Wear 233–235 Ž1999.

1–12
www.elsevier.comrlocaterwear

ELSI conference: invited lecture

Liquid impact: theory, experiment, applications
J.E. Field )
UniÕersity of Cambridge, Department of Physics, CaÕendish Laboratory, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK

Abstract

Liquid impact comes into a wide range of technological problems. The theory has developed historically from two areas: those
interested in ‘‘water entry’’ and the action of waves on ships and structures; and those studying liquid drops or jets impinging on
surfaces. Erosion problems caused by liquid drops impacting surfaces occur with steam-turbines and with aircraft or missiles travelling at
high speed through rain. Cavitation damage is also closely related to liquid impact erosion. More beneficial uses of liquid drops and jets
are for cleaning surfaces or cutting materials. The reason a liquidrsolid impact can cause so much damage is that in the initial stages of
impact the contact periphery expands supersonically Ži.e., faster than stress waves in either liquid or solid.. There is, therefore, a period
Žthe duration depending on the impact velocity and geometry in the contact region. when compressible loading results and pressures are
not released by flow. This paper describes the background theory, the various areas of application, techniques for producing controlled
impacts in the laboratory for the velocity range from a few meters per second to several thousands of meters per second, the use of
high-speed photography for studying such impacts, and the damage processes in the solid. An area of current interest is producing IR
transmitting ‘‘window’’ materials for aircraft which have sufficient strength to resist erosion damage by rain, sand, ice and bird-strike. IR
materials such as zinc sulphide and germanium are relatively weak. However, it is now possible to produce free-standing ‘‘windows’’ and
domes made from chemically vapour-deposited diamond ŽCVDD.. Recent advances in this area are presented. q 1999 Elsevier Science
S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Liquid impact; Chemically vapour-deposited diamond; Jet

1. Introduction mechanics of liquid impact contains important material

An understanding of the dynamics of liquids undergo-
ing collisions with either solids or other liquids is needed
in a number of technological situations. Some examples
are splashes w1x, impact of structures on liquid surfaces
w2,3x and impact of liquid drops or jets on erodable sur-
faces. Historically, the erosion of steam turbine blades
stimulated interested in the subject, but there is now
considerable research on the rain erosion of aircraft and
missiles, particularly the ‘‘window’’ materials. Cavitation
damage is also closely linked to liquid impact.
Several other reviews of liquid erosion problems have
appeared in recent years, though the emphasis has been on
the materials science aspects of the subject. The reader can
obtain a general orientation from the volume on erosion
edited by Preece w4x. The article by Adler w5x on the
)
Tel.: q44-1223-337318; fax: q44-1223-350266; E-mail:
jef1003@phy.cam.ac.uk
from the viewpoint of applications to material damage.
Brunton and Rochester’s article w6x in the same volume
covers similar material and is highly recommended for a
general overview of the liquid erosion problem. A compre-
hensive bibliography on rain erosion with annotated refer-
ences on work performed up to 1972 has been compiled by
Sims and Trevett w7x. Other general sources are the book
by Springer w8x, the series of international conferences on
‘‘Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact’’ w9–13x, the jet-cut-
ting conferences sponsored by the British Hydrodynamics
Research Association at two yearly intervals from 1972
w14x, and the proceedings of the ASTM conference on
erosion w15x.
Another earlier review by Lesser and Field w16x covered
the theory of liquid impact in some detail; only key points
are emphasised here. The present review concentrates on
the equipment developed for the laboratory simulation of
liquid impact and its application to infra-red transmitting
materials research, particularly the development of chemi-
cally vapour-deposited diamond ŽCVDD..

0043-1648r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 3 - 1 6 4 8 Ž 9 9 . 0 0 1 8 9 - 1
2 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
2. Liquid impact theory
Liquid impact consists of two main stages; initially, the
liquid behaves in a compressible manner generating the
so-called ‘‘ water-hammer’’ pressures. These high pres-
sures are responsible for most of the damage resulting
from liquid impact and are maintained while the edge of
the contact area between the impacting liquid and the solid
moves supersonically with respect to the shock speed in
the w16–19x. Fig. 1 illustrates the situation a short time
after impact.
As pointed out by Lesser w19x, it is possible to use
Huygen’s construction to find the shape of the shock
envelope. The pressure on the central axis is given by
Pc s Vr 1 C1 r 2 C2 ,
r C qr C Ž 1.
1 1 2 2
where V is the impact velocity and r 1 , r 2 and C1 , C2 are
the densities and the shock velocities of the liquid and the
solid, respectively. For impact on a rigid target, the pres-
sure is:
P s r 1 C1V , Ž 2.
frequently referred to as the ‘‘water-hammer’’ pressure
w20x.
The pressures at the contact periphery are somewhat
higher and reach f 3r 1C1V at the instant the shock enve-
lope overtakes the contact periphery and starts to move up
the free surface of the drop w19x. Due to the very short
duration of this pulse Ža few nanoseconds., this is usually
ignored.
The high pressures are generated over a radius of
contact given by
R s rVrC1 , Ž 3.
where r is the radius of curvature of the drop Žliquid mass.
in the region of contact.
Fig. 1. Initial stage of impact between a water drop and a solid target with
the contact edge moving faster than the shock velocity in the liquid Ži.e.,
supersonically.. The shock envelope is made up of many wavelets which
can be found from a Huygens-type construction. The liquid behind the
envelope is compressed and the target beneath this area subjected to high
pressure.
Pressure release commences after a time of
3rV
Ž 4.
ts 12
.
2C
The release waves reach the central axis and terminate
the high-pressure stage after a time
3rV
X
Ž 5.
t s 12
.
2C
Once incompressible stream line flow is established, the
pressure on the central axis falls to the much lower
Bernoulli stagnation pressure
rV 2
Pi s .
Ž 6.
2
In calculating the pressures for high velocity liquid
impact, it is essential to use the appropriate shock velocity.
This is related to the acoustic velocity, C0 Žf 1500 m sy1
for water. by
C1 s C0 q kV Ž 7.
where k is a constant which has a value close to 2 for
water in the velocity range for V up to 1000 m sy1 w18x.
The simulation of drop impact by jet impact relies on
reproducing the local liquidrsolid geometry for the all-im-
portant compressible stage of collision. The incompressible
flow stages with the jet and drop will be different but at
this stage the pressures are much lower. For example, the
ratio of Pc rPi for velocities, V s 50, 100, and 500 m sy1
are 64, 34 and 10, respectively.
Photographic evidence for the initial shock structures
and the onset of jetting have been obtained for impact with
drops w21,22x and liquid wedges w23x. Pressure measure-
ments have been made by Rochester and Brunton w24x.
3. Experimental
3.1. Multiple impact deÕices
A variety of techniques have been devised for studies of
liquid–solid impact. Historically, the first was the wheel-
and-jet method, which has been used in various forms
since the 1920s. In a typical configuration, specimens are
attached to the edge of a disk so that they protrude
radially. As the disk rotates, the specimens impact one or
more cylindrical jets of liquid. The wheel and jets are
usually in a chamber that is pumped to as low a pressure
as possible to reduce aerodynamic distortion of the jets.
Anyone who has used such an apparatus will know that
specimen alignment is critical for obtaining reproducible
data. The reasons for this are discussed by Lesser and
Field w16x. If the specimen is perfectly aligned with the
face of the specimen parallel to the axis of the jet, initial
contact is along a line OO Žsee Fig. 2a and b.. There is
X
 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
Fig. 2. Impacts between specimen and jet in a wheel-and-jet apparatus.
Ža. Plan view; Žb. side view for a well-aligned specimen; Žc. an angled
specimen.
then compressible behaviour with no jetting until the con-
tact area has a width 2 x. For a brittle material, tensile
failure occurs only outside this central region. This unfrac-
tured central strip corresponds to the circular region sur-
rounded by circumferential cracks for spherical-drop im-
pact. However, if the specimen is misaligned through an
angle b Žsee Fig. 2c., the contact is not instantaneous
X
along OO but moves upwards with a velocity that is
supersonic for sufficiently small b and subsonic for large
b. In the first of these cases, high-edge pressures will be
generated at the contact point but there will be no flow,
while for large b a high-velocity jet will move upward.
The three cases of perfect alignment, small b, and large b
are very different. A key point is that for the velocity used
in this test the angle b that determines whether or not the
X
contact point moves supersonically along OO is a few
degrees at most. Hancox and Brunton w25x give examples
of damaged polymethylmethacrylate ŽPMMA. specimens
eroded in this test, one for perfect alignment and one
inclined with b s 98. The first specimen shows cracks and
flow damage outside an undamaged central strip. The
angled specimen exhibits arc-like cracks and erosion cut-
tings across the central axis. Very different erosion rates
were also recorded.
A development of the wheel-and-jet approach for
higher-velocity testing are whirling-arm devices. Here, the
specimens are attached to a long arm rotated in an atmo-
sphere of water drops. Velocities of up to Mach 3 in air
have been achieved w26,27x. A variety of linear test facili-
ties exist: specimens have been launched ballistically from
a gas gun through an atmosphere of drops w28x; specimens
and complete components have been attached to rocket-
driven sledges and propelled on rails through a simulated
rain field w28–32x; droplets have been accelerated to Mach
0.83 in a wind tunnel and impacted against targets; and
specimens have been attached to an aircraft and flown at
high speed through rain w33x.
3.2. Single-impact techniques
The attraction of producing controlled single impacts is
that it allows detailed study of both liquid and solid. One
approach is to fire a specimen mounted at the front of a
projectile against a suspended or falling drop w34–40x. The
3
main difficulties with this technique are Ža. decelerating
the specimen after impact without adding further damage;
and Žb. distortion of the drop by gravity and the air blast
ahead of the projectile. It is clear from the theory of liquid
impact that if a drop is flattened it will have higher radii of
curvature in the contact region and will behave effectively
as a larger drop and thus be more damaging. Adler’s and
James’ tests w37x are conducted in a helium atmosphere at
an ambient pressure of 0.1 Torr to minimise distortion.
The low pressure necessitates using a drop made of a
solution of water and ethylene glycol, with 80% water by
volume, to reduce evaporation. The other workers have
devised baffle systems to reduce the aerodynamic effects.
Rickerby w39x was able to suspend drops of up to 6-mm
diameter using a water–glycerine solution with a few
percent of glycerine. Adler w41x has analysed various
sources of published data on single-drop impact patterns
on PMMA. For nominally similar-sized drops, the dimen-
sions of the damage patterns were noticeably smaller for
the low-pressure experiments or for those in which special
care had been taken to reduce drop distortion. Adler’s
latest review of his techniques is given in Ref. w42x.
An alternative approach devised by Bowden and Brun-
ton w43,44x is to keep the specimen stationary and to
project a jet of liquid against. A projectile is fired into a
stainless steel chamber containing a small quantity of
water sealed in by a neoprene disk. The projectile and
neoprene move forward as a piston and extrude the liquid
through a narrow orifice. The ratio of jet to projectile
velocity is typically 3 to 5 times. This method has been
used extensively for studies of the mechanisms of erosion
w17,38,44–46x. Although a basically simple and inexpen-
sive technique, the design and machining of the nozzles
are critical if coherent, smooth-fronted and reproducible
jets are to be produced. Fig. 3 is a single-shot photograph
of a jet from a 0.8-mm nozzle. The umbrella of spray
comes mainly from the water in the parallel section of the
orifice. It is made up of droplets of micron size that do not
contribute to the damage. The jet-front velocity increases
over a distance of ; 10 mm. At distances of 2 to 3 times
this, the onset of Taylor instability begins to disrupt the
front surface. A stand-off distance of 10 mm is recom-
mended in all experiments. The acceleration after leaving
the orifice results from the liquid from the main part of the
chamber taking a finite time to move through the slower-
moving liquid from the orifice section. The essential point
is that there is a central core of coherent liquid which at a stand-
off distance of 10 mm has a smooth, slightly curved front
profile. This has allowed the simulation of drop impact
with these jets. The ‘‘equivalence’’ curves relating drop and
jet impact are given in Ref. w47x for both normal and
angled impacts.
A number of schemes have been proposed for creating
high-speed jets of liquid for cleaning, cutting, and mining
applications. For the most part, these methods utilise
steady-state jets: however, transient or non-steady methods
4 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12

An alternative approach for projecting a liquid mass at

velocities up to ; 5 km sy1 has been described by
Sullivan and Hockridge w32x. A water-gelatine drop with
97% water is carried in a sabot fired by a helium gun. The
sabot falls away, leaving the drop to impact the specimen.

3.3. Multiple impact jet apparatus (MIJA)

The apparatus used to simulate rain erosion in our

studies is the MIJA Žsee Fig. 4.. For a full description, see
Seward et al. w53–55x. This apparatus uses a two-stage
pressure reservoir to accelerate a nylon piston onto a
titanium shaft positioned in the rear of a water-filled
nozzle. The shaft’s rapid insertion into the nozzle forces a
high velocity water jet from the exit orifice onto the
sample which is sitting on a computer-controlled x–y
stage. This arrangement allows the entire impacting pro-
cess to be automated via an interface with a personal
computer. The jet velocity is measured by a series of light
beams between optical fibres and continually monitored by
the computer. MIJA can produce a jet every 5 s with
velocities in the range 30–600 m sy1 with a spread in
velocities of less than 1%. Any chosen damage array is
achieved by having the sample on the computer-controlled
stage which has a positional accuracy of 10 mm.
The damage caused by these water jets was evaluated
and compared to that resulting from impacts with spherical
water drops by Hand and Field w47x. These data showed
that the diameter of water drop which gave the same
Fig. 3. Single-shot photograph of a jet from a 0.8-mm nozzle. The central damage pattern as a particular diameter water jet depended
core is coherent liquid. The umbrella spray is made up of micron-sized on the impact velocity. This is because the front of the jet
droplets, which do not contribute to the damage. Note the smooth,
is not a true hemisphere, but slightly flattened, which
slightly curved, front profile. The horizontal extent of the picture is 4.4
mm ŽField et al., 1979b..
means that at low velocities the jet gives the damage
observed from a large water drop and as the velocity
increases the equivalent drop diameter decreases Žsee Fig.
appear more favourable for attaining velocities that are 5. .
supersonic with respect to the liquid. The transient method
w48–50x typically involves firing a packet of liquid through
a converging nozzle. In this process, the front region of the
liquid is rapidly compressed and accelerated. The jet veloc-
ity is at its maximum as it cross the orifice plane and can
be as high as 10 to 12 times the projectile velocity w51x or,
in absolute terms, up to ; 5 km sy1 . This is higher than
with the Brunton nozzle, but in the rain erosion simulation
Ždiscussed above. the coherence and front profile of the
liquid are of primary importance, whereas in the mining
application, high velocity and coherence are the key fac-
tors. However, there are problems with projectile liquid
jets at very high velocities, For example, if the jet velocity
exceeds the speed of sound in the liquid, then decompres-
sion occurs after the liquid leaves the nozzle. This causes
disruption of the jet. At a later stage, deceleration by air
drag and Taylor instability cause further break-up. Field
and Lesser w52x have discussed these aspects of the me-
chanics of high-speed liquid jets. Fig. 4. The MIJA used for simulating high-velocity raindrop impact.
 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
Fig. 5. The equivalent drop diameters for the 0.8-mm MIJA jet used in
the study.
The material’s rain erosion resistance is characterised
by determining its absolute damage threshold velocity
ŽADTV.. This is the velocity below which, for a given
water drop size, the sample will never experience any
damage regardless of the number of impacts to which it is
exposed. Because of the high accuracy of the MIJA jet
velocity and positioning, this parameter can be simply
obtained from a single sample. The sample Žtypically a
25-mm diameter disc. has up to 15 sites positioned over its
surface, each one allocated an impact velocity and suffi-
ciently separated from adjacent sites so that there is no
interaction. Each site is initially impacted once at that
velocity and inspected for damage under a microscope at
100 = magnification. The lowest velocity at which dam-
age is observed after a single impact is recorded as DTV
Žone impact. Žthe damage threshold velocity after one
impact. and the sample returned to MIJA so that each site
can be impacted again. This process is repeated until a full
curve of DTV against number of impacts is obtained. A
threshold curve for zinc sulphide is given in Fig. 6 and
shows that the curve tends to flatten out after, typically, 50
impacts. The intercept on the velocity axis after 300
Fig. 6. A typical zinc sulphide damage threshold curve obtained from
MIJA using a 0.8-mm diameter nozzle. The undamaged central region
has a diameter of ca. 1 mm.
5
impacts Ži.e., DTV 300 impacts. is therefore very close to
the ADTV of the material. The ADTV decreases as the
impacting drop or jet diameter increases. This is related to
the number and size of flaws which can be sampled and is
discussed later. The values quoted in the following work
are all for a 0.8-mm diameter jet. A more detailed descrip-
tion of the threshold velocity evaluation procedure can be
found in Refs. w54,55x.
The damage pattern observed under liquid impact for
brittle materials is typically a series of discrete circumfer-
ential fractures around the undamaged central loaded zone.
The fractures are caused by the Rayleigh surface wave
emanating from the impact w17x. The pressure pulses pro-
duced by liquid impact are intense because of the com-
pressible behaviour of the liquid in the first stages of
impact Žsee Section 2.. An example of damage produced in
a brittle material by liquid impact is given in Fig. 7. In
some material, repeated impact produces local failure on or
near the impact axis. Bowden and Brunton w44x found this
with PMMA. In this case, the damage was located beneath
the surface at a depth of about half the radius of the
contact region, R. This is where the Hertz theory for
elastic contact would predict the maximum in shear stresses
Žsee, for example, Ref. w56x., and Bowden and Brunton
w44x suggested this as an explanation. However, for such a
stress wave dominated loading, this is unlikely to be the
full explanation. Recent experiments by Bourne et al. w57x
show that the subsurface axial cracks in PMMA form
when the release waves from the contact periphery interact
giving a net tension.
Interestingly, the release waves will also travel in the
liquid giving cavitation when they cross. This has been
suggested theoretically by Field et al. w23x and there is
experimental evidence w58,59x. The nuclei for such cavities
could be the air trapped at the interface during impact.
Fig. 7. A typical zinc sulphide damage pattern caused by a 300 m sy1
impact from a 0.8-mm MIJA nozzle. The undamaged central region has a
diameter of ca. 1 mm.
6 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12

When the cavities themselves collapse they could give

peaks of pressure which damage the surface.
A third mechanism for damage at or near the central
axis is by the action of compressive or shear loading which
generates tensile failure at the boundaries between grains
depending on their orientation and anisotropy. Once a pit
develops, hydraulic loading by trapped liquid can develop
damage as shown by Field w60x.
Central damage is likely to be less important than the
circumferential cracking in the rain erosion situation since
it depends on multiple impacts on the same site. A situa-
tion which can be realised in the laboratory using MIJA
but not by other techniques and only after very long
exposures in the practical application. Fig. 9. The damage threshold curve for zinc sulphide and zinc sulphide
In most of the experiments reported here, the samples coated with various thicknesses of BP.
were acoustically backed by arranging for the product of
the density, r, and the shock velocity, C, to be the same
for both the target and the backing material. The surfaces tions on the onset of damage in diamond has been dis-
of the two materials need to be smooth and flat for this. A cussed elsewhere w64x.
thin layer of grease allows compression waves to pass over
the interface but prevents reflected tensile waves re-enter-
ing the sample. The sample then behaves effectively semi- 4. Currently used substrate materials
infinitely.
In the practical situation, the component is unbacked, The threshold velocity curves for a range of infrared
and it is possible that rear surface stress wave reflections transparent materials have been obtained and the ADTVs
could affect the threshold velocity and any impact damage. plotted as a function of material properties. The best fit is
In soda-lime glass, this effect was detectable for impacts obtained by plotting ADTV against the log of the static
with a 0.8-mm jet diameter at velocities ) 250 m sy1 fracture toughness K Ic Žsee Fig. 8.. In this graph, 0.8-mm
w61,62x. This is well above the velocity threshold for liquid jet ADTV data has been converted into threshold velocities
impact damage in soda-lime glass which has a low acous- for a 2-mm diameter spherical drop using equations dis-
tic attenuation coefficient. cussed in Refs. w47,65x so as to eliminate the variation in
Diamond is difficult to acoustically match because of equivalent drop diameter with jet velocity from the correla-
the difficulty of finding materials of similar very high tion.
acoustic impedance, though gold is a possibility w63x. It is immediately clear that the threshold velocities are
Diamond has a very high stress wave velocity and this considerably lower than the maximum velocities at which
means that with samples of less than about 1 mm thickness the components will be flown and this emphasises the
the pulse from the rear surface, for an impact of f 600 m severity of the problem even with materials such as dia-
sy1 returns to the impact area while the compressive mond and sapphire. It is also clear that currently there are
loading phase is still operating. This implies that free- materials available for the 3–5 mm applications Žsapphire
standing CVDD should have a higher threshold velocity
for greater thicknesses. The effect of stress wave interac-

Fig. 8. The ADTVs for 2 mm diameter water drops as a function of Fig. 10. The damage threshold curve for germanium and germanium
fracture toughness. coated with various thicknesses of BP.
 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
Fig. 11. Example of rear surface damage seen on CVDD with the damage predominantly intergranular. The grain size is 100 mm. The horizontal extent of
the picture is ca. 100 mm.
and spinel. that can survive impact velocities considerably
higher than those that transmit in the 8–12 mm waveband
Žzinc sulphide and germanium.. It is, therefore, the latter
group that has been the focus of efforts to improve the
erosion performance of infrared materials. These efforts
concentrated on modifying the existing material, coating it
with a protective layer andror finding a more erosion
resistant replacement. The latter efforts have centred on the
use of CVDD techniques to grow a complete diamond
dome or window. Diamond is optically suitable, has excel-
lent mechanical properties and is also attractive because it
is highly resistant to the thermal shock associated with
rapid acceleration to high velocities Žanother serious prob-
lem that the missile designer must overcome, see for
instance Ref. w66x.. While the ultimate aim is that diamond
Fig. 12. DTV Žrear surface damage. vs. sample thickness for the growth
and nucleation sides of CVDD.
7
be used as a free-standing dome material, it is also being
investigated as a protective coating.
5. Coatings
Cambridge research on coated IR samples, including
CVD diamond, is detailed in the paper by Coad et al. w65x.
Coatings are added either to improve the optical properties
Žfor example, an anti-reflection coating. or in an attempt to
increase mechanical performance by increasing the mate-
rial’s ADTV. Few coatings have proved successful in
improving the ADTV significantly above that of the sub-
strate alone. This may be because the preparation of the
substrate for coating reduces its strength, or because the
coating adds tensile residual stresses to the substrate. The
coatings are usually deposited at high temperatures and
any thermal expansion mismatch between it and the sub-
strate will result in thermal stresses. In addition, there are
intrinsic stresses in the coating which also increase with
deposition temperature and rate and coating thickness. In
the systems of interest, these stresses are usually compres-
sive in the coating and tensile in the substrate. These
Fig. 13. Bulk waves and surface waves associated with the enlarged ring
cracks seen on the impacted surface of CVDD.
8 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
Fig. 14. Two possible first order reinforcements which cause the enlarged
ring crack in CVDD; Ža. dilatational, C1 , to dilatational and, Žb. mode
change at the rear surface, dilatational to transverse, C2 , and vice versa
reinforcing with the Rayleigh wave, C R .
stresses will increase the coating’s tendency to debond
from the substrate and will effectively weaken the sub-
strate, in some cases to the point of spontaneous fracture of
the sample as it cools down to room temperature.
One of the most successful systems to date is boron
phosphide ŽBP.. The threshold curves for a range of BP
coating thicknesses on zinc sulphide substrates together
with that of the uncoated material are given in Fig. 9. The
coating has provided considerable protection to the sub-
strate and there appears to be a benefit afforded by increas-
ing the coating thickness from 11 up to 17 mm. Fig. 10
shows a similar series of graphs, but this time with germa-
nium as the substrate material. The inclusion of the 5-mm
thick coating indicates an increase in ADTV with coating
thickness Žbetween 0 and 12 mm..
It should be noted that since the evaluation of damage
with MIJA is purely an optical one, there is a possibility
that an opaque coating will give artificially high DTV
values since it conceals the damage in the substrate from
the observer. In the case of the optically translucent zinc
sulphide, substrate damage can be inspected from the rear
Fig. 15. Example of the enlarged ring crack seen on CVDD, diameter of ring is 5.1 mm. The small bubbles are within the epoxy resin mounting and not in
the CVDD.
with only a small error introduced, but for an opaque
material like germanium, this cannot be done. Some care
must, therefore, be taken when determining the signifi-
cance of the higher ADTV of the 13-mm BP on germa-
nium compared to that of a similar thickness of BP on zinc
sulphide. However, after a sufficiently large number of
impacts, any damage in the substrate should propagate
through the coating and become visible and it is believed
that the 300 impacts used in the DTV experiments are
sufficient for this to be the case. The difference in ADTVs
between BP coated germanium and BP coated zinc sul-
phide is therefore a real effect. However, the increased
DTV at low numbers of impacts, with increased coating
thickness, on the germanium graph ŽFig. 10., is probably
due to the increase in the number of impacts required for
the damage, which has initiated in the substrate, to propa-
gate through to the coating surface where it is first ob-
served. The assumption that damage initiates first in the
substrate is verified by inspection of the damaged impact
sites on BP coated germanium which have a hexagonal
symmetry indicative of the cleavage planes in the crys-
talline substrate.
BP has also been shown to improve the solid particle
erosion performance of zinc sulphide and germanium w67–
69x.
6. Results for free-standing diamond
CVDD has been tested on MIJA for 5 years and during
that time enormous advances have been made with the
quality, the thickness and, recently, the shape of the mate-
rial tested, with full hemispherical domes provided for
evaluation w70x.
 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12 9

CVDD is tested using the small sample technique over

a number of impact sites to evaluate the homogeneity of
the material and to allow enough area on the sample to test
both sides. Since diamond has a very high acoustic
impedance, it is very difficult to match acoustically except
with a layer of gold which is impractical in IR applica-
tions. This has resulted in the samples being impacted
unbacked, which is closer to the situation in practical
applications.
Due to a combination of the high shock wave velocity
Ž18 mm msy1 ., the low shock wave attenuation and the
geometry of the samples, a number of damage mechanisms
are seen frequently in CVDD.

6.1. Rear surface damage

This damage initiates on the rear surface of the sample
on the axis of impact. The damage takes the form of a
crazing which extends outwards from a central initiation
point. This damage develops due to a mismatch between
the acoustic impedance of diamond, Z D Ž63.4 = 10 6 kg
y1
my2 s ., and the impedance of the mounting material,
often an epoxy resin, Z E Ž2.7 = 10 6 kg my2 sy1 . or, with
free-standing samples, air. Due to this impedance mis-
match and the fact that the transition in impedances for the
compressive wave into the backing is from a high value to
a lower one, a large percentage of the compressional wave
is reflected at the interface back into the diamond as a
tensile wave. This tension on the rear face causes the
fractures which are predominantly seen along the grain
boundaries, see Fig. 11.
The threshold velocity for the rear surface ŽDTV Žrear
surface.. has been studied for both the growth and the
nucleation side for a range of CVDD thicknesses Ž500 to
2000 mm., see Fig. 12. There are two main results which
can be drawn. Firstly, the DTV Žrear surface. for the
nucleation side is always greater than for the growth side.
This is due to the strength of CVDD being grain size
dependent and increasing as the grain size increases. The
nucleation side invariably has smaller grains and thus is
Fig. 17. Transition between the first damage mode seen in CVDD discs
when impacted on the growth surface.
the stronger of the two sides. The grains tend to increase in
size away from the nucleation surface and so the growth
side is usually weaker and the difference between the
nucleation and growth side strengths diverges with increas-
ing specimen thickness.
The second observation is the rate at which the im-
provement in the DTV Žrear surface. occurs with thick-
ness. This is much higher for the nucleation side than for
the growth side. The DTV Žrear surface. increases with
thickness for both sides due to geometric attenuation of the
compressive wave across the thickness of the sample. This
geometric attenuation is the only factor for the nucleation
side as the grain size is unaffected by the sample thickness.
However, for the growth side, there is an additional con-
sideration which is the effective weakening of the surface
due to the larger grains for thicker samples.

Fig. 16. Diameter of enlarged ring crack seen on the impacted surface of Fig. 18. Example of edge failure seen when the impact site is too close to
CVDD vs. sample thickness. sample edge. The horizontal extent of the picture is 15.7 mm.
10 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
Fig. 19. Damage mechanism which results in edge failure in CVDD
samples, see Table 1.
6.2. Enlarged ring crack
This damage mechanism occurs on the impacted surface
when the bulk waves, reflected from the rear surface,
interact with the slower Rayleigh surface wave. The inter-
action can be either with a returning dilational wave or a
slower transverse wave, see Figs. 13 and 14. The result is a
section of increased tension on the surface which results in
a large ring crack, see Fig. 15. This damage occurs at a
radius greater than is expected if the damage were to have
been solely introduced by the Rayleigh wave. Upon analy-
sis, the radius of the ring crack is found to be the result of
the interaction between the Rayleigh wave and a returning
transverse bulk wave w17,64x. As this damage relies upon a
returning bulk wave, there is a strong relationship with the
sample thickness and radius of the enlarged ring crack, see
Fig. 16. For all thicknesses of sample tested, there is good
agreement with the theoretical radius and the experimen-
tally obtained value w65x.
For thin samples ŽF 1000 mm. impacted on the growth
side Žas is the possible situation for a CVDD dome during
service., the first damage mechanism to be witnessed
Žwhen tested using the small sample technique. is rear
surface damage with the enlarged ring crack initiating at a
higher velocity. However, this order is reversed for thicker
samples Ž) 1000 mm., where the first damage to be
witnessed is the enlarged ring crack on the growth side
followed by rear surface damage on the nucleation side.
Fig. 17 shows the threshold velocities for these two dam-
age modes vs. sample thickness. As can be clearly seen,
Table 1
Measurements for three impact sites, showing agreement with the ratio of velocities that caused damage
Sample Sample Distance b Žmm.,
number thickness travelled by see Fig. 14
Žmm. Rayleigh wave,
a Žmm.
1 750 " 10 5.0 " 0.1 1.7 " 0.1
2 860 " 10 3.3 " 0.1 1.1 " 0.1
3 580 " 10 3.8 " 0.1 1.3 " 0.1
the transition at which the first damage occurs is at about
1100 " 50 mm. There is no such transition seen when the
sample is impacted on the nucleation side.
6.3. Edge failure
If the impact site on a flat CVDD disc is too close to
the edge of the sample then an extensive crack can be
generated, see Fig. 18. This is due to the reinforcement of
the outward bound Rayleigh wave and the bulk reflected
wave from the side of the disc, see Fig. 19. As the waves
are both generated at impact, the ratio of the distances
travelled gives a ratio of their velocities. Three sites im-
pacted on different samples developed this damage and the
measurements and ratios of the distances travelled are
given in Table 1. As can be seen, there is a very good
agreement between the ratio of the distances travelled by
the two waves and the ratio of the Rayleigh wave velocity,
C R , and the dilatational wave velocity, C1.
6.4. Circumferential cracking
Like all brittle materials, CVDD has a DTV Ž300
impacts. for damage caused by the Rayleigh wave alone
Žno reinforcement effects.. For thin samples, the described
damage modes are seen before any evidence of circumfer-
ential cracking is initiated. Impacting at higher velocities,
as is the case for the thicker samples, causes short circum-
ferential cracks at a radius similar to that for a more
conventional brittle material Žtypically 500 mm for a 0.8-
mm jet.. This damage has been seen on a few samples and
only when the growth surface is the impacted face. The
DTV Ž300 impacts. for the growth side for samples ) 1100
mm thick is 450 " 25 m sy1 , is evaluated using the small
sample technique. There appears to be no variation in the
DTV Ž300 impacts. for the growth side with sample
thickness and, therefore, surface flaw size. This is in
agreement with a computer model which has been devel-
oped for impact on brittle materials.
6.5. CVDD domes
Two complete diamond domes were supplied for evalu-
ation; 750 mm thick and 1300 mm thick at the apex and an
Distance Theoretical arŽ a q 2 b .
travelled by the value of
dilatational CR rC1 for
wave, a q 2 b Žmm. diamond
8.4 " 0.2 0.594 0.60 " 0.03
5.5 " 0.2 0.594 0.60 " 0.03
6.6 " 0.2 0.594 0.59 " 0.03
 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
Fig. 20. Example of full hemispherical CVDD dome tested in the
Cavendish Laboratory.
inner radius of 35 mm, see Fig. 20. The thinner dome was
impacted on both sides and the DTV Žrear surface. gave
very good agreement with the data obtained for the flat
discs. The thicker dome has only been impacted on the
growth side with rear surface damage observed on the
nucleation side. The DTV Žrear surface. was lower than
had been seen for the flat disc samples. This was thought
to be due to the poor surface finish on the inside of the
dome after removal from the substrate.
Comparison between CVDD and DTV data on natural
and high-temperature, high-pressure ŽHTHP. synthetic dia-
mond is given by Coad et al. w65x. Both natural and HTHP
can have DTVs of almost 600 m sy1 for impact with 2
mm drops Žsee Fig. 8.. CVDD has improved significantly
over the last few years, but still has a DTV about 200 m
sy1 less than good-quality natural diamond.
7. Discussion
There has not been space in this review to do more than
mention and reference the various technologies which
involve liquid impact. These range from the ‘‘problem’’
areas such as erosion, to the practically advantageous such
as jet cleaning or cutting. The theory of liquid impact in
Section 2 does show, however, why liquid impact is not an
innocuous event associated with low pressures but, be-
cause of compressibility, can give very high transient
pressures.
The various techniques of producing liquid impact are
described. Cambridge research has concentrated on devel-
oping laboratory techniques which keep the target station-
ary and move the liquid Žbasically, this is simpler, more
easy to control and less expensive.. It involves producing
coherent, smooth-fronted jets which can simulate drop
impact. MIJA is an equipment which can achieve these
objectives. It can be used to determine ADTVs for materi-
als.
11
Recent research on IR ‘‘ windows’’ and ‘‘domes’’ is
described. Producing a successful coating is difficult for a
whole variety of reasons Žsee Section 5.. In fact, there are
cases when the coated system is weaker than the substrate
alone. Of the coatings studied, BP has useful properties for
improving the rain and solid particle erosion of zinc
sulphide and germanium ‘‘windows’’.
The paper ends with a discussion of data obtained on
CVDD specimens, ‘‘windows’’ and domes. This technol-
ogy is advancing in an exciting way. However, even when
the diamond rain erosion resistance has been optimised it
is unlikely that the ADTV will reach the maximum veloci-
ties at which it will be carried on an aircraft and will not
even approach the velocities of the fastest missiles. The
erosion of infrared transparent materials will remain a
problem, and an active research area, for some time.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the many former students and post-
docs who have contributed to the Cambridge research,
particularly Drs. E.J. Coad, D.A. Gorham, R.J. Hand,
C.S.J. Pickles, C.R. Seward, D. Townsend, and Professors
M.J. Mathewson and S. van der Zwaag. Collaborative
research with Professor M.B. Lesser Žnow at KTH Stock-
holm. contributed significantly. The research has been
carried out with the support of the Defence Evaluation
Research Agency and De Beers. The author would like to
thank Dr. J.A. Savage of DERA Malvern for his encour-
agement, and R. Marrah for technical support with SIJA
and MIJA.
References
w1x A.M. Worthington, A Study of Splashes, Longmans, New York,
1908; republished Macmillan, New York, 1963.
w2x H. Wagner, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 12 Ž1932. 193–215.
w3x R. Skalak, D. Feit, J. Eng. Ind. Trans. ASME 88B Ž1966. 325–331.
w4x C.M. Preece ŽEd.., Treatise on Materials Science and Technology,
Vol. 16, Erosion, Academic, New York, 1979, 450 pp.
w5x W.F. Adler, in: C.M. Preece ŽEd.., Erosion, Academic, New York,
1979, pp. 127–184.
w6x J.H. Brunton, M.C. Rochester, in: C.M. Preece ŽEd.., Erosion,
Academic, New York, 1979, pp. 185–248.
w7x M.G. Sims, P.W. Trevett, Bibliography of Rain Erosion, RAE
Library Bibliogr. No. 327, MOD, London, 1972, 115 pp.
w8x G.S. Springer, Erosion by Liquid Impact, Wiley, New York, 1976,
264 pp.
w9x A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Int. Conf. Rain
Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1965, 1967,
1970, 1974.
w10x J.E. Field ŽEd.., 5th Int. Conf. Erosion Liquid and Solid Impact,
Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, England, 1979.
w11x J.E. Field, N.S. Corney ŽEds.., 6th Int. Conf. Erosion Liquid and
Solid Impact, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, England, 1983.
w12x J.E. Field, J.P. Dear ŽEds.., 7th Int. Conf. Erosion Liquid and Solid
Impact, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, England, 1987.
12 J.E. Field r Wear 233–235 (1999) 1–12
w13x I.M. Hutchings, J.A. Little ŽEds.., 8th Int. Conf. Erosion Liquid and
Solid Impact, Wear, 1995, pp. 186–187.
w14x British Hydraulic Research Association, Proc. Int. Symp. Jet Cutting
Technol., BHRA, Cranfield, England, 1972 onwards at two-yearly
intervals.
w15x W.F. Adler ŽEd.., Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications, STP
664, Am. Soc. Test Mater., Philadelphia, PA, 1979, 643 pp.
w16x M.B. Lesser, J.E. Field, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 15 Ž1983. Ž1983.
97–122.
w17x F.P. Bowden, J.E. Field, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 232 Ž1964.
331–352.
w18x F.J. Heymann, J. Appl. Phys. 40 Ž1969. Ž1969. 5113–5122.
w19x M.B. Lesser, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 377 Ž1981. 289–308.
w20x S.S. Cook, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 119 Ž1928. 481–488.
w21x J.P. Dear, J.E. Field, J. Appl. Phys. 63 Ž1988. 1015–1021.
w22x J.E. Field, J.P. Dear, J.-E. Ö gren, J. Appl. Phys. 65 Ž1989. 533–540.
w23x J.E. Field, M.B. Lesser, J.P. Dear, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 401
Ž1985. 225–249.
w24x M.C. Rochester, J.H. Brunton, in: J.E. Field ŽEd.., Proc. 5th Int.
Conf. on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, Cavendish Labora-
tory, Cambridge, 1979, pp. 6.1–6.7.
w25x N.L. Hancox, J.H. Brunton, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
260 Ž1966. 121–139.
w26x N.W. Wahl, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 3rd Int. Conf. Rain
Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1970, pp.
13–38.
w27x W. Kunz, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 4th Int. Conf. Rain
Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1974, pp.
187–198.
w28x R.B. Mortenson, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 4th Int. Conf.
Rain Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1974,
pp. 155–185.
w29x R.B. King, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 1st Int. Conf. Rain
Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1965, pp.
49–57.
w30x W.G. Reinecke, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 4th Int. Conf. Rain
Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1974, pp.
209–233.
w31x G.F. Schmitt, W.G. Reinecke, G.D. Waldman, STP 567, Am. Soc.
Test. Mater., Philadelphia, PA, 1974, pp. 219–238.
w32x R.J. Sullivan, R.R. Hockridge, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 4th
Int. Conf. Rain Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, Eng-
land, 1974, pp. 109–154.
w33x A.A. Eyall, R.B. King, G.R. Higgs, J.H. Fawcett, H.C.J. Williams,
RAE Farnborough Tech. Rep. 75080, 1975, pp. 1–84.
w34x D.C. Jenkins, J.D. Booker, in: E.G. Richardson ŽEd.., Aerodynamic
Capture Particles, Pergamon, Oxford, 1960, pp. 97–103.
w35x A.A. Fyall, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 2nd Int. Conf. Rain
Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1967, pp.
563–586.
w36x A.A. Fyall, P.A. Smith, US Avionics Lab., Symp. Electromagn.
Windows, Vol. 1, 1968, pp. 55–77.
w37x W.F. Adler, T.W. James, ONR Tech. Rep. for Contract No.
N0001476C-0744, 1978, 144 pp.
w38x J.E. Field, D.A. Gorham, J.T. Hagan, M.J. Matthewson, M.V.
Swain, S. van der Zwaag, in: J.E. Field ŽEd.., 5th Int. Conf. Erosion
by Solid and Liquid Impact, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge,
England, 1979, Paper 13, 11 pp.
w39x D.G. Rickerby, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1977.
w40x P.W. Blair, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1981.
w41x W.F. Adler, in: J.E. Field ŽEd.., 5th Int. Conf. Erosion by Solid and
Liquid Impact, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, England, 1979,
Paper 9, 10 pp.
w42x W.F. Adler, 9th Int. Conf. Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact,
Wear, 1998, in press.
w43x F.P. Bowden, J.H. Brunton, Nature 181 Ž1958. 873–875.
w44x F.P. Bowden, J.H. Brunton, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 263
Ž1961. 433–450.
w45x D.A. Gorham, J.E. Field, J. Phys. D 9 Ž1976. 1529–1541.
w46x D.A. Gorham, M.J. Matthewson, J.E. Field, in: W.F. Adler ŽEd..,
Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications, STP 664, Am. Soc.
Test Mater., Philadelphia, PA, 1979, pp. 320–342.
w47x R.J. Hand, J.E. Field, Eng. Fract. Mech. 37 Ž1990. 293–311.
w48x B.V. Vortsekhovksy, Br. Pat. 1,109,286.
w49x W.C. Cooley, in: G.B. Clark ŽEd.., 12th Int. Symp. Rock Mech.,
AIME, New York, 1971, pp. 653–665.
w50x B. Edney, Proc. Int. Symp. Jet Cutting Technol., Chicago, IL,
BHRA, Cranfield, England, Paper B2.
w51x I.L. Rhyming, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 24 Ž1973. 149–164.
w52x J.E. Field, M.B. Lesser, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 357 Ž1977.
143–162.
w53x C.R. Seward, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1992.
w54x C.R. Seward, C.S.J. Pickles, R. Marrah, J.E. Field, Proc. SPIE 1760
Ž1992. 280–290.
w55x C.R. Seward, E.J. Coad, C.S.J. Pickles, J.E. Field, Proc. SPIE 2286
Ž1994. 285–300.
w56x K.L. Johnson, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam-
bridge, 1985.
w57x N.K. Bourne, T. Obara, J.E. Field, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London,
Ser. A 355 Ž1997. 607–632.
w58x J.H. Brunton, J.J. Camus, Proc. 9th Int. Congr. High-Speed Photog-
raphy, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, Denver,
CO, 1970.
w59x N.K. Bourne, T. Obara, J.E. Field, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 452
Ž1996. 1497–1502.
w60x J.E. Field, in: A.A. Fyall, R.B. King ŽEds.., 2nd Int. Conf. Rain
Erosion Assoc. Phenom., RAE Farnborough, England, 1967, pp.
593–603.
w61x S. van der Zwaag, J.E. Field, Philos. Mag. A 53 Ž1983. 101–111.
w62x S. van der Zwaag, J.E. Field, Eng. Fract. Mech. 17 Ž1983. 376–379.
w63x J.E. Field ŽEd.., The Properties of Diamond, Academic Press,
London, 1979.
w64x C.R. Seward, E.J. Coad, J.E. Field, J. Hard Mater. 5 Ž1994. 49–62.
w65x E.J. Coad, C.S.J. Pickles, C.R. Seward, G.H. Jilbert, J.E. Field,
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 454 Ž1998. 213–238.
w66x C.A. Klein, Proc. SPIE 1760 Ž1992. 338–357.
w67x E.M. Waddell, D.R. Gibson, Proc. SPIE 2286 Ž1994. 364–375.
w68x E.M. Waddell, D.R. Gibson, Proc. SPIE 2286 Ž1994. 376–385.
w69x G.H. Jilbert, J.E. Field, Wear 21 Ž1998. 15–23.
w70x E.J. Coad, C.S.J. Pickles, G.H. Jilbert, J.E. Field, Diamond Relat.
Mater. 5 Ž1996. 640–643.