Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci.

Vol. 49, No. 164, pp. 81–86, 2006

FOD Simulation for Ceramic Turbine Blades

By Hiro Y OSHIDA1Þ and Yinsheng LI2Þ

1Þ
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan
2Þ
Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan

(Received July 4th, 2005)

Foreign object impact damage is a serious problem for ceramic gas turbines. In this paper, a series of finite element
analyses with an elastic assumption was made to estimate the plausible damage behavior of axial and radial ceramic
blades. Foreign objects were assumed to impact the leading part of the blade suction surface. The present analysis showed
that the stress peaking process is strongly influenced by the interaction of various stress waves, leading to structural dam-
age. The locations of the peak principal tensile stress (peak stress) in the axial blade corresponded well with the damaged
parts of the blade observed experimentally. The maximum peak stress appeared in the suction surface and the averaged
peak stress value in this surface was roughly double that in the pressure surface. Unlike the axial blade, the radial blade
reached maximum peak stress in the pressure surface. The value was much larger than the initial impact stress due to the
wave interactions. For the effect of the rotation, centrifugal force did not change the basic distribution of peak stresses,
but it caused additional stress peaks near the hub in the pressure surface. Moreover, the centrifugal force caused appre-
ciable differences in the averaged peak stresses in the suction and the pressure surfaces. The present finite element analy-
sis with elastic assumption seems useful for understanding structural fracture behavior, when designing ceramic blades.

Key Words: Ceramic Blade, Finite Element Analysis, Foreign Object Damage, Stress Wave Interaction, Structural
Damage

1. Introduction located away from the impact point. Structural damage is

A common method to achieve higher thermal efficiency
in a gas turbine is to increase the turbine inlet temperature
(TIT). Therefore, it is important to develop heat resistant
materials and proper cooling measures for turbine compo-
nents exposed to higher temperatures. However, in small
gas turbines, it is difficult to implement cooling systems in-
side blades because of limited volume. In small gas turbines,
adoption of heat-resistant ceramics is a promising way to in-
crease thermal efficiency. In addition, gas turbines with ce-
ramic components have the advantage of not needing cool-
ing systems. From such background, R & D of ceramic gas
turbines (CGT) was attempted.1,2) Moreover, recent growing
interest in small, distributed energy systems seems likely to
facilitate development of small CGTs with a power of
100 kW or less.3,4) In this context, Tsuchiya et al. evaluated
the economic competitiveness of micro-gas turbine cogen-
eration systems based on efficiency and maintenance cost,5)
suggesting that increasing the thermal efficiency of the mi-
cro-CGT is an important issue.
However, although ceramics can survive elevated tem-
peratures, they are still brittle when subject to impact
forces. Actually, impact of foreign objects is often reported
as causing damage to CGT blades (Foreign Object Damage,
FOD).6,7) The damage is classified into two types: local and
structural.6,8) Local damage describes damage generated
around impact points, such as ring cracks, radial cracks,
cone cracks, etc. Structural damage describes other damage

2006 The Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences
strongly influenced by the geometrical configurations or
boundary conditions of the impacted elements. For example,
in a particular geometry, the interactions of various stress
waves are enhanced remarkably.9) Although, much work
has been published on local damage,10–14) there is little pub-
lished on structural damage.6,8)
During test runs of a 300-kW class CGT during the New
Sun Shine Project,1) the trailing part of the ceramic rotor
blades was often broken.7,8) In this rotor configuration, most
foreign particles hit the upper, leading edge area of the rotor
blade. At first, we thought the damage to the rear part of the
blade was caused by defects in the ceramic material itself
or to some flaws introduced during machining. However,
we also considered the possibility of FOD. We calculated
a series of particle impact experiments on a ceramic blade
to see whether the trailing part of the blade would fall off
as a result of particle impact at the leading edge. The blade
was cut from the ceramic rotor of a CGT-302 unit.15)
Damage observed in the impact experiment is shown in
Fig. 1,15) which clearly shows typical structural damage
occurring at locations other than the impact point. In the
experiment a 1-mm diameter samarium-cobalt (Sm2 Co17 )
ball was used as an impactor.16)
This paper analyzes the distribution of the peak maximum
principal tensile stresses (peak stresses) in ceramic blades
caused by particle impacts. The maximum principal stress
is thought to be closely related to the fracture behavior of
the blades. The analysis was carried out by using the finite
element method (FEM).
82 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 49, No. 164

tion is decided with reference to the past instances.7,15) As

shown in Fig. 2, the grid points are distributed rather dense-
ly near the impact point compared to further places. The
height, chord length at blade root, and maximum thickness
of the blade are 12 mm, 17 mm, and 2 mm, respectively.
The number of elements, nodes, and freedoms are 12,480,
14,652, and 43,956, respectively.
2.2. Radial blade
Figure 3 shows the grid system of the radial type blade.
Since the geometrical shape is rather complex, the blade is
divided into 3D 10-node quadratic tetrahedral elements,
instead of hexahedral elements. The typical dimensions
are given in the figure. The blade thicknesses are from
1 mm at the blade tip to 3 mm at the hub side. The number
Fig. 1. Particle impact fractures on actual ceramic axial blade.15) of elements, nodes, and freedoms are 49,149, 81,391, and
Impacts at (a) 545 m s
1 , room temperature, (b) 709 m s
1 , room temper- 244,173, respectively.
ature, (c) 714 m s
1 , 1,350 C, and (d) 778 m s
1 , room temperature. 2.3. Time history of impact force
The time history of the impact stress is shown in Fig. 4.
2. Numerical Analysis of Particle Impacts on Turbine The variation of the impact stress is defined mainly for
Blades simplicity. For the axial blade, the maximum stress value
is set to 17.7 GPa, estimated by the well known formula
Numerical simulation was performed using the general- cu, where , c, and u are the density, acoustic velocity
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
purpose finite element analysis code MARC K7.3.17) The given as ½Eð1
Þ=ð1 þ Þð1
2Þ, and the impact
dynamic response during the impact was examined by the velocity of the particle, i.e. 450 m s
1 , respectively. E and
Newmark-
method.17) No slip was allowed between the  are the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the impact
surfaces of the impact particle and the target. The material particle. For the radial blade used in small gas turbines, we
properties of the target and impactor used in the analysis simply assume the maximum stress to be 1.36 GPa because
are listed in Table 1. of the lower peripheral speed of the small rotors.3)
2.1. Axial type blade
Figure 2 shows a 3-dimensional grid system of the axial 3. Results and Discussion
blade used in the calculation. The 3D geometry was ex-
pressed using first-order solid elements with 8 nodes. The 3.1. Axial blade
upper left circle in this figure indicates the particle impact The following sections mainly discuss the peak of the
point on the suction surface of the blade. The impact loca- maximum principal tensile stress (peak stress), because peak
stress is considered to be the predominant cause of damage.
Figure 5 (a) and 5 (b) show the locations of the peak
Table 1. Mechanical property of ceramic material and impact ball. stresses on the suction surface (impact side) and on the pres-
Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio Density Tensile strength sure surface, respectively. In Fig. 5 (a), in addition to the
E, GPa  , g cm
3 MPa impact point itself (A), the peak stresses appear at the top
Ceramic 309 0.28 3.4 500 (position D) and root (C) of the trailing edge and also at
Sm2 Co17 151 0.26 8.4 — the root of the leading edge (B) of the blade. Peaks B and

Value estimated from 4-point bending strength.
C at the root are thought to occur due to the strong constraint
of the blade disk. While on the pressure surface, the peak
stress distribution is more complex as shown in Fig. 5 (b).
Impact particle In other words, two more peaks (E and F) are added to the
(Impact point) trailing side in addition to the peaks on the suction surface.
The reason for such a complex peak distribution is thought
to be due to the bending or transverse waves with higher or-
der modes as well as the longitudinal waves. As an example,
the proper oscillation mode of 20th order bending is shown
Flow
in Fig. 6. The bending mode oscillation brings complex de-
formation along the blade height at the trailing edge. The
values of peak stresses and occurrence times are summa-
rized in Table 2. The maximum peak stress of 10.9 GPa ap-
pears at B in the suction surface and the averaged peak stress
value in this surface is roughly double that in the pressure
Fig. 2. Mesh system of axial blade used in analysis. surface. The magnitude of the peak stresses in both surfaces
Aug. 2006 H. Y OSHIDA and Y. L I: FOD Simulation for Ceramic Turbine Blades 83

26 mm

Impact particle Flow

(Impact point)

20 mm
Flow
z
y

Fig. 3. Mesh system of radial blade used in analysis.

Fig. 6. Example of proper 20th-mode bending oscillation of axial blade.
Suction and pressure surfaces are back and front of sheet, respectively.
The impact point is in suction surface.

SE
SB
SD
Impact stress

17.7GPa / 1.36 GPa

SA SC
Out side

Up Down
stream stream

Hub

t1=2.2 µ s t2=0.5ms
Time

Fig. 4. Time history of impact stress.

t1 is the rise time and t2 is the pulse duration.
Fig. 7. Peak stress distribution on suction surface of radial blade without
centrifugal force.
The solid circle shows the impact point. Dotted circles show the peak
stress area.
Leading edge Trailing edge

D
A A1
A2

12mm

B C

(a) Locations of peak stress on suction surface (impact side)

D
A A
A2
F

B C Fig. 8. Example of proper 20th-mode bending oscillation of radial blade

(top view).
(b) Locations of peak stress in pressure surface

Fig. 5. Locations of peak tensile stress.

ranges from 2 to 11 GPa, which are 11% to 62% of the initial
impact stress of 17.7 GPa.
Here, we discuss the possibility of interactions between
longitudinal and transverse waves in the blade. The propa-
gation velocities of the slowest transverse wave and the fast-
est longitudinal wave of ceramics are estimated at
5,960 m s
1 and 10,780 m s
1 , respectively. Thus, the time
required for the waves to run around the typical blade di-
mension of 17 mm is 5.7 ms for the transverse wave and
3.2 ms for the longitudinal wave. By comparing these times
and peak times in Table 2, it is reasonable to think that the
stress peaks appear sufficiently after the wave reflections
and interferences. In other words, the complex wave interac-
tions are thought to strongly influence the stress peaking.
By comparing the results of the numerical simulation
84 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 49, No. 164

Table 2. Peak maximum principal stress at each instant and location in

axial turbine blade. PA
PC
PB
Locations Time after Peak maximum PD

PE
Location impact principal stress Out side
Blade surface Down Up
on blade (ms) (GPa) stream stream

Hub
A1 16.5 2.00
A2 7.45 4.41
B 36.7 10.9
SS
C 15.5 4.11 Fig. 9. Peak stress distribution on pressure surface of radial blade without
D 15.5 3.83 centrifugal force.
(averaged) — 5.05 The solid circle shows the impact point. Dotted circles show the peak
stress area.
A1 25.7 1.96
A2 45.7 2.90
B 45.7 1.01 Table 3. Peak maximum principal stress at each instant and location in
C 21.0 4.18 radial turbine blade.
PS
D 50.7 1.97
Locations Time after Peak maximum
E 50.7 3.63
Location impact principal stress
F 16.5 3.49 Blade surface
on blade (ms) (GPa)
(averaged) — 2.73
SA 4.2 0.64
SS: Suction surface, PS: Pressure surface.
SB 4.2 0.84
SC 16.2 1.58
SS
(Fig. 5) and experiment (Fig. 1), the peak stress locations in SD 21.2 0.87
the analysis correspond well with the damage areas in the SE 28.2 0.71
experiment. (averaged) — 0.93
Here, we discuss the local damage (cracking) around im- PA 28.2 2.01
pact point A. Since the stress values are very high, various PB 89.0 0.95
cracks may occur naturally. If we assume that the crack ex- PC 16.2 0.52
tension is the same throughout the blade, in the thick leading PS
PD 9.2 0.42
edge of the blade, cracks will not necessarily penetrate the PE 90.0 0.71
blade and, as a result, thick blade segments will not fall (averaged) — 0.92
off. On the other hand, the thin trailing edge is thought to SS: Suction surface, PS: Pressure surface.
be prone to fall off as a result of particle impact.
3.2. Radial blade
The distribution of the peak stress in the suction surface of than the initial impact stress of 1.36 GPa due to the strong
the radial blade is shown in Fig. 7. The peak stresses appear wave interactions. The averaged peak stress values are al-
periodically near the blade tip where the thickness is rela- most the same in both surfaces. Note that the magnitude
tively small. Such peak distribution behavior is thought to of the initial impact stress is different between the axial
reflect the proper oscillations of higher-order bending as and radial blades. Therefore, comparison of the peak values
shown in Fig. 8. Moreover, the peak-stress location does is not essential. Nevertheless, the stress distributions feature
not necessarily match the impact point, probably due to geometrical characteristics of the blades.
the bending motions and constraint conditions. The con- 3.3. Effect of centrifugal force
straint condition of the radial blade is generally more com- Here, we discuss the effect of the centrifugal force on the
plex than that of the axial blade because of its complex hub peak stress distribution in the radial blade instead of axial
geometry. blade, because it is known that radial blade is more practical
Figure 9 shows the peak stress distribution in the pressure in small gas turbines than axial blade. The centrifugal force
surface. Like the distribution in the suction surface, the peak is defined as r!2 , where , r, and ! are the density of the
locations are concentrated near the blade tip with small blade material, the distance between the part considered and
thickness reflecting the higher-order bending mode of the the center of rotation, and the rotational speed, respectively.
blade. In this case, the peak stress PA appears just behind The rotational speed ! is 139,000 rpm, based on micro-CGT
the impact point. The peak stresses, including occurrence (MCGT) experiment.3) The distributions of the peak
time and locations for the radial blade are summarized in stresses in the suction and pressure surfaces are shown
Table 3. Like the axial blade, most peaks appear after the in Figs. 10 (a) and 10 (b). Comparison between Figs. 7, 9
wave turnaround times. In the radial blade, the maximum and 10 shows the centrifugal force does not change the peak
peak stress occurs in the pressure surface unlike the previous stress locations in the blade except at an area near the shaft
axial blade (2.01 GPa at PA in Table 3). It is interesting to (hub) in the pressure surface (PF in Fig. 10 (b)). Table 4
note that the maximum value of 2.01 GPa is much larger summarizes the magnitude of peak stress values, occurrence
Aug. 2006 H. Y OSHIDA and Y. L I: FOD Simulation for Ceramic Turbine Blades 85

(a) Suction surface

Table 5. Peak maximum principal stress at each instant and location in
SE
SB
radial turbine blade with and without centrifugal force. Figures in ( )
SD
SA SC
in the right column show stresses by centrifugal force without impact.

Peak maximum Peak maximum

principal stress principal stress
Locations
without centrifugal force with centrifugal force
(GPa) (GPa)
SA 0.64 0.68 (0.05)
SB 0.84 0.80 (0.01)
(b) Pressure surface SC 1.58 1.49 (0.01)
SS
PA SD 0.87 0.68 (0.03)
PC
PB
PD SE 0.71 0.58 (0.00)
PE
(averaged) 0.93 0.85
PA 2.01 2.03 (0.05)
PB 0.95 0.91 (0.09)
PF PC 0.52 0.60 (0.26)
PS PD 0.42 0.69 (0.26)
Fig. 10. Peak stress distributions on (a) suction surface and (b) pressure PE 0.71 1.15 (0.45)
surface of radial blade with centrifugal force. PF — 0.88 (—)
The solid circle shows the impact point. Dotted circles show the peak
(averaged) 0.92 1.04
stress area.
SS: Suction surface, PS: Pressure surface. For locations, see Figs. 7, 8,
and 10. Bold letters, SC and PA show the location of the maximum
Table 4. Peak maximum principal stress at each instant and location in stress.
radial turbine blade with centrifugal force.

Locations Time after Peak maximum

Location impact principal stress In the pressure surface, the location PD shifts to the location
Blade surface PC. Moreover, without centrifugal force, the averaged val-
on blade (ms) (GPa)
ues of the peak stresses are very similar in the suction and
SA 4.2 0.68
pressure surfaces (0.93 GPa and 0.92 GPa). However, the
SB 4.2 0.80
averaged stress value in the pressure surface (1.04 GPa)
SC 16.2 1.49
SS is greater than in the suction surface (0.85 GPa) due to
SD 21.2 0.68
centrifugal force.
SE 28.2 0.58
For reference, the maximum principal stress caused by
(averaged) — 0.85
centrifugal force without impact is also given at each
PA 28.2 2.03
peak stress location (bracketed figures in right column of
PB 89.0 0.91
Table 5). At locations PD and PF in the pressure surface,
PC 15.2 0.60
effect of the centrifugal force seems to be roughly additive.
PS PD 9.2 0.69
However, as a whole, the contribution of rotation differs
PE 90.0 1.15
from location to location. Its magnitude ranges from 1%
PF 99.0 0.88
to 44% of the local maximum impact stress. Although the
(averaged) — 1.04
result is not given in Table 5, the largest maximum principle
SS: Suction surface, PS: Pressure surface. stress due to rotation was 0.7 GPa and appeared near the root
of the trailing edge.
times, and locations under the centrifugal force. The peak As a whole, the centrifugal force sometime causes addi-
PF appears late after the impact initiation. The emergence tional stress peaks near the hub area (location PE in pressure
of PF is thought to be due to the strong constraint at the surface), and causes appreciable differences in averaged
hub during the rotation. Table 5 compares the peak stresses peak stresses in the suction and pressure surfaces of the
at various locations with and without centrifugal force. The blade.
locations of the maximum peak stresses with or without cen-
trifugal force are the same at SC in the suction surface and 4. Conclusions
PA in the pressure surface. However, the magnitude of the
maximum peak stresses is influenced by the centrifugal Foreign object impact damage (FOD) is a serious problem
force. It decreases in the suction surface from 1.58 GPa to for ceramic gas turbines. Most foreign objects are thought to
1.49 GPa, and increases in the pressure surface from hit the leading edge of the suction surface of blades. How-
2.01 GPa to 2.03 GPa. On the other hand, the location of ever, in some cases, the trailing part of a blade drops off.
the minimum peak moves slightly due to centrifugal force. The distribution of impact damages is quite complex and
In the suction surface, the location SA without centrifugal not well understood. The locations of damage are thought
force shifts to the location SE with the centrifugal force. to be closely related to those of the peak stress. In the present
86 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci.
study, a series of numerical simulations on the peak stress
was made to estimate plausible damage behavior of the
blade. An elastic finite element analysis was carried out
for axial and radial blade models. The main results are
summarized below.
(1) In an axial blade, the locations of peak stress were suc-
cessfully extracted by numerical analysis. Stress peak-
ing seems to be strongly influenced by the interaction
of various stress waves in the blade. The locations of
peak stress were found to match the damaged parts ob-
served experimentally. Therefore, numerical analysis
with elastic assumptions is useful to predict the loca-
tions of structural damages qualitatively. The maxi-
mum peak stress appears in the suction surface (impact
side) and the averaged peak stress value in this surface
is roughly double that in the pressure surface. The
magnitude of the peak stresses in both surfaces ranges
from 11% to 62% of the initial impact stress.
(2) In a radial blade, unlike the axial blade, the maximum
peak stress occurs in the pressure surface. Its value is
much larger than the initial impact stress due to the
strong stress wave interactions. Averaged stress values
are very similar in suction and pressure surfaces.
(3) For the effect of rotation in the radial blade, centrifugal
force does not change the basic distribution of peak
stresses, but causes additional stress peaks near the
hub in the pressure surface. Moreover, it causes appre-
ciable difference in averaged peak stresses in the suc-
tion and pressure surfaces of the blade.
(4) To design ceramic blades, it is extremely important to
know where maximum tensile stress is generated by
impacts. Such information will enable us to take ap-
propriate measures against local and structural dam-
ages of blades.
This paper considers the plausible behavior of structural
damage through distribution of maximum principal stresses
within the limit of the elastic assumption. The impact of a
foreign object at the leading edge has the potential to cause
damage at other parts of the blade, such as the trailing edge
area, through stress wave interactions. The correlation be-
tween local and structural damage is an interesting problem
but remains for future study, because elastic analysis cannot
handle the problem. Exact analysis including plastic defor-
mation and fracture processes is required.
Acknowledgments
This research was partly made as a subject in the project ‘‘Micro
Vol. 49, No. 164
gas turbine/fuel cell hybrid-type distributed energy system’’ sup-
ported by CREST in the program of the Japan Science and Tech-
nology Corporation. We appreciate the latest information on
FOD given by Dr. T. Tatsumi and Mr. I. Takehara of Kawasaki
Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. as well as the very useful instruction
on the shape of actual ceramic blades. One of the authors, H.Y.,
expresses his sincere thanks to Mr. H. Hoya of Sophia Precision
Co. Ltd. for giving him information on blade geometry.
References
1) Sugawara, A. and Sugiura, T.: Overview (Summary for Eleven Years),
J. Gas Turbine Soc. Jpn., 27 (1999), pp. 299–301 (in Japanese).
2) Tsutsui, Y., Yoshida, H., Sasaki, S., Abe, H., Kurata, O. and
Matsunuma, T.: Basic Research on Ceramic Gao Turbine Engine
Component Technologies-Final Report, Report of Mechanical Engi-
neering Laboratory, AIST, No. 187, 2000 (in Japanese).
3) Yoshida, H., Matsunuma, T., Iki, N. and Akimune, Y.: Micro Gas
Turbine with Ceramic Rotor, ASME Paper GT2004-53493, 2004.
4) Matsunuma, T., Yoshida, H., Iki, N., Ebara, T., Sodeoka, S., Inoue,
T. and Suzuki, M.: Micro Gas Turbine with Ceramic Nozzle and
Rotor, ASME Paper GT2005-68711, 2005.
5) Tsuchiya, T., Sotouchi, H. and Okamoto, M.: Evaluation on the Eco-
nomic Competitiveness of Micro Gas Turbine Cogeneration Systems
Based on Efficiency and Maintenance Cost, 32nd Gas Turbine Regular
Conference, Gas Turbine Society of Japan, paper No. B-14, Kochi,
October, 2004 (in Japanese).
6) Song, J., Cuccio, J. and Kington, H.: Impact Design Methods for
Ceramic Components in Gas Turbine Engines, Trans. ASME, J.
Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 115 (1993), pp. 83–90.
7) Report on 300 kW Class Ceramic Gas Turbine, NEDO, July 9, 1999,
pp. 71–85 (in Japanese).
8) Yoshida, H. and Li, Y.: FOD Simulation on Ceramic Gas Turbine
Blade, J. Gas Turbine Soc. Jpn., 30 (2002), pp. 50–54 (in Japanese).
9) Kolsky, H.: Stress Waves in Solids, Dover Pub. Inc., New York, 1963.
10) Akimune, Y., Akiba, T. and Ogasawara, T.: Damage Behavior of
Silicon Nitride for Automotive Gas Turbine Use When Impacted by
Several Types of Spherical Particles, J. Mater. Sci., 30 (1995),
pp. 1000–1004.
11) Hara, Y., Matsubara, K., Mizuno, K., Shimamori, T. and Yoshida, H.:
Development and Evaluation of Silicon Nitride Components for
Ceramic Gas Turbine, ASME Paper 98-GT-498, 1998.
12) Tsuruta, H., Masuda, M., Soma, T. and Matsui, M.: Foreign Object
Damage Resistance of Silicon Nitride and Silicon Carbide, J. Am.
Ceram. Soc., 73 (1990), pp. 1714–1718.
13) Yoshida, H., Kano, S., Hasegawa, Y., Shimamori, T. and Yoshida, M.:
Particle Impact Phenomena of Silicon Nitride Ceramic, Philos. Mag.
A, 74 (1996), pp. 1287–1297.
14) Yoshida, H., Chaudhri, M. M. and Hoshi, Y.: Quasistatic Indentation
and Spherical Particle Impact Studies of Turbine-Grade Silicon
Nitrides, Philos. Mag. A, 82 (2002), pp. 2031–2040.
15) Yoshida, H., Nakashima, T., Yoshida, M., Hara, Y. and Shimamori,
T.: Experiment on Foreign Object Damage of Gas Turbine-Grade
Silicon Nitride Ceramic, ASME Paper, 98-GT-399, 1998.
16) Yoshida, H., Hoshi, Y., Uematsu, K. and Kitazawa, Y.: A Single,
Small Particle Launch System by Electrothermal Gun and Micro-
Sabot, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 68 (1997), pp. 178–183.
17) MARC Volume A: Theory and User Information K7, MSC. Software
Ltd., Palo Alto, 1997.