
































Microsoft Word - 29-45_264


(Online) ISSN 2744-1741 
Defense and Security Studies  Original Research 
Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 
https://doi.org/10.37868/dss.v5.id264 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) that allows others 
to share and adapt the material for any purpose (even commercially), in any medium with an acknowledgement of the work's 
authorship and initial publication in this journal. 

 29 

 
 
Theoretical study on the sabot separation process of a sub-caliber 
projectile fired from rifled guns 
 
Bui Xuan Son1, Nguyen Quang Tuan1*, Nguyen Hai Minh1, Doan Van Dung1 
1Faculty of Special Equipments, Le Quy Don Technical University, Vietnam. 
 
  
 

*Corresponding author E-mail: tuannguyenmta28@gmail.com  

Received: Jun. 6, 2024 
Revised: Jul. 7, 2024 
Accepted: Jul. 9, 2024 
Online: Jul. 14. 2024 

Abstract  

Sub-caliber projectiles have been widely used in modern warfare due to their 
ability to enhance accuracy and ballistic performance. For such projectiles, 
however, an effective separation of the penetrator from the sabot upon exiting the 
barrel is extremely important for achieving the desired accuracy and terminal 
ballistics. In this paper, we present a theoretical model for studying the aspects of 
the penetrator-sabot separation process for a sub-caliber projectile fired from 
7.62mm pistols.  The method used in this paper is a combination of analytical and 
numerical approaches. Firstly, an equation system was analytically established to 
describe the motion of the sabot and the penetrator in absolute coordinates. Then, 
the Computational fluid dynamics simulation approach was applied to determine 
the aerodynamic forces acting on the sabot and the penetrator. Finally, the 
equation system was solved using Newton’s method to calculate the position of 
the sabot and the penetrator during the separation process. Based on the proposed 
model, the effect of some parameters on the separation process was investigated. 
The investigation results have shown that the initial friction force between the 
sabot and the penetrator significantly influences the separation process. The 
findings in this study provide valuable contributions to the design and 
optimization of sub-caliber projectile-weapon systems. 

© The Author 2024. 
Published by ARDA. 

Keywords: Sabot separation; sub-caliber projectile; CFD method, armor-piercing 
power; saboted projectile, penetrator   

1. Introduction  

To enhance the armor penetration power of projectiles, various solutions have been applied in weapon design 
practice. One such way is to use sub-caliber projectiles. Central to the functionality of these projectiles is the 
sabot, a carrier structure that encases the projectile during its initial flight stage before separating to allow the 
penetrator to continue flying alone towards the intended target.  

In Le Quy Don Technical University, an intensive research program has been carried out to find ways to 
enhance the armor-piercing performance of rifled guns for infantry, focusing on perspective cartridge 
projectile designs. One of our chosen designs is the design with sabot, the typical structure of which is 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

30 

presented in Figure 1. The projectile consists of an aluminum sabot and a tungsten carbide penetrator. The 
penetrator separates from the sabot due to the difference in aerodynamic drags acting on the sabot and the 
penetrator. The separation begins upon exiting the barrel until the penetrator completely loses mechanical 
contact with the sabot (Figure 2). 

 
 

 
Figure 1. The structure of a sub-caliber projectile fired from rifled guns 

 
Figure 2. The penetrator gradually separates from the sabot   

The penetrator-sabot separation process is an important stage in the flight trajectory of sub-caliber projectiles, 
influencing their stability, accuracy, and terminal effectiveness. Numerous researches have been conducted on 
the separation process of APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot).  

Several scholars have carried out experiments to visually observe and analyze the sabot discard process. 
Others have employed Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods to numerically investigate the effect of 
different parameters, such as muzzle velocity, sabot geometry dimensions, and launch conditions on the 
separation process [1-5].  

The APFSDS projectiles are fired from smoothbore barrels. The penetrator of APFSDS has fins to stabilize its 
flight. As the APFSDS projectile exits the barrel, the sabot and the penetrator almost immediately lose 
mechanical contact. The working principle of APFSDS projectiles is different from that of sub-caliber 
projectiles fired from rifled guns. Consequently, it is inappropriate to apply these research results to the sub-
caliber projectiles fired from rifled guns. 

Regarding spin-stabilized saboted projectiles, Walling et al. conducted experiments to study the interior and 
exterior ballistics of a 20 mm saboted penetrator projectile [6]. Nguyen et al. numerically investigated the 
supersonic flow around a saboted bullet fired from 7.62 mm pistols similar to 6.5x25 mm CBJ APDS rounds 
[7].  

Analysis of the available literature related to saboted projectiles showed that very few works have been 
devoted to sub-caliber projectiles fired from rifled guns and, to the best of our knowledge, so far there have 
been no published studies concerning the theoretical study of the motion of spin-stabilize projectiles during 
the separation process. Hence, the main objective of this paper is to establish a theoretical model to investigate 
the sabot separation process for sub-caliber projectiles fired from rifled guns, outlining the theoretical 
framework, mathematical model, and computational method as well.    

Penetrator Sabot 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

31 

2. Research methodology  

2.1. Equation systems describing the motion of the sabot and the penetrator 

To establish a mathematical model describing the motion of the sabot and the penetrator upon exiting the 
barrel, the following assumptions are implemented: 

- The trajectory of the projectile is flat (the gravitational force does not affect its trajectory); 

-  The angle of attack of the projectile is zero; 

- The rotational motion of the projectile does not affect its translational motion.   

Let us consider the motion of two material points Os and Op respectively under the action of the aerodynamic 
drags and the friction force between the sabot and the penetrator, where Os is the center of the cross-section of 
the sabot bottom surface, and Op is the center of the cross-section of the penetrator aft surface, as shown in 
Figure 3. 

 

Figure 3. The position of two material points Os and Op   

A one-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system is next selected for the sabot and the penetrator, as shown in 
Figure 4. 

 

Figure 4. The forces acting on the sabot (Os) and on the penetrator (Op) 

The origin O of the coordinate system is the center of the cross-section of the penetrator aft surface at the 
moment the projectile exits the barrel. That means, at the very moment when the projectile exits the barrel, 
three points O, Os, and Op coincide.   

The positive direction of the coordinate axis is the direction of the projectile muzzle velocity vector.  

According to theoretical physics, the equations describing the motion of the sabot can be stated as follows: 

�̇� =
−𝐹 + 𝐹

𝑚
 

�̇� = 𝑣 ,                                                                        (1) 

Where 𝑣  is the current velocity of the sabot; 𝑥  is the current coordinate of the sabot; 𝐹  is the aerodynamic 
drag on the sabot; Ffr is the friction between the sabot and the penetrator; 𝑚  is the mass of the sabot. 
Similarly, the equations describing the motion of the penetrator are as follows: 

�̇� =
−𝐹 − 𝐹

𝑚
 

�̇� = 𝑣 ,                                                                       (2) 
Where 𝑣 is the current velocity of the penetrator; 𝑥 is the current coordinate of the penetrator; 𝐹  is the 
aerodynamic drag on the penetrator; and 𝑚  is the mass of the penetrator.    



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

32 

At the initial moment when the projectile is exiting the barrel: 
𝑣 = 𝑣 = 𝑣 ; 𝑥 = 𝑥 = 0,                                               (3) 

where vs0 is the initial velocity of the sabot; vp0 is the initial velocity of the penetrator; v0 is the muzzle velocity 
of the projectile; xs0 is the initial coordinate of the sabot; xp0 is the initial coordinate of the penetrator.      

The friction between the sabot and the penetrator is determined through the following expression: 

𝐹 = 𝑓 𝑝𝑆,                                                                     (4) 

where ffr is the friction coefficient between the sabot and the penetrator; p is the specific pressure on the 
contact surface between the sabot and the penetrator - it depends on the mechanical interference of the sabot 
and the penetrator; and S is the area of the contact surface between the sabot and the penetrator: 

𝑆 = 𝜋𝑑 𝑙,                                                                                 (5) 
where dp is the diameter of the penetrator; l is the length of longitudinal contact between the sabot and the 
penetrator at the current moment as illustrated in Figure 5. 

 

Figure 5. The length of longitudinal contact (l) between the sabot and the penetrator 

The parameter l  is determined (Fig. 5) as follows: 
𝑙 = 𝑙 − (𝑥 − 𝑥 ).                                                                (6) 

where l0 is the initial length of longitudinal contact between the sabot and the penetrator. The separation 

process is considered to be completed if there is no mechanical contact between the sabot and the penetrator, 

which means l = 0. 
 

Substituting (5) into (4), we can write: 

𝐹 = 𝑓 𝑝𝜋𝑑 𝑙 = 𝑓 𝑝𝜋𝑑 𝑙 ∙ .                                                                     (7) 

Naming 𝐹 = 𝑓 𝑝𝜋𝑑 𝑙 , it is easy to realize that 𝐹  is the initial friction force between the sabot and the 

penetrator at the very moment when the projectile leaves the gun barrel; it depends on the material properties 
of the sabot and the penetrator, mechanical interference fit between the sabot and the penetrator, and on the 
dimensions of the penetrator. Consequently, the expression (7) can be rewritten as follows:  

𝐹 = 𝐹 ∙ .                                                                     (8) 

It is obvious from (8) that the current frictional force between the sabot and the penetrator is linearly 
dependent on their initial frictional force.  

2.2. Solution method 

The equation system (1), (2), (6), (8) with initial condition (3) can be solved using numerical methods, if we 
know the aerodynamic drag Fds and Fdp at any time step. To achieve this goal, firstly, these aerodynamic drags 
are obtained numerically at certain discrete points using the Ansys Fluent software package [8]. Then, Fds and 
Fdp at any time step will be approximated. With fixed dimensions of the sabot and the penetrator, the 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

33 

aerodynamic drags on the sabot and penetrator will depend on their velocity and their relative position. That 
means they can be presented in the following form: 

                                                   ( , ),ds ds sF F v l  𝐹 = 𝐹 (𝑣 , 𝑙).       (9) 

Using numerical simulation method with Ansys Fluent software package we can obtain Fds and Fdp at discrete 
points. To approximate them at any point we use the bilinear interpolation method. 

2.3. Procedure for obtaining the aerodynamic drag 

In general, aerodynamic drag force can be obtained using semi-empirical prediction codes, like the Missile 
DATCOM and PRODAS, experimental methods, such as Wind tunnels and Spark Ranges tests, or CFD 
methods. In this research, we have determined the aerodynamic drag on the sabot and the penetrator using 
CFD methods with the Ansys Fluent software package. The simulation procedure has been widely presented 
in multiple works [9-13].  To calculate the aerodynamic drags of the sabot and the penetrator, an air domain 
with the size of 40D x 10D x 10D was created, where D is the diameter of the sabot (D = 7.62mm). Mesh 
sensitivity investigation showed that, in our case, for 3D RANS simulation, the mesh of 3.8 million elements 
would give sufficiently accurate results. The mesh around the projectile is presented in Figure 6. In order to 
obtain drag on the sabot and the drag on the penetrator separately, we have named the penetrator surface and 
the sabot surface with different names as shown in Figure 7. Other setting parameters for Ansys Fluent 
simulation used in this study are presented in Table 1.  

 

Figure 6. The mesh for the projectile 

 
              a) 

 
                  b) 

Figure 7. Named selections for the penetrator (a) and the sabot (b) 

Table 1. The main setting parameters in Ansys Fluent 

Parameter  Value 

Turbulence model  k-ε 

Solver  Density-based 

Air model  Ideal gas 

Viscosity model  Sutherland 

Algorithm  Coupled 

Convergence criteria  10-5 

The numerically obtained values of aerodynamic drag on the sabot and the penetrator are presented in 
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. To visually observe the supersonic flow in simulation, examples of the flow 
around the sabot and the penetrator at their velocities and relative positions are presented in Figure 8-11. 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

34 

 
Figure 8. The pressure distribution around the saboted projectile at v = 620 m/s and l = 0 mm 

 

Figure 9. The velocity distribution around the saboted projectile at v = 620 m/s and l = 0 mm 

 

Figure 10. The pressure distribution around the saboted projectile at v = 680 m/s and l = 5 mm 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

35 

 

Figure 11. The velocity distribution around the saboted projectile at v = 680 m/s and l = 5 mm 

2.4. Approximating the aerodynamic drag 

After obtaining the aerodynamic drags on the sabot and the penetrator at discrete points of their velocity and 
their relative position, we will approximate them at any time step based on their current velocity and relative 
position using the bilinear interpolation method. Supposing that, using Ansys Fluent simulation software we 
have obtained aerodynamic drag F at four points F11(v1,l1), F12(v1,l2), F21(v2 l1), F22(v2,l2). According to the 
bilinear interpolation method, the value of any F(v,l), where  𝑣 < 𝑣 < 𝑣  and  𝑙 < 𝑙 < 𝑙 , can be 
approximated by the following expression [14]:  

𝐹(𝑣, 𝑙) = 𝐹 + (𝐹 − 𝐹 )
𝑣 − 𝑣

𝑣 − 𝑣
+ (𝐹 − 𝐹 )

𝑙 − 𝑙

𝑙 − 𝑙
+ (𝐹 − 𝐹 − 𝐹 + 𝐹 )

(𝑣 − 𝑣 )(𝑙 − 𝑙 )

(𝑣 − 𝑣 )(𝑙 − 𝑙 )
. 

2.5. Result verification 

Though the research method has been carefully established, the calculated results should be compared to 
experimental results to verify the accuracy of the method. As no relevant experimental data has been 
published in open literature so far, there are some limitations regarding result verification. Nevertheless, the 
main purpose of this paper is to conduct a theoretical study on the separation process of a saboted projectile; 
hence, experiments can be carried out later as a further development of this work to verify the comprehensive 
study model for the separation phenomenon. 

3. Results and discussion 

The sabot separation process is complex, and influenced by numerous factors, including aerodynamic forces 
and launch conditions. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for optimizing the accuracy and effectiveness 
of sub-caliber projectile systems. In this paper, the influence of the muzzle velocity of the projectile and the 
initial friction between the sabot and the penetrator on the sabot separation process was investigated using 
above established mathematical model. Namely, we have investigated their influence on the penetrator 
velocity at the moment it separates from the sabot and on the distance the penetrator travels to the separation 
point (the separation distance). The main dimensions of the penetrator and the sabot are shown in Figure 12 
and Figure 13. 

 

Figure 12. The dimensions of the penetrator 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

36 

 
Figure 13. The dimensions of the sabot 

In addition, the main parameters of the projectile are presented in Table 2. 

Table 2. The main parameters of the sub-caliber projectile 

Parameter Units Notation Value 

Mass of the  

aluminum sabot  
kg ms 0.00089 

Mass of the tungsten 
carbide penetrator 

kg mp 0.00274 

The initial length of 
longitudinal contact 

m l 0.009 

Using the Ansys Fluent software package we have obtained aerodynamic drag Fds(vs,l) and Fdp(vp,l) as discrete 
functions of their velocity and parameter l: the velocity ranges from 630 m/s to 700 m/s with an increment of 
10 m/s, the parameter l changes from 0 m to 0.009 m with an increment of 0.001 m.  

A code has been written in Delphi programming language [15] for approximating aerodynamic drags and 
solving the equation system (1), (2),(6), (8) with initial condition (3) to find the velocity of the projectile at the 
separation moment and the separation distance. The code is presented in Appendix 3. 

3.1. The effect of the projectile muzzle velocity 

Projectile muzzle velocity is one of the most important parameters, influencing the trajectory, range, and 
terminal power of the projectile. In this research, to analyze the effect of the projectile muzzle velocity, we 
have investigated the sabot separation process with projectile muzzle velocity of 700 m/s, 680 m/s, 660 m/s, 
and 640 m/s. The influence of the projectile muzzle velocity on the penetrator velocity at the separation 
moment and on the separation distance is presented in Figure 14 and Figure 15 with different initial friction 
forces between the sabot and the penetrator. 

The dependence of the penetrator velocity at the separation moment on the projectile muzzle velocity is 
almost linear and nearly identical for different initial friction forces between the sabot and the penetrator 
(Figure 14). In the contrary, the influence of the projectile muzzle velocity on the separation distance is 
dependent on the initial friction force between the sabot and the penetrator (Figure 15). The greater the initial 
friction force the clearer the projectile muzzle velocity affects the separation distance. At the initial friction 
force of 2 N, the separation distance only slightly changes with the change of the projectile muzzle velocity. 
But at the initial friction force of 6 N, the projectile muzzle velocity significantly affects the separation 
distance. Moreover, we can see clearly that, the penetrator completely separates from the sabot at the distance 
of about 1 m to 1.8 m from the gun muzzle. This information helps us to appropriately setup high-speed 
camera to capture the separation process for further analysis and development. 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

37 

 
Figure 14. The influence of projectile muzzle velocity on the penetrator velocity  

at separation moment at different initial friction forces between the sabot and the penetrator 
 

 
Figure 15. The influence of projectile muzzle velocity on the separation distance 

at different initial friction forces between the sabot and the penetrator 

3.2. The effect of the initial friction force between the sabot and the penetrator 

The initial friction force between the sabot and the penetrator is a crucial parameter, affecting the dynamics of 
the separation process and the transportation, storage, and usage of saboted projectiles. The initial friction 
force must be appropriately selected to ensure reliable sabot separation, on the one hand, and the integrity of 
the projectile on the other hand. In this study, the sabot separation process was investigated with initial friction 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

38 

force from 2 N to 7 N to see its effect. The influence of the initial friction force on the penetrator velocity at 
the separation moment and on the separation distance is shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17. 

 
Figure 16. The influence of the initial friction force on the penetrator velocity 

at separation moment at different projectile muzzle velocities 
 

 
Figure 17. The influence of the initial friction force  

on the separation distance at different projectile muzzle velocities 
 

It is easy to see that if the initial friction force increases then the penetrator velocity at the separation moment 
decreases. Moreover, the greater the initial friction force, the more penetrator velocity at the separation 
moment drops. At an initial friction force of 2 N, the penetrator velocity loss is about 0.4% to 1% depending 
on the projectile muzzle velocity, while at an initial friction force of 7 N, the penetrator velocity loss is about 
0.8% to 2% depending on the projectile muzzle velocity. The greater the projectile muzzle velocity, the less 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

39 

the penetrator velocity loss. In addition, if the initial friction force increases, the separation distance also 
increases quickly. At the initial friction force of 2 N, the separation distance is about 1 m, but, at the initial 
friction force of 7 N, the separation distance is about 1.6 m to 1.8 m. 

Thus, it can be affirmed that the initial friction force between the sabot and the penetrator has a very 
significant influence on the decrease of the penetrator velocity at the time it completely separates from the 
sabot, and also on the separation distance. In the process of designing and manufacturing saboted projectiles, 
it is necessary to select the initial friction force appropriately to ensure that the penetrator connects reliably 
with the sabot during transportation, storage, and reloading and that the penetrator can reliably and promptly 
separate from the sabot after the projectile exiting the gun barrel. In this case, the initial friction force should 
be between 3 N and 7 N to ensure a reliable connection between the sabot and the penetrator and ensure that 
the separation process occurs beyond the aftereffect period of gunpowder gas. 

4. Conclusions 

In this research, a theoretical model was proposed for studying the sabot separation process of a sub-caliber 
projectile fired from rifled guns. Based on this model, an investigation was conducted to analyze the effect of 
the initial friction force between the sabot and the penetrator and the effect of the projectile muzzle velocity on 
the separation process. The results have shown a significant influence of the initial friction force on the 
penetrator velocity at the separation moment and on the separation distance. The separation distance varies 
from about 1 m to 1.8 m. The appropriate initial friction force between the sabot and the penetrator should be 
from 3 N to 7 N. The research methodology and results presented in this study can be applied in the design 
process to enhance the effectiveness of saboted projectile-weapon systems. 

5. Future work 

The following directions are recommended for further continuation of this study:  
1. The first direction is to investigate the influence of the structural parameters of the sabot on the 

separation process.  
2. The second direction is to numerically investigate the sabot separation process of sub-caliber 

projectiles fired from a rifled gun using the Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) approach and then 
compare the obtained results with the results of this study.  

3. The third direction is to conduct live firing tests to verify and validate the reliability and accuracy of 
the established mathematical model and computational method.   

Funding information  

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit 
sectors. 

Declaration of competing interest 

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could 
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 

References 

[1] C. Zhang, H. Wang, T. Liu, and Y. Duo, "Sabot discard characteristics under different spin rates of the 
rifled barrel launching APFSDS," Shock and Vibration, vol. 2021, 2021. 

[2] R. Cayzac, E. Carette, and S. Heddadj, "Complex aerodynamics behavior of high spin APFSDS 
projectile," International Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 1-7, 2013. 

[3] Z. Hoang and Z. Chen, "Numerical simulation on three-dimensional dynamic process of sabot discarding 
of APFSDS," Acta Armamentarii, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 9-17, 2014. 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

40 

[4] L. Huang and C. Lai, "Systematic study and numerical simulation of sabot projectile aerodynamics," 
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 275-284, 1997. 

[5] A. Trakic, "Axial force coefficient of APFSDS projectile," Defense and Security Studies, vol. 1, pp. 1-15, 
2020. 

[6] H. C. Walling, T. J. Roemer, and K. Svensson, "Interior and exterior ballistic development of a 20mm 
saboted penetrator projectile," Sandia National Laboratories, 1997. 

[7] Q. T. Nguyen, H. M. Nguyen, and X. S. Bui, "Numerical investigation on the supersonic flow around a 
saboted bullet," Military Technical Courier, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 676-694, 2024. 

[8] J. E. Matsson, An Introduction to Ansys Fluent 2023, SDC Publications, 2023. 
[9] A. Catovic and E. Kljuno, "Prediction of aerodynamic coefficients for the irregularly shaped body using 

numerical simulations," International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 71-85, 
2018. 

[10] A. Ferfouri, T. Allouche, D. D. Jerkovic, N. Hristov, M. Vuckovic, and A. Benmeddah, "Prediction of 
drag aerodynamic coefficient of the 155 mm projectile under axisymmetric flow using different 
approaches," Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 69-86, 
2023. 

[11] A. Khan, I. Shah, A. Aziz, M. Waqas, U. K. Zaman, and D. Jung, "Numerical and experimental analysis 
of drag and lift forces on a bullet head," Aerospace, vol. 9, pp. 1-16, 2022. 

[12] Q. Hao, Q. Jiang, C. Xu, and L. Liu, "Aerodynamic characterization of bullet heads with different 
accurate curves," Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1015-1026, 2024. 

[13] T. Sabanovic, "Analysis of the influence of 5.56 mm projectile shape on drag coefficient using CFD," 
Defense and Security Studies, vol. 2, pp. 79-85, 2021. 

[14] H. R. Kang, Computational Color Technology, Society of Photo Optical, 2006. 
[15] J. Barrow, L. Miller, K. Malan, and H. Gelderblom, Introducing Delphi Programming: Theory through 

Practice, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2005. 
 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

41 

Appendix 1. The aerodynamic drag on the sabot, obtained using Ansys Fluent 

Fds(N) 

l (m) 
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 

v(m/s) 

700 12.40 13.00 10.41 10.76 9.46 9.19 9.74 9.46 9.64 9.23 

690 12.07 12.49 10.19 10.49 9.15 8.96 9.45 9.12 9.38 9.08 

680 11.78 12.03 10.01 10.27 8.83 8.67 9.13 8.66 9.15 8.96 

670 11.37 11.72 9.78 10.01 8.75 8.35 8.90 8.56 9.01 8.84 

660 10.98 11.29 9.58 9.70 8.64 8.06 8.62 8.40 8.83 8.78 

650 10.72 10.84 9.45 9.48 8.48 7.98 8.44 8.18 8.60 8.57 

640 10.26 10.58 9.11 9.43 8.34 7.95 8.24 8.02 8.32 8.30 

630 9.78 10.15 8.93 9.01 8.23 7.73 7.98 7.68 7.97 8.02 

 
  



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

42 

Appendix 2. The aerodynamic drag on the penetrator, obtained using Ansys Fluent 

Fdp(N) 

l (m) 
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 

v(m/s) 

700 4.23 2.64 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.53 

690 4.14 2.61 1.42 1.43 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.47 1.48 1.49 

680 4.09 2.59 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.44 1.45 1.46 

670 4.07 2.55 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.38 1.40 1.42 1.43 

660 3.93 2.49 1.33 1.34 1.34 1.35 1.35 1.37 1.38 1.40 

650 3.86 2.47 1.28 1.30 1.31 1.31 1.32 1.34 1.35 1.36 

640 3.74 2.44 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.28 1.29 1.32 1.32 1.33 

630 3.63 2.41 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.28 

 
 
 
 

  



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

43 

Appendix 3. The code, written in Delphi programming language for approximating aerodynamic drags and 
solving the equations of motion of the sabot and the penetrator 

unit Unit1; 
interface 
uses 
Winapi.Windows, Winapi.Messages, System.SysUtils, System.Variants, System.Classes, Vcl.Graphics, 
Vcl.Controls, Vcl.Forms, Vcl.Dialogs, Vcl.StdCtrls; 
implementation 
{$R *.dfm} 

{Input of the initial structural parameters} 
 

procedure TForm1.Button3Click(Sender: TObject); 
begin 
Edit1.Text:='9'; Edit2.Text:='2'; Edit5.Text:=''; Edit7.Text:=''; Edit8.Text:='0.89'; Edit9.Text:='2.74'; 
Edit10.Text:='690'; Edit11.Text:='0.0000001'; Edit12.Text:=''; Edit13.Text:=''; 
end; 
procedure Input1; 
 begin 
  l0:=StrToFloat(form1.Edit1.Text)/1000; 
  Ffr0:=StrToFloat(form1.Edit2.Text); 
  ms:=StrToFloat(form1.Edit8.Text)/1000; 
  mp:=StrToFloat(form1.Edit9.Text)/1000; 
  v0:=StrToFloat(form1.Edit10.Text); 
  step:=StrToFloat(form1.Edit11.Text); 
 end; 

{Input of the aerodynamic drags obtained from Ansys Fluent} 
 

  procedure Input2; 
  begin 
vs0[1]:=700; vs0[2]:=690; vs0[3]:=680; vs0[4]:=670; vs0[5]:=660; vs0[6]:=650; vs0[7]:=640; vs0[8]:=630; 
vp0[1]:=700; vp0[2]:=690; vp0[3]:=680; vp0[4]:=670; vp0[5]:=660; vp0[6]:=650; vp0[7]:=640;vp0[8]:=630; 
ll0[1]:=0; ll0[2]:=1; ll0[3]:=2;  ll0[4]:=3; ll0[5]:=4;  ll0[6]:=5;  ll0[7]:=6;  ll0[8]:=7; ll0[9]:=8;  ll0[10]:=9; 
 
Fds0[1,1]:=12.40; Fds0[1,2]:=13.00; Fds0[1,3]:=10.41; Fds0[1,4]:=10.76; Fds0[1,5]:=9.46; Fds0[1,6]:=9.19;   
Fds0[1,7]:=9.74;  Fds0[1,8]:=9.46;   Fds0[1,9]:=9.64;   Fds0[1,10]:=9.23; 
Fds0[2,1]:=12.07; Fds0[2,2]:=12.49; Fds0[2,3]:=10.19; Fds0[2,4]:=10.49; Fds0[2,5]:=9.15; Fds0[2,6]:=8.96; 
Fds0[2,7]:=9.45;  Fds0[2,8]:=9.12;   Fds0[2,9]:=9.38;   Fds0[2,10]:=9.08; 
Fds0[3,1]:=11.78; Fds0[3,2]:=12.03; Fds0[3,3]:=10.01; Fds0[3,4]:=10.27; Fds0[3,5]:=8.83; Fds0[3,6]:=8.67; 
Fds0[3,7]:=9.13;   Fds0[3,8]:=8.66;  Fds0[3,9]:=9.15;   Fds0[3,10]:=8.96; 
Fds0[4,1]:=11.37; Fds0[4,2]:=11.72; Fds0[4,3]:=9.78;  Fds0[4,4]:=10.01; Fds0[4,5]:=8.75; Fds0[4,6]:=8.35; 
Fds0[4,7]:=8.90;   Fds0[4,8]:=8.56;  Fds0[4,9]:=9.01;   Fds0[4,10]:=8.84; 
Fds0[5,1]:=10.98; Fds0[5,2]:=11.29; Fds0[5,3]:=9.58;  Fds0[5,4]:=9.70;  Fds0[5,5]:=8.64; Fds0[5,6]:=8.06; 
Fds0[5,7]:=8.62;   Fds0[5,8]:=8.40;   Fds0[5,9]:=8.83;   Fds0[5,10]:=8.78; 
Fds0[6,1]:=10.72; Fds0[6,2]:=10.84; Fds0[6,3]:=9.45;  Fds0[6,4]:=9.48;  Fds0[6,5]:=8.48; Fds0[6,6]:=7.98; 
Fds0[6,7]:=8.44;   Fds0[6,8]:=8.18;   Fds0[6,9]:=8.60;   Fds0[6,10]:=8.57; 
Fds0[7,1]:=10.26; Fds0[7,2]:=10.58; Fds0[7,3]:=9.11;  Fds0[7,4]:=9.43;  Fds0[7,5]:=8.34; Fds0[7,6]:=7.95; 
Fds0[7,7]:=8.24;   Fds0[7,8]:=8.02;   Fds0[7,9]:=8.32;   Fds0[7,10]:=8.30; 
Fds0[8,1]:=9.78;  Fds0[8,2]:=10.15; Fds0[8,3]:=8.93;   Fds0[8,4]:=9.01;  Fds0[8,5]:=8.23; Fds0[8,6]:=7.73; 
Fds0[8,7]:=7.98;   Fds0[8,8]:=7.68;   Fds0[8,9]:=7.97;   Fds0[8,10]:=8.02; 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

44 

 
Fdp0[1,1]:=4.23;  Fdp0[1,2]:=2.64;   Fdp0[1,3]:=1.45;  Fdp0[1,4]:=1.46;  Fdp0[1,5]:=1.47; Fdp0[1,6]:=1.48; 
Fdp0[1,7]:=1.49;  Fdp0[1,8]:=1.51;  Fdp0[1,9]:=1.52; Fdp0[1,10]:=1.53; 
Fdp0[2,1]:=4.14;  Fdp0[2,2]:=2.61;  Fdp0[2,3]:=1.42;  Fdp0[2,4]:=1.43;  Fdp0[2,5]:=1.43; Fdp0[2,6]:=1.44; 
Fdp0[2,7]:=1.45; Fdp0[2,8]:=1.47;  Fdp0[2,9]:=1.48; Fdp0[2,10]:=1.49; 
Fdp0[3,1]:=4.09;  Fdp0[3,2]:=2.59;  Fdp0[3,3]:=1.39;  Fdp0[3,4]:=1.40;  Fdp0[3,5]:=1.41; Fdp0[3,6]:=1.41; 
Fdp0[3,7]:=1.42; Fdp0[3,8]:=1.44;  Fdp0[3,9]:=1.45; Fdp0[3,10]:=1.46; 
Fdp0[4,1]:=4.07;  Fdp0[4,2]:=2.55;  Fdp0[4,3]:=1.36;  Fdp0[4,4]:=1.37;  Fdp0[4,5]:=1.37; Fdp0[4,6]:=1.38; 
Fdp0[4,7]:=1.38; Fdp0[4,8]:=1.40;  Fdp0[4,9]:=1.42; Fdp0[4,10]:=1.43; 
Fdp0[5,1]:=3.93; Fdp0[5,2]:=2.49; Fdp0[5,3]:=1.33;  Fdp0[5,4]:=1.34;  Fdp0[5,5]:=1.34; Fdp0[5,6]:=1.35; 
Fdp0[5,7]:=1.35; Fdp0[5,8]:=1.37; Fdp0[5,9]:=1.38; Fdp0[5,10]:=1.40; 
Fdp0[6,1]:=3.86;  Fdp0[6,2]:=2.47;  Fdp0[6,3]:=1.28;  Fdp0[6,4]:=1.30;  Fdp0[6,5]:=1.31; Fdp0[6,6]:=1.31; 
Fdp0[6,7]:=1.32; Fdp0[6,8]:=1.34; Fdp0[6,9]:=1.35; Fdp0[6,10]:=1.36; 
Fdp0[7,1]:=3.74;  Fdp0[7,2]:=2.44;  Fdp0[7,3]:=1.26;  Fdp0[7,4]:=1.27;  Fdp0[7,5]:=1.28; Fdp0[7,6]:=1.28; 
Fdp0[7,7]:=1.29; Fdp0[7,8]:=1.32; Fdp0[7,9]:=1.32; Fdp0[7,10]:=1.33; 
Fdp0[8,1]:=3.63;  Fdp0[8,2]:=2.41;  Fdp0[8,3]:=1.23;  Fdp0[8,4]:=1.24;  Fdp0[8,5]:=1.25; Fdp0[8,6]:=1.25; 
Fdp0[8,7]:=1.26; Fdp0[8,8]:=1.27; Fdp0[8,9]:=1.27; Fdp0[8,10]:=1.28; 
  end; 

{Approximating the aerodynamic drag on the sabot} 
 

 Function Fds(a,b:real):real; 
 var x,y:integer; 
 F11,F12,F21,F22:real; 
 begin 
 if (a<=700) and (a>690) then x:=1; if (a<=690) and (a>680) then x:=2; if (a<=680) and (a>670) then x:=3; 
 if (a<=670) and (a>660) then x:=4; if (a<=660) and (a>650) then x:=5; if (a<=650) and (a>640) then x:=6; 
 if (a<=640) and (a>630) then x:=7; 
 if (b<1) and (b>=0) then y:=1; if (b<2) and (b>=1) then y:=2; if (b<3) and (b>=2) then y:=3; 
 if (b<4) and (b>=3) then y:=4; if (b<5) and (b>=4) then y:=5; if (b<6) and (b>=5) then y:=6; 
 if (b<7) and (b>=6) then y:=7; if (b<8) and (b>=7) then y:=8; if (b<9) and (b>=8) then y:=9; 
 
 F11:=Fds0[x,y]; F12:=Fds0[x,y+1]; F21:=Fds0[x+1,y]; F22:=Fds0[x+1,y+1]; 
Fds:=F11+(F21-F11)*(a-vs0[x])/(vs0[x+1]-vs0[x])+(F12-F11)*(b-ll0[x])/(ll0[x+1]-ll0[x])+(F22-F12-
F21+F11)*(a-vs0[x])/(vs0[x+1]-vs0[x])*(b-ll0[x])/(ll0[x+1]-ll0[x]) 
 end; 

{Approximating the aerodynamic drag on the penetrator} 
 

 Function Fdp(a,b:real):real; 
 var  x,y:integer; 
 F11,F12,F21,F22:real; 
 begin 
 if (a<=700) and (a>690) then x:=1; if (a<=690) and (a>680) then x:=2; if (a<=680) and (a>670) then x:=3; 
 if (a<=670) and (a>660) then x:=4; if (a<=660) and (a>650) then x:=5; if (a<=650) and (a>640) then x:=6; 
 if (a<=640) and (a>630) then x:=7; 
 if (b<1) and (b>=0) then y:=1; if (b<2) and (b>=1) then y:=2; if (b<3) and (b>=2) then y:=3; 
 if (b<4) and (b>=3) then y:=4; if (b<5) and (b>=4) then y:=5; if (b<6) and (b>=5) then y:=6; 
 if (b<7) and (b>=6) then y:=7; if (b<8) and (b>=7) then y:=8; if (b<9) and (b>=8) then y:=9; 
 
 F11:=Fdp0[x,y]; F12:=Fdp0[x,y+1]; F21:=Fdp0[x+1,y]; F22:=Fdp0[x+1,y+1]; 



 DSS Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024, pp. 29-45 

45 

 Fdp:=F11+(F21-F11)*(a-vp0[x])/(vp0[x+1]-vp0[x])+(F12-F11)*(b-ll0[x])/(ll0[x+1]-ll0[x])+(F22-F12-
F21+F11)*(a-vp0[x])/(vp0[x+1]-vp0[x])*(b-ll0[x])/(ll0[x+1]-ll0[x]); 
 end; 

{Solving the equations of motion of the sabot and the penetrator} 
  
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject); 
 var 
 t,vs,xs,vp,xp,l,Ffr:real; 
 
begin 
 Input1; Input2; 
 t:=0; 
 vs:=v0; 
 vp:=v0; 
 xs:=0; 
 xp:=0; 
 l:=0; 
 Ffr:=Ffr0; 
 Repeat 
   t:=t+step; 
   vs:=(-Fds(vs,l)+Ffr)/ms*step+vs; 
   vp:=(-Fdp(vp,l)-Ffr)/mp*step+vp; 
   xs:=vs*step+xs; 
   xp:=vp*step+xp; 
   l:=(xp-xs); 
   Ffr:=Ffr0*(1-l/l0); 
 Until abs(l-l0)<=0.00001; 
 form1.Edit5.Text:=FloatToStrF(xp,ffFixed, 16, 2); 
 form1.Edit7.Text:=FloatToStrF(vp,ffFixed, 16, 2); 
 form1.Edit12.Text:=FloatToStrF(vs,ffFixed, 16, 2); 
 form1.Edit13.Text:=FloatToStrF(t,ffFixed, 16, 4); 
end; 
 
end. 


