THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PROJECTILE'S PENETRATION IN SOILS

By Yu. Boguslavskii,l S. Drabkin/ I. Juran,3 and A. Salman4

ABSTRACT: Experimental studies of soil penetration by low-velocity projectiles stimulated the development
of theoretical modeling of the phenomena. We developed a model of vertical penetration of granular soils verified
by known experiments and dimensional analysis. The experimental results showed nonmonotonic dependence
between projectile deceleration and depth of penetration. Net resistant force was found to be a complicated
function of variable deceleration and depth. This force was defined not only with pure dynamic and static
components, but also with a mixed component important for interpretation of experimental results. Theoretical
analysis of nonmonotonic variation of resistance with depth permits evaluation of static properties of noncohesive
material using dynamic characteristics of projectile penetration. An understanding of physical processes govern-
ing projectile's deceleration was acquired. Velocity and acceleration are obtained as functions of initial velocity,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politecnico Di Torino on 04/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

depth of penetration, and media properties. We show two conditions when peaks of acceleration are observed.
The initial peak is due to dynamic characteristics, and the second peak is due to static characteristics of pene-
tration.

INTRODUCTION the accumulated results for assessment of the theory developed

herein.
Soil penetration by projectiles interested many generations
of researchers. Historically, studies in projectile penetrations The initial impact velocity of penetration, Vo, varied from
0.0 mls to 46 mls. In the experiments with the initial velocity
were initiated by military needs more than two centuries ago
of 0.0 mis, the projectile was accelerated by gravitation from
(Euler 1739; Robins 1742). More recent studies by Allen
rest when it was released with its point just in contact with
et al. (1956), Rachmatullin et al. (1964), Thompson (1975),
the surface of the bed. To achieve higher velocities, Thompson
True (1976), Sogomonyan (1974), and Zukas (1982) have fo-
used a compressed gas gun. The projectile consisted of a 70.5-
cused on the impact and subsequent penetration of instru-
mm-long nose cone attached to a 400-mm-Iong 38-mm-di-
mented projectiles used for soil investigation.
ameter afterbody. Inside the nose was installed an acceler-
Experimental studies on soil dynamic penetration by pro-
ometer. The afterbody was of the same diameter as the
jectiles stimulated the development of theoretical modeling of
projectile and had a similar polished surface. It prevented the
the phenomena of impact dynamic penetration in solids (Zukas
sand from collapsing onto the rear of the projectile after it
1982), and in soils (Sogomonyan 1974). These theories were
was submerged in the sand deposit. This instrumented projec-
mostly based on dynamic plasticity and dynamic wave prop-
tile with afterbody is called a penetrometer. Its weight was
agation, and did not adequately characterize the extremely
2.715 kg.
complex process of vertical penetration in granular soils.
The target was dry poorly graded medium SP (United Clas-
Still the need exists for remote soil exploration. Current ex-
sification System) sand with the following grain sizes: D IO =
perimental studies concentrated on assessment of influence of
0.27 mm, D30 = 0.4 mm, D(fJ = 0.43 mm. Coefficient of uni-
shape of projectile on depth of penetration (Forrestall et al.
formity Cu was 1.6. Three different densities of sand were
1986, 1991), or fitting their results to existing theoretical mod-
tested. Minimum density was 1,451 kg/m3 , while medium and
els (Taylor et al. 1991, Hearst and Lynch 1994). Such ap-
maximum densities were 1,593 and 1,700 kg/m 3, respectively.
proaches avoid the analysis of physical properties of penetra-
The targets were penetrated at atmospheric pressure (atmo-
tion phenomena. spheric tests) and in the vacuum chamber (vacuum tests).
The present paper develops a comprehensive model of pro-
Thompson evaluated static resistance of tested sands using
jectile penetration at subsonic velocities in sand. Hence, clear
cone penetration tests. Hydraulic piston maintained the rate of
physical understanding of processes governing projectile de-
penetration at 2.1 mmls. A load cell measured the total force
celeration was acquired.
transmitted by the piston to the penetrometer. Skin friction was
Comparison of theoretical and experimental results allowed
assessed using a separate load cell.
the solution of the inverse problem of dynamic penetration and
determination of the properties of penetrated noncohesive
granular media. THEORY OF PENETRATION
The general relation of dynamic penetration problem may
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF PENETRATION be written in accordance with Newton's second law as follows:
PHENOMENA IN UNIFORM SAND
Among available sources mentioned in the Introduction, the
mH(t) = -F + P (I)
most comprehensive study of penetration phenomena was per- where m, fI(t) , and H(t) = projectile's mass, acceleration, and
formed by Thompson (1975). His extensive experimental in- depth of penetration; F = net resistant force; P = mg = weight
vestigations of dynamic penetration allowed the authors to use of projectile with g being gravity acceleration. Traditionally,
the net resistant F is expressed as
'Civ. Engrg. Dept., Polytechnic Univ., Brooklyn, NY 11201.
2Civ. Engrg. Dept., Polytechnic Univ., Brooklyn, NY. (2)
3Civ. Engrg. Dept., Polytechnic Univ., Brooklyn, NY.
4Civ. Engrg. Dept., Polytechnic Univ., Brooklyn, NY. where Flo F2 , and F3 = respectively dissipative, dynamic, and
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 1997. To extend the closing date static components of resistant force. This force F should be
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of defined in such a manner that it could be used for evaluation
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on July 6, 1995. This paper is part of the ]ourlUll
of experimental results.
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. to, October, 1996. ©ASCE, Dissipative component F 1 depends on losses due to viscosity
ISSN 0733-9410/96/0010-0806-08121$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. and wave generation in the granular media. However, known
11075. experiments (Jaeger and Nagel 1992) show that viscosity may
806 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(10): 806-812

 be neglected in granular media. At subsonic velocities in me- respondence. At relatively high velocities, the contribution of
dia, the resistance associated with compressibility or wave ~fI2 and 'YoeHfI 2 may be significant and F different from static
generation may be neglected also. F 3 • Therefore, analysis of functional dependence of F on H is
In a projectile-soil system, the parameters important for the interesting both theoretically and practically. It allows the as-
evaluation of F 2 are the projectile's velocity fI(t) , cross-sec- sessment of static properties of granular media from dynamic
tional area in the direction of penetration s, and soil density characteristics of projectile deceleration.
p. Assuming F 2 to be independent of H and using general Eq. (4) should be solved for the following initial conditions
dimensional theory (Sedov 1959), F 2 may be expressed as
H(t = 0) = 0; fI(t = 0) = Vo (5)
F2 = Cpfl(tis
After the first integration we derive
because only this combination of fI(t), s, and p has the di-
mension of force. Here C is a dimensionless constant depend-
ing only on the shape of the projectile.
fl2 =e-2~H-.~oH2 [2i H
(8 - "Yo H - "YIH 2
The static component of resistance force, F 3 is a function
of H(t) for vertical penetration FiH).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politecnico Di Torino on 04/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The experimental results show non-monotonic dependence (6)

between projectile deceleration and both time and depth of
penetration (Fig. 1). Therefore, F may be considered as a com-
By partial differentiation of (6) with respect to time, variation
posite function of variables fI2 and H. Though the function
of acceleration with depth is derived as
F = F(fl 2 , H) is unknown, it may be expressed as a Maclaurin
series expansion:

F = F(O 0) + aF(?,O) fl2 + aF(O,O) H + .!. [a2F~0,0) fl4

Ii = -(~ + "YoEH)e-2~H-E"IOH2 [ 2i
H
(8 - "YoH - "YIH 2

' a ( H 2) aH 2 2
a(H )2
2
a2F(0,0) .2 a F(0,0) 2J
+2 HH + H + ... (3)
aHa(fl 2) aH 2
Eq. (1) is impossible to analyze analytically, even qualitatively The maximum depth of projectile penetration, H m , is reached
when fl2 = 0 and may be found from (6):
if all terms of (3) are substituted for F. Therefore, the terms
of the fourth order or higher, such as fI4, H 2fI2, and H 4 are Hm

omitted. After dividing (1) by m, it may be expressed as fl2 = 2

i 0 (8 - "YoH - "YIH 2 - "Y2H3)e2~H+E"IOH2 dH + v~ = °
(8)
(4a) At H = H m only the static component F 3 of the resistance force
F exists. At this point the projectile acceleration may be found
where by substituting (8) into (7)
8 _ g _ F(O,O). u. _ 1. aF(O,O) _ Cps. "V _1. aF(O,O). (9)
- m ' I-' - m a(fl2) - m' ,0 - m aH '
Analysis of (6), (7), and (8) is done here for two extreme
1 a 2F(0,0) 1 a 2F(0,0) 1 a 3F(0,0) cases. The first one corresponds to low initial impact velocities
"YI = 2m aH 2 ; E = m"Yo aHi)(fI2); "Y2 = 6m aH3 (4b) smaller than 10 m/s in loose sand for which E "'" 0 and 'Y2 "'"
O. After substitution of these zero values in (6), the final in-
Eq. (4) allows both qualitative and quantitative analysis of tegral has an analytical solution:
projectile's penetration. From this it follows that F consists
not only of pure dynamic and static components, but also of fl2 = (V 2o _ ~~ _ ..::i.!!.... + 2) -2~ +
a mixed component defined by the term -"YoefI 2H that was 2~2 2~3 e
derived for arbitrary function F by series expansion (3). 2
At small velocities fI ~ 0, Fin (4) is defined only by its - - +8- +
- "YIH "Yo
- -"YI- (10)
static component. In this case, static resistance determined, for ~ ~ 2~2 2~3
example from a cone penetration test, and the resistance as-
sessed from a projectile deceleration should show close cor- For the same case, (11) and (12) are derived from (7) and (8)

300,--------------------,
Ii = -~ (V~ - %- 2~2 + 2~3) e-2~H + 2~2 - ;~ - ; H
250
(11)

~
i!
200 Dynamic peak

(
V2 _
o
~~ _ .:i!!.... +
2~2
2)
2~3 e
-2~m + ("YI _ "Yo) H
~2 ~ ..
i'150
~ "YIH~ 8 "Yo "YI
100
- -~- + ji + 2~2 - 2~3 =° (12)

Eq. (12) defines the maximum depth of projectile penetration

which depends on the initial velocity t1J, and static properties
01 0.2 03 0.4 0.5 0.6 07 of sand, 'Yo, 'YI> and 13. After substituting H m (t1J) in (11), we
Depth,m
get B(t1J) when the projectile stops.
FIG. 1. Penetrometer Deceleration for Va =16 mls In Medium A thin and heavy projectile penetrating loose sand creates
Dense Sand In Vacuum Test the conditions corresponding to "YI = 0, 13 = O. The analytical
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1 OCTOBER 1996/807

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(10): 806-812

 solution of (12) is achieved by expanding e- 2f3H to second or- m

der terms, then rearranging (12) and taking /3 = 0 gives (

-"'II + 28 ) lH e~(j<H
2
dH + -1 (1 - e~(j<H
2 "'IIHm
) - - - e~(j<Hm2
"'loB 0 E "'loB
v~
2
8 8
H =- + "2 + - (13a) + ....:f.:- [(I - "YoEH~)e~(j<Hl. - I] + v~ =0 (20)
m"'lo "'10"'10 ("'IoB)2
For Vo » 8/v:io, Hm becomes approximately equal to Vo/v:io. Eqs. (18)-(20) are still too complicated for nonnumerical
This value of H m is then substituted into (9) to derive acceleration analysis. The integral
(13b)

of a thin heavy projectile penetrating loose sand with a low

initial impact velocity.
Now we derive depth of penetration H. when fI is at its cannot be solved analytically. But it is possible to show nu-
maximum. After differentiation of (10) in respect to H, the merically that its effect on fI and Ii is small. For qualitative
derived expression is equal to 0 at H.. and hence assessment of the problem, consider the case when "YI =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politecnico Di Torino on 04/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-28'YoE which permits the analytical integration. Then (19)

2/3(-V2+~+..::J.2..._~)e-2f3H'=2"'1tH + "'10_ "'It (14) and (20) become
o /3 2/32 2/33 /3 e /3 /32
After taking natural logarithms of both sides of (14) Ii = 8 - "'IoH(1 + Ev~)e-""oH2 - .:J.J:... H(1 - e-'~oH2) (21)
"'loB
H. = - J.... In /3"'10[1 + "'It (2/3He - 1)/(/3"'10)]
e~o£Hl. - "'IIHm e~o£Hl. + ~2 "'IoEH~)e~o£Hl.
2/3 2/32[8 + ("'1012/3)(1 - "'11)/(/3"'10) - /3v~] (I Sa) -
"'10 "'I~
[(1 - - 1]

For "'II = 0, (15) becomes + BV~ = 0 (22)

H. = - J.... In "'10 (lSb) Eq. (22) defines how H m depends on Vo for given 'Yo, E, 'YI, 'Y2,
2/3 2/32 (..::J.2... + ~ _ 2) and may be solved graphically. By substituting this solution
2/32 /3 Vo in (21), Ii as function of Vo at the moment of projectile's stop
is derived.
Eq. (lSb) is approximately true for hl(2/3H. - 1)1//3"'10« I For "'12 "'" 0, 'YIHm/"'Io « I, as in loose sand, the solution of
and hd//3'Yo « I as well. This shows that fI(H) reaches a (22) is
maximum below the soil surface at depth H. when Vo <
\!8/i3.With increase of va' H. becomes smaller; H. = 0 (soil (23)
surface) when Vo = \!8/i3.
There is no maximum of velocity
defined by (10) below or at the soil surface when vo >
\!8/i3. We can determine depths Hi at which extreme values of Ii are
The maximum or minimum of deceleration, lim' is observed observed. For this (21) is differentiated with respect to H, and
at depth H d that can be obtained by taking derivative of (II) made equal to 0
in respect to H, and making it equal to 0 "'10(1 + Ev~)e-·~oHi - 2H7["'I~(1 + BV~) - "'I2]e-~o£Hi

Hd = - - 1 In --:;-------''-'----~
"'II
(16) + .:J.J:... (1 - e-·~oHI) =0
2/3 2/328 + /3"'10 + "'II - 2/33v~ (24)
"'loB
Deceleration of a projectile at H d is
For a particular case of 'Y2 = 0 a simple analytical expression
.. "'10 "'It "'II may be derived for the depth at which -Ii has the maximum.
Hm= - 2/3 - 2/32 In 2/328 + /3"'10 + "'It _ 2/33v~ (17) From (24), it follows that one possible solution is

For 'YI < 0, H d in (16) is positive when 2/328 + /3"'10 - 2/33v~ H, = 1I'\/2-Yi. (25)
> O. In that case (17) gives a maximum deceleration. For "'II at which point (21) gives
> 0, H d in (16) is positive when 2/328 + /3"'10 - 2/33v~ < O. In
that case (17) defines a minimum deceleration.
Now comes the second extreme case that corresponds to
-lim = -8 + ~ (1 + Bv~)e-o~ (26)
high initial impact velocities exceeding 10 mls in dense sand
for which /3 "'" 0, E ~ O. Integration by parts of (6), (7), and This maximum of acceleration is observed experimentally for
(8) gives respectively relatively large values of va' 'Yo, and E.
fl2 = e-~(j<H2 [(~ + 28)
"'I~
r e~(j<H2
1
dH + .!:. (1
B
_ e~(j<H2)
Graphical analysis of (24) shows that for "'12 > 0 two solu-
tions, HI and H 2 , are possible. The depth HI corresponds to
the maximum deceleration -lim' and the depth H 2 > HI cor-
"'I,H (j<H2"'12 2)e~(j<H2 - 2] responds to the local minimum of deceleration -limin . There-
- -e~ + - - [(1 - "'IoBH 1] + vo (18) fore, two local maxima (peaks) of deceleration may be ob-
"YoB ("'IoB)2
served. The first peak has a dynamic origin, because the
H = -B"'IoHe-~(j<H2 (;~ e~(j<H2 dH projectile velocity at that depth is larger than zero. The final
[ + 28) lH peak has a static origin with projectile velocity close to zero.

.• u2 "'IIH _.u2 "'12 2 COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL MODEL AND

+ -1 (1 - e~<><" ) - - e~<><" + --2 [(1 - "'IoEH2)e~(j<H
B "'loB ("'loB) EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Thompson (1975) presented experimental data using such a
- 1] + v~] +8 - "'IoH - "'IIH
2
- "'I2H3 (19) combination of different English units as inches for the depth
808/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(10): 806-812

 of penetration, feet per seconds for the initial impact velocity, proportional to f.L and characterizes shearing resistance of sand.
feet per seconds squared for deceleration and pounds for the Hence 'Yo was defined here as a resistance coefficient. When
static resistance to penetration. The heterogeneous original f.L is equal to zero, as in water, "10, "I I, and 'Y2 are equal to zero
graphs could not be used for analysis of penetration. The data as well. Hence, the static component F 3 of the reSisting force
of dynamic penetration were expressed by the authors using is equal to zero. When the cross sectional area of a projectile,
2 2
SI system of units to verify the developed theoretical model. S, and the partial derivatives Qf.L/dH and d 1JldH increase, the
a
lYpical variations of with depth are shown in Fig. 1 for static component F3 increases as well.
Vo:= 16 mls in medium dense sand tested in vacuum. The plot From experimental data, 'Yo may be derived with (15) when
demonstrates dynamic and static peaks of acceleration. Only j3 is known. The value of 13 may be derived from (4b) when
static peak of deceleration is present in Fig. 2 that demon- coefficient C is determined for a projectile of a given shape.
strates the test results for Vo =0 mls in the sand with minimum Otherwise C may be assessed from the following considera-
density. These appearances of one or two peaks are related to tions. When Vo = 0 mis, maximum velocity exists at certain
combination of Vo and sand properties, as it was predicted with depth H :t; 0, as shown in Fig. 7(a). When Vo increases, the
(24). location of that maximum moves towards H - 0 [Fig. 7(b)].
Static properties of sand at different depths may be assessed At H. "" 0 in (15), 13 is about 81v~, where f> is acceleration at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politecnico Di Torino on 04/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with dynamic penetration tests as discussed in the following H:= O. From Fig. 7(b), 8 is about 10 mls2 and j3 ... 0.6 m- I
paragraphs. The suggested model illustrates that net and static for Vo ::: 4.05 mls.
resistant forces differ substantially at large velocities of a pro- Test results (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3) showed that for depths less
jectile in sand. From (8), these forces are close at the depth than about 0.05-0.07 m the static component of the resistant
Hm when the projectile stops.
Figs. 3, 4, and 5 demonstrate examples of evolutions of z;G\
I
dynamic and static resistance with H in loose sand at Vo:= 0.0, 200
I
net teslSlance
4.1, and 10 mls. Fig. 6 shows the same for dense sand at Vo
= 19.2 mls. These figures show that when penetrometer stops, }50
statlc resistance

close matching exists of static and dynamic resistance: 65 and z

g
67, 160 and 210, 240 and 320, 1,620 and 1.680 N, respec- §lOO

tively. Therefore, static resistance of sand at depth H m can be ]

evaluated by measuring acceleration. By varying Va, sand re-
sistance can be assessed at different depths.
From physical considerations and dimensional analysis (Se-
dov 1959), 'Yo, 'YI, and 'Y2 from (4b) are
0] 0.4 05
C,y';f.L CN''; {l!J. CIV; (l2!J.
Depth,,"
'Yo C( -m--; "II C( - ; ; ; - BHlo; 'Y2 oc ~ oH21o
FIG. 4. Static and Net Reslatance to Penetration at Vo =4.1 mi
where f.L = shear modulus; and C 1 is nondimensional constant a In MinImum DensIty Sand In Atmospheric Tests
depending on the shape of projectile. Therefore, 'Yo is directly
400 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

'" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
Static peak net reslstance
300
-eo-
20
static reststanl:e
N, 2200
~EO 10

~
I' 100

-10

-100 .L- ~ _ _---'- __'_ _L _____.J

_20'-----_---'- -'--- '-- -l
o 02 04 06 08
U ~,05 0.1 U is 02
Oepth,m
Depth,m

FIG. 2. Penetrometer Deceleration for 1/'0 =0 mis In MInImum FIG. 5. StatIc and Net Resistance to Penetration at 1/'0 =10 mis
In Minimum Density Sand In AtmospherIc Teats
Density Sand In Atmospheric Test
2 5 0 0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _------,
80 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

2000
60

40
1500
z net resistance z
Ii
~ 20 static reSl$tance

~ net cesistance
500 -eo-
static resistance

,500 .l.-----'---_ _- ' -_ _--'-_ _- - ' -'---_ _____.J

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 o 005 01 015 02 025 OJ
Depth, m D<pth, '"

FIG. 3. StatIc and Net Resistance to Penetration at 11'0 =0.0 FIG. 6. Static and Net Reslatance to Penetratton at Vo =19.2
mls In MInimum Density Sand In AtmospherIc Testa mis In Maximum Density Sand In Vacuum Tests

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1OCTOBER 1996 1809

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(10): 806-812

 15 25 150 ,-~~~-~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--,
(a)
VELOCITY 20 From the test
from test calculated
with (10) 15 100

~;,;,
10
~
]
;;
0,5
from test -5
j
-10

0 -15
-50 I-~~~-+~~-~+-~~~--t~~~~-+-~~~---I
0 005 01 015 02 0,25
Deplh,m o 02 0.4 06 08
Depth, m

(b) 5 O---\-'E-L-OC-I-P-:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--,- SO FIG. 10. Penetrometer Deceleration for Vo = 10 mlsln Minimum

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politecnico Di Torino on 04/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Density Sand In Vacuum Test

60
calculated !50
wlth(lO) ,
N
From the test

'6
~J 40 j
Calculated with Eq (11)
~
i· 100
g DECELERATION

~ ~
~2 20 Calculated with Eq,(21)

~
~
I
50

0
-20 ~
0, I 02 OJ 0.4 05
Dcplh,m

FIG. 7. (a) Penetrometer Deceleration and Velocity for Vo 0.0 = -50

mls In Minimum Density Sand In Vacuum Test; (b) Penetrometer 0 002 004 0,06 008 0, I
Deceleration and Velocity for Vo 4.05 mls In Minimum Density = Depth, m

Sand In Vacuum Test FIG. 11. Penetrometer Deceleration for Vo = 2.3 m/s In Maxi-
mum Density Sand In Atmospheric Test
14 r - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ . , -30
-

VELOCITY 200
12
20

150
~ 10
~
~
'6 0,8
.f' 100
~ 06

0.4
r:-----"'-=-=~c-==.,-~~~~~~~~~~~---'\__\~-

-10
f i
]
0
From test

Calculaled with Eq(21) 12=0

02 Calculated with Eq(21) 12=40000

0.L-~~~~~'--~~~~~~~~~_-'-~~~""'~-l
-20
o 005 01 015 02
Depth, m -50
0 005 01 o 15 02 <lIS
FIG. 8. Penetrometer Deceleration and Velocity for Vo = 0.0 Depth,m
mls In Minimum Density Soli In Atmospheric Test
FIG. 12. Penetrometer Deceleration for Vo =6.1 m/s In Maxi·
I ",~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---,
mum Density Sand In Atmospheric Test
, 3U
I
VELOCITI' 100 , - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

from test 20

N
U

10
~
~
"§
§
0
04
-10
02

0.L-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-,-~~~""'~-'-20 o LL~ _ _~_ _~ ~ ~ ~ --'

o 0,05 0, I 015 02 o 0.05 01 015 02 0,25
Depth,m Depth, m

FIG. 9. Penetrometer Deceleration and Velocity for Vo = 0.0 FIG. 13. Penetrometer Deceleration for Vo =8.2 mls In Maxi-
mls In Maximum Density Sand In Atmospheric Test mum Density Sand In Vacuum Test

force F 3 is approximately equal to O. Therefore, for evaluation minimum density sand and to 0.01 m for maximum density
of 'Yo and for the comparison of the velocity and deceleration sand. In that case in (10), (11), and (21) H should be replaced
of a penetrometer from test results with those calculated, the by H-Ho.
origin of coordinates should be shifted to H o """ 0.07 m for In this paper, "Yo of 190 S-2 was derived for minimum den-
810 I JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I OCTOBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(10): 806-812

 1000,----------------------
'Yo = 190 S-2, and for Vo = 10 mls the last peak of acceleration
is -R .... 138 mls2 , which matches well to -R .... 120 mls2 in
800 Fig. 10. In atmospheric tests, maximum density sands had
'Yo = 650 S-2, and for Vo = 2.3 and 6.1 mls -R .... 57 and 156
i 600 mls2 respectively, which also agrees well with experimental
values, -R ... 51 and 180 mls 2 in Figs. 11 and 12.
I
.!:l 400 With increase of Vo and sand density, the term 'YoflliJ 2 in
~ From the test (4) may become dominant. Hence, an initial dynamic peak of
200
acceleration will be observed. Eq. (26) allows the estimation
Calculated with Eq.(21) 12=0
of this peak value.
O.I.L- --'- Calculated with Eq.(21)
~ ~
y2=40000 ~ _..J The value of £ may be derived from (25). At maximum
o 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 025 deceleration, depth HI is about 0.1 m for Vo = 8.2 mls (Fig.
Depth, m 13). Hence, £ is 0.08 s2/m 2 • For Vo = 8.2, 15.6, and 19.2 mis,
FIG. 14. Penetrometer Deceleration for Vo =15.6 mlsln Maxi- the first dynamic peak of acceleration has values of 231,759,
and 1,135 mls2 according to (26). Experimental values of the
mum Density Sand In Vacuum Test
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politecnico Di Torino on 04/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

peaks in Figs. 13, 14, and 15 are 195, 540, and 850 mls 2 ,
1200 rl ---------;::~;:=:;;:::::::;_--------I respectively. That is a good agreement considering all approx-
imations.
1000 The maximum penetration depth was calculated with (23)
N
for maximum density sands and initial velocities ranging from
g 800
2.3 to 19.2 mls. Comparison with experimental data shows a
~ good quantitative matching (Fig. 16).
§ 600
l'! Oscillations of deceleration observed in experiments [Figs.
~ 400 From the test 3, 7(a)] are caused by small variations of sand density and will
" be discussed in a separate paper.
Calculated with Eq.(21) 12=0
200
Calculated with Eq.(21) y2=40000 CONCLUSION
OLL:--L_ _ ~ -'- _L __'_ __.J

o 005 01 0,15 0.2 025 Projectile deceleration in nondissipative media is character-

Depth, m ized with an equation developed from general physical con-
FIG. 15. Penetrometer Deceleration for v. = 19.2 mls In Maxi- siderations. This equation is analyzed for different combi-
mum Density Sand In Vacuum Test nations of parameters. The derived solutions define the depend-
ence of the projectile velocity and deceleration from its initial
0.4 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , velocity, time, depth of penetration, and media characteristics.
The suggested model allows the explanation of the observed
From the test
characteristics of deceleration for various conditions of obser-
Calculated with Eq.(23) vations.
The important problem of determination of sand resistance
from characteristics of penetration is investigated. Static and
dynamic sand resistances are analyzed for the different sand
densities and projectile velocities in the vacuum and atmo-
spheric tests. It is shown that the static strength of sand may
be derived only at the moment when the movement of a pro-
jectile stops.
o'--------'----_~ ___"_ __.J

o 10
Initial velocity. m/sec
FIG. 16. Maximum Depth of Penetration in Maximum Density
Sands
sity sand in vacuum [Fig. 7(a)]. Under atmospheric pressure,
the same sand was characterized with a higher 'Yo of 275 S-2
(Fig. 8), and the maximum density sand had 'Yo of 650 S-2.
Notice that increase of confining pressure (presence of atmo-
spheric pressure) and/or small variations of sand density
caused a substantial increase of the resistance coefficient. From
conventional static tests, similar variations of I-L were men-
tioned in other studies (e.g., Morland 1992; Tatsuoka 1994;
and Drabkin 1995). Experimental and calculated values of ve-
locities and decelerations are shown in Figs. 7-9 and 10-15.
Better matching exists at lower densities of sand and initial
velocities than at higher initial velocities. The difference is
caused by two major reasons: First, the number of terms in
series expansion (3) was limited. Increasing the magnitude of
'Y2 ('Y2 = 40,000 S-2m -2 in Figs. 13-15) improves matching.
Second, small variability of sand densities with depth caused
changes in 'Yo that were not accounted for in the calculations.
Eq. (l3b) allows the evaluation of acceleration when the
projectile stops. In vacuum tests, minimum density sands had
20
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Allen, W. A. et al. (1957). "Dynamics of a projectile penetrating sand."
J. Appl. Phys., 28(3) and (11).
Drabkin, S. (1995). "Low level vibration induced settlement of granular
soils," PhD dissertation, Polytechnic Univ., Brooklyn. N.Y.
Euler, L. (1745). "Neue Grundslitze der Artillerie." Berlin. (Reprinted
as Vol. 14, Ser. II of "Euler's Opera Omnia," Teubner.)
Forrestal, M. J., Lee, L. M., and Jenrette, L. M. (1986). "Laboratory-
scale penetration experiments into geological targets to impact veloc-
ities of 2.1 kmls." ASME J. Appl. Mech., 53(6), 317-320.
Forrestal, M. J., Brar, N. S., and Luk. V. K. (1991). "Penetration of strain-
hardening targets with rigid spherical-nose rods." ASME J. Appl.
Mech., 58(3), 7-10.
Hearst, J. R., and Lynch, C. S. (1994). "Measurement of in situ strength
using projectile penetration." Int. J. Rock Mech., Mining Sci. and Geo-
mech. Abstracts, 31(3), 243-251.
Jaeger, H. M., and Nagel, S. R. (1992). "Physics of the granular state."
Sci., (Mar.), 1523 -153 I.
Morland, L. W. (1992). "Compaction and shear settlement of granular
materials." J. Mech. and Phys. of Solids, 41(3), 507 -530.
RachmatuIlin, K. A., Sogomonyan, A. Y., and Alekseev, A. A. (1964).
Soil dynamics. Moscow, Russia (in Russian).
Robins, B. (1742). New principles of gunnery. London, England.
Sedov, L. I. (1959). Similarity and dimensional methods in mechanics.
Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.
Sogomonyan, A. Y. (1974). "The theory of penetration phenomena." J.
Mech. Solids, 4.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1996/811

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(10): 806-812

 Tatsuoka, F. et aI. (1994). "Measurements of elastic properties of geo- H. = depth of projectile penetration when fJ is at maximum
materials in laboratory compression tests." Geotech. Testing J., 17(1), (m);
80-94. Hi = depths at which extreme values of deceleration are ob-
Taylor, T., Fragaszy, R. J., and Ho, C. L. (1991). "Projectile penetration served (m);
in granular soils." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(4),658-672.
Thompson, J. B. III (1975). "Low-velocity impact penetration of low- H m = maximum depth of projectile penetration (m);
cohesion soil deposits," PhD dissertation, Univ. of California, Berke- HI = depths at which the first maximum of deceleration is ob-
ley, Calif. served (m);
Zukas, J. A. et aI. (1982). Impact dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., H 2 = depths at which a local minimum of deceleration is ob-
New York, N.Y. served (m);
fJ = velocity of projectile in granular media (m/s);
APPENDIX II. NOTATION fI = acceleration of projectile in granular media (m/s2 );
fIm maximum deceleration of projectile (m/s 2);
The following symbols are used in this paper: fImln = a local minimum of deceleration of projectile that follows
first local maximum (m/s2 );
C = dimensionless constant depending on shape of projectile; m = mass of projectile (kg);
Ct = constant depending on shape of projectile; P = weight of projectile (N);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politecnico Di Torino on 04/16/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cu = coefficient of uniformity; s = cross section area of projectile in direction of penetration

D IO = 10% of particles are smaller than given size; (m
2
);
D,o 50% of particles are smaller than given size; tb initial velocity of penetration (m/s);
D 60 60% of particles are smaller than given size; J3 = constant parameter depending on shape and mass of pro-
F net resistant force (N); jectile and density of target soil (m- I );
FI = dynamic component of resistant force (N); "10 resistance coefficient (s -2);
F2 dissipative component of resistant force (N); "II coefficient (S-2 cm -I);
F3 = static component of resistant force (N); "12 coefficient (S-2 cm -2);
g = gravity acceleration (m/s 2); I) = acceleration at H = 0 and fJ = 0 (m/s2);
H = depth of penetration (m); E = parameter characterizing penetration of projectile (s 2/m 2 );
Hd = depth of projectile penetration when fI is at maximum J.L = shear modulus (kPa); and
(m); p = density of granular media (kg/m 3 ).

812 I JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I OCTOBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(10): 806-812