J. Me&. Phys. Solids, 1967, Vol. 15, pp. 387 to 399. Pergamon Prm Ltd. Printed in Great Britain.

A THEORY FOR THE DECELERATION OF LONG RODS

AFTER IMPACT*

By A. TATE
Royai Armament Research and Development Establishment, Fort Halstead, Sevenoaks, Kent

(Received 27th June 1967)

SUMMARY
A MODIFIED hydrodynamic theory which takes some account of strength effects is used to predict
the deceleration of a long rod after striking a target. The results are then compared with experi-
mental data from X-ray observations.

1. INTKoDuCTK~N

THE USE of a hydrodynamic analogy when the pressure round a penetrating

object greatly exceeds the yield strength of the material is over twenty years old
[e.g. BIRKHOFF etal. (19&3), PACK and EVANS (1951)] and was first considered with
regard to Munroe jets. With the development of light gas guns which can achieve
muzzle velocities of about 10 km/s, and the advent of space travel involving
meteoric impacts of about 70 km/s, attention has again been focussed on the hydro-
dynamic analogy but the penetrating object is now an initially solid projectile.
The penetration process is very complex and in Section 2 we define qualitatively
the processes involved in bringing the projectile to rest. In any rigorous theory
the part played by each process should be examined separately so that it could be
properly understood, but until this has been done the hydrodynamic analogy seems
to offer the simplest approach and may give some indication how best to proceed
towards a more comprehensive theory. The hydrodynamic theory may be expected
to be particularly applicable to penetration of long rods as there is an appreciable
steady driving period, whereas the surface impact and final stopping periods play a
relatively small part in crater formation.
In this paper a slightly modified form of the original hydrodynamic theory
incorporating strength effects is adopted, together with the latest available dynamic
yield strength data from shock experiments. This modification allows the decelera-
tion of the rod to be calculated and gives a more realistic estimate of the depth of
penetration. Finally the theory is compared with experimental results.

2. THEORY

(i) General discussion

To give some idea of the complexity involved in a more rigorous approach,
and to indicate the regime in which the hydrodynamic analogy can be expected to
*British Crown Copyright Reserved. Published with the permission of the Controller of Her Britannic Majestys
stationery office.

387
388 A. TATIT

be a reasonable approximation. t.hc proccss~~s ill\-olvctl in bringing a long rod to rc~t

are now outlined.

/.--SHOCK WAVE IN ROD

SURFACE OF SEPARATION
OF ROD AN0 TARGET.

SHOCK WAVE IN TARGET

and target is mo\-ing srll)sonicall;\- rclati\,ra to the &stic w:~\c S~WCYI,

whicll is so for
all imp:I,cting velocities exam inetl II~W, that shock runs far ahead of tile interfacr
and decays like a hemispheric~a1 blast wave. During its decay it will at some stage
become unstable as ;I single wave and split into t\ro \va\.es. an elastic precursor
followed by a plastic ~l~,f~)rr~~atio~~
want. After further decay of the wa\.cs due to
radial expansion. the plastic wave ceases to propagate and only the elastic way?
proceeds outwards. A more detailed discussion of the two wa\-c structure can be
found in AI,TSHULEH (1965) or S~run~or~ (1965). Material properties can collsidcr-
ably complicate the types of wave which can be propagated, i.r:. phase transitions
invariably lead to a range of shock strength in which the shock is unstable and
breaks into further WI\YS. lwn-0other factors must also be considered, Ilam+
surface effects and reflection of wa~cs from the boundaries of the necessaril)
finite target. The possible effects of the shock wa\-e propagating through the target
will be to produce ohemic*al and structural changes, radiation. heat and ljlastic
deformalion.
While the abox-r mentioned processes are happening in the target a shock
continues to propagate back up the rod and is progressively weakcncd by expansion
waves from the sides. Aftrr two or three rod diameters back the shock becomes so
weak that it ceases to br of much account. The initial expansion wa\Festhat serve to
weaken both the target and rod shock waves also product radial motions of the
material and gi\-e rise to the initial splash at the crater surface.
After this first phase of impact. when the shocks have either been so weakened
as to have ~~egligible effects or have progressed far away from the crater, one would
expect that an almost steady state is set up in whi& the crater is being deepened
at a constant speed. It is tllis period in which the llydrodynamic~ analogy should
be useful because the pressures at the bottom of the crater are well beyond the yield
 A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 389

strength of all materials. The strength and material properties of the target and rod
cannot be completely neglected, however, as they introduce constraints on the
fluid motion and are parti~l~larl~ important in dctermini~g the crater diameter
and the deceleration of the rod. The calculation of crater diameter involves a com-
plex elastic--plastic radial motion and will not be considered further.
As for the deceleration of the rod, note that if the rod were completely fluid it
would hardly be decelerated at all; far from the crater bottom the rod maintains a
uniform diameter and a uniform velocity and there is no pressure gradient to slow
up the back end. The deceleration of the rod therefore essentially arises because it
has strength. As the rod slows up the strength properties play an increasingly
important role until the whole motion is governed by elastic-plastic phenomena.
In this paper we confine attention to the hydrodynamic phase which for
long rods seems to be the predominant part of the motion but will modify the equa-
tions slightly to take account of the strength properties. This is done by introducing
a resistance into the flow equations. This resistance must not be thought of as a
basic material property, although it will be related to these; rather it is to be re-
garded as an average effect due to the overall elastic-plastic flow phenomena.
The validity of the concept remsins to be investigated.

(ii) Xunroe jets

R. Hill, N. F. Mott, D. C. Pack and W. M. Evans were among the first to
consider the penetration of Munroe jets into semi-infinite targets. They assumed
that for high impact velocities the strength of the target material is negligible
compared to the high pressure produced [as in BIRKHOFF et al. (1948), PACK and
EVANS (1951)J
Thus the flow approximates that of a jet of incompressible fluid into a semi-
i&mite expanse of another incompressible fluid. Let the density of the jet be
pP and that of the target pt. Let the jet have length L and velocity V, and let U
be the velocity of penetration. Taking moving axes through the bottom of the crater
and balancing pressures at this point, Bernoullis equation gives

&pP(Y - ZJ)z = *pt U2

and therefore

u=v/(, + p) (2.1)
while the final penetration is

(2.2)
Sometimes a parameter is introduced to allow for fragmentation in the jet but this
is not relevant to the penetration of long rods.

(iii) ModijZed hydrodynamic theory

If the above formula is employed for the penetration of a steel rod into a
semi-infinite steel target, the predicted crater depth is equal to the length of the rod,
irrespective of impact velocity. Experiment, however, shows the crater depth to be
smaller than the rod length and decreasing rapidly as the impact velocity decreases.
It would appear therefore that the penetration velocity U is smaller than that
predicted by (2.1).
:300 A. TATE

To simplify the complex transition of the rod from an almost rigid hod\- 10
one which behares more like a fluid we shall assu~ne tllat the rod acts as rigid bodh
until a certain pressure. I,, is reached, which is a constant for a gi\-en matcrinl.
At pressures abo\-e I, it is assumed the material bcl~aves l~!-drotl~~ri~~ln~ic311S_.
II
we take axes as before arltl ignore c~on~pressibility elllccts. the \-clocity of the rigid
part of the rod is (T --- CT). In the li~drodynan~ic regime the \-calocity falls off as 1-11~
pressure increases according to Bernoullis equation until the material (~01ws to

rest at the stagnation point. * Let the prcssurc here be 1. 13y using 13crnoidlis
equation for the stagnation point and the point where the material c~~3cs to bclla\-c
hydrodynamically, wc obtain

A similar argimlent may be applied to the target material. 111 this cast, liow-
ever, the pressure req~Grcd to mnkc the material flow l~~clrotl~n:tmicall~ must
overcome not only the rigidit>- of the material in the inmletliatc n~ighbourllooti
but also the inertia of the surrounding material. It is thus cclui\-nlcnt to the mini-
mum pressure which will just force a hole through an intinitc cxl~a~is~ of tlic
material. This pressure. Xt, may well lrary with si& factors as depth and impact
velocity and must depend on the sohltion of tlie rsterior c&tic-plastic problcnl
but we shall assume that it is const,ant for a given material under the conditions
considered. Bernoullis equation 11ow gives

where

(tt.5)

This approach was first suggested in an unpublished Ministq- of Supply report by

Hill, Mott and Pack (1945) where allowance
a term we will call R* to the righthand
encountered in static punching when allowance
they took 12* = 4.5 ay where al/ is the dynamic
(BJYIIOP,HILL and MOTT, 1945). A somewhat
by EICIIELBEKGEJL
(1056).
was made for target strength by adding
side of (2.1). To correspond to the resistance
had been made for strain hardening.
picld strength of the target material
similar approach has also been used

(iv) Gater depth and deceleratiot~

Experiment shows that sometimes the rod comes to rest before it is all used ~1).
A certain amount of projectile material is left in the bottom of the crater, the length
of which we shall call 1,. Clearly, therefore, the rigidity of the rod causes it to
decelerate.
Let the length of rod remaining above the base of the crater at time t br 1.
We shall assume that the pressure falls off rapidly above the crater base so that the

*Strictly one cannot use Bernoullis equation because the process is unsteady hut, as rim be seen for instsncc
in Fig. 2, the deceleration is small until the final stage of penetration in which the hydrodynnmic model will break down
anyway. The accelerative term in the momentum equation is thus nearly always very small compared to the prrssurc
and inertia terms. Thus the assumption that Bernoullis equation holds 1e:rds to 3 selbconsistclrt picture.
 A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 391

length of rod which acts as a rigid body is approximately equal to 1. If the radius of
the rod is denoted by r, the force retarding the rigid body is approximately errs YP.
Letting the velocity of the back of the rod be v, we have

dV
Yp= -ppl-& (2.6)
This follows from the momentum equation

- yp = $(Pp Iv) + ppv (v - f-4

by noting that the rate of decrease in 1 is

dl
- = - (v - u). P-7)
dt
Using (2.6) this can be written

dl =
_ PP (v - u) 0% (2.8)
I? YP *
Substituting for u from (2.4) and integrating (2.8) gives

. _=
1 v+&2+4 c$i?) II PP
L v+ d/(v2+4 > exp [ 2 (1 - /As) Yp

}I*(2sg)
{
[v d(v2 + A) - P V2]
1 - [Q/(P+A) -pV2]

Capitals are used to denote the initial values of variables.

How we proceed from here depends upon the relative magnitudes of Rt and Yp.

Case 1 (Rt > YP)

In this case the rod always behaves as a liquid until penetration ceases and this
occurs when v = [2 (Rt - Yp)/pp]*.

Case 2 (Rt < Yp)

When v drops to the value [ 2 (Y, - Rt)/pt]* th en v equals u and from this point
until it is brought to rest the rod behaves as a rigid body. Formula (2.9) only
applies up to this point. The final length of rod left, Is, is given by the formula

18=
_
L L2/{A (P + l)/(P -
v + d(V2 + 4
l)}
1c%L3i exp -
2 (1 -
CLPP
$) Yp *
-I
(Q,/(V + A) - pv} . (2.10)
1
Case 3 (Rt = Yp)
This is the only case which can be solved exactly. The rod always behaves as a
liquid and penetration ceases when u and v are both zero.
In all cases the depth of penetration d is given by
t
d= udt (2.11)
s
0
392 :I* TATI:

and, until the rod starts b&a\-ing as a rigid iwdy, wc titn use (2.6) to rc-writt
(2.11) in the form
I

II is gi\.en b\. (2.4) and 1 by (2.9). I II general the solution nlust In! obtainctl
nutnericalIy but case 8 can bc immediately integrated to give

(d/L) =-- (l/p) [I - cxp (- u (P ~ z))] {2.13)

where

Another simplified
can be reduced to

(2.15)

while the formula for I( l~ccon~es

16 : .$1: -- (1st -. lp)/pi. (2.16)

Letting

(2.17)

the penetration is then gi\,en by the formula

(2.18)

where x is a tlumn~y variable having the sanic ~iie:~.~~i~~~

as {. In general (2.18)
must br numerically itrtcgrated but if /3 is an cl-en integer a simple analytical
solution exists :

If & = (?rtl -+ 1) F, penetration ceases when < T= ~(IB)/F. A graph of 5

as a function of (Cl/L) is shown in Fig. 2 for Kt/1, -~ 3, P :=y-2. Ihcse figures wcr(a
chosen to be representative of an average steel-steel impact. Note that the assump-
tion of constant xxlocity of l~~netratioi~ is a good ap~~ro~~n~atio[~ during most ol
the penetration process.
 A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 393

6-

R!IYp=S v= 2
4-

2-

&G. 2. Variation of the velocity of the back end of a rot1 at varying depths of ~enet~tion.

3. COMPARISON WITH EXPEILIMENT

One of the experimental facilities at R.A.R.D.E. is a hypervelocity light gas
gun, the principle of which has been described by SMITH (1963). Cylindrical rods
0%5 in. dia. and of varying calibre can be launched from the 1. in. dia. barrel by

Projectile Target
--
Run no. Length Velocity t7 Mass Penetration II W
(9) (in.)
__ .._l__-- ___-. _._ ~~~~_ -... .-..---.. .. ..- I_~~~-~~ .__... -- __..~ ---
675 10 calibre - 1.11 0.45
679 10 6600 (ft/see) 2.68 15.6 2.25 0.9
680 10 6700 2.72 15.7 2.00 (skew) 0.8
086 5 6700 a.09 7.97 1.45 I.16
690 10 7700 3.18 15.4 1.70 0.68
692 10 7500 3.05 154 I.85 0.74
696 10 3000 l-22 15.4 O*bZ 0.21
701 10 3500 1.42 15.4 0.60 0.24
702 10 4000 1.68 15.4 O*50 0.20
703 7 3900 1*5&S 10.7 0.45 0.26
704 7 7500 3.05 10.7 1.55 6-89
706 7 6400 2.60 10.7 1.40 0.8
707 10 6400 2.60 15.4 1.65 0.66
708 10 6200 2.52 15-4 1.50 0.6
722 10 6300 2.56 15.4 1.70 o-68
728 10 0400 2.60 15.4 1.58 0.63

1 calibrc = 0.25 in. 0 = Y, = 11 kbars. Thus v = F/2.4G x 103 (ftjsec).

334 ii. 1'ATIC
using a polytlwne snbot. Speeds up to 15,000 ft/sec can be obtained with light rods
while for hcarier metals such as steel thr optimum \-clocity is about SO00 ft,sw.
Table 1 sl~ows the results of Winks esperimcnts on the hywr\-clocaity ini?)act, ot
soft steel rods into soft steel targets. Rltns 679 and 680 produwd craters far dcqw
than any other ten calibre rod which was probably due to l~ol~thcnc SillJOtS striking
the targets. In order to apply the a.bow theory WCriced to know K and I. Table :!

Static yield
Investigator MaterhI stress Strerlglll
(Itbar) (Iklmr) o,, C3 n ,,

13a11cr0ft z\r~~~co iron 1.91 1X.2

Jlinslmll MI, 1020 stwl 2.85 :w:I :;
Costello JIild steel 2.12 2w.s ~~ 2
transversr
2.28
,\Iinshall SW 1040 steel :%.!Ni i-3

c0stc110 Vilxac steel 9.2s 142 1

XIinshnll TurlgstcIl
133ncroft SAIE 1020 steel 4.6 10.1 E55
nancroft SAIL 1020 sterl
anncalcd
4840 steel
202414 Al
2024T4 .\l
anne&tl 1.0 I_ 0.2 0,) (1 _i 0.2) 0.43 2~03

All daln have been ta1trn from IhrnLL (INil, 1. lW), LTgis c:llelllatrd Pro1rr 111r formrh
ay = [(l - 2~)/(1 - v)] I where Y is Poissons ratio. For mild steel into ndtl steel, taking If
3.3 I, It - I = 26.8 * 1.3 lihr.

g-i\-es some yield-point tlnta obtainrd from shocl~ wave ywriments gi\,clt b\.
I)rrvar,r, (1961). The IIugoniot elastic liniit is the pressure in the c.lastk w:I\c whic*il
is found to lwxcde the main shock wnw or plastic wave.This pressure is the inasi-
muin pressure undrr dpnniir conditions for which the material exhibits strcngtll
properties and it is therefore espected to bc rloscly rclatcd to our tcrni I*, althougl~
it is possible that 1* could lie anpvhcrc between the Hugo&t elastic limit and tllf
yield point. Using this \-alue for I it is now possible to find the \-alue of ICjl
which gives closest agreement with csperimcnt. Figure 3 shows tlrc tlicorrtical
penetration for the soluble cnsrs of R/Y := 1, :I, 5 and also tlic csl)rrinicnt:tll\,
dctermincd point,s. The scatter of cslwrimental results particularly at the lligher
velocities is rather large, but if wc restrict our attention only to tcri calibrc rcwdts
and ignore the dubious results of runs 679 and 680 the scnttw is reduced to :I
reasonable order and the theory would fit best for a value of I2/ I of about, :s*.s. It is
interesting to note that this value of It/J gives a Aue of thca iiet rcsistanw, IL 1*.
closely corresponding to 4.5 times the dynamic yield strength (SW Table L) n-llich.
as mentioned before, is the value first suggested by BISIIO~~,HILL md MOTI- (1945)

on the basis of static lnmch tests.

WIX;TIX has observed the retardation process using a flash S-ray tcchniqlw.
Only three S-ray stations were a\-nilable on each shot so penetration trajrctorics
 A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 395

A= 5 CALIBRE RODS
B = 7 CALIERE RODS
0 - IO CALIBRE RODS

0 I 2 3 4 5
IMPACT VELOCITY j -

FIG. 3. Pcnctration producedby varying impact velocities.

had to be built up by firing shots under nominally identical conditions and varying
the delay times between the three stations. Experimental points taken from one
firing are labelled with the same letter on Figs. 4 and 5. Unfortunately the available
X-rays could only give sufficient contrast to be readable when a heavy material
was projected into a light material. Because of its much higher density the retarda-
tion of the steel rods was difficult to detect with the X-rays and the rods completely
penetrated any reasonably sized block of polythene. In the tests duralumin and
aluminium rods were fired at blocks of polythene at a free flight velocity of about
5400 ft/sec. The relevant material data are given in Tables 2 and 3, and comparing
the static and dynamic yield strengths of duralumin and aluminium we find that
there is reasonable agreement. There appears to be no dynamic data available for
polythene and even the static value of Poissons ratio is not known with certainty,
being anywhere between the limits 0*3--0*5 depending on temperature and rate of
strain. It is therefore impossible to estimate a value for Rt.
Let us consider first the duralumin rod. The initial velocity of the back of the
rod is 5000 ft/sec whereas the free flight velocity is 5400 ft/sec. Further tests are
required to show whether or not this decrease in velocity is a real effect due to the
initial shock process. Taking the value of Yn for duralumin to be 34 ton/inz,
theoretical curves for values of Et of 14 and 27 ton/ins are shown superimposed on
the experimental results of Fig. 4. The end of the theoretical curves at about
 -.__ FINAL
6 DEPTH

5-

4-

3-

z-

I-

/
/ bc II
0th
4b 80 I20 160
TIME (p sees)
i
/ a-.-_(, DEPTH OF PENETRATION ON
/ PURE HYDRODYNAMIC THEORY
/
/ 0 EXPERIMENTAL POSITION DF FRONT OF ROD
I3 EXPERIMENTAL POSITION OF REAR OF ROD

Flu. 4. Duralunlin shot entering a polythcnc target at a free fli,nht wlority of 5400 ft,scc.

Material Iknsity Iltiruntc stress

(+m) (ton/in2)

I~uralumin 2.71 "0

Alunrinium 2.7 .1.
Iolvthene OW 0.x

Sate 1 ton/in ~= I.544 x 108 dyn/cnl a 0.162 khar.

lhc tabulated values arc only approxinmtc.
 A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 397

140 psec marks the point where the rod begins to behave as a rigid body but still
has a residual velocity of about 2000 ft/sec. Beyond this point the theory does not
apply. The correct value of R would appear to he between these limits. Using
I-

S-

I-

I
-o-o-o = DEPTH OF PENETRATION ON
: PURE HYDRODYNAMIC THEORY.
I

0 EXPERIMENTAL POSITION OF FRONT OF ROD

a EXPERIHENTAL POSITION OF REAR OF ROD

FIG. 5. Aluminium shot entering a polythenc target at a free flight velocity of 5400 ft/sec.

(2.10) we can find the theoretical length of rod remaining when the rod ceases to
deform and this is shown in Fig. 6. Figure 4 shows that the final length of the
duralumin was about 0.7 in. corresponding to a value of 23 ton/ins for Rt which lies
within the above limits.
The whole of the aluminium rod is used up in the penetration process as is
shown in Fig. 5, Taking a value for Y, of 6 ton/ins we find that the penetration
data is best fitted by a value of Rt of about 6.
The different values for Bt indicate that the theory is not adequate in this case.
However, it would be useful if some tests could be made with a light material whose
properties were better known and less variable than polythene.
 1%~ modifying tflc hydrodynamic theory of penetration to txkt: awount c)I
stwngth dffccts in much the same way as was originally s~~ggested by I-Iill. Mott
and Pack, we can find the rate itt which the rod deceferdces after strikirq the
tax,get. The theory depends on two parameters : Rt, the pressmr: within tfw target
at which the material begins to flow hydrodynamicalfy and Yp. the f~ressurc at
which the rod begins to llow h~(frod~~~amicall~. I, is associated with the Hugoniot
elastic limit of material and is ~feter~~il~~~ from shock wave data.
Because of the inertia of the swrounding msLteria1 it is to be cxpcctcrl th:tt
Et is grcatcr than IVp for n rod composed of the same material as the target. lCspcri-
ments using soit steel rods striking soft steel targets indicate that ll'JI', ==ES..?.
This &-es a due for the net resistanw l?t --- Yp of about 4-5 times the d\xamic
yield strength which is in reasonable agreement with the ~alne determined by
 A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact 309

BISHOP, HILL and MOTTon the basis of static punch tests. Figure 2 which illustrates
the decrease in velocity during penetration shows why, in many cases, the assump-
tion of constant velocity of penetration is quite a good approximation.
The penetration of duralumin and aluminium rods into polythene has been
observed by flash X-ray and the theory can match the experimental points quite
closely, but only by assuming that the polythene target has a value of Rt of 23 ton/ins
for penetration by a duralumin projectile and a value R, of 6 ton/ins for penetration
by an aluminium projectile. Further tests are required to confirm and improve the
accuracy of the experimental points preferably with a light material whose dynamic
response is known better than polythene.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author is grateful to Mr. WINTER of R.A.R.D.E. for making availablehis experimental
results.

REFERENCES

ALTSHULER, L. V. 1965 Soviet Phys., Usp. 8, 52.

BIRKHOFF, G.,
MCDOUGALL, D. P.,
PUG& E. M.
and TAYLOR, G. I. 1948 J. Appl. Phys. 19, 563.
BISHOP, R. F., HILL, R. and
MOTT, N. F. 1945 Proc. Phys. Sot. 57, 147.
DUVALL, G. E. 1961 Response of Metals to High Velocity Deformation, (Edited by
SHEWMAN, P. G. and ZACKAY V. F.) p. 165. (Inter-
science, New York).
EICHELBERGER, R. J. 1956 J. Appl. Phys. 27, 63.
PACK, D. C. and
EVANS, W. M. 1951 Proc. Phys. Sot. (London) B64 298, 303.
SKIDXORE, I. C. 1965 Appl. Met. Res. 4, 131.
SMITH, F. 1963 J. Fluid Mech. 17, 1.
WINTER, D. F. T. 1967 (Private communication).