4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Whipple shield performance in the shatter regime

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 504-510

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.10.022

Keywords

Hypervelocity impact; Orbital debris; Whipple shield; Ballistic limit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A series of hypervelocity impact tests have been performed on aluminum alloy Whipple shields to investigate failure mechanisms and performance limits in the shatter regime. Test results demonstrated a more rapid increase in performance than predicted by the latest iteration of the JSC Whipple shield ballistic limit equation (BLE) following the onset of projectile fragmentation. This increase in performance was found to level out between 4.0 and 5.0 km/s, with a subsequent decrease in performance for velocities up to 5.6 km/s. For a detached spall failure criterion, the failure limit was found to continually decrease up to a velocity of 7.0 km/s, substantially varying from the BLE, while for perforation-based failure an increase in performance was observed. An existing phenomenological ballistic limit curve was found to provide a more accurate reproduction of shield behavior that the BLE, prompting an investigation of appropriate models to replace linear interpolation in shatter regime. A largest fragment relationship was shown to provide accurate predictions up to 4.3 km/s, which was extended to the incipient melt limit (5.6 km/s) based on an assumption of no additional fragmentation. Alternate models, including a shock enhancement approach and debris cloud cratering model are discussed as feasible alternatives to the proposed curve in the shatter regime, due to conflicting assumptions and difficulties in extrapolating the current approach to oblique impact. These alternate models require further investigation. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available