You are on page 1of 46

Computational Simulation of Blast Effects on Structural Components

Daniel G. Linzell
Associate Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering

Lyle N. Long
Distinguished Professor Aerospace Engineering

Abner Chen
Ph.D. Candidate Civil and Environmental Engineering

Emre Alpman
Postdoctoral Researcher Aerospace Engineering

Acknowledgements
z

Office of Naval Research Penn State University Applied Research Lab

z

z

APCI

Objectives
z

z

z

z

Detailed coupled gas/chemistry simulations of detonations Large scale simulations of pressure loadings using time-accurate CFD Fluid/structure simulations under blast/impact loadings Coating materials to help make structures blast/impact resistant – polyurea

Background – Blast resistant materials (polyurea)
z Polyurea
z Introduced by Texaco in 1989 z Known Advantages vs. Polyurethanes (traditional coatings) z Applications
z DoD – Civil Infrastructure z DoD – other apps
ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Army/Navy – Spray on armor (Humvees) Navy – Ship hulls (U.S.S. Cole) Rail cars Water storage tanks Chemical plant infrastructure

z Other – Civil Infrastructure

Sources:
PCI: http://www.pcimag.com/CDA/Archives/779f754db76a7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0 DefenseReview.com: http://www.defensereview.com/article502.html, Polymer Materials for Structural Retrofit, Knox et al., AFRL

Army Times .Background – Blast resistant materials (polyurea) z DoD applications – Polyurea z z z z z Untreated stud wall AFRL ERDC-WES Army Navy Pentagon z Retrofit Coated with polyurea z Public domain? Source: Polymer Materials for Structural Retrofit. Knox et al.. AFRL.

Blast Simulation CFD Method z z z z Unstructured-grid. thoroughly validated on a wide range of problems . Runge-Kutta time marching Code is called PUMA2 Has been in use at Penn State for many years. time-accurate Euler code Finite volume.

Assumptions z z z 75 lbs.Blast CFD . of TNT Explosive is spherical in geometry Uniform explosion .

9 1 r/R .6 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.Initial Pressure Profile Initial Pressure Profile 160000 140000 120000 100000 p/p 0 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.Blast CFD .8 0.

00015 0.2m P (atm) 10 1 0 0.00025 t (sec) 0.0001 0.0004 0.00045 0.Blast CFD .0005 .5m r = 0.0003 0.Pressure History P ressure H istories at D ifferent Locations 10000 1000 100 r = 1m r = 0.00035 0.0002 0.00005 0.

Blast CFD – PUMA2 Comparisons to ConWep .

Blast CFD . of TNT Plate located approx 3 ft away from the explosive .Simulations Including Steel Plate z z z Plate Dimensions (60in by 60in) 75 lbs.

004 0.Loading History at Plate Center Loading History at the Center of the Plate 1000 100 P (atm) 10 1 0.001 0.006 t (sec) .005 0.01 0 0.1 0.Blast CFD .002 0.003 0.

Background – Fluid/structure simulations z z Commercial codes Interaction z Loosely coupled z z Mechanisms behind protection? Parameters to control performance? 3-D .

Focus Areas – fluid/structure interaction z Numerical fluid/structure program z z z z Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing z Experimental fluid/structure program z z .

Fluid/structure interaction z Numerical fluid/structure program z z z z Material models – via literature Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing z Experimental fluid/structure program z z .

2003) A=66.Steel z Steel (AISI 4340) z z Johnson-Cook material model (Kurtaran and Eskandarian.03 σ = A+B ε ε pl [ & )][ ( ) ][1 + Cln(ε 1− T pl n * *m ] : equivalent plastic strain : normalized plastic strain rate &* ε * T − Troom T = Tmelt − Troom . C=0. B=100. n=0.014. and m=1.Material model .7.4.26.

Polyurea z z Polyurea (APCI) Mie-Gruneisen equation of state (Fuentes 2006) ƒ ƒ A hydrodynamic material model A function of density and internal energy P − PH = Γρ ( E m − E H ) ρ0 Γ = Γ0 ρ Γ0 : material constant ρ0 : reference density PH η EH = 2ρ 0 ρ 0C0 η PH = (1 − sη ) 2 2 ρ0 η = 1− ρ C0 and s are material constants .Material model .

Numerical program z z z Abaqus .Explicit LS-Dyna PUMA2 .

Fluid/structure interaction z Numerical fluid/structure program z z z z Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing z Experimental fluid/structure program z z .

Numerical analysisABAQUS and LS-DYNA .

Pressure time-history of the impact load 6.004 0.0E+004 2.0E+004 Pressure (psi) 3.0E+004 1.0E+000 0 0.01 0.0E+004 5.002 0.0E+004 0.008 Time (sec) 0.012 .006 0.0E+004 4.

002 0.004 0.5 -2 0 0.012 .008 Time (sec) 0.006 0.Displacement 0.01 0.5 ABAQUS LS-DYNA 0 Displacement (in) -0.5 -1 -1.

002 0.2x10 5 Von Mises Stress (psi) 1.0x10 5 8.0x10 4 6.012 .004 0.006 0.0x10 4 ABAQUS LS-DYNA 0.01 0.0x10 0 0 0.Von Mises Stress 1.0x10 4 4.008 Time (sec) 0.0x10 4 2.4x10 5 1.

012 .006 0.002 0.01 0.Internal energy Comparison of internal energy for mesh size 1"x1"x1" LS-DYNA ABAQUS 1E+005 8E+004 Internal Energy (lb-in) 6E+004 4E+004 2E+004 0E+000 0 0.004 0.008 Time (sec) 0.

Fluid/structure interaction z Numerical fluid/structure program z z z z Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing z Experimental fluid/structure program z z .

Numerical program – Comparison of PUMA2 & ConWep z z z FEM program: LS-DYNA Steel plate: 60”x60”x0. no failure criterion PUMA2 CFD code (complex spatial and temporal loading) ConWep (Blast function provided in LS-DYNA) z Load z z .25” Steel (AISI 4340) z Johnson-Cook material model – literature.

S. Army Waterways Experiment Station Empirical model z Blast function (ConWep) z z . PUMA2 z z Solve Euler equations Neglect viscous effect U.Background z CFD code.

Configuration of the model .

004 Time (s) 0.002 0.008 .006 0.Comparison of displacements 0 -2 PUMA2 ConWep z-displacement (in) -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 0 0.

002 0.006 0.Comparison of von Mises stress 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 0.004 Time (s) 0.008 PUMA2 ConWep V-M stress (psi) .

Fluid/structure interaction z Numerical fluid/structure program z z z z Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing z Experimental fluid/structure program z z .

0.Numerical program – Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading z z z z z Steel plate: 60”x60”x0.25”.5” Steel (AISI 4340) z Johnson-Cook material model Polyurea (Air Products) z Mie-Gruneisen Equation of State Load: PUMA2 CFD code (complex spatial and temporal loading) .25” Thickness of coating: 0”. 0.

Numerical program – Steel plate without polyurea .

25” thick polyurea .Numerical program – Steel plate with 0.

Numerical program – Steel plate with 0.5” thick polyurea .

005 Time (s) .0 2.0 18.0 10.0 0.Deflection at the center 20.0 4.004 0.002 0.0 8.0 14.0 12.5" polyurea Displacement (in) 0.25" polyurea 0.001 0.000 No coating 0.0 6.0 16.003 0.0 0.

E+06 7.E+06 2.E+06 3.E+06 Kinetic energy (lbf-in) 8.004 0.003 0.005 No coating 0.E+00 0.E+06 4.E+06 6.E+06 5.002 0.Kinetic energy 9.001 0.25" polyurea 0.E+06 0.E+06 1.000 0.5" polyurea Time (s) .

impact Relevant loading regimes Membrane action . viscous or crushable foam vs. M-G) Coated plate Pressure.polyurea Interface failure .polyurea and steel z Numerical failure mode prediction z z z z Failure criteria prediction z z . temperature.g.Current focus areas – numerical program z Sensitivity analyses z z Model construction Constitutive model selection – Polyurea (e.

Fluid/structure interaction z Numerical fluid/structure program z z z z Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing z Experimental fluid/structure program z z .

Experimental program z Material properties z Characterization – steel and polyurea z Validation Testing z Impact and/or Blast z Coated and uncoated z Varying coating thickness z Locations z PSU CITEL z Others .

Coupon testing .displacement .Steel •ASTM E8 •Extensometer .

04 0. strain 120000 100000 True stress (psi) 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 0.16 True strain (in/in) .06 0.12 0.Results – stress vs.1 0.02 0.14 0.08 0.

4 (ksi) σ = A+B ε [ & )][ ( ) ][1 + Cln(ε 1− T pl n * *m ] .7 (ksi) Material constant B = 100.Material constants for JC model z Using a least squares fitting method z z Material constant A = 66.

Current focus areas – experimental program z z z Coupon testing –Polyurea (APCI) Validation testing specimen prep Validation testing determination and matrix development .

Summary .

edu .edu z Long ƒ lnl@psu.Questions? Contact Info z Linzell ƒ DLinzell@engr.psu.