10

Impact and Shear Ignition

By Nonshock Mechanisms
James E. Kennedy
Nomenclature (cgs units)
f Fragment length-to-diameter ratio
H Thickness of explosive sample
h Axial position above anvil surface in IITRI test
m Fragment mass
P Pressure
r Radius
R
p
Radius of driver plate in IITRI test
t Case wall thickness
v
0
Fragment velocity
v
p
Driver plate velocity in IITRI test
v
s
Shear interface velocity
u
r
Radial ow velocity
Viscosity

v
viscous dissipation function
10.1 Eects of Shear in Material-Flow Processes
Many processes occur simultaneously during impact deformation of energetic
materials, and it is not straightforward to ascribe an ignition response princi-
pally to one cause. In this chapter, our attention will be directed to eects and
circumstances through which shear mechanisms can be major contributors to
the ignition of sustained reaction in solid explosives.
Shear stress has components in more than one axis of a coordinate system,
and so it produces shear strain that distorts a control volume in a transverse
direction [1]. Thus shear stress may generate velocity gradients transverse to
the main component of stress, and the ow velocity prole may become highly
curved in readily deformable materials when the shear stress is very high.
Commonly in liquids and sometimes in solids treated as continua, shear ows
are analyzed by including the eect of material viscosity to determine the ow
B.W. Asay (ed.), Shock Wave Science and Technology Reference Library Vol. 5: 555
Non-Shock Initiation of Explosives, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-87953-4 10,
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010
556 J.E. Kennedy
prole and dissipation of mechanical ow energy into heat. Under suciently
strong shear stress in materials with strength, adiabatic shear banding [2]
may occur as a result of thermal softening at mechanical failure planes in
bulk materials or within crystals. Both continuum ow and discrete adiabatic
shear bands are mechanisms for localization of energy deposition in a owing
or deforming material. The behavior of hot spots produced in this way is
considered to be comparable in principle to that of thermally induced hot
spots, but the conguration of hot spots are dierent on both crystalline and
macroscopic scales. A further complexity is that mechanical damage induced
in the material by the failure and ow processes may also strongly inuence
both the ignition process and ame propagation after ignition.
Bridgman [3] was the rst to point out that shear-induced reactions may
occur in explosive materials. Adiabatic shear bands have been observed di-
rectly in inert materials that were subjected to severe shear deformation pro-
cesses, such as rolling steel in a mill [2]. When shear processes occur at a
crystalline, mesoscopic, or macroscopic scale in energetic materials, energy
can be nonuniformly deposited within a reactive crystal through shear fail-
ure at slip planes or dislocation sites. Shear failure is thus one of the several
mechanisms that are capable of producing hot spots and ignition in explo-
sives. Shear failure may occur within a crystal or at the surface of crystals
as debonding of a binder phase from crystals of an explosive in an explo-
sive formulation. As Howe [4] pointed out, a small amount of direct evidence
and a larger amount of indirect evidence indicates that adiabatic shear bands
represent an important mechanism for creation of hot spots and ignition of
explosives. Shear zones were observed by Howe et al. [5] in TNT explosive
that had been subjected to rapid shear under connement, without ignition.
Idar et al. [6] observed macroscopic shear bands in unreacted plastic-bonded
explosive that was recovered after conned impact had produced substantial
deformation.
Winter and Field [7] used the analysis method of Recht [8] to predict
that explosive crystals should be quite susceptible to shear banding. Frey [9]
analyzed the consequences of steady shear ow conditions imposed upon an
explosive interface during penetration by a hard material with surface asperi-
ties. The shear interface produced by such a penetration event resembled that
of an adiabatic shear band. He considered the explosive material to be linearly
viscoelastic, included the eect of melting of the explosive together with the
elevation in melting temperature and viscosity associated with elevated pres-
sure, and calculated viscoelastic heating of a thin layer of material with little
or no strength. He found that for a shear-ow velocity of 200 ms
1
, which is
easily obtained in impact conditions associated with accident or hostile attack
scenarios, viscoelastic heating appeared to be capable of raising the temper-
ature of the shear-band region to 1,200 K in less than a microsecond. That
calculation did not include any heat generated by thermal decomposition of
the explosive, which of course would further accelerate the ignition process.
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 557
Extended theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out by
Coey and coworkers [1013] with the aim of understanding the role played
by dislocations in this process and the consequences of energy localization
produced by adiabatic shear banding. Coey [12] analyzed the eect especially
of edge dislocations on organic energetic crystals in investigations of their
contributions to ignition of combustion in the crystals. His postulate may be
described as a lattice-dislocation-pileup theory of hot-spot formation.
This chapter deals with the role of shear in causing ignition of energetic
material under conditions where any shock loading connected with an event is
insucient to stimulate a signicant amount of reaction. We describe circum-
stances in which the material is ignited due to impact that produces severe
mechanical damage, failure, gross deformation, and subsonic ow of solid ex-
plosive material. Emphasis is on the ignition of reaction by processes that oc-
cur in and act upon the solid, and not on the subsequent extinction or growth
of ignition into convective burning and perhaps ultimately to deagration-
to-detonation transition (DDT). The fundamental idea is that dissipation of
mechanical energy into heat creates a condition in an explosive mass that is
basically similar to direct imposition of heat upon the explosive. The size and
shape of the region into which heat is deposited, and especially the magnitude
of thermal gradients, may be much dierent in a mechanically generated hot
spot than in a thermally generated hot spot. The mechanical energy driving
deformation and ow may dissipate into heat at a suciently high power level
that the energetic material is thermally ignited, producing a local burning re-
action. Attainment of ignition is governed by thermal properties and reaction
kinetics of the energetic material. Subsequent reaction growth is governed by
the acceleration of combustion in the damaged explosive material and the size
and boundary conditions of the explosive system. Those topics are discussed
in other chapters of this volume.
Another central idea is that mechanical failure of energetic material dur-
ing an impact or penetration event may result in pulverization of explosive
material accompanied by expansion to a lower density. Both the surface area
and the permeability of an energetic material are critical parameters in ame
propagation and growth. Further, recompression of the low-density energetic
material during the same event may deposit enough heat into the material
to ignite it, and the pulverized explosive may then burn quite vigorously,
especially when the material is mechanically conned. Thus the mechanical
damage threshold, the way in which an explosive or propellant comes apart
mechanically or structurally, and mechanical connement play large roles in
determining whether ignition occurs and the vigor of the reaction that does
occur after ignition.
To identify ignition threshold conditions in such problems, one may un-
dertake to evaluate the rate of accumulation of heat as the dierence between
power generated and the power lost by heat transfer, in a manner analogous to
calculations done for ignition of thermal explosions. When shear conditions
and shear ow are imposed upon an energetic material sample, the dimensions
558 J.E. Kennedy
of the aected region and the spatial and temporal proles of mechanical
energy dissipation into heat are key determinants of ignition. It is not an easy
matter to dene, measure, or analyze the properties, processes, and metrics
by which damage and subsequent ignition and reaction growth occur.
The size of a region aected by shear damage and shear processes to an
extent that it stimulates exothermic reaction is a signicant factor in deter-
mining conditions that lead to ignition, because size is a big factor inuencing
the balance between power generation and power loss from a reaction kernel.
Damage arises from mechanical deformation in a manner that is analogous,
although certainly not identical, to damage from thermal sources as ignition
conditions are approached. So the approach of evaluating shear failure re-
gions, ows, and damage to energetic material from an accident environment
and the associated heating of material due to external stimuli is analogous
for thermal and mechanical accident scenarios. In both cases, the energetic
material is damaged by an external stimulus and one must determine the ef-
fect of damage on the reaction rate and reaction front propagation within the
damaged material.
Shear and crushing impact may arise in a range of conditions, from lab-
oratory drop-weight impact tests to relatively low-velocity impact accidents
that damage large systems containing explosive materials. In these cases, we
argue that the response of secondary explosives is governed largely by sys-
tem conguration and behavior that determine the magnitude and rate of
local shear deformation imposed upon the energetic material, and subsequent
compression and thermalization of mechanical energy in damaged energetic
material. Such deformation often varies tremendously from one location to
another within a system, and these large spatial gradients comprise precisely
the type of loading that produces the highest shear stress in a material. For
example, penetration of a foreign body into an explosive mass, or other exter-
nally imposed shear along explosive material surfaces, may produce enough
local heating of the explosive to cause ignition.
Ignition in one region then may spread to ignite the whole system. The
great challenge in hazard analysis is that this coupled, catastrophic behavior
pattern, added to the fact that accident histories can vary extremely widely
in parameter space, makes such events extraordinarily complicated, proba-
bilistic rather than deterministic, and usually unpredictable. Analysis of the
ignition problem is correspondingly complex. Subsequent evolution of the vi-
olence of the burning and the opportunity for transition to detonation is also
determined by the system. The phenomenology and mechanisms of DDT are
discussed in Chap. 8.
The complexity of entire systems problems is beyond the scope of this
book, and so we address rst certain classic sets of conditions that exem-
plify aspects of the phenomenology. This chapter describes observations, and
analysis and interpretations of results of classic drop-weight impact test nd-
ings by a host of distinguished scientists are discussed. Other circumstances
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 559
under which explosives are subjected to shear processes that may cause
ignition in open-system tests are discussed. Large-scale test congurations
with properties globally similar to the drop-weight impact test are then dis-
cussed. One essential similarity is that the crushed explosive deforms and ows
radially outward from the axis of the damage region when there is an open
boundary at the outer radius of the explosive material. Even in such an open
system, inertial connement is a critical factor contributing to conditions that
produce ignition. Results for common secondary explosives in such tests are
compared with results in crushing impact in closed-system tests in which the
explosive is mechanically conned during its deformation. Penetration of a
closed system will usually create more severe shear localization within the
explosive, and the penetration may or may not relieve connement. We then
discuss the modeling of material response and mechanical damage that can be
produced in energetic materials due to such shear ows. Finally, conclusions
are summarized concerning similarities and dierences among these various
types of shear-ignition conditions.
10.2 Drop-Weight Impact Tests
The drop-weight impact test, a laboratory-scale test performed with less than
0.1 g of explosive material, is part of a suite of tests intended to assess the
safety of handling small quantities of a given explosive in a laboratory. The
explosive sample may be in the form of powder, solid, or liquid and may
be tested as a freestanding pellet or as powder. Typically, a steel weight with
a at bottom is dropped from a measured height onto the sample, or the
sample may be nested between two at plates and the upper plate is struck
by the falling weight [14]. This is done usually in a series of about 25 trials at a
given drop-weight height to develop statistics for assessment of the probability
of ignition. Thoughtful experiments and observations by researchers have led
to insights into the mechanisms of ignition of explosives in drop-weight tests.
In considering the ignition of reaction in explosives by several types of
insults including drop-weight impact tests, Bowden and Yoe [15] of the
Cavendish Laboratory calculated that the energy introduced into the explosive
was far from sucient to heat the entire explosive mass to an ignition temper-
ature. They identied hot spots that form in small regions within the explosive
mass as the mechanism by which ignition occurs. They listed adiabatic com-
pression of gas spaces, shear of explosive crystals, friction, and viscous ow
among the mechanisms that probably operate under drop-weight impact con-
ditions. At least two, and arguably all four, of these proposed mechanisms
involve shear.
10.2.1 Cavendish Laboratory Glass-Anvil
To investigate the phenomenology and illuminate the mechanism(s) of drop-
weight-impact ignition of thin pressed pellets of explosives, Field and
560 J.E. Kennedy
coworkers [16] at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University employed
a glass anvil and glass impact plate. Ultrahigh-speed framing photographs
were taken at 57 s intervals with backlighting through the anvil. Typi-
cal pellet shapes were 48 mm in diameter and 12 mm high, and both the
impact plate and the glass anvil were much larger in diameter than the explo-
sive pellet sample. The pellet shape thus was silhouetted as it was impacted,
crushed, compacted, and radially extruded beneath the 5.5 kg impact plate.
The explosive mass distorted greatly from its original shape as crushing pro-
ceeded, and fragmentation of the pellet sometimes occurred. A large fraction
of the explosive often became fused and translucent under this deformation,
and this made it possible to observe processes occurring within the explosive
mass. The diameter of the deforming pellet grew to quadruple the original
value during the observation time, and radial extrusion velocities of over
125 ms
1
were commonly reached even though the impact velocity was less
than 5 ms
1
. Ignition locations and ame spread were visible.
In Fields studies of many explosive materials with numerous coworkers
[16, 17], he attributed ignition to a number of mechanisms and combinations
of those mechanisms. He reported evidence of ignition by adiabatic heating of
trapped gas, adiabatic shear of the explosive, friction, viscous ow, and tribo-
luminescent discharge. When foreign materials were added to the explosives,
additional processes were observed, including fracture and shear.
Ignition due to adiabatic compression of trapped gas can occur at almost
any location within a deforming pellet, depending upon the mechanical fail-
ure behavior of the explosive material in a particular trial. Ignition due to
viscous heating is usually near the perimeter of the charge, after substantial
deformation and attening of the sample, at a relatively late time when radial
extrusion ow of the explosive is proceeding at a high velocity through quite
a short opening around the perimeter. Figure 10.1 [17] shows that widespread
ignition occurred near the perimeter of the squashed pellet. The impacting
weight in this case was larger in diameter than the initial diameter of the
explosive pellet. Field et al. [17] found that the glass xture assembly under-
went elastic exure that provided transitory mechanical connement of the
sample, temporarily preventing radial ow. Late in the deformation cycle, the
impactor exed down into contact with the glass anvil around the periphery
of the attened and expanded explosive sample and that eectively sealed
the sample. When this inertial connement was relieved by elastic reverber-
ation, radial ow of the explosive material resumed at a higher velocity than
ever, because of the stored compression energy in the sample. This explains
the widespread ignition round the perimeter of the deformed sample in some
cases. Such exure did not occur with a steel test assembly.
In this type of drop-weight test, a rst approximation is to assume that the
weight decelerates relatively little during most of the pellet compaction and
ow process. The radial velocity of the powder is zero on the axis of the powder
compact, is highest at the perimeter of the pellet at any given time as powder
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 561
Fig. 10.1. Impact on a pellet of composition B, showing widespread ignition sites
(initially around the pellet perimeter) [17]. Interframe time was 7 s, eld of view
was 20 mm. Published by courtesy of Cavendish Laboratory
is being radially extruded away from the center of impact, and increases at all
radial positions as the thickness of the compact is reduced during the impact
event. Field et al. [17] interpreted the observed ignition near the perimeter
of the drop weight to be due to friction and high velocity gradients in the
high-velocity regions of ow. Both of these mechanisms involve shear.
10.2.2 Temperature and Flow Sensors
Elban and Armstrong [18] showed that, in drop-weight impact tests,
anisotropy in the crystal structure of RDX contributed to localization of
shear failure in regions that had been indented during Knoop microhardness
562 J.E. Kennedy
testing. They observed extremely severe strain elds over a shear-band region
larger than the indentation. A collaborative study of drop-weight impact igni-
tion of explosive powders at a macroscopic scale by Coey et al. [11] made use
of temperature-sensing lms. In tests at conditions that produced transitory
ignition at the impact interface that died away, they reported evidence of
heating during high-strain ow of the powder and failure patterns, suggesting
that ignition was associated with shear banding. This is another indication
that local heating due to mechanical deformation and shear processes at a
crystalline or macroscopic scale may be considered to be a prominent ig-
nition mechanism in laboratory-scale drop-weight-impact tests that utilize
freestanding samples of secondary-explosive material in the form of powder
and pellets. Fields work similarly showed bands of heating distributed at
regular intervals transverse to the extrusion-ow direction associated with
drop-weight impact testing. He showed that polymers undergoing such de-
formation and rapid ow may distort along a contact surface by means of
detachment waves similar to caterpillar locomotion, rather than a smooth
sliding motion [19]. These are called Schallamach waves, and they produce
the kind of periodic contact and shear-failure loci along the contact surface
that were seen by both Coey and Field. This indirect evidence of shear
bands bears reexamination to conrm that shear bands indeed produced
these eects.
10.3 Large-Scale Crushing Impact
During the 1960s, the IIT Research Institute (IITRI) in Chicago and Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory (now LLNL) in California worked independently trying
to understand the response of secondary explosives in crushing impact events
involving complete weapon systems in accident environments associated with
air transportation of large weapons. Impact velocities and the related shock
pressures were lower than the levels required to shock-initiate detonation of
the explosives. Observations from incidents with complete weapons had shown
that the explosive in recovered warheads, which originally had smooth, round
shapes, had been crushed on the impacted end to a at section that was several
inches in diameter, and most of the explosive in that area had been extruded
away. More severe impact conditions had resulted in ignition of a burning
reaction or detonation of the explosive. Both laboratories devised experiments
intended to simulate the environment imposed upon the explosive material
during such impact events, and means to evaluate the vigor of any reaction
that occurred in a test. The congurations of their tests were especially simple
and amenable to analysis.
10.3.1 IITRI Test
In 1960, Napadensky and her coworkers [20] at IITRI applied to solid explo-
sives a test method that had been used to obtain crude data on mechanical
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 563
equation of state for inert materials under shock compression. They used
multipoint initiation to approximate a plane-wave detonation of low-density
tetryl explosive to drive a heavy steel driver plate down into an explosive
sample billet. The billet rested on a massive steel anvil that served also as
a witness plate. The velocity of the driven plate was measured and reported
in every shot. Explosive samples were right circular cylinders up to 6 in. in
diameter and heights of samples ranged from 0.25 to 6 in. There was no con-
nement around the perimeter of the explosive sample. This test conguration
is sketched in Fig. 10.2.
In cases of marginal initiation of violent reaction in the explosive, the low-
amplitude shock that came through the thick driver plate into the acceptor
explosive sample was not strong enough to stimulate signicant reaction of
the sample [20, 21]. During each experiment, explosive sample material was
deformed, then extruded radially, and ejected from the volume between the
at surfaces of the driven plate and the steel anvil. Despite the lack of conne-
ment around the perimeter of the explosive, the steel plate surfaces provided
enough mechanical connement to nurture ignition conditions as well as drive
the ow that developed in the explosive as it was ejected beyond the driver
plate perimeter. Reaction modes stimulated in this test covered a wide range,
depending upon the velocity of the driver plate: prompt detonation, violent
deagration, mild burning, or no visible reaction. Vigor of reaction was judged
by the dent in the witness plate.
For a given explosive material, the vigor of reaction was found to be de-
termined by the velocity of the driver plate and the thickness of the sample.
Thinner samples reacted strongly at much lower impact velocities than thick
samples. Based on the data in [21], Fig. 10.3a is a sketch of the general re-
sponse modes in this behavior, and Fig. 10.3b provides data on a few explosive
materials. Thick samples were sometimes observed to react strongly near the
1
2
SPECIMEN
DRIVING PLATE
LOW DENSITY
EXPLOSIVE
REFERENCE
GRID
FRAGMENT
SPRAY
ALUMINUM TRANSFER
FRAGMENT SHEET
BLASTING CAP
BOOSTER

TETRYL
ANVL (Steel)
1
2
Fig. 10.2. IITRI test conguration
564 J.E. Kennedy
Length of Explosive, in.
a b
5
P
l
a
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
p
s
P
l
a
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
p
s
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4
Length of Explosive, in.
0
1000
2000
PBX-9404
H-6
Tritonal
Highest impact velocity
for no explosion
D. No explosive decomposition
B. Initiation after
crushing with-
out pinch
50% probability
of explosion
A. Initiation of detonation by a shock wave
C. Initiation
after crushing
following
pinch
Fig. 10.3. (a) Response modes in IITRI test. (b) Data for explosive materials at
50% probability of violent reaction [20]
very end of the crushing impact cycle, after the explosive had been crushed
nearly all the way to the witness plate. This behavior corresponded to obser-
vations made by LRL in the Susan Test, which is discussed in the next section.
Napadensky [20] stated, At the threshold of ignition, the time between initial
movement of the plate and the evidence of explosion is long enough for many
reverberations of the shock between the driving plate and the anvil. Such
long time, ca. 2001,000 s, allowed the explosive sample to be crushed to a
small fraction of its original thickness, and the reaction often began after this
extended crushing process. The prevalent response of combustion rather than
detonation of the sample explosive indicated that ignition mechanisms other
than shock initiation were dominant. This led to the analysis of heating of the
explosive due to mechanical energy dissipation in the high-velocity ow elds
associated with the radial extrusion ows [22].
Kennedy [22] analyzed the radial extrusion ow as viscous ow, with the
assumption that the explosive was ignited due to viscous heating of specic
regions of the explosive material. This analysis followed that of Nadai [23] for
the rolling of steel in a mill, in which a downward-moving roller surface thins
down a plate of soft steel as the roller approaches another stationary plate.
The ow conguration that represented the IITRI test is sketched in Fig. 10.4.
Boundary conditions in the ow at the driver plate and anvil surfaces were
important features of the ow. The kink in an otherwise-parabolic radial-ow-
velocity prole at the driver plate interface exists because the driver plate was
moving and imparted an axial velocity component to the adjacent explosive
material. For viscous ow, at the anvil surface the boundary condition was zero
ow velocity in both the axial and radial directions, and so a very high velocity
gradient developed near that surface. This velocity gradient indicates severe
shear ow within that region of the explosive. Thus dissipation of mechanical
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 565
HE
anvil
r
H
h
v
p
u
r
(h, r)
R
p
driver plate
Fig. 10.4. Flow prole in IITRI test. Highest rate of dissipation of mechanical
energy occurs adjacent to the anvil surface and, for a given driver plate velocity v
p
,
is increased when the sample height H is small
energy into heat occurred at the highest rate in the explosive material adjacent
to the anvil surface. At all times the maximum dissipation rate occurred at
the outer radius of the driver plate, where the radial ow velocity was highest.
In addition, the local maximum dissipation rate had the highest value when
the thickness H of the explosive sample was small. This occurred when the
initial sample thickness was small, and also late in the process of deformation
of initially thicker samples when the sample had been crushed down to a small
thickness.
The main results of this analysis are summarized below. The prole of the
radial ow velocity, u
r
, taken from Nadai [23] is
u
r
=
g
c
2
dP
dr
_
h
2
hH
_
=
3v
p
r
_
hH h
2
_
H
3
, (10.1)
where dP/dr is the pressure gradient that drives the radial ow, is viscosity
of the explosive, H is the total thickness of the explosive sample at a given
time during the crushing process, h is the axial position within the sample,
with 0 hH, and v
p
is the axial velocity of the driver plate, which is taken
to be constant throughout the crushing process. The viscosity of solid plastic-
bonded explosives was estimated by James [24] to be 10
6
poise. An expression
for the rate of dissipation of mechanical energy into heat in viscous ow, given
by Bird et al. [25], was used and applied to the given velocity prole.

v
= 2
_
_
u
r
r
_
2
+
_
u
r
r
_
2
_
+
_
u
r
h
_
2

2
3

_
1
r

r
(ru
r
)
_
2
,
=
v
p
2
H
6
_
12
_
h
2
H
2
2h
3
H + h
4
_
+ 9r
2
_
H
2
4hH + 4h
2
_
, (10.2)
where
v
is dened by Bird as the viscous dissipation function, with units of
s
2
.
566 J.E. Kennedy
This expression was evaluated at the position of maximum dissipation,
the surface of the anvil at the outer radius of the driver plate, R
p
, and that
produced the result
(
v
)
max
=
9R
p
2
v
p
2
H
4
. (10.3)
To compare the results of this power-based analysis with experiments,
Kennedy [26] mounted fast-response surface thermocouples (<5 s response
time) in the anvil plate and conducted experiments at near-threshold ignition
conditions with a mechanical mock for the plastic-bonded explosive and with
the explosive itself. The thermocouples were mounted on the axis, halfway to
the periphery of the driver plate, and just inside the periphery of the driver
plate. As expected from the ow analysis, the thermocouple at the anvil sur-
face at the periphery of the driver plate registered the highest temperature,
about 400

C.
Thus, although radial extrusion ow is considered to be responsible for
the shear ignition of the explosive, information about the axial driver velocity
and radius and the height of a sample that is crushed is sucient to allow one
to attempt to predict the response of an explosive-loaded system impacting
a hard at surface. This approach was used to successfully predict threshold
impact velocities for ve weapon systems out of six systems that were tested.
The predictions also guided selection of test conditions, so that the threshold
impact velocity was evaluated with a small number of full-scale trials.
10.3.2 Susan Test
Dorough and Green [27, 28] of LRL developed a low-velocity impact test that
they called the Susan Test. A 4-in.-diameter billet of an explosive of interest
was mounted inside a thin aluminum can on the nose of an artillery shell, and
the shell was red out of a gun so that the nose impacted a heavy steel target
plate. Figure 10.5 is a sketch of the explosive sample mounted on the artillery
shell. As the explosive was crushed against the plate, the aluminum can split
open quickly and explosive material was extruded radially in essentially free
expansion. The degree of reaction of the explosive was evaluated by measure-
ment of the air-blast pressure imposed upon gauges mounted nearby. Blast
yields from Susan tests were normalized against the yield from intentional
detonation of an explosive sample.
Results were expressed as fractional yield compared to detonation, as a
function of impact velocity. It was observed that initiation often occurred
at threshold (minimum) velocities after extensive crushing and shortening
of the protruding explosive nose so that only a short perimeter remained
through which explosive material could be extruded outward. This was called
the pinch condition, and was the time at which radial ow velocities of the
explosive material were highest.
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 567
2-in. diam. 4-in.-long
explosive charge
Aluminum cap
Steel projectile body
Aluminum cap
Explosive
Fig. 10.5. Susan test conguration and response of sample upon impact [28]
Weston [29] analyzed the radial extrusion ow associated with crushing
impact and the pinch condition in a geometry that corresponded to that ana-
lyzed by IITRI. He assumed that the radial ow velocity of the sample material
was a function of radius and the total height of the sample at a given time,
and that the radial ow velocity was uniform across the vertical thickness of
the sample. This corresponds to plug ow in the radial direction, with slip
occurring at the interfaces of the explosive with both the shell assembly sur-
face and the steel target plate. In that case, the mechanism for conversion
of mechanical energy into heat is friction at the interfaces between the steel
surfaces and the owing explosive. Once again, the radial ow velocity will
be highest at the outer perimeter of the charge, and the frictional heating
rate will be highest there. In addition, the ow velocity is highest when the
sample thickness is small. Those conclusions are qualitatively the same as
those reached through IITRIs analysis of a viscous ow model. Thus two
extreme assumptions about the mechanical deformation and ow behavior of
the explosive led to the same conclusion about the location and circumstances
that produce the greatest rate of mechanical energy dissipation into heat, via
shear or friction, in this simple geometry. Experimental measurement of tem-
perature rise is also consistent with this conclusion [22], and such agreement
supports the validity of the conclusion.
10.3.3 U.S.S. Iowa Explosion
An accident that occurred in a gun turret of the battleship Iowa relates closely
to the behaviors observed in the IITRI test, Susan test, and the full-scale
weapon system impact tests that those subscale tests were designed to model.
On 19 April 1989, an explosive in a gun turret of the U.S.S. Iowa exploded
and 47 sailors working within that turret were killed. The 16-in. gun was
568 J.E. Kennedy
undergoing ring trials. Five powder bags had been loaded into the breech.
When the ram pressed those into place against the base of the projectile, the
propellant ignited and lethal re blew back into the turret loading area.
Experimental impact ignition studies in an ensuing investigation at Sandia
[30] were led by Paul Cooper who had, 30 years earlier, conducted the IITRI
test rings [20, 31]. Drawing upon his IITRI experience, Cooper decided to
investigate the possibility that an unsupported grain might be crushed to
a great extent, similar to the pinch condition identied in the Susan test.
Through testing based on this idea, it was found that trim powder bags with
less than ve grains in them could be ignited within operating parameters
of the ram of the gun. This was conrmed in full-scale tests at US Navy
facilities at Indian Head and Dahlgren. The Navy accepted this explanation
as the root cause of the explosion, went through its inventory of powder bags,
and removed those with such sparse trim bag lls.
Two object lessons from the Iowa study are that technical insight into
mechanisms that may cause an accident can provide powerful leverage toward
resolving the cause of the accident, and that you, the reader, may have an
opportunity in your career to exercise your insight long after you rst gained
it, as Cooper did in this case.
10.3.4 XDT Response Mode
A response mode called XDT refers to delayed development of detonation of
an energetic material that has been damaged and grossly deformed due to
direct impact or two-stage impact through an unknown mechanism. It has
interesting characteristics that relate to shear-induced reaction of energetic
materials and to hazard assessment. The rst work on this subject, reported
by Jensen et al. [32], was motivated by a search for worst cases in accident
circumstances that might actually occur. A shotgun facility was developed
at Hercules [33] in which a 17-mm-diameter 20 -mm-long rod of propellant
weighing about 8.5 g could be launched at high velocity to impact a heavy
steel plate. Instrumentation at the facility consisted of high-speed framing
photography to observe the impact and propellant-response phenomena, in-
cluding light output, ash radiography to observe deformation and reaction of
the propellant, and pressure gauges to measure air blast from reaction of the
propellant. In direct-impact experiments, the impact velocity of the propellant
rod against the steel plate determined whether the response of the unspec-
ied propellant was no reaction, deagration, XDT, or shock-to-detonation
transition (SDT).
Experiments with an impact velocity >0.75 kms
1
typically produced
SDT and the detonation reaction was complete in <20 s (probably much
less). Flash radiographs showed that the detonation reaction began after the
impact shock had traveled a few millimeters into the propellant. These deto-
nations produced deep, well-dened dents in the witness plate and air-shock
peak pressures of >40 psig in gauges 60 cm from the impact point. The rst
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 569
few millimeters of propellant adjacent to the target plate, in which the shock
wave had built up to detonation, remained clearly visible in the radiographs
taken after detonation was complete in the rest of the rod, as though that
material has not reacted at all.
At velocities in the range of 0.370.75 kms
1
, the sample did not react
promptly and essentially splattered against the steel surface. The powder re-
gion more than doubled in diameter and density gradients were evident in the
radiographs taken before a substantial amount of reaction occurred. In some
cases, the powder ignited and reacted in a deagration mode, but in other
cases the reaction mode was XDT. In response to a question raised following
his presentation, Jensen [32] cited the following points of evidence that the
XDT reactions were indeed detonations, and we quote him:
1. Radiographs show very rapid decomposition of residual propellant. Before
detonation (occurs) at 1530 s after impact, the sample appears as a
grossly deformed and presumably highly fragmented mass of solid pro-
pellant. Several microseconds later, all evidence of solid is gone. Reactions
we classify as deagrations show a much slower decomposition of solids at
a more uniform rate requiring >50 s for complete decomposition.
2. The overpressure produced by an XDT reaction generally equals or exceeds
the overpressure from an SDT reaction.
3. The light intensity from an XDT reaction is of the same magnitude as from
an SDT reaction, which is greater than that from a deagration.
4. SDT and XDT reactions both result in severe damage (ow) to the steel
plate of diering appearance but of similar degree. Deagration craters are
merely smooth dents showing signicantly less damage.
Dents from XDT reactions were described by Jensen as being wide (i.e.,
greater in diameter than the propellant sample) and rippled, indicating ow
of the steel witness plate material.
In large numbers of tests, air-shock peak pressures observed from XDT
reactions were consistently higher than those from SDT reactions, and were
more than triple those produced by deagrations. The higher blast output
from XDT may be surprising, and we suggest that the following factors con-
tribute to that result. As described earlier, SDT detonations produce detona-
tion yield of something less than the full mass of the impacting propellant.
But more importantly, based upon runs with the Cheetah thermochemical
equilibrium code [34] performed by this author, it is clear that low-density
detonations produce a stronger air shock in the far eld than high-density det-
onations. High-density explosives do more work on their surroundings early in
the expansion because of the high gas pressure they generate and extreme non-
linearity in their detonationproduct equation of state. This produces more
waste heat that is thermalized in the early expansion behavior and leaves less
energy available to drive the air shock at larger expansion factors. So a low-
density detonation may be expected to outperform a high-density detonation
at the large expansion factors (r/r
0
70) at which air-shock measurements
570 J.E. Kennedy
were made in Jensens experiments. Even rapid deagrations contribute sig-
nicantly to air shocks at large expansion factors. So an XDT event may
outperform an SDT detonation as an air-shock driver even if the XDT re-
action includes rapid deagration of a small part of the reacting propellant.
The delay in ignition of reaction in the propellant that underwent XDT
and the variability in response mode (25% XDT, 75% deagrations within a
given velocity range) suggest that a nonshock source produced the ignition.
The most likely source of ignition was dissipation of mechanical energy of
shear ow during gross deformation of the propellant sample. The evidence
for detonation of the damaged propellant material indicates that XDT in-
volves a DDT nal step. It is clear from detonator experiments reported in
Chap. 11 that it is possible for DDT to occur in short dimensions in low-
density powder that is conned only by its own inertia. So in summary, XDT
is probably an example of shear-induced ignition of damaged, low-density en-
ergetic material, followed by DDT. As stated by Jensen [32], . . . the XDT
phenomenon is of major importance in propellant hazard studies, primarily
because it produces the highest (far-eld blast) overpressure of any of the
observed impact-initiated reactions and also because it occurs at signicantly
lower impact velocities than SDT reactions.
Following low-velocity impact of cylinders of energetic materials onto a sti
planar target, spall was observed across the entire rear face of the energetic
material by Jensen et al. [32] and by Matheson et al. [35]. Matheson reported
that the spalled piece closed back into contact with the rest of the cylinder
later in the event, and sometimes detonation was seen to emanate from that
location following the closure. This is another XDT response mode of energetic
material. Similar responses were noted by Green et al. [36] in work done in
collaboration with Hercules. Green ascribed the response to essentially axial
comminution of the propellant associated with rarefaction or spall, followed
by inertial recompaction that led to detonation. He called XDT a kind of
DDT that has been called XDT to distinguish it from the DDT phenomena
observed by others in closed, heavy-walled tubes [36].
10.3.5 Two-Step Impacts
Jensen [32] also reported experiments in which the ying rod of propellant
rst impacted a stationary thin disk of the same propellant a short distance
away from the steel plate surface, then the fractured pieces of unreacted pro-
pellant ew into the plate. This two-step loading process provided a means
of conducting somewhat-controlled impact of fractured propellant against a
hard surface. Fracturing of the solid propellant in the initial impact served also
to reduce the density of the material that struck the steel plate, and lower-
density propellant is more sensitive by virtue of its greater compressibility.
The second event sometimes produced a violent response in the explosive, and
the classes of response mirrored those observed in direct-impact experiments.
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 571
XDT reactions occurred at lower impact velocities in the two-step impacts
than in direct impacts. In addition, the probability of XDT was increased to
about 50% XDT/50% deagrations in that lower velocity range.
Further work has been done on multiple-insult behavior of energetic solids.
In recent work, Cook and coworkers [37] described the sequence of events as
follows, and their description is consistent with the results of Jensen [32] and
others. The characteristics of these XDT experiments are that they only
occur in charges which are free to expand and that it is the impact of the
damaged energetic material with a secondary surface that leads to reaction
and subsequent detonation. It has been found that the conditions for XDT
are dependent on the separation of the charge from the (secondary) surface
[37]. Cook also showed that these conditions are present in certain munitions
such as shaped charges, where there is a structural gap across which some
explosive material can be driven by a fragment impact so as to impact a
secondary surface.
10.4 Penetrating Impact of Cased Explosives
Fragment penetration and low-amplitude shock loading of conned explosives
have been shown to be capable of stimulating ignition of the explosive. The
point of interest for this discussion is that ignition in such cases frequently
appears to be due to shear failure of the explosive, rather than shock initiation
in the usual sense. Howe et al. [38] subjected conned explosives to attack
by high-velocity metal fragments that penetrated the case and part of the
explosive. They observed that the ignition threshold velocity coincided with
the ballistic limit for penetration of the case by the fragment. By assuming
that the case penetration was due to shear, they derived an expression through
conservation of energy that relates the ballistic limit velocity v
0
(hence the
ignition threshold, as the authors point out) to the mass and conguration of
the fragment and the case-wall thickness, t. The equation is
f
1/3
m
1/3
v
0
/t = c, (10.4)
where f is the fragment length to diameter ratio, m is the fragment mass,
and c is a constant. This equation forms a straight line in loglog coordinates,
and the graph of experimental data [38] shows strong agreement between the
ballistic limit and the ignition threshold over three orders of magnitude in
fragment mass.
Generally, a penetrating fragment that lodges within a cased explosive
charge will heat the explosive by shear-ow processes during the penetration
and represent a very hot source for thermal cooko of the explosive after it
comes to rest. Given the strong correlation they had found with the ballistic
limit for penetration of the steel case, Howe et al. [38] performed an experiment
in which penetration of the case was made much easier. In that circumstance,
572 J.E. Kennedy
the fragment, while still able to shear the explosive, was not as hot as it would
have been after experiencing more severe deformation during penetration of
the case. The result was that the ballistic limit was reduced by more than a
factor of two in velocity, yet the ballistic limit still was found to correspond
exactly to the ignition threshold for the explosive. This indicates that shear
induced in the explosive, rather than the temperature of the fragment, was
the key factor in igniting the explosive.
10.5 Shear in Conned Charge Assemblies
Cased charges provide connement that can nurture a marginal ignition
reaction. Severe nonpenetrating deformation of cased charges may produce
localized deformation of the explosive, accompanied by higher sustained-
pressure elds that commonly occur in unconned charges, and the increased
pressure may reduce the shear rate required to achieve ignition. Frey [9]
addressed how properties of the explosive and of the loading system aect
the temperature that can be attained in a shear band. He concluded that
temperature in a shear band reaches a maximum when the shear is entirely
localized in a shear band, and that maximum temperature depends on the
pressure, viscosity of the material, and the imposed shear velocity, v
s
. In a
subsequent study motivated by that work, Boyle et al. [39] performed two
types of experiments designed to impose and maintain essentially a controlled
pressure upon a conned charge while the charge surface was subjected to
shear at a controlled strain rate. One conguration, sketched in Fig. 10.6, pro-
duced complete shear failure followed by sliding explosive-on-explosive shear
or friction at that interface. A model developed by Boyle indicates that the
relation
v
2
s
exp (P/P
0
) = constant (10.5)
should dene the threshold for ignition in their experiments and that is con-
rmed by their experimental data. Here P is pressure and P
0
is an empirical
factor with units of pressure.
Chidester and coworkers [40, 41] developed a cased-charge low-velocity im-
pact test called the Steven Test to address certain handling safety issues. They
selected an axisymmetric conguration that would be amenable to analysis
by wave-propagation code simulation. Plastic-bonded explosive samples were
11 cm in diameter and 1.285 cm thick. The sample case had a 0.3185-cm-thick
steel plate on the impact face and 1.905-cm-thick steel plate on the back side
of a test xture that provided heavy steel connement around the perimeter,
and the explosive charge t closely inside with little free volume. In most
test shots, test assemblies were impacted by a 7.62-cm-diameter round-nosed
steel projectile using a laboratory gas gun. Special attention was paid to the
impact-velocity threshold for ignition of high-explosive violent reactions that
were sucient to tear open the test xture and produce an explosion. As for
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 573
VELOCITY PISTON
END PLATE
STEEL
CONFINEMENT
CYLINDER
TRANSFER PISTON
DIRECTION OF SLIDE
EXPLOSIVE
SAMPLE
BUFFER
PLUG
STEEL
SLEEVES
Fig. 10.6. Test arrangement for explosive-on-explosive shear test under pressure
[37]. Test sample was 19.1 mm in diameter by 12.7-mm long, and bore of shearing
slide was 12.7 mm
the Susan Test, these LLNL researchers used air-blast pressure measurements
as metrics of energy release in these impact events. Again as in the Susan Test
and the IITRI Test on essentially unconned explosive samples, the critical
(threshold) impact velocity for ignition of HMX-based plastic-bonded explo-
sives was in the range of transportation operations. Projectile impact velocities
of 3050 ms
1
were found to produce low but measurable energy release, on
the order of 20% of that produced by intentional detonation of TNT in the
same test xture.
Among ve HMX-based explosives tested, the critical impact velocity for
ignition of observable exothermic reaction, in order of decreasing sensitivity,
was found to be PBX-9404; LX-101; LX-14; PBX-9501; and LX-04 [40].
Above the critical impact velocity, increases in air-blast overpressure with
impact velocity were rapid for PBX-9404 and LX-10 and much slower for PBX-
9501 and LX-04; this behavior is quite similar to that observed in Susan tests
for these explosives. No signicant eect of age of explosive samples was noted,
but an eect of damage was signicant. Some samples that had been tested
574 J.E. Kennedy
and had produced no reaction were retested. Such damaged samples exhibited
a lower critical impact velocity value than that of undamaged samples, and
so the damage had sensitized the explosive.
Modeling of the Steven test by Chidester et al. [40, 41], Browning [42], and
Scammon and coworkers [43] was approached from the viewpoint of evaluating
frictional work done within the explosive material as particles moved past
one another during deformation resulting from the low-velocity impact. In
this context, an assumption of nite friction between the impact face cover
plate and the explosive material has the eect of axing the surface layer of
explosive to the cover plate, and this drove the major deformation pattern a
short distance inside the explosive from that surface. Wave-propagation codes
then indicated essentially that an adiabatic shear plane would be produced
within the explosive, parallel to the deformed impact face of the xture, and
that temperatures high enough to cause ignition would be generated in this
deformation region. This is consistent with the nding of Boyle et al. [39]
concerning the migration of the maximum shear zone into the interior of the
explosive, a short distance away from a frictional surface. The analyses posed
as friction-based in the Steven test work and as ow-based in the IITRI test
work are basically equivalent, as the essential element is the calculation of
dissipation of mechanical energy into heat in localized deformations. Chidester
[39] estimated that a frictional energy generation of 0.37 cal cm
2
was required
to produce threshold ignition in the HMX-based explosive LX-101. This value
is in the same range as those determined by Boyles model [39] for shear bands
about a millimeter thick.
Grantham et al. [44] devised a method to observe and quantify shear ows
inside the cased Steven charge assembly without disassembly of the case. Use
of an unreactive sugar mock of PBX-9501 explosive allowed them to work
safely indoors with a laboratory gas gun, and utilized a radiographic diagnostic
method in their study. They embedded an array of small high-density markers
within the sugar mock PBS-9501, in which 95% sugar content replaced the
HMX content. They took ash radiographs at intervals of 50 s and watched
the ow of the array of markers. The ow exhibited some of the character of
Bernoulli ow associated with penetration in which displaced target material
ows out of the target space around the sides of the penetrator, as occurs
in shaped-charge jet penetration. But the material displaced in a Steven test
sample is conned and thus is not ejected from the target space. This decreases
the ow velocity and maintains the pressure driven by deformation of the
sample. Grantham et al. found that the principal shear strain is about 7%
and occurs in bands under the impactor in a manner consistent with model
predictions [40, 42, 43] described earlier.
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 575
10.6 Mechanical Properties of Energetic Materials
Relevant to Shear Ignition
10.6.1 Properties of Unreacted Energetic Materials
Data and models have been developed that describe the mechanical response
of explosive and propellant materials at small strains, perhaps <30% [45, 46].
True-stress vs. true-strain curves show a roll-o in the upward slope, followed
by a deep drop in stress with further strain. This drop in stress is a sign of
material failure. Examination of samples recovered after these tests showed
all modes of material failure intracrystalline cracking and shear, debonding
between the binder matrix and explosive material crystallites, and failure
lines that extended through both phases. The degree of damage required to
stimulate reaction, or set the stage for reaction upon further insult, typically
involves far greater damage levels, but data of this nature have been used in
analyzing Steven test results, where the deformation is not severe.
To address higher deformation and strain-rate conditions, Bardenhagen et
al. [47] performed and analyzed Taylor anvil tests [48] on an explosive formu-
lation containing a rubbery polyurethane binder. This test involves impact of
a cylindrical sample of the test material (in this case at an impact velocity of
about 300 ms
1
) against a rigid at surface, at a velocity high enough to cause
severe plastic deformation, but low enough that the explosive material does
not react. The mechanical deformation behavior of the explosive was mod-
eled with a nonlinear viscoelastic model with strain-rate dependence. Quidot
and coworkers [49] investigated the dynamic behavior of a cast plastic-bonded
explosive containing HTPB binder over a wider range of pressures, using a
split Hopkinson pressure bar, the Brazilian tensile-failure test, and a reverse
Taylor anvil test. They argued that low-strain behavior may be described
by a linear viscoelastic model, but higher-strain dynamic events associated
with low-velocity impact
_
50 ms
1
_
produce nonlinear eects that result in
higher stress and lower mass velocity in the explosive. Highly lled materials
with rubbery binders such as HTPB typically become stier at higher strain
rates [50].
10.6.2 Mechanical Property Eects on Ignition
Mechanical stresses that are imposed at threshold conditions for shear igni-
tion exceed the strength of the material such that large plastic deformation
and mechanical failure of the material occur. But the strength of the mate-
rial can be a factor in determining conditions required to produce material
deformation and failure.
Coley and Whatmore [51] showed that mechanical strength of an HMX-
based explosive formulation is a strong factor governing the explosiveness of
an energetic material that is subjected to hazard-level thermal and mechan-
ical stimuli. Explosiveness is a measure of violence of response and serves
576 J.E. Kennedy
as the metric in the Laboratory Scale Explosiveness Test (LABSET) [52]. A
LABSET test involves dropping a weight from a standard height of 305 mm
onto a conned explosive pellet in a xture containing a load cell that measures
the response as output force. The charge is intentionally thermally ignited by
an external electrical source during the impact loading pulse. The objective of
the test is to determine how violent the resulting reaction becomes under these
conditions of connement. Connement was provided by a metal cup in which
the sample rested, with only 1.5 mm of a 20-mm-high sample protruding from
the open end of the cup. Increased connement, provided by a cup of stronger
material or thicker wall, increased the explosiveness (output) in a standard
LABSET test [52]. Data from the test also relate to the ignition threshold
required to induce a sustained reaction. The output force from reaction was
found to decrease when the deformation behavior of the material was more
plastic, that is, departed more from elasticity. This departure from elasticity
may be described as bending further without breaking, and was dened as
the strain to failure divided by the strain evaluated along a tangent modulus
at the stress that produced failure. This indicates that dynamic compressive
material properties have an important eect on the explosiveness of tested
HE compositions.
Findings of Coleys work [51, 52] may be summarized as indicating that a
material produces more violent response under impact while conned, and is
more easily ignited when:
1. The material exhibits smaller strain to mechanical failure. (Mechanical
failure provides slip planes where shear banding and energy localization
occur.)
2. More coarse, rather than ne, HMX particles are in a formulation. (Coarse
crystals fail more easily than ne crystals do.)
3. The formulation contains less binder, or binder that more easily debonds
from the explosive crystals. (Less binder means smaller strain to failure.
Debonding is a failure process in an explosive formulation.)
Parenthesized comments above are interpretations by this author of reasons
for these ndings.
As may be expected based on the results of XDT experiments discussed
earlier, the friability (ease of pulverization) as well as mechanical strength of
energetic materials are factors that determine the ease of ignition and vigor of
response once ignited in a multiple-insult scenario. At relatively small strains,
deformation behavior of plastic-bonded explosives (PBXs) and propellants,
which are very highly lled polymers, is highly dependent on both strain rate
and temperature [44]. These materials support a higher stress before failure
occurs when the strain rate is very high, and this probably contributes to
more extensive fracturing and pulverization upon high-strain-rate failure, due
to the release of stored strain energy upon failure. The materials are softer
at higher temperature, and this makes it very likely that shear banding will
occur when major deformation begins. Measurements of strain to failure of
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 577
a plastic-bonded explosive with HTPB binder by Tasker et al. [53] indicate
that the deformation follows a lower modulus line at low strains than it fol-
lows at higher strains that lead to failure. This may be due to stress across
crystal-to-crystal contact points and areas, an energy localization mechanism
that is called stress bridging by Bardenhagen et al. [54]. This behavior is ag-
gravated by mismatches in impedance between the binder phase and the solid
particulates in a lled polymer [55]. Stress bridging occurs largely among large
crystals, and has the eect of shielding the smaller crystals from mechanical
stress.
Modeling of mechanical properties, stress elds, and reaction modes has
been motivated by interest in understanding and being able to analyze (1) re-
sponse to accidents with systems containing energetic materials and (2) DDT
and XDT processes. Work by Browning and coworkers [41, 42] at LANL has
already been described. In addition, Matheson [35, 56] has for some time been
building a model to approach these types of problems with thermodynamic
consistency and a structure suitable for three-dimensional calculations, aim-
ing to be able to model a wide range of materials and circumstances. Seeking
to describe damage produced within formulated materials due to tensile and
shear stresses, Matheson [35, 55] coupled his kinetics-based ViscousElastic
Plastic model with a subroutine in the CTH code [57] that treats tensile and
distension damage in materials. In addressing the XDT response problem of
a cylinder of energetic material impacting a at surface, the CTH implemen-
tation of this model was able to simulate eects of debonding between the
energetic crystallites and the binder, which produces local porosity and an
associated increase in sensitivity upon recompaction. It also treats scission
(rubblization) as a failure mode of the binder, and predicts circumferential
cracks in the cylinder of energetic material during impact on the surface, ev-
idence of which is seen on witness plates from experiments. Work continues
on this and simpler models to describe aspects of shear-induced damage and
energetic response.
10.7 Summary
Many impact circumstances, especially penetrating impacts, produce defor-
mation conditions in which explosive material is subjected to extreme shear
stress that causes either high-velocity shear ow or severe frictional deforma-
tion. These circumstances range from laboratory impact tests of unconned
samples to impact on the ground of entire large weapon systems dropped out of
aircraft. The key aspect of these events that leads to ignition of combustion
of the energetic material is localization of energy dissipated in deformation of
the material, and the localization may occur at a crystalline scale, mesoscale,
or macroscale. Local mass ow rates of 50200 ms
1
accompanied by large
gradients in ow velocity have been found to produce ignition in conditions
of crushing impact of both conned and unconned impact. Both the mass
578 J.E. Kennedy
velocities and the pressures in such events are lower than those required to
produce shock initiation, and delays observed before ignition, deagration,
or detonation occurs also indicate that shock initiation is not occurring. The
mechanism of ignition in these cases is directly or indirectly connected with
the shear processes imposed upon energetic material.
When ignition is attained, ame acceleration or extinction is believed to
proceed in a manner that is analogous to that connected with thermal explo-
sions. Growth or decay of the reaction is governed by the following:
1. The size of a reaction kernel
2. Porosity, permeability, or state of damage in the aected material
3. Connement of reaction product gases and the pressure they produce
4. Any further deposition of power into the region by continuing shear
processes
Connement, either inertial or structural, can play more than one role in
shear-related hazard events, just as it may in other hazard environments. Con-
nement determines how much ow is possible in cases of deforming impact.
It may serve to suppress rapid extrusion ows that may be driven in uncon-
ned samples, but maintains pressure within the sample for a longer time and
thus can nurture ignition and reaction growth.
References
1. Young, W.C., Budynas, R.G.: Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain, 7th edn.,
p. 16. McGraw-Hill, NY (2002)
2. Bai, Y., Dodd, B.: Adiabatic Shear Localization. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1992)
3. Bridgman, P.W.: The eects of high mechanical stress in certain solid explosives.
J. Chem. Phys. 15, 311313 (1947)
4. Howe, P.M.: Eects of microstructure on explosive behavior. In: Yang, V., Brill,
T.B., Ren, W.-Z. (eds.) Solid Propellant Chemistry, Combustion, and Motor In-
terior Ballistics, vol. 18, pp. 141183, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics
(1999)
5. Howe, P.M., Gibbons, G. Jr., Webber, P.E.: An experimental investigation of
the role of shear in initiation of detonation by impact. In: Proceedings of the
8th Symposium (International) on Detonation, NSWC MP 86194, pp. 294306
(1985)
6. Idar, D.J., Lucht, R.A., Straight, J.W., Scammon, R.J., Browning, R.V.,
Middleditch, J., Dienes, J.K., Skidmore, C.B., Buntain, G.A.: Low amplitude
insult project: PBX 9501 high explosive violent reaction experiments. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 11th Symposium (International) on Detonation, pp. 101110,
ONR 333005 (1998)
7. Winter, R.E., Field, J.E.: The role of localized plastic ow in the impact initia-
tion of explosives. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A343 (1975)
8. Recht, R.F.: Catastrophic thermoplastic shear. J. Appl. Mech. 31(2), Series e,
186193 (1964)
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 579
9. Frey, R.B.: The initiation of explosive charges by rapid shear. In: Proceed-
ings of the 7th Symposium (International) on Detonation, NSWC MP 82334,
pp. 3642 (1981)
10. Coey, C.S., Armstrong, R.W.: Description of hot spots associated with
localized shear zones in Impact Tests, Shock Waves and High Strain-Rate
Phenomena in Metals, pp. 313324. Plenum, NY (1981)
11. Coey, C.S., Frankel, M.J., Liddiard, T.P., Jacobs, S.J.: Experimental investi-
gation of hot spots produced by high rate deformation and shocks, In: Proceed-
ings of the 7th Symposium (International) on Detonation, NSWC MP 82334,
pp. 970975 (1981)
12. Coey, C.S.: Hot spot production by moving dislocations in a rapidly deforming
crystalline explosive. In: Proceedings of the 8th Symposium (International) on
Detonation, NSWC MP 86194, pp. 6267 (1985)
13. Coey, C.S., Sharma, J.: Crystal failure and crack formation during plastic
ow. In: Furnish, M.D., Thadhani, N.N., Horie, Y. (eds.) Shock Compression of
Condensed Matter 2001, AIP 0735400687, pp. 563566 (2002)
14. Suceska, M.: Test Methods for Explosives. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
15. Bowden, F.P., Yoe, A.D.: Fast Reactions in Solids. Butterworths, London
(1958)
16. Balzer, J.E., Field, J.E., Giord, M.J., Proud, W.G., Walley, S.M.: High-speed
photographic study of the drop-weight impact response of ultrane and conven-
tional PETN and RDX. Comb. Flame 130, 298306 (2002)
17. Field, J.E., Palmer, S.J.P., Pope, P.H., Sundararajan, R., Swallowe, G.M.:
Mechanical properties of PBXs and their behavior during drop weight tests.
In: Proceedings of the 8th Symposium (International) on Detonation, NSWC
MP 86194, pp. 635644 (1985)
18. Elban, W.L., Armstrong, R.W.: Microhardness study of RDX to assess localized
deformation and its role in hot spot formation, In: Proceedings of the 7th Sym-
posium (International) on Detonation, pp. 976975, NSWC MP 82334 (1981)
19. Field, J.E., Swallowe, G.M., Heavens, S.N.: Ignition mechanisms of explosives
during mechanical deformation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci.
382(1782), 231244 (1982)
20. Napadensky, H.S., Stresau, R.H., Savitt, J.: The behavior of explosives at im-
pulsively induced high rates of strain. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium
(International) on Detonation, ONR ACR-52, vol. 2, pp. 420436 (1960)
21. Napadensky, H.S., Kennedy, J.E.: A criterion for predicting impact initiation of
explosive systems, Minutes of the 6th Explosive Safety Seminar of the Armed
Forces Explosives Safety Board, pp. 4158, August 1964
22. Napadensky, H.S., Kennedy, J.E.: Behavior of explosives under mild impact,
DASA Report 1801, May 1966
23. Nadai, A.: Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids. McGraw-Hill, NY (1963)
24. James, E.: Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, estimate of viscosity of PBX-9404
explosive, private communication (1964)
25. Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E., Lightfoot, E.N.: Transport Phenomena. Wiley, NY
(1960)
26. Kennedy, J.E.: (Comment on Ref. 31). In: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium
(International) on Detonation, NOL ACR-126, p. 476 (1965)
27. Dorough, G.D., Green, L.G., James, E. Jr., Gray, D.T.: Ignition of explosives
by low velocity impact. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sen-
sitivity and Hazards of Explosives, London, Oct 1963
580 J.E. Kennedy
28. Green, L.G., Dorough, G.D.: Further studies on the ignition of explosives. In:
Proceedings of the 4th Symposium (International) on Detonation, NOL ACR-
126, pp. 477486 (1965)
29. Weston, A.M.: Code Crash. In: A Study of the Impact Ignition of a Thin Wafer
of Explosive Material. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Doc.
No. 4500953-R28 (1966)
30. US General Accounting Oce, U.S.S. Iowa Explosion. Sandia National Labo-
ratories Final Technical Report, Report GAO/NSIAD-9148, Aug 1991 (DTIC
AD-A239 990)
31. Napadensky, H.S.: Initiation of explosives by low velocity impact. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 4th Symposium (International) on Detonation, NOL ACR-126,
pp. 473476 (1965)
32. Jensen, R.C., Blommer, E.J., Brown, B.: An instrumented shotgun facility to
study impact initiated explosive reactions. In: Proceedings of the 7th Sympo-
sium (International) on Detonation, NSWC MP 82334, pp. 299307 (1981)
33. Isom, K.B., Keefe, R.L., Thatcher, J.H.: Standardized propellant testing for
DDT potential. In: 15th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, Sept 1978
34. Fried, L.E., Glaesemann, K.R., Howard, W.M., Souers, P.C., Vitello, P.A.:
Cheetah 4.0 Users Manual. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Liver-
more, CA, (2004)
35. Matheson, E.R., Drumheller, D.S., Baer, M.R.: An internal damage model
for viscoelastic-viscoplastic energetic materials. In: Furnish, M.D., Chhabildas,
L.C., Hixson, R.S. (eds.) Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1999,
pp. 691694, AIP 1563969238/00 (2000)
36. Green, L.G., James, E., Lee, E.L., Chambers, E.S., Tarver, C.M., Westmoreland,
C., Weston, A.M., Brown, B.: Delayed detonation of propellants from low veloc-
ity impact. In: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium (International) on Detonation,
NSWC MP 82334, pp. 256264 (1981)
37. Cook, M.D., Haskins, P.J., Briggs, R.I., Flower, H., Ottley, P., Wood, A.D.,
Cheese, P.J.: An investigation into the mechanisms responsible for delayed det-
onations in projectile impact experiments. In: Proceedings of the 13th Sympo-
sium (International) on Detonation, ONR 3510701, pp. 814821 (2006)
38. Howe, P.M., Watson, J.L., Frey, R.B.: The response of conned explosive charges
to fragment attack. In: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium (International) on
Detonation, NSWC MP 82334, pp. 10481054 (1981)
39. Boyle, V., Frey, R., Blake, O.: Combined pressure shear ignition of explosives.
In: Proceedings of the 9th Symposium (International) on Detonation, OCNR
1132917, pp. 317 (1989)
40. Chidester, S.K., Green, L., Lee, C.G.: A frictional work predictive method for the
initiation of solid high explosives from low-pressure impacts. In: Proceedings of
the 10th Symposium (International) on Detonation, ONR 3339512, pp. 786792
(1993)
41. Chidester, S.K., Tarver, C.M., Garza, R.G.: Low amplitude impact testing and
analysis of pristine and aged solid high explosives. In: Proceedings of the 11th
Symposium (International) on Detonation, ONR 333005, pp. 93100 (1998)
42. Browning, R.V.: Microstructural model of mechanical initiation of energetic
materials. In: Schmidt, S.C., Tao, W.C. (eds.) Shock Compression of Condensed
Matter 1995, AIP Conference Proceedings 370, Part 1, pp. 405408 (1996)
43. Scammon, R.J., Browning, R.V., Middleditch, J., Dienes, J.K., Haberman, K.S.,
Bennett, J.G.: Low amplitude insult project: Structural analysis and prediction
10 Impact and Shear Ignition By Nonshock Mechanisms 581
of low order reaction, Proceedings of the 11th Symposium (International) on
Detonation, ONR 333005, pp. 111118 (1998)
44. Grantham, S.G., Proud, W.G., Field, J.E.: Digital speckle radiography of ex-
plosives. In: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium (International) on Detonation,
ONR 333052, pp. 4954 (2002)
45. Gray, G.T. III, Idar, D.J., Blumenthal, W.R., Cady, C.M., Peterson, P.D.: High-
and low-strain-rate compression properties of several energetic materials as a
function of strain rate and temperature. In: Proceedings of the 11th Symposium
(International) on Detonation, ONR 333005, pp. 7684 (1998)
46. Rae, P.J., Goldrein, H.T., Palmer, S.J.P., Field, J.E., Lewis, A.L.: Studies of
the failure mechanisms of polymer-bonded explosives by high resolution moire
interferometry and environmental scanning electron microscopy. In: Proceedings
of the 11th Symposium (International) on Detonation, ONR 333005, pp. 6675
(1998)
47. Bardenhagen, S.G., Harstad, E.N., Foster, J.C. Jr., Maudlin, P.J.: Viscoelastic
models for polymeric composite materials. In: Schmidt, S.C., Tao, W.C. (eds.)
Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1995, AIP Conference Proceedings
370, Part 1, pp. 327330 (1996)
48. Taylor, G.: The use of at-ended projectiles for determining dynamic yield stress.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 194, 289299 (1948)
49. Quidot, M., Racimor, P., Chabin, P.: Constitutive models for PBX at high strain
rate. In: Furnish, M.D., Chhabildas, L.C., Hixson, R.S. (eds.) Shock Compres-
sion of Condensed Matter 1999, pp. 687690, AIP 1563969238/00 (2000)
50. John, H.J. Jr., Hudson, F.E. III, Robbs, R.: High strain rate testing of
AP/Al/HTPB solid propellants. In: Schmidt, S.C., Dandekar, D.P., Forbes,
J.W. (eds.) Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1997, pp. 603605, AIP
1563967383/98 (1998)
51. Coley, G.D., Whatmore, C.E.: The inuence of the dynamic compressive
strength properties of the formulations on the growth of reaction. In: Proceed-
ings of the 7th Symposium (International) on Detonation, NSWC MP 82334,
pp. 1723 (1981)
52. Coley, G.D.: The growth of reaction in secondary explosives under transient con-
nement. In: Proceedings of the 6th Symposium (International) on Detonation,
ONR ACR-221, pp. 290298 (1976)
53. Tasker, D.G., Dick, R.D., Wilson, W.H.: Mechanical properties of explo-
sives under high deformation loading conditions. In: Schmidt, S.C., Dandekar,
D.P., Forbes, J.W. (eds.) Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 1997,
pp. 591595, AIP 1563967383/98 (1998)
54. Bardenhagen, S.G., Brackbill, J.U.: Dynamic stress bridging in granular mate-
rial. J. Appl. Phys. 83, 57325740 (1998)
55. Roessig, K.M.: Mesoscale mechanics of plastic bonded explosives. In: Furnish,
M.D., Thadhani, N.N., Horie, Y. (eds.) Shock Compression of Condensed
Matter- 2001, pp. 973978, AIP 0735400687 (2002)
56. Matheson, E.R., Rosenberg, J.T.: The role of damage mode in delayed detona-
tion of composite energetic materials. In: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium
(International) on Detonation, pp. 451458, ONR 333052 (2002)
57. Kerley, G.I.: CTH reference manual: The equation of state package, Sandia
Report SAND910344, May 1991