Determining and Mitigating the Effects of Firing a Linear Shaped Charge Under Water
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations Summer 2014 Determining and mitigating the effects of firing a linear shaped charge under water Brian Burch Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Explosives Engineering Commons Department: Recommended Citation Burch, Brian, "Determining and mitigating the effects of firing a linear shaped charge under water" (2014). Masters Theses. 7305. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7305 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DETERMINING AND MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF FIRING A LINEAR SHAPED CHARGE UNDER WATER by BRIAN T. BURCH A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE IN EXPLOSIVES ENGINEERING 2014 Approved by: Dr. Paul Worsey Dr. Jason Baird Dr. David Rogers © 2014 BRIAN T. BURCH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iii ABSTRACT When fired under water, a Linear Shaped Charge (LSC) does not penetrate a steel target as well as in air. This lack of performance has been a problem for shaped charge manufacturers and their clients. It was obvious that this degradation of performance is due to water having a higher density than air and water being incompressible compared to air. This study aimed to better determine how the water was affecting the LSC and to provide a method of mitigation. LSCs of different sizes were submerged under water and fired through the water with and without a target. It was observed that the liner of the LSC did not close completely to form a “blade”. This blade is the key component of an LSC’s cutting ability. Under water the blade was forming a less effective cutting tool. The targets showed blunt impact, which confirms the blade being ineffective. The blunt impact also indicates the water was transferring the force rather than a blade impacting the target. This confirms that both the mass and incompressibility of water are at work. The difference in sizes between LSCs did not have a noticeable impact. In order to mitigate these negative effects, foam was used to fill the entire volume of the standoff between the LSC and the target. Various foams were tested, again on different sizes of LSCs. The foam displaced the water, so the path of the blade formation had a much lower density and a compressible medium. The results showed the foam was effective. LSCs fired through foam under water had similar penetration profiles compared to the benchmark tests in air. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank his advisor, Dr. Paul Worsey, for his guidance and instruction in completing this thesis, and his committee members, Dr. Jason Baird and Dr. David Rogers, for their valuable input. The author gives special thanks to DeWayne Phelps, Kevin Phelps, and Jimmie Taylor for their assistance with his tests at the experimental mine. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .........................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... ix NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................ x SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................................................................... 4 1.2. GOAL .................................................................................................... 10 2. PREVIOUS WORK AND LITERARY RESEARCH ......................................... 11 2.1. UNDERSTANDING SHAPED CHARGES ........................................... 17 2.1.1. Munroe Effect ............................................................................. 17 2.1.2. Misznay-Schardin Effect ............................................................. 18 2.1.3. Run-up ........................................................................................ 20 2.1.4. Run-down ................................................................................... 20 2.2. UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVES RESEARCH ....................................... 22 2.3. UNDERWATER APPLICATIONS OF SHAPED CHARGES ............... 28 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP ................................................................................ 31 3.1. BASELINE TESTS OF LSC IN AIR ..................................................... 31 3.1.1. Materials ..................................................................................... 31 3.1.2. Procedure… ................................................................................ 32 3.2. UNDERWATER TESTS ........................................................................ 34 3.2.1. Materials ..................................................................................... 35 3.2.2. Procedure .................................................................................... 36 3.3. FOAM .................................................................................................... 38 3.4. UNDERWATER FOAM TESTS............................................................ 41 4. RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 43 4.1. COMPARISON OF AIR VS. WATER ................................................... 43 vi Page 4.2. CHANGING STANDOFF IN WATER .................................................. 49 4.3. COMPARISON OF FOAM VS. AIR VS. WATER ................................ 50 4.4. CHANGING STANDOFF WITH FOAM .............................................. 54 4.5. CHANGING FOAMS ............................................................................ 57 4.6. CHANGING FOAM SHAPES AND OTHER VARIATIONS ............... 60 5. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 62 6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 64 7. FURTHER STUDIES ........................................................................................ 65 APPENDICES A: TABLE OF TEST RESULTS........................................................................ 66 B: ADDITIONAL PICTURES OF TEST RESULTS ......................................... 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 77 VITA ............................................................................................................................. 80 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1.1 Conical Shaped Charge ................................................................................... 2 Figure 1.2 Linear Shaped Charge ..................................................................................... 2 Figure 1.3 Blade Formation Process ................................................................................ 5 Figure 1.4 Tamping ......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1.5 The Gurney Model for an Asymmetrical Sandwich ......................................... 8 Figure 1.6 Hydrostatic Pressure ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.1 “Representative Warhead Configuration Using LSC Principle”..................... 15 Figure 2.2 Precision LSC Design with Separate Liner and Tamping Parts ...................... 16 Figure 2.3 Slug Formation Process in an Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP) Version of a Shaped Charge ..................................................................................... 17 Figure 2.4 Claymore Mine ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 2.5 Photograph of LSC Blade Forming ............................................................... 19 Figure 2.6 Causes of Run-up and Run-down ................................................................. 20 Figure 2.7 Run-up and Run-down in a Penetration Profile ............................................ 21 Figure 2.8 Diagram of Shockwave Reaction at a High/Low Impedance Interface ........... 23 Figure 2.9 Gas Bubble ................................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.10 Bazooka ...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 2.11 Torpedo Whiskers ....................................................................................... 27 Figure 2.12 CSC Underwater Apparatus ........................................................................ 29 Figure 3.1 Booster ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.2 LSC Secured to the Target ...........................................................................