442 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO.

1, JANUARY 2011

IAT Armature Development

Ian R. McNab, Fellow, IEEE, M. T. Crawford, Member, IEEE, S. S. Satapathy, Member, IEEE,
F. Stefani, and T. J. Watt, Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper provides a brief overview of railgun ar-

mature development undertaken at the Institute for Advanced
Technology (IAT) and elsewhere over the last decade. The fun-
damental physics issues that govern the armature requirements
are described. These include the operating requirements, mini-
mum parasitic mass, material action limits, contact interface pres- Fig. 1. Simple two-rail breech-fed railgun geometry.
sures, electromagnetic skin effects and current nonuniformities,
magnetic sawing, launch package interactions, material surface have been held every two years since 1981 (see the IEEE
treatments, melt lubrication, gouging, and transition to arcing TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS).1
contact. Different bore geometries—square, rectangular, round,
augmented, N -turn—are also described and require matching
armature and launch package designs. Novel designs are dis- A. Block Armature
cussed, including forward tabs, magnetic obturators, splined
armatures, fiber contacts, pseudoliquid armatures, plasma, and The armature is the component in which the EM accelerating
hybrid armatures. force is manifested as a result of current flow through it and
Index Terms—Armatures, electromagnetic (EM) launch, the interaction of the current flow with its associated magnetic
railguns. field, as illustrated in Fig. 1.2
Since the accelerating force in a simple railgun can be
I. I NTRODUCTION represented most simply as
1  2
T HE INSTITUTE for Advanced Technology (IAT) has
been engaged in developing and operating railguns and
launch packages since the mid-1990s. This paper provides a
FEM =
2
LI

(I is the current in amperes, and L is the inductance gradient

brief overview of the directions taken and the results obtained.
in henries per meter) and L is a small number, it is necessary
It is intended to describe the issues involved in creating a
for the railgun and armature to operate at very high currents.
successful electromagnetic (EM) launch package.
Thus, the first requirement of the armature is that it should
Although this paper focuses on the armature, it is important
be electrically conducting; hence, aluminum or copper and
to understand that the armature itself is merely one part of the
their alloys have been the preferred material choices. For many
entire system, and all aspects of that system are involved in
applications, the armature does not play a significant role in
achieving a satisfactory solution.
the terminal effects caused by the launch package, so the
Several types of armatures have been investigated by the
armature is regarded as a parasitic element whose mass should
IAT and others; this paper focuses on solid metal armatures,
be minimized. For this reason, aluminum, which has a lower
although a few comments are included about other types.
density (∼2.6 g/cm3 ), is preferred over copper (∼8.9 g/cm3 ).
Any practical railgun will need to be able to operate at
II. T ECHNICAL BACKGROUND high bore pressures to achieve a muzzle velocity of interest
in a barrel of acceptable length. A typical bore pressure is
To understand how armatures have evolved to where they
400 MPa (= 50 000 lb/in2 ), and this demands armature ma-
are today, it is important to understand some of the underlying
terials that can withstand such forces without substantial de-
physical effects that occur during their operation. These are
formation. Since pure aluminum is relatively soft, aluminum
described briefly in the following section. If required, more
alloys of various compositions are preferred. In most metals,
detail can be found in the proceedings of the International
an increase in mechanical strength comes at the expense of a
Electromagnetic Launch Technology (EML) Symposia that
decrease in electrical conductivity, because they are both related
to defects introduced into the lattice structure of the metal
Manuscript received April 15, 2010; revised June 14, 2010; accepted June 23, that act not only to pin dislocations and to increase strength
2010. Date of publication November 9, 2010; date of current version January 7,
2011. This work was supported by the ONR Railgun Program under Contract
1 Published papers from the EML Symposia can be found in the IEEE
N00178-03-D-2022.
The authors are with the Institute for Advanced Technology, The University TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS published in January 1982, 1984, 1989,
of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78759 USA (e-mail: ian_mcnab@iat.utexas.edu; 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 (in 1986, select
mark_crawford@iat.utexas.edu; sikhanda_satapathy@iat.utexas.edu; francis_ EML papers were compiled in the November edition).
2 Alternatively, the system comprising the launcher rails and the armature
stefani@iat.utexas.edu; trevor_watt@iat.utexas.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online can be considered as one in which a high magnetic pressure is created. Since
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. the rails are fixed and the armature is free to move, the armature is accelerated
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPS.2010.2082568 by this magnetic pressure.

0093-3813/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
MCNAB et al.: IAT ARMATURE DEVELOPMENT
but also to impede current flow. Hence, some compromises in
choosing the particular alloy may be needed. Future materials
may offer alternative choices, and nonmonolithic materials may
offer interesting alternatives.
B. Minimum Armature Mass
The minimum armature mass that can be used to transfer
the required current from one rail to the other is obtained by
equating the resistive loss in a block armature that spans the
rails to the temperature rise in the block of material, assuming
that the current travels uniformly through the armature. From
this, the temperature rise ΔT can be expressed in terms of
the fundamental properties of the materials—density ρ, specific
heat CP , and electrical resistivity ρe —and the operating current
density J as
 
ρe
ΔT = J 2 dt.
ρCP
From this relationship, the armature mass is minimized when
the current density is as high as possible within the temperature
limits of the armature material. As it is necessary to preserve
some mechanical strength, armatures are usually designed not
to exceed a (large) fraction of their melting temperature, at least
averaged over the bulk of the material (there may be locally
higher temperatures in some locations). Because material prop-
erties change significantly over a wide temperature range, it is
usual to recast the aforementioned equation using the action
constant3 for the material g as
 in the vicinity of the asperity contacts on both surfaces where
Jmax = g/τ
where Jmax is the maximum sustainable current density in the
material and τ is the pulselength of the current flow through the
armature. In this, g is defined as
Tfinal
ρCP
g= dT.
ρe
Tinitial
For a typical aluminum alloy from room temperature up to its
melting temperature of 620◦ C, g ≈ 20 × 1015 A2 s/m4 , so for a
current pulse of 5 ms, Jmax = 2 GA/m2 .
C. Armature Legs
Experience has shown that the simple block armature previ-
ously described will not work effectively in a practical railgun
above a very low velocity. The reason relates to the require-
ments for effective current transfer between surfaces, which
are fairly well known from other electrical situations. Briefly,
these are that, because real solid surfaces have microscopic
roughness and usually have an oxide layer that is at least
partially electrically insulating, a high pressure is required to
3 The action constant is a measured value for the material under consideration
that includes changes in the material density, specific heat, and electrical
conductivity as a function of temperature. Action constants have been measured
for some—but not yet all—materials of interest.
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
443
Fig. 2. Hansler’s projectile with spring-loaded contacts.
ensure close contact4 between the surfaces to enable effective
current transfer. Holm [1] has provided an empirical relation-
ship between the applied force and contact resistance for copper
surfaces.
Marshall approximated the lower bound of this set of curves
for copper surfaces with his “gram-per-ampere” rule [2]. The
“gram” in this rule is a gram-force, which is 0.01 N. The
relationship between the current in this rule and the resistance in
Holm’s curve is because the softening point of many materials
such as copper corresponds to a voltage drop of about 0.3 V.
Thus, Marshall’s rule translates to a requirement for a force of
about 10 N/kA for a satisfactory contact. Operating with a force
that is less than what is required will cause the contact to fail as
a result of blow-off forces that result from current constrictions
the current is transferred. The eventual outcome of such blow-
off forces is that solid-to-solid contact is lost and is replaced
by an arcing contact that can be quite destructive to both the
armature and the rails [3].
To ensure that an arcing contact does not occur at start-up, it
is usual to design the armature so that there is an interference
fit between the armature and the rails. The launch package and
armature therefore have to be forced into the breech of the gun
by a loading mechanism, leading to the armature (and rails)
being elastically deformed by a moderate amount—typically
1%–2% of the rail spacing. However, while this is effective
for the first part of the armature travel, as the armature reaches
higher velocities, its surfaces that are sliding on the rails begin
to wear, and the interference fit is lost, leading to the loss of the
metal-to-metal contact and, potentially, an arcing contact. To
overcome this, early railgun researchers developed trailing arms
with sufficient flexibility that they could maintain a springy
contact with the rails even though the material was being eroded
or melted from the ends of the arms. The first version of this
was a spring-loaded contact used by Hansler in 1944–1945 (see
Fig. 2) [4], but Marshall developed a chevron-shaped armature
in the early 1970s (see Fig. 3). Variants of this include multileaf
4 In principle, the contacting surfaces need to be so close that the electron
bands in the two metals can overlap, and electrons can transfer from one
material to the other. However, at distances less than a nanometer, quantum
mechanical electron tunneling can occur across a thin gap without the metals
actually being in contact.
444
Fig. 3. Early chevron armature.
Fig. 4. EMACK armature.
Fig. 5. IAT C-shaped armature with Lexan forebody.
armatures and an armature tested in the EMACK launcher
(see Fig. 4) [5].
Where possible, it is advantageous to use arrangements
where the current flow through the armature legs provides a
component of J × B force that is directed onto the rails to
maintain good electrical contact. A C-shaped armature that
includes this feature and has been used in a variety of forms at
the IAT and elsewhere is shown in Fig. 5. The armature legs are
automatically loaded onto the rails when current is flowing, and
this can persist for some time even though the tips of the legs
may erode during sliding. Eventually, sliding wear can reduce
the length of the legs to the point at which they are no longer
flexible enough to accommodate the loss of material, which can
lead to transition (see Section II-J). In extreme cases, the legs
may break off or be completely eroded.
It is important to remember that the J × B force that pushes
the armature legs onto the rails is only present when current is
flowing. If, for some reason, current is diverted out of the legs,
this force is no longer present, and this may be an irreversible
change unless the armature legs retain sufficient mechanical
resilience to spring back into contact with the rails.
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 1, JANUARY 2011
Fig. 6. Split-leg armature for round bores.
A feature that was viewed as very important in early arma-
ture designs, such as that shown in Fig. 3, was the need for
multiple contact points so that overall contact stability was
assured—even though one or more contact fingers might be
momentarily out of contact, the overall contact would be main-
tained by the other ones. Experience showed that sequential ac-
tioning out of the individual leaves caused this to be less robust
than what had been hoped, and this feature is now not used
in modern armatures, with the exception that some compliance
may be useful for loading the armature (see Fig. 6 [6]).
A reality that has to be considered is that the rails in a railgun
will not be perfectly smooth or straight along the complete
length of the gun. The inherent flexibility of the armature legs
augmented by EM forces will accommodate such imperfections
to some extent, but at some velocity and with some degree of
imperfections, the dynamic response time of the armature legs
may not be adequate to ensure that good electrical contact is
maintained. The result is that the contact can transition to an
arc (see Section II-J).
A feature of the trailing arm is that the area of the arm surface
in contact with the rails has to be of a sufficient size that current
will not cause the interface to melt completely. However, since
the leg area is several times larger than the throat area, this is
not a great concern, and in aluminum, the solid conductor will
typically reach a temperature of ∼150 ◦ C. Associated with this
condition is the need to undertake mechanical modeling of the
armature legs and their elastic deformation and to evaluate the
local contact pressures under the armature face in contact with
the rails.
Another issue is that the aspects mentioned in Section II-A
also need to be considered in the design of the trailing legs.
Thus, the legs themselves have to be sized so that they can
withstand the action associated with the current flow. The
detailed distribution of the current flow is relatively unknown
experimentally but can be estimated by modeling, and the legs
are designed so that they are not the weak link that will action
out before the central body of the armature.
D. Current Nonuniformities
Partly because of the initial rapid rise in current, the velocity
skin effect (VSE), and the interdependence of the current flow
with the loading pressures previously described, the current
flow through the surface of the armature in contact with the rails
will not be uniform. Because current cannot completely diffuse
into the face of a moving armature, the edges of the rails and
MCNAB et al.: IAT ARMATURE DEVELOPMENT
Fig. 7. Armature sliding contact face (front at right).
Fig. 8. Magnetic sawing in the throat of an armature.
armature experience the greatest current concentrations during
the initial portion of the pulse. This gives rise to local heating
and armature edge melting (together with related effects in the
rails). Thereafter, as the armature accelerates, the VSE causes
current concentrations along the edges of the contact region
as a result of the finite electrical resistivity in moving current-
carrying conductors. The results of these current nonuniformi-
ties can be seen as perimeter erosion on the face of recovered
armatures, as shown in Fig. 7.
E. Material Degradation—Magnetic Sawing
When current flowing through a conductor encounters a void
or insulating discontinuity, it is forced to redistribute to make
a detour, and in doing so, the local current densities near the
discontinuity increase, with a corresponding increase in local
heating. In the case of a slit or saw cut that is perpendicular to
the current flow, the extent of heating in the region where the
current has to divert may cause the material to be heated to its
melting point. In addition to the heating, the thermal gradient
and the J × B force near the discontinuities exacerbate the
crack extension. This can lead to a runaway condition known as
“magnetic sawing,” which can ultimately cause the conductor
to fail completely [7]. Examples of this have been encountered
in aluminum rails at the IAT.
This phenomenon can occur in the inner throat of the ar-
mature under conditions where the legs are being forced apart
mechanically by J × B forces when there is a high current
flowing through the armature. The leg spreading can cause
material cracks to form mechanically and, with the associated
current flow, can initiate magnetic sawing—an example is
shown in Fig. 8. Depending where such cracks are initiated,
they could lead to the loss of one or both legs or, worse, the
breakup of the armature in the throat area.
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
445
Fig. 9. One-piece IAT test launch slug and armature.
F. Launch Package Interaction
The purpose of the armature is to provide an accelerating
force to launch a useful projectile. The way in which the
armature transmits the accelerating force to the launch package
is important. In this discussion, it is assumed that the launch
package is pushed from the base by the armature. This is
most appropriate for an artillery-like application. In contrast, a
midride configuration may be needed for launching a long rod
penetrator.
One option is to make the armature as small as possible to
transfer the current from rail to rail and then transmit the force
experienced to the launch package via an interface or joint. This
joint may be physically bolted to the launch package (as shown
in Fig. 5) or may be interfaced with it in other ways. Thus,
the armature front face can push directly on the back of the
launch package. Different joint designs couple to a greater or
lesser extent to the launch package depending on their design
and may or may not permit a degree of movement of the launch
package separately from the armature. The extent to which this
is important is not yet fully understood but is likely to depend on
the straightness of the gun bore. The IAT has tested some solid
slugs in which the armature and launch package were made
from a single piece of aluminum (although the forebody was
clad in a plastic), as shown in Fig. 9.
G. Bore Riders
Nonmetallic bore riders play a role in stabilizing test launch
packages and are generally made from filled or unfilled
polyamide (nylon), polycarbonate (Lexan), or polyetherim-
ide (Ultem). Ultem was originally adopted for its high yield
strength, but its low impact strength has resulted in its disuse
recently. Depending on the bore geometry, the bore riders may
touch only on the insulators in the bore or may slide on the
rails ahead of the armature. Touching only the insulators has
the advantage that the potentially adverse effect of smearing the
rail with an insulator immediately before armature sliding and
current transfer is avoided. However, this advantage has to be
balanced against the need to maintain the dynamic stability of
the launch package during acceleration throughout the barrel.
In other cases, the launch package guidance may be largely
or entirely performed by the rails without any contact with the
insulators. Given the fact that the insulator lifetime may be the
limiting feature in many cases, this concept has advantages.
H. Melt Lubrication
There seems little doubt that, as sliding speeds and transfer
currents increase during the acceleration process, a situation
is rapidly reached in which the local temperatures at the
446
Fig. 10. Gouges on a copper rail.
armature–rail interface are sufficiently high that the armature
material (which usually has the lower melting point) will
melt. As it does, it is mostly left behind on the rails, at least
at moderate velocities. As the armature continues along the
rails, more material is lost; this is one factor that reduces any
preinduced interference fit and is why the J × B loading of
the armature arms is important. Generally, the presence of a
laid-down aluminum layer on the rails is beneficial and may
even improve the performance of the gun compared with a bare
rail, so a few conditioning shots are often used to precoat rails
with aluminum before operating at high current and velocity
conditions.
Considerable effort has been devoted to trying to understand
and model the melt layer by several authors, including at the
IAT [8]–[10]. However, modeling the Couette flow of molten
aluminum trapped between the moving planar surface of the
armature with the rails has not yet provided good agreement
with experiments.
I. Gouging
Gouging is a purely mechanical phenomenon that occurs
at high glancing impact velocities. It was first observed in
nonrailgun situations with no current flow but can also occur
in railguns, as illustrated in Fig. 10.
Stefani and Parker analyzed the fundamental physics in-
volved in gouging and produced a relatively simple explanation
that allows armature and rail materials to be chosen based on
their hardness so that gouging can be eliminated up to a critical
velocity that is characteristic of those materials [11]. Ideally,
the density of both materials should be as low as possible,
and the hardness of one material (the rail) should be as high
as possible (the hardness of the softer material does not affect
the gouging threshold). Even with the correct material choices,
gouging can still occasionally occur. In severe cases, gouging
can dramatically limit the gun life, but in less severe cases, it
may be possible to shoot subsequent shots over a gouge without
further damage.
J. Transition to Arcing Contact
Operation of high-pressure railguns has shown that when
the legs of an armature have worn significantly during travel
in the first part of the gun, the contact pressure can be reduced
to the level at which it is not possible for the armature to
make reliable contact for mega-ampere current transfer. One
or both of the legs are then prone to transition to an arcing
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 1, JANUARY 2011
Fig. 11. Copper rails with aluminum deposition and transition.
Fig. 12. Rectangular IAT bore.
contact, a transition from which they seldom recover. Shortly
after this, the bore of the gun seems to become full of arc
products, and it appears from muzzle voltage measurements
that the current is no longer transferred by metallic contact but
instead travels through the arc (or plasma), which has a much
higher characteristic voltage drop. Early experiments on copper
rails showed clear evidence of this transition both from a sharp
jump in muzzle voltage and from evidence on the rails where
a smooth deposition of aluminum onto the rails gave way to
a more distorted pattern indicating that an event had occurred
(see Fig. 11 and [3]).
The consequence of transition to arcing contact is that the
materials of both the armature and rails are aggressively eroded
to an extent that is determined by the Coulomb transfer Q
(Q = current × time), as has been observed in other well-
documented arcing situations. Once arcing occurs, all materials
will erode, and significant damage to the rails and insulators in
the gun bore will be evident.
III. B ORE G EOMETRY
A. Square and Rectangular
The initial experiments conducted by the IAT in the mid-
1990s used square or rectangular bores in the medium-caliber
launcher (MCL); this was also true for initial experiments in the
high-energy MCL starting in 2001. A rectangular cross section
is shown in Fig. 12.
In part, this configuration was chosen because the low cost
of materials and fabrication allowed good value for the in-
vestment made in experimentation. An advantageous feature
of the rectangular bore is that it provides a high L —typically
over 0.6 μH/m—compared with about 0.4 μH/m for a square
bore. The rectangular-bore configuration is also well suited to a
midride launch package because the armature needs to be able
to provide leg flexibility.
Recently, the IAT has become increasingly concerned that
problems can occur in this geometry in the corners of the bore
MCNAB et al.: IAT ARMATURE DEVELOPMENT
Fig. 13. Hansler’s air-cored railgun.
where the rails, insulators, and armature edges meet. What has
been most evident in these regions has been damage to the
insulators—typically, erosion and charring that is typical of a
high temperature. This has occurred even in regions where the
insulator is nominally covered by the rails and not exposed to
the bore. The present tentative conclusion is that this is caused
by hot molten aluminum from the contact region jetting into the
gap between the rail and insulator.
B. Round Bore
Prior to the IAT experiments on square and rectangular
bores in the MCL, several other organizations (e.g., Green
Farm) undertook tests on round-bore railguns. These have the
advantage that the bore can be honed after experiments, but the
cost of manufacturing the rails and insulators is much higher
than that for square or rectangular bores. The advantage of the
round bore is that it best matches the requirements of launch
packages, particularly a base-pushed hypervelocity projectile.
C. Round Rails
Reports on Hansler’s work in 1944–1945 include an image
showing a railgun with round rails (see Fig. 13) [12] for
use with the projectile design shown in Fig. 2. However, no
further details were provided, and it is not clear whether such
a design was ever tested. Round rails have some advantages in
terms of more uniform current distribution but require a more
complicated matching armature design.
D. N -Turn Railguns
The most frequently used two-rail breech-fed railgun has
an inductance gradient that is typically about 0.45 μH/m. In
some cases, it may be more advantageous to use a different
configuration for certain applications. One such configuration
is the N -rail arrangement invented by Moldenhauer and Hauze
in 1982, in which the rails are subdivided into smaller cross
sections that are then connected in series (see Fig. 14) [13].
Such an N -turn configuration has an inductance gradient that is
N2 times larger than a single pair of rails.
Poltanov et al. of the TRINITI Institute in Moscow have
operated three- and five-turn versions of such railguns [14],
[15], while Chinese researchers of the Zhengzhou Electrical
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
447
Fig. 14. Two-turn railgun configuration.
Fig. 15. Augmented railgun configuration.
Engineering Research Institute have operated 20- and 30-turn
systems at low speeds (∼ 30–50 m/s) [16], [17].
The advantage of this configuration is that the current needed
to launch a given payload mass to the required velocity is
reduced by 1/N , but the disadvantage is that there is voltage
between the upper and lower rails of the same polarity, so
the armature design has to accommodate this without shorting
out the power supply, which would be an unpleasant event. A
practical engineering issue that has also to be addressed is the
crossover that is required at the breech to take current from the
top rail on one side to the lower rail on the other side (shown in
Fig. 14).
E. Augmented Railguns
In an augmented railgun, one or more pairs of extra rails
are placed outside but close to the inner bore rails. The series-
augmented configuration is shown in Fig. 15.
The design of a solid armature for this type of railgun is
similar to that for a simple railgun. At present, there is little
experimental work taking place on this arrangement except for
work at the IAT for the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
(AFOSR) on a plasma-armature railgun using the configuration
shown in Fig. 16 [18]. In this case, the benefit of augmentation
is that blackbody radiation for the high-temperature armature is
reduced, so ablation from the inner core walls is minimized or
even (ideally) eliminated.
IV. A RMATURE T YPES
Almost all the prior discussions in this paper have concerned
C-shaped armatures, with the exception of the discussion
448
Fig. 16. IAT augmented railgun for plasma armatures.
Fig. 17. (L) Saddle armature with no throat erosion. (R) C-shaped armature
with severe throat erosion.
on different bore geometries, where matching armatures are
required. However, there have been some attempts to develop
other armature concepts, and these are described briefly here.
A. Saddle-Shaped Armature with Forward Tabs
Simulations and experimental observations have shown that
the leading edge of conventional C-shaped armatures undergoes
significant wear as a result of high current concentrations and
consequent high temperatures. Similarly, because the flat throat
shape in the insulator-to-insulator direction is not aligned with
the magnetic field, high magnetic field gradients and conse-
quent high current concentration at the sharp edges will occur.
Such field concentrations invariably lead to more armature
damage. Therefore, Rip et al. suggested that the throat area of
the armature should be shaped into a saddle and that it might be
worthwhile to have forward tabs on the armature legs [19].
Comparative experiments at the IAT showed that saddle-
shaped armatures reduced surface and throat area erosion com-
pared to standard armatures under identical launch conditions
(see Fig. 17). These recovered armature observations were sub-
stantiated by muzzle and breech voltage traces, which showed
lower armature–rail contact voltages.
B. Magnetic Obturator
In an attempt to emulate the minimal-armature-mass simple
block armature of the type shown in Fig. 1, IAP Inc. invented
the magnetic obturator concept in the late 1980s [20], [21]. In
this concept, the flexibility required to accommodate wear of
the block armature was provided by conducting wedges at the
rear of the armature. The concept was that, as wear occurs,
the EM forces should push the wedge up the slope at the
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 1, JANUARY 2011
Fig. 18. IAT magnetic obturator design.
rear of the armature and thereby maintain good contact with
the rails. This configuration requires the current passing from
rail to rail to traverse four sliding interfaces, not just two as
in the conventional C-shaped armature. Although the wedge-
to-armature body interface has only minimal movement—in
contrast with the armature-to-rail interface—as local melting
and subsequent welding occurs at this interface, the required
easy sliding movement may not be obtained.
This configuration was investigated experimentally by the
IAT using the configuration shown in Fig. 18, but several
problems were encountered [22]:
1) binding, snagging, or rotation of the wedges;
2) inability of the wedges to follow variations in bore
dimensions;
3) intermittent welding of the wedges to the armature body;
4) magnetic blow-off of the wedges caused by melt-wave
erosion.
It was concluded that, although this concept can potentially
operate well, it was not yet at the level of maturity required to
assure reliable operation.
C. Fiber Armatures
There is a small but continuing effort on metal fiber arma-
tures at the French–German Research Institute of Saint Louis
(ISL), located in Saint Louis, France. Interest in such armatures
started at Westinghouse in the late 1970s when programs to
develop improved brushes for ship propulsion machinery were
under way for the Office of Naval Research [23]. Initially, these
efforts used metal-plated carbon fiber brushes, as previously
developed in the U.K. [24], but over time, the efforts migrated
toward the use of metal fiber brushes [25]. In both cases,
the objective was to address the contact issues outlined in
Section II-C. The idea was that brushes comprised of tens of
thousands of metal-plated carbon or metal fibers carrying cur-
rent in parallel would provide a stable multipoint low-resistance
contact on rotor slip rings in high-speed motors or generators.
At about the same time, Westinghouse researchers were
developing railguns, and the idea of using a metal fiber contact
was transferred to this area. It was initially tested in the ELF-1
launcher with a bore of 12.7 mm × 12.7 mm [26], [27] but was
then used in the 50 × 50 mm bore of the EMACK launcher
in January 1982 [28] before the transfer to ARRADCOM (see
Fig. 19).
In 1984, Kolkurt from TNO in the Netherlands arrived at
ARRADCOM on an exchange program and became involved
MCNAB et al.: IAT ARMATURE DEVELOPMENT
Fig. 19. EMACK copper fiber armature.
Fig. 20. Marshall’s pseudoliquid armature.
in railgun work, including the use of fiber brushes. Upon
returning to TNO, he, and later ISL, continued this approach.
The experiments published by the ISL have not been at aggres-
sive operating conditions, and the benefits of fiber brushes have
not been proven. One effect that has been rediscovered is that,
under high acceleration loads, unsupported fibers tend to lose
contact with the rail surface [29].
D. Pseudoliquid Armatures
Some years ago, after discussions of how to improve the
armature performance in regard to transitioning behavior, Mar-
shall developed a concept that he termed the pseudoliquid
armature. The essence of this idea was that the legs of the
armature would be made of multiple thin layers of very soft
aluminum that would be pressed onto the rails by a pressurized
pneumatic bellows. The force exerted by the bellows would
ensure that the armature maintained contact with the rails even
if the J × B force were not present—or if it were momentarily
disrupted. The concept was described in [30] and is illustrated
in Fig. 20.
The initial tests of this concept were reported in [30] and in
a poster at the 13th EML Symposium in Potsdam. These were
not very successful. However, in the 14th EML Symposium,
transitionless performance to 1900 m/s was reported [31].
While the concept of providing some type of mechanical
(i.e., nonelectrical) loading mechanism for the legs of the
armature seems like a good idea, it is not clear how well this
particular approach will scale to larger sizes.
E. Plasma Armatures
Much of the work undertaken in the 1980s and early 1990s
used plasma armatures in place of solid armatures. This fol-
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
449
Fig. 21. Green Farm projectile with plasma armature.
lowed after the initial attempts to try to make solid armatures
work at high velocities were not successful. In most cases, the
natural failure mode of the solid armature resulted in the devel-
opment of a full-bore plasma. However, provided the plasma
is adequately conducting, current can be transferred through it
and will result in effective Lorentz forces that will propel the
launch package. Thus, much research was undertaken with such
armatures. For example, most of the early work at Green Farm
was undertaken using plasma armatures in which the plasma
was initiated by a high-voltage pulse applied to a thin aluminum
foil mounted on the rear of the projectile (see Fig. 21) [32].
Plasma armatures have characteristics that are different from
solid armatures, and they and the gun bore have to be designed
appropriately. The current transfer through the plasma is less
efficient than that through a solid armature, because a plasma is
much more resistive than a solid metal. This situation results in
a much higher voltage drop across the rails and is manifested in
a high muzzle voltage. For a large-bore gun (90–120 mm), the
muzzle voltage may be 600 V to ∼1 kV. Because the same cur-
rent has to be used for given launch conditions (the propulsive
force depends on I 2 , not on voltage), the in-bore dissipation is
much larger than for a solid armature. Typically, the plasma has
a temperature of about 20 000 K, and blackbody radiation from
this to the walls of the gun can cause damage to the materials
by ablation and high temperatures. The insulator is particularly
prone to such damage if epoxy-impregnated materials such as
G-10 are used, and this damage gave rise to velocity-limiting
mechanisms in early attempts to reach very high velocities.
Approaches to overcome such effects are being pursued under
an AFOSR Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
study. Recent results have been summarized in [33].
Another difference that has to be taken into account for
plasma armature operation is that the plasma, when subjected
to the J × B forces, acts like a very high-pressure gas that
exerts pressure in all directions. Thus, the projectile has to be a
tight and leakproof fit in the entire bore—while sliding on both
the rails and insulators. In addition, the bore itself has to be
designed to accommodate the plasma pressure on the rail and
insulator walls without leakage.
F. Hybrid Armatures
In the interest of seeking a compromise between the good and
bad features of plasma armatures and solid armatures, several
researchers have suggested arrangements that could include the
best and eliminate the worst features of each. One example is
the concept illustrated in Fig. 22 (from [34]).
The concept here was that a solid block of high-conductivity
aluminum would transfer current across 90% or more of the
bore cross section. In the remaining gap of a few millimeters
between the edge of this block and the rails, the current would
be transferred by a plasma. In this way, effective conduction
450
Fig. 22. Railgun with combined plasma and solid armature.
would be achieved economically (i.e., with minimal parasitic
mass) over the bulk of the bore, but solid-on-solid sliding would
be eliminated and replaced by a low-voltage-drop plasma. This
still seems like a worthwhile idea to try.
In the search for very high velocities, Hawke et al. attempted
to develop a somewhat different hybrid armature that would be
preinjected into a railgun from a light-gas gun, and then, the
plasma would be ignited by application of a high-voltage pulse.
However, this approach was not completely successful, and the
ignition of the plasma was not obtained reliably [35].
V. C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS
In this paper, we have arrived at the following conclusions.
1) The present procedure used in laboratory guns of ram-
ming the projectile into the breech of the gun with a
high interference fit to assure good electrical contact on
start-up seems unlikely to permit long rail life (thousands
of shots) to be achieved. In addition, it requires a not-
insignificant piece of auxiliary equipment. A flexible
contact seems to be a better avenue to pursue for the
future—at least for start-up, if not the entire acceleration
length.
2) As modeling of the armature becomes more sophisti-
cated, particularly in identifying and quantifying 3-D
effects, it will become important to be able to design
and build more sophisticated armature structures—for ex-
ample, those in which the material properties are graded
and optimized throughout the structure—so that parasitic
mass can be minimized while still providing the launch
functions required.
3) More attention should be paid to the use of saddle
armatures with forward tabs, as these may offer some
advantages in delaying or suppressing transition to arcing
contact.
4) Further investigations should be undertaken into splitting
the armature legs to provide multiple independent points
of contact, as was done with some of the early armature
designs. This strategy might increase armature stability
and has been shown to reduce the size of gouges when
they occur.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work reported here was undertaken by many researchers
from the Institute for Advanced Technology and a few from
other organizations, mostly over the last ten years. Every
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 1, JANUARY 2011
attempt has been made to reference their excellent and dedi-
cated work: Any that has been overlooked should be brought to
the attention of the authors so that updates and corrections can
be made.
The authors would like to thank the support of the Office
of Naval Research railgun program under the guidance of
Dr. E. D’Andrea and Mr. R. Ellis.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Holm, Electrical Contacts, 4th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[2] R. A. Marshall and W. Ying, Railguns—Their Science and Technology.
Beijing, China: China Mach. Press, 2004.
[3] J. P. Barber and I. R. McNab, “Magnetic blow-off in armature transition,”
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 42–46, Jan. 2003.
[4] J. Hansler, , Progress Rep. 2, Nov. 7, 1944.
[5] I. R. McNab, D. W. Deis, V. B. Doshi, D. A. Fiske, and
H. R. Howland, “DC electromagnetic launcher development: Phase I,”
U.S. Army ARDEC, Dover, NJ, Contractor Rep. ARLCD-CR-80009,
May 15, 1980.
[6] D. C. Haugh and G. M. G. Hainsworth, “Why ‘C’ armatures work
(and why they don’t),” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 52–55,
Jan. 2003.
[7] S. Satapathy and F. Stefani, “Crack tip behavior under pulsed electromag-
netic loading,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 226–230, Jan. 2005.
[8] R. E. Kothmann and F. Stefani, “A thermal hydraulic model of melt
lubrication in railgun armatures,” Institute for Advanced Technology,
The Univ. Texas, Austin, TX, Tech. Rep. IAT.R 0214, 2003.
[9] F. Stefani and R. Merrill, “Experiments to measure melt-wave erosion
in railgun armatures,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 188–192,
Jan. 2003.
[10] F. Stefani, R. Merrill, and T. Watt, “Numerical modeling of melt-wave
erosion in two-dimensional block armatures,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41,
no. 1, pp. 437–441, Jan. 2005.
[11] F. Stefani and J. Parker, “Experiments to measure gouging threshold
velocity for various metals against copper,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 312–316, Jan. 1999.
[12] M. Pollack and L. W. Matsch, “Electric gun and power source,” Armor
Res. Found., Chicago, IL, Rep. Project 15-391E, May 1, 1947.
[13] J. G. Moldenhauer and G. E. Hauze, “Experimental demonstration of an
N -turn EML,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG-20, no. 2, pp. 283–286,
Mar. 1984.
[14] A. E. Poltanov, A. K. Kondratenko, A. P. Glinov, and V. N. Ryndin,
“Multi-turn railguns: Concept analysis and experimental results,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 457–461, Jan. 2001.
[15] A. E. Poltanov, A. P. Glinov, A. K. Kondratenko, and V. N. Ryndin, “Use
of multi-turn railguns as high-speed limiters of short-circuit current for
larger power plants,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 229–231,
Jan. 2001.
[16] M. Li, Y. Wu, Y. Chen, and X. Zhao, “DC constant current power sup-
ply used to power a multilayer launching system,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 308–310, Jan. 2005.
[17] J. Zhang, G. Gu, Y. Xiang, X. Zhao, and X. Liu, “Research on a big
multiturn rail electromagnetic launching system,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 2054–2058, May 2007.
[18] D. A. Wetz, F. Stefani, J. V. Parker, and I. R. McNab, “Advancements
in the development of a plasma-driven electromagnetic launcher,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 495–500, Jan. 2009.
[19] L. Rip, S. Satapathy, and K.-T. Hsieh, “Effect of geometry change on the
current density distribution in C-shaped armatures,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 72–75, Jan. 2003.
[20] A. P. Noel, R. Hisle, and D. P. Bauer, “Development of a high transitioning
velocity inertial armature for reduced rail gouging,” IAP, Dayton, OH,
Tech. Rep. IAP-TR-96-01, 1996.
[21] A. P. Noel, A. Challita, and D. P. Bauer, “A novel railgun launch package
concept,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 97–100, Jan. 2001.
[22] F. Stefani, J. V. Parker, and T. Watt, “Progress on developing the ‘magnetic
obturator,’ a novel railgun armature,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 1,
pp. 86–91, Jan. 2003.
[23] I. R. McNab, Ed., Advances in Electrical Current Collection. Lausanne,
Switzerland: Elsevier Sequoia S.A., 1982.
[24] G. A. Wilkin and I. R. McNab, “Current transfer brushes,” U.S. Patent
3 821 024, Jun. 28, 1974.
MCNAB et al.: IAT ARMATURE DEVELOPMENT
[25] I. R. McNab and P. Reichner, “Environment and brushes for high-current
rotating electrical machinery,” U.S. Patent 4 277 708, Jul. 7, 1981.
[26] D. W. Deis and D. P. Ross, “Experimental launcher facility—ELF-1:
Design and operation,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG-18, no. 1, pp. 23–
28, Jan. 1982.
[27] D. P. Ross, G. L. Ferrentino, and F. J. Young, “Experimental determination
of the contact friction for an electromagnetically-accelerated armature,”
Wear, vol. 78, no. 1/2, pp. 189–200, May 1982.
[28] I. R. McNab, Ed., Advances in Electrical Current Collection. Lausanne,
Switzerland: Elsevier Sequoia S.A., 1982.
[29] M. Schnieder, D. Eckenfels, and F. Hatterer, “Transition in brush arma-
tures,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 76–81, Jan. 2003.
[30] R. A. Marshall and W. Ying, Railguns—Their Science and Technology.
Beijing, China: China Mach. Press, 2004, p. 83.
[31] J. Li, P. Liu, Y. Gui, C. Yu, Z. Hao, F. Yao, P. Yan, Y. Sun, W. Yuan,
J. He, and S. Xia, “Recent pseudo-liquid armature experiments with de-
tails of the test systems,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 368–371,
Jan. 2009.
Authorized licensed use limited to: DRDO-ARDE. Downloaded on July 12,2023 at 11:24:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
451
[32] I. R. McNab, F. LeVine, and M. Aponte, “Experiments with the
Green Farm electric gun facility,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 31, no. 1,
pp. 338–343, Jan. 1995.
[33] I. R. McNab, “Progress on hypervelocity railgun research for launch to
space,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 381–388, Jan. 2009.
[34] I. R. McNab and G. A. Kemeny, “Electromagnetic projectile launcher
with combination plasma/conductor armature,” U.S. Patent 4 467 696,
Aug. 28, 1984.
[35] R. S. Hawke, A. R. Susoeff, J. R. Asay, J. A. Ang, C. A. Hall,
C. H. Konrad, G. W. Wellman, R. J. Hickman, W. A. Heath, J. R. Martinez,
J. L. Sauve, A. R. Vasey, and M. Shahinpoor, “Railgun performance with
a two-stage light gas gun injector,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 27, no. 1,
pp. 28–32, Jan. 1991.
Photographs and biographies of all authors not available at the time of
publication.