International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 16541660

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Hypervelocity impact penetration mechanics

C. McFarland a, *, P. Papados b, M. Giltrud c
a

SAIC Inc., 4875 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304, USA

Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACEGSL 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315, USA
c
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060, USA
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 13 August 2008

Inert dense metal penetrators having a mass and geometry capable of missile delivery offer signicant
potential for countering underground facilities at depths of tens of meters in hard rock. The proliferation of such facilities among countries whose support for terrorism and potential possession of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes threats to world peace and U.S. Security. The Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy National Laboratories and private sector R&D rms have pursued an aggressive
research effort to explore the attributes of high velocity impact penetrators for countering such
facilities. The penetration of crustal rocks with metal rods (such as tungsten or steel alloys) at high
velocities involves complex wave propagation phenomena within the rod and inelastic response of
both the penetrator and target material. In this paper we examine the sensitivity of penetration depth
(for a xed tungsten alloy mass impacting a limestone target) to impactor velocity, strength and
geometry. Analyses are based upon a matrix of rst principle nite difference calculations using the
Sandia CTH (release 7.1) Shock Physics Code. Results indicate that impact velocity, penetrator yield
strength and target yield strength strongly inuence the penetration depth. Maximum penetration
depth is achieved by a delicate trade off between penetrator kinetic energy and penetrator inelastic
deformation (erosion). Numerical analyses for the parameter variations exercised in this study (impact
velocities 13.5 km/s and penetrator yield strengths of 14 GPa) produced penetration depths of
a tungsten alloy rod (length 200 cm, diameter 20 cm) which varied from 5.1 m to 28 m in a homogeneous limestone target.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Penetration
Tungsten
Strength
Erosion
Limestone

1. Introduction
The initial impact of the penetrator upon the target material
produces a nearly instantaneous rise of stress in both materials,
a reduction of the penetrator material velocity and a jump of
material velocity of the target material. The resulting interface
stress and particle velocity will be the same in both materials
and the change in energy in the target material will be equally
divided between internal and kinetic energies [1]. As time
progresses, inelastic waves propagate into both materials, the
penetrator shock wave encounters free surfaces producing relief
waves and altering the initial one-dimensional ow (and state
of uniaxial strain which exists at the shock front). We will rst
demonstrate that CTH correctly calculates initial impact conditions, i.e. impact stress and particle velocity and equally

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: clifton.b.mcfarland@saic.com (C. McFarland).
0734-743X/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.07.080

partitions energy in the target material during the period of

one-dimensional ow as required by the Hugoniot equations.
Next we will examine the complex ow conditions that occur at
late times during the penetration phase made possible through
the sophisticated CTH post-processor editing options. Finally we
will present a summary of parametric analyses in which
a 1100 kg tungsten alloy penetrator (density 17.2 g/cm3) impacts
a homogeneous limestone target (density 2.7 g/cm3) with
penetration depths that vary from 5.1 m to 28 m depending
upon penetrator geometry, yield stress, velocity and limestone
target strength.
2. Impact
Fig. 1 illustrates the empirically observed [2] shock condition
arising from a tungsten yer plate at 1.99 km/s impacting a limestone target. The tungsten is shocked to a point on its (reected)
Hugoniot from a condition which was initially stress free and at
a velocity of 1.99 km/s to a normal stress of 28 GPa (280 kbars) and

C. McFarland et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 16541660

Fig. 1. Initial impact conditions.

Fig. 2. Shock propagation at 11 ms and 41 ms.

Fig. 3. Interface particle velocity and stress.

1655

1656

C. McFarland et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 16541660

Fig. 6. Zoning (scaled calculations).

Fig. 4. Target energy partitioning.

a particle velocity of 1.65 km/s. The Limestone is shocked from

a stress free state to identical stress and velocity conditions.
CTH computational results for the experiment above are presented in Figs. 2 and 3. Time sequenced plots show the tungsten
projectile moving from the top at 1.99 km/s, the tungsten yer plate
(colored gray) is encased in a tungsten sabot, similarly the limestone target (light brown) is encased in a limestone sabot (the use
of the sabot allows independent energy edits of the sabot and yer
plate/target materials so that energy edits within the yer plate/
target can be made prior to the arrival of free surface effects). Isostress contours are superimposed upon the materials: red contours
represent 100 kbars, yellow contours represent 10 kbars and blue
contours represent 1 kbar. The red dots on the left hand side of the
plots represent particle velocity. Dot density varies linearly around
a mean value of 2 km/s.

Fig. 5. Rarefaction arrival.

Table 1
CTH computational matrix
Velocity
(km/s)

L/D

Rod
segments

Penetrator
yield
strength, GPA
(psi)

Target yield
strength, GPA
(psi)

Full scale depth

of penetration
(m)

3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
1
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
10
10
10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1

4
3
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
4
3
2
1
3
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
3
1
2

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.06
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.24
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.1

12.0
11.0
9.0
8.5
6.8
6.8
6.0
17.0
11.0
9.3
7.0
7.8
9.1
12.2
23.0
12.5
11.0
7.8
15.0
28.0
19.5
11.5
8.7
27.0
21.0
19.0
26.5
19.0
12.0
9.1
20.0
22.0
11.0
15.0
11.5
10.5

(600,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(150,000)
(150,000)
(150,000)
(600,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(150,000)
(450,000)
(450,000)
(450,000)
(600,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(150,000)
(450,000)
(600,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(150,000)
(600,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(600,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(150,000)
(600,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(450,000)
(150,000)
(300,000)

(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(30,000)
(15,000)
(9000)
(60,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(9000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(9000)
(9000)
(9000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(36,000)
(9000)
(9000)
(30,000)
(9000)
(15,000)

C. McFarland et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 16541660

Table 1 (continued )
Velocity
(km/s)

L/D

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10

Rod
segments

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Penetrator
yield
strength, GPA
(psi)

Target yield
strength, GPA
(psi)

Full scale depth

of penetration
(m)

1
4
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
1

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.06
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.06
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1

9.2
23.0
7.5
21.0
20.0
12.5
8.2
9.0
15.0
21.0
18.5
25.0
16.0
19.0
9.0
10.1
5.1

(150,000)
(600,000)
(300,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(450,000)
(150,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(600,000)
(600,000)
(600,000)
(450,000)
(450,000)
(300,000)
(450,000)
(150,000)

(15,000)
(15,000)
(30,000)
(15,000)
(9000)
(60,000)
(30,000)
(30,000)
(9000)
(30,000)
(30,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(15,000)
(30,000)
(15,000)

sphere of same mass as cylinder with L/D 1.

The time history plots immediately above are for Lagrangian

edit points at the leading edge of the impactor and the top center
of the limestone. At time zero the tungsten yer plate is separated from the limestone target by 2 cm and since the yer plate
velocity is 1.99 km/s impact is expected at approximately 10 ms.
The 0.4 cm zone size accounts for the computational noise
preceding impact. The stresses and particle velocities rapidly
equilibrate to 280 kbars and 1.65 km/s, respectively, in near

1657

perfect agreement with the published results from Ahrens

et al. [2].
As expected from the Hugoniot equations, Fig. 4 illustrates the
equal partitioning of internal and kinetic energ in the limestone
target as it is swept by the shock wave. As side rarefactions appear
(approximately at 33 ms; see Fig. 5), the one-dimensional steady
conditions no longer exist and equal partitioning is no longer
expected (note that the targets total energy at time zero reects
the random vibrational (i.e. internal) energy of the target which is
approximately 5e12 ergs).

3. Penetration phase
As will be demonstrated in results presented subsequently, the
nal calculated penetration depth is very sensitive to the initial
impact conditions, (especially impact velocities which generate
stresses which signicantly exceed the penetrator yield strength)
and the material properties of both the penetrator and geological
target materials. The penetration phase poses more difcult
computational challenges than those associated with initial impact,
especially those dealing with mixed material cells along the penetrator target material.
The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has conducted a signicant
amount of testing of rod penetrators into metal and ceramic targets
including tests used to evaluate CTH predictive capabilities. Ref. [3]
provides detailed discussion of the CTHs Boundary Layer Interface
(BLINT) Model utilized in the results presented within this paper.
The ARL calculated penetration depths and the transition velocity
for rigid body to eroding body penetration were within the
experimental data scatter.

Fig. 7. Axial, radial and yield stress, 300 ksi rod vs 600 ksi rod, 1.5 km/s.

1658

C. McFarland et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 16541660

Fig. 8. Penetrator yield stress snapshots, 300 ksi (left), 600 ksi (right).

Fig. 9. Maximum penetration depth (Velocity 0, d(Yposition)/dt 0).

C. McFarland et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 16541660

4. Computational program
Parametric variations of impact velocity, penetrator yield
strength (the material was assumed to be elastic-perfectly
plastic), limestone target strength (MohrCoulomb strength
model with Mises limit) and penetrator L/D were included. The
BLINT algorithm was used in all calculations with a friction
coefcient of 0.06. The matrix included both full scale impactors of 1100 kg and 1/10th scale (1.1 kg) variants. Comparisons
between the full scale and 1/10th scale calculations showed that
penetration depths and all edited parameters (e.g. ground
kinetic energy, stress time histories, etc.) were virtually identical.
The sole exception, as would be expected, was the material
temperature which was slightly different between the full scale
and 1/10th scale case. The motivation for varying target yield
strength was primarily related to consideration of cyclic loading
of the rock (either from a segmented rod single delivery or
multiple delivery of unitary rods). It is well known (see, e.g.
Ref. [47]) that cyclic loading of rocks generates micro fractures
along grain boundaries thus reducing both strength and
modulus.

1659

illustrates a subset for four values of rod strength (600 ksi, 450 ksi,
300 ksi, and 150 ksi) and a target (limestone) strength of 15 ksi.
Aside from impact velocity, penetrator yield strength emerges
as the calculation variable most strongly inuencing penetration
depth. Fig. 11 illustrates the dramatic difference in the penetration
process for two extreme values of tungsten yield strength, 150 ksi
vs 600 ksi. These calculations, with an impact velocity of 1 km/s are
identical except for the tungsten yield strength.
The 150 ksi rod (L/D 10) has completely eroded and dissipated
most of its kinetic energy at a depth (full scale) of approximately
4 m whereas the 600 ksi penetrator has experienced no erosion and
retains 50% of its initial kinetic energy at a depth of 4 m. The 600 ksi
penetrator ultimately comes to rest intact at a depth of 20 m. Notice
that the crater radius is more than twice as large for the 150 ksi
case as opposed to the 600 ksi case for these snapshots in time.
The maximum yield value used in the CTH analyses presented
here was 4 GPa (or approximately 600 ksi). It has been observed
[9,10] that tungsten materials exhibit substantial post-yield hardening characteristics with apparent yield strengths in excess of
3.4 GPa. It is recommended that additional research to be conducted to determine the appropriate values of strength for future
analyses.

4.1. Numerical results

6. Conclusions

5. Discussion
Table 1 shows a wide disparity in penetration depth (from 5.1 m
to 28 m for a tungsten mass of 1100 kg impacting Limestone).
Subsets of the results do, however, show very distinct trends. Fig. 10

First principle analyses using the Sandia National Laboratory

CTH Shock Physics code indicate that substantial variations in
penetration depth for high velocity/hypervelocity impact penetrators will result depending upon nominal variations in key
parameters. Full scale and 1/10th scale calculations were performed
for a range of impact velocities, geometric congurations and
penetrator/target material properties. Maximum penetration
occurs when the combination of impact velocity and material
properties prevents or minimizes penetrator erosion. For the
tungsten alloy penetrator (1100 kg full scale), penetration depths
varied from 5.1 m to 28 m in a homogeneous limestone target.
Aside from impact velocity, which was varied from 1 km/s to
3.5 km/s, the penetrator strength emerged as the dominant variable. Values of penetrator strength were parametrically varied from
150 ksi to 600 ksi, the 150 ksi penetrator experienced signicant
erosion at all velocities whereas the 600 ksi penetrator experienced
minimal erosion below impact velocities of 2 km/s. The maximum
penetration depth occurred between 1.5 km/s and 2 km/s impact
velocities for all parametric sets. The appropriate dynamic yield

PENETRATION DEPTH VS VELOCITY

VARIABLE ROD STRENGTH, LIMESTONE STRENGTH=15 KSI

PENETRATION DEPTH (M)

Fig. 6 illustrates zoning for the 1/10th scale calculations. The rod
dimensions are 2 cm diameter by 20 cm length with 40 cells across
the diameter and 200 cells along the rod length. The tungsten rod is
modeled as an elastic-perfectly plastic material with yield strength
varied parametrically from 150 ksi to 600 ksi. The limestone target
material (density 2.7 g/cm3) was modeled as a MohrCoulomb
material, the Mises limit was 15 ksi for most cases. Several excursions to both higher and lower Mises limits were also included. The
complete computational matrix (Table 1) includes variation of
velocity, tungsten alloy yield strength, limestone yield strength and
penetrator geometry.
Fig. 7 (impact velocity of 1.5 km/s) presents detailed output of
rod radial stress, axial stress and a standard CTH edit of a function of the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
(sqrt3j2p) commonly used as a failure or yield criteria (Ref. [8]),
in this case a maximum value of 300 ksi or 600 ksi. The actual
CTH yield values of 2 GPa (20e9 dynes/cm2) and 4 GPa
(40e9 dynes/cm2), have been rounded off to 300 ksi and 600 ksi
in the text inserts.
Both rods in this case experience some plastic ow (sqrt[3j2p]
has a limiting, i.e. yield, value of 20 kbars (w300 ksi) for the blue
curves and 40 kbars (w600 ksi) for the red curves). As indicated by
Fig. 7, however, the associated plastic strains for the 600 ksi
material are negligible. Spatially resolved values of the yield stress
at two identical points in time are shown in Fig. 8 below. The color
palettes of the yield stresses are adjusted so that red constitutes
yield in both cases (300 ksi rod on left, 600 ksi rod on right). The
evidence of plastic ow (erosion and mushroom tip) is readily
apparent for the 300 ksi rod.
A summary of case parameters and nal penetration depths has
been provided in Table 1. Penetration depths were determined from
post-processor editing of penetrator Lagrangian tracers. Fig. 9
illustrates the 1/10th scale edits for the case of 1.5 km/s, L/D 10,
Yield (penetrator) 450,000 psi and Yield (target) 60,000 psi
which indicate a (full scale) penetration depth of 12.5 m.

600 KSI

30

450 KSI

300 KSI

150 KS

25
20
15
10
5
0

1.5

2.5

IMPACT VELOCITY (KM/SEC)

Fig. 10. Penetration depth vs velocity.

3.5

1660

C. McFarland et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 16541660

Fig. 11. 150 ksi penetrator vs 600 ksi penetrator.

strength for applications such as these are currently subjective and

warrants additional investigation.
References
[1] Zeldovich YB, Raizer YP. Physics of shock waves and high-temperature
hydrodynamic phenomena. New York: Academic Press; 1967.
[2] Ahrens TJ, Anderson WW, Zhao Y. Shock propagation in crustal rocks: sandstone, limestone and shale. California Institute of Technology, CIT. Report No.
64649.
[3] Segletes SG. Analysis of the noneroding penetration of tungsten alloy long rods
into aluminum targets. Army Research Laboratory. Technical Report 3075;
September 2003.
[4] Haimson BC. Effect of cyclic loading on rock. ASTM STP 654. In: Dynamic geotechnical testing. American Society for Testing and Materials; 1978. p. 22845.

[5] Haimson BC. Mechanical behavior of rock under cyclic loading. In: Advances in
rock mechanics. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1974.
[6] Rajaram V. Mechanical behavior of Berea sandstone and Westerly granite
under cyclic compression, a thesis submitted in partial fulllment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of WisconsinMadison; 1978.
[7] Touloukian YS. Physical properties of rocks and minerals, McGraw-Hill/CINDAS
data series on material properties. vol. II-2; 1981.
[8] Malvern LE. Introduction to the mechanics of a continuous medium. New York:
Prentice-Hall; 1969.
[9] Schefer DR. Modeling the effect of penetration nose shape on threshold
velocity for thick aluminum targets. ARL-TR-1417. Maryland: Aberdeen Proving
Ground; July 1997.
[10] Dandekar D, Grady D. Shock equation of state and dynamic strength of
tungsten carbide. American Institute of Physics, Conference Proceedings
2002;620(1):7836.