High-precision numerical modeling of the projectile launch and failure mechanism analysis of projectile-borne components

doi:10.1007/s10483-025-3254-9

摘要/Abstract

Abstract:

As core components of precision-guided projectiles, projectile-borne components are highly susceptible to failure or even damage in complex high-overload environments, thereby significantly compromising launch reliability and safety. However, accurately characterizing the mechanical behavior of propellants remains challenging due to the limitations in the current internal ballistic theory and the constraints of large-scale artillery firing experiments. This complicates the high-precision numerical modeling of projectile launch, and obstructs investigations into the failure mechanisms of projectile-borne components. Therefore, this paper identifies propellant parameters using the computational inverse method under uncertainty, further establishes high-precision numerical models of projectile launch, and explores the failure mechanisms of projectile-borne components in complex high-overload environments. First, a projectile launching experiment is meticulously designed and executed to obtain the breech pressure and muzzle velocity. Then, a general simulation model is built, and the powder burn model is used to simulate the ignition and combustion. Subsequently, the propellant parameters are effectively identified with the computational inverse method by the combination of the experiments and simulations. A high-precision numerical model of projectile launch is modified with the parameters validated by another experiment, and the high-overload characteristics during projectile launch are thoroughly analyzed based on this model. Finally, the high-overload characteristics of projectile-borne components are analyzed to elucidate the stress variation laws and to reveal the failure mechanisms influenced by time and spatial locations. This research provides an effective method for perfectly identifying propellant parameters and building high-precision numerical models of projectile launch. Additionally, it provides significant guidance for the anti-high overload design and analysis of projectile-borne components.

Key words: projectile-borne component, high-overload environment, propellant parameter identification, computational inverse technique, failure mechanism

中图分类号:

. [J]. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics (English Edition), 2025, 46(5): 885-906.

Xindan GUO, Qiming LIU, Xu HAN, Tao LI, Bin'an JIANG, Canwei CAI. High-precision numerical modeling of the projectile launch and failure mechanism analysis of projectile-borne components[J]. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics (English Edition), 2025, 46(5): 885-906.

图/表 30

Name	Value	Unit	Name	Value	Unit
Density	$7.7 × 103$	kg/m³	Specific heat	465.0	J/(kg · K)
Bulk modulus	$2.0 × 108$	kPa	Yield stress	$8.27 × 105$	kPa
Shear modulus	$8.0 × 107$	kPa	Melting temperature	1 811	K
Hardening constant	$2.75 × 105$	kPa	Hardening exponent	0.36
Strain rate constant	0.022		Thermal softening exponent	1.03

Name	Value	Unit	Name	Value	Unit
Density	$8.45 × 103$	kg/m³	Gruneisen coefficient	2.04
Parameter $C$	$3.73 × 103$	m/s	Parameter $S$	1.434

Parameter	$G R$	$C 1$	$a$	$n$
Description	Reaction growth constant	Ignition front velocity coefficient	Burn rate coefficient	Burn rate exponent
Range	[0.1, 0.3]	[40, 60]	[0.5, 0.9]	[0.7, 1.2]

Statistical moment		MCS	PEM-INT	Relative error/%
Burn rate coefficient $a$	$μ 1$	0.653 8	0.650 0	0.58
Burn rate coefficient $a$	$σ 1$	0.048 7	0.050 0	2.67
Burn rate exponent $n$	$μ 2$	0.934 2	0.949 5	1.64
Burn rate exponent $n$	$σ 2$	0.043 2	0.049 5	14.58

Name	Value	Unit	Name	Value	Unit
Density	$1.86 × 103$	kg/m³	Reference temperature	293	K
Bulk modulus	$1.35 × 107$	kPa	Thermal conductivity	0	J/(kg ·K)
Specific heat	0	J/(kg · K)	Reaction growth constant	0.23	mm^-1
Specific energy	$1.0 × 106$	kJ/m³	Reaction growth exponent	0.5
Parameter $D$	1.003 3		Burn rate coefficient	0.650 0
Yield stress	$2.0 × 103$	kPa	Burn rate exponent	0.954 5
Shear modulus	$1.38 × 106$	kPa	Ignition front velocity coefficient	40.37	m/s

Variable	Experiment 1	Vacuum model		Air model		Band model
Variable	Experiment 1	Value	Error/%	Value	Error/%	Value	Error/%
Time/ms	11.25	11.00	2.22	11.10	1.33	11.90	5.78
Pressure/MPa	241.03	254.72	5.68	255.62	6.05	234.95	2.52
Velocity/ $(m ⋅ s − 1)$	693	664	4.18	661	4.62	640	7.65
Variable	Experiment 2	Vacuum model		Air model		Band model
Variable	Experiment 2	Value	Error/%	Value	Error/%	Value	Error/%
Time/ms	12.83	12.80	0.23	12.90	0.55	12.12	5.53
Pressure/MPa	194.33	197.31	1.53	197.19	1.47	190.11	2.17
Velocity/ $(m ⋅ s − 1)$	664	604	9.04	603	9.19	587	11.60

Part name	Material	Density/(kg · m^-3)	Elastic modulus/kPa	Poisson's ratio
Projectile body	Steel	$7.86 × 103$	$2.00 × 108$	0.27
Inner cylinder	Aluminum	$2.71 × 103$	$6.90 × 107$	0.33
Fixed bearing	Aluminum	$2.71 × 103$	$6.90 × 107$	0.33
PCB	Epoxy resin^[41]	$1.97 × 103$	$1.40 × 107$	0.18
Optical lens	Optical glass^[42-43]	$2.54 × 103$	$8.13 × 107$	0.21
Lens housings	ABS plastic	$2.30 × 103$	$2.28 × 106$	0.39
Buffer assembly	Cushion rubber^[44]	$1.35 × 103$	–	0.50

参考文献 44

[1]	MI, J., LI, J., ZHANG, X., FENG, K. Q., HU, C. J., WEI, X. K., and YUAN, X. Q.Roll angular rate measurement for high spinning projectiles based on redundant gyroscope system. Micromachines, 11(10), 940 (2020)
[2]	FRESCONI, F., COOPER, G., CELMINS, I., DESPIRITO, J., and COSTELLO, M.Flight mechanics of a novel guided spin-stabilized projectile concept. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G-Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 226(G3), 327–340 (2012)
[3]	YAN, A., PI, A. G., YANG, H., HUANG, F. L., and WANG, X. F.Study on the equivalence of penetration overloading for projectile-borne components in nonproportional penetrators. Shock and Vibration, 2022(1), 533064 (2022)
[4]	VERBERNE, P., MEGUID, S. A., and ELSAYED, E. A.Survivability of embedded microelectronics in precision guided projectiles: modeling and characterization. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 154, 103864 (2021)
[5]	JANG, J. S., SUNG, H. G., ROH, T. S., and CHOI, D. W.Numerical analysis of interior ballistics through eulerian-lagrangian approach. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 27(8), 2351–2357 (2013)
[6]	CHENG, C. and ZHANG, X. B.Numerical simulation of two-phase reactive flow with moving boundary. International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 23(8), 1277–1290 (2013)
[7]	CHENG, C. and ZHANG, X. B.Numerical investigation of two-phase reactive flow with two moving boundaries in a two-stage combustion system. Applied Thermal Engineering, 156, 422–431 (2019)
[8]	HUNG, N. V., DOAN, D. V., DUNG, N. V., and LINH, D. D.A thermodynamic model for interior ballistics of an amphibious rifle. Journal of Science and Technique, 15(4), 48–62 (2020)
[9]	ZHANG, D. H., WANG, C., SHEN, Y. Y., WEI, Y. J., and XU, H. Y.Dynamic modeling and motion prediction of two projectiles launched successively underwater. Ocean Engineering, 292, 116551 (2024)
[10]	LUO, Q. and ZHANG, X. B.Numerical simulation of gas-solid two-phase reaction flow with multiple moving boundaries. International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 25(2), 375–390 (2015)
[11]	WANG, J. G., YU, Y. G., ZHOU, L. L., and YE, R.Numerical simulation and optimized design of cased telescoped ammunition interior ballistic. Defence Technology, 14(2), 119–125 (2018)
[12]	VO, N. D., JUNG, M. Y., OH, D. H., PARK, J. S., MOON, I., and OH, M.Moving boundary modeling for solid propellant combustion. Combustion and Flame, 189, 12–23 (2018)
[13]	POLEZHAEV, Y. V. and STONIK, O. G.From deflagration to detonation: three modes of combustion. High Temperature, 48(4), 534–540 (2010)
[14]	ALEXEY, K., VASILIY, P., KSENIA, M., and DMITRY, K.Metalized solid propellant combustion under high-speed blowing flow. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 34(5), 2245–2253 (2020)
[15]	MIURA, H., MATSUO, A., and NAKAMURA, Y.Numerical prediction of interior ballistics performance of projectile accelerator using granular or tubular solid propellant. Propellants Explosives Pyrotechnics, 38(2), 204–213 (2013)
[16]	DONG, X. L., RUI, X. T., and LI, C.Interior ballistic two-phase flow model and its calculation for a mixed charge structure. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 144, 106788 (2023)
[17]	HOU, Y. D. and ZHANG, X. B.Peridynamic simulation for the laser ignition model of energetic material with cracks. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 215, 124524 (2023)
[18]	WANG, Z. J., QIANG, H. F., WANG, T. J., WANG, G., and HOU, X.A thermovisco-hyperelastic constitutive model of HTPB propellant with damage at intermediate strain rates. Mechanics of Time-Dependent Materials, 22(3), 291–314 (2018)
[19]	BOULKADID, K. M., TRACHE, D., KRAI, S., LEFEBVRE, M. H., JEUNIEAU, L., and DEJEAIFVE, A.Estimation of the ballistic parameters of double base gun propellants. Propellants Explosives Pyrotechnics, 45(5), 751–758 (2020)
[20]	BI, S. F., HUANG, Y., ZHAO, J. Y., WANG, S. Y., and WANG, H.A parameter determination method of powder burn model based on Levenberg-Marquardt optimization. Journal of Energetic Materials, 2024, 1–19 (2024)
[21]	WU, Z. Q., WANG, Y., ZHU, L. H., and YANG, F.Design of a projectile-borne data recorder triggered by overload. Electronics, 9(5), 860 (2020)
[22]	NIU, S. H., LI, B., LI, B. Y., WANG, P. F., and SONG, Y. X.Analysis and design of small-impact magnetoelectric generator. Machines, 11(12), 1040 (2023)
[23]	ZHANG, Z. J., XU, Z. J., SHAO, X. D., LI, Y. Q., and LI, B. W.Damage boundary of piezoresistive pressure sensor under shock environment. Acta Astronautica, 192, 328–340 (2022)
[24]	LI, J., LI, C. L., JIANG, M., and ZHOU, D.Mechanical analysis of failure of projectile-borne vibration sensor under high overload. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1168(2), 022015 (2019)
[25]	JIANG, W. C., LU, Y. G., and ZHAO, J. Y.Researching the influence of preload on vibration characteristics in the ballistic recorder vibration damping system. Shock and Vibration, 2024(1), 5868224 (2024)
[26]	LONG, Y. T., LV, M. T., and HE, H.Failure mechanism and predictive modeling for microbump interconnects drop life under diverse impact angles in advanced packaging. IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability, 24(2), 241–249 (2024)
[27]	WONG, E. H., SEAH, S. K. W., VAN DRIEL, W. D., CAERS, J., OWENS, N., and LAI, Y. S.Advances in the drop-impact reliability of solder joints for mobile applications. Microelectronics Reliability, 49(2), 139–149 (2009)
[28]	SUN, J., XU, S. Q., LU, G. X., WANG, Q., and GONG, A.Ballistic impact experiments of titanium-based carbon-fibre/epoxy laminates. Thin-Walled Structures, 179, 109709 (2022)
[29]	YANG, Y. X., DAI, K. R., YIN, Q., LIU, P., YU, D., LI, H. J., and ZHANG, H.In-bore dynamic measurement and mechanism analysis of multi-physics environment for electromagnetic railguns. IEEE Access, 9, 16999–17010 (2021)
[30]	CHAKKA, V., TRABIA, M. B., O'TOOLE, B., SRIDHARALA, S., LADKANY, S., and CHOWDHURY, M.Modeling and reduction of shocks on electronic components within a projectile. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35(11), 1326–1338 (2008)
[31]	ZHANG, J. J., LU, G. X., ZHANG, Y., and YOU, Z.A study on ballistic performance of origami sandwich panels. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 156, 103925 (2021)
[32]	CHAO, N. H., CORDES, J. A., CARLUCCI, D., DEANGELIS, M. E., and LEE, J.The use of potting materials for electronic-packaging survivability in smart munitions. Journal of Electronic Packaging, 133(4), 041003 (2011)
[33]	JOHNSON, G. R. and COOK, W. H.Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 21(1), 31–48 (1985)
[34]	VERBERNE, P. and MEGUID, S. A.Dynamics of precision-guided projectile launch: fluid-structure interaction. Acta Mechanica, 232(3), 1147–1161 (2021)
[35]	KHOMENKO, Y. P. and SHIROKOV, V. M.Determining the unsteady combustion behavior of propellants from results of closed-bomb testing. Combustion Explosion and Shock Waves, 42(2), 149–157 (2006)
[36]	LIU, Q. M., LIU, J., WU, X. F., HAN, X., CAO, L. X., and GUAN, F. J.An inverse reconstruction approach considering uncertainty and correlation for vehicle-vehicle collision accidents. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 60(2), 681–698 (2019)
[37]	ZHANG, L. G., LU, Z. Z., CHENG, L., and FAN, C. Q.A new method for evaluating Borgonovo moment-independent importance measure with its application in an aircraft structure. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 132, 163–175 (2014)
[38]	SMESTADA, E., MOXNESB, J. F., and DEGARDSTUENA, G.Modelling of deflagration, establishing material data into Ansys Autodyn's powder burn model. International annual conference of Fraunhofer Institut Chemische Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany, 26–29 (2011)
[39]	YIN, X. W., VERBERNE, P., and MEGUID, S. A.Multiphysics modelling of the coupled behaviour of precision-guided projectiles subjected to intense shock loads. International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design, 10(4), 439–450 (2014)
[40]	VERBERNE, P. and MEGUID, S. A.Dynamics of precision guided projectile launch: solid-solid interaction. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 20(14), 2043001 (2020)
[41]	ZHANG, L., HAN, J. G., GUO, Y., and HE, C. W.Anand model and FEM analysis of SnAgCuZn lead-free solder joints in wafer level chip scale packaging devices. Microelectronics Reliability, 54(1), 281–286 (2014)
[42]	ZHOU, T. F., ZHOU, Q., XIE, J. Q., LIU, X. H., WANG, X. B., and RUAN, H. H.Elastic-viscoplasticity modeling of the thermo-mechanical behavior of chalcogenide glass for aspheric lens molding. International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 9(2), 252–262 (2018)
[43]	SHU, C. S., YIN, S. H., LI, Y. Q., MAO, Z. Z., GUO, X. P., and HUANG, S.High-precision molding simulation prediction of glass lens profile for a new lanthanide optical glass. Ceramics International, 48(11), 15800–15810 (2022)
[44]	PENG, X. F., HAN, L., and LI, L. X.A consistently compressible Mooney-Rivlin model for the vulcanized rubber based on the Penn's experimental data. Polymer Engineering and Science, 61(9), 2287–2294 (2021)

Friction coefficient	Spatial location				Time/ms
Friction coefficient	Center (0%–25%)	Near-center (25%–50%)	Near-edge (50%–75%)	Edge (75%–100%)	Time/ms
0.05	Moderate	Moderate	Low	High	7.5–15.0, 25–30
0.10	Low	Moderate	Moderate	High	5.0–15.0, 25–30
0.15	Low	Moderate	High	High	7.5–15.0, 25–30
0.20	High	Moderate	High	High	7.5–15.0, 25–30
0.25	High	High	High	High	7.5–17.5, 25–30
0.30	High	High	High	High	7.5–17.5, 25–30