Influence of structural parameters of layered interception compound reactive liner on combined penetrating and implosion effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In response to the bottleneck problem that the penetration depth of traditional fluoropyr-based reactive material(RMS) shaped charge is seriously insufficient, a Layered Interception Compound Reactive Liner (LICRL) shaped charge structure is proposed. Based on the MPM numerical simulation method, the influence of structural parameters such as the height ratio ϕ and thickness ratio η of the inner and outer liners on the jet formation and its penetration behavior is investigated. The results indicate that the variation in ϕ primarily affects the head shape of jet formation. When ϕ = 2/3, a composite jet comprising a precursor copper jet and a trailing reactive jet is formed, which causes a “Penetrating While Explosion” damage effect on steel targets. The variation in η mainly influences the shaping morphology of the copper jet. When η > 2/3, the damage power of the composite liner is weakened, this is attributed to the poorer shaping morphology of the coaxial copper jet under higher liner thickness ratios and premature fracture of the copper jet due to reactive material response. Compared to traditional single reactive jets, the layered interception compound reactive liner (LICRL) forms jets that penetrate steel targets to a greater depth, and significantly increase the crater diameter compared to single-metal jets.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".