International Journal of Impact Engineering 25 (2001) 187}191

E!ect of a spherical explosion upon the #ight path and spatial

orientation of a projectile
G. Iosilevskii *, N. Farber

Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel

Wales Inc., Ramat Gan 52521, Israel
Received 17 December 1998; received in revised form 20 April 2000

Abstract
A possible defense of an armored vehicle against a high-kinetic-energy projectile is based on generating
a strong explosion in a close proximity of the projectile and at some distance from the vehicle. In this
exposition we suggest a simpli"ed analytical model that bounds the e!ect of an explosion upon the #ight path
and spatial orientation of the projectile.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is well known that penetration depth of an armor by a high-kinetic-energy projectile is highly
sensitive to the impact angle [1]. This observation suggests that a possible defense of a vehicle
against such a projectile can, probably, be based on changing the spatial orientation of the latter so
as to increase its impact angle. To this end, few kilograms of an explosive can, in principle, be
detonated in the close proximity of the projectile and at the distance of few tens of meters from the
vehicle. A simpli"ed analytical analysis of the e!ect of such an explosion upon the impact angle of
the projectile is the subject matter of this short exposition.

2. Strong explosion
To begin with, consider a spherical explosion of large magnitude * large enough to justify the
assumption that the expanding spherical shock is in"nitely strong. For the sake of simplicity, the

* Corresponding author.
0734-743X/01/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 7 3 4 - 7 4 3 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 2 - 4

188

G. Iosilevskii, N. Farber / International Journal of Impact Engineering 25 (2001) 187}191

gas, in which the explosion occurs, will be assumed perfect, with gas constants R and c remaining
constant through the shock. Under these assumptions, the density o , the pressure p , the


temperature and the gas velocity v immediately behind the expanding shock, are completely


determined by the density o of the quiescent gas before the shock and by the velocity v of the


shock front by the well-known relations [2]
2
v 2(c!1)
2
c#1
, P "o v
, " 1
, v "v
.
o "o

 1 c#1
 R (c#1)

1 c#1

 c!1

(1)

For typical values of c, the former of these relations implies that the density of the gas
immediately behind the shock is large as compared with the density of the gas in which the shock
expands. Therefore, we shall assume, subject to a posteriori veri"cation, that the gas behind the
shock (which contains both the gases of the explosion and the air captured by the shock) is
concentrated in a thin layer adjacent to the shock front, with vacuum prevailing at the center of the
explosion.
Let us further assume that the gas properties (as velocity, temperature and density) are constant
through this thin layer. As an immediate consequence, the kinetic energy E , total energy E, and
 
linear momentum I of the gas take the form
4(m #m )v
1,
E"(m #m )(c #v )" 

   
(c#1)

(2)

2(m #m )v
1 "E,
E "(m #m )v " 


   
(c#1)

(3)

2(m #m )v
1,
I"(m #m )v " 


c#1

(4)

by (1). Here, c "R/(c!1) is an appropriate speci"c heat, m is the mass of the explosive (it is
T

tacitly assumed that the mass of the explosive equals the mass of the gases released by it), and m is
the mass of the air captured by the explosion. With r being the instantaneous radius of the shock
1
front, m "po1 r.
1

Eqs. (1)}(4) may be somewhat simpli"ed by introducing
e "E /m ,
 
  
the speci"c kinetic energy of an explosive, and



c"

3m 

,
4po1

(5)

(6)

the equivalent radius of an explosive mass. With these,

e (c#1) c
v"  
,
1
2
r#c
1
by (2) and (3), and concurrently,
e (c!1) c
c
c
, "  
, v "2e
,
p "o e (c#1)


  r#c

  
r#c
R
r#c
1
1
1

(7)

(8)

G. Iosilevskii, N. Farber / International Journal of Impact Engineering 25 (2001) 187}191

r#c 
,
I"po1 c 2e 1

  c

189

(9)

by (1) and (4).

Consistent with the above, the thickness d of the gas layer behind the shock can be estimated by
c!1 r#c
m #m
1
"r
.
(10)
d" 
1
3(c#1) r
4po r
1
 1
It turns out to be of the order of 0.1r for c"1.4 and all practical combinations of r and m (see
1
1

Fig. 1) * small enough to render valid the assumption stated in the paragraph immediately
following Eq. (1).

3. Interaction between the explosion and a projectile

Let the speci"c kinetic energy of an explosive be a typical 2 MJ/kg [3] and the gas in which the
explosion occurs have all the properties of air. Under these circumstances, Eq. (8) implies than an
explosion of 2 kg should yield v &1000 m/s at r "1 m (see Fig. 2), i.e. v should be comparable

1

with the velocity < of the projectile itself. Accordingly, the interaction between the gases of the
explosion and the projectile can, probably, be analyzed in the framework of a cross-#ow analysis.
Moreover, the typical interaction time

c!1 (r#c) 

d
1
(11)
q& &
3(c#1) 2e cr
v
  1

(see Eqs. (8) and (10)), turns out to be extremely short * of the order of 100 ls for all practical
combinations of r and m . All these observations imply that the maximum possible e!ect of an


explosion on a projectile (other than damaging it) can be estimated by considering an ideal

Fig. 1. Estimated relative thickness d/r of the gas layer behind the shock.
1

190

G. Iosilevskii, N. Farber / International Journal of Impact Engineering 25 (2001) 187}191

Fig. 2. Gas velocity v behind the shock.



interaction in which all linear momentum of the gas impinging the projectile is instantaneously
transferred to the projectile's geometrical center.
Let, therefore, i be the linear momentum of the gas per unit area of the shock front; noting (9), it
takes the form

c
r#c 
I
.
(12)
"o  2e 1
i"

 
3r
c
4pr
1
1
Let, also, S be the area of the side projection of the projectile, and h the distance between the
projectile's center of gravity and its geometrical center. Thus, the maximum possible values of the
linear and angular moments received by the projectile upon the interaction are, respectively,
I &iS and H &iSh.



(13)

4. E4ect of the explosion at the impact

Now, let the distance r between the explosion and the defending vehicle be small as compared
with the shortest wave length of the projectile's rigid-body modes (which is known to be of the
order of a hundred meters). In this case, if no damage has been in#icted upon the projectile by the
explosion, the above estimates can be readily translated into the transverse *x and angular *a
deviations of the projectile from its original impact point and impact angle, respectively. Thus, with
m and J being the mass and the pertinent moment of inertia of the projectile,

o Sc 2e r#c 

I r
  1
,
*x&  &r 
c
3mr V
m<
1
H r mh*x
*a&  &
,
J<
J
by (12) and (13).

(14)
(15)

G. Iosilevskii, N. Farber / International Journal of Impact Engineering 25 (2001) 187}191

191

Fig. 3. Maximal transverse *x and angular *a deviations of a typical projectile at the distance of 15 m from the
explosion. Here, the shock radius is equivalent with the lateral seperation between the center of the explosion and the
projectile.

Given typical values m"4 kg, S"0.0175 m, h"7.2 cm, J"0.11 kg m and <"1500 m/s, the
pertinent values of *x and *a are shown in Fig. 3 at r"15 m. The e!ect of the explosion on the
#ight path seems to be insigni"cant, but the e!ect on the impact angle seems to be signi"cant
enough [1] to warrant a detailed investigation.

References
[1] Bless SJ, Barber JP, Bertke RS, Swift HS. Penetration mechanics of yawed rods. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 1978;16:829}33.
[2] Landau LD, Lifshitz EM. Fluid mechanics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1987. p. 404.
[3] Federo! B, She$eld OE, Kaye SM, editors. Encyclopedia of explosives and related items. PATR 2400 Vol. 4.
Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, NJ, 1969. p. D463.