MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395046175 · doi:10.5755/j02.mech.32649

Effect of Structural Parameters on the Jet Formation and Penetration Capability of Small Caliber Shaped Charges

2024· article· en· W4395046175 on OpenAlexaff
Y. J. Xu, X.F. Wang, W.F. Xie, Nana ZHENG

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanika · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsMD Precision (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaliberPenetration (warfare)Shaped chargeJet (fluid)Materials scienceMechanicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsChemistryOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Take small caliber high explosive antitank cartridge as research platform, establish 35mm diameter warhead model. Numerical simulation for the process of shaped charge jet forming and penetrating the target has been done through explosion mechanics analysis software AUTODYN. Effect of liner thickness, cone angle and charging length-diameter ratio on shaped charge jet performance has been analyzed. And the optimal combination of the structural parameters of the shaped charge has been determined by orthogonal optimum design. Results show that optimized shaped charge structure can penetrate 105mm steel target under simulation conditions and the maximum penetration depth of main charge in the explosion test is 100mm, the average value of penetration depth is 86.67mm. The minimum and average of relative error between results of static explosion test and numerical simulation are 4.76% and 17.46% respectively. The research results can provide theoretical and technical support for the optimization design and engineering application of small caliber shaped charge.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanikaSame topicAdvanced Measurement and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207