International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201

Model for ballistic fragmentation and behind-armor debris

A.L. Yarin*, I.V. Roisman, K. Weber', V. Hohler'
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion } Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel
'Institut fu( r Kurzzeitdynamik, Ernst-Mach-Institut, Eckerstrasse 4, D-79104 Freiburg i. Br., Germany
Received 17 September 1998; received in revised form 5 July 1999
Abstract
The fracture of the target and projectile during normal penetration is described using a model of chaotic
disintegration modifying the theory of chaotic disintegration of liquids. The radius of the locally smallest
fragment is calculated equating its kinetic energy of deformation with its surface energy of fracture. The
probability of lacunae opening in the target and projectile materials increases near the target/projectile
interface. The percolation threshold for this probability determines the boundary of the fractured zone. When
this fractured zone reaches the rear surface of the target the fragments can leave it. Mass distribution of the
fragments was calculated with the help of percolation theory. Then, the shape of the debris cloud and the
direction, velocity and range of its propagation are calculated to estimate vulnerability behind the perforated
target.
The calculations were compared with results of normal impact experiments performed with tungsten sinter
alloy rods (D"20 mm, /D"6) against 40 and 70 mm rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) at an impact
velocity of 1700 m/s [1,2]. For observation of the bulging, breakup and fragmentation of the bulge as well as
debris cloud formation and expansion, #ash X-ray and laser stroboscope techniques have been applied.
From the X-ray photographs and soft recovery tests the shape of the debris cloud and velocity "eld of the
fragments as well as the fragment number and mass distributions have been determined, respectively. The
calculations predict well the experimental data. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the pioneering work of Grady [3], a theory of target catastrophic fragmentation was
developed to describe dynamic fragmentation in a solid medium undergoing expansion. The latter
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #972-4-8293-473; fax: #972-4-8324-533.
E-mail address: meralya@yarin.technion.ac.il (A.L. Yarin)
Present address: Technische UniversitaK t Darmstadt, Fachgebiet StroK mungslehre und Aerodynamik, Petersenstra{e
30, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany.
0734-743X/00/$- see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 7 3 4 - 7 4 3 X( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 8 - 2
Nomenclature
A parameter de"ned by Eq. (A.2c)
B maximum extent of the debris cloud in the lateral direction
D projectile diameter
D rate of deformation tensor
E Young modulus
H target thickness
K normalization parameter
K
'
fracture toughness
projectile length
M total mass of fragments
N number of fragments
P probability
Q parameter de"ned by Eq. (2.27b)
R radial coordinate
R
'
coordinate of the boundary between the eroding and rigid parts of the projectile
R
'
crater radius
R
'
radial coordinate of the projectile surface
R
`
characteristic radius of the ovoid of Rankine
; velocity of the target/projectile interface
< volume
<
"
volume of the locally smallest fragment
<
"
velocity of the projectile rear part
= the value characterizing rate of projectile erosion
X the maximum extent of the debris cloud in the lateral direction
> yield stress
a
"
the size of the locally smallest fragment
a
"
value of the locally smallest fragment accounting for the e!ect of plastic dissipation
b parameter in Eq. (2.34)
c speed of sound
k parameter de"ned by Eq. (A.2a) and (A.2b)
l
5
characteristic `length of erosiona, de"ned by Eq. (3.8)
m mass
s number of elementary particles in a cluster
t time
v velocity vector
w
Q
probability density function
x velocity of the ovoid of Rankine
Greek symbols
: parameter de"ned by Eqs. (2.8a) and (2.8b)
[ angle
172 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
o
F
, o
0
small parameters de"ned by Eqs. (2.21) and (2.30a), respectively
speci"c surface energy
c e!ective local rate of strain
parameter de"ned by Eq. (2.34)
0 angular coordinate
parameter in Eq. (2.30b)
v Poisson ratio
j density
o parameter in Eq. (2.41)
t parameter de"ned by Eq. (2.34)
angular coordinate
, parameter in Eq. (3.11d)
stream function
Subscripts
L current Lagrangian coordinate
P projectile
T target
f fragment
max maximum
r residual
rel relative
0 initial Lagrangian coordinate
Superscripts
* value corresponding to the percolation threshold
* non-dimensional value
can result from a shock wave emerging after an impact. In this case the elastic energy is stored and
then released due to the wave re#ection (emergence of the rarefaction wave) at the rear surface of
a relatively thin target. This picture corresponds to the initial moments after the impact (of the
order of 1 s) with velocities of the order of 10 km/s. Also the local kinetic energy of the relative
motion of the target material is accounted for at this stage. In some cases (e.g. for relatively thin
targets) this initial process can lead to target fragmentation. To describe this phenomenon, Grady
[3] used the equilibrium balance of the surface energy, the elastic stored energy, and the local
kinetic energy. In Ref. [3] it was assumed that the stored elastic energy is negligible as compared to
the kinetic energy. It was also assumed that the fracture process is brittle and that the actual
fragment size (an average one) minimizes the sum of the kinetic energy and the surface energy
densities of the fragment.
In the subsequent publications [4,5] some additional details of the fragmentation at the initial
stage were considered. It was shown that at this stage the release of the stored elastic energy (and
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 173
not the local kinetic energy, as in Ref. [3]) is the major driving source of the fragmentation process.
In addition to the brittle fragmentation model, in Refs. [4,5], Grady also proposed a ductile
fragmentation theory based on a critical strain at fracture.
The advantage of the above-mentioned models is in their simplicity. The validity of each model is
supported by a good agreement between theoretical prediction of the average particle diameter
with experiments. Grady's model was implemented as a postprocessor for the EPIC code [6],
which allowed for prediction of the particle size distribution resulting from high-velocity impacts.
The approach of Yarin [7], intended to describe chaotic liquid disintegration, is based on the
assumption that the kinetic energy of the motion of material particles relative to each other is
converted into the creation of a new surface of the fragments. The procedure yields an expression
for the minimal fragment radius of the form
a
"
&

jc `
`
, (1.1)
where j is the density of the material, c is the e!ective local rate of strain, is the speci"c surface
energy. Then, the entire liquid volume is considered as a cluster (or clusters after the start of
breakup) composed of individual droplets of the size a
"
. In the envelope of the disintegrating liquid
mass the probability that a site of the size a
"
is occupied by a material particle is given by
P(t)"(1#c t)B, (1.2)
where d is the dimensionality of the space characterizing the breakup and t is time.
The breakup or formation of an in"nite cluster was studied by means of percolation theory
(see, for example, Refs. [8,9]). When the probability P(t) reaches the critical value PH, known
from percolation theory, the `in"nitea cluster breaks up and the intact liquid mass begins to
disintegrate.
In Ref. [10] a model of the debris cloud was developed by considering one-dimensional shock
wave motion in the material together with the theory of catastrophic fragmentation of Maiden
[11]. This model analyzes the formation of the debris cloud produced by a hypervelocity particle
impact on a thin target. Good agreement of the predicted velocities of the fragments at di!erent
zones of debris clouds with experiments of Piekutowski [12] was obtained. The evolution of the
structure of the debris cloud was described in Ref. [12] via the axial and radial velocity of several
speci"c points of the cloud, and the diameter of the cylindrical projectile.
The review [13] of hypervelocity penetration theories summarized the approximate theories in
Refs. [14,15], which use the simple momentum and energy arguments to estimate the character-
istics of the debris cloud. These theories assume that the projectile and a portion of the shield
subjected to high pressures are ruptured, resulting in "nely divided material uniformly distributed
in a thin spherical shell. From momentum and energy conservation for the projectile and debris
cloud, expressions for the velocity of the center-of-mass of the cloud, the expansion velocity and the
half-angle subtended by the debris cloud at the center of the shield were obtained. However, the
experiments [1,2,12] show that the target fragments are not distributed uniformly in a thin
spherical shell, which contradicts the assumptions of the above simple theories.
There are some analytical and semi-empirical approaches to other aspects of the debris cloud
dynamics. For example, in Ref. [16], a semi-empirical model of cratering of a target by a debris
cloud generated from a projectile impact into a bumper-shield was developed.
174 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Ref. [17] focused on the importance of shock heating, melting, and vaporization, which are
characteristic of the extremely high-speed impacts.
Other experimental and theoretical works were published dealing with the characterization of
the projectile and target fragments behind normal and oblique targets [1,2,18}28]. Experimental
methods such as laser stroboscopy, #ash radiography, and soft recovery cellotex stacks and witness
packs have been applied to observe the formation of the bulge, its breakup, the following formation
and expansion of the fragments, as well as to determine the distribution of amount, size, mass,
shape, material, and velocity inside the ellipsoidal debris cloud.
Numerical, analytical and stochastic models were developed and validated with experimental
data [19,21,22,25}27]. These models can be good complementary tools to the experimental
methods for investigation of the vulnerability of equipment and personnel behind the armor.
The main objective of the present work is to develop an approximate solution for the fragmenta-
tion of a relatively thick elastic}plastic target and projectile as a result of high-velocity penetration.
In distinction from Refs. [3}5] we deal here with the time scale of the order of 10` s and impact
velocities of the order of 1 km/s. Under these conditions in the experiments [1,2] fragmentation
does not proceed immediately after the re#ection of the shock wave at the rear surface of the target.
Then the release of the stored elastic energy leads not to fragmentation but to emergence of
a well-developed #ow "eld in the whole target, which actually means that the elastic energy has
been transformed into the kinetic energy of the target material, which de"nitely includes the
relative motion of di!erent material elements. Therefore, at this stage the kinetic energy of the
relative motion becomes the only driving source of the fragmentation process, whereas the material
toughness and plastic losses dissipate this energy.
The toughness and the plastic losses are actually responsible for the surface energy of the newly
emerging voids and fragments.
To estimate the size a
"
of the smallest fragment, the energy balance for a material element is used.
The condition that the kinetic energy of deformation of the element is equal to its surface energy
yields the size a
"
as a function of the element location and the projectile velocity.
In other words, it is assumed that after the impact (when the shock wave e!ects are over) the
formation and growth of lacunae in the material are initiated, and the rate of their growth is of the
same order of magnitude as an e!ective rate of deformation in the target and projectile. Thus, an
arbitrary chosen site of the size a
"
can either belong to the intact target material (with a probability
P) or to be unoccupied, thus belonging to the lacunae volume (with probability 1!P). We use the
velocity "eld of Ref. [29] to determine the e!ective rate of strain and to derive expressions for the
probability "elds P in the target and in the projectile. Then, we use the percolation theory to "nd
the expressions for size distributions of the fragments, which are clusters of the smallest particles (of
size a
"
), as well as to "nd the boundary of the fractured zone in the target and projectile
corresponding to the percolation threshold (the critical probability P"PH at which the `in"nitea
cluster disappears).
When the fractured zone in the target reaches its rear surface, the fragments can leave the target.
Their initial velocity is determined by the velocity "elds in the target (for the target fragments) and
in the projectile (for the projectile fragments) at the moment of their separation. Then, the
equations of motion of the fragments are solved numerically to obtain the locations and velocities
of them at di!erent instants of time. The latter allows us to obtain the shapes of the debris cloud
behind the target, as well as to estimate vulnerability of an armored system. The results of the
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 175
calculations are compared with the data obtained in the normal (and oblique) impact experiments
performed at the Ernst-Mach Institute in full and half-scales with tungsten sinter alloy (/D"6)
and steel rods (/D"13) at impact velocities of 1250 and 1700 m/s against 40 and 70 mm rolled
homogeneous armor (RHA) [1,28]. Additional tests were carried out with the projectile/target
material combinations tungsten sinter alloy (WSA)/aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti)/RHA and
Ti/WSA for investigation of the projectile and target fragment distributions. In Ref. [1,2,28] the
concept and parameters of the program, the measurement techniques, test setups, the debris cloud
phenomenology, debris cloud expansion and the assessment of the debris cloud fragments are very
well documented. Detailed information and results are given for the formation and breaking of the
bulge at the target rear side, target damage, residual length, mass and velocity of the projectile,
residual penetration depth, debris cloud expansion, as well as material, number, mass, size, shape,
angle and velocity of the debris fragments. For observation and measurement of all of these
parameters, #ash X-ray and laser stroboscope observation techniques as well as soft recovery
cellotex stacks were used.
In the following the results of the present analytical model and of the full-scale normal
impact tests are compared for tungsten sinter alloy rods striking 40 and 70 mm RHA targets at
1700 m/s.
2. Fragmentation of thick targets
2.1. The size of the smallest fragment of target material
Consider penetration of a target by an eroding projectile. The shape of the interface between the
projectile and target material is approximated by an ovoid of Rankine with the radius of
cross-section R
`
at in"nity. This form is associated with superposition of the potentials of a single
source and a uniform #ow. It can be shown that the surface of the ovoid of Rankine can be
represented in spherical coordinates R, 0 and , associated with the source generating the ovoid, as
R"R
Q
(0)"
R
`
2 sin(0/2)
, (2.1)
where 0"0 corresponds to the tail and 0" to the tip of the projectile [30] (see Fig. 1).
The potential #ow "eld in the target about the ovoid of Rankine satisfying the continuity
equation and the condition of impenetrability at the ovoid surface is given by
v
2
"!
x R`
`
4R`
e
0
(2.2)
where (!x )'0 is the ovoid velocity, and e
0
and R are the unit vector of the radial direction and
the radial spherical coordinate, respectively.
For the velocity "eld (2.2) the rate of deformation tensor D
'
in the target becomes
D
'
"
1
2
(Vv
2
#Vv2
2
)"!
x R`
`
4R`
[!2e
0
e
0
#e
F
e
F
#e
(
e
(
], (2.3)
176 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Fig. 1. Sketch of the projectile and target before the impact.
which corresponds to purely radial motions: compression in the radial direction (since D
00
(0),
and stretching in both angular directions since (D
FF
"D
((
'0).
Target material is fragmented due to the angular stretching. The order of the e!ective rate of
strain c can be estimated using Eq. (2.3) as
c &
x R`
`
R`
. (2.4)
Consider a target material element of a size a undergoing deformation with the rate of strain
given by Eq. (2.4). The relative velocity of two ends of the element is given by
v
''
&c a. (2.5)
After the #ow "eld in the target has been established, the kinetic energy of the relative internal
motion in the target drives the creation of new surfaces in the fragmentation process similarly
to the random breakup of liquid masses [7]. When a particle is so small that its kinetic
energy of deformation becomes equal to the surface energy, the particle cannot be fractured further.
The size of the smallest (say, close to spherical) particle a
"
is thus estimated by the following energy
balance:

`
ja`
"
(c a
"
)`"a`
"
, (2.6)
where on the left stands the kinetic energy of deformation, and on the right, the surface energy.
Here is the speci"c surface energy (surface tension in the case of liquids).
From Eq. (2.6), with the help of Eq. (2.4), we "nd
a
"
&

jc `
`
"R
`
:`RM`, (2.7a)
<
"
""
`
a`
"
""
`
R`
`
:RM", (2.7b)
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 177
where
:"

jx `R
`
, (2.8a)
:"
K`
'
(1!v`)
2Ex `R
`
, (2.8b)
RM"
R
R
`
, (2.8c)
and where <
"
is the smallest particle volume and the material fracture toughness K
'
is introduced
instead of as
K
'
"

2E
1!v`
`
. (2.9)
In Eqs. (2.8b) and (2.9) the Young and Poisson moduli of the target material are denoted by E and
v, respectively.
Expression (2.9) actually means that for the moment we neglect the e!ect of the plastic losses on
the size of the smallest fragment a
"
like in a purely brittle case. However, below in the appendix the
ductility e!ects are included, and the e!ect of the energy of the plastic dissipation on the size of the
smallest fragment a
"
is considered. It is shown that under the conditions characteristic of the
experiments [1,2] this e!ect is small, which shows that the modi"cation of the size of the smallest
fragment a
"
due to the target ductility is relatively small, and one can safely use the simplest
expressions (2.6) and (2.8b). It is also emphasized that a
"
is the only parameter in the theory, which
can be a!ected by the micromechanical peculiarities of the voids growth (including brittle e!ects
and ductility).
According to Eq. (2.7a), the size of the locally smallest particle a
"
increases with distance from the
projectile as R`.
2.2. Fractured zone of the target
Local elements in the target are stretched in the angular direction, which leads to lacunae
formation and growth. In the case of high impact velocities, lacunae are opened in a wide range of
scales. The nuclei of the lacunae, the in"nitesimal voids, are distributed and oriented randomly.
Therefore, the fragmentation process becomes random, which allows for application of percolation
theory.
We assume that the e!ect of the lacunae growth on the velocity "eld is negligibly small before the
boundary of the fractured zone reaches the rear side of the target. This is based on the fact that the
fragments cannot leave the target until the fractured zone reaches the target's rear surface. Thus,
the target material continues to deform more or less as without fragmentation. On the other hand,
when the fragments begin to leave the target freely, a similar assumption approximates fairly well
the situation in any separate fragment.
178 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Fig. 2. Fragmentation of the target: (a) P'PH, an intact target material with lacunae; (b) P(PH, the resulting
fragments.
The rate of the angular stretching is of the order of D
FF
"D
((
&x R`
`
/R` according to Eq. (2.3).
The element of volume d<
'
of the part of the target undergoing fragmentation at time t after the
impact is thus estimated as
d<
'
"d<
'"

1#
,
R
"
x R`
`
R`
dt

`
, (2.10)
where d<
'"
is its initial volume. The increase of the volume due to the projectile-driven stretching
results mainly from the opening of internal lacunae if the material compressibility is small, which is
sketched in Fig. 2. The probability that an elementary particle of size a
"
occupies a site inside
d<
'
is
P(t)"
d<
'"
d<
'"

1#jR
"
x R`
`
R`
dt

`
. (2.11)
The probability that the site is empty (belongs to lacunae inside d<
'
) is (1!P).
Probability P(t) decreases due to permanent stretching and lacunae growth. As a result, at
some instant t, a critical value of the probability PH ("0.311 in the three-dimensional case),
predicted by percolation theory [6}8] is achieved when an `in"nitea cluster (an intact target) is
broken, and a succession of "nite clusters (the fragments) emerges. This approach takes the
viewpoint that fragmentation begins as a result of merging of numerous lacunae which previously
grew separately.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 179
From Eq. (2.11) we "nd
,
R
"
x R`
`
R`
dt"P`!1. (2.12)
In order to "nd the probability "eld P(R, 0 , t) in the target, we use the Lagrangian formulation of
the problem and consider an axisymmetric case. Denote by R
'
(t, R
"
, 0
"
) and 0
'
(t, R
"
, 0
"
) the
current radius and the angular position of a particle which initially was at a point (R
"
, 0
"
). The
integral equation (2.12) is supplemented with the kinematic relations given by the following set of
the di!erential equations
d
dt
(P`)"
x R`
`
R`
'
, (2.13a)
dR
'
dt
"v
T
) e
0
#x cos 0
'
, (2.13b)
d0
'
dt
"
1
R
'
(v
'
) e
F
!x sin 0
'
). (2.13c)
Using the velocity "eld (2.2) and accounting for the fact that x dt"dx, Eq. (2.13a)}(2.13c) yield
d
dx
(P`)"
1
RM`
'
, (2.14a)
dRM
'
dx
"
1
4RM`
'
#cos 0
'
, (2.14b)
d0
'
dx
"!
1
RM
*
sin 0
'
, (2.14c)
RM
'
"
R
'
R
`
, (2.14d)
x "
x
R
`
, (2.14e)
which must be solved subject to the initial conditions
x"0: P"1, R
'
"R
"
, 0
'
"0
"
. (2.15)
From Eqs. (2.14b) and (2.14c) we obtain the following di!erential equation for R
'
:
dRM
'
d0
'
"!
1#4RM`
'
cos 0
'
4RM
'
sin 0
'
(0
'
O), (2.16)
180 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
the solution of which is
RM
'
"

cos 0
'
!cos 0
"
#2RM`
"
sin`0
"
2sin`0
'

`
, (2.17a)
RM
"
"
R
"
R
`
. (2.17b)
From Eqs. (2.14a) and (2.14c) we obtain the following di!erential equation for P`:
d
d0
'
(P`)"!
1
RM`
'
sin 0
'
, (2.18)
integration of which with the help of Eq. (2.17a) yields
P"

1#2 ln

RM`
*
sin`0
*
RM`
"
sin`0
"

`
. (2.19)
The di!erential equation for the angle 0
'
d0
'
dx
"!
(2sin`0
'
[cos 0
*
!cos 0
"
#2RM`
"
sin`0
"
]`
, (2.20)
was obtained with the help of Eqs. (2.14c) and (2.17) and can be integrated numerically for a given
set of R
"
and 0
"
.
The solutions (2.17) and (2.19) for R
'
and P cannot be directly used on the continuation of the
projectile axis since there 0
'
"0
"
". Let us "nd a solution of the problemin the neighborhood of
the projectile axis, which resembles the asymptotic behavior of Eqs. (2.17a) and (2.19) as 0P.
Denote
o
F
"!0, o
F
;1. (2.21)
Eq. (2.14a)}(2.14c) for 0P thus reduce to
d
dx
(P`)"
1
RM`
'
, (2.22a)
dRM
'
dx
"
1
4RM`
'
!1#O(o`
F
), (2.22b)
do
F
dx
"
o
F
RM
'
#O(o`
F
). (2.22c)
Eqs. (2.22a) and (2.22b) yield
d
dRM
'
(P`)"
4
RM
'
!4RM`
'
, (2.23)
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 181
the solution of which is
P(R
"
, x)"

1#2 ln

RM`
'
4RM`
'
!1
!2 ln

RM`
"
4RM`
"
!1
`
. (2.24)
The solutions of Eqs. (2.22b) and (2.22c) are
RM
"
!RM
'
#
1
4
ln

2RM
'
#1
2RM
'
!1
!ln

2RM
"
#1
2RM
"
!1
"x , (2.25a)
o
F'
"o
F"

4RM`
"
!1
4RM`
'
!1
`
, (2.25b)
o
F'
"!0
'
, (2.25c)
o
F"
"!0
"
. (2.25d)
Denote by xH the depth of penetration of the projectile at the instant tH when the outer boundary
of the fractured zone corresponding to the probability P"PH reaches the rear surface of the target
associated with
RM
"
"HM#
`
, (2.26a)
HM"
H
R
`
, (2.26b)
where H is the target thickness.
The radial coordinate RH of the material particle at the intersection of the rear surface of
the target with the continuation of the projectile axis at this instant is found via Eqs. (2.24) and
(2.26a) as
RMH"

Q
4Q!1
`
, (2.27a)
Q"exp
_
ln

(HM#
`
)`
4(HM#
`
)`!1
#
(PH)`!1
2
. (2.27b)
The depth of the projectile penetration x H can be now found from Eqs. (2.25a)}(2.25d) and
(2.26a) as
x H"HM#
1
2
!RMH#
1
4
ln

2RMH#1
2RMH!1
!ln

1#
1
HM
. (2.28)
182 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
For any material particle situated at the initial radius R
"
its current position R
'
could be found
solving numerically the following equation obtained from Eq. (2.25a):
4RM
"
!ln

2RM
"
#1
2RM
"
!1
"4x #4RM
'
!ln

2RM
'
#1
2RM
'
!1
. (2.29)
Eqs. (2.29) and (2.24) allow for the calculation of the probability P corresponding to this particle.
However, Eqs. (2.24) and (2.29) cannot be used directly at the projectile tip (RM
'
,RM
"
"
`
). Consider
the asymptotic behavior in the neighborhood of this point:
RM
"
"
`
#o
0
, (2.30a)
RM
'
"
`
#o
0
/, (2.30b)
where o
0
;1, "O(1) is a function of x and o
0
. Linearizing Eqs. (2.24) and (2.25a) near o
0
"0
yields
P"

1#2o
0
1!

#2 ln

`
#O(o`
0
), (2.31a)
ln"4x#3o
0
1!

#O(o`
0
), (2.31b)
respectively.
Thus, the solution of Eq. (2.25a) for small o
0
obtained with the help of Eq. (2.31a) and (2.31b) is
"(1!3o
0
) e"'V'#3o
0
#O(o`
0
), (2.32a)
P"1#8x}`#
24(1!e"'V')
(1#8x)"
o
0
#O(o`
0
). (2.32b)
The contour plots of the probability P in the target for x"R
`
, x"2R
`
and x"5R
`
are
shown in Fig. 3a,b and c, respectively.
In Fig. 4 three examples of the distributions of the probability P along the continuation of
projectile axis at the instant t"tH are shown. The probability Preaches its critical value PH at the
distance 0.5R
`
to 0.6R
`
ahead of the projectile tip located at RM"
`
(RM between 1 and 1.1).
2.3. Size distribution of target fragments
Due to the velocity "eld in the target (2.2), the fragmented material which will be ejected through
the rear surface extends in the lateral direction. Thus, this material can be represented at each
instant of time by a volume <
'
which changes with time as the projectile approaches the rear
surface of the target and the boundary P"PH slides over it.
Consider an element of volume d<
'
in the target material belonging to the fractured zone.
To derive the fragment-size distribution in d<
'
, percolation theory is employed following [7].
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 183
Fig. 3. Contour plots of the probability "eld Pin the target: (a) x"R
`
, (b) x"2R
`
, (c) x"5R
`
. The probability
values corresponding to the iso-lines are 0.15, 0.30, 0.45, 0.60, and 0.75 beginning from the projectile to the outer region.
The darkness of the background increases fromP"1 to P"0. Rand 0 are the spherical coordinates associated with the
source generating the ovoidal shape of the projectile.
184 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Fig. 4. The distributions of the probability Palong the continuation of the projectile axis at the instant t"tH, when the
fractured zone reaches the rear surface of the target. PH"0.311. Target thicknesses are HM"3, HM"5, and HM"10. RM"
`
corresponds to the projectile tip. 0,.
It is assumed that a fragment emerging in the target consists of s elementary particles of size
a
"
described by Eq. (2.7a). Therefore, the volume < and the mass m of the fragment are
<"<
"
s""
`
R`
`
:RM"s, (2.33a)
m"j<""
`
jR`
`
:RM"s. (2.33b)
In the volume d<
'
there would be d<
'
/< such fragments (s-clusters) if all the fragments were
identical. However, according to percolation theory [7}9], the probability of the emergence of an
s-cluster with the number of elementary particles from s to s#ds is w
Q
ds, where the probability
density function w
Q
is given by
w
Q
"KsO>exp(!bsD ) s51, (2.34)
where parameters t, b and are, in principle, known (see Refs. [7}9]). The normalization parameter
K is given by
K"
1
j`

sO>exp(!bs

) ds
. (2.35)
Therefore, the number of s-clusters in d<
'
, is given by
dN"w
Q
ds
d<
'
<
. (2.36)
The total number dN(m
'
) of fragments in d<
'
whose (fragment's) mass is smaller than m
'
is found
from Eqs. (2.33a), (2.33b), (2.34) and (2.36) as
dN(m
'
)"
3d<
'
K
4R`
`
:RM" ,
QD

sOexp(!bs

) ds, (2.37a)
s
'
(m
'
, RM)"max
_
1,
3m
'
4:jR`
`
RM"
. (2.37b)
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 185
If the value of s
'
determined in Eq. (2.37b) is unity, it means that m
'
does not exceed the mass j<
"
of the locally smallest particle and the corresponding total number dN(m
'
) is zero.
Similar to dN(m
'
), an expression for the total mass of the fragments of mass smaller than m
'
,
dM(m
'
), can be derived. Indeed, the mass of the s-clusters in d<
'
is
dM"jw
Q
ds d<
'
, (2.38)
whereas
dM(m
'
)"jd<
'
K
,
Q'

sO>exp(!bs

) ds. (2.39)
The total number of fragments in the fractured zone of the target <
'
and their total mass can be
determined by integration of dN(m
'
) and dM(m
'
) over <
'
:
N(m
'
)"
,
4'
dN(m
'
), (2.40a)
M(m
'
)"
,
4'
dM(m
'
), (2.40b)
where m
'
is the maximal mass of the fragments taken into account.
Following Refs. [9,31], we use in Eqs. (2.37a) and (2.39) the values
t"`
`
, b"20.84PH!PN, o"0.45, "1, (2.41)
where the probability P"P(RM, 0, t) should be calculated using Eq. (2.19), or near the continuation
of the projectile axis using Eq. (2.24). These values were calculated using the scaling law for
percolation supplemented by the numerical methods described in Refs. [8,9]. They are used in the
present work to evaluate the integrals obtained. Namely, substituting Eq. (2.41) into Eqs. (2.35),
(2.37a), (2.37b) and (2.39), we can evaluate the integrals in s using Eq. (2.8a), to obtain
K"

` 1
erfc((b)
, (2.42a)
N(m
'
)"!
3jx `
2R`
`
,
4'
K
RM"
(b[erf((bs
'
)!erf((b)]
#exp(!bs
'
)s`
'
!exp(!b)} d<
'
, (2.42b)
M(m
'
)"j
,
4'
erf((bs
'
)!erf((b)
erfc((b)
d<
'
, (2.42c)
In Eq. (2.42a)}(2.42c), erf(z) stands for the error function and erfc(z) ("1!erf(z)) for the com-
plementary error function.
186 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Fig. 5. Sketch of the fragmented zone of a thick target.
To evaluate the integrals in <
'
in Eqs. (2.42b) and (2.42c), one needs to know the shape of the
part of the fractured zone which will be ejected through the rear surface. A projectile shaped as an
ovoid of Rankine penetrating a target normally displaces the target material radially along the
straight lines centered at the origin of the ovoid (cf. Fig. 5b in Ref. [32]). This allows one to
approximate <
'
by a cone with the half angle [ at the origin as is shown in Fig. 5 (a similar sketch
of the fragmentation zone can be found, for example, in Fig. 2g of Ref. [33]). Note that the angle
[ changes with time as the projectile approaches the rear surface of the target and the boundary
P"PH slides over it. The integrals in Eqs. (2.42b) and (2.42c) were evaluated numerically for
a conical volume <
'
for a given velocity of the projectile tip x , its radius R
`
, the density j of the
target material, and the surface energy (the latter is related to the material fracture toughness
K
'
via Eq. (2.9)).
3. Fragmentation of the projectile
Following Ref. [29], a projectile can be deformed without mass loss or eroded if its impact
velocity is high enough. At relatively low velocities of impact, the projectile is deformed by a plastic
wave. Projectile fragmentation in this regime is not considered in the present work. We consider
fragmentation of the eroded projectile at high velocities of impact. The projectile material deforms
at its leading mushroom-like part. At some instant of time at some point the probability Pthat the
smallest particle of size a
"
(and not a lacuna) occupies a site in the projectile drops to its critical
value PH, and the projectile begins to break up. In order to determine the probability "eld in the
projectile, we must construct the velocity "eld in the projectile consisting of a mushroom-like
eroding region and a rigid tail region.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 187
3.1. Velocity xeld in the projectile
The velocity "eld in the eroding part of the projectile is given by [34]
v
"
"

=R`
`
4R`
#(=#x )cos 0

e
0
!(=#x )sin 0 e
F
, in the eroding region, (3.1a)
v
"
"!<
"
cos 0 e
0
#<
"
sin 0 e
F
, in the rigid region, (3.1b)
where =characterizes the rate of erosion of the projectile, and <
"
is the velocity of the rear end of
the projectile.
The stream function corresponding to the velocity "eld (3.1) is thus

"
"(=#x )R`
sin`0
2
!=R`
`
1#cos 0
4
, in the eroding region, (3.2a)

"
"!
R`<
"
sin`0
2
, in the rigid region, (3.2b)
where
"
is de"ned by
c
"
c0
"R`sin 0(v
"
ze
0
),
c
"
cR
"!R sin 0(v
"
ze
F
),
"'FL
"0. (3.3)
At the boundary R
'
(0) between the eroding and rigid regions of the projectile the continuity of the
stream function is imposed. Thus, R
'
can be found from equating Eqs. (3.2a) and (3.2b) as
R
'
"
_
=R`
`
(1#cos 0)
2sin`0(=#x #<)
`
, 0O, (3.4a)
R
'
"
_
=R`
`
4(=#x #<)
`
, 0". (3.4b)
An example of the #ow "eld in the eroding projectile relative to its tip is shown in Fig. 6.
3.2. Fragment distribution in the eroding projectile
The velocity "eld (3.1a) in the eroding mushroom-like part of the projectile leads to the
expressions for the rate of deformation tensor and the e!ective strain rate in the form
D
"
"
=R`
`
4R`
[!2e
0
e
0
#e
F
e
F
#e
(
e
(
], (3.5a)
c &
=R`
`
R`
. (3.5b)
188 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Fig. 6. The stream-lines of the #ow"eld in the eroding projectile relative to its tip. The instantaneous velocities of the rear
end of the projectile and its tip are <
"
"1645 m/s, and ;"734 m/s, respectively. The rate of erosion and the diameter of
the rear part of the projectile are ="472 m/s, and d
"
"20 mm, respectively. The stream-lines correspond to
"
"0 at
the projectile axis, to
"
"!0.008225 m`/s on the projectile free surface, with a constant step of !0.0008225 m`/s.
Thus, the radius a
"
of the smallest projectile fragment, as well as its volume <
"
can be
determined by Eqs. (2.7a) and (2.7b), respectively, with : determined with the help of the e!ective
strain rate (3.5) as
:"

j=`R
`
. (3.6)
It is emphasized that the ductility e!ect on the value of a
"
is discussed in the appendix, where it is
shown that under the conditions of the experiments [1,2] it can be safely neglected.
Similar to the probability "eld in the target (see Section 2), the probability "eld P in the
projectile can be found. Using expression (3.5b) for the e!ective strain rate yields
d
dt
(P`)"
=R`
`
R`
'
. (3.7)
Denote the characteristic `length of erosiona by l
5
such that
dl
5
dt
"=. (3.8)
Substituting Eq. (3.1a) and (3.1b) in Eqs. (2.13b) and (2.13c) and using Eq. (3.6) we arrive at the
following di!erential equations for P, R
'
and 0
'
:
d
dlM
5
(P`)"
1
RM`
'
, (3.9a)
dRM
'
dlM
5
"
1
4RM`
'
#cos 0
'
, (3.9b)
d0
'
dlM
5
"!
1
RM
'
sin 0
'
, (3.9c)
lM
5
"
l
5
R
`
, (3.9d)
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 189
Fig. 7. The iso-probability lines in the eroded projectile. Line P"1 corresponds to R"R
'
(0) as per (3.4a).
<
"
"1645 m/s, ;"734 m/s, ="472 m/s (the notation as in Fig. 6).
which are similar to Eq. (2.14a)}(2.14e). Thus, we can use the solution (2.17a) for R
'
and Eq. (2.19)
for P, and the di!erential equation for the angle 0
'
can be written in the form
d0
'
dlM
5
"!
(2 sin`0
'
[cos 0
'
!cos 0
"
#2RM`
"
sin`0
"
]`
, (3.10)
which is similar to Eq. (2.20).
Each material particle is located initially in the rigid region of the projectile with P"1. When
this particle reaches the boundary R"R
'
it begins to deform. Thus, to determine the probability
"eld along the boundary of the deformed region of the projectile, we should use R
"
"R
'
.
Substituting Eq. (3.4a) in Eqs. (2.17a), (2.19) and (3.10) we obtain
RM
'
"

cos0
'
!cos 0
"
#,(1#cos 0
"
)
2 sin`0
'

`
, (3.11a)
P"

1#2ln

1#
cos0
'
!cos0
"
,(1#cos0
"
)
`
, (3.11b)
d0
'
dlM
5
"!
(2 sin`0
'
[cos 0
'
!cos 0
"
#,(1#cos 0
"
)]`
, (3.11c)
,"
=
=#x #<
"
. (3.11d)
An example of the probability "eld in the eroding part of the projectile calculated via
Eq. (3.11a)}(3.11d) is shown in Fig. 7.
190 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
4. Results of computations and discussion
The process of penetration of a "nite target by an eroded projectile is subdivided into
three stages. In the "rst stage, the fractured zone does not reach the rear side of the target
and the penetration is calculated using the model of penetration into semi-in"nite target
described in Ref. [29]. Propagation speed of the outer boundary of the fractured zone very rapidly
stabilizes at the level of the velocity of the target/projectile interface, which is several times less than
that of the elastic wave speed in the target. At the instant t"tH the fractured zone reaches the
target rear side.
At the second stage (t'tH) the fractured region reaches the rear boundary of the target. The
target fragments inside the cone with the half-angle [ are able to leave the target (see Fig. 5) and the
projectile continues to deform. In Fig. 8 the volume A<
'
between two cones with the half-angles
[ and [#A[ is determined. The target fragments inside A<
'
leave the target in the time interval
from t to t#At. Their size distribution is calculated using Eqs. (2.42b) and (2.42c), where <
'
is
replaced by A<
'
. The residual velocity of each fragment is determined by the velocity "eld in the
target at instant t.
The intersection of the surface of the cone of the half-angle [ with the target}projectile interface
forms a circle whose diameter increases with time. When the diameter of this circle reaches the
initial diameter of the projectile d
"
, we assume that the projectile remainder can freely leave the
target without further erosion, since it leans upon the target material completely detached from the
main body of the target. In reality, projectile erosion can cease even before this point. Experiments
carried out in Ernst-Mach-Institute with tungsten sinter alloy rods (d
"
"20 mm) against 40 and
70 mm RHA targets show that an impact velocity increase results in a change of crater cross-
sections and dimensions. Increasing the velocity from 950 to 1700 m/s modi"es the cylindrical
crater shape into a conical one with the largest hole diameter at the crater exit. At both velocities
the smallest crater diameter is larger than the projectile diameter d
"
. Therefore, the projectile
Fig. 8. Scheme of the fractured part of the target and projectile at an instant t'tH.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 191
Fig. 9. The instant when projectile erosion is completed and its remainder is beginning to move freely out fromthe target.
Table 1
Geometrical and material properties of the projectiles and targets
Material Diameter (mm) Length (mm) Density (kg/m`) Brinell hardness
BHN
Projectile Tungsten sintered alloy 20 120 17130 430
Target Steel * * 7850 330
remainder actually leans upon the totally fractured target material before the circle reaches the
diameter d
"
. In Fig. 9 the instant of completing of the projectile erosion is shown schematically. At
this instant the size distribution of the projectile particles inside the fractured zone is calculated
using Eqs. (2.42a)}(2.42c) with <
'
replaced by A<
'
. Also the fragment residual velocities corres-
pond to those immediately prior to this instant. At the third stage, the fragments and the projectile
remainder move with their residual velocities and form the debris cloud.
In order to validate the model, a number of the calculations of the fragment size distribution of
target and projectile was compared with the experimental data [1]. We used for comparison data
from the experiments in which the target and projectile materials were di!erent, which allowed us
to separate target fragments from those of the projectile.
The projectile and target material and geometrical parameters used in Ref. [1] are given in
Table 1.
The detailed description of the theoretical model used to calculate the projectile penetration is
given in Refs. [29,32,35,36]. Here we list brie#y the rheological models of the materials used. The
target is subdivided into two regions by the elastic}plastic boundary that propagates away from
the projectile. The "rst one is the plastic region where the target material response is rate-
insensitive and rigid-plastic which involves the constant yield stress in uniaxial tension >
'
192 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Table 2
List of the experiments, as well as the measured and predicted parameters of penetration
Projectile Target
Initial
velocity
;
"
(m/s)
Residual
velocity
;
'
(m/s)
Residual
length

'
(mm)
Mass loss
Am
"
(g)
Thickness
H (mm)
Crater
radius
R
'
(mm)
Mass loss
Am
'
(g)
Exp. 527 1681 1578 83.0 197.3 40 24.9 674
Exp. 528 1696 * 82.3 201.1 40 21.2 524
Calculation 1696 1648 81.3 184.4 40 23.0 137.8
Exp. 530 1695 1506 60.1 321.1 70 20.5 685
Exp. 607 1696 1483 58.5 329.1 70 21.2 597
Calculation 1696 1587 39.7 401.0 70 23.1 163.4
(see some values in the appendix). In the second region the target material response is linear elastic
and isotropic, corresponding to the Hook's law with a constant shear modulus j. The mushroomed
head of the projectile is considered to be rigid-plastic with a constant yield stress >
"
, whereas its
rear part is rigid. The fragmentation, as described before, corresponds to the condition P"PH
when numerous lacunae merge.
To simulate the projectile penetration the computer code based on the projectile erosion/
deformation model (see Refs. [29,34]) was used. In parallel, the number of target and
projectile fragments of the mass in the range from m

to m
`
was found as N(m
`
)!N(m

) via
Eq. (2.42b).
The list of the experiments including the initial projectile velocities and target thicknesses is given
in Table 2. It is emphasized that in Table 2 we compared a single calculation with two di!erent
experiments (Exps. 527 and 528, or Exps. 530 and 607) since these experiments were done under
approximately similar conditions. The predicted minimal crater radius R
'
is compared with the
corresponding measured minimal crater radius (when the experimental data are available). We
assume that the material from the wider parts of the crater near the front and rear sides of the target
belongs to the fractured zone, and has been ejected. The comparison of the theoretical values of
R
'
with the experimental data for the crater radius is satisfactory, as is seen from Table 2. The
results of the comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the residual
length
'
of the projectile and the mass Am of the eroded part of the projectile are also given in
Table 2.
Note also a poor prediction of the mass Am
'
lost by the target during penetration. This can be
explained, at least in part, by the e!ect of the target's rear surface on the velocity and stress "elds.
This e!ect, becoming signi"cant as the projectile's tip approaches the rear surface of the target,
leads to bulge formation, bulge advancement and ring detachment, which are not accounted for in
the framework of the present model. It is known that a signi"cant fraction of Am
'
corresponds to
the ring-like segment detached from the rear surface of the target. The formation of the ring-like
segment is out of the scope of the model at present.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 193
Fig. 10. Amount of small target and projectile fragments versus mass range. H"40 mm. Comparison of the results of
the calculations with the experimental data: (a) target fragments, (b) projectile fragments.
Moreover, the velocity and stress "elds in the target employed in the model are not a!ected
directly by the boundary conditions at the front and rear side of the target, or by the presence of the
fractured zone. The latter can probably explain the fact that the predicted value of the residual
length of the projectile is smaller than its experimental values in Exps. 530 and 607 (see Table 2).
The velocity "eld assumed does not permit description of the ejecta from the front side of the
target (which is sketched in Fig. 5).
The fracture toughness K
'
depends on the kind of material, the rate of strain, the temperature
and other factors. The values K
'
"50 MPa m` for the target material (steel), and
K
'
"100 MPa m` for the projectile material (tungsten) were obtained by "tting the theoretical
prediction with the results of experiments, Exps. 527 and 528. Note that the typical data for steels at
room temperature known from literature are 18.2,K
'
,70 MPa m`, whereas for tungsten
50,K
'
,200 MPa m` (cf. Ref. [37]).
In Figs. 10 and 11 the theoretical predictions of the amount of target and projectile fragments in
the mass range investigated are compared with the experimental data [1]. The results of the
comparison show that predicted number distributions of the fragments are su$ciently close to the
experimental data.
In Fig. 12 the e!ect of the fracture toughness K
'
on the size distribution of the target fragments
is shown for the parameters corresponding to Exp. 528 from Table 2. According to the present
model, the fracture toughness K
'
does not a!ect the parameters of penetration (the projectile's tip
velocity ;, the rate of erosion =, the radius of the ovoid of Rankine R
`
), the size of the fractured
zone, and the total mass lost by the target and projectile. Nevertheless, the size of the smallest
particle a
"
becomes larger with increasing K
'
(see Eqs. (2.7a), (2.8a)}(2.8b) and (2.9)), which leads to
an increase of the amount (Fig. 12a) and the total mass (Fig. 12b) of the fragments whose mass is
larger than 0.1 g. This increase results from a reduction of the total mass of the `dusta particles
whose mass is smaller than 0.1 g.
The velocity "elds in the target and the projectile determine their deformation and the
initial velocity of the fragments at the instant when the conical fractured zone reaches them
194 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Fig. 11. Amount of small target and projectile fragments versus mass range. H"70 mm. Comparison of the results of
the calculations with the experimental data: (a) target fragments, (b) projectile fragments.
Fig. 12. Size distributions of small fragments of the target versus the mass range for di!erent values of the toughness K
'
:
(a) amount of the fragments, (b) total mass of the fragments. The parameters of penetration correspond to Exp. 528 from
Table 2.
(when a fragment "rst becomes located inside A<
'
in Fig. 8). We neglect the fragment/fragment
collisions. The e!ect of the drag force (imposed on the #ying fragments by air) on the fragments
velocity is negligible for the times considered. Therefore, the fragment velocity vector does not
change with time. Tracing the fragments that left the target permits calculation of the evolution of
the debris cloud after the fractured material begins to move freely through the rear surface of the
target.
In Figs. 13 and 14 the results of the simulation for Exp. 607 are shown. The shapes of the target
and the projectile are shown in Fig. 13 at di!erent instants of penetration at its "rst stage (when the
fractured region still did not reach the rear side of the target). In Fig. 14 the shapes of the debris
cloud are shown at the next stage of penetration, when the fractured zone has already reached the
rear side of the target.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 195
Fig. 13. Calculation for the experiment Exp 607. The shapes of the target and projectile at di!erent instants of
penetration.
196 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Fig. 14. Location of the projectile remainder and the debris cloud at di!erent time instants.
Fig. 15. Schematic of the debris-cloud expansion.
Fig. 16. Comparison of the theoretical prediction of the extent of the debris cloud X with the experimental data.
;
"
"1700 m/s, d
"
"20 mm,
"
"120 mm.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 197
Fig. 17. X/B ratio versus the normalized time. ;
"
"1700 m/s, d
"
"20 mm,
"
"120 mm.
Characteristic sizes X and B of the debris cloud are de"ned in Fig. 15: X and B are the
maximum extents of the debris clouds in the longitudinal and lateral directions, respectively.
The results of theoretical prediction of X compared with the experimental data are shown in
Fig. 16 against the experimental data [1]. The corresponding values of X/B are shown in
Fig. 17.
The value of Xis determined mostly by the motion of the projectile remainder. The results of the
comparison of the theoretical prediction of Xwith the experimental data are good. The agreement
of the calculated values of X/B with the corresponding experimental data is rather good at the
initial stage of the cloud propagation (see Fig. 17). At the latter stage the agreement for X/B
becomes rather poor. We suppose that the agreement can be improved by taking into account the
fragment/fragment collisions, and shock wave in air propagating away from the debris cloud,
which expands at a supersonic velocity.
5. Conclusions
The fracture of the target and projectile during normal penetration is described using a model of
chaotic disintegration, which modi"es the theory of chaotic disintegration of liquids.
The mass distribution of the fragments was calculated with the help of percolation theory. The
model predicts an increase in the number of fragments whose mass is larger than 0.1 g when the
material fracture toughness increases. On the other hand, the number of fragments with mass less
than 0.1 g (the `dusta particles) decreases as the fracture toughness increases. These predictions are
borne out by experiment.
The shape, velocity, and extent of propagation of the debris cloud were also calculated to enable
vulnerability estimation behind the perforated target.
198 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by MAFAT, State of Israel. The authors acknowledge
Dr. A. Stilp for his encouraging support of the cooperation between the Technion and EMI, as well
as Mr. K. Kleinschnitger and Dr. E. Schmolinske. I. V. Roisman acknowledges the "nancial
assistance of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
Appendix A. E4ect of the energy of the plastic dissipation on the size of the smallest fragment
The energy balance (2.6) in the smallest particle a
"
can be modi"ed to account for the energy of
the plastic dissipation
1
2
ja`
"
c `"a`
"
#
a"
"
c
>
'
c , (A.1)
where a
"
is the size of the smallest particle accounting for the e!ect of the plastic dissipation, >
'
is
the target yield stress, and c is the speed of the `elastica sound in the material. Note that in Ref. [5]
the rate of the plastic dissipation has been estimated as g>
'
a`
""
, where g is an adjustable parameter
of the order of 0.01}0.1. It is seen that g"a
"
c /c.
It can be shown that using Eq. (2.6), Eq. (A.1) can be reduced to the cubic equation of the
following form:
k`!Ak`!1"0, (A.2a)
k"
a
"
a
"
, (A.2b)
A"
2>
'
cjc a
"
, (A.2c)
where a
"
is determined by Eq. (2.7a). The speed of `elastica sound c is determined as
c"
,
E
j
,
(A.3)
where E is the Young modulus of the material. Thus, the parameter A can be estimated using Eqs.
(2.4), (2.7a), (2.9) and (A.3) as
A"
2>
'
R`
`
j"x `K``
'
E"
. (A.4)
It can be shown that the value of A is of the order of unity. The maximum value of A can be
obtained by choosing the maximum values of >
'
and R
`
and the minimum values of the other
parameters involved in Eq. (A.2c). In order to estimate the value A
`
we use x "500 m/s,
R
`
"20 mm. The other parameters are: for steel with j"7800 kg/m`, E"200 GPa, >
'
"1000 MPa,
K
'
"50 MPa m`. Thus the value of A
`
is A
`
&1.5.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 199
For aluminum with j"2300 kg/m`, E"71 GPa, >
'
"500 MPa, K
'
"30 MPa m` the
value of A
`
is also A
`
&1.5. For tungsten with j"17,000 kg/m`, E"400 GPa, >
'
"2000 MPa,
K
'
"100 MPa m` the value of A
`
is also A
`
&1.5.
Eq. (A.2a) has a single positive real root increasing with the parameter A. The solution
corresponding to A"A
`
"1.5 is
a
"
a
"
"1.8. (A.5)
Accounting for the fact that the value of the plastic dissipation is actually a supremum estimate, the
result (A.5) shows that the value of the smallest fragment size a
"
does not change signi"cantly due
to the e!ects of plasticity.
References
[1] Hohler V, Kleinschnitger K, Schmolinske E, Stilp A, Weber K, Behind armor debris studies. Experimental
investigations, EMI-Report 12/95 Ernst-Mach-Institut, Freiburg, Germany, 1995.
[2] Hohler V, Kleinschnitger K, Schmolinske E, Stilp A, Weber K. Debris cloud expansion around a residual rod
behind a perforated plate target, Proc 13th Int Symp on Ballistics, Vol. 3, Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. p. 327}34.
[3] Grady DE. Local inertia e!ects in dynamic fragmentation. J Appl Phys 1982;53(1):322}5.
[4] Grady DE. The spall strength of condensed matter. J Mech Phys Solids 1988;36:353}84.
[5] Grady DE. Fragmentation of rapidly expanding jets and sheets. Int J Impact Engng (the 1986 Hypervelocity
Impact Symposium) 1987;5:285}92.
[6] Johnson GR, Stryk RA, Holmquist TJ, Souka OA. Recent EPIC Code developments for high velocity impacts: 3D
element arrangements and 2D fragment distributions. Int J Impact Engng 1990;10:281}94.
[7] Yarin AL. Free liquid jets and "lms: hydrodynamics and rheology. Longman, New York, 1993. p. 338}48.
[8] Staufer D. Scaling theory of percolation clusters. Phys Rep 1979;54:1}74.
[9] Staufer D. Introduction to percolation theory. London: Taylor & Francis, 1985.
[10] YewCH, Grady DE, Lawrence RJ. A simple model for debris clouds produced by hypervelocity particle impact. Int
J Impact Engng 1993;14:851}62.
[11] Maiden CL. Experimental and theoretical results concerning the protective ability of a thin shield against
hypervelocity projectile. Sixth Symp on Hypervelocity Impact 1963;Vol. III:70}156.
[12] Piekutowski AJ. A simple dynamic model for the formation of debris cloud. Int J Impact Engng (the 1989
Hypervelocity Impact Symposium) 1990;10:453}71.
[13] Herrmann W, Wilbeck JS. Review of hypervelocity penetration theories. Int J Impact Engng 1987;5:307}22.
[14] Richardson AJ. Theoretical penetration mechanisms of multisheet structures based on discrete debris particle
modeling. AIAA Hypervelocity Impact Symposium, Cincinnati OH, 1969.
[15] Swift HL, Bamford R, Chen R. Designing dual plate meteoroid shields * a new analysis. Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) Publication 82-39, March 1982.
[16] Anderson Jr. CE, Trucano TG, Mullin SA. Debris cloud dynamics. Int J Impact Engng 1990;9:89}113.
[17] Cohen LJ. A debris cloud cratering model. Int J Impact Engng 1995;17:229}40.
[18] Anderson Jr., CE, Bless SJ, Sharron TR, Subramanian R. Analysis of behind armor debris at two impact velocities.
Proc 15th Int Symp on Ballistics, Vol. 2, Jerusalem, Israel, 1995. p. 463}70.
[19] Mayseless M, Sela N, Stilp A, Hohler V. Behind the armor debris distribution function. Proc 13th Int Symp on
Ballistics, Stockholm, Sweden, 1992.
[20] Mayseless M, Kivity Y, Chazan G. Analysis of armor perforation by long rod projectiles. Rafael Internal Report no
18/91.
[21] Saucier R, Shnidman R, Collins JC. III, A stochastic behind-armor debris model. Proc 15th Int Symp on Ballistics,
Vol. 2, Jerusalem, Israel, 1995. p. 431}8.
200 A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201
[22] Farrand TG, Polesne JT, Abell JM. Prediction of behind armor debris generated for kinetic energy penetrators
against light armors. Proc 16th Int Symp on Ballistics, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1996.
[23] Dinovitzer AS, Szymczak M, Steele M, Glen IF. Characterisation of behind-armour debris. Proc 16th Int Symp on
Ballistics, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1996.
[24] Kennedy EW. Behind-armor debris produced by U-3/4Ti rods at ordnance velocity and hypervelocity impacts.
ISL-Report S-PR 801/97. French}German Institute, St. Louis, France, 1997.
[25] Verolme JL, Szymczak M. Behind-armor debris modeling for high-velocity fragment impact. Proc 17th Int Symp
on Ballistics, Vol. 3, Midrand, South Africa, 1998 p. 259}66.
[26] Ravid M, Bodner SR, Walker JD, Chocron S, Anderson CE Jr., Riegel JPIII. Modi"cation of the Walker-Anderson
penetration model to include exit failure modes and fragmentation. Proc 17th Int Symp on Ballistics, Vol. 3,
Midrand, South Africa, 1998. p. 267}74.
[27] Dinovitzer AS, Szymczak M, Brown T. Behind-armour debris modeling. Proc 17th Int Symp on Ballistics, Vol. 3,
Midrand, South Africa, 1998. p. 275}84.
[28] Weber K, Hohler V, Kleinschnitger K, Schmolinske E, Schneider E. Debris cloud expansion behind oblique single
plate targets perforated by rod projectiles. Proc 17th Int Symp on Ballistics, Midrand, South Africa, 1998.
[29] Roisman IV, Yarin AL, Rubin MB. Normal penetration of a deformable/eroding projectiles into an elastic}plastic
target. Int J Impact Engng, submitted.
[30] Milne-Thomson LM. Theoretical Hydrodynamics. 5th Edition. London: The Macmillan Press LTD, 1968. p.
480}1.
[31] Flammang A. Percolation cluster sizes and perimeters in three dimensions. Z Phys 1977;B28:47}50.
[32] Roisman IV, Yarin AL, Rubin MB. Oblique penetration of a rigid projectile into an elastic}plastic target. Int
J Impact Engng 1997;19:769}95.
[33] Backman ME, Goldsmith W. The mechanics of penetration of projectiles into targets. Int J Engng Sci 1978;16:1}99.
[34] Roisman I. Normal and oblique penetration of rigid and deformable/eroding projectiles into elastic-plastic targets
including a description of fragmentation and vulnerability. D Sc Thesis. Haifa: Technion-Israel Institute of
Technology, 1998.
[35] Yarin AL, Rubin MB, Roisman IV. Penetration of a rigid projectile into an elastic}plastic target of "nite thickness.
Int J Impact Engng 1995;16:801}31.
[36] Roisman IV, Weber K, Yarin AL, Hohler V, Rubin MB. Oblique penetration of a rigid projectile into a thick
elastic-plastic target: theory and experiment. Int J Impact Engng 1999;22:707}26.
[37] Ostolaza Zamora KM, Gil Sevillano J, Fuentes Perez M. Fracture toughness of W heavy metal alloys. Mater Sci
and Engng 1992;A157:151}60.
A.L. Yarin et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 24 (2000) 171}201 201