive projectile efficiency zone) against human targets. The
area of efficiency of a high explosive projectile is a circular surface
(zone) within which fragments with greater than 80 J are present
and within which the density of effective fragments is greater than
1 fragment per m2 of surface area. The boundary curve (circle) of
the efficiency zone is obtained provided that the density of efficient
fragments is equal to 1 fragment/m2 - it is assumed that a standing
soldier, with an exposed area of 1 m2 towards the center of the
explosion, receives at least one effective fragment. Of course,
analysis can also be carried out according to the needs of the
research with the assumption that the density of efficient frag-
ments is greater or less than 1 frag/m2.
The authors used the effective fragments density criteria of 1
fragm/m2 to calculate the radius of efficiency since this is the
standard used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, ie the former Yugoslavia,
similar to the Warsaw Pact countries models (large scale frontal
attack). Western countries, on the other hand, take into account a
lower density of soldiers per surface area. In addition, this density
of 1 fragm/m2 was used in the standard arena test in our country to
compare the efficiency of high explosive projectiles in the devel-
opment and production phase, and as such is an important
parameter in the preliminary analysis of the fragmentation po-
tential of high explosive projectiles. But generally speaking, this
parameter is arbitrary and it can be taken into analysis that the
density of soldiers in the field is, for example, less than or greater
than 1 fragm/m2, depending on the needs of the researcher.
When evaluating the efficiency, similar to fragment density, it is
assumed that the projectile is positioned vertically to the ground,
with the fuze facing the ground. In this way, the maximum effi-
ciency zone for a given projectile is obtained, since it is known that
by reducing the impact angle, the projectile efficiency zone is also
reduced. In previous studies, Catovic [10] found that the density of
efficient fragments is a decreasing function (3D surface) going from
the center of detonation and that the highest density of fragments
is in the lateral spray. Fig. 15 shows the dominant side spray; For
clearer visualization, a projectile model (2D section) was added to
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233
Fig. 15. Effective fragment densities for122 mm OF-462 for different polar zones [10].
the diagram, with the tip facing in the appropriate direction.
The lethal radius is determined by first determining the den-
sities of the effective fragments for different distances from the
detonation center, after which regression analysis is used to define
the curve that best fits the data obtained (usually exponential or
power functions; namely, to keep the correlation coefficient as
close as possible to the value 1).
Regression analysis of the effective fragment density data, with
the aim of estimating the lethal radius of a HE projectile, is per-
formed by software (for this purpose MatLab is very suitable). After
determining the approximation curve by regression analysis, the
distance at which the density of effective fragments is equal to 1
frag/m2 is determined, thus defining the radius of the efficiency
zone of a high explosive projectile against human targets. When the
lethal radius is known, the procedure for determining the area of
the efficiency zone is trivial, using the expression: Aef ¼ Ref2
p.
Fig. 16 is a schematic representation (in scale) of a 2D model of a
122 mm OF-462 artillery projectile, divided into segments. In red,
schematic trajectories of the lateral (dominant) spray of fragments
at the initial part of the trajectory are indicated (these trajectories
naturally are not straight-line trajectories but represent part of the
ballistic trajectory of fragments). This position of the projectile
(Fig. 16) is suitable so that the results can be compared with the
experimental results from the quarter-circular fragmentation arena
used in the former Yugoslavia.
Fig. 16. 122 mm OF-462 projectile division into segments and dominant side spray of
fragments with schematically shown trajectories.
1229
Fig. 17. The sequence of the video showing fragments strikes in the arena sectors after
the detonation of the high explosive projectile (Pretis Sarajevo military factory test
site).
As stated earlier, this model assumes that most of the front spray
fragments for this high explosive projectile position (the position in
which the projectile is placed in the quarter-circular arena, or any
similar arena) are pointing toward the ground. Confirmation of this
assumption can be seen in Fig. 17, which shows the moment after
fragmentation of a 122 mm high explosive projectile. The picture
shows a video sequence of the impact of fragments into the sectors
of the quarter-circular arena after the detonation of a high explo-
sive projectile at the test site of the Pretis Sarajevo factory. The shot
was taken with a Canon dSLR camera and a Tamron tele-zoom lens
at a distance of about 100 m from the center of the blast.
Fig. 17 shows that, after the projectile explosion, many frag-
ments strike the ground (fragments from the front of the projectile
body), and detonation products are present that spread rapidly
around the explosion site. It is worth mentioning that the deto-
nation pressure for TNT, the charge inside the 122 mm OF-462
projectile, is 17.2 GPa and it is sufficient for the rapid disintegra-
tion of the projectile body (the detonation pressure is much greater
than the tensile strength of the steel forming the projectile body)
and fragmentation into a large number of pieces. The temperature
of the detonation products is about 3040 K, and during the deto-
nation, about 580 L of detonation products are developed per 1 kg
of an explosive charge (software EXPLO 5).
It is assumed that fragment end spray in the position of the high
explosive projectile, as shown in Fig. 17, goes above the quarter-
circular arena sectors. In the real case, this may be considered at
least partially correct because the projectile body expands after
detonation and the rear spray of fragments for a given impact angle
(90 ) probably start moving at relatively large elevation angles
(relative to the ground). The model, therefore, neglects the front
and end spray of fragments from the high explosive projectile when
estimating the radius of the efficiency zone against human targets.
It should also be noted here that it is sometimes overlooked that
the character of the density curve of effective fragments as a
function of distance (on the basis of which the radius of the effi-
ciency zone against human targets is determined) depends a great
deal on data from the closest sector of the arena (first sector in
Fig. 17). These data can skew results so a special attention should be
exercised when counting penetration data.
3. Calculation of the lethal zone radius and analysis of results
Based on the model developed, the lethal radius was evaluated
for four artillery projectiles: 105 mm M1 (TNT), 122 mm OF-462
(TNT), 122 mm M76 (Comp. B), 130 mm M79 (TNT). The results
were compared with the experimentally obtained (quarter-circular
arena tests used in the former Yugoslavia, Fig. 20) lethal radius
1230 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233

Fig. 18. Artillery projectiles tested [7].

Fig. 19. Four artillery projectiles for which the model has been used to determine the lethal radius (122 mm OF-462, 122 mm M76, 130 mm M79 and 105 mm M1).

Fig. 20. A quarter-circle fragmentation arena at the Pretis factory in Sarajevo.
values for the given projectiles. Fig. 18 shows the projectiles used in
the analysis, as well as their CAD (Computer Aided Design) models
(2D cross-sections).
Fig. 19 shows the CAD (Computer Aided Design) models of the
given artillery projectiles and the central segments of the projectile
body considered in the analysis (down to the obturating band).
Table 3 shows the characteristics of the projectile components
and their ballistic performance.
Table 4 gives the mass and geometric parameters (the ratio of
the mass of explosives to the mass of body C/M and the ratio t/d) of
the projectiles considered.
This research uses the results of fragmentation tests of high
explosive projectiles performed by detonation in a quarter-circle
fragmentation arena (Fig. 20) at the Pretis factory in Sarajevo.
The results of these tests are used to evaluate the parameters of
the spatial distribution of fragments and the efficiency of a high
explosive projectile. This fragmentation test is applied in the design
phase and serial production of high explosive projectiles. Frag-
mentation arena test data is used for determination of the number
of penetrations of fragments per area of the arena at different
distances, the spatial distribution of fragments and lethal radius of
the projectile. The warhead or projectile in the test is placed
vertically in the center of the arena at ground level, with the fuze
facing the ground, and detonated electrically. The number of pen-
etrations per square meter can be determined for each individual
projectile, or the average for the group is calculated. The calculation
is made for each sector according to the general form:
ni
qi ¼ (22)
Si G i
Here qi is the number of penetrations per m2, ni is the number of
penetrations in the sector of radius Ri, Si is an area of the sector (m2)
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233 1231

Table 3
Characteristics of the projectile components and their ballistic performance.

Projectile Components characteristics Performance

Component Mass/kg Length/mm Material Muzzle velocity Max. pressure Range

/(m∙s-1) /MPa /km

105 mm M1 body 11,8 398 

C.9180 VP with 7. charge: 230 11,6
explosive 2,2 342 TNT 491
fuze 0,9 max. Steel, Brass
(PD M557) 152
122 mm OF-462 body 17,8 502 
C.1737 VP with reduced charge: 230 11,8
explosive 3,5 448 TNT 515 with full charge: 245 15,3
fuze 0,42 max. Steel 690
(UTIU M72) 105
122 mm M76 body 17,2 500 
C.9180 VP with full charge: 260 17,2
explosive 4,2 445 Comp. B 735
fuze 0,42 max. Steel
(UTIU M72) 105
130 mm M79 body 27,5 557 
C.1737 VP with reduced charge: 265 19,1
explosive 3,6 485 TNT 705 with full charge: 309 27,5
fuze 0,42 max. Steel 930
(UTIU M72) 105

Table 4 In summary, the results for the high explosive projectile lethal
Mass and geometric parameters of the projectiles considered. radius, obtained by the described physical model show good
Projectile Body mass/kg Expl. mass/kg C/M t/d agreement (relative differences less than 17%) with the experi-
105 mm M1 11.8 2.18 (TNT) 0.217 0.191
mental results (it should be noted that, even for the same projectile,
122 mm OF-462 17.8 3.53 (TNT) 0.219 0.185 significant differences in values of lethal radius during fragmenta-
122 mm M76 17.2 4.2 (Comp.B) 0.298 0.149 tion tests in the arena are possible [7]), although a relatively large
130 mm M79 27.5 3.6 (TNT) 0.141 0.278 number of assumptions and approximations in the model were
adopted. As such, the model developed represents a small step
forward in the complex study of the terminal-ballistic parameters
of radius Ri, Gi is the number of projectiles fragmented within one of a high explosive projectile.
group. The number of penetrations per m2 is shown graphically by Future research in this area could focus on:
sectors (for different radii).
In order to accurately determine the lethal radius for high 1. Development of new models:
explosive projectiles, regression analysis of the data (e.g., Matlab,
Numerical simulation of the projectile body fragmentation,
Curve Fitting Toolbox) is performed, and the approximate functions where the initial velocity of fragments, the angle of ejection
of the efficient fragment density are determined. These functions and deformation of the projectile body can be estimated. For
are generally power (y ¼ a,xb) or exponential (y ¼ a,e(b,x)). The these simulations, it is important to properly select the frac-
functions are chosen so that the correlation coefficient (between ture model of the body material and the equation of state for
the experimental data and the approximation curve) is as close as individual projectile materials and to adequately characterize
possible to 1. The lethal radius of a high explosive projectile is the material, which requires relatively expensive experi-
determined experimentally as the distance from the center of mental research.
detonation at which the density of effective fragments (those that
Simulation of the impact of fragments of high explosive
have penetrated the wooden targets of the arena) is equal to 1 projectiles into different targets (human targets, wooden and
fragment/m2. metal targets, concrete structures, etc.).
Using the developed model, described in the paper, with all its
Extension of the model for evaluation of efficiency to other
modules (Section 2), the radii of efficiency for the given artillery types of high explosive projectiles (eg. mortar projectiles,
projectiles (presented in Fig. 18) were calculated and compared rocket warheads).
with the experimental results [7] (fragmentation tests in the 2. Monte Carlo simulations for statistical determination of frag-
Yugoslav arena, Fig. 20), and the results are presented in Table 5. ment trajectories set for different initial conditions, in a certain
More information on the step by step procedure for calculating range of variables, where stochasticity is introduced.
the radius of efficiency using this model for a given high explosive 3. Additional experimental tests should be performed to deter-
projectile can be found in Refs. [7], bearing in mind that this mine what the real kinetic energy level (for the energy of frag-
reference is written in Bosnian language. ments of different mass) is required to penetrate these wooden
panels, and how much energy of the fragment is lost after
penetration.
Table 5 4. Supplementing the experimental database:
Lethal radius of high explosive projectiles against human targets for a given artillery

Fragmentation tests in the pit and semicircular arena should
projectile (model comparison with experimental results).
be performed for other types of high explosive projectiles.
Projectile Lethal radius
Development of a technique for experimental measurement
Model/m Experiment/m Rel. diff./% of fragment velocity.
105 mm M1 (TNT) 19,7 16,9 16,5
Development of a method for visualizing the trajectory and
122 mm OF-462 (TNT) 25,3 22,8 10,9 stability of fragments in flight, using a gas cannon, ultra-fast
122 mm M76 (Comp. B) 26,5 30,2 13,9 cameras, and barriers for measuring the speed of fragments
130 mm M79 (TNT) 29,3 27,2 7,7 during flight.
1232 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233

Assessment of damage to targets that simulate human targets
(ballistic gelatin models) by the effects of fragments of high
explosive projectiles.
5. Development of software:

Development of a program for fast calculation of the lethal
radius of a high explosive projectile, based on the developed
model.
4. Conclusions
The model is comprehensive, consisting of several modules,
where every part has some novelty: CAD (Computer Aided Design)
modeling of a real projectile, analytical estimation of fragments
number (Mott formula), prediction of fragments initial velocity
(Gurney formula), calculation of fragments trajectory (6DOF/Six
Degrees of Freedom), estimation of efficient fragments density, and
estimation of the projectile lethal radius.
The model effectively takes into account the real geometry of
projectile via CAD (Computer Aided Design) modeling component.
Computer Aided Design models of projectiles are also used in
fragment mass distribution (Mott model) determination; the
calculation of the initial velocity of fragments; to define initial
conditions (the initial coordinates of fragments for trajectory,
depending on their position on the body of the projectile); to
calculate the polar angles that appear in equations for estimation of
the efficient fragments density.
The model uses (where Pit fragmentation data is available)
optimized Mott constant value for a given projectile. In this way, the
agreement between the experimental data (Pit tests) and the Mott
model is better. The number of fragments is determined analyti-
cally using an optimized Mott method for a large number of body
segments (the body is sectioned into quasi-cylindrical segments).
The model assumes that only fragments from the central part of the
body up to the rotating band are involved in efficiency calculation
(it is assumed that fragments from the front and rear spray do not
significantly contribute to the efficiency of high-explosive
projectiles).
The initial velocities of fragments were determined for a large
number of projectile segments, using the Gurney model. In this
analysis, the detonation velocity of explosive was determined by
software EXPLO5, for a given charge density - determined from the
table data for explosive mass and its volume (determined in the
Computer Aided Design system - based on projectile drawings). The
obtained data on the initial velocities of fragments are used in the
model for the calculation of the fragment trajectories, for better
realistic initial conditions.
The model uses complete 6DOF (Six Degrees of Freedom)
equations for fragment trajectory estimation - using the law of the
body center of a mass movement, and the law of change of angular
momentum. This model uses a novel approach, in the first place in
defining the aerodynamic force that was used for trajectory calcu-
lations. We have performed a thorough literature review and we
found no evidence that this problem has been solved appropriately
for irregularly shaped bodies. We defined our model for aero-
dynamic force and moment estimation based on several geomet-
rical body parameters, as well as several kinematic and parameters
of the media where the body motion occurs. This model has two
major parts: (a.) geometrical modeling, where the surface of the
irregularly shaped body is approximated, via continuous surface,
e.g. by an ellipsoidal surface (b.) aerodynamic force modeling based
on momentum change of fluid particles colliding with the irregu-
larly shaped body at high velocity. This elemental effect (mo-
mentum change) is integrated over the exposed surface of the
moving body and obtain the total aerodynamic force and the total
aerodynamic moment for the center of mass. In this way, the model
does not require force coefficients but directly obtains the drag
force. The kinetic energy of the fragment (parameter important for
lethal radius estimation) at different distances was determined
using this model, as the fragment mass and its velocity during a
flight are known. This model also has been successfuly validated
with experimental data and numerical simulations using Ansys
Fluent. Model for aerodynamic force and moment estimation,
which is the most important part of 6DOF trajectory model, showed
significantly better accuracy than model that uses drag force co-
efficient for calculating the force that acts on a fragment during its
motion thrugh the air.
The model for determination of fragments trajectory is imple-
mented in the new MatLab program, written by authors.
Novel estimation of efficient fragments density model involves
interactively combined: CAD (Computer Aided Design) method,
optimized Mott method, 6DOF (Six Degrees of Freedom) trajectory
model and analytical model for spatial fragment density
determination.
The lethal radius of high explosive projectile against human
targets is defined as a distance from the explosion at which there is
an efficient fragment (kinetic energy of at least 80 J) density of 1
frag/m2. It is assumed that the position of a projectile upon deto-
nation is vertical to the ground, so lethal radius represents a radius
of a circular lethal zone - a maximal possible lethal zone of a pro-
jectile on the ground. This parameter (lethal radius) can be used in
an initial phase of design to compare the efficiency of different high
explosive projectiles.
The model showed overall good agreement with experimental
results from arena fragmentation tests (used in our country).
This model can be used in any terminal-ballistics scenario for
high explosive projectiles since it is general, parametric, fast and
relatively easy to implement. The model also saves money, since it
can extrapolate from calculations of some important data and
implement them with fewer fragmentation tests (which are
generally expensive) when designing new projectiles or modifying
the old ones.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Terminal effectiveness of anti-personnel fragmenting projectiles, US Army
test and evaluation command, test operations procedure. Maryland, february:
APG; 1982.
[2] Zecevic B, Catovic A, Terzic J. Comparison of lethal zone characteristics of
several natural fragmenting warheads. Central European Journal of Energetic
Materials 2008;5(2):67e81. ISSN 1733-7178.
[3] Catovic A, Zecevic B, Terzic J. Analysis of terminal effectiveness for several
types of HE projectiles and impact angles using coupled numerical-CAD
technique, 12th Seminar "New trends in research of energetic materials".
Pardubice, Czech Republic: University of Pardubice; 2009.
[4] Hokanson J. Fragment and debris hazards from accidental explosions.
Dahlgren VA: Naval Surface Weapons Center; 1981. 13 july.
[5] Dehn J. Terminal effectiveness, vulnerability methodology and fragmentation
warhead optimization. A technical survey from an historical perspective, BRL.
APG Maryland; 1980.
[6] Driels M. Weaponeering - conventional weapon system effectiveness, AIAA
education series, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacks-
burg, Virginia, USA.
[7] Catovic A. Prediction of terminal-ballistic parameters for the natural frag-
mentating high-explosive warheads using experimental data and numerical
methods. Doctoral thesis. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Sarajevo; 2019.
[8] Crull M, Swisdak MM. Methodologies for calculating primary fragment char-
acteristics, vol. 17. Alexandria, VA: Department of Defense Explosives Safety
Board; October 2005.
 A. Catovic, E. Kljuno / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 1217e1233
[9] Lloyd RM. Conventional warhead systems physics and engineering design, vol.
179. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA; 1998. January 1.
[10] Catovic A. Estimation of the lethal zone for HE warheads with natural frag-
mentation, Master thesis. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Sarajevo; 2007.
[11] Kljuno E, Catovic A. A generalized model for estimation of aerodynamic forces
and moments for irregularly shaped bodies. Defence Technology; 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2018.09.006.
[12] EXPLO5, OZM Research. Instruments & technologies for energetic materials.
https://mueller-instruments.de/fileadmin/Downloads/instruments-medien/
Analysensoftware_-_Explo-5.pdf.
[13] Cooper P. Explosives engineering. Wiley - VCH; 1996.
1233
[14] Walters WP, Zukas JA. Fundamentals of shaped charges. Wiley-Interscience
Publication; 1989, ISBN 0-471-62172-2.
[15] Kljuno E, Catovic A. Estimation of projected surface area of irregularly shaped
fragments. Defence Technology Journal 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.dt.2018.08.012.
[16] Grady D. - fragmentation of rings and shells - the legacy of N. F. Mott.
Springer; 2006.
[17] Gurney W. The initial velocities of fragments from bombs, shell, and grenades,
BRL Report No. 405. Maryland: APG; 1943.
[18] McDonald JW. Bomb fragments. Eglin Air Force Base 1980. 23 September.