ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Computational simulations of the dynamic compaction of porous media
J.P. Borga,Ã, J.R. Cogarb, A. Lloyda, A. Wardb, D. Chapmanc, K. Tsembelisc, W.G. Proudc
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA CORVID Technologies, 149 Plantation Ridge Drive Suite 170 Mooresville, NC 28117, USA c University of Cambridge, Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 OHE, UK
b a

Available online 13 November 2006

Abstract The goal of this study was to apply and compare different computational compaction models to the dynamic compaction of porous silicon dioxide (SiO2) powder. Three initial specific volumes were investigated in this study, V00 ¼ 1.3, 4 and 10 cm3/g, where the solid material specific volume is V0 ¼ 0.4545 cm3/g. Two hydrodynamic codes, KO and CTH, were used to simulate the experimental results. Two compaction models, P–a and P–l were implemented within CTH in conjunction with the Mie–Gruneisen (MG) equation of state. The snowplow (SP) compaction model was ¨ implemented within KO. In addition, the MG equation of state based on the experimentally measured Hugoniot was implemented within CTH and was compared to the data as well. One-dimensional flyer plate experiments were conducted with impact velocities ranging from 0.25 to 1.0 km/s, which corresponded to a shock incident pressure range of 0.77–2.25 GPa. The computational simulations were compared to the temporal lateral stress signatures measured with manganin gauges, placed before and after the silica powder. It was found that the MG equation of state (EOS) most accurately reproduce all of the experimental data whereas none of the compaction models accurately reproduced all of the experimental data. However, of the compaction models investigated that the P–a model tended to outperform the other considered. r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Dynamic compaction; Porous compaction; Porous material modeling; Granular material; Silica

1. Introduction Silica (SiO2), the main component of sand, has a wide variety of uses from fundamental building material to modern day microchip manufacturing. The goal of this study is to understand and computationally predict the shock compression dynamics of silica at various initial porosities. More specific to this goal is to computationally predict the compaction dynamics without a prior knowledge of the porous silica Hugoniot. This is accomplished by applying a variety of compaction models, within the computational framework, which
ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 414 288 7519; fax: +1 414 288 7790.

E-mail address: John.Borg@Marquette.edu (J.P. Borg). 0734-743X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.09.045

ARTICLE IN PRESS
110 J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118

simulate the porous compaction dynamics. These compaction models rely on knowing the solid material properties and various aspects of the porous material; they do not, however, need to know the specific Hugoniot information for the porous powder. The goal of this study was to determine which compaction models worked best for silica powder under the applied dynamic loads. The effectiveness of each model is assessed by comparing the predicted time series against measured time series. A great deal of dynamic compaction work has been done with silica in its various phases (a-SiO2, b-SiO2, strishovite and coesite), crystal quartz [1], fused silica [2–5] silica [6] and porous silica [7,8]. The shock velocity, Us, particle velocity, up, Hugoniot for silica over a porosity ranging from 95% to solid fused quartz has been measured over the past 35 years [1–10]. The wealth of available data and the fundamental interest in silica make it a good candidate material to apply and assess several dynamic compaction models. Much of the porous compaction work for silica concentrated on the various phase changes that occur near a shock pressure of 30 Gpa, which corresponds to a particle velocity near 2.2 km/s. However, the low-pressure, high porosity compaction characteristics of porous silica powder are of interest in this work. Thus this work investigates the compaction dynamics for highly distended porous silica in a particle velocity range of 0.25–1.0 km/s. 2. Experimental setup The experiments were conducted in the single-stage light-gas gun flyer plate facility at the University of Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory [11,12]. The test cell was an aluminum outer cylinder with a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) front and back plate pressed into place in order to confine the silica powder inbetween, see Fig. 1. The dimensions of the test cell are listed in Table 1. Piezoresistive manganin gauges [13] were used in order to record the longitudinal stress, referred to here after as the pressure, time histories before and after the silica powder. The gauges were either embedded within the PMMA plates or separated from the powder by a 25 mm mylar sheet. As indicated in Fig. 1, the front gauge is located between plates ta and tb; likewise the back gauge is located between plates tc and td. The flyer plate was constructed from the same PMMA as the front and back plates. Two types of silica were used in this investigation: Degussa sipernat 50 and Degussa sipernat 320DS. The sipernat 50 has an average particle size of 50 mm and the sipernat 320DS has an average particle size of 5 mm. Previous researchers noticed no variation in the Hugoniot response of porous silica as a function of particle size within this range [8]. 3. Experimental results Fig. 2 presents two time traces for the front and back gauges for two separate test shots. The time scale in Fig. 2 has been shifted so that time zero represents impact. The front gauge illustrates the initial pressure rise due to the arrival of the impact shock; this peak pressure is the Hugoniot pressure, PH. The Hugoniot pressure remains constant until the arrival of the release wave whereupon the pressure is reduced to the release

Fig. 1. Schematic of test cell.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118 Table 1 Flyer plate experimental results Specific volume, V00 (cm3/g) 10 10 10 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 1.32 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.28 Shot velocity (m/s) Particle velocity, up (m/s) 381 570 698 815 934 213 536 534 543 770 223 353 462 600 704 Shock velocity, Us (m/s) 488 632 839 979 970 391 814 677 753 1099 1165 1211 1208 1421 1297 Peak pressure, PH (GPa) 0.77 1.08 1.5 1.68 2.25 0.37 1.15 1.06 1.08 1.77 0.46 0.8 1.10 1.5 1.89 Release pressure, Pr (GPa) 0.076 0.105 0.190 0.2756 0.56 0.021 0.2 0.21 0.19 0.43 0.18 0.33 0.47 0.685 0.98 Test cell geometry (mm) see Fig. 2 ta 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 tb 3 3 3 3 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 tp 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 tc 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 td 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 111

405 603 758 900 1100 220 599 600 603 900 280 455 603 800 979

Fig. 2. Front and back gauge time for porous silica: (a) V00 ¼ 10 cm3/g and shot velocity ¼ 405 m/s, (b) V00 ¼ 1.30 cm3/g and shot velocity ¼ 970 m/s.

pressure, Pr, due to the interaction with the lower impedance powder. The back gauge records the re-shock of the powder due to the compressive wave interacting with the higher impedance back plate. The first peak in the back gauge re-shock is labeled PRS in Fig. 2. The differential time between the release pressure and the rise in the second gauge represents the compressive wave transit time in the powder, Dt, see Fig. 2b. When calculating the transit time through the powder, the time associated with the release wave traversing back through the PMMA front plate thickness, tb, to reach the front gauge must be subtracted. It should be noted that the very noisy signal in the back gauge of Fig. 2a is due to the rupture of the front gauge. In Fig. 2a the front gauge begins to report very high erroneous pressure just before it ruptures, this rupture causes noise on the back gauge. This sequence can also be observed in Fig. 2b but to a lesser degree. In some cases, a low-pass digital filter was applied to the section of rear gage data, which contains the front gage rupture noise. All of the reduced data obtained in this test series are summarized in Table 1 [12]. The particle velocity of the powder, up, was determined by locating the release pressure, Pr, on the PMMA Hugoniot and thus fixing the state of the powder. The shock speed for the powder was determined by dividing the powder thickness by the transit time, Us ¼ tp/Dt. For a more complete explanation of these techniques see the data reduction techniques described in the introduction of van Thiel [3]. Table 2 presents the Hugoniot coefficients used in this work. The particle and shock velocities in Table 1 were fit with a linear Us–up relation, Us ¼ sup+C0, where s is the slope of the Us–up Hugoniot, C0, is the sound

ARTICLE IN PRESS
112 Table 2 Hugoniot data Material Air a PMMAb Silicac Silica Silica Silica
a b

J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118

Porosity (%)

Specific volume, V00 (cm3/g) 833.3 0.846 0.22 1.30 4.00 10.0

Hugoniot slope (s) Sound speed, C0 (km/s) 0.939 1.23 0.1048 0.4045 1.2509 0.9736 0.899 2.73 5.124 1.0709 0.097 0.121

Gruneisen parameter (G) 0.9 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.30

Correlation coefficient (R2) N/A N/A N/A 0.5775 0.9508 0.9398

— 0 0 65 89 95

Data obtained from [4]. Data obtained from [2]. c Data obtained from [1,3,5].

Table 3 Strength and EOS Constants for Porous Silica and PMMA Silica powder, (V00 ¼ 1.30 cm3/g) Elastic yield strength, Pe (Gpa) Plastic yield strength, Ps (Gpa) Elastic-plastic transition, ap Mixture homogeneity, n Bulk modulus, K0 (Gpa) Elastic wave speed, ce (m/s) Specific heat, Cv (erg/g/eV) Yield strength, Y (dyn/cm2) Fracture strength, pfrac (dyn/cm2) Elastic poisson ratio —Values not necessary for calculations 0 2.85 2.85 2.46 38 1400 1.0 Â 1010 0.0 0.0 0.333 Silica powder, (V00 ¼ 4 cm3/g) 0 0.5 8.7 1.136 38 3000 1.0 Â 1010 0.0 0.0 0.333 Silica powder, (V00 ¼ 10 cm3/g) 0 0.2 22 0.75 38 5120 1.0 Â 1010 0.0 0.0 0.333 PMMA

— — — — — — 1.0 Â 1011 6.8 Â 107 1.0 Â 109 0.3

speed at the zero pressure intercept and R2 is the correlation coefficient squared or coefficient of determination, which is a measure of the quality of the Us–up linear fit [14]. Table 3 presents the strength and equation of state (EOS) constants for the air, PMMA and silica. The air and PMMA were modeled with a standard MG EOS. The values, Pe, Ps, and ap were obtained by fitting the P–a curve to the data [15], this will be discussed in greater detail in Section 4. There was no evidence of an elastic precursor in the longitudinal stress time traces. It was therefore assumed that the porous silica investigated here did not exhibit elastic behavior upon shock compression. Thus, the elastic–plastic transition was the initial state, ap ¼ a00 with Pe set to zero. By setting both the pressure required to exceed the material elastic yield strength, Pe, and the elastic yield strength, Y, to zero, any change in volume permanently compacts the powder. The elastic Poisson’s ratio was initially set to 1/3, which assumes the bulk modulus is equal to the modulus of elasticity. 4. Computational formulation—equation of state and compaction models The computational calculations were performed using two hydrodynamic codes CTH [16] and KO [17]. CTH is a finite volume, Eulerian solver developed by Sandia National Laboratory and KO is a finite difference Lagrangian hydrocode originally developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Both solve conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy using an explicit time integration scheme. Several EOS and/or compaction models were utilized in this investigation. Fig. 3 presents several of the equations of state, for V00 ¼ 1.3 cm3/g, on one P–V plot for comparison. The solid silica Hugoniot, defined in

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118 113

Fig. 3. Comparison of various porous silica P–V equations of state at V00 ¼ 1.3 cm3/g with the solid P–V Hugoniot V0 ¼ 1.3 cm3/g: (a) pressure–volume space illustrating P–a curve, (b) pressure–volume space illustrating P–l curve.

the standard way and which crosses the abscissa at V ¼ V0 ¼ 0.45 cm3/g, is presented as a reference for the other equations of state. A short description of all of the compaction models used in this investigation is presented below; a more complete description of each model can be obtained from the indicated references. 4.1. Measured porous Mie– Gruneisen equation of state ¨ From the data obtained in the gas gun test, see Table 1, the measured porous Hugoniot can be determined and implemented in a MG equation of state formulation. The measured Hugoniot for an initial porosity of V00 ¼ 1.3 cm3/g is presented in Fig. 3. This equation of state was implemented in CTH and provided the baseline solution for all of the compaction model comparisons. 4.2. P–a compaction model The P–a compaction model, first proposed by Herrmann [18] is presented in Fig. 3a. The P–a EOS utilizes a piecewise continuous three part Hugoniot representing the fully compacted, un-compacted, and elastic regions. As indicated in Fig. 3a, starting from the initial state, V00, the pressure required to reach the elastic transition pressure is denoted Pe. Since Pe was selected as zero for these calculations, see discussion in Section 3, the linear elastic curve illustrated in Fig. 3a is not present for the calculations presented here. Therefore initially V ¼ V00 with P ¼ Pe ¼ 0. In the plastic deformation regime, i.e. the un-compacted regime, the P–V relationship is modeled using a quadratic P–a equation given as a ¼ a0 þ a1 P þ a2 P2 , (1)

where a is the normalized specific volume defined as a ¼ V/V0. The three term polynomial in Eqn. (1) was suggested for ductile materials [19] and implemented within CTH. The values of a0, a1 and a2 are calculated solely from ap, Pe and Ps; for a complete definition of these values see [18]. The P–a curve smoothly joins the theoretical compacted Hugoniot [20] when a pressure of Ps is obtained, i.e. when the material is fully compacted. The compacted Hugoniot should not be confused with the solid material Hugoniot. As the porous material is compressed and the voids collapse, a great deal of internal heating can take place. This heating causes the fully compact Hugoniot to differ from the solid material Hugoniot. For the highly distended powders investigated here, the theoretical compacted Hugoniot has a positive slope in P–V space, also known as an anomalous Hugoniot [21]. The positive Hugoniot slope in P– V space decreases as the initial porosity increases. The theoretical compacted P–V Hugoniot is based on the MG EOS given by P ¼ PH þ G ðE À E H Þ, V (2)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
114 J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118

where P, E and V are the pressure, specific internal energy and specific volume for the compacted material. The reference values, PH, EH and G, are from the solid material, see Table 2 for the Hugoniot data. Substituting the reference states and the compacted internal energy equation into Eq. (2) leads to the theoretical P– V Hugoniot for the fully compacted material: P¼ ½2V À GðV 0 À V ފC 2 ðV 0 À V Þ 0 , ½2V À GðV 00 À V ފ½V 0 À sðV 0 À V ފ2 (3)

where G is the Gruneisen parameter, C0 is the zero pressure sound speed, s is the slope of the Us–up Hugoniot, V00 is the initial porous specific volume and V0 is the solid material specific volume. For a complete explanation of this derivation see [20] or [21]. 4.3. P–l compaction model As an alternative to the P–a model, the P–l compaction model, developed by Grady [22,23] for geological mixtures, was also utilized in this investigation. The fundamental difference between these two compaction models is that P–l is a heterogeneous multi-component compaction material model. Thus the P–l compaction model allows for the inclusion of the void filled air within porous media. The mixed media is considered to exist in two physically distinct states, either un-compacted or fully compacted. A partially compacted state is assumed to be a mixture of fully compacted and un-compacted material. An irreversible state variable l describes the mass fraction of the media that is compacted. Fig. 3b gives a simple graphical representation of the P–l model in P– V Hugoniot space. The compaction mass fraction, l a monotonically increasing function of the pressure, is defined as l ¼ 1 À eÀðP=Y Þ ,
n

(4)

where Y is the local yield strength of the mixture, P is the local pressure and n is the mixture homogeneity, see Table 3. For the calculations presented here, the porous material was assumed to be composed of air and solid silica in the proportions listed in Table 2. Thus each computational cell is a mixture of these two components and the properties are determined on a mass fraction bases. For example, the mixture specific volume, Vm, is given as V m ðPÞ ¼ lV h ðPÞ þ ð1 þ lÞV x ðPÞ where Vh and Vx are the specific volumes of mixture material in its pressure equilibrated and elastic unequilibrated states, respectively. The homogeneity parameter n is the one model property that is not accessible from individual component properties and relates to the mixture as a whole, Grady suggests n ¼ 0.5+5.6(r/rmixture) [23]. 4.4. Snowplow (SP) compaction model The final compaction model investigated here was the SP model [24], which can also be described using Fig. 3a. The SP model is appropriate for materials, which completely crush across a strong shock. The SP model crushes with zero pressure until a threshold specific volume, V0, is achieved. From this compacted state the material will follow the Rayleigh line up the compacted Hugoniot. The SP model is much like the P– a model with a different prescribed path. By following this two part path instead of a straight line from V00, much less work is required to compress the powder and much less internal energy is deposed within the powder. The SP compaction model is a subset of the P–a model in the limit as Ps-0 and Pe-0. 5. Computational results Fig. 4–6 present the computational results along with the experimental data for the maximum and minimum shot velocities for each specific volume listed in Table 1. The geometry for all of the calculations was onedimensional with an initial spatial resolution no greater than DxE0.005 cm. Each figure contains the CTH results utilizing the measured porous MG EOS, denoted CTH–MG in the legend. In addition, each figure contains the CTH results utilizing the P–a and P–l compaction models and the KO results utilizing the SP

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118 115

compaction model. Notice that the time axis has been split in order to better accommodate the data and that time zero represents impact. Like Fig. 1, each figure contains the front and back gauge data. As would be expected, all of the computational models match the initial rise and release time recorded by the front gauge as well as the Hugoniot pressure, PH, associated with the impact shock of the well characterized PMMA. However, each compaction model predicts a different release pressure magnitude, Pr. The calculated release pressure is highly dependent upon the compaction model utilized within the calculation. Another important aspect to assess when comparing these models is the transit time, Dt, of the compressive wave between the front and back gauge. These measurements, Pr and Dt are important because they are the two data measurements required in order to construct the Us–up Hugoniot and therefore the EOS. Finally, the ability for each compaction model to accurately simulate the back gauge re-shock pressure signature and magnitude, PRS, is of some importance but to a lesser degree than Pr or Dt. Fig. 4 presents the computational results for V00 ¼ 1.3 cm3/g. The P–l and SP compaction models under predict the release pressure, Pr, for both shot velocities. The P–a compaction model over predicts the release pressure for the lower shot velocity but accurately predicts the release pressure for the higher shot velocity. In addition, the P–a model more accurately predicts the structure and magnitude of the re-shock pressure signature on the back gauge, although it is shifted forward in time. Neither the P–l nor the SP compaction model predicts the structure of the re-shock pressure signature in the back gauge. Instead, they over predict the transit time, Dt, then overshoot the re-shock pressure, PRS, and approach the re-shock pressure asymptote. Although the simulations utilizing the measured porous Hugoniot most accurately simulate the compaction dynamics, of the compaction models utilized in this study, the P–a model performs best for V00 ¼ 1.3 cm3/g. Fig. 5 presents the computational comparison for an initial specific volume, V00 ¼ 4 cm3/g. For the lower shot velocity, Fig. 5a, the P–l and SP compaction models accurately predict the release pressure. The P–l and SP compaction models behave similarly for all the calculations presented in this work except for the lower shot velocity in Fig. 5a. In this case, the P–l model predicts the time of arrival and the re-shock pressure time history for the back gauge, while the SP model grossly under predicts the re-shock magnitude and over predicts the time of arrival on the back gauge. Like Fig. 4a, the P–a compaction model accurately predicts the re-shock pressure although it is shifted forward in time. For the higher shot velocity, Fig. 5b, all of the compaction models, as well as the measured porous MG under predict the release pressure. The P–a model

Fig. 4. Experimental and computational comparison V00 ¼ 1.3 cm3/g: (a) shot velocity v ¼ 280 m/s, (b) shot velocity v ¼ 970 m/s.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
116 J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118

Fig. 5. Experimental and computational comparison V00 ¼ 4.0 cm3/g: (a) shot velocity v ¼ 220 m/s, (b) shot velocity v ¼ 900 m/s.

Fig. 6. Experimental and computational comparison V00 ¼ 10. cm3/g: (a) shot velocity v ¼ 405 m/s, (b) shot velocity v ¼ 1100 m/s.

under predicts the re-shock pressure on the back gauge but does capture the dual re-shock pressure signature. Both the P–l and SP models over predict the re-shock pressure on the back gauge and instead predict the asymptotic re-shock pressure. Fig. 6 presents the computational comparison for the largest initial specific volume investigated, V00 ¼ 10. cm3/g. None of the computational simulations accurately predict the release pressure for the lower shot

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118 117

velocity, Fig. 6a. The P–a and P–l models capture the dual re-shock nature of the pressure signature on the back gauge, although they greatly under predict the time of arrival. The SP compaction model more accurately captures the shock transit time, Dt, but over predict the magnitude of the re-shock pressure. The SP compaction model only predicts the asymptotic re-shock pressure. For the higher shot velocity, all of the compaction models perform nearly identically. 6. Discussion of results In general, the measured porous MG EOS, without the use of a compaction model, most accurately reproduces all of the experimental data. This would be expected since the Hugoniot data used to construct this EOS is based upon the experimental data. However, the thrust of this study is to assess the accuracy of each of the compaction models, P–a, P–l and SP, in predicting the two gauge response without prior knowledge of the porous Hugoniot. None of the compaction models investigated accurately predict all of time traces for each initial specific volume and shot velocity. The EOS and strength model coefficients listed in Tables 2 and 3 could be altered on a shot-by-shot basis in order to improve the simulations for each shot. However, reiterating that the goal of this study is to predict the compaction dynamics without a prior knowledge of the porous material EOS, adjusting the parameters for each test in order to match the experimental data would defeat this objective. For most of the calculations presented, the P–l and SP compaction models yield similar results. The fundamental difference in these two models is that P–l includes the air within the EOS calculations and the SP does not. Since these two models yielded similar results it would appear that the air does not have much effect on the overall compaction dynamics. This conclusion is supported by work of Simakov et al. [8] who performed similar one-dimensional experimental test on porous silica in which the test cells were either filled under ambient conditions or under vacuum and achieved nearly identical results. However, the fundamental difference between the SP and P–a model is that the P–a model provides the porous material with some internal strength as it is compacted. This effect appears to be significant given the improved performance of the P–a model as compared to the SP model. The experimental data contains more dynamic behavior than is currently understood. The front gauge experimental data exhibit a slow rise in the release pressure, especially at the higher porosities, see Figs. 5b and 6b. The release pressure should be constant for a one-dimensional flyer plate experiment in equilibrium. This behavior is, as of yet, not understood. The fact that all of the calculations tended to under predict the release pressure could be related to this phenomenon. In addition, this phenomenon would greatly effect the wave transmission through the porous medium and thus explain some of the variability in the computational code’s ability to accurately predict the re-shock behavior. 7. Conclusions The low-velocity shock characteristics for highly distended porous silica powder have been measured using manganin gauges in a gas gun facility. The experimental data fit well with previously published data [1–10]. For all calculations performed, the measured MG EOS most accurately reproduced the experimental data. None of the compaction models accurately reproduced all of the experimental data. In general, the compaction models performed better at the higher shot velocities. All of the compaction models tended to under predict the release pressure. Further experimental tests investigating the exact state of the powder might be needed to resolve this issue. The P–a and P–l models tended to under predict the transit time, Dt, for the compaction wave, while the SP model tended to over predict the transit time. Only the P–a compaction model captured the more complicated dual re-shock dynamic pressure signatures indicated on the back gauge. The inclusion of a multiple part Hugoniots appears to be an important aspect in capturing the shock, transit time and re-shock characteristics of compressive waves in the silica powder. In general, the P–a model outperformed the P–l and SP; this conclusion is subjective based on the data and calculations presented. This conclusion is not definitive and there is still a need to investigate and develop compaction models, which will sufficiently simulate the dynamic compaction of porous silica.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
118 J.P. Borg et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 109–118

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Dstl. Porton Down and the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium for their support of this research. References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Wackerle J. Shock-wave compression of quartz. J Appl Phys 1962;33(3):922–37. Barker LM, Hollenbach RE. Shock-wave studies of PMMA, fused silica and sapphire. J Appl Phys 1970;41(16):4208–26. van Thiel M. Compendium of shock wave data—sections A-1, A-2. UCRL-501008, 1966. Marsh S. LASL shock Hugoniot data. University of California Press; 1980. Chhabildas LC, Grady DE. Shock loading behavior of fused quartz. Shock waves in condensed matter–1983 1983:175–8. Zhugin YN. The behaviour of a-quartz under high dynamic and static pressure new results and views. Am Inst Phys 1996:97–100. Trunin RF, Simakov GV, Podurets MA. Compression of porous quartz by strong shock waves. Izv Acad Sci USSR (English translation Phys Solid Earth) 1971;2:33–9. Simakov GV, Trunin RF. Shockwave compression of ultraporous silica. Izv Acad Sci USSR (English translation Phys Solid Earth) 1990;26(11):952–6. Tsembelis K, Proud WG, Vaughan BAM, Field JE. The behaviour of sand under shock wave loading: experiments and simulations. In: Proceedings of the 14th DYMAT. Sevilla, Spain, November 2002. p. 193–204. Cogar JR, Robinson N, Tsembelis K, Proud WG, Cross DLA. Shock Hugoniot data for low density silica powder. Shock compression of condensed matter-2003. Woodbury, NY: AIP Press; 2004. Bourne NK, Rosenberg Z, Johnson DJ, Field JE, Timbs AE, Flaxman RP. Design and construction of the UK plate impact facility. Meas Sci Technol 1995;6:1462–70. Cross DLA, Chapman DJ, Borg JP, Cogar JR, Cullis IG, Tsembelis K, Proud WG. Experimental Hugoniot data of porous silica. Shock compression of condensed matter—2005. p. 61–4. Vaughan BAM. Use of manganin stress gauges. PCS, Cavendish Laboratory document, report SP/1097, March 2002. Bendat JS, Piersol AG. Random Data. New York: Wiley; 1985. Borg JP, Chapman D, Proud WG, Cogar JR. Dynamic compaction of porous silica powder. J Appl Phys 2005;98. Bell RL, Baer MR, Brannen RM, Elrich MG, Hertel ES, Silling SA, Taylor PA. CTH user’s manual and input instructions. Sandia National Laboratories technical report, April 2003. Wilkins ML. Computer simulation of dynamic phenomena. Berlin: Springer; 1999. Herrmann W. Constitutive equation for the dynamic compaction of ductile porous materials. J Appl Phys 1969;40(6):2490–9. Butcher, Karnes. Sandia Labs res. rep. SC-RR-67-3040, April 1968. Meyers M. Dynamic behavior of materials. New York: Wiley Press; 1994. Trunin RF. Shock compression of condensed materials. Cambridge: Cambridge Press; 1998. Grady DE, Winfree NA, Kerley GI, Wilson LT, Kuhns LD. Computaional modeling and wave propagation in media with inelastic deforming microstructure. J Phys IV 2000;10:15–20. Grady DE, Winfree NA. A computational model for polyurethane foam. In: Staudhamer KP, Murr LE, Meyers MA, editors. Fundamental issues and applications of shock-wave and high-strain-rate phenomena. Amsterdam: Elservier-Science; 2001. p. 485–91. Graham RA. Solids under high-pressure shock compression. Berlin: Springer; 1993. p. 51.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful