Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By A. TATE
Royai Armament Research and Development Establishment, Fort Halstead, Sevenoaks, Kent
SUMMARY
A MODIFIED hydrodynamic theory which takes some account of strength effects is used to predict
the deceleration of a long rod after striking a target. The results are then compared with experi-
mental data from X-ray observations.
1. INTKoDuCTK~N
2. THEORY
387
388 A. TATIT
strength of all materials. The strength and material properties of the target and rod
cannot be completely neglected, however, as they introduce constraints on the
fluid motion and are parti~l~larl~ important in dctermini~g the crater diameter
and the deceleration of the rod. The calculation of crater diameter involves a com-
plex elastic--plastic radial motion and will not be considered further.
As for the deceleration of the rod, note that if the rod were completely fluid it
would hardly be decelerated at all; far from the crater bottom the rod maintains a
uniform diameter and a uniform velocity and there is no pressure gradient to slow
up the back end. The deceleration of the rod therefore essentially arises because it
has strength. As the rod slows up the strength properties play an increasingly
important role until the whole motion is governed by elastic-plastic phenomena.
In this paper we confine attention to the hydrodynamic phase which for
long rods seems to be the predominant part of the motion but will modify the equa-
tions slightly to take account of the strength properties. This is done by introducing
a resistance into the flow equations. This resistance must not be thought of as a
basic material property, although it will be related to these; rather it is to be re-
garded as an average effect due to the overall elastic-plastic flow phenomena.
The validity of the concept remsins to be investigated.
u=v/(, + p) (2.1)
while the final penetration is
(2.2)
Sometimes a parameter is introduced to allow for fragmentation in the jet but this
is not relevant to the penetration of long rods.
To simplify the complex transition of the rod from an almost rigid hod\- 10
one which behares more like a fluid we shall assu~ne tllat the rod acts as rigid bodh
until a certain pressure. I,, is reached, which is a constant for a gi\-en matcrinl.
At pressures abo\-e I, it is assumed the material bcl~aves l~!-drotl~~ri~~ln~ic311S_.
II
we take axes as before arltl ignore c~on~pressibility elllccts. the \-clocity of the rigid
part of the rod is (T --- CT). In the li~drodynan~ic regime the \-calocity falls off as 1-11~
pressure increases according to Bernoullis equation until the material (~01ws to
rest at the stagnation point. * Let the prcssurc here be 1. 13y using 13crnoidlis
equation for the stagnation point and the point where the material c~~3cs to bclla\-c
hydrodynamically, wc obtain
A similar argimlent may be applied to the target material. 111 this cast, liow-
ever, the pressure req~Grcd to mnkc the material flow l~~clrotl~n:tmicall~ must
overcome not only the rigidit>- of the material in the inmletliatc n~ighbourllooti
but also the inertia of the surrounding material. It is thus cclui\-nlcnt to the mini-
mum pressure which will just force a hole through an intinitc cxl~a~is~ of tlic
material. This pressure. Xt, may well lrary with si& factors as depth and impact
velocity and must depend on the sohltion of tlie rsterior c&tic-plastic problcnl
but we shall assume that it is const,ant for a given material under the conditions
considered. Bernoullis equation 11ow gives
where
(tt.5)
*Strictly one cannot use Bernoullis equation because the process is unsteady hut, as rim be seen for instsncc
in Fig. 2, the deceleration is small until the final stage of penetration in which the hydrodynnmic model will break down
anyway. The accelerative term in the momentum equation is thus nearly always very small compared to the prrssurc
and inertia terms. Thus the assumption that Bernoullis equation holds 1e:rds to 3 selbconsistclrt picture.
A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 391
length of rod which acts as a rigid body is approximately equal to 1. If the radius of
the rod is denoted by r, the force retarding the rigid body is approximately errs YP.
Letting the velocity of the back of the rod be v, we have
dV
Yp= -ppl-& (2.6)
This follows from the momentum equation
dl
- = - (v - u). P-7)
dt
Using (2.6) this can be written
dl =
_ PP (v - u) 0% (2.8)
I? YP *
Substituting for u from (2.4) and integrating (2.8) gives
. _=
1 v+&2+4 c$i?) II PP
L v+ d/(v2+4 > exp [ 2 (1 - /As) Yp
}I*(2sg)
{
[v d(v2 + A) - P V2]
1 - [Q/(P+A) -pV2]
18=
_
L L2/{A (P + l)/(P -
v + d(V2 + 4
l)}
1c%L3i exp -
2 (1 -
CLPP
$) Yp *
-I
(Q,/(V + A) - pv} . (2.10)
1
Case 3 (Rt = Yp)
This is the only case which can be solved exactly. The rod always behaves as a
liquid and penetration ceases when u and v are both zero.
In all cases the depth of penetration d is given by
t
d= udt (2.11)
s
0
392 :I* TATI:
and, until the rod starts b&a\-ing as a rigid iwdy, wc titn use (2.6) to rc-writt
(2.11) in the form
I
II is gi\.en b\. (2.4) and 1 by (2.9). I II general the solution nlust In! obtainctl
nutnericalIy but case 8 can bc immediately integrated to give
Another simplified
can be reduced to
(2.15)
Letting
(2.17)
(2.18)
6-
R!IYp=S v= 2
4-
2-
&G. 2. Variation of the velocity of the back end of a rot1 at varying depths of ~enet~tion.
Projectile Target
--
Run no. Length Velocity t7 Mass Penetration II W
(9) (in.)
__ .._l__-- ___-. _._ ~~~~_ -... .-..---.. .. ..- I_~~~-~~ .__... -- __..~ ---
675 10 calibre - 1.11 0.45
679 10 6600 (ft/see) 2.68 15.6 2.25 0.9
680 10 6700 2.72 15.7 2.00 (skew) 0.8
086 5 6700 a.09 7.97 1.45 I.16
690 10 7700 3.18 15.4 1.70 0.68
692 10 7500 3.05 154 I.85 0.74
696 10 3000 l-22 15.4 O*bZ 0.21
701 10 3500 1.42 15.4 0.60 0.24
702 10 4000 1.68 15.4 O*50 0.20
703 7 3900 1*5&S 10.7 0.45 0.26
704 7 7500 3.05 10.7 1.55 6-89
706 7 6400 2.60 10.7 1.40 0.8
707 10 6400 2.60 15.4 1.65 0.66
708 10 6200 2.52 15-4 1.50 0.6
722 10 6300 2.56 15.4 1.70 o-68
728 10 0400 2.60 15.4 1.58 0.63
Static yield
Investigator MaterhI stress Strerlglll
(Itbar) (Iklmr) o,, C3 n ,,
All daln have been ta1trn from IhrnLL (INil, 1. lW), LTgis c:llelllatrd Pro1rr 111r formrh
ay = [(l - 2~)/(1 - v)] I where Y is Poissons ratio. For mild steel into ndtl steel, taking If
3.3 I, It - I = 26.8 * 1.3 lihr.
g-i\-es some yield-point tlnta obtainrd from shocl~ wave ywriments gi\,clt b\.
I)rrvar,r, (1961). The IIugoniot elastic liniit is the pressure in the c.lastk w:I\c whic*il
is found to lwxcde the main shock wnw or plastic wave.This pressure is the inasi-
muin pressure undrr dpnniir conditions for which the material exhibits strcngtll
properties and it is therefore espected to bc rloscly rclatcd to our tcrni I*, althougl~
it is possible that 1* could lie anpvhcrc between the Hugo&t elastic limit and tllf
yield point. Using this \-alue for I it is now possible to find the \-alue of ICjl
which gives closest agreement with csperimcnt. Figure 3 shows tlrc tlicorrtical
penetration for the soluble cnsrs of R/Y := 1, :I, 5 and also tlic csl)rrinicnt:tll\,
dctermincd point,s. The scatter of cslwrimental results particularly at the lligher
velocities is rather large, but if wc restrict our attention only to tcri calibrc rcwdts
and ignore the dubious results of runs 679 and 680 the scnttw is reduced to :I
reasonable order and the theory would fit best for a value of I2/ I of about, :s*.s. It is
interesting to note that this value of It/J gives a Aue of thca iiet rcsistanw, IL 1*.
closely corresponding to 4.5 times the dynamic yield strength (SW Table L) n-llich.
as mentioned before, is the value first suggested by BISIIO~~,HILL md MOTI- (1945)
A= 5 CALIBRE RODS
B = 7 CALIERE RODS
0 - IO CALIBRE RODS
0 I 2 3 4 5
IMPACT VELOCITY j -
had to be built up by firing shots under nominally identical conditions and varying
the delay times between the three stations. Experimental points taken from one
firing are labelled with the same letter on Figs. 4 and 5. Unfortunately the available
X-rays could only give sufficient contrast to be readable when a heavy material
was projected into a light material. Because of its much higher density the retarda-
tion of the steel rods was difficult to detect with the X-rays and the rods completely
penetrated any reasonably sized block of polythene. In the tests duralumin and
aluminium rods were fired at blocks of polythene at a free flight velocity of about
5400 ft/sec. The relevant material data are given in Tables 2 and 3, and comparing
the static and dynamic yield strengths of duralumin and aluminium we find that
there is reasonable agreement. There appears to be no dynamic data available for
polythene and even the static value of Poissons ratio is not known with certainty,
being anywhere between the limits 0*3--0*5 depending on temperature and rate of
strain. It is therefore impossible to estimate a value for Rt.
Let us consider first the duralumin rod. The initial velocity of the back of the
rod is 5000 ft/sec whereas the free flight velocity is 5400 ft/sec. Further tests are
required to show whether or not this decrease in velocity is a real effect due to the
initial shock process. Taking the value of Yn for duralumin to be 34 ton/inz,
theoretical curves for values of Et of 14 and 27 ton/ins are shown superimposed on
the experimental results of Fig. 4. The end of the theoretical curves at about
-.__ FINAL
6 DEPTH
5-
4-
3-
z-
I-
/
/ bc II
0th
4b 80 I20 160
TIME (p sees)
i
/ a-.-_(, DEPTH OF PENETRATION ON
/ PURE HYDRODYNAMIC THEORY
/
/ 0 EXPERIMENTAL POSITION DF FRONT OF ROD
I3 EXPERIMENTAL POSITION OF REAR OF ROD
Flu. 4. Duralunlin shot entering a polythcnc target at a free fli,nht wlority of 5400 ft,scc.
140 psec marks the point where the rod begins to behave as a rigid body but still
has a residual velocity of about 2000 ft/sec. Beyond this point the theory does not
apply. The correct value of R would appear to he between these limits. Using
I-
S-
I-
I
-o-o-o = DEPTH OF PENETRATION ON
: PURE HYDRODYNAMIC THEORY.
I
FIG. 5. Aluminium shot entering a polythenc target at a free flight velocity of 5400 ft/sec.
(2.10) we can find the theoretical length of rod remaining when the rod ceases to
deform and this is shown in Fig. 6. Figure 4 shows that the final length of the
duralumin was about 0.7 in. corresponding to a value of 23 ton/ins for Rt which lies
within the above limits.
The whole of the aluminium rod is used up in the penetration process as is
shown in Fig. 5, Taking a value for Y, of 6 ton/ins we find that the penetration
data is best fitted by a value of Rt of about 6.
The different values for Bt indicate that the theory is not adequate in this case.
However, it would be useful if some tests could be made with a light material whose
properties were better known and less variable than polythene.
1%~ modifying tflc hydrodynamic theory of penetration to txkt: awount c)I
stwngth dffccts in much the same way as was originally s~~ggested by I-Iill. Mott
and Pack, we can find the rate itt which the rod deceferdces after strikirq the
tax,get. The theory depends on two parameters : Rt, the pressmr: within tfw target
at which the material begins to flow hydrodynamicalfy and Yp. the f~ressurc at
which the rod begins to llow h~(frod~~~amicall~. I, is associated with the Hugoniot
elastic limit of material and is ~feter~~il~~~ from shock wave data.
Because of the inertia of the swrounding msLteria1 it is to be cxpcctcrl th:tt
Et is grcatcr than IVp for n rod composed of the same material as the target. lCspcri-
ments using soit steel rods striking soft steel targets indicate that ll'JI', ==ES..?.
This &-es a due for the net resistanw l?t --- Yp of about 4-5 times the d\xamic
yield strength which is in reasonable agreement with the ~alne determined by
A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 309
BISHOP, HILL and MOTTon the basis of static punch tests. Figure 2 which illustrates
the decrease in velocity during penetration shows why, in many cases, the assump-
tion of constant velocity of penetration is quite a good approximation.
The penetration of duralumin and aluminium rods into polythene has been
observed by flash X-ray and the theory can match the experimental points quite
closely, but only by assuming that the polythene target has a value of Rt of 23 ton/ins
for penetration by a duralumin projectile and a value R, of 6 ton/ins for penetration
by an aluminium projectile. Further tests are required to confirm and improve the
accuracy of the experimental points preferably with a light material whose dynamic
response is known better than polythene.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is grateful to Mr. WINTER of R.A.R.D.E. for making availablehis experimental
results.
REFERENCES