A Survey of Penetration Mechanics for Long Rods

  • T. W. Wright
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Engineering book series (LNENG, volume 3)

Summary

Some of the simpler methods in current use for analyzing ballistic impacts by long rod penetrators are reviewed and critiqued. In spite of several obvious shortcomings the eroding rod model has been used as a starting point and guide for an experimental investigation of penetration phenomena. Some of the principal results of that program are reviewed, and several areas for future work are identified. Carefully developed, time resolved data of the types described in this report should serve as a standard of comparison for large scale computations of penetration phenomena. These data are already being used to guide development of improved engineering models for long rod penetration.

Keywords

Tungsten Peri Perforation Tate Incompressibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Materials response to ultra-high loading rates. National Materials Advisory Board publ. NMAB-356, Washington: National Academy of Sciences 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grabarek, C.; Herr L.: X-ray multi-flash system for measurement of projectile performance at the target. Ballistic Research Laboratory BRL-TN-1634 (1966) AD 807619.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Backman, M. E.; Goldsmith, W.: The mechanics of penetration of projectiles into targets. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 16 (1978) 1–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    deMarre, J. ; Perforation of iron and steel sheets with normal firing (trans.) Memorial de l’Artillerie de Marine 14 (1886). Empirical formulas of this type for limit energy are often called deMarre relations, at least in the U. S. In his original paper deMarre gave the formula with α = 1.4 and β = 1.5. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grabarek, C.: Penetration of armor by steel and high density penetrators. Ballistic Research Laboratory BRL-MR-2134 (1971) AD 518394L.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Project Thor Tech. Rept. No. 47. The resistance of various metallic materials to perforation by steel fragments; empirical relationships for fragment residual velocity and residual weight. Ballistic Analysis Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins University (1961).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruchey, W.: Private communication. In preparation as a report, Ballistic Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alekseevskii, V. P.: Penetration of a rod into a target at high velocity. Comb., Expl., and Shock Waves 2 (1966) 63–66, trans. from Russian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tate, A.: A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact. J. Mech. Phys. Sol. 15 (1967) 387–399, and Further results in the theory of long rod penetration. J. Mech. Phys. Sol. 17 (1969) 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frank, K.: A qualitative determination of the velocity, mass, and fineness ratio required to defeat single plate targets. Spring Technical Conf. (1978) Ballistic Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hohler, V.; Stilp, A. J.: Penetration of steel and high density rods in semiinfinite steel targets. Third Int. Symp. Ballistics, Karlsruhe, Germany 1977.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tate, A.; Green, K. E. B.; Chamberlain, P. G.; Baker, R. G.: Model scale experiments on long rod penetrators. Fourth Int. Symp. Ballistics, Monterey, Cal. 1978.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wright, T. W.: Penetration with long rods: a theoretical framework and comparison with instrumented impacts. Ballistic Research Laboratory ARBRL-TR-02323 (1981).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ravid, M.; Bodner, S. R.: Dynamic perforation of viscoplastic plates by rigid projectiles. Report of the Material Mechanics Laboratory, Technion, Haifa, Israel (1982).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frank, K.: Unpublished work. His essential idea was to combine the results of the eroding rod model with hypervelocity cratering results of Christman and Gerhring, J. Appl. Phys. 37 (1966) 1579–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tate, A.: Extensions to the modified hydrodynamic theory of penetration. Preprint, to be published.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hauver, G. E.: Penetration with instrumented rods. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 16 (1978) 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hauver, G. E.: Experiments with instrumented long-rod penetrators. Fifth Int. Symp. Ballistics, Toulouse, France 1980.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hauver, G. E.; Melani, A.: Strain-gage techniques for studies of projectiles during penetration. Ballistic Research Laboratory ARBRL-MR-03082 (1981).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolsky, H.: Stress waves in solids. New York: Dover Publ. (1963).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chou, P.-C.: Letter report to Ballistic Research Laboratory from Army Mechanics and Materials Research Center 1980.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wright, T. W.: Nonlinear waves in rods. Proc. IUTAM Symp. on Finite Elasticity, Carlson, D. E.; Shield, R. T. (eds.). The Hague, Boston, London: Nijhoff Publishers 1980.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Netherwood, P. H.: Rate of penetration measurements. Ballistic Research Laboratory ARBRL-MR-02978 (1979).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Netherwood, P. H.: Private communication (1979).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pritchard, D. S.: Measurements of dynamic stress and strain components in targets struck by penetrators. Ballistic Research Laboratory ARBRL-MR-03095 (1981).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pritchard, D. S.: Piezoresistive gauge measurements in deforming environments during penetration. Proc. First Symp. on Gauges and Piezoresistive Materials, Arcachon, France 1981.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pritchard, D. S.; Hauver, G. E.: Private communication of unpublished data (1982). The raw data were taken by Pritchard and reduced and analyzed by Hauver.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hanagud, S.; Ross, B.: Large deformation, deep penetration theory for a compressible strain-hardening target material. AIAA Journal 9 (1971) 905–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frank, K.: Private communication on test results.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Misey, J. J. ; Gupta, A. D.; Wortman, J. D.: Comparison of penetration codes for strain measurements in kinetic energy penetrators. Ballistic Research Laboratory ARBRL-TR-02231 (1980).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abrahamson, G. R.; Goodier, J. N.: Dynamic flexural buckling of rods within an axial compression wave. J. Appl. Mech. 33 (1966) 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zukas, J. A.: Numerical simulation of impact phenomena (Chap. 10), Three- dimensional computer codes for high velocity impact simulation (Chap. 11). In Impact Dynamics, J. A. Zukas, T. Nicholas, H. F. Swift, L. B. Greszezuk, D. R. Curran. New York: Wiley-Interscience 1982.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jonas, G. H.; Zukas, J. A.: Mechanics of penetration: analysis and experiment. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 16 (1978) 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. W. Wright
    • 1
  1. 1.Ballistic Research LaboratoryAberdeen Proving GroundUSA

Personalised recommendations