Response and closure to: A comment on “Constant deceleration approach for the penetration analysis of rigid projectiles into concrete targets: Revisited” by D.Z. Yankelevsky and V.R. Feldgun, Int. J. Prot. Struct., pp. 1–18 (2020)

Abstract

<jats:p> The purpose of this discussion and closure is to address the comments presented by Rosenberg, Dekel, and Kositski on our paper (Yankelevsky and Feldgun). Our paper aimed at revisiting the constant deceleration approach for the penetration analysis of rigid projectiles into concrete. Their comments claim for inaccuracies and misleading statements that are responded in our present discussion. We clarify that the constant deceleration approach cannot represent the penetration in concrete. We discuss their comments and highlight their inaccuracies and incorrect statements and point out at the weaknesses and limitations of the constant deceleration approach. We hope that our clarifications and discussion will help to improve the suggested constant deceleration approach, enhance the awareness to its limitations, and direct to approaches that do consider the variable deceleration time history of the projectile motion in concrete. </jats:p>

Overcoming the Force Limitations of Magnetic Robotic Surgery: Magnetic Pulse Actuated Collisions for Tissue‐Penetrating‐Needle for Tetherless Interventions

“…f impact can be formulated by the simplified impact physics for two-rigid body collision with constant deceleration. [39] f impact ðV rel Þ ¼ À mV rel Δt impact (9) As shown in Equation ( 6), (7), and ( 8), there are two types of forces acting on the magnetic piston. While F m is the standard magnetic pulling force, F impact occurs under the presence of contact with the impact plate.…”

“… can be formulated by the simplified impact physics for two‐rigid body collision with constant deceleration. [ 39 ] …”