SANDIA REPORT SAND88 - 2338 • UC - 35 Unlimited Release Printed October 1988

Explosive Shaped Charge Penetration Into Tuff Rock

M. G. Vigil

Prepared by Sandia Natiqnal Laboratories Ai~uquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 for the United States Departmen~ of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-76DPOO789

When printing a copy of any digitized SAND Report, you are required to update the markings to current standards.

SF2900Q(S-S1) 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 Govern­ ment 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 or subcontractors.

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: A04 Microfiche copy: AOI SAND88~2338 UC-35 Unlimited Release

Printed October 1988

EXPLOSIVE SHAPED CHARGE PENETRATION INTO TUFF ROCK

Manuel G. Vigil

Explosive Subsystems Division Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800

ABSTRACT

Analysis and data for the use of E~plosive Shaped Charges (ESC) to generate holes in tuff rock formation is presented. The ESCs evaluated include Conical Shaped Charges (CSC) and Explosive Formed Projectiles (EFP). The CSCs vary in size from 0.158 to 9.1 inches inside cone diameter. The EFPs were 5.0 inches in diameter. Data for projectile impact angles of 30 and 90 degrees are presented. Analytically predicted depth of penetration data generally compared favorably with experimental data. Predicted depth of penetration versus ESC standoff data and hole profile dimensions in tuff are also presented.

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank those persons who contributed to this study, namely, Donnie Marchi, 2512, for fabrication of test setup hardware, obtaining all test measurements, and involvement in conducting the tests. Duane Smith, 7173, and Dave Kessel, 7173, coordinated the scheduling, setup of safety procedures and arming and firing for these tests.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ...... :...... 8

II. Development ...... 9

Tuff Rock Formation ...... ,...... ,...... :...... ,... 9 Conical Shaped Ch~rges ~ ...... 9 Predicted esc Jet Penetration ...... ,.... ,...... 10 CSC Test Results ...... 10 Explosive Formed Projectile ...... 10 Predicted EFP Slug Penetration ...... 11 EFP Test Results ...... 12

III. ' Summary .; ...... 13

IV. References ...... 14

Tables ...... 16

Figures ..... ,...... ,.... ;...... 22

Distribution ...... :...... ,.. ;...... ,...... 83

5 TABLES

I Historical Background for Conical Shaped Charges (CSC) ...... 16 II Explosive Shaped Charge Parameters ...... 16 III Shaped Charge/Tuff Penetration Tests at Tonopah ...... ;...... 18 IV EFP Parameters ...... 19 V Explosive Formed Projectile Slug Parameters ...... 20 VI Predicted CSC Jet Penetration in Tuff ...... :...... 21

FIGURES

Figure

1 General Explosive Shaped Charge tuff Target Configuration...... 22 2 General Explosive SHaped Charge Configuration .. ~ ...... :.... 23 3 Hydrocode Simulation of a 42 0 Conical Shaped Charge, Initial Liner Configuration, and Jet Slug Formation at 40 and 60 j.LS ...... 24 4 Hydrocode Simulation of Jet Formation From a Hemispherical Shaped Charge For the Point-Initiated Case at Three Times After Detonation ...... 25 5 Slug Shape for 5 Inch-Diameter EFP at 200 j.LS After Detonation ...... 26 6 Steel, Hollow Tube with High Pressure Hose Attached For Cleaning Holes in tuff Formation ...... 27 7 Steel Tape Used to Measure Hole Depth ...... 29 8 Solid Steel Rod Used to Measure Hole Depth ...... 31 9 General Conical Shaped Charge Cross-Section Parameters ...... 33 10 Basic Conical Shaped Charge Cross-Section ...... 34 11 Optimized Conical Shaped Charge Configuration ...... 35 12 Conical Shaped Charge Configuration ...... 36 13 CSC Development Test Housing Configuration ...... 37 14 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section ...... 38 15 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section ...... 39 16 M2A3 Conical Shaped Charge Coniguration ...... 40 17 M3 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Cross Section ...... 41 18 Conical Shaped Charge Copper Jet ...... 42 19 Film Cassette #2 Showing Jet Tip at 201 j.LS from Detonation ...... 43

6 Figures cont'd

20 Flash X-Ray Triple Exposure of Cassette #1...... 44 21 0.158 Inch Diameter CSC Penetration Versus Standoff ...... 45 22 3.86 CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff for a TuffTarget...... 46 23 4.66 CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff for a Tuff Target...... 47 24 6.986 Inch Diameter M2A3 CSC penetration Versus Standoff ...... 48 25 9.125 Inch Diameter M3 CSC ...... 49 26 Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration into Welded Tuff Formations at Tonapah Test Range ...... 50 27 Shaped Charge Orientations Relative to Tuff Formation Surface ...... 51 28 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration ...... 53 29 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff...... 55 30 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration ...... 57 31 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff...... 59 32 7.0 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration ...... 61 33 7.0 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff...... 63 34 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration ...... 65 35 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff ...... 67 36 Conical Shaped Charge Jet Entrance Hole Diameter in Tuff as a Function of CSC Cone Inside Diameter ...... 69 37 Conical Shaped Charge Jet Bottom Hole Diameter in Tuff as a Function of CSC Cone Inside Diameter ...... ~ ...... 70 38 Explosive Formed Projectile Configuration ...... 71 39 EFP Copper Liner for 5.0 In~h Inside Diameter EFP ...... 72 40 JTI Explosive Formed Projectile Measured Penetration into Steel (RHA) Target Versus Standoff ...... 73 41 Projectile Penetration to Length Ratio Versus Square Root of Projectile Density and Target...... 74 42 EFP Test Configuration for 90 Degree Impact of Tuff Target...... 75 43 EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target...... 77 44 EFP Test Configuration for 30 Degree Impact of Tuff Target...... 79 45 EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target...... 81

7 EXPLOSIVE SHAPED CHARGE PENETRATION INTO TUFF ROCK

I. Introduction

Explosive Shaped Charges (ESC) were used to generate holes in tuff rock formations. This ESC technology has application in the mining industry!, road construction, demolition, excavation, petroleum industry and general rock barrier penetration work. Several Conical Shaped Charges (CSC) and one Explosive Formed Projectile (EFP) were evaluated. The CSCs vary in size from 0.158 to 9.1 inches inside con~ diameter. The EFPs were 5.0 inches in diameter. ESC generated hole profiles in tuff are presented. Analytically predicted ESC depth of penetration data are compared to experimental data. Predicted CSC penetration versus standoff data are included.

The general ESC -- tuff target configuration for this study is shown in Figure 1. The general explosive shaped charge configurations considered for this study are shown in Figure 2.

The three ESCs shown in Figure 2 produce three different projectiles as illustrated in Figures 3 - 5 for a conical shaped charge (CSC), hemispherical shaped charge (HSC) and explosive formed projectile (EFP), respectively. For any homogeneous target material that will flow under high dynamic pressure impact conditions, a CSC will produce the smallest diameter and deepest hole. The EFP will produce the largest diameter and sha'llowest hole in the target. The HSC should prod~ce a hole profile where diameter and depth of penetration are between the CSC and EFP lin;lits. Only

CSCs and EFPs were used in this study. I .

After each test, a small di~meter hollow tube, with a high pressure air hose attached, was inserted into the hole to blowout or clean the hole as shown in Figure 6. A measuring tape as shown in Figure 7 or a solid, steel rod about 0.375 inches in diameter, as shown in Figure 8, were used to measure the hole depth. An inclinometer along with the steel rod were used to measure the hole angle (0:) relative to the target surface. Different diameter, wooden spheres on threaded aluminum rods were used to measure the hole diameter at a given depth. Other methods for measuring hole profile proved to be too expensive.

8 II. Development

Tuff Rock Formation

The ESC tests were conducted in the welded tuff formations at Tonopah Test Range in Nevada. The density of the tuff is 1.85 grams per cubic centimeter and the unconfined compression strength is 23 megapascals or 3338 pounds per square inch. The porosity of the tuff is about 5 percent.

Conic,!' Shaped Char&es

A detailed historical background for the development of conical shaped charge (CSC) technology is presented in Reference 1. A brief summary of major historical CSC events is listed in Table I and References 2 -- 19. Reference 19 lists 99 references on the tbeory and operation of conical shaped charges. General configurations for CSCs are shown in Figure 9 -- 10. Figure 9 illustrates the large number (20) of variables involved in the design of a eSc. An optimized CSC cross­ sectipn is illustrated in Figure 11. It is assumed that the reader has some knowledge of the functioning19 of CSCs.

The cross-sections for the CSCs evaluated in this study are shown in Figures 12 -- 17. Figures 12 and 13 show the cross-section and steel housing for the 0.158 inch diameter CSC, respectively. Figures 14 -- 17 illustrate the configurations for 3.86, 4.66,6.986, and 9.125 inch inside diameter CSCs.

The ESC liner inside diameter, liner material, apex angle, explosive type, explosive weight and tamping material are listed in Table II. The eleven ESC tests conducted in this study are listed in Table III. The first nine tests involved CSCs.

Radiographs for the 0.158 inch diameter CSC jet are shown in Figure 18 at one microsecond intervals. The jet diameter aft of the tip is about 0.025 inches and the jet length just before breakup is about 0.5 inches. The measured jet tip velocity is 5.5 millimeter per microsecond. Figures 19 and 20 show radiographs of the 9.125 inch diameter CSC (M3) jet. Three flash X-ray heads were used to expose the two films shown in Figures 19 and 20. The three jet paths indicated on the radiographs are a result of each of the three different X-ray heads projecting the jet profile onto three different hejghts on the film. The jet had not arrived along the top path in Figure 19 film which was located down stream of the film of Figure 20 relative to the jet tip. The jet diameter aft of the tip is about 0.70 inches and the jet length before breakup is about 30 inches. The measured jet tip velocity was 7.1 millimeters per microsecond. 9 Predicted esc Jet Penetration

The Shaped Charge Analysis Program (SCAP)20.21 code developed at Sandia National Laboratories was used to predict the CSC jet penetrations in Tuff. This code uses a hydrodynamic model for target penetration. The model works well for targets that flow hydrodynamically under high dynamic pressure loading conditions. It was assumed that the tuff rock material would flow like metallic target materials. Figures 21 -- 25 show the SCAP code predictions of jet penetration versus standoff for the 0.158, 3.86, 4.66, 6.986, and 9.125 inch diameter CSCs, respectively. The SCAP code predicted and measured jet penetration versus CSC cone inside diameter data are compared in Figure 26.

esc Test Results

esc tests were conducted at 30 (shallow impact) and 90 (normal impact) degrees relative to the tuff target surface as illustrated in Figure 27. The standoffs were varied as shown in Table III. The 3.86 and 4.66 inch diameter CSC tests \\,fere conducted with relatively short (7 inch) and with relatively long (27 and 36 inches, respectively) standoffs.

Figures 28, 30, 32, and 34 show the test configuration for the 3.86, 4.66, 7.0, and 9.125 inch diameter CSCs. Figures 29, 31, 33, and 35 show the CSC generated holes in the tuff rock for the above CSCs, respectively. All CSC tests shown are for . 90 degree orientations of the CSC relative to the tuff surface. The measureq CSC standoff (S.O.), jet penetration (P), entrance hole diameter (De), hole bottom diameter (Db)' surface crater depth (He) and hole center line to target surface angle (0) data are listed in Table III for all tests. .

The target entrance hole diameter (De) as a function of CSC diameter is shown in Figure 36 for CSCs with copper liners. The bottom of the hole diameter versus CSC diameter is shown in Figure 37 for CSCs with copper liners.

Explosive Formed Projectile

The dimensions for the EFp22 used in this study are shown in Figure 38. The EFP explosive, copper liner, and tamping (casing) parameters are listed in Table IV. The EFP slug or projectile parameters are listed in Table V. The upper liner is shown in Figure 39. The EFP projectile penetration into rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) versus standoff is shown in Figure 40.

10 Predicted EFP Slug Penetration

The only simple prredictive tool for projectile penetration is the following modified Bernoulli equation:23

where, U = projectile penetration velocity YP = projectile strength factor Rt = target strength factor P~ =t,\rget density Pp :;: projectile density V p :;:: projectile velocity

The SCAP code can~ot model EFPs. Hydrodynamic codes wouJd require equation of stat~ parameters for the tuffmaterial which are not readily known. Modeling the collapse of the EFP disk could present some qifficulties in addition to the expense.

Since th~ strength f~ctors (Y P' Rt ) for the tuff and copper were not known, these terms were dropped in the above equation resulting in the familiar square root density lawl9 for high velocity impact:

The above equation was used to estimate the EFP penetration (P) in the tuff target: where, L :;:: 10.0 inches (Table V) := projectile length Pp = 8.96 g/cc Pt =;= 1.85 g/ cc

Thus, P = 22.1 inches

A second similar method was also used. Since the EFP slug penetration in steel (RHA)22 is known, and shown in Figure 40, then for the same EFP, the following relationship can be derived:

11 from Figure 40, at Standoff = 12 inches P Steel = 9.2 inches PSteel = 7.86 g/cc

PTUFF = 19 inches

The above two methods predict EFP slug penetrations into tuff of 19 -- 22.1 inches. The square root density law relationship for projectile (slug) penetration to slug length ratio as a function of square root of projectile density for various target materials including tuff is shown in Figure 41.

The EFP slug velocity was calculated using the Taylor Piston model24 for barrel tamped flyers: Vs = DA[(Z-l)/(Z+ 1)] where, VB = maximum slug velocity = 3.4 mm/microsecond A = [8/(G2-1)]o.5 = 1.0

Z = [1 + (32 Ce /27M)]O.5 = 2.24 D = detonation velocity = 8.8 mm/microsecond G = explosive detonation product gas exponent = 3.0 Ce = discounted or effective explosive weight = C(ALPHA) = 945g (Ref. 24) ALPHA = explosive discount factor = 0.35 M = liner weight = 280g C = actual explosive weight = 2700g

The calculated EFP slug velocity was 3.4 millimeters per microsecond which agrees well with the measured values of 3.83 (slug tip) to 2.4 (slug tail) millimeters per microsecond (average velocity = 3.1).22

EFP Test Results

EFP tests were conducted at 30 and 90 degrees relative to the tuff target surface as illustrated in Figure 27. The standoffs were varied as shown in Table III.

Figures 42 and 44 show the test configurations for 90 and 30 degree impacts, respectively. Figures 43 and 45 show the EFP slug generated holes in the tuff rock. The measured EFP standoff (S.O.), slug penetration (P), entrance hole diameter (De), bottom of the hole diameter (Db)' surface crater depth (He) and hole centerline to target surface angle (Q) data are listed in Table III for both tests.

12 III. Summary

Conical shaped charges (esc) and explosive formed projectiles (EFP) have been shown to be useful in generating holes in tuff rock. {::SCs varying in diameter from 0.158 to 9.125 inches and an EFP of 5.0 inch diameter were used to generate holes in tuff w,th parameters in the following ranges (for 90 degree impacts and excluding the O.15~ inch eSC): Penetration depth: 23.5 - 55 inches Entrance hole diameter: 1,2 - 5.5 inches Bottom of hole diameter: 0.5 - 2 inches Surfac;e crater diameter: 6 - 23 inches Depth of surface crater: 1 - 8 inches

The C~Cs generated the maximum depth of penetration with the 4.66 inch diameter C,SC producing a 55 inch hole in the Tuff. The EFP generated the largest diameters with 5.5 inches at the entrance and 2.0 inches at the bottom.

The S~AP code predictions of esc jetpenetration in tuff versus standoff were gener~lly in ~ood a~reement with the experimental data, as illustrated in Table VI. The simple hydrodynamic square root density law relationship for EFP slug penetra~ioQ predictions were in reasonable agreement with the ex;perimental data. Ther~fore, hydrodynamic theory describes the CSC jet and EFP slug penetration in ~uff reasonably well.

13 IV. References

1. C. F. Austin, Lined - Cavity Shaped Charges and Their Use in Rock and Earth Materials. New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, Bulletin 69, 1959.

2. C. E. Munroe, Modern Explosives. Scribners Mag., v. 3, p. 563-576, 1888.

3. C. E. Munroe, The Application of Explosives. Pop. Sci. Monthly, v. 56, p. 444-455, 1900.

4. R. W. Wood, Optical and Physical Effects of High Explosives. Roy. Soc. Proc., v. 157, p. 249-260, 1936.

5. F. A. Korolev and G. I. Pokrovskii, Investigation of the Jet Action of Explosives by an Optical Method. Doklady Akad. Nauk. (U.S.S.R.), v.42, p. 266-267, 1944. .

6. V. Torrey, Bazooka's Grandfather. Pop. Sci. Monthly, v. . 146, p. 65-69, 211-216, 1945.

7. V. Torrey, Shaped Charge. Munroe Effect. Explosives Eng., v. 23, p . . 160-163, 1945. . .

8. J. B. Huttl, The Shaped Charge for Cheaper Mine Blasting. Eng. Min. J., v. 147,p.58-63,1946.

9. R. S. Lewis and G. B. Clark, Application of Shaped Explosive Charges to Mining Operations: Tests on STeel and Rock. Univ. of Utah Bull. 5, p. 1-37, 1946.

10. H. C. Draper, J. E. Hill, and W .. G. Agnew, Shaped Charges Applied to Mining. Part I. Drilling HOles for Blasting. U. S. Bur. Mines Rpt. Inv. 4371, 1948.

11. G. Birkhoff, D. P. MacDougall, E. M. Pugh, and G. Taylor, Explosives with Lined Cavities. J. Appl. Phys., v. 19, p. 563-582, 1948.

12. L. S. Byers, The Multiple Jet Shaped Blasting ChargenWhy it Functions, Pit and Quarry, v. 41, p. 98-102, 1949.

13. L. S. Byers, New Plurajet Shaped Blasting Charges Ready for Industry. Pit and Quarry, v. 42, p. 79-81, 1950.

14 14. J. T. Gardiner, Use of Shaped Charge Process for Open Hole Shooting, World Oil, v. 131, p. 99-103, 1950.

15. M. P. Lebourg and G. R. Hodgson, A method of Perforating Casing Below Tubing, Am. Inst. Min. Met. Eng., Pet. Br., Trans., v. 195, p. 303-310, 1952.

16. M. P. Lebourg and W. T. Bell, Perforating of Multiple Tubingless . COIflpletions, Am. Inst. Min. Met. Eng., Soc. Pet. Eng., 34th annual fall meeting, Paper 1298-G, 1959.

17. V. C.Davis, Taconite Fragmentation, U. S. Bur. Mines Prt. Inv. 4918, 1953.

18. R. M. Hyatt, Bazooka at Work, Pop. Mech., v. 112, p. 115-117,208,1959.

19 P. C. Chou and W. J. Flis, Recent Developments in Shaped Charge . Technology, Propellants, Explosive, Pyrotechnics. 11,99-114, 1986.

20. M. G. Vigil, Optimized Conic,!l Shaped Charge Design Using the SCAP Code, SAND88-1790, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Allgust 1988.

21. 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.

42, Design and Fabrication of EFP Assemblies, Final Report, Dyna East C::orporation, Report No. DE-TC-87-01, February 17, 1987.

23~ A. Tate, Long Rod Penetration Models - Part II. Extensions to the Hydrodyn,\mic Theory of Penetration, Int. J. Mech, Sci. Vol. 28, No.9, pp. 599-612, 1986.

24. R. A. Benham, Analysis of the Motion of a Barrell-Tamped Explosively Propelled Plate, SAND 78-1127, Sandia National Laboratories, September 1978.

15 I--' 0\ Table I. Historical Background for Conical Shaped Charges (CSC)

Year Person Discovery Reference

1888 Charles E. Monroe Unlined cavity effect 2,3 1910 Egon Neumann Unlined cavity effect 1936 R. W. Wood Lined cavity/high velocity jet 4 1944 Korolev & Pokrovski High velocity copper jet (No.8 blasting cap) 5 1945 Voltra Torrsy First unclassified publications on military CSCs 6,7 1946 J. B. Ruttl First publication on CSC use in mining 8 1947 Lewis, Clark, Brunckner Additional-publications on CSC uSe in mining 9 1948 H. C. Draper, J. E. Hill . CSCs applied Ito mining, drilling holes for blasting 10 W.G.Agnew 1948 Birkoff, MacDougal, First paper on jet formation 11 Prigh, Taylor and penetration theory 1949 L. S. Byers CSC marketed for mining 12,13 1950 J. T. Gardiner CSC use in Petroleum industry 14 1952 M. P. Lebourg, esc use in Petroleum industry . 15,16 G. R. Hodgson 1953 v. C. Davis Publication on ese for mining 17 1959 R. M. Hyatt Bazooka at work 18 1986 p. C. Chou, W. J. Flis Recent development in ese technology 19 Table II. Explosive Sbaped Charge Parameters

Liner Apex Explosive Explosive . Tamping Type Diameter Material Angle ~eight Material (deg) (lb) --

CSC 0.158 Copper -47 LX-13 0.002 Steel CSC 3.860 Copper 42 Octol 3.500 Aluminum CSC 4.660 Copper 60 Octol 5.330 Aluminum CSC 6.986 Glass 60 CompB 9.500 Fiberglass CSC 9.125 Steel 60 CompB 30.000 Steel EFP 5.000 Copper LX-14 5.95 Steel

~ -...J I-" 00 Table III. Shaped Charge/Tuff Penetration Tests at Tonopah

Hole Profile P Test Shaped D S.O. Depth De Db Dc He ex No. Charge Dia. (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (deg)

1 CSC 0.15 0.16 0.92 0.12 0.07 0.84 0.13 90 2 CSC 3.86 24 27.01 1.20 ? 10.0 7.5 90 3 CSC 3.86 7 37.5 3.0 7.02 8.5 2.8 87 4 CSC 3.86 24 43.0 1.13 0.5 29.0 6.0 31 5 CSC 4.66 36 53.0 1.50 0.5 9.0 8.0 90 6 CSC 4.66 7 55.0 3.5 16.42 6.0 1.0 89 7 CSC 4.66 36 52.5 1.50 0.5 35.0 7.0 28 8 M2A3/CSC 7.0 14 46.0 3.50 44.02 14.5 4.0 88 9 M3/CSC 9.13 20 50.0 5.50 40.02 23.0 4.0 89 10 JTI/EFP 5.0 12 23.5 5.50 23.02 14.0 3.0 90 11 JTI/EFP 5.0 12 13.5 7.003 40.0 6.5 30

D = shaped charge diameter (1) = unable to clean hole out with air compressor S.O. = standoff (2) = Depth for 2 inch diameter ball P = penetrating depth (3) = EFP projectile ricochet De = hole entrance diameter Db = hole bottom diameter CSC = conical shaped charge EFP = explosively formed projectile NA = not applicable ex = impact angle Dc = surface crater diameter He = surface crater depth Table IV. E{?P Parameters

Explosive22

Lx~14 2.7 Kg (S.95Ib) p = 1.83 gjcc Detonation velocity = 8.8 mmjmicrosecond

CQPPer Liner22

Weight = 280 grams

Casing/Tamping22

Stainless Steel Weight = 3357.2 g

19 Table V. Explosive Formed Projectile Slug Parameters

Slug Parameters22 Value

1. Diameter 0.75 inches 2. Length 10.0 inches 3. Tip Velocity 3.83 mm/microsecond 4. Tail Velocity 2.4 mm/microsecond 5. Mass 280 grams 6. Energy 1.35 megajouls 7. Breakup Time 255 microseconds at 43.3 inches

20 Table VL -Predicted esc Jet Penetration In-Tuff

CSC Impact Standoff (in) Penetration (in) Diameter Angle Measu-red SCAP Measured SCAP % Diff. (deg).

0.158 90 0.2 -0.2 0.92 - 1.2 30 3.860 90 24 24 27.0* 51 3.860 30 7 7 43.0 41 10 4.660 90 36 36 53.0 54 4 4.660 30 7 1 52.5 49 7 6.986 90 14 14 46.0 54 17 9.125 90 20 20 50.0 43 13

* = Unable to clean hole

tv """'" Shaped Charge

Surface Spallation Crater

r -I Dc

HOLE PROFILE MEASUREMENTS

Figure 1. General Explosive Shaped Charge Tuff Target Configuration

22 CONICAL HEMISPHERICAL EXPLOSIVE FORMED SHAPED SHAPED CHARGE PROJECTILE CHARGE ~

Figure 2. General Explosive Shaped Charge Configurations

w'" IV "'" - .::k'. I •EL..LL , I "t,\,\w1 100 140

SLUG .JET I. ",I~ M

I •

•1 • 4'" I' .. L I _____ l ~ ____ I 140 r., no JOG JIO '40 HO _ _ .re • • 100 110 I. - I. 100 110 .,-

JET

t· • .".. , • II' ---i IIIIiiI ~ s' ~ t I' .. E ._ ___ .__ ...... a 01 I I I I I I I I I I I I I .., HU • eo 100 RO 140 ... roo no '40• rIO reo ,. 400 4re 1,- - - - .,-

Figure 3, Hydrocode Simulation of an 42 0 Conical Shaped Charge, Initial Liner Configuration, and Jet Slug Formation at 40 and 60 pS ..... I ...... ~ ORIGINAL -

--....J...... 1' ••1 ...a-t_ ...... -".-at'-. t. 40".

t • 46".

t. 56",

Figure 4. Hydrocode Simulation of Jet Formation From A Hemispherical Shaped Charge For The Point-Initiated Case at Three Times After Detonation

tv lJ1 tv 0'1

EXPLOSIVE FORMED PROJECTILE CONFIGURATION

0.375,1= 5.725 • I

.- ROL~ REGION DETONATOR T SLUG 5.000I , 5.625

END PLATE

EXPLOSIVE LINER RADIAL TAMPiNG @)

Figure 5. Slug Shape for 5 Inch-Diameter EFP at 200 "'s Mter Detonation , .'~ • . \ . .' • l . "

~ .:' (. :.,

" ' . ., ., H . -

Figure 6. Steel, Hollow Tube With High Pressure Hose Attached For Cleaning Holes in Tuff Formation 27-28 N \0 I V) o

Figure 7. Steel Tape Used to Measure Hole Depth Figure 8. Solid Steel Rod Used to Measure Hole Depth 31-32 TAMPER t , HH I EXPLOSIVE 1 I

----IlTC I_ _I RLI ... LINeR INNER RADIUS I RLO ... LINER OUTER RADIUS RCI ... CONFINEMENT/SHEATH INNER RADIUS RCO ... CONFINEMENT/SHEATH OUTER RADIUS HI . ... '-INER INNER HEIGHT HA ... LINER ACTUAL HEIGHT H ... LINER THEORETICAL APEX HEIGHT HCI ... CONFINEMENT ISHEATH INNER HEIGHT HCO'" CONFINEMENT/SHEATH OUTER HEIGHT HE ... EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT . . HH ... EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT ABOVE APEX TL ... LINER THICKNESS TC ... CONFIN~MENT/SHEATH THICKNESS R 1 ... LINER INNER APEX RADIUS R2 ... LINER OUTER APEX RADIUS ... LINER INNER APEX HALF ANGLE 81 "'. LINER OUTER APEX HALF A,.GL.E 82 8~ ... CONFINEMENT/SHEATH INNER APEX HALF ANGLE ... CONFINEMeNT ISHEATH OUTER APEX HALF ANGLE 84

Figure 9. General Conical Spaped Charge Cross-Section Parameters

33 EXPLOSIVE

H LINER

~--D ~---We---~ ~TC TARGET STANDOFF

Figure 10. Basic Conical Shaped Charge Cross-Section

34 EXPLOSIVE

TAMPER

LINER 20

I I~ 0 ----.1 1 ~1.0D"'1.40~ ~O.02D 20-60 TARGET

Figure 11. Optimized Conical Shaped Charge Configuration

35 W 0\

I '4 0.478" .. I

0.322"

0.015" ~ I. ~ I 0.158"

0.375"I 0.190" 0.158"• ! t COPPER CONE/CYLINDER (0.005 inches THICK) LX-13 EXPLOSIVE

LEXAN INSPECTION/ ALIGNMENT/PROTECTION CYLINDER

Figure 12. Conical Shaped Charge Configuration HOLDER; SHAPE CHARGE SHAPE 0.700 CHARGE-

1.000 TOP VIEW

SIDE VIEW LX-I3 EXPLOSIVE f LEADS TO / I-~---- FIRESET 1.2S0 DETONATOR, RP-2 ASSEMBLY

VJ -....l

Figure 13. CSC Development Test Housing Configurations TOTAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHTz5 Ib '----4.75"----1 f'=""":=i O.'8"_'II=i!·.~rlIJ o t O.U [T

7.75"

4.75" COPPER CONICAL LHER 5.18"

Figure 14. 3.86 Inch Diameter esc Cross-Section

38 I

COPPER 5 ..,8· 4.10· CONICAL I ~ER ~-;--I~..L~~ ___~.--'-----"--~ -Lf ...----4.86' I O.o6S'!..,..., -----4.a7·:"'---~ '1\ 0.105' ~ ---5.0·;;....,-~ -i X-

Figure 15. 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section

39 r= 7.188"::-1 0.87S" I :=- s" ~-I ! TOTAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHT =14.5 Ib STANDOFF 4.0"t t Ft BERGLASS --14•3{sn

o.S"~~

FIBERGLASS 11.7S n TAMPER~

GLASS CONICAL LINER ~~ , t 6.25' 4.08 n 600~ I I ·

1.0"[ ...... --:- ___-+- __~- ..... I ~._ s.On .1 I \0.OS_4" 0.101H---'~6.986" • X O•1• ...-----7.188·---......

Figure 16. M2A3 Conical Shaped Charge Configuration

40 15.5" '"

Sn:EL CONICAL 7.0" LINER

1-----::!~::' __-lF 'll \ 8.5&3" ).Y 0.158"

Figure 17. M3 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section

41 i!3

Figure 18. Conical Shaped Charge Copper Jet (Liner/I.D.- 0.158", Apex Angle =45°, Thickness =- 0.005", Stamped)

~ ~

Figure 20. Flash X-Ray Triple Exposure of Cassette #1 Showing Jet Tip At 140.5 p'S MC3920TUFF.DAT 5-AUG-88 13:11:36 XSCAP 2.0 [CiN]

5 LEGEND o = SCAP MODEUNG 4

~g Z 3 0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~z 2l ~ ~ . ~

.{ 1~

~ VI 041------~------~------~------~------~------~ o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 STANDOFF (eM)

Figure 21. 0.158 Inch Diameter esc Penetration Versus Standoff ~ 0\ ~ 200 I LEGEND ~ 175 t- 0= SCAP MODELING E ...... U 150 Z 1130 em = 51" = 4.3' 0 125 ~I l-- ~ 100 I a: I- I W 75 I z w 50 I Q. I 25 l- I 157 .em = ~2.4" ~. 1.9" O· 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 · 175 200 STANDOFF (em)

Figure 22~ 3.86 esc Jet Penetratimi Versus Standoff for a Tuff Target (j) 200 175 ·~ LEGEN-D ...... o = SCAP MODELING E (.) 150 ~ Z 125 0 I--

~ -.l STANDOFF (em)

Figure 23. 4.66 esc Jet Penetration Versus Standoff for a Tuff Target M2A3TUFF.DAT - 5-AUG-88 - 14:25:15 - XSCAP 2.0 ""'- 00 0] 175

LEGEND 150 o = SCAP MODELING

125 S? g Z 100 0 -~ ~ ~ 75 ~ Z ~ ~ 50

25

O'I------.------~------~-- I I I a 50 100 150 200 250 300 STANDOFF (eM) Figure 24. 6.986 Inch Diameter M2A3 esc Penetration Versus Standoff M3TUFF.DAT - 5-AUG-88 - 12:58:00 XSCAP 2.0

200l ~ LEGEND 175~ {3 = seAP MODELING

150 5? g 125 Z ...... 0 ~ 100 ~ E-t ~ Z 75 (:Ll 0... 50

25

-+:>. \0

u4--- I -- I I I I I o 50 100 150 200 250 300 STANDOFF (eM) Figure 25. 9.125 Inch Diameter M3 esc V\ o

'"It 149 CONICAL SHAPED CHARGES D L Cu CONES, 42-60 deg APEX ANGLES U C 129 H.E.CCOHP B, OCTOL, & LX-13) '" TARGETCWELDED TU~~, 1.82 g/cc,TTR) • I lr.. lr.. leB :J t- Z .... BB z ....o t­ a: 69 0:= t­ W P-12.69D-0.80 Z C~IT ~OR SCAP DATA ONLY) a..W 49 ...,t­w u 29 o - SCAP .CODE (1) U • - EXPERIMENTAL DATA I 9 a.. 2 4 6 B 19 9 D - CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER - Ctnches) ~IGURE 26. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION INTO WELDED TU~~ ~ORHATION$AT TONAPAH TEST RANGE SHAPED" CHARGE

T S.o. WELDED TUFF it'0° ""~

Figure 27. Shaped Charge Orientations Relative to VI Tuff Formation Surface ~, VI N Ul W I Ul ~

Figure 28. 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration TEST: '3 DATE: 3/ "/Be SIDEWINDER WELDED TUFF S ITE @ TTR__ ---- _ _

SHAPED CHARGE:---' , DIA. (IN): ::) _ 8 to STANDOFF (IN): 7- 0'" 0 Il\1PACT ANGLE (DEG.): 90

Vl Vl I Vl 0\

Figure 29. 3.86 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff 57-58 TEST: ~DATE: 3/ :2/88 SIDEWINDER WELDED TUFF SITE @ TTR------;--

SHAPED CHARGE: --=---==-=- DIA. (IN): 4-. 6 6 .. STANDOFF (IN): 70'1 o IMPACT ANGLE (DEG.): 90

VI \0 I 0\o

Figure 31. 4.66 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff • T£ST : _~ DATE:~-J!-J 8 8_ lDEWlNOER WELDED Tu rF lTE @ TTR _____--

SHAPED CHARGE: M 2.~~JC ~ C mAo ( IN): -'.0 " ST \ ~n()FF ( I" ) : J 4- 1'11' \ CT \ 'lG I.E (DEC . ): 90" •

0\...... I 0\ N

Figure 32. 7.0 Inch Diameter esc Test Configuration • • TEST: <0 DATE: "3 ,'0 18a SIDEWINDER WELDED TUFF SITE @ TTR------SHAPED CHARGE: M2.~7:J/C~C,

II DIA. (IN): ---'~=----'.0 ---- STANDOFF (IN): 14" IMPACT ANGLE (DEG.): soQ

0\ W I 0\ ~

Figure 33. 7.0 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff I I I 5 11111 ~ I / 88 IIlI II I 1111 ~ 11111111 I II ," I I II , II 11 '1 111 11 11",f M 3 / c,~" III I II I .9. \ '5 11,,"lft d" ;20 '0' 1\l I " l l ,\ ". 1.1 1 1III I t J

Figure 34. 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration 65-66 • 1...,'1 l>ATE :_3/ 1o I 88

..... 1 iJ.'WI\ DER " .LDED TU I· F 'TI rTI

dAPED CHARGE: M 3 J ~-~~ or". (rl\ 1 -E--alS~ STANDOFF (IN ):--.2 ______IMPACT ANG LE (DEC.): 90· ') a

•

0\ -.l, 0\ 00

Figure 35. 9.125 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff ., CONICAL SHAPED CHARGES L'" U c 5 Cu CONES, 42-68 des APEX ANGLES -I H.E.(COMP B, OCTOL, " LX-t3) ~ f w I- W 1:a: .. H Q W ...J 0 3 :J: W U Z a: ~ I- 2 Z W

~ .,W 1

It C

0 2 .. 6 8 10 0 D - CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER - Cinches)

0\ \Q FIGURE 36. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET ENTRANCE HOLE DIAMETER IN TUFF AS A FUNCTION OF CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER o--.l

., I CONICAL SHAPED CHR~?C,S D .c 1.4 u Cu CONES, 42-60 de~ rlPEX ANGLES c H.E.(COMP B, OCTOL, & LX-13) -I J ~ 1.2 w I- W 1: n:..... 1 c W ...J 0 .8 J: 1: 0 l- .6 I- IS) aI I- w .4 ..., I /" '-- Db-. 007+. 118D I .2 c.0 o 2 4 6 8 10 o D - CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER - (Inches) FIGURE 37. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE ~ET BOTTOM HOLE DIAMETER IN TUFF AS A FUNCTION OF CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER EXPLOSIVE FORMED PROJECTILE CONFIGURATION

0.375 ~jJ.-

DETONATOR 5.000 I I 5.625

END PLATE

. -..l EXPLOSIVE LINER RADIAL TAMPING >-' ~

Figure 38. C\I o q o . Lf) l!'\

LJ").

o ~ q

72 EXPLOSIVE. ~ORMED PRO~ECTILECE~P' •0 15 .£:. .1TI/E~PI 5.8 tn. I.D • u LINER: COPPERtO~E), 288 9 c t EXPLOSIVE. LX-14.1.83g/cc •• 883cm/ua mHPER: STEEL, .3125 tn. THICK TARGET I STEEL(RHA) Z 0 H t- a: Q!: 19 t- W Z W D- W ..J H 1- U ...,w 5 0 It: D- f D- O - EXPERIMENTAL DATA

-.J 9 VJ 2B 4B 6B BB IBB B 50 - 5TANDOrr - tnches ~IGURE 40. ~TI EXPLOSIVE ~ORHED PRO~ECTILE MEASURED PENETRATION INTO STEELCRHA) TARGET VERSUS STANDO~r -....l ~

SQUARE ROOT DENSITY LAH o H (P/L) - [G(RHOp/RHOt)A0.S] I­ G-INITIAL TO PENETRATING AREA RATIO-l a: 4 r:t: J: I­ ~ Z W ...J 3 o I- oZ H I- a: 2 r:t: I­ W Z Wn..

,... 1 ...J, n...... ,

e 1 2 3 4 e SQUARE ROOT OF PROJECTILE DENSITY-(g/cc)A.5 rIGURE 41. PROJECTILE PENETRATION TO LENGTH RATIO VERSUS SQUARE ROOT Or PROJECTILE DENSITY AND TARGET 3' 9 \

", "n '£.t

t.. r J \2 ct

-..) Vl I -..) 0\

Figure 42. EFP Test Configuration for 90 Degree Impact of Tuff Target .-' , l " -. I

'. '\~

4 ~ • TEST: 1 DATE: 3/8/& SIDEWINDER WELDED TUFF SITE @ TTR ------SHAPED CHARGE: J'TI/E_EP DIA. (IN): 5 .0" " STANDOFF (IN):~2______o IMPACT ANGLE (DEG .): _90

-..) l'ii",.rp..•. t! W • .'1. I -..)I ' ...:<',,: -..) 00 Figure 43. EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target " 1Of"'tII!'oDER 'tIU.DED TI 'n­ ,l fF ·TTR

,\I 'I'nl (, \l\RCf: . ~J1/ErP hi' "'1' S .0::" "lo"\~ II') \2." \i \, I ,,-,,I \ Ill~.( ' ): 30·

-...l \0. o00

Figure 44. EFP Test Confi guration fo r 30 Degree Impact of Tuff Target TEST: --2 DATE: 3/9/88r, SlDEWINDER WELDED TUFF SITE @ TTR ------SHAPED CHARGE: J'TI/E'EP " , DrA. {IN ):-.30S~."-'O~ ___ STANDOFF (IN): ,2. " IMPACT ANGLE (DEG .): 30-

-'

L

00 r--' I 00 N \;

Figure 45 . EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target Distribution:

Honeywell, Inc. (2) Aerojet Ordnance Co. Defense Systems Group Attn: J. Carleone Attn: J. Houlton 2521 Michelle G. R. Johnson Tustin, CA 92680 10400 Yellow Circle Drive Minnetouba, MN 55343

Ballistic Research Lab (10) Aberdeen Proving Ground Lawrence Livermore National Lab (6) Attn: . D. Dietrich Attn: M. Finger R. J. Eichelberger J. D. Immele F. Grace. J. L. Levatin J. T. Harrison M.J. Murphy R. Jameson M. Van Thiel K. Kimsey M. L. Wilkins M. Lampson P. O. Box 808 S. B. Seglete~ Livermore, CA 94550 W. P. WaIter S. K. Golaskie Aberdeen, MD 21005 Los Alamos National Lab (12) Attn: J. D. Allen, G787 R. Carver, B265 Joseph Ba<;kofen E. H. Farnum, G756 P. O. Box 1925 M. Ginsberg, J960 Washington, DC 20013 L. W. Hantel, F668 J. Hopson, F664 R. Karpp, P940 B;,tttelle Colum!'us Laboratory (2) J. Repa, J960 Attn: 1. Whl te . P. Studt, F668 D. R. Trott R. J. Young, F664 505 King Avenue J. M. Walsh, P940 Columbus, OH 43201 R. McCormick, P950 P. O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Ctr for Explosives Tech. Research New Mexico Technical Institute Attn: Per-Anders Persson Naval Weapons Center Socorro, NM 87801 Materials Eng. Branch Attn: G. A. Hayes China Lake, CA 93555 . Dyna East Corp (3) Attn: P. C. Chou R. C. Ciccarelli W. J. Flis 3132 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

83 Teledyne (3) Unidynamics/Phoenix, Inc. (2) Attn: B. Heideman Attn: R. Smith D. F. Elliott J. Fronabarger W. B. Richardson P. O. Box 2990 3601 Union Road Phoenix,PLl 85062 Hollister, CA 95023

Ensign-Bickford Co (4) U.s. Army Armament Research Aerospace Division and Development Center Attn: L. .Mecca Attn: A. Garcia B. Boggs Building 354 K. PuIs : Dover, NJ 07801 E.·Tarca 660 Hopmeadow St. Simsbury, CT 06070 E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co, Inc. Attn: F. C. Sawyers 3520 Pebble Beach Dr Jet Research Center, Inc. Farmers Branch, TX 75234 P. O. Box 246 Arlington, TX 76010

Explosive Technology (2) Attn: M. D. Anderson Lockheed Missiles & Space Co (5) J. E. Kennedy Attn: W. E. Moffatt P. O. BoxKK R. Weinheimer . Fairfield, CA 94533-0659 J.Meeks J. P. Beck N. Markovich-Cottong Mason & Hanger (6) 1111 Lockheed Way Silas Mason Co., Inc Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Pantex Plant Attn: D. Garrett R. Slape Southwest Research Institute D. Hilleary Attn: A. B. Wenzel D. Schaffer 6220 Culebra Road P. Kramer PO Drawer 28510 C. A. Campos San Antonio, TX 78284 P. O. Box 30020 Amarillo, TX 79177 Strategic Systems Project Office Department of the Navy Allied-Signal Aerospace Co Attn: D. Kenemuth, 27314 Kansas City Div. Washington, DC 20376 Attn: G. Oswald P. O. Box 1159 Kansas City, MO 64141

84 Distribution:

1131 B. Morosin 3141-1 C. L. Ward (8) 1413 G. G. Weigand For DOEjOSTI 1500 W. Herrmann 5120 W. R. Reynolds 1510 J. W. Nunziato 5121 D. F. McVey 1512 J. C . Cummings 5121 O. R. Berg 1513 D. W. Larsen 5121 D. L. DeWerff 1521 R. D. Krieg 5121 M. M. Plugge IS22 R. C. Reuter 5128 B. E. Bader 1523 J. H. Biffle 5128 K. E. Mead 1524 D. B. Longscope , 5165 S. D. Meyer 1530 L. W. Davison 5165 R. K. Thomas 1533 P. Yarrington 5165 N. R. Hansen 1533 M. E. Kipp 5165 W. J. Errickson 1533 . A. C. Robinson 5165 W. J. Patterson 2500 D. B. Hayes, Actg 5165 L. B. Traylor 2510 . D. H. Anderson 5251 T. A. Sellers, Actg 2512 J. G. Harlan 5251 L. A. Suber 2512 D. R. Begeal 5262 J. W. Kane 2512 S. G. Hallett 6230 W. C. Luth 2512 R. G. Jungst . 6320 J. E. Stiegler 2512 D. L. Marchi 6321 R. E. Luna 2512 M. G. Vigil (15) 6321 R. P. Sandoval 2513 D. E. Mitchell 6322 J. M. Freedman 25i3 S. G, Barnhart 6323 G. C. Allen 2513 T. L. Garcia 6323 H. R. Yoshimura 2514 P. L. Stanton 6400 D. J. McCloskey 2514 L. L.Bonzon 6416 R. M. Cranwell 2515 P. D. Wilco~ 6416 E. L. Emerson 2515 M. R. Kopczewski 6416 J. S. Philbin 2515 V. M. LoyolC;l 7130 . J. D. Kennedy 2542 W. N. Sullivan 7133 O. L. Burchett 2600 L. D. Bertholf . 7133 P. W. Cooper 3141 S. A. Landenberger (5) 7133 S. R. Kurowski 3151 W. I. Klein (3) 7170 R. D. Bentley 7173 G. L. West 7173 H. D. Smith . 7533 F. H. Mathews 7533 J. P. Weber 7535 D. C. Bickel 8524 P. W. Dean

85