There is an issue with normal forming not conforming to the sectors where complex forming is required. Hence, explosive forming is preferred in these cases. This file talks about the explosive form...
Miniaturization of explosives technology, scaling down the size of explosives systems by a factor of one hundred to one thousand. By D. Scott Stewart.
A field Guide for the identification and safety precautions for American Civil War Artillery projectiles and their fuzes.
A training manual for becomming more explosive for sports like football and hockey
EXPLOSIVES
~ DESTRUCTION
// NOW, THE SAME TECHNOLOGY IS USED FOR CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSES //
A cockpit fuselage formed using explosive forming
WHY DO WE NEED IT? MAJOR USER – “ THE AEROSPACE SECTOR ” BIGGER AEROPLANES BIGGER ENGINES BIGGER PARTS (can’t be manufactured economically using conventional processes)
In the recent times, explosive forming has developed into a costeffective process for forming a variety of metals and metal alloys. This has resulted in a high degree of reproducibility for complex, large metal structures to tight tolerances.
Afterburner fuel rings
Jet engine diffusers
Missile domes
Heat shields for turbine engines
MILITARY APPLICATION EXPLOSIVELY FORMED PROJECTILE WW2
Armour penetration at standoff distances
In addition to the previous applications a variety of other forms have been fabricated including: dome shapes beaded panels large shallow reflectors shallow and deep rectangular boxes manhole access covers equipment covers large cylinder parts turbine housings
Spherical vessels of diameters ranging from 300 to 4000 mm have been produced using die-less explosive forming
used as propellants
DYNAMITE RDX
Explosive metalworking exclusively employs secondary explosives such as Dynamite PETN (pentaerythritol tetra nitrate) TNT (trinitrotoluene) RDX (cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine).
PRESSURE RANGE ~ (13.8–27.6 GN/m2 )
ENERGY COMPARISION 1.5 kg of high explosive ~~~~~
7.5 MN press
POPULAR IN USAGE:
primacord
Sheet explosive
Deformation is the main tool of explosive forming processes. the aim is to achieve the required deformation in the least number of operations, using the largest permissible weight charge.
During the detonation detonation wave mass of gas Pressures ~ 2–3×104 MPa.
The expansion of this high temperature, highly compressed gas bubble against its surroundings provides the energy for explosive forming.
The volume of gas liberated is approximately 1 litre/gm of explosive.
SHEETMETAL WORKPIECE CONFIGURATION
( 3 mmHg ) x
Best results with Standoff = 2x Most general arrangement Resemblance with deep drawing.
ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATION
HOW IT WORKS? THE EXPLOSION A primary shock wave travels out from the gas bubble through the surrounding water carrying 50% of the explosive energy. The primary shock wave in the fluid impinging on a blank imparts to it an initial velocity. This lowers the pressure in the water adjacent to the blank until cavitation occurs. reloading phenomenon delivers even more energy to the blank than the primary shock wave ( has been verified experimentally.)
ENERGY TRANSFER MEDIA
Water ( the most common)
Air
Plasticine (deformation of localised areas)
Detonation speeds are typically 22.2 ft/s (6.8 m s−1) Metal forming speed 100–600 ft/s (30–200 m s−1).
DIES
Few parts
---
concrete
Small explosive forces
---
glass fibre reinforced epoxy resins
high pressure intensities
---
ductile cast iron
---
machined tool steel
and frequent use
high quality surface finish and long production runs
PROCESS ECONOMY
The capital cost of an explosive forming facility are reported as being less than that of a conventional facility of equal capability by a factor ranging from 10:1 to 50:1. On the other hand, labour costs per part can be appreciably higher for explosive forming.
ACHEIVABLE TOLERANCES ±0.025 mm
-----------------
on small explosively formed parts
Final part tolerances behavior: first decreases, almost linearly, with an increase in charge weight finally becomes approximately constant ( hardness and the modulus of elasticity) Dimension Tolerance (mm) Normal
Possible
Diameter
0.254
0.128
Thickness
0.100
0.050
T
C
Tolerances obtainable when explosive forming large domes
As a comparison tolerances of 0.03–0.2 mm have been reported for the deep drawing of components with diameters of 500 mm .
HARDNESS Workhardening is less as a result of dynamic deformation ( 10 –103 s−1 ) than during static deformation to an equivalent strain (IRON AND STEEL) Material
Method used to apply static strain
Percentag Method of e strain measuring (%) hardness
Hardness values
Statically applied strain
Dynamically applied strain
Difference in hardness(%)
Armco iron
Compression
2.6
Vickers
105
95
−10
Mild steel (0.2% C)
Tension
8.0
Vickers
155
151
−4
Mild steel (0.24% C)
Compression
4.1
Brinell
126
113
−13
Aluminium
Not reported
35
Vickers
32.3
33.8
+1.5
STRENGTH Material
Prestrain (%)
Total strain (%)
Static flow stress values from samples subjected to static pre-straining (MPa)
Static flow stress values from samples subjected to dynamic pre-straining (MPa)
Difference in flow stress: dynamically and statically prestrained samples
Differen ce in flow stresses (%)
Armco iron
2.5
2.7
224.1
206.2
−2.6
−8.0
Mild steel (0.025% C)
7.8
8.0
262.0
229.6
−4.7
−12.4
Mild steel (0.2% C)
2.9
4.4
328.9
266.8
−9.0
−18.9
Stainless steel (AISI 304)
5.0
5.2
343.4
339.9
0.4
0.8
Material
Prestrain (%)
Total strain (%)
Static flow stress values from samples subjected to static pre-straining (MPa)
Static flow stress values from samples subjected to dynamic pre-straining (MPa)
Difference in flow stress: dynamically and statically prestrained samples
Differen ce in flow stresses (%)
Aluminium (99.95%)
14.2
15.0
45.2
47.2
0.30
4.6
Aluminium (99.99%)
5.5
7.0
48.7
54.1
0.77
10.9
Al–2.5Mg alloy (5056O)
5.0
5.2
241.3
228.2
−1.9
−5.4
WIN-WIN situation for aluminium
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS Fracture toughness is a property which describes the ability of a material containing a crack to resist fracture, one of the important parameters in designing. Explosive forming does not have any appreciable effect upon fracture toughness.
FATIGUE BEHAVIOUR not influenced significantly by the deformation process, irrespective of the process type.
Relative formability of different metals under explosive conditions
MODELLING AND SIMILTITUDE
Small-scale trials are often used before full sized dies are manufacture .
The scaling law requires that the mass of full-scale explosive charge must be n3 times the mass of small-scale charge, where n is the ratio of the full-scale die opening to the corresponding small-scale value. ( USED AS FIRST APPROXIMATION ) One-fifth scale model (%)
Full-scale prediction (%)
Full-scale observation (%)
Surface strain
7.0–8.2
7.0–8.2
4.0–6.3
Thickness strain
−14.0 to −16.5
−14.0 to −16.5
−8 to −12.5
predicated and observed strain for a dome structure formed by explosive forming
CONCLUSIONS STRENGTS -explosive forming is versatile (complex shapes possible) -requires low capital investment -increased ductility that may be obtained at certain deformation velocities
WEAKNESS -requirement of specialist process knowledge -the need to handle explosives. -adverse effect on work piece surface due to shock waves
