The Importance of the Cavitation Effective Yield Stress and the Hole Slenderness Ratio for Accurate Predictions of Ballistic Limit Velocities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perforation and penetration mechanics research is mostly governed by experimental and numerical investigations while analytical models are less available due to the extremely complicated nature of the subject.Sufficiently thick ductile targets are perforated by rigid, nose-pointed projectiles in a ballistic process whose dominant failure mode is ductile hole enlargement.Several recent studies have shown that for perforation process by ductile hole formation, the specific cavitation energy, which reflects the target material resistance to steady hole expansion, is essential for analytical predictions of ballistic limit velocities.The ballistic limit velocity is the minimum impact speed that is required for complete perforation of a given target by a given projectile.A logarithmic formulation for the specific cavitation energy of metal targets, which is based on the concepts of (spherical cavitation) effective yield stress and hole slenderness ratio, is shown in several recent studies to be very useful for analytical predictions of ballistic limit velocities.The logarithmic formulation for the specific cavitation energy is presented, and the concepts of cavitation effective yield stress and hole slenderness ratio are reviewed and discussed regarding their importance for accurate analytical predictions of ballistic limit velocities.The present article is a review of these two concepts and their usefulness in perforation mechanics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".