International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

Penetration of concrete targets with

deceleration-time measurements
M.J. Forrestal, D.J. Frew*, J.P. Hickerson, T.A. Rohwer
Sandia National Laboratories, Department 15414, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1174, USA
Received 7 January 2002; received in revised form 4 September 2002

Abstract

We conducted two sets of penetration experiments with concrete targets that had average compressive
strengths of 23 and 39 MPa (3.3 and 5.7 ksi). The 76.2-mm-diameter, 530-mm-long, ogive-nose projectiles
were machined from 4340 RC45 steel and designed to contain a single-channel acceleration data recorder.
Thus, we recorded acceleration during launch and deceleration during penetration. An 83-mm-diameter
powder gun launched the 13 kg projectiles to striking velocities between 140 and 460 m/s. Measured
penetration depths and deceleration-time data were analyzed with a previously published model. In
addition, we compared the results of this study with results obtained from smaller diameter projectiles and
this comparison suggested a projectile diameter scale effect.
r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Penetration; Concrete targets; Deceleration-time measurements

1. Introduction

Our penetration technology program attempts to provide a fundamental understanding of the

penetration processes for concrete and geological targets. The responses of projectiles and targets
depend strongly on geometries, materials, and impact conditions. For our current applications
with concrete [1–3] and rock [4] targets, the projectiles lost small amounts of mass through
abrasion and experienced relatively small deformations. Therefore, rigid-body deceleration data
provide a measure for net force on the projectile nose during the penetration event. However,
most experimental studies [1–7] only provide penetration depth versus striking velocity data, and
deceleration data are limited. Forrestal and Luk [8] reported deceleration data for six experiments

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-505-844-7371; fax: 1-505-845-9319.

E-mail address: difrew@sandia.gov (D.J. Frew).

0734-743X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 7 3 4 - 7 4 3 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 0 8 - 2
480 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

into soil targets with peak rigid-body decelerations of about 1200 G. For the penetration tests
reported in this study with more resistant concrete targets, we report peak rigid-body
decelerations between 6000 and 13,000 G.
In this study, we conducted penetration experiments that had a single-channel acceleration data
recorder [9] structurally mounted within the projectiles. Thus, we were able to record launch
accelerations in the bore of the gun and deceleration during the penetration event. An 83-mm-
diameter powder gun launched 13 kg, 76.2-mm-diameter projectiles to striking velocities between
140 and 460 m/s. By contrast, our previous experiments with concrete targets used projectiles with
masses and diameters between 0.064 and 1.62 kg and 13 and 30 mm, respectively. While the
projectiles used in this study were large enough to carry a data recorder that measured
deceleration during penetration, the 83-mm-diameter powder gun could only launch these
projectiles to about 500 m/s. The previous studies [1–3] with smaller projectiles focused on larger
striking velocities that were between 400 and 1200 m/s.
We present data for two sets of penetration experiments with concrete targets that had average
compressive strengths of 23 and 39 MPa (3.3 and 5.7 ksi). Measured penetration depths and
deceleration-time data were analyzed with a previously published model [1,4]. When we compared
results from this study with results obtained with smaller diameter projectiles [1–3], this
comparison suggested a projectile diameter scale effect. This diameter scale effect is not included
in our penetration model [1–3], so we now conclude that the equations given in [1,4] can be used to
analyze data sets, but predictions beyond those ranges with data can be very inaccurate.
In the next sections, we discuss our concrete model and present penetration equations that
neglect target inertial effects. We then discuss the concrete mix design and physical properties for
the targets. Next, we present the penetration data and show that target inertial effects are very
small. Finally, we conclude with a discussion about this study.

2. Concrete penetration models

In this section, we review our penetration models [1,4], change some definitions, and present
additional equations that identify clearly the dominant parameters for this study. The penetration
equations were guided by cavity-expansion analyses [8,10] and post-test observations. For both
concrete [1–3] and limestone [4] targets, post-test target observations showed a conical entry crater
with a depth of two or more projectile diameters followed by a circular channel or tunnel.
Deceleration data in [8] and this study show a rise during the crater region followed by a nearly
flat or decaying pulse during the tunnel region. So we take force on the projectile nose to be of the
form [1,4]
F ¼ cz; 0ozo4a; ð1aÞ

F ¼ pa2 ðR þ NrV 2 Þ; 4aozoP; ð1bÞ

8c  1
N¼ ; ð1cÞ
24c2
where z is current penetration depth and P is the final penetration depth. The projectile has
diameter 2a; mass m; and caliber-radius-head c; and the target is described by density r and the
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 481

target resistance parameter R: In Eq. (1a) that describes the crater phase, c is a constant
determined from the analysis [1]; and in Eq. (1b) that describes the tunnel phase, V is rigid-body
projectile velocity. From [1,4], final depth of penetration P for an ogive-nose projectile and a
concrete target is given by
 
m NrV12
P¼ ln 1 þ þ 4a; P > 4a; ð2aÞ
2pa2 rN R

pa mVs2  4pa3 R
c¼ ðR þ NrV12 Þ; V12 ¼ ð2bÞ
4 m þ 4pa3 Nr
in which V1 is the rigid-body projectile velocity when the crater phase starts at z ¼ 4a; and Vs is
the striking velocity. The target strength parameter is given by
NrV 2
R¼   s2
3
 : ð3Þ
4pa Nr 2pa ðP  4aÞNr
1þ exp 1
m m
As discussed in [1–4], the target resistance parameter is obtained from penetration data. For a set
of experiments, we hold all parameters constant and vary striking velocity. From each experiment,
we measure striking velocity Vs and penetration depth P; so R can be determined from Eq. (3) for
each experiment. We then take the average value of R from the data set and compare predictions
from Eq. (2) with the measured values of Vs and P:
In our previous studies with concrete targets, we defined the target strength parameter as
R ¼ Sfc0 where S is a dimensionless constant and fc0 is the unconfined compressive strength.
However, we were later informed by several of our colleagues that in the concrete literature fc0 has
strict specifications [11]. By contrast, we [1–3] used fc0 to imply the compressive target strength at
about the shot time. In addition, compressive strength of concrete can depend on specimen
geometry and cure time. As discussed by Farmer [12] and Frew et al. [13], unconfined strength of
rock samples depends on the sample geometry. Thus, Farmer [12] concludes that unconfined
compressive strength is an index that depends on sample size rather than a material property.
Thus, we now prefer to use R rather than Sfc0 as the measure of target resistance.
For this study, we present depth of penetration and deceleration-time data. Once the target
strength parameter R is determined, we can calculate penetration position, rigid-body velocity,
and deceleration versus time with the equations given in [1] by using R ¼ Sfc0 : In addition, we now
repeat this analytical procedure by setting the inertial term in Eq. (1b) equal to zero. Thus, we can
show that the strength term and not the inertial term dominates the penetration process for the
data given in this study where striking velocities are limited to Vs ¼ 460 M/s. For this case with
r ¼ 0; force on the projectile nose is given by
F ¼ cz; 0ozo4a; ð4aÞ

F ¼ pa2 R; 4aozoP: ð4bÞ

Deceleration versus time is
dV
¼ oVs sin ot; 0ozo4a; ð5aÞ
dt
482 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

dV pa2 R
¼ ; 4aozoP: ð5bÞ
dt m
Rigid-body velocity versus time is
V ¼ Vs cos ot; 0ozo4a; ð6aÞ

pa2 R
V ¼ V1  ðt  t1 Þ; 4aozoP: ð6bÞ
m
Position versus time is
Vs
z¼ sin ot; 0ozo4a; ð7aÞ
o
 
pa2 Rt1 pa2 R 2
z ¼ 4a þ V1 þ ðt  t1 Þ  ðt  t21 Þ; 4aozoP: ð7bÞ
m 2m
Final penetration depth is given by
mVs2
P¼ þ 2a: ð8Þ
2pa2 R
In these equations,
o2 ¼ c=m; c ¼ paR=4; ð9aÞ

cos1 ðV1 =Vs Þ

t1 ¼ ; ð9bÞ
ðpaR=4mÞ1=2
4pa3 R
V12 ¼ Vs2  : ð9cÞ
m
These equations neglect the inertial term in Eq. (1b). We later show that the strength term
dominates the penetration responses for the parameters investigated in this study.

3. Concrete mix designs and physical properties

We performed penetration experiments with concrete targets that had average compressive
strengths of 23 and 39 MPa. The 23 MPa concrete used a granite aggregate, and the 39 MPa
concrete used a limestone aggregate. Both aggregates had a maximum diameter of 9.5 mm.
Table 1 presents the component mass per cubic meter for the mix design.
Targets were cast in corrugated steel culverts with a diameter of 1.83 m. At the same time, 600-
mm-diameter, 460-mm-long cylinders were cast in steel drums for the material properties tests.
Table 2 presents physical properties for the two concretes. Unconfined compressive strengths were
obtained from 50.8-mm-diameter, 114-mm-long samples that were cored from the material in the
steel drums. We tested 20 samples for the lower strength concrete and obtained an average
compressive strength of 23 MPa with a standard deviation of 2.4 MPa. For the higher strength
concrete, we tested 18 samples and obtained an average compressive strength of 39 MPa with a
standard deviation of 5.4 MPa. Samples for compressive strength tests and the targets were
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 483

Table 1
Concrete mix designs for a cubic meter of material
Average strength 23 MPa (3.3 ksi) 39 MPa (5.7 ksi)
3
Cement (Mg/m ) 0.31 0.32
Sand (Mg/m3) 1.53 0.88
Aggregate (Mg/m3) 0.08 0.93
Water (Mg/m3) 0.26 0.18
Water reducer (Mg/m3) 0.0022 0.0023
For the 23 MPa (3.3 ksi) concrete the aggregate was quartz with maximum diameter of 9.5 mm. For the 39 MPa (5.7 ksi)
concrete the aggregate was limestone with maximum diameter of 9.5 mm.

Table 2
Physical properties for the concrete batches
Average strength 23 MPa (3.3 ksi) 39 MPa (5.7 ksi)
3
Wet density (Mg/m ) 2.04 2.25
Dry density (Mg/m3) 1.97 2.19
Grain density (Mg/m3) 2.65 2.65
Water content (%) 3.1 2.6

allowed to cure for at least 140 days. Strength tests and penetration tests occurred between 140
and 460 days after the pours. Thus, we now use the notation scf for the unconfined compressive
strength to denote tests conducted with 50.8-mm-diameter, 114-mm-long samples that had cure
times corresponding to the cure times of the targets. With this definition, we avoid the use of fc0
which has strict specifications [11] in the concrete literature.
In addition to the information presented in this section, Warren et al. [14] conducted quasi-
static, triaxial material tests [12,15] with 50.8-mm-diameter, 114-mm-long samples and developed
concrete constitutive equations for both concrete batches. They developed a continuous surface,
porous material, constitutive model-fit to hydrostatic compression, triaxial compression, and
uniaxial strain data.

4. Penetration experiments

We conducted two sets of penetration experiments into concrete targets with average
compressive strengths of 23 and 39 MPa (3.3 and 5.7 ksi). Targets were cast in corrugated steel
culverts with 1.83-m-diameters. In addition, 600-mm-diameter, 460-mm-long cylinders were cast
in steel drums for material properties tests. The projectiles dimensioned in Fig. 1 were machined
from 4340 RC45 steel, had a nominal mass of 13 kg, and were designed to contain a single-channel
acceleration data recorder [9]. We made five projectiles with a 3.0 caliber-radius-head and three
projectiles with a 6.0 caliber-radius-head. Thus, some projectiles were shot more than once for this
study.
An 83-mm-diameter, smooth-bore powder gun launched the 13 kg projectiles to striking
velocities between 140 and 460 m/s. The projectiles were fitted with sabots and obturators that
484 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

Accelerometer Location
Rad. 3.18 63.50

Dia. 76.2 CG Dia. 80.01

251.46

327.41
530.73

(a) 3.0 CRH Projectile

Accelerometer Location
Rad. 3.18 63.50

Dia. 76.2
CG
Dia. 80.01

239.34

271.04
528.47
(b) 6.0 CRH Projectile
Fig. 1. Projectile geometries and accelerometer locations. Dimensions in mm.

Table 3
Penetration data for the 1.83 m diameter targets with average compressive strength scf ¼ 23 MPa and 3.0 CRH
projectiles
Shot and Projectile Target length Striking Pitch yaw Penetration R (MPa)
projectile mass (kg) (m) velocity (m/s) (degrees) depth (m)
number
SNL-00-06/2 13.043 1.83 139.3 0.3D, 0.2L 0.24 170
SNL-00-03/1 13.037 1.83 200.0 0.0, 0.4L 0.42 161
SNL-00-02/2 13.085 1.22 250.0 0.4D, 0.3R 0.62 158
SNL-00-01/1 13.158 1.22 283.7 0.2U, 0.4L 0.76 160
SNL-00-05/3 13.080 1.83 336.6 0.2D, 0.1R 0.93 179
SNL-00-04/4 13.119 1.83 378.6 0.3U, 0.2R 1.18 171
For pitch and yaw, D ¼down, U ¼up, R ¼right, L ¼left.

separated from the projectiles prior to impact. Photographs from a high-speed, digital framing
camera (Imacon Model 486) showed the launch packages were stripped from the projectiles prior
to impact and these digital photographs were also used to measure pitch and yaw angles. A Hall
Intervalometer System measured striking velocities. Results from the experiment are recorded in
Tables 3–6.
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 485

Table 4
Penetration data for the 1.83 m diameter targets with average compressive strength scf ¼ 23 MPa and 6.0 CRH
projectiles
Shot and Projectile Target length Striking Pitch yaw Penetration R (MPa)
projectile mass (kg) (m) velocity (m/s) (degrees) depth (m)
number
SNL-00-08/2 13.061 1.83 238.4 0.5D, 0.3R 0.58 158
SNL-00-07/1 13.064 1.83 378.6 0.0, 0.6L 1.25 167
For pitch and yaw, D ¼down, U ¼up, R ¼right, L ¼left.

Table 5
Penetration data for the 1.83 m diameter targets with average compressive strength scf ¼ 39 MPa and 3.0 CRH
projectiles
Shot and Projectile Target length Striking Pitch yaw Penetration R (MPa)
projectile mass (kg) (m) velocity (m/s) (degrees) depth (m)
number
SNL-00-11/3 12.923 1.22 238.1 0.1D/0.0 0.30 345
SNL-00-12/4 12.900 1.83 275.7 0.1D/0.4L 0.38 344
SNL-00-09/1 12.910 1.22 314.0 0.2D/0.2R 0.45 362
SNL-00-10/2 12.914 1.22 369.5 3.6U/2.5L 0.53 409
SNL-00-14/5 12.957 1.83 456.4 0.2U/0.2R 0.94 324
For pitch and yaw, D ¼down, U ¼up, R ¼right, L ¼left.

Table 6
Penetration data for the 1.83 m diameter targets with average compressive strength scf ¼ 39 MPa and 6.0 CRH
projectiles
Shot and Projectile Target length Striking Pitch yaw Penetration R (MPa)
projectile mass (kg) (m) velocity (m/s) (degrees) depth (m)
number
SNL-00-15/2 12.873 1.83 312.5 N/A 0.61 248
SNL-00-16/3 12.909 1.83 448.5 0.5U/0.4R 0.99 287
For pitch and yaw, D ¼down, U ¼up, R ¼right, L ¼left.

4.1. Experiments with the scf ¼ 23 MPa (3.3 ksi) targets

The first tests were conducted with the lower strength concrete and the 3.0 caliber-radius-head
projectiles. Table 3 shows a summary of results for six experiments. The first column in Table 3
gives the shot and projectile numbers, where for example, SNL-00-06/2 refers to Sandia National
Laboratories, the year (2000), the shot sequence (the sixth test), and the projectile labeled two,
respectively. Thus, the projectile labeled two was first launched to a striking velocity of 250 m/s,
and then launched a second time to a striking velocity of 139 m/s. For this test series, abrasion on
486 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

1.50

1.25
3.0 CRH Model
3.0 CRH Data
6.0 CRH Model
1.00 6.0 CRH Data
P (m)

0.75

0.50

0.25

Projectile did not

embed in the target
0.00
100 200 300 400
VS(m/s)

Fig. 2. Penetration depth versus striking velocity for the concrete with average compressive strength scf ¼ 23 MPa,
density r ¼ 2:04 Mg/m3, and R ¼ 165 MPa.

10.000

Data
8.000 Model

6.000
Deceleration (G)

4.000

2.000

-2.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ms)

Fig. 3. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–06, scf ¼ 23 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 139 m/s.

the projectile surfaces was negligible, so the shot projectiles were used again without remachining.
The last column in Table 3 records the target resistance parameter R calculated from Eq. (3). Data
for the two tests with the 6.0 caliber-radius-head projectiles are recorded in Table 4.
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 487

7.500

Data
6.000 Model

4.500
Deceleration (G)

3.000

1.500

-1.500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ms)

Fig. 4. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–03, scf ¼ 23 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 200 m/s.

10.000

Data
8.000 Model
Deceleration (G)

6.000

4.000

2.000

-2.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ms)

Fig. 5. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–02, scf ¼ 23 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 250 m/s.

Fig. 2 shows penetration depth versus striking velocity data and model predictions from
Eqs. (2a) and (2b) that used an average value of R ¼ 165 MPa from Table 3. We also present
deceleration-time data and model predictions that use R ¼ 165 MPa in Figs. 3–7 for the 3.0
caliber-radius-head projectiles and in Fig. 8 for a 6.0 caliber-radius-head projectile. Predictions
are from the models presented in [1] with Sfc0 ¼ R: We note that our empirical equations use a
single material parameter R that is obtained from penetration depth versus striking velocity data.
In addition, we point out that the deceleration-time data all rise to a nearly flat plateau with about
the same deceleration magnitude and that only the rise times and pulse durations change
488 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

10.000

Data
8.000 Model

6.000
Deceleration (G)

4.000

2.000

-2.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ms)

Fig. 6. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–05, scf ¼ 23 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 337 m/s.

10.000

Data
8.000 Model
Deceleration (G)

6.000

4.000

2.000

-2.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ms)

Fig. 7. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–04, scf ¼ 23 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 379 m/s.

significantly with increasing striking velocity. The axial force that resists penetration is given by
Eq. (1b) and contains the strength term R and an inertial term. In this study, we present
penetration equations that neglect the inertial term in Eq. (1b), and we can now show that the
penetration process is dominated by the strength term R in Eq. (1b). Fig. 9 shows deceleration
versus time predictions that use R ¼ 165 MPa and include and neglect the inertial term in Eq. (1b)
for the largest striking velocity in this test series. Note that the inertial term has a very small effect
on the deceleration-time predictions. The inertial term will, however, become much more
important for larger striking velocities [5].
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 489

10.000

Data
8.000 Model
Deceleration (G)

6.000

4.000

2.000

-2.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ms)
Fig. 8. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–07, scf ¼ 23 MPa, c ¼ 6:0;
Vs ¼ 379 m/s.

10.000

Without Inertia
8.000 With Inertia

6.000
Deceleration (G)

4.000

2.000

-2.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ms)

Fig. 9. Deceleration versus time model predictions that include and neglect the inertial term in Eq. (1b) for
R ¼ 165 MPa, c ¼ 3:0; Vs ¼ 379 m/s.

4.2. Experiments with the scf ¼ 39 MPa (5.7 ksi) targets

Next, we conducted penetration tests with the higher strength concrete targets. Prior to this test
series, we remachined the projectiles that were already launched into the lower strength concrete
targets. The shank diameters were reduced by 0.25 mm (0.01 in), and the nose length was
shortened by 2.0 mm (0.08 in) in order to recover the ogive shapes. Tables 5 and 6 give a summary
490 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

1.00

3.0 CRH Model

3.0 CRH Data
0.75 6.0 CRH Model
6.0 CRH Data
P (m)

0.50

0.25

Projectile did not

embed in the target

0.00
200 300 400 500
VS (m/s)

Fig. 10. Penetration depth versus striking velocity for the concrete with average compression strength scf ¼ 39 MPa,
density r ¼ 2:25 Mg/m3, and R ¼ 360 MPa.

of results for five tests with 3.0 caliber-radius-head projectiles and two tests with 6.0 caliber-
radius-head projectiles. The explanations given previously for Tables 3 and 4 also apply to Tables
5 and 6.
Fig. 10 shows penetration depth versus striking velocity data and model predictions from
Eq. (2a) and (2b) that use an average value of R ¼ 360 MPa from Table 5. Note that for the two
tests with the lowest striking velocities, the projectiles were not embedded in the targets. More
detailed discussions on the striking velocity required to embed a projectile in a target are given by
Forrestal and Hanchak [16]. We also present deceleration-time data and model predictions in
Figs. 11–15 for the 3.0 caliber-radius-head projectiles and in Figs. 16 and 17 for the 6.0 caliber-
radius-head projectiles. In contrast with the deceleration-time data for the scf ¼ 23 MPa (3.3 ksi)
targets, deceleration-time data for the scf ¼ 39 MPa (5.7 ksi) targets show larger amplitude,
structural vibrations superimposed on the rigid-body responses. For most cases, the model
predictions are in good agreement with the rigid-body responses for the rise times and peak
plateau responses. However, the model predictions deviate from the data towards the end of the
penetration events.
Fig. 18 shows deceleration-time predictions that include and neglect the inertial term in Eq. (1b)
for the largest striking velocity in this test series with the scf ¼ 39 MPa (5.7 ksi) concrete. Again,
for this striking velocity range, the strength term dominates the penetration process.
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 491

20.000

Data
Model
Deceleration (G) 15.000

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 11. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–11, scf ¼ 39 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 238 m/s.

20.000

Data
15.000 Model
Deceleration (G)

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 12. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–12, scf ¼ 39 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 276 m/s.

5. Deceleration-time measurements

As previously discussed, most experimental studies on penetration are limited to final

penetration depth versus striking velocity data. However, for this study, we conducted penetration
experiments that had a single-channel acceleration data recorder [9] structurally mounted within
the projectiles. Rohwer [9] describes the development and operation of the single-channel
acceleration data recorder called MilliPen. The MilliPen acceleration recorder is designed to
digitize and record accelerations during launch and deceleration during penetration. After the
penetration event, the projectile is recovered from the target and the recorded digital data is
retrieved. Since the projectiles lost small amounts of mass through abrasion and experienced
492 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

20.000

Data
Deceleration (G) 15.000 Model

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 13. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–09, scf ¼ 39 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 314 m/s.

20.000

Data
15.000 Model
Deceleration (G)

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 14. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–10, scf ¼ 39 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 370 m/s.

relatively small deformation, rigid-body deceleration data provide a time-resolved measure for net
axial force on the projectile during the penetration events. These deceleration-time data represent
the major contribution of this study, so we now discuss the accuracy of these measurements.
The sensor chosen for the MilliPen design is the Endenco 7270A accelerometer [17]. This
piezoresistive accelerometer has been proven accurate through many independent shock
measurement experiments [18]. However, to add confidence to the accuracy of the penetration
data taken with the MilliPen recorder, we perform integrations of the deceleration-time data to
obtain striking velocity and final penetration depth. Thus, we can compare striking velocities
measured with the Hall Intervalometer System and an integration of the deceleration-time data,
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 493

20.000

Data
Deceleration (G) 15.000 Model

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 15. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–14, scf ¼ 39 MPa, c ¼ 3:0;
Vs ¼ 456 m/s.

20.000

Data
15.000 Model
Deceleration (G)

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 16. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–15, scf ¼ 39 MPa, c ¼ 6:0;
Vs ¼ 313 m/s.

and we can compare final penetration depth with a double integration of the deceleration-time
data.
Fig. 19 shows single and double integrations of deceleration versus time for penetration
experiment SNL-00-02 given in Table 3. These integrations calculate a striking velocity of
Vsc ¼ 263 m/s and penetration depth of Pc ¼ 0:62 m; whereas, the data in Table 3 give
Vs ¼ 250 m/s and P ¼ 0:62: These integrations show good agreement with independent
measurements. Tables 7 and 8 show comparisons of the values of striking velocity and
penetration depth calculated from integrations of the deceleration-time data and those recorded in
Tables 3–6. In Tables 7 and 8, Vs and P refer to the value from Tables 3–6; whereas, Vsc and Pc
refer to value obtained from integrations.
494 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

20.000

Data
Deceleration (G) 15.000 Model

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 17. Deceleration versus time data and model prediction. Shot Number SNL-00–16, scf ¼ 39 MPa, c ¼ 6:0;
Vs ¼ 449 m/s.

20.000

Without Inertia
15.000 With Inertia
Deceleration (G)

10.000

5.000

-5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 18. Deceleration versus time model prediction that include and neglect the inertial term in Eq. (1b) for
R ¼ 360 MPa, c ¼ 3:0; Vs ¼ 456 m/s.

6. Discussion

We conducted two sets of penetration experiments with concrete targets that had average
compressive strengths of 23 and 39 MPa (3.3 and 5.7 ksi). The 76.2-mm-diameter, 13 kg projectiles
were machined from 4340 RC 45 steel and designed to contain a single-channel acceleration data
recorder [9]. Thus, we recorded acceleration during launch and deceleration during penetration
for striking velocities between 140 and 460 m/s. Measured penetration depths and deceleration-
time data were analyzed with a previously published model [1,4]. This model contains a single
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 495

300 1

240 Velocity 0.8

Displacement

Displacement (m)
Velocity (m/s)

180 0.6

120 0.4

60 0.2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

Fig. 19. Velocity versus time and displacement versus time calculated from Shot Number SNL-00-02 in Table 3.

Table 7
Measured value of striking velocity Vs and penetration depth P given in Tables 3 and 4
Shot number Vs (m/s) Vsc P (m) Pc (m)
SNL-00-06 139 149 0.24 0.25
SNL-00-03 200 213 0.42 0.45
SNL-00-02 250 263 0.62 0.62
SNL-00-01 284 N/A 0.76 N/A
SNL-00-05 337 340 0.93 0.95
SNL-00-04 379 389 1.18 1.14
SNL-00-08 238 N/A 0.58 N/A
SNL-00-07 379 390 1.25 1.25
Calculated values of striking velocity Vsc and penetration depth Pc from an integration of the deceleration versus time
data.

Table 8
Measured value of striking velocity Vs and penetration depth P given in Tables 5 and 6
Shot number Vs (m/s) Vsc (m/s) P (m) Pc (m)
SNL-00-11 238 259 0.30 0.34
SNL-00-12 276 294 0.38 0.40
SNL-00-09 314 333 0.45 0.48
SNL-00-10 370 367 0.53 0.57
SNL-00-14 456 478 0.94 0.98
SNL-00-15 313 328 0.61 0.62
SNL-00-16 449 464 0.99 1.02
Calculated values of striking velocity Vsc and penetration depth Pc from an integration of the deceleration versus time
data.
496 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497

parameter called target resistance R; and R is determined from penetration depth versus striking
velocity data. While this methodology provides a convenient procedure for data analysis, the
detailed material response mechanisms for the target are not modeled. Once R was determined, we
compared predictions from [1,4] with the measured deceleration-time data. For the scf ¼ 23 MPa
targets, deceleration predictions are in very good agreement with measurements. For the
scf ¼ 39 MPa targets, deceleration predictions are in good agreement with rigid-body deceleration
measurements for the rise times and peak plateau responses. However, model predictions for the
larger strength concrete targets deviate from the data towards the end of the penetration events.
Our previous experiments with concrete [1–3] targets used much smaller projectiles, focused on
larger striking velocities, and were limited to depth versus striking velocity data. Previous concrete
experiments used projectiles with diameters and masses between 13 and 30 mm and 0.064 and
1.62 kg, respectively. For this study the projectiles had a diameter of 76.2 mm and a mass of 13 kg.
In addition, the smaller projectiles were launched to striking velocities between 400 and 1200 m/s;
whereas, the 13 kg projectiles were launched to striking velocities between 140 and 460 m/s. The
projectiles used in this study were large enough to carry a data recorder that measured
deceleration during penetration. However, the 83-mm-diameter powder gun could only launch
these 13 kg projectiles to striking velocities of about 500 m/s.
With these differences between the parameters in previous studies and this work, we noted
significant differences between the target resistance parameter R calculated from these
experimental data sets in this study with scf ¼ 23 and 39 MPa and an R predicted from Eq. (3).
The equation in [3] predicts R ¼ 360 and 460 for the scf ¼ 23 and 39 MPa concrete targets based
on data from smaller projectiles. However, we calculate R ¼ 165 and 360 for the 76.2-mm-
diameter, 13 kg projectiles used in this study. Thus, these new data suggest a diameter scale effect
that is not taken into account in our concrete penetration equations [1–3].
We now conclude that the penetration equations given in [1–4] can be used to analyze data sets,
but predictions beyond those ranges with data can be very inaccurate.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the United States Department of Energy and the Joint DoD/DOE
Munitions Technology Development Program. Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by
Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. These experiments were conducted at the Structures and
Geotechnical Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways
Experiment Station (ERDC-WES), Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199. D.J. Frew was employed by
ERDC-WES as a Research Engineer during the time of this study.

References

[1] Forrestal MJ, Altman BS, Cargile JD, Hanchak SJ. An empirical equation for penetration depth of ogive-nose
projectiles into concrete targets. Int J Impact Eng 1994;15:395–405.
[2] Forrestal MJ, Frew DJ, Hanchak SJ, Brar NS. Penetration of grout and concrete targets with ogive-nose steel
projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 1996;18:465–76.
 M.J. Forrestal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 479–497 497

[3] Frew DJ, Hanchak SJ, Green ML, Forrestal MJ. Penetration of concrete targets with ogive-nose steel rods. Int
J Impact Eng 1998;21:489–97.
[4] Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Hanchak SJ. Penetration experiments with limestone targets and ogive-nose steel
projectiles. ASME J Appl Mech 2000;67:841–5.
[5] Piekutowski AJ, Forrestal MJ, Poormon KL, Warren TL. Penetration of 6061-T651 aluminum targets by ogive-
nose steel projectiles with striking velocities between 0.5 and 3.0 km/s. Int J Impact Eng 1999;23:723–34.
[6] Forrestal MJ, Piekutowski AJ. Penetration experiments with 6061-T6511 aluminum targets and spherical-nose
steel projectiles at striking velocities between 0.5 and 3.0 km/s. Int J Impact Eng 2000;24:57–67.
[7] Gomez JT, Shukla A. Multiple impact penetration of semi-infinite concrete. Int J Impact Eng 2001;25:965–76.
[8] Forrestal MJ, Luk VK. Penetration into soil targets. Int J Impact Eng 1992;12:427–44.
[9] Rohwer TA. Miniature, single channel, memory-based, high-G acceleration recorder (MilliPen). Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185:SAND99-1392C, 1999.
[10] Forrestal MJ, Okajima K, Luk VK. Penetration of 6061-T651 aluminum targets with rigid long rods. ASME
J Appl Mech 1988;55:755–60.
[11] American Concrete Institute. ACI manual of concrete inspection. Publication SP-2(92), 1992. p. 8–22 [Chapter 2].
[12] Farmer I. Engineering behavior of rocks. New York: NY: Chapman & Hall, 1983 [Chapter 1].
[13] Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W. A split Hopkinson pressure bar technique to determine compressive stress–strain
data for rock materials. Exp Mech 2001;41:40–6.
[14] Warren TL, Fossum AF, Frew DJ. Penetration into low strength (23 MPa) concrete: characterization and
simulations, submitted for publication.
[15] Fossum AF, Senseny PE, Pfeifle TW, Mellegard KD. Experimental determination of probability distributions for
parameters of a salem limestone cap plasticity model. Mech Mater 1995;21:119–37.
[16] Forrestal MJ, Hanchak SJ. Penetration limit velocity for ogive-nose projectiles and limestone targets. ASME
J Appl Mech, in press.
[17] Endenco General Catalog. Piezoresistive accelerometer model 7270A, 60 K. 30700 Rancho Viego Road, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675, 1997.
[18] Forrestal MJ, Togami TC, Baker WE, Frew DJ. Performance evaluation of accelerometers used for penetration
experiments. Exp Mech, in press.