Henry K. Nahra

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Eric Christiansen

Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

Andrew Piekutowski

University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio

Frankel Lyons

Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

Christopher Keddy

White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Jonathan Salem

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Joshua Miller and William Bohl

Lockheed Martin, Space Systems Company, Denver, Colorado

Kevin Poormon

University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio

Nathanael Greene and Karen Rodriguez

White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Hypervelocity Impact of Unstressed and Stressed 

Titanium in a Whipple Confi guration in Support of 

the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Service Module 

Propellant Tanks

NASA/TM—2010-216804

October 2010
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Henry K. Nahra

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Eric Christiansen

Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

Andrew Piekutowski

University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio

Frankel Lyons

Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

Christopher Keddy

White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Jonathan Salem

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Joshua Miller and William Bohl

Lockheed Martin, Space Systems Company, Denver, Colorado

Kevin Poormon

University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio

Nathanael Greene and Karen Rodriguez

White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Hypervelocity Impact of Unstressed and Stressed 

Titanium in a Whipple Confi guration in Support of 

the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Service Module 

Propellant Tanks

NASA/TM—2010-216804

October 2010

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

11th Hypervelocity Impact Symposium 2010

sponsored by the Hypervelocity Impact Society

Freiburg, Germany, April 11–15, 2010
Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Orion program for funding this effort.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 1 

Hypervelocity Impact of Unstressed and Stressed Titanium in a 

Whipple Configuration in Support of the Orion Crew Exploration 

Vehicle Service Module Propellant Tanks 

Henry K. Nahra 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Eric Christiansen 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Johnson Space Center 

Houston, Texas 77058 

Andrew Piekutowski 

University of Dayton Research Institute 

Dayton, Ohio 45469 

Frankel Lyons 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Johnson Space Center 

Houston, Texas 77058 

Christopher Keddy 

White Sands Test Facility 

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88004 

Jonathan Salem 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Joshua Miller and William Bohl 

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company 

Denver, Colorado 80201 

Kevin Poormon 

University of Dayton Research Institute 

Dayton, Ohio 45469 

Nathanael Greene and Karen Rodriguez 

White Sands Test Facility 

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88004 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 2 

Abstract 

Hypervelocity impacts were performed on six unstressed and six stressed titanium coupons with 

aluminum shielding in order to assess the effects of the partial penetration damage on the post impact 

micromechanical properties of titanium and on the residual strength after impact. This work is performed 

in support of the definition of the penetration criteria of the propellant tanks’ surfaces for the service 

module of the crew exploration vehicle where such a criterion is based on testing and analyses rather than 

on historical precedence. The objective of this work is to assess the effects of applied biaxial stress on the 

damage dynamics and morphology. The crater statistics revealed minute differences between stressed and 

unstressed coupon damage. The post impact residual stress analyses showed that the titanium strength 

properties were generally unchanged for the unstressed coupons when compared with undamaged 

titanium. However, high localized strains were shown near the craters during the tensile tests. 

Nomenclature 

C Speed of sound in materials, km/s 

dp Projectile diameter, cm, mm 

E Young’s modulus, ksi, MPa 

H Brinell hardness 

HV Vickers Hardness 

P Crater depth, cm 

tb Bumper thickness, cm 

Vfragment Fragment velocity, km/s 

Vp Projectile velocity, km/s 

xx Strain along x direction, percent 

yy Strain along y direction, percent 

xx Normal Stress Component along x direction, ksi, MPa 

yy Normal Stress Component along y direction, ksi, MPa 

 Poisson Ratio 

ρp Projectile density, g/cm3

ρt Target density, g/cm3

1.0 Introduction 

The propellant tanks on the service module of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) are 

vulnerable to the micrometeoroids and orbital debris (MMOD) impacts. Although they are shielded by 

other surfaces, a projectile of significant energy could penetrate through the shielding. Generated 

fragmentation could impact the surfaces of the propellant tanks and result in adverse effects on the service 

module. The spectrum of damage ranges from a perforation through the tank wall to simple cratering of 

the surfaces of the tanks. The allowable depth of penetration in the surface of the propellant tank is 

integral to the definition of the failure criteria used in the MMOD system level analysis of the vehicle. 

The current allowable penetration criteria for the pressure vessels on board of the Service Module (SM) of 

the CEV are based on historical background; however, these criteria should be based on experiments and 

analyses that show that the allowable depth of penetration is reasonable and not overly conservative or 

nonconservative. 

An experimental program aimed at addressing the depth of penetration that is allowed on the tanks 

surfaces with multicenter and multidisciplinary participation was planned in support of NASA’s future 

missions. Phase 1 of the program addresses the penetration depth of metallic titanium tank surfaces 

whereas phase 2 addresses the penetration depth into the composite surface of composite overwrapped 

pressure vessels (COPV). A building block approach is adopted in this program. For phase 1, which is 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 3 

concerned with the titanium surface, six stressed and unstressed titanium coupons shielded with 

aluminum bumpers were hypervelocity impacted by projectiles that penetrate the aluminum shield and 

cause the resulting plume to impact the titanium surface to produce a partial penetration distribution of 

craters. A series of post impact analyses are performed to assess the damage resulting from the craters. 

Detailed comparisons are performed to assess the difference between biaxially loaded and unstressed 

coupons impacted with similar projectiles and nearly similar velocities. Testing of pressurized titanium 

metal tanks is planned through task 2 of phase 1. This paper is focused on the hypervelocity impact (HVI) 

testing of the titanium coupons and the craters analyses that followed. Figure 1 shows a basic block 

diagram for phase 1 effort with the presented work highlighted in blue. 

2.0 Testing 

In this effort, the conducted HVI experiments consisted of performing six shots on aluminumshielded unstressed titanium coupons at White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), and six shots on aluminumshielded-biaxially-stressed titanium coupons at the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI)-

Impact Physics Laboratories. The configurations of the test coupons were similar except for the biaxial 

stress state. 

2.1 Target-Shielding Geometry 

Figure 2(a) shows a schematic of the coupon geometry. The basic configuration of the test article 

consisted of a 0.0965 cm (0.04 in.) aluminum 6061-T6 bumper and a 0.127 cm (0.05 in.) Titanium 

(Ti-6Al-4V) substrate with a standoff distance of 27.9 cm (11 in.). Similar configuration for the 

unstressed coupons was adopted. Although this geometry and configuration does not fully reflect the 

shielding design of the service module tanks, this configuration was chosen for the fact that it makes the 

crater analysis much more correlated with the projectile speed, density and velocity because the Whipple 

shield is well understood from a fundamental stand point. No material backing of the titanium was 

considered because we decided to pursue the worst case where the tank wall is contacting the gas and 

where the greatest mismatch in mechanical impedance occurs. 

2.2 Biaxial Stress Fixture 

A biaxial stress fixture was designed and fabricated at UDRI for this series of testing. It was based on 

the design of the uniaxial stress fixture used for the crack propagation studies of the International Space 

Station (ISS) module skin. The biaxial fixture is shown in Figure 2(b). This fixture is capable of providing 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 4 

TABLE 1.—HVI TESTS ON UNSTRESSED AND STRESSED Ti COUPONS WITH ALUMINUM SHIELDS

80 ksi±7 percent of biaxial stress which was a requirement reflecting the stress state of typical metallic 

propellant tanks. The calibration of the biaxial stress state was performed with eight biaxial strain gages 

(4 gauges in each direction). Five turnbuckles along the vertical and horizontal direction provided the 

mechanical pull to achieve the calibrated strain that corresponds to the desired stress level. The titanium 

coupons were first installed in the fixture. Before performing the hypervelocity impact, the titanium was 

strained to the appropriate strain level of 3248 μ strains in each direction based on the aforementioned 

biaxial stress of 80 ksi. The strain level was computed from the two-dimensional Hooke’s law given by, 

    1 1

; E E xx xx yy yy yy xx           (1) 

Where xx is the normal stress component along the x direction, xx is the strain along the x direction, 

E is Young’s Modulus, and  is the Poisson ratio. The strain along the vertical direction is computed from 

the yy equation also given in Equation (1). 

The titanium coupons for the unstressed tests were integrated with the aluminum shielding according 

to the spacing given in paragraph 2.1. For the stressed coupons, the configuration differed a little in that 

the titanium could not be integrated with the aluminum shielding. Instead, the aluminum shield was 

installed on a different structure as shown in Figure 1(b) and titanium target was installed into the biaxial 

stress fixture. The titanium thickness was milled down to 0.127 cm (0.05 in.) in an area in the middle of 

the coupon of 22.9 by 22.9 cm (9 by 9 in.). 

2.3 Test Matrices for the Unstressed and Stressed Coupons Tests 

The test plan matrix for the unstressed and stressed titanium coupons is shown in Table 1, 

respectively. The first and second columns refer to the reference numbers of the tests performed at WSTF 

(unstressed) and UDRI (biaxially stressed), respectively. The Whipple shield Ballistic Limit Equation 

(BLE) was used to estimate the depth of penetration shown in the last column of the table. 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 5 

In general, the parameters were made very similar for comparison purposes in order to look for the 

effects of the biaxial stress on the micro-mechanical features of the craters and the residual strength of the 

titanium. The aluminum projectiles simulate the orbital debris environment whereas the micrometeoroids 

are simulated with the lower density nylon projectiles. The higher micrometeoroids velocity is not 

simulated because of the limitations of the launch facilities used for the hypervelocity impacts. 

3.0 Results 

The results for the unstressed and stressed titanium coupons HVIs will be presented in this section of 

the paper and these encompassed several post impact analyses performed on the craters. 

3.1 Crater Depth Analyses 

Several craters in each of the impacted coupons were analyzed for depth and diameter. The craters 

were chosen based on their visual appearance as being of greater depth and diameter. The depth of 

penetration for each of the crater was measured with the three-dimensional microscope at the Johnson 

Space Center. A typical depth image and profile is shown in Figure 3. The craters were identified by 

placing and lining up a transparency over the titanium coupon and identifying with a marker the craters of 

interest. Then the transparency which served as a reference catalog was removed to look at the chosen 

craters. Table 2 shows the results of analyzing 5 craters on an unstressed titanium coupon where the 

projectile diameter was 1.6 mm at 6.69 km/s. 

TABLE 2.—DEPTH OF PENETRATION FOR THE 5 CRATERS MEASURED 

ON THE TITANIUM COUPON FROM A 1.6 mm ALUMINUM 

PROJECTILE IMPACT ON ALUMINUM 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 6 

 

Figure 4(a) and (b) shows the damage distribution on a stressed and unstressed titanium surface from a 

2.6 mm projectile that impacted the aluminum shield. It is observed that the ring structure is apparent for the 

aluminum projectile but not so apparent for the 3.6 mm nylon projectile shown in Figure 5(a) and (b). 

Moreover, there seems to be no dependence of the crater depth on the radial distance from the impact 

center for both the stressed and unstressed coupons and for the aluminum and nylon projectiles. The 

titanium coupons impacted with plumes from aluminum projectile-aluminum shield showed concentric 

ring structures that are reflective of the projectile diameter and the plume generated from the projectile 

impact with the aluminum surface. Although the ring structure exists, the lack of dependence of the crater 

depth on the radial distance from the center suggests that the craters were generated by aluminum 

particles released from the aluminum bumper and landed on the outskirts of the aforementioned rings of 

particle damage. 

As shown in Figures 4 and 5, secondary impacts resulted in similar damage maps on the stressed and 

unstressed coupons for the aluminum and nylon projectiles, respectively. The nylon density is almost 

three times less than the aluminum density with a lower melting and vaporization temperatures. With 

similar impact loading pressure on the aluminum, the nylon projectile vaporizes and the resulting plume is 

primarily made up of particles released from the aluminum shield. These particles are on the average 

greater in size than those released from impacts of aluminum projectiles on the aluminum shield. 

In the crater analyses performed at the NASA Johnson Space Center, the crater depth and diameter 

were measured at selected damage sites. The average damage depth for each of the titanium coupons was 

calculated from the various craters. Figure 6 shows the crater depth plotted as a function of the projectile 

kinetic energy for the stressed and unstressed coupons with the 95 percent confidence interval calculated 

for the stressed coupons’ measured craters shown in Figure 6(b). The decreasing trend at higher projectile 

kinetic energy may be explained by the smaller particles in the plume generated by the higher loading 

impact pressure from the bigger aluminum projectiles. 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 7 

 

3.2 Micromechanical-Metallographic Analyses 

The micromechanical analyses performed at WSTF focused on assessing the micromechanical 

properties of the titanium near selected craters of specific penetration depths. Three craters were chosen 

from three titanium coupons. Two craters came from the titanium coupons of tests HITF08373 and 

HITF08375, respectively whereas the third from the titanium coupon of HITF08377. These three craters 

were chosen on the titanium coupons and a small sample was cut around each of the craters. The craters’ 

depths were about 12, 25, and 38 percent of the titanium thickness. 

3.2.1 Scanning Electron Microscopy 

At first, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed on the three samples to obtain a crater 

profile and determine an accurate depth of the crater. Figures 7 and 8 show SEM images of the craters 

from the 1.6 and 2.6 mm aluminum projectile whereas Figure 9 shows an image of the crater that resulted 

from the nylon impact on the aluminum bumper. 

3.2.2 Replica Metrology and White Light Profilometry 

In an effort to assess the effectiveness of making a replica for the damage which in turn will be used 

for white light profilometry, replica metrology was performed on the craters utilizing a polymeric rubbery 

system. The replicas were allowed to cure and detached from the target plate on both the crater side as 

well as the back side in the region situated just below the crater. White light profilometry was performed 

on the single craters as well as on the plate surface just behind the crater prior to sectioning. As shown in 

Figure 10, there is a close correspondence (a difference of 10 percent) between the replica and the crater 

obtained from the 1.6 mm aluminum projectile impact on the aluminum shield, and the results were 

consistent between the profiles acquired from the crater and the replicas. 

3.2.3 Metallography 

Once white light profilometry was completed, the craters were sectioned in the transverse orientation 

and the sectioned half crater was cold mounted and polished utilizing standard metallographic techniques. 

Once the mounted samples had been polished to approximately the middle of the crater, a Kroll’s reagent 

was used to etch it. As shown in Figures 11 and 12, the micrographs revealed equiaxed α with 

intergranular β as would be expected for an annealed Ti-6Al-4V. Several spall cracks were observed 

(Fig. 12) on both sides of the sectioned crater for only the nylon impactor. The back side of the target 

plate just below the crater was also imaged and no spall cracks were observed. A direct comparison of the 

damage range for the nylon projectiles for both the stressed and unstressed Ti coupons shows that the 

maximum damage measured for the finite number of samples tends to be about 40 percent. Such deep 

depth of penetration presents concerns since it is shown later that the scanning electron micrographs of 

such deep impact exhibited spall microcracks near the crater. 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 8 

 

3.2.4 Vickers Hardness—Unstressed Titanium Coupons 

Hardness was measured on the sectioned and mounted crater utilizing a Vickers micro-hardness tester 

with a 100 g load. Hardness readings were taken on the base metal as well as from the base of the crater 

all the way to the back face of the target plate as shown in Figure 13. Figure 14 shows a summary of the 

measured Vickers micro-hardness as a function of the distance below the crater for the three craters that 

were sectioned. 

The micro-hardness profile below the crater does not appear to show a very significant hardness 

change in the base metal as a result of the impact. For instance for the nylon projectile related crater, 

Vickers micro-hardness ranged from 285 to 326 HV whereas the base material hardness was found to be 

in the range of 300 to 350 HV with the highest reading located just below the front target plate face. 

3.2.5 Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy 

Energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopic (EDS) analysis was performed on control titanium samples as 

well as on the inside of the crater. The EDS technique is capable of detecting elements of atomic number 

4 (Beryllium) and greater. As shown in Figure 15(b), the inside of the crater possessed an intense 

aluminum peak which most likely is the result of deposition of the projectile (2017-T4 aluminum) or 

bumper plate material (6061-T6 aluminum) on the crater inner wall. 

3.3 Bumper Fragments Size Estimates 

An attempt was made to calculate the particle distribution for each of the impacts on the unstressed 

and shielded titanium coupons. Based on the ratio of the bumper thickness to the impacting projectile 

diameter tb/dp which ranged between 0.2 to 0.6, and on the projectile velocity being about 7 km/s, the 

projectile may have been partially or fully melted upon impact but the bumper unlike the projectile is 

fragmented and the fragments partially penetrated the titanium surface (Ref. 1). The craters produced 

from the aluminum projectile impacts and that were chosen for depth measurements lied on the outskirt of 

the ring structures that formed on the titanium. These craters were created by aluminum fragments that 

were broken off from the bumper. The nylon projectile most likely vaporizes upon impact and 

consequently, the craters are also formed from the aluminum fragments that are broken from the shield. 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 9 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 10 

The crater depth information was used to approximate the diameter or the length scale of the 

impacting fragments. This was done using the penetration depth equation and back calculating the 

impacting diameter. The penetration depth that results from an impacting particle of diameter dp and a 

velocity Vp is given for p/t < 1.5 by (Ref. 2), 

19 18 2 3

4

5.24 p pp

t

d V

P

H C 

  

        

(2) 

P is the depth in a semi-infinite target, H is the Brinell hardness, p and t are the projectile and 

target densities respectively, and C is the speed of sound in the material interacting with the projectile. 

The maximum fragment diameter from the aluminum bumper cannot exceed the bumper thickness. The 

velocity of the bumper fragments is related to the impact velocity by (Ref. 2), 

fragments 0.8 b p t d V Vep



 (3) 

Combination of Equations (2) and (3), realizing that dp in Equation (2) is actually dfragment, and solving 

for dfragment leads to, 

  

18 19

4

fragment 2 3

fragment 5.24 p t

P H

d

V C

 

 

   

 

(4) 

The distribution of the fragment diameter/length scale based on the depth of the few craters from the 

unstressed (Fig. 6(a), (c), and (e)) and stressed (Fig. 6(b), (d), and (f)) coupons that were measured is 

shown in Figure 16(a) to (f). In Figure 16(e) and (f), the distribution of all particles from all the impacts 

performed on the unstressed and stressed coupons is shown, respectively. The range of the particles 

length scale is comparable for the stressed and unstressed titanium and for the different projectile 

diameters. The fragmentation distribution depends on the bumper properties and the projectile energy. 

The titanium cratering was used to gage the plume distribution. Figure 16(e) and (f) suggest that the 

fragmentation distribution from the shield ranged in size from 0.02 to about 0.1 cm. The majority of the 

fragmentation size is between 0.02 and 0.04 cm in diameter for the aluminum projectiles ranging from 

1.6 to 3.6 mm and nylon projectiles from 2 mm to about 3.6 mm. 

3.4 Residual Strength Measurements 

The residual strength measurements were performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center. The tensile 

strength of the unstressed cratered titanium sheets was performed by using ASTM E8 (Ref. 3) sub-sized 

specimens cut from the impact site. The 1 in. gage section of the test specimens was centered on regions 

exhibiting multiple, large craters or significant debris splatter. Prior to testing, the depth, width, and 

length of the largest craters in each gage section were measured. The largest craters were ~1.1 by 1.0 by 

0.5 mm in width, length, and depth, respectively. For the specimens exhibiting the worst apparent damage 

(i.e., largest craters), the strain field in the gage section was recorded during loading by using a camerabased displacement system. This allowed estimation of the local stress/strain concentration around the 

crater. 

The engineering tensile properties of reference (undamaged) and cratered titanium sheets are given in 

Table 3. 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 11 

TABLE 3.—EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF THE RESIDUAL STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS 

[The row labelled “Reference” corresponds to measurements of un-impacted titanium.] 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 12 

Very little difference in Young’s modulus, yield strength, and ultimate strength are exhibited, however, 

significant differences occur for the fracture strength, elongation and area reduction. The lower fracture 

strength and ductility are a result of the MMOD causing localized yielding and premature failure as 

compared to a smooth section. The large ductility and fracture toughness of Ti-6-4 allowed load shedding 

and good ultimate strength. Although the tensile results indicate little change in some engineering tensile 

values, the local strain are substantially higher in some cases as shown in Figure 17. 

The localized strains at net section yield are about 30 percent higher, and at failure they are more than 

3 times higher. Thus it was concerning that the quasi-static tensile tests do not represent well the localized 

damage, and it might be expected that components subjected load-control failure scenarios, such as 

pressure vessels, could fail at lower section stresses over time, as load cannot be easily redistributed. To 

investigate this point further, a specimen with a 0.11 by 0.32 by 0.33 mm crater was held under a constant 

load of 110 ksi stress for 21 hr. The results showed a constant strain under this condition as depicted in 

Figure 18. The concern is alleviated by the fact that the pressure is low compared to the usual high 

pressure common to pressure vessels and by Figure 18 which shows no strain increase under constant 

load over a period of 21 hr. 
NASA/TM—2010-216804 13 

Concluding Remarks 

In this paper, we showed the results of a series of hypervelocity impact tests in which a projectile is 

launched at an aluminum bumper in front of a titanium plate in order to understand the structure of the 

craters on the titanium caused by the projectile-bumper interaction and the resulting plume composed of 

projectile remains and target fragments. Several post impact tests performed on the titanium craters 

showed that the damage structures on the biaxially stressed and unstressed titanium plates were similar. 

Hardness measurements showed no differences between the Ti hardness under the crater and aside from 

the crater. This suggests that the local deformation upon impact does not affect the hardness properties 

even for the deepest crater of 38 percent depth analyzed in this work. Post impact residual strength 

measurements showed no discernable differences in the engineering strength properties between the 

pristine and cratered titanium. However, imaging of the strain field revealed significant increase in the 

localized strains upon tensile yield of the specimen. These measurements also revealed reduction in the 

fracture strength and reduction in ductility of the cratered titanium specimens. Tensile stress of 110 ksi 

applied to a cratered specimen showed no changes in the strain for 21 hr duration which suggests that the 

constant load conditions at the operating stress of about 100 ksi is not a concern. 

We recommend performing burst pressure tests on cratered coupons. These tests are based on 

pressurizing the back surface of a cratered titanium coupon and increasing the pressure until failure. Such 

a test would be more representative of the load control failure than quasi-static tensile tests. We also 

recommend performing strain field measurements on craters of depth between 10 to 30 percent under 

loading conditions and comparing the strain fields, the elongation, area reduction and fracture strength for 

the two craters. This will help determine the appropriate allowable penetration depth on the surfaces of 

the metallic titanium pressure vessel. 

References 

1. Cour-Palais BG., “Meteoroid protection by multiwall structures,” AIAA 69-372, 1969. 

2. Christiansen, E., “Meteoroids/Debris Shielding,” TP 2003-210788, 2003. 

3. ASTM E8 / E8M - 08 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The 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 of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

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)

01-10-2010 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Hypervelocity Impact of Unstressed and Stressed Titanium in a Whipple Configuration in 

Support of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Service Module Propellant Tanks 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Nahra, Henry, K.; Christiansen, Eric; Piekutowski, Andrew; Lyons, Frankel; Keddy, 

Christopher; Salem, Jonathan; Miller, Joshua; Bohl, William; Poormon, Kevin; Greene, 

Nathanael; Rodriguez, Karen 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 644423.06.32.01.03 

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17435 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2010-216804 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 88 and 26 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Hypervelocity impacts were performed on six unstressed and six stressed titanium coupons with aluminium shielding in order to assess the 

effects of the partial penetration damage on the post impact micromechanical properties of titanium and on the residual strength after impact. 

This work is performed in support of the definition of the penetration criteria of the propellant tanks’ surfaces for the service module of the 

crew exploration vehicle where such a criterion is based on testing and analyses rather than on historical precedence. The objective of this 

work is to assess the effects of applied biaxial stress on the damage dynamics and morphology. The crater statistics revealed minute 

differences between stressed and unstressed coupon damage. The post impact residual stress analyses showed that the titanium strength 

properties were generally unchanged for the unstressed coupons when compared with undamaged titanium. However, high localized strains 

were shown near the craters during the tensile tests. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Hypervelocity impacts; Shielding; Micrometeoroids and orbital debris; Craters; Micromechanical properties; Strain; Hardness 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

19 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18