Modeling Thermal Ignition of Energetic Materials 

by Norman J. Gerri and Ellen Berning 

ARL-TR-3369 November 2004

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 

ARL-TR-3369 November 2004

Modeling Thermal Ignition of Energetic Materials 

Norman J. Gerri and Ellen Berning 

Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

November 2004

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

October 2003–October 2004

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Modeling Thermal Ignition of Energetic Materials 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

D6-75 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Norman J. Gerri and Ellen Berning 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

US Army Research Laboratory 

AMSRD-ARL-SL-BE 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3369 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

This report documents an attempt to computationally simulate the mechanics and thermal regimes created when a threat 

perforates an armor envelope and comes in contact with stowed energetic material (M30 granular propellant). Fragment

simulating penetrators (FSP) of 208 and 830 gr were fired into plates of AISI 4340 steel hardened to a Rockwell C = 40. The 

exiting fragments were captured in a polymeric material with a melting point equivalent to the ignition temperature of the 

propellant. Paralleling the field experiment, a series of CTH 3D finite element runs were carried out using the same initial 

conditions as the experiments. The temperatures calculated by the CTH codes are compared to the experimental value. 

Experimental shots fired into live propellant at velocities selected from the CTH runs gave ignition or no ignition as predicted 

within reasonable limits. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

CTH, penetration mechanics, M30 propellant ignition, finite element, finite element mechanical and thermal simulation,

fragment temperature measurements 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Norman J. Gerri a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 26 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-6327 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

ii
Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

Acknowledgments v

1. Introduction 1

2. Objectives 1

3. Approach 1

4. Experimental Ballistic Results 2

4.1 Materials..........................................................................................................................2 

4.2 Ballistic Apparatus..........................................................................................................2 

4.3 Ballistic Results...............................................................................................................3 

4.4 Propellant Ignition Limits ...............................................................................................3 

4.5 Hot Fragment Conductive Ignition (HFCI) Test Results................................................3 

4.6 Residual Temperature Measurements.............................................................................4 

4.6.1 Polymeric Melting Points......................................................................................5 

4.6.2 CTH Simulation Results........................................................................................6 

4.6.3 Results of Ballistic Simulations ............................................................................7 

4.6.4 Propellant Ignition Experiments............................................................................9 

5. Conclusions 9

6. References 12

Appendix. Fragment-Simulating Projectile Deformation 13

Distribution List 15 

iii
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Ballistic test schematic. ...................................................................................................2 

Figure 2. Hot fragment conductive ignition apparatus. ..................................................................4 

Figure 3. HFCI experimental results for the 830-gr FSP................................................................4 

Figure 4. Nylon beads melted on residual FSP...............................................................................5 

Figure 5. Experiments with FSPs nylon 6 6 at various impact velocities.......................................6 

Figure 6. Simulation setup. .............................................................................................................6 

Figure 7. Comparison of CTH prediction and nylon experiment. ..................................................7 

Figure 8. CTH simulations of 208-gr FSP at varying impact velocities.......................................10 

Figure 9. CTH simulations of 830-gr FSP at varying impact velocities.......................................10 

Figure 10. Propellant ignition experimental schematic. ...............................................................11 

Figure A-1. Sequential stages of FSP deformation during the perforation of a 4340 plate..........13 

Figure A-2. CTH simulation duplicating the conditions of the experimental shot.......................14 

Figure A-3. CTH simulation.........................................................................................................14 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Comparison of 830- and 208-gr FSP CTH and experimental results..............................3 

Table 2. Nylon propellant simulant properties. ..............................................................................5 

Table 3. Comparison of simulations with experiment....................................................................8 

Table 4. Simulated results for “stress” and “pressure” fracture options.........................................9 

Table 5. Propellant ignition verification results............................................................................11 

iv
Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Jonathan Montgomery, Weapons and Materials Research 

Directorate (WMRD), for his most valuable assistance and willingness to share his expertise in 

the behavior of metals; Dr. Patrick Baker, WMRD, for his advice and insight; and Dr. Larry 

Vanderkief (contractor), WMRD, for his meticulous hot fragment conductive ignition 

experiments. 

The authors would also like to thank Rick Kane, Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate 

(SLAD), and Mark Ward, SLAD, for the near-perfect indoor range fragment experiments and 

Danny Dominick, SLAD, Jim Poole, SLAD, and Maurice Clark (contractor), SLAD, for the live 

propellant target assembly and precise gunnery.

v
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

vi
1. Introduction 

The current emphasis on fast, maneuverable, lightly armored vehicles has lowered the basic 

threat-level protection from large-caliber artillery rounds, shaped charges and kinetic energy 

(KE) penetrators to lesser threats represented by small-caliber penetrators and artillery-generated 

fragments. Beside the mechanical damage expected from perforating threats, there is now the 

added consideration of multiple thermal sources in close proximity to energetic materials such as

propellants, explosives, and fuel. In addition, power cables, sensors, and other thermally 

sensitive materials are at risk. As primary armor protection decreases, secondary protection 

offered by storage compartments and component casings becomes an essential survivability 

factor. 

2. Objectives 

The objective of this study is to devise a computational methodology to predict the thermal 

regimes which can lead to the ignition of stowed propellants and other energetic materials in 

close contact with armor-perforating threats. Secondary objectives are estimates of the residual 

penetrators’ mass, velocity, and geometry for collateral damage predictions. 

3. Approach 

Using the FATEPEN penetration equations (1), estimate the impact velocity for each penetrator 

mass/ target thickness combination that will yield an exit or residual velocity of ~300–400 m/s. 

Transferring these initial conditions to the experimental range and firing into simulated inert 

propellant, adjust the impact velocities to obtain a range of exit velocities that will permit the 

residual penetrators to be captured in a live propellant bed. 

Substitute these initial conditions into the CTH shock physics code (2) and simulate the 

perforation mechanism and residual penetrator characteristics for 100–200 μs. Duplicate the 

CTH runs on the experimental range and compare results. 

1
4. Experimental Ballistic Results 

4.1 Materials 

To avoid ambiguity in material properties, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) 4340 

steel plate (manufactured to AMS 6359 specifications and tempered to Rockwell C = 39–40) was 

selected for the target plate. Target plates were obtained in nominal thicknesses of 6.35, 9.53, 

and 12.7 mm. Heat treatment and scale removal reduced these thicknesses by 0.76 mm. The 

selected ballistic threats were 208-gr (0.50-cal.) and 830-gr (20-mm) right circular cylinder 

fragment-simulating projectiles (FSPs) with a length-to-diameter (L/D) ratio = 1 and machined 

from the AISI 4340 25.4-mm rod and tempered to Rockwell C = 29–30. The energetic material 

was M30A1 propellant downloaded from XM 232 155-mm modular artillery charges (MACs). 

4.2 Ballistic Apparatus 

The ballistic measurements were conducted using the experimental test setup shown in figure 1. 

The preselected experimental parameters included the mass, geometry, and velocity of the 

impacting FSP and the thickness of the target plate. Measurements were of the mass, 

temperature, and velocity of the exiting or residual FSP and the associated plug from the target 

plate. 

4340 Steel Plate

Figure 1. Ballistic test schematic. 

The modular recovery system was designed to capture the residual FSPs without damage or 

distortion and, at the same time, measure the temperature of the FSP as it comes to rest. All 

shots were fired at 0° obliquity, and impact velocities were selected by FATEPEN (1) to give 

residual velocities in the range of ~1000 ft/s to facilitate capture of the residual FSP and plug 

sheared from the wall of the target plate. 

 Launch Tube

Nylon66

Pellets

Timing Screens

FSP Chisel Point L/D = 1 Module 1 

Nylon 66 

Pellets

2
4.3 Ballistic Results 

The ballistic results for the 830- and 208-gr FSPs are given in table 1. 

Table 1. Comparison of 830- and 208-gr FSP CTH and experimental results. 

Experimental CTH

Shot No. Target 

(mm) 

FSP 

(gr)

Vimp 

(m/s) 

Vres 

(m/s) 

FSP RES

(gr)

Plug 

(gr)

Vimp 

(m/s) 

Vres 

(m/s) 

1 5.59 830 620 431 768 135 609 303

2 5.59 830 623 476 770 167 — —

3 5.59 830 631 482 767 180 — —

4 8.76 830 712 415 717 343 701 239

5 8.76 830 712 411 733 330 — —

6 8.76 830 714 413 737 346 — —

7 11.9 830 736 303 694 465 732 151

8 11.9 830 735 322 682 462 — —

9 11.9 830 734 283 695 464 — —

10 5.59 208 806 473 183 75 793 303

11 5.59 208 801 466 183 76 — —

12 8.76 208 758 276 162 152 732 NE

13 8.76 208 790 NE — 133a — —

14 8.76 208 760 NE — 131b — —

Notes: NE = no exit; Vimp = impact velocity; and Vres = residual velocity. a

Exit velocity of the plug = 247 m/s. b

Exit velocity of the plug = 209 m/s. 

4.4 Propellant Ignition Limits 

Propellant ignition temperatures are determined in the apparatus shown in figure 2. 

An FSP was suspended in a vertical tubular furnace at a preset temperature until thermal 

equilibrium was obtained. The FSP was dropped into a small amount of propellant and the time

to ignition noted. If ignition did not occur, the furnace temperature was raised and the experiment 

repeated (3). At FSP temperatures close to the ignition limit, the delay to ignition increased 

dramatically. 

4.5 Hot Fragment Conductive Ignition (HFCI) Test Results 

For the 830-gr FSP, the longest ignition delay was 18 s, indicating a very close proximity to the 

ignition limit. Several runs were carried out in the vicinity of the lowest ignition temperature to 

establish a statistical go/no-go confidence level. The experimental results for the 830-gr FSP 

indicated an ignition temperature of 249.8 ± 5 °C, as determined from the experimental results 

shown in figure 3. Similar experiments with the 208-gr FSP gave an ignition temperature of 

256.1 ±6 °C. Runs 4 and 14 used ground propellant instead of the granular form, without any 

noticeable effect.*

 *

The nominal size of the M30A1 propellant grain is 25.4 × 12.7 mm. 

3
SUCTION TUBE

THERMOCOUPLES 

FURNACE

FSP

PROPELLANT CUP

 

Figure 2. Hot fragment conductive ignition apparatus. 

253

270

261 261

247

248

245

249

245

266

264 261

257

253

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

1 2 34567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Run Number

Temperature (

C)

NON- IGNITION

IGNITION

Figure 3. HFCI experimental results for the 830-gr FSP. 

4.6 Residual Temperature Measurements 

Infrared (IR) Techniques: Residual FSP temperature measurements proved to be a significant 

challenge. Originally, it was anticipated that high-speed IR camera measurements would 

thermally characterize the residual FSP just prior to contact with the propellant. Because of

emissivity factors and the limited vertical field of view of 75 mm for residual penetrators at 

~300 m/s, the IR camera technique was not satisfactory. A two-color IR technique which 

reduces emissivity factors has been suggested as a possibility for future measurements. 

4
4.6.1 Polymeric Melting Points 

The most successful thermal indicators were polymeric materials with sharp melting points in the 

vicinity of the propellant ignition temperatures (module 1, figure 1). Using the MatWeb Material 

Properties website (4), a search for polymers to match the melting point, density, and thermal 

conductivity of the M30A1 yielded nylon 6 6 with 30% fiberglass filler as a suitable match 

(table 2). Note that nylon 6 6 is available in 6- × 12-mm pellets. 

Table 2. Nylon propellant simulant properties. 

MP

(°C)

δ

(g/cm3

) 

λ 

(W/m-K) 

M30A1 250 1.62 0.42

nylon 6 6 249 1.62 0.55 

Dropping a 830-gr FSP heated to 255 °C into a bed of nylon 6 6 pellets gave the results shown in 

figure 4. The numerous nylon pellets melted to the sides of the FSP indicated a sharp melting 

point and the possibility of ignition if live propellant had been used. 

Figure 4. Nylon beads melted on residual FSP. 

Unfortunately, single polymers could only indicate that fragment temperatures were either above 

or below the ignition limit. Experiments are in progress to combine colored polymeric materials 

with different melting points, which will provide a broad thermal profile for a residual FSP. 

Figure 5 shows the degree of attachment of nylon 6 6 pellets to 208- and 830-gr FSPs as a 

function of FSP mass and impact velocities on 5.56- and 8.76-mm 4340 steel plates, respectively.

5
208-gr FSP 208-gr FSP 830-gr FSP 830-gr FSP 

762 m/s 853 m/s 640 m/s 762 m/s 

Figure 5. Experiments with FSPs nylon 6 6 at various impact velocities. 

As expected, higher velocities give higher FSP temperatures as indicated by the number of 

pellets attached to each FSP mass. Subsequent range experiments, described in section 4.6.4, 

demonstrated that the higher velocities show above would have resulted in propellant ignition. 

4.6.2 CTH Simulation Results

CTH, a shock physics code designed to model ballistic impact and penetration (2), was used to 

run a series of two-dimensional (2-D) simulations of the ballistic experiments described under 

the experimental ballistic results section. 

Figure 6 shows the general configuration at time zero for all runs. The left side of the diagram

represents the color-coded temperature regimes and the right side a color-coded material 

designation. In this case, since both the target and the projectile were of the same material, the 

target had been assigned a different color to avoid confusion. Each run was conducted in 2-D. 

Tracer #7

Tracer #11

Tracer #3

TEMPERATURE MATERIALS

TARGET PLATE

FSP

 Figure 6. Simulation setup. 

6
Each FSP was oriented at the origin, symmetrically around the y axis. Tracer points,* used in 

these simulations to track velocity and temperature, were also shown in the diagram. Tracer 

points 3, 7, and 11 were chosen as representative of areas of low, medium, and high temperature, 

respectively.

Different thicknesses of steel plate were modeled to match the three plate thicknesses used in the 

experiment. The cell size in the mesh was 0.4 × 0.4 mm throughout the area of interest. The 

axisymmetric nature of the problem was exploited in order to reduce computation time. 

The SESAME tabular option for iron was chosen as the equation of state model, since it was the 

recommended model when temperature was an important variable as in this simulation (5). The 

Johnson-Cook strength model (6), as well as the Johnson-Cook fracture model (7), was also 

selected using the default parameters for 4340 steel, Rockwell C = 30 (Rockwell C = 39/40 

parameters were not available). 

4.6.3 Results of Ballistic Simulations 

The results, shown in table 1, compare the experimental residual velocities with the values with 

respect to the residual FSP velocities and the thermal ignition criteria determined by the nylon 

pellets. A second set of experiments assessed whether a connection could be made between the 

temperature of the FSP predicted by modeling and ignition of the M30A1 propellant. Figure 7 

shows a residual FSP fired into a nylon bed as compared to an equivalent simulation. Note that 

the location of the nylon pellets corresponds to the high-temperature yellow-orange (~300 °C) 

region of the simulated FSP. 

 

Figure 7. Comparison of CTH prediction and nylon experiment. 

While the simulated results agreed, in general, with experimental results, the residual velocities 

were underpredicted, as shown in table 1. Qualitative agreement between the temperature 

distribution within the simulated FSP and experimental results is illustrated in figure 7. Areas of 

 *Lagrangian tracer points define a location in a material from which preselected data variables can be collected at regular time 

intervals in a history file. 

7
the FSP to which the nylon 6 6 pellets adhered were consistent with model temperature 

predictions. 

Model predictions are summarized in table 3 for both the 208- and 830-gr FSP. Experimentally, 

ignition occurred at impact velocities of 823 and 853 m/s for the 208-gr FSP and 707 m/s for the 

830-gr FSP. Locations of tracer points 3, 7, and 11 were illustrated in figure 6. 

Table 3. Comparison of simulations with experiment. 

FSP 

(gr)

Impact

Velocity

(m/s) 

Residual 

Velocity

(m/s) 

Fracture 

Optiona

Tracer Pt. 7 

Low Temp. 

(°C)

Tracer Pt. 3 

Mid-Pt. Temp. 

(°C)

Tracer Pt. 11 

High Temp. 

(°C)

208 762 146 p 105 206 350

208 793 232 p 118 208 372

208 808 245 p 122 209 384

208 823 275 p 125 211 392

208b 853 326 p 132 212 413

830 640 185 s 110 227 357

830b 707 276 s 116 233 383

830b 732 293 s 126 237 411

830b 762 330 s 133 242 431 a

p = pressure option, and s = stress option. b

Experimentally indicated conditions under which propellant ignition should occur. 

An important difference existed between the simulations conducted for the first (ballistic) and 

second (propellant ignition) set of experiments. In addition to the Johnson-Cook fracture model, 

another fracture model (8) was also used. This model determined fracture based either on stress

or pressure. When fracture itself was of interest, the stress option was recommended. While 

using the “stress” option in the first set of simulations proved to be successful, an instability 

related to this option was discovered while running the second set of simulations. This 

instability expressed itself at impact velocities above ~765 m/s for the 208-gr FSP. Upon 

consultation with the CTH development team at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), it was 

determined that this instability represented a problem with the code itself (the SNL team is 

working to resolve this issue). But in the meantime, these simulations were run using the 

“pressure” option. Runs utilizing the “pressure” option predicted slower residual velocities and 

slightly different temperatures than those using the “stress” option. (See table 4 for comparisons 

of the 208-gr FSP for “stress” vs. “pressure” options.) Figures 8 and 9 show side-by-side 

comparisons of CTH-generated simulations for 208-gr and 830-gr FSPs, respectively. These 

figures illustrate subtle differences in the simulated temperature distribution at varying impact 

velocities. The temperature distribution is shown at the left side of each FSP, with blue 

indicating the lowest temperature and red the highest. 

8
Table 4. Simulated results for “stress” and “pressure” fracture options. 

FSP 

(gr)

Impact

Velocity

(m/s) 

Residual 

Velocity

(m/s) 

Fracture 

Optiona

Tracer Pt. 7 

Low Temp. 

(°C)

Tracer Pt. 3 

Mid-Pt. Temp. 

(°C) 

Tracer Pt. 11 

High Temp. 

(°C) 

208 762 146 p 105 206 350

208 762 225 s 103 204 363

830 701 189 p 126 228 380

830 701 276 s 116 233 383 a

p = pressure option, and s = stress option. 

From the modeling perspective, the most critical issue left to be resolved was experimental 

verification of temperatures predicted by the model. This verification was complicated by the 

fact that temperature was not uniform across the body of the FSP. While the “ignition–no 

ignition” threshold did provide a crude measure, a finer, more accurate measurement was crucial.

4.6.4 Propellant Ignition Experiments 

The CTH simulation shown in figures 8 and 9 and the polymer shots in figure 5 indicate that at 

impact velocities above 800 m/s for the 208-gr FSP and above 700 m/s for the 830-gr FSP, 

ignition of live propellant should occur. To verify these predictions, model verification 

experiments were carried out in the apparatus shown in figure 10. Dense NOMEX felt pads 

were placed behind the target plate to catch any residual spall particles that may be generated.* 

High-density polypropylene pads were designed to slow down the projectile so that it came to a 

stop within the propellant bed. Inert propellant grains of the same size and density as M30A1 

were used to determine the proper spacing. If ignition did not occur, the top of the box was 

removed to ensure the FSP stopped in the propellant bed. 

The results, shown in table 5, were in excellent agreement with the predictions. It is interesting 

to note that shot 2 (ignition) and shot 4 (nonignition) had impact velocities just 4 m/s apart, 

indicating the sensitivity of the thermal source to impact velocity. 

5. Conclusions 

Range experiments show propellant response from no reaction to ignition within a 4-m/s spread 

in the impact velocity (table 5). These results demonstrate the importance of being able to 

simulate the vulnerability of our ammunition compartments to a variety of threats during the 

armored vehicle design process. 

A computational model is developed using CTH for the purpose of simulating the impact 

conditions under which thermal ignition of energetic materials would occur upon perforation of 

an armor plate by fragments. While at this point results remain largely qualitative, they have 

 *

No spall particles were detected in the NOMEX pads or in the propellant bed. 

9
793 m/s 762 m/s

823 m/s 853 m/s

793 m/s 762 m/s

823 m/s 853 m/s

Figure 8. CTH simulations of 208-gr FSP at varying impact velocities. 

762 m/s

701 m/s

732 m/s

640 m/s

762 m/s

701 m/s

732 m/s

640 m/s

Figure 9. CTH simulations of 830-gr FSP at varying impact velocities.

10
TOP VIEW

Nomex Felt Pads

High Density Polypropylene Pads

Launcher

FSP

Target Plate M30A1 Propellant Grains

Timing Screens

Plywood Box

Figure 10. Propellant ignition experimental schematic. 

Table 5. Propellant ignition verification results. 

Shot 

No. 

FSP 

Mass 

(gr)

Plate 

Diameter

(mm) 

Impact

Velocity

(m/s) 

Ignition/ 

Nonignition 

Ignition 

Time 

(s) 

1 208 5.59 671 Nonignition —

2 208 5.59 821 Ignition 12

3 208 5.59 754 Nonignition —

4 208 5.59 817 Nonignition —

5 208 5.59 848 Ignition 8

— — Limit ~819 — —

6 830 8.76 644 Nonignition —

7 830 8.76 614 Nonignition —

8 830 8.76 669 Nonignition —

9 830 8.76 707 Ignition 5

— — Limit ~687 — —

been encouraging. The perforation mechanism appears to be adequately described and there is 

little doubt that the primary ignition site is the orange-yellow band that girdles the forward 

section of the residual fragment edge of the fragment (see the appendix). Among the outstanding 

issues are the discrepancies between the predicted exit velocities and experimental values. Also, 

the surprisingly sharp thermal gradients created by the work done in shearing off fragment 

material as it perforates the target plate raises the question of how to redefine the concept of an 

“ignition temperature” to a “thermal ignition profile” of the residual fragment. Subsequent 

experiments will attempt to define the relationship of the thermal ignition sites as a function of

the impact velocity. 

The current simulations will be rerun when all the necessary coefficients to the equation of state 

are available for 4340 Rockwell C = 40. In the future, we expect to join the CTH code to a heat 

transfer code and examine the competition between the rate of heat transferred to the propellant 

and the rate of heat transferred to the cooler parts of the FSP in the vicinity of the ignition limit.

11
6. References 

1. Edquist, K. T., et al. FATEPEN – Terminal Ballistic Penetration Model, Vol. 1; Applied 

Research Associates: Littleton, CO, 2001. 

2. McGlann, J. M.; Thompson, S. L; Elrick, M. G. CTH: A Three-Dimensional Shock Wave 

Physics Code. International Journal of Impact Physics 1990, 10, 351–360. 

3. Law, H. C. The Hot Fragment Conductive Ignition Test. 18th JANNAF Combustion 

Meeting, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 1981. 

4. MatWeb Material Properties website. www.matweb.com (accessed July 2003). 

5. Hertel, E. S., Jr.; Kerley, G. I. CTH Reference Manual: The Equation of State Package; 

SAND98-0947; Sandia National Laboratory: Albuquerque, NM, 1998. 

6. Silling, S. A. CTH Reference Manual: Viscoplastic Models; SAND91-0292; Sandia 

National Laboratory: Albuquerque, NM, 1996. 

7. Silling, S. A. Use of Johnson-Cook Fracture Model in CTH, CTH Reference Manual. 

Sandia National Laboratory: Albuquerque, NM, 1996. 

8. McGlann, J. M. CTH Reference Manual: Cell Thermodynamics; SAND91-0002; Sandia 

National Laboratory: Albuquerque, NM, 1992. 

12
Appendix. Fragment-Simulating Projectile Deformation 

Figure A-1 contains photographs of the sequential stages of fragment-simulating projectile (FSP) 

deformation during the perforating a 4340 plate. Figure A-2 is the CTH simulation duplicating 

the conditions of the experimental shot. Figure A-3 is a graphic of the CTH simulation. The thin 

orange band is ~860 K, the yellow ~650 K, the green ~476 K, and the blue the ambient 

temperature 300 K. (The ignition temperature of M30 in contact with an 830 gr FSP is 520 K.) 

The steep temperature gradients between the major temperature zones have not been duplicated 

in the graphic. The high temperature zones at the impacting edge of the exiting residual FSP are 

consistent with the premise1 that most of the mechanical work done in the FSP perforation 

process is the shearing off of the mushroomed section of the FSP (figure A-1, middle). For a 0° 

obliquity shot, the chisel point of the FSP acts like a piston and extrudes the metal behind the 

piston into the mushroom configuration. This movement has been verified by using selected 

tracer points during the CTH simulations. The hottest regimes, indicating the most mechanical 

work, will always be at the intersection of the FSP barrel and the impact generated “mushroom” 

prior to the combined perforation/shearing action. 

Figure A-1. Sequential stages of FSP deformation during the perforation of a 4340 plate. 

 1

Baker, P. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Private communication, 2003. 

13
Figure A-2. CTH simulation duplicating the 

conditions of the experimental shot. 

Figure A-3. CTH simulation.

The temperature is a function of the velocity of the FSP and the thickness of the plate. The more 

resistance to impact, the more deformation and subsequently a larger amount of material sheared 

off. This results in a higher temperature and larger volume of superheated material. Table 1 

shows that the thicker plate and higher perforation velocity gives a lighter weight residual mass. 

14
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD

 STE 0944 

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & 

 ENGRG CMD

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

AMSRD SS T

6000 6TH ST STE 100 

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608

1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

THE UNIV OF TEXAS 

 AT AUSTIN

3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316

 1 US MILITARY ACADEMY

MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE 

 MADN MATH

 THAYER HALL 

WEST POINT NY 10996-1786

 1 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

IMNE AD IM DR 

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRD ARL CI OK TL

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRD ARL CS IS T 

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600)

15
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 OASD C3I

 J BUCHHEISTER 

 RM 3D174 

 6000 DEFENSE PENTAGON

 WASHINGTON DC 20301-6000

1 OUSD(AT)/S&T AIR WARFARE 

 R MUTZELBURG 

 RM 3E139 

 3090 DEFENSE PENTAGON

 WASHINGTON DC 20301-3090

 1 OUSD(AT)/S&T LAND WARFARE 

 A VIILU 

 RM 3B1060 

 3090 DEFENSE PENTAGON

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-3090

1 UNDER SECY OF THE ARMY

 DUSA OR 

 RM 2E660 

 102 ARMY PENTAGON

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0102

 1 ASST SECY ARMY 

ACQSTN LOGISTICS & TECH 

SAAL ZP RM 2E661 

 103 ARMY PENTAGON

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0103

 1 ASST SECY ARMY 

ACQSTN LOGISTICS & TECH 

SAAL ZS RM 3E448 

 103 ARMY PENTAGON

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0103

1 DIRECTOR FORCE DEV 

 DAPR FDZ 

 RM 3A522 

 460 ARMY PENTAGON

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0460

1 US ARMY TRADOC ANL CTR 

 ATRC W 

 A KEINTZ 

 WSMR NM 88002-5502

 1 USARL 

AMSRD ARL SL EA

 R FLORES 

 WSMR NM 88002-5513

 1 USARL 

AMSRD ARL SL EI

 J NOWAK

FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

1 US ARMY DEV TEST COM

CSTE DTC TT T 

APG MD 21005-5055

1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR 

 CSTE AEC SVE 

 R BOWEN 

4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE 

APG MD 21005-3013

1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR 

CSTE AEC SVE S 

 R POLIMADEI 

4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE 

APG MD 21005-3013

1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR 

CSTE AEC SV L 

 R LAUGHMAN

4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE 

APG MD 21005-3013

 14 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL SL 

 J BEILFUSS

 P DEITZ 

AMSRD ARL SL B 

 J FRANZ 

 M PERRY 

 P TANENBAUM

AMSRD ARL SL BB 

 D BELY

 D FARENWALD

 S JUARASCIO 

 M RITONDO 

AMSRD ARL SL BD 

 R GROTE 

AMSRD ARL SL BE 

 L ROACH 

AMSRD ARL SL E 

 M STARKS 

AMSRD ARL SL EC 

 J FEENEY

 E PANUSKA

 

16
NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 14 DIR USARL 

AMSRD ARL SL BD 

 M CLARK 

 J POOLE 

 D DOMINICK

 R KANE 

 M WARD

AMSRD ARL SL BE 

N GERRI (3 CPS) 

 M MAHAFFEY

 P FEDELE 

 R SAUCIER 

AMSRD ARL WM MD

 J MONTGOMERY 

AMSRD ARL WM TB 

 P BAKER 

 L VANDERKIEF

17
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

18