Numerical Simulation of Shock Propagation in Heterogeneous Solids

  • Jan-Martin Hertzsch
  • Boris A. Ivanov
  • Thomas Kenkmann
Part of the Impact Studies book series (IMPACTSTUD)


Hypervelocity impacts of asteroids and comets on Earth and other planets lead to shock compression of the affected rocks. Heterogeneities, which are ubiquitously present in rocks, are likely to influence the dynamic behavior of geological materials under shock loading. The presence of small-scale heterogeneities like lithological interfaces, fractures, pores, etc. influence the propagation, magnitude, and geometry of shock and subsequent release waves and need to be considered if pressure and temperature achieved during an impact process are derived on the base of observed shock effects. In this study, we performed numerical simulations using the hydrocode SALE to analyze the effects of a simple planar interface on the shock wave behavior, and determine the magnitude of temperature, pressure, and density near the interface. The simulated materials, their geometries, and the scale of the model are adapted to shock recovery experiments. The ANEOS equation of state has been employed. The samples are either composed of rectangular pieces of quartzite and dunite enclosed in an iron container and impacted by an iron flyer plate, or consisting of dunite with a wedge-shaped quartzite inclusion presenting an inclined interface and impacted by a dunite slab. The computations indicate that during shock compression, pressures and temperatures are achieved in quartzite, which lead to completely reversible solid-solid phase transitions in the target material that start to develop at the interface. Shock heating alone is not sufficient for melt formation in the systems considered in the present study, but localized shear in particular at inclined boundaries between different materials results in a significant additional temperature rise of up to 400 K in addition to regular shock heating in the present model. Further mechanisms of energy dissipation are needed for a proper description of experimentally observed melting.


Shock Wave Shock Compression Shock Propagation Material Interface Shock Wave Plane 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahrens TJ, Rosenberg JT (1968) Shock metamorphism: Experiments on quartz and plagioclase. In: French BM, Short NM (eds.) Shock Metamorphism of Natural Materials, Mono Book Corp. Baltimore, pp 59–81Google Scholar
  2. Amsden AA, Ruppel HM, Hirt CW (1980) SALE: A Simplified ALE Computer Program for Fluid Flow at All Speeds, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-8095Google Scholar
  3. Benz W, Cameron AGW, Melosh HJ (1989) The origin of the moon and the single impact hypothesis III. Icarus 81: 113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen CH, Presnall DC (1975) The system Mg2SiO4-SiO2 at pressures up to 25 kilobars. American Mineralogist 60: 398–406Google Scholar
  5. Crawford DA, Barnouin-Jha OS, Cintala MJ (2003) Mesoscale computational investigation of shocked heterogeneous materials with application to large impact craters. Third International Conference on Large Meteorite Impacts, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, LPI Contribution 1167, abs. #4119 (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  6. Heider N, Kenkmann T (2003) Numerical simulation of temperature effects at fissures due to shock loading. Meteoritics and Planetary Science 38: 14511–1460Google Scholar
  7. Hertzsch JM (2003) Shock effects at inclined material interfaces-numerical simulations [abs.]. Third International Conference on Large Meteorite Impacts, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, LPI Contribution 1167, abs. #4031 (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  8. Ivanov BA (2003) Modification of ANEOS for rocks in compression [abs.]. Workshop on Impact Cratering: abs. #8030Google Scholar
  9. Ivanov BA (2004) Numerical modelling of cratering. In: Masaitis VL, Pevzner LA, Deutsch A, Ivanov BA (eds) Deep drilling in the Puchezh-Katunki impact structure. Impact Studies, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, in press.Google Scholar
  10. Ivanov BA, DeNiem D, Neukum G (1997) Implementation of dynamic strength models into 2D hydrocodes: applications for atmospheric breakup and impact cratering. International Journal of Impact Engineering 20: 411–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson GR, Cook WC (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  12. Kenkmann T, Hornemann U, Stöffler D (2000) Experimental generation of pseudotachylites along lithological interfaces. Meteoritics and Planetary Science 35: 1275–1290Google Scholar
  13. Kenkmann T, Walther K, Frischbutter A, Scheffzük C, Eichhorn F, Daymond MR (2003) Strain scanning across a shock-deformed quartzite/dunite interface using neutron and synchrotron radiation [abs.]. Lunar and Planetary Science 34: abs. #1374 (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  14. Langenhorst F, Deutsch A (1994) Shock experiments on pre-heated alpha-and beta-quartz. 1. Optical and density data. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 125: 407–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lundborg N (1968) Strength of rock-like materials. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 5: 427–454.Google Scholar
  16. Luo SN, Cagin T, Strachan A, Goddard WA, Ahrens TA (2002) Molecular dynamics modeling of stishovite. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 202: 147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Melosh HJ (1989) Impact cratering. A geologic process, Oxford University Press, New York, 245 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Ohnaka M (1995) A shear failure strength law of rock in the brittle-plastic transition regime. Geophysical Research Letters 22: 25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pierazzo E, Vickery AM, Melosh HJ (1997) A reevaluation of impact melt production. Icarus 127: 408–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Presnall DC, Weng Y-H, Milholland CS, Walter MJ (1998) Liquidus phase relations in the system MgO-MgSiO3 at pressures 3 up to 25 GPa-constraints on crystallization of a molten Hadean mantle. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 107: 83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reimold WU, Stöffler D (1978) Experimental shock metamorphism of dunite. Proceedings of the 9th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, pp 2805–2824Google Scholar
  22. Schmitt RT (2000) Shock experiments with the H6 chondrite Kernouvé: Pressure calibration of microscopic shock effects. Meteoritics and Planetary Science 35: 545–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shuvalov VV (1999) 3D hydrodynamic code SOVA for interfacial flows, application to thermal layer effect. Shock Waves 9: 381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shuvalov VV, Artemieva NA, Kosarev IB (1999) 3D hydrodynamic code SOVA for multimaterial flows-application to Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impact problem. International Journal of Impact Engineering 23: 847–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stevenson DJ (1987) Origin of the moon-the collision hypothesis. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 15: 271–315Google Scholar
  26. Stöffler D (1972) Deformation and transformation of rock-forming minerals by natural and experimental shock processes. Fortschritte der Mineralogie 49: 50–113Google Scholar
  27. Stöffler D, Langenhorst F (1994) Shock metamorphism of quartz in nature and experiment: I. Basic observation and theory. Meteoritics 29: 155–181Google Scholar
  28. Stöffler D, Keil K, Scott ERD (1991) Shock metamorphism of ordinary chondrites. Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta 50: 889–903.Google Scholar
  29. Swegle JW (1990) Irreversible phase transitions and wave propagation in silicate geologic materials. Journal of Applied Physics 68: 1563–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thompson SL, Lauson HS (1972) Improvements in the Chart-D Radiation-Hydrodynamic CODE III: Revised Analytic Equations of State, Sandia National Laboratory Report SC-RR-71 0714Google Scholar
  31. Tillotson JH (1962) Metallic equations of state for hypervelocity impact, General Atomic Report GA-3216Google Scholar
  32. Walther K, Scheffzük C, Frischbutter A, Kenkmann T, Daymond MR, Eichhorn F (2002) Strain scanning across a shock-deformed quartzite/dunite compound. 2. MEACASENS Conference, Coimbra, Portugal, Juli 2002, Abstract.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan-Martin Hertzsch
    • 1
  • Boris A. Ivanov
    • 2
  • Thomas Kenkmann
    • 3
  1. 1.School of MathematicsUniversity of BristolUK
  2. 2.Institute for Dynamics of GeospheresRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institut fur Mineralogie, Museum fur NaturkundeHumboldt-UniversitätBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations