ORNL/ENG/TM-40

OAK RIDGE
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
MARTIN

DYNAMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

OF THE M1 105MM PROJECTILE

MARIETTA

J. C. Walls
D. S. Webb

" MANAGED
BY
MARTIN
MARIETTA
ENERGY
SYSTEMS,
INC.
FORTHEUNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OFENERGY

.' .'.'_"-

.f_

,_

.. 1, ,.. '""" ' '

This report has been reproduceddirectlyfrom the best available copy.

Availableto DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientificand Technical Information,P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from (615)
576-8401, FTS 626-8401.
Available to the public from the National Technical InformationService, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,VA 22161.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of

the United States Government.Neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liabilityor responsibility for the accuracy, completenesa, or usefulnessof any information,apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer,or otherwise, does not necessarilyconstitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation,or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Governmentor any agency thereof.

ORNL/ENG/TM-40

Central Engineering Services

DYNAMIC

IMPACT

ANALYSIS

OF THE M1 105MM

PROJECTILE

J. C. Walls
D. S. Webb

June 1993

Research
Research,
Picatirmy
between

sponsored by the Packaging Division, Armament

Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC),
Arsenal under Interagency Agreement 1892-A078-A1
the U.S. Department of Energy and ARDEC.

Prepared by the
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6285
managed by
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
for the

u.s. DEPARTMENT
OFENERGY

under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400

_ _ _ n-r.r.
_,_: _,_ ..._._.

_ ,_

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................

ABSTRACT

......................................................

INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION

AND BACKGROUND

vii
................................

OF THE PACKAGE CONFIGURATIONS

FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

IMPACT CONDITIONS
ANALYSIS

RESULTS

PROJECTILE
PROJECTILES
DISCUSSION

ANALYZED

.........................
.........................
.........................
Nose ....................

..................................

INSIDE A WOODEN SHIPPING CRATE

AND CONCLUSIONS

.....................................

....................................................

..............................................

IN A FIBER TUBE

..........

..........................................

OF RESULTS ..........................................

REFERENCES

.....................................

BARE PROJECTILE
............................................
Bare Projectile Impacting Flat onto Its Nose
Bare Projectile Impacting Flat onto Its Base
Bare Projectile Impacting Flat onto Its Side
Bare Projectile Impacting at 45 Angle on Its

SUMMARY

3
3
4
4
4
4

.................

5
5
6
7

LIST OF FIGURES

No_.__:.

Titl.___e

Typical M1 105MM Howitzer artillery shell

Projectile section and finite element model showing general location

of high residual tensile stresses ....................................

........................................

Maior model components

Model components for the fiber ammunition tube drop cases ...............

11

Model components for the fiber ammunition tube drop cases ...............

12

Cutaway view of the wooden shipping crate model ......................

13

Rigid body acceleration for bare projectile dropped flat on nose

Projectile velocity, bare projectile dropped flat on nose ...................

15

Kinetic energy, bare projectile dropped flat on nose .....................

16

10

Elements in nose region of bare projectile model

17

11

Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 537 and 538 ..........

18

12

Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 505 and 506 ..........

19

13

Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 473 and 474 ..........

20

14

Projectile acceleration, bare projectile dropped flat on base

21

15

Element numbers in nose region of model ............................

22

16

Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 521 and 522 ..........

23

17

Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 489 and 490 ..........

24

18

Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 457 and 458 ..........

25

19

Projectile acceleration,

10

................

26

20

Kinetic energy vs time for bare projectile impacting at 45 ................

27

21

Element numbers in nose region of projectile for 45 impact case ...........

28

............

.......................

bare projectile dropped flat on side

..........................

................

14

No..._=.

Titl.__.__e

Pa_gg_

22

Time history of maximum principal stress for elements 670-672

............

29

23

Time history of maximum principal stress for elements 718-720

............

30

24

Time history of maximum principal stress for elements 667-669

............

31

25

Projectile acceleration, projectile in fiber tube dropped fiat

on projectile end ..............................................

32

Peak axial stress, projectile in fiber tube dropped flat

on projectile end ..............................................

33

Projectile acceleration, projectile in fiber tube dropped flat

on cartridge end ...............................................

34

Peak von Mises stress, projectile in fiber tube dropped flat

on cartridge end ...............................................

35

26

27

28

29

Projectile acceleration, projectile in fiber tube dropped flat on side

..........

36

30

Peak von Mises stress, projectile in fiber tube dropped flat on side

..........

37

31

Projectile acceleration, projectile in wooden shipping crate dropped

flat on bottom ................................................

38

Peak von Mises stress, projectile in wooden shipping crate dropped

fiat on bottom ................................................

39

Projectile acceleration, projectile in wooden shipping crate dropped

flat on projectile end ...........................................

40

Peak von Mises stress, projectile in wooden shipping crate dropped

flat on projectile end ...........................................

41

32

33

34

vi

ABSTRACT
Evaluation of the effects of "rough-handling"-induced
stresses in the nose region of a
105mm artillery projectile was performed to determine if these stresses could have
contributed to the premature explosion of a projectile during a Desert Shield training mission
of the 101st Army Airborne in Saudi Arabia. The rough-handling evaluations were simulated
by dynamic impact analysis. It was concluded that the combined residual stress and dynamic
impact-induced stress would not be of sufficient magnitude to cause cracking of the
projectile in the nose region.

vii

!!

INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND

An in-bore premature explosion of an M1 105mm Howitzer artillery projectile (Fig. 1)

was reported to have occurred during a Desert Shield training mission of the 101st Army
Airborne in Saudi Arabia. One possible reason for this failure was thought to be nose cracks
in the projectile resulting from either rough handling, high residual stresses, and/or
manufacturing defects. 1 Figure 2 shows a typical 105mm projectile as well as the location
of potential nose cracks.
Results of tensile tests performed on material from the nose area of two projectile
bodies from the malfunctioned round lot I show that the material strength averaged about
103 ksi, which is well above the required 65-ksi value. This high strength may be an
indication that a significant stress relief was not performed. _ Also, high tensile residual
stresses were detected in the nose area of M1 projectiles from the malfunctioned round lot.
The maximum tensile residual stresses are located on the inside wall surface (see Fig. 2), are
oriented in the hoop direction, and are on the order of one-third the yield stress.l The
magnitude of these residual stresses would also indicate that the shells were not properly
stress relieved and would be readily susceptible to the generation of longitudinal cracks
when subjected to rough handling or excessive acceleration loads. If these conditions occur
at extremely low temperatures, brittle fracture may become a consideration.
Considering the results of the residual stress and material tensile stTength
determinations, the objective of this report is to evaluate the effects of
"rough-handling"-induced
stresses and determine if these stresses could have contributed to
the projectile failure.
The rough-handling evaluations were simulated by dynamic impact analysis. Finite
element models were formulated for the projectile, cartridge case, fiber tube assembly, and
the wooden shipping crate in which the projectiles are shipped. These models were then
used to simulate drops from a 7-ft height onto an unyielding surface for various orientations
and package configurations. The resulting accelerations and stresses were then analyzed to
determine if the drop scenarios could have induced cracks and influenced premature failure
of the projectile.
Actual drop testing of some of the projectile configurations were conducted at Picatinny
Arsenal. However, limited accelerometer data were available for comparison with the
dynamic analysis results reported herein. In this regard, a secondary objective of this report
was to verify that computer code predictive methodologies could be a cost-effective
alternative to physical testing of armament packaging.

DESCRIPTION

OF THE PACKAGE CONFIGURATIONS

ANALYZED

The M1 105mm projectile, along with other components that comprise the artillery
shell, is shipped inside a wooden shipping crate. The shipping crate contains components for
two complete artillery rounds. Each individual projectile and cartridge case within the
wooden crate is enclosed inside a fiber tube along with protector cones, washers, and end
caps. The details of the components of the M1 105mm artillery round, the wooden box, and
ali the other items contained in the box for shipping are defined by the drawings and

2
specifications obtained from Packaging Division, Armament Research, Development
Engineering Center (ARDEC), Picatinny Arsenal, and are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Drawings and specifications
to define package configurations
Drawing/specification

used

Description

10535878

Projectile body

8595386

Cartridge case

9258026

Fiber ammunition container

9258027

Fiber ammunition container

9271050

Fiber ammunition container

Specification MIL-C-2439E

Fiber ammunition container

Specification MIL-B-2427G

Wooden shipping crate

FINITE ELEMENT

and

MODELS

Finite element models were generated to simulate the various components of the Ml
105mm shell and its packaged configuration for the dynamic impact analyses. All models
were formulated and analyzed with the VEC/DYNA3D, 2 INGPdD, 3 and TAURUS 4 finite
element computer codes. The codes reside on a Silicon Graphics 4D/35 engineering
workstation computer. INGPdD is a preprocessor code that was used to formulate the
various models and components. Figures 3 through 6 show the various components and how
they were assembled for the dynamic analyses.
Three different projectile/package models were analyzed. The first configuration
analyzed was the bare projectile without the fuse or fuse plug. The second configuration
consisted of a projectile contained within the fiber ammunition mbe. An exploded view of
the model components can be seen in Fig. 4. The third package configuration model
consisted of the complete wooden shipping crate with two projectiles and ali the packaged
components. An exploded view of this model is shown in Fig. 5. A cutaway view of the
complete wooden shipping crate model is shown in Fig. 6.
Material properties used for the projectile were a modulus of elasticity of 29 x 10 6 psi
and a yield strength of 110,000 psi. 5 Material propeI_ties for some of the components in the
wooden shipping crate were estimated. The properties of the wooden box were assumed to
be generic plywood. Similarly, the properties of the fiber ammunition tube material were
assumed.

IMPACT CONDITIONS
The drop height used for ali analyses was taken as 7 ft. Also, all impacts were assumed
to be onto a fiat, unyielding surface. The assumption of an unyielding surface will most

3
likely cause accelerations and stress magnitudes in the projectile to be conservatively
predicted because actual surfaces are more flexible, which tends to lower stresses in the
projectile.
The bare projectile model impact response was examined for four different orientations
of the projectile at impact. These were (1) projectile impacting flat onto its nose,
(2) projectile impacting flat onto its base, (3) projectile impacting fiat onto its side, and
(4) projectile impacting at an angle of 45 to the surface onto its nose.
The projectile in its fiber shipping tube model was analyzed for three different impact
orientations. These were (1) tube impacting flat onto the projectile end of the model,
(2) tube impacting flat onto the cartridge end of the model, and (3) tube impacting flat onto
its side.
The complete wooden shipping crate model was analyzed for two different impact
orientations: flat onto the crate bottom and fiat onto the projectile end of the crate.

ANALYSIS RESULTS
As previously mentioned, three different projectile/package models were analyzed:
(1) a bare projectile, (2) a projectile in a fiber tube, and (3) a complete wooden shipping
crate with two projectiles. Results of the analyses are given in the following paragraphs.

BARE PROJECTILE
The bare projectile model was analyzed for four different orientations of the projectile
at impact. There were (1) projectile impacting flat onto its nose, (2) projectile impacting flat
onto its base, (3) projectile impacting flat onto its side, and (4) projectile impacting at an
angle of 45 to the surface onto its nose. Results of the analyses are given below.
Bare Projectile Impacting Flat onto Its Nose
The dynamic impact of the bare projectile model impacting the rigid, unyielding surface
flat onto its nose was analyzed with the VEC/DYNA3D computer code. Accelerations,
velocities, kinetic energy, stresses, strains, and deformations can be obtained for the model
at any time in the impact event and examined with the postprocessor, TAURUS. For this
impact simulation, for example, Figs. 7 to 9 show the acceleration, velocity, and kinetic
energy vs time. The plot of kinetic energy is often used to verify that the impact event is
being simulated correctly. A smooth kinetic energy curve usually indicates that energy is
being expended without computational difficulties in the finite element model.
The large values of acceleration indicated by Fig. 7 occur at times early in the impact
event and are indicative of the relatively rigid projectile impacting the rigid, unyielding
surface. It should be noted that the assumption of the rigid, unyielding impact surface is
quite conservative; and it is therefore likely that accelerations, stresses, etc., will be
overestimated for this analysis.
Since tensile stresses in the nose region of the projectile are of interest, a time history
of maximum principal stresses was recorded for elements in this region. Figure 10 indicates
the location of elements in the nose region of the bare projectile. Figures 11 to 13 show time

4
histories of the maximum principal stress in selected elements in the nose region of the
projectile. From these plots it is seen that peak stresses of ~20,000 psi are indicated.
Bare Projectile

Impacting

Flat onto Its Base

The projectile acceleration vs time for the base impact scenario is shown in Fig. 14. As
mentioned previously, the combination of a relatively rigid projectile model impacting an
unyielding surface creates a sharply defined maximum acceleration at impact.
As before, tensile stresses in the nose region of the projectile are of concern. Figure 15
shows the element numbering scheme for this impact model. Maximum principal stresses vs
time are plotted in Figs. 16 to 18 for typical elements in the nose region of the projectile.
For this impact scenario, the maximum values of stress are of the order of 31,000 psi.
Bare Projectile

Impacting

Flat onto Its Side

The projectile acceleration vs time for the side impact event is recorded in Fig. 19. It is
seen that the acceleration levels are much less than those obtained from the nose and base
impact events. The lower level of acceleration is probably a result of greater flexibility of
the projectile model for loads acting on the sides of the projectile. Also, for this case, stress
levels in the nose area of the projectile were examined and found to be of the order of
10,000 psi or less.
Bare Projectile

Impacting

at 45 Angle on Its Nose

The scenario of a base projecqle impacting the unyielding surface at an angle of 45 on

its nose was analyzed. This event is much more complex than the other base projectile
impact events and includes a simulation of initial impact and rotation of the projectile until
secondary impact occurs. A plot of the kinetic energy dissipation is shown in Fig. 20.
Locations of elements in the nose region of the projectile are indicated in Fig. 21. lt is
noted that the point of impact occurs on the line of nodes between elements 531 and 576.
Maximum principal stresses were examined for several of the elements in the nose region
for this impact event. From the stress results plotted in Figs. 22 to 24, it is' seen that
maximum values approach 50,000 psi.

PROJECTILE

IN A FIBER TUBE

Impact simulations of the projectile and cartridge packaged in the fiber ammunition
tube were analyzed for three different orientations at surface impact. The orientations were
for flat-end impacts at both the projectile and cartridge ends of the tube and for flat impact
onto the tube side. As would be expected, maximum accelerations and stresses experienced
by the projectile are much less in the fiber tube when compared to results from the bare
projectile impact simulations.
Results of the impact analyses are shown in Figs. 25 to 30 for the three different impact
orientations. The results for the tube impacting the projectile end are shown in Figs. 25 and
26. Maximum acceleration is 2480 g, and maximum stress in the projectile is <20,000 psi.
For impact on the cartridge end, accelerations are quite low (Fig. 27) because of the
cushioning effect of the protector cone inside the fiber tube. Also, for this case, stresses in

5
the nose region of the projectile are generally less than 10,000 psi (Fig. 28). Results of the
side impact indicate that maximum accelerations reach 1000 g (Fig. 29), but maximum
stresses in the nose area of the projectile are less than 10,000 psi.

PROJECTILES

INSIDE A WOODEN

SHIPPING CRATE

Impact simulations of a wooden shipping crate containing two fiber ammunition tubes
were completed for two different impact orientations: flat on the projectile end of the crate
and flat onto the bottom of the crate.
The inclusion of the wooden box in the impact model results in smaller values of
acceleration experienced by the projectiles as compared to previous configurations. For the
case of a crate dropped flat on its bottom, Fig. 31 indicates that the maximum acceleration is
770 g. Maximum stresses experienced by the projectile in the nose region are less than
10,000 psi, as shown by Fig. 32. Results of the case of crate dropped on its projectile end
are shown in Figs. 33 and 34. Maximum accelerations are 355 g, and stresses in the nose
regions of the projectile are <10,000 psi.

DISCUSSION

OF RESULTS

Dynamic impact simulations were performed on the M1 105mm projectile in a variety

of packaged configurations and impact orientations. As might be expected, the maximum
accelerations and maximum principal stress levels in the projectile are experienced for the
bare projectile impact configuration. Review of results from the bare projectile impact
simulations show that maximum principal stress levels in the nose region of the projectile
occur for the 45 angle impact orientation of the projectile. For this case, stress values
approach 50,000 psi.
As was stated in the introduction, studies have shown that tensile residual stresses of
30,000 to 35,000 psi could exist in the nose region of the projectile. However, it is also
indicated that these high residual stresses could exist only if proper stress relieving of the
projectile were not performed. Also, when these high residual stresses are present, the
material yield strength is 100,000 psi or greater. If the maximum principal stress obtained in
the impact scenarios (50,000 psi) is combined with a potential residual stress (35,000 psi),
the summation is still less than the material yield stress.
Drop testing of the M1 projectile has been performed. 6 Results obtained from an
accelerometer attached to the base of the M1 projectile were recorded for some impact
orientations and packaged configurations. For a bare projectile dropped flat onto its side, a
maximum acceleration of 2915 g was recorded from the test. For the bare projectile impact
simulation reported herein, a value of 7165 g was indicated. This difference could be
attributed to conservative assumptions in the model material data and also to the rigid,
unyielding surface assumed for the analysis. Another consideration is the fact that the test
accelerometer response time may underestimate sharp acceleration peaks that occur for the
bare projectile impact. For the case of a projectile contained in a fiber tube, test
accelerations for a flat side impact were measured to be 1744 g, while the analysis indicated
a value of 1000 g. Finally, for the wooden shipping crate configuration, test accelerations
were 719 g, while analysis results were 770 g. A much better correlation between test
accelerations and atmlysi_ accelerations is obtained for the shipping crate configuration. This

6
supports the idea that hardness of both file impacting item and the impacted surface
influence accelerations obtained in the dynamic simulation analysis.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Results from the dynamic impact analysis indicate that maximum principal tensile
stresses of-50,000 psi occur in the nose of a bare projectile impacting an unyielding surface
at a 45 angle of incidence. If preexisting residual stresses were present, the impact-induced
stress would combine to raise the stress levels to ~85,000 psi. Considering that yield strength
for the projectile material is greater than 100,000 psi, it is believed that the combined
residual stress and dynamic impact-induced stress would not be of sufficient magnitude to
cause cracking of the projectile in the nose region.
It is felt that reasonably goc_l comparisons were obtained between limited test data and
the analysis, considering the assumptions made in the analysis. Therefore, it is concluded
that dynamic impacl analyses can be a valuable and cost-effective alternative to physical
testing of ammunition and shipping packages.

REFERENCES
1.

K.F. Lukens, Malfunction Investigation of an lh-Bore Explosion of an Ml, 105MM

Projectile -MIF A-2-91, Report No. MMB-02-92 (Drain), ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal,
N.J., Feb. 7, 1992.

2.

John O. Hallquist and Douglas W. Stillman, VEC/DYNA3D User's Manual (Nonlinear

Dynamic Analysis of Structures in Three Dimensions), LSTC Report 1018, June 1990.

3.

John O. Hallquist and Douglas W. Stillman, INGRID: A Three-Dimensional Mesh

Generator for Modeling Nonlinear Systems, UCID- 10506, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory,. July 1985.

4.

John O. Hallquist and B. E. Brown, TAURUS: An Interactive Post-Process for the

Analysis Codes NIKE3D, DYNA3D, TACO3D, and GEMINL UCID-19392, Rev. 1,
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, May 1984.

5.

Personai communication with J. C. Walls, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., and
Tony D'Angelo, Picatinny Packaging Division.

6.

Personal communication, J. C. Walls, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., and Gene
Farrell, Picatinny Arsenal, Aug. 10, 1992.

Im_ummmmm,....

II

(a)

Section

thru Typical

Projectile
Zone of High
Tensile Residual
Stresses

L_._-"
L-._.[ __

',

ii
(b)

Finite

Fig. 2. Projectile section

residual tensile stresses.

Element

Model

and finite element

of

Projectile

model showing

general

location

of high

I0

]!

Projectile

_...,_
End Cap

Fig. 4. Model components for the fiber ammunition tube drop cases.

12

M1 105MM Projectile
Complete Model
Shipping Crate
Top
._...._:: :...,_
1

"

_"

'

Cartridge Cases

_l'

,.,
_, _-

_ty. t .

......

.;"-."
......
- " "
'
.._". ' - ....

"

.._::'-'--::....
...... " :"
. .

....

"-

"

....

_j_;
'""" '-' _
_H-_.,'_'-"_:;
LL _:,:-'=." r
.__..,,,.,.._..,
;._..,._'-"
.,'.,,
..,._,

Fiber Ammunition
f'-- Tubes
,'I"I

End Caps

_,,-<.,.,.:
,.-_........
,.
,.
.,._._;..,.,
Protector Cones ,,_+,-_.d_L-_[:.r_
::"".. S":.':'"_
#_,_:Z:J'I_4-L;_
r
- .. :, ...._..,
.,_'_ -..
_.-,--.,1--'
_.,_' --I,.
....
" "
.7.]._"
.......
'

' ";" :

"
,..-'

";"

".'

".

_,

777J-,r-#.D-lt-_J'l_
t

Washers

'"-

Projectiles and

_;T'
_L''

_'<_:.':"=..w..-,,-.,--.-

....

fT'?!,',

:_ .,.

/_',' .' ,'It) t-Ptll

/.,_,__[,_'
_,'., .' "-I,_ ,_#-t""i_

, i .,ll

,;7_17;'
!,,_,_
lip

. --..... i._1_..._4
, ' _' "__-_7
"
';t--I.Li_"t'

......
. _41.,!.
-_._,-t.-,.iTu:"._=,c_'.
7,_

.... .:.,-.<:_.=r,..-:-.."'T..l.,.ii_:

.....

,':_7'd

Wooden Shipping
Crate
Fig. 5. Model components

for the fiber ammunition

tube drop cases.

13

14
e"

-LI.

> __,, ,_=

o_

,o_

<

II

__X'u. _._= =
<:z

<iT.

.........
_-.--'--l'--_:

"J
I

"F........
-T

T_--

,'

"_

,_
0-309

"

.o

-.

;-C_-2E'Z

(_I

I,,,

..
'-.

- ....

30-n]_ 6
m

".

I_l

-_

_.._

..

_-_

' ._

_,_

__

__
,m

+-'
"4-

":

E' --

_.,_
_-,
L"-

"
"
'

t_

"
"

"-'

!i

-,
".

._0-]_-Dr ,_
_-J
+
";_''_
""TIC:
B' S Ld
SL"_-3E'D'
-Fc_

I"
.-+
LL
CC

__,-_
,-F,
.
=_._--ll,:'Ll._ ,._

'-

SO-3E'E_"" "

,',
I.LI

Ct3

...........
I

.L

.,{

'

_- L-"
_

-_,:,!
_._=_[-,:,:,Gz k'F:'c"::
F:'_
E,_.(

-'

_C
I_

15

0
,,I=,1
iiiil=l

!,,I,.
GI,

,,!
tl

-=
'Z3
>mZ

_'>i=

r_

@
LIT ........q...... T........._-----t ........ r ...... 1................ _..........r....... t

......l ...... r....... 1........ T.........T ....... F .......!.....

' .....

L
-,

'- .,

t;E,-,ILlr- _

""

'i

@
}
.

._.:
.c--:.1o
B_
,llil

'2,C:-- .']._i3"

'

_L,
._,,
'Ii

,.i,2--:]1313"
.:J

..+__

I.,'1

i,iiii1

.-2.-.

--

[-

'.,,

;e-3oD'gr'-

:--:_-

,"
i_i

t:L

:_._ ,'-, ,'_', ;_

...,

":-' "--:' ':..,

"'

'

,_

:_

_.

T_

_'
_

, ,,

rl

.,..t
.-

':.' '_

r_,

r,]

"

-,.

I:.0

,i, ,

,r:i
_--

'.

+-, !

!t

"+

,.

' ,

.....

16

17

18

19

20
Bare

Projecti
_'. 88E_-84

]__ Or-, Hose

.........
_

7 ..........

F......

74:t

;........ -] ........... l ........... T....................

0 _lOE4-O-q

i!l

t 4or.;._o
4

"'_

t _JOE+O-_

t 89E_-04

--

l'

00E_-04

:i

,=
_

I
I

ii
11',

G 80E*0_

,r.,

_-

!I

s aoE+,,_.!,,
0 aOC_08

l, _!i
, _ _ _:,, m_i ,! , li
_;_.L ..... ;_.._......-.:_ ..........:.'_ .....t___........ _'_......;;___i_.'_-__L_i_._'' .___r-_:

_I,

t'L

I
i_

LA

mir, imum

ma_

irr, urr.

I
__

-0,

i
b.l

t
_,i

L_3.--;gE+OF

0.2050E+_5

I
_,I

i._

I
_J

I
I_I

eierr_ents

I
l.i

,
I
W

I'q=

.
I
nl

474

IJ

B=

{. ime

Fi_. 13. Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 473 and 474.

473

J_

I
I,,.1

I
1,1

21

22

Bare

Pro

jec t i ] e

On

Ba_-e

5_+"t

E' -lr,
-1

Fig. 15.

Element

numbers

in nose region

of model.

:'._j

24

Bare

Project

i ]e

3.00E.04

I-

2.60E+G4

l-

z. 40E404

___

2.20E404

!_

7@'t,

F ....... -r

1
!I

1
I
,-

Or-, Base

--

i,

i
i

--

f2._ L. 4rgE+04
,_ L.eeE*e4

I
_..
I
L

"_
L

_I

._

1""_8E40"4

_- t .00E_04

8.00E-.03

6. OEJE_3

,
L
'
i

11

i
I

_
I
l_

II

"

Iii

'

'

_
I
I_I

_'

"

'

'
iI i

_r
I_

!I
,,

!i

ii

!i
I

',

I_

I
,
'

, i
i '

_r
I
_

minin-,u_,
= -_3.457TE+03
n',a_ln',un_ = 0._,_47E+05

_
I
_;)

:
i

"

m
I
_

m
i
_J

i
,

m
Ill
"4"

m
I
tD

m
_

_
|I

I
t

i
1

ra
I
_

el_mer,ts R=

_!

'
_
I

* '
1, J
I I

m
I
IXI

490

_
i
_

_
I
_

B=

"1:irne

Fig. 17. Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 489 and 490.

489

_m
I
r_

m
I
I_

iillili,

25
Bar-e

Pi-oject

i ]e

. lalEtE+84

..
......

On

I....

Base

I.....

,--'ft

1-

2. _qI_tE@C.,
4

__

2,60E+04

[_.

2.

i
48E+_14

ii

_.

I
,_._21_iE-t'1714

i
II

2. ]8E+04

]....

!
rJj
-

[. _ EIE.I.34

I!

(,,.r!
--

__
i

I. 6lZlE_Q4

t-

rO

t.

'

Q_ .40E+CJ4
n
-,-,
,j

ii

:
,

!t

c
"[

-_

i
t. 2171ESEI4

e--

t.,q.,
-I
t.
E

EII2IE_rl_l4

er-t

>:
,li 8. _JSE+03

i
{

,ii
e. eemseo

rr/1j

+_
I_1

'

IJ

rain Jn-lurn =
ma._ lDun_ =

'

',,!

Ld

-_3, 'gI60E+02_
O._:LIBE+05

l,i

6.1

bJ

kJ I __

?
I,i

--l,-,
t

9
I.,J

9
I,i
elements

?
w

fR=

458

u__P ',,,_4

Ld

B=

IJ

477

t irne

Fig. 18. Time history of maximum principal stress in elements 457 and 458.

bi

26

27
Bare

2'.

Project[

le

40E"t'_.l_

i-

Hose

e_c 45

2.20E40_t

On

; _i

2. aeE4ea
L. 8OE+Sa

t
J

,,.

L. 60E-_0-3

"_

t. 40E+03

t .20E+e9

t '

"..

i_

ILl

'\

I_'

LU t.

00E40.q

%;
'_

'.

mr"_

ILl

'7

8.HOE:4192

". .,..

I_

" .

,..4

fJ

I
6. _0E+82

. ..,
_---,.-- - _----"-

"

',,

!
4.

F113E-'rO

7-. L30E-_@2

'7..

.......
-..

. .-'"
..
o...

_.

.... I

,.,

,.,

minirnLirr, =

0,I

m_x iIT,
urn =

0. 252:tE+04

,.,

,,.,

,.,

,.,

.,..__.

...--

........
L ..-_--7-i

,.,

JC_ n-le

Fig. 20. Kinetic energy vs time for bare projectile impacting at 45 .

,.,

I ,

,.,

29
Be.re

Project

i le
[

4.25E+0_

4. _]t3E+L_4

On

l"tose
1

at
.r

45
T

3O
Bare

Prajecti
.........

On

Mose
[

at
1

45
1

1.........

-I .........

I-- ..........

I.....
._

4.Sr.lE+04

_.58E+84

_.

9.88E_0_

]e

31

Bare

Project

4.TSE+04

i le

............

On

l"lose at. "45

4.50E+04

4.;JSE_04

4.00E+04

_._5E_-84

E. .75E.04
4-'

i
il

"2.5 L]E+ .84

_',

U
C.
i.

2.0_]E+_34

c,
E

t.TgE*O-1

"'-_

' i
li

I
' 'I

I
'

I'I
xE

q!

ill! II'T
J
!

L._OE.Oq
t._E+04

_I
_{lll
' C
_

............

..........I ' i
i _

......

........

........

--._

'ii I

r.seE.a_

:i

Z. 50E-I-03

L_I _,,

_. BOE+_I_

__,

,!
!

_:"'.'_;_

rr_inirnum =
ma:;:i.munn=

....

"I-

................
......................
:,'/',,:

-_-_[

E}.BBSBE+80
0. 4940E+05

1____].

ld

lM

I.,.I

t,.I

,1

I_

element.;!

,:

'-_ ..........................
_

Ld

A=

669

B=

t i rr,e

Fig. 24. Time history of maximum principal stress for elements 667-669.

G68

iI -

i_

1....

I_

C=

667

32

--

..

,'

"-

_ F.'- _.J ':,"

:_

'.
.-._
',
eml

...........

.'-_2-_ara
' rm.

.,, _-"

"_
_u

..- "

_'t_-JU_

!-

..

_. F'-.]O

:_

L'

--

C,
,ml

,:b i

....

,_: -<-

4-'

_
Iii
"'--'

,- .,1")
._0
_'r. _'0

t'I_'

'
i

....

_-_13

'-

,u

!
......

Ill

_;':"

,,Jll

,:'-. _
.-_-- ----

-"

'

-"
,..

.:
I,

'_@-3_" ;, _

I_

i L.

u_
0

'-_:' " :i-'- -.a - _-, _ ':-_' F,t:'':"::

F' Et:.:,_ __ -

.t

Et_'l']Q

0 ' 3

:_

,.

,T.
.--

,-';
I

33

34

35

36

_,, L,J,.

,_E.,=o
_.1,:

?'_

Cn

_i
<i:.

-"=
=
lP

:-_--e_._

o.

ii

"cp
-

-:
_7--Ot,'_

_-'3--C_
"_

,,_

..::

.4iP

--"

L.

. ._,

,,Iii

...... "

_.

l,)

.__: ...........

l,)

.....

._3-- ":_0" ; _,7

@:,,

__-_--__-__>

- ._-,__,
.:,

,ii

___--L
--

l,)
mill

LI

4-.
-

7'5
_
:j_

.-_-200

' "_

."_--_0'

!
-

P ,_
+
L._
"_--"Z-'B ' i" ,_

C'

4-'
III

i_. :

-O--'C)O
'1 '

.r

L,-

,-__.
.4_
_"

t'O ,7-

!!_ i......
__,
......
!......
__L ...............
! .......
,7

'__-"1'
_;

_S

"

"
'
..........

I--

.r

,-d, T

5 32._-':S0
'0 _"
r.

'P

_"],

",
.... '

,._,"J ]'

r-] LJ"

_]

"I"

,7

,',:, rf"

7'

:-

("'41
,,it_

3?

38

Q.O

_-=

_)
U ,...

= r-. i'-'.,0,.. _
,..

,,..,
ll

........ T-...... -T........... ;..... .. -":':

'-'r-'--_

I............ r.......

[..........................T ...... -T

F............T.............r .......

t4_._- "_

'

g"

_ia

--J

"'J

EO-3eo_

_PJO

'".:,
-.

_ll
*ml
lm
"-_-

-.
EI_-3_B

". r,j

-.:.
...

!"

_1_

:...

--_

_0-.-3_29': m

F':L?-3L_

...._.--__
___
-_-

............

"

E0-3E'Z' _

-_.

.---._

"'_

EO-'_E,
E,' "

_L

LT_

__-_0 'e

t-O--3_O _0'_ .,.L

_. r
,_ Lh:
h'3 L
_0-3E'0' _".r0
tj"
OJ (,.

HJ

-.

_ _.-:_0

OO+-3CO'
.

_.,
,-'

_
_

_.,_' '_
_
._._
,J

--

..,

,-.]

111

'-

&_

g.t

'I

'_
,_

:_I

,._o" ,._'
_
_
_2)

_r_

,..;

,_

,-,_

......

- ':'_ :4-:-:'-_ [ -=-':'_

__
,._
,.I.'

_
_
_

_
_
' 'I

P_:,c:Cl _: r

_
_
_J

._.

--

_,_
_,_

.3.
_

.
_
lJ

._.
_

_.
,_

,_

:,]

,_

r'j

_,_;

13

_;J

e,,,)
""_
I{_

.i"

i'--

.,-,

_1

"

+-

--__

I:Q

_I

._

._

_. __

ll_
oml

39

4O

_a

.Ii

!
i

._

_ _n-3,_E _
.....
_'_

_,_
a..
LO

E_-3_'_ _

-S"
i"

"......

u
-

"='----'_

_ O-3-",E "-'E{:_-3D-=. - --

.'-

": iU

--.--__:.:..

-...----

...

'--.'----

..el

_1_

'_

4-'

==-

:-...

---__"_=_---:=-

r......

_O-2._E " I

....

_ 'Z,-":1,_-',
="1

L]_I

I_

L_.

EO-3._nP' 1

.iii

o,.._

,.

_a

I_
r;

!-

_e-'_O

1 ,f., P.,'I

_'
'-

iI

_0 38E'OW
I_I
,.'r, ,_j

bn- "_aO"3-

" "

F--

_I{

'

'

.L

1....

I _

:
_O,::]aO'__,-

,_"_
L_l

_,

'--' _
c,

....

,_

....

I:,_,1

iM

':i

[_

"4,.1

I_;

I',i

_,"

,5

_-

:,:,

c':

_r

r" i'

[7,

,_;

Iii

i')

"_

,
-"

:3
_
o.

,o

_1

_a

!
'=

41

ORNL/ENG/TM-40

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

1-3.

R.M.

Davis

14.

ORNL Patent Office

4-6.
7.
8.
9-12.
13.

J.H.
K.D.
T.L.
J.C.
D.S.

Hannah
Handy
Ryan
Walls
Webb

15.
16.
17.
18.

Central Research Library

Document Reference Section
Laboratory Records Department
Laboratory Records (RC)

EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25-26.

Assistant Manager, Energy Research and Development, U.S. Department of Energy,

Oak Ridge Operations, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
A. D'Angelo, Packaging Division, SMCAR-AEP, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
N.F. Gravenstede, PM-AMMOLOG, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
W. Healy, Packaging Division, SMCAR-AEP, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
G.L. Kent, PM-AMMOLOG, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
Robert J. Kuper, Chief, Packaging Division, SMCAR-AEP, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
07806-5000
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O.
Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831

43

III'