0
Research Papers

Critical Impact Yaw for Long-Rod Penetrators

[+] Author and Article Information
Xiangzhen Kong

State Key Laboratory for Disaster Prevention
and Mitigation of Explosion and Impact,
PLA University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210007, China
e-mail: ouckxz@163.com

Q. M. Li

School of Mechanical, Aerospace
and Civil Engineering,
The University of Manchester,
Pariser Building,
Sackville Street,
Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science
and Technology,
Beijing Institute of Technology,
Beijing 100081, China
e-mail: Qingming.Li@manchester.ac.uk

Qin Fang

State Key Laboratory for Disaster Prevention
and Mitigation of Explosion and Impact,
PLA University of Science
and Technology,
Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210007, China
e-mail: fangqinjs@139.com

1Corresponding authors.

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received July 24, 2016; final manuscript received September 1, 2016; published online September 27, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Weinong Chen.

J. Appl. Mech 83(12), 121008 (Sep 27, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: JAM-16-1374; doi: 10.1115/1.4034620 History: Received July 24, 2016; Revised September 01, 2016

This paper presents an improved model for the critical impact yaw (or simply the critical yaw) in long-rod penetration with considering the deceleration and rotation of the rod and the crater shape of the target. Two critical yaws, θc1 and θc2, under normal impact were identified, below which there is no contact between the rod and crater sidewall (for θc1) and between the rod and the crater entrance (for θc2) during the entire penetration process. Contact functions and iterative algorithms were proposed in order to obtain these two critical yaws numerically. The influences of four dominant nondimensional numbers (i.e., the ratio of the target resistance to the rod strength λ, Johnson's damage number of the rod ς, square root of the target–projectile density ratio μ, and the diameter–length ratio of the rod ψ) on two critical yaws were studied for three typical rod–target systems (tungsten alloy rods penetrating steel targets, steel rods penetrating aluminum alloy targets, and steel rods penetrating steel targets). The relationship between two critical yaw angles was also discussed. A new empirical formula for the critical yaw θc2 was proposed based on the parametric study results and dominant nondimensional numbers, which extends the valid application range of the existing empirical formula.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Topics: Steel , Rods , Yaw , Shapes , Tungsten alloys
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tate, A. , 1967, “ A Theory for the Deceleration of Long Rods After Impact,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 15(6), pp. 387–399. [CrossRef]
Alekseevskii, V. P. , 1966, “ Penetration of a Rod Into a Target at High Velocity,” Combust. Explos. Shock Waves, 2(2), pp. 63–66. [CrossRef]
Bjerke, T. W. , Silsby, G. F. , Scheffler, D. R. , and Mudd, R. M. , 1992, “ Yawed Long-Rod Armor Penetration,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 12(2), pp. 281–292. [CrossRef]
Bless, S. J. , Barber, J. P. , Bertke, R. S. , and Swift, H. F. , 1978, “ Penetration Mechanics of Yawed Rods,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 16(11), pp. 829–834. [CrossRef]
Walker, J. D. , Anderson, C. E., Jr. , and Goodlin, D. L. , 2001, “ Tungsten Into Steel Penetration Including Velocity, L/D, and Impact Inclination Effects,” 19th International Symposium on Ballistics, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 7–11, pp. 1133–1139.
Yaziv, D. , Walker, J. D. , and Riegel, J. P. , 1992, “ Analytical Model of Yawed Penetration in the 0 to 90 Degrees Range,” 13th International Symposium on Ballistics, Stockholm, Sweden, June 1–3, pp. 17–23.
Bukharev, Y. I. , and Zhukov, V. I. , 1995, “ Model of the Penetration of a Metal Barrier by a Rod Projectile With an Angle of Attack,” Combust. Explos. Shock Waves, 31(3), pp. 362–367. [CrossRef]
Lee, M. , 2000, “ An Engineering Impact Model for Yawed Projectiles,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 24(8), pp. 797–807. [CrossRef]
Rosenberg, Z. , Dekel, E. , and Ashuach, Y. , 2006, “ More on the Penetration of Yawed Rods,” J. Phys. IV, 134, pp. 397–402.
Bless, S. J. , Satapathy, S. , and Normandia, M. J. , 1999, “ Transverse Loads on a Yawed Projectile,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 23(1), pp. 77–86. [CrossRef]
Bless, S. J. , Tarcza, K. , Taleff, E. , Russell, R. , and Huerta, M. , 2005, “ Deflection and Fracture of Tungsten Rods by Yawed Impact,” 22nd International Symposium on Ballistics, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 1163–1170.
Tate, A. , 1969, “ Further Results in the Theory of Long Rod Penetration,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 17(3), pp. 141–150. [CrossRef]
Rosenberg, Z. , and Dekel, E. , 2012, Terminal Ballistics, Springer, Berlin.
Anderson, C. E., Jr. , Walker, J. D. , and Hauver, G. E. , 1992, “ Target Resistance for Long-Rod Penetration Into Semi-Infinite Targets,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 138(1), pp. 93–104. [CrossRef]
IAT, 1996, “ Cavity Dynamics for Long Rod Penetration,” Institute for Advance Technology, Austin, TX, IAT Report 0094.
Tate, A. , 1986, “ Long Rod Penetration Models—Part II: Extensions to the Hydrodynamic Theory of Penetration,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 28(9), pp. 599–612.
Yaziv, D. , Rosenberg, Z. , and Riegel, J. P. , 1990, “ Penetration Capability of Yawed Long Rod Penetrators,” 12th International Symposium on Ballistics, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 30–Nov. 1, pp. 202–207.
Hohler, V. , and Behner, T. , 1999, “ Influences of the Yaw Angle on the Performance Reduction of Long Rod Projectiles,” 18th International Symposium on Ballistics, San Antonio, TX, Nov. 15–19, pp. 931–938.
Anderson, C. E., Jr. , Morris, B. L. , and Littlefield, D. L. , 1992, “ A Penetration Mechanics Database,” Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, SwRI Report 3593/001.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The orientation and position of the eroding rod

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Locations of the rod and crater sidewalls: (a) P(t)<le(t) and (b) P(t)≥le(t)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of the calculated crater shape with experimental observation from Ref. [3]: (a) predicted crater shape and (b) experimental observation [3]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the predicted yaw angle with experiments and simulation results: (a) V = 1400 m/s, L/d = 10 [9,17] and (b) V = 1650 m/s, L/d = 20 [18]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the predicted critical yaw angle with empirical formula [3]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Variation of yaw angel during the penetration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The influence of λ, ς, and ψ on critical yaws for a given tungsten alloy rod and steel targets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Relationship between θc1 and θc2 for λ=2, ψ=1/10 at different striking velocities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The influence of λ, ς, and ψ on critical yaws for steel rods and a given aluminum alloy target

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The influence of λ, ς, and ψ on critical yaws for steel rods and steel targets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparisons of the new empirical formula with the predicted results from iterative algorithm: (a) tungsten alloy rod penetrating steel targets, (b) steel rods penetrating aluminum alloy target, and (c) steel rods penetrating steel targets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparisons of the new empirical formula (Eq. (19)) with the empirical formula proposed in Ref. [3]

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In