THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BALLISTIC SOAP

Christopher J. Shepherd1, James M. Wilgeroth1, Gareth J. Appleby-Thomas1,

Paul J. Hazell1 and Derek F. Allsop1
1
Cranfield Defence and Security, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK

E-mail: c.shepherd@cranfield.ac.uk

Abstract. Ballistic soap is used as a simulant to observe the effect of a projectile

penetrating soft tissue; consequently information on its behaviour at high strain-rates
is desirable. The Hugoniot equation-of-state for soap has been determined using the
plate-impact technique at impact velocities of 81-967 m/s. The US-uP Hugoniot was
linear, taking the form US = 1.99 + 2.04uP (ρ0 = 1.107 g/cc). In P-uP space the
Hugoniot was observed to trend substantially above the predicted hydrodynamic
response for Hugoniot stresses greater than 1.2 GPa, indicative of material
strengthening. The lateral-stress response of soap was interrogated using embedded
lateral manganin stress gauges. Gradients observed behind the shock for σx > 1 GPa
appeared to suggest continuation of the previously observed strengthening
mechanism. It is proposed at higher values of σx, increased compression of
hydrocarbon chains acts to increase the materials resistance to shear, a phenomenon
known as steric hindrance.

INTRODUCTION

Ballistic soap is a soft tissue simulant commonly used when considering the passage
of projectiles through the human body. The response of this material to impact causes plastic
deformation around the wound channel. Such plastic deformation closely resembles the
maximum extent of the temporary cavity expected whilst performing trials on gelatin or
animal tissue. Experimental trials are, however, relatively time and resource intensive.
Consequently, simulations that allow rationalisation of the extent and scope of such trials are
a useful tool. Previous studies on soap have concentrated on numerical simulations to
ascertain relationships between penetration depths or cavity volumes and the impact
velocity/energy [1,2]. Where computer simulations are employed the provision of accurate
material models becomes extremely important. Impact phenomena typically occur at such
high strain-rates that the hydrostatic component of stress exceeds the material’s flow strength,
resulting in hydrodynamic (e.g. fluid-like) behaviour [3]. The material properties of soap
were estimated with varied success by Dyckmans et al. [4] whilst simulating penetrations
with hydrocode models to fit experimental data. Interestingly, particular difficulty was
encountered in the simulation of material behaviour during high (>900 m/s) and low (<370
m/s) velocity impacts. With the exception of this study, there appears to be a relative paucity
of data on the behaviour of ballistic soap at the strain-rates likely to be encountered during
ballistic-impact in the literature.
 The chemical structure of ballistic soap typically evolves from the interaction of
soluble sodium or potassium salts of carboxylic acids formed from the hydrolysis of fats by a
strong base. The glycerine that is formed as a bi-product of this reaction also remains in the
structure (this is generally removed in commercial soaps). These long, aliphatic hydrocarbon
chains are typically responsible for the dissolution of oils and greases in the soaps normal
function as a cleaning product [5].
This paper discusses the use of the plate-impact technique to derive an equation-of-
state for ballistic soap; when combined with a suitable strength model such information
would allow modelling of impact events using hydrocodes. Both longitudinal and lateral
manganin stress gauges have been employed; the former allowed derivation of Hugoniot
equations-of-state in the US-uP and P-uP planes, while the latter provided an insight into the
evolution of the materials shear strength under shock loading.

EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE

Elastic properties

The longitudinal and shear wave velocities for soap were investigated in the pulse-
echo configuration using a Panametrics 5077R pulse receiver. Unfortunately, it was not
possible to detect a shear wave passing through the material using our equipment. This
prevented direct calculation of a value of Poisson’s ratio, ν, for the soap – an important
property in the approach to interpretation of lateral gauges employed here [6-8]. However,
previous work [9] has shown that soft tissues typically posses values of Poisson’s ratio of
c.0.5. As discussed, soap is meant to mimic the response of soft tissues to ballistic impact,
although it exhibits a predominantly plastic response compared to the more elastic reaction
seen in tissues. Consequently, for this work, the value for the Poisson’s ratio of soap is
assumed to lie between that of soft tissues and that of typical engineering materials such as
steels and rigid polymers (ν ~ 0.3 [10]). Usefully, calculated lateral stress magnitudes proved
relatively insensitive to this range of values. To this end, a value of 0.4 for ν has been chosen
for this work. The density, ρ0, of the soap was measured using a Micrometrics AccuPyc 1330
gas pycnometer. A summary of the elastic properties for ballistic soap are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Elastic properties of ballistic soap.

Material ρ0 (g/cm3) cL (mm/μs) cS (mm/μs) ν
Ballistic soap 1.107 ± 0.001 1.673 - 0.4 (estimated)

Longitudinal gauges

The plate-impact technique [3,11,12] was used to impact ballistic soap targets at
velocities in the range 81-960 m/s. Experiments were conducted using a ∅50-mm bore, 5-m
barrel single-stage gas gun [13]. Care was taken to ensure that all surfaces perpendicular to
the impact axis were finished to a surface roughness as close as possible to 10-μm or less.
 Sealed gun/barrel
25μmMylar section

Velocity pin Cover plate

block
Ballistic soap

Barrel

Sabot PMMA
Flyer plate

Target ring
Cover plate PMMA
Sample ring Soap
Gauge 1 Gauge 2

(a) Trigger pins Gauge assemblies

(b)
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the setup for a longitudinal gauge experiment on a ballistic soap target: (a) an
exploded gauge assembly using a 1-mm cover plate of either Al or Cu and a 12-mm PMMA backing block; (b)
a typical plate-impact experimental setup as viewed in the target chamber of the gas gun.

The ballistic soap target material was carefully cast, by melting and re-setting into c.4-mm
thick cups made of aluminium rings fronted by c.1-mm thick cover plates. This ensured
flat/parallel front faces.
The back surface of the as-cast material was then ground using SiC paper of
decreasing grit size to the same level as the containing Al ring, with the final target
material/ring thickness carefully measured before subsequent target package assembly. The
afore-mentioned cover plates were comprised of a material chosen according to the
impedance matching technique [3,11,12]. Targets were assembled with a manganin stress
gauge of type LM-SS-125CH-048, manufactured by Vishay Micro-Measurements® & SR-
4®, on the inside face, itself packaged within 25-μm thick insulating Mylar. A similar
arrangement was employed behind the target, with 12-mm thick PMMA plates chosen as a
backing material to support the rear surface gauge. PMMA was employed for this role due to
its relatively low impedance and well understood physical properties under shock loading.
Gauge assembly, shown in exploded view in Fig. 1(a) with both the cover plate and backing
PMMA, was undertaken using a specially constructed clamping jig and a slow curing Loctite
0151 HYSOL® Epoxi-Patch® Adhesive. These three elements were then assembled into the
main target package illustrated schematically in Fig. 1(a) using a suitable fast-setting epoxy
and an appropriate clamping arrangement. The target package was adhered to a mounting
ring containing trigger pins which allowed activation of the recording 1 Gs oscilloscope just
prior to impact. This assembly was attached to a sacrificial barrel extension which
incorporated a series of precisely-spaced conducting pins designed to be sequentially shorted
by the projectile; thus providing a record of the projectile velocity immediately prior to
impact. A typical experimental arrangement schematically illustrating the assembled target
package in-situ at the muzzle end of the gas-gun is shown in Fig. 1(b). Gauge calibration
followed Rosenberg et al. [11], with subsequent analysis following the impedance matching
technique [3,11,12].
Lateral gauges

Lateral gauges are, as their name suggests, designed to monitor stress evolution perpendicular
to the loading axis. This necessitates encapsulation of the lateral gauge within the material
flow of the target. The nature of the lateral gauge means that the required position and
orientation of the gauge within the ballistic soap sample is different to that for a longitudinal
setup. In more standard engineering materials, a lateral gauge is encapsulated in Mylar and
positioned in the centre of a sample that has been sectioned orthogonally to the impact face.
However, low hardness means that ballistic soap cannot be easily sectioned to a suitable
tolerance. To this end a modified technique based on previous work by Millett et al. [14],
and developed from recent in-house work by one of the authors, was employed. This
approach involved suspension of a stiffened gauge element held perpendicular to the impact
face, with target material subsequently cast around the gauge. Further, this technique has the
advantage of eliminating the chance of modification of the shock front that may occur during
transit through any air-filled gaps in sectioned target samples [15-17]. Preparation of the
target involved: (1) sectioning of an aluminium mounting ring, with all applicable faces
finished to tolerance of 5-μm; (2) preparation of a lateral gauge package, involving
encapsulation using slow-curing epoxy within two layers of 50 μm Mylar, with the gauge-
element positioned flush with the end of the Mylar to minimise any effects on subsequent
gauge response, and; (3) adhesion of the pre-assembled lateral gauge packet between the two
mounting-ring halves such that the front edge of the packet was secured 4.5 to 5.5-mm from
the front edge of the ring as shown in Fig. 2, using slow-cure epoxy. As before, a cover plate
was added to the impact face of the of the target ring to act as a flat surface to cast the
ballistic soap against and also to aid in shock wave transmission upon impact. The soap was
melted and re-cast into the cup and the whole target array was attached to a mounting ring
and barrel extension as described for the longitudinal gauges. Subsequent analysis was based

Impact face

4.5-5.5mm

50μm Mylar
4.5-5.5mm
Sectioned target ring

Lateral gauge
Gauge packet

Figure 2. Exploded view of a lateral gauge packet positioned across a sectioned mounting ring. The gauge is
encapsulated within two pieces of 50μm Mylar, with the gauge element adjacent to the edge of the
encapsulation and positioned 4.5 to 5.5-mm from the impact face.
Table 2. Summary of experimental results.
Flyer Flyer thickness
vimpact (m/s) uP (mm/μs) US (mm/μs) σx (GPa) σy (GPa)
material (mm)
81 Al 10 0.061 2.07 0.15 -
191 Cu 10 - - 0.46 (estimated) 0.11
196 Al 10 0.158 2.35 0.51 -
409 Cu 10 0.377 2.83 1.22 -
525 Cu 10 0.481 2.91 1.72 -
526 Cu 10 - - 1.72 1.18
652 Cu 5 0.601 2.78 2.51 -
652 Cu 5 - - 2.51 1.74
960 Cu 5 0.757 3.54 3.99 -
967 Cu 5 - - 4.19 (estimated) 3.43

on a modified form of the impedance matching technique, previously developed by

Rosenburg and Partom [6]. In addition, the approach took account of both manganin’s
elastic-plastic behaviour [7] and the pressure-dependant nature of manganin’s response below
its elastic limit [8].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 10 shots ranging in impact velocity from 81 to 967 m/s were conducted
with ballistic soap targets; 6 of which included longitudinal gauges and 4 with lateral gauges
only. A summary of the results obtained from these experiments is shown in Table 2.
Typical front and rear longitudinal gauge traces from a plate-impact experiment
where a ballistic soap target has been impacted with a copper flyer at 534 m/s are presented
in Fig. 3. The stress data has been calculated from the voltages passing through the gauges
during the impact event in accordance with the impedance matching technique [3,11,12].
Initial rises (a) up to an effectively constant Hugoniot stress plateau (b) occur within 100 ns
for each gauge. This suggests good gauge alignment; poor alignment would increase the
component of the gauge thickness available for the shock to ring-up within, leading to longer
ring-up times. In addition, the comparatively small rise times observed here suggested good
target alignment. A small difference in the absolute Hugoniot stresses (less than 5%) for each
gauge is apparent in Fig. 3. Longitudinal gauges measure the response of the material ahead
of them, in the direction of the propagating shock; e.g. the front gauge shows the response
inside the soap sample, whereas the back gauge will measure the stress in the PMMA. The
rear-surface trace shown in Fig. 3 has been converted from the response of the PMMA
backing plate using eqn. 1. This equation is primarily designed to deal with elastic systems;
however it has been widely applied in interpretation of stress gauge results [12,18]. Eqn. 1
depends on the impedance of each material, Z, (where Z =ρ0US; with ρ0 equal to the material
density and US the shock velocity in the material based on the shock transit time, Δt in Fig. 3)
as well as the measured Hugoniot stress in that material. This means that errors in both
measured stress and calculated shock will influence its application. However, the relatively
Figure 3. Front/rear gauges traces generated following impact of a 10-mm thick Cu flyer at 524 m/s onto a 4.5-
mm thick soap target following the setup shown in Fig. 1.

good agreement between measured front surface and recalibrated back surface Hugoniot
stresses of just c.5% appears to justify the use of this equation here.

1 (Z Soap + Z PMMA )
σ Soap = σ PMMA (1)
2 Z PMMA

At point (c) in Fig. 3 reloading of the soap occurs after it has reached the Hugoniot
stress. This phenomenon can be attributed to shock reverberation [19,20], whereby ringing
occurs following shock wave reflection at the interface of the low impedance soap and the
higher impedance PMMA. Finally, an elastic release (d) is observed, with the gauges
ultimately failing at (e).
The experimental data and resultant Hugoniot relationship for ballistic soap is
presented in Fig. 4. For the range of data points investigated, the Hugoniot takes on a linear
relationship of the form US = c0 + SuP, where ‘c0’ is the intercept with the y-axis (often
equivalent to the bulk sound speed) and ‘S’ is the gradient. As shown in Fig. 4, c0 and S are
found to equal 1.99 and 2.04 for soap respectively. All errors associated with the calculation
of the US-uP Hugoniot for soap come from measured uncertainty in the shock arrival times,
(see (a) in Fig. 3) and were based on the earliest and latest possible times that the shocks were
picked up by the pressure gauges. These errors are typically small and as a result, many of
the error bars fall within the data points plotted. The Hugoniot relationships for gelatin,
another common tissue simulant for ballistic testing applications, and RTM 6, a commercially
 4
US = 2.65 + 1.55uP

US = 1.99 + 2.04uP
3
US (mm/μs)

US = 1.57 + 1.77uP Experimental data, Soap

1 Soap Hugoniot
Gelatin Hugoniot [21]
RTM 6 Hugoniot [18]

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
uP (mm/μs)
Figure 4. US-uP Hugoniot relationships for Soap, Gelatin [21] and RTM 6 [18].

important polymeric material (a mono-component epoxy resin) are also included for the
purpose of comparison. These two comparative materials have been shown to exhibit
different types of behaviour under shock loading; while gelatin effectively acts
hydrodynamically, RTM 6 exhibits a degree of strain-rate dependent behaviour.
It is noted above that the intercept of the Hugoniot in US-uP space typically occurs at
the bulk sound speed, c0 of the material being tested. From the well know relationship shown
in eqn. 2, it is clear that the maximum value that c0 can take is that of cL, namely 1.67 mm/μs.
However, this value is significantly lower than the soap Hugoniot US intercept observed of
1.99. It therefore seems likely that the US-uP Hugoniot for soap exhibits a degree of non-
linearity at low particle velocities, a phenomenon that has previously been observed in epoxy
resins [22]. Munson and May [22] propose that a curvature in the Hugoniot at low impact
stresses is due to the disruption of the weak intermolecular Van der Waals forces between
hydrocarbon chains, whilst the far stronger covalent intramolecular bonds remain intact. The
Hugoniot becomes more linear once these covalent bonds are also broken following higher
impact pressures. Over the range of impact velocities investigated here, the Hugoniot for
soap is shown to be linear in nature.

2 4 2
c0 = c L − c S (2)
3

Fig. 5 shows the measured σx-uP data for ballistic soap alongside the theoretical
hydrodynamic response based on eqn. (3) (where P is the hydrodynamic pressure and ρ0 is
 4
Experimental data, Soap
Hydrodynamic response, Soap

3
Stress, σx (GPa)

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
uP (mm/μs)

Figure 5. σx-uP Hugoniot relationship for soap showing deviation away from the hydrodynamic response with
increased particle velocity; hydrodynamic curve is based on eqn. (3).

the density). It is observed that at low particle velocities, where uP < 0.4 mm/μs, the soap acts
hydrodynamically with data points effectively sitting in unison with the theoretical
hydrodynamic response curve.

P = ρ0US uP (3)

For uP > 0.4 mm/μs (σx > 1.2 GPa), the experimental data clearly trends above the
hydrodynamic response of soap in a manner such that the higher the value of uP, the larger
the observed deviation. Such a relationship has been observed elsewhere in polymers such as
RTM 6 and polyethylene [18,23], although it is interesting to note that the deviations for soap
appear to be more pronounced at higher particle velocities than behaviour observed elsewhere
for other materials. With these materials, this behaviour has been linked to the two-phase
nature of stress. The longitudinal stress measured using manganin gauges employed here has
two components – hydrostatic and deviatoric (e.g. fluid-like and strength-based). The
relationship between these two elements can be represented by eqn. (4), where P is the
hydrostatic pressure and τMAX is the maximum shear strength of the resin.

σx = P + 43 τMAX (4)
Figure 6. Lateral pressure gauge traces for 4 shots impacting ballistic soap targets at velocities between 191
and 967 m/s. The associated longitudinal stresses for the given impact velocity are also displayed.

Consequently, from eqn. (4) it is apparent that the deviation from the hydrodynamic response
(e.g. the strengthless element of longitudinal stress – P) in Fig. 5 may be attributed to the
deviatoric component of the longitudinal stress. Such an apparent increase in the magnitude
of this component of stress with impact pressure/strain-rate has previously been linked to
changes of microstructure in polymers [23], a phenomenon that could also apply to the long-
chain ballistic soap under discussion. Essentially, the mechanisms discussed in [23] would
suggest that the long hydrocarbon molecules that make up a large proportion of the soap
structure are being compressed to a greater extent at higher particle velocities/impact stresses,
with steric hindrance likely leading to a resultant increase in the maximum shear strength of
the material for impact stresses above c.1.2 GPa [14].
As well as longitudinal data, Table 2 also shows the results of 4 shots at targets with
embedded lateral gauges. The resultant calibrated gauge traces are shown in Fig. 6, in each
case with shock arrival reset to occur at 1μs for clarity. Where estimated values for σx are
stated, these have been derived from the known Hugoniot relationships for soap shown in
Figs. 4 and 5. The lateral gauge rise times are observed to be significantly slower than those
seen in the longitudinal analyses, typically 100-200 ns in duration. This is largely attributed
to the extended nature of the lateral gauges and the resultant difficulty in ensuring gauges
were mounted perpendicular to the impact axis. Nevertheless, these rise times are
sufficiently fast so-as to give confidence that minimal misalignment occurred and that
resultant calculated stress values are reasonably accurate. The gradient of the initial ramp-up
to the peak stress is observed to increase with impact stress – indicative of faster ring-up
within the manganin gauges under increased pressure rather than being a function of the soap
itself. A feature is noticeable at the top of each rise, whereby an overshoot occurs before the
gauge outputs a constant gradient behind the shock front. This overshoot is observed to
become less severe with increased impact stress, implying either a gauge ring-up based
phenomenon, or alternatively, a pressure-dependant material response. However, the exact
cause of this behaviour remains unclear.
It is highly apparent from Fig. 6 that the gradient of the trace behind the shock
increases in magnitude with increased impact/longitudinal stress. The shear strength, τ, of
the soap can be related to the two orthogonal stresses, σx and σy by eqn. (5), which is valid for
instantaneous stress measurements and not just the maximums, thereby allowing the
evolution of shear strength to be tracked with time. From eqn. (5) it is apparent that,
assuming a constant Hugoniot stress, a decrease in the value of σy behind the shock front will
lead to an increase in shear strength and vice-versa. In other words, in this case the larger the
gradient in σy behind the shock, the greater the effect of the mechanism acting to cause the
observed strengthening (whatever that mechanism may be).

σx - σy
τ= 2 (5)

The gradients behind the shock front have been measured for each trace between a
point (a), shown in Fig. 6, which is positioned directly after the aforementioned artefact
occurring at the top of each initial ring up, and a point (b) immediately prior to the release (or
apparent reloading as is seen on 526 m/s shot). Errors associated with these calculations
come from the range of possible start and finish times and the maximum and minimum

0.60
Measured lateral stress gradient, Soap

0.50 Epoxy resin [23]

RTM 6 [17]
0.40
-ΔσY/Δt (GPa/μs)

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
σx (GPa)

Figure 7. Comparison of the variation in measured lateral stress gradients with impact stresses behind the
shock front for ballistic soap, RTM 6 [18] and another epoxy resin [23].
stresses local to the points (a) and (b). Fig. 7 illustrates the change in gradient with impact
stress, plotting -Δσy/Δt (the negative allows the gradient to take positive values for clarity of
presentation) against σx. Data for RTM 6 [18] and another bespoke epoxy [23] are included
in order to provide a point of comparison to the soap data. A significantly more pronounced
change in lateral stress gradient behind the shock with impact stress is apparent with the soap
than the two epoxy resins considered. This suggests that the soap is much more sensitive to
high impact stress/strain-rate than the two epoxies considered. It seems likely that this
phenomenon is linked to the structure of the soap, with the simpler soap molecules hardening
more readily than the highly cross-linked epoxies.
It is also interesting to note that a significant gradient behind the shock only becomes
apparent for soap where σx > 1 GPa. This is in good correlation with the earlier observation
from Fig. 5 that strengthening is observed above c.1.2 GPa, suggesting that a similar
mechanism is responsible for apparent strengthening both at, and following shock arrival.

CONCLUSIONS

The dynamic shock behaviour of a ballistic soap has been characterised using the
plate-impact technique for shots in the impact velocity range of 81 to 967 m/s, equivalent to
impact pressures of 0.15 to 4.19 GPa. Fast gauge ring up times for both longitudinal and
lateral gauges were encountered (consistently < 180 ns in all cases), suggesting good target
alignment. The Hugoniot equation-of-state for ballistic soap has been shown to take a linear
form over the data range of interest in US-uP space, although a possible degree of non-
linearity at low values of uP was suggested owing to the fact that the longitudinal sound speed
in soap was shown to be markedly lower than that inferred by the intercept of the apparently
linear Hugoniot with the US-axis. It has also been shown that the Hugoniot for soap lies in
between those for the more rigid RTM 6 and softer, purely-elastic, ballistic gelatin.
In σx-uP space, soap has been shown to act hydrodynamically for values of uP < 0.4
mm/μs (or σx < 1.2 GPa). Hugoniot stress values above this threshold departed to an
increasing extent from the hydrodynamic response. This behaviour was attributed to the
deviatoric component of σx, resulting from compression of the aliphatic hydrocarbon chains
impeding material flow/increasing shear strength – a phenomenon known as steric hindrance.
The lateral gauge data presented here demonstrates a significant increase in the
gradients (-Δσy/Δt) observed behind the shock front with increased values of σx. Comparison
to similar work involving embedded lateral gauge response from the literature suggested that
this was the result of a strengthening mechanism acting to a greater extent at higher values of
σx. Comparison to two different epoxy resin systems showed a substantially greater gradient
behind the shock in ballistic soap. This enhanced response was attributed to the long,
aliphatic chains compressing, hardening the soap more readily than the cross-linked
structures observed in the epoxy resins in question. Interestingly the gradient behind the
shock front seemed to become more significant for values of σx greater than 1 GPa, in good
correlation with the observed onset of strengthening in the P-uP Hugoniot (σx = 1.2 GPa).
This result was taken as tentative evidence that a similar mechanism may be responsible for
both instances of strengthening.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Work involving lateral manganin gauges directly embedded in soap is based on a technique
currently being employed as part of the ongoing PhD project of one of the authors, James M.
Wilgeroth. Additionally, Christopher Shepherd would like to acknowledge the provision of
financial support for this work by ARUP.

REFERENCES

1. Dyckmans, G., Ndompetelo, N. and Chabotier, A., Numerical and experimental study of the impact of
small caliber projectiles on ballistic soap, J. Phys. IV France, 2003, 110, 627-632.
2. Nsiampa, N., Dyckmans, G. and Chabotier, A., Numerical simulation of the tumbling effect of small caliber
projectiles into ballistic soap, Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Venice,
2008.
3. Meyers, M. A., Dynamic Behaviour of Materials, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1994.
4. Dyckmans, G., Ndompetelo, N. and Chabotier, A., Numerical and experimental study of the impact of
small caliber projectiles on ballistic soap, Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Ballistics,
Adelaide, 2004, 1, 251–257.
5. Reger, D., Goode, S. and Mercer, E., Chemistry: Principles & Practice, Second Edition, Saunders College,
1997.
6. Rosenburg, Z., Partom, Y., Lateral stress measurement in shock‐loaded targets with transverse
piezoresistance gauges, J. Appl. Phys., 1985, 58(8), 3072.
7. Rosenburg, Z. and Brar, N. S., The influence of the elasto‐plastic properties of piezoresistance gauges on
their loading‐unloading characteristics as lateral shock stress transducers, J. Appl. Phys., 1995, 77(4), 1443.
8. Millett, J. C. F., Bourne, N. K. and Rosenberg, Z., On the analysis of transverse stress gauge data from
shock loading experiments, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 1996, 29, 2466.
9. Kallel, F., Bertrand, M., Tissue elasticity reconstruction using linear perturbation method, IEEE
Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1996, 15(3), 299-313.
10. Chao, C. K., Liu, C. H., Wu, H. J., A study of the stretching process of steel-polymer-steel laminate,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 1994, 40, 155-172.
11. Rosenberg, Z., Yaziv D. and Partom, Y., Calibration of foil-like manganin gauges in planar shock wave
experiments, J. Appl. Phys., 1980, 51(7), 3702-3705.
12. Appleby-Thomas, G. J., Hazell, P. J., Stennett, C., Helaar, K. and Diederen, A. M., Shock propagation in a
cemented tungsten carbide, J. Appl. Phys., 2009, 105, 064916.
13. Bourne, N. K., A 50 mm bore gas gun for dynamic loading of materials and structures, Meas. Sci. & Tech.,
2003, 14, 273-278.
14. Millett J. C. F., Whiteman G., Stirk S. M. and Bourne N. K., The shock induced shear strength in a
silastomer, Society for Experimental Mechanics - SEM Annual Conference and Exposition on Experimental
and Applied Mechanics, 2009, 498.
15. Appleby-Thomas G. J., Lateral Gauge Response in Polymers, From Static to Dynamic: The First Annual
Meeting of the Institute of Shock Physics, London, 2010, published online/on CD.
16. Winter R. E. and Harris E. J., Simulations of embedded lateral stress gauge profiles in shocked targets, J.
Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 2008, 41, 035503.
17. Winter R. E., Owen G. D. and Harris E. J., Experimental measurement of stress perturbations caused by
lateral gauges, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 2008, 41, 202006.
18. Appleby-Thomas, G. J., Hazell, P. J., Stennett, C., The variation in lateral and longitudinal stress gauge
response within an RTM 6 epoxy resin under one-dimensional shock loading, J. Mater. Sci., 2009, 44(22),
6187-6198.
19. Kondo, K., Yasumoto, Y., Sugiura, H. and Sawaoka, A., Multiple shock reverberations in a layer structure
observed by particle-velocity and pressure gauges, J. Appl. Phys., 1981, 52(2), 772.
20. Winter, R. E., Whiteman, G., Haining, G. S., Salisbury, D. A. and Tsembelis, K., Measurement of Equation
of State of Silicone Elastomer, in: M.D. Furnish, Y.M. Gupta, J.W. Forbes, eds., Shock Compression of
Condensed Matter, 2003, 1, 679-682.
21. Shepherd, C. J., Appleby-Thomas, G. J., Hazell, P. J., Allsop, D. F. The Dynamic Behaviour of Ballistic
Gelatin, AIP Conf. Proc., 2009, 1195, 1399-1402.
22. Munson, D. E. and May, R. P., Dynamically determined high-pressure compressibilities of three epoxy
resin systems, 1972, J. Appl. Phys., 43(3), 962-971.
23. Millett, J. C. F. and Bourne, N. K., The shock induced equation of state of three simple polymers, J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys., 2004, 37(20), 2901.