SANDIA REPORT

SAND88 - 1790 UC - 35
Unlimited Release
Printed September 1988

Optimized Conical Shaped Charge

Design Using the SCAP Code

Manuel G. Vigil

Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque , New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550
for the United States Department of Energy
under Contract DEAC0476DP00789
',I

When printing a copy of any digitized SAND

Report, you are required to update the
markings to current standards.

SF2900Q(SS l )

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States

Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation.
NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their contractors or
subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof or
any of their contractors.
Printed in the United States of America
Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
NTIS price codes
Printed copy: A05
Microfiche copy: A01


SAND88-1790
Unlimited Release-UC35
Printed September 1988

OPTIMIZED CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE DESIGN

USING THE SCAP CODE

Manuel G. Vigil
Explosive Subsystems Division
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800

ABSTRACT

The Shaped Charge Analysis Program (SCAP) is used to analytically model and
optimize the design of Conical Shaped Charges (CSC). A variety of existing CSCs are
initially modeled with the SCAP code and the predicted jet tip velocities, jet
penetrations, and optimum standoffs are compared to previously published
experimental results. The CSCs vary in size from 0.69 inch (1.75 cm) to 9.125 inch
(23.18 cm) conical liner inside diameter. Two liner materials (copper and steel) and
several explosives (Octol, Comp B, PBX-9501) are included in the CSCs modeled. The
target material was mild steel. A parametric study was conducted using the SCAP code
to obtain the optimum design for a 3.86 inch (9.8 cm) CSc. The variables optimized in
this study included the CSC apex angle, conical liner thickness, explosive height,
optimum standoff, tamper/confinement thickness, and explosive width. The nondimensionalized jet penetration to diameter ratio versus the above parameters are
graphically presented.

"

Prepared at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and

Livennore, California 94550, for the United States Department of Energy under Contract
DE-A C04-76DP00789
3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank A. C. Robinson for his efforts in developing the SCAP code which
is a very useful aid in the design of Conical Shaped Charges.

."
...

CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................

Introduction.................................................................................................................

SCAP Theory ..............................................................................................................

Background .................................................................................... .............................

Analytical-Experimental Comparison.....................................................................

10

CSC Geometrical Parametric Study........................................................................

10

Linear Apex Angle ..................................................................................................... 13

Linear Thickness ........................................................................................................ 13
Explosive Height ........................................................................................................ 20
Tamper/Confinement Thickness............................................................................. 20
Explosive Width.......................................................................................................... 20
Summary of Geometrical Parameters Study.......................................................... 28
Different CSC Liner Material.................................................................................. 28
Different CSC Explosives ......................................................................................... 32
SCAP Code Sample Output ..................................................................................... 32
Conclusions .................................................. ............ ................................... ... ............. 33
Appendix A ................................................................................................................. 39
Appendix B ........................................... ....................................................................... 67

References ....... ................ ................ ............................................................................ 84

FIGURES

Figure

Page

General Conical Shaped Charge Cross-section ........................................

11

Basic Conical Shaped Charge Cross-section .............................................

14

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter Ratio ..................

15

Versus Conical Liner Apex Angle and Standoff (S.O.)

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter .............................

17

Ratio Versus Liner Thickness to Diameter Radio

Conical Shaped CHarge Jet Tip Velocity Versus .....................................

19

Liner Thickness to Diameter Ratio

Conical Shaped CHarge Jet Penetration to Diameter Ratio .................

21

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter .............................

23

Radio Versus Tamper Thickness to Diameter Ratio

8

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter .............................

25

Ratio Versus Explosive Width to Diameter Ratio

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Tip Velocity Versus ......................................

27

Explosive Width to Diameter Ratio

10

Optimized Conical Shaped Charge Configuration ...................................

29

11

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter .............................

30

Ratio Versus Standoff to Diameter Ratio

12

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter .............................

35

13

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter .............................

36

Ratio Versus Jet Tip Velocity and Explosive

14

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration to Diameter .............................

Ratio Versus Jet To Gurney Velocity and Explosive

37

,...

TABLES

Fixed SCAP Variables for CSC Geometrical Parameter Study.............

12

Jet Penetration Versus Standoff and Apex Angle....................................

16

CSC Jet Penetration and Liner Thickness DAta......................................

18

CSC Jet Penetration and Explosive Height Data..................................... 22

CSC Jet Penetration and Tamper Case Thickness Data......................... 24

CSC Jet Penetration and Explosive Width Data...................................... 26

Copper Versus Steel Liner Data ................................................................. 31

Conical Shaped Charge Explosive Parameters......................................... 34

Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration Versus....................................... 38

Standoff and Explosive Data

OPTIMIZED CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE DESIGN

USING THE SCAP CODE

Introduction
The Shaped Charge Analysis Program (SCAP)l is used to analytically model and
optimize the design of Conical Shaped Charges (CSC). SCAP is an interactive
modeling code developed (Robinson, 1985) at Sandia National Laboratories for the
purpose of assisting in the design of conical shaped charge components. Design
requirements for Sandia applications need not correspond to typical conventional
shaped charge requirements. Miniaturized components, specialized materials and nonstandard designs open the way for possible unique modeling requirements. The need
for an in-house Sandia code with maximum modeling flexibility and ease of use has led
to the development of SCAP.
SCAP is user friendly and very inexpensive to run. It is designed for flexibility in shaped
charge device configuration, choice of competing modeling techniques, and
implementation of new models for various parts of conical shaped charge jet formation
and penetration phenomena. The code at present contains models for liner
acceleration, jet formation, jet stretching and breakup, jet penetration and confinement
motion. Different models are available for some portions of the code and may be
chosen via a menu format. Few a priori assumptions are built into the code with the
intent that the program structure should allow the modeling of devices of nonstandard
design. The code is conceptually simple and well structured.
The SCAP code was used to model some existing conical shaped charges (CSC) of
various sizes and materials. The resultant analytical penetration versus standoff and jet
tip velocities are compared to experimental data. The CSCs vary in size from 0.69 inch
(1.75 cm) to 9.125 inch (23.18 cm) conical liner inside diameter. Copper and steel liner
materials and Octol, Comp Band PBX-9501 explosives are included in the CSCs
modeled. The target material was mild steel.
Additionally, a parameteric study was conducted with the code to determine the
optimum design for a CSC with a copper liner. The CSC variables optimized in this
study included liner apex angle, liner thickness, explosive height, tamper/confinement
thickness, explosive width and standoff. For the optimized CSC design, jet penetration
data are presented for the secondary explosives LX-13/XTX-8003, Comp B, Octol,
PBX-9501, and RDX, The CSC jet penetration versus standoff data are presented for
both copper and steel liners.
8

SCAPTheory

The basic modeling theory and format for the SCAP code are described in
References 1-3. The SCAP code was developed at Sandia National Laboratories 1 to
provide design guidance for CSC components. The SCAP code includes the following
features:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Interactive,
Modeling flexibility,
Ease of use,
User friendly,
Analytical code,
Fortran 77 computer language,
Currently run on VAX computer,
Inexpensive (compared to hydro-codes),
Competing modeling techniques,
Liner acceleration modeling,
Jet formation modeling,
Jet stretching and breakup modeling,
Jet penetration modeling,
Tamping or confinement modeling
Menu format,
Hardcopy output listing and plotted output, and
Movie output of jet formation process using
DISSPLA plotting package.

The code does not include detailed equation of state material description
capability. However, the code is very useful in establishing a preliminary design of a
CSC and for parametric studies. Conducting parametric studies of CSC designs with
hydro-codes is not normally affordable. The current version of the code is called
XSCAP20 and is an updated version of the SCAP 1.01 version.

Background
It is assumed that the reader has some knowledge of the functioning of conical
shaped charges. Chou and Flis, Reference 4, present a review of recent developments
in shaped charge technology and include ninety-nine references on the theory of shaped
charges.
9

The relatively long high velocity metallic jet produced by the explosively collapsed
conical liner is useful for many applications because of its good penetration capability.
CSCs have historically found utility in many applications including oil well perforating,
underwater trenching, demolition, mining work, and conventional military applications
requiring the penetration of various barriers.

Analytical-Experimental Comparisons
A general cross-section with the many variables required to model a CSC are
shown and defined in Figure 1. The SCAP code was used to model the CSCs with liner,
explosives and tamper parameters as listed in Table AI in Appendix A. The crosssections for the CSCS listed in Table AI are shown in Figures AI-AS in Appendix A.
The SCAP input parameter data files are listed in Tables AlII - A VII. The parameters
listed in Tables AlII - A VII are described and defined in Reference 1. The SCAP
modeled half cross-sections (assuming symmetry) are shown in Figures A6-AIO. The
SCAP code jet penetration into mild steel versus standoff output are compared to
experimental data in Figures All-AI5. The analytical (SCAP) data is in good
agreement with the experimental data. The maximum jet penetration and optimum
standoff values from Figures All-AI5 were tabulated in Table All for the above five
CSCs. The analytical-experimental values of the jet tip velocities are also listed in
Table All. The calculated and experimental jet tip velocities agree within 10%.

CSC Geometrical Parametric Study

The optimal design of a CSC can become very complex because of the many
geometric material variables involved as illustrated in Figure 1. Therefore, conducting
a parametric study to determine the optimum value for each of the variables shown in
Figure I is not a trivial matter. Ideally, one would like to vary one variable at a time
while holding the remaining variables constant in determining the optimum value.
However, the order for varying each of the variables and the fIxed value for the
remaining variables is not obvious.
The procedure used to obtain the results for the parametric study was to initially
fix the SCAP input variables listed in Table I. Octol is a secondary explosive with
relatively high metal driving ability. Copper conical liners have a reasonably high
density and are very ductile, thus producing the relatively long jets necessary for
10

,
I

HH
I

EXPLOSIVE

I I

---ioITC_

01
RLI RLO RCI RCO HI
HA H
HCI HCO HE HH TL TC R1 R2 1
2
3
4

LINER INNER RADIUS

LINER OUTER RADIUS
CONFINEMENT/SHEATH INNER RADIUS
CONFINEMENT/SHEATH OUTER RADIUS
LINER INNER HEIGHT
LINER ACTUAL HEIGHT
LINER THEORETICAL APEX HEIGHT
CONFINEMENT/SHEATH INNER HEIGHT
CONFINEMENT/SHEATH OUTER HEIGHT
EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT
EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT ABOVE APEX
LINER THICKNESS
CONFINEMENT/SHEATH THICKNESS
LINER INNER APEX RADIUS
LINER OUTER APEX RADIUS
LINER INNER APEX HALF ANGLE

8
8

LINER OUTER APEX HALF ANGLE

CONFINEMENT/SHEATH INNER APEX HALF ANGLE

CONFINEMENT/SHEATH OUTER APEX HALF ANGLE

Figure 1. General Conical Shaped Charge Cross-section

11

TABLE I.
Fixed SCAP Variables for CSC Geometrical Parameter Study
Explosive:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Octol
1.81 g/cc
0.848 cm/microsecond
Gurney Velocity (2E)o.5 = 0.278 cm/microsecond
Explosive Exponent = 2.79

Conical Liner:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Copper
Inside Cone Diameter = 9.8 cm (1 CD)
8.96 g/cc
Bulk Sound Speed = 0.394 cm/microsecond

Tar&et:
1.
2.

Mild Steel
7.86 g/cc

Tamper/Explosive Confinement Casin&:

1.
2.

Aluminum
2.7 g/cc

SCAP Model Options (Reference

1.

2.
3.

4.
5

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
12

1)

Units - centimeter, gram, microsecond

Gurney liner acceleration (A) profile (4)
Gurney zoning (1) - radial zones
Jet collapse point (IAXIS, 2) - off axis ad hoc model (YCLPS > 0)
Interpolation type (lINTER, 2) - quadratic interpolation
Detonation modeling (ISMDET, 1) - point detonation
Jet breakup modeling (IBREAK, 3) - dynamic yield stress model
Geometry (2) - CSC
Number of zones - 70
Cutoff ratio for no jet criteria - 1.0
Dynamic yield stress for jet (copper) - .0022 Mb
No. of coefficients to define liner - 4
IBREAK = 3 Coefficient - 5.0
No. of confinement coefficients - 8
Initiation point radius for CSC - 0.0
Total number of standoffs of interest - 20
Number of target layers - 1
Target layer UMIN - 0.14 cm/microsecond

maximum penetration. The target and tamper/confinement are arbitrarily chosen as

mild steel and aluminum, respectively. The CSC inside diameter was arbitrarily chosen
as 3.86 inches (D=CD=9.8 em) representing an intermediate sized CSc. Figure 2
illustrates the basic CSC cross-section configuration considered initially. The CSC
parameters that were varied in this study are shown in Figure 2.

Liner Apex Angle:

Based on previous experience from experimental studies with small CSCS5 at
Sandia National Laboratories, the following initial values for explosive height (H), liner
thickness (t), tamper/confinement thickness (Tc) and explosive width (We) were
chosen:
1.
2.
3.
4.

H=2CD=2D
t = 0.01 CD = O.OlD
Tc = 0.02 CD = 0.02D
We = Liner Outside Diameter

The liner apex angle f3 was then varied between 20 and 120 degrees. The jet
penetration to diameter ratio (P/D) as a function of liner apex angle (Beta) and
standoff (S.O. in cone diameters) data are shown in Figure 3 and Table II. The curves
for P /D versus Beta were identical for standoff (S.O.) between 4 and 6 cone diameters.
Maximum P /D values then steadily decreased beyond standoffs by 6 cone diameters.
The additional curves for standoffs greater than 4 cone diameters were not shown.
However, for all standoffs, the optimum liner apex angle (Beta) was about 45 degrees,
and this value was used for the remainder of this parametric study. Bi-conic and
trumpet liner configurations 5 have been shown to improve jet penetration, however,
only conical liner geometries were considered in this study.

Liner Thickness:

The liner thickness (t) was next varied between 0.25% and 5% of the cone inside
diameter (D). The resultant jet penetration to diameter ratio (P /D) versus liner
thickness to diameter ratio (t/D) are shown in Figure 4. The optimum liner thickness
occurs at about a value of O.OlD or about 1% of the cone diameter. The explosive
width, jet penetration, optimum standoff, and jet tip velocity data are listed in Table III.
The jet tip velocity versus liner thickness is shown in Figure 5.

13

EXPLOSIVE

LINER

~---w e - - - - + - I

TARGET

STANDOFF

Figure 2. Basic Conical Shaped Charge Cross-section

14

0
t-I

LINER: COPPER, D - 9.S em, S.96 g/ee

EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, I.Slg/ee, .S5em/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/ec
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.86 g/ee

I-

a:

ft:
ft:

IW

I:

a:
t-I
c

0
I-

5
4

S.O.

.:s----.r, ..

t-I

I-

a:

ft:
IW

a..

,...

c
a..

o-

SCAP

~B

'oJ

20

40

60

a0

100

120

0
i-'
U1

FIGURE

BETA - LINER APEX ANGLE - (degrees)

3. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION TO DIAMETER RATIO
VERSUS CONICAL LINER APEX ANGLE AND STANDOrr(S.O.)

f~

0)

TABLE II.

Jet Penetration Versus Standoff and Apex Angle

Jet Penetration (CD)

Liner Apex Angle (degrees)
Standoff (CD)
0
1
2
3
4
6
8

CD

.,

20

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

2.3
3.8
4.1
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.0

2.9
4.0
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.6

3.7
4.7
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.7
5.5

2.2
3.8
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.4

1.5
3.0
3.7
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.5

1.0
2.3
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.3
2.9

0.7
1.9
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.2

0.5
1.5
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.3
1.8

Liner Cone Inside Diameter (9.8 em)

LINER: COPPER, D - 9.8 em, 8.96 g/ee

EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, 1.81g/ee, .85em/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/ee
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.86 9/ee

8
0
~

I([

n:
n:

l.&.I
Il.&.I
1:

7
6

([

1:1

I-

Z
0

I([

n:

Il.&.I

l.&.I

0...

,..

1:1

2
1

o-

0...

SCAP CODE

.....
0

.01

.02

.0S

i-'
-.J

F'IGURE

(t/D) - LINER THICKNESS TO DIAMETER RATIO

4. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION TO DIAMETER RATIO
VERSUS LINER THICKNESS TO DIAMETER RATIO

t-'
(Xl

TABLE III.
CSC Jet Penetration and Liner Thickness Data

CD Cone Inside Diameter (9.8 em)

Optimum Standoff = 52.6 em (8.4 CD)

LINER
THICKNESS
(em)
(CD)

JET
PENETRATION
(em)
(CD)

.0246
.0492
.0980
.1970
.2950
.3930
.4920

39.0
49.7
56.5
51.3
46.7
42.9
39.4

.0025
.0050
.0100
.0200
.0300
.0400
.0500

3.97
5.06
5.75
5.22
4.75
4.36
4.00

JET TIP
VELOCITY
(em/I'S)

.833
.842
.799
.675
.602
.551
.511

..

"

c
o
o

LINER: COPPER, D - 9.8 em, 8.96 g/cc

EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, 1.81g/ce, .8Sem/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/cc
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.86 g/ce

1.2

I)

"o
L

,E
oE

>....
t;

.6

...J

>

Q.

.4

1-1

....

....W

...,

.2

...,

>

oo
o

i--'

'"
FIGURE

.01

.02

.03

SCAP CODE
.04

(t/D) - LINER THICKNESS TO DIAMETER RATIO

5. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE IET TIP VELOCITY VERSUS
LINER THICKNESS TO DIAMETER RATIO

.05

Explosive Height:
Using a liner apex angle of 45 degrees and a liner thickness of O.OlD, the explosive
height (H) was varied between O.5D and 3D. The resultant P ID versus HID data are
shown in Figure 6. The jet penetration increases as the explosive height increases,
however, there is no significant increase in jet penetration for explosive heights greater
than about 1.5D. Therefore, a value for H of 1.5D to 2D appears to be sufficient. The
explosive height, jet penetration, and jet tip velocity are listed in Table IV. The jet tip
velocity does not vary significantly with explosive height. In the SCAP code, the
explosive height only effects the liner collapse angle. The smaller values of H result in
larger collapse angles and, therefore, lower jet tip velocities.

Tamper IConfinement Thickness:

Using a liner apex angle of 45 degrees, liner thickness of O.OlD (1%), and an
explosive height of (2D), the aluminum tamperlconfinement thickness (Tc) was varied
from 0 to O.09D. The resultant P ID versus Tc/D data are shown in Figure 7. The jet
penetration increases as the tamper thickness increases, however, there is only a 4%
increase of P ID for a tamper thickness increase from 0 to O.09D. The tamper
thickness and jet penetration data are listed in Table V. The jet tip velocity did not vary
significantly. The weight penalty using a very thick tamper could not be justified for the
relatively small increase in P ID. A minimum rigid casing is, however, necessary to
house the explosive and attach to the liner and to survive environmental requirements.
Therefore, a tamper thickness of O.02D was chosen.

Explosive Width:
Using a liner apex angle (Beta) of 45 degrees, liner thickness (t) of O.OlD,
explosive height (H) of 2D, and a tamper thickness (Tc) of O.02D, the explosive width
(We) was varied from 1.05D to l.4lD. The resultant P ID versus WelD data are shown
in Figure 8. The P ID values increase significantly (38%) from 5.8 to 8 for WelD values
from 1.05D to lAID, respectively. Therefore, the value of We selected will be more
dependant on explosive and total component weight and shock-shrapnel constraints.
The explosive width, jet penetration, optimum standoff and jet tip velocity values are
listed in Table VI. The jet tip velocity (Vj) versus explosive width to diameter ratio
(WelD) data are shown in Figure 9. For values of (WelD) > 1, significant forward
explosive detonation gas product venting could occur which might degrade the
performance of Gurney modeling. Therefore, the significant gain in penetration for
larger WelD values may not be realized.

20

'

lINER: COPPER, D - 9.B em, B.96 g/ee

EXPLOSIVE: OCTOl, l.Blg/ee, .BSem/us
TRMPER: RlUMINUM, 2.7 g/ee
TRRGET: MILD STEEL, 7.86 g/ee

9
0
1-1

l-

a:

LoJ

I-

LoJ
1:

a:

1-1

CI

I-

Z
0
1-1

5
4

I-

a:

I-

Q..

LoJ
Z
LoJ

,...

CI

....

o - . SCAP

Q..

e
e

r-l

I-'

F"IGURE

CODE
3

(H/D) - EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT TO DIAMETER RATIO

6. CONICRL SHRPED CHRRGE JET PENETRRTION TO DIRMETER RRTIO
VERSUS EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT TO DIRMETER RRTIO

r-..J
r-..J

TABLE IV.

CSC Jet Penetration and Explosive Height Data

CD = Cone Inside Diameter (9.8 em)
Optimum Standoff = 52.6 em (8.4 CD)

EXPLOSIVE
HEIGHT
(CD)
(em)
4.9
9.8
14.7
19.6
26.5
29.4
49.0

"

0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
5.0

JET
PENETRATION
(em)
(CD)
.38.9
53.2
56.9
57.5
57.6
57.6
57.0

3.96
5.41
5.79
5.85
5.86
5.86
5.80

JET TIP
VELOCITY
(emil'S)
.777
.831
.832
.832
.840
.843
.845

0
.....

LINER: COPPER, D - S.B em, B.S6 g/ee

EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, I.Blg/ee, .BSem/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/ee
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.B6 g/ee

I-

a:

It:

It:
W
IW
1:

a:
.....
0

I-

.....

I-

a:

It:

I-

W
Z
W

n.
,...

o-

n.
...,

SCAP CODE

11\

N
W

FIGURE

(Te/D) - TAMPER THICKNESS TO DIAMETER RATIO

7. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION TO DIAMETER RATIO
VERSUS TAMPER THICKNESS TO DIAMETER RATIO

IV

TABLEV.

"""

CSC Jet Penetration and Tamper Case Thickness Data

Explosive length 2 CD 19.66 cm,
CD Cone Inside Diameter (9.8 cm)
Jet Tip Velocity (0.837 - 0.844 cm/microsecond)

Tamper
Thick
(cm)

.0005
.0050
.0898
.1290
.2230
.8680

(CD)

.00005
.00050
.00910
.01300
.02300
.08800

Jet
Penetration
(cm)

57.3
57.4
57.6
57.4
58.3
60.1

(CD)

5.83
5.83
5.84
5.86
5.93
6.11

....
I-

LINER: COPPER,D-9.8cm,8.96g/cc,.B98cm
EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, 1.8Ig/cc, .8Scm/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/cc
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.86 g/cc

a:

~
~

1&1
I1&1

1:

....a:
c
0

I-

....0
Ia:
~

I1&1

1&1

Q..

,...

...

o-

Q..

Ie

.8

,."

1 , .

.9

SCAP CODE

" s " " " " " : ""t"',

1.1

1.2

Ie

"'.c',,,"""''""

1.3

1.4

U1

FIGURE

(He/D) - EXPLOSIVE HIDTH TO DIAMETER RATIO

8. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION TO DIAMETER RATIO
VERSUS EXPLOSIVE HIDTH TO DIAMETER RATIO

0'1

TABLE VI.

CSC Jet Penetration and Explosive Width Data

CD = Cone Inside Diameter (9.8 em)
EXPLOSIVE
HEIGHT
(em) (CD)

10.2
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
14.0

1.04
1.07
1.12
1.17
1.22
1.42

JET
PENETRATION
(em) (CD)

56.9
58.6
61.6
64.6
67.6
75.8

5.79
5.96
6.27
6.57
6.88
7.99

OPTIMUM
STANDOFF
(em) (ed)

52.6
52.6
63.2
63.2
63.2
105.0

5.35
5.35
6.43
6.43
6.43
10.6

JET TIP
VELOCITY
(em/ILS)

0.805
0.810
0.818
0.826
0.833
0.855

LINER: COPPER, D - 9.B em, B.96 g/ee

EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, I.BIg/ee, .B5cm/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/cc
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.B6 g/cc

."
C
0

II
lit

.9

0
C-

E
E

>I-

.8

1-4

...J

IoJ

>

0..
1-4

l-

.7

.,

I-

IoJ
I

..,

o-

>

.6

.9

1.1

SCAP CODE

1.2

1.3

.8
'"

(We/D) - EXPLOSIVE WIDTH TO DIAMETER RATIO

-..J

F"IGURE

9. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET TIP VELOCITY VERSUS

EXPLOSIVE WIDTH TO DIAMETER RATIO

Summary of Geometrical Parameters Study

The geometrically optimized CSC for the fixed parameters listed in Table I should
be configured as shown in Figure 10. The 1.21D vertical height for the tamper and 22.5
degree upper taper of the tamper were found to be near optimum if a centered single
point detonation of the explosive is assumed.
Using a copper liner, a secondary explosive with properties similar to Octol, and an
aluminum (or some equivalent weight and thickness of a different material) tamper, the
optimized configuration shown in Figure 10 can be scaled to any diameter CSC desired
to obtain scaled penetrations into mild steel targets. Dimensional analysis and
similarity methods 6-11 have been used to derive scaling laws that are commonly
accepted and have been verified experimentally.
Different esc Liner Materials

The optimized CSC configuration shown in Figure 10 was used to briefly

investigate the effect of liner material. The CSC cone diameter was fixed at 3.86 inch
(9.8 em). Copper and steel liners were evaluated. The jet penetration to diameter ratio
(P/D) versus standoff to diameter ratio are compared for copper and steel liners in
Figure 11. Density, bulk sound speed, maximum jet penetration, optimum standoff, and
jet tip velocity are compared for copper and steel liners in Table VII. Larger liner
densities relative to the target density have been demonstrated 1 to produce greater jet
penetrations for equal jet tip velocities and jet lengths. However, the higher liner
densities usually result in larger liner mass to explosive ratios and, therefore, lower
conical liner collapse velocities which produce lower jet tip velocities and potentially
less penetration.
Since only a relatively small percentage of the liner thickness forms the high
velocity penetrating jet, 5 high density material (platinum, gold, etc.) plating of low
density (aluminum for example) material would be very desirable. s This would produce
a multi-layered liner3 which would be much more efficient for a given CSC
configuration. However, the cost of materials and liner forming processes usually
prohibit the use of multi-layered liners. The use of single layered liners of depleted
uranium and tantalum has been shown to be very effective. More dense liners than
copper or steel were not evaluated because a good estimate of the minimum jet
penetration velocities for those materials in steel or other targets were not available.
The XSCAP20 code is currently being improved to include jet-target yield strength
models that will not require the minimum jet penetration velocity as input.

28

EXPLOSIVE
TAMPER

LINER

20

11.-

~II

~1.00-1.40~

/.-00020

TARGET

20-60

Figure 10. Optimized Conical Shaped Charge Configuration

29

...,
o

LINER: D - 9.8 em, 8.96 g/ee, .098em

EXPLOSIVE: OCTOL, 1.8Ig/ee o .8Sem/us
TAMPER: ALUMINUM. 2.7 g/ee
TARGET: MILD STEEL, 7.86 g/ee

....o
Ia:

D::
D::
W
IW

1:

....a:

LINER
MATERIAL

I-

....o
I-

"'

COPPER

a:

D::

IW

STEEL

W
0..

.,
IW

o-

SCAP CODE

0..

.....

o
FIGURE

11

(S.O./D) - STANDOFF TO DIAMETER RATIO

CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION TO DIAMETER
RATIO VERSUS STANDOFF TO DIAMETER RATIO

TABLE VII.
Copper Versus Steel Liner Data
9.8 em, Octol Explosive, Aluminum Tamper
Configuration - Figure 10

= =

CD D

Liner
Material

Density
(g/Cc)

Copper
Steel

8.96
7.86

Bulk
Sound
Speed
(cm/~S)

0394
0.456

Max Jet
Penetration
(em) (CD)
56.8
43.1

5.8
4.4

TBCON - Jet breakup - yield stress model constant

YLIN - Dynamic yield stress of jet material
UMIN - Minimum jet penetration velocity

Optimum
Standoff
(em) (CD)
52.6
42.5

5.4
4.3

Jet Tip

SCAP Variable:!

Veloci~

(em/~S)

0.805
0.826

UMIN
TBCON
5
7

YLIN

(cm/~S)

.0022
.0079

.14
.14

Different esc Explosives

The explosives listed in Table VIII were modeled in the CSC configuration shown
in Figure 10. The SCAP input parameters required are also listed in Table VIII. The
jet penetration to diameter ratio (P /D) versus Gurney Velocity12 (explosive ability to
drive metal) data are shown in Figure 12 for the different explosives listed in Table
VIII. Clearly, the higher the Gurney velocity, the larger the jet penetration. The P /D
versus jet tip velocity (Vj) data are shown in Figure 13 for the same explosives. Again,
the higher the jet tip velocity the larger the jet penetration. The P /D versus jet tip to
Gurney velocity ratio (Vj/Vg ) are illustrated in Figure 14. The higher (Vj/Vg ) ratios
produce the larger jet penetration.

SCAP Code Sample Output

A sample graphic output for the 3.86 inch (9.8 cm) diameter CSC is included in
Appendix B. The initial cross-section modeled in SCAP code is illustrated in Figure B1.
Tamper and liner material velocities versus initial material position are shown in
Figures B2 and B3. The accumulated jet mass, momentum, kinetic energy and breakup
time versus jet velocity are shown in Figures B4 - B7. Jet penetration versus time and
velocity are shown in Figures B8 - B12 for standoffs of 0, 21.1, 63.2, 105, and 189 cm,
respectively. The detonation wave propagation, conical liner collapse, jet and slug
formation, and tamper-explosive detonation product gas expansion are graphically
illustrated in Figures B13 - B16. A description of some of the CSCfjet parameter data
found in Appendix B is presented in Reference 1. Several graphs are new and have
never been documented.

32

Conclusions

The SCAP code has been shown to be a useful tool in the design of conical shaped
charges (CSC). Parametric studies of CSC designs can be quickly and inexpensively
conducted with the SCAP code. The code generated jet penetration versus standoff
and jet tip velocity were shown to compare well with experimental data.
The CSC geometrical parametric study for a copper liner, aluminum tamper, and a
secondary explosive (Octol) produced the following optimal CSC design parameters
relative to the conical liner inside diameter (D):
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

Apex angle
Liner thickness
Explosive height
Tamper thickness
Explosive width
Optimum standoff

=
=
=
=
=
=

45 degrees,
O.OlD,
(LSD - 2D),
0.020,
(lD - 1.40)
(2D-6D)

Using similar liner, explosive and tamper materials, the optimal geometry shown in
Figure 10 can be scaled to any diameter (D) CSC to produce a scaled jet penetration in
mild steel targets.

-.

33

I,;>

.I>.

TABLE VIII.

Conical Shaped Charge Explosive Paramerers

'.

Density

De

Vg

Explosive

(glee)

(emIJLS)

(CMIJLS)

Gamma

Vg/De

LX-13
Octol
CompB
PBX-9501
RDX

1.53
1.81
1.72
1.84
1.80

0.726
0.848
0.802
0.883
0.880

0.240
0.278
0.272
0.290
0.286

2.77
2.79
2.76
2.66
2.82

0.331
0.328
0.339
0.328
0.325

De
Vg = (2E)o.5
gamma

= Detonation velocity
= Gurney velocity
= Explosive Exponent

lINERa Cu, D-9.8em, 8.96g/ee. .B98em

TAMPER: ALUMINUM, 2.7 g/ee
TARGET a MILD STEEL. 7.86 g/ee
EXPLOSIVE
RDX
PBX-SSBI
OCTOl

1-4

I-

a:

IW

1:

a:

1-4

1=1

0
I-

1-4

I-

a:
~

IW

Q..

I-

...,W

o-

.....

SCAP CODE

1=1

...,

Q..

'W'

.2

Vl

- GURNEY VELOCITY - em/microsecond

12. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE ~ET PENETRATION TO DIAMETER
RATIO VERSUS GURNEY VELOCITY AND EXPLOSIVE
[(2E)~.5]

~IGURE

0..

LINER: Cu. D-9.8em. 8.9Sg/ee e98em

TAMPERz ALUMINUM. 2.7 g/ee
TARGETz MILD STEEL. 7.8S g/ee

t-

o:

It:

It:
LoJ

t-

LoJ

EXPLOSIVE

%:

0:

RDX
PBX-9se1
OCTOl

tZ

t-

o:

It:

t-

LoJ

~
a..
t-

..,
LoJ

..

o-

.....

SCAP

cone:

a..
.....

:3

.s

.8

.4

FIGURE

VJ - JET TIP VELOCITY - em/microsecond

13. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION TO DIAMETER
RATIO VERSUS JET TIP VELOCITY AND EXPLOSIVE

.'

LINERI Cu, D-9.8cm, 8.96g/cc, .B98cm

TRMPER: RLUMINUM, 2.7 g/cc
TRRGETI MILD STEEL, 7.86 g/cc

t-

a:

IX

EXPLOSIVE

IX

.....a

RDX
PBX-95Bl

tW

1:

a:
H

OCTOL

t-

EJ

Z
0

t-

a:

IX

t-

Q.

t-

W
...,

o-

....Q

Q.
v.>

....,

SCAP CODE

2.7

-.I

rIGURE

JET TIP TO GURNEY VELOCITY RATIO

14. CONICRL SHRPED CHRRGE JET PENETRATION TO DIRMETER RRTIO
VERSUS JET TO GURNEY VELOCITY AND EXPLOSIVE

00

TABLE IX.
Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration versus Standoff and Explosive Data
Liner:
Tamper:
Target:
CD

Explosive

LX-13
CompB
Octol
RDX
PBX-9501

Copper, 45 degree apex angle, .098 in thick, 8.90 glee, 9.8 em I.D.
Aluminum, 2.7 glee,
Milt Steel, 7.86 glee
Cone Inside Diameter (9.8 em)

Vg
(g/cc)

0.240
0.272
0.278
0.286
0.290

Vj
(cm!J.'S)

0.650
0.749
0.787
0.814
0.812

v = (2E)o.s = Gurney velocity

g

Vj = Jet tip velocity

.,

Jet
Penetration
(CM)
(CD)

Optimum
Standoff
(cm)
(CD)

42.6
51.4
54.3
56.3
56.3

42.1
52.6
52.6
52.6
52.6

4.33
5.23
5.52
5.73
5.72

4.28
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35

V/Vg

2.708
2.754
2.831
2.846
2.800

APPENDIX A

Section I.

Section II.

Selected CSC Analytical Experimental Parameters

SCAP Input Parameter Data File

Section III.

CSC Cross-sections

Section IV.

SCAP Model of Cross-section

Sectuib V.

SCAP Code Jet Penetration Versus Standoff

Output Compared to Experimental Data

39

APPENDIX A

Section I

Selected esc Analytical-Experimental Parameters

40

TABLE A I.

Conical Shaped Charge (CSC) Measured Parameters

LINER

.I:>

i-"

D
(in)

Material

0.690
3.230
3.860
4.660
9.125

COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
STEEL

EXPLOSIVE

Thick
(in)

Apex
Angle
!.QW

.030
.081
.082
.105
.158

42
42
42
60
60

Height
(in)

1.10
3.84
4.75
4.10
7.25

Weight

TXVe
PBX-9501
OCTaL
OCTaL
OCTaL
COMPB

.Qhl

0.60
1.90
3.54
5.33
30.00

Dia
(in)

.69
3.20
3.86
4.87
9.13

TAMPER

Height
(in)

1.51
5.51
7.45
6.70
15.50

Material

Thick
(in)

PMMA
AL
AL
AL
STEEL

.250
.090
.080
.065
.024

TABLEAU.
"'tv

Conical Shaped Charge (CSC) Analytical (SCAP) - Experimental Parameters

D
(in.)

.690
3.200
3.860
4.660
9.125

*
D
OSO
P

Tip Velocity (in/}.s)

Meas.
SCAP

0.620
0.838

*
*
0.700

.564
.800
.837
.775
.694

No data available
- CSC Conical liner inside diameter
- Optimum Standoff
- CSC jet penetration

-.

OSO (in.)
Meas.
SCAP

*
20.5
30.0
32.0

16.0
17.7
20.7
24.9
31.0

Meas.

*
17.5
22.5
25.0
30.0

P (in)
SCAP

14.5
18.1
22.6
24.3
29.7

APPENDIX A

Section II

SCAP Input Parameter Data Files

(Detailed discussion in Reference 1)

43

TABLE AlII .
.::.

.::.

3.86 Inch I.D. esc SCAP Input Data File

7-JUN-88
INPUT DECK MASS
GM

LENGTH
CM

DRAG42CUST.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC

14:28:31

XSCAP 2

THIS FILE -

IACCEL lGURZN
4
1

DRAG42CUST.LIS

IAXIS lINTER ISWDET IBREAK

2
2
1
3

IGEOM NZ
ETYPE
DEXP
OET
RT2E
GAMMA
2 78 OCTOL
1.81.E+ee 8.480E-81 2.780E-01 2.790E.ee
DLIN
VBLKL
CUTJET
TB
T1
YLIN
8.988E+ee 3.940E-01 1.808E+ee 1.268E+.2 2.260E+02 2.2eeE-83
LINER PARAMETERS
2.26.E+.1 4.982E+ee 2.260E+.l 6.106E+ee

Nt..

TBCON

4 6.808E+ee

DCON
NC
2.700E+ee
4
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
8.808E+ee 6.186E+ee ....0[.00 6.108E+ee
HDET
RDET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
1.986E+01 808E+ee 1.232E l 8.808E+00 2.&00E+82

NSOFF
20

NTL
1

DTAR
THICK
UWIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.880E+00 8.6eeE+81 1.400E-81 6.400E+00 8.&00E+ee
CPRINT
PRINT

CPLOT
NOPLOT

CSHADE
SPARSE

CMOVIE
NOMOVIE

CSETUP
NOPLOT

CCNVEL
NOPLOT

C.JTVEL
NOPLOT

CAJTWS
NOPLOT

CPDETL
NONE

CSOUT.

CSNPST
NOSNAP

NPP
8

XMAX
XMIN
YMAX
XYFAC
3.784E.81-7.878E+00 1.841E.01 1.808E.00
CAJTt.lM
NOPLOT

CAJTKE
NOPLOT

CBREAK
NOPLOT

CPNSFF
NOPLOT

TOUT
2.000E.01 . 00.E+ee 0.000E+ee 0.0eeE+00 . 0 E+.E

.'

TABLE A IV.

4.66 Inch 1.0. CSC SCAP Input Data File

7-JON-88
INPUT DECK .....SS
CM

LENCTH
CM

ToweecUST.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC

14:36:38

XSCAP 2.e

THIS FILE -

IACCEL lCURZN
4
1

ToweecUST.LIS

lAX IS lINTER ISMDET IBREAK

2
2
t
3

ICEOM NZ
ETYPE
DEXP
VDET
RT2E
CAMMA
2 7e OCTOL
I.BleE.00 B.48eE-el 2.800E-et 3.e7eE+00
DLIN
YBLKL
CUT JET
TB
T1
YLIN
8.oseE.08 3.94eE-el l.eeeE.00 1.7eeE.e2 2.26eE.e2 2.208E-e3
LINER PARAMETERS
3.eeeE.el S.18SE+ee 3.8eeE.el S.3seE.08

TBCON
4 6.8eeE.08

NI..

DCON
NC
2.7eeE.08
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
e.08eE.08 S.46eE+ee e.8eeE.ee S.7e4E.ee 1.7eeE.el 1.7esE.el 2.I08E.el 2.1eeE.el
HDET
ROET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
2.3seE.el e.8eeE.ee 1.leeE.el e.eeeE.08 2.eeeE+e2

NSOFF
2e

NTL
1

DTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
YMIN
7.8seE.08 9.608E.el 1.4eeE-el 6.4eeE.ee e.e.eE.ee

4>-

tn

CPRINT
PRINT

CPLOT
PLOT

CSHADE
SPARSE

CMOYIE
NOMOYIE

CSETUP
PLOT

CCNVEL
NOPLOT

CJTVEL
NOPLOT

CAJTVS
NOPLOT

CPDETL
NONE

CSOUT.

CSNPST
NOSNAP

NPP
e

XMAX
XMIN
YMAX
XYFAC
3.94eE+el-8.9geE.ee 1.27eE.el l.eeeE.08
CAJT"""
NOPLOT

CAJTKE
NOPLOT

CBREAK
NOPLOT

CPNSFF
NOPLOT

TOUT
e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.ee e.eeeE.08 e.eeeE.ee

.,.

TABLEAV

0'1

9.125 Inch 1.0. CSC SCAP Input Data File

M3STEEL.DAT
INPUT DECK MASS
GM
IGEOM NZ
2 62

LENGTH
CM

7-JUN-88

M3STEEL.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC

14:4e:62

XSCAP 2.e
M3STEEL.LIS

THIS FILE -

IACCEL lGURZN IAXIS lINTER ISMDET IBREAK

1
3
1
2
2

"

RT2E
GAMMA
DEXP
VDET
ETYPE
1.72eE+ee 7.9geE-e1 2.S8eE-el 2.9geE+ee
COMP B

YLIN
VBLKL
T1
OLIN
CUTJET
TB
7.86eE+ee 4.67eE-e1 1.BeeE+ee 2.26eE+e2 2.26eE+e2 7.geeE-e3
LINER PARAMETERS
3.eeeE+el 1.2e6E+e1 3.eeeE+e1 1.26lE+el

TBCON
4 7.BeeE+ee

NL

DCON
NC
7.860E+ee
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
0.ee0E+ee l.26lE+el e.eeeE+ee l.268E.el l.7seE.el l.782E+el 3.eeeE+el 3.BeeE+el
HDET
RDET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
3.e6eE+el e.eeeE+0e l.86.E+el ee0E.ee 2.60eE+e2

NSOFF
2e

NTL
1

DTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.86eE+0e l.eeeE.e2 l.7eeE-0l 6.4eeE.ee e.eeeE+08

"

"

CPRINT
PRINT

CPLOT
PLOT

CSHADE
SPARSE

CWOVIE
NOWOVIE

CSETUP
PLOT

CCNVEL
NOPLOT

CJTVEL
NOPLOT

CAJTMS
NOPLOT

CPDETL
NONE

CSOUT-

- - - -

CSNPST
NOSNAP

NPP
e

XMAX
XWIN
YMAX
XYFAC
6.674E.el-l.12eE+el 2.618E+el 1.eeeE.08
CAJTMM
NOPLOT

CAJTKE
NOPLOT

CBREAK
NOPLOT

CPNSFF
NOPLOT

TOUT
e.000E.ee e.e0eE.0e e.000E+08 e.eeeE+ee e.ee0E+ee 0.eeeE.ee

TABLE A VI.

3.23 Inch I.D. SCAP Input Data File

382CU42ST.DAT
INPUT DECK MASS
GM
IGEOM
2

LENGTH
CM

7-JUN-88

382CU42ST.DAT
TIME
MICROSEC

14:42:68

XSCAP 2.8
382CU42ST.LlS

THIS FILE -

IACCEL lGURZN
4
1

IAXIS lINTER ISMDET IBREAK

2
2
1
3

NZ
ETYPE
DEXP
VDET
RT2E
GAMMA
39 OCTOL
1.818E+ee 8.480E-81 2.788E-81 2.778E+ee

DLIN
VBLKL
CUTJET
TB
TI
YLIN
8.980E+ee 3.948E-el 1.888E+ee 1.03eE+82 1.830E+e2 2.2eeE-03
LINER PARAMETERS
2.leeE+81 4.182E+ee 2.1eeE+81 4.318E+ee

NL
TBCON
4 6.ee8E+ee

DCON
NC
2.7eeE.ee
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
8.eeeE.ee 4.318E+ee 8.888E+ee 4.647E.ee 9.7eeE+ee 1.889E+81 2.1eeE+81 2.1eeE+81
HDET
RDET
H
SOFMIN
SDFMAX
1.397E+81 8.880E.ee 1.112E+81 8.8e0E+ee 1.4eeE+82

NSOFF
28

NTL
1

DTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.8S8E+88 S.8eeE+81 1.4eeE-0I 6.4eeE+ee 8.888E+ee

"""

--..]

CPRINT
PRINT

CPLOT
PLOT

CSHADE
SPARSE

CMOVIE
NOMOVIE

CSETUP
PLOT

CCNVEL
NOPLOT

CJTVEL
PLOT

CAJTMS
NOPLOT

CPDETL
NONE

CSOUT.

CSNPST
NOSNAP

NPP
8

XMAX
XYFAC
XMIN
YMAX
2.794E+81-2.728E+ee 9.894E+ee 1.8eeE+ee
CAJTMM
NOPLOT

CAJTKE
NOPLOT

CBREAK
NOPLOT

CPNSFF
NOPLOT

TOUT
1.6e0E+01 0.000E+00 8.e00E+e0 8.800E+00 e.ee0E+e0 8.00eE+08

TABLE A VII
.;.
<Xl

0.69 Inch I.D. SCAP Input Data File

S9CU42STPB.OAT

7-JUN-88

S9CU42STPB.OAT

INPUT DECK MASS

CM

LENGTH
CM

TIME
~C~SEC

14:44:18

S9CU42STPB.LIS

THIS FILE -

IACCEL lGURZN
4
1

XSCAP 2 .

IAXIS lINTER ISMOET IBREAK

2
2
1
3

ICEOM NZ
ETYPE
OEXP
VOET
RT2E
GAMMA
2 2. PBX96.1
1.84.E... 8.83.E-.1 2.BS.E-.l 2.SS.E...
Nt..

OLIN
VBLKL
CUT JET
TB
T1
YLIN
8.98.E... 3.94.E-.1 1 ....E... 2.8..E l 1 ....E4 2.2E-.3
LINER PARAMETERS
2.1 ..E1 9.34.E-e1 2.1 ..E.e1 1.e1SE."

TBCON

4 6 ....E. . .

OCON
NC
1.l8eE.e.
8
CONFINEMENT PARAMETERS
.....E... 1.27.E... e.888E." l.986E." 1.888E." 3.9B.E... 2.1.eE.el .....E...
HOET
ROET
H
SOFMIN
SOFMAX
3.9BeE." e ....E... 2.2e9E." e ....E... 4.e..E.el

NSOFF
2e

NTL
1

OTAR
THICK
UMIN
HOLEC
VMIN
7.8seE." 2 ....E1 l.4"E-el 6 ....E........E...

..

CPRINT
PRINT

CPLOT
PLOT

CSHADE
SPARSE

CMOVIE
NOMOVIE

CSETUP
PLOT

CCNVEL
NOPLOT

CJTVEL
PLOT

CAJTMS
NOPLDT

CPOETL
NONE

CSOUT.

CSNPST
NOSNAP

NPP

XMAX
XMIN
YMAX
XYFAC
.....E........E... e .eeE." e ....E...
CAJTMM
NOPLDT

CAJTKE
NDPLDT

CBREAK
NDPLDT

CPNSFF
NDPLDT

TOUT
.E........E e .E........E* .E........Ee

APPENDIX A

Section III
Selected esc Cross-sections

49

TOTAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHT=5 .,

1 - - - - ...7 5 - - - - 1

0.18._

IH'~~---L
0.88"

OCTOl
EXPLOSIVE

7.75'

COPPER
CONICAL

5.18"

l~ER

...II~- ...-!I~

0.078"

I - ".02" - l ~",-O.o82"

1 - - - - - ... 10"

Figure AI. 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section

50

..,
...

8.5"

O.o65~----:::::""-'--~'~ 0.1 OS.

Figure A2. 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section

5l

15.5'
S"

STEEL
CONICAL
LINER

7.0"

,
1------8.125 " - - - . - . l

1-----Sl.515"====:J

1-----8.563"

Figure A 3, M3 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC CrossSection

52

0.3"

1.258"

4.850"
3.84"
4.25'
4.38"

t
-

i:

f
0.563"

COPPER
LINER

0.081 "
THICK

3.23"
3.4

0.090"

3.58
Figure A4. 3.23 Inch Diameter Conical Shaped Charge Cross-section
53

v.

LEXAN
PBX9S01
EXPWSIVE

COPPER

1.566"
I

1.691"

0.63" .
0.754"
0.183"

,..
,..

'II(

1.001"
1.250"

1.5"
j.--0.75"

.-1

.-,

Figure AS. 0.69 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-section

APPENDIX A

Section IV

SCAP CSC Modeling Cross-sections

55

VI

OJ

INITIATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC

IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
IBREAK =1 IAXIS
=2 lINTER =2
,...--

7.50
6.25

~
......

1
I

3.75
2.50
1.25
0

-6

-4

AXIS (CM)

Figure A6. 3.86 Inch I.D. esc

12

16

@)
INITIATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
IBREAK. =3 IAXIS =2 nNTER 2

10

.....

4:

fg

01
-15

j,v

-10

-5

o
AXIS (eM)

Figure A7. 4.87 Inch I.D. esc

U1

-..J

10

15

\.n

co

~
INmATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
!BREAK =3 IAXIS -2 lINTER -2

20

16

a~

12

"
oI
-20

)(
-10

o
AXIS(CM)

Figure AS. M3 9.12S Inch I.D.

10

esc

20

~
INITIATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1

8.25

!BREAK

S"
g

rg......

=3 IAXIS =2 lINTER =2

3.75

o 1)(
-4

r--=

AXIS (eM)

lJ1
\0

Figure AfJ. 3.23 Inch I.D. esc

12

(j\

~
INmATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
lACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
!BREAK =3 IAXIS =2 lINTER =2

2.5

en
;:,

1.15

o I )(
-2

-1

AXIS (CM)

Figure AIO. 0.69 Inch 1.0. esc

APPENDIX A

Section V

SCAP Code Jet Penetration Versus

Standoff Output Compared to Experimental Data

61

m
"-l

g
90

LEGEND

80

= SCAP MODELING

0=

DRAGON,42,CU,OCT,ST DAT

70

60

50

40

Z
~ 30
20

to
0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

STANDOFF (CM)

Figure All. CSC Jet Penetration Versus StandotT Analytical-Experimental Comparison

(@J
100

LEGEND
c = SCAP MODELING
0 = TOW.60.CU.OCT.ST D~TA
80

~
~

~
~

O+,----~---.----._---.----._--_r----._--_,

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

STANDOFF (eM)

'"w

Figure A12. CSC Jet Penetration Versus StandotT Analytical.Experimental Comparison

0'\

.;.

OJ

100

LEGEND
o = SCAP MODELING
o = M3,60DEG ST LINER,COMPB
80

Q
Z
S.<s!

60

40

20

O~I--------.--------r-------.--------.-------~

50

100

150

200

250

STANDOFF (CM)

Figure A13. M3 CSC Jet Penetration Versus StandotT Analytical.Experimental Comparison

(@])
LEGEND
o = SCAP MODELING
0= 3.3IN ID.CU.42APEX DATA
o

reZ

3.

20

10

041-----T-----r----~----~----~----T_--~

60

80

100

120

STANDOFF (CM)

(J\

(/I

Figure A14. 3.23 Inch Diameter CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff
Analytical-Experimental Comparison

140

'"'"

OJ
LEGEND
o = SCAP MODELING
o = .691N lD, CU, 42 APEX,

S'
g
~

~
z
re

0~1----~---T----r----r----r----r--~r---~
15
20
25
3D
35
40
5
10

STANDOFF (CM)

Figure AIS. .69 Inch Diameter CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff
Analytical.Experimental Comparison

.,

APPENDIXB

Sample SCAP Code Graphical Output of Selected CSC

67

Cl'I
00

OJ
6-NOV-87 - 14:52:46 - XSCAP 2.0
INITIATION TIME = 0.0 MICROSEC
IACCEL =4 IGURZN =1 ISMDET =1
IBREAK =1 IAXIS =2 lINTER =2

7.50
6.25

S?
g
fI)

3.75
2.50

1.25
0

-8

-4

AXIS (cM)

Figure Bl. CSC dCAP Code Modeling Cross-Section

12

16

7-JUN-88 -

14:47:31 -

XSCAP 2.0

0.5-

G-e-e

e e LEGEND

SXJ3<E6 0

o=XI>O

G'

cr

0.4-

.~~

e3
.....

~
g

0.3-

E-<
.....
U

0.2-

0::

re

0.1-

0.0 ,
-7.5

,
-5

,
-2.5

-.

-- I

o
2.5
5
INITIAL X (CM)

7.5

,
10

m
\D

Figure BZ. Tamper Case Velocity Versus Case Initial Position

12.5

"

-...]

7-JUN-88 - 14:47:31 - XSCAP 2.0

LEGEND
D=V
o =VO
6. = VJET

+
EQUILIBRATED
x = VSLG

VJET

E'en
o

~:;>

0.0

I"

~f

lC i H

)( 1 H

0.3

0.4

1H
0.5

)(1 H 1 u
0.6
0.7

~
0.8

)( 1 )(
0.9

~
1

INITIAL X / H (ND)

Figure 83. Material Velocities Versus Initial Uner Height Position

(rtij

7-JUN-88 -

14:47:31 -

XSCAP 2.0

140

120

~
~

CIl

100

80

;6.
~

oI

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC)
-.J

I-'

Figure 84. Jet Mass Versus Jet Velocity

III

0.8

-..J
N

7-JUN-BB -

14:47:31 -

XSCAP 2.0 (!I~

-.
~ 45

~ 40~
~

::s

a-*
r;

........

35
30

::s

I
~
o

::J
u

0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC;)

FigurE. liS. Jet Momentum Versus Jet Velocity

7-JUN-88 -

14:47:31 -

XSCAP 2.0

W 12
*
'()
P:l

~ 10-p

8 __

~
g

g.
~

:x=

~o

::>

3
~

~ oI

0.1

0.2

0.3

OA

0.5

VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC)

o..J

Figure 86. Jet Kinetic Energy Versus Jet Velocity

!!II

OB

-..J

"'"

7-JUN-88 - 14:47:31 - XSCAP 2.0

800

LEGEND

700

D=T_B

U'

~
5

~
rxl

III

oI
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

VELOCITY (CM/MICROSEC)

Figure B7. Jet Breakup Time Versus Jet Velocity

"

.>

w,
0.8

\!I!J

t:i:\

7-JUN-88 -

14:47:31 -

XSCAP 2.0

PENETRATION AT O.OOOE+OO (eM) STANDOFF

120

100

LEGEND
0 - P(T)
0 = P(V)

~
S
~

~z

rt

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

TIME (MICROSEC)
-..J
U1

Figure 88. Jet Penetration Versus TIme and Velocity at Zero eM StandofT

[tid

......
0'\

7-JUN-88 - 14:47.31NDOFF
.
- XSCAP 2.0 ~
..
PENETRATION AT 21.1
(eM) STA
'1'1
120

LEGEND
0=

100

pet)

o=PM

Q
~

~z

[f

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

TIME (MICROSEC)

Figure 89. Jet Penetration Versus TIme and Velocity at 21.1 eM StandolT

, ,

PENET~ATION

7-JUN-88 -

AT

63.2

r.

. - XSCAP 2.0 ~
14:47.31NDOFF
..
(CM) STA
'I

120

LEGEND
o=P(T)
0=

100

P(V)

80

80

r:q

40

~Z

c..

20

o Ie'
100

ii

125

ii

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

~I

325

TIME (MICROSEC)
-...J
-...J

Figure 810. Jet Penetration Versus Time and Velocity at 63.2 eM StandotT

-...I
00

7-JUN-88
PENETRATION AT 105.

1447:31 - XSCAP2.0 ~
-(CMj SfANDOFF
...

120

LEGEND

a-Pm
0=

100

'S?
g

P(V)

80

~
~

i
c..

60

40

20

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

TIME (MICROSEC)

Figure Btl. Jet Penetration Versus Time and Velocity at lOS eM Standoff

,,

.. .II.

"

7-JUN-88
PENETRATION AT 189. -

. 7'31 - XS
14..f ''ANDOFF CAP2.0 ~
..
(CM) ST
rl"

120

LEGEND
0=

100

~
.......
~
~

0=

P(T)
P(V)

80

60

I
275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

TIME (MICROSEC)

-:J
\0

Figure B12. Jet Penetration Versus Time and Velocity at 189 eM StandofT

...

OJ

~
7-JUN-88 - 14:47:31
TIME = 10.0
MICROSEC

XSCAP 2.0

~
rg

-.;;;;;

o .' ......... . . . . . . . . . . .
o
-7.5
-5
-2.5

AXIS2.5(eM)

7.5

Figure 813. Detonation Wave at Liner Apex

.,

..

10

12.5

... '

7-JUN-88 - 14:05:16 TIME = 20.0

MICROSEC

XSCAP 2.0

lri!J

12

....

o.

8-1 .....................................................

Q
~

. . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................................
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~i
.
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4-1,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,
. . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................................
.... '.' ................................. ..
.....................................
..................................... ..
................................... ..
...................................
..................................
................................. ..

o I' ...................
,
,.
-7.5

-5

-2.5

.
2.5

o.

7.5

AXIS (CM)

00

I-'

:>

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Figure 814. Detonation Process Almost Completed

10

12.5

..

(Xl

'"
7-JUN 8
TIME = 60.0- 8 MICROS~J6
- 14-0 - XSCAP 2.0

~rIt;lij

30

...
.. ...... ..... ... .. . . ....
. .. .
.....
~

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . ..
...............
,

%
.......

20

e
~

...................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
....................
.
..................
...................
...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.................. .
................. ...
..................
..................
................................................ ....... ......., ...... ....
..................
............................... .....................
.
.... ...... ... ............ ...........................
. .. . . .. . ... ..... .
..... - .. - ...... .
'1
................
.
...............
.............
- .. ...
...............
................ .

10

I .................

....... '
O
I
-10
0

OJ

$ 5 S S SSS~S'S S ,

10

20

30

40

50

AXIS (eM)

Figure BIS. Jet, Slug, Detonation Product Gases at 60 Microseconds

".

(.

~_

,-

7-JUN-BB - 14-

TIME =

100.

MICROS~~16

30

40

XSCAP 2.0

(til]

50

~.'.'.'.'.

:-:-:'>:-~.'.'.'.'.'

37.5

..............
......................... ....

..............
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . . . . . . . . ...
............
. . . . . . . . . . . ...
.............
............
. . ... ... ....
.......
............
.... ...
..........
...........

... -.

25

'

.......... .
...........
......... ..

12.5

I ............
.
.

O
-10

'SSSSS\

10

20

50

60

AXIS (eM)

co

Figure 816.

esc Jet at Near Maximum Length

70

80

References

1.

A. C. Robinson, SCAP-A Shaped Charge Analysis Program - User's Manual for

SCAP 1.0, SAND85-0708, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,
April 1985.

2.

A. C. Robinson, Asymptotic Formulas for the Motion of Shaped Charge Liners.

SAND84-1712, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, September 1984.

3.

A. C. Robinson, Multilayered Liners for Shaped Charge Jets.

SAND85-2300,_Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, December
1985.

4.

P. C. Chou and W. J. Flis, Recent Developments in Shaped Charge Technology.

Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechhnics, 11,99-114, 1986.

5.

M. G. Vigil, Explosive Initiation by Very Small Conical Shaped Charge Jets.

Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Detonation, Albuquerque,
NM, July 15-19, 1985.

6.

L. 1. Sedo, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics. Trans. by Morris

Friedman, ed., Maurice Hold, NY: Academic Press, 1959.

7.

H. L. Langhaar, Dimensional Analysis and Theory of Models. Wiley, NY, 1951

8.

W. E. Baker, P. S. Westline, and F. T. Dodge, Similarity Methods in Engineering

Dynamics, Hayden Book Co., Inc., Rochelle Park, NJ, 1973.

9.

M. G. Vigil, A Scaling Law for the Penetration of Reinforced Concrete Barriers

with Tamped Explosive Charges on the Surface, SAND79-1256, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, August 1979.

10.

Bridgman, P. W., Dimensional Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press,

1931.

11.

M. G. Vigil and R. P. Sandoval, Development of a Method for Selection of Scaled

Conical Shaped Explosive Charges. SAND80-1770, Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM, March 1982.

12.

J. E. Kennedy, Gurney Energy of Explosives: Estimation of the Velocity and

Impulse Imparted to Driven Metal. Report SC-RR-70-790, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, December 1970.

84

,.

DISTRIBUTION:
Aerojet Ordnance Co.
Attn:
J. Carleone
2521 Michelle
Tustin, CA 92680

Honeywell, Inc. (3)

Defense Systems Division
J. Houlton
Attn:
G. R. Johnson
L. T. Pfeiffer
5901 South County Road 18
Edina, MN 55436

Ballistic Research Lab (10)

Aberdeen Proving Ground
Attn:
D. Dietrich
R. J. Eichelberger
F. Grace
J. T. Harrison
R. Jameson
K. Kimsey
M. Lampson
S. B. Segletes
W. P. Walter
S. K. Golaskie
Aberdeen, MD 21005

Lawrence Livermore National Lab (6)

Attn:
M. Finger
J. D. Immele
J. L. Levatin
M.J. Murphy
M. Van Thiel
M. L. Wilkins
P. O. Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550

Joseph Backofen
P. O. Box 1925
Washington, DC 20013
Battelle Columbus Laboratory (2)
Attn:
J. White
D. R. Trott
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Ctr for Explosives Tech. Research
New Mexico Technical Institute
Attn:
Per-Anders Persson
Socorro, NM 87801
~

.-

Dyna East Corp (3)

Attn:
P. C. Chou
R. C. Ciccarelli
W. J. Flis
3132 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

Los Alamos National Lab (12)

Attn:
J. D. Allen, G787
R. Carver, B265
E. H. Farnum, G756
M. Ginsberg, J960
L. W. Hantel, F668
J. Hopson, F664
R. Karpp, P940
J. Repa, J960
P. Studt, F668
R. J. Yount, F664
J. Walsh
R. McCormick
P. O. Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Naval Weapons Center
Materials Eng. Branch
Attn:
G.AHayes
China Lake, CA 93555

85

, ..
Teledyne (3)
Attn:
B. Heideman
D. F. Elliott
W. B. Richardson
3601 Union Road
Hollister, CA 95023
U.S. Army Armament Research
and Development Center
A Garcia
Attn:
Building 354
Dover, NJ 07801

E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co, Inc.

F. C. Sawyers
Attn:
3520 Pebble Beach Dr
Farmers Branch, TX 75234
Explosive Technology (2)
Attn:
M. D. Anderson
J. E. Kennedy
P. O. BoxKK
Fairfield, CA 94533-0659
Mason & Hanger (6)
Silas Mason Co., Inc
Pantex Plant
Attn:
D.Garrett
R. Slape
D. Hilleary
D. Schaffer
P. Kramer
C.A Campos
P. O. Box 30020
Amarillo, TX 79177
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co
Kansas City Div.
Attn:
G. Oswald
P. O. Box 1159
Kansas City, MO 64141

86

Unidynamics/Phoenix, Inc. (2)

R. Smith
Attn:
J. Fronabarger
P. O. Box 2990
Phoenix,~ 85062

..

Ensign-Bickford Co (4)
Aerospace Division
Attn:
L. Mecca
B. B0PsS
K. Pu s
E. Tarca
660 Hopmeadow St.
Simsbury, CT 06070
Jet Research Center, Inc.
P.O.Box246
Arlington, TX 76010
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co (5)
W. E. Moffatt
Attn:
R. Weinheimer
J. Meeks
J. P. Beck
N. Markovich-Cottong
1111 Lockheed Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Southwest Research Institute
Attn:
A B. Wenzel
6220 Culebra Road
PO Drawer 28510
San Antonio, TX 78284
Strategic Systems Project Office
Department of the Navy
Attn:
D. Kenemuth, 27314
Washington, DC 20376

...

"'

,
Distribution:
....

..

.,.r

1131
1413
1500
1510
1512
1513
1521
1522
1523
1524
1530
1531
1531
1531
1531
1533
1533
1533
1534
1534
1534
1534
2500
2510
2512
2512
2512
2512
2512
2512
2513
2513
2513
2514
2514
2515
2515
2542
2600
3141
3151

B. Morosin

3154-1

G. G. Weigand
W.Herrmann
J. W. Nunziato
J. C. Cummings
D. W. Larsen
RD. Krieg
R C. Reuter
J. H. Biffle
D. B. Longscope
L. W. Davison
S. L. Thompson
T. K Bergstresser
S. L. Passman
J. W. Swegle
P. Yarrington
M. E.Kipp
A. C. Robinson
J. R Asay
D. E. Grady
T. G. Trucano
J. L. Wise
D. B. Hayes, Actg
D. H. Anderson
J. G. Harlan
D. R Begeal
S. G. Hallett
R G. Jungst
D. L. Marchi
M. G. Vigil (15)
D. E. Mitchell
S. G. Barnhart
T. L. Garcia
P. L. Stanton
L. L.Bonzon
P. D. Wilcox
M. R Kopczewski
W. N. Sullivan
L. D. Bertholf
S. A. Landenberger (5)
W. I. Klein (3)

5120
5121
5121
5121
5121
5128
5128
5165
5165
5165
5165
5165
5165
5251
5251
5262
6230
6320
6321
6321
6322
6323
6323
6400
6416
6416
6416
7130
7133
7133
7133
7170
7173
7173
7533
7533
7535
8524

C. H. Dalin (8)
For DOEjOSTI
W. R Reynolds
D. F. McVey
O. R Berg
D. L. DeWerff
M. M. Plugge
B. E. Bader
KE.Mead
S.D. Meyer
RK Thomas
N.R Hansen
W. J. Errickson
W. J. Patterson
L. B. Traylor
T. A. Sellers, Actg
L. A. Suber
J. W.Kane
W. C. Luth
J. E. Stiegler
R E. Luna
R P. Sandoval
J. M. Freedman
G. C. Allen
H.R. Yoshimura
D. J. McCloskey
R M. Cranwell
E. L. Emerson
J. S. Philbin
J. D. Kennedy
O. L. Burchett
P. W. Cooper
S. R Kurowski
R D. Bentley
G. L. West
H. D. Smith
F. H. Mathews
J.P. Weber
D. C. Bickel
P. W. Dean

"'

87