ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

An analytical model for high velocity impact on conned explosive congurations

J.P. Curtisa,, J.T. Millsa, N.J. Lyncha, R. Cornisha, P.R. Leeb
b

QinetiQ, Fort Halstead, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 7BP, UK Peter Lee Consulting Co. Ltd., 8 Upton Quarry, Langton Green, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN3 0HA, UK Available online 7 November 2006

Abstract The impact of a projectile travelling at high velocity upon conned or unconned explosive can result in catastrophic events if detonation occurs. One important mechanism for initiation is shock. While hydrocodes with suitable burn models undoubtedly offer the best approach for the investigation of such shock induced events in detail, there is also no doubt that analytical models can be very useful in scoping studies or in the development of empirical models useful for rapid investigations under specic circumstances. With these aims in mind, a model for impact upon a conned explosive is derived using very simple models for mechanical and reactive material response. It is demonstrated by comparison with experiments that the model is effective in capturing the dependence of the critical impact velocity for detonation upon projectile diameter. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shock; Detonation; Analytical model; Conned explosive

1. Introduction What is the response of a conned explosive target array when it is struck and penetrated by a high velocity projectile? This type of question is becoming ever more important in todays right and proper climate of concern to minimise the risk of an unwanted explosive event, especially a detonation. Substantial progress has been made at QinetiQ in modelling explosive response under such circumstances, notably with the Cook and Haskins Arrhenius Reaction Model (CHARM). This model has been implemented in the DYNA2D [1] Lagrangian, and, more recently, in the QinetiQ GRIM2D and GRIM3D Eulerian, hydrocodes. However, there remains a requirement for an effective analytical model to predict whether detonation occurs or not. This is so because such models can offer good physical insights and the low run-times typically enjoyed facilitate parametric studies and the integration of the models into other software. They can offer an independent comparison with experimental and hydrocode results. Important applications of this technology include the prediction of the response of the conned explosive due to a projectile impact on a stored munition or an Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA). For the stored
Corresponding author.

E-mail address: jpcurtis@qinetiq.com (J.P. Curtis). 0734-743X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.09.088

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218 211

munitions, the occurrence of detonation is critical to the amount of damage caused to the structure, vehicle, or vessel containing them. For the ERA, detonation is key to its successful functioning. It has long been known that connement greatly increases the prospect of detonation via Deagration to Detonation Transition (DDT), but the mechanisms by which this occurs have not been modelled successfully analytically. Established analytical detonation criteria, e.g. Helds [2] V2d and related criteria, the WalkerWasley criterion and variants [3], e.g. James criteria [4,5], and the critical pressure criterion embedded in the Chick and Frey protocols [6], while offering useful empirical tools for impact on bare and front-covered explosives, do not address the interaction between the shock and reaction processes explicitly and in particular may not be suited to address the effects of rear connement. In contrast with the previous empirical approaches, one of the authors, Lee [7], has long maintained that a critical power criterion is appropriate, on the grounds that it is the rate of supply of energy to the explosive that matters, not the overall energy delivered to the explosive. If this intuitively appealing idea is correct then the establishment of a detonation criterion becomes a matter of determining the rate of mechanical energy dissipation plus the rate of heating from any reaction. The goal of this paper is to derive the shock physics resulting from the impact and to apply it to enable us to utilise an improved critical power detonation criterion to predict explosive response. Accordingly, we develop a model that both addresses the shock physics, and that also models the resultant chemistry in more detail, while retaining the above benets of an analytical formulation. The treatment has been conned to normal impact here, but further developments to address obliquity are being considered. The impact on the conned explosive generates shocks in the front target layer and in the projectile. The RankineHugoniot relations are used to calculate the characteristics of these shocks and then to determine the shock propagation into the subsequent target layers and its reections at interfaces between the materials. It is believed that this is a reasonable approach to modelling the initial shocks in the explosive, assumed to be the important ones as regards triggering detonation. The detailed treatment of rarefactions would probably necessitate a nite difference numerical analysis that would replicate the capability of the hydrocodesnot the desired aim here. In applying the RankineHugoniot relations, both the simple shock velocity/particle velocity linear relationships and the Murnaghan equation-of-state for both conning plates and explosive have in fact been separately applied. However, we have found that the latter equation of state yields the better results and so focus on this choice. Previous work has reported on a new semi-empirical shock-based energy rate criterion [8] that is applied here. This utilises the predictions of the RankineHugoniot relations to determine the mechanical shock contribution to the internal energy in the explosive, with simple treatments of shock face area reduction and shock attenuation. The total rate of supply of internal energy to the explosive is determined by the addition of an expression for the heating from the chemical reaction, at present drawing upon the Lee and Tarver [9] explosive burn model. A minor modication to this expression to match the observed asymptotic behaviour for large diameter projectiles is made in deriving the nal form of the criterion. The predictions of explosive response made by the model are compared with experiment for a number of separate congurations, with fair to good agreement in all cases. Finally, conclusions are drawn. 2. The internal energy deposition by the passage of a shock Suppose that we have a shock travelling with speed U into a material with density r0, velocity u0 0, pressure p0 0, and internal energy e0 0. The values of these variables just behind the shock may be denoted r1, u1, p1, and e1, respectively. The RankineHugoniot relations for mass and momentum conservation across the shock yield the familiar simplication: p1 r0 Uu1 . Eq. (1), substituted into the RankineHugoniot energy jump condition yields
2 e1 1 2 u1 .

(1)

(2)

This result shows that for an undisturbed material the energy provided by the shock is divided equally 1 2 2 between the specic kinetic energy 1 2 r1 u1 and the specic internal energy r1 e1 2 r1 u1 . The consequence for

ARTICLE IN PRESS
212 J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218

the shocking of an explosive material is that only half the energy associated with the shock is immediately transferred to the internal energy of the explosive. It is believed that the remaining half will only become available to initiate the explosive if the kinetic energy is converted to heat by further deformation in some way. Note the right-hand side of Eq. (2) seems to be the same as James [4] function S, here shown to represent the gain in internal energy resulting from the mechanical shock effects, with no consideration of energy release from any reaction of the material. 3. The shock in a cover plate resulting from normal impact of a at projectile Consider the normal impact of a at-nosed projectile of cross-sectional area A, density rp0, at zero pressure pp0 0, travelling at speed v0 upon a cover plate target of the material considered in Section 2. The effects of the impact are a transmitted shock in the target and a reected wave that may or may not be a shock depending on the material properties of both projectile and target. We assume as a working hypothesis that the shock in the target can be calculated by means of application of the Rankine-Hugoniot equations in both the target and in the projectile. The situation just after impact is shown in Fig. 1. A shock is propagating into the target as described in Section 2. Another shock is propagating in the projectile, away from the interface between the projectile and target materials. There is continuity of the particle speeds and pressures, but not in general the density or the energy, in each material, at this interface. Let the density in the projectile adjacent to the interface be rp1 and let the assumed shock in the projectile travel at Up. We assume that the pressure between the shock in the projectile and the interface is given by the Murnaghan equation of state ( ) !np rp1 kp p1 1 , (3) np rp0 where kp and np are constants. Similarly the pressure behind the shock in the target material is given by  n  k r1 p1 1 . (4) n r0 With the assumption that these equations of state apply, and the six RankineHugoniot relations, we may now solve for all eight unknown variables: U ; u1 ; U p ; p1 ; r1 ; rp1 ; e1 , and ep1 . After suitable eliminations of the other unknowns, an implicit equation in r1 results. This may be solved by methods such as the NewtonRaphson, secant, or bisection methods. Once one has determined r1, the other variables are readily found. All the variables to determine fully the shock in the cover plate are now available. We may therefore proceed to investigate the onward transmission of this shock into the second target layer, namely, the explosive.

Fig. 1. Shocks in projectile and cover plate following impact of projectile travelling at speed v0. Particle speed and pressure are continuous at the interface between the materials.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218 213

Fig. 2. Shocks in cover plate and explosive following reection of initial shock in the cover plate at its rear surface.

4. Onward transmission of shock into explosive Consider the situation just after the shock in the cover plate has reached the back of the cover plate. There will be a reected shock, or more usually a rarefaction, in the cover plate and the ongoing shock in the explosive as shown in Fig. 2. Where a rarefaction occurs we make the assumption that the transmitted shock is still well approximated by the solution of the RankineHugoniot equations. The particle speeds and pressures in each of the cover plate and explosive materials on either side of the interface between them are equal. Let them be u2 and p2, respectively. Conditions in the cover plate ahead of the reected shock, i.e., on the side of it towards the projectile, will be those due to the rst passage of the shock through it and are given in terms of the same notation as used in Section 3. Note in Fig. 2 the velocity of the reected shock, U cr ou2 . The density and internal energy in the cover plate material adjacent to the interface and behind the reected shock are denoted by rc2 ; ec2 ; respectively. Ahead of the interface and behind the transmitted shock, the density and internal energy in the explosive are re2 ; ee2 ; respectively. Ahead of the transmitted shock travelling at speed Ue the particle speed, pressure and energy are denoted by ue0 ; pe0 ; ee0 ; respectively and are all zero. The density in the explosive there is denoted byre0 . The pressure in the cover plate behind the reected shock is taken as  n  k rc2 p2 1 . (5) n r0 The pressure in the explosive is taken as  ne  ke re2 p2 1 . ne re0

(6)

The four RankineHugoniot relations and Eqs. (5) and (6) give six equations in the six unknowns u2 ; p2 ; rc2 ; re2 ; U cr ; U e . The solution proceeds much as in Section 3 for the projectile/cover plate interaction, but some differences are seen since there is an initial non-zero pressure in the cover plate. Once the solution is completed, all the variables to determine fully the shock in the explosive are available. 5. Mechanical contribution to the rate of supply of internal energy to the explosive The total rate of internal energy supplied to the explosive will be given by the specic energy delivery multiplied by the rate of volume increase of the shocked region as the shock progresses into the explosive. The rate of supply of internal energy associated purely with the mechanics of the passage of the shock is dE M dV , re2 ee2 dt dt (7)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
214 J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218

where EM is the contribution to the internal energy of the shocked volume V from the mechanical shock. When a shock of cross-sectional area A is induced in the explosive, then, if we ignore edge effects, use of Eq. (2), applied now to the explosive material, and the fact that the speed at which the transmitted shock is moving relative to the interface is Ueu2, yield dE M 1 1 r U e u2 re2 u2 2 U e u2 A 2 A. 2 2 e0 dt (8)

6. Energy rate detonation criterion It is instructive to explore the possibility that Eq. (8) offers a criterion for detonation of the explosive layer on arrival of the shock from the impact, transmitted across the interface between the cover plate and the explosive. In the rst instance we suppose that detonation occurs, or does not occur, depending on whether the rate of energy supply given by the right-hand side of Eq. (8) exceeds a prescribed value or not. For a projectile of diameter d striking an uncovered explosive, the proposed criterion is
2 2 1 8 re0 pd U e u2

constant,

(9)

where the values of Ue and u2 are determined as described in Section 4. The contour of constant value of this expression is plotted in Fig. 3 for the uncovered case considered by Bahl et al. [10], labelled the Original Energy Rate Model. It is apparent that the agreement is not very good, greatly exceeding the experimental data at low diameters and unrealistically decaying to zero at high diameters. This criterion is therefore not satisfactory. All of the preceding analysis has been concerned purely with mechanical effects. The rate of contribution to the internal energy of the explosive given by Eq. (8) excludes any rate of heating associated with the commencement of the reaction of the explosive at the moment the shock passes, when the pressure and temperature in it jump to very high values. Another problem with this criterion shown by Fig. 3 is that it does not exhibit the correct asymptotic behaviour as the diameter approaches innitythere is in reality a minimum critical velocity below which the explosive will not detonate, no matter how large the diameter of the projectile. This is, of course, a serious aw with other criteria, which suggest that making the diameter great enough will reduce the critical velocity to any selected value, however, small.

Fig. 3. Comparison of revised internal energy rate model prediction with Bahl, Vantine and Weingart data (Steel Projectile, PBX9404 explosive, No cover plate, 50 J/ms energy rate). The original energy rate model shown was a purely mechanical formulation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218 215

Lee et al. [8] have addressed these two questions by asserting that the total contribution to the rate of supply of the internal energy is made up not only of the mechanical contribution but also by a contribution from the heating due to the onset of the chemical reaction. Thus dE dE M dE R , dt dt dt (10)

where ER is the contribution to the internal energy of the shocked volume V from the onset of heating due to the reaction, and E is the total contribution to the internal energy. Arguments by Lee et al. [8] based upon the Lee and Tarver [9] model suggest a form for the initial rate of supply of heating, namely: dE R lR p2 2, dt (11)

where lR is taken as a constant in this initial model. Lee et al. [8] further proposed the renement that the mechanical contribution to the criterion should comprise the total rate of supply of mechanical energy from the shock less the asymptotic critical rate of mechanical energy supply for large area. Thus the criterion used is
2 2 1 8 re0 pd U e u2

lD lR p2 2 constant;

(12)

where lD is constant. Data for uncovered PBX-9404 gathered by Bahl et al. [10] were used to calibrate the model. Table 1 gives the material parameters used. The parameters for the criterion were obtained by tting at just two points of the uncovered explosive curve as shown in Fig. 3, and by ensuring the correct asymptote was recovered. It may be seen that the tted curve matches the data well over the whole range of diameters. It remained to see if the same parameters could be used successfully for cases with a cover plate. For the covered case the diameter is reduced by the formula used by James et al. [4] d s tc d 2d c 2 c U u1 2 1=2 , U 2 (13)

where ds(tc) is the diameter of the shock at the back of the cover plate at the time tc, d is the diameter of the impacting projectile, dc is the thickness of the cover plate, U is the shock speed in the cover plate, c2 is the speed of sound in the shocked cover plate, and u1 is the particle speed. After applying Eq. (13) to the cases of the 2 and 6 mm cover-plates, the values of the transmitted shock in the explosive resulting from the passage of the impact shock in the cover plate are used, as calculated in Section 4. The value of the speed of sound in the shocked cover-plate is given by the Jacobs approximation, as used by James et al. [4]. Figs. 4 and 5 give the comparisons of the results generated by the new model, with results for covered PBX9404 gathered by Bahl et al. [10] for cover plate thicknesses of 2 and 6 mm. Based on the limited tting to the uncovered case, the revised model predicts the case of the 2 mm cover plate well and shows the same relationship to the original purely mechanical model as in the uncovered case. However, for the 6 mm cover plate the agreement is not quite so closethe rened model slightly over-estimates the critical velocity at lower
Table 1 Material parameter data for modelling Bahl et al. [10] experiments gives the material parameters used Material parameter Density of steel (kg/m3) Murnaghan n for steel Steel bulk modulus (Gpa) Density of tantalum (kg/m3) Murnaghan n for Tantalum Tantalum bulk modulus (Gpa) Density of PBX9404 (kg/m3) Murnaghan n for PBX9404 PBX9404 bulk modulus (Gpa) Value 7860.0 4.10 167.0 16600.0 4.34 196.3 1840.0 7.36 11.44

ARTICLE IN PRESS
216 J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218

Fig. 4. Comparison of revised internal energy rate model prediction with Bahl, Vantine and Weingart data (steel projectile, PBX9404 explosive, 2 mm Tantulum cover plate, 50 J/ms energy rate).

Fig. 5. Comparison of revised internal energy rate model prediction with Bahl, Vantine and Weingart data (Steel projectile, PBX9404 explosive, 6 mm Tantulum cover plate, 50 J/ms energy rate.

diameters, while under-estimating at higher ones. Nonetheless, the trend is well captured. It is possible that this may be because of release waves or departure from a planar shock conguration, or both. 7. Detonation criterion on reection at rear connement Reections at the rear of the explosive may be analysed in almost exactly the same way as described above in Section 4. The characteristics of the reected shock can be estimated taking due account of the fact that it is travelling back through the shocked explosive. Qualitative comparison of the model predictions has been

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218 217

made against experimental shaped charge ring results of Weickert [11] for conned Detasheet explosive, using the PBX-9404 constants (cf. Fig. 3) where data for Detasheet was not available. Material parameters are given in Table 2. The general trend of the predictions is in fair agreement with the data, as shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the model predicts that Weickerts results are likely to have been obtained by the jet detonating the explosive at the front of the explosive layer. For larger diameter projectiles the model predicts that detonation would occur for lower impact velocities at the rear conning plate. Further experiments to conrm these predictions and to assess the effects of projectile shape and obliquity are required.

8. Conclusions An analytical model for analysing the effects of impact of a projectile upon a conned explosive is derived using very simple models for mechanical shock and reactive material response. The model is based upon the RankineHugoniot shock equations coupled with a criterion for detonation based upon rate of supply of internal energy to the explosive. It is demonstrated by comparison with experiments that the new model is effective in capturing the dependence of critical impact velocity upon projectile diameter for uncovered and covered explosives and veried that it can be used to make predictions of critical velocity where reections at the rear conning plate give the right conditions for detonation.

Table 2 Material parameter data for modelling Weickert experiments Material parameter Density of steel (kg/m3) Murnaghan n for steel Steel bulk modulus (Gpa) Density of detasheet (kg/m3) Murnaghan n for detasheet Detasheet bulk modulus (Gpa) Value 7860.0 4.10 167.0 1840.0 11.0 3.29

Fig. 6. Qualitative comparison of model predictions for PBX-9404 with Weickert experimental results for hypervelocity shaped charge jet impact. (Fe Proj., 3.18 mm Fe C.P., 3.18 mm Detasheet, attenuation in C.P., 50 J/ms critical energy rate).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
218 J.P. Curtis et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 210218

Acknowledgement This work was carried out as part of the Weapons and Platform Effectors Domain of the MoD Research Programme. References
[1] Cook MD, Haskins PJ. The development of a new Arrhenius-based burn model for both homogeneous and heterogeneous explosives. In: Schmidt/Dandekar/Forbes, editors. Proceedings of the conference of the American physical society topical group on shock compression of condensed matter, Amherst, MA July 27August 1, 1997. Edited by AIP conference proceedings 429, p. 33740. [2] Held M. Initiation phenomena of uncovered or covered high explosive charges by shaped charge or projectiles. In: Proceedings of the third international autumn seminar on propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics, October 59, 1999. p. 27389. [3] Walker FG, Wasley RJ. Critical energy for shock initiation of heterogeneous explosives. Explosivestoffe 1969;17:913. [4] James HR, Haskins PJ, Cook MD. Prompt shock initiation of cased explosives by projectile impact. Prop Explos Pyrotech 1996;21:2517. [5] James HR. An extension to the critical energy criterion used to predict shock initiation thresholds. Prop Explos Pyrotech 1996;21:813. [6] Chick MC, Frey RB. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium ballistics, San Antonio, TX, USA, 1990. p. 2029. [7] Lee PR. Critical power density: a universal quantitative initiation criterion. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium ballistics, San Diego, CA, USA, 1987. p. 16. [8] Lee PR, Curtis JP, Mills JT, Lynch NJ. A critical energy rate model for the prediction of shock-induced detonation of explosives. In: Proceedings of the 14th American physical society topical conference on shock compression of condensed matter, Baltimore, MD, USA, July 31August 5, 2005. [9] Lee EL, Tarver CM. Phenomenological model of shock initiation in heterogeneous explosives. Phys Fluids 1980;23(12):236272. [10] Bahl KC, Vantine HC, Weingart RC. The shock initiation of bare and covered explosives by projectile impact. In: Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on detonation, Annapolis, MD, USA, June 1619, 1981. p. 32536. [11] Weickert CA. Jet initiation of explosive/metal sandwiches. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium ballistics, San Diego, CA, USA, October 2729, 1987.