View 

PDF

Download full issue

Defence Technology
Volume 12, Issue 2, April 2016, Pages 90-95

3D numerical simulation and analysis of railgun gouging

mechanism
Jin-guo Wu , Bo Tang, Qing-hua Lin, Hai-yuan Li, Bao-ming Li

Show more

Outline Share Cite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2015.12.006 Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license open access

Abstract
A gouging phenomenon with a hypervelocity sliding electrical contact in railgun not only
shortens the rail lifetime but also affects the interior ballistic performance. In this paper, a 3-D
numerical model was introduced to simulate and analyze the generation mechanism and
evolution of the rail gouging phenomenon. The results show that a rail surface bulge is an
important factor to induce gouging. High density and high pressure material flow on the contact
surface, obliquely extruded into the rail when accelerating the armature to a high velocity, can
produce gouging. Both controlling the bulge size to a certain range and selecting suitable
materials for rail surface coating will suppress the formation of gouging. The numerical
simulation had a good agreement with experiments, which validated the computing model and
methodology are reliable.

Previous Next
Keywords
View PDF
Impact dynamics; Gouging; Finite element simulation; Rail damage; Railgun

Download full issue

1. Introduction
The electromagnetic railgun is a kinetic energy weapon utilizing an electromagnetic force
produced by a high power pulse current to accelerate a projectile to a high speed. It has wide
applications in military and civil fields [1], [2], [3]. How to extend the lifetime of the launcher is a
key technology of a railgun. It depends on the solutions of arc ablation [4], [5] and gouging
problems. Gouging is a material damage phenomenon appeared in hypervelocity sliding contact,
which has been reported in rocket sled, light-gas gun and railguns [6], [7], [8]. Gouging in a
railgun will result in the following main hazards: reducing the energy utilization, shortening the
rail's lifetime and affecting the accuracy of projectile. The typical teardrop shaped gouging
morphology observed during post-shot inspections of rails is illustrated in Fig. 1. The depth
varied along the length of the gouge and was shallowest close to the point of initiation. In
addition, armature deposits were observed at the raised gouge lip. Watt et al. [9] found that both
galling and gouge craters initiated from existing microscopic defects and the microscopic defects
had no measurable effects on the threshold velocity for either galling or gouging damage. Barker
et al. [10] and Bourell et al. [11] conducted numerical simulations for the gouging mechanism
utilizing CTH and EPIC codes respectively, but both of them were 2D models.

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 1.View PDF
Typical teardrop shaped gouge crater in railgun experiment.

Download full issue

This paper is intended to carefully describe the formation of gouging and better understand the
gouging mechanism through 3D thermal mechanical coupling simulations. And parameter
studies were presented in the simulations. Some factors affecting the gouging, such as the bulge
size and materials, were discussed.

2. Computing model and parameters for railgun gouging

2.1. Computing model

Many researchers have explored the mechanism of gouging [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. A prevalent
hypothesis is that rail surface defects and the dynamic response of the rail, often microscopic in
size, are the importance causes of rail gouging. The impact between the armature and the local
asperities or rail bulge leads to a local pressure far exceeding the yield strengths of the contact
materials, and hence a micro-crater is formed.

In the paper, a 3D model of a rail bulge impacted by a C shaped armature (Fig. 2) was established
for the simulation with the finite element method. The rail was divided with 80,809 elements and
the armature was divided with 30,380 elements. For more accurate calculation, dense meshes
were constructed around the rail bulge (Fig. 2a). The specific armature sizes are illustrated in
Fig. 2b, the same as the armature used in the experiment. Due to the symmetry of physical
structure, along the symmetrical plane only half of the armature and one rail were adopted in the
model. A displacement constraint in the y direction was applied on the symmetrical plane of the
armature. And insulating and supporting materials were omitted in the model, instead
displacement constraints were applied on the sides of the armature. According to some studies
[17], [18] on the dynamic response of the rail, a bulge size of 1 mm was supposed on the rail in the
simplified model, which would induce the impact with the armature.
 View PDF

Download full issue

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 2. 3D computing model for railgun gouging.

2.2. Material model and parameters

The Johnson-Cook model, i.e., the strain and temperature sensitive plasticity material model, was
used for the computation, which is described as follows:

(1)

where , , , , are input constants; is the effective plastic strain; is the normalized
effective plastic strain rate; , is the melting temperature of materials and
is the environment temperature.

The strain at fracture is expressed as

(2)

where is the ratio of pressure divided by the effective stress: ; are failure
parameters. Fracture occurs when the damage parameter

(3)
reaches the value of 1.
View PDF
The Mie–Grüneisen equation of state was adopted to describe the thermodynamic behavior of
materials at high pressure. The pressure for compressed materials is defined as
Download full issue
(4)

and for expanded materials, is

(5)

where is the intercept of the curve ( is the shock velocity and is the particle
velocity); , , are unitless coefficients of the slope of the curve; is the initial
internal energy per unit volume; is the unitless Grüneisen gamma; a is the first order volume
correction to , and .

For railgun experiments, the slider and rail materials are typically aluminum and copper alloys.
In the computation, the materials for armature and rail are 7075 aluminum and OFHC copper
respectively. Their parameters are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Material parameters of armature and rail.

Parameters 7075 Al OFHC copper

Density/(kg⋅m−3) 2810 8960

E/GPa 71 124

V 0.33 0.34

Specific heat capacity/(J⋅kg−1⋅K−1) 960 383

Tmelt /K 933 1356

A/MPa 369 90

B/MPa 684 292

N 0.73 0.31

c 0.0083 0.025

m 1.7 1.09

D1 0.13 0.54
Parameters 7075 Al OFHC copper
View PDF
D2 0.13 4.0

D3 −1.5 2.0
Download full issue
D4 0.011 0.014

D5 0 1.12

C/(m⋅s−1) 5350 3940

s1 1.34 1.49

s2 0 0

s3 0 0

γ0 2.0 2.0

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Simulation of gouging process

The calculations were accomplished by LS-DYNA using Lagrange algorithm. And the erosion
contact was adopted. The armature was given an initial velocity of 2.0 km/s. It had a parallel
impact with the bulge on the rail. The interaction time of impacting was about 28 µs. Fig. 3 shows
the dynamic contour of Von Mises stress during the impacting process (a longitudinal section
along the gouge was cut out for convenient observation). The stress gradient was remarkable in
the impacting region. The peak value of the Mises stress in the interaction core reached over 700 
MPa and the pressure reached about 7 GPa, which far exceeded the yield strength of the
materials. Therefore, the materials in the interaction core behaved in a fluid-like state. The heat
generated by impact plastic work can raise the local temperature by nearly 300 °C, coupled with
the rise of temperature by joule heating, both aggravated the softening and flow of materials. The
impact between the armature and rail bulge at high speed leads to an instantaneous energy
exchange. Part of the rail bulge was changed into high density and high pressure material flow
and extruded into the rail obliquely. As a result, the local rail material experienced a rapid plastic
deformation and a teardrop shaped gouge with the tip facing upstream was finally formed.
Simultaneously, the other part of the rail bulge was sheared away by the armature, raising up the
rail material to form a gouge lip.
 View PDF

Download full issue

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 3. Mises stress during gouging formation process.

 View PDF
Fig. 4(a) shows the simulated teardrop shaped gouge after impacting is finished. The gouge crater
is 14 mm in length, 5.6 mm in width and 0.5 mm in depth, with a tip pointing to breech and an
Download
arc pointing to muzzle. The simulation results full issue
coincide well with the gouge morphology from
experiment (Fig. 1). The impact created craters in both the guide rail and the slider. But unlike
the rail material, the armature material was less able to withstand a large plastic strain. It showed
the feature of brittle fracture and experienced more damage during the impacting with rail bulge,
as shown in Fig. 4(b).

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 4. Contour of effective plastic strain after impacting is finished: (a) rail; (b) armature.

3.2. Preliminary analysis of gouging influence factors

According to the paragraph above, the parallel impact between armature and rail bulge at high
speed produces high density and high pressure material flow. The material flow is extruded into
the rail obliquely and consequently the gouge is formed. What's more, we need to know how is
the formation of gouging affected by some factors such as the velocity, the materials and others.
In this paper, through parameter studies, the influences of armature velocity, rail bulge size and
rail coating material on gouging were presented and discussed.
The velocity of armature was changed to analyze its effect on gouging by keeping the geometries
of theView PDF
armature and rail unchanged. Results show that, with the increase in armature velocity, the
gouge shape becomes wider and deeper (Fig. 5(a)). The damage area of armature damage area is
also increased. On the contrary, when the armature velocity is decreased to a certain extent,
Download full issue
gouging disappears, and rail galling appears (Fig. 5(b)). It is not difficult to understand that, with
the armature velocity decreasing, the kinetic energy of the material flow is reduced and thus the
material flow's penetration into the rail is also weakened. Fig. 6 shows that the interaction force
between the armature and rail changes with time at different velocities. The interacting force rose
sharply during the time of the armature impacting with the rail bulge, and the interaction force
increased as the velocity of armature increased. The threshold gouging velocity for 7075
aluminum and OFHC copper in our simulation was about 1.4 km/s, which is close to the
experimental results from Persad et al. [19] and Stefani et al. [20]. They reported the gouging
velocities for 7075 aluminum and ETP copper were 1.35 km/s and 1.3 km/s respectively.

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 5. The gouging shapes at different impacting velocities (a) v = 3.0 km/s; (b) v = 1.0 km/s.
 View PDF

Download full issue

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 6. The interaction forces at different impacting velocities.

The armature still had an impact with the rail bulge at a speed of 2.0 km/s. However, the rail
bulge size was changed to analyze its effect on gouging. With the increase in bulge size, a bigger
gouge crater was generated (Fig. 7). Simulations show that the formation of gouging can be
suppressed by controlling the bulge size to a certain extent.

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 7. Size of the gouge crater changing with rail bulge size.

In order to analyze the effect of materials on gouging, a 2 mm thick coating material of the rail
surface was distinguished from the base material (Fig. 2). Three kinds of coating materials
(Table 2) were selected to compare the differences through simulations. In the first group,
gouging was formed on the cartridge brass coating after the armature impacted at the velocity of
2 km/s. However, in the next two groups gouging was not formed on the rail coatings (Fig. 8). For
4340 steel, the reason may be that the coating material was too hard to generate plastic
deformation. By contrast, the armature material was easier to yield and be damaged. And for pure
aluminum, it was too soft to sustain the interaction pressure of the armature and the rail bulge
View PDF
was sheared away by the armature directly. Watt et al. [9] also found that thin aluminum coatings
appeared effectively to prevent gouging in his experiments. However, in fact, the electrical
Download full issue
conductivity and mechanical properties of materials should be considered comprehensively to
select suitable materials for a railgun to prevent gouging.

Table 2. Three kinds of coating materials.

No. Armature Rail base Rail coating

1 7075 Al OFHC copper Cartridge brass

2 7075 Al OFHC copper 4340 steel

3 7075 Al OFHC copper Aluminum

Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 8. The gouging shape affected by different coating materials (a) 4340-steel; (b) aluminum.
4. Conclusion
BasedView PDF
on the rail gouging mechanism and the theory of impact thermodynamics, a 3D thermal
mechanical coupling gouging model was established using finite element method to simulate
and analyze the generation mechanism and evolution
Download full of rail gouging phenomenon. The results
issue
show that the micro-impact between armature and rail surface bulge at a high speed results in
instantaneous energy exchange. High density and high pressure material flow on the contact
surface, obliquely extruded into the rail, promotes the formation of gouging. For any
combination of contact materials, there is a threshold velocity for gouging formation. The
formation of gouging can be suppressed by controlling the rail bulge size within a certain range
and selecting the suitable materials for rail surface coating.

Special issue articles Recommended articles Citing articles (6)

References
[1] H.D. Fair
Guest Editorial: The past, present, and future of electromagnetic launch technology and
the IEEE International EML Symposium
IEEE Trans Magn, 41 (1) (2013), pp. 1024-1027
CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[2] S. Bair, R. Cowan, G. Kennedy, R. Neu, M. Siopis, J. Streator, et al.

A survey of railgun research at the Georgia Institute of Technology (USA)
16th International Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology (EML), Beijing
(2012)
Google Scholar

[3] Li J., Cao R., L. Shizhong

The development of EML technology in China
IEEE Trans Plasma Sci, 41 (5) (2013), pp. 1029-1033
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[4] Peng X., Zhan Z., Li Z.

Experimental study of railgun aluminum armature electrical contact ablation
Int J Appl Electrom, 46 (3) (2014), pp. 511-518
CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[5] Chen L.X., He J.J., Xiao Z., Xia S.G., Feng D., Tang L.L.
Experimental study of armature melt wear in solid armature railgun
IEEE Trans Plasma Sci, 43 (5) (2015), pp. 1142-1146
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar
[6] K.F. Graff, B.B. Dettloff
The gouging phenomenon between metal surfaces at very high sliding speeds
View PDF
Wear, 14 (2) (1969), pp. 87-97
Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar
Download full issue
[7] T. Wolfe, W. Spiegelberg, M. Evangelist
Exploratory metallurgical evaluation of worn rails from a 90 mm electromagnetic railgun
IEEE Trans Magn, 31 (1) (1995), pp. 770-775
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[8] J.D. Cinnamon

Hypervelocity gouging impacts
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston (2009)
Google Scholar

[9] T.J. Watt, C.E. Clay, P.M. Bassett, et al.

The effect of surface indentations on gouging in railguns
Wear, 310 (1–2) (2014), pp. 41-50
Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[10] L.M. Barker, T.G. Trucano, A.R. Susoeff

Gun barrel gouging by sliding metal contact at very high velocities
IEEE Trans Magn, 1 (25) (1989), pp. 83-87
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[11] D.L. Bourell, C. Persad

Simulation of railgun gouging
IEEE Trans Magn, 35 (1) (1999), pp. 274-276
CrossRef Google Scholar

[12] L.M. Barker, T.G. Trucano, A.R. Susoeff

Railgun rail gouging by hypervelocity sliding contact
IEEE Trans Magn, 25 (1) (1989), pp. 83-87
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[13] T.J. Watt, D.L. Bourell

Sliding instabilities and hypervelocity gouging
IEEE Trans Plasma Sci, 39 (1) (2011), pp. 162-167
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[14] Zhu R.G., Zhang Q., Li Z.Y., Jin L.W., Wang R.L.
Impact physics model and influencing factors of gouging for electromagnetic rail
launcher
 17th International Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology (EML), La Jolla, CA
(2014)
View PDF
Google Scholar

[15] T.T. Jerome, Wei S. Download full issue

Dynamic response of cantilevered rail guns attributed to projectile/gun interaction theory
IEEE Trans Magn, 43 (1) (2007), pp. 207-213
Google Scholar

[16] G.S. Rickerd, A.N. Palazotto, J.D. Cinnamon

Investigation of a simplified hypervelocity gouging model
AIAA 2005_2355
(2005)
Google Scholar

[17] A.J. Johnson, F.C. Moon

Elastic waves and solid armature contact pressure in electromagnetic launchers
IEEE Trans Magn, 42 (3) (2006), pp. 422-429
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[18] K. Daneshjoo, M. Rahimzadeh, R. Ahmadi, M. Ghassemi

Dynamic response and armature critical velocity studies in an electromagnetic railgun
IEEE Trans Magn, 43 (1) (2007), pp. 126-131
CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[19] C. Persad, G. Prabhu, G. White, A. Yeoh, Z. Eliezer

Characterization of hypervelocity gouge craters in rail conductors
IEEE Trans Magn, 33 (1) (1997), pp. 401-405
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

[20] F. Stefani, J.V. Parker

Experiments to measure gouging threshold velocity for various metals against copper
IEEE Trans Magn, 35 (1) (1999), pp. 312-316
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar

Peer review under responsibility of China Ordnance Society.

Copyright © 2016 China Ordnance Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

About ScienceDirect
 About ScienceDirect

Remote access
View PDF

Shopping cart
Download full issue
Advertise

Contact and support

Terms and conditions

Privacy policy

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.
ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.