Acceleration and Viscoplastic Deformation of Spherical and

Cylindrical Casings under Explosive Loading

Duowang Tan*, Chengwei Sun and Yanping Wang
Laboratory for Shock Wave and Detonation Physics Research, Institute of Fluid Physics, CAEP, P. O. BOX 919,
Mianyang, 621900 (P.R. China)
Abstract
A theoretical model to predict continuous deformation and
acceleration of spherical or cylindrical metallic casings driven by
detonation products inwards or outwards before fracture occur-
ring is proposed in this paper. The casing materials are assumed to
be rigid viscoplastic medium and the geometries are one
dimension i.e., the explosive charge is initiated at the spherical
center or on the cylindrical axis in the divergent case, or uniformly
on the explosive shells outer surface in the convergent case. The
acceleration movements of spherical and cylindrical casings
calculated with this model are in good agreement with exper-
imental and numerical results performed with the finite element
hydrocode DYNA2D. It is concluded that this model describes
well one-dimensional divergent and convergent movements of
spherical or cylindrical casings under explosive loading, and
provides a useful method to explore related problems, such as
shells fragmentation, its maximum velocity before fracture, blast
wave in the near area adjacent to the casing and solid liner
implosion.
Keywords: Detonation Driving, Rigid Viscoplasticity, Spherical
Casing, Cylindrical Casing.
1 Introduction
The Gurney equation is commonly used to calculate the
asymptotic velocity of liners or casings in the sandwich,
cylindrical or spherical geometries, but it gives no informa-
tion about their velocity histories [1, 2]. To describe the
unsteady behavior of a one-dimensional explosive-liner
system, Chou and Randers-Pehrson et al. [3, 4] took into
consideration the basic difference between the momentum
equations in the imploding and the flat sandwich config-
urations, and derived the following improved Gurney
equation for imploding cylinders
v(t) = v
0
1 exp
t t
0
t

(1)
where v
0
is the asymptotic velocity, t
0
is the time when the
liner motion begins, and t is the systems time constant. Eq.
(1) describes the velocity history of the liners fairly
accurately, but requires the specification of an empirical
parameter, the time constant t. Chanteret [5] derived a
formulation for the imploding cylinder Gurney calculations
using the concept of the stagnation boundary (which
separates the opposing gas flow direction at the beginning
of motion) and incorporated with a concept introduced in
Ref. 3 to deduce the momentum equation. But both his
formulation and concept did not lead to simple equations.
By applying the theory of the detonation product flow, a
theoretical model to predict the continuous deformation
andaccelerationof spherical andcylindrical metallic casings
driven by detonation products inwards or outwards before
fracture and fragmentation is proposed in this paper.
2 Statement of the Problem and Assumptions
Figures 1 and 2 are schematics of spherical and cylindrical
casings driven by explosive loading. The explosive charge is
initiated at the spherical center or on the cylindrical axis in
the divergent case (Fig. 1), or uniformly on the explosive
shells outer surface in the convergent case (Fig. 2). Con-
sequently, the casing moves spherical or axial symmetrically.
The principal assumptions for the casing acceleration are as
follows:
1. The casing material is in the viscoplastic state at begin-
ning, it means that its elastic deformation can be ignored.
The viscoplastic constitutive law is
s
q
s
r
= sgn( _ r
2
)2K 4m
@ v
@ r
(2)
where s
r
and s
q
are the radial and azimuthal stress
components, respectively, Kis the plasticity modulus, m is
* Corresponding author; e-mail: tanduowang@yahoo.com.cn
Figure 1. Casings driven by one-dimensional divergent detona-
tion products.
43 Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 28 (2003), No. 1
2003 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH&Co. KGaA, Weinheim 0721-3113/03/2801/0043 $ 17.50+.50/0
the dynamic viscosity, r is the radial coordinate, _ r
2
is the
velocity of the inner surface of the casing, v is the radial
velocity of the particle, other velocity components equal
zero, and sgn ( ) is the sign function.
2. The casing material is incompressible.
3. The stress wave propagation in the casing is neglected,
because its thinness is much less than that of explosive
charge.
4. The detonation products flow is isentropic, only a weak
shock wave is reflected towards the products when the
detonation wave hits the casing.
In the following the dimensionless parameters are used.
Let the initial inner radius of casing r
10
, the detonation
velocity of the explosive D and the initial density of
explosive 1
e
be the dimension factors for length, velocity
and density, respectively, and the scaled variable symbols
are the same as before in order to describe concisely, except
that there is special explanation. We have r
10
=1, D=1,
1
e
=1 henceforth.
3 Controlling Equations
The behavior of the casing material satisfies the continuity
equation and the motion equation for incompressible
medium in cylindrical and spherical coordinates and in
Euler description
@ v
@ r

Nv
r
= 0 (3)
1
m
@ v
@ t
v
@ v
@ r

=
@s
r
@ r

N(s
r
s
q
)
r
(4)
where N=1 and N=2 indicate cylindrical and spherical
geometries, respectively, 1
m
is the casings constant density,
according to assumption 2.
Integrate Eq. (3) and yield
v(r; t) = c(t)=r
N
(5)
where c(t) is an arbitrary function only depending on time t.
Integrating Eq. (4) onthe interval (r
1
, r
2
) andemploying Eqs.
(2) and (5), we obtain
Figure 2. Casings driven by one-dimensional convergent detonation products.
1
m
dc(t)
dt
ln
r
2
r
1

1
2
1
m
[v
2
(r
2
) v
2
(r
1
)[ = s
r
(r
2
) s
r
(r
1
) sgn( _ r
2
)2Kln
r
2
r
1
2m c(t)
1
r
2
2

1
r
2
1

N = 1 (6a)
1
m
dc(t)
dt
1
r
1

1
r
2

1
2
1
m
[v
2
(r
2
) v
2
(r
1
)[ = s
r
(r
2
) s
r
(r
1
) sgn( _ r
2
)4 Kln
r
2
r
1

16
3
m c(t)
1
r
3
2

1
r
3
1

N = 2 (6b)
Differentiating Eq. (5) with respect to t gives
_ c = r
N
 r N_ r
2
r
N1
(7)
Symbol indicates the derivative with respect to t. Conservation of mass for incompressible materials may be represented
here as
r
N1
2
r
N1
1
= r
N1
20
1 (8)
Combining Eqs. (6), (7) and (8), we obtain the motion equation for spherical and cylindrical casings
1
m
r
1
ln
r
2
r
1
 r
1
1
m
ln
r
2
r
1

1
2
1
r
2
1
r
2
2

_ r
2
1
= s
r
(r
2
) s
r
(r
1
) sgn( _ r
2
)2Kln
r
2
r
1
2m 1
r
1
r
2

2

_ r
1
r
1
N = 1 (9a)
1
m
r
1
1
r
1
r
2

 r
1
1
m
2 1
r
1
r
2

1
2
1
r
1
r
2

4

_ r
2
1
= s
r
(r
2
) s
r
(r
1
) sgn( _ r
2
)4Kln
r
2
r
1

16m
3
1
r
1
r
2

3

_ r
1
r
1
N = 2
(9b)
44 D. Tan, C. Sun and Y. Wang
Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 28 (2003), No. 1
4 Pressure of Detonation Products on the Casing
The key to the model is how to evaluate the pressure of
detonation products on the inner or outer casing surface,
respectively for the divergent or convergent case. In
addition, the resistance to the other casing surface without
loading but contacting some medium should be considered
separately. However, nowthis surface is assumedtobe a free
one in this paper. An approximate analytical solution to the
divergent detonation products flow has be obtained in our
former works [6], where the Riemanns invariants a, b were
deduced as the functions of a scaled self-similar variable
s
r
(r
1
) =
1
k 1
k
2
1
2k
2k
k1
(a _ r
1
)
2k
k1
(10)
a =

3k1
k
2
1

4

2

l
k 1
1
r
1
t

1=2

8
k 1
l
1
2

1
r
1
t

t _2r
1
1
k 1
t >2r
1
(11)
Figure 3. The comparison between calculation and experiment
under spherical divergent detonation (experimental data are
taken from Ref. 9)
Figure 4. The comparison between calculation and simulation
under spherical divergent detonation (K=0.53 GPa, 1
e
/1
m
=
0.218, m =3.0 10
3
Pa s, k =2.7, D=7.98 km/s)
Figure 5. The comparison between calculation and simulation under spherical convergent detonation (K=0.53 GPa, 1
e
/1
m
=0.218,
m =3.0 10
3
Pa s, k =2.7, D=7.98 km/s)
Figure 6. The comparison between calculation and experiment
under cylindrical divergent detonation
Acceleration and Viscoplastic Deformation of Spherical and Cylindrical Casings under Explosive Loading 45
Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 28 (2003), No. 1
where l =

Nk=(k 1)

=2, when N=1 and N=2, corre-

sponding to one-dimensional cylindrical divergent detona-
tion and spherical divergent detonation, respectively.
However, the flow for the convergent case is more
complicated. Though the products flowbehind a convergent
detonation front could not be a self-similar one and it is
difficult for us to find a satisfactory approximation to a
convergent detonation wave initiated at a explosive charge
surface of finite radius, it is still possible that the flowbehind
a comparable flat convergent detonation front could be
approximated as a planar one i.e., a Taylor wave, since the
converging effects of the detonationfront emerge only when
it goes near the center. The convergent flow of detonation
products of an explosive shell can be regarded a planar one
and evaluated approximately with the Taylor wave solution:
s
r
(r
2
) =
1
k 1
k
2
1
2k
2k
k1
(a _ r
2
)
2k
k1
(12)
a = (r
30
r
2
)=t (13)
where r
30
is the outer radius of the explosive shell. It should
be noted that r
2
is negative in the divergent case.
5 Calculation Results and Conclusions
Some examples for this model calculation and their
comparisons with the results of experiments and DYNA2D
code calculations are shown in Figures 3 to 9 . The hydro-
dynamic calculations of DYNA2D use a JWL equation of
state for the explosive detonation productions, a Johnson-
Cook model and a Mie-Grneisen equation of state for the
casings. The explosive material is Comp. B, its parameters
taken from Ref. 7 are listed in Table 1 and the casing
material is iron, its parameters taken fromRef. 8 are listed in
Table 2 . In Figures 4, 5, 8 and 9 the smooth curves are the
calculations of the motion equation of casing, and the
oscillate curves are the hydrodynamic calculations of
Figure 7. Test setup of cylindrical casing driven by the cylindrical
divergent detonation.
Figure 8. The comparison between calculation and simulation
under cylindrical divergent detonation (K=0.53 GPa, 1
e
/1
m
=
0.218, m =3.0 10
3
Pa s, k =2.7,D=7.98 km/s)
Figure 9. The comparison between calculation and simulation under cylindrical convergent detonation (K=0.3 GPa, 1
e
/1
m
=0.22, m =
3.0 10
3
Pa s, k =2.7, D=7.98 km/s)
Table 1. The parameters for the JWL equation of state.
Material Comp B
Density, g/cm
3
1.717
CJ Detonation Velocity, km/s 7.98
CJ Detonation energy, GPa 8.50
CJ Pressure, GPa 29.5
Parameter A, GPa 524.2
Parameter B, GPa 7.678
Parameter R
1
4.20
Parameter R
2
1.10
Parameter w 0.34
46 D. Tan, C. Sun and Y. Wang
Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 28 (2003), No. 1
DYNA2D, h is the explosive mass to casing mass ratio. In
Fig. 7, the charge is Comp. Bwith a density of 1.70 g/cm
3
and
a detonation velocity of 7.93 km/s. The explosive charge is
initiated axial symmetrically by a cylindrical initiator with a
diameter of 36 mm.
Ina wide range of explosive mass to casing mass ratios, the
accelerated movement of spherical and cylindrical casings
calculated with this model is in good agreement with the
experiment and the numerical result performed with the
finite element hydrocode DYNA2D. This model describes
well the one dimensional movement of spherical or cylin-
drical casings under inner or outer explosive loading, and
provides a useful method to explore related problems, such
as shells fragmentation and maximum velocity, blast wave
in the near area adjacent to the casing and solid liner
implosion.
6 References
(1) R. W. Gurney, The Initial Velocities of Fragments from Bombs,
Shells and Grenades, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab., BRL
Report 405, 1943.
(2) J. M. Conner, A. A. Quong, Velocity of Explosively Driven
Liners, in: J. Carleone (Ed.), Tactical Missile Warheads, AIAA,
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, V-155, Washington
DC, 1993, p. 199.
(3) P. C. Chou, J. Carleone, W. J. Flis, R. D. Ciccarelli, and E.
Hirsch, Improved Formulas for Velocity, Acceleration and
Projection Angle of Explosive Driven Liners, Propellants,
Explos., Pyrotech. 1983, 8, 175.
(4) G. Randers-Pehrson, An Improved Equation for Calculating
Fragment Projection Angles, 2nd Int. Symp. on Ballistics,
Daytona Beach, FL, March 9 11, 1977, Session IVA: Warhead
Mechanisms.
(5) P. Y. Chanteret, An Analytical Model for Metal Acceleration
by Grazing Detonation, 7nd Int. Symposium on Ballistics, The
Hague, The Netherlands, April 19 21, 1983, p. 515.
(6) C. Sun, Self-Supported and Piston-Driven Divergent Detona-
tion Waves, Chinese Journal of Explosion and Shock Waves
1987, 7(1), 15.
(7) B. M. Dobratz, P. C. Crawford, LLNL Explosives Handbook,
Report UCRL-52997 Rev.2, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, California, USA, 1985.
(8) G. R. Johnson, W. H. Cook, A Constitutive Model and Data
for Metals Subjected to Large Strains, High Strain Rates and
High Temperatures, 7nd Int. Symposium on Ballistics, The
Hague, The Netherlands, April 19 21, 1983, p. 541.
(9) M. L. Wilkins, The Equation of State of PBX 9404 and Lx04-
01, Report UCRL-7797, Lawrence Livermore National Labo-
ratory, California, USA, 1964.
(Received June 14, 2002; Ms 2002/108)
Table 2. The parameters for the Johnson-Cook model.
Material Iron
Density, g/cm
3
7.89
Bulk Modulus, GPa 164
Shear Modulus, GPa 80
Yield Stress, GPa 0.175
Hardening Constant, GPa 0.38
Hardening Exponent 0.32
Strain Rate Constant 0.06
Thermal Softening Exponent 0.55
Melting Temperature, K 1811
Acceleration and Viscoplastic Deformation of Spherical and Cylindrical Casings under Explosive Loading 47
Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics 28 (2003), No. 1