3.8 Article

Penetration of an optimal depleted uranium liner of a shaped charge: A numerical simulation method

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2041419620988552

关键词

Depleted uranium; numerical; liner; geometric strain; penetration; structure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51978166, 51678403]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a numerical method and optimized parameters to show that a depleted uranium (DU) liner can replace a copper liner to improve the performance of a shaped charge. By adjusting liner parameters and standoff, the optimal penetration performance was determined.
Depleted uranium (DU) has surprising physical properties such as a high density, high hardness, and high toughness. A numerical method was developed in AUTODYN to study the penetration performance of a shaped charge with a liner made of DU with 0.75% titanium. By comparing different parameters and results from different models, the strength model suitable for DU was determined. According to available experimental data, the geometric strains in the strength models for DU and the steel target were calibrated. The characteristics of the DU liner, employed in a finished shaped charge instead of a copper liner, were optimized by tuning different parameters, and the performance of this optimal liner was verified through relevant tests. Moreover, in agreement with the optimized computational model and structural studies, a novel structure for the shaped charge was proposed that aimed to achieve a penetration depth of eight charge diameters. Different penetration depths were obtained by changing specific parameters, and the influence of standoff on the penetration depth was also studied. By evaluating the best penetration performance, the optimal structure for the shaped charge was finally determined. These results can have a great impact on future experimental tests and engineering applications of DU.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据