Behaviour of Al6061-T6 alloy at

different temperatures and strain-rates_

Experimental characterization and
material modelling M. Scapin & A.
Manes
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/behaviour-of-al6061-t6-alloy-at-different-temperatures
-and-strain-rates_-experimental-characterization-and-material-modelling-m-scapin-a-
manes/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Concepts and Experimental Protocols of Modelling and

Informatics in Drug Design Om Silakari

https://ebookmass.com/product/concepts-and-experimental-
protocols-of-modelling-and-informatics-in-drug-design-om-
silakari/

Chemical Analysis and Material Characterization by

Spectrophotometry Bhim Prasad Ka■e

https://ebookmass.com/product/chemical-analysis-and-material-
characterization-by-spectrophotometry-bhim-prasad-ka%ef%ac%82e/

Principles of Materials Characterization and Metrology

Kannan M. Krishnan

https://ebookmass.com/product/principles-of-materials-
characterization-and-metrology-kannan-m-krishnan/

Organizational Behaviour and Work: A Critical

Introduction, 5e 5th Edition Fiona M. Wilson

https://ebookmass.com/product/organizational-behaviour-and-work-
a-critical-introduction-5e-5th-edition-fiona-m-wilson/
Synthesis, Modelling and Characterization of 2D
Materials and their Heterostructures (Micro and Nano
Technologies) 1st Edition Eui-Hyeok Yang (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/synthesis-modelling-and-
characterization-of-2d-materials-and-their-heterostructures-
micro-and-nano-technologies-1st-edition-eui-hyeok-yang-editor/

60 Years of the Loeb-Sourirajan Membrane: Principles,

New Materials, Modelling, Characterization, and
Applications Hui-Hsin Tseng

https://ebookmass.com/product/60-years-of-the-loeb-sourirajan-
membrane-principles-new-materials-modelling-characterization-and-
applications-hui-hsin-tseng/

Images at work: The material culture of enchantment

David Morgan

https://ebookmass.com/product/images-at-work-the-material-
culture-of-enchantment-david-morgan/

Electronic and Experimental Music

https://ebookmass.com/product/electronic-and-experimental-music/

Principal in Balance: Leading at Work and Living a Life

Jessica M. Cabeen

https://ebookmass.com/product/principal-in-balance-leading-at-
work-and-living-a-life-jessica-m-cabeen/
Al6061-T6合金在不同温度和应变率 Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328

下的行为:实验表征和材料建模 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science & Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Behaviour of Al6061-T6 alloy at different temperatures and strain-rates: T

Experimental characterization and material modelling
⁎
M. Scapina, A. Manesb,
a
Politecnico di Torino, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129 Turin, Italy
b
Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Meccanica, Via La Masa 1, 20156 Milan, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The simulation of impact scenario against a structure requires the use of material models able to reproduce all
Al6061 T6 aspects of the mechanical behaviour of the involved materials; plastic flow is one of the main aspects to be
Hopkinson Tension Bar reproduced. In more detail, attention has to be paid to the investigation of strain-rate and temperature sensi-
Strain-rate tivities, as well as their interaction, which necessitates the use of a reverse engineering approach. The present
Thermal softening
paper mainly focuses on the tensile behaviour and an ad-hoc testing campaign was performed on cylindrical dog-
Johnson-Cook model
Reverse engineering approach
bone specimens made in Al6061T6 at different temperatures and strain-rates extending the range up to a level
where, at present, there is a lack in the scientific literature. The thermal softening effect was investigated in
quasi-static as well as in dynamic loading conditions from room temperature up to 400 °C; while the material
strength dependence on the strain-rate was studied up to 104 s−1 on miniaturized samples. Microstructure
analyses were performed to better investigate the mechanical response at different loading conditions. The
parameters of the Johnson-Cook model were identified starting from experimental data via a numerical inverse
approach based on FEM simulations. These parameters can be used for simulations of extreme loading scenario
like ballistic impact events.

1. Introduction effects. A common approach is the superposition of sub-models each of

Extreme loading conditions like ballistic impacts, explosions and
several technological processes subject the material involved to a very
high strain-rate combined with high levels of deformation, temperature
and damage. These loading conditions represent a challenge in the
design and assessment of critical mechanical components and/or
manufacturing process. Although experimental testing is fundamental
for a reliable approach, alternative methods such as numerical simu-
lations are now an actual and valid option. Obviously, the reliability of
the Finite Element models results strongly depends on the capability of
the material model to correctly reproduce the material behaviour under
these extreme conditions. In such complex scenarios, different aspects
have therefore to be considered: the generation and propagation of
elastic and plastic waves, the contribution of deviatoric and hydro-
dynamic deformation, the thermo-mechanical coupling effects, crack
propagation and the failure condition. In addiction the deformation
process is adiabatic: the heat generated from the conversion of the
plastic work has no time to disperse and the consequent relevant rise in
temperature has to be considered.
A comprehensive constitutive model should consider all these
them able to describe a part of the above-mentioned aspects, while
neglecting coupled effects between each contribution. The plastic flow
and the effects of plastic strain, strain-rate and temperature, as well as
their mutual influences are described with a strength model. The ma-
terial damaging and the material fracture are predicted by defining an
appropriate failure model whereas the hydrodynamic stress is related to
other thermodynamic quantities by the definition of a proper equation
of state. Such a simplified approach is supported by some experimental
evidence and results in obtaining the material characterization by
performing a limited number of relatively simple tests.
In the present work, the attention was focused on the plastic flow
description and the definition of appropriate strength models for
Al6061-T6 alloy to predict its behaviour under extreme conditions, in
terms of strain-rate and temperature dependencies. In order to achieve
this aim, various parameters had to be addressed including the choice
of the most suitable strength material model, the strategy to calibrate its
parameters and the account for the strong coupling between the strain-
rate and the temperature, which results at high level of plastic strain
due to the short time scale of the phenomenon. Correlation and vali-
dation between experimental results and microstructure evolution were

⁎
corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrea.manes@polimi.it (A. Manes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2018.08.011
Received 12 May 2018; Received in revised form 31 July 2018; Accepted 2 August 2018
Available online 05 August 2018
0921-5093/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Scapin, A. Manes
achieved by means of microstructural analyses of the fracture surface
performed for several loading conditions.
The Johnson-Cook material model was chosen and calibrated in this
work (by means of reverse engineering approach), since it takes into
account the effect of strain hardening, strain-rate and temperature de-
pendencies in a simple but effective way; moreover, this model is sui-
table to describe a large variety of metal materials with different crystal
structures and, therefore, it is widely included in several numerical
solvers. A brief discussion of the defining factors leading to this choice
is reported below.
A reverse engineering approach was used for the determination of
the material model parameters to account for the coupling between
strain-rate and temperature and to extend the range of strain up to
fracture in post-necking regime. This coupling is typical in case of
ballistic impact, in which the adiabatic condition is often reached in a
very localized portion of the involved components, where the strain-
rate is maximum. Hence, temperature and strain-rate act in opposition
causing the resultant behaviour of the materials: the strain-rate incre-
ments the material strength and its plastic hardening capability which
in turn increases the temperature and generates a softening effect. In
the early phase of the impact, which is characterized by a low level of
plastic deformation and a high strain-rate, an increase in strength is the
main effect; however, in the next phase, where the increase of plastic
deformation and the reduction of the strain-rate by energy dissipation
occur, the temperature is a highly contributing factor.
2. Literature review
The 6000-series aluminium alloy is extensively used in the trans-
portation and energy industry. Its properties, including a favourable
weight-resistance ratio, the resistance to corrosion, a good weldability
as well as machinability in conjunction with toughness, makes this
series very attractive for lightweight design especially aimed to frame
(plane, car, bike, etc.).
Specifically, the Al6061T6 alloy is a tempered grade T6, which
means that it has been solutionized and artificially aged. This alloy is a
very versatile material also used in laminate plate material for high
velocity impact [1]. Its favourable mechanical properties make it pre-
sently an extensively studied alloy especially in the field of optimization
of manufacturing processes [2–5]. However, all of the applications of
the Al6061T6, involve the use of the material in processes which are
influenced by phenomenon like strain hardening, strain-rate and tem-
perature and therefore an improvement of the calibration of the con-
stitutive model for this material is of prime interest.
A very recent paper [6] investigated the compressive strength of the
Al6061T6 as a function of high strain-rate. The preliminary discussion
of that paper highlighted many ambiguities in the literature regarding
the effects of temperature and strain-rate on the compressive strength.
The dynamic compressive strength was investigated by means of SHPB
while a SEM investigation showed a strong change in the micro-
structure modification at a strain-rate varying from 4148 s−1 to
6519 s−1. Strain-rate sensitivity was apparently enhanced in the pas-
sage from 5475–6181 s−1 to 6181–6519 s−1. However thermal activa-
tion volume seemed to decrease in this variation of strain-rate range.
Previous work [7] did not show any significant increase in strength
at high strain-rates (> 10,000 s−1) and the constants presented in that
paper have been used extensively over the years to represent the bal-
listic response of Al6061T6 with good results [8]. Nevertheless, another
work [9] showed a significant deviation between the J-C model pre-
vision, obtained by using the material parameter in [7], and the ex-
perimental results. In [9] an increase in strength above a strain-rate of
103 s−1 was shown and justified by the authors due to a change in the
deformation mechanism.
In [10], the authors reported the trend of the maximum stress ob-
tained by a SHPB tensile and compressive tests and highlighted a dy-
namic behaviour with an increase in strength of Al6061T6 starting from
319
Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328
a strain-rate of about 103 s−1. Similarly, in [11], a step increase in the
flow stress of Al6061T6 was observed, but differently from the results
reported in other papers, it was observed to start from about 104 s−1. In
[12], the effects of a temperature up to 350 °C and a strain-rate up to
5 × 103 s−1 was investigated also focusing on the microstructural
evolution using a compressive SHPB system. Also in this case, an in-
crease in the flow stress at about 103 s−1 was acquired and was justified
with a greater rate of dislocation generation and multiplication (by
TEM observation). The combined effect of strain-rate and temperature
has been investigated in [13] for a generic alloy 6061. The authors
made tests up to 104 s−1 and at a temperature up to 673 K. They also
calibrated a Johnson-Cook (JC) model but without the interaction be-
tween the different parameters and without the use of numerical
models (like in the present papers). According to the results presented
in [13] the calibrated JC model partially failed to describe the beha-
viour of the material at high temperature whereas for strain-rate effect,
good results were obtained for low strain-rate (where the strain-rate
sensitivity is very low) but a comparison at high strain-rate was not
performed. In contrast to other papers strain-rate sensitivity seemed
very low. It is worth to mention that the material seemed to be not in a
tempered grade T6 like the material analysed in the present paper.
However, the results of the paper underline the need for further in-
vestigations with the use of numerical models in order to calibrate the
JC parameters by means of a reverse engineering approaches where
strain-rate and temperature effect are fully considered. The effect of the
strain-rate on fracture morphology was reported also in [14] where
fractography showed that ductile failure mode was dominant for such
an alloy and that the strain-rate produced rougher fractures and more
particle cracking. However, in that paper only intermediate strain-rate
were investigated on Al6061T6.
Previously, the authors of the present paper performed an in-
vestigation on the mechanical properties of Al 6061T6 [15] with a re-
levant application in the field of impact engineering [16–18] and the
results were compared with results from the scientific literature [9].
These past works underlined the importance of a correct material ca-
libration in predicting the effect of a ballistic impact, as well as the need
of a more in-depth investigation in the strain-rate range close to 10−4
s−1 to better highlight the piecewise behaviour of the flow stress.
Moreover, also the temperature sensitivities need to be further in-
vestigated to be able to correctly consider the coupled effect due to the
adiabatic heating. In addition, in [15] the material modelling approach
for Al6061T6 was discussed and it was concluded, also in accordance
with the results reported in the scientific literature, that the Johnson-
Cook model is a good choice in terms of balance between simplicity and
capability to predict the material response in case of impact.
Therefore, from the above discussion of the relevant literature data,
it is evident that there is still a need for a further investigation regarding
the high rate deformation of Al-6061 especially close to the range of 104
s−1, as well as the high temperature behaviour under tensile loads.
These are the main aims of this paper, in which a testing campaign,
performed in tension, by varying the temperature and the strain-rate,
was performed on Al6061-T6 dog-bone specimens. The obtained ex-
perimental results were used in a hybrid analytical-numerical proce-
dure for the identification of the material model parameters for the
Johnson-Cook model. Results were also be discussed by means of mi-
crostructure observations of the fracture surfaces.
3. Material and experimental testing campaign
The composition of the material under investigation, Al6061-T6, is
reported in Table 1. The chemical composition additionally analysed by
means of an X-ray EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) system, is also
reported.
The investigated range in the strain-rate started from a quasi-static
condition and was extended up to 104 s−1 to reach a strain-rate closer
to the ones developed during a ballistic impact phenomenon. In
M. Scapin, A. Manes Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328

Table 1
Al6061-T6 chemical composition.
Al % Mg % Si % Fe % Cu % Mn % Cr % Zn % Ti %

Nominal 98 0.2–1.2 0.4–0.8 0.7 0.15–0.4 0.15 0.04–0.35 0.25 0.15

Measured 94–97 1.05–1.45 0.5–1.06 1.2 0.46–0.63 0.11 0.02 – 0.04

Fig. 1. Specimen geometry used in the testing campaign: geometry S1 for tests at different temperatures up to 103 s−1 (a); geometry S2 for very high strain-rate tests
(104 s−1) and quasi-static tests at room temperature for comparison (b).

addition, to evaluate thermal softening and the coupling between developed to concentrate the heat flux in the gage section of the spe-
strain-rate and temperature, tests at various temperatures were per- cimens. The temperature was controlled on the measurements per-
formed both in quasi-static and in dynamic regimes up to 400 °C. The formed by thermocouples welded on the experimental setup due the
experimental data analysis was performed in two steps: first, an ana- problems associated with welding onto aluminium alloy: a preliminary
lytical approach was followed by considering a limited range in strain calibration was performed to correlate the measured temperature with
(in order not to reach the necking condition); then a reverse en- that of the gage section. The same system was used both for the quasi-
gineering approach based on FE simulations was applied. static and dynamic tests.
Fig. 1, shows an image of the specimens with specified dimensions.
For the tests, up to a nominal strain-rate of 103 s−1 (at different tem-
3.1. Results
peratures) the geometry S1 was used with a gage length of 5 mm and a
gage diameter of 3 mm. For tests at a very high strain-rate (104 s−1) the
Engineering stress-strain curves are reported in the diagrams of
miniaturized specimen S2 was adopted which presents a gage length of
Fig. 2. The onset of instability and the consequent presence of necking,
1.5 mm and a gage diameter of 1.5 mm. Additional quasi-static tests at
which in general takes a considerable part of the entire tests, do not
room temperature were performed on this second geometry in order to
permit showing the results in terms of true stress-strain curves, since
compare the results. For each loading condition, at least 3 valid tests
their relationships are no longer valid when triaxial state of stress is
were performed in order to check the material scatter.
developed. Moreover, they imply the use of an FE approach to get
The investigated strain-rate range varies between 10−3 and 104 s−1.
equivalent stress-strain curves which allow the comparison of the re-
The tests at low and medium strain-rate were carried out on standard
sults up to fracture (see the section below). The data were obtained
electro-mechanical and servo-hydraulics testing machines, respectively.
from force-displacement curves exploiting nominal gage length and the
The high strain-rate tests were performed by using a Hopkinson bar
cross-section area. The evaluation of the gage length deformation was
setup [19]. For the tests nominally at 103 s−1 of strain-rate, a standard
based on the stroke measurement performed by using a digital ela-
setup in the direct configuration was adopted [20]. For the tests nom-
boration technique on the gage length (e.g. optical extensometer). The
inally at 104 s−1 of strain-rate, an ad-hoc setup was used, which consists
temperature dependence of the Young's Modulus was in accordance
of a miniaturized setup developed for specimen S2, in which the dia-
with the results shown in [22], where the thermal effect on the Young's
meter of the output bar was reduced accordingly with the specimen
Modulus did not affect the final results when the attention was focused
dimension. This setup allowed to reach higher strain-rates than those
on the plastic behaviour of the material up to fracture (e.g. for high
achievable with the standard setup, since the input bar velocity was
level of strain). Only one curve for each testing condition is shown,
about 25 m/s (reached in 10 μs) [21]. This setup was coupled and
which is the closest one to the average curve: the average curve was not
synchronized with a high-speed camera (Photron SA5) and a pulsed
used to keep the link with a specific specimen for the final comparison
light system for the measurements of kinematic quantities, especially
between computed and experimental results (e.g. shape of necking re-
for the input side: the high acceleration imposed to the system does not
gion). An indication of the data scatter can be derived from the results
permit the use of any wired measuring system, such as strain-gages.
reported in Table 2. For each loading condition average (indicated with
Otherwise, on the output side the force and displacement measure-
“av”) and standard deviation (indicated with “std”) values of yield and
ments were performed by using semiconductor strain-gages.
ultimate stresses are reported. For high strain-rate tests, the evaluation
The investigated temperature range varies between room tempera-
of the yield stress is difficult, since the curves can present peaks and
ture and 400 °C. For the specimen heating an induction system was
oscillations which are not related to the material behaviour, but they

320
M. Scapin, A. Manes Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328

Fig. 2. Experimental results in terms of engineering stress-strain: a) at different strain-rates and at room temperature for specimen S1; b) at different strain-rates and
at room temperature for specimen S2; c) at different temperatures and at a quasi-static strain-rate for specimen S1; d) at different temperatures and at high strain-rate
for specimen S1.

come from inertia and/or initial misalignments of the system. For this
reason, a precise evaluation of the yield stress was not possible and only
the average value was reported in the Table 2. The cross-section re-
duction was reported too. As it is possible to notice, the scatter of the
quasi-static results was very limited up to 250 °C, while it increased for
higher temperatures. By increasing the strain-rates, the data scatter was
higher in all the investigated temperatures above room temperature.
The cross-section reduction was also measured for some specimens
based on SEM images reported in Fig. 4. These results agree with the
different behaviour of the specimens, as far as ductility is concerned,

Fig. 3. High speed camera images during the necking phase and at fracture for 103 (a) and 104 (b) s−1 tests: the test at 103 s−1 was recorded at 50,000 f/s with a
resolution of 640 × 224 px; the test at 104 s−1 was recorded at 262,500 f/s with a resolution of 384 × 56 px.

321
M. Scapin, A. Manes Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328

Table 2
Average and standard deviation values for yield and ultimate stresses for all the testing conditions.
TR 100 °C 200 °C 250 °C 300 °C 400 °C

Quasi-static (S1 specimen)

σy,av ± std (MPa) 299 ± 3 276 ± 2 229 ± 5 193 ± 3 105 ± 7 25 ± 10
σu,av ± std (MPa) 325 ± 2 305 ± 1 238 ± 1 200 ± 3 108 ± 6 27 ± 8
Cross section area reduction (%) 37 (Fig. 4a) – 29 (Fig. 4b) – 19 (Fig. 4c) –

Medium strain-rate (S1 specimen)

σy,av ± std (MPa) 304 ± 3 – – – – –
σu,av ± std (MPa) 341 ± 2 – – – – –

High strain-rate (S1 specimen)

σy,av ± std (MPa) 320 303 273 167 105 –
σu,av ± std (MPa) 348 ± 3 325 ± 10 285 ± 7 199 ± 20 151 ± 5 –
Cross section area reduction (%) 14 (Fig. 4d) – 23 (Fig. 4e) – 69 (Fig. 4f) –

Very high strain-rate (S2 specimen)

σy,av ± std (MPa) 340 – – – – –
σu,av ± std (MPa) 360 ± 20 – – – – –
Cross section area reduction (%) 58 (Fig. 4h) – – – – –

shown in Fig. 2.
The material response at room temperature and different strain-
rates is reported in Fig. 2.a for tests up to 103 s−1. As expected from the
results reported in the scientific literature, up to a medium level of
strain-rate the material was more or less insensitive to strain-rate and
the increment in the material strength is low. A further increase in the
strain-rate produced a considerable increment in the materials strength.
The experimental data showed the mechanical responses were coherent
in the uniform elongation phase, while a more scattered behaviour was
obtained after necking. The results obtained for very high strain-rate
are reported in Fig. 2.b and compared with the quasi-static result ob-
tained on the same geometry. The difference in the specimen dimension
of the two geometries prevented a direct comparison of the engineering
results since they are strongly influenced by the geometry. The com-
parison could however be achieved by implementing FE models of the
two geometries and comparing equivalent stress-strain curves [21,23].
The comparison of the results of Fig. 2.a and .b in the pre-necking phase
demonstrated a significant increase in the mechanical response of the
material by passing from 103 to 104 s−1 of strain-rate. Fig. 3 shows
some images of the necking phase extracted from high-speed videos for
tests at room temperature at 103 and 104 s−1 of strain-rate. Image
analysis revealed that the necking induced in the S2 geometry was more
pronounced than in the S1 one (as also underlined in Table 2 as far as
cross section area is concerned), which otherwise showed a more irre-
gular deformation of the gage length.
The engineering curves obtained by varying the temperature in
quasi-static regime are shown in Fig. 2.c, while in Fig. 2.d the results
obtained at 103 s−1 of strain-rate are summarized.
In the quasi-static regime, the material exhibited an early instability
starting from 200 °C, which produced a decrement of the mechanical
response just at the end of the elastic phase. On the contrary, at 100 °C
the material behaviour was still characterized by the presence of a
hardening phase before necking. In the dynamic regime, the change in
shape at the onset of necking was not observed, since the material re-
sponse at each temperature was always characterized by a first phase of
hardening followed by necking.
3.2. Microstructure observation
In this section, the microstructure of the fracture surface of selected
tested specimens at different loading conditions was studied by means
of Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) fractography. The selected
specimens correspond to the nominal testing conditions of Room
Temperature (RT), 200 °C and 300 °C both in quasi-static condition and
under strain-rate of 103 and 104 s−1. This means that both the S1 and
S2 specimens were analysed.
In Fig. 4, the images of the entire fracture surface (75× for S1
specimens and 150× for S2 specimens) are reported. Pictures 4.b (test
at 200 °C and 10−3 s−1), 4.c (test at 300 °C and 10−3 s−1), 4.d (test at
RT and 103 s−1) and 4.e (test at 200 °C and 103 s−1) show a more
regular circular fracture surface. Specifically Fig. 4.a (test at RT and
10−3 s−1) shows a more pronounced shrink of the failure section with
respect of the test carried out in quasi-static condition but at different
temperatures reported in Fig. 4.b (test at 200 °C and 10−3 s−1), Fig. 4.c
(test at 300 °C and 10−3 s−1). This behaviour is consistent with the
curves reported in Fig. 2.c, where the specimen at RT showed a slight
increase in strain at failure thus a larger ductility. On the contrary, in
accordance with the results reported in Fig. 2.d a different behaviour is
expected when high strain-rate is investigated: when specimens were
tested at 103 s−1, strain increased strongly at failure for 300 °C. This
was clearly confirmed also by comparing Fig. 4.d (test at RT and 103
s−1) and 4.e (test at 200 °C and 103 s−1) with Fig. 4.f (test at 300 °C and
103 s−1). Specifically, the latter shows a remarkable shrinking of the
failure surface.
In Fig. 5, the SEM images, at a magnification of 1500×, are re-
ported for the same loading conditions. Coalesced voids, microvoids
and dimples were present in all the images: this confirms the ductile
behaviour expected for Al6061-T6 [24]. In quasi-static and RT condi-
tion, as reported in Fig. 5.a, macroscopic voids intermingled with finer
microscopic voids were present. A slightly more regular pattern was
visible by increasing the temperature in quasi-static condition, as in
Fig. 5.b (test at 200 °C and 10−3 s−1) and 5.c (test at 300 °C and 10−3
s−1). However, size of the dimples did not change considerably with
temperature.
By increasing the strain-rate, the size of dimples was reduced: the
difference is clearly visible by comparing Fig. 5.d (test at RT and 103
s−1) with Fig. 5.a (test at RT and 10−3 s−1). Even at a high strain-rate,
the SEM analyses confirmed the ductility trend expected from experi-
mental stress-strain curves, for which in high dynamic loading condi-
tion, by increasing the temperature, the strain at failure increased,
especially for the 300 °C. This behaviour was also evident in the cross
sections that show an increasing percentage reduction moving from
Fig. 4d–f (see also Table 2 percentage figures). This behaviour is also
clear in Fig. 5.f (test at 300 °C and 103 s−1), which showed an increase
in the size of the voids.
Finally, by moving to the small specimens S2, the quasi-static test
(Fig. 4.g) was characterized by a fracture surface with a cup-cone shape
with a propagation of the fracture surface that moved at 45° toward the
periphery. This propagation behaviour was similar to the result ob-
tained for specimen S1 in a similar condition (Fig. 4.a). Additionally,
also the microstructure images of the two cases were very similar, as
highlighted by the comparison between Fig. 5.g (test at RT and 10−3

322
M. Scapin, A. Manes Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328

Fig. 4. SEM images. S1 specimens at: a) RT and 10−3 s−1, magnification 75×; b) 200 °C and 10−3 s−1, magnification 75×; c) 300 °C and 10−3 s−1, magnification
75×; d) RT and 103 s−1, magnification 75×; e) 200 °C and 103 s−1, magnification 75×; f) 300 °C and 103 s−1, magnification 75×; S2 specimens at: g) RT and 10−3
s−1, magnification 150×; h) RT and 104 s−1, magnification 150×.

s−1 on S2) and Fig. 5.a (test at RT and 10−3 s−1 on S1). Specimen
tested at a very high strain-rate, e.g. RT and 104 s−1 (see Figs. 4.h and
5.h), showed a fracture surface with deformed dimples, that can explain
the increase in ductility as registered in Fig. 2.b. For very high strain-
rates also the cross-section percentage reduction was remarkable, see
Fig. 4h and Table 2. In any case, a final conclusion should be drawn by
considering the effective plastic strain at failure, since the result could
be strongly geometry dependent. This could be achieved by performing
the FE analysis of the different loading conditions, once the strength
material model is identified, and by comparing the effective plastic

323
M. Scapin, A. Manes Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328

Fig. 5. SEM images magnification 1500×. S1 specimens at: a) RT and 10−3 s−1; b) 200 °C and 10−3 s−1; c) 300 °C and 10−3 s−1; d) RT and 103 s−1; e) 200 °C and
103 s−1; f) 300 °C and 103 s−1; S2 specimens at: g) RT and 10−3 s−1; h) RT and 104 s−1. Some features (however the selection is not comprehensive) are been
highlighted in green (voids and microvoids) and red (dimples).

324
M. Scapin, A. Manes
Fig. 6. EBSD of specimen tested at 200 °C and 10−3 s−1, magnification 1000×.
strain at the end of the test.
EBSD were also performed for the selected loading conditions, with
a magnification of 1000×. In Fig. 6 one of them is reported, which
corresponds to the quasi-static test at 200 °C. The analyses are reported
in Table 1 and confirmed the nominal chemical composition, as also
reported in Table 1. Moreover, an iron rich phases was found inside the
voids as well as the presence of oxides at high temperatures.
4. Data analysis
A preliminary analysis of the results was performed by using a
simplified approach to estimate the strain-rate and the thermal soft-
ening sensitivities for the Johnson-Cook model, by focusing the atten-
tion at low strain values, e.g. 5% which means before necking for the
most part of the loading conditions. This value was chosen in order to
overcome the oscillation at high strain-rate regimes. In this phase, a
uniform elongation was expected and an equivalent stress-strain curve
could be simply obtained from the engineering results. On the contrary,
a reverse engineering approach is necessary when the analysis is ex-
tended to higher values of strain and during the necking phase (see
Section 4.1).
For the preliminary analysis all the repetitions of each experimental
testing condition were considered, hence the experimental data scatter
was considered.
With regards to the thermal softening evaluation, the true stress was
calculated for a true plastic strain of 5% and reported in the diagram of
Fig. 7. Preliminary evaluation of the thermal softening (a) and strain-rate (b) sensitivities in accordance with the J-C model (T model/S-R model).
325
Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328
Fig. 7.a, in which each datum was plotted at the initial testing tem-
perature. The quasi-static and dynamic data were normalized by the
corresponding average value at room temperature, in accordance with
the J-C formulation. The comparison between quasi-static and high
strain-rate results showed the thermal softening was quite insensitive to
the strain-rate: the distance between the quasi-static and dynamic data
for the tests at the same temperature was lower than the average ex-
perimental data scatter. This result justifies the use of the multiplicative
model such as the J-C one.
The trend of the material strength as a function of temperature as-
sumed the typical s-shape, with a sharp transition between 200 and
300 °C and a different behaviour for higher temperatures. For this
reason, the quasi-static data at 400 °C was neglected, while all the other
data were fitted with the J-C formulation. In the optimization process
based on Mean Squared Error (MSE) both m and Tm (without any
physical meanings) were considered as optimization variables. In this
way, the parameter Tm was interpreted as the maximum temperature
for which the material strength could not to be neglected. The prevision
of the thermal softening model is reported in the diagram of Fig. 7.a as a
solid line (m = 2.19 e Tm = 633 K) and reproduced the material re-
sponse over the considered entire range of variation in temperature
with a sufficient level of accuracy. With respect to the results reported
in [15], the model prediction capacity was considerable improved,
especially for temperatures above 200 °C: this is mainly due to the fact
that the model in [15] was obtained without performing the tests at
different temperatures, but the thermal effect was only derived from
adiabatic heating of Hopkinson Bar tests.
A similar procedure was applied for the trial estimation of the
strain-rate sensitivity. Also in this case, the true stress values were
obtained in correspondence of a true plastic strain of 5% and then
normalized with respect to the interpolated value at 1 s−1 (in ac-
cordance with the original formulation of the J-C model). The data are
reported in Fig. 7.b and each of them was assigned to the nominal
strain-rate. This choice was related to the fact that the effective strain-
rate could not be directly derived, since it depends on the effective
portion of material which is deforming. Moreover, it is not constant
during the entire test, since necking concentrated the deformation and
of course also the strain-rate (and temperature, in adiabatic tests). In a
Hopkinson Bar, in which usually a constant incident wave is used, the
strain-rate profiles are derived from the difference between the incident
wave and the transmitted force: hence also in the hardening phase the
strain-rate is not constant and has the same profile of the force (e.g.
engineering stress). For all these reasons, the effective strain-rate trend
and distribution along the specimen could be indirectly obtained, once
M. Scapin, A. Manes
the material model was calibrated, by using the FE simulations in which
the experimental boundary conditions were imposed (see Section 5).
As anticipated, the strain-rate sensitivity was low up to 103 s−1,
while it showed a significant increase starting from 104 s−1. The
threshold was fixed to the nominal strain-rate of high strain-strain tests
(e.g. 103 s−1) and the data obtained with the Hopkinson Bar tests were
fitted with a linear function in the semi-log plane. In accordance with
the J-C formulation implemented in LS-DYNA [25], the strain-rate ef-
fects were completely neglected under the threshold at 103 s−1. The
obtained model was reported as a dashed line and was used as a starting
point in the reverse engineering approach based on the FE simulations
described in the next section.
4.1. Reverse engineering approach
The reverse engineering approach was based on FE simulations of
the experimental tests and the parameter identification was driven by
the comparison between the experimental and computed quantities.
The FE simulations considered non-uniform strain, temperature and
strain-rate distributions inside the specimen caused by a triaxial state of
stress induced by necking as well as the coupling effect between tem-
perature and strain-rate in adiabatic loading conditions, which became
more significant at high deformation.
The procedure was divided into two steps: the determination of the
hardening parameters and the tuning of the strain-rate sensitivity, while
the thermal softening coefficients were fixed to those obtained from the
preliminary analysis. A more in-depth description of the procedure can
be found in [23].
A numerical model for each test (in the quasi-static and dynamic
regimes as well as on the two geometries) was modelled in LS-DYNA.
The specimens were modelled via 2D axisymmetric elements and
boundary conditions (e.g. displacement and constraints) were applied
in order to reproduce the different loading conditions.
The optimization was performed using the software LS-OPT and the
iterative procedure was based on the comparison between macroscopic
quantities such as the force-displacement curves. The hardening para-
meters of the J-C model were identified based on the experimental data
obtained from the quasi-static test at room temperature. The optimized
parameters were: A = 225 MPa, B = 184 MPa and n = 0.157. The
parameter A was not fixed a priori to the yield stress in this loading
condition but was numerically optimized: this allowed the addition of
one more optimization variable, which led to a better minimization of
the difference between computed and experimental curves. The second
step of the procedure was the implementation of a multi-case optimi-
zation on the dynamic tests (e.g. tests at 103 and 104 s−1). The opti-
mized material parameters were: C = 0.0396 and ε0̇ = 162 s−1, which
represented the strain-rate sensitivity threshold: below this value any
effects of strain-rate were neglected. As previously discussed also for
strain and temperature sensitivities, the choice to optimize also the
threshold added a degree of freedom which provided better results in
comparison to the choice to fix a priori the threshold to the nominal
value of the high strain-rate test (as performed in the preliminary
phase, see Fig. 7.b). This came from the fact that the result of a Multi-
Case Optimization process, like that reported in this paper, is a set of
parameters which allowed to reach the best compromise among all the
objective functions to be minimized.
5. Discussion
In relation to the field of application of the investigated material,
which is the numerical simulation of impact events, the attention was
focused on the understanding if the identified material model is suitable
to reproduce dynamic loading conditions. Hence, the complete set of
parameters was used to reproduce the dynamic results on both the
geometries. Also the model predictions of the quasi-static cases are
reported since they represent the reference condition. The comparison
326
Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328
between the computed and the experimental force vs. the displacement
curves is reported in Fig. 8. The model was clearly able to reproduce the
different loading conditions with a good level of accuracy. A quite
significant discrepancy was obtained for the test at 103 s−1 at high
values of strain, caused by the particular irregularity of the necking
phase. Both the estimated strain-rate sensitivity as well as the tem-
perature dependence obtained from the Multi-case Optimization pro-
cedure were able to correctly predict the strength increment due to
strain-rate and the thermal softening occurring in adiabatic loading
condition and the high level of the effective plastic strain. With respect
to the results reported in previous works, the main finding of the pre-
sent paper is that a strength model was calibrated which can be applied
for both high dynamic and high temperature applications up to frac-
ture.
This set of parameters was also used in the numerical simulation of
the quasi-static test on the geometry S2 (which was not taken into
consideration for the parameter identification): the computed results
were in accordance with the experimental ones. This demonstrated the
portability of the model and the fact that the material behaviour was
not expected to be influenced by the geometry. This result is in ac-
cordance with the result of the microstructure analysis, which revealed
similar behaviour for the two geometries.
Fig. 7b and Table 3, that collect the optimized material model
parameters for the Johnson-Cook model obtained in the present work,
highlight that Al6061T6 was sensitive both to temperature and strain-
rate. It is worth to mention that these parameters were obtained by a
reverse engineering approach that allowed to consider the mutual in-
teraction of the temperature and the strain-rate in the hardening curves.
Focusing on the strain-rate effect and especially on the parameter C, in
[14] a range between 0.083 and 0.024 was identified while in [10] (the
most cited paper as far Al6061T6 material parameters for J-C are
concerned) a lower value of 0.002 was reported. In the present work a
higher level of strain-rate was reached (greater than 104 s−1) during the
experimental tests. As in [7,9,12], also in the present work an increase
in strength between 103 and 104 s−1 was found and this behaviour have
to be correctly considered in the calibration of the material model.
Moreover, in the present work ε0̇ (the threshold value) was chosen as a
parameter to be optimized. This allowed a better description of the
strain-rate effect: a steady value for a low condition and a steeper
variation for higher strain-rate conditions. The lower C value reported
in [10] could still be used for a low strain-rate regime (as shown in
Fig. 7b) but for the simulation of events with a higher strain-rate the
calibration presented in the present paper should provide better results
due to its ability to describe the peculiar kink observed by the present
authors and in [7,9,12] in the range between 103 and 104 s−1.
A further evaluation of the capability of the model to correctly
predict the material response was performed by comparing experi-
mental and computed results in terms of the deformed shape in the
necking region. The qualitative comparison is reported in Fig. 9 for the
dynamic tests on the two geometries. The model correctly generated the
experimental necking shape.
Since the validity of the model was demonstrated, the numerical
results were used to investigate the actual distribution of strain, tem-
perature and strain-rate inside the specimen. The prevision of the trend
of the effective plastic strain at failure with a strain-rate obtained from
the fracture analysis was confirmed. Different geometries but tested at
the same strain-rate reached similar strain at failure. As a function of
strain-rate, a reduction in ductility was found by passing from quasi-
static to high strain-rate, while an increment was obtained at a very
high strain-rate. The temperature and strain-rate distributions at a fixed
time during necking are reported in Fig. 9. These maps allowed the
evaluation of the temperature increment due to adiabatic self-heating,
the localization of deformation induced by triaxiality and the con-
sequent non-uniform distribution of the strain-rate, which increased
substantially during the test in the deformed region. As anticipated, in
the tests at 104 s−1 of strain-rate, a more pronounced necking was
M. Scapin, A. Manes
Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and computed force vs. displacement curves for the quasi-static and dynamic tests performed on an S1 and S2 geometry.
Table 3
Optimized material model parameters for the Johnson-Cook model obtained in
the present work.
A B n C ε0̇ Tm m 300 °C. With regards to the strain-rate sensitivity, the material was
225 [MPa] 184 [MPa] 0.157 0.0396 162 s−1 633 K 2.19
developed. This was also confirmed by the computed distribution,
which was more uniform over the specimen gage length in the model
reproducing the test at 103 s−1 of strain-rate. For the strain-rate dis-
tribution, the maximum (red) computed value was 3000 s−1 on S1 and
50,000 s−1 for S2. For the temperature increment distribution, the
maximum (red) computed value was 45 °C on S1 and 160 °C for S2.
6. Conclusion
In the present work, a testing campaign was performed in tension by
varying the temperature and the strain-rate on Al6061-T6. The ob-
tained experimental results were used in a hybrid analytical-numerical
procedure for the identification of the material model parameters for
the Johnson-Cook model.
With respect to previous works, available in the scientific literature,
the range of strain-rate was extended up to 104 s−1 and coupled testing
conditions at high strain-rate and temperature (up to 400 °C) were in-
vestigated. This is a very consistent step because, as highlighted in the
introduction, previous research showed a change in the material be-
haviour in between 103 and 104 s−1 but with practically no test close to
104 s−1 thus extrapolating the trend for higher strain-rate. The high
strain-rate testing conditions, in the present research, were reached by
Fig. 9. Qualitative comparison between the experimental and computed deformed shape for the dynamic tests performed on the S1 (a) and S2 (b) geometry; spatial
distribution on the specimen of strain-rate and temperature (maximum values: red; minimum values: blue).
327
Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328
means of a Split Hopkinson tension setup in a direct configuration. The
experimental data showed the temperature sensitivity of the material
with a sharp reduction of the mechanical strength between 200 and
shown to be insensitive at low strain-rate and while it became more
sensitive starting from 103 s−1. The data obtained are extremely valu-
able especially for the identification of the material parameters by
means of a constitutive law that can be exploited for the simulation of
components and systems under extreme loading condition.
The procedure applied for the identification of the Johnson-Cook is
a hybrid analytical-numerical one. In a preliminary phase, thermal
softening and strain-rate sensitivities were identified based on true
stress-true plastic strain curves at low values of deformation. In a
second phase, a reverse engineering procedure was implemented based
on FE simulations of quasi-static and dynamic tests. The aim was the
determination of the hardening parameters and the tuning of the strain-
rate sensitivities. The final results of the optimized material model
parameters for the Johnson-Cook model obtained in the present work
are reported in Table 3. The comparison of the experimental and
computed results in terms of both force-displacement curves and de-
formed shape during necking clearly demonstrates the capability of the
model to predict the material response in different loading conditions.
The numerical models were also used to evaluate the real distribution of
strain, strain-rate and temperature inside the specimens. The post-
mortem analysis of the microstructure of the fracture surface was per-
formed and allowed to obtain information about the trend of ductility,
which was confirmed by the model prevision.
M. Scapin, A. Manes
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Lorenzo Peroni and Claudio Fichera for the help
in the execution of the experimental tests.
Data availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time due to technical and/or time limitations.
References
[1] A.A. Ramadhan, A.R. Abu Talib, A.S. Mohd Rafie, R. Zahari, High velocity impact
response of Kevlar-29/epoxy and 6061-T6 aluminum laminated panels, Mater. Des.
43 (2013) 307–321.
[2] Z. Zhang, M. Wang, S. Song, M. Li, Z. Sun, Influence of panel/back thickness on
impact damage behaviour of alumina/aluminium armours, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 30
(2010) 875–887.
[3] Daochun Xu, Pingfa Feng, Wenbin Li, Yuan Ma, An improved material constitutive
model for simulation of high-speed cutting of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy with high
accuracy, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 79 (2015) 1043–1053.
[4] Farshid Hajializadeh, Mahmoud Mosavi Mashhadi, Investigation and numerical
analysis of impulsive hydroforming of aluminum 6061-T6 tube, J. Manuf. Process.
20 (2015) 257–273.
[5] J. Ibarra, E. Rodríguez, O. Jiménez, G. Gómez-Rosas, M. Flores, J. Verduzco,
J. Chávez, Effect of laser shock processing on erosive resistance of 6061-T6 alu-
minum, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 26 (2016) 1522–1530.
[6] J.Y. Cao, M. Wang, L. Kong, Y.H. Yin, Numerical modeling and experimental in-
vestigation of material flow in friction spot welding of Al 6061-T6, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 89 (5) (2017) 2129–2139.
[7] Saikat Acharya, R.K. Gupta, Jiten Ghosh, Sandip Bysakh, K.S. Ghosh, D.K. Mondal,
A.K. Mukhopadhyay, High strain rate dynamic compressive behaviour of Al6061-T6
alloys, Mater. Charact. 127 (2017) 185–197.
[8] K.A. Dannemann, C.E. Anderson, G.R. Johnson, Modeling the ballistic impact per-
formance of two aluminum alloys, in: D.R. Leseur, T.S. Srivatsan (Eds.), Modeling
the Performance of Engineering Structural Materials II, TMS, 2001, pp. 63–75.
[9] C.E. Anderson, A.E. Nicholls, R.A. Rickman, Taylor Anviol Impact, Shock
Compression of Condensed Matter, American Institute of Physics, 2006.
[10] D.R. Lesuer, G.J. Kay, M. LeBlanc, Modeling Large-Strain, High Rate Deformation in
328
Materials Science & Engineering A 734 (2018) 318–328
Metals (UCRL-JC-134118), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2011.
[11] O.S. Lee, M.S. Kim, Dynamic material property characterization by using split
Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) technique, Nucl. Eng. Des. 226 (2003) 119–125.
[12] K. Sakino, Strain rate dependence of dynamic flow stress of Al 6061-T6 aluminum
alloy at strain rates ranging from 1 × 103 to 4 × 104 s−1, J. Soc. Mater. Sci. Jpn. 55
(2006) 1021–2026.
[13] Xueling Fan, Tao Suo, Qin Sun, Tiejun Wang, Dynamic mechanical behavior of
6061 al alloy at elevated temperatures and different strain rates, Acta Mech. Solid.
Sin. 26 (2) (2013) 111–120.
[14] Deju Zhu, Barzin Mobasher, A.S.D. Rajan, A. Pedro Peralta, Characterization of
dynamic tensile testing using aluminum alloy 6061-T6 at intermediate strain rates,
J. Eng. Mech. 137 (10) (2011) 669–679.
[15] Woei-Shyan Lee, Zih-Chao Tang, Relationship between mechanical properties and
microstructural response of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy impacted at elevated tem-
peratures, Mater. Des. 58 (2014) 116–124.
[16] A. Manes, L. Peroni, M. Scapin, M. Giglio, Analysis of strain rate behavior of an
Al6061 T6 alloy, Procedia Eng. 10 (2011) 3477–3482 (ICM11 5 e 9 June, Como).
[17] Manes, D. Lumassi, L. Giudici, M. Giglio, An experimental-numerical investigation
on aluminium tubes subjected to ballistic impact with soft core 7.62 ball projectiles,
Thin-Walled Struct. 73 (2013) 68–80.
[18] Gilioli, A. Manes, M. Giglio, T. Wierzbicki, Predicting ballistic impact failure of
aluminium 6061-T6 with the rate-independent Bao–Wierzbicki fracture model, Int.
J. Impact Eng. 76 (2015) 207–220.
[19] W. Cheng, B. Song, Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar – Design, Testing and
Applications, Mechanical Engineering Series (ISBN 978-1-4419-7981-0), Springer,
2011.
[20] M. Scapin, L. Peroni, C. Fichera, Mechanical behaviour of glidcop al-15 at high
temperature and strain-rate, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 23 (5) (2014) 1641–1650.
[21] M. Scapin, L. Peroni, C. Torregrosa, A. Perillo-Marcone, M. Calviani, L. Gomez
Pereira, F. Léeaux, M. Meyer, Experimental results and strength model identifica-
tion of pure iridium, Int. J. Impact Eng. 106 (2017) 191–201.
[22] P.T. Summers, Y. Chen, C.M. Rippe, B. Allen, A.P. Mouritz, S.W. Case, B.Y. Lattimer,
Overview of aluminum alloy mechanical properties during and after fires, Fire Sci.
Rev. 4 (2015) 3, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40038-015-0007-5.
[23] M. Scapin, L. Peroni, C. Fichera, A. Cambriani, Tensile behaviour of T91 steel over a
wide range of temperatures and strain-rate up to 104 s−1, J. Mat. Eng. Perform.
(2014).
[24] A. Dorbane, et al., Observation of the mechanical response and evolution of damage
of AA 6061-T6 under different strain rates and temperatures, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 624
(2015) 239–249.
[25] Gladman, et al., LS-DYNA® Keyword User's Manual. Vol. I Version 971, LSTC, 2007.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 flannelProportion
filled of Ammunition
A B C D
with powder. and Stores.
3½ ” 24 — — —
2¼ ” — 120 — —
2 ” — 30 — —
1½ ” — — 188 —
1¼ ” — — 68 —
10 oz. — — 125 —
1 lb. — — — 144
12 oz. — — — 28

Cartridges, flannel, empty 12 12 100 12

Do. of paper for burst’g 10 oz — — — 120
Tubes of tin—N. P. 172 178 560 190
Portfires—long small 18 18 62 18
Fuzes—drove — — — 132
Powder, mealed lbs. — — — ½
Travelling carriages & limbers 1 1 2 1
Aprons of lead 1 1 2 1
Spunges, with staves and heads 2 2 4 2
Wad hooks, with staves 1 1 2 —
Handspikes—traversing 2 2 4 2
Tampions, with collars 1 1 2 1
Trucks—Hanoverian — 1 2 1
Straps for lashing side arms — 3 8 —
Tarpaulins—gun 1 1 2 1
” limber — 1 2 1
Linstocks, with cocks 1 1 2 1
Drag ropes, with pins—Prs. 2 2 4 2
Padlocks, with keys 2 3 5 4
Match—slow—lbs. 28 28 56 28
Spring 1 1 2 1
Spikes
Common 2 2 4 2
Punches for vents 2 2 4 2
Barrels budge 1 1 1 1
Couples for chain traces — 6 12 6
Spare heads—spunge 1 1 2 1
” ” —rammer 1 1 2 1
Hammers, claw 1 1 2 1
Priming irons—sets 1 1 2 1
Draught chains—pairs 2 1 3 2
Powder horns—N. P. — 1 — —
Water buckets—French 1 1 2 1
Entrench’g tools—axes, felling 1 1 2 1
” ” ” pick 1 1 2 1
” ” handbills 1 1 2 1
 Proportion of Ammunition
A B C D
and Stores.
” ” spades 2 2 4 2
Marline, tarred—skeins 1 1 1 1
Twine, ” —do. — 1 — —
Hambro’ line —do. 1 1 1 1
Packthread —lbs. — 1 — —
Grease firkins 1 1 1 1
” boxes 3 2 3 3
Tallow lbs. 1 1 2 1
Lanthorns, dark 1 1 1 1
Jacks, lifting 1 1 1 1
” handscrew 1 — — —
Waggons with hoops and painted covers,
2 1 1 2
Flanders pattern
Wad miltilts 2 1 1 2
Tanned hides 2 1 1 2
Men’s harness 12 to a set sets 1 1 — —

Rope (6 do.) sets 1 — — —

New
Chain (6 do.) sets — 1 — —
pattern
Trace (4 do.) sets 2 1 1 1
Horse
Thill — — 2 —
Harness Common
Trace — — 4 —
pattern
Bit halters — — 6 —
Wanties 2 1 3 2
Hemp halters 14 10 10 12
Whips, long — — 2 —
” , short 7 5 2 6
Nose bags 14 10 10 12
Corn sacks 3 2 3 3
Forage cords, sets 3 2 3 3
Rope, tarred—2 inch, fathoms — — 10 —
Linch pins 2 1 1 2
Clouts—body 4 2 2 4
For waggons
” —linch 4 2 2 4
Clout nails, 6d. 64 32 32 64
Spare ladle staves 1 1 1 1
Horses, for guns 6 6 6 4
” , for waggons 8 4 4 8
Drivers, for guns 3 3 2 2
” , for waggons 4 2 1 4
Tube boxes, with straps 2 2 4 2
Portfire sticks 2 2 4 2
Cutting knives 1 1 2 1
 Proportion of Ammunition
A B C D
and Stores.
Drawing do. — — — 1
Scissars, pairs 1 1 2 1
Worsted, ounces ½ ½ 1 ½
Needles, large 2 2 4 2
Cartouches of leather 2 2 4 2
4 oz. 1 1 2 —
Copper measures 2 ” — 1 — —
for powder. 1 ” 1 1 2 —
4 lbs. to ¼ oz. sets — — — 1
Thumb stalls 2 2 4 2
Perpendicular — — — 1
Quadrant of brass — — — 1
Diagonal scale — — — 1
Copper salting box — — — 1
Pincers for draw’g fuzes, pairs — — — 1
Sheepskins — — — 2
Funnels of copper — — — 1
Compasses of steel, pairs — — — 1
Saw, tenant — — — 1
Files, square — — — 3
Rasps, half round — — — 2
Flax, oz. — — — 8
Tow, oz. — — — 4
Saw set — — — 1
Mallets of wood — — — 1
Setters do. — — — 2

This proportion of ammunition and stores is carried in the following manner:

12 Pr. Has no limber boxes,[2] but has two waggons attached to it,
Medium, and the ammunition and stores divided between them.

6 Pr. Carries 36 round, and 14 case shot in limber boxes, with a proportion
Heavy, of the small stores; and the remainder is carried in one waggon.

6 Pr. Carries 34 round, and 16 case shot on the limber, with a proportion
Light, of the small stores for immediate service; and, if acting separately,
of the small stores for immediate service; and, if acting separately,
must have a waggon attached to it, to carry the remainder. But two 6
pounders, attached to a battalion, have only one waggon between them.

5½ How’r Has 22 shells, 4 case shot, and two carcasses in the limber boxes, with
Light, such of the small stores as are required for immediate service; and has
two waggons attached to carry the rest.
 One common pattern ammunition waggon carries the following numbers of
rounds of ammunition of each nature:
No. of
Nature.
Rounds
12 Prs. Medium. 72
6 Prs. Heavy. 120
6 Prs. Light. 156
3 Prs. 288
5½ How’r. 72
8 How’r. 24
Musquet. 20000[3]

The waggons, however, attached to the different parks of artillery in England,

which have not been altered from the old establishment, are loaded with only the
following number, and drawn by three horses:
No. of
Nature.
Rounds
12 Prs. Medium. 66
6 Prs. Heavy. 120
6 Prs. Light. 138
5½ How’r. 60

The horse artillery having waggons of a particular description, carry their

ammunition as follows:
Shot. Total No. with
Shells. Carcasses.
Round. Case. each Piece.
12 Prs. light, on the limber 12 4 4 —
92
Do. ” ” in one waggon 52 10 10 —
6 Prs. light, on the limber 32 8 — —
150
Do. in one waggon 97 13 — —
5½ In. How’r on the limber — 5 13 —
73
Do. in one waggon — 10 41 4
3 Prs. heavy, curricle 6 6 — —
136
Do. ammunition cart 100 24 — —

The following Proportion of Artillery, Ammunition, and Carriages, necessary for

four French Armies of different Degrees of Strength, and acting in very different
Countries, is attributed to Gribauvale, and is extracted from Durtubie, on Artillery.
ARMIES. Flanders. Moselle. Rhine. Italy.
Number of battalions 80 28 32 48
Battalion guns 160 56 64 94
Park or 12 Prs. 32 12 12 16
Reserve 8 Prs. 72 24 32 48
 ARMIES. Flanders. Moselle. Rhine. Italy.
4 Prs. 40 16 16 24
6 Inch Howitzers 8 4 4 8

Total pieces of ordnance 312 112 128 192

Carriage for 12 Prs. 36 14 14 18
the ordnance 8 Prs. 81 27 36 54
including 4 Prs. 215 78 90 129
spare ones 6 Inch Howitzers 9 5 5 9
Total ordnance carriages 341 124 145 210
12 Prs. 96 36 36 48
Ammunition 8 Prs. 144 48 64 96
waggons 4 Prs. 200 72 80 120
6 Inch Howitzers 24 12 8 24
Waggons for musq. cartridges 120 42 48 72
Large Waggons for the park 10 6 5 8
Total ammunition waggons 594 216 241 368
Large 14 3 3 8
Smiths forges
Small — 3 3 4
Total forges 14 6 6 12
Waggons Intrenching Artillery 27 10 12 16
for tools for The army 20 10 12 16
New Iron 6 3 3 6
Carriages Wood for spr. carri’gs 9 3 3 7
for Anchors, &c. 4 2 2 4
for pontoons
Total store carriages 66 28 32 49
Pontoons upon their carriages 36 18 18 36
Spare pontoon carriages 4 2 2 4
Total pontoon carriages 40 20 20 40

RECAPITULATION.

Ordnance——pieces 312 112 128 192

Ammunition 594 216 241 368
Ordnance carriages 141 124 145 210
Carriages Store 66 28 32 49
Pontoon 40 20 20 40
Forges 14 6 6 12
General total of carriages 1055 394 144 679

This table contains, beside the proportion of ordnance with each army, also the
quantity of ammunition with each piece of ordnance, and the number of rounds of
musquet ammunition carried for the infantry; for each waggon in the French Service,
having its particular allotment of ammunition and stores, it needs but to know the
number of waggons of each description, to ascertain the quantity of ammunition and
stores with an army. The following is the number of waggons usually attached to
each piece of field ordnance in the French Service, and the quantity of ammunition
carried with each.
Nature of Ordnance and Shot. Total with
Number of waggons
attached to each. Round. Case. each piece.
12 Pr. on the carriage 9 —
213
3 Waggons—each containing 48 20
8 Pr. on the carriage 9 —
193
2 Waggons—each containing 62 30
4 Pr. on the carriage 18 —
168
One waggon—containing 100 50
6 Inch howitzer—on the carriage — 4
3 Waggons—each containing shell 160
3
49

The French horse artillery waggon, called the wurst, carries 57 rounds for 8
pounders; or 30 for 6 inch howitzers.
The following is a proportion of ammunition for one piece of field artillery of each
nature, by different powers in Europe.
Austrians Prussians Danes. Hanoverians.
Nature.
Case.Round.Case.Round.Case.Round.Case. Round.
3 Pr. 40 184 20 90 58 177 50 150
6 ” 36 176 30 150 53 166 48 144
12 ” 44 94 20 130 44 128 50 150
Howitzer 16 90 20 60 25 76 30 120

Of the Movements and Positions of Field Artillery.

Battalion Guns.—The following are the usual positions taken by battalion guns,
in the most essential manœuvres of the battalion to which they are attached; but the
established regulations for the movements of the infantry in the British Service, take
so little notice of the relative situations for the artillery attached to it, that there is no
authority for a guide on the subject. In review, both guns are to be placed, when, in
line, on the right of the regiment; unlimbered and prepared for action. The guns 10
yards apart, and the left gun 10 yards from the right of the grenadiers. Nos. 7 and 8
dress in line with the front rank of the regiment. The officer, at open order, will be in
front of the interval between his guns, and in line with the officers of the regiment.
When the regiment breaks into column, the guns will be limbered up and wheel by
pairs to the left: the men form the line of march, and the officer marches round in
front of the guns. In the review of a single battalion, it is usual after marching round
the second time, for one of the guns to go to the rear, and fall in at the rear of the
column. Upon the regiment wheeling on the left into line, the guns, if separated, will
be unlimbered to the right, but if they are both upon the right, they must be wheeled
to the right, and then unlimbered; and afterwards run up by hand, as thereby they do
not interfere with the just formation of the line, by obstructing the view of the pivots.
The usual method by which the guns take part in the firings while in line, is by two
discharges from each piece, previous to the firing of the regiment; but this is usually
regulated by the commanding officer, before the review. Though the guns when in
line with a regiment in review, always remain in the intervals; in other situations of
more consequence, every favorable spot which presents itself, from which the enemy
can be more effectually annoyed, should be taken advantage of. In column, if
advancing, the guns must be in front; if retreating, in the rear of the column. If in
open column of more than one battalion, the guns in the center must be between the
divisions, and when the column is closed, these guns must move to the outward
flank of that division of the column, which leads the regiment to which they are
attached. In changing front, or in forming the line from column, should the guns be on
that flank of the battalion on which the new line is to be formed, they will commence
firing to cover the formation.
In retiring by alternate wings or divisions, the guns must be always with that body
nearest the enemy. That is, they will not retire with the first half, but will remain in
their position till the second half retires; and will then only retire to the flanks of the
first half; and when it retires again, the guns will retire likewise, but only as far as the
second half, and so on.
When in hollow square, the guns will be placed at the weakest angles, and the
limbers in the center of the square. In passing a bridge or defile in front, the guns will
be the first to pass; unless from any particular position they can more effectually
enfilade the defilé; and thereby better open the passage for the infantry. But in
retiring through a defilé, the guns will remain to the last, to cover the retreat.
General Rule.—With very few variations, the guns should attend in all the
movements of the battalion, that division of it, to which they are particularly attached;
and every attention should be paid in thus adapting the movements of the guns to
those of the regiment, that they be not entangled with the divisions of the line, and
never so placed as to obstruct the view of the pivots, and thereby the just formation
of the line; but should always seek those positions, from which the enemy can be
most annoyed, and the troops to which they are attached, protected.
If at any time the battalion guns of several regiments should be united and formed
into brigades, their movements will then be the same as those for the artillery of the
park.

Artillery of the Park.

The artillery of the park is generally divided into brigades of 4 or 6 pieces, and a
reserve, according to the force and extent of the front of an army. The reserve must
be composed of about ⅙ of the park, and must be placed behind the first line. If the
front of the army be extensive, the reserve must be divided.
 The following are the principal rules for the movements and positions of the
brigades of artillery: they are mostly translated from the Aide Memoire, a new military
work.
In a defensive position, the guns of the largest caliber must be posted in those
points, from whence the enemy can be discovered at the greatest distance, and from
which may be seen the whole extent of his front.
In an offensive position, the weakest points of the line must be strengthened by
the largest calibers; and the most distant from the enemy: those heights on which the
army in advancing may rest its flanks, must be secured by them, and from which the
enemy may be fired upon obliquely.
The guns should be placed as much as possible under cover; this is easily done
upon heights, by keeping them so far back that the muzzles are only to be seen over
them: by proper attention many situations may be found of which advantage may be
taken for this purpose, such as banks, ditches, &c. every where to be met with.
A BATTERY in the field should never be discovered by the enemy till the very
moment it is to open. The guns may be masked by being a little retired; or by being
covered by troops, particularly cavalry.
To enable the commanding officer of artillery to choose the proper positions for
his field batteries, he should of course be made acquainted, with the effect intended
to be produced; with the troops that are to be supported; and with the points that are
to be attacked; that he may place his artillery so as to support, but not incommode
the infantry; nor take up such situations with his guns, as would be more
advantageously occupied by the line. That he may not place his batteries too soon,
nor too much exposed; that he may cover his front and his flanks, by taking
advantage of the ground; and that he may not venture too far out of the protection of
the troops, unless some very decided effect is to be obtained thereby.
The guns must be so placed as to produce a cross fire upon the position of the
enemy, and upon all the ground which he must pass over in an attack.
They must be separated into many small batteries, to divide the fire of the enemy;
while the fire from all these batteries, may at any time be united to produce a decided
effect against any particular points.
These points are the débouchés of the enemy, the heads of their columns, and
the weakest points in the front. In an attack of the enemy’s position, the cross fire of
the guns must become direct, before it can impede the advance of the troops; and
must annoy the enemy’s positions nearest to the point attacked, when it is no longer
safe to continue the fire upon that point itself.
The shot from artillery should always take an enemy in the direction of its greatest
dimension; it should therefore take a line obliquely or in flank, but a column in front.
The artillery should never be placed in such a situation, that it can be taken by an
enemy’s battery obliquely, or in flank, or in the rear; unless a position under these
circumstances, offers every prospect of producing a most decided effect, before the
guns can be destroyed or placed hors de combat.
The most elevated positions are not the best for artillery, the greatest effects may
be produced from a height of 30 or 40 yards at the distance of about 600 and about
16 yards of height to 200 of distance.
Positions in the rear of the line are bad for artillery, because they alarm the
troops, and offer a double object to the fire of the enemy.
Positions which are not likely to be shifted; but from whence an effect may be
produced during the whole of an action, are to be preferred; and in such positions a
low breast work of 2 or 3 feet high may be thrown up, to cover the carriages.
Artillery should never fire against artillery, unless the enemy’s troops are covered,
and his artillery exposed; or unless your troops suffer more from the fire of his guns,
than his troops do from yours.
Never abandon your guns till the last extremity. The last discharges are the most
destructive; they may perhaps be your salvation, and crown you with glory.
The parks of artillery in Great Britain are composed of the following ordnance; 4
medium 12 pounders; 4 desaguliers 6 pounders; and 4 light 5½ inch howitzers.

The following is the proposed line of march for the three Brigades when acting
with different Columns of Troops, as settled, in 1798.
12 Pounders. 6 Pounders. Howitzers.
4 Guns. 4 Guns. 4 Howitzers.
8 Ammunition Waggons. 4 Ammunition Waggons. 8 Ammunition Waggons.
1 Forge Cart. 1 Forge Cart. 1 Forge Cart.
1 Store Waggon, 1 Store Waggon. 1 Store Waggon.
with a small proportion of
stores and spare articles.
1 Spare Waggon. 1 Spare Waggon. 1 Spare Waggon.
1 Waggon to carry bread 1 Waggon for bread 1 Waggon with bread
and oats. and oats. and oats.
2 Waggons with musquet 2 Waggons with musquet 2 Waggons with musquet
ball cartridges. ball cartridges. ball cartridges.
18 Total 14 Total 18 Total

2d. Artillery and Ammunition for a Siege.

Necessary considerations in forming an estimate for this
service.
The force, situation, and condition of the place to be besieged; whether it be
susceptible of more than one attack; whether lines of circumvallation or
countervallation will be necessary; whether it be situated upon a height, upon a rocky
soil, upon good ground, or in a marsh; whether divided by a river, or in the
neighborhood of one; whether the river will admit of forming inundations; its size and
depth; whether the place be near a wood, and whether that wood can supply stuff for
fascines, gabions, &c.; whether it be situated near any other place where a depot
can be formed to supply stores for the siege. Each of these circumstances will make
a very considerable difference in proportioning the stores, &c. for a siege. More
artillery will be required for a place susceptible of two attacks, than for the place
which only admits of one. For this last there must be fewer pieces of ordnance, but
more ammunition for each piece. In case of lines being necessary, a great quantity of
intrenching tools will be required, and a numerous field train of artillery. In case of
being master of any garrison in the neighborhood of the besieged town, from whence
supplies can readily be drawn, this must be regarded as a second park: and too
great a quantity of stores need not be brought at once before the besieged place.
The number of batteries to be opened before the place must determine the number
of pieces of ordnance; and on the quantity of ordnance must depend the proportion
of every species of stores for the service of the artillery.
There must be a battery to enfilade every face of the work to be besieged, that
can in any way annoy the besiegers in their approaches. These batteries, at least
that part of them to be allotted for guns, need not be much longer than the breadth of
the rampart to be enfiladed, and will not therefore hold more than 5 or 6 heavy guns;
which, with two more to enfilade the opposite branch of the covert way, will give the
number of guns for each ricochet battery. As the breaching batteries, from their
situation, effectually mask the fire of the first or ricochet batteries, the same artillery
generally serves for both. Having thus ascertained the number of heavy guns, the
rest of the ordnance will bear the following proportion to them:

Mortars.—From 8 inch to 13 inch, about ⅓.

Small Mortars.—About ¼.
Heavy Howitzers.—About ⅛.

The fewer natures of ordnance which compose the demand the better, as a great
deal of the confusion may be prevented, which arises from various natures of
ammunition and stores being brought together.

The Carriages for the Ordnance are generally as follows:

For 24 Prs. ⅚ the number of guns.
For Mortars, ⁸/₉ the number of mortars.
For Howitzers, ¾ the number of howitzers.
For Stone Mortars, ⁶/₇ the number of mortars.

Ammunition for the Ordnance.

24 Prs.——At 1000 rounds per gun.
Mortars, howitzers, and stone mortars,
 at 800 rounds per piece of ordnance.
Durtubie.

The following proportion of artillery and ammunition was demanded by a very

able officer, for the intended siege of Lisle, in 1794, which place was thought
susceptible of two attacks.

64—24 Prs. with carriages complete, at 50 round shot per gun,

per day, for the whole siege; half of them en ricochet,
with 2lbs. of powder; the other half with the full charge
of 8lbs.
Case and Grape shot, at one round per gun, per day,
of each: 6lbs. per charge.
Shells for guns, two rounds do.
Flannel cartridges, for the case, grape, and shells.
Tin tubes for the case and grape.
Quill tubes for the round shot.
Spare, ⅒.
28—10 Inch mortars, on iron beds, at 50 shells each per day,
for the whole siege. 3lbs. of powder charge—2lbs. 10 oz.
for bursting.
Pound shot—100 to a charge; 50 rounds per mortar each
day for 10 mortars 7 days; 2 lbs. of powder each.
Hand grenades—25 to a charge; the same as the pound shot.
Carcasses, round—1 per mortar, per day.
8— 8 Inch howitzers, on travelling carriages
30 Shells for each per day, during the siege.
Case shot—5 rounds per day each.
Carcasses—1 per day each.
Powder—1 lb. per charge; 1 lb. 14 oz. for bursting.
20—5½ Inch mortars, on wooden beds.
50 Shells for each, per day, for the whole siege;
charge 8 oz.—12 oz. for bursting.
Flannel cartridges, for ⅓ the number of rounds.
Tin tubes in the same proportion.
Portfires, ½ the number of rounds with tubes.
Fuzes, ⅒ to spare.
Match, 50 cwt.
Spare carriages for 24 Prs. seven.
2 Devil carriages.
6 Sling carts.
6 Block carriages.
3 Forge carts.
3 Store waggons, with iron and coals.
3 Triangle gins, complete.
6 Laboratory tents.
 2 Small petards.
4 Grates for heating shot.

Of the Arrangement of Artillery at a Siege.

The first arrangement of the artillery at a siege is to the different batteries raised
near the first parallel, to enfilade the faces of the work on the front attacked, which
fire on the approaches. If these first batteries be favorably situated, the artillery may
be continued in them nearly the whole of the siege; and will save the erection of any
other gun batteries, till the besiegers arrive on the crest of the glacis. It however
frequently happens, from local circumstances, that the besiegers cannot avail
themselves of the most advantageous situations for the first batteries. There are four
situations from which the defences of any face may be destroyed; but not from all
with equal facility. The best position for the first batteries, is perpendicular to the
prolongation of the face of the work to be enfiladed. If this position cannot be
attained, the next that presents itself is, on that side of the prolongation which takes
the face in reverse; and under as small an angle as possible. From both these
positions the guns must fire en ricochet. But if the ground, or other circumstance, will
not admit of either of these being occupied by ricochet batteries, the battery to
destroy the fire of a face must be without the prolongation, so as to fire obliquely
upon the outside of the face. The last position, in point of advantage, is directly
parallel to the face. From these two last positions the guns must fire with the full
charges.
The second, or breaching batteries at a siege, are generally placed on the crest
of the glacis, within 15 or 18 feet of the covert way; which space serves as the
epaulment: but if the foot of the revetment cannot be seen from this situation, they
must be placed in the covert way, within 15 feet of the counterscarpe of the ditch.
These batteries must be sunk as low as the soles of the embrazures, and are in fact
but an enlargement of the sap, run for the lodgement on the glacis or in the covert
way. In constructing a battery on the crest of the glacis, attention must be paid that
none of the embrazures open upon the traverses of the covert way. These batteries
should consist of at least four guns; and if the breadth between the traverses will not
admit of this number, at the usual distances, the guns must be closed to 15 or 12 feet
from each other.
The mortars are generally at first arranged in battery, adjoining the first gun
batteries, or upon the prolongation of the capitals of the works; in which place they
are certainly least exposed. Upon the establishment of the half parallels, batteries of
howitzers may be formed in their extremities, to enfilade the branches of the covert
way; and upon the formation of the third parallel, batteries of howitzers and stone
mortars may be formed to enfilade the flanks of the bastions, and annoy the
besieged in the covert way. In the lodgement on the glacis, stone and other mortars
may also be placed, to drive the besieged from their defences. A great object in the
establishment of all these batteries, is to make such an arrangement of them, that
they mask the fire of each other as little as possible; and particularly of the first, or
ricochet batteries. This may very well be prevented till the establishment on the crest
of the glacis, when it becomes in some degree unavoidable: however, even the
operations on the glacis may be so arranged, that the ricochet batteries be not
masked till the breaching batteries be in a great state of forwardness: a very secure
method, and which prevents the soldiers in trenches being alarmed by the shot
passing over their heads, is to raise a Parados, or parapet, in the rear of the
trenches, at such parts where the fire from the besieger’s batteries crosses them. For
further details on this subject, and for the manner of constructing batteries, see the
word Battery; also the words Ricochet, Breach, Magazine, Platform, &c.

3d. Artillery and Ammunition for the

Defence of Fortified Place.
It is usual in an Estimate of Artillery and Ammunition for the Defence of Fortified
Places, to divide them into Eight Classes, as follows:
CLASSES. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Garrisons 12000 10000 8000 5000 3500 2500 1600 400
Cannon 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
Triangle Gins 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Sling Carts 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Jacks of Sizes 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Truck Carriages 6 6 4 4 2 2 2 2
Ammunition Carts, &c. 12 12 12 6 6 6 2 2
Tools for Pioneers 9000 6000 5000 4000 3500 3000 1000 1000
” ” Miners 300 200 100 100 100 100 50 5
Tools for ⅓ Axes
1200 900 600 500 450 300 150 150
Cutting ⅔ Billhooks
Forges, complete 6 4 2 2 2 2 1 1

The guns will be of the following calibers: ⅓ of 18 Prs.—⅓ of 12 Prs.—and ⅓ of

24, 9, and 4 Pounders in equal proportions. If the place does not possess any very
extraordinary means of defence, it will be very respectably supplied with 800 rounds
of ammunition per gun for the two larger calibers, and 900 for each of the others.
Gun Carriages—⅓ more than the number of guns.
Mortars—About ¼ the number of guns in the three first classes; and ⅕ or ⅙ in
the other classes. Of these ⅖ will be 13 or 10 inch mortars, and the rest of a smaller
nature.
Howitzers—¼ the number of mortars.
Stone Mortars—⅒ the number of guns.
Shells—400 for each of the 10 and 13 inch mortars, and 600 for each of the
smaller ones.
Beds for mortars—⅓ to spare.
Carriages for howitzers—⅓ to spare.
 Hand Grenades—4 or 5000 for the two first classes; 2000 in the three following
classes; and from 1500 to 600 in the three last classes.
Rampart Grenades—2000 for the first class; 1000 for the four following classes;
and 500 for the sixth class; none for the two last.
Fuzes—¼ more than the number of shells.
Bottoms of wood for stone mortars—400 per mortar.
Sand Bags—500 for every piece of ordnance in the large places, and ¼ less in
the small ones.
Handspikes—10 per piece.
Tackle Falls for gins—1 for every 10 pieces to spare.
Musquets—1 per soldier, and the same number to spare.
Pistols, pairs—½ the number of musquets.
Flints—50 per musquet, and 10 per pistol.
Lead or Balls for small arms—30 pounds per musquet.
Powder for Small Arms—5 pounds for every musquet in the garrison, including
the spare ones.
The above proportions are taken from Durtubie’s Manuel De l’Artilleur.
The following method of regulating the management of the artillery, and
estimating the probable expenditure of ammunition in the defence of a fortified place,
is extracted from a valuable work on fortification lately published at Berlin. It is
particularly applied to a regular hexagon; the siege is divided into three periods, viz.
1st. From the first investiture to the first opening of the trenches, about 5 days.
2d. From the opening of the trenches to the effecting a lodgement on the glacis,
about 18 days.
3d. From this time to the capitulation, about 5 days.
First Period. Three guns on the barbette of each bastion and on the barbettes of
the ravelins in front of the gateways, half 24 Prs. and half 18 Prs.[4] three 9 Prs. on
the barbette of each of the other ravelins.
Twelve 12 Prs. and twelve 4 Prs. in reserve.
One 13 inch mortar in each bastion.
Six of 8 inch in the salient angles of the covert way.
Do. in reserve.
Ten stone mortars.
The 12 Prs. in reserve, are to be ranged behind the curtain, on whichever side
they may be required, and the 4 Prs. in the outworks; all to fire en ricochet over the
parapet. By this arrangement, the whole of the barbette guns are ready to act in any
direction, till the side of attack is determined on; and with the addition of the reserve,
49 pieces may be opened upon the enemy the very first night they begin to work
upon the trenches.
The day succeeding the night on which the trenches are opened, and the side to
be attacked determined, a new arrangement of the artillery must take place. All the
24 and 18 Prs. must be removed to the front attacked, and the other bastions, if
required, supplied with 12 Prs. The barbettes of the bastions on this front may have
each 5 guns, and the 12 18 prs. may be ranged behind the curtain. The six mortars
in reserve must be placed, two in each of the salient angles of the covert way of this
front, and with those already there, mounted as howitzers,[5] to fire down the
prolongations of the capitals. Three 4 pounders in each of the salient places of arms
of the ravelins on the attacked fronts, to fire over the palisading, and five 9 Prs. in the
ravelin of this front. This arrangement will bring 47 guns, and 18 mortars to fire on the
approaches after the first night; and with a few variations will be the disposition of the
artillery for the second period of the siege. As soon as the enemy’s batteries are
fairly established, it will be no longer safe to continue the guns en barbette, but
embrazures[6] must be opened for them; which, embrazures must be occasionally
masked, and the guns assume new directions, as the enemy’s fire grows destructive;
but may again be taken advantage of, as circumstances offer. As the enemy gets
near the third parallel, the artillery must be withdrawn from the covert way to the
ravelins, or to the ditch, if dry, or other favorable situations; and, by degrees, as the
enemy advances, to the body of the place. During this period of the siege, the
embrazures must be prepared in the flanks, in the curtain which joins them, and in
the faces of the bastions which flank the ditch of the front ravelins. These
embrazures must be all ready to open, and the heavy artillery mounted in them, the
moment the enemy attempts a lodgement on the glacis.
Every effort should be made to take advantage of this favorable moment, when
the enemy, by their own works, must mask their former batteries, and before they are
able to open their new ones.

The expenditure of ammunition will be nearly as follows:

First period of the siege—5 rounds per gun, per day, with
only half the full charge, or ⅙ the weight of the shot,
and for only such guns as can act.
Second period—20 rounds per gun, per day, with ⅙ the
weight of the shot.
Third period—60 rounds per gun, per day, with the full
charge, or ⅓ the weight of the shot.
Mortars—At 20 shells per day, from the first opening of
the trenches to the capitulation.
 Stone Mortars—80 rounds per mortar, for every 24 hours,
from the establishment of the demi parallels to the
capitulation; about 13 days.
Light, and Fire balls—Five every night, for each mortar,
from the opening of the trenches to the eighth day, and
three from that time to the end
These amount to about
700 for guns.
400 for mortars.
1000 for stone do.
This proportion and arrangement is however made upon a supposition, that the
place has no countermines to retard the progress of the besiegers, to a period
beyond what is abovementioned; but the same author estimates, that a similar place,
with the covert way properly countermined beforehand, and those countermines
properly disputed, may retard a siege at least 2 months; and that if the other works
be likewise effectually countermined and defended, the siege may be still prolonged
another month.
The above proportion is therefore to be further regulated, as the strength of the
place is increased by these or any other means. These considerations should
likewise be attended to, in the formation of an estimate of ammunition and stores for
the siege of a fortified place. See Carriage, Platform, Park, and the different natures
of artillery, as Gun, Mortar, Howitzer, &c.
The small arms ammunition is estimated by this author as follows:
¼ of a pound of gunpowder, or 10 rounds per day, per
man, for all the ordinary guards.
1¼ lbs. or 50 rounds per man, per 12 hours, for all
extraordinary guards.
⅝ of a pound, or 25 rounds for every man on picket,
during the period of his duty.
AXLETREES—See the word Carriages.
B alls —of lead, of different natures.
Number to Diameter Number made from
Nature.
one pound. in inches. one ton of Lead.
Wall pieces 6¾ .89 14,760
Musquets 14½ .68 32,480
Carbine 20 .60 44,800
Pistol 34 .51 78,048
7 Barrel guns 46½ .46 104,160

Lead balls are packed in boxes containing each 1 cwt. About 4 pounds of lead
in the cwt. are generally lost in casting. See Shot.
BARRELS for powder—Their dimensions.
Whole Half Quarter
Barrels. Barrels. Barrels.
Ft. In. Ft. In. Ft. In.
Depth 1 9.61 1 5.13 1 2.25
Diameter at top 1 3.61 1 0.37 9.35
” at bulge 1 5.36 1 2. 10.71
” at bottom 1 3.51 1 0.31 9.41

The whole barrels are made to contain 100 pounds, and the half barrels 50
pounds of powder; but of late only 90 pounds have been put into the barrels, and
45 into the half barrels; which, by leaving the powder room to be shifted,
preserves it the better.

Budge Barrels contain 38 lbs.

Weight of barrel—copper hooped—10 lbs.
” ” hazle hooped— 6
Length of barrel 10½ inches.
Diameter 1 foot 1 inch.

BASKETS.—Ballast, ½ bushel—weight, 5 lbs. Diameter, 1 foot 6 inches—

length, 1 foot.
BATTERY.—Dimensions of Batteries.
1. Gun Batteries.—Gun Batteries are usually 18 feet per gun. Their principal
dimensions are as follow:
 Ditch.—Breadth 12 feet.
Depth 8

Note. These dimensions give for a battery of two guns

3456 cubic feet of earth; and must be varied according to the
quantity required for the epaulment.
Epaulment.—Breadth at bottom 23 feet.
” at top 18
Height within 7
” without 6 ft. 4 in.
Slope, interior ²/₇ of height.
” exterior ½ of height.

Note. The above breadths at top and bottom are for the
worst soil; good earth will not require a base of more than 20
feet wide, which will reduce the breadth at top to 15 feet; an
epaulment of these dimensions for two guns will require about
4200 cubic feet of earth, and deducting 300 cubic feet for
each embrazure, leaves 3600 required for the epaulment. In
confined situations the breadth of the epaulment may be only
12 feet.
Embrazures.—Distance between their centers 18 feet.
Openings, interior 20 inches.
” exterior 9 feet.
Height of the sole above the platform 32 inches.

Note. Where the epaulment is made of a reduced breadth,

the openings of the embrazures are made with the usual
breadth within, but the exterior openings proportionally less.
The embrazures are sometimes only 12 feet asunder, or even
less when the ground is very confined. The superior slope of
the epaulment need be very little, where it is not to be
defended by small arms. The slope of the sole of the
embrazures must depend upon the height of the object to be
fired at. The Berm is usually made 3 feet wide, and where the
soil is loose, this breadth is increased to 4 feet.
2. Howitzer Batteries.—The dimensions of howitzer batteries are the same as
those for guns, except that the interior openings of the embrazures are 2 feet 6
inches, and the soles of the embrazures have a slope inwards of about 10
degrees.
3. Mortar Batteries—Are also made of the same dimensions as gun batteries,
but an exact adherence to those dimensions is not so necessary. They have no
embrazures. The mortars are commonly placed 15 feet from each other, and
about 12 feet from the epaulment.
Note. Though it has been generally customary to fix
mortars at 45°, and to place them at the distance of 12 feet
from the epaulment, yet many advantages would often arise
from firing them at lower angles; and which may be done by
removing them to a greater distance from the epaulment, but
where they would be in equal security. If the mortars were
placed at the undermentioned distances from the epaulment,
they might be fired at the angles corresponding:
At 13 feet distance for firing at 30 degrees.
21 ” ” 20
30 ” ” 15
40 ” ” 10
over an epaulment of 8 feet high.

A French author asserts, that all ricochet batteries, whether for howitzers or
guns, might be made after this principle, without the inconvenience of
embrazures; and the superior slope of the epaulment being inwards instead of
outwards, would greatly facilitate this mode of firing.
If the situation will admit of the battery being sunk, even as low as the soles of
the embrazures, a great deal of labour may be saved. In batteries without
embrazures, this method may almost always be adopted; and it becomes in some
situations absolutely necessary in order to obtain earth for the epaulment; for
when a battery is to be formed on the crest of the glacis, or on the edge of the
counterscarpe of the ditch, there can be no excavation but in the rear of the
battery.
4. Batteries on a Coast—generally consist of only an epaulment, without much
attention being paid to the ditch: they are, however, sometimes made with
embrazures, like a common gun battery; but the guns are more generally
mounted on traversing platforms, and fire over the epaulment. When this is the
case, the guns can seldom be placed nearer than 3½ fathoms from each other.
The generality of military writers prefer low situations for coast batteries; but M.
Gribauvale lays down some rules for the heights of coast batteries, which place
them in such security, as to enable them to produce their greatest effect. He says
the height of a battery of this kind, above the level of the sea, must depend upon
the distance of the principal objects it has to protect or annoy. The shot from a
battery to ricochet with effect, should strike the water at an angle of about 4 or 5
degrees at the distance of 200 yards. Therefore the distance of the object must be
the radius, and the height of the battery the tangent to this angle of 4 or 5°; which
will be, at the above distance of 200 yards, about 14 yards. At this height, he
says, a battery may ricochet vessels in perfect security; for their ricochet being
only from a height of 4 or 5 yards, can have no effect against the battery. The
ground in front of a battery should be cut in steps, the more effectually to destroy
the ricochet of the enemy. In case a ship can approach the battery so as to fire
musquetry from her tops, a few light pieces placed higher up on the bank, will
soon dislodge the men from that position, by a few discharges of case shot. It is
also easy to keep vessels at a distance by carcasses, or other fire balls, which
they are always in dread of.
Durtubie estimates, that a battery of 4 or 5 guns, well posted, will be a match
for a first rate man of war.

To estimate the Materials for a Battery.

Fascines of 9 feet long are the most convenient for forming a battery, because
they are easily carried, and they answer to most parts of the battery without
cutting. The embrazures are however better lined with fascines of 18 feet. The
following will be nearly the number required for a fascine battery of two guns or
howitzers:
90 fascines of 9 feet long.
20 fascines of 18 feet—for the embrazures.
This number will face the outside as well as the inside of the epaulment, which
if the earth be stiff, will not always be necessary; at least not higher than the soles
of the embrazures on the outside. This will require five of 9 feet for each merlon
less than the above.
A mortar battery will not require any long fascines for the lining of the
embrazures. The simplest method of ascertaining the number of fascines for a
mortar battery, or for any other plain breast work, is to divide the length of work to
be fascined in feet, by the length of each fascine in feet, for the number required
for one layer, which being multiplied by the number of layers required, will of
course give the number of fascines for facing the whole surface. If a battery be so
exposed as to require a shoulder to cover it in flank, about 50 fascines of 9 feet
each will be required for each shoulder.
Each fascine of 18 feet will require 7 pickets.
” ” ” 9 feet ” ” 4 ”

12 workmen of the line, and 8 of the artillery, are generally allotted to each
gun.
If to the above proportion of materials, &c. for a battery of two guns, there be
added for each additional gun, 30 fascines of 9 feet, and 10 of 18 feet, with 12
workmen, the quantity may easily be found for a battery of any number of pieces.
The workmen are generally thus disposed; one half the men of the line in the
ditch at 3 feet asunder, who throw the earth upon the berm; one fourth upon the