Fragmentation

Alexander L. Yarin; Ilia V. Roisman; Cameron Tropea

doi:10.1017/9781316556580.015

14 - Fragmentation

from Part V - Solid–Solid Collisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017

Alexander L. Yarin ,

Ilia V. Roisman and

Cameron Tropea

Show author details

Alexander L. Yarin: Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Ilia V. Roisman: Affiliation:
Technische Universität, Darmstadt, Germany
Cameron Tropea: Affiliation:
Technische Universität, Darmstadt, Germany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The present chapter begins with the study of ice particle collision with a solid wall (Section 14.1) and the consequences of such a collision, e.g. particle attrition and splitting (Section 14.2). The fracture of the target and projectile during normal penetration is described in Sections 14.3 to 14.5 using a model of chaotic disintegration modifying the theory of chaotic disintegration of liquids. The radius of the locally smallest fragment is calculated equating its kinetic energy of deformation with its surface energy of fracture. The probability of lacunae opening in the target and projectile materials increases near the target/projectile interface. The percolation threshold for this probability determines the boundary of the fractured zone. When this fractured zone reaches the rear surface of the target, the fragments can leave it. Mass distribution of the fragments was calculated with the help of percolation theory. Then, the shape of the debris cloud and the direction, velocity and range of its propagation are calculated to estimate vulnerability behind the perforated target (Section 14.6). The effect of plastic dissipation on debris sizes is estimated in Section 14.7.

Ice Particle Collision with a Dry Solid Wall

The reason for interest to better understand ice particle impact is mainly in the attempt to model and predict potential damage which such impact can cause on solid structures. It is important for ship building and the design of aircraft, arctic and space research. Moreover, ice crystal impact in hot environments, e.g. in aircraft engines or on heated measurement instruments can lead to ice accretion. Melting and subsequent shedding of the accumulated ice layer can result in even greater damage, e.g. impact onto aircraft compressor stages.

Experimental investigation of impact in laboratories using artificial, simulated ice particles is the main source of the knowledge about mechanisms of particle deformation and breakup (Hauk et al. 2015). The impact is observed using high-speed video systems. Many studies are focused on characterization of the kinematics of the post-impact fragments (Vargas et al. 2014, Emery et al. 2004, Vidaurre and Hallett 2009, Guégan et al. 2011). In particular, the restitution coefficient of the ice particles is measured (Hatzes et al. 1988, Higa et al. 1998). Images of a high-speed hail ice impact showing details of its deformation and fragmentation, captured using a high-speed video system, can be found in Tippmann et al. (2013).

Type: Chapter
Information: Collision Phenomena in Liquids and Solids , pp. 566 - 603

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316556580.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C. E., Trucano, T. G. and Mullin, S. A. (1990). Debris cloud dynamics, Int. J. Impact Eng. 9: 89–113.Google Scholar

Anderson Jr., C. E., Bless, S. J., Sharron, T. R. and Subramanian, R. (1995). Analysis of behind armor debris at two impact velocities, Proc. 15th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 2, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 463–470.Google Scholar

Andrews, J. P. (1930). LVI. Theory of collision of spheres of soft metals, Philos. Mag. 9: 593–610.Google Scholar

Anghileri, M., Castelletti, L. M. L., Milanese, A. and Semboloni, A. (2007). Modeling hailstone impact onto composite material panel under a multi-axial state of stress, 6th European LSDYNA Users' Conference, Vol. 4, p. 101.Google Scholar

Backman, M. E. and Goldsmith, W. (1978). The mechanics of penetration of projectiles into targets, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 16: 1–99.Google Scholar

Birkhoff, G., MacDougall, D. P., Pugh, E. M. and Taylor, G. I. (1948). Explosives with lined cavities, J. Appl. Phys. 19: 563–582.Google Scholar

Carmona, H. A., Wittel, F. K., Kun, F. and Herrmann, H. J. (2008). Fragmentation processes in impact of spheres, Phys. Rev. E 77: 051302.Google Scholar

Cohen, L. J. (1995). A debris cloud cratering model, Int. J. Impact Eng. 17: 229–240.Google Scholar

Combescure, A., Chuzel-Marmot, Y. and Fabis, J. (2011). Experimental study of high-velocity impact and fracture of ice, Int. J. Solids Struct. 48: 2779–2790.Google Scholar

Courant, R. and Friedrichs, K. O. (1976). Supersonic Flow and Shock Waves, Springer, Berlin.

Currie, T. C., Fuleki, D., Knezevici, D. C. and MacLeod, J. D. (2013). Altitude scaling of ice crystal accretion, 5th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environment Conference.

Currie, T. C., Struk, P. M., Tsao, J. C., Fuleki, D. and Knezevici, D. C. (2012). Fundamental study of mixed-phase icing with application to ice crystal accretion in aircraft jet engines, 4th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference, Vol. 10, p. 6.Google Scholar

Dinovitzer, A. S., Szymczak, M. and Brown, T. (1998). Behind-armour debris modeling., Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 3, Midrand, South Africa, pp. 275–284.Google Scholar

Dinovitzer, A. S., Szymczak, M., Steele, M. and Glen, I. F. (1996). Characterisation of behindarmour debris, Proc. 16th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 2, San Francisco, USA, pp. 431–480.Google Scholar

Emery, E. F., Miller, D. R., Plaskon, S. R., Strapp, W. and Lillie, L. (2004). Ice particle impact on cloud water content instrumentation, 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.

Evans, A. G. and Wilshaw, O. R. (1976). Quasi-static solid particle damage in brittle solids I. Observations analysis and implications, Acta Mater. 24: 939–956.Google Scholar

Farrand, T. G., Polesne, J. T. and Abell, J. M. (1996). Prediction of behind armor debris generated for kinetic energy penetrators against light armors, Proc. 16th Int. Symp. Ballistics, San Francisco, USA.

Flammang, A. (1977). Percolation cluster sizes and perimeters in three dimensions, Z. Phys. BCondens. Mat. 28: 47–50.Google Scholar

Ghadiri, M. and Zhang, Z. (2002). Impact attrition of particulate solids. Part 1: A theoretical model of chipping, Chem. Eng. Sci. 57: 3659–3669.Google Scholar

Grady, D. E. (1982). Local inertial effects in dynamic fragmentation, J. Appl. Phys. 53: 322–325.Google Scholar

Grady, D. E. (1987). Fragmentation of rapidly expanding jets and sheets, Int. J. Impact Eng. 5: 285–292.Google Scholar

Grady, D. E. (1988). The spall strength of condensed matter, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 36: 353–384.Google Scholar

Guégan, P., Othman, R., Lebreton, D., Pasco, F., Villedieu, P., Meyssonnier, J. and Wintenberger, S. (2011). Experimental investigation of the kinematics of post-impact ice fragments, Int. J. Impact Eng. 38: 786–795.Google Scholar

Hatzes, A. P., Bridges, F. G. and Lin, D. N. C. (1988). Collisional properties of ice spheres at low impact velocities, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 231: 1091–1115.Google Scholar

Hauk, T., Bonaccurso, E., Roisman, I. V. and Tropea, C. (2015). Ice crystal impact onto a dry solid wall. Particle fragmentation, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A-Math. 471: 20150399.Google Scholar

Herrmann, W. and Wilbeck, J. S. (1987). Review of hypervelocity penetration theories, Int. J. Impact Eng. 5: 307–322.Google Scholar

Hertz, H. (1896). Miscellaneous Papers, Macmillan, London and New York.

Higa, M., Arakawa, M. and Maeno, N. (1998). Size dependence of restitution coefficients of ice in relation to collision strength, Icarus 133: 310–320.Google Scholar

Hobbs, P. V. (1974). Ice Physics, Vol. 1, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Hohler, V., Kleinschnitger, K., Schmolinske, E., Stilp, A. and Weber, K. (1992). Debris cloud expansion around a residual rod behind a perforated plate target, Proc. 13th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 3, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 327–334.

Hohler, V., Kleinschnitger, K., Schmolinske, E., Stilp, A. and Weber, K. (1995). Behind armor debris studies. Experimental investigations, EMI-Report 12/95, Ernst-Mach-Institut, Freiburg, Germany.

Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Holmquist, T. J. and Souka, O. A. (1990). Recent epic code developments for high velocity impact: 3d element arrangements and 2d fragment distributions, Int. J. Impact Eng. 10: 281–294.Google Scholar

Juntikka, R. and Olsson, R. (2009). Experimental and modelling study of hail impact on composite plates, ICCM-17 17th International Conference on Composite Materials, Edinburgh, UK.

Kennedy, E. W. (1997). Behind-armor debris produced by U-3/4Ti rods at ordnance velocity and hypervelocity impacts., ISL-Report S-PR 801/97.

Kim, H. and Kedward, K. T. (2000). Modeling hail ice impacts and predicting impact damage initiation in composite structures, AIAA J. 38: 1278–1288.Google Scholar

Kim, H., Welch, D. A. and Kedward, K. T. (2003). Experimental investigation of high velocity ice impacts on woven carbon/epoxy composite panels, Composites A 34: 25–41.Google Scholar

Kintea, D. M., Schremb, M., Roisman, I. V. and Tropea, C. (2014). Numerical investigation of ice particle accretion on heated surfaces with application to aircraft engines, 11th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, Vol. 2820, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, p. 2014.

Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. (1987). Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Liepmann, H. W. and Roshko, A. (1957). Elements of Gasdynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Maiden, C. L. (1963). Experimental and theoretical results concerning the protective ability of a thin shield against hypervelocity projectile, Sixth Symp. on Hypervelocity Impact, Vol. III., pp. 70–156.Google Scholar

Mayseless, M., Kivity, Y. and Chazan, G. (1991). Analysis of armor perforation by long rod projectiles, Internal Report 18/91, Rafael, Haifa, Israel.

Mayseless, M., Sela, N., Stilp, A. J. and Hohler, V. (1992). Behind the armor debris distribution function, Proc. 13th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 2, pp. 77–85.Google Scholar

Milne-Thomson, L. M. (1968). Theoretical Hydrodynamics, The Macmillan Press, London.

Pan, H. and Render, P. M. (1996). Impact characteristics of hailstones simulating ingestion by turbofan aeroengines, J. Propuls. Power 12: 457–462.Google Scholar

Pernas-Sánchez, J., Pedroche, D. A., Varas, D., López-Puente, J. and Zaera, R. (2012). Numerical modeling of ice behavior under high velocity impacts, Int. J. Solid Struct. 49: 1919–1927.Google Scholar

Piekutowski, A. J. (1990). A simple dynamic model for the formation of debris clouds, Int. J. Impact Eng. 10: 453–471.Google Scholar

Raman, C. V. (1920). On some applications of Hertz's theory of impact, Phys. Rev. 15: 277–284.Google Scholar

Ravid, M., Bodner, S. R., Walker, J. D., Chocron, S., Anderson Jr., C. E. and Riegel, J. P. I. (1998). Modification of the Walker-Anderson penetration model to include exit failure modes and fragmentation., Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 3, Midrand, South Africa, pp. 267– 274.

Richardson, A. J. (1970). Theoretical penetration mechanics of multisheet structures based on discrete debris particle modeling, J. Spacecr. Rockets 7: 486–489.Google Scholar

Roisman, I. V. (1998). Normal and oblique penetration of rigid and deformable/eroding projectiles into elastic-plastic targets including a description of fragmentation and vulnerability, Ph.D. Dissertation, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa.

Roisman, I. V. and Tropea, C. (2015). Impact of a crushing ice particle onto a dry solid wall, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A-Math. 471: 20150525.Google Scholar

Roisman, I. V., Weber, K., Yarin, A. L., Hohler, V. and Rubin, M. B. (1999). Oblique penetration of a rigid projectile into a thick elastic–plastic target: theory and experiment, Int. J. Impact Eng. 22: 707–726.Google Scholar

Roisman, I. V., Yarin, A. L. and Rubin, M. B. (1997). Oblique penetration of a rigid projectile into an elastic-plastic target, Int. J. Impact Eng. 19: 769–795.Google Scholar

Roisman, I. V., Yarin, A. L. and Rubin, M. B. (2001). Normal penetration of an eroding projectile into an elastic–plastic target, Int. J. Impact Eng. 25: 573–597.Google Scholar

Salman, A. D., Biggs, C. A., Fu, J., Angyal, I., Szabo, M. and Hounslow, M. J. (2002). An experimental investigation of particle fragmentation using single particle impact studies, Powder Techn. 128: 36–46.Google Scholar

Saucier, R., Shnidman, R. and Collins, J. C. I. (1995). A stochastic behind-armor debris model., Proc. 15th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 2, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 431–480.Google Scholar

Sherburn, J. A. and Horstemeyer, M. F. (2010). Hydrodynamic modeling of impact craters in ice, Int. J. Impact Eng. 37: 27–36.Google Scholar

Stauffer, D. (1979). Scaling theory of percolation clusters, Phys. Rep.-Rev. Sec. Phys. Lett. 54: 1–74.Google Scholar

Stauffer, D. (1985). Introduction to Percolation Theory, Taylor & Francis, London.

Swift, H. F., Bamford, R. and Chen, R. (1982). Designing dual-plate meteoroid shields: a new analysis, Technical Report 19820021475, Jet Propulsion Lab., California Institute of Technology; Pasadena, USA.

Tate, A. (1986). Long rod penetration models. Part II. Extensions to the hydrodynamic theory of penetration, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 28: 599–612.Google Scholar

Taylor, G. I. (1948). The use of flat-ended projectiles for determining dynamic yield stress. I. Theoretical considerations, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 194: 289–299.Google Scholar

Tippmann, J. D., Kim, H. and Rhymer, J. D. (2013). Experimentally validated strain rate dependent material model for spherical ice impact simulation, Int. J. Impact Eng. 57: 43–54.Google Scholar

Vargas, M., Struk, P. M., Kreeger, R. E., Palacios, J., Iyer, K. A. and Gold, R. E. (2014). Ice particle impacts on a moving wedge, 6th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference, AIAA, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. AIAA 2014–3045.

Verolme, J. L. and Szymczak, M. (1998). Behind-armor debris modeling for high-velocity fragment impact., Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 3, Midrand, South Africa, pp. 259–266.

Vidaurre, G. and Hallett, J. (2009). Particle impact and breakup in aircraft measurement, J. Atmosph. Oceanic Techn. 26: 972–983.Google Scholar

Weber, K., Hohler, V., Kleinschnitger, K., Schmolinske, E. and Schneider, E. (1998). Debris cloud expansion behind oblique single plate targets perforated by rod projectiles., Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Ballistics, Vol. 3, Midrand, South Africa.

Yarin, A. L. (1993). Free Liquid Jets and Films: Hydrodynamics and Rheology, Longman and John Wiley & Sons, Harlow and New York.

Yarin, A. L., Roisman, I. V., Weber, K. and Hohler, V. (2000). Model for ballistic fragmentation and behind-armor debris, Int. J. Impact Eng. 24: 171–201.Google Scholar

Yarin, A. L., Rubin, M. B. and Roisman, I. V. (1995). Penetration of a rigid projectile into an elastic-plastic target of finite thickness, Int. J. Impact Eng. 16: 801–831.Google Scholar

Yew, C. H., Grady, D. E. and Lawrence, R. J. (1993). A simple model for debris clouds produced by hypervelocity particle impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 14: 851–862.Google Scholar

Zamora, K. M. O., Sevillano, J. G. and Pérez, M. F. (1992). Fracture toughness of heavy metal alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. Mater. 157: 151–160.Google Scholar

Book contents

14 - Fragmentation

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive