DE83 009171

UCRL-53150
Distribution Category UC-4S

:Final Report on a Study of

Premature Explosions in
Artillery Projectiles Filled
with Composition-B
S. Sadik

Manuscript date: January 12, 1983

LA WRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORYa,L

University of California • Livermore, California • 94550

Available from: National Technical Information Service. U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 P Jrt Royal Road • Springfield, VA 22161
REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
US. DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE
SPRINGfiELD, VA. 22161
 DISCUI\UR

This documenl "as prepared as an al'l'ounl of "orl. 'PllnsoH'd h~ an al(enc., of Ihe l nill'd SIal .., (;oHrnmenl,
"eilher Ihe 1 nilI'd Slales (;o'ernment nor Ihe I ni'er,il~ of California nor an~ of their emplo\l'es, mal.cs
an~' "arranl~, npres, or implied, or assume' an,' 11'1(111 liabilit' or re,pon,ibilit~ for the aecurac" l'om-
plelt'nt'ss, or usefulne" of an~ information, apparatus, product, or process di,clowd, or H'prewnl, thaI iI,
use "ould not infring~ prhalel~ o"ned righh. Reference hl'rein to an~ Wecific commercial products, process,
or "'nice b~ I~rade name, Irademark, manufacturer, Or other"i,e, dOl" l1ut l1en'"aril~ constilule or imp" its
endorsemenl, rt'commendalion, or fa'orinl( b~ Ihl' 1 nitI'd Slates (;o,ernmenl or Ihe 1 ni\e"il~ of California.
The ,iI'''' and opinions of aUlhors e'pre"ed herein do nol nl'l'l'"aril~ 'Iale or H·necl Iho,e of Ihe I nilI'd
Stales (;o\rrnmenf Ihereof, and ,.,hall nol he used for ad'l'rlisinl( or prudUl'I endor"'ment purposes.

Work performed under Ihe auo,pins of the I' ,S, Dl'partmenl of Fnerg~ b~ La" rence I.;' ermort' "ational
Laboralor) under ('onlral'l w- 740S. Enl(-411.
 Contents
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iv
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
Section 1. Introduction..................................................................... 2
Section 2. Background..................................................................... 4
Section 3. Bubble Collapse Mechanism: Significance of Interface Voids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
Section 4. Structural Analysis of the M437 (175 mm) Shell ..................................... 16
Section 5. Premature Ignition Mechanisms, Current Perspective, and Future Studies ............... 40
Projectile Sensitivity .................................................................... 40
Chemical Behavior ...................................................................... 40
Thermal and Mechanical Behavior ........................................................ 41
Ignition through Hysteretic Heating and Friction ........................................... 41
Cracks and Structural Response .......................................................... 47
Naval Surface Weapons Center Simulator Tests ............................................ 48
Heat Transfer and Gun Prematures ....................................................... 53
Summary .............................................................................. 54
Research Activities: Ignition .......................................................... 54
Research and Development Activities: Mechanical Properties
and Modeling with Improved Properties .............................................. 55
Product Improvement Program Activities .............................................. 55
Section 6. Mechanical Properties Characterization ............................................. 56
Section 7. Structural Calculations of M549 .................................................... 65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

iii

Preceding page blank

 Acknowledgments
It is my hope that the work performed on this program will form part of the basis for the develop-
ment of high-performance artillery projectiles with reduced sensitivity. During the first portion of this
program, I had the privilege of working with Mr. David Humphrey (now emplo:,red by Phillips Petro-
leum). Mr. Humphrey and I collaborated on many phases of the program, espedally the prediction of
projectile in-bore dynamics; his contributions were invaluable. I would also like to thank those individuals
at ARRADCOM and ARRCOM who participated in a spirited way in the overall Composition-B Improve-
ment Program. They included L. R. Ambrosini, S. Kaplowitz, J. Hershkowitz, A. Popolato, Boyd Taylor,
W. Voreck, Don Weigand, and L. R. Rothstein.

iv
 Final Report on a Study of
Premature Explosions in
Artillery Projectiles Filled
with Composition-B

Abstract
Concern about premature explosions in artillery shells has increased with the advent
of high-performance ballistic characteristics and the use of Composition-B as the high-
explosive fill. Increasing ballistic performance places artillery shells under greater loads
which, in turn, affects the structural response of the system and the rate at which prema-
ture explosions occur. The detailed structural response of the high-explosive during gun
launch is controlled by a number of parameters, including nominal load conditions, ab-
normal load conditions, interface conditions (bonded or unbonded high explosive-case
interface), presence of base gaps, presence of interface voids, incomplete fills, and a rela-
tively complicated (and important) array of thermomechanical properties. The structural
response, in turn, determines if energy dissipation can be concentrated in small regions
which will then tend to sensitize the system. Our effort in expanding the state of the art in
artillery shell structural dynamics and its effects on premature explosions is described.
We present results of calculations on the macroscopic state of stress and motion in
various projectiles. The artillery projectiles studied included the M437 (175 mm), M549
(155 mm), M107 (155 mm), and M795 (155 mm). The effect of conditions at the high
explosive-steel case interface (unbonded and bonded) were examined to determine the
gains derivable from bonding this interface. These dynamic simulations included a de-
tailed examination of the effects of Coulomb friction for both normal and abnormal load-
ing conditions. In addition, the effects of erratic propellant burns, environmental con-
ditioning, and various aspects of gun launch loads are presented. It is shown that
structural response is strongly affected by whether or not the projectile has a rocket-
assisted configuration.
The general area of mechanisms for premature artillery explosions is given consider-
able attention. A unique interaction between a hot cannon and small casting voids near
the case-explosive interface is discussed. This ignition theory is examined in light of ex-
periments performed at U.s. Army Research and Development Command (ARRADCOM)
Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL). These interactions are observed to have a common
phenomenology. Calculations illustrating the phenomenology are presented. How hyster-
etic processes (heal generation through explosive deformation) lead to viscous friction heat
generation is discussed, as are other aspects of hysteretic processes. We also deal with the
general role of thermomechanical properties in inadvertent ignitions, illustrating it with
calculated results. Many questions concerning premature explosions remain. Information
derived from the current study provides guidelines for future investigation of the nature
of artillery projectile prematures and minimization of their occurrence.

1
 Section 1.
In-bore prematures are explosions that occur
in an artillery cannon barrel. They are generally
the consequence of events occurring during accel-
eration of the artillery shell by a propellant
charge. In-bore prematures rarely occur, and 1/106
is considered an acceptable frequency. In-bore
detonations resulting from fuze malfunctions
have from time to time been a factor. 1 These
events result in signatures, which are readily dis-
cerned as detonations, as opposed to launch-
inspired prematures, which are characterized as
pressure bursts. At the current time, fuze malfunc-
tions are not considered a factor in whether or
how Composition-B is employed as high explo-
sive fill. Mechanically inspired in-bore prematures
are generally thought to result from a rapid def-
lagration process which culminated in a pressure
burst. Two factors that have affected the statistics
of prematures in the most recent large-scale use of
large-caliber artillery projectiles have been the use
of Composition-B and the development of
extended-range, high-ballistic-performance pro-
pelling charges.
The explosive trinitrotoluene (TNT) is the
high explosive most commonly used by the U.s.
Army. The performance of Composition-B is sub-
stantially greater than that of TNT and much in-
centive exists to employ Composition-B as the
universal explosive. However, premature rates
with Composition-B have been higher than with
TNT in similar systems, i.e., as common shell and
propelling charges. Furthermore there is concern
that high-performance artillery shells, i.e., shells
with long-range and high exit velocities, filled
with Composition-B using current casting tech-
nology, will be subject to intolerable premature
rates. Systems under development tend to inten-
sify the problem since they uniformly move in the
direction of greater exit velocity and increased
launch accelerations. Consequently, it is desirable
to decrease the system sensitivity in order for
Composition-B to be utilized in current and future
high-performance systems.
The U.s. Army ARRADCOM Composition-B
ImprovemeDt Program is a direct response to
the challenge of developing high-ballistic-
performance artillery shells utilizing
Composition-B-type fills with required low-
sensitivity levels. This program is being per-
formed at the U.s. (ARRADCOM) facilities and is
funded by the U.s. Army Material Readiness
Command (ARRCOM) because it is a product im-
provement program.
2
In trod uction
The United Kingdom currently manufactures
a high-ballistic-performance ISS-mm artillery
round designated the L-IS, which utilizes a modi-
fied Composition-B fill and new processing tech-
niques. The ARRADCOM program employs cer-
tain features of the L-IS round. The
Composition-B Improvement Program is thus not
a research program, but rather a goal-oriented en-
gineering effort. The basic goals of the effort are
to decrease system sensitivity by improving the
cast high-explosive (Composition-B) fill. This is
accomplished by the following procedures:
• Controlled cooling, a process minimizing
the consequences of the large-density changes
TNT undergoes on passing through the solid-
liquid phase transition.
• Bonding Composition-B fill to the steel
case.
• Incorporating plasticizers that allow the
fill to cycle temperature with a minimum of
cracking.
The Composition-B Improvement Program is
dedicated primarily to the development of a new
filling technology. However, the program includes
more fundamental activities potentially able to af-
fect decisions on new technology. These activities
center around the following goals:
• Identifying the mechanisms that lead to
pre matures during launch.
• Understanding and predicting premature
statistics for new systems.
• Developing a new Composition-B for-
mulation and filling technology that will meet the
requirements on premature rates.
• Developing a battery of sensitivity tests
appropriate to the in-bore environment, which
will allow a scientific decision on the choice of
form ula tion.
• Determining the thermomechanical con-
ditions within the high-explosive fill under a vari-
ety of environments, and assessing the influence
of these conditions on prematures.
Our role in this program has been to perform
computer simulations relating to the in-bore envi-
ronment. To this end, computer simulations of
structural and heat-transfer response have been
performed with emphasis on the former. The re-
sponses of various shells have been studied when
the shells are subjected to their maximum proba-
ble loads.
These studies have been performed under
varying conditions of interface bonds and have in-
cluded the total projectile environment. Abnormal
loading conditions bave been examined as well.
The major study in this regard involves behavior
during a recorded erratic propellant burn. The ef-
fects of typical defects have been simulated and
analyzed. Also, considerable attention has been
focused on understanding the mechanisms of
prematures. Compuh~r simulations have helped to
3
shed light on this area. Apart from computer
simulations, the phenomenology of ignition as it
relates to the in-bore environment has been exam-
ined. The results of these considerations are a ra-
tionale describing the paths to ignition, and plans
for quantifying these specific paths through ex-
perimentation and computer simulation.
 Section 2.
Premature explosions are a problem as old as
the development of explosive-filled shells. Nu-
merous studies relating to this problem have been
performed in the past. Reference 1 is a relatively
comprehensive treatment on the state of
prematures as of 1975. Although the study was
performed by the U.s. Navy, this reference also
covers the experience of the Army. To my knowl-
edge, it is still the most complete reference of
background information on prematures in the
u.s. military; additional reference sources are pro-
vided in the references for this report. These in-
clude sources from military laboratories and
publications from the open literature.
In Chapter 8 of Ref. 2 is a partial summary of
research on fast decomposition of azides (a pri-
mary explosive) and a synopsis. Since it deals
with readily initiated primary explosives, it pro-
vides a starting point for studying fast decomposi-
tion in secondary explosives. Reference 3 contains
additional material on ignition mechanisms for
azides.
Reference 4 contains much phenomenologi-
cal information that agrees with my own concepts
of the events leading to ignitions. Together these
references provide a picture of the significance of
prematures and the general conditions that are
thought to be implicated.
The major factors controlling prematures are
not well understood. What is almost universally
certain, however, is that the problem will become
more prominent in the future because of increas-
ing launch loads.
The impetus of cannon and propellant devel-
opment is toward greater ballistic performance,
which is translated into a more severe environ-
ment for the high-explosive fill. As ballistic per-
formance is improved and the associated launch
loads increase, the possibility of reaching a
threshold sensitivity level with a corresponding
increase in premature rates is possible. As these
high-ballistic-performance systems are developed,
improvements in the high-explosive fill may also
be required to offset the effect of higher loads.
The only major high-performance system for
which premature statistics exist is the M437-a
175-mm projectile. The M437 premature statistics
show a dramatic rise as the firing zone is raised
from Zone 2 to the highest firing zone, Zone 3.
This projectile experiences 17 000 gs acceleration
and has had a premature rate estimated near
1/40 000 at Zone 3. All M437s were filled with
Composition-B.
4
Background
The technology for filling artillery shells is
based on casting. Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is the
primary castable secondary explosive, and
all castable formulations are based on it.
Composition-B is a 60% RDX/40% TNT mixture.
The molten TNT acts as a vehicle to cast this
mixture. The substantially increased energetics
of RDX make it very attractive to employ
Composition-B while maintaining the efficiency
of cast loading. Costs are nearly comparable for
TNT and Composition-B.
The problems associated with the M437, as
well as certain other events, prompted the tempo-
rary curtailment of Composition-B use. In order to
reinstate its use in current and future high-
performance artillery shells, improvements re-
garding premature rates must be demonstrated.
On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the
United Kingdom is producing a high-performance
ISS-mm projectile employing cast Composition-B.
Other nations may also be jn the process of devel-
oping similar systems.
It is important to recall the distinction be-
tween initiation and ignition: initiation refers to a
shock wave with sufficient magnitude to produce
detonation in the explosive, while ignition refers
to the start of fast decomposition, typically result-
ing from some thermal input. Explosive initiation
is not associated with in-bore gun launch
prematures.
Ignition in a premature would normally be
the result of heat generation (the conversion of
mechanical energy into heat) in the high-
explosive fill during the launch environment. Spe-
cial mechanical events are required for ignition to
occur. It is apparent that a clearer understanding
and better control of these offending events are
required. Mechanical behavior in-bore is affected
by various parameters:
• Launch loads (including launch accelera-
tions, rotating band pressures, gas pressure on
projectile case, and centripetal acceleration).
• System imperfec:ions [including base
gaps, incomplete fills, interface voids (see
Sec. 3), and void volume].
• Formulation of explosive.
• An array of mechanical properties (see
Sec. 6).
• Interface bonding and other design
considerations. .
The key point is that all suspected premature
mechanisms are somehow prompted by mechani-
cal behavior during launch. Understanding the
detailed mechanical behavior and how heat gen-
eration occurs is the key factor to understanding
and controlling prematures.
The Compositior-B Improvement Program is
aimed specifically at developing an artillery load-
ing technology for high-ballistic performance,
large-caliber artillery projectiles filled with
Composition-B. These systems develop large
stresses at the base of the projectile due to accel-
erations experienced during launch, and it is gen-
erally felt these loads set events into motion that
result in prematures. At present no such system is
being filled with Cornposition-B because of con-
cern about excessive premature rates.
The "hot spot" theory originally proposed by
Bowden,' 6 and to which many other contributors
have added, forms the current body of experimen-
tal knowledge on inadvertent ignitions. Hot spots
form when a mechan.cal process concentrates en-
ergy into a small region of explosive, typically in
the range 0.1 to 10 mlcrometers in diameter. 2 Hot
spot tests have typically employed primary (very
sensitive) explosives in situations predisposing the
sample to a particula:' mechanism. A basic factor
missing in the hot spot investigations is the de-
monstrable relationship to secondary explosives
and the launch environment of artillery projec-
tiles. Some processes identified (or postulated) in
primary explosives are":
(1) Direct application of heat.
(2) Adiabatic (rapid) compression of trapped
gases.
(3) Friction at the surface of containing
walls, on grit particles, or between grains of
explosive.
(4) Viscous heating of material rapidly ex-
tracted between impacting surfaces or by capillary
flow between grains.
(5) Localized adiabatic deformation of a thin
layer during mechanical failure of a sample.
In this report we will make extensive use of
this information and illustrate how it can be ap-
plied to secondary explosives and artillery projec-
tiles. New and unique tests suitable for artillery
projectiles and secondary explosives will be
mtroduced.
Reference 2 has an extensive bibliography on
the "hot spot" literature. Bear in mind that pro-
cesses (3), (4), and (5) just cited are closely related
in terms of mechanical phenomenology, a strong
indication that the basic behavior is not well un-
derstood. Experimental observation is difficult be-
cause these processes must be very rapid so the
small quantities of heat generated can be effec-
5
tively concentrated. Typically, tests have been
performed on small samples of primary explo-
sives, with the goal of exploring the mechanisms
associated with ignition. In all cases, the same ex-
periments with secondary explosives are more dif-
ficult and have not been accomplished. Extrapola-
tion to the larger scale of artillery projectiles
cannot be performed. Thus it is not possible to
apply this information directly to Composition-B-
filled artillery projectiles. The challenge with re-
spect to artillery projectiles is to understand the
set of conditions which preconditions an artillery
projectile to "hot spot," and the loads and me-
chanical response actually associated with the
event. It has not been apparent in the past if,
when, or how any of these mechanisms occur in
an artillery projectile.
The Composition-B Improvement Program
was organized so that resolving the question of
premature mechanisms was not absolutely man-
datory to developing new Composition-B fill tech-
nology. Improvements in cast quality, material
properties, reduced base gaps, and reduced maxi-
mum stresses (resulting from a new bonded inter-
face) were to reasonably imply decreases in sys-
tem sensitivity. Thus, most of our work statement
consisted of calculations to support these pro-
grammatic goals. Our calculational goals in sup-
port of the Composition-B Improvement Program
included:
• Definition of in-bore environment for
baseline systems under a variety of launch load-
ing conditions, i.e., dynamic in-bore structural
response.
• Study of four projectile systems for base-
line behavior.
• Detailed study of effects of bonding for
four systems.
• Detailed study of effects of thermal
cycling.
• Detailed examination of premature pro-
moting conditions, including erratic propellant
burn, hot gun, casting voids, and base gaps.
• Organization of the phenomenology of
premature mechanisms into the environment of
the artillery projectile and development of the
event paths for ignition in artillery shells.
These topics are discussed below.
The specific causes (and hence solutions) and
the pa ths to ignition of artillery proj ectile
prematures are not well established. Efforts in this
vein were also incorporated into our program.
These issues are somewhat distinct from the
calculations just mentioned, which relate to the
overall state of stress and motion in artillery pro-
jectiles. The study of premature phenomena in-
volves identifying and quantifying the conversion
of mechanical work into thermal energy so that it
becomes concentrated. Our studies have helped to
clarify the nature of premature promoting condi-
tions and allow for the implementation of rational
6
strategies for the study of premature mechanisms
(Sec. 5). The significance of various ignition mech-
anisms to artillery projectile environments will be
discussed. A comprehensive experimental and
calculational program to quantify these relations
is presented.
 Section 3. Bubble Collapse Mechanism:
Significance of Interface Voids
The sensitivity of an explosive is its predispo-
sition to ignite in a specific environment. As will
be discussed in various parts of this document,
sensitivity is not determined solely (or even in the
main) by chemical a:tributes. It is true that every
metastable material has its unique requirements
for temperature-timE' that will lead to rapid de-
composition, but for a number of secondary ex-
plosives they are not dramatically different.
The sensitivity of an explosive in a given situ-
ation is determined mainly by maximum tempera-
tures achieved anyw~ere in the explosive while it
is in that environment.
An explosive's sensitivity varies from envi-
ronment to environment. During artillery launch,
temperature increase, will result from the conver-
sion of mechanical eClergy into heat.
As will become clear later, the heat available
is always very limited. Substantial temperature in-
creases occur to the extent that mechanisms for
concentrating the available thermal energy can
act. The more easily an explosive material concen-
trates thermal energy, the greater its sensitivity in a
given environment.
One mechanism for concentrating thermal
energy is the very ra:Jid compression of gases ad-
jacent to high explosives. The bubble collapse
mechanism in molten explosives appears to be an
inherently sensitive environment and one which
will occur naturally within cast-filled artillery
projectiles.
In this section, a sequence of events is dis-
cussed that can lead to rapid gas compression in
artillery shells.
A mechanical configuration involving bubble
collapse that readily leads to Composition-B igni-
tion was discovered at the ARRADCOM Ballistics
Research Laboratory in 1978. At that time it repre-
sented the only reproducible and controlled sensi-
tivity test where Composition-B ignition occurs.
Identifying and expe:~imentally verifying the pro-
cesses which concer.trate energy and act effec-
tively on the scale of a cubic micrometer is one of
the key steps toward understanding how
prematures occur. This test provided a means for
studying some of these processes.
The general configuration of the test ap-
peared to be amenable to computer simulation, so
we proceeded to perform a study on this general
configuration. A simple mechanical test on a key
component provided approximate material prop-
erties. Our feeling was that this test would reveal
7
how energy might be concentrated in practical
situations. It was not apparent what, if any, rela-
tionship to the artillery projectile environment
might exist. Reviewing the artillery projectile
environment, in light of this test, uncovered a
very important relationship. The description of
the test will be followed by our calculations and
the interface void mechanism for artillery shells.
"Premature activator" is a term employed in
the ARRADCOM community for a laboratory-
scale system that tests explosive response to me-
chanicalloads. The basic "activator" is an attempt
to simulate conditions that occur in the explosive
charge of artillery shells. The advantages of an
"activator" are the small amount of explosive
used, control of test conditions, and ability to
overtest; and the large number of samples tested
allows a form of quantification of threshold sensi-
tivity. Presumably, the information generated is
applicable to artillery shells, because the stresses
in the test sample are similar to stresses occurring
in artillery shell explosive fills. Consequently, "ac-
tivators" have been used to quantify explosive
sensitivity for the launch environment. The Ballis-
tics Research Laboratory has been performing re-
search with a modified version of an activator
originally developed at the ARRADCOM Large
Caliber Weapons System Laboratory. Boyd Taylor
(now retired) and C. H. Ervin of BRL were in-
volved with the dimple-sensitivity sequence of
tests. To my knowledge, results of these tests have
not been published in the open literature. In-
formation has come primarily from Composition-
B Improvement Program reviews and personal
communications.
Figure 1 is an illustration of the activator. The
activator employs a burning propellant to me-
chanically load the high explosive sample along
its axis. The loading is accomplished across two
metallic pistons. A disk made of polymeric mate-
rial is used to isolate the explosive sample from
the moving metal piston and to provide a gas
seal. 7
Adiabatic compression tests are performed by
positioning a gap between the disk and the
nearest explosive face. The theory behind adia-
batic gas compression is that rapidly compressed
gases adjacent to explosive materials not only un-
dergo a temperature increase, but can also locally
raise the adjacent explosive's temperature to igni-
tion levels, provided the compression process is
sufficiently rapid and enough gas is present. 2
 Activator
Figure 1. Ballistics Research Laboratory activator with Sylgard seal placed between high explosive
and moving piston.
These disks provide the key to the tests. For these
tests a commercial RTV (room-temperature, vul-
canizing) material, Sylgard 182, was employed.
Inherent in the fabrication of the disks was a
dimple or recession 7 on one side of the disk,
caused by the machining process employed to
fabricate the molding die. Through very careful
scientific test techniques, the BRL investigators
discovered that the sensitivity of the configuration
depended on the orientation of the dimple, i.e.,
either in contact with the explosive or the metal
piston. In spite of the small dimple size, sensitivity
was much increased when the dimple faced the
explosive sample.
Tests were performed to establish the effect
of the dimple. The Sylgard disks were placed di-
rectly against the explosive sample eliminating
any gap. Disks with various size dimples were
used in these tests. The experiments determined
that the presence of a hemispherical void of 0.016-
in. diam (0.4 mm) can cause ignitions of the adja-
cent explosive, provided the system is loaded rap-
idly enough. Several other tests were performed
after a vacuum was exerted on the interface region
to evacuate the small amount of gas contained in
the dimple. The test was rendered totally insensi-
tive, regardless of load level or loading rate; thus
8
Low pressure
chamber
the BRL investigators clearly established that the
heat source was the compressed and heated fluid
in the dimple.
Active mechanisms for thermal energy con-
centration are required for accidental ignition of
both primary and secondary explosives. "Prema-
ture promoting conditions" are the combined set
of circumstances associated with (or causing) a
given mechanism for thermal energy concentra-
tion. In this example, a small dimple proved much
more sensitizing than a larger flat gap. It was im-
perative to establish the features (geometry, mate-
rial properties, and loads) that made this configu-
ration so sensitizing. Clearly, the sensitizing
behavior was catalyzed by the structural dynam-
ics of the dimpled Sylgard disks. The general con-
figuration of the test appeared amenable to com-
puter simulation and we proceeded to perform a
study of it. Again, our goal was not to calculate an
ignition event, but to identify the structural fac-
tors-geometry, material properties, and loads-
that made this configuration premature-promoting.
Our approach was to develop a practical
model with the' salient features of the activator
and predict the model's response using DYNA2D 8
(an explicit-dynamic Lagrangian finite-element
code extensively employed in the Mechanical
Engineering Department at LLNL). The properties 0.45
of the Sylgard disk were obviously crucial to the
Uniaxial Compression
structural dynamic~" both in the prototype and 0.40
Test - 27 June 1978
also in our calculations. The softness of the mate-
rial was apparent from observation. Fortunately, 0.35 Gauge length = 0.48 in.
we had a sample and were able to conduct a one- Diameter = 0.50 in.
dimensional compression test on it. The test 0.30 Mass ~ 1.5 g
record is illustrated in Fig. 2, and quantifies the c:
E (Young's modulus)
somewhat surprising softness of this material. (A c 0.25 ~ 2.45 X 10 2
0
more thorough characterization of this material .....
would be desirable; but in view of the nature of
()
OJ
0.20
~
our study, it did not seem practical.) The test con- OJ
0 0.15
figuration is shown in Fig. 3 along with the load-
ing pulse we employed. Figures 4 through 9 show
0.10
deformed configurations at various times, calcu-
lated interface loads, stress contours, and histories
0.05
of several nodal quantities.
These results will be discussed in view of the
three factors mentioned earlier-dynamic load, 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
geometry, and Sylgard material properties. The Load (lb)
original void geometry is hemispherical. Its shape
during deformation is not known a priori. The Figure 2. Sylgard 182 compression test: load-
hemispherical shape is roughly maintained deflection curve.
throughout collapse, ensuring the greatest com-
pression of void gases for a given level of collapse.
Consider Figs. 4 and 5, which are two views of the center of its mass moves downward. Figure 8 is
void as it deforms. Also consider (where void vol- the load between the high explosive and the
ume, V, equals (2/3)1I'r 3): Sylgard. This load does not begin to develop until
rapid collapse has nearly begun. Figure 9 shows
,1V 3.:lr the delayed development of stress near the void.
(1)
V r Notice also that all these quantities are delayed
but develop rapidly once deformation near the
where ,1 V /V is the relative volume change. Thus, void begins. This type of behavior will greatly sensi-
for a given ,1r the relative compression rate rises tize the system, if it occurs, and is the consequence
as l/r as the radius r decreases, and the rate of of the test's structural dynamics and the proper-
relative void compression is accelerated as the ties employed to model the Sylgard disk.
void collapses, strictly on the basis of void geome- Before proceeding to how this test can be
try remaining roughly hemispherical during used to evaluate artillery projectile sensitivity, one
deformation. To compound matters we will see more comment on its sensitizing features must be
below that the rate a: which the radius collapses is made. The Sylgard material is an excellent insu-
not constant but rather a rapidly increasing func- lator (Ref. 9) (its conductivity is of the order of 3.5
tion of time. X 10 - 4 cal! (cm . CT· C) and provides the a ppropri-
The load is 20 ksi applied onto a steel plate ate heat transfer conditions. More will be said
with a 0.005-s rise time. Figure 7 shows the load about heat transfer in later sections. However, for
transmitted through the steel plate to the top sur-
face of the Sylgard. Note that only a minor por-
tion of the load is initially applied onto the soft
material. The load imbalance is transferred, for Table 1. Sylgard 182 properties.
the most part, into motion (acceleration) of the
Density -1.1 Mg/m3 (0.0361 Ib/in. 3)
steel plate. The Sylgard cannot react to the pres-
% elongation -100 to 480
sure load without deforming, and consequently,
Specific heat -1.42 kJ Ikg K
the plate moves downward. This behavior is, of
Thermal conductivity -1.46 W/mK (3.5.10- 4 Cal/cm·s·oC)
course, controlled by the properties of the Sylgard
Shear modulus -85 psi
(see Table 1). The transmission of the pressure
Bulk modulus -50000 psi
load is further delayed through the Sylgard as the

9
 1J- 1--1:
P (t) _________ Steel

-1- ~I
I , L
,
i!
~ Hir~~
1 . -
I I
plate

---+-----~~,-- .L---------l
I

'\ II '\- 1\--- .--

! /
\ : \ ,\ \ / '
\ \ \ -'\---'1---+----- __1-_
~\\\
\ \ \ \ ' \

\\ \ \\ -+-----\.-- ----"-----
\ \---\-----\- \

~---_-~ HiiJh

._ - - - - .. - - -
- - ··-+----t
I ,
---"--~--

~--~-.-~.-. -'--- -,-~- ...

!
";---+--_-l- ___ ..... __ ~---- -_

.. *--~~ ---- __------~----

----~----- .
ex p i() Si \! e

-~-~---------;--'----'----- - - " - - . -.j-~- +-- - . - - -

(a)

Vl 2 -_.- .-. -_. - - - -;.;-"1

Q.

1"0
/"
~;,
x ..' / !
(l)
I-
::J
Vl
Vl
(l)
I-
0..

o 2 3 4 5
Time (ms)

(b)
Figure 3. Finite-element mesh and loading pulse for void collapse simulation.

10
 --- - ------,--- ,-------- - -,
1
\\\ \ \ / / /I /
1\/\
1\1\ \
\
7
lv
II
I

I
f--- I'" 1\ r:;J\ II V! / /
I ~ V1: ~
~
I
i"", /
/

~
'--- ~
vv
r------; y
I

II
I

-~

Figure 4. Dimple in process of closing.

--~---

- ,---------
!
I

1 ) !

1\ \ \ \ \ I / / / /
1\ V 1

1
i

1\1\ '\ I7 /
~\ N\/\[7 r-------
/ / I
~ ~
~
""
~
1- I
/
/

I'-----
N V v
I r-..:: ::;.-'

Figure 5. Dimple near closure.

11
 1

0
Q.l

....u -1
0
'+-

~
-2
a:
-3
-4
0 I
I
I
-5 I

~
Q.l

....u
0
'+- -10 Total gap
N closure~ ~
-15
I
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (10- 5 )

Figure 6. Force (lb) between steel plate and Sylgard components.

0
Q.l
u
.... -1
0
'+-

-2
a:
-3
-4
20
I
I
I
15 I
Q.l Total gap I
u
....
0
closu re---...-...~
''+- 10
I
N I
5

00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (10- 5 )

Figure 7. Force (lb) at interface between Sylgard component and explosive.

12
 10

...c::
(1)

E
(1)
(.)
ra 5
Q.
.!!!
"C
I
a:
0
0
...c::
(1)
-0.2
E
(1)
(.)
~ I
Co -0.4 Total gap I
.!!!
"C Closure~
I -0.6
N I
I
-0.8
0 &;:'
~I 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (10- 5 )

Figure 8. Motion of central point in dimple.

Time = 2.60E-04
Min (N) = -2.26E+03
Max (X) = -1.03E+03
N Contour levels
A=-2.14E+03
B = - 2.01 E+03
~// '-------~---_B_-------,._--'~~/
------- ------- --- -------E "E-- C = - 1.89E+03
D = -1. 77E+03
E = -1.64E+03

--"-- --~--- ------~----==-~~----~- - - - - ----~

~~
F = -1.52E+03
G = -1.40E+03
H = -1.27E+03
I = - 1. 15 E+03

j
l_---'_~_ __'___"_~_. _"---~ _ ' - - _ L _ _ _ ---"----- .

Figure 9. Axial stn~ss (psi) contours in Sylgard disk show center of mass is accelerating downward.

13
 now suffice it to say that if the minor amount of
total heat in the compressed gas is not effectively
transferred to a very small quantity of explosive,
then ignition will not occur. If the conductivity of
Sylgard were large, say like that of a metal, then
ignition would never have occurred in these tests
(Ref. 12). The thermal conductivity of Sylgard is as
important a sensitizing factor for the BRL experiments
as either of the acceleration phenomena just discussed.
We will see that this factor is also present in artil-
lery shells under special circumstances.
For a considerable period of time no relation-
ship between these sensitizing mechanisms and
artillery shells was apparent, but I had observed
(June 1978) sectioned Composition-B castings that
exhibited numerous voids of the general size of
the BRL dimples (0.016 in.). However, the Sylgard
is very much weaker than condensed phase
Composition-B. Reference 1, a document gener-
ated by the Navy, treats the entire past history of
U.s. prematures, all commonly known studies re-
lating to them, and the lore associated with them.
One aspect of traditional belief is that artillery
shells left in hot gases are prone to be prematures.
Explosive exudation is an obvious problem, but
there seems to be some feeling that it is not neces-
sary for sensitization. lO I feel that the "hot guns"
lore has considerable validity, because a hot gun
can create conditions similar to those in the BRL
dimple tests. If excessive exposure to a hot gun
occurs, then an interfacial Composition-B slurry
(-80°C) is formed. 11 ,12 This slurry is the result of
heat transfer from the hot gun through the highly
conductive rotating band into the case and finally
into the explosive fill. Based on the observations
of sectioned castings mentioned earlier, it is clear
that only moderate melting depths are required
for the encapsulation of "interface voids" by
Composition-B slurry. During launch these re-
gions are loaded (stressed) along with the remain-
der of the fill and case, but because the slurry has
a negligible strength, distortion is not readily re-
strained, and void collapse is assured. The fact
that the entire interface is probably not molten
complicates the situation and, no doubt, an
unbonded system with partial frictional restraint
and subsequent frictional unloading provides a fi-
nal "premature promoting" stimulus.
Thus, a hot gun preconditions an artillery projec-
tile for interface void collapse. A hot gun is currently
defined as one with breech temperatures exceed-
ing 375°F so that interfacial melting begins after
2-3 min with a copper rotating band (private
communication, John Zimmerman, U.S.
ARRADCOM). It is interesting to note that
14
pressed explosives will not have the small voids
characteristic of the casting process and, hence,
should be immune to interfacial void collapse.
This may be a factor in the Navy's empirical
choice of pressed charges, particularly in view of
the high temperatures naval guns achieve.
The previous discussion has identified condi-
tions that, when acting together, can result in
rapid closure of voids. These conditions are as
follows:
• Excessive exposure of an artillery shell to
a hot gun environment.
• Existence of small gas-filled voids in the
high explosive near the shell case.
• Transfer of mechanical energy to void
gases through low-strength molten explosive.
• Accelerating dynamics of void compres-
sion, which diminish the effects of heat transfer
losses.
• Suppression of heat transfer from hot gas
by immersion in low-conductivity/diffusivity ma-
terial, thus increasing the maximum gas tempera-
tures achieved.
• Complete sealing of void gases to mini-
mize convective cooling during collapse.
Since future improvements in ballistic perfor-
mance will increase structural loads, the opportu-
nity for ignition through rapid interfacial void col-
lapse will be enhanced.
I strongly urge that an experimental evalua-
tion of this situation be performed as soon as pos-
sible. The evaluation can be performed in several
ways, all with their attendant difficulties. To de-
velop a plan, I prefer a technical conference to
obtain the thoughts of the munitions community
on how to most effectively test this situation. Let
me note at this point that a companion analytic
effort is also desirable. 13 A purely experimental
approach suffers from a lack of appreciation of the
highly coupled physics that occurs in prematures.
Optimally, analytic treatments should identify
and simplify the parameters controlling sensitivity
and the manner in which they interact. Knowledge
of the mechanical properties of Composition-B
slurry, particularly its compressibility, may be cru-
cial. Improved tests based on this understanding
can be conducted to quantify the overall behavior
and sensitivity.
I also urge that a parallel technical effort be
made to eliminate this source of ignition. Many
valuable processing changes were developed in
the Composition-B Improvement Program. These
changes have the potential for improving cast
quality and redistributing loads away from the
base area. They do not address the question of
system sensitivity resulting from casting voids lo-
cated near the explosive-case interface. Since all
casting voids are not implicated in the problem, it
may be solvable. A technique must be developed
to eliminate the outermost voids-an interface
void-getter must be developed. Another improve-
15
ment can be gained by decreasing heat transfer
into the shell. This is most readily accomplished
by placing a heat barrier in the rotating band
(plastic band, for example). Void collapse for cast-
filled Composition-B is now a well-defined problem
deserving intensive investigation.
 Section 4. Structural Analysis of the M437 (175 mm) Shell
Considerable attention was directed at per-
forming simulations of structural dynamics that
occur in-bore. Several artillery projectiles were
analyzed, but the M437, a high-performance 175-
mm artillery shell, was studied in more detail than
any other system. Results of calculations for the
M437 will be discussed in this section. The cal-
culations performed included:
• Determination of natural frequencies.
• Predictions of thermal cycling behavior.
• Predictions of behavior resulting from
acceleration environment.
• Predictions of behavior resulting from ro-
tating band pressure, chamber pressure, and spin.
• Predictions of behavior resulting from an
erratic propellant burn.
• Predictions of effects resulting from alter-
ing high explosive-case interface conditions.
Several new facets of the stresses developed in
artillery shells and rocket-assisted artillery shells
have been observed and will be discussed as they
arise.
The LLNL structural analysis codes
DYNA2D,8 DTVIS2,14 and NIKE2D 1S were used to
perform calculations. Extensive postprocessing of
calculated results is required to develop the
graphics in this report (in this case, time histories
and contour plots of various strains, stresses, and
interface quantities). Postprocessing was accom-
plished using Hallquist's SAPP code. 16 Several
new important capabilities were added to SAPP to
illustrate behavior at the high explosive-shell in-
terface. Early in our program, calculations of the
"erratic propellant burn" were performed using
DTVIS2. The explosive-case interface was treated
as sliding (no tension interface) with no interfacial
friction. These calculations provided very dra-
matic stresses and deformations. Thus, particular
Significance was placed on predicting behavior for
the condition of erratic propellant burn when the
high explosive fill is restrained by interface fric-
tion. Successfully performing calculations with
Coulomb-type friction proved difficult. After con-
siderable effort the sources of these problems
were identified. Changes made to the DYNA2D
contact-impact algorithm successfully rectified the
problems, and calculating friction is now a practi-
cal capability in DYNA2D.
The M437 is the only high-performance bal-
listic system that has been employed in the field,
and all M437 projectiles were Composition-B
loaded. The M437 experienced significant prema-
ture rates during use in Southeast Asia (1 in 40,000
for Zone 3). This projectile can be launched with
one of three propellant charges, depending on de-
sired ballistic range. The premature statistics rap-
idly degrade with increasing zone (see Table 2),
strongly implicating increased load levels with in-
creasing premature rates. Table 2 summarizes the
ballistic performance of the M437 at Zone 3.
Future large-caliber systems all have high-
performance ballistic capability so that it is impor-
tant to resolve the problems associated with the
M437.
Figure 10 is a finite-element mesh description
of the M437' projectile. Our calculations have used
load descriptions associated with Zone 3 launches,
and also a load profile associated with an "erratic

Table 2. Typical ballistics and premature rate for the M437.

Muzzle Max. angular
Max. chamber Acceleratiion velocity acceleration
Caliber Projectile pressure (psi) max. (g) (ftis) (rad/s 2 )

175 mm M437 53000 12900 3065 227000

155 mm U5(UK) 58000 16100 ? 320000
155 mm XM795 60300 15550 2650 309000
Zone Rate
175 mm M437 3 1/40000
Composition-B
loaded
175 mm M437 2 1/133000
Composition- B
loaded
175 mm M437 1 1/266000
Composition-B
loaded

16
 640r---.----r---,----~--~

560

N
0
X
en
0..
320
....QJ
:::J
en
en
....
QJ
240
0....

160

80

00 4 8 12 16 20
Time (ms)

Figure 11. Pressure-time history for Zone 3

launch.

Figure 10. Finite-element mesh of the M437

artillery projectile.

propellant burn." The erratic propellant burn his- 75

tory was determined experimentally, and was es-
timated to be the consequence of improper assem- M

bly of the propellant charge. These load histories

0 60
are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. Figure 13 is an ap- x
en
proximation for the r~tating band pressure history 0.. 45
developed from Ref. 17. ....
QJ

The nominal Zone 3 load history depicts a :::J

en 30
en
chamber pressure that rises in approximately ....
QJ

6 ms. To assess the extent to which internal dy- 0....

15
namics can occur during a nominal load history,
the natural frequency of the M437 was calculated.
The extent to which internal dynamics is gener-
ated by a time-dependent rise of chamber pres-
sure diminishes as the natural frequency increases Time (ms)
and will be minimal for systems with funda-
mental natural freq·..lencies greater than about
1000 Hz. It is worthwhile to remark that through- Figure 12. Pressure-time history for "erratic
out the calculations there are references to bonded propellant burn."

17
 33 Time = O.
C")
0
Min (N) = 7.54E + 03
27 Max (X) = 8.92E + 03
x
en
c. 21 Contour levels
OJ
'-
:J 15 1 7.67E + 03
en
en
OJ 2 7.81 E + 03
'-
0-
9 3 7.95E + 03
4 8.09E + 03
3
5 8.23E + 03
00 2 4 6 8 10 6 8.37E + 03
7 8.50E + 03
Time (ms) 1
/1
I
8 8.64E + 03
9 8.78E + 03
Figure 13. Rotating band pressure history ap-
plied in all calculations.

or unbonded systems. One of our primary goals

was to document the changes expected from
bonding the explosive to the case. The funda-
mental natural frequency of a system in which the
explosive is bonded (or tied) to the case was
2851 Hz. The nominal load will not excite appre-
ciable internal dynamics for a system with this
fundamental natural frequency. Thus, we can ex-
pect the response to follow the load closely. The
natural frequency of the high explosive without
the presence of the case was also calculated and
has a value of 2237 Hz. Thus, the fundamental
natural frequency of an unbonded projectile will
be between 2237 and 2851 Hz. Our examination of
the fundamental mode shapes did show that the Figure 14. High explosive maximum principal
distortions largely occur in the high explosive stress (psi) contours at - 65°F for a bonded
(provided that the case is not loaded beyond system.
yield). Thus, provided smooth nominal projectile
loadings are being studied, it is adequate that
quasi-static analyses be performed which saves
computer expense. and 15 illustrate high explosive stresses in a
Theoretically, artillery projectiles can be sub- bonded system when the temperature is reduced
jected to temperatures varying between - 60 and to -65°F. The assumption of linear elastic behavior
+ 165°F. Since Composition-B has a coefficient without failures in the explosive yields stresses
of thermal expansion much larger than steel exceeding 8000 psi, while the tensile strength of
(Composition-B -30 X lO-bin'/in.· oF, steel cast explosives like TNT and Composition-B is be-
-6 X 10- 6 in./in.· OF), the formation of stresses low 1000 pSi. Consequently, material failures are
or gaps can be expected as temperatures change. to be expected. Figure 15 depicts the hydrostatic
Decreases in temperature are significant because or average component of normal stress. It is
tensile stresses are developed in the high explo- nearly the same as the maximum principal stress,
sive for a bonded system and interface gaps are implying that the stress is nearly hydrostatic
developed in an unbonded system. The slow ther- throughout the explosive. The difference in coef-
mal-cycling environment was simulated for the ficient of thermal expansion. is taken up largely by
temperature extremes just mentioned. It was nec- distortion in the high explosive. If these distor-
essary to assume a stress-free fill temperature; tions are relaxed by cracking the explosive, two
70°F was chosen for our calculations. Figures 14 events occur. First, the state of stress is changed

18
 Time = O.
Min (N) = -B.B2E + 03
Max (X) = -7.10E + 03 where
a is stress,
~ is strain,
Contour levels K is the bulk modules,
v is Poisson's ratio,
1 -B.65E + 03
E is the elastic modulus.
2 -BABE + 03
3 = -B.31 E + 03
This represents the stiffest behavior. A softer and
4 -B.13E + 03
hence lower stressed behavior would be associ-
5 = -7.96E + 03
ated with uniaxial stress.
6 = -7.79E + 03
7 -7.61E + 03
B -7A4E + 03
9 = -7.27E + 03

Consequently, we can expect the maximum

principal stress to decrease due to cracking, but to
no less than 1/3 the values in Fig. 14 for regions
that remain bonded and are near the case. This
implies that substantial cracking is expected at
-65°F. In fact, however, some formulations of
Composition-B have been found experimentally
to maintain a load path (attachment) to the case,
implying that at least partial bonding exists and
that some assumptions attendant to these calcula-
tions require revision. It is my opinion that mate-
rial behavior substantially different than linear
elastic is responsible for the observed results. It
has also been found that the behavior in tempera-
ture cycling depends on the exact formulation of
the Composition-B. Formulations with MNT
Figure 15. High (~xplosive mean stress (psi) (mononitrotoluene) plasticizer were observed to
contours at - 65°F for a bonded system. undergo cold-temperature cycling with minimal
development of cracks. It appears reasonable that
the plasticizer may be responsible for these im-
portant differences. This situation and its rami-
from triaxial hydrostatic toward biaxial or uniaxial fications are discussed in Sec. 6.
stress, and second, the stress components de- For the unbonded system, we can expect gaps
crease. For the hydrostatic case, to develop at the low temperatures based on the
coefficient of thermal expansion in Table 3. The
radial, diametrical, and axial gaps are also noted
in Table 3.
= 1, 2, 3 (2) Firing a projectile conditioned at -65°F
could subject the high explosive fill to any num-
and ber of special environments resulting from the
presence of these gaps. In addition, larger gaps
may also be present due to either processing defi-
E ciencies or thermal cycling. Large compressive
where K=--- stresses will be developed in the explosive when
2(1 - 2v) ,
the projectile is conditioned at 165°F. Yielding of
and for the high explosive may occur which will then
cause larger gaps at the low temperatures. The
v = 0.33, K = E , question as to whether bonding a small region

19
Table 3. Composition-B coefficient of thermal 10% bond at base -65 F loading
expansion and gaps at - 65°F for an unbonded Time .OE + 00
M437.
Composition-B
coefficient of thermal Min = -5.437E + 02 elem 5
expansion Temperature range
Max = 1.912E + 04 elem 114
5
4.82 X 1O- /°C - 50°C to - 20°C
5.61 X 10 51°C - 20°C to +20°C 1 = 1.4E + 03
7.81 X 10- 5 /°C 20°C to 50°C
:2 = 3.4E + 03
9.47 X 10- 51°C 50°C to 65°C
:3 = 5.4E + 03
Radial gap at rotating band (-65°F) 0.0094 in. 4 = 7.3E + 03
Diametric gap at rotating band
!5 = 9.3E + 03
(-65°F) 0.0188 in. 16=1.1E+04
Total axial gap (- 65°F) 0.140 in. 7 = 1.3E + 04
:8 = 1.5E + 04
~9=1.7E+04

would reduce the tensile stresses at reduced tem-

perature was also examined. Figure 16 shows that
large tensile stresses persist for a projectile that
has the lower 3 in. bonded at the cold temperature
extreme (-65°F). This indicates it is not possible
to significantly reduce thermal stresses by modify-
ing the geometry of the bond if the materials be-
have linearly.
Thermal cycling is a very important environ-
ment for future high-performance projectiles, par-
ticularly if bonding is carried forward as part of
the cast processing. The actual condition of the
high explosive fill is strongly influenced by ther-
mal cycling. It is impossible to make concrete
statements about the consequences of thermal cy-
cling because the explosive's basic behavior has
not been determined. It seems clear, however, that
the new Composition-B formulations do not act as
linear-elastic or typical viscoelastic materials.
Thus, the area requiring the most urgent effort is
in determining the mechanical properties which
affect behavior during thermal cycling. These
properties are covered in the more complete dis-
cussion of mechanical properties in Sec. 6.
Quasi-static calculations were performed to
simulate the state of stress in the high explosive
fill for the maximum probable launch loadings at
Zone 3. A major facet of the new technology be-
ing developed at ARRADCOM is bonding the
high explosive to the projectile case. One intent of
bonding is to reduce the explosive stresses, par-
ticularly the axial stress component at the base.
The overall state of stress in the explosive and
case will also be examined. This is facilitated by
examining the results of several sets of calcula-
tions (in which certain features of the model have
been progressively altered), which allows ob-
Figure 16. High explosive' maximum principal
stress (psi) contours for a system with the low-
est 3 in. bonded.
servation of the effects of the major parameters
controlling overall structural behavior in the
projectile.
Our first structural model of the M437 is
shown in Fig. 10. This earliest model proved to be
inadequate for our overall goals. Later it was re-
placed with an improved model of the in-bore
system. The improved quasi-static model is dis-
cussed in the next paragraph. The first structural
model of in-bore behavior is adequate for predict-
ing axial stresses in the explosive for both bonded
and unbonded systems. Predictions using this
model of high explosive axial stress were pre-
sented in Composition-B Improvement Program
reviews and these are included in this report.
Since we had established earlier that internal dy-
namics will be negligible, the mechanical state of
the system was characterized by a uniform accel-
eration field. This is modeled in a quasi~static

20
 Time = 1.50E + 01 Time = 1.50E + 01
Min (N) = -2.43E + 04 Min (N) = -2.25E + 04
Max (X) = -9.02E + 01 Max (X) = 1.92E + 02

Contour levels
Contour levels
A = -2.02E + 04
A = -2.19E + 04 B = -1 .BOE + 04
B = -1 .95E + 04 C = -1.57E + 04
C = - 1.71 E + 04 D = -1.34E + 04
D = -1.46E + 04 E = -1.11E+04
E = -1.22E + 04 F = -B.BBE + 03
F = -9.79E + 03 G = -6.61E + 03
G = -7.37E + 03 H = -4.34E+()~
H = -4.94E + 03 I = -2.0BE + 03
I = -2.52E + 03

\ I
I

Figure 17. Unbol!1ded, high explosive axial Figure 18. Unbonded, high explosive hoop
stress (psi) contours for 14300-g loading with stress (psi) contours for 14 300-g loading with
base restraint. base restraint.

analysis by a "body force loading." For the first
model the effect or chamber pressure was mod-
eled by fixing the base of the case in the axial
direction, a procedure which provides a total force
equivalent to the total axial force of the chamber
pressure distribution. Information on rotating
band pressure histories became available at a later
date and was not included in this model. It was
felt that this accele-ation loading of the projectile
would adequately model the stresses in the explo-
sive and that the relatively simple modeling was
sufficient. This preconception was modified later
as our knowledge of the projectile's structural me-
chanics evolved. Figures 17-20 show axial and
hoop stresses in the explosive for the unbonded
and bonded configurations. These calculations
show bonding to be effective in decreasing the
axial base stresses in the high explosive fill. Using
this model, the bonded high explosive's maximum
axial stress is reduced to 40% of the unbonded
system. Figure 21 shows the interface shear stress
for the bonded system. The bond apparently must
sustain shear stresses as large as 1100 psi. Figures
22-24 illustrate the effect of bonding only the
lower half of the explosive-steel case interface.
This model cannot be employed to infer stresses
in the projectile case, because the in-bore loads
are not realistically applied to the case. In addi-
tion, since the chamber pressure and the rotating
band pressure are not applied to the side of the
case, the high explosive hoop stresses are invalid.
As improved models were developed, consider-
able interaction was found between the projectile
case, the exact loading configuration, and the

21
 Time = 5.00E + 00 Time = 5.00E + 00
Min (N) = -S.07E + 03 Min (N) = -2.62E + 03
Max (X) = -6.95E + 02 Max (X) = 4.55E + 02

Contour levels
Contour levels
1 = -7.33E + 03
2 = -6.60E + 03 1 = -2.31E + 03
3 = -5.S6E + 03 2 = -2.01E + 03
4 = -5.12E + 03 3 = -1 .70E + 03
5 = -4.3SE + 03 4 = -1.39E + 03
6 = -3.65E + 03 5 = -LOSE + 03
7 = -2.91E+03 6 = -7.76E + 02
S = -2.17E + 03 7 = -4.6SE + 02
9 = - 1.43 E + 03 S = -1 .60E + 02
9 = O.

Figure 19. Bonded, high explosive axial stress Figure 21. Bonded, high explosive "JK" sheer
(psi) contours for 14300-g loading with base stress (psi) !COntours for 14300-g loading with
restraint. base restraint.

Time = 5.00E + 00 TilTle = 5.00E + 00

Min (N) = -2.10E + 03 Min (N) = -S.32E + 03
Max (X) = 3.67E + 02 Max (X) = -S.S7E + 01

Contour levels r~~ Contour levels

1 = -1.S6E + 03 i 88fB~8 1 = -7.49E + 03
I '
2 = -1.61 E +03 i 7777717 2
3
= -6.67E
=. -5.S5E
+ 03
+ 03
3 = -1.36E + 03
4 = - 1. 12E +
03 55 6$ 4 =. -5.03E + 03
5 = -S.6SE + 02
i5~o}5sJ5 5 =. -4.20E + 03
6 = -6.21E + 02 6 =. -3.3SE + 03

I~i" ~ ~~
7 = -3.74E + 02 7 =. -2.56E + 03
S = -1.27E+02 S =, -1.73E + 03
9 = O. 9 =, -9.11E + 02
66 86
7 ,
7 7
7 7
TI
7/ 17

Figure 20. Bonded, high explosive hoop stress
(psi) contours for 14300-g loading with base
restraint.
22
Figure 22. High explosive axial stress (psi)
contours for 14 300-g loading in which lower
projectile interface is bonded (with base
restraint).
 Time = 5.00E + 00
Min (N) = -2.25E + 03
Max (X) = 3.l0E + 02
Contour levels
1 = -2.00E + 03
2 = -1.74E+03
3 = -1.48E + 03
4 = -1.23E + 03
5 = -9.71E + 02
6 = -7.l5E + 02
7 = -4.59E + 02
8 = -2.02E + 02
9 = O.
Figure 23. High explosive hoop stress (psi)
contours for 14 300-g loading in which lower
projectile interface is bonded (with base
restraint).
loads to the high explosive. The inadequacy of the
quasi-static model just described was discovered
while performing dynamic studies of the erratic
propellant burn environment.
In studying dynamic loading situations such
as the erratic propellant burn, applying a very re-
alistic loading configuration and history adds no
additional difficulty. These dynamic studies
helped in developing a loading configuration for
quasi-static calculations that accurately simulate
the in-bore environment for nominal (smooth)
propellant burns. This improved loading configu-
ration is shown in Fig. 25. The propellant pressure
is applied directly onto the projectile at the base
and sides. Also, thE' estimated maximum rotating
band forces are applied. The uniform acceleration
state of the body is modeled with a uniform body
force or acceleration loading. These systems of
forces will be nearly but not exactly in equilib-
rium. Therefore, a single node at the nose is fixed,
thereby completely equilibrating the body and al-
lowing the system to be viewed as quasi-static.
Various new features of the actual behavior can
be observed in the results of these calculations.
Stresses in the high explosive for both the
23
Time = 5.00E + 00
Min (N) = -3.l2E + 03
Max (X) = 4.54E + 02
Contour levels
1 = -2.77E + 03
2 = -2.41E+03
3 = -2.05E + 03
4 = -1.69E + 03
5 = -1.33E + 03
6 = -9.77E + 02
7 = -6.l9E+02
8 = -2.61E + 02
9 = O.
Figure 24. High explosive "JK" shear stress
(psi) contours for 14 300-g loading in which
lower projectile interface is bonded (with base
restraint).
unbonded and the totally bonded systems are pre-
sented in Figs. 26 through 30. These include con-
tour plots of axial and hoop stress components as
well as interface shear stress of the bonded system
at maximum in-bore load conditions. The axial
stresses in the high explosive are largely unal-
tered. The action of the chamber pressure upon
the side of the projectile develops significant hoop
stresses on the projectile case and the high explo-
sive. The explosive's hoop stresses are actually
larger than the axial stresses for the bonded model
(Figs. 27 and 29). The state of stress in the projec-
tile case is significantly altered by the introduction
of chamber pressure and the associated hoop
stresses. Yielding of the steel case is modeled by
placing an experimentally determined limit on the
Von Mises yield stress. The Von Mises yield stress·
is a function of the total state of stress expressed
by the equation
(3)
 Time = 1.50E + 01
lVIin (N) = -1.59E + 04
lVIax (X) = 1.72E + 20

Contour levels
A = -1.43E + 04
13000 9 13=-1.27E+04
Quasi-static C = - 1.11 E + 04
body force J = -9.47E + 03
E = -7.B6E + 03
F = -6.25E + 03
G = -4.65E + 03
rl = -3.04E + 03
I = -1.44E + 03

50 psi X 103

Figure 27. High explosive hoop stress (psi)

Figure 25. M437 shell with load and restraints contours for conditions of Fig. 25 (unbonded
illustrated. interface).

Time = 1.50E + 01
Time = 1.50E + 01 Min (N) = -B.79E + 03
Min (N) = -1.76E + 04 Max (X) = -6.58E + 02
Max (X) = -B.OBE + 01
Contour levels
Contour levels A = -7.9BE + 03
B = -7.16E + 03
A = -1.59E + 04
C = -6.35E + 03
B = -1.41E + 04
C = -1.23E+04
o = -5.54E + 03
E = -4.73E + 03
0= -1.06E + 04
F = -3.19E + 03
E = -B.B4E + 03
G = -3.10E + 03
F = -7.09E + 03
H = -2.2BE + 03
G= -5.34E + 03
I = -1.47E + 03
H = -3.59E + 03
I = -1.B3E+03

FF FF
!

~ f f DO i
, (
CC
C I I
\
I,:B 9B gl
\0
• I

Figure 26. High explosive axial stress (psi) Figure 28. High explosive axial stress (psi)
contours for conditions of Fig. 25 (unbonded contours for conditions of Fig. 25 (bonded
interface). interface).
24
 Time = 1.50E + 01 Time = 1.50E + 01
Min (N) = -1.27E + 04 Min (N) = -9.60E + 02
Max (X) = 3.04E + 02 Max (X) = 1.59E + 02

Contour levels
Contour levels A = -8.48E + 02
A = -1.14E + 04 B = -7.36E + 02
B = -1.01E + 04 C = -6.24E + 02
C = -8.82E + 03 D = -5.12E + 02
D = -7.52E + 03 E = -4.00E + 02
E = -6.21E + 03 F = -2.88E + 02
F = -4.19E + 03 G = -1.76E + 02
G = -3.61E + 03 H = -6.45E + 01
H = -2.30E + 03 I = O.
I = -9.99E + 02

" l!
h-H ++t+ I 0' G G" tl
GVBG
;0, , '<f. foH ~
1:1: I:
00 0 " G G H
c C 1 H HI
B B
1I x
I" HI

Figure 29. High explosive hoop stress (psi) Figure 30. High explosive interface shear
contours for conditions of Fig. 25 (bonded stress (psi) contours for conditions of Fig. 25
in terface). (bonded interface).

Introducing a large compressive hoop stress com-
ponent and a smaller compressive radial stress
component actually causes the yield stress to de-
crease. This is what happens when the chamber
pressure is introduced on the side of the projectile
(refer to Fig. 33 for effective stress contours).
Figures 31-36 illustrate various stresses in the pro-
jectile case for unbonded and bonded M437s.
Since the pressure is exerted on the conical section
of the case, the axial stresses are somewhat re-
duced below the roteting band, further decreasing
the calculated axial stresses in the case.
Both projectile cases experience yielding with
the bonded interfacE, resulting in a larger region
of case yielding. The M437 projectile case yield
strength was taken as 85 X 103 psi. Adding an
effective interface bond dramatically reduces the
axial stresses in the explosive. The radial and
hoop compression stresses are also reduced a mi-
nor amount. The ccJculations imply that a full
bond will require a shear strength exceeding 900
psi. A calculation de:;cribed earlier predicts that a
bond to the mid-point of the case requires a shear
strength exceeding 1400 psi (Fig. 24). All in all, the
details of the model influence the calculated state
of stress, and the model shown in Fig. 25 is a vast
improvement over the earlier model.
Bonding causes the transmission of axial
loads into the projectile case, thus raising the axial
stresses in the case. The M437 case has been
shown to yield in localized regions. To test the
effect of yielding, calculations were performed
with a case model exhibiting a higher yield
strength (Figs. 37 and 38). These two figures show
that only modest changes occur in the explosive,
stresses. The effect of yielding is largest on the
hoop stress in the explosive, increasing this stress
by 2000 psi. The axial stress distribution in the
high explosive is reduced by a more modest
amount. Thus, only a minor gain can be expected
by employing a higher yield strength steel in this
projectile. In general, the case and the explosive
fill interact extensively in determining the explo-
sive stresses. A thorough structural analysis, such
as the one performed here, is required to fully pre-
dict the interactions between the applied loads,
the explosive fill, the steel case, and the explosive-
steel case interface conditions. The analysis of er-
ratic propellant burn discussed below further il-
lustrates the strong coupling between these factors.

25
 Time ~ 1.50E + 01
Min (N) ~ -7.90E + 04
Max (X) ~ -1.25E + 03
Time ~ 1.50E + 01
Contour levels Min (N) ~ 6.25E + 02
A ~ -7.12E + 04 Max (X) ~ 9.17E + 04
B ~ -6.34E + 04
C ~ -5.56E + 04
o~ -4.79E + 04 Contour levels
E ~ -4.01E+04 A ~ 9.73E + 03
F ~ -3.23E + 04 B ~ 1.88E + 04
G ~ -2.46E + 04 C ~ 2.79E + 04
H ~ -1.68E + 04 o~ 3.71E + 04
I ~ -9.02E + 03 E ~ 4.62E + 04
F ~ 5.53E + 04
G ~ 6.44E + 04
H ~ 7.35E + 04
I ~ 8.26E + 04

Figure 31. Case axial stress (psi) contours for Figure 33. Case effective stress (psi) contours
conditions of Fig. 25 (unbonded interface). for conditions of Fig. 25 (unbonded interface).

Contour levels
+ • Time ~ 1.50E + 01
Min (N) ~ -1.34E + 05 A ~ -8.08E + 04
Max (X) ~ 2.04E + 04 B = -7.21E + 04
H
C ~ -6.33E + 04
x o~ -5.45E + 04
Contour levels .or-1.
r \
E
F
~
~
-4.75E + 04
-3.70E + 04
A ~ -1.19E + 05 i '\
I
G ~ -2.82E + 04
B ~ -1.03E + 05 \ H ~ -1 .94E + 04
C
o~
~ -8.79E
-7.24E
+ 04
+ 04
/ \ I ~ -1.06E+04
I,

!
E ~ -5.69E + 04 I
F ~ -4.15E + 04 \
\ . Time = 1.50E + 01
G ~ -2.60E + 04 Min (N) ~ -8.96E + 04
H ~ -1.06E + 04 Max (X) ~ -1.86E + 03
I ~ O.
I
I \ r

':1
c~ p
c

Figure 32. Case hoop stress (psi) contours for Figure 34. Case axial stress (psi) contours for
conditions of Fig. 25 (unbonded interface). conditions of Fig. 25 (bonded interface).

26
 Time = 1.50E + 01 Time = 1.50E + 01
Min (N) = -1,45E + 05 Min (N) = -B.07E + 03
Max (X) = B.24E + 03 Max (X) = -6.5BE + 02

Contour levels Contour levels

A = -1 .30E + 05 A = -7.33E + 03
B = -1 .14E + 05 B = -6.5BE + 03
C = -9.90E + 04 C -5.B4E
= + 03
D = -B.37E + 04 D -5.1 OE
= + 03
E = -6.B4E + 04 E -4.36E
= + 03
F = -5.31E + 04 F -3.62E
= + 03
G= -3.77E + 04 G -2.BBE
= + 03
H = -2.24E + 04 H = -2.14E + 03
I = -7.0BE + 03 I = -1.40E + 03

l'
-F F£
r-F

Figure 35. Case hoop stress (psi) contours for Figure 37. High explosive axial stress (psi)
conditions of Fig. 25 (bonded interface). contours for conditions of Fig. 25, but with a
projectile case with u y = 135 ksi (bonded
interface).
Time = 1.50E + 01 Time = 1.50E + 01
Min (N) = 1.99E + 03 Min (N) = -1.06E + 04
Max (X) = 9.67E + 04 Max (X) = 3.06E + 02

Contour levels Contour levels

A = 1.15E + 04 A = -9.54E + 03
B = 2.09E + 04 B = -B.45E + 03
C = 3.04E + 04 C = -7.35E + 03
D = 3.99E + 04 D = -6.26E + 03
E = 4.93E + 04 E = -5.16E + 03
F = 5.88E + 04 F = -4.07E + 03
G = 6.B3E + 04 G = -2.98E + 03
H = 7.nE + 04 H = -1.BBE + 03
I = B.72E + 04 I = -7.BBE + 02

I)

E
FO
H
I
I.

Figure 36. Case effective stress (psi) contours

\~
Figure 38. High explosive hoop stress (psi)
for conditions of Fig. 25 (bonded interface). contours for conditions of Fig. 25, but with a
projectile case with u y = 135 ksi (bonded
interface).
27
 Erratic propellant burn results in a highly ab-
normal launch loading for the M437. It is specu-
lated that a significant number of erratic propel-
lant burns occurred in Southeast Asia with the
M437 projectile. Figure 12 shows a chamber pres-
sure history determined experimentally by
ARRADCOM Large Caliber Weapons System
Laboratory18 during an erratic propellant burn.
This chamber pressure history is characterized by
several very rapid and large pressure excursions.
The M437 was studied to determine its structural
response, focusing on the stresses that occur in the
base area of the explosive fill. It is known from
prior investigations 19 -21 that interface friction af-
fects the response of the projectile system and, in
particular, the stresses in the explosive base. It
was suggested that interface friction may effec-
tively accrue the same benefits as bonding. Con-
sequently, one of our major goals was to deter-
mine the structural behavior of the system with
and without the effects of friction.
Calculations in which no friction exists be-
tween the explosive and the projectile case were
the first series performed. Here we present the fi-
nal model and the results of calculations per-
formed on that model. Although the ability to
model the sliding motion of the explosive and the
projectile case does not exist at many organiza-
tions, LLNL is fortunate and has several codes (in-
cluding DTVIS2 14 and DYNA2D 8) with the ability
to model frictionless sliding and gap opening
along interfaces. Figure 12 illustrates the chamber
pressure history. The rotating band load is identi-
fied in Fig. 13. The maximum chamber pressure
occurs at 5.9 ms. Each element has its own unique
stress history so that maximum stresses are at-
tained at various instances of time. However, 5.9
ms is a key time because the stress anywhere in
the projectile is near its absolute maximum value.
Figures 39 through 42 show the axial, hoop, radial,
and effective stresses in the projectile. These
stresses represent a substantial increase in load
over and above the maximum probable loads dis-
cussed earlier (Figs. 26 and 27). If voids were to
exist anywhere in the lower two-thirds of the fill,
the distortion of adjacent explosive would almost
surely fill them. This presents the possibility of
thermal energy concentrations, both from adia-
batic gas compression and hysteretic heat genera-
tion-heat generation resulting from inelastic dis-
tortion. Figure 43 is the axial stress history at the
very base of the explosive. The state of stress is

Time = 5.90E - 03
Time = 5.90E - 03 Min (N) = -4,23E + 04
Min (N) = -3.46E + 04 Max IX) = 7.02E + 02
Max (X) = -1.03E + 02

Contour levels
Contour levels
A = -3.BOE + 04
A = -3.12E + 04 B = -3.37E + 04
\\ B = -2.77E + 04 C = -2,94E + 04
C = -2.43E + 04 D = -2.51E + 04
D = -2.0BE + 04 E = -2.0BE + 04
E = -1.74E+04 F = -1 ,65E + 04
F = -1.39E + 04 G = -1 ,22E + 04
G = -1.05E + 04 H = -7.19E + 03
H = -7.01E + 03 I = -3.60E + 03
I = -3.56E + 03 ; ,

, ft

'0 " G G
DO
GG
a: a:
g 8 F C
<' F

e 8
:ff ~GG~ '1l.
AN
•
,,~ 88 G'•
'i'!---E'

Figure 39. High explosive axial stress (psi) Figure 40. High explosiv.[! hoop stress (psi)
contours for erratic propellant burn (no inter- contours for erratic propellant burn (no inter-
face friction). face friction).

28
 Time = 5.90E - 03 Time = 5.90E + - 03
Min (N) = -3.96E + 04 Min (N) = 4.16E + 02
Max (X) = 4.40E + 02 Max (X) = 1.00E + 04

Contour levels Contour levels

A = -3.56E + 04 A = 1.37E + 03
B = -3.16E + 04 B = 2.33E + 03
C = -2.76E + 04 C = 3.29E + 03
o = -2.36E + 04 0= 4.25E + 03
E = -1.96E + 04 E = 5.21E+03
F = -1.56E + 04 F = 6.17E+03
G = -1.16E + 04 G=7.13E+03
H = -7.57E + 03 H = B.OBE + 03
I = -3.57E + 03 I = 9.04E + 03
11
H H •
11

HH HH

v Gv v'

., c C
F·

C C

~ ,D 't ~
~

M ~)
~
"
Figure 41. High explosive radial stress (psi) Figure 42. High explosive effective stress (psi)
contours for erratic propellant burn (no inter- contours for erratic propellant burn (no inter-
face friction). face friction).

5 I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I
I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I

0
\'1
-5 . '.

C"')
-10
a
X
-15
'Vi

i~'
0.

N
-20
I
Cl
NI I
.
(.f) I

-25 I

-30
I
I r.
-35 "i'l
I I.:
'J W
t-
f-
-40 II I I I I
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011
Time (s)
Figure 43. High f,xplosive axial stress history for erratic propellant burn at base of projectile (no
interface friction).
29
largely hydrostatic compression. Imagine a defect
such as a void or base gap in the base area. A free
surface that can sustain no normal load is associ-
ated with these defects. Consequently, the total
state of stress has a significant deviatoric compo-
nent. Composition-B cannot sustain stress levels
of this magnitude except in hydrostatic compres-
sion, and thus considerable distortion will occur
around the defects. The enhanced possibility for
ignition through adiabatic compression of gases is
obvious. Figures 44 through 47 show the de-
formed configuration and the axial, hoop, and ef-
fective stresses in the projectile case. The projec-
tile case is shown to yield. The hoop stress
resulting from the chamber pressure below the ro-
tating band is the largest stress. The effect of the
Time = 5.90E-03
Fricta problem with mu = 0.0
Magn ification factor = 1. E+OO
Figure 44. Distorted projectile (no magnifica-
tion) near peak loading.
30
rotating band pressure and the chamber pressure
along the sides is to develop normal stresses at the
explosive-case interface. The relative motion in
these areas makes them the primary location of
ignition, if ignitions occur due to interface friction.
Figure 48 shows the predicted motion at the inter-
face. These predictions illustrate that several sig-
nificant cycles of motion are possible with an er-
ratic propellant burn. Thus, the potential for heat
generation from interface friction is enhanced.
Bear in mind that no restraining friction exists in
this model. The results as depicted in Fig. 48
would be most appropriate for the situation of a
slightly loose fill such as would exist, for example,
at cold firings.
Considerable interest was generated by the
initial frictionless erratic propellant burn calcula-
tions. Performing predictions that included the
Time = 5.90E - 03
Min (N) = -1.32E + 05
Max (X) = 1.93E + 03
::r'-
: -\
X lh, Contour levels
A=-1.19E+05
B = -1.05E+05
C = -9.20E + 04
[) = -7.86E + 04
\
EO = -6.52E + 04
F = -5.17E + 04
. G = -3.83E + 04
H = -2.49E + 04
1= -1.15E+04
, I
I, '
Figure 45. Cilse axial stress (psi) contours for
erratic propellant burn (no interface friction).
 ) t:
---r;---rr-"
Time = 5.90E - 03 Time = 5.90E - 03
Min (N) = -1.58E + 05 Min (N) =2.21E + 03
Max (X) = 4.42E + 04 Max (X) = 8.55E + 04
'~ e
q. "

Contour levels Contour levels

A = -1.38E + 05 A = 1.05E + 04
B = -1.17E + 05 B = 1.89E + 04
C = -9.72E + 04 C = 2.72E + 04
o = -7.70E + 04 0= 3.55E + 04
E = -5.68E + 04 E = 4.39E + 04
F = -3.66E + 04 F = 5.22E + 04
G = -1.64E + 04 G= 6.05E + 04
H = O. H= 6.89E + 04
I = 2.40E + 04 I = 7.72E + 04

I
f.

~.
"

~ I'd ;\
i
'
0

'
~
f I
I
Il~ ,
~
I

~ !.J!
I

Figure 46. Case hoop stress (psi) contours for Figure 47. Case effective stress (psi) contours
erratic propellant burn (no interface friction). for erratic propellant burn (no interface
friction).

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
-c:
...c:
Q)
-0.02
E
Q)
(,)
co -0.04
Q.
.!!!
"C
I -0.06
N

-0.08

-0.10

0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011
Time (5)

Figure 48. Relative motion at high explosive-case interface at a location under rotating band (no
interface friction).
31
effects of interface friction took on a very high
priority. As mentioned earlier, considerable diffi-
culty was encountered in performing calculations
with friction. In theory, there were two LLNL
structural codes, DYNA2D and NIKE2D, capable
of handling interfacial friction although the ca-
pability had never been exercised. DYNA2D was
expected to significantly increase computer costs.
Our original strategy was to employ the code
NIKE2D to perform these calculations. However,
after numerous unsuccessful efforts with NIKE2D,
we abandoned this code because its slide line ca-
pability was insufficient in handling the added
complexities of interface friction. (In the interim
its frictionless slide line capabilities have been
considerably improved.) Use of the explicit struc-
tural analysis code DYNA2D became necessary.
Here again problems were encountered and the
required modifications were difficult to isolate.
However, after implementation of the appropriate
modifications, the frictional subroutine performed
effectively. The frictional interface capability of
DYNA2D is a reliable code feature at the present
time. Along the same vein, substantial improve-
ments in postprocessing were implemented to
SAPP, thereby explicitly identifying interface
forces and stresses. These postprocessing features
have also been crucial to effective analysis in
other situations involving structural models with
sophisticated applications of slide lines.
Interface shear forces associated with friction
are calculated by the interface friction logic in
DYNA2D. Although an algorithm existed in
DYNA2D for performing calculations with inter-
face friction, it required considerable modification
before successful calculations of the projectile
environment were accomplished. The frictional
theory employed is the same as presented in ele-
mentary physics and statics (Coulomb friction)
where the frictional load can be no larger than
some fraction of the normal load without the oc-
currence of sliding at the interface. In a contin-
uum, the same conditions are applied point to
point, and sliding can occur locally. If conditions
suitable for limited general sliding exist, then they
must be initiated locally and propagate until the
entire interface is sliding. Consequently, Coulomb
friction in a continuum setting allows much more
complicated behavior than is possible in dealing
with rigid bodies. Developing the DYNA2D inter-
face subroutine to actually perform these calcula-
tions proved very challenging.
Frictional interface forces are governed by
both the local distortion field and the local relative
velocity field. At any given instant these fields are
not directly related. In turn, the local interface fric-
32
tion modifies both of these fields (particularly in
the high explosive) and immediately all the fric-
tional parameters are strongly coupled. We found
that the frictional loads could alter the local rela-
tive velocities and distortion field substantially in
a single time step. This often resulted in a reversal
of the frictional conditions. Once initiated, the os-
cillating friction forces propagated along the inter-
face. Thus, if the coupling is not properly con-
trolled.. the interactions cause the process to
become unstable and nonphysical behavior is pre-
dicted. Factors associated with our difficulties
were the following: local transitions from dynamic
(sliding) to static friction and vice versa; differ-
ences in the interface friction field before and after
chamber pressure development (early time re-
sponse is dominated by rotating band pressures);
and rapid changes in chamber pressure. The cur-
rent algorithm controls the frictional loads effec-
tively. Verification is achieved by observing over a
period of several time steps that the relationships
between normal force, shear force, and relative
velocity are consistent with the assumptions of
Coulomb friction. As the results to be discussed
next illustrate, the periods of interface sliding are
brief with friction and do not exhibit the cyclic
behavior of the zero friction case.
Presented further on are the results from er-
ratic propellant burn calculations in which an in-
terface friction coefficient, J.I. = 0.1, has been ap-
plied. The static and dynamic frictions are always
taken to have the same value. This system is mod-
eled as a baseline geometry, with ideal mating at
the explosive-steel case interface. Figures 49
through 51 illustrate the explosive stresses at the
time of their largest general values. The hoop and
the radial stresses are, in fact, larger than the axial
stress component. Figure 52 illustrates the inter-
face shear stress component in the explosive and
along the interface. The explosive case has been
modeled with a yield stress of 85 ksi. Consider-
able interaction between the steel case and the ex-
plosive fill is evident. Figure 53 is an illustration of
the projectile's deformed configuration when
magnified 10 X. The nature of the behavior is
such that the explosive below the rotating band
actually supports the projectile case. Notice that
the shear stresses at the interface change sign so
that the case is actually supported by the explo-
sive. It is clear from Fig. 53 that this is the conse-
quence of the case undergoing plastic distortions,
particularly radial motion. Consequently, little re-
duction in axial stress in the explosive occurs as a
result of interface friction. Figure 54 shows the ax-
ial stress history at the base of the explosive fill
which has a peak value near 30 ksi. Figure 55
 Time = 6.00E - 03 Time = 6.00E - 03
Min (Nl = -3.06E + 04 Min (Nl = -3.55E + 04
Max (Xl = -4.87E + 02 Max (Xl = 1.05E + 03

Contour levels Contour levels

A = -2.76E + 04 A= -3.18E+04
B = -2A6E + 04 B = -2.82E + 04
C = -2.15E + 04 C = -2A5E + 04
D = -1.85E + 04 D = -2.09E + 04
E = -1.55E + 04 E = -1.72E + 04.
F = -1.25E + 04 F = -1.36E + 04
G = -9.51E + 03 G = -9.91E + 03
H = -6.50E + 03 H = -6.26E + 03
I = -3.50E + 03 I = -2.60E + 03
~G. BB- _ (J

I~ -F-f" F
I
, I
I[ E E j
I -E-E I
~IDCf 'OJ
,
t ,;
I~ ~I
"

i'
o
" I'i B

Figure 49. High explosive axial stress (psi) Figure 51. High explosive radial stress (psi)
contours for erratic propellant burn (IJ. = 0.1). contours for erratic propellant burn (IJ. = 0.1).

Time = 6.00E - 03
Time = 6.00E - 03
Min (Nl = -1.08E + 03
Min (Nl = -3.76E + 04
Max (Xl 2.51E + 03
Max (Xl = 1.05E + 03

Contour levels ~\ Contour levels

A = -1.37E + 03
A = -3.38E + 04
B = -9AOE + 02
B = -2.99E + 04
C = -2.60E + 04 fr~:O' a \ C = -5.08E + 02
D = O.
D = -2.22E + 04
E = -1.83E + 04
-Il" -&-0\ E = 3.55E + 02
'I, F = 7.87E + 02
F = -1 A4E + 04
G= 1.22E + 03
G = -1.06E + 04
H = -6.69E + 03 '(c,
"
t BB H=
I =
1.65E
2.08E
+ 03
+ 03
I = -2.82E + 03 It ,
,1'0 a .f)
I, ,
011
I

Figure 50. High explosive hoop stress (psi) Figure 52. Interface shear stress (psi) equals
contours for erratic propellant burn (IJ. = 0.1). uJK" shear stress at interface (IJ. = 0.1).

33
 shows the effective strain contours in the projec-
Time = 6.00E - 03
tile case. Figures 56 through 61 illustrate the time
history of the shear and normal stresses at several
locations on the explosive. Calculations with a
much stronger projectile case (O'"m = 135 ksi) have
also been performed, and the axial explosive
stresses are shown in Fig. 62. The peak axial
stresses in the explosive encounter a significant
reduction. Figure 63 illustrates the relative motion
at the interface under the rotating band of the pro-
jectile. The maximum frictional energy generation
occurs at this location.
An extensive matrix of calculations was per-
formed utilizing the frictional interface capability
we incorporated into DYNA2D. The studies in-
cluded simulations with varying coefficients of
friction, tied interfaces, and effects of loading
changes. The basic conclusion is that, for erratic
pressure burn on the M437, interface friction does
little to reduce the stresses in the base of the high
explosive fill. Clearly, this environment greatly
enhances the likelihood of an artillery projectile
premature.
A final consideration in our examination of
Figure 53. Magnified (10 X) deformed shape the erratic propellant problem was to estimate the
at maximum loads (/J. = 0.1).

5 ,--,-,---"-,---"-,---"-,----r--T-·i'I-lrTl'1-'-1--'-'1"1'1-'-1'1-'-1' 1 ' 1 - " - ' , , , I ' , , , I ' , , , I ' , , , I ' , , '~

O i

-5
M
o
x -10
'u;
0.
c
~ -15
....
Q)
.....
VI

N -20 -
I,,'
I
C'l
U5
-25
l
-30

-35 11111111 I 1111111 1 ...LLLl..1 111111 I , 1 1 1 I I I I III

1
J
o 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010
Time (s)

Figure 54. High explosive axial stress history for erratic propellant burn (/J. = 0.1).

34
 Time ~ 6.00E - 03
Min (N) ~ 7.18E - 05
Max (X) ~ 2.14E - 02
Contour levels
A ~ 2.12E - 03
8 ~ 4.34E - 03
C ~ 6.48E - 03
D~8.61E-03
E ~ 1.07E - 02
F ~ 1.29E - 02
G ~ 1.50E - 02
H~1.72E-02
I ~ 1.93E - 02

384

378

Nodes 334

290

, -----:

Figure 55. Case dfective strain (in. lin.) con- Figure 56. Identification of nodes for Figs. 59
tours for erratic propellant burn (JL = 0.1). through 63.

25,000
CI)
Cl.
20,000
Q)
'- 15,000
::::l
CI)
CI)
Q)
'- 10,000
a..
5,000

2,000

1,000
'-
C\J
Q)
.!:: 0
C/)

-1,000

-2,000~---~--~----~---L----L---~--~----~---L--~----~~=
o 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011
Time (s)

Figure 57. High E'xplosive normal and shear stress history at node 268 for erratic propellant burn
(JL = 0.1).

35
 15,000

(/)
0.. 10,000
Q)
....
::l
(/)
(/)

....
Q)
5,000
a..

~ -------"'---_---'----__---'--1_ _-,-I
--~-l·
1,000

500
....co
Q)
.!:
0
(/)

-500

-1,000
-1,500
0
Time (s)

Figure 58. High explosive normal and shear stress history at node 290 for erratic propellant burn
(J.l = 0.1).

8,000
(/)
0..
6,000
....
Q)

::l
(/)
(/)
Q)
4,000
....
a..
20001-
, I
I

....
co

i ~~I ~ ~\ l~~MiI(\w'JJ~I~'N
Q)

,
.!:
(/)

-500 [I I 'I 1'1'\ I~~~ /~ -'

I \'1 \I'!I~J/
- 1 000 ==-----,-1_ _,---I_---'-1_ _'---_-'-1_--'-\L-I_~~ 1 1
, 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011
Time (s)

Figure 59. High explosive normal and shear stress history at node 334 for erratic propellant burn
(J.l = 0.1).

36
 10,000

.iii
8,000
0..
6,000
....
Q)

::::l

'"....'" 4,000

2.000L
Q)

0...

1,000

500
....
co
~ 0 ~-------------------+----~~--m-------~r----------+----+-+-~
U)

-500

~~~~~~~~~~~
o 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Time (s)

Figure 60. High explosive normal and shear stress history at node 378 for erratic propellant burn
('" = 0.1).

8,000
.iii
0.. 6,000
....
Q)

::::l
~ 4,000
....
Q)

0...
2,000

500 ~

-~~ --A---c-- --- - ~

}J-J~Yw~_A_.
-500

o 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011
Time (s)

Figure 61. High explosive normal and shear stress history at node 389 for erratic propellant burn
('" = 0.1).

37
 r~'" temperature rise from the frictional energy im-
Time = 5.90E -3 plied by our model. In fact, the predictions in this
Min (N) = -2.09E + 04 regard are of very limited value. Sliding friction
I \ Max (Xl = -2.59E + 02
and heat generation are known to be localized
phenomena 22 - 24 with locally enhanced stresses
Contour levels and heat generation. To properly evaluate
1 = -1.88E + 02 whether the calculated conditions may actually
2 = -1.67E + 04
3 = -1.47 E + 04 achieve ignition, the rational approach would be
4 = - 1.26E+ 04 to build a laboratory test simulating the states of
5 = -1.06E + 04 stress and relative velocity we have identified in
6 = -8.50E + 03
7 = -6.44E + 03 our structural calculations. From examining the
8 = -4.38E + 03 results of calculations with J1 = 0.1 and J1 = 0.2
9 = -2.32E + 03 (coefficient of friction), it was determined that the
maximum heat generation occurred under the ro-
tating band. It was also found that the total heat
generated by each value of J1 was virtually the
same (0.21 callcm 2) and that this value varied
slowly along the length of the projectile. Conse-
quently, a one-dimensional heat transfer analysis
simulating local conditions was adequate. Such a
heat transfer analysis was performed with the
code TRUMP. The heat generation was applied
over 500 X 10- 6 s. Of the two models examined,
the first assumed that heat generation occurred at
Figure 62. High explosive axial stress (psi) the steel explosive interface. The peak tempera-
contours for erratic propellant burn with 135 ksi ture rise was a moderate 45°C. The second model
case (J.L = 0.1). assumed that the sliding occurs 50 X 10- 6 m from

0.03 '1'' 'I 1111 '111,11'/ II I'

0.02

0.01

c: 0
J
-I

....c:
-0.01 r~
Q)

E
Q)
u
~
0. -0.02
rJl
-c
N
-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

I I I
-0.06
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0,,007 0.008 0.009 0.010
Time (s)
Figure 63. Relative motion at high explosive-case interface at a location under rotating band
(J.L = 0.1).
38
 the interface and is high explosive sliding on high
explosive. This model provides a more substantial
temperature rise and implies melting of explosive
at the interface, which is expected. Temperatures
achieved in this model are an order of magnitude
lower than those required for ignition on millisec-
ond time frames. This is not surprising because
the events associated with frictional ignition are
not simulated in this heat transfer model. These
events are discussed at length in Sec. 5, "Ignition
through Hysteretic Heating and Friction."
We have shown the potential advantages of
an effective bonding system for maximum proba-
ble loading situations. The maximum axial stress
is reduced very substantially. In fact, the hoop and
radial stresses are now the maximum stresses. It
may be that in this type of system the hoop
stresses will correlate more strongly with prema-
ture rates due to the reduction in axial stresses.
The required bond strength has also been identi-
fied through these calculations. For the thermal
cycling environment, it has been pointed out that
tensile stresses far in excess of fracture strength
are predicted in a cold temperature soak if the ex-
39
plosive is assumed to be elastic. Although the
available information is incomplete, some evi-
dence implies that new Composition-B formula-
tions are capable of sustaining this environment
and thus are not governed by elastic behavior
during thermal cycling. Determination of the
properties controlling stresses during thermal cy-
cling is an area in which research can yield results
with a major impact on projectile sensitivity (dis-
cussed further in Sec. 6). The erratic propellant
burn problem was extensively studied. New ca-
pabilities in DYNA2D and SAPP have been de-
veloped. It has been demonstrated through our
calculations that "erratic propellant burn" consti-
tutes an order of magnitude more severe environ-
ment than that associated with the maximum
probable loads at Zone 3 firings.
The ultimate question of the role played by
interface friction on sensitivity has not been
answered.
In order to further the understanding of this
important question, a continued experimental and
analytic approach would be required.
 Section 5. Premature Ignition Mechanisms,
Current Perspective, and Future Studies
Although it was not a direct part of our task
to investigate the causes of prematures, these
questions received considerable attention and our
conclusions are summarized in this report. An at-
tempt has been made to rationalize the study of
artillery projectile prematures by focusing on
premature-promoting conditions for artillery shells,
i.e., special conditions that dramatically increase
the projectile's sensitivity (enhance the likelihood
of a local ignition). One consideration is the pre-
mature mechanism, either compressively heating
a gas, or concentrated heating by a process involv-
ing inelastic (hysteretic) distortions of the high ex-
plosive. These mechanisms have been demon-
strated in ideal experimental situations that
cannot be transferred to the gun-launch environ-
ment. The other consideration is to determine
when these processes will occur in an artillery
shell, i.e., the premature-promoting conditions.
The greater uncertainty is with respect to the
premature-promoting conditions that allow igni-
tion to occur during the gun-launch environment.
Section 3 discussed void compression in hot guns
(molten interface), which is a proposed premature
promoting condition for gas compression heating.
Identifying the associated premature promoting
conditions that allow premature ignitions to occur
is the basis for understanding artillery projectile
sensitivity. There are many thermomechanical pa-
rameters affecting premature ignitions and they
will be discussed.
The factors required for ignition of
Composition-B through gas compression and fric-
tion are discussed in detail. It is through the syn-
thesis of these factors that one can develop a defi-
nition of the premature promoting conditions for
artillery shells. The manner in which thermal and
mechanical material properties influence this pro-
posed behavior is also discussed. Finally, an inte-
grated analytic and experimental effort to verify
and quantify these proposed effects is presented.
Projectile Sensitivity
In an environment such as with the in-bore,
the sensitivity of a projectile is controlled by three
sets of parameters: chemical or decomposition be-
havior at elevated temperatures, mechanical be-
havior resulting in heat generation, and local heat
transfer characteristics. Inasmuch as changes in
stress, temperature, and geometric configuration
40
(cracking or melting, for example) occur during
the potential ignition environment, their effect on
mechanical behavior, heat generation, and heat
transfer must be included in describing a particu-
lar path to ignition.
Chemical Behavior
The thermomechanical paths that lead to in-
advertent ignition have varied and unique charac-
teristics. (Contrast, for example, the path involved
in adiabatic compression in hot guns and the vari-
ous friction ignition paths, described later in this
section, that involve an entirely different sequence
of events.) However, the chemical behavior is ex-
pected to be similar for the various premature ig-
nition mechanisms, because the significant tem-
perature changes occur on relatively the same
time frame for all the mechanisms.' It is antici-
pated that the time frame is on the order of frac-
tions of a millisecond. In particular, this is true for
the Skid Test, one of the better characterized pro-
totypes for inadvertent ignition. For all premature
ignition paths, short time frames are expected in
view of the fact that the energy available to heat
the explosive is very limited and only a small re-
gion of material can be elevated to the required
temperatures. This heated material is surrounded
by an unheated mass that conducts thermal en-
ergy away. Thus, with limited energies available,
the energy must be deposited very rapidly to
achieve the large temperature rises required for
ignition. Low available thermal energy and rapid
heat transfer away from potential ignition sites ef-
fectively limit the time available for ignition. In
our studies we have not quantified these heat
transfer considerations, but such studies are cer-
tainly feasible and would be very useful. This is
disc~ssed later under the subsection "Heat Trans-
fer and Gun Prematures.'· It seems reasonable
then to expect a narrow time-temperature window
throughout the spectrum of gun launch ignition
paths. Thus, the decomposition behavior, for the
most part, can be normalized or eliminated when
conSidering or comparing the various ignition
mechanisms against one another.
Sensitivity in the various ignition modes is
affected by a number of thermomechanical fea-
tures that determine the inadvertent heat genera-
tion rates, heat transfer, local temperature histor-
ies, and hence the sensitivity of a particular
situation. By altering or controlling these param-
eters, a decrease in system sensitivity can be ac-
complished without changing the basic explosive.
Thus, when we speak of sensitivity, it is in the
framework of the total projectile and its environ-
ment, and not a fundamental chemical property of
the explosive.
Thermal and Mechanical Behavior
The role of mechanical behavior in
prematures is that of providing heat generation
within the high explosive fill.
The types of mechanical action that can cre-
ate sufficient heat for Composition-B ignition are
as follows:
• Rapid collapse/volume change of gaseous
inclusions.
• Friction involving thin layers of molten
explosive (several paths lead to this final stage).
• Plastic flow/extrusion of explosive acting
as a precursor to fluid flow of the explosive.
• Friction of condensed phase material may
also be a contributc-r.
The following factors influence the extent to
which these ignition modes are likely to occur:
• External loads.
• Global response to loads.
• Initial geometry of projectile (base gaps,
interface voids, initial temperatures, etc.).
• Effect of thermomechanical properties on
local response. This includes changes in proper-
ties that occur during loading such as melting.
Before delving into the ignition modes, some
general comments on the factors just identified
are warranted. External loads and the global re-
sponse to loads (first two items cited) have al-
ready been described. The differences, for exam-
ple, in global response for rocket-assisted
projectiles are discussed in Sec. 7. The overall pic-
ture on premature statistics 1 shows that the higher
the launch loads, the more severe the premature
problem. The general trend should be nonlinear
where increasing loads result in greater and
greater likelihood of prematures once critical
thresholds are reached. That the conditions of the
high explosive fill are a key factor is evidenced by
examining the state of the art of sensitivity testing.
Basically, all experiments of inadvertent ignition
(the Skid Test in certain instances is an exception)
employ an explosivE' sample with a special feature
and are a test of the sensitizing effect of that fea-
ture. Examples are the Pica tinny Arsenal Acti-
vator Tests (Weigand and Vorack 25 ) with explo-
41
sive extrusion holes, the Australian experience
with coated interfaces} the NSWC simulator,26
the Activator tests performed at the Ballistics
Research Laboratory (ARRADCOM)/ prior U.s.
Navy premature testing} and the 1977 premature
at the Yuma Proving Grounds.27 Defect-free con-
figurations in these tests do not ignite, and it is
reasonable to assume that the statement will hold
for the projectile system itself. The final factor
mentioned above was the explosive's thermome-
chanica I properties. Thermomechanical material
properties, in conjunction with the local loading,
will control behavior around defects, and thus the
manner and time frames in which heat generation
occurs. Very little is known about these properties
and their influence on in-bore behavior. Locally
concentrated heat generation in the high explo-
sive fill is required to achieve high temperatures
in the explosive. Certain material properties playa
fundamental role in these events and it is my pur-
pose to suggest what these are. A more detailed
discussion of certain mechanical properties (sup-
porting calculations, how to test, etc.) is presented
in Sec. 6. Further statements pertaining to the spe-
cific role of these factors in a particular ignition
mode are reserved for the discussion of these
modes.
Ignition Through Hysteretic
Heating and Friction
The role of friction in premature ignitions is
not clear and must be firmly established. We must
determine what factors can make a projectile sen-
sitive to frictional ignition, and whether it is a cur-
rent problem with high-performance projectiles,
or whether it may become a problem with them in
the future. By examining and accounting for cer-
tain dominant physical features of TNT and RDX,
broad statements on frictional ignition can be
made. The opinion presented here is that viscous
fluid friction is an important process, because any
inelastic deformation (and hence heat-generating)
process in the explosive leads to melt of TNT and
motion of this fluid phase TNT. It will be asserted
that regardless of whether the initial heat genera-
tion is supplied by a continuous inelastic distor-
tion process or sliding friction, the heat generation
that raises the explosive's temperature to thresh-
old levels occurs during fluid friction. The devel-
opment of tests for evaluating the various modes
of frictional ignition would provide a seriously
needed tool. Accounting for what should be the
dominant process in frictional ignition will allow
for rational development of these tests.
 When mechanical energy is converted into
thermal energy in the high explosive fill, a tem-
perature rise results. For the stress levels we are
considering (less than 2 kbar), this occurs as a con-
sequence of inelastic deformations (as opposed to
the JPdV work of detonation phenomena). The
deformation processes will not necessarily occur
uniformly and the hysteretic energy can become
concentrated, leading to significant temperature
rises in the region where the actual distortions oc-
cur. For processes without concentrated deforma-
tion, the temperature rises are insignificant. Tem-
perature increases on the order of 500°C are
required for millisecond time-frame ignition. Tri-
nitrotoluene (TNT) changes to its liquid phase
near 80°C. Consequently, concentrated deforma-
tion processes will lead to molten TNT, and a
Composition-B slurry in which the remaining re-
quired temperature rise (a rather large tempera-
ture rise) for ignition must occur in a molten mate-
rial. Since the resistance to shear motion is
substantially reduced after the phase change, it is
clear that some special circumstances must occur
for the continued hysteretic heating of this mate-
rial to ignition. These heat generation processes
are due to inelastic processes and it is acceptable
to call these processes either hysteretic heating,
deformation heat generation, or fluid viscous fric-
tion (to identify the final stage of the ignition pro-
cess). Processes involving coupled gas compres-
sion and deformation heating have recently been
conceived and are discussed later in this section.
The heat generation in this case does not come
entirely from hysteretic heating and thus is identi-
fied as a somewhat unique process.
A major feature of these processes is that the
potential for performing hysteretic (Le., heat-
generating) work in the explosive fill is very lim-
ited. For example, in the Skid Test 28 only about
one calorie of heat is generated at the friction in-
terface during the rather violent mechanical envi-
ronment of full-scale tests which proceed to igni-
tions. As introduced previously, the temperature
rise is enhanced by concentrating the dissipative
energy into a small amount of explosive. How-
ever, this form of concentration is not sufficient to
ensure ignition, because heat is rapidly transferred
away from the area in which heat generation oc-
curs. This is observable after proper interpretation
of the experimental results of Refs. 13 and 29. To
achieve significant temperature rises, the pro-
cesses must be nearly adiabatic, implying (for the
case of artillery projectiles) that they occur very
rapidly and, thus, minimize the effect of heat
transfer. (Reference 29 illustrates that if no ex-
42
traordinary measures are taken to limit heat trans-
fer, the temperature of TNT cannot be raised sig-
nificantly above its melting temperature during
sliding friction.) In summary, for successful igni-
tion modes we expect these conditions:
• If the defects are not extremely large, the
heat generation must occur in very localized
regions.
• Local melting will occur, implying a tran-
sition into viscous friction.
• Viscous behavior occurs after moderate
temperature increases.
• Heat generation and viscous behavior
must occur rapidly, i.e., some form of accelerating
mechanism may be required to shorten the time
frame of events.
We are faced with understanding processes
where limited total energy must be very rapidly
generated in a very limited quantity of explosive,
and in which a major portion of the heat genera-
tion probably occurs through a fluid or viscous
medium.
The processes that can lead to the formation
of molten Composition-B slurry include interface
friction and inelastic distortions within the explo-
sive which become concentrated. In essence, the
processes are the same and can be discussed to-
gether. Since the evolution of concentrated inelas-
tic deformations in high explosives has not been
studied extensively, a few words concerning this
behavior are warranted. Considerable theoretical
and experimental examination of this phenome-
non has occurred for metals (slip-line theory, con-
centra ted necks, bifurcation analYSis, machining
theory, etc.). It has been speculated to occur with
explosives, and inconclusive experimental ob-
servations exist. No theoretical reasons are appar-
ent for excluding the development of concen-
trated distortion in explosives, and I fully expect
they will be observed. The parameters affecting
the evaluation of concentrated deformation pro-
cesses are as follows:
• The isothermal mechanical properties of
the explosive.
• Geometric and loading conditions affect-
ing the local state of stress.
• The rate at which mechanical properties
are degraded with rising temperature.
• The level of local strain possible.
For an artillery shell (bonded) during gun
launch, the local level of strain is limited except in
the presence of defects (base gaps, extremely
loose fill, filii with core porosity, sliding interface,
etc.), which also act to enhance the stress state for
concentrated distortions. Thus, when experimen-
tal studies are performed, they should be centered
about configurations predisposed to concentrated
flow by incorporation of defects specific to artil-
lery shells. The explosive around a defect must be
observed after testing to evaluate whether con-
centrated distortion occurred. Meaningful com-
puter simulations depend upon an adequate un-
derstanding of th e explosive's mechanical
properties. The reader is reminded that the result
of these processes is formation of Composition-B
slurry (80 C), which must then be heated to igni-
D
tion temperatures.
Lel us proceed to the specifics of frictional
ignition, starting with the frictional ignition of
TNT. Since TNT changes from solid to liquid
D
phase at approximately 80 C, any discussion must
account for the fact that it will be in the liquid
state for most of its temperature rise. Since shear
forces are small in a fluid, it is difficult to achieve
substantial heat generation rates. To achieve sig-
nificant temperature rises after melting, certain
features are required. At this point it will be nec-
essary to discuss several modes for the response
after TNT melting. The first response is the
"shearing only mode" (see Fig. 64). In this mode
the material above the slip-line is in motion rela-
tive to the material below the slip-line (velocity
difference across ba::1d is v r). The material in the
molten band is undergoing shear distortions by
virtue only of the relative motion of the other
bodies. Thus, if the molten band has thickness h
the dissipative energy density rate is
T .. area" Dr
0=----
p . volume
(4)
where p is explosive density and /.l is viscosity.
The thinner the molten region the larger the
shear stresses, if one considers the motion as lami-
nar flow of a Newtonian fluid. Under these as-
sumptions, the heat generation density varies as
the inverse of the thickness squared (Dah - 2).
Therefore, conditions promoting a thinner molten
layer will strongly ~,ensitize the TNT system to
frictional ignition. The dynamic establishment of a
molten layer as well as subsequent flow and heat
transfer require extensive experimental study. The
43
Condensed phase
Figure 64. "Shearing only" mode of viscous
friction.
following are parameters affecting the dynamic
establishment of a molten layer:
• Heat transfer near the region of phase
change.
• Detailed description of TNT viscosity
(temperature is changing).
• Time durations in which motions occur.
The reduced strength of the area undergoing
phase change tends to limit the thickness of the
molten region onto which further motion and
heat generation is restricted. On the other hand,
heat transfer is heating adjacent material and
tends to expand the molten region on which fur-
ther frictional heat generation is occurring. These
are the competing transient processes. An analytic
model would be helpful in describing the inter-
play between the competing mechanisms, and
thus assist in the design and analysis of tests.
Another mode that can occur after molten
material has developed is flow of explosive
through the molten band. For this to occur there
must be an area of low pressure to which the explosive
can flow, e.g., a void exposed by cracking, gaps, or
any other feature that will accept molten explo-
sive. For example, the Cambridge group4 has ob-
served this general type of behavior even in the
process of compressing solid-phase explosive
around large voids. To obtain a preliminary esti-
mate of the sensitizing effect of flow through the
molten band, let us examine developed flow re-
sulting from a 10 OOO-psi, pressure difference. The
Poiseuille equations 3o,31 describe the flow where
we assume the molten gap is O.004-in. thick and
I-in. long before molten explosive is discharged
into the low-pressure region.
The equations describing this flow are
_h 2 dp (maximum fluid velocity
v = ----
max 8/.l dx in developed flow)
f.l = 20 X 20~6Ib-s/fe (molecular viscosity) and is
the viscosity of water at 20°C.
dp 10 000 (lb/in. 2)/in. (pressure gradient)
dx
h = 0.004 in. (molten layer thickness)
D =
tlP '" area '" vlr'eraoe
' c,
volume'" p h"'p
(energy dissipation rate due to viscous
effects),
D = 1.11 X 1011 calories/s/lb
In this case extremely large, fluid velocities
and dissipation density rates are predicted. This
mode is considerably more sensitizing than the
"shear only" mode. Thus, for high-performance
artillery projectiles we envision the explosive fill
forming a region of concentrated flow, followed
by the formation of Composition-B slurry, which
then flows into an adjacent defect. Since the initial
deformation process is the result of a defect, a nat-
ural, low-pressure sink already exists into which
the molten material can flow. A system with a
large void volume will be susceptible to this be-
havior. One very important final point concerns
sliding friction such as might occur in a cold-
conditioned shell. In this case radial interface gaps
develop and the explosive fill may not rotate at
the angular velocity of the shell. The initial fric-
tion is of the "shear only" mode. As the chamber
pressures develop, the loads in the explosive fill
increase and the explosive will yield. The earliest
and most extensive yielding will occur near the
base, resulting in the explosive moving radially
outward. If a molten layer has already developed
due to the initial sliding friction ("shear only"
mode), then the interface pressure created by ex-
Void in Developing
explosive slip band
44
plosive yielding and increasing launch loads will
cause flow along the interface (for unbonded sys-
tems) with dramatically increased sensitivity.
When one understands this sequence of events, it
is a small wonder that ignitions from sliding fric-
tion are difficult to obtain experimentally. A final
note is that the conditions in a rocket-assisted pro-
jectile are much more conducive to this type of
behavior because of the global state of stress in
that type of round (see Sec. 7 for a discussion of
rocket-assisted projectiles). Perhaps the XM 650
(8-in.) premature at Yuma Proving Grounds sev-
eral years ago is an example of this type of
behavior.
The final mode is also a recent concept. It in-
volves the interaction of developing regions of
concentrated flow and small internal voids. If an
area of lower pressure (such as a small void, crack,
or crevice) exists, then the softened material will
distort rapidly into this area by virtue of the lower
pressure in the region. In this situation (Fig. 65),
rapid gas compression can then lead to ignition as
discussed in Sec. 3. Since many small internal
voids exist in artillery shell fills, the question of
whether such a mode is important depends upon
how often internal concentrated distortions actu-
ally occur.
Development of basic tests is essential to
making progress in evaluating the significance of
ignition through hysteretic heating. Several
classes of tests that do not currently exist should
be developed. One class could be patterned along
the configuration of the Pica tinny activator, which
was discussed in Sec. 3". A somewhat larger sam-
ple would be necessary, as well as a means for
removing the explosive sample from the sample
jacket. The goal of this new test is to evaluate how
flow occurs in Composition-B. Various imperfec-
tions can be introduced into the sample, which is
placed in the test configuration and then loaded to
levels consistent with gun environments. The cal-
culations discussed earlier provide a basis for the
load levels. Providing that an explosive event
does not occur, the sample is removed to deter-
mine whether deformations local to the defect
Figure 65. Combined hysteretic
energy and void collapse mecha-
nism. Slip band flows into low-
pressure void and compresses
trapped gases.
have occurred. If distortion is evident, then the
sample is sectioned and prepared for an examina-
tion of microstructure. Microstructural examina-
tion will show if concentrated flow has occurred.
By performing the appropriate matrix of tests it
will be possible to determine effects of condition-
ing temperature, stress level, and load rate on the
formation of concentrated hysteretic heating
zones. Many varia:ions are possible, depending
on the specific information required.
The second cla;;s of tests is for sliding friction.
Several attempts have been made to develop such
a test in the past. 22 28,29 In 1979 I was involved in
an effort to develop a similar capability, "small-
scale friction ignition test," suitable for use in a
laboratory (shot-tank) environment. Unfortu-
nately, this effort was not completed, but the les-
sons learned will be of value to any similar efforts
in the future. There are a number of ways of de-
sensitizing a sliding friction apparatus, and con-
versely, by reversing the same parameters the sys-
tem can be sensitized. The principles are the same
as those discussed earlier:
• Short time-frames for heat generation-
adiabatic conditions.
• Assurance that the heat generated is ap-
plied to the explosive.
The first requirement demands an impactive
test. The test parti3.11y developed at LLNL (see
Fig. 66) consisted of a small sample of explosive in
a sample holder. The holder and sample, sup-
ported in the axial direction, rotate about their
axes from the action of an electric motor. After the
holder is spinning at the appropriate angular ve-
locity, a projectile is impacted into the sample (30
to 40 ft/s, typically). Theoretically, the explosive
sample will spin over the projectile face, resulting
in sliding friction at that interface. After extensive
analysis of this test,32 I have found that the inter-
face pressures and theoretical sliding velocities
encountered are milch like those of the famous
Skid Test,28 which would indicate ignition should
occur. There are, however, several difficulties as-
sociated with conducting such a test. Proper sup-
port of the explosive sample so that it does not
fracture during impact was resolved before the
writer became involved. The other major problem
was to actually develop sliding at the explosive
interface. Sliding occurs, but not necessarily be-
tween the explosivE' and projectile faces. After I
discovered these difficulties, modifications were
developed to ensure that relative sliding occurred
on this interface. The remaining parameter in-
volves how the energy is applied on the interface
and interface heat conduction. The LLNL devel-
45
opment concentrated on projectiles with rough
abrasive surfaces, with no attention given to using
a low-conductivity surface. One can readily calcu-
late that even under ideal conditions (Le., all me-
chanical energy into explosive and no heat trans-
fer) only several thousandths (0.003) of an inch of
explosive can be heated to ignition temperatures.
Consequently, the explosive surface must not be
gouged or broken, or the available energy cannot
be suitably concentrated. A smooth projectile face
must be fabricated from a material with a very
low thermal conductivity. The heat generation oc-
curs on the explosive side of the interface and a
low-conductivity projective surface minimizes
heat transfer into the large heat sink the projectile
represents. For any future effort to develop a lab-
oratory sliding friction ignition test, I recommend
a projectile with a smooth quartz face in a con-
figuration as illustrated in Fig. 66. This test satis-
fies all the prerequisites required for ignition
through interface sliding and will become a pow-
erful tool in answering fundamental questions on
frictional ignition.
Once the tests discussed have been devel-
oped, it will be advantageous to study TNT and
RDX separately. Limited studies along this line
may help explain the role of each constituent dur-
ing the evolution of these hysteretic heating pro-
cesses. The thermal and material properties of
TNT and RDX must be compiled from the litera-
ture to assist in properly interpreting the test re-
sults generated. Although I have no reason to
doubt the published melting point of RDX
(200°C), it should be carefully examined.
When frictional ignition (or nonignition) of
molten TNT and frictional ignition of RDX are
demonstrated and understood, then integrated
studies can follow. Some anticipated possibilities
for combined mechanisms in the composite are
these:
• Constriction of molten TNT flow by RDX,
causing increased velocity gradients and heat gen-
eration density.
• Frictional ignition on cracked surfaces or
on high explosive-case interfaces.
• Inelastic deformation, leading to tempera-
ture rises, material softening, and finally motion
across molten interfaces.
• Processes in the composite that seek to re-
strict deformation to one component (possibly
TNT).
If RDX particles can act to constrict the mo-
tion of molten TNT, then further sensitizing is
conceivable. If Composition-B is more sensitive
than TNT, then this is a possible reason. Ignition
 AC
motor

6_'7_5_i_n.~~.~ __________________-,

Accumulator
(100 psi typical)

----)

Figure 66. Laboratory-scale friction ignition schematic.

46
 in this case could occur in either component. Fric-
tional heat generation across irregular interfaces is
not well-understood and appears difficult to study
experimentally. I feel it will be difficult to simulta-
neously generate heat on cracked surfaces and
also adequately confine the heated material be-
cause of the uneven nature of the surfaces. If a
suitable test can be designed to answer these
questions, then it should be performed. No such
test exists at the current time. Developing a tech-
nique to measure maximum temperatures that oc-
cur in this process would be a major diagnostic
breakthrough. In this regard, seeding the explo-
sive with photothennally sensitive materials may
prove useful.
As a final note, it appears that the viscous
flow behavior has been demonstrated in activator
tests at Picatinny Arsenal. Activator tests involve
axial loading of a small cylindrical sample of high
explosive in a thick steel confining cylinder. A
propellant is burned to load the sample across two
pistons. These particular activator tests 25 are mod-
ified by drilling a vent hole into one of the pis-
tons. Ignition occurs in the vent holes into which
inelastically flowing material has been extruded.
This example is cited to illustrate that the phe-
nomenon of plastic flow leading to viscous behav-
ior and subsequent ignition is a demonstrated
possibility. Clearly, for more realistic situations,
alternate test schemes as described are required.
Cracks and Structural Response
Some cracking occurs in artillery projectiles
during processing or subsequent thermal cycling.
Cracks develop dunng the solidification of the
high explosive fill and during temperature cycling.
Both processing and explosive formulation playa
fundamental role in determining the relative ex-
tent of cracks. The preliminary indications are that
ARRADCOM's new compositions and casting
technology appear to have had a positive effect on
this situation. The new processing technology in-
cludes a controlled cooling process, whereby for
any short period of time a limited portion of the
fill is forced to solidify (and undergo its approxi-
mate 4% volume change), and new molten mate-
rial can be added to replace the volume lost dur-
ing the phase change. Thus, under an effectively
controlled process, the shell is nearly filled with
material close to its room temperature density; ex-
tensive shrinkage is thereby avoided. During ther-
mal cycling the explosive's chemical formulation,
47
primarily the addition of plasticizers, appears to
playa large role in crack retardation. The reasons
behind crack inhibition for the new formulations
have not been determined. A suggestion for the
general phenomenology is now presented.
There is some evidence that the appropriate
addition of MNT (mononitrotoluene, a plasticizer)
and Estane inhibits crack formation during tem-
perature cycling. As discussed previously, the
stresses during cold temperature cycling are hy-
drostatic tension for unfractured areas and other
combinations involving tension where stress relief
from fracture has occurred. It is these tensile
stresses that promote cracking. The stresses calcu-
lated for a bonded and uncracked system under-
going a temperature reduction imply failures be-
fore a 20°C change occurs. However, it appears
that the new formulations sustain much larger
temperature changes without cracking. I am led to
believe that stress relaxation occurs where the ma-
terial allows itself to be gently pulled into a less
dense configuration. This is conjecture and it is
important to experimentally determine the me-
chanical response actually occurring. In the future,
a more thorough recording of cracks and gaps is
also desirable. This would include examining sec-
tioned shells that have been cold-cycled, but only
after the temperature has been reduced to the
cold-cycle temperature. In this fashion, a valid
representation of conditions at cold-firing can be
obtained.
Bonding and crack inhibition/control are a
mutual proposition. The system must be bonded
to transmit tensile stresses from the case to the
explosive during cold cycling. Also, crack inhi-
bition is necessary if the potential gains are to be
realized in base stress reduction during launch. As
discussed previously, the state of stress in the ex-
plosive fill during slow thermal cycling is hydro-
static tension or compression for unfractured re-
gions and other combinations involving tensile
stress components in areas where stress relief
from fracture has occurred. The fracture strength
of Composition-B can potentially be exceeded
many times over during cold cycling of a bonded
system. However, if the new materials possess the
ability to expand or relax (relaxation and creep
phenomenon in the pressure-volume relationship)
volumetrically under small tensile stress fields,
then lower tensile stresses can be maintained and
cracking will be inhibited. Bear in mind this is a
time-related phenomenon and one would not ex-
pect it to apply in nearly the same degree for ther-
mal shock loadings.
Naval Surface Weapons Center
Simulator Tests
Ideally, artillery projectiles do not occur with
gaps at the base of the high explosive-case inter-
face. However, several problems associated with
the current casting technology of high explosives
can result in gaps of this form. This defect is given
special significance in the munitions community
and a test facility at the Naval Surface Weapons
Center (NSWC) laboratory, White Oak, Maryland,
can perform related experiments. It is possible
that in the future all high-performance artillery
projectiles will be inspected in production with
a nondestructive test technique to verify that
base gaps do not exist. One of the goals of the
Gauge cable
Vehicle
Plunger
Pressure gauge
Sample He charge
Gun projectile aft body
~7r-77'"""/J~;.:7:;:7:;7::;::;7::;7~/;::7;:7;::7~>l.7""'-'7~
. Simulator components
Figure 67. NSWC premature simulator.
48
NSWC base gap experiments performed for the
Composition-B Improvement Program was to
provide guidance for a production specification.
The premature simulators (Picatinny Arsenal
Activator, BRL adaptation of Pica tinny Arsenal
Activator, and the NSWC simulator) were origi-
nally developed to experimentally examine sensi-
tivity derived from this defect. The valid mode .of
ignition in the Pica tinny Arsenal Activator (BRL
version) is rapid compression of gases (see Sec. 3
on analysis of void collapse), while the mode of
ignition in the NSWC simulator has several addi-
tional possibilities, potentially acting together (see
Fig. 67 for a schematic of this test). In the acti-
vators, gas compression occurs without the explo-
sive deforming to any significant degree. This
/ Shock pads
t
Simulator assembly
does not simulate realistic situations (and this is Composition-B Improvement Program. Unfortu-
one of the reasons I developed the hot gun-void nately, it is not possible to directly observe test
collapse mechanism discussed earlier). The Naval behavior in the base gap. The basic purpose of
Surface Weapons Center simulator is, however, this discussion is to illustrate how this test con-
more readily identifiable with base gap sensitivity. figuration, with some modifications, can be em-
Explosive around the gap is forced to deform, thus ployed to determine the paths to ignition. A sum-
closing the gap and also introducing additional mary of the experimental results states that
mechanisms for ignition. ignitions do not occur without a gap, and that
Figures 68 through 73 illustrate calculations in with gaps, increasing load-application rate and
which a 0.050-in. base gap has been modeled in peak load value increase sensitivity regardless of
an M107 configuration. I have already illustrated the gap depths tested thus far. 34 This is, of course,
that the material poperties are unknown for consistent with expected behavior during gas
Composition-B in the area around a base gap. To compression, since load-application rate affects
illustrate the consequences of weak and strong the rate of gap collapse.
behavior, calculation:, with yield stresses of 2 and Much more can be accomplished using this
10 ksi were performed. The results were that the test vehicle. This configuration provides a tool for
unreasonably strong material shows no sensitiz- determining premature promoting conditions,
ing behavior. The weak material, on the other mechanisms, and the sequence of events associ-
hand, shows a dramatic rapid collapse of the void. ated with prematures in a relatively realistic set-
Accelerating phenomena producing the greatest ting. The opportunity to examine a realistic pre-
action in a short time frame are indicated. This mature mechanism does not often present itself,
type of collapse is a clear candidate for ignition and this opportunity should be pursued. I propose
from gas compression. The extensive distortion in employment of an alternate experimental tech-
the area near the gap also presents the possibility nique, based on examining samples tested at
of heat generation from concentrated inelastic dis- threshold (50% go and 50% no-go levels) and
tortions. The unknown structural properties of near-threshold levels. In the base-gap configura-
Composition-B in a biaxial compressive mode are tion the likely areas for ignition are obvious. After
clearly a controlling factor in this form of ignition begins, it is often quenched. Such sam-
sensitivity. ples can be sectioned and microscopically exam-
Base gap tests employing the NSWC projec- ined to determine whether ignition was initiated
tile simulator have been performed as part of the and, if so, the conditions associated with ignition.

-++I-:--i I I I-I i l
----:-----1- --- I ------rl- _;1_-
-\ l~', -
_t~\1 .
~ II
tr-
- + f--FJ
I!.
I----N.~.·J.U-I !
,.1
I

J I
!
I \,

: I \~/\'\-1r-
'1--++1J
r-
,~-~
\ I

III-I~
I,

! ;' i , 1\\

I //1-11 I! n-\\ \'~i'

I I " i i ,( I I ' I II 'I \ \ \ I

,+ Figure 68. Base geometry for

base gap (O.050-in.) studies.

49
Figure 69. Deformed geome-
try for 10 OOO-psi-yieid high
explosive.
t.
/ I I

, ., . j ,

I
. J . . __ . _ . _

, t

) Time = 1.50E+OO
Min (N) = 1.S1 E+01
Max (X) = 1.02E+04

Contour levels
A = 1.03E+03
B = 2.05E+03
C = 3.06E+03
D = 4.0SE+03
E = 5.09E+03
F = 6.11 E+03
G = 7.12E+03
H = S.14E+03
I = 9.15E+03

L _________________________________

Figure 70. High explosive effective stress (psi) contours (PIMP loads) for 10 OOO-psi-yieid high
explosive.

50
 +--- Figure 71. Deformed geome-
try and base gap collapse early
in load sequence (PIMP loads)
for 2000-psi-yield high
explosive.

( Time
Min (N)
= 1.02E-03
= -7.01 E+03
/ Max (X) = 1.89E+02

Contour levels
A = -6.29E+03
B = -5.57E+03
C = -4.85E+03
D = -4.13E+03
E = -3.41 E+03
F = - 2.69E+03
G = -1.97E+03
H = -1.25E+03
I = -5.32E+02

1-
Figure 72. High explosive axial stress (psi) contours in base at collapse (note generally low stress
levels associated with low loads during collapse).

S1
 I
-0.1 I
I
I
I
I
c: -0.2 I
I
.....
c:
Q)
Approximate I
E .
time 0
f I
I
Q)
u -0.3 gap COllapse~
ro
0-
en
"C
I
I I
N -0.4 I
I
I
I
-0.5 I
I
I
I -l
_ O. 6 L..J...~.l.-..L--L-...I..-J--L......I--l--L.~.l.-..L-.L.....L-.JI.-J,.......I--.1-J..--L-..J..--I--I_..J..-I.-J,........LI~1-'-....J'--L......LI~I j
..J..-1.....J-.....L1......

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (s X 10- 4 )

Figure 73. Motion of central point in base gap: collapse occurs after 0.050 in. of motion.

Observations should be made on such conditions is aimed at time measurement of gap closures.
as the following: Development of some as-yet-undefined variation
• High explosive ignition. of a displacement gauge would be required. A
• High explosive cracking. practical possibility might be electrical contacts in-
• Compressed gas temperatures. stalled to close after a prescribed deflection of the
• High explosive flaking. explosive surface. For example, two switch sets
• Sliding and melt at interfaces. are designed so that one set contacts when gap
• Plastic slip-line flow near base gap. closure begins and the second when the gap ap-
• Flow and extrusion of high explosive into proaches complete closure. In conjunction with
threads.* the structural calculations already performed, fu-
Several additional test diagnostics would be ture determination of biaxial compressive material
particularly useful. The first is the photothermally properties, and improved future calculations, it
sensitive seeding material discussed earlier in con- will be possible to develop a clearer picture of
nection with friction. Here again, its purpose is to how heat is generated. Employing the threshold
indicate peak temperatures. I believe that current testing concept with accompanying observations
photographic film chemicals and technology and improved diagnostics, the missing description
should enable development of a useful tempera- of behavior at ignition can be provided. While it
ture measuring technique. The second diagnostic was not the purpose of the last NSWC test se-
quence to develop this description, it should be
the declared intent of a future effort.
The temperature measurement previously
• Bear in mind that the gap is fabricated by retracting a
threaded plug. Flow of explosive into the threads is known to
mentioned is not a standard task and should be
be a strong sensitizer. An examination and, if required, a reso- discussed further. Passive photothermal sensitive
lution of this situation is necessary. materials (materials that change appearance upon

52
achieving a characteristic temperature history)
should be investigated as a diagnostic tool. Peak
temperatures in the void gases and the adjacent
high explosive are a determining factor in this
form of sensitivity. If these temperatures can be
observed, even in a qualitative or comparative
sense, then it will be possible to develop a causal
relationship between the observed parameters
and void temperatures. Some developmental ef-
fort will be required for this type of measuring
technique to work, because of the rapid transient
heat transfer interactions which occur. For the
task of developing a photothermally sensitive ma-
terial, the BRL or Pica tinny Arsenal Activator can
be employed. Since this small-scale test apparatus
creates hot spots in the short time-frame of inter-
est, it would be relatively straightforward to deter-
mine what chemicals are unstable at the tempera-
ture histories of interest. The seeding materials
required are metastable, undergo slightly endo-
thermic reactions at decomposition, have suitable
thermal conductivity, have solid-phase products
which are readily observable, and have reaction
temperatures bracketing Composition-B for the
relevant time frames.
Heat Transfer and Gun
Pre matures
The term "thermomechanical factors" has
been employed on several occasions in this report.
However, most of the calculations and
phenomenology discussed earlier dealt primarily
with structural considerations and heat generation
resulting from mechanical sources. Little has been
said directly about heat transfer, but heat transfer
is a controlling parameter in premature ignitions.
Heat transfer is generally considered for high
explosive vulnerability in situations where a heat
loading is involved. Examples are the one-
dimensional time-to-explosion test 33 (ODTX) and
vulnerability studies of weapons in fires. How-
ever, the vulnerability or sensitivity of weapons to
mechanical loads (shock loadings are not consid-
ered) is also criticall y affected by heat transfer.
When describing or studying sensitivity mecha-
nisms that occur in millisecond time frames, the
description of the heat transfer operating is essen-
tial. For many realistic situations, only a qualita-
tive description is currently feasible. However,
this can be very helpful in explaining trends and
designing tests. I have found the application of
heat transfer to sensitivity somewhat uneven in
the cases examined thus far. In some cases, ade-
53
quate appreciation exists, and in others, it is en-
tirely ignored.
The qualitative implication of heat transfer
for gun prematures will be discussed first. An ob-
vious statement is that inadvertent ignition is pro-
moted by achieving high temperatures at "hot
spots." Heat transfer conditions that promote this
are the following:
• Rapid heat generation, which tends to
minimize the effect of heat transfer away from the
hot spot (approaches adiabatic conditions).
• Sealing that will retard convective cooling
(i.e., escape of hot gases) which can quench an
ignition.
• Conditions of low conductivity around a
hotspot.
For example, experiments have shown that
the inherent porosity of Composition-B affects its
sensitivity to void closures?,27 By reducing the po-
rosity, the system is sensitized (apparently be-
cause the convective cooling is inhibited). Fric-
tional sensitivity tests provide another example of
these heat transfer considerations. During a series
of Composition-B frictional ignition tests, it was
found that the interface temperature never ex-
ceeded BODC (radiometry measurements). The test
was conducted so that the load increased over a
period of many milliseconds. 29 The frictional in-
puts are apparently balanced by the growth of the
molten TNT layer and heat transfer into sur-
rounding material. This is taken by some to imply
that friction by itself cannot be a mechanism.
However, these results are predictable, because
the heat generation rates are not adequate to raise
temperatures above the melting point of TNT.
The Skid Test provides us with additional guid-
ance. It demonstrates that the heat generation
must be accomplished in fractions of a millisec-
ond. 28 At these rates it may be possible to vis-
cously heat thin layers of molten TNT to ignition
conditions. These qualitative heat transfer consid-
erations (loads produced by impacting sample and
projectile) imply that any laboratory test for fric-
tion must be impactively driven to provide the re-
quired heat generation rates and short duration
time frames.
Conversely, conditions that cause heat trans-
fer away from hot spots will desensitize a system.
These conditions are the converse of those just
mentioned:
• Inadequate heat generation rates.
• Paths for the flow of decomposition gases
away from hot spots.
• High conductivity heat transfer paths.
 In particular, the last point has been experi-
mentally demonstrated 22 and the magnitude of
the effect is truly surprising. Skid tests onto
smooth targets (as opposed to sandpaper) illus-
trated that target thermal conductivity can have
an order-of-magnitude larger effect on Skid Test
sensitivity than, for example, the drop height. By
varying the thermal conductivity of the impact
pad, it was possible to cause a roughly 1000-fold
increase in drop height. This clearly demonstrates
that any detailed consideration of sensitivity to
mechanical loading that does not account for heat
transfer cannot explain the behavior, even on a
qualitative basis.
It has already been mentioned that for
Composition-B gun prematures, void compression
and several forms of deformation heating make
up the ignition modes. I would like to indicate the
heat transfer properties involved in these
mechanisms:
• BRL void collapse studies used low con-
ductivity materials ("Seal Guard" RTV and
Composition-B: K = 1O- 3ca1!cm.0'. QC).
• The BRL tests were designed to eliminate
the possibility of hot gas flow paths.
• Voids in molten TNT have approximately
the same thermal conditions as those found in the
BRL dimple collapse studies (same value of con-
ductivity and good gas sealing).
• Spherical void geometry enhances rapid
collapse and approaches adiabatic conditions.
• Base gaps. Several different base gap ex-
periments have been performed, and it is not clear
whether one universal mechanism is operating. A
possible mechanism is compression of gas. If this
is so, two key parameters affecting heat transfer
are rapid gas compression and good sealing. Our
calculations indicate that both are possible if the
explosive has appropriate mechanical properties.
• Sliding friction. This discussion is more
extensive and will be given separately.
The desirability of having a standard friction
ignition test has been mentioned earlier. Several
unsuccessful attempts have been made to develop
a laboratory version of such a test for secondary
explosions. The testing requirements of a friction
test applicable to safety and premature consider-
ations are governed primarily by heat transfer
considerations. Since the time scale is known to
the fractions of a millisecond with substantial in-
terface pressures (-20 ksi), the test must be im-
pactive in nature. Figure 68 shows a configuration
generally suitable for such a test. This unit has, in
fact, been partially developed at LLNL. In this
type of test a number of variations are possible,
54
but the most sensitive configuration would in-
volve a low-conductivity target surface. This is
imperative in view of the experimental Skid Test
results. 2H I feel that this configuration has the po-
tential for development into a standard research
tool.
Summary
The role of casting voids near the high
explosive-case interface was discussed in a sepa-
rate section of this report. Reiterating, it is my
feeling that this ignition mode is responsible for
more prematures than any other. However, its se-
verity must be determined experimentally in tests
that accurately simulate in-bore conditions in a
hot gun. Approaches for eliminating the problem
were also discussed earlier.
This section has dealt extensively with the
factors controlling premature ignitions and testing
required to confirm their roles. Completion of
these efforts will provide a basis for controlling
premature rates as well as defining and imple-
menting production technologies to reduce the
sensitivity of high-performance artillery projec-
tiles. The tests required for experimental con-
firmation of the factors controlling gun
prematures have been identified. In order to pro-
vide this information in a summarized and concise
form, a test and analysis program is presented
below.
Research Activities: Ignition
• Hot Gun and Voids. Start with void
collapse experiments in molten TNT and
Composition-B slurry. Determine the effects of a
hot gun on high explosive near the interface (ex-
perimental and computer modeling). Combine
launch loads with samples preconditioned to hot
gun conditions (experimental and computer mod-
eling). Any tests developed would attempt to ex-
amine special features of this problem described
in Sec. 2.
• NSWC Base Gap Closure Tests. The
Naval Surface Weapons Center projectile simu-
lator tests should be studied in terms of the
"threshold events" concept as discussed earlier.
Observation of sectioned NSWC test samples will
establish factors affecting base gap ignition. The
procedure consists of sectioning units after testing
and examining for threshold reactions, material
failures, high-explosive extrusion, permanent
deformation, and phase (crystalline structure)
 changes. An effort to develop a passive thermo-
couple to measure peak temperatures in the ex-
plosive and void gases is desirable. One possibil-
ity is photothermally sensitive particles that can
be seeded in the test vehicle. However, further
structural calculations are warranted.
• Friction and Sliding Friction. Develop
a laboratory-scale friction testing apparatus for
secondary explosives (Fig. 66). The apparatus gen-
erates friction during impact loading. The time
frames and normal loads generated will be consis-
tent with those required for this type of ignition.
In addition, test modifications must be developed
to allow testing other important configurations.
• Formation of Concentrated Distortion
Fields. It was hypothesized that defects in the
high explosive fill could lead to concentrated heat
generation and sliding across molten Composition-B
slurry. This is a complicated physical process. Ex-
perimental and analytic techniques require devel-
opment. A foundaticn does, however, exist from
studies in metal deformation where the "slip-line"
theory has been developed. Understanding me-
chanical properties of Composition-B and how
they vary with temperature will be crucial. Rate
dependence and imperfection sensitivity also will
be factors. However, I am confident that experi-
ments demonstrating concentrated distortion can
be developed as well as an analytic description of
this behavior. It is suggested that the activator
configuration be used as an experimental starting
point.
Research and Development Activities:
Mechanical Properties and Modeling with
Improved PropertiE's
• Behavior of Composition-B and TNT in
Confined Compression. Tests should be per-
formed at appropriate temperatures and strain
rates. Some provision for altering the level of con-
finement is desirable, since the explosive column
experiences widely varying levels of confinement,
as our calculations have illustrated. Behavior after
yielding must be characterized (i.e., flow or
fracture).
• Biaxial Compressive Behavior of
Composition-B. These tests simulate the stress
states near a defect like a base gap (discussed in
Sec. 6). This is a material property that affects the
development of concentrated distortional energy.
Accurate gap calculations can be performed once
the material properties above have been
determined.
55
• Bulk Creep and Relaxation Behavior.
The term "bulk property" refers to the effect of
hydrostatic stress on density (or inversely specific
volume). Specifically, we would like to know if
and how plasticizers inhibit cracking by specific
volume changes through creep. This is a very im-
portant phenomenon because when coupled with
bonding, it holds the promise of maintaining a fill
with no gross defect volume.
• Development of an Interface Bond
Test. This test must account for the effects of
confining pressure and strain rate. I have designed
a test that should meet these requirements. This
test is to be developed in the Materials Test and
Evaluation Section of LLNL's Mechanical Engi-
neering Department under a separate contract (see
Fig. 74).
Clearly, knowledge of these properties will
allow for more realistic modeling of environments
experienced by artillery projectiles. In addition, it
is also necessary to know the viscosity of TNT
and its temperature dependence, some mechani-
cal properties of RDX (confined strength) crystals,
and the typical thermal properties of these
materials.
Product Improvement Program Activities
These activities are geared more to examina-
tion on the physical scale of a projectile.
• Hot Gun Environment. The hot gun
environment should be integrated into any Prod-
uct Improvement Program (PIP) for Composition-
B. Minimum preliminary efforts should include
compilation of recent experimental studies, devel-
opment of an analytic model of the heat transfer
environment, and integration of efforts with can-
non and shell designers. One of the first results
will be a definition of the feasibility and decreased
sensitivity (additional breech time) obtainable
from a low-conductivity rotating band. Finally, I
feel that development of a production fix elimi-
nating interface voids is essential to any PIP.
• Instrumented Gun Firings. The funda-
mental instrumentation is a stress gage located at
the base of the projectile. Tests should be per-
formed with and without bonding, at varying
temperatures, before and after environmental cy-
cling, and, finally, with fills employing the best
candidate formulation. ARRADCOM has suffi-
cient experience with in-bore measurements to
measure base stresses when the projectile experi-
ences maximum loads. The key point is that, if
base pressures are measured in situ, there is no
requirement to retrieve and examine the artillery
shell after launch.
 Section 6. Mechanical Properties Characterization
A strong theme in this report is that thermo-
mechanical behavior will determine if unintended
ignitions occur in the high explosive fill during
launch. The factors affecting this behavior are the
following: 1) the system's external loading envi-
ronment and global response (such as propellant
pressure, rotating band pressure and spin loads,
interface stress, stresses near the explosive base);
2) initial system geometry (including defects and
condition of high explosive-case interface); and 3)
the thermomechanical properties of the system,
but primarily of the high explosive. A good deal is
known about the external mechanical and thermal
environment, and additional efforts in this area
will yield limited new information. It is true that
some information exists on as-produced and
postcycled high explosive fills. The accessibility
and quality of this information can be improved
by maintaining it in a more standardized fashion.
The most outstanding uncertainties lie in the
realm of material properties. The relation of all
relevant thermomechanical properties to ignition
paths has been described in Sec. 5. Some of these
properties could be very difficult to characterize.
In fact, it may not be cost-effective to attempt
some measurements directly. On the other hand,
certain basic mechanical properties are so funda-
mental that they must be characterized if a new
generation of high explosive artillery projectiles is
to be effectively engineered! Fundamental issues in
projectile environment-state of stress in launch
and storage conditions, and behavior near base
gaps-demand these properties, even if we place
aside questions concerning mechanisms for
prematures. Here the properties are discussed in
more detail, as well as suggestions on techniques
for their determination.
Basically, four mechanical properties that are
readily coupled to storage and launch environ-
ments should be determined. The first area requir-
ing determination is the triaxial relaxation of the
new Composition-B formulations. This behavior
is applicable to bonded systems where it is desir-
able for the system to remain relatively contigu-
ous. The explosive is not free to expand or con-
tract at will during thermal cycling, and large
stresses develop in the explosive if no form of
stress relaxation occurs. Some evidence suggests
that plasticizer additives in Composition-B acti-
vate stress relaxation properties. The second area
involves the interface bonding system developed
in the Composition-B Improvement Program. It is
desirable that this interface carry substantial shear
56
loads during the launch environment to reduce
base stresses. The strength or load-carrying capac-
ity of this interface is probably strongly influenced
by average, locally acting normal stress. Testing
the interface strength at appropriate states of
stress is necessary. It should be noted that simple
shear tests (without the appropriate overall state
of stress) have uniformly demonstrated unrealisti-
cally low interface strengths and do not provide
estimates suitable for comparison to calculated
stresses. A third area of testlng involves mechani-
cal behavior when a stress-free or nearly stress-
free surface exists. This mimics behavior near
casting voids and base gaps in condensed phase
explosive. It is known that Composition-B is an
order of magnitude stronger when confined than
when it is loaded uniaxially. Material located near
a free surface, in a sense, is stressed in an interme-
diate fashion. With reference to prematures, these
are critical regions because the base gap defect
provides the potential for large strains, accelerated
motion, and concentrated generation of dissi-
pative mechanical energy. This material property
should strongly affect production specifications
on base gaps. It is imperative to know this mate-
rial response for various formulations. The final
area requiring determination is the basic stress-
strain properties of Composition-B under states of
multiaxial compression. They describe macro-
scopic mechanical response in areas where mate-
rial is locally defect-free, and are used to calculate
the global state of stress. This global state of stress
can, in some cases, then be applied as boundary
conditions to determine behavior near defects.
Bonding and plasticized formulations logi-
cally go hand in hand. The coefficient of thermal
expansion of Composition-B is an order of magni-
tude larger than that of the steel in the case. For a
system that does not have a bonded interface, sig-
nificant tensile stresses in the explosive cannot be
formed during a slow temperature cycle. It ap-
pears that Composition-B can be plasticized to re-
main contiguous throughout a slow thermal cy-
cling environment. When this behavior is
subjected to analysis, a clearer picture develops.
Figure 14 shows the results of a calculation simu-
lating the condition of the system at -65°F
(stress-free at 70°F). Input parameters are summa-
rized in Table 3. The key features are the coef-
ficients of thermal expansion (CTE) used and the
assumption that the explosive is elastic-plastic
(or effectively, elastic). The tensile stresses pre-
dicted are unrealistically large for Composition-B,
 implying that fracturing is required to reduce the
stress throughout the fill. However, sectioning
shells after thermal cycling in some cases reveals
no observable cracks, while impact testing reveals
at least partial continJity.
This behavior depends on formulation, since
standard Composition-B fractures extensively and
is noncontiguous. Bear in mind that at 96-97% of
maximum theoretical density, Composition-B is a
porous composite. My conjecture is that plasticiz-
ing in conjunction with this material's porosity al-
lows for stress relaxation during slow thermal cy-
cling. In the thermal cycling environment, the
global state of stress is nearly hydrostatic (i.e.,
equal principal stresses) and the density is, there-
fore, effectively altered as the relaxation occurs. In
discussing states of stress and strain, it is often
convenient to decompose the stress into a hydro-
static and a deviatoric component. The hydrostatic
stress is often related to specific volume (or den-
sity), while the deviatoric stress is related to
non volumetric distor~ions. Since this material is
porous, a strong interplay exists, in that micro-
scopic changes in volume are probably accommo-
dated by shear distortions on a smaller scale. At
any rate, the manner in which thermal expansions
and contractions are taken up in Composition-B
must be determined. The effect of this behavior in
conjunction with bonding is crucial to under-
standing mechanical response during launch con-
ditions. Attention should also be paid to micro-
structural effects (photomicrograph inspection of
stress-relaxed samplE'S). Not enough effort has
been focused on the effective or optimum em-
ployment of plasticization. Determining the mate-
rial behavior, along with observing how it devel-
ops, should pay large dividends in tailoring this
behavior to best suit ~he requirements of artillery
shells.
To determine this property, I suggest the fol-
lowing array of tests:
• Determination of the CTE for various for-
mulations at temperatures encompassing -65°F
to 165°F.
• One-dimensional compression and tensile
creep tests at several temperatures.
• Biaxially loaded compression and tensile
creep tests.
• Triaxial compression.
Hydrostatic tension is the single most impor-
tant requirement. Unfortunately, it will also be the
most difficult to achieve; to my knowledge, no
verified test procedure exists. The one- and two-
dimensional test requirements are included pri-
marily to achieve supporting information. They,
57
however, load the material in a more deviatoric
manner and may introduce alternative mecha-
nisms for relaxation and creep. These simpler tests
will indicate if the material tends to creep and
whether compressive and tensile behavior differ.
Bear in mind that testing must be performed at
relatively low states of stress.
In order to appraise the effect of an interface
bond for the launch environment, its strength
must be known. This interface bond joins a rela-
tively soft and weak substrate (Composition-B) to
the rigid and strong-steel case. Typically, such in-
terfaces are limited by the fracture strength of the
weaker substrate. Composition-B is a brittle mate-
rial and fractures before yielding when loaded
uniaxially. Typically, such materials show en-
hanced ductility and yield strength when sub-
jected to highly confined environments. It is antic-
ipated that the ability of Composition-B to sustain
shear stresses is strongly influenced by the super-
imposed normal stresses. For an artillery shell like
the M437, the explosive in many areas of the shell
will experience a highly confined state of stress
(i.e., the average normal stress and the minimum
principal stresses are the same), and the interface
may have an increased capacity to carry shear
loads. As discussed in Sec. 7, the explosive fill in
the M549 is not subjected to the same state of
stress, and bond strength may be reduced because
of diminished normal stress across the interface.
Our calculations show that the interface is
subjected to maximum shear stresses slightly in
excess of 2000 psi for the M437 (Zone 3-54 000
max chamber pressure). Simple shear tests, in-
volving pushing a plug of bonded explosive from
a cylindrical container, give strengths ranging up
to about 500 psi. On the other hand, the English
ISS-mm high-performance artillery projectile, the
L-15, has a bonded Composition-B fill purported
to sustain a very comparable launch environment.
The L-15 has an acceptance criterion on a "push
test" equivalent to 300 psi. On the basis of the
"push tests," the bonds are roughly comparable.
An interface bond test that operates in the appro-
priate stress regime (i.e., to match both the M437
and the M549) and accurately determines bond
strength is highly desirable.
I felt that the lack of a bond test required a
remedy. No appropriate standard test for bond
strength exists. A set of test requirements was for-
mulated and an accompanying test configuration
was developed. This test (as well as the three
other tests described in this section) was sug-
gested to the Composition-B Improvement Pro-
gram as a necessary program addition. Substantial
interest in the bond test was developed and a
more thorough examination was pursued, particu-
larly to ensure that safety-related difficulties
would not render the test unfeasible. We were as-
sisted by our Materials Engineering Division in
performing this feasibility study. Figures 74
through 79 illustrate a complete test configuration
developed in the process of the feasibility study.
Figure 79 illustrates the test sample configu-
ration; some sample features are described in the
legend. The cylindrical sleeves provide the con-
finement required to achieve three-dimensional
compression as the sample is loaded axially.
Torque is simultaneously applied to impress a
shear load at the bonded interface. Current plans
include provision for control of load rates so that
strain rate effects can be checked. The confine-
ment sleeve is a major safety consideration be-
cause growth of reaction is a possibility if an igni-
tion occurs. In order to assure that a bond is
produced with aggregate properties comparable to
those in a shell, one must employ a sample with
suitable dimensions. This aggravates the safety
issues.
Figure 75 is an illustration of the test sample
in a conceptual representation of the test appa-
ratus. A schematic of the test apparatus within the
other test support systems is shown in Fig. 76. A
loading system carable of generating the large
loads required (10 lb axial and 2 X 10 4 in.-Ib
torque) with short rise times and feedback loop
control is shown. Safety considerations also make
it unwise to attempt this test in a standard test
frame with expensive controls nearby. Figure 79
shows the test apparatus and the shielding which
hopefully will protect major components located
behind it. In our test, the electronics for data ac-
quisition and load control are located remotely to
protect these expensive and relatively delicate
components. We have also chosen to perform
these tests on a firing table, a test facility incorpo-
rating an explosive testing platform or site and a
remote bunker, so that explosions can be more
readily tolerated. In fact, an explosion is not ex-
pected. However, we are not in a position, given
the nature of the loading and the confinement, to
absolutely guarantee the results. We are in the
process of designing and building this test for
ARRADCOM in conjunction with a program
aimed at establishing the basic factors influencing
prematures.
Voids of varying sizes inevitably occur during
casting, and large voids, particularly in the projec-
tile base, have been a long-standing production
concern. These occurrences can be the conse-
58
quence of the large density decrease (9%) experi-
enced by TNT in condensing to the solid phase,
abnormal filling conditions, entrapment of air
during casting, and shrinkage due to operating at
reduced temperatures. In a fill free of voids there
is no opportunity for significant relative motion
within the fill. On the other hand, the appearance
of voids, gaps, and regions of low density presents
the possibility of material deforming to fill the
void. This leads to significant variations in motion
in the area of the void and potential for concen-
trated heat generation. The factor compounding
this possibility is that the Composition-B (or TNT)
mechanical strength around the defect or base gap
may be significantly lower than in defect-free
regions.
Figure 68 is the prototype of a void (0.050 in.)
located at the projectile base. Since a free surface
exists, one normal stress must be zero (stress-free).
Uniaxial compression tests involve a state of stress
with two zero-normal stress components, and
Composition-B is generally weak in these tests,
fracturing below 2000 psi. Figure 73 is a simula-
tion of 0.050-in. base gap, employing material
properties akin to those from one-dimensional
compression tests. The consequence is a dramatic,
rapid collapse of the void upon achieving the
yield strength local to the base gap. As discussed
earlier, employing a much stronger yield strength
prevents gap closure. The need to determine the
biaxial stiffness and strength is clear. The tech-
niques for performing this type of determination
are not discussed here.
The final area requiring quantitative deter-
mination is material properties determined in
confined compression tests. For most artillery
projectiles the high explosive is loaded so that all
three principal stresses are compressive. It is
anticipated that the yield and fracture strength of
Composition-B is much increased compared to
properties determined under uniaxial compres-
sion. Tests performed in the past on Composition-B
have illustrated this behavior. Data reduction and
sample observation were not complete, and re-
peating these tests is appropriate. On the basis of
these tests, the yield strength of Composition-B
has been taken as 8000 psi, with no subsequent
hardening. These tests are to be repeated by
ARRADCOM in the near future.
Lack of pertinent mechanical properties ham-
pers the development of a well-engineered high-
performance artillery shell. A more rational base
gap tolerance as well as rational material selection
hinges on the determination of these properties.
Figure 74. Interface bond test frame, sample, and controls.

59
 34

I
_ _----\.1 . I

~:~~-L,~:;8
___
59
Not shown

65
64-
63 i

53
(45.00) 12~
58--

49 -------------

40
46

Figure 75. Interface bond test assembl Y d rawmg.

.

60
 Test
engineer

Test
technician

TDAC data
acquisition
control system

----------1
I
Compressive/torsion
I
Servo control
system I test apparatus I
I I
I
I
I
I
Hydraulic
power Test sample remote
I
supply I
L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --.J
I
Remote

Figure 76. InterfacE~ bond test support systems.

61
Composition-B

Confining
cylinder

Teflon plug

Teflon
slip
ring

~------3.00 -------~

(2.00 modified version) interface

Figure 77. Details of interface bond test sample.

62
Figure 78. Interface bond test sample (mock material) in test frame.

63
Figure 79. Interface bond test sample (mock material) with confining jacket removed.

64
 Section 7. Structural Calculations of M549
There are two basic classes of ballistic artil- extent and magnitude of normal interface stresses
lery projectiles with high explosive fills: rocket- between the explosive and the case (Fig. 82). As
assisted projectiles and projectiles without rocket was discussed earlier, relatively little is known
assistance. The M437 projectile discussed earlier is about the mechanical properties of the explosive.
an example of a nonrocket-assisted projectile. From the porous, brittle, and deformable nature of
Consideration is being given at ARRADCOM to this material we can expect the mechanical behav-
utilizing the 155-mrr, M549 (rocket-assisted) as the ior and mechanical strength to vary as the nature
first high-performance projectile to utilize the im- of the stress state is varied. We can guess (experi-
proved technolog y being developed in the ments are planned and under development) that
Composition-B Improvement Program. Our struc-
tural studies have 'Jncovered substantial differ-
ences in the mechanical environments the high
explosive experiences during launch for the two
classes of projectiles. This is also true when the
system includes a bonded or partially bonded in-
terface between the explosive fill and projectile
case. In particular, we have examined several
types of interface conditions to estimate the bene-
fits of an effective bond. In the process, the envi-
ronment the bond experiences is also predicted
and performance requirements can be established. 15930 9
The effects of no interface restrain (Jl = 0.0), fric- Quasi-static
tional interface restraint (various values of Jl), and body force
bonding over specific regions were examined. For load
the rocket-assisted projectile, the elimination of
the rotating band forces and the sideward-acting
chamber pressure on the case caused the stresses
to be considerably different than those for the
M437, which was di:;cussed earlier. The main po-
tential impact is on:he engineering development
of an effective interface bond, as will be discussed
in detail.
The yield stress for the M549 projectile case is
135 ksi, and yielding is not evidenced under maxi-
mum probable loads. Consequently, case stresses
will not be presented. Figure 80 illustrates the
mesh and the fashion in which the loads are ap-
plied. Figures 81 through 83 illustrate stresses in
the explosive fill when the explosive interface is
treated as unbonded and frictionless. The short
column height of the explosive fill accounts for
the moderate axial stresses at the base (12 ksi).
The fundamental difference between this rocket-
assisted round and the nonrocket-assisted M437 is
seen in Fig. 82. The rotating band is located over
the rocket motor assembly, which is not included 1.2185 X 105 psi
in the model. pressure applied
Since chamber pressure acts along the base to joint
and side of the projEctile up to the rotating band
located on the rocket motor case, there are no lat-
eral loads on the external warhead case, i.e., in Figure 80. M549 structural mesh and load de-
areas communicating with the high explosive fill. scription for quasi-static predictions of PIMP
The lack of these loads substantially reduces the load conditions.

65
 Time = 3.60E + 00 with the decrease in confining radial and hoop
Min (N) =
-1.92E+04 stress that the ability of the explosive to sustain
Max (X) = shear will be diminished. Thus, the effectiveness
-3.46E + 02 of bonding may be reduced. However, from the
Contour levels limited information available, it appears clear that
A = -1.74E + 04 the explosive in the region contained by contours
B = -1.55E+04 C through I in Fig. 83 will not act in an elastic
C = -1 .36E + 04
\ \ D = -1.17E + 04 fashion. This portion of the fill is loaded in almost
E = -9.S0E + 03 pure compression. For this stress ratio the strength
F = -7.91E + 03 of Composition-B, including the new compo-
G = -6.02E + 03
H = -4.13E + 02 sitions, is near 2000 psi when loaded
H H I = -2.24E + 03 quasistatically. When and how failures will occur
and their consequences, if any, can only be a mat-
ter for conjecture until enough is learned to enable

!
~
o G
\
t
development of a rational model.
Of more immediate interest is the behavior of
the M549 when it is bonded to the projectile case.
The new technology developed at ARRADCOM
for filling projectiles involves a controlled cooling
process. It has been found that a bond is achieved
up from the base to a position at which controlled
cooling is terminated. I have observed that this
feature (bond termination) is likely the result of
bonding material diffusion into the molten fill
above the line at which controlled cooling is ter-
Figure 81. M549 high explosive axial stress
minated. That is, the small quantity of TNT in the
(psi) contours (un bonded interface).

Time = 3.60E + 00 Time = 3.60E + 00

Min (N) = Min (N) = 2.96E + 02
-1.S3E + 04 Max (X) = 7.12E + 03
Max (X) =
1.32E + 03
Contour levels
Contour levels -"1--

A =
B =
-1.63E
-1 .44E
+ 04
+ 04
.. A =
B =
9.79E
1.66E
+ 02
+ 03
C = 2.34E + 03
C = -1.24E + 04 8 B
0= 3.03E + 03
0= -1.04E + 04 E = 3.71E + 03
E = -S.4SE + 03
F = 4.39E + 03
F = -6.52E + 03 'f) 0 G= 5.07E + 03
G= -4.56E + 03
H = 5.76E + 03
H= -2.60E + 03
I = 6.44E + 03
I = -6.40E + 02

G G
H .. I
H i
\
~I

\
.
0
F F
G
B
I
{t EE EE Fj

Figure 82. M549 high explosive radial stress Figure 83. M549 high explosive effective
(psi) contours (unbonded interface). stress (psi) contours (un bonded interface).

66
paint spray applied to the case interior acts as the Time = 4.00E + 00
Min (Nl = -3.09E + 02
nucleating site for TNT crystallization. For points Max (Xl = 8.03E + 03
above the controlling cooling elevation, the TNT
in the bonding paint r,:1erely diffuses into the adja-
Contour levels
cent molten TNT. We have called this situation
A = 5.26E + 02
partial bonding. The i:1terface in the upper conical B = U6E + 03
region is modeled as unbonded. Figures 84 C = 2.19E+03
through 89 show states of stress at maximum 0= 3.03E + 03
E = 3.86E + 03
probable loads. Figure 84 illustrates that the axial F = 4.70E + 03
stress can be reduced to a mere fraction of the G = 5.53E + 03
value for an unbonded system. The M549 shows 8 8 H = 6.37E + 03
I = 7.20E + 03
the complete theoretical improvement that can be
gained with an effective bonding system. Since
·the case does not yield and no radial pressure is
exerted, the structural phenomena discussed in
association with the M437 do not arise. (If they
did, the effectiveness of bonding would be re-
duced.) Figures 86 and 88 show the shear and nor- B 8

mal stresses occurring at the interface. As can be

observed, the normal stress is low (400 psi) and 8 8
the shear stresses in the area are significant (1500
~ 8
psi). One cannot be assured that the explosive \', '-a
8
.B
near the interface can sustain shear stress of this
magnitude with the limited confinement (i.e., nor-
mal stress) that is evident. One consequence of Figure 85. M549 high explosive pressure con-
tours (partially bonded interface).

Time = 4.00E + 00
Time = 4.00E + 00 Min (Nl = -4.00E + 03
Min (Nl = -1.41E + 04 Max (Xl = 1.98E + 03
Max (Xl = -3.46E + 02

Contour levels
Contour levels
A = -3.41 E + 03
A = -1.27E + 04
\ \ B = -2.81E+03
B = -1 .14E + 04 C = -2.21E + 03
C = -9.98E + 03 o = -1.61 E + 03
o = -8.60E + 03 E = -1.01E+03
I H E = -7.22E + 03 F = -4.1SE + 02
'it F = -5.85E + 03 G = 0.0
G = -4.47E + 03 H= 7.81E+02
I G &
H = -3.10E + 03 ,
!& I = 1.38E + 03
I = -l.72E + 03 ~
I

E
{} D

D D P
E £
G &
I F F

" I

k H ,
F F
I I lv ':
I I
! I
~ ~
"~..+ - - - t -.../

F'igure 84. M549 high explosive axial stress Figure 86. M549 high explosive /lJK" normal
(psi) contours (partially bonded interface). stress (psi) contours (partially bonded
interface).
67
 Time = 4.00E + 00
Min (N) = 2.96E + 02 Time = 4.00E + 00
Max (Xl = 1.16E + 04 lVIin (N) = -1.05E + 04
lVIax (X) = -2.93E + 02

Contour levels Contour levels

A = 1.43E + 03 P. = -9,45E + 03
B = 2.56E + 03 B = -B,43E + 03
C = 3.70E + 03 C = -7,42E + 03
D = 4.B3E + 03 [I = -6,40E + 03
E = 5.97E + 03 E = -5.3BE + 03
F = 7.10E + 03 F = -4.36E + 03
G = S.23E + 03 G = -3.35E + 03
H = 9.37E + 03 H = -2.33E + 03
I = 1.05E + 04 I = -1.31 E + 03

in

Icc

Be

Figure 87. M549 high explosive effective Figure 89. M549 high explosive axial stress
stress (psi) contours (partially bonded (psD contours (partially bonded interface and
interface). 0' y = 2000 psi).

Time = 4.00E + 00 Time = 4.00E + 00

Min (N) = Min (N) = -9.33E + 03
-3.B1E+03 Max (Xl = 1.23E + 03
Max (X) =
7.29E + 02
Contour levels
Contour levels A = -S.2BE + 03
A = -3.36E + 03 B = -7.22E+03
H B = -2.90E + 03 C = -6.17E + 03
H
C = -2,45E + 03 o = -5.11 E + 03
D = -1.99E + 03 E = -4.05E + 03
E = -1.54E+03 F = -3.00E + 03
F = -1.09E+03 G = -1.94E + 03
G = -6.33E + 02 H = -B.B3E + 02
H
H= O. I = O.
I = 2.75E + 02

Figure 88. M549 high explosive interface Figure 90. M549 high (~xplosive /lJK" normal
shear stress (psi) contours (partially bonded stress (psi)l contours (partially bonded interface
interface). and 0' y = 2000 psi).

68
 Time = 4.00E + 00 Time = 4.00E + 00
Min (N) = 1.40E + 02 Min (N) = -1.15E + 03
Max (X) = 2.00E + 03 Max (X) = 1.01E + 03

Contou r levels Contour levels

A = 3.26E + 02 A = -9.38E + 02
B = 5.12E + 02 B = -7.22E + 02
C = 6.98E + 02 C = -5.06E + 02
0= 8.84E + 02 o = -2.90E + 02
E = 1.07E + 03 E = O.
F = 1.26E + 03 F = 1.42E + 02
G= 1.44E + 03 G = 3.58E + 02
H = 1.63E + 03 H = 5.74E + 02
I = 1.81 E + 03 I = 7.90E + 02

Figure 91. M549 high explosive effective Figure 92. M549 high explosive interface
stress (psi) contours (partially bonded interface shear stress (psi) contours (partially bonded in-
and u y = 2000 psi). terface and u y = 2000 psi).

the lack of triaxial confinement during elastic ex-
plosive response will likely be plastic distortion in
the high explosive fill.
Preliminary estimates of the effect of yielding
were made by performing a new set of calcula-
tions with a lower yield stress (2000 psi). The ax-
ial, hoop, normal, and interface shear are illus-
trated in Figs. 89-92. Figure 91 shows the extent of
yielding in the system. Allowing yield to occur
near the fracture strength associated with pure
compression considerably increases the axial
stresses, decreases the interface shear stresses, and
results in a more hydrostatic state of stress. The
level of confinement (pressure) is substantial and
inconsistent with the assumed yield stress. Nei-
ther of the two material models we have used is
adequate and the actual behavior is somewhere
between the two sets of calculated results. A final
concern is that if launch occurs when the interface
is already stressed in tension, the capability of the
bond will be in further jeopardy. As a basic princi-
ple, it might be unwise to bond in a regime where
the explosive does not experience active confine-
ment, namely a substantial compressive normal
interface stress. Experiments designed explicitly to
answer this question will determine the final out-
come.
It has been determined that a rocket-assisted
projectile inherently has a different state of stress
than a nonrocket-assisted projectile. The value
and desirability of bonding the M549 depend on
the response of the bond interface to this state of
stress. Since the ratio of normal stress to shear
stress at the interface is not as large, we must con-
sider the possibility that the bond will have a de-
creased shear load carrying capacity.
In the event a structural bond cannot be de-
veloped, bonding only the interface near the base
should be considered. This type of bond should
be included to eliminate base gaps for the life of
the projectile. Testing would be required to pre-
clude interface ruptures during cyclic thermal
excursions.

69
 References
1. M. C. Shamblen, Evaluation of Explosives Used in U.S. Medium and Large Caliber Gun Ammunition,
Armament Development Command NSWC/DL TR-3287 (1975).
2. H. D. Fair and R. F. Walker, Eds., Energetic Materials, Vol. 1 (Plenum Press, New York, 1977).
3. H. D. Fair and R. F. Walker, Eds., Energetic Materials, Vol. 2 (Plenum Press, New York, 1977).
4. J. E. Field, A Review of Recent Explosives Research at Cambridge, PCS, Cavendish Laboratory, Cam-
bridge, J9/20 AWRE-8 (1980).
5. F. P. Bowden and A. D. Yoffe, Initiation and Growth of Explosion in Liquids and Solids (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1952).
6. F. P. Bowden and A. D. Yoffe, Fast Reactions in Solids (Butterworths, London, 1958).
7. B. Taylor, Ballistics Research Laboratory, ARRADCOM, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Private
Communication (July, 1978).
8. J. O. Hallquist, DYNA2D-An Explicit Finite Element and Finite Difference Code for Axisymmetric and
Plane Strain Calculations, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-52429
(1978).
9. D. Dobratz, Polymeric Materials-Compositions and Properties, Lawrence Livermore National Labora-
tory, Livermore, CA, M-088 (1978).
10. I. L. Kintish, Effect of a Hot Weapon on Composition-B Loaded 105 mm Ml HE Shell, Pica tinny Arsenal,
Dover, NJ, Technical Report 2131 (1955).
11. R. G. Hasenbein, Thermal Effects of a Hot Weapon on Rammed Projectiles, Benet Weapons Laboratory,
Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, NY, Report No. WVT-TR-76013 (1976).
12. D. E. Adams and F. A. Uassolo, Thermal Study of Explosive Projectiles in Hot Weapons, Cornell Aero-
nautical Laboratory, Inc., Buffalo, NY, Report No. GM-2278-W-3 (1968).
13. A. D. Randolph and K. O. Simpson, "Rapid Heating to Ignition of High Explosives. II. Heating by
Gas Compression," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 15 (1) (1976).
14. G. L. Goudreau, DTVIS2 Users Manual, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
(1973).
15. J. O. Hallquist, NIKE2D: An Implicit, Finite Deformation, Finite-Element Code for Analyzing the Static and
Dynamic Response of Two-Dimensional Solids, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
CA, UCRL-52678 (1979).
16. J. O. Hallquist and G. L. Goudreau, SAPP-A Post-Processor for Two-Dimensional Finite Element Codes,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-52318 (1977).
17. W. F. Hartmann and P. P. Stirbis, "Rotating Bond Pressure and Engraving Forces in 155-mm Artillery
Shells," Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, pp. 124-129 (1973).
18. J. Decker, U.S. ARRADCOM LCWSL, Dover, NJ, private communication (1978).
19. Carl M. Larson, Stress Analysis of the Warhead Section of the 155 mm M549 Projectile, Picatinny Arsenal,
Dover, NJ, TR 2172 (1975).
20. B. Knutelsky, Dynamic Analysis of the XM650E4 8-Inch Projectile, U.s. ARRADCOM Large-Caliber
Weapons Systems Laboratory, Dover, NJ, Technical Report ARLCD-TR-78013 (1978).
21. Carl M. Larson, Stress Analysis of the 8-inch, XM650E4 Rap, Large-Caliber Weapons Systems Labora-
tory (ARRADCOM), Dover, NJ, Applied Sciences Division Information, Report 2-77 (1977).
22. A. D. Randolph, C. E. Hatler, and A. Popolato, Effect of Target Thermal Conductivity and Roughness on
the Initiation of PBX 9404 by Oblique Impact, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM,
Report LA-4843 (1972).
23. B. P. Bowden and D. Tabor, Friction and Lubrication (John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1956).
24. J. A. Brown, A Study of Friction Fundamentals in Explosives, Technical Report for Contract DAAA-69-C-
0558, U.s. Army Pica tinny Arsenal, Dover, NJ (1970).
25. D. Weigand and W. Vorack, Large-Caliber Weapons System Laboratory, ARRADCOM, Dover, NJ,
private communication (1979).
26. V. F. Devost, Premature Simulator (Final Progress Report), Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak,
Silver Spring, MD, NoLTR 74-178 (1976).
27. Seymour Kaplowitz, Composition-B Improvement (PIP NO. 1-77-09-7629), U.s. Army Material
Readiness Command, Rock Island, IL, Technical Program Review (October 17, 1977).
28. L. Green, A. Weston, and J. Van Velkinburg, Mechanical and Frictional Behavior of Skid Test Hemispher-
ical Billets, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-S1085 (1971).
70
29. M. Y. De Wolf-Lanzerotti, A Fundamental Approach Toward an Improved Standard Friction Sensitivity
Test, ARRADCOM, Large Caliber Weapons Systems Laboratory, Dover, NJ, Special Publication
ARLCO-SP-7700~, (1977).
30. J. w. Daily and D. R. F. Harleman, Fluid Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 8, 117-118
(1966).
31. T. Baumeister (EeL), Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers (McGraw-Hill, 7th Ed., pp.
3-48-3-50 (1967).
32. J. K. Lepper, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, private communication
(December 15, 1978).
33. C. M. Tarver, R. R. McGuire, E. W. Wrenn, and K. R. Brein, The Thermal Decomposition of Explosives
with Full Containment in One-Dimensional Geometries, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, liver-
more, CA, UCRL··80435 (1978).
34. Joseph Hershkowitz, Large Caliber Weapons System Laboratory, ARRADCOM, Dover, NJ, private
communication (1.980).

RMD/lb U.S. Government Printing Office: 1983/3-687-002/8042

71