Shaped Charge Liner Angle comparison | Shaped Charge In 4K Resolution | Explosive-Impact Simulation

preview_player
Показать описание
*Note the Shaped charges do not contain the same amount of explosives*

This simulation was created to analyze and understand the effects of of the angle of the liner cone. I was expecting more difference in the jet between the 3 than shown here, but perhaps there are other factors that play into the result that ive gotten here. Future testing will help narrow down what exactly is going on

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

If you enjoy my work, feel free to like, subscribe and comment as it greatly helps out with boosting my videos in the YouTube algorithm.

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Subscribe to my channel:

My playlists
Impact Simulations:

Impact Simulations -- Viewer Requests:

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Thank you for watching!
If you have any questions, feel free to leave them in the comments and i will get back to you as soon as possible.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Mentioning the amount of explosive and liner in each would be really nice to properly draw conclussions, as well as having targets that arent fully penetrated ;)
Also for suggestions that could be tested: wave shapers, they should help specially the lower angle charges, and wider ones benefit from a bit of curvature to create a better slug (getting into EFP territory with that, but why make a wide cone if you want a quick jet?), different ignitions, more or less explosive with different liners, etc

antaresmc
Автор

If the angle becomes high enough becomes EFP.

FinnisJaeger
Автор

I'd LOVE to see this recreated for a variety of detonation velocities. The major driver of cone shape is detonation velocity. To my admittedly low knowledge on thensubject, mass of charge behind the cone also has an effect. As well as the strength of the vessel. How much of the wave blows out verses is reflected back and so on. Explosive lenses would be cool too.

intellectualiconoclasm
Автор

Can you try different liner thicknesses?

tankbuilder
Автор

Maybe you could prototype a charge that uses a sort of two staged detonation where one part is used to accelerate an already powerful blast. Doubt it would work better than anything we already have, but it would probably look cool in the simulation.

smackzackback
Автор

Yeah more RHA next test so we can see the maximum penetration depth of each shape.
Another good idea is using the winning shape but comparing different explosives or liners, keeping the shape the same as a control.

shanekhiu
Автор

You should try this same test with optimum standoff distance for each liner angle

jacobkudrowich
Автор

Doesn't the optimal angle change based on the detonation velocity?

cHAOs
Автор

Narrow cone has more HE mass and more liner mass than wide cones. Can we normalize the penetration by these two factors ?

phdnk
Автор

Would love to see the effect of that Experimental HEAT charge you did a few videos ago.

xXrandomryzeXx
Автор

More stand-off distance might be called for: sources suggest 3-4 device diameters of separation from target give best 'carrot' formation interval.
The jet has a 'sweet-spot' that is unique to each design; stand-off can be critical for best performance.

pirobotbeta
Автор

I always love HEAT simulations. They’re a lot more satisfying because they’re hypersonic molten copper jet compared to darts

velvetthundr
Автор

You got to look at the Slow Mo Guys video on this. Because it looks like the inner point goes out as normal but the outer point of the cone gets smacked into the inner point as the inner point is going out. Because the explosives around the cone is faster than the tip leaving and just explode it inward. And it looked like the tip being hit by the outer part is actually what heats up the copper. Otherwise you are just shooting cold copper.

zeroinfinity
Автор

#QUESTION
Does the cone angle and or amount of explosive determine the energy required to penetrate however many inches of material?
(eg. regular shape charge stand-off space with small cone angle versus EFP with wide cone angle)

AlexanderMeier-iwbz
Автор

My unit found the first known EFP in Iraq, 2004. CIED, 458th EN BN under 1CAV

sgtellioman
Автор

What happend with the hot beam if it water if ? If the water break the hot beam you can use it has protecting gear on tanks in jerrycans.

pirsensor
Автор

Unfortunately this failed to produce the desired result as the relative amount of explosive in the low angle charge was much higher. Pity the simulations seemed to fail.

marksbrinsden
Автор

Hey, I just had an idea for a simulation:
What if you took an M855/M855A1 and replaced the steel tip with a nearly identical one but made out of Depleted Uranium? (or perhaps Tungsten Carbide)
Would it just do exactly the same, but at a higher price tag? Or would it actually be any better?

LuizBarros
Автор

How does one get into making these simulations. Like where do you start if you want to learn this without going to college for it. Are there books, web tutorials, or video tutorials that walk you through the basics of setting up this kind of simulation?

hindsight
Автор

What about my shaped charge vs. as much RHA as possible

rqrpure