applied

sciences
Article
Launch Performance Degradation of the
Rupture-Type Missile Canister
Wonhong Choi 1 and Sunghun Jung 2, *
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA;
choi124@purdue.edu
2 Department of Electric Vehicle Engineering, Dongshin University, Najusi, Jeonnam 58245, Korea
* Correspondence: jungx148@dsu.ac.kr




Received: 29 December 2018; Accepted: 25 March 2019; Published: 27 March 2019


Abstract: This paper describes the degradation of launch performance caused by the remnants
of a missile canister cover with a sabot interface, on interference with adjacent structures.
First, by including the material plastic behavior and element deletion, we predict interference between
the structures and the detached part, followed by excessive deformation. Second, we verify that the
support ring deformation, which is induced by an interaction with the cover remains, increases for
fastener separations with abnormal fastener installations. This increase further triggers interference
with the boosters on the bottom of a missile. Lastly, we analyze the variation of material property in a
high-speed environment.

Keywords: finite element analysis (FEA); impact behavior; missile canister

1. Introduction
A missile canister protects the missile from foreign matter inflow, shock vibration, and weather
such as rain and snow, and facilitates smooth ejection at launch. The typically preferred canister
cover is the rupture-type, which is easily manufactured and gives excellent handling convenience.
However, if the missile canister cover fails to rupture at a missile launch, it could possibly interfere
with the adjacent structure.
The rupture-type canister cover is circular in shape and is installed with a sabot between the
missile and canister to guide the missile during launch. The sabot is made of urethane foam and
restrains displacement in the radial direction. Springs installed between the canister and missile are
broken away with the missile, thrown out, and finally, they fall. The missile canister cover, which is
also made of urethane foam, is ruptured by the propellant ignition impact pressure formed inside the
missile canister and is removed.
Cover remnant analysis: Kim, R. et al. [1] originally devised the rupture-type canister cover through
their patent, confirming that the reliability of the cover opening would be increased by applying notches
on the surface. Chung, J. et al. [2] performed the first structural analysis and validation test for the
rupture-type canister cover. Yang, Y. [3] demonstrated the mechanism for the cover to open by internal
pressure propagation in the missile canister through computational fluid dynamics. Yang, Y. et al. [4]
described the behavior of the rupture-type cover opening through a comparison of a field test with a real
rocket motor. However, the aforementioned studies did not recognize that cover remnants caused by
improper manufacturing or insufficient internal pressure build-up may affect other components inside the
canister owing to mutual collisions or contact with each other.
Material deterioration analysis: with respect to the material deterioration of the urethane foam
associated with the parametric study presented below, several foregoing studies are discussed. Vries [5]
demonstrated that the general form of the strain–stress curve for polymeric foam has both plateau and

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290; doi:10.3390/app9071290 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 2 of 11
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 2 of 11
[5] demonstrated that the general form of the strain–stress curve for polymeric foam has both plateau
and densification processes, unlike metals. The report of the Argonne National Laboratory [6] states
densification
that processes,
the degradation of unlike
urethane metals.
foamThe mayreport of the to
be related Argonne National
the following Laboratory
causes: [6] states
temperature that
effect,
the degradation of urethane foam may be related to the following causes:
water immersion, biodegradation, and ultraviolet radiation. Among these, the temperature and temperature effect, water
immersion,
radiation biodegradation,
effects were believed andto ultraviolet
be the mainradiation.
contributors Among
to thethese, the temperature
weakening strength and andstress
radiation
with
effects werestorage.
long‐term believed Atto90be°C,
thethe
main contributors
compressive to the weakening
strength strength
of the material and stress
dropped to halfwith long-term
owing to the
storage. At
softening the◦ C,
of90 the compressive
polymers and damage strength
causedof the material dropped
by radiation, which isto half owing
believed to be
to not thecritical.
softening of
the polymers
Material and damage
property causedinby
variation radiation,analysis:
high‐speed which is the
believed
dynamicto not be critical.
behavior of the material at high
speedMaterial property variation
was investigated in severalinstudies.
high-speed analysis:
In general, thethe dynamic behavior
Johnson–Cook of the model
constitutive material at
was
high speed was
introduced investigated
to reflect the strain in rate
several studies.
effect on theInstrain‐stress
general, thecurve Johnson–Cook constitutive
under a high‐speed model was
environment
introduced to reflect the strain rate effect on the strain-stress curve under a high-speed environment [7].
[7].
Problem statement: to to quantitatively
quantitatively analyze
analyze thethe effect
effect ofof the
the presence
presence of remnants on the
ejecting performance
performance of of the
the missile
missilein interms
termsof ofstructure,
structure,we weconducted
conductedan animpact
impactanalysis
analysisbased
basedonona
acommercial
commercialfinite
finiteelement
elementanalysis
analysis(FEA)
(FEA)tool.
tool.In
Inseveral
severalfield
fieldtests,
tests, we
we observed
observed that that cover debris
may exist due to improper manufacturing and lack of ignition pressure, and there has been almost
no consideration of a scenario where the cover debris is not not entirely
entirely removed
removed afterafter ignition.
ignition. In a
certain flight test, the missile failed to launch as the ring structure of the canister interfered with the
rear wing in the middle of lift-off.
lift‐off. We hypothesized that the ring structure might be detached by a
contact-induced force based on the cover debris. In this regard, we conducted an FEA-based
certain contact‐induced FEA‐based
impact analysis to quantitatively analyze the cause of the failed event. event. To
To the
the best
best of
of our
our knowledge,
knowledge,
very few
fewstudies
studieshavehavebeen
been performed
performed to investigate
to investigate the exact
the exact causescauses
of theof the degradation
degradation of the
of the launch
launch performance.
performance.
The remainder
remainder of ofthis
thispaper
paperisisstructured
structuredasas follows.
follows. Section
Section 2 presents
2 presents thethe
overall structure
overall of the
structure of
rupture-type
the missile
rupture‐type canister.
missile SectionSection
canister. 3 explains the three the
3 explains sources
threeof sources
launch performance degradation.
of launch performance
Section 4 provides
degradation. Sectionthe4test environment
provides the testand Section 5 shows
environment corresponding
and Section 5 shows test results. The test
corresponding concluding
results.
remarks
The are given
concluding in Section
remarks 6.
are given in Section 6.

2. Structure
2. Structure of
of the
the Rupture‐Type
Rupture-Type Missile
Missile Canister
Canister
Figure 11 shows
Figure the missile
shows the missile canister
canister body
body made
made of
of aa cylindrical
cylindrical aluminum
aluminum alloy
alloy (AL5083‐H112),
(AL5083-H112),
with
with the
the cover assembly mounted
cover assembly mounted on both the
on both the front
front and
and rear
rear sides
sides [8].
[8]. Two
Two stacking
stacking frames
frames for
for lifting
lifting
and loading purposes are installed around the canister.
and loading purposes are installed around the canister.

Figure 1. Overview of a similar canister for a Harpoon missile.

The assembly structure of the missile canister cover is shown in Figure 2. The rupture cover is
made of
of aa urethane
urethanefoam
foammaterial
materialand
andhas cross-shaped
has cross‐shapednotches to facilitate
notches rupture.
to facilitate The The
rupture. rupture-type
rupture‐
cover is inserted into a missile canister frame, attached using a silicone adhesive, and is secured
type cover is inserted into a missile canister frame, attached using a silicone adhesive, and is secured by a
support
by ring (SUS304)
a support that isthat
ring (SUS304) fastened with 16with
is fastened dish16
head
dishfasteners. The interior
head fasteners. of the canister
The interior of the contains
canister
the missile ◦ apart. Studs are installed between the missile and
contains theand three and
missile guiding
threesabots spaced
guiding 120spaced
sabots 120° apart. Studs are installed between the
 Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2019,
2019,9,9,1290
1290 3 of1111
3 of

missile and sabot to normally guide the missile during ejection. A spring repulsive force makes the
sabot
stud to normally
move away fromguide
the the missile
missile afterduring ejection. A spring repulsive force makes the stud move
ejection.
away from the missile after ejection.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure2.2.Missile canister
Missile cover
canister assembly:
cover (a) external
assembly: isometric
(a) external view,view,
isometric (b) internal isometric
(b) internal view,view,
isometric
(c) section view 1, and (d) section view 2.
(c) section view 1, and (d) section view 2.

Sometimes
Sometimesduring duringlaunch,
launch,thethecanister
canistercover
coverdoes
doesnotnotcompletely
completelyrupture,
rupture,andandresidues
residuesare are
generated,
generated,which
whichinterfere
interferewith
withthe
themoving
moving sabots,
sabots, and the support ring ring ofof the
the missile
missilecanister
canistercover
coveris
istorn
tornoff.
off.AsAsa aresult,
result,thethe support
support ringring gets
gets caught
caught in the
in the booster
booster at lower
at the the lower
part part
of theofmissile,
the missile,
which
which prevents
prevents the booster
the booster bladeunfolding.
blade from from unfolding.
When the When the missile
missile canistercanister
cover iscover is not completely
not completely removed
removed by the ignition
by the ignition shock wave shock wavelaunch,
before before the
launch,
coverthe cover remnants
remnants are left between
are left between the support
the support ring and
ring and canister
canister and it eventually
and it eventually presses andpresses
fixesand
thefixes the rupture‐type
rupture-type canister canister
cover. cover.
The
Thesabot
sabotmoves
movesand andexerts
exertsa aforce
forceon
onthethesupport
supportring
ringthrough
throughthe thecover
coverremnant.
remnant.As Asa aresult,
result,
when
whenthethesupport
supportring ringisisdeformed,
deformed,and andthethefastening
fasteningscrews
screwscannot
cannothold,hold,the
theprobability
probabilityofofthe the
support
supportring
ringinterfering
interferingwith withthe
themissile
missilebooster
boosterisisincreased,
increased,andandthen
thenthethesupport
supportring
ringisisultimately
ultimately
detached
detachedfromfromthetheframe.
frame.

3.3.Three
ThreeSources
SourcesofofLaunch
LaunchPerformance
PerformanceDegradation
Degradation

3.1.Support
3.1. SupportRing
RingDeflection
DeflectionDue
Duetotothe
thePresence
PresenceofofCover
CoverRemnant
Remnant
Thedeflection
The deflectionofofthe
theannular
annularsupport
supportring
ringisiscalculated
calculatedusing
usingthe
thetransverse
transversedeflection
deflectionofofan
an
annular circular plate subjected to a concentrated load:
annular circular plate subjected to a concentrated load:
𝑘 𝑃
𝑤 kw P (1)
w =𝐷𝑟𝑟 (1)
Drr
𝐸𝑡
𝐷 (2)
12 1 𝑣
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 4 of 11

Et3
Drr = (2)
12(1 − v2 )
where w is the deflection (m), k w is the deflection coefficient (m2 ), P is the concentrated force acting
on the annular ring (N), Drr is the uniform flexural rigidity (Nm), E is Young’s modulus (GPa), v is
Poisson’s ratio (No Unit), and t is the thickness of the ring (m) [9].

3.2. Material Deterioration in the Urethane Form

Tcharkhtchi [10] investigated the effect of thermo-aging on the urethane foam using Young’s
modulus and the maximum stress of tensile tests based on the chemical reaction after 62 weeks of
aging at 85 ◦ C. The experimental results showed that both Young’s modulus and the maximum stress
were decreased by more than half. Based on these results, we assumed that the degradation of the
urethane foam could result from long-term storage.

3.3. Material Property Variation of the Urethane Form at High-Speed

It is unfortunately difficult to find test examples at high speed, such as hyper-foam materials, e.g.,
urethane-foam. Thus, as an alternative, we referred to [11–13] in which dynamic tensile tests for high
strength steel were conducted and retrieved some insights into predicting the material behavior of
urethane-foam at a high speed of 15 m/s. Based on their results at 15 m/s, Young’s modulus, which
is the initial slope of the stress–strain curve, is more than doubled, while the tensile strength was
increased by up to 20%. From this approximation, we assumed that the urethane foam property at
high speed occurs at the point where Young’s modulus and the tensile strength are doubled.

4. Test Environment
We conducted an impact analysis using the FEA tool to quantitatively identify the probable cause
of the missile booster of the support ring being caught at the launch process. To simplify the analysis,
we performed a geometrical simplification and employed the commercial Abaqus 6.14-1 FEA tool.

4.1. Modeling
A simulation, which reflects the actual shape of the missile canister system, was carried out for
the impact analysis. For the simplification of the analysis, the missile was assumed to be a rigid body,
and only the quarter symmetrical part was analyzed.
The components and properties of the materials are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Here, the properties of the urethane foam were obtained from a tensile/bending test (ASTM D790-97),
reflecting the plastic deformation behavior. The plastic deformation behavior of the support ring
material, SUS304, was obtained using the Johnson–Cook Plasticity Model [7]. For the missile canister
and frame material, AL5083, only the elastic region was considered owing to its small deformation.

Table 1. Material component.

Component Material
Cover Urethane Foam 400
Sabot Urethane Foam 450
Support Ring SUS304
Frame AL5083-H112
Canister AL5083-H112
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 5 of 11
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 5 of 11
Table 2. Material property.

Factor UF400
Table 2. MaterialUF450
property.SUS304 AL5083‐H112
Density, σ [kg/m3 ] 400 450 8000 2700
Factor UF400 UF450 SUS304 AL5083-H112
Young’s Modulus, Ε [GPa] 286 346 193 70
3] 400 450 8000
Density, σ [kg/m
Poisson’s Ratio, ν [No Unit] 0.3 0.3 0.29 0.332700
Young’s Modulus, E [GPa] 286 346 193 70
Yield Strength, σy [MPa] 9.8 11.6 215 190
Poisson’s Ratio, ν [No Unit] 0.3 0.3 0.29 0.33
Tensile
Yield Strength,
Strength, σt [MPa] 9.813.3
σy [MPa] 15.8
11.6 505215 300190
Plasticity
Tensile Strength, σt [MPa] 13.3Yes Yes
15.8 Yes505 No300
Plasticity Yes Yes Yes No
Regarding the size of the missile canister cover remnants, their width was set to be larger than
that of the missile
Regarding sabot,
the size while
of the the height
missile canisterwas setremnants,
cover to the maximum measurable
their width was set to value cm.that
of 5than
be larger In
addition, the five clamping parts were modeled as a three‐dimensional cylindrical cylinder
of the missile sabot, while the height was set to the maximum measurable value of 5 cm. In addition, with an
effective diameter,parts
the five clamping and the fastening
were modeled part
asof the missile canistercylindrical
a three-dimensional is constrained usingwith
cylinder the multi points
an effective
constraints (MPC) beam element (1D rigid beam).
diameter, and the fastening part of the missile canister is constrained using the multi points constraints
(MPC) beam element (1D rigid beam).
4.2. Boundary and Load Conditions
4.2. Boundary and Load Conditions
The missile and sabots were restrained by the studs while moving inside the missile canister at
an assumed velocity
The missile of 15 m/s.
and sabots wereTo shorten the
restrained analysis
by the studs time,
whilewe analyzed
moving thethe
inside missile sabot
missile fromatthe
canister an
point
assumedadjacent to the
velocity residue.
of 15 m/s. To The analysis
shorten the was dynamic
analysis time, and explicit and
we analyzed the was conducted
missile sabot fromwiththea point
span
of 20 𝑚𝑠.to the residue. The analysis was dynamic and explicit and was conducted with a span of 20 ms.
adjacent
The
The missile
missile canister
canister and
and its
its frame
frame were
were constrained
constrained by by aa translational
translational three
three degrees
degrees ofof freedom
freedom
(DOF).
(DOF). The
Theend
endofofthe fastening
the fasteningpart waswas
part alsoalso
constrained
constrainedas a fixed
as a point. We employed
fixed point. the general
We employed the
contact function, which is a default option in Abaqus 6.14‐1, to set the type
general contact function, which is a default option in Abaqus 6.14-1, to set the type of contact of contact between
components.
between components.
We
We also employed a special feature of element deletion deletion for the Urethane foam supported supported by by
Abaqus 6.14‐1,
6.14-1, in
in which
which the
the element
element waswas removed
removed at at aa plastic
plastic strain
strain of
of 6%
6% or
or greater,
greater, to analyze thethe
fracture
fracture behavior at the contact surface. The The spring
spring at
at the
the bottom
bottom ofof the
the missile
missile sabot
sabot was
was omitted
omitted inin
this
this numerical model.

5. Test
5. Test Result
Figure 3 shows
Figure shows the time‐lapse
time-lapse release
release pattern
pattern of the missile obtained
obtained when
when the clamping
clamping part
part
pitch-up of the missile
works normally. After pitch‐up missile sabot,
sabot, the
the edges
edges were
were damaged
damaged by by the
thecover
coverremnants,
remnants,
and then
and then the
the missile
missile sabot
sabot breaks
breaks the
the cover
cover remnants.
remnants. Subsequently,
Subsequently, the missile
missile sabot
sabot passes
passes through
through
the
the missile canister and the residue was scattered.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 6 of 11
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 6 of 11
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 6 of 11

(c) (d)
Figure 3. Analysis results (fastener stable): (a) beginning, (b) middle, (c) end, and (d) isometric view
(c) (d)
at the end.
Figure
Figure 3.
3. Analysis
Analysis results (fastener
(fastener stable):
stable): (a)
(a)beginning,
beginning,(b)
(b)middle,
middle,(c)
(c)end,
end,and
and(d)
(d)isometric
isometric view
view at
at the
5.1. Cover end.
Remnant Analysis
the end.

5.1.
5.1. Cover
Cover
5.1.1. Remnant
Remnant
Cover Analysis
Analysis
Remnant Analysis: Deflection of Support Ring
5.1.1. Cover Remnant Analysis: Deflection of Support Ring
5.1.1. By assuming
Cover Remnant theAnalysis:
support ring is simply
Deflection supported
of Support Ringalong with bolt assembly line, and that the
contact force acts on the central line between
By assuming the support ring is simply supported along two adjacent bolt
withpoints
bolt (Figure
assembly 4),line,
the concentrated
and that the
By assuming
force 𝑃force
can be the support
evaluated ring
from the is simply
average supported
value along with bolt assembly line, and that the
contact acts on the central line between twoofadjacent
two reaction forces (Figure
bolt points at points4),#3the
and #4 in Figure
concentrated
contact force
2b, calculated acts on the
by numericalcentral line
analysis. between
In value two
Adewale’s adjacent bolt points (Figure 4), the concentrated
force P can be evaluated from the average of twostudy [9],forces
reaction it was observed
at points that#4the
#3 and deflection
in Figure 2b,
force 𝑃 canvaries
coefficient be evaluated
with thefrom
ratiothe
of average
the inner value
radiusof (𝑐)
two toreaction
the forcesradius
clamped at points
(𝑎), #3
and and #4 in Figure
circumferential
calculated by numerical analysis. In Adewale’s study [9], it was observed that the deflection coefficient
2b,
angle
varies ). We
calculated
(with by numerical
thechose
ratiothe minimum
of the
analysis.
value
inner radius
In0.0002
Adewale’s
(c) to the
study [9],that
m clamped
, assuming it was
radius (a),
observed
𝑐/𝑎and 0.7 andthat𝑡 the
circumferential
deflection
0.0032 m. The
angle (θ).
coefficient
variables varies with
associated the
with ratio
this of the
calculationinner
2 areradius (𝑐)
summarized to the clamped
in Table 3. radius (𝑎), and circumferential
We chose the minimum value 0.0002 m , assuming that c/a > 0.7 and t = 0.0032 m. The variables
angle (). We chose the minimum value 0.0002 m , assuming that 𝑐/𝑎 0.7 and 𝑡 0.0032 m. The
associated with this calculation are summarized in Table 3.
variables associated with this calculation
Table are summarized
3. Verification of the support inring
Table 3.
deflection.
Table 3. Verification of the support ring deflection.
Factor
Table 3. Verification Value
of the support ring deflection.
Factorforce, 𝑃 [N]
Concentrated 3500
Value
ReactionFactor
Concentrated force,
force,𝑅 P [N][N] Value
3747
3500
Concentrated
Reactionforce,
Reaction
force,
𝑅 [N]
force,Rmax 𝑃 [N]
[N] 3500
3253
3747
Reaction
Young’s force, 𝑅
force, Rmin𝛦[N]
Reaction Modulus, [N]
[Gpa] 3747
193
3253
Young’s
Poisson’s force, 𝑅
ReactionModulus,
Ratio, 𝜈 [No
[GPa][N]
Unit] 3253
193
0.29
Poisson’s
Young’s Ratio, ν [No
Modulus,
Thickness, 𝑡 [m] 𝛦 Unit]
[Gpa] 0.29
193
0.0032
Thickness, t [m] 0.0032
Poisson’s 𝜈 [No 𝐷
Ratio, plate, Unit][Nm] 0.29
Flexural rigidity ofofplate,
Flexural rigidity Drr [Nm] 575.4
575.4
Thickness,
Deflection
Deflection 𝑡 [m]
coefficient,
coefficient, k w𝑘[m2[m
] ] 0.0032
0.0002
0.0002
Flexural Deflection,
rigidity of plate,
Deflection,w 𝑤 [m][m]𝐷 [Nm] 575.4
0.0012
0.0012
Deflection coefficient, 𝑘 [m ] 0.0002
Deflection, 𝑤 [m] 0.0012

Figure4.4. Geometry
Figure Geometry of
ofthe
thesupport
supportring.
ring.

In this case, the plastic deformation could occur

Figure 4. Geometry
in the
of the
support
support
ring and we verified this through
ring. ring and we verified this through
In this case, the plastic deformation could occur in the support
the simulation and experiment results, as shown in Figure 5.
the simulation and experiment results, as shown in Figure 5.
In this case, the plastic deformation could occur in the support ring and we verified this through
the simulation and experiment results, as shown in Figure 5.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 7 of 11
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2019,
2019,9,9,1290
1290 77 of
of 11
11

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Plastic
Plasticdeformation
deformationononthe
the support
supportring
support ring(fastener
ring (fastenerstable):
(fastener stable):(a)
stable): (a) computer‐aided
computer‐aidedengineering
computer-aided engineering
(CAE)
(CAE)SWSWand
and(b)
(b)visual
visualinspection.
inspection.
inspection.

Themeasured
The measureddeflection
deflectionof ofthe
theactual supportring
actualsupport
support ringwas
ring was1.2
was 1.2mm
1.2 mm (Figure
(Figure 5b),
(Figure5b), whichisisfour
5b),which fourtimes
times
less than
less than the
the simulation
simulation result
result of 4.6 mm
of 4.6 mm (Figure
mm (Figure 6).
(Figure 6).
6). Since
Since the
the ring not fully
ring isis not fully supported
supported in in the
the
simulation, the deflection result of the simulation result should be larger. Nevertheless,
simulation, the deflection result of the simulation result should be larger. Nevertheless, in terms of in terms of
magnitudethe
magnitude thetwo
the tworesults
two resultsare
results arevery
are verysimilar.
very similar.Therefore,
similar. Therefore,
Therefore, we
wewe conclude
conclude
conclude that
that
that anan
an increase
increase
increase in in
thethe
inthe number
number
number of
of
of bolts
bolts may
may reduce
reduce the the deflection
deflection as as
it it tends
tends toto
bebe simply
simply supported
supported
bolts may reduce the deflection as it tends to be simply supported and hence, the and
and hence,
hence, the
the possibility
possibility of
of
detachmentof
detachment ofthe
thering
ringisisreduced.
reduced.

Figure6.6.
Figure
Figure Deflectionof
6.Deflection
Deflection ofthe
of thesupport
the supportring
support ring(fastener
ring (fastener stable).
(fastenerstable).
stable).

5.1.2. Cover Remnant Analysis: Effect of Cover Residue Height

5.1.2.
5.1.2.Cover
CoverRemnant
RemnantAnalysis:
Analysis:Effect
Effectof
ofCover
CoverResidue
ResidueHeight
Height
In this section, we examine the variation of the height of the cover residue. Although the height
In
Inthis
thissection,
section,we
weexamine
examinethe thevariation
variationof ofthe
theheight
heightofofthe
thecover
coverresidue.
residue.Although
Althoughthetheheight
height
of the cover residue was approximately less than 5 cm by actual measurement, we assumed the
of
of the
the cover
cover residue
residue was
was approximately
approximately less than 55 cm
less than cm by
by actual
actual measurement,
measurement, we we assumed
assumed thethe
worst-case scenario and set it to 20 cm under normal fastening conditions.
scenario and set it to 20 cm
worst‐case scenario and set it to 20 cm under normal fastening conditions.
worst‐case under normal fastening conditions.
Based on the simulation results, as shown in Figure 7, the effects of the cover remnants on the
Based
Basedon onthe
thesimulation
simulationresults,
results,as
asshown
shownin inFigure
Figure7,7,the
theeffects
effectsof ofthe
thecover
coverremnants
remnantson onthe
the
missile sabot and support ring were found to be insignificant. The cover remnant with an approximate
missile
missile sabot
sabot and
and support
support ring
ring were
were found
found to to be
be insignificant.
insignificant. The The cover
cover remnant
remnant with
with anan
groove height was equally cut by the support ring. It was assumed that the portion protruding beyond
approximate
approximate groove
groove height
height was
was equally
equally cut
cut by
by the
the support
support ring.
ring. ItIt was
was assumed
assumed that
that the
the portion
portion
the groove height did not significantly affect the deformation of the support ring or the behavior of the
protruding
protrudingbeyond
beyondthethegroove
grooveheight
heightdid
didnot
notsignificantly
significantlyaffect
affectthe
thedeformation
deformationof ofthe
thesupport
supportring
ring
missile sabot. The measured axial force formed in the fastening part was 382 kgf.
or
orthe
thebehavior
behaviorof ofthe
themissile
missilesabot.
sabot.The
Themeasured
measuredaxial axialforce
forceformed
formedin inthe
thefastening
fasteningpart
partwas
was382
382
kgf.
kgf.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 8 of 11
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, 1290
1290 88 of
of 11
11

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure7.
Figure 7.7.Effect
Effectof
Effect ofthe
of thecover
the coverremnant
cover remnantthickness
remnant thickness(fastener
thickness (fastenerstable):
(fastener stable): (a)555 cm
stable):(a)
(a) cm and
cm and (b)
(b) 20 cm.
cm.
20 cm.

5.1.3. Cover
5.1.3.
5.1.3. Cover Remnant
Cover Remnant Analysis:
Remnant Analysis: Deflection
Analysis: Deflection of
Deflection of Support
of Support Ring
Support Ring under
Ring under the
under the Elimination
the Elimination of
Elimination of Fasteners
of Fasteners
Fasteners
When the
When
When the missile
the missile sabot
missile sabot was
sabot was in
was in contact
in contact with
contact with the
with thecover
the coverresidue,
cover residue, the
residue, the missile
the missile sabot
missile sabot increased
sabot increased its
increased its pitch
its pitch
pitch
angle
angle and
and a
a part
part of
of the
the edge
edge was damaged, as shown in Figure
angle and a part of the edge was damaged, as shown in Figure 8. 8.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure
Figure 8.
Figure Analysis
8. Analysis results
Analysis results (fastener
results(fastener unstable):
(fastenerunstable):
unstable):(a)(a) beginning,
beginning,
(a) (b)(b)
beginning, middle,
middle,
(b) (c)
(c) end,
(c) end,
middle, and and
end, (d)
(d) isometric
(d) isometric
and view
isometric
view at the
at theatend.
view end.
the end.

After the
After
After the collision
the collision of
collision of the
of the missile
the missile sabot
missile sabot and
sabot and the
and the residues,
the residues, the
residues, the former
the former caused
former caused aaa displacement
caused displacement of
displacement of the
of the
the
missile
missile support
support ring.
ring. The
The support
support ring
ring was
was then
then inclined
inclined toward
toward the
the sabot
sabot that
that eventually
eventually
missile support ring. The support ring was then inclined toward the sabot that eventually broke off. broke
broke off.
off.
Finally,
Finally, plastic deformation
deformation occurred
occurred in
in the
the support
support ring,
ring, as
as shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 9. It
It can
can
Finally, plastic deformation occurred in the support ring, as shown in Figure 9. It can be concluded be
be concluded
concluded
that the
that
that the deformed
the deformed support
deformed support ring
support ring might
ring might have
might have interfered
have interfered with
interfered with the
with the missile
the missile booster
missile booster wing
booster wing located
wing located outside
located outside
outside
the
the missile
missile during
during release.
release.
the missile during release.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 9 of 11
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 9 of 11
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 9 of 11

Figure 9. Plastic deformation on the support ring (fastener unstable).

Figure
Figure9.9.Plastic
Plasticdeformation
deformationon
onthe
thesupport
supportring
ring(fastener
(fastenerunstable).
unstable).

5.2. Material
5.2.Material Deterioration
MaterialDeterioration Analysis
DeteriorationAnalysis
Analysis
5.2.
To simulate
Tosimulate urethane
simulateurethane deterioration
urethanedeterioration
deteriorationduedue
duetoto long‐term
tolong‐term storage,
long-termstorage, which
storage,which may
whichmay cause
maycause severe
causesevere problems,
severeproblems,
problems,
To
we performed
we performed a structural analysis under the assumption that the fasteners were in a normal
we performed aastructural
structuralanalysis under
analysis underthe assumption
the assumption that the
thatfasteners were inwere
the fasteners a normal
in acondition.
normal
condition. Urethane
Urethane foam foam becomesand
becomes hardened and brittle when stored for a long time. In the analysis,
condition. Urethane foamhardened
becomes hardenedbrittle and
when stored
brittle for astored
when long time.
for aIn thetime.
long analysis, weanalysis,
In the doubled
we doubled
thedoubled the
urethanethe urethane
stiffness andstiffness
reduced and reduced
thereduced
fracturethethe fracture
strength strength to half, as described in Sections
we urethane stiffness and fracturetostrength
half, as to
described in Sections
half, as described in1Sections
and 3.2.
1As
and 3‐2. As
shown in shown 10,
Figure in Figure
the 10, the brittleness
brittleness increased increased
when the whenforce
axial the axial
was force
a was a maximum.
maximum. At the At
endAtof
1 and 3‐2. As shown in Figure 10, the brittleness increased when the axial force was a maximum.
the
the end of the simulation,
simulation, we noticed we
an noticed an number
increased increased ofnumber
broken of broken pieces.
pieces.
the end of the simulation, we noticed an increased number of broken pieces.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure10.
Figure Effectof
10.Effect ofthe
theurethane
urethanefoam
foamdegradation
degradation (fastener
(fastener stable):
stable): (a)
(a)normal
normaland
and (b)
(b) degradation.
degradation.
Figure 10. Effect of the urethane foam degradation (fastener stable): (a) normal and (b) degradation.
Based on
Based on thethe simulation
simulation results,
results, the
the maximum
maximum axial
axial force
force was
was reduced
reduced from
from 382
382 to 295 kgf.
to 295 kgf.
Based on the simulation results, the maximum axial force was reduced from 382 to 295 kgf.
Moreover, owing to the premature failure of the cover residue that acted as a load transferring
Moreover, owing to the premature failure of the cover residue that acted as a load transferring medium,
Moreover, owing to the premature failure of the cover residue that acted as a load transferring
the amount
medium, theof support
amount of ring deformation
support and axialand
ring deformation force generated
axial in the fastening
force generated part were
in the fastening likewise
part were
medium, the amount of support ring deformation and axial force generated in the fastening part were
reduced. This provided confirmation that urethane deterioration does not cause
likewise reduced. This provided confirmation that urethane deterioration does not cause a a fundamental problem.
likewise reduced. This provided confirmation that urethane deterioration does not cause a
fundamental problem.
fundamental problem.
5.3. Analysis of the Material Property Variation in High-Speed
5.3. Analysis of the Material
The phenomenon Property Variation
considered in High‐Speed
in this in
paper occurs at a velocity of 15 m/s in a short time.
5.3. Analysis of the Material Property Variation High‐Speed
Therefore, we carried out a structural analysis
The phenomenon considered in this paper occurs of the unsteady state under
at a velocity of 15 the
m/sassumption
in a short of the
time.
high The phenomenon
physical properties considered
of the in this
material. In paper occurs
general, the at a velocity
stiffness and strength m/s in aatshort
of 15increased high time.
speed,
Therefore, we carried out a structural analysis of the unsteady state under the assumption of the high
Therefore, we carried
and therefore out a structural
the stiffness analysis
and breakage of thewere
strength unsteady tostate
setand twiceunder the assumption
theincreased
reference values of
as the high
given in
physical properties of the material. In general, the stiffness strength at high speed, and
physical
Section properties
3.3. of the material. In general, the stiffness and strength increased at high speed, and
therefore the stiffness and breakage strength were set to twice the reference values as given in Section
therefore the stiffness and breakage strength were set to twice the reference values as given in Section
3–3. As shown in Figure 11, the support ring was not cut, but rather driven deeper owing to an increase
3–3.
in the
Asurethane
shown foam stiffness.
in Figure In addition,
11, the support the
ringmaximum deformation
was not cut, of the
but rather support
driven ringowing
deeper increased
to anby
18 As shown in Figure 11, the support ring was not cut, but rather driven deeper owing to an
mm.
increase in the urethane foam stiffness. In addition, the maximum deformation of the support ring
increase in the urethane foam stiffness. In addition, the maximum deformation of the support ring
increased by 18 mm.
increased by 18 mm.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 10 of 11
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 10 of 11

(a) (b)
Figure 11.
11.Effect of of
Effect thethe
material properties
material at high
properties velocity
at high (fastener
velocity unstable):
(fastener (a) normal
unstable): (a) and (b) high
normal and
velocity.
(b) high velocity.

5.4. Test
5.4. Test Result
Result Summary
Summary
The overall
The overall test
test results
results are
are given
given in
in Table
Table 4.
4.

Table 4.
Table Summary of
4. Summary of the
the test
test result.
result.

Analysis Test Result Impact Factor

Analysis Test Result Impact Factor
Increase in the number of bolts reduced the deflection of the
Deflection of of
Deflection the the
Support Ring
Increase in the number of bolts reduced the High
support ring.
High
Support Ring deflectionPortion
of the support
protruding ring.the groove height does not
beyond
Cover Remnant Effect of the Cover Residue Height significantly affect the deformation of the support ring or
Portion protruding beyond the groove height Low
Effect of the behavior of the missile sabot.
Deflection does not significantly
of the Support Ring Deformed supportaffect theinterfere
ring could deformation
with the missile
Cover Residue LowHigh
of the support ring or behavior of the missile
under the Elimination of Fasteners booster wing during missile release.
Cover Height
Material Deterioration
Remnant
sabot. Urethane deterioration does not cause a fundamental problem. Low
The support ring was driven deeper into the support ring,
Material PropertyDeflection of the
Variation in High-Speed High
and the support ring deformation increased.
Support Ring Deformed support ring could interfere with
under the the missile booster wing during missile High
6. Conclusions
Elimination of release.
The effect of the rupture-type missile canister cover was investigated, while interfering with
Fasteners
the neighboring structures, for the case when
Urethane it is notdoes
deterioration fully
notruptured,
cause a and some remnants are
Material Deterioration Low
present. We also examined the impact of the phenomenon
fundamental problem. on the ejection performance of a missile
by simplifying the shape of the canister cover in
The support ringthewasanalysis
driven model.
deeper Ainto
CAEthe based analysis was then
Materialand
performed Property Variation
the effects of the cover remnant, material deterioration, and material property
support ring, and the support ring Highvariation
in High‐Speed
at high-speed were obtained. deformation increased.
Firstly, no interference between the support ring and missile occurred when the fastening part
used
6. for fixing the support ring and frame is normally established. If there is an abnormality in the
Conclusions
installment of the fastening part, then the cover residue collides with the missile sabot causing the
The effect of the rupture‐type missile canister cover was investigated, while interfering with the
support ring to deform. From both the simulation and experimental results, we demonstrated that
neighboring structures, for the case when it is not fully ruptured, and some remnants are present. We
interference can occur with the missile booster.
also examined the impact of the phenomenon on the ejection performance of a missile by simplifying
Secondly, the deterioration of the sabot, which is made of urethane foam, due to long-term storage
the shape of the canister cover in the analysis model. A CAE based analysis was then performed and
did not cause any severe problems to the missile launch performance. We confirmed that the urethane
the effects of the cover remnant, material deterioration, and material property variation at high‐speed
foam deteriorates if damaged early; however, it contributes less to the deformation of the support ring.
were obtained.
Thirdly, the material property variation in high-speed resulted in a deeper deformation of the
Firstly, no interference between the support ring and missile occurred when the fastening part
support ring due to an increase in the urethane foam stiffness. When the high-speed properties are
used for fixing the support ring and frame is normally established. If there is an abnormality in the
reflected, the stiffness is increased and so the missile sabot pulls the support ring for an extended
installment of the fastening part, then the cover residue collides with the missile sabot causing the
period. This results in an increase in the support ring deformation.
support ring to deform. From both the simulation and experimental results, we demonstrated that
In summary, we concluded that the missile launch performance, for the specific rupture-type
interference can occur with the missile booster.
missile canister case, could be degraded due to two main causes: (1) the deflection of the support ring
Secondly, the deterioration of the sabot, which is made of urethane foam, due to long‐term
after the elimination of fasteners and (2) the material property variation in high-speed.
storage did not cause any severe problems to the missile launch performance. We confirmed that the
The simulations can be viewed at the following YouTube URLs: Figure 3 at https://youtu.
urethane foam deteriorates if damaged early; however, it contributes less to the deformation of the
be/hPQDTxLn58w, Figure 7 at https://youtu.be/A9_ghH_58KY, Figure 8 at https://youtu.be/
support ring.
Thirdly, the material property variation in high‐speed resulted in a deeper deformation of the
support ring due to an increase in the urethane foam stiffness. When the high‐speed properties are
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1290 11 of 11

BwBMFOYrRWY, Figure 10 at https://youtu.be/eNK05-bXXaw, and Figure 11 at https://youtu.be/

dHHzdtEAn0c.

Author Contributions: W.C. created models, developed methodology, designed computer programs; S.J.
conducted research and investigation process, wrote and edited the initial draft, supervised and leaded
responsibility for the research activity planning, reviewed the manuscript, and synthesized study data. All authors
read and approved the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kim, R.; Ahn, J. Canister and Its Manufacturing. Korean Patent KR101234219B1, Daejeon, Korea, 2013.
2. Chung, J.; Shin, S.; Bae, Y. Test Technique for Performance Verification of Fracture-Type Canister Cover.
J. Korea Inst. Mil. Sci. Technol. 2013, 16, 449–455. [CrossRef]
3. Yang, Y. Study on the Removal Mechanism of Canister End Caps using the Shock Wave. In Proceedings of
the Spring Conference of Korean Society for Computational Fluid Engineering, Jeju, Korea, 22 May 2014.
4. Yang, Y.; Kim, Y.; Kim, G.; Byun, Y.; Jeon, H.; Park, H. Study on the Opening of Canister End Cover using a
Rocket Motor Pressure. In Proceedings of the Regular Conference of Korean Institute of Military Science and
Technology, Jeju, Korea, 14–15 June 2018.
5. Vries, D.D. Characterization of Polymeric Foams; Technical Report, No. MT 09-22; Eindhoven University of
Technology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2009.
6. Nuclear Engineering Division. Study on Degradation of a Commercial Rigid Polyurethane Foam Used for Filling
of Process Gas Equipment (PGE) and Pipes and Corrosion Behavior of Pipes at K-25/K-27; Technical Report, No.
ANL-06/32; Argonne National Laboratory: Lemont, IL, USA, 2006.
7. Zhang, Y.; Outeiro, J.C.; Mabrouki, T. On the Selection of Johnson-cook Constitutive Model Parameters for
Ti-6Al-4 V Using Three Types of Numerical Models of Orthogonal Cutting. In Proceedings of the 15th CIRP
Conference on Modelling of Machining Operations, Karlsruhe, Germany, 11–12 June 2015.
8. Neutral Nation’ Finland. Introduces the US Navy Missile Costing 800 Billion Won. Available online:
https://goo.gl/VUZSef (accessed on 15 December 2018).
9. Adewale, A.O. Isotropic Clamped-Free Thin Annular Circular Plate Subjected to a Concentrated Load.
J. Appl. Mech. 2006, 73, 658–663. [CrossRef]
10. Tcharkhtchi, A.; Farzaneh, S.; Abdallah-Elhirtsi, S.; Esmaeillou, B.; Nony, F.; Baron, A. Thermal Aging Effect
on Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane. Int. J. Polym. Anal. Charact. 2014, 19, 571–584. [CrossRef]
11. Kim, S.; Huh, H.; Kim, D.; Moon, M. Evaluation of Dynamic Tensile Characteristics of the High Strength
Steel Sheet for an Auto-body. In Proceedings of the 13th International Pacific Conference on Automotive
Engineering, Gyeongju, Korea, 27–30 October 2005.
12. Karkalos, N.E.; Markopoulos, A.P. Determination of Johnson-Cook Material Model Parameters by an
Optimization Approach using the Fireworks Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference
Interdisciplinarity in Engineering, Tirgu-Mures, Romania, 5–6 October 2017.
13. Witkiewicz, W.; Zielinski, A. Properties of the Polyurethane (PU) Light Foams. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2006, 6,
35–51.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).