40 views

Uploaded by luisfmpereira

A Computational Constitutive Model for Glass Subjected to Large Strains. High Strain Rates and High Pressures

A Computational Constitutive Model for Glass Subjected to Large Strains. High Strain Rates and High Pressures

© All Rights Reserved

- Well Tubing
- A Computational Consititutive Model for Concrete Subjected to Large Strains, High Strain Rates, And High Pressures
- LS DYNA Basic Cards
- Erwin Kreyszig Advanced Engineering Mathematics
- Main Shaft Study 1 1
- Design of knuckle joint
- Steel Plate Ramp Design for Roll On Roll Off Operation
- Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams_Zhong
- 44 Palmstrom on RMi for Rockburst and Squeezing
- CE433.L03.pdf
- Fea2 Ansys Tutorial With Femap Neinastran
- Rivet of Simulation On Solid Work 2016
- 68 Palmstrom&Singh on Deformation Modulus
- mcleod_investigation_2013.pdf
- 98 Indrect Tensile
- mat_072r3.pdf
- Tutorial No.5-Midterm Revision
- 1-s2.0-S0734743X08000778-main
- Structural Modeling and Seismic Performance Analysis of Mehmet Aga Mosque in Istanbul
- 10.5923.j.jce.20130301.04

You are on page 1of 9

Holmquist

Gordon R. Johnson

Southwest Research Institute,

5353 Wayzata Blvd.,

Minneapolis, MN 55416

A Computational Constitutive

Model for Glass Subjected to

Large Strains, High Strain Rates

and High Pressures

This article presents a computational constitutive model for glass subjected to large

strains, high strain rates and high pressures. The model has similarities to a previously

developed model for brittle materials by Johnson, Holmquist and Beissel (JHB model),

but there are significant differences. This new glass model provides a material strength

that is dependent on the location and/or condition of the material. Provisions are made

for the strength to be dependent on whether it is in the interior, on the surface (different

surface finishes can be accommodated), adjacent to failed material, or if it is failed. The

intact and failed strengths are also dependent on the pressure and the strain rate. Thermal softening, damage softening, time-dependent softening, and the effect of the third

invariant are also included. The shear modulus can be constant or variable. The pressure-volume relationship includes permanent densification and bulking. Damage is accumulated based on plastic strain, pressure and strain rate. Simple (single-element)

examples are presented to illustrate the capabilities of the model. Computed results for

more complex ballistic impact configurations are also presented and compared to experimental data. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4004326]

Introduction

glass. Glass has been the focus of extensive research over the

years and much has been documented regarding its unique behavior. Bridgman [1,2] provides some of the earliest work where he

identifies three important characteristics of glass; it is very compressible, the bulk modulus decreases over a specified pressure

region, and a portion of the volumetric strain is unrecoverrable

(which produces permanent densification). Many researchers have

continued the investigation into the compressibility of glass with

some documenting up to 20% permanent densification [36].

There is also evidence that densification is dependent on temperature and shear [5,6]. Mackenzie [6] provides data that shows

increased densification when shear stress and/or temperature is

added. One of the more unique characteristics of glass is its very

high internal tensile strength. Rosenberg et al. [7] performed tensile-spall plate-impact experiments on soda lime glass and was

not able to produce spall and concluded that the spall strength

exceeded 5 GPa. Brar et al. [8] performed spall experiments on

soda lime and borosilicate glass and was unable to produce spall

in either one. Cagnoux [9,10] performed spall experiments on borosilicate glass and documented a high spall strength of 1.8 GPa on

average. Then there is the failure wave phenomenon that has

generated a considerable amount of research [11,12]. Although

much has been learned regarding this phenomenon, there are still

uncertainties regarding the correlation between opacity, damage

and stress state. Glass is also surface finish dependent, where a

smooth surface is stronger than a rough surface. Nie et al. [13]

demonstrated this effect by performing flexural tests on glass prepared with a very rough surface and with a surface etched using

hydrofluoric acid. The rough surface failed at a tensile stress of

approximately 100 MPa and the etched surface failed at 1200

MPa. Glass also exhibits scale effects where smaller samples are

Contributed by Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURAPPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received October 15, 2010; final manuscript

received May 6, 2011; published online July 27, 2011. Assoc. Editor: Bo S. G. Janzon.

NAL OF

the effect of scale by performing ballistic impact experiments

onto thin glass plates. The smaller-scale glass plates were stronger, providing more resistance to penetration. Sun et al. [15] also

demonstrated the effect of scale by impacting small metal spheres

onto thin glass plates. The smaller-scale plates were less damaged

than the larger-scale plates. Wereszczak et al. [16] demonstrated

size effects by performing indentation tests onto soda lime glass.

The tensile strength increased significantly as the scale was

reduced. Wereszczak et al. concluded that this was the effect of

surface flaws and the statistical nature of their occurrence (larger

scales are more likely to have larger flaws and thus fail at a lower

stress). Glass, like other brittle materials, loses strength when

damaged. Chocron et al. [17] performed compression tests on

undamaged and predamaged borosilicate glass. The predamaged

samples were weaker than the undamaged samples. Chocron et al.

also demonstrated the significant effect that pressure has on the

strength, where higher pressures produce higher strengths. Glass

also appears to lose strength under one-dimensional plate-impact

loading [18,19], possibly a result of damage softening and/or thermal softening. There is also evidence that the failure process is

time dependent. Simha and Gupta [18] performed plate-impact

experiments on soda lime glass and concluded that the failure process was time dependent. Sunderam [19] performed pressureshear plate-impact experiments on soda lime glass and also

produced, what appeared to be, time-dependent failure. Glass also

exhibits a softening of the bulk modulus under compression. This

was first identified by Bridgeman [1] through quasi-static experiments and later confirmed through plate-impact tests [20]. There

is also evidence that the shear modulus softens. This is evident in

the Hugoniot Elastic Limit (HEL) for borosilicate glass [21] that

can only be reproduced using a reduced shear modulus. The

strength of glass is also dependent on the intermediate principal

stress (often referred to as the 3rd invariant effect). Handen et al.

[22] produced significantly higher strengths in pyrex glass when

the stress state was on the compressive meridian compared to the

tensile meridian. Glass also appears to be strain-rate sensitive. Nie

et al. [13] produced higher tensile strengths as the loading rate

C 2011 by ASME

Copyright V

pressure-volume relationship includes permanent densification

and bulking.

2.1 Strength. The strength portion of the model is shown in

the upper portion of Fig. 1. The available strength (von Mises

equivalent stress), r, is dependent on the pressure, P, the dimen_ e_o (for e_o 1:0s1 ),

sionless equivalent (total) strain rate, e_ e=

the location of the material (interior, surface or adjacent to failed

material), and the damage, D. For undamaged material, D 0; for

partially damaged material, 0 < D < 1.0; and for fully damaged

(failed) material, D 1.0.

There are three curves that represent the strength of the intact

material. The reference intact strength represents the strength for

material adjacent to failed material, or effectively adjacent to a

surface with a very rough finish. This is the minimum intact

strength (when compared to the interior and surface intact

strengths). For a dimensionless strain rate of e_ 1:0, the reference intact strength goes (linearly) from r 0 at a tensile pressure of P T, to a strength of r ri at a pressure of P Pi. T is

the maximum hydrostatic tension the reference strength can withstand. For pressures greater than Pi the strength is represented by

the analytic expression

r ri rmax ri f1:0 expai P Pi g

(1)

ai ri =rmax ri Pi T

(2)

where

Fig. 1

demonstrated increased ductility and decreased strength in borosilicate glass when the temperature approached the glass transition

temperature, Tg. Glass also produces dilatancy, or bulking, during

failure. Glenn et al. [24] state that glass can bulk as much as 20%

or more under impact loading. Lastly, glass can produce dwell

and interface defeat as demonstrated by Behner et al. [25] and

Anderson et al. [26]. Borosilcate glass defeated a gold rod

(impacting at approximately 890 m/s) at the glass surface, producing no significant penetration into the glass target.

Glass is clearly a very complex material and modeling it

presents a significant challenge. The glass model presented herein

attempts to account for many of the aforementioned glass characteristics. The remainder of this article presents a description of the

glass model, a demonstration of various features of the model, and

computed results for several ballistic impact configurations that

are compared to experimental data.

This form provides a continuous slope at Pi and it limits the maximum strength to rmax (for e_ 1:0).

The strength for the surface and the strength for the interior

have similar forms and are defined by two dimensionless constants Dsurf and Dint respectively. Dsurf is a factor 0:01

Dsurf 1:0 to allow the strength to be increased for material

on the surface that is not adjacent to failed material. This increase

becomes more pronounced as the pressure becomes more tensile.

For Dsurf 0.01 (the minimum allowed for numerical considerations) the surface strength is slightly below rmax , and for

Dsurf 1.0 the surface strength is identical to the reference intact

strength. For intermediate values of Dsurf a reference angle

href < 90o is determined that defines the angle between the horizontal line at rmax and the extrapolated line formed for the linear

relationship between the strength at r 0 (at P T) to the

strength at r ri (at P Pi) as illustrated in Fig. 2. The corresponding angle for the strength defined by Dsurf is

hsurf Dsurf href . The two extrapolated lines (defined by href

has three components; one to describe the strength, one to

describe damage, and one to describe the pressure-volume behavior. Although the model is similar to a previously developed

model for brittle materials by Johnson, Holmquist and Beissel

(JHB model) [27], there are many differences. This new glass

model has an intact strength that is dependent on whether the material is located in the interior, on the surface, or adjacent to failed

material. There is also a failed strength which represents the

strength of the material that is fully damaged (D 1.0). Thermal

softening, damage softening (instantaneous or gradual), time-dependent softening, and the effect of the third invariant are also

051003-2 / Vol. 78, SEPTEMBER 2011

strength

at Pi. For pressures greater than Pi the analytic

also defines rsurf

i

expressions presented in Eqs. (1) and (2) are used but ri is

and T is replaced by Tsurf tan1 hsurf

replaced by rsurf

i

P

.

For

pressures

less than Pi the interior strength

rsurf

i

i

to Tsurf.

decreases linearly from rsurf

i

The strength for the interior is defined in a similar manner. Dint

is a factor 0:01 Dint 1:0 to allow the strength to be

increased for material in the interior that is not adjacent to failed

material. Again, this increase becomes more pronounced as the

pressure becomes more tensile. For Dint 0.01 the interior

strength is slightly below rmax , and for Dint 1.0 the interior

strength is identical to the reference intact strength. For intermediate values of Dint a reference angle href < 90o is determined, as

defined previously. The corresponding angle for the strength

defined by Dint is hint Dint href . This also defines rint

i at Pi. For

pressures greater than Pi the analytic expressions presented in

and T is

Eqs. (1) and (2) are used but ri is replaced by rint

i

replaced by Tint tan1 hint rint

i Pi . For pressures less than

Pi the interior strength decreases linearly from rint

i to Tint.

The strength for the failed material has a similar form to that of

the reference intact strength. It goes linearly from r 0 at P 0,

to r rf at P Pf. For pressures greater than Pf the strength is

represented by

(3)

r rf rfmax rf 1:0 exp af P Pf

1

J3 s3x s3y s3z 3sx s2xy 3sx s2xz 3sy s2xy 3sy s2yz

3

3sz s2xz 3sz s2yz 6sxy syz sxz

(8)

rreduced

i

rinput

i

J3fact

1 sin3h 1=J3fact 1 sin3h

2

(9)

where rinput

i

meridian.

Some comments should be made regarding the algorithms used

to determine surface elements, interior elements and elements adjacent to failed material. If an element has a least one node on the

surface it is considered a surface element and Dsurf is used to

describe the intact strength. If an element has at least one node in

common with a failed element it is considered adjacent to failed

material and the reference intact strength is used to describe the

strength. If an element is not a surface element or an element adjacent to failed material it is an interior element and Dint is used to

describe the intact strength. Also, the factors Dsurf and Dint are not

used for particles (because it is not a straightforward procedure to

determine if a particle is on the surface, in the interior, or adjacent

to failed material). This is generally not a problem when conversion of elements into particles is used, because the material usually fails before it is converted.

where

af rf

.

Pf rfmax rf

(4)

The intact and failed strengths in Eqs. (1)(4) are for a dimensionless strain rate of e_ 1:0. If ro is the strength at e_ 1:0, then

the strength at other strain rates is

r ro 1:0 C ln e_

(5)

Thermal softening is included through the thermal softening

exponent M. If M > 0 the material is softened by the factor

(1 T M) for both the intact and failed material. The homologous

temperature is T (Tc Tr)/(Tg Tr) where Tc is the current

computed temperature, Tr is the room temperature and Tg is the

glass transition temperature. This form is used because it is

straightforward to incorporate into the strength model, requires

only one constant, M, and provides good agreement with the test

data from Chen [23].

Lastly, the effect of the third invariant is described. The implementation is similar to that presented by Frank and Adley [28]. It

applies to both the intact and failed strengths. When the third

invariant is used, the intact strength should be defined for a stress

state in the compressive meridian (r3 < r1 and r1 r2 ) where

r1 , r2 and r3 are the principal stresses (tension is positive). The

strength for the tensile meridian is reduced by a dimensionless

constant J3fact times the strength in the compressive meridian

where 0.5 < J3fact < 1.0. The stress state for the tensile meridian is

(r1 > r2 and r2 r3 ).

The interpolation between the compressive and tensile meridians is provided by the Lode angle (h) which can be defined as a

function of the second and third invariants (J2 and J3)

p

3 3 J3

(6)

sin3h

2 J 3=2

2

1

J2 s2x s2y s2z 2s2xy 2s2yz 2s2xz

2

Journal of Applied Mechanics

(7)

left portion of Fig. 1 and it is accumulated as follows:

(10)

D R Dep =e fp

where Dep is the increment of equivalent plastic strain during the

current cycle of integration and e fp is the plastic strain to failure

under the current dimensionless pressure, P P=rmax . The general expression for the failure strain is

e fp D1 P T N 1 Cf ln e_

(11)

The strain rate constant Cf provides an increase in the strain to

failure for elevated strain rates. Tensile hydrostatic pressures

greater than T will not cause the material to fail (D 1.0) instantaneously as is the case for the JHB model [27]. Here, very large

tensile pressures are possible if the material remains elastic, but

any amount of plastic strain will produce failure. This allows the

strength of the interior and surface strengths to be reached at tensile pressures greater than T. This damage formulation assumes

that damage does not accumulate when the material is in an elastic

stress state. The authors are not aware of any quantitative data

which indicates a weakening of the material when it is within the

yield surface.

When D 1.0 the material fails and the strength is reduced as

shown in the top portion of Fig. 1. Two types of softening (damage softening or time-dependent softening) are provided to allow

for variations in how the material transitions from the intact surface to the failed surface. Damage softening allows the material to

soften gradually, rather than fail instantaneously at D 1.0. Material begins to soften when D (1.0 Dsoft) and then linearly softens to the failed strength at D 1.0 where Dsoft is a dimensionless

coefficient (0 < Dsoft < 1.0). In the softening region [D > (1.0

Dsoft)] the bulking pressure is added incrementally, in a manner

similar to that used for the JH-2 model for brittle materials [29].

For Dsoft 0 there is no gradual softening and the material fails

instantaneously at D 1.0. Alternatively, a time-dependent softening can be used. This option gradually reduces the strength over

SEPTEMBER 2011, Vol. 78 / 051003-3

DU Ui Uf

manner when D 1.0.

2.3 Pressure. Glass exhibits permanent densification when

subjected to high pressures [26] and bulking when failure occurs

[24]. The hydrostatic pressure, with permanent densification and

bulking, is shown in the lower right portion of Fig. 1. Permanent

densification begins when l > lelastic and is complete when

l llock. The pressure for loading only (no unloading), no bulking (b 0, defined later) and before complete densification

(l < llock), is

P K1 l K2 l2 K3 l3

(12)

where K1, K2 and K3 are constants (K1 is the bulk modulus); and

l Vo =V 1 q=qo 1 for current volume and density (V and

q), and initial volume and density (Vo and qo ). The pressure for

l > llock is simply

P Plock K4 l llock

(13)

where Plock is the pressure at llock, and K4 and llock are constants.

The process of unloading is more complex and is a function of

the magnitude of the permanent densification, lperm, and the maximum volumetric strain attained, lmax. When lmax < lelastic there

is no permanent densification and unloading occurs along the

loading path described by Eq. (12). When lmax llock permanent

densification is complete and unloading occurs along the permanent densification curve (from llock to lperm). The unloading path

(from llock to lperm) is determined by interpolating between the

response provided by Eq. (12) and the response provided by

Eq. (13) (when extrapolated down to lolock ). The interpolation is

based on the ratio lperm =lolock and produces unloading along a path

described by Eq. (12) when lperm =lolock 0, and by Eq. (13) when

lperm =lolock 1.0.

There is also the possibility to unload in the transition zone

(lelastic < lmax < llock ). The unloading path is interpolated

between the path describe by Eq. (12) and the permanent densification curve previously described. The interpolation is based on

the ratio / lmax lelastic =llock lelascic and produces

unloading along a path described by Eq. (12) when / 0, and

along the permanent densification curve when / 1.0.

For tensile pressures

l < 0, P K1 l where K 1 K1 and

l l when lmax < lelastic, K1 is the stiffness at lperm and

l l lperm when lmax llock , and in the transition zone

(lelastic < lmax < llock ) K1 is interpolated and l l l0 where

l0 lperm lmax lelastic =llock lelascic is the permanent volumetric strain at P 0.

During the softening/failure process (from damage or time-dependent softening) bulking (pressure and/or volume increase) can

occur. This requires an additional pressure increment, DP, such

that

P K1 l K2 l2 K3 l3 DP

(14)

Looking back to the strength model in Fig. 1, there is a decrease

in strength when the material goes from an intact state (D < 1.0)

to a failed state (D 1.0) (for instantaneous failure with Dsoft 0).

This represents a decrease in the elastic internal energy of the deviator stresses. The general expression for this elastic internal

energy (of the deviator stresses) is

U r2 =6G

(15)

shear modulus. The corresponding decrease in internal energy can

be expressed as

051003-4 / Vol. 78, SEPTEMBER 2011

(16)

(D < 1.0) and Uf is the internal energy after failure (D 1.0).

This internal energy loss (of the deviator stresses) can be converted to potential hydrostatic internal energy by adding DP. An

approximate equation for the internal energy conservation is

bDU

DPlf DP2 =2K

(17)

modulus, and b is the fraction (0 b 1:0 of the internal (deviator) energy loss converted to potential hydrostatic energy. The

first term (DPlf ) is the approximate potential energy for l > 0 and

the second term [DP2 =2K] is the corresponding potential energy

for l < 0.

Solving for DP gives

q

f 2 2bKDU

f

(18)

Kl

DP Kl

The bulking pressure is computed only for failure under compression (lf > 0). Note that DP 0 for b 0 and that DP increases

as DU increases and/or lf decreases. When there is gradual damage softening (Dsoft > 0), DP is updated during the course of the

softening process [29].

In addition to a constant shear modulus (which implies a variable Poissons ratio), there is a provision to use a variable shear

modulus, Gvar, that is proportional to the current bulk modulus,

Kcur and is given by

3 1 2

(19)

Gvar Kcur

2 1

where is Poissons ratio. This relationship is based on the

assumption of a constant Poissons ratio.

It should be noted that the pressure does not include energy dependence (other than bulking) such as occurs in the Mie-Gruneisen and other Equations of State. Generally, the energy effects

are more important for very high pressures, and are not significant

for ballistics problems which involve lower pressures. The inclusion of energy effects would be very complex when combined

with permanent densification and bulking, and it is not clear how

these three effects (internal energy, permanent densification, bulking) could be combined. Furthermore, the authors are not aware of

any test data from which the appropriate constants could be determined. The bulking algorithm has been used with the JHB model

for ceramics [27] and it provides a qualitative description of

behavior during and after failure. The material rapidly expands

when failed under low confinement/pressure, and it develops a

distinct pressure increase when it is confined. Similar behavior

has been observed when glass fails. Two desirable features of this

bulking algorithm are that it does not require any additional constants (other than the fraction of energy that goes into bulking),

and that internal energy is conserved. For penetration problems at

ballistic velocities, the presence of bulking does not appear to

have a significant effect on the penetration velocities and depths.

The effect of strength is generally much more important.

shown in Figs. 36. The examples presented in Figs. 35 demonstrate the effect of densification, damage softening and the intermediate principal stress (3rd invariant) respectively, and are

produced by axially loading (and unloading) a single element in

uniaxial strain. The example presented in Fig. 6 demonstrates the

effect of time-dependent failure and high-internal-tensile strength

using computed results from spall plate-impact computations.

Transactions of the ASME

this velocity regime and then suddenly appears much weaker at

Vs > 600 m/s. Although the computed results do not capture this

response, it may be possible to produce better agreement using a

different set of constants (specifically T, tfail, Dint and Dsurf). General comparisons can also be made regarding the computed and

experimental post-mortem targets. The tested targets consistently

produced rear surface spall cones and a significant amount of radial and circumferential cracks emanating from the impact location (although the cracking was significant, the targets remained

intact). The computed targets also produced rear surface spall

cones, but the cracking was much less than what was observed

experimentally (this could be due to the computations being performed in 2D axisymmetry where radial cracking cannot occur).

Figure 11 demonstrates the capability to compute size effects.

Computed results are presented for the 0.50-cal (scale 1.0) and

the 0.22-cal (scale 0.44) projectile for Vs 300 m/s and 400

m/s. At 300 m/s, the 0.50-cal projectile exits the target at

Vr 22 m/s but the smaller scale 0.22-cal projectile is stopped

(there is also significantly more projectile erosion). As the

impact velocity is increased the computed size effect diminishes

as shown at Vs 400 m/s. The ability for the computations to

produce size effects is due to the time-dependent features in the

glass model. Smaller scale events happen in a shorter time period resulting in larger strain rates for the smaller scale. The

strain rate effect in the ductility (Cf), the strain rate effect in the

strength (C), and the finite time-to-fail (tfail), all contribute to

making smaller scales stronger.

model for glass subjected to large strains, high strain rates and

high pressures. This new glass model has an intact strength and a

failed strength that are dependent on the pressure and the strain

rate, damage softening or time-dependent softening that transitions the strength from intact to failed, thermal softening, a constant or variable shear modulus, the effect of the third invariant, a

pressure-volume relationship that includes permanent densification and bulking, and damage that is accumulated from plastic

strain, pressure and strain rate. The intact strength is also dependent on the location of the material (whether it is in the interior, on

the surface or adjacent to failed material). Significant features of

the model are the ability to compute size effects (smaller is stronger), surface effects, and high internal tensile strength.

Several features of the model were illustrated using a simple

(single-element) problem. Computations were also presented for

more complex, high-velocity-impact conditions using preliminary

constants for borosilicate glass determined from the literature.

The computed results demonstrate the ability of the model to produce reaseonable results for a broad range of impact conditions.

Acknowledgment

This work was performed for the U. S. Army RDECOMTARDEC under Contract No. W56HZV-06-C-0194. The authors

would like to thank D. Templeton and R. Rickert (U. S. Army

TARDEC) and to C. Gerlach (Southwest Research Institute) for

their contributions to this work. The authors would like to especially thank C. Anderson, Jr. for his helpful discussions and experimental work in support of this effort.

References

[1] Bridgman, P. W., 1948, The Compression of 39 Substances to 100,000 kg/

cm2, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 76(3), pp.

5587.

[2] Bridgman, P. W. and Simon, I., 1953, Effects of Very High Pressures on

Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 24(4), pp. 405413.

[3] Uhlmann, D. R., 1973, Densification of Alkali Silicate Glasses at High Pressure, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 13, pp. 8999.

[4] Rouxel, T., Ji, H., Hammouda, T., and Moreac, A., 2008, Poissons Ratio and

the Densification of Glass Under High Pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100,

p. 225501.

[5] Sakka, S. and Mackenzie, J. D., 1969, High Pressure Effects on Glass, J.

Non-Cryst. Solids, 1, pp. 107142.

[6] Mackenzie, J. D., 1963, High-Pressure Effects on Oxide Glasses: I, Densification in Rigid State, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 46(10), pp. 461470.

[7] Rosenberg, Z., Yaziv, D., and Bless, S., 1985, Spall Strength of Shock-Loaded

Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 58(8), pp 32493251.

[8] Brar, N., Rosenberg, S., and Bless, S., 1991, Spall Strength and Failure Waves

in Glass, J. Phys. (Paris), 1, pp. 639634.

[9] Cagnoux, J., 1985, Deformation et Ruine dun Verre Pyrex Soumis a un Choc

Intense: Etude Experimentale et Modelisation du Comportement, Ph.D. thesis,

LUniversite de Poitiers.

[10] Cagnoux, J. and Longy, F., 1988, Spallation and Shock-Wave Behaviour of

Some Ceramics, J. Phys. (Paris), 49(9), pp. 310.

[11] Kanel, G. I., Bogatch, A. A., Razorenov, S. V., and Chen, Z., 2002,

Transformation of Shock Compression Pulses in Glass due to the Failure

Wave Phenomena, J. Appl. Phys., 92(9), pp. 50455052.

[12] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Orphal, D. L., Behner, T., and Templeton, D. W., 2009,

Failure and Penetration Response of Borosilicate Glass During Short-Rod

Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36, pp. 789798.

[13] Nie, X., Chen, W., Wereszczak, A., and Templeton, D., 2009, Effect of Loading Rate and Surface Conditions on the Flexural Strength of Borosilicate

Glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 92(6), pp. 12871295.

[14] Anderson, C. Jr., Weiss, C., and Chocron, S., 2009, Impact Experiments into

Borosilicate Glass at Three Scale Sizes, Southwest Research Institute, San

Antonio, TX, Technical Report No. 18.12544/018.

[15] Sun, X., Khaleel, M., and Davies, R., 2005, Modeling of Stone-Impact Resistance of Monolithic Glass Ply using Continuum Damage Mechanics, Int. J.

Damage Mech., 14, pp. 165178.

[16] Wereszczak, A. A., Kirkland, T. P., Ragan, M. E., Strong, K. T., Jr., and Lin,

H., 2010, Size Scaling of Tensile Failure Stress in a Float Soda-Lime-Silicate

Glass, International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 1(2), pp. 143150.

[17] Chocron, S., Anderson, C. E., Jr., Nicholls, E., and Dannemann, K. A.,

Characterization of Confined Intact and Damaged Borosilicate Glass, J. Am.

Ceram. Soc. (to be published).

[18] Simha, C. and Gupta, Y., 2004, Time-Dependent Inelastic Deformation of

Shocked Soda-Lime Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 96(4), pp. 18801890.

[19] Sundaram, S., 1993, Pressure-Shear Plate Impact Studies of Alumina Ceramics

and the Influence of an Intergranular Glassy Phase, Ph.D. thesis, Brown University, Providence, RI.

[20] Cagnoux, J., 1982, Shock-Wave Compression of a Borosilicate Glass up to

170 kbar, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1982, pp. 392296.

[21] Alexander, C. S., Chhabildas, L. C., Reinhart, W. D., and Templeton, D. W.,

2008, Changes to the Shock Response of Fused Quartz due to Glass Modification, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 13761385.

[22] Handin, J., Heard, H. C., and Magouirk, J. N., 1967, Effects of the Intermediate Principal Stress on the Failure of Limestone, Dolomite, and Glass at Different Temperatures and Strain Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 72(2), pp. 611640.

[23] Chen, W., 2010, Purdue University, private communication.

[24] Glenn, L. A., Moran, B., and Kusubov, A. S., 1990, Modeling Jet Penetration

in Glass, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA., Technical Report

No. UCRL-JC-103512.

[25] Behner, T., Anderson, C., Jr., Orphal, D., Hohler, V., Moll, M., and Templeton,

D., 2008, Penetration and Failure of Lead and Borosilicate Glass against Rod

Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 447456.

[26] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Behner, Th., Holmquist, T. J., Wickert, M., Hohler, V.,

and Templeton, D. W., 2007, Interface Defeat of Long Rods Impacting Borosilicate Glass, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics,

Tarragona, Spain, pp. 10491056.

[27] Johnson, G. R., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 2003, Response of Aluminum Nitride (Including a Phase Change) to Large Strains, High Strain Rates,

and High Pressures, J. Appl. Phys., 94(3), pp. 16391646.

[28] Frank, A. and Adley, M., 2007, On the Importance of a Three-Invariant Model

for Simulating the Perforation of Concrete Targets, Proceedings from the 78th

Shock and Vibration Symposium, Philadelphia, PA.

[29] Johnson, G. R. and Holmquist, T. J., 1994, An Improved Computational Constitutive Model for Brittle Materials, High Pressure Science and Technology

1993, S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Schaner, G. A. Samara, and M. Ross, eds., AIP,

New York, pp. 981984.

[30] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 1997,

Numerical Algorithms in a Lagrangian Hydrocode, Wright Laboratory, FL,

Technical Report No. WL-TR-1997-7039.

[31] Johnson, G. R., Beissel, S. R., and Stryk, R. A., 2002, An Improved Generalized Particle Algorithm that Includes Boundaries and Interfaces, Int. J. Numer.

Methods Eng., 53, pp. 875904.

[32] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Beissel, S. R., and Holmquist, T. J., 2002,

Conversion of Finite Elements into Meshless Particles for Penetration Computations Involving Ceramic Targets, Shock Compression of Condensed

Matter2001, M. D. Furnish, N. N. Thadhani, and Y. Horie, eds., AIP, New

York.

intact surface is again encountered. Unloading continues plastically from points 6 to 7. At point 7, both the axial deviator stress

and the pressure go to zero. For J3fact 0.5 the unloading is different because a lower intact surface is used for the tensile meridian. Elastic unloading continues from points 4 to 5 where the

lower intact strength is encountered. Unloading continues plastically from Points 5 to 7. At point 7, both the axial deviator stress

and the pressure go to zero.

Figure 6 presents the effect of time-dependent failure and the

ability to develop high-internal-tensile strength. Four tensile-spall

plate-impact computations are used to demonstrate these effects.

The material constants are the same as those presented previously

except the interior strength is increased to Dint 0.7 (this provides

a significant increase in the interior tensile strength and corresponds to a spall strength of approximately 450 MPa). The plate

impact configuration consists of a 5 mm glass impactor and a 15

mm glass target (this configuration will produce a tensile stress 5

mm from the rear target surface). The impact velocity is 200 m/s

and the particle velocity-time histories are taken at the rear target

surface. In the upper left quadrant of Fig. 6 is the computed wave

profile for tfail 0.4 ls, in the lower left is the wave profile for

tfail 0.2 ls, in the upper right is the wave profile for tfail 0.02

ls and in the lower right is the wave profile for tfail 0.

Before the results in Fig. 6 are discussed, a brief overview of a

tensile-spall plate-impact test is provided. In a spall experiment,

an impactor strikes a target producing an elastic compressive

wave that travels into the target and into the impactor. The elastic

compressive wave reflects off the rear surface of the target and

propagates back toward the impact surface. Due to wave interactions a tensile stress is created in the interior of the target located

one impactor thickness from the rear target surface (this is true

when both the impactor and target are made of the same material).

If the material can withstand the magnitude of the tensile stress,

the material does not fail and no spall is produced. If the material

cannot withstand the tensile stress, the material fails, creating a

pullback signal which travels back to the rear surface where it is

measured. The magnitude of the pullback signal is proportional to

the tensile stress at which the material fails (the spall strength,

rspall). Since spall occurs inside the material (but is measured at

the rear surface), a spall experiment provides an indirect measure

of the internal tensile strength.

Returning to Fig. 6, the computed result for tfail 0.4 ls is discussed first. This response is described with the help of the stresspressure insert in the lower right quadrant in Fig. 6 (the stresspressure response is taken at the spall location, 5 mm from the

rear surface). The impactor strikes the target at 200 m/s and the

stress goes from point 1 to point 2. The peak compressive stress is

elastic and is maintained until the arrival of the release wave. The

release wave rapidly takes the material into tension (at the spall

location). The stress goes from point 2 to point 1 to point 3 where

the interior intact strength is encountered. The material can develop no plastic strain and failure occurs producing the pullback

signal. The magnitude of the pullback signal is proportional to the

spall stress of 450 MPa. Since the tensile stress occurs in the interior of the target the interior intact strength governs the response

(point 3) and not the reference intact strength (point 4). Also note

the time delay of approximately 0.4 ls in the pullback signal, due

to the time-dependent failure. The result for tfail 0.2 ls is similar

to that of tfail 0.4 ls except the duration of the pullback signal is

reduced, which is due to the reduction in the time it takes the material to fail. The result for tfail 0.02 ls is more complex. The

magnitude of the pullback signal is significantly smaller than produced for tfail 0.4 ls and tfail 0.2 ls. This is due to the very

short duration of failure, the condition of the material and the

propagation of the pullback signal. When failure occurs at the

spall plane a new surface is created. This new surface is adjacent

to failed material (created at the spall plane) and is governed by

the reference intact strength. If the time to failure is sufficiently

short, the magnitude of the pullback signal cannot be maintained

as it propagates to the rear surface. The pullback signal will

051003-6 / Vol. 78, SEPTEMBER 2011

reached or the signal arrives at the rear surface. The final example

is for tfail 0 and produces only a small pullback signal. Even

though the spall strength of 450 MPa is attained at the spall plane,

it cannot be maintained and quickly decays to the stress represented by the reference intact strength at point 4.

Conditions

The following computed results are for more complex, highvelocity-impact conditions. The computed results use the new

glass model and preliminary constants for borosilicate glass estimated from the literature. The determination of constants is not a

straightforward process because some of the constants cannot be

determined explicitly from the test data. The general approach to

determine constants for the glass model is as follows: The pressure-volume response, the maximum intact strength, the time

required for the material to fail, and the shear modulus (constant

or variable) are estimated from compression plate-impact experiments where both the longitudinal and lateral stresses are

measured. The interior strength is estimated from tensile-spall

plate-impact experiments. Quasi-static and dynamic four-point

bending flexural tests are used to estimate the reference strength,

the surface strength and the strain-rate effect for damage. Quasistatic and dynamic compression tests are used to estimate the

strain-rate effect on the strength. Confined quasi-static compression tests and pressure-shear plate-impact tests are used to estimate the strength of the failed material. The damage model

constants are estimated by providing computed results that are in

good agreement with ballistic experiments that produce dwell,

interface defeat and penetration. Finally, although it is clear that

glass undergoes permanent densification [36], a procedure to

determine the onset, completion and magnitude of permanent densification has not been identified. This will be an area of future

research.

The objective of this section is not so much to provide a measure of the accuracy of the model but rather to demonstrate its

ability to produce reasonable results for a broad range of impact

conditions using one set of constants. All the computations were

performed with the 2010 version of the EPIC code using onedimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) Lagrangian finite

elements [30] and 2D meshless particles [31]. For the 2D example

computations involving severe distortions, the finite elements are

automatically converted into meshless particles during the course

of the computation [32].

4.1 Plate Impact. Figure 7 shows a comparison of the computed results and experimental results for two compressive plateimpact tests (BORO-9 is offset by 1.0 ls for clarity). The compression tests (BORO-9 and BORO-10) are provided by

Alexander et al. [21] and use a copper impactor and a borosilicate

target backed by lithium fluoride. The particle velocity is presented as a function of time recorded at the borosilicate-lithium

fluoride interface. For both compressive tests there is reasonable

agreement between the computed and experimental results. A few

comments should be noted regarding the computed wave profiles;

the ramping of the initial elastic wave is due to a softening of the

bulk modulus, the hugoniot elastic limit (HEL) has a magnitude

of approximately up 0.6 km/s, and the increases in the particle

velocity (at approximately 3 ls for BORO-10 and at 4 ls for

BORO-9) are a result of wave reflections at the impactor-target

interface.

4.2 Interface Defeat and High Velocity Penetration. Figure 8

presents computed results for a gold projectile impacting a borosilicate target with a copper buffer attached to the impact surface.

The buffer is included to attenuate the impact shock and produce

gradual loading on the glass. The computed results produce

Transactions of the ASME

results for two plate-impact tests

penetration at Vs 900 m/s. This is consistent with the test results

provided by Anderson et al. [26].

Behner et al. [25] performed experiments using no buffer (gold

rod impacting bare glass) producing penetration at much lower

impact velocities. For these experiments the penetration velocity

was determined using a series of flash x-rays and are presented as

a function of impact velocity as shown in the lower portion of

Fig. 9. Also shown are the computed penetration velocities for

Vs 900 m/s and Vs 2400 m/s. The computed penetration velocity is slightly low compared to the test data at Vs 900 m/s, but is

in closer agreement at Vs 2400 m/s. In the top portion of Fig. 9,

the computed results show material damage at 30 ls (for Vs 900

m/s) and at 10 ls (for Vs 2400 m/s). Behner et al. [25] also provides flash x-ray images and high-speed photographs at similar

times and impact velocities as those presented in the top portion

of Fig. 9. A comparison of the computed responses to the x-ray

and optical images yield the following observations: The computed and experimental cavity sizes were generally in good agreement for both impact velocities (as defined by the flow of the high-

rod impacting a borosilicate target with a copper buffer at

V 5 800 m/s and V 5 900 m/s

gold rod impacting bare borosilicate glass

larger and less uniform cavity, the higher impact velocity produced

a smaller more uniform cavity. Both the computed and experimental results produced a significant amount of glass fragments moving

out from the impact surface (although there appeared to be more

fragments produced in the experiments than in the computations).

Lastly, the outer edge of the experimental targets expand radially

outward during penetration, but the computed results did not (this

could be due to the computations being performed in 2D axisymmetry where radial cracking cannot occur).

4.3 Steel Projectiles Impacting Thin Glass Targets. Anderson

et al. [14] performed experiments using a pointed steel projectile

impacting thin plates of borosilicate glass at three different scale

sizes. For the largest scale (scale 1.0) the projectile was 12.7

mm in diameter and 38.1 mm long (0.50-cal) and the target was

21.0 mm thick and 457.2 mm square. For the smaller scales

(scale 0.75 and 0.44) both the projectile and target plates were

scaled accordingly. The experimental results produced some significant findings: The targets appeared stronger as the scale was

reduced (particularly at the lower impact velocities); glass is very

strong producing significant projectile erosion; and there appears

to be a change in the glass behavior at approximately Vs 500

600 m/s, which produced a discontinuity in the Vs-Vr curve (this is

also where the maximum projectile erosion occurs). The computations focused primarily on the 0.50-cal experiments (scale 1.0),

although the 0.22-cal (scale 0.44) was also used to investigate

the scale effect.

Figures 10 and 11 present computed and experimental results

for steel projectiles impacting thin glass targets. Figure 10 shows

the computed results (showing material damage) for three impact

SEPTEMBER 2011, Vol. 78 / 051003-7

Fig. 10 Comparison of computed and experimental results for a steel projectile impacting borosilicate glass

velocities using the 0.50-cal projectile. At Vs 300 m/s the projectile exits the target with a very low velocity of 22 m/s and there

is a large spall cone produced on the rear target surface. There

also has been some erosion of the projectile. At Vs 400 m/s and

500 m/s the projectile exits the target at a much higher exit velocity and with less projectile erosion. The targets appear similar,

exhibiting large cone cracks that propagate from the target mid-

section to near the rear surface. The lower right portion of Fig. 10

presents a comparison of the residual velocity as a function of

impact velocity for the computed and experimental results. The

computed exit velocities are in good agreement at Vs 400 m/s

and for Vs > 600 m/s, but the targets are too strong for Vs < 400

m/s. The computed results also do not capture the target response

for 500 m/s Vs 600 m/s where the maximum projectile

Fig. 11 Comparison of computed results for a steel projectile impacting borosilicate glass at

two scales

this velocity regime and then suddenly appears much weaker at

Vs > 600 m/s. Although the computed results do not capture this

response, it may be possible to produce better agreement using a

different set of constants (specifically T, tfail, Dint and Dsurf). General comparisons can also be made regarding the computed and

experimental post-mortem targets. The tested targets consistently

produced rear surface spall cones and a significant amount of radial and circumferential cracks emanating from the impact location (although the cracking was significant, the targets remained

intact). The computed targets also produced rear surface spall

cones, but the cracking was much less than what was observed

experimentally (this could be due to the computations being performed in 2D axisymmetry where radial cracking cannot occur).

Figure 11 demonstrates the capability to compute size effects.

Computed results are presented for the 0.50-cal (scale 1.0) and

the 0.22-cal (scale 0.44) projectile for Vs 300 m/s and 400

m/s. At 300 m/s, the 0.50-cal projectile exits the target at

Vr 22 m/s but the smaller scale 0.22-cal projectile is stopped

(there is also significantly more projectile erosion). As the

impact velocity is increased the computed size effect diminishes

as shown at Vs 400 m/s. The ability for the computations to

produce size effects is due to the time-dependent features in the

glass model. Smaller scale events happen in a shorter time period resulting in larger strain rates for the smaller scale. The

strain rate effect in the ductility (Cf), the strain rate effect in the

strength (C), and the finite time-to-fail (tfail), all contribute to

making smaller scales stronger.

model for glass subjected to large strains, high strain rates and

high pressures. This new glass model has an intact strength and a

failed strength that are dependent on the pressure and the strain

rate, damage softening or time-dependent softening that transitions the strength from intact to failed, thermal softening, a constant or variable shear modulus, the effect of the third invariant, a

pressure-volume relationship that includes permanent densification and bulking, and damage that is accumulated from plastic

strain, pressure and strain rate. The intact strength is also dependent on the location of the material (whether it is in the interior, on

the surface or adjacent to failed material). Significant features of

the model are the ability to compute size effects (smaller is stronger), surface effects, and high internal tensile strength.

Several features of the model were illustrated using a simple

(single-element) problem. Computations were also presented for

more complex, high-velocity-impact conditions using preliminary

constants for borosilicate glass determined from the literature.

The computed results demonstrate the ability of the model to produce reaseonable results for a broad range of impact conditions.

Acknowledgment

This work was performed for the U. S. Army RDECOMTARDEC under Contract No. W56HZV-06-C-0194. The authors

would like to thank D. Templeton and R. Rickert (U. S. Army

TARDEC) and to C. Gerlach (Southwest Research Institute) for

their contributions to this work. The authors would like to especially thank C. Anderson, Jr. for his helpful discussions and experimental work in support of this effort.

References

[1] Bridgman, P. W., 1948, The Compression of 39 Substances to 100,000 kg/

cm2, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 76(3), pp.

5587.

[2] Bridgman, P. W. and Simon, I., 1953, Effects of Very High Pressures on

Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 24(4), pp. 405413.

[3] Uhlmann, D. R., 1973, Densification of Alkali Silicate Glasses at High Pressure, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 13, pp. 8999.

[4] Rouxel, T., Ji, H., Hammouda, T., and Moreac, A., 2008, Poissons Ratio and

the Densification of Glass Under High Pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100,

p. 225501.

[5] Sakka, S. and Mackenzie, J. D., 1969, High Pressure Effects on Glass, J.

Non-Cryst. Solids, 1, pp. 107142.

[6] Mackenzie, J. D., 1963, High-Pressure Effects on Oxide Glasses: I, Densification in Rigid State, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 46(10), pp. 461470.

[7] Rosenberg, Z., Yaziv, D., and Bless, S., 1985, Spall Strength of Shock-Loaded

Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 58(8), pp 32493251.

[8] Brar, N., Rosenberg, S., and Bless, S., 1991, Spall Strength and Failure Waves

in Glass, J. Phys. (Paris), 1, pp. 639634.

[9] Cagnoux, J., 1985, Deformation et Ruine dun Verre Pyrex Soumis a un Choc

Intense: Etude Experimentale et Modelisation du Comportement, Ph.D. thesis,

LUniversite de Poitiers.

[10] Cagnoux, J. and Longy, F., 1988, Spallation and Shock-Wave Behaviour of

Some Ceramics, J. Phys. (Paris), 49(9), pp. 310.

[11] Kanel, G. I., Bogatch, A. A., Razorenov, S. V., and Chen, Z., 2002,

Transformation of Shock Compression Pulses in Glass due to the Failure

Wave Phenomena, J. Appl. Phys., 92(9), pp. 50455052.

[12] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Orphal, D. L., Behner, T., and Templeton, D. W., 2009,

Failure and Penetration Response of Borosilicate Glass During Short-Rod

Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36, pp. 789798.

[13] Nie, X., Chen, W., Wereszczak, A., and Templeton, D., 2009, Effect of Loading Rate and Surface Conditions on the Flexural Strength of Borosilicate

Glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 92(6), pp. 12871295.

[14] Anderson, C. Jr., Weiss, C., and Chocron, S., 2009, Impact Experiments into

Borosilicate Glass at Three Scale Sizes, Southwest Research Institute, San

Antonio, TX, Technical Report No. 18.12544/018.

[15] Sun, X., Khaleel, M., and Davies, R., 2005, Modeling of Stone-Impact Resistance of Monolithic Glass Ply using Continuum Damage Mechanics, Int. J.

Damage Mech., 14, pp. 165178.

[16] Wereszczak, A. A., Kirkland, T. P., Ragan, M. E., Strong, K. T., Jr., and Lin,

H., 2010, Size Scaling of Tensile Failure Stress in a Float Soda-Lime-Silicate

Glass, International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 1(2), pp. 143150.

[17] Chocron, S., Anderson, C. E., Jr., Nicholls, E., and Dannemann, K. A.,

Characterization of Confined Intact and Damaged Borosilicate Glass, J. Am.

Ceram. Soc. (to be published).

[18] Simha, C. and Gupta, Y., 2004, Time-Dependent Inelastic Deformation of

Shocked Soda-Lime Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 96(4), pp. 18801890.

[19] Sundaram, S., 1993, Pressure-Shear Plate Impact Studies of Alumina Ceramics

and the Influence of an Intergranular Glassy Phase, Ph.D. thesis, Brown University, Providence, RI.

[20] Cagnoux, J., 1982, Shock-Wave Compression of a Borosilicate Glass up to

170 kbar, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1982, pp. 392296.

[21] Alexander, C. S., Chhabildas, L. C., Reinhart, W. D., and Templeton, D. W.,

2008, Changes to the Shock Response of Fused Quartz due to Glass Modification, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 13761385.

[22] Handin, J., Heard, H. C., and Magouirk, J. N., 1967, Effects of the Intermediate Principal Stress on the Failure of Limestone, Dolomite, and Glass at Different Temperatures and Strain Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 72(2), pp. 611640.

[23] Chen, W., 2010, Purdue University, private communication.

[24] Glenn, L. A., Moran, B., and Kusubov, A. S., 1990, Modeling Jet Penetration

in Glass, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA., Technical Report

No. UCRL-JC-103512.

[25] Behner, T., Anderson, C., Jr., Orphal, D., Hohler, V., Moll, M., and Templeton,

D., 2008, Penetration and Failure of Lead and Borosilicate Glass against Rod

Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 447456.

[26] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Behner, Th., Holmquist, T. J., Wickert, M., Hohler, V.,

and Templeton, D. W., 2007, Interface Defeat of Long Rods Impacting Borosilicate Glass, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics,

Tarragona, Spain, pp. 10491056.

[27] Johnson, G. R., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 2003, Response of Aluminum Nitride (Including a Phase Change) to Large Strains, High Strain Rates,

and High Pressures, J. Appl. Phys., 94(3), pp. 16391646.

[28] Frank, A. and Adley, M., 2007, On the Importance of a Three-Invariant Model

for Simulating the Perforation of Concrete Targets, Proceedings from the 78th

Shock and Vibration Symposium, Philadelphia, PA.

[29] Johnson, G. R. and Holmquist, T. J., 1994, An Improved Computational Constitutive Model for Brittle Materials, High Pressure Science and Technology

1993, S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Schaner, G. A. Samara, and M. Ross, eds., AIP,

New York, pp. 981984.

[30] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 1997,

Numerical Algorithms in a Lagrangian Hydrocode, Wright Laboratory, FL,

Technical Report No. WL-TR-1997-7039.

[31] Johnson, G. R., Beissel, S. R., and Stryk, R. A., 2002, An Improved Generalized Particle Algorithm that Includes Boundaries and Interfaces, Int. J. Numer.

Methods Eng., 53, pp. 875904.

[32] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Beissel, S. R., and Holmquist, T. J., 2002,

Conversion of Finite Elements into Meshless Particles for Penetration Computations Involving Ceramic Targets, Shock Compression of Condensed

Matter2001, M. D. Furnish, N. N. Thadhani, and Y. Horie, eds., AIP, New

York.

- Well TubingUploaded byRagu Navya Sree
- A Computational Consititutive Model for Concrete Subjected to Large Strains, High Strain Rates, And High PressuresUploaded byZhou Ping
- LS DYNA Basic CardsUploaded bymadblaster
- Erwin Kreyszig Advanced Engineering MathematicsUploaded byasmaa121
- Main Shaft Study 1 1Uploaded byAndi Setyo Budianto
- Design of knuckle jointUploaded byvikasporwal2605
- Steel Plate Ramp Design for Roll On Roll Off OperationUploaded bySanieBurhan
- Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams_ZhongUploaded byOthman Bouaziz
- 44 Palmstrom on RMi for Rockburst and SqueezingUploaded byBhaskar Reddy
- CE433.L03.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Junaid
- Fea2 Ansys Tutorial With Femap NeinastranUploaded byddrmekanik
- Rivet of Simulation On Solid Work 2016Uploaded byMhd Waskito
- 68 Palmstrom&Singh on Deformation ModulusUploaded byClovis Gonzatti
- mcleod_investigation_2013.pdfUploaded byChristian D. Orbe
- 98 Indrect TensileUploaded byyas
- mat_072r3.pdfUploaded bysvk_nt
- Tutorial No.5-Midterm RevisionUploaded bywaleedkhalillahmed
- 1-s2.0-S0734743X08000778-mainUploaded byfa.jamshidi
- Structural Modeling and Seismic Performance Analysis of Mehmet Aga Mosque in IstanbulUploaded byMuhammadFaysal
- 10.5923.j.jce.20130301.04Uploaded byMohammad Syarif Al Huseiny
- Joint TuteUploaded byMichael Nguyen
- ENGG317Uploaded byKartik Dhand
- Finite Element Analysis and Seismic RehabilitationUploaded byJaime Coronell
- bottle-study 1-1Uploaded byapi-253978194
- Frame Design FSAE ITALIA 10-Fsae Analtsis-1Uploaded byCharlie Tej
- Tolva Static 1 2Uploaded byNathaly Villacis
- CompressiveUploaded bynijah
- 1-s2.0-S1877705812024897-mainUploaded byShaileshRastogi
- Engineering BasicsUploaded byguravdr
- Binder 3Uploaded byKeerthana Mohan

- Annex to ED Decision 2017-025-RUploaded byEnrico Ruggiero
- CE353-CH9Uploaded byKenaouia Bahaa
- 222062_1262115377NM MarketPlace Jan 10 - Zone 5Uploaded byCoolerAds
- ieeeUploaded bymalik_pooja
- Physics Binder 1Uploaded byTbs Sisirakumara
- BoilerUploaded byRicardo Artunduaga
- HPhys Unit 02 BFPM Packet 2013Uploaded byKelly O'Shea
- Behavior of Carbon in Low Temperature Plasma Nitriding Layer of Austenitic Stainless Steel (2)Uploaded bymanishtub
- Group 5 - Iron BoardUploaded byMuhammadAliffAdnan
- Motor IvecoUploaded bymax_cortes1987
- Waste cooking oil an economical source for biodiesel: a reviewUploaded bytorrid64
- G1530-90010 0307 6890 Maintaining your GCUploaded bylizrb
- SPERRE After Sales Brosjyre 2015 WebUploaded byhao
- Abb Make Protection Coupler Type Nsd50Uploaded byNaveen
- Aircraft fuel systemsUploaded byDouglas Ndwiga
- Steam Turbine BasicsUploaded byDilip Yadav
- 14250A_ch2.pdfUploaded byfethiaktunc
- UploadedFile_130094862291499783Uploaded byAbhimanyu Mishra
- Hurricane Sandy Harvard CaseUploaded byClaudia Belman
- ASME BriefUploaded byDivyang Mistry
- Column InternalsUploaded bySonu Singh
- 4 Flash Fire Points by Cleveland Open CupUploaded byAs Mih
- 47N60 FCA MOSFET N-Channel.pdfUploaded byHưng HQ
- Magnum Manual Mtt20 PartsUploaded bybalajiboss005
- The Cracking and Reforming of Crude Oil Fractions PresentationUploaded byBrandeice Barrett
- FI-8000Uploaded byMiguel Angel Castro
- studentcompanion.co.za-Connecting Light Emitting Diodes LED to a PIC Microcontroller XC8.pdfUploaded byreemasajin
- lm566Uploaded byapi-3725139
- 3405PL733-W1-En Typical Installation of NPSUploaded bySURJIT SINGH
- Inertia and Fast FrequencyUploaded byMicky Arthur