Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Study on influence of missile-target
Research Status and Development Trend of intersection parameters on damaged steel
plate of blast-fragmentation warhead
Tandem Armor-Breaking Warheads Haojie Chen, Jianping Yin and Xudong Li

- Effects of Engine on Penetration

Performance of Semi-Armor Piercing
To cite this article: Kou Peng-fei et al 2023 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2478 072025 Warhead
Ji’an Liu, Wei Gu, Tong Jing et al.

- Measurement method for electromagnetic

radiation generated during a high-capacity
warhead explosion
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Yuanbo Cui, Deren Kong and Jian Jiang

This content was downloaded from IP address 45.13.251.51 on 25/06/2023 at 13:27

2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

Research Status and Development Trend of Tandem Armor-

Breaking Warheads

Kou Peng-fei, Cao Lei and Liang Zheng-feng

Xi’an Modern Chemistry Research Institute, Xi’an 710065,China

2497709399@qq.com

Abstract. In order to cope with the continuous progress of tank protection technology, it is
imperative to optimize and improve the ability of existing armor-breaking warheads. This
paper mainly introduces the development history of explosive reactive armor, shaped charge jet
formation theory, shaped charge jet penetration theory, armor-breaking warhead technology,
series armor-breaking warhead technology and research status of armor-breaking/killing
compound warhead technology. Finally, the development trend of armor-breaking warhead in
the future is described, in order to provide some enlightenment for the design and improvement
of armor-breaking warhead in the future.

Keywords：Explosive reactive armor；Jet flow ;Composite warhead ;Tandem sunder

armor ;Drug type cover material

1. Introduction
The armor-breaking warhead, also known as shaped charge warhead, is formed by shaped charge
explosion after the metal jet through the armor of the warhead. The armor-breaker warhead is one of
the main anti-tank warheads. The shaped charge warhead relies on the metal jet formed by the metal
charge cover to destroy the target, so the initial velocity provided by the launching platform is not high.
It can be used for a variety of weapon platforms, such as artillery, rocket launcher, throwing and
laying. Shaped charge warhead is the most widely used warhead form [1]. However, with the
emergence and rapid development of Explosive reactive armor, ordinary shaped charge warhead has
been unable to meet the operational requirements, the need to optimize the existing expose armor
warhead and ascension, to be able to react to go bang armor of armored vehicles formation damage
effectively, optimize the sunder armor warhead sunder armor ability and improve to become the
research focus at home and abroad today [2]. Therefore, it is of great significance to summarize the
current situation and development of armor-breaking warhead technology.

2. The development history of armor-breaking combat department

The research on the armor-destroying warhead originated in the early period of World War II and is
mainly divided into the following four stages.
The first stage was from 1935 to 1950. Due to the outstanding performance of tanks in The First
World War, a lot of research was conducted on tanks by military powers after the war. In World War
II, panzer Corps became the decisive force on the battlefield. In order to restrain the armored group
army, all countries have also carried out the development of anti-armored weapons. During this

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

period, The United Kingdom, the United States and Germany all developed armor-breaking
ammunition by using shaped charge [3].
The period 1950 to 1970 belonged to the second phase of shaped charge warhead research. After
world War II, the world got back on track. During this period, some new experimental techniques
(such as high-speed photography and pulsed X-ray photography) were developed, which allowed
scientists to further investigate the mechanism of shaped charge warheads.
The period 1970 to 1990 belonged to the third stage of shaped charge warhead research. Based on the
mechanism of shaped charge warhead formed in the second stage, the research focus of this stage is
the optimization of structure design and process improvement of shaped charge warhead. In addition,
with the development of computers, many large computing programs, such as LS-DYNA,
MSC.DYTRAN and AUTODYN, emerged at this stage. Numerical simulation of shaped charge by
computer based on finite element, finite difference and finite volume numerical methods is the most
important research method at present. At present, most scholars use the research method of combining
numerical simulation with experiment. Numerical simulation provides guidance for experiment, and
experiment can verify simulation.
After 1990, the research of shaped charge warhead entered the fourth stage of relative maturity. At
this stage, there was a separation between the research academic circle and the engineering circle. The
academic circle mainly studied the new problems in modern war, such as the interaction between
shaped charge warhead and various new types of armor [4-6], and the jet formation mechanism of new
material drug cover [7-9].

3. Formation mechanism of shaped charge jet

3.1. Mohaupt effect

Foerster was the first to demonstrate the hole effect of high explosives in 1883. In 1888, Monroe, an
American scientist, discovered the gathering effect of hollow charges in drug-free capsules and
published some articles. It is generally believed that Monroe was the first to invent a hollow charge
(with a pill-shaped cover) [1]. The cumulative effect is embodied in the fact that when one end of the
explosive has a hollow groove of certain shape, the other end will converge a stream of air with high
velocity and density on the axis of hole symmetry after detonation. Fig.1shows the penetration effect
diagrams of different charging structures: a) hole-free charging, b) hole-free charging, c) hole-filled
charging with a charge cover, and d) hole-filled charging with a charge cover at a certain distance
from the target plate. It can be seen that when the charge has holes, the penetration depth of the charge
to the target plate increases. Lining a metal charge cover in the hole and adjusting the distance
between the charge and the target plate can significantly improve the penetration ability of the charge
to the target plate.

Figure 1. Penetration effect diagrams of different charging structures

3.2. Formation mechanism of shaped charge jet

Birkhoff [10] et al. first systematically expounded the physical image and basic theory of shaped charge
jet formation in 1948. They assumed that, in the pressing process of the charge cap, the detonation
wave and the detonation product are coupled to produce huge pressure, under which the strength of the
charge cap can be ignored. The cartridge is treated as a non-viscous, incompressible ideal fluid; The

2
2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

cartridge element is accelerated instantaneously to the final pressing speed and remains constant. On
this basis, a steady theoretical model is deduced, that is, the length of the jet remains constant, equal to
the length of the busbar of the conical cartridge. However, this is not consistent with the reality,
because there is a velocity gradient in the shaped charge jet, and the jet will continue to stretch in the
movement until it appears necking and is pulled off.
In 1952, Pugll [11] et al. improved this steady-state theory by taking into account the velocity gradient
of jet flow under the assumption of steady-state theory and forming the quasi-steady-state theory, also
known as PER theory. PER theory is based on the assumption that the cone Angle and wall thickness
of each cartridge element do not change, and the detonation wave is plane wave.
Behrmann [12] proposed an improved method in 1973, which could be used to calculate the non-conical
charge cap and the change of initiation point. In 1975, Godunov [13] of the Soviet Union also improved
the steady-state theory, mainly considering the viscoplastic behavior and strain rate correlation of jet
flow, which was later called the viscoplastic theory. The theoretical model includes the influence of
the viscosity of the charge cover material on jet formation, and the jet formation criterion is basically
based on the visco-plastic properties of metal, ignoring the impact of shock wave effect and critical
Mach number. Its jet formation criterion attempts to confirm the conditions for forming condensed jet,
which means that the jet does not produce radial dispersion or diffusion and has no lateral velocity
component, so it is called condensed jet.
Chou and Carleone [14-15] studied jet fracture using a one-dimensional model, and pointed out that the
ratio of jet flow stress Y to jet density ρ can control the steady growth of jet loss, that is, under the
same other conditions, when the ratio Y/ρ is small, the jet necking is slow, and when the ratio Y/ρ is
large, the jet necking is fast.

4. Penetration mechanism of shaped charge jet

4.1. Shaped charge jet penetration phenomenon

The process of jet penetration or armor breaking can be divided into three stages: pit opening, quasi-
steady and termination. In the cratering stage, the jet head impinges on the stationary target, generating
huge pressure and forming shock waves at the impact point. Until the jet establishes a stable three-
high region in the target plate, the penetration in this stage only accounts for a small part of the hole
depth. In the quasi-steady stage, the subsequent jet penetrates the target in the state of three-high zone,
and most of the depth of armor breaking belongs to this stage. In the termination stage, the jet velocity
significantly decreases, the effect of target strength is significantly enhanced, and the jet residue
accumulates, finally leading to the termination of the armor breaking process.

4.2. Shaped charge Jet penetration theory

Birkhoff [10]were the first to describe the analysis model of jet penetration, and discussed the problem
of jet penetration by using one-dimensional fluid dynamics theory. They assume that both the target
and the jet are ideal incompressible non-viscous fluids, and the interaction between the jet and the
target plate is steady-state and the strength of the target plate is ignored, which is a steady-state
penetration theory. The calculation formula of jet penetration depth is as follows:
P  ρ j ρt  L (1)

Where, and are the density of jet and target respectively. Pack and Evans [16] studied the penetration of
fracture jet on the basis of steady penetration theory. They believed that the penetration depth of jet
increases with the increase of blast height, but this was not consistent with the experimental results.
Allison and Vitali [17] assumed that there was a virtual source, and the virtual source was the point
source emitted by all efflux, and the efflux length was zero. DiPersio, Simon and Merendino [18-19]
improved on Allison and Vitali's virtual source theory and obtained DSM theory, which is the criterion
of constant penetration theory. These theories are based on empirical formulas for calculating jet depth
and do not reflect the physical phenomenon of jet penetration varying with blast height. Eichelberger
[20]
measured the relationship curve of jet penetration depth changing with time, which verified the
correctness of one-dimensional hydrodynamic penetration theory formula.

3
2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

4.3. Mechanism of efflux and explosive reactive armor

Explosive reactive armor is an armor consisting of two metal plates with a blunt explosive sandwiched
between them. When the jet penetrates the explosive reactive armor, the insensitive explosive in the
interlayer detonates. Under the action of the detonation wave, the metal sheet on the upper layer
moves in opposite direction with the jet, causing strong interference to the shaped jet, resulting in its
failure or partial failure [21].
The process of jet detonation and explosive reaction armor is complicated, which is related to jet
velocity, diameter, explosive properties, panel material and thickness. Chick and Bussell et al. studied
this and found that for single-layer explosive reactive armor, its detonation criterion is:
V 2d  const (2)
Where, V and D are respectively the velocity and head diameter of the jet after it passes through the
panel. It can be seen that the velocity and head diameter of the jet after it passes through the panel are
the key factors for whether it can detonate the explosive reactive armor [1].
There are three interference models of explosive reactive armor on jet flow:
1) Pebble interference model
M. Mayseless et al. [22] proposed a pebble interference model based on the study of the interaction
between the jet and the metal plate. According to this model, during the unstable period of the jet and
the metal plate interaction, the jet will temporarily withdraw from the contact with the metal
surface/backplane. However, as the pit expansion speed decreases, the jet will re-contact the
surface/backplane, and this process occurs repeatedly, causing the jet to be periodically disturbed by
the plate, forming a fractured pebble interference model.
2) Stable interference model
When the low-speed jet element interacts with the plane/backplane, the velocity of jet reaming
decreases so that the jet can never break away from the contact with the plane/backplane, thus forming
a continuous interaction between the jet and the plane/backplane and forming a relatively stable
interface between the jet and the plane/backplane [23]. In this process, the jet will make key-shaped
holes appear in the panel, and the panel will reduce the jet diameter and deflect the residual jet.
3) Clearance escape model [24]
The action of jet and panel will produce a perforation larger than the diameter of jet, and a gap will be
generated between the jet and panel. Part of the subsequent jet glow will pass through the perforation
without touching the panel. This section of jet is called escape jet. Because the panel has a transverse
velocity, it will continue to move. After the panel moves a certain distance, the jet will contact the
panel again and reopen the pit. Due to the periodic interference of the panel, the continuous jet is
truncated by the panel and becomes discontinuous jet.

5. Research status of armour-breaking warhead

5.1. Material of drug type cover
As the parent of metal jet formation, the drug cover should have the advantages of high sound velocity,
high density, good ductility and ductility. At present, red copper is the main material used in the
armor-breaking warhead, and some other materials such as molybdenum, nickel, tungsten and other
metal alloys are also used.
According to the jet formation theory combined with Formula 1, it can be seen that the most
influential factors on the jet penetration power are the jet density and jet length. Therefore, the
material with higher density and better plasticity can significantly improve the jet penetration power.
The grain size of the cover material also has a great influence on jet forming and penetration. The
smaller the grain size is, the better the jet performance is. The properties of several materials are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of the performance of drug cover of several materials [27]

Materials 𝜌𝑗 /(g/cm3) 𝐶𝐵 /(Km/s) 𝑉jomax /(Km/s)

Ni 8.8 4.9 11.4
Cu 8.9 4.7 9.8
Mo 10.0 6.4 12.5
Wu 19.4 4.0 9.2

4
2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

The density of nickel is similar to that of copper, but the sound velocity of nickel is higher, so the jet
formed by the nickel cover has a higher head velocity. Jia MY et al. [25] reviewed the research on the
material and structure of drug cap. Zhao LJ et al. [26] conducted numerical simulation and experimental
research on the armor-breaking power of different materials, and found that the armor-breaking power
of molybdenum alloy armor-breaking cover was higher than that of copper armor-breaking cover.
Zhao ZY [27] studied the armor breaking characteristics and mechanism of tungsten-copper alloy drug
cover, and found that its armor breaking penetration was 30% higher than that of copper drug cover
with the same structure. It can be seen that the material of large-density cartridge can indeed improve
the penetration power of jet, but the poor machining performance of some large-density metals and the
inconvenient materials limit the development of large-density cartridge.
In addition to traditional metal materials, active materials can also be used to make pharmaceutical
caps. The active material is a kind of active composite structure material. When the damage element
impinges and penetrates the target at a high speed, it will produce burning or killing elements in the
perforation, so as to improve the penetration power.
Zhang XP et al. [28-29] studied the combined effect of penetration explosion of active jet on steel target,
and found that the penetration depth of active jet was smaller than that of metal jet, but its penetration
aperture was significantly larger than that of metal jet, accompanied by a strong burst damage effect.
Guo HG et al. [30] studied jet forming and penetration of steel target in an activity-copper composite
cover shaped charge structure. It is found that the penetration depth of the active copper jet is
significantly higher than that of the single active jet, and the deflagration reaction of the active
material will lead to the premature termination of the penetration process. It can be seen that the active
charge cover is suitable for use as the charge cover of the fore-stage warhead, which can enlarge the
aperture diameter and ensure the fore-stage to detonate the explosive reactive armor reliably.

5.2. Drug cover structure

In shaped charge, the shape of the charge cover is generally conical, hemispherical and bell-shaped.
The bell-shaped cover can be regarded as a conical cover with continuous change of cone Angle,
which can increase the busbar length of the cover, so as to improve the effective mass of jet and
charge quality. In turn, shaped charge jet with stronger armor breaking penetration ability is formed.
However, due to problems in processing technology, its armor breaking stability is poor [31]. The shape
of the most widely used and successful shaped charge is single cone. The technical parameters of the
shape of the charge are mature and easy to realize, and its armor breaking performance and
technological performance are better. The drug cover can be designed as equal wall thickness and
variable wall thickness. The jet penetration formed by the uniform wall thickness is relatively stable,
which is often used for small cone Angle charge type enclosures. The jet velocity gradient formed by
the variable wall thickness mask increases, and the jet can be fully elongated to obtain a larger
penetration depth.
Ruan GG et al. [32] designed a trump-cone-angle combination charge cover, and found through
numerical simulation that its jet velocity was about 9.54% higher than that of cone-angle charge cover,
and the penetration depth of 45 steel plate was about 19.82% higher. Chen C et al. [33] designed a kind
of biconical drug cover with small cone Angle at the top and large cone Angle at the mouth, and found
that the jet head velocity formed by the upper cone of the biconical drug cover was higher, while the
jet diameter formed by the lower cone was larger, achieving both the advantages of the single cone
with different cone angles. Wang ZJ et al. [34] designed a new structure of the charge cover, in which
the wall of the charge cover folds inward regularly to increase the contact area between the explosive
and the charge cover. Through the numerical simulation, it is found that compared with the typical
single cone charge cover, the multiple jets formed by the charge cover will converge into one jet, so
that the penetration ability of the jet is significantly improved.

5
2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

5.3. High Explosive

The explosive used for shaped charge should meet the requirements of sufficient mechanical strength
and critical stress, high explosive velocity, high explosive pressure, good stability and compatibility
and superior technology. At present, the explosive used in armor-breaking ammunition at home and
abroad is mainly made of RDX or HMX bonded with polymer materials, the technology is relatively
mature. The explosives mentioned above belong to the second generation of explosives, and the power
of the third generation of explosives such as DNTF and CL-20 is 15% higher than HMX, which can
greatly improve the power of shaped charge. Fourth-generation explosives such as N4, N6 and N8,
which are expected to increase the power of HMX several times, are being developed.

6. Series armor-breaking warhead technology

The tandem armor-breaking warhead is usually composed of two shaped energy armor-breaking
warheads in series. The front and rear warheads generally have different status. the front warhead,
used to detonate explosive reactive armor, should be powerful and stable. The rear warhead is the
main warhead of the tandem armor-breaking warhead, and the penetration of the main armor of the
tank is mainly completed by jets formed from this part.

6.1. Damage principle of series armor-breaking warhead

When the warhead collides with the target, the front-stage charge first detonates, creating a jet that
penetrates the explosive reactive armor panel to detonate the explosive inside it. The detonation
product from the explosive explosion moves the surface/backplane backward, cutting and consuming
the front-stage jet. By setting a reasonable time delay, the jet formed by the later charge will not be
disturbed by the explosive reactive armor, thus maximizing the armor breaking power [35].

6.2. Forward combat

The front warhead is designed to detonate explosive reactive armor and should therefore be powerful
and stable. Secondly, under the condition that the front warhead can reliably detonate reactive armor,
the charge diameter and charge quantity of the front shaped charge should be as small as possible. The
process of jet detonation and explosive reaction armor is complicated, which is related to jet velocity,
diameter, explosive properties, panel material and thickness. The velocity and head diameter of the jet
after passing through the panel are the key factors for detonating a single layer explosive reactive
armor.

6.3. Flameproof device

Because the tandem warhead sunder armor is two levels of shaped charge in series, level before
charging after the detonation products and air blast direct role in the drug type hood, will produce
larger impulse and shock wave overpressure, the damage level after charging, jet formation level after
charging, lower level after the speed of the jet in sunder armor damage reduced, may even detonate
after loading. Therefore, a reliable flameproof device should be installed between the front charge and
the rear charge to reduce the impact of the explosion of the front charge on the rear charge as much as
possible. On the one hand, the device should have a certain strength, which can prevent the detonation
products and fragments of the front warhead from flying backward to affect the rear warhead. At the
same time, the strength should not be too large, otherwise it will consume the main jet formed by the
rear warhead. On the other hand, this device can absorb and block detonation wave to a certain extent,
and avoid the impact of shock wave generated by the explosion of the front warhead on the rear charge
type cover.
At present, the widely used flameproof materials are aluminum foam and polyurethane plastic. Tian
Jet al. [36] studied the dynamic mechanical properties and knock resistant structure of aluminum foam,
and found that aluminum foam can effectively reduce the overpressure of secondary shock wave, and
brittle aluminum foam can change the shape of shock wave and greatly reduce the peak stress of shock
wave. Wang YG et al. [37] studied the attenuation characteristics of shock wave of aluminum foam
under explosive load, and found that aluminum foam had constitutive viscous effect, which would lead
to absorption and dispersion of shock wave during propagation, and the attenuation of shock wave was
further intensified due to the existence of chase unloading. Chen WH et al. [38] studied the frontal

6
2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

flameproof performance of rigid polyurethane foam and found that density would significantly affect
the mechanical properties and flameproof performance of polyurethane plastics. Within a certain range,
the higher the density, the better the effect.

7. Armour breaking/killing compound warhead technology

With the development of modern weapon equipment and combat mode, conventional armor-breaking
warhead can no longer meet the needs of battlefield operations, so it is of great scientific significance
and application value to design a compound warhead that can deal with multiple targets.By filling
tungsten alloy fragments circumferentially in the armature warhead, the warhead is capable of striking
both heavily armored targets on the ground and lightly armored targets (helicopters) at low speed in
the air.

7.1. Principle of compound warhead

When the front end of the warhead touches the target, the rear end fuze sends out a detonating signal
to detonate the charge. The charge explosion generates a detonation wave acting on the charge cover
to form an axial high-speed jet to strike the tank or penetrate the armor. At the same time, the shell
expands and breaks under the action of lateral explosive products of charge, and the fragments are
endowed with kinetic energy, and then the kinetic energy is penetrated to kill the target.

7.2. Research status of armor-destroying/anti-personnel compound warhead

Wang LX [39], such as design a sunder armor/damage multi-purpose warhead, the warhead used the
new type of light-weight, half precast shell and precision waveform controller sunder armor warhead
technology, to maintain the original individual sunder armor warhead quality, structure and shape
sunder armor power under the constant basic compound warhead multi-objective dampen demand is
realized.
Zhang J et al. [40] conducted a numerical simulation study on a new armor-destroying composite
warhead with axial EFP and circumferential prefabricated fragment by using LS-DYNA software. The
numerical simulation results show that adding prefabricated fragments in the circumferential direction
of shaped charge warhead can expand its damage effect without affecting the shape of warhead, and
the damage field has strong damage ability to the effective force and light armor around the target.

8. conclusion
(1)Armor-breaking warhead technology has always been closely in line with the development of tank
protection technology, and the two restrict and promote each other. Series armor-breaking warhead
will still be the main damage technology to deal with explosive reactive armor for a long time in the
future.
(2) The use of high explosive and high density, small grain size and active charge cover material is the
main technical approach to improve the penetration power of armor-breaking warhead, and the
research on the effect of superpolymer is also emerging quietly.
(3) The armor-destroying compound warhead is becoming a new trend in order to strike light armored
targets (helicopters) at low air speeds.

References
[1] Huang Z X 2014, Theory and practice of shaped charge. Beijing Institute of Technology
Press,311-316.
[2] Cui K W and Mi S S 2017 , Aerodynamic Missile Journal, (06):78-83.
[3] Walters W P and Zukas J A 1989,Fundamentals of shaped charges. John Wiley.
[4] Zhang M 2019, Study on the Interference of Reactive Armor with Double Wedge Charge on
Concentrated Jet ,North University of China.
[5] Nie P S 2018 ,The Study on the Interference Effect to the Jet of the Round Tube-ERA
Integrated Armor , North University of China.

7
2022 International Conference on Defence Technology (2022 ICDT) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2478 (2023) 072025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2478/7/072025

[6] Gao Y H, Zhang M, Liu Y B, Zhou J, Shi J L and Sun M 2018, Chinese Journal of High
Pressure Physics, 32(6):129-135.
[7] Chen L, Zu X D, Huang Z X, Xiao Q Q, and Han W,2022, Journal of Ballistics,34(1):65-71.
[8] Lu Y J, Liang Z Y, Deng D Z and Zhu C 2022, Journal of Gun Launch & Control,43(1):14-
20,28.
[9] Tong J B, Li X F, Li D, Huang L J and Zhang W Q 2021, Hot Working Technology,
50(23):99-102,106.
[10] Birkhoff G, MacDougall D, Pugh E and Taylor G 1948, J.Appl.phys,19(6).
[11] Pugh E, Eichelberger R and Rostoker N 1952, J. Appl. Phys,23(5):532-536.
[12] Behrmann L A 1973, AFATL—TR-72-160.
[13] Godunov S K,Deribas A A and Mali V I 1975, Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva,11（1）：3-18.
[14] Chou P C and Carleone J 1976, Proc.2nd Int . Sym . on Ballistics , Daytona Beach ,FL.
[15] Chou P C and Carleone J 1977, J.Appl.Phys, 48(10): 4187-4195.
[16] Pack D C and Evans W M 1951, Proceedings of the Physical Society.Section B,64(4):298.
[17] Allison F E and Vitali R 1963, Army Ballistic Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground MD.
[18] DiPersio R and Simon J 1964, BRL Menmorandum Report No.1542.
[19] DiPersio R, Simon J and Merendino A 1965, BRL Report No.1296,September.
[20] Eichelberger R J 1956, Journal of Applied Physics,27(1):63-68.
[21] Ye C H 2012, Mechanical Management and Development, (06):27-28.
[22] Mayseless M, Erlich Y and Falcovitz Y 1984, 8th International Symposium on Ballistic,
Orlando Florida, USA: IBC.
[23] Mayseless M 2011, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 78(5): 1-11.
[24] Sun J, Wang L X, Liu F W and Liu Q 2006, Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and
Guidance,26 (2):57-60.
[25] Jia M Y,Gao Y H,Zhou P F,Zhang J,Li C Y and Liu Y B 2021, Journal of Ordnance
Equipment Engineering:1-8.
[26] Zhao L J,Zhu X P,Yin L,Li X J,Huang X J and Jiao Z G 2018, Ordnance Material Science
and Engineering,41(01):89-92.
[27] Zhao Z Y 2016,Research of penetration properties and penetration mechanism of W-Cu alloy
shaped charge liner, Beijing Institute of Technology.
[28] Zhang X P,Xiao J G,Yu Q B, Zhen Y F and Wang H F 2016, Acta Armamentarii,37(08):
1388- 1394.
[29] Zhang X P,Xiao J G,Yu Q B, Zhen Y F and Wang H F 2017, Transactions of Beijing Institute
of Technology,37(08):789-793+800.
[30] Guo H G,Lu G C,He S,Wang H F,Xiao Y W and Zhen Y F 2020,Transactions of Beijing
Institute of Technology, 40(12): 1259-1266.
[31] Ji Q,Wang Z J,Zhao F Y,Dong L Y,Tang X Z and Zhang X J 2020, Journal of Ordnance
Equipment Engineering, 41(11):160-164.
[32] Ruan G G,Lei W,Yue J W and Chai Y J 2018, Chinese Journal of Explosives & Propellants,
41(1):93-96,106.
[33] Chen C and Tang E L 2019,Chinese Journal of Explosives & Propellants,42(06):637-643.
[34] Wang Z J and Wu G D 2007,Acta Armamentarii, (11):1397-1400.
[35] Hou H 2018, Study on action Law of Jet On Simulated Contact-5 Reactive Armor. Nanjing
University of Science and Technology.
[36] Tian J 2006, The Shock Wave Attenuation and Anti- detonation Property of Aluminum Foam.
University of Science and Technology of China.
[37] Wang Y G,Hu S S and Wang L L 2003, Explosion and Shock Waves, (06):516-522.
[38] Chen W H,Zhu W H,Peng J H,Wang C,Wang F L and Liu R H 1997, Explosion and Shock
Waves, (03):90-93.
[39] Wang L X,Yuan B H,Sun X Y,Liu F W,Tang B and Li Y Y 2016, Chinese Journal of
Explosives & Propellants,39(02): 75-79.
[40] Zhang J,Liu R Z,Guo R and Li G 2012, Computer Simulation,29(12):34-37,302.