Transition from Nondeformable Projectile Penetration to

Semihydrodynamic Penetration
X. W. Chen1 and Q. M. Li2

Abstract: With the increase of impact velocity, penetration mechanism may change at a transition point from nondeformable projectile
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bibliothek Der TU Muenchen on 08/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

penetration regime to semihydrodynamic penetration regime. Analysis is presented to predict this transition point. Good agreements
between analytical predictions and experimental results are obtained.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9399共2004兲130:1共123兲
CE Database subject headings: Penetration; Impact; Transition points; Hydrodynamics; Velocity.

Introduction
An interesting phenomenon was shown in several recent publica-
tions 共Piekutowski et al. 1999; Forrestal and Piekutowski 2000兲
that there exists a transition point of impact velocity, beyond
which the penetration depth reduces dramatically. This phenom-
enon is in contrast to most of other penetration experiments in
subordnance velocity range and long-rod projectile penetration
where the final penetration depth increases steadily with increas-
ing impact velocity. This transition phenomenon was also shown
in a study of behind armor effects of penetration by Hazell et al.
共1998兲.
Roughly, three regimes of penetration mechanics exist in a
broad range of impact velocities varying from subsonic velocity
on the order of 102 m/s to hypervelocities on the order of 103 m/s.
The first regime is the nondeformable projectile penetration,
which is valid in the subordnance velocity range 共less than
103 m/s) , in which projectile has negligible deformation and con-
ventional material strength parameters of target, such as strength,
stiffness, hardness, and toughness, to govern the extent of the
penetration. Recently, Chen and Li 共2002兲 and Li and Chen
共2003兲 suggested two dimensionless numbers, i.e., the impact
function I and the geometry function of projectile N, to formulate
the penetration depth, which shows excellent agreement with pen-
etration tests on metals, concrete, and soils in a broad range of
impact velocities and projectile geometry.
The second regime is defined by the valid application range of
the Alekseevskii–Tate model, proposed independently by Alek-
1
Institute of Structural Mechanics, China Academy of Engineering
Physics, P.O. Box 919-414, Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, 621900,
P.R. China; formerly Protective Technology Research Center, School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univ.,
Nanyang Ave., Singapore 639798.
2
Dept. of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Manufacturing Engineering,
UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: qingming.li@umist.ac.uk
Note. Associate Editor: Nicos Makris. Discussion open until June 1,
2004. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was
submitted for review and possible publication on January 7, 2002; ap-
proved on June 23, 2003. This technical note is part of the Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 130, No. 1, January 1, 2004. ©ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9399/2004/1-123–127/$18.00.
seevskii 共1966兲 and Tate 共1967兲, which has been widely accepted
for long-rod penetration into a thick target where the projectile
erodes as it penetrates the target 共e.g., Tate 1986; Cinamon et al.
1992兲. The impact velocity for the validity of the Alekseevskii–
Tate model ranges from 1.0 to 3.0 km/s depending on the target
and projectile material properties. To distinguish the application
range of the Alekseevskii–Tate model from the hydrodynamic
model, the second regime is referred to as the semihydrodynamic
regime in the present paper.
The third is the hydrodynamics regime of penetration. The
impact velocity is usually greater than 3.0 km/s, where the
strengths of projectile and target materials are negligible and the
impact can be characterized as a fluid–fluid interaction, governed
by the laws of steady-state fluid dynamics 共e.g., Birkhoff et al.
1948; Eichelberger 1956兲.
The penetration mechanism transition between first 共nonde-
formable projectile penetration兲 and second 共semihydrodynamic
penetration兲 is responsible for the dramatic drop of penetration
depth with increasing impact velocity, a phenomenon observed by
Hazell et al. 共1998兲; Piekutowski et al. 共1999兲; and Forrestal and
Piekutowski 共2000兲. It has great theoretical and practical signifi-
cance to understand the transition between these two regimes in
order to clarify the limitations of each penetration model. The
present paper establishes the transition point from nondeformable
projectile penetration to semihydrodynamic penetration.
Dimensionless Numbers
Based on dimensional analysis and experimental results, two di-
mensionless numbers, i.e., the impact function 共I兲 and the geom-
etry function of projectile 共N兲, have been identified by Chen and
Li 共2002兲 and Li and Chen 共2003兲 to determine the final dimen-
sionless penetration depth in the nondeformable projectile pen-
etration regime. As long as N is large enough, the impact function
共I兲 dominates the penetration and simple empirical formulas are
given to calculate the penetration depth, which shows excellent
agreement with penetrating tests on metal, concrete, and soil in a
broad range of impact velocities and projectile nose shapes.
I and N are defined by 共Chen and Li 2002兲
M V 20
I⫽ (1a)
AN 1 d 3 ␴ t

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY 2004 / 123

J. Eng. Mech. 2004.130:123-127.

 and

␭ M
N⫽ (1b)
BN 2 BN 2 ␳ t d 3

where A and B⫽dimensionless target material constants. M, d,

and V 0 ⫽mass, shank diameter, and impact velocity of projectile,
respectively, ␳ t and ␴ t ⫽density and static yield strength of target
material, and N 1 and N 2 are defined by nose shape function y
⫽y(x) for an arbitrary nose shape 共Chen and Li 2002兲

N 1 ⫽1⫹
8␮ m
d 2 冕 h

0
y dx (2a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bibliothek Der TU Muenchen on 08/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N 2 ⫽N * ⫹
8␮ m
d2
冕
0
h y y ⬘2
1⫹y ⬘ 2
dx (2b)
Fig. 1. Regroup of Forrestal and Piekutowski’s 共2000兲 penetration
tests and theoretical analysis
and

N *⫽ ⫺
8
d2
冕 h

0
y y ⬘3
1⫹y ⬘ 2
dx (2c)
All the test data of Forrestal and Piekutowski 共2000兲 and
Piekutowski et al. 共1999兲 are regrouped using two dimensionless
where ␮ m ⫽friction coefficient on the projectile–target interface.
numbers, I and N, defined by Eqs. 共1a兲 and 共1b兲. Both of them use
When the projectile is assumed as a nondeformable projectile,
6061-T6511Al as target material and the material parameters are
only its geometry and total mass are involved in determining
A⫽5.04, B⫽0.983, ␳ t ⫽2,710 kg/m3 , and ␴ t ⫽276 MPa.
penetration depth in addition to target parameters. However, as
Spherical-nosed projectiles made of VAR 4340 steel 共density ␳ p
long as the transition point is concerned, the projectile strength ␴ p
⫽7,830 kg/m3 ) were used in Forrestal and Piekutowski 共2000兲
and density ␳ p should be introduced, and therefore, the relative
with different projectile strengths, i.e., R c ⫽36.6, 39.5, and 46.2
strength and density between projectile and target should be in-
共or ␴ p ⫽1,166.1, 1,266.2, and 1,518 MPa兲, respectively. Simple
cluded in the relevant dimensionless group
calculations based on Eqs. 共1兲–共2兲 give ␭⫽23.4, N 1 ⫽1.16, N 2
␴p ⫽0.54, and N⫽44.2 for the spherical-nosed projectiles. Ogive-
␩ ␴⫽ (3a) nosed projectiles 共CRH⫽3兲 made of VAR 4340 steel (R c ⫽38 or
␴t
␴ p ⫽1,140 MPa) and AerMet steel (␳ p ⫽7,890 kg/m3 , R c ⫽53, or
and ␴ p ⫽1,720 MPa) were used in Piekutowski et al. 共1999兲. Corre-
␳p spondingly, ␭⬇21.0, N 1 ⫽1.09, N 2 ⫽0.11, and N⬇190.0 are ob-
␩ ␳⫽ (3b) tained according to Eqs. 共1兲–共2兲 for the ogive-nosed projectiles.
␳t
␮ m ⫽0.10 for spherical-nosed projectiles 共and sphere-ball as fol-
lowing兲 and ␮ m ⫽0.02 for ogive-nosed ones are used according to
Forrestal and Luk 共1992兲. The dimensionless penetration depth of
Redemonstration of Penetration Test Results Using
Forrestal and Piekutowski 共2000兲 and Piekutowski et al. 共1999兲
Dimensionless Numbers
are replotted against impact function I, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2,
respectively.
Recently, a series penetration experiment using steel projectiles
with ogive and hemispherical noses were conducted at the Uni-
versity of Dayton Research Institute. Aluminum targets with vari-
ous hardness were hit at striking velocities between 0.5 and 3.0
km/s. Three different penetrator responses were observed as the
striking velocity increases 共Piekutowski et al. 1999; Forrestal and
Piekutowski 2000兲, i.e., 共1兲 projectile remains rigid and visibly
undeformed; 共2兲 projectile deforms during penetration without
nose erosion, resulting in deviation from the original penetration
trajectory; and 共3兲 projectile nose erodes and loses mass during
penetration.
The first response corresponds to the first regime, i.e., nonde-
formable projectile penetration regime, within which penetration
depth increases with increasing striking velocity. The start of the
second response is associated with violating ‘‘nondeformable pro-
jectile’’ assumption. Thus, when the second response occurs, there
is a dramatic reduction in penetration depth in a narrow velocity
range. In the third response, penetration depth increases again
with increasing striking velocity, which, although not mentioned
by Forrestal and Piekutowski 共2000兲 and Piekutowski et al.
Fig. 2. Regroup of Piekutowski et al.’s 共1999兲 penetration tests and
共1999兲, is likely in the regime controlled by the Alekseevskii–
theoretical analysis
Tate model.

124 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY 2004

J. Eng. Mech. 2004.130:123-127.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bibliothek Der TU Muenchen on 08/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Regroup of Hazell et al.’s 共1998兲 penetration tests and
theoretical analysis
Hazell et al. 共1998兲 performed a set of penetration test into
6082-T6 aluminum target (A⫽4.407, B⫽1.133, ␳ t
⫽2,710 kg/m3 , ␴ t ⫽257 MPa) using SAE52100 steel spheres 共⌽
⫽6.35, ␳ p ⫽7,810 kg/m3 , ␴ p ⫽1,420 MPa) in the same velocity
range, which showed the transition between first and second pen-
etration regimes. ␭⫽1.51, N 1 ⫽1.16, N 2 ⫽0.54, and N⫽2.47 are
obtained according to Eqs. 共1兲–共2兲 for the steel sphere balls.
Similarly, the dimensionless penetration depth of Hazell et al.’s
共1998兲 tests are replotted against impact function I in Fig. 3.
The Rockwell-C hardness, R c , of projectile materials is trans-
formed into Brinell hardness 共BHN兲 and the corresponding qua-
sistatic yield strength of projectile material is given by 共Felbeck
and Atkins 1984兲
␴ p ⫽3.45 BHN 共MPa) (4)
For ogive-nose projectiles, the quasistatic yield strengths of pro-
jectile materials are given by Piekutowski et al. 共1999兲 and have
little discrepancy to Eq. 共4兲.
As shown in Figs. 1–3, the penetration depth in the nonde-
formable projectile penetration regime increases almost linearly
with impact function I, which has been predicted by empirical
formulas proposed by Chen and Li 共2002兲. In the semihydrody-
namic regime, all the test data convergence to hydrodynamic limit
X/d⫽L/d 冑␳ p /␳ t with increasing I. It is evident that the geom-
etry function N and the hardness 共i.e., the strength兲 of the projec-
tile strongly affect the transition point from nondeformable pro-
jectile penetration to semihydrodynamic penetration. Either the
larger the geometry function of a projectile 共i.e., the sharper the
projectile兲 or the harder the projectile, the higher the transition
point with respect to impact function I. This transition point will
be determined analytically by studying the upper limit of nonde-
formable projectile penetration and the lower limit of semihydro-
dynamic penetration in ‘‘Upper Limit of Nondeformable Projec-
tile Penetration’’ and ‘‘Lower Limit of Semihydrodynamic
Penetration.’’
Upper Limit of Nondeformable Projectile
Penetration
Based on the experimental observation, there is little erosion and
permanent deformation on the projectile nose within the regime
of nondeformable projectile penetration 共e.g., Piekutowski et al.
1999; Forrestal and Piekutowski 2000兲. Thus, the projectile is
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY 2004 / 125
J. Eng. Mech. 2004.130:123-127.
assumed to be nondeformable until the normal compressive
stress, ␴ n , on the projectile nose surface reaches the dynamic
strength limit, Y p . The total resistant force on the projectile nose
can be expressed by Chen and Li 共2002兲: F x ⫽␲d 2 /4(A␴ t N 1
⫹B␳ t V 20 N 2 ) and the maximum resistance of the projectile nose at
complete yielding is F maxR ⫽(␲d /4)Y p N 1 . Thus
2
␲d 2 ␲d 2
共 A␴ t N 1 ⫹B␳ t V 20 N 2 兲 ⫽ Y pN 1 (5)
4 4
defines the upper limit of the nondeformable projectile penetra-
tion.
A dynamic factor f is suggested here to relate dynamic strength
and the static strength of the projectile material, i.e.,
Y p ⫽ f •␴ p (6)
The upper limit 共or the transition point兲 of impact function of
nondeformable projectile in deep penetration can be formulated
as
I c1 ⫽N• 冉 f
•␩ ⫺1
A ␴ 冊 (7)
according to Eq. 共5兲 and definitions of I, N, and ␩ ␴ in Eqs. 共1a兲
and 共1b兲 and 共3a兲, respectively. Here, Y p ⬎A␴ t is required for
nondeformable projectile penetration.
Eq. 共7兲 shows that the upper limit of impact function of non-
deformable projectile penetration is proportional to the geometry
function, N, and depends on the relative projectile–target strength
␩ ␴ , the dynamic factor f of projectile nose material at the transi-
tion point, and the dimensionless parameter A of the target mate-
rial.
Both ␩ ␴ and A can be determined by quasistatic mechanical
properties of projectile and target materials. However, it is diffi-
cult, in practice, to determine the dynamic strength of the projec-
tile at the transition point, which depends on the interactions be-
tween the projectile nose and the target medium at the moment
when transition occurs. The influential factors include relative
velocity, friction, nose shape, relative strength, and the visco-
plastic material properties of the projectile where strain and strain
rate hardening and thermal softening might occur. Therefore, it is
unrealistic to obtain the dynamic factor, f, analytically. In order to
overcome the above-mentioned difficulties, it is simply assumed
that the dynamic factor at the transition point is a function of
impact function I, then, it is evaluated empirically according to
Eq. 共7兲.
The dynamic factor f in Eq. 共7兲 can be expressed by
f⫽
A
•
␩␴ N
I c1
冉⫹1 冊 (8)
For each group of tests using the same hardness projectile, the
transition point, I c1 , and all other terms on the right side of Eq.
共8兲 are known. Thus, f can be determined for each group of the
tests. An empirical relation between f and the impact function I c1
at a transition point can be obtained by curve fitting the test data
f ⫽6.1896I ⫺0.3094
c1 (9)
as shown in Fig. 4. Eq. 共9兲 and Fig. 4 show that the dynamic
factor f at the transition point decreases with increasing impact
function I at the transition point. This phenomenon is reasonable
because I c1 is determined by the initial condition of a penetration
event and f is the dynamic factor at the moment when the resistant
pressure exceeds the dynamic strength of the projectile nose. With
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bibliothek Der TU Muenchen on 08/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Schematic of penetration of blunt and flat nose projectiles

V c2 ⫽ 冑 2 共 R t ⫺Y p 兲
␳p
for Y p ⬍R t (13a)
Fig. 4. Empirical determination of dynamic yielding strength of
projectile material 共s.d.⫽0.978兲 and

the increase of impact function 共i.e., the increase of impact veloc-

V c2 ⫽ 冑 2 共 Y p ⫺R t 兲
␳t
for Y p ⬎R t (13b)

ity if other parameters are kept the same兲, local thermal softening In hydrodynamic approximation, friction is negligible and there-
will reduce the value of f. fore N 1 ⫽1. The lower limit of semihydrodynamic penetration
Eqs. 共7兲 and 共9兲 lead to the following nonlinear algebra equa- given by Eqs. 共13a兲 and 共13b兲 can be expressed by using dimen-
tion: sionless numbers

冉
I c1 ⫽N• 6.1896
␩ ␴ ⫺0.3094
•I
A c1
⫺1 冊 (10) I c2 ⫽
2␭
␩␳ 冉 f
• 1⫺ •␩ ␴
A 冊 for Y p ⬍R t (14a)

to determine the upper limit 共or transition point兲 of impact func- and

冉 冊
tion for nondeformable projectile penetration tests.
f
I c2 ⫽2␭ •␩ ⫺1 for Y p ⬎R t (14b)
A ␴
Lower Limit of Semihydrodynamic Penetration According to Eq. 共7兲, Y p ⬎R t is required for the existence of the
nondeformable penetration regime. If the lower limit of the semi-
The Alekseevskii–Tate model has been used widely for long-rod hydrodynamic penetration regime is not too far away from the
penetration of thick targets 共Tate 1986; Walker and Anderson upper limit of nondeformable projectile penetration, this condi-
1995兲. The Alekseevskii–Tate model assumes that the projectile tion remains valid. Therefore, Eqs. 共1b兲, 共7兲, and 共14b兲 give the
is rigid except within an infinitesimally thin region near the relationship between I c1 and I c2
projectile–target interface where erosion occurs. The material be-
havior in this region is controlled by a modified Bernoulli equa- I c2
tion I c1 ⫽ (15)
2BN 2
⌺⫽ 21 ␳ p 共 ␯⫺u 兲 2 ⫹Y p ⫽ 21 ␳ t u 2 ⫹R t (11) As we know, constant B is insensitive to target materials and
usually B⬇1 共Forrestal and Luk 1992; Chen and Li 2002兲. For
In this equation, ␯ is the velocity of the rigid projectile, and u is
hemispherical nose, N 2 ⫽ 21 if friction is ignored 共Chen and Li
the penetration velocity. ⌺ is the pressure along the centerline or
the longitudinal stress of the projectile nose, given by the sum of
hydrodynamic pressure and a pressure of the material strength.
Two expressions of ⌺ in Eq. 共11兲 are obtained from projectile
material and target material, respectively, where Y p and R t are
their respective material resistant pressures to plastic flow.
The resistant pressure of projectile is taken as the dynamic
strength Y p , as defined in the previous section. The resistant pres-
sure of target R t is the strength term of the target material, which
can be determined by the dynamic cavity expansion model 共e.g.,
Chen and Li 2002兲
R t ⫽A•␴ t (12)
The critical conditions for two possible cases, i.e., Y p ⬎R t and
Y p ⬍R t , when the postulated penetration model no longer is
valid, have been discussed by Walker and Anderson 共1995兲,
Fig. 6. Schematic of penetration of sharp nose projectiles
which lead to a lower limit of semihydrodynamic penetration

126 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY 2004

J. Eng. Mech. 2004.130:123-127.

 Table 1. Limit Values of Transition Points of Various Impact Tests
Data f test I c1 test f I c1 I c2 Ic ⌬ L/d 冑␳ p /␳ t
Ogive nose, R c ⫽53 1.33 126.71 1.36 133.42 29.38 133.42 0.00 17.0
Ogive nose, R c ⫽38 1.76 83.37 1.58 83.37 12.19 83.37 0.00 17.0
Spherical nose, R c ⫽46.2 1.88 46.50 1.88 46.70 49.55 49.55 2.85 17.0
Spherical nose, R c ⫽39.5 1.95 34.29 2.02 37.17 39.44 39.44 2.27 17.0
Spherical nose, R c ⫽36.6 2.04 31.40 2.09 33.33 35.36 35.36 2.04 17.0
Steel sphere 3.37 7.97 3.29 7.71 9.44 9.44 1.73 1.70

2002兲. Therefore, I c1 ⭐I c2 for a penetrator whose nose is blunter projectile penetration and the lower limit of the hydrodynamic
than the hemispherical nose, and I c1 ⬎I c2 for a penetrator whose
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bibliothek Der TU Muenchen on 08/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

penetration are given based on an analytical model and the em-

nose is sharper than the hemispherical nose. The difference be-
tween I c1 and I c2 increases with increasing sharpness of the pro-
jectile nose.
According to the above discussion, the regime with I⬍I c1
belongs to nondeformable projectile penetration. Thus, the lower
limit of the semihydrodynamic penetration regime should be
modified as
I c ⫽max共 I c1 ,I c2 兲
and the width of transition zone can be defined as
⌬⫽ 共 I c ⫺I c1 兲 ⭓0
When I c1 ⬍I c2 , ⌬⫽I c2 ⫺I c1 ⬎0. Otherwise, ⌬⫽0. Figures 5
and 6 illustrate these two possible transitions, i.e., a gradual tran-
sition and a sudden transition, qualitatively, where the gradual
transition is associated with blunt nose and the sudden transition
is feasible for the sharp nose. This conclusion is supported by
experimental results in Forrestal and Piekutowski 共2000兲; Pieku-
towski et al. 共1999兲; and Hazell et al. 共1998兲, as shown in Table 1
and Figs. 1–3, where spherical-nose and ogive-nose data were
compared.
Final Remarks
The upper limit of the nondeformable projectile penetration re-
gime is determined by the complete yielding of the integrated
nose surface, while the lower limit of the semihydrodynamic pen-
etration regime is based on the modified Bernoulli’s equation in
the Alekseevskii–Tate model. A comparison between theoretical
predictions and experimental results is shown in Figs. 1–3 for
published experimental data in Forrestal and Piekutowski 共2000兲;
Piekutowski et al. 共1999兲; and Hazell et al. 共1998兲. It would be
interesting if other independent experiments, which showed the
transition phenomenon, could be compared with current analyti-
cal predictions.
The present paper examines the validity of two dimensionless
numbers, i.e., impact function I and geometry function N of a
projectile, in determining the critical impact limit at the transition
from nondeformable projectile penetration regime to semihydro-
dynamic penetration regime. Both experimental investigation and
theoretical analysis demonstrate the importance of the geometry
function of a projectile and the relative strength between a pro-
jectile and a target to determine the transition point between these
two penetration regimes. The upper limit of the nondeformable
pirical determination of the dynamic yield strengths Y p for a pro-
jectile, which includes the effects of nose geometry, material
properties, as well as strain rate and temperature effects, implic-
itly. Good agreement is observed between experimental results
and theoretical predictions.
(16) References
Alekseevskii, V. P. 共1966兲. ‘‘Penetration of a rod into a target at high
(17) velocity.’’ Combustion, explosions and shock waves, Faraday Press,
New York, 63– 66 共translated from Russian兲.
Birkhoff, G., MacDougall, D. P., Pugh, E. M., and Taylor, G. 共1948兲.
‘‘Explosives with lined cavities.’’ J. Appl. Phys., 19, 563–582.
Chen, X. W., and Li, Q. M. 共2002兲. ‘‘Deep penetration of a nondeform-
able projectile with different geometrical characteristics.’’ Int. J. Im-
pact Eng., 27共6兲, 619– 637.
Cinamon, J. D., Jones, S. E., House, J. W., and Wilson, L. L. 共1992兲.
‘‘One-dimensional analysis of rod penetration.’’ Int. J. Impact Eng.,
12共2兲, 145–166.
Eichelberger, R. J. 共1956兲. ‘‘Experimental test of the theory of penetration
by metallic jets.’’ J. Appl. Phys., 27共1兲, 63– 68.
Felbeck, D. K., and Atkins, A. G. 共1984兲. ‘‘Strength and fracture of en-
gineering solids,’’ Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Forrestal, M. J., and Luk, V. K. 共1992兲. ‘‘Penetration of 7075-T651 alu-
minum targets with ogival-nose rods.’’ Int. J. Solids Struct., 29, 1729–
1736.
Forrestal, M. J., and Piekutowski, A. J. 共2000兲. ‘‘Penetration experiments
with 6061-T6511 aluminium targets and spherical-nose steel projec-
tiles at striking velocities between 0.5 and 3.0 km/s.’’ Int. J. Impact
Eng., 24, 57– 67.
Hazell, P. J., Fellows, N. A., and Hetherington, J. G. 共1998兲. ‘‘A note on
the behind armour effects from perforated alumina/aluminium tar-
gets.’’ Int. J. Impact Eng., 22, 589–595.
Li, Q. M., and Chen, X. W. 共2003兲. ‘‘Dimensionless formulae for pen-
etration depth of concrete target impacted by a nondeformable projec-
tile.’’ Int. J. Impact Eng., 28共1兲, 93–116.
Piekutowski, A. J., Forrestal, M. J., Poormon, K. L., and Warren, T. L.
共1999兲. ‘‘Penetration of 6061-T6511 aluminium targets by ogive-nose
steel projectiles with striking velocities between 0.5 and 3.0 km/s.’’
Int. J. Impact Eng., 23, 723–734.
Tate, A. 共1967兲. ‘‘A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact.’’
J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 15, 387–399.
Tate, A. 共1986兲. ‘‘Long rod penetration models—Part II. Extensions to
hydrodynamic theory of penetration.’’ Int. J. Mech. Sci., 28共9兲, 599–
612.
Walker, J. D., and Anderson, C. E., Jr. 共1995兲. ‘‘A time-dependent model
for long-rod penetration.’’ Int. J. Impact Eng., 16共1兲, 19– 48.

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY 2004 / 127

J. Eng. Mech. 2004.130:123-127.