Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A method to determine the shell layout scheme for equipment

battlefield damage tests under artillery fire
Cai Chen a, *, Quan Shi a, Zhi-feng You a, Hong-yu Ge b, Fang Zhang c
a
Equipment Command and Management Department, Army Engineering University, Shijiazhuang, 050003, China
b
Baicheng Ordnance Test Center of China, Baicheng, 137001, China
c
No. 32178 Troops of PLA, Beijing, 100012, China

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

Article history: In this paper, a new method for determining the shell layout scheme is proposed, which can make the
Received 22 September 2019 equipment damage data by the battlefield damage test resemble as close as possible the actual combat
Received in revised form data. This method is based on the analysis of the impact point distribution and effective damage area of
16 January 2020
equipment. In order to obtain the position of the impact points, an impact point distribution model
Accepted 26 February 2020
Available online 29 February 2020
under artillery fire was established. Similarly, in order to obtain the effective damage area of equipment,
the concepts of generalized damage area and task-based equipment functional damage probability were
demonstrated, and the corresponding calculation model was established. Through case analysis, the shell
Keywords:
Battlefield damage test
layout scheme was effectively obtained, verifying the correctness of the proposed method.
Projectile impact point © 2020 China Ordnance Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications
Effective damage area Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
Functional damage licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
To effectively improve the maintenance capability of equipment
during wartime and enhance the lifespan of equipment on the
battlefield, training schemes during peacetime should be based on
equipment damage data close to actual combat conditions [1]. At
present, the equipment battlefield damage test is the only way to
obtain equipment battlefield damage data in peacetime. This is
typically a collection of either static or dynamic detonation tests
depending on the state of the shell as it explodes. Static detonation
tests are usually performed by placing the shell on a bracket at a
certain height, deploying equipment targets around it, and manu-
ally detonating the shell. At the same time, damage data of the
equipment is collected. In contrast, dynamic detonation tests use a
fuse to detonate the shell inside a designated target area through
actual firing or throwing.
Static detonation tests are often used since they are relatively
simple to implement, and the cost and risks are relatively low. In
* Corresponding author. Equipment Command and Management Department,
Army Engineering University Detailed permanent address: Equipment Command
and Management Department of Army Engineering University, 97 heping west
road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
E-mail address: caichen20091165@126.com (C. Chen).
Peer review under responsibility of China Ordnance Society
addition, the layout of shells and targets are specified in relevant
test standards [2e4]. Shi [5] detailed a static detonation test
scheme, including preliminary preparation prior to the test and the
specific implementation process, and analyzed relative positions
between target and shell. Wang [6] improved upon the static
detonation test method and studied the dispersion of fragments of
a large equivalent warhead weight. Further to this, another study
set equivalent targets at different directions and at various dis-
tances around a static bomb blast and collected damage data to
evaluate the comprehensive power of the high-explosive shell [7].
In all of these studies, the relative positions between shell,
target, and equipment were predefined and analyses were highly
subjective and qualitative in nature. Test data obtained in this way
differs greatly from the dynamic conditions of an actual combat
environment, and thus cannot meet the requirements for training
troops in an actual combat environment. To this end, the dynamic
detonation test is a better choice of equipment battlefield damage
test. However, the impact area and burst time of the shell are
difficult to control, which inevitably increases the costs and risks
associated with dynamic testing. Therefore, dynamic detonation
tests are mostly theoretical and few actual test cases have been
examined. Dai [8] obtained the dynamic dispersion characteristics
of fragments by analyzing their dispersion under static explosions
and simulated the damage effectiveness of shell fire on a light
armored vehicle under a dynamic attack. Gao [9] and Yin [10]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.02.019
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/).
 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691
adopted a numerical simulation method based on the analysis of
static explosion characteristics of ammunition. Fragments were
assigned an initial velocity along the flight direction of the shell,
which was the flight velocity of the shell at the initial moment of
the explosion, to simulate the dynamic explosion of a shell.
This paper proposes a new method for determining the quantity
and distribution of shell during the equipment battlefield damage
test by analyzing the distribution of impact points and the equip-
ment effective damage area. The proposed method truly reflects the
relative positions of the shells and equipment under actual combat
conditions, and the damage data obtained in the test is much closer
to the actual battlefield situation. Thus, the method provides an
important reference and has guiding significance for the overall
design of equipment battlefield damage test schemes. It should be
mentioned that since the fragment is the main destruction mode
after shell explosion, this paper focuses on analyzing the determi-
nation method for the equipment effective damage area under
fragment attack. If the effect of shock wave or shock vibration on
the equipment effective damage area is considered, the analytical
method can be compared with that under the effect of fragment.
2. Principle for determining shell layout scheme
In actual combat, the equipment is usually deployed in a cluster.
When a cluster of equipment is attacked by artillery fire, all of the
equipment is considered as the target of the attack, since an attack
on a single piece of equipment is unlikely. Therefore, in actual
combat, the positions of shells are scattered. However, owing to the
cost of using an entire group of equipment, only one or two pieces
of equipment can be used in the test. Moreover, not all shells cause
damage to the equipment at the same time. To achieve test results
consistent with actual combat situations and reduce the cost of the
test, the impact points that can effectively damage the equipment
should be identified, and then be taken as a reference to determine
the quantity of shell and its relative position with respect to the
equipment in the test. Therefore, this paper proposes the concept of
the effective damage area, and analyzes the law of impact point
distribution, aiming to determine the impact points that can
effectively damage the equipment. The specific analysis steps are as
follows:
(1) Analysis on the law of impact point distribution. As shown in
Fig. 1(a), a certain equipment group is taken as the target and
the Monte Carlo method is used to simulate artillery fire on
the equipment, which can provide the coordinates of the
impact points.
(2) Determine the effective damage area of equipment. As
shown in Fig. 1(b), the effective damage area refers to the
area where the shell can cause functional damage to the
equipment, and its size and shape is dependent on equip-
ment type, warhead type, and test requirements. The shell
can cause functional damage to the equipment when it falls
within the effective damage area. When it falls outside the
effective damage area, it is considered that the shell cannot
cause functional damage to the equipment.
(3) Determine the shell layout scheme set. As shown in Fig. 1(c),
the shell quantity and impact point coordinates can be ob-
tained from a single simulation, which can be selected as the
shell layout scheme of the equipment battlefield damage
test. Based on the actual requirements, multiple simulations
can be performed to obtain the set of all possible shell layout
schemes. It should be mentioned that if the shell hits directly
the equipment, the damage data collected is of little signifi-
cance to maintenance training. Therefore, the shell layout
683
scheme set in this paper does not incorporate impact points
that hit the equipment directly.
3. Analysis of artillery fire impact points
The determination of impact point distribution under artillery
fire is the basis for determining the shell layout scheme. Based on
the firing error analysis, the Monte Carlo method is employed to
analyze the impact points of artillery fire.
3.1. Effect of firing error on impact point distribution
In the theory of artillery fire, deviation of an impact point
relative to the aiming mark is called firing error and can directly
affect the distribution of impact points under different firing con-
ditions. To conveniently investigate impact point distribution un-
der different conditions, it is necessary to first group the firing
errors. This grouping is mainly based on the performance and
quantity of artillery, method of firing or aiming, and characteristics
of the error source [11]. In the random error case, the error caused
by the same error source is called common error, while the error
caused by each individual error source is called individual error.
This paper considers an artillery battalion as the object of analysis,
and the firing errors are divided into four groups: battalion com-
mon error, battery individual error, artillery individual error, and
dispersion error. The battalion common error has the same effect
on the dispersion center of each battery; the battery individual
error is when the error between different batteries is different; the
artillery individual error makes the error between different artil-
leries different; and the dispersion error is when the error of each
artillery is different at each launch.
The firing error diagram of an artillery battalion is shown in
Fig. 2, where the origin O is the aiming mark, the depth is along x-
axis, and the direction of the left-right deviation is along the z-axis.
Assuming that the firing position of each battery is relatively
close, the battalion common error of each battery can be taken to
have approximately the same value [12]. During firing, under the
effect of the battalion common error, the dispersion center of each
!
battery deviates from point O by the same offset D 1 and moves to
CY. Under the effect of the battery individual error, the dispersion
!
center of the battery deviates from CY by the same offset D 2 and
moves to CL. Under the effect of the artillery individual error, the
dispersion center of each artillery deviates from CL by the same
!
offset D 3 and moves to CP. Under the effect of the dispersion error,
!
the impact point deviates from CP by the same offset D 4 and moves
to Z. Therefore, according to the vector relationship illustrated in
Fig. 2, the firing error of the artillery battalion can be determined by
! ! ! ! !
Df ¼ D1 þ D2 þ D3 þ D4
3.2. Basic concept of impact point simulation
The four types of artillery battalion firing errors are independent
of each other but all follow a normal distribution. Through the Box-
Muller algorithm, the random number of a normal distribution
obeying an N (0,1) distribution can be obtained as follows [12]:
( pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
w1 ¼ p2 ln f1fficosð2pf2 Þ
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(1)
w2 ¼ 2 ln f1 sinð2pf2 Þ
684 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the firing error of artillery battalion.

In this paper, the analysis of the impact point simulation method

is based on the battalion fire distribution of a converged sheaf and
one-range fire. In the artillery battalion, M batteries exist, each
battery has N artilleries, and each artillery can fire Q rounds. To
obtain the shell coordinates (xijk, zijk) of artillery j in battery i of the
artillery battalion after the k-th firing, the range and direction mean
errors of the battalion common error are set as Exy and Ezy, i ¼ 1, 2,
…, M; j ¼ 1, 2, …, N; k ¼ 1, 2, …, Q. The target area is 2lz  2lx and the
aiming mark is the target center O(x0, z0). Then, the dispersion
center (xy, zy) of the artillery battalion can be expressed as:
8
> Exy
>
> xy ¼ x0 þ pffiffiffi w1
< 2r
(2)
>
> E
> zy
: zy ¼ z0 þ pffiffiffi w2
2r

where r is a normal constant with a value of 0.476936 [13]. In the

same way, the range and direction mean errors of the individual
error of battery i are set as Exi and Ezi. Then, the dispersion center (xi,
zi) of battery i can be expressed as:
8
> Exi
>
> x ¼ xy þ pffiffiffi w1
< i 2r
(3)
>
> Ezi
>
: zi ¼ zy þ pffiffiffi w2
2r
The dispersion center (xij, zij) of artillery j can be obtained ac-
cording to the dispersion center (xi, zi) of battery i and the firing
data error Exij and Ezij of artillery j. The coordinate of impact point
(xijk, zijk) of the k-th firing can be obtained according to the
dispersion center (xij, zij) of artillery j and the mean errors Bdij and
Fig. 1. Principles for determining the equipment damage test scheme. Bfij of the dispersion error. In the calculation process, w1 and w2 are
sampled and calculated using Eq. (1).

where w1 and w2 are a pair of standard normally distributed

random numbers; f1 and f2 are random numbers that follow a 3.3. Impact point simulation of typical fire distribution
uniform distribution U (0,1).
Fire distribution refers to the specific firing position of each
 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691
artillery; that is, whether the artillery battalion chooses over-
lapping firing or sweeping firing, whether the artillery battery
chooses converged sheaf or parallel sheaf, or whether one-range
fire or zone fire is selected. In this paper, the impact points of the
battalion are simulated with overlapping firing under different fire
distributions along the front and depth. When sweeping firing is
used, the simulation method is similar to that for overlapping firing.
3.3.1. Impact point simulation of frontal fire distribution
In frontal fire distribution, the firing direction is an important
concept, referring to the direction each artillery piece is fired to-
ward the front of the target. Regardless of the number of artillery
participating in the fire, the firing direction is based on the artillery
battery as a unit and can be divided into converged sheaf or parallel
sheaf. Converged sheaf refers to when the whole artillery of the
battery fires toward a certain area of the target. Parallel sheaf refers
to when the target is divided into several segments equal to the
number of artillery in the artillery battery, and each artillery fires at
the center of its assigned segment with a certain order. The simu-
lation steps for the converged sheaf scenario are the same as those
described in Section 4.2. The method for simulating impact points
distribution under the parallel sheaf scenario is analyzed below.
According to the dispersion center (xi, zi) of battery i, the aiming
  
mark of artillery j is set as xi ; zi þ lz 2j1
N  1 , j ¼ 1, 2, …, N,
where N is the quantity of artillery in the battery. Substituting the
coordinates of the aiming mark of artillery j and its firing data er-
rors Exij and Ezij into Eq. (2), the dispersion center (xij, zij) of artillery j
can be obtained. Then, the coordinates of the impact point can be
obtained by following the steps described in Section 4.2.
3.3.2. Impact point simulation s for depth fire distribution
The depth fire distribution includes one-range fire and zone fire.
One-range fire is defined as only firing on the battery’s central rule.
Zone fire refers to batteries alternating fire at far, middle, and near
distances, thereby forming a larger depth of firepower coverage.
When the range difference is Hx, the dispersion center of artillery j
of battery i can be expressed as ðxij þ r ,Hx ; zij Þ, r ¼ 1, 0, 1. On this
basis and according to the mean error of dispersion, the position of
the impact points under zone fire can be obtained.
3.4. Calculation process
A program was written in MATLAB (version R2014a) to simulate
the impact point distribution of a typical artillery fire arrangement
based on the simulation model of impact points established in
Sections 4.2 and 4.3. A flowchart of the calculation process is pre-
sented in Fig. 3.
4. Equipment effective damage area
4.1. Analysis of effective damage area
As shown in Fig. 4, the test site area is assumed to be 2Lf  2Ld.
According to the accuracy and precision requirements of the test,
the test site can be divided into a grid-like pattern by drawing lines
parallel to the two coordinate axes with spacings of Dx and Dz.
The mesh vertex C of row j and column i can be considered as
the centroid of the equipment (i ¼ 1, 2, 3, …, m, j ¼ 1, 2, 3, …, n),
where m and n are the maximum number of grids along the two
axes. The effective damage area of equipment S1 can be defined as:
685
XX
S1 ¼ Phk ðz; xÞDzDx (4)
z x
where Phk (z,x) is the conditional probability of equipment func-
tional damage caused by fragments of the test shell at any point (zi,
xj) on the test site. The value of Phk (z, x) is clearly related to the
intensity of the damage factors and the structure and strength of
the target equipment. The former depends on the damage effec-
tiveness of the fragment, whereas the latter depends on the
structural design and performance characteristics of the equipment
itself. The most direct manifestation of fragment damage effec-
tiveness is the physical damage caused to the external structure of
equipment, such as perforation and deformation.
The functional damage can be analyzed by combining the
physical damage with the structural and performance characteris-
tics of different types of equipment. Thus, the probability Phk (z,x)
can be decomposed into:
     
Phk z; x ¼ P KDzDx jH , P KjKDzDx (5)
where P(KDzDx|H) is the conditional probability of physical damage
to the equipment caused by the shell after an explosion in the area
DzDx and represents the strength of the fragment damage effec-
tiveness; P(K|KDzDx) is the conditional probability that the physical
damage is transformed into functional damage, if physical damage
has occurred, and reflects attributes of the equipment, such as its
structure and performance. Then, Eq. (4) can be transformed into:
XX    
S1 ¼ P KDzDx jH , P KjKDzDx DzDx (6)
z x
The concept of a generalized damage area SD is introduced.
Unlike the effective damage area S1, the range of the generalized
damage area is wider. As long as the shell can cause physical
damage to the equipment after an explosion at any point (zi, xj), the
area DzDx near the point (zi, xj) is included in the generalized
damage area SD without considering whether the physical damage
has affected the performance of the equipment. Physical damage to
equipment components does not necessarily cause functional
damage to the equipment, therefore, the effective damage area S1
belongs to the generalized damage area SD, and the relationship
between them is illustrated in Fig. 5.
Then, Eq. (6) can be transformed into:
 
S1 ¼ SD ,P KjKDzDx (7)
and
XX
SD ¼ PðKDzDx jHÞDzDx (8)
z x
Eq. (7) shows that if the generalized damage area SD is known,
the effective damage area can be determined, as long as the func-
tional damage probability can be obtained. Therefore, the key to
determining the effective damage area is to first determine the
generalized damage area, and then quantitatively analyze the
functional damage probability of the equipment.
4.2. Generalized damage area
To determine the generalized damage area, a large number of
equipment damage data generated by a fragment attack are
required. A simulation platform for equipment battlefield damage
can be used to obtain this data.
686 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the simulation for determining the impact point distribution.

4.2.1. Battlefield damage data collection
An equipment battlefield damage simulation platform was
developed as the basis for obtaining damage data and consists of
four modules: a threat information module, an environment in-
formation module, an equipment information module, and a
damage simulation module. Each module contains different com-
ponents. The framework is illustrated in Fig. 6.
When simulating the impact of fragments on a single piece of
equipment, the simulation is accomplished through the following
steps [14]:
(1) Simulate the fragment penetration process;
(2) Simulate the damage to the basic geometric elements of the
equipment;
(3) Simulate the damage to the basic units of the equipment;
(4) Simulate the damage to the entire equipment.
The simulation of the fragment penetration process mainly in-
volves first the simulation of the fragment formation process, fol-
lowed by the fragment trajectory, and finally, the fragment-
equipment impact process. Furthermore, simulating the damage
to the basic geometric elements mainly involves simulating the
damage process of fragments to basic geometric elements of the
equipment. The damage results can then be analyzed and sum-
marized. Simulating the damage to the basic units of the equipment
involves collecting and analyzing damage data, which are related to
the basic units of the equipment. Simulating the damage to the
whole piece of equipment involves analyzing the damage data with
emphasis on the whole equipment damage. This was carried out by
following the first three steps presented above. By implementing
four separate simulation processes, the platform can output
 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the simulated artillery fire test site.
Fig. 5. Relationship between the two types of damage area.
fragment field distributions for different types of ammunition. A
virtual prototype of the equipment was established such that
coupling effects between fragments and components could be
incorporated, and the process was reproduced as a three-
dimensional visualization (Fig. 7). Finally, the damage situation,
damage mode, and damage degree in each part of the equipment
were obtained.
4.2.2. Damage data analysis
After obtaining the damage data, the generalized damage area of
the equipment was calculated by hypothesis testing. When the
distance between the explosion point and the equipment is Lt, the
hypothesis H0: mt ¼ 0 is tested with a significance level a, where mt
indicates the total number of fragments that hit the equipment at
the location of the explosion t, and mt ¼ 0 indicates that no frag-
ments hit the equipment.
687
A total of p explosion points around the equipment were set and
the distance between each explosion point and the equipment was
Ln (n ¼ 1, 2, …, p); q simulations were performed at each explosion
point, and Xn1, Xn2, …, Xnq, Xni were obtained, indicating the total
number of fragments that hit the equipment at explosion point n
during simulation i. The variable was constructed as:
pffiffiffi
ðX n ðqÞ  0Þ q
Tn ¼ (9)
Sn ðqÞ
conforming to a tðq 1Þ distribution, where:
! !
1X 1 X
q q
Xn q ¼ Xni ; S2n q ¼ X  X n ðqÞÞ2 (10)
q i¼1 q  1 n¼1 ni
n ðqÞ
For a given significance level a, if jX n ðqÞ  0j  ta=2 ðq  1Þ Sp ffiffi ,
q
the hypothesis H0 is rejected; that is, there is a significant difference
between the total mean and zero, which indicates that the distance
Lt at explosion point t is an effective killing distance; if jX n ðqÞ 
n ðqÞ
0j < ta=2 ðq  1Þ Sp ffiffi , the hypothesis H0 is accepted; that is, there is
q
no significant difference between the total mean and zero, and the
distance Lt at explosion point t is not an effective killing distance.
Finally, the effective damage area of equipment can be obtained by
calculating the total area within the effective killing distance.
4.3. Quantitative analysis of the equipment functional damage
probability
In actual combat, the judgment criteria for whether functional
damage occurs may differ, owing to the various combat tasks un-
dertaken. For example, a radar tire may be hit and scraped during a
combat mission, and although its motion function is damaged, if
the antenna remains intact, the radar tire can still perform other
functions such as search and positioning. In battlefield damage
testing, damage data related to one or several functions of the
equipment are collected, whereas damage data related to other
functions are considered relatively minor or ignored altogether.
This paper puts forward the concept of task-based equipment
functional damage probability from the perspective of equipment
completing a specific task. Therefore, the task-based equipment
functional damage probability Pt can be defined as:
P
ne
aw Pw
Pt ¼ w¼1 (11)
Pne
aw
w¼1
where ne is the quantity of basic equipment items, which has been
previously defined in the literature [15]; aw is the assignment co-
efficient of basic items determined for specific tasks; if basic item w
has an impact on the task, aw ¼ 1; otherwise, aw ¼ 0; Pw is the
functional damage probability corresponding to basic item w.
Assuming that the simulation runs Ne times, we can obtain:
P
Ne
Pwv
Pw ¼ v¼1 (12)
Ne
where Pwv is the functional damage probability of basic item w of
the v-th simulation. To determine the probability Pwv, the structural
characteristics and operational mechanisms of the various basic
items must be first combined and then those subjected to physical
damage should be analyzed by constructing a simulation model.
688 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691

Fig. 6. Framework of the battlefield damage simulation platform.

5. Case analysis

5.1. Shell impact point simulation

Assuming that a howitzer battalion shoots a self-propelled ar-

tillery formation in a 300 m  300 m rectangular area with a firing
distance of D ¼ 7000 m and third charge, then the mean values of

Fig. 7. Visualization of the simulated physical damage.

Finally, the simulation results and damage criteria are used to

determine whether the basic items have functional damage in or-
der to obtain the probability of functional damage.

Table 1
Mean error values for each error source.

Error type Range mean error/m Distance mean error/m

Battalion common error Exy: 64.1 Ezy: 18.0

Battery individual error Exl: 18.6 Ezl: 8.9
Artillery individual error Exp: 26.9 Ezp: 8.9
Dispersion error Bd: 17 Bf: 4.2
Fig. 8. Impact points distribution.
 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691 689

each error source can be determined for each element using the
precision method, while the dispersion mean errors can be found in
the ballistics table [13]. The various error values are listed in Table 1.
Battalion fire uses parallel sheaf and zone fire. The range dif-
ference Hx ¼ 100 m. In the simulations, a total of 432 shells were
fired and the impact point distribution is shown in Fig. 8.

5.2. Equipment effective damage area

Based on the analysis presented in Section 5, it is necessary to

first analyze and calculate the generalized damage area and the
probability of equipment functional damage before obtaining the
equipment effective damage area.

5.2.1. Equipment generalized damage area

Fig. 10. Model of tooth surface cutting.
To determine whether the area DzDx near the burst point (zi,xj)
is within the generalized damage area, it is necessary to deploy a
number of burst points around the equipment following the Table 2
method presented in Fig. 4. Then, the number of fragments that hit Parameters at the permissible bending stress.
each component of the equipment after the explosion of a shell at sFlim/MPa SFmin YN YX
different burst points can be calculated. The generalized damage
450 1.25 1.0 0.85
area can be obtained using the hypothesis testing method
described in Section 5.2. In the case study, the generalized damage
area was determined with a total area of 388 m2, as shown in Fig. 9,
where the interval between burst points was 1 m. life coefficient, and YX is the dimension coefficient. By looking up
the values in published in Ref. [16], specific values of the four pa-
rameters were obtained, which are listed in Table 2. Substituting
5.2.2. Analysis of functional damage probability
these values into Eq. (13), the allowable bending stress sF of the
Assuming that the main task is to collect damage data from the
gear tooth was obtained as 278 MPa.
artillery transmission system, Eq. (11) shows that only the func-
The Adams 2017 (MSC) software was used to model the motion
tional damage probability analysis is required for the artillery
of the gearbox and the maximum stress smax at the root of the tooth
transmission system. Taking the gearbox as an example, the dam-
under different cutting degrees was obtained. When the stress smax
age mode is mainly cutting off the surface of a gear tooth according
exceeds sF, the gear tooth will fracture causing functional damage
to the physical damage simulation results of the equipment
to the gearbox. Based on this criterion, a functional damage dia-
battlefield damage simulation platform. Thus, a tooth surface cut-
gram of the gear tooth was obtained, as shown in Fig. 11.
ting simulation model can be developed, as shown in Fig. 10.
Repeating the simulation process 20 times, the functional
Cutting off of the gear tooth surface will affect the stress dis-
damage probability of the gearbox was calculated using Eq. (12) as
tribution in critical sections of the gear tooth. When the cutting
0.60. Similarly, the functional damage probability of other compo-
damage reaches a critical level, the stress in critical sections of the
nents in the transmission system can be obtained. The functional
gear tooth will be larger than the allowable bending stress of the
damage probability of the artillery was also obtained for the
gear tooth. In general, the allowable bending stress can be obtained
particular task using Eq. (11) as 0.71.
experimentally, and the empirical expression is:
After the generalized damage area and functional damage
sFlim YN YX probability of the artillery were determined, the effective damage
½sF  ¼ (13)
SFmin

where sFlim is the tooth root bending fatigue limit, SFmin is the
minimum safety coefficient of bending fatigue strength, YN is the

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of the generalized damage area. Fig. 11. Functional damage diagram of the gear tooth.
690 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691
Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of the effective damage area.
area was calculated using Eq. (7) as 275.48 m2, and a schematic
illustration of the effective damage area is presented in Fig. 12. If the
shell is deployed within the effective damage area, damage data
that meet the requirements of the task can be successfully
collected.
5.3. Definition of the shell layout scheme
A total of six self-propelled artillery were configured on a
300 m  300 m rectangular area. Artillery were placed 50 m apart
from left to right with a depth of 80 m and were numbered
consecutively. Using the method described in Section 5.1 for firing
the target position, the distribution of impact points around the
equipment was obtained, as shown in Fig. 13.
To formulate the test scheme, equipment No. 2 (Fig. 13) was
used as the reference object and the coordinates of the impact
points within the effective area were set as Ai (xi, yi), where i ¼ 1, 2,
3, …, s, and s is the quantity of the shell. As shown in Fig. 14, the
quantity and coordinates of the impact points, which were within
the effective damage area, were obtained using the effective
Fig. 13. Equipment configuration and impact point distribution.
Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of the impact points within the effective damage area.
Table 3
Shells coordinates within the effective damage area of
equipment No. 2.
Shell number Coordinate/m
1 (-66.6,44.6)
2 (-66.9,34.9)
3 (-73.7,38.2)
4 (-76.5,38.0)
5 (-78.3,42.3)
6 (-86.4,38.5)
damage area, which can be considered a reference scheme for the
shell layout. The specific coordinate values of the shells are listed in
Table 3.
In this way, multiple shell layout schemes can be obtained
through multiple simulations and a set of shell layout schemes for
the equipment battlefield damage test can be established. Ac-
cording to test requirements, the operator simply chooses the best
scheme from the scheme set, such that the total test efficiency is
optimal.
6. Conclusions
To address a lack of theoretical references for determining the
shell layout for the equipment battlefield damage test, this paper
puts forward a new idea that combines the analysis of impact point
distribution with the effective damage area. Moreover, the pro-
posed method solves the problem of inconsistencies between data
collected experimentally and actual combat data. First, an impact
point model under artillery fire was established and the effect of
firing error and different fire distribution patterns on the impact
points were analyzed. The distribution of impact points and the
location of shell fragments were obtained using Monte Carlo sim-
ulations. Then, a model of the effective damage area was estab-
lished. Furthermore, the concepts of a generalized damage area and
functional damage probability were demonstrated, and their
 C. Chen et al. / Defence Technology 17 (2021) 682e691
calculation methods were analyzed. Finally, a case study was per-
formed using various simulation platforms, and a set of all shell
layout schemes for the battlefield damage test was obtained,
showing that the new approach for determining shell layout
schemes is feasible and potentially has reference value for engi-
neering applications.
Foundation items
Key projects of pre-research fund (No.9140A27040414JB34001).
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] Wu XY, Li F, Zhang WJ, et al. Design and optimization of equipment damage
simulation test. J Ord Equip Eng 2014;35(10):5e7.
[2] Xiong ZP. GJB3197-1998 Test method for projectile. 1998. p. 105e8.
[3] Sui SY, Wang SS. Terminal effects. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press;
691
2010.
[4] Zhang GW. Terminal effects and range test. Beijing: National Defense Industry
Press; 2009.
[5] Shi Q, Mi SS, Hu QW. Theory and technology of equipment battlefield damage.
Beijing: National Defense Industry Press; 2007.
[6] Wang L, Liu YF, Li XH, et al. Study on the scatter of high capacity head frag-
ments. J Project Rocks Missiles Guid 2012;32(6):68e70.
[7] Wang SS, Han XG, Wang XY. Research on evaluation method of comprehen-
sive power of high explosive warhead and its application. Acta Armamentarii
2017;38(7). 1279-1254.
[8] Dai XH. Study on structure design and damage efficiency of 105 anti-armor
grenade. North university of china; 2013.
[9] Gao YH. Damage assessment method of shrapnel warhead under dynamic
explosion conditions. North university of china; 2016.
[10] Yin P. The research on visual simulation of damage assessment of large-caliber
explosive grenades. Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology; 2015.
[11] Liu YX. Theories of firing. Beijing: Navy Press; 2000.
[12] Tang H, Qu CW. Study of assessment model for anti-radiation missile’s
damage capacity against ground radar. J Project Rockets Missiles Guid
2008;28(2):104e6.
[13] Lu H. Research on artillery firing damage effectiveness assessment. Shi-
jiazhuang: College of ordnance engineering; 2011.
[14] Chen C, Shi Q, Wang S, et al. Simulation research on optimization design for
equipment battle damage test. Comput Simul 2018;35(1):13e7.
[15] Hu QW, Wang GY, Shi Q, et al. Research on electronic equipment damage
simulation in explosion impact vibration environment 2012;33(1):13e8.
[16] Qiu XH, Guo KQ, Wu ZZ, et al. Machine design. Beijing: Higher Education
Press; 1997.