APFSDS vs BLAST-FRAG APS | lateral blast active protection vs long-rod penetrators | Zaslon APS
413.9 هزار بار بازدید -
3 سال پیش
-
Simulating the effect of a
Simulating the effect of a lateral blast fragmentation device against an APFSDS projectile. This is similar to the Zaslon active protection system but is somewhat similar to other fragmentation APS systems as well, in the sense that the projectile is impacted by shrapnel and a blast wave.
To Note:
The lateral blast was chosen as it is likely to be the most effective against APFSDS, as most others project their fragments towards the front of the proectile, not the sides -deforming it less.
The design is not identical to Zaslon, but it nearly identical in functionality; to give the APS a better chance, the cyclinder size has been increased, with much thicker and larger fragments being produced. (Zaslon may be less effective than this as the fragments are smaller). This type of system may also be incorporated in the Afghanit APS launchers.
The projectile has been simplified, with the thin aerodynamic nose and tail not being modelled; this reduces computational time significantly as these thin parts require a very fine mesh. (the removal of these parts is common practise in literature).
The witness plate was modelled too small so the projectile breaks out the side, due to their being less resistance...if a wider plate was used the penetration would likely be slightly less. There is a lot of room for improvement in this model, such as the inclusivity of SPH, but I am very new to CEL so will improve these models in the future.
Material Properties taken from literature:
[1] Tungsten & RHA: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28829...
[2] Air: https://osf.io/f8awq/download/?versio...
[3] RDX: https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian mechanics were used, with the air and RDX being modelled only in a small portion of the assembly to reduce computational time. However this should not be misken for an enclosed cube, as boundary conditions have been applied as to where the air and RDX behave as if the air continues beyond the visible boundaries. JWL parameters were used for the explosive, ideal gas for the air, and JC for the metals.
Stand-off distance is about 500mm, and the distance between the APS and projectile is 150mm. The fragments have a velocity of around 900 m/s
...thank you for coming to my TED talk
To Note:
The lateral blast was chosen as it is likely to be the most effective against APFSDS, as most others project their fragments towards the front of the proectile, not the sides -deforming it less.
The design is not identical to Zaslon, but it nearly identical in functionality; to give the APS a better chance, the cyclinder size has been increased, with much thicker and larger fragments being produced. (Zaslon may be less effective than this as the fragments are smaller). This type of system may also be incorporated in the Afghanit APS launchers.
The projectile has been simplified, with the thin aerodynamic nose and tail not being modelled; this reduces computational time significantly as these thin parts require a very fine mesh. (the removal of these parts is common practise in literature).
The witness plate was modelled too small so the projectile breaks out the side, due to their being less resistance...if a wider plate was used the penetration would likely be slightly less. There is a lot of room for improvement in this model, such as the inclusivity of SPH, but I am very new to CEL so will improve these models in the future.
Material Properties taken from literature:
[1] Tungsten & RHA: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28829...
[2] Air: https://osf.io/f8awq/download/?versio...
[3] RDX: https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian mechanics were used, with the air and RDX being modelled only in a small portion of the assembly to reduce computational time. However this should not be misken for an enclosed cube, as boundary conditions have been applied as to where the air and RDX behave as if the air continues beyond the visible boundaries. JWL parameters were used for the explosive, ideal gas for the air, and JC for the metals.
Stand-off distance is about 500mm, and the distance between the APS and projectile is 150mm. The fragments have a velocity of around 900 m/s
...thank you for coming to my TED talk
3 سال پیش
در تاریخ 1400/03/12 منتشر شده
است.
413,958
بـار بازدید شده