Hubbry Logo
Explosive formingExplosive formingMain
Open search
Explosive forming
Community hub
Explosive forming
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Explosive forming
Explosive forming
Explosive forming
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Explosive forming is a metalworking technique in which an explosive charge is used instead of a punch or press. It can be used on materials for which a press setup would be prohibitively large or require an unreasonably high pressure, and is generally much cheaper than building a large enough and sufficiently high-pressure press; on the other hand, it is unavoidably an individual job production process, producing one product at a time and with a long setup time. There are various approaches; one is to place metal plate over a die, with the intervening space evacuated by a vacuum pump, place the whole assembly underwater, and detonate a charge at an appropriate distance from the plate. For complicated shapes, a segmented die can be used to produce in a single operation a shape that would require many manufacturing steps, or to be manufactured in parts and welded together with an accompanying loss of strength at the welds. There is often some degree of work hardening from the explosive-forming process, particularly in mild steel.

Tooling

[edit]

Tooling can be made out of fiberglass for short-run applications, out of concrete for large parts at medium pressures, or out of ductile iron for high-pressure work; ideally the tooling should have higher yield strength than the material that is being formed, which is a problem since the technique is usually only considered for material which is itself very hard to work.

History

[edit]

The first commercial industrial application of explosive forming in the United States began in 1950 and was used into the 1970s by The Moore Company in Marceline, Missouri. The purpose was to form proprietary shaped metal cylinders for use as the central structure of industrial axial vane fans. This is detailed in a 1967 N.A.S.A. publication "High-Velocity Metalworking - a survey" at pages 73, 82 & 83. This article misstates the name of company founder Robert David Moore Sr. as "E. R. Moore". Moore ultimately did hold some patents for involved processes.[1]

Explosive forming was used in the 1960s for aerospace applications, such as the chine plates of the SR-71 reconnaissance plane and various Soviet rocket parts; it continued to be developed in Russia, and the organizing committees of such events as EPNM tend to contain many members from the former Soviet Union. It proved particularly useful for making high-strength corrugated parts which would otherwise have to be milled out of ingots much larger than the finished product. An example would be a yacht constructor who produced boat hulls by making a concrete "swimming pool" into which sheet-metal was placed, and when water filled and explosively fired, produced a complete hull-form.[2]

Other uses of explosives for manufacturing take advantage of the shaped charge effect, putting the explosive directly in contact with the metal to be worked; this was used for engraving of thick iron plates as early as the 1890s. See also explosively formed projectiles for a variety of military applications of the same kind of technology.

Explosive forming of vacuum tube anode (plate) materials

[edit]

In the late 1950s, the General Electric company developed an application for five-layer sheet metal composites that had been created using the explosive forming process. GE engineers used this innovative composite material to produce multi-layer vacuum tube anodes (aka "plates") with superior heat transfer characteristics. This characteristic allowed GE to build significantly higher power vacuum tubes from existing designs without expensive engineering, design, and tooling changes, providing a substantial competitive market advantage to GE in the burgeoning Hi-Fi amplifier market.

In January 1960 it was reported in contemporary GE technical literature[3] that this five-layer material was the design breakthrough which made possible the new 6L6GC. The 6L6GC was a 6L6 variant able to dissipate 26% more power compared to the otherwise identically constructed 6L6GB. According to General Electric engineer R.E. Moe, then Manager of Engineering at G.E,'s Owensboro Kentucky facility,[4] these increases were made possible by the application of the improved multi-layer plate material.

GE sourced this material from a Texas-based firm (Texas Instruments[5]) which is reported to be the source of the explosively forged five-layer raw material specified by General Electric engineers. This manufacturer used explosive sheet metal forging processes previously developed for another customer (possibly the U.S. Navy?) The explosively formed dissimilar materials had substantially improved evenness of heat transfer thanks to the copper center layer.

GE engineers quickly saw the potential for improved heat transfer characteristics in several already popular pentode and beam tetrode vacuum tube designs, including the 6L6GB, the 7189, and eventually the 6550. The application of the five-layer (Al-Fe-Cu-Fe-Al) material to anode manufacture solved the problem of irregular heat buildup at high power levels in the anode plates of power pentodes, tetrodes, and triodes. This irregular heat buildup leads to physical distortion of the tube's plate. if allowed to continue, this spot overheating eventually results in warpage which allows physical contact and subsequent short circuits between the plate, grids, and beam formers in the tube. Such contact shorts destroy the tube.

General Electric's novel application of this innovative composite led to the creation of the 7189A variant, released in late 1959, along with the 6L6GC and other variants. By 1969, the 6550A variant had also been developed to take advantage of explosively forged composites. GE's application allowed for improved power levels in a number of already popular tube designs, an innovation which helped pave the way for substantially higher power vacuum tube stereo and musical instrument amplifiers in the 1960s and early 1970s.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Explosive forming

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Explosive forming is a high-energy rate forming in that utilizes the intense shock waves and generated by a controlled of explosives to deform metal sheets, plates, or tubes into complex shapes conforming to a die. The typically involves placing the workpiece over or within a die, positioning an explosive charge at a calculated , and initiating the to propel the metal at deformation velocities typically ranging from 100 to 300 m/s (330 to 980 ft/s), allowing it to flow like a viscous under the extreme pressures, which can exceed 4,000,000 psi in direct contact configurations. Variations include contact and standoff methods, with or without intermediary fluids like to transmit the shock wave more uniformly, as seen in setups using sealed pressure vessels where underwater detonations minimize gas expansion effects and reduce springback in the formed part. Developed over more than a century, explosive forming traces its origins to late 19th-century experiments, such as Daniel Adamson's 1878 application for testing boilerplate strength, though widespread industrial adoption occurred in the 1950s amid demands following events like the Sputnik launch. Early applications by companies like Olin Mathieson focused on forming difficult-to-work materials such as and high-strength steels into intricate components, evolving into a viable method for large-scale production by the . This technique excels in producing complex geometries with tight tolerances—such as ±0.025 mm on small parts or corner radii as low as 1.3 mm—while requiring minimal tooling costs compared to traditional presses, making it economical for low-volume, high-precision runs. Primary applications span , where it forms components like tail bearing housings for aero-engines, missile casings, and rocket-booster tubes with accuracies of ±0.02 inches, as well as structural joining tasks such as expanding tubes into tubesheets for heat exchangers. Beyond forming, it enables fastening of dissimilar materials under high-stress conditions, enhancing assembly durability in pressure vessels and beyond. The process also alters material properties, often increasing hardness and through shock-induced , though it demands stringent safety protocols due to the hazardous nature of explosives.

Process Overview

Definition and Principles

Explosive forming is a high-energy-rate technique that utilizes controlled explosions to deform sheet or plate materials into complex shapes through the propagation of shock waves. In this process, an explosive charge is detonated near or on the workpiece, which is typically clamped over a die, generating a sudden release of energy that drives plastic deformation without the need for mechanical punches or presses. The core principles of explosive forming revolve around the generation and transmission of shock waves through a medium, such as air or , to apply transient high pressures to the workpiece. Upon , the produces a shock front that propagates at supersonic speeds, imparting an impulse that exceeds the material's yield strength and induces rapid plastic flow. This pressure can reach magnitudes up to approximately 3×1043 \times 10^4 MPa, enabling the forming of intricate geometries with minimal springback due to the high strain rates involved, which are on the order of 10210^2 to 10310^3 s−1^{-1}. A key aspect of the physics underlying this process is the detonation pressure generated by the , approximated by the Chapman-Jouguet theory as P=ρD2γ+1,P = \frac{\rho D^2}{\gamma + 1}, where ρ\rho is the of the , DD is the , and γ\gamma is the adiabatic index of the detonation products. This wave transmits through the medium to the workpiece, causing it to accelerate and conform to the die surface via inertial forces. The efficiency of energy transfer depends on the medium's matching with the metal, with water often preferred for its higher and ability to prolong the pulse. The process requires workpiece materials with sufficient to accommodate high strain rates without fracturing, such as aluminum, , or and their alloys, which exhibit enhanced formability under compared to conventional methods.

Types of Explosive Forming

Explosive forming processes are broadly classified by the configuration of the explosive charge relative to the workpiece, distinguishing between contact and standoff methods. In the contact method, the explosive is placed directly against the workpiece, enabling rapid and intense energy transfer that generates pressures exceeding 1,000,000 psi, which is particularly effective for applications like tube bulging or flaring where full utilization is needed. However, this approach carries a higher risk of workpiece rupture and die failure due to the concentrated force. The standoff method, by contrast, positions the explosive at a —typically 2 to 10 inches—from the workpiece, allowing the to propagate through a medium and deform the material at velocities around 120 m/s, offering greater control and safety for larger sheets or plates. Processes are further categorized as free-form or confined-form based on die usage. Free-form forming operates without a die or with an open-ended die, relying on the inherent to create simple geometries such as domes, cylinders, or elliptical shapes, which is advantageous for prototyping or low-precision parts. Confined-form forming, however, employs closed dies to guide deformation into precise, complex contours, achieving tolerances as tight as ±0.001 inches and supporting intricate designs that conventional presses cannot handle. This variant requires careful calibration to avoid die or incomplete filling. Medium-based variants influence coupling and uniformity. explosive forming uses to transmit the energy, leveraging the medium's low for even distribution across the workpiece surface, which enhances formability for thick materials and reduces the required explosive charge by up to 80% compared to air. Air-shock forming transmits the wave through air, producing lower peak pressures suitable for thinner sheets but resulting in shorter pulse durations and less efficient energy transfer, often necessitating larger charges. Chamber setups vary between vacuum and atmospheric environments to optimize wave transmission. Vacuum chambers remove air pockets between the workpiece and die, minimizing oxidation and while improving precision for thin materials, though they add setup complexity and cost. Atmospheric chambers operate in air- or water-filled conditions without evacuation, simplifying operations but potentially leading to uneven transmission if gas entrapment occurs, particularly in confined setups where the workpiece occupies over 50% of the die volume.
TypeProsConsShape Complexity & Material Limits
Standoff (Air)Safer distance reduces rupture risk; simple setup for medium-scale parts.Lower efficiency requires larger charges; shorter pulse limits uniformity.Simple to moderate shapes; thinner materials (e.g., sheets up to 18-gauge aluminum).
Standoff (Water)Uniform for large areas; 80% less needed; low noise.Requires and submersion rigging; higher facility demands.Complex shapes possible; thick materials (e.g., large plates for up to several inches).
ContactMaximum energy transfer; efficient for small, precise deformations.High rupture and die failure risk; unsuitable for large/thick parts.Moderate complexity; limited to thinner tubes/sheets.
Free-FormNo die needed for simple shapes; cost-effective tooling savings up to 80%.Limited precision; radial energy loss reduces control.Simple geometries only (e.g., domes); various thicknesses, no strict limits.
Confined-FormHigh precision (±0.001 in.); supports intricate contours.Complex die design; management critical to avoid .High complexity; thin to moderate thicknesses with tight tolerances.

Historical Development

Early Innovations

Explosive forming originated from early 20th-century experiments but saw significant development during , when military needs drove research into high-velocity metal deformation techniques for applications such as shaping warheads and gun-emplacement shields. In the , initial efforts focused on using explosive shock waves to form complex metal parts under high-impact loads, with French engineers employing the method pre-war for protective shields and U.S. researchers exploring air as a for shock propagation. These wartime innovations laid the groundwork for controlled deformation of difficult-to-form alloys, transitioning from rudimentary blasting to engineered processes aimed at precision military hardware. By the early 1950s, post-war advancements accelerated, with the first industrial demonstrations occurring around 1950 when the Moore Company in Kansas City successfully formed Monel metal fan hubs using explosives, marking a shift toward practical sheet forming. Key contributors included researchers at North American Aviation, such as D.E. Strohecker, who documented successful sheet forming trials in reports like NA61H-76 (1961), building on earlier patents like U.S. Patent No. 939,702 (1909) by I.N. Jones for explosive sheet metal shaping. Olin Mathieson's Winchester and Western Division further refined techniques by 1955, enabling fewer operations for aerospace components like curved domes and rocket nose cones, driven by U.S. military demands for missile parts amid Cold War tensions. Initial challenges centered on uneven deformation and inefficient energy transfer in air-based setups, where short-duration shock waves led to inconsistent results and required large explosive charges. Innovators addressed this by adopting liquid media like , which transmitted impulses more uniformly and reduced charge sizes by approximately 80%, improving formability and safety for sheet metals. This conceptual evolution—from empirical, unconfined explosions to a precise method—paved the way for explosive forming's role in high-strength material processing, as evidenced in seminal studies by J.S. Rinehart and J. Pearson on dynamics.

Key Milestones and Applications

In the , explosive forming gained prominence in the sector, where it was employed to produce complex, low-volume components from challenging materials like , driven by the demands of the . Research at facilities such as the U.S. Navy's advanced underwater explosive forming techniques, enabling precise deformation of metal sheets under controlled shock waves. The first International Conference on High-Energy Forming in highlighted its commercial potential, marking a shift toward broader industrial integration. During the and , standardization of underwater explosive forming progressed at U.S. naval installations, including the development of high-energy-rate facilities at the Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville by , which facilitated repeatable processes for large-scale components. This era saw the first significant production applications for naval structures, such as pressure hull sections, exemplified by advancements in explosive for gun barrels in 1975. The fourth International Conference on High-Energy Forming in further disseminated these techniques, comparing explosive methods to conventional pressing for enhanced efficiency. From the onward, explosive forming integrated with finite element analysis for predictive modeling of deformation and shock propagation, allowing simulations of forming processes that improved design accuracy and reduced trial-and-error. Although overall usage declined with the rise of alternative high-energy methods, a niche revival occurred in the for hybrid applications involving composites, leveraging explosive impulses for bonding and shaping . Globally, the technology spread through European efforts, such as those at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, and Soviet contributions in the 1970s, which applied it to components for enhanced structural .

Tooling and Materials

Die Design and Fabrication

Die design in explosive forming requires careful to accommodate the intense, transient pressures generated during the process, ensuring the die maintains structural integrity while imparting precise shapes to the workpiece. Dies are typically molds that guide the deformation of metal sheets or tubes under explosive impulses, with designs optimized to distribute stresses evenly and minimize defects like wrinkling or incomplete forming. Key considerations include the die's ability to withstand transient peak pressures up to 30 GPa in contact configurations or 10-1000 MPa in standoff methods, depending on the charge and setup, while allowing for complex geometries that conventional presses cannot achieve. Dies are classified into single-use and reusable types based on production volume and . Single-use dies, often employed for intricate or one-off prototypes, are fabricated from materials like , , or low-cost plastics, which are encased in supportive structures to handle the blast but discarded after forming due to potential cracking or . Reusable dies, suited for higher-volume applications with simpler shapes, utilize durable materials such as or composites to endure multiple cycles without significant degradation. For example, in forming large components, single-use dies enable of complex curvatures, while reusable ones support iterative production. Material selection prioritizes high , fatigue resistance, and compatibility with the environment to counter the shock waves and impulses. High-strength s like H13 or AISI 4340, heat-treated to a maximum of 50 Rockwell C, are favored for reusable dies due to their excellent toughness and ability to resist brittle fracture under cyclic loading; these steels can withstand stresses up to 180 MPa in simulated blast conditions with a safety factor exceeding 3 relative to yield strength. For cost-effective large-scale dies, Kirksite (a with 75,000 psi compressive strength) or (45,000 psi tensile yield) is used for lower-pressure applications, while (30,000 psi compressive strength) or epoxy-fiberglass composites (breaking strength 105–550 N/mm² with 30–65% ) provide economical options for parts up to 4.5 m in diameter, enhanced by to achieve 100–120 N/mm² compressive strength. Factors such as matching and resistance guide choices, ensuring the die reflects shock waves in compression rather than tension to avoid failure. Design principles emphasize geometry optimization for uniform deformation, incorporating features like hold-down rings (e.g., 2-inch-thick rings enduring over 100 impacts) to prevent wrinkling and vent holes for pressure equalization. (CAD) tools, such as , facilitate modeling of die profiles, including sealing grooves, fillets (4–6.35 mm radii for thin stock), and vacuum channels to ensure airtightness and precise tolerances (±0.001 inch for small parts, typically ±0.010 inch overall). Finite element analysis (FEA) via software like simulates blast loads—such as peak pressures of 52 MPa decaying over 0.0894 ms—to predict stress distributions and validate wall thicknesses (often matching base thickness for balanced loading) using heavy-wall formulas with a safety factor of 4. Dies can reach diameters up to 10 m for large components, with wall thicknesses around 2 inches for tubular sections to manage impulse propagation. Fabrication methods are tailored to the die type and material, balancing precision with cost. Reusable dies are produced via CNC or profile milling for complex nonconcentric shapes, ensuring smooth surfaces to avoid marking the workpiece at parting lines in split designs. is prevalent for Kirksite or dies, where a master is coated with 1 cm epoxy-fiberglass layers before encasing in metal forms and filling with high-strength , followed by a 25-day curing period to maximize durability and avoid from explosive vibrations. Composite dies, such as metal-epoxy- hybrids, involve sealing during assembly to eliminate air pockets that could amplify stresses. These techniques enable fabrication of dies for diverse forming types, including conical or cylindrical shapes, while maintaining geometric fidelity.

Explosives and Setup

In explosive forming, high explosives such as PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate), (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine), and Composition C-4 are commonly selected for their controlled detonation velocities ranging from 4 to 8 km/s, enabling precise generation for metal deformation. These secondary explosives offer high and energy output, with PETN and exhibiting velocities around 8.3 km/s and 8.8 km/s respectively, while Composition C-4, based on , provides similar performance with added plasticity for shaping charges. Quantities are scaled to the workpiece dimensions, typically 1-10 kg for sheets up to 1 m², though smaller operations use grams to tens of grams to avoid over-deformation; for instance, 6-18 grams of PETN-based charges suffice for laboratory-scale forming of metal blanks. Setup configurations emphasize the placement of the charge relative to the workpiece to optimize . In standoff arrangements, the charge is positioned at a of 0.5 to 2 times the die height, typically 1-12 inches (25-300 mm), which allows the pressure pulse to expand and uniformize before impacting the material, reducing localized damage while maintaining forming efficiency. is achieved through detonators such as No. 6-8 blasting caps or electric squibs, ensuring reliable and timed ; advanced systems may employ triggers for precise control in specialized setups. The charge is often shaped as a point, line, or sheet—using materials like (velocity ~6.3 km/s) for linear —to match the of the part being formed. Chamber requirements focus on and transmission to ensure safe and effective operation. Processes are conducted in reinforced water tanks or bunkers, with tanks commonly sized at 12 ft (3.7 m) in diameter and 10 ft (3 m) deep to accommodate the and debris; serves as the primary , enhancing uniformity and reducing noise. evacuation of the die-workpiece interface is essential to eliminate air pockets that could cause uneven deformation or rupture, typically achieved by drawing a partial before filling with or sealing. For unconfined setups, open systems minimize confinement risks, while closed chambers provide better control for high-precision applications. Parameter tuning involves adjusting explosive mass, standoff distance, and medium properties to achieve desired deformation without material failure. Standoff optimization can be approximated using the relation S=V⋅t2S = \frac{V \cdot t}{2}, where SS is the standoff distance, VV is the , and tt is the material deformation time, ensuring the shock wave peak aligns with the forming window. Empirical adjustments, informed by peak pressure calculations such as P=2.16×104(W1/3R)1.13P = 2.16 \times 10^{4} \left( \frac{W^{1/3}}{R} \right)^{1.13} (in psi, with WW as charge weight in pounds and RR as standoff in feet), guide the balance between pressure amplitude and duration for specific alloys and geometries.

Applications

Aerospace and Automotive Components

Explosive forming has been employed in the industry to shape alloy sheets for components such as exhaust silencers, leveraging the process's ability to handle complex geometries in high-strength materials. This technique enables the cold forming of alloys like at thicknesses of 1.0 to 1.55 mm, producing components with minimal springback and enhanced formability for structural applications. In the 1960s, utilized explosive forming for launch vehicle components, including large panels made from 2024-O aluminum alloy measuring 2.7 by 1.5 meters, as well as and parts to meet the demands of . The process was particularly valuable for forming hard-to-deform metals required in rocket structures, reducing the need for extensive tooling and enabling efficient production of prototypes. For automotive applications, explosive forming supports low-volume production and prototyping of complex lightweight parts, such as aluminum alloy components, where traditional methods struggle with intricate shapes. It excels in forming aluminum alloys like , allowing for the creation of high-strength-to-weight ratio structures up to several millimeters thick, ideal for specialized exhaust systems or structural elements in limited runs. The technique's single-sided die requirement makes it cost-effective for small batches, though its labor-intensive nature confines it primarily to prototypes rather than high-volume . A notable case involves the European Space Agency's rocket, where explosive forming produced ring segments from 2.5 mm thick AA2024-T3 aluminum alloy directly in its hardened state, eliminating multiple steps and post-forming heat treatments for engine frame components. In manufacturing, Dutch firm TNO applied the process to 4 mm thick titanium alloy parts for nozzles and door panels, demonstrating its utility for curved, load-bearing elements. These examples highlight explosive forming's role in achieving precise deformations in alloys up to several millimeters thick, prioritizing high-strength-to-weight ratios essential for performance-critical sectors, though economic constraints limit broader adoption beyond prototypes. Beyond aerospace components, explosive forming is used for casings and rocket-booster tubes, where it forms large-diameter structures from materials like high-strength steels and aluminum with tight tolerances. The process also facilitates structural joining, such as expanding tubes into tubesheets for heat exchangers, enabling secure fastening of dissimilar materials under high-stress conditions in pressure vessels.

Advantages and Limitations

Benefits Over Conventional Methods

Explosive forming offers significant technical advantages over conventional methods such as stamping or , particularly in its ability to produce complex, deep-drawn shapes in a single operation without requiring multiple dies or intermediate steps. This process leverages the rapid pressure generated by to deform the workpiece, enabling the formation of intricate geometries that are challenging or impossible with slower, mechanical deformation techniques. A key benefit is its suitability for forming low-ductility materials, such as and high-strength steels, which exhibit limited formability under quasi-static conditions. At high strain rates of 10² to 10⁴ s⁻¹, the material behaves more fluid-like, enhancing and allowing deformation without cracking. Economically, explosive forming significantly reduces tooling costs for prototypes and low-volume production compared to conventional methods like , due to the use of simpler, single dies made from materials like Kirksite or rather than expensive matched sets. The rapid loading minimizes springback, ensuring dimensional accuracy and reducing post-processing needs. In terms of performance, the process achieves greater uniformity in part thickness compared to conventional methods, as the high-velocity deformation distributes strain evenly. For instance, it has successfully formed components with radii as small as 5 mm, demonstrating its precision for demanding geometries. Compared to mechanical presses, explosive forming provides improved energy efficiency through direct energy transfer from the , resulting in up to 10 times less setup time and lower overall capital investment for similar outcomes.

Challenges and Safety Considerations

forming presents several technical challenges that can lead to inconsistent deformation, primarily due to wave reflections in the pressure transmission medium, which generate multiple shock waves that interfere with uniform forming pressure. This issue is particularly pronounced in open or hydroelectric setups, where secondary reflections from die boundaries exacerbate variability in flow and final accuracy. Additionally, brittle alloys such as carbon and low-alloy steels are prone to cracking under the high strain rates induced by shock loading, limiting their applicability without pre-treatments or multi-stage processes. The process also generates significant noise and vibration, necessitating isolation measures to mitigate environmental and structural impacts. Safety protocols are essential given the inherent risks of handling explosives, with operations typically conducted remotely in blast-proof facilities to prevent personnel exposure to shock waves and fragments. (PPE), including hearing protection and blast-resistant gear, along with predefined evacuation procedures, forms a core part of operational guidelines to address potential accidents during . is mandated under frameworks like the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) guidelines, which govern the storage, transportation, and use of materials to ensure industrial applications. Economically, explosive forming incurs high per-part costs due to specialized setups and explosive materials, often exceeding conventional methods for low-volume production and rendering it less competitive for mass manufacturing. Environmental limitations include waste generation from single-use elements like plaster or concrete dies, which crack or disintegrate after one cycle, contributing to material inefficiency. The process has seen a decline in adoption since the late 20th century, largely due to the development of alternative high-energy forming techniques offering greater control and repeatability for complex parts. Despite the decline, explosive forming continues to be used in niche applications, such as prototyping complex components, as of the 2020s. To address these challenges, numerical simulations are employed to predict deformation patterns, wave propagation, and potential failures, allowing optimization of explosive charges and die designs prior to physical trials. Hybrid processes, such as combining explosive forming with , offer mitigation by enhancing precision in post-forming calibration and reducing reliance on high explosives for finer adjustments.

References

  1. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4694&context=grp
  2. https://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/mechanical_engineering/Explosive_Forming.pdf
  3. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/PVP/proceedings/PVP2007/42827/73/323777
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924013602004132
  5. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19860001773
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/explosive-forming
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353430160_Overview_of_EXPLOSIVE_FORMING
  8. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0605372.pdf
  9. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.fluid.38.050304.092049
  10. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110521863-006/html
  11. https://designwanted.com/explosive-forming-process/
  12. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19680014323/downloads/19680014323.pdf
  13. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0259947.pdf
  14. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-9751-9_9
  15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1243/0309324971513373
  16. https://www.pcepurnia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/lec36.pdf
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273321095_Computer_Aided_Design_and_Analysis_of_Conical_Forming_Dies_Subjected_to_Blast_Load
  18. http://icmas.eu/Journal_archive_files/Vol_1_2006/07-04-353-356.pdf
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277326348_Utilisation_of_explosive_forming_on_titanium_alloy_sheets
  20. https://bulletin.incas.ro/files/victor_ghizdavu_v2no4_full.pdf
  21. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19660009119
  22. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA525006.pdf
  23. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0464441.pdf
  24. https://jecrcfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/notes/btech/Mechanical%20Engineering/5th%20Semester/MANUFACTURING%20TECHNOLOGY/UNIT%205.pdf
  25. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3912.pdf
  26. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/docs/report/publication-federal-explosives-laws-and-regulations-atf-p-54007/download
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.