materials

Article
Experimental and Numerical Investigations of
High-Speed Projectile Impacts on 7075-T651
Aluminum Plates
Jae-Wook Jung, Sang Eon Lee and Jung-Wuk Hong *
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
Daejeon 34141, Korea
* Correspondence: j.hong@kaist.ac.kr or jwhong@alum.mit.edu




Received: 6 August 2019; Accepted: 23 August 2019; Published: 26 August 2019


Abstract: Simulation of the material failure under high strain rate conditions is one of the most
difficult problems in the finite element analyses, and many researchers have tried to understand and
reproduce dynamic material fracture. In this study, we investigate a failure criterion that minimizes
the mesh dependency at high strain rates and incorporates the criterion into the Johnson-Cook
constitutive relationship by developing a user-defined material model. Impact tests were performed
using a gas-gun system in order to investigate the response of the 7075-T651 aluminum plate in
high-speed collision. On the other hand, numerical simulations are carried out by considering various
element sizes and the relationship between element size and failure strain is inversely obtained using
numerical results. By accommodating the relationship into the damage model and implementing in
the user-defined material model, mesh dependency is significantly reduced, and sufficient accuracy is
achieved with alleviated computational cost than the existing damage model. This study suggests an
element size-dependent damage criterion that is applicable for impact simulation and it is expected
that the criterion is useful to obtain accurate impact responses with a small computational cost.

Keywords: failure strain; high-speed impact; gas-gun system; finite element method; 7075
aluminum alloy

1. Introduction
An impact is defined as a mechanical process that involves the collision of two or more bodies.
The relevant engineering has a wide range of applications, such as the safety assessment of buildings
and nuclear reactor vessels, the assessment of the crashworthiness of vehicles, the protection of
cargo and barriers, and the design of military vehicles and armor systems. As opposed to static or
conventional dynamic loading, forces created by collisions are exerted and removed in an extremely
short time duration. Penetration is described as the entrance of an object into a target body without
passing through the body, resulting in the embedment of the striker and the formation of a crater,
whereas perforation is defined as the complete escape of the target after impact.
Numerous experimental and numerical studies on impact phenomenon have been conducted
by many researchers. Backman and Goldsmith studied a comprehensive survey of the mechanics of
penetration of projectiles into targets [1]. An empirical formula for determining projectile penetration
into steel barriers is proposed and a method for determining the ballistic limit for penetrating a target
from penetration depth is presented [2]. Johnson et al. conducted research on the quasi-static piercing
of metal plates [3,4]. Corbett et al. researched the penetration and perforation of plates and cylinders
by free-flying projectiles traveling at sub-ordnance velocities [5]. A numerical analysis of the ballistic
perforation of an impactor through steel plates was performed by Lee et al. using the peridynamic

Materials 2019, 12, 2736; doi:10.3390/ma12172736 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 2736 2 of 15

method [6]. Garcia et al. investigated the impact behavior of polymer composites [7] and Garcia
and Trendafilova proposed an approach to predict the damage caused by impact loads in composite
structures [8]. In addition to ballistic impacts, research on aircraft impact that can cause significant
damage has also been actively conducted since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Lee et al. conducted an
evaluation of the collision of commercial aircraft [9], as well as the military aircraft impact [10].
The dynamic behavior of materials is different from the static behavior because the stiffness and
inertia of the material affects the mechanical behavior. In particular, the yield stress and hardening
phenomenon depend on the strain rate. To implement the effect of the strain rate in numerical material
models, various studies have been carried out. One of the techniques to apply the strain rate effect
to the material model is controlling the properties of the plastic region of the material. To apply the
strain rate effect to the material model, the technique of scaling the plastic range by the strain rate
is employed [11,12]. The Johnson-Cook material model introduces the dimensionless parameter of
the strain rate to determine the plastic behavior of materials and the behavior of the plastic region is
determined by the strain rate [11]. For performing the impact or blast failure where large deformation
occurs during a short period, it is essential to describe the material failure. The material model is
used together with the erosion algorithm for describing material failure [13], and the failure strain
is used as a representative failure criterion. It is essential to select the appropriate value of failure
strain in order to perform numerical analyses accurately. However, various failure strain values have
been applied in other studies [14,15], which means that the failure strain values vary depending on
the researcher or numerical model. Therefore, the failure strain is not fixed to a specific value but
has various values depending on the analysis conditions, such as the strain rate and the element size.
The failure strain is known to be dependent on the element size of the finite element model [15,16] and
small changes in the failure strain cause a substantial effect on the numerical result [17]. The effect of
element size on failure criterion has been investigated in various fields. Alsos et al. investigated the
influence of the element size on the failure strain for finite element analysis about resistance to the
penetration of stiffened plates [18]. Gang and Kwak studied the failure criterion that can minimize
mesh dependency of blast simulation on reinforced concrete [19]. Villavicencio et al. confirmed the
dependence of the failure strain on the element size for impact simulation on circular aluminum
plates [20]. Grag and Abolmaali performed numerical analyses by varying the failure criterion
according to the element size in the analysis of the reinforced concrete box culverts [21] and Ehlers
applied element length-dependent failure strain in fracture of the thin circular plate [22]. Raimondo et
al. proposed a mesh size independent failure model in the impact analysis of composite laminates [23].
The 7000 series of aluminum alloys, which are investigated in this study have various advantages,
such as being lightweight, having high strength, and an excellent machinability, and are used in various
fields, such as the commercial, military, and aviation sectors [24,25]. 7075 aluminum alloy is the highest
strength alloy of aluminum, with high fracture toughness and low fatigue crack growth. The alloy is
durable with a strength comparable to steel and has an excellent fatigue strength and machinability.
However, 7075 aluminum alloy has a lower resistance to corrosion than many other aluminum alloys.
The first 7075 was developed in secret by a Japanese company, Sumitomo Metal, in 1943 [26]. 7075 was
eventually used for airframe production in the Imperial Japanese Navy.
In this study, we propose a damage criterion that minimizes mesh dependency and enables efficient
impact simulations. We implement the Johnson-Cook constitutive relationship in the user-defined
material model in LS-DYNA and applied the criterion in the subroutine of the material model.
Numerical simulations are conducted to observe the effects of element size and failure strain on the
perforation response depending on the strain rate. Experimental studies on high-velocity impact
against the 7075-T651 aluminum target were carried out. In high-speed impact tests, projectiles were
propelled at different initial velocities onto the aluminum plates of two different thicknesses. By
comparing the residual velocity after perforation with the test results, the element size and failure strain
yielding the same residual velocities with experiment results are inversely calculated. Consequently,
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 3 of 15

the relationship between the element size and failure strain is applied to the damage model, and we
verify the efficiency and accuracy of the damage model.

2. Material Model

2.1. Johnson-Cook Material Model

The aluminum plate is constructed using the simplified Johnson-Cook model. The Johnson-Cook
material model represents the constitutive relationship for metals and is widely used to describe the
dynamic behavior of the materials, such as impact and penetration. The advantage of this material
model is that it is relatively easy to determine the material constants [27]. In addition, the Johnson-Cook
model has been applied to various commercial finite element analysis software because of its low
computational cost due to the simple form [28]. The flow stress σ y of the model is expressed as:
 . ∗
σ y = (a + bεp n ) 1 + c ln ε (1 − T∗m ) (1)
.
where a, b, c, n, and m are the user-defined parameters, εp is the effective plastic strain, ε∗ is the effective
plastic strain rate, and T∗ is defined as T∗ = (T − Troom )/(Tmelt − Troom ) [29]. The parameter m
is ignored in the simplified Johnson-Cook model. If excessive deformation occurs during the finite
element analysis, the analysis becomes unstable, or the computational cost significantly increases.
To solve this problem, a technique of removing the elements with excessive deformation has been
used, and the failure strain is used as one of the criteria for the removal. The failure strain ε f in the
Johnson-Cook model is expressed by:
 . ∗
ε f = (D1 + D2 exp D3 σ∗ ) 1 + D4 ln ε (1 + D5 T∗ ) (2)

where Di are constants and σ∗ is the triaxiality of stress.

2.2. Element Dependent Failure Strain

During the collision, the kinetic energy of the projectile is transferred to the strain energy of the
target, and the projectile proceeds with the residual kinetic energy in the perforation failure mode.
Therefore, the factors influencing the strain energy transfer to the target affect the residual velocity
of the projectile. The failure strain affects the strain energy transferred. The reason is that the strain
energy accumulates until the strain of the element reaches the failure strain. Also, the size of the
element affects the volume of the removed elements and strain energy of the target. In order to achieve
a high accuracy for the simulation, sufficiently small elements and a substantial computational cost are
essential. However, there is a limitation on the applicable element size according to the simulation
scale and, therefore, the appropriate value of the failure strain should be determined by the element
size. In this study, we propose a failure strain criterion incorporating the impact velocity and element
size (element dependent failure strain: EDFS) to accurately evaluate the impact response regardless of
changes in element size as:  ∗  ∗
ε f = v∗ ev − 1 e−h (3)

where e is Euler’s number, v∗ is a dimensionless parameter of the initial velocity, and h∗ is a dimensionless
parameter of the element size. The initial velocity vi and the element size h are normalized by the
reference velocity vref and the reference size href , respectively, as v∗ = vref /vi , and h∗ = h/href .

2.3. User Defined Material Model (UMAT) for LS-DYNA

The material model for impact simulation has been implemented into LS-DYNA, a commercially
explicit dynamic finite element code. LS-DYNA has a UMAT option where a user can implement a
new material model as a subroutine. The Johnson-Cook constitutive relationship is implemented in
UMAT for LS-DYNA in order to incorporate the damage criterion with the Johnson-Cook constitutive
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 4 of 15

relationship. At each time step, the equation of motions for the dynamic system are calculated at the
integration points of each element. The strain increment is determined by the calculated displacement
of the node and is used as the variable for the UMAT subroutine. The stress increment at each time
step is calculated using the stress update algorithm according to the strain increment. In this process,
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15
the internal variables of the constitutive model are also updated.
step is calculated using the stress update algorithm according to the strain increment. In this process,
3. Impact Test Using Gas-gun System
the internal variables of the constitutive model are also updated.
3.1. Experimental Setup
3. Impact Test Using Gas-gun System
A gas-gun system located at Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT),
shown 3.1.in
Experimental
Figure 1a,Setupwas utilized for the high-speed impact test. The gas-gun is comprised of a
high-pressure chamber
A gas-gun that located
system can pressurize
at Koreanitrogen
Institute gas to theEngineering
of Civil working pressure 2000 psi
and Building and a 40 mm
Technology
(KICT),
diameter shown in The
gun-barrel. Figure 1a, wassystem
gas-gun utilizedisfor the high-speed
fabricated impact chamber
to a vacuum test. The gas-gun
that hasisthe
comprised of
inner diameter
a high-pressure
1000 mm and lengthchamber
1485 mm, thatand
can the
pressurize
jig frame nitrogen
to fixgas
an to the working
aluminum pressure
target 2000 psi
is located in and a 40
the chamber.
mm diameter
The aluminum gun-barrel.
plate The gas-gun
was installed system
to the steel is fabricated
frame set in thetovacuum
a vacuumchamber
chamberas that has the
shown in inner
Figure 1b,
diameter 1000 mm and length 1485 mm, and the jig frame to fix an aluminum target is located in the
and the projectiles fired through the gas-gun by releasing gas pressure momentarily. The material
chamber. The aluminum plate was installed to the steel frame set in the vacuum chamber as shown
properties of the 7075-T651 aluminum are summarized in Table 1. The gas-gun is capable of propelling
in Figure 1b, and the projectiles fired through the gas-gun by releasing gas pressure momentarily.
a 200The
g projectile
material at speed up
properties oftothe
400 m/s. Thealuminum
7075-T651 projectileare set summarized
consists of ainwarhead
Table 1. made of steelisand a
The gas-gun
sabotcapable
made of polycarbonate, as shown in Figure 1c. The steel warhead has a diameter
of propelling a 200 g projectile at speed up to 400 m/s. The projectile set consists of a warhead of 36 mm and a
thickness
madeof of15 mm
steel and
and weighs
a sabot 120ofg.polycarbonate,
made The sabot hasasashown grooveininFigure
the shape ofsteel
1c. The a cylinder
warhead onhas
theafront
face to mountofthe
diameter 36 warhead,
mm and a and is made
thickness of 15ofmm 40 and
mmweighs
in diameter andsabot
120 g. The 80 mm hasin length in
a groove sothe
that it can be
shape
fired of a cylinder
through theon the front
barrel. face toto
In order mount
minimizethe warhead, and is made
the influence of 40 mm
of various in diameter
variables and 80 mm
of geometric shape,
in length so that it can be fired through the barrel. In order to minimize the
such as nose and projectile shapes, the cylindrical projectile, which is the simplest form, is used for influence of various
variables
the impact of geometric
tests. shape, such
Each aluminum as nose
target plateandwasprojectile
installedshapes, thejigcylindrical
to the frame in projectile,
the vacuum which is
chamber,
the simplest form, is used for the impact tests. Each aluminum target plate was installed to the jig
and the movement of the projectile propelled from the gas-gun was recorded through the side window
frame in the vacuum chamber, and the movement of the projectile propelled from the gas-gun was
using a high-speed camera (Phantom V711, Vision Research, NJ, USA). The videos were recorded at
recorded through the side window using a high-speed camera (Phantom V711, Vision Research, NJ,
20,000 fps with
USA). a resolution
The videos of 1088atby20,000
were recorded 400 in fpsgrayscale.
with a resolution of 1088 by 400 in grayscale.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 1. (a) Gas-gun system, (b) vacuum chamber, (c) projectile set, and (d) high-speed camera
Figure 1. (a) Gas-gun system, (b) vacuum chamber, (c) projectile set, and (d) high-speed camera
(Phantom V711).
(Phantom V711).
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 5 of 15

Table 1. Material properties of 7075-T651 aluminum.

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
Density Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Ratio Yield Strength Ultimate Strength
Table 1. Material properties of 7075-T651 aluminum.
2700 kg/m3 70 GPa 0.3 520 MPa 572 MPa
Density Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Ratio Yield Strength Ultimate Strength
2700 kg/m3 70 GPa 0.3 520 MPa 572 MPa
3.2. Impact Tests on 7075-T651 Aluminum Plates
3.2. Impact
Impact Tests
tests on 7075-T651
using Aluminum
the gas-gun systemPlates
were carried out on 7075-T651 aluminum plates of 400-mm
width, 400-mm height,
Impact tests and
using the5-gas-gun
or 10-mm thicknesses,
system respectively.
were carried We performed
out on 7075-T651 aluminum5platesimpactof tests
400- for
eachmmtarget thickness with different impact velocities. Initial and residual velocities
width, 400-mm height, and 5- or 10-mm thicknesses, respectively. We performed 5 impact tests are measured
by observing the thickness
for each target travel distance of the impact
with different projectile per each
velocities. frame
Initial using images
and residual captured
velocities from the
are measured
high-speed camera.
by observing The initial
the travel distancevelocity was measured
of the projectile asframe
per each 152.2 using
m/s when
images the projectile
captured fromwas
thepropelled
high-
withspeed camera.
the gas The initial
pressure of 120velocity
psi, andwasby measured as 152.2
increasing m/s pressure
the gas when the projectile
to 1500 psi,wasthe
propelled
initial with
velocity
the gas pressure of
increased to 372.8 m/s. 120 psi, and by increasing the gas pressure to 1500 psi, the initial velocity increased
to 372.8 m/s.
Experimental results are fitted to a model suggested by Lambert [30] to represent the residual
velocity Experimental results
of the projectile as aare fitted toof
function a model
impactsuggested
velocity, by
as Lambert
shown in [30] to represent
Figure 2. Thethe residual
ballistic limits
velocity of the projectile as a function of impact velocity, as shown in Figure 2. The ballistic limits are
are obtained as 132.7 and 194.2 m/s for 5 and 10 mm thickness plates, respectively. The images after
obtained as 132.7 and 194.2 m/s for 5 and 10 mm thickness plates, respectively. The images after
perforation captured by the high-speed camera are shown in Figures 3 and 4, and the measured initial
perforation captured by the high-speed camera are shown in Figures 3 and 4, and the measured initial
and residual velocities are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Videos of the impact tests are provided as
and residual velocities are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Videos of the impact tests are provided as
Supplementary
Supplementary materials of of
materials Video
VideoS1–S8.
S1–S8.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Initial
Figure and
2. Initial residual
and residualvelocities
velocitieswith
with curve fit for
curve fit for(a)
(a)55and
and(b)
(b)1010
mmmm thick
thick aluminum
aluminum plates.
plates.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 3. Perforationsthrough
3. Perforations through 55 mm
mm 7075-T651
7075-T651plates showing
plates showingthe residual velocities
the residual of (a) 111.2,
velocities of (a)(b)
111.2,
(b) 144.4, (c) 276.2, and (d) 348.3 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocities of (a) 163.2, (b) 187.4,298.8,
144.4, (c) 276.2, and (d) 348.3 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocities of (a) 163.2, (b) 187.4, (c) (c) 298.8,
and and (d) 372.8
(d) 372.8 m/s.
m/s.
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 6 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4.4. Perforations
Perforationsthrough
through 1010mm mm 7075-T651
7075-T651 plates
plates showing
showing residual
residual velocities
velocities of (a)
of (a) 91.5, (b) 91.5,
128.2,(b)
(c)
128.2, and
218.1, (c) 218.1, andm/s
(d) 301.2 (d)by
301.2 m/s byatprojectiles
projectiles at initial
initial velocities velocities
of (a) of215.5,
200.9, (b) (a) 200.9, (b) 215.5,
(c) 264.9, (c)346.8
and (d) 264.9,m/s.
and
(d) 346.8 m/s.
Table 2. Initial and residual velocities of projectiles (tpl = 5 mm).
Table 2. Initial and1 residual velocities
Case 2 of projectiles
3 (𝑡 = 54 mm). 5
Case (m/s)
Initial Velocity 127.0 1 163.2 2 187.4 3 298.8 4 372.8 5
Residual Velocity (m/s)
Initial Velocity (m/s) - 111.2
127.0 144.4
163.2 276.2
187.4 348.3
298.8 372.8
Residual Velocity (m/s) - 111.2 144.4 276.2 348.3
Table 3. Initial and residual velocities of projectiles (tpl = 10 mm).
Table 3. Initial and residual velocities of projectiles (𝑡 = 10 mm).
Case 1 2 3 4 5
Case (m/s)
Initial Velocity 150.6 1 200.9 2 215.5 3 264.9 4 346.8 5
Residual
Initial Velocity(m/s)
Velocity (m/s) - 91.5
150.6 128.2
200.9 218.1
215.5 301.2
264.9 346.8
Residual Velocity (m/s) - 91.5 128.2 218.1 301.2
The polycarbonate sabot was destroyed at the front surface of the target during the collision,
The polycarbonate
and only the steel warheadsabot was destroyed
breaks through theat target
the front
andsurface of the
proceeds targetthe
toward during the collision,
rear side in the caseand
of
only the steel warhead breaks through the target and proceeds toward the rear side in the
perforation. The perforation failure modes were observed at the impact velocity of equal or more than case of
perforation.
163.2 m/s for The
5 mm perforation failure
thickness and modes
200.9 were
m/s for observed
10 mm at theand
thickness, impact velocity ofmode
the penetration equaloccurs
or moreat
than 163.2 m/s for 5-mm thickness and 200.9 m/s for 10-mm thickness, and the penetration
the lowest velocity for each thickness (127.0 m/s for 5 mm thickness and 150.6 m/s for 10 mm thickness). mode
occurs at the lowest velocity for each thickness (127.0 m/s for 5-mm thickness and 150.6 m/s for 10-
mm
4. thickness).
Numerical Simulations

4.1. NumericalSimulations
4. Numerical Model and Impact Simulations
In order to investigate the impact tests numerically, finite element simulations are carried out. With
4.1. Numerical Model and Impact Simulations
a nonlinear finite element program, LS-DYNA, projectiles and target plates are discretized with 8-node
solidInelements.
order toThe plastic-kinematic
investigate the impact model
tests and the simplified
numerically, finiteJohnson-Cook model [29,31]
element simulations are used
are carried out.
as material
With models
a nonlinear for the
finite cylindrical
element projectile
program, LS-DYNA,and targets, respectively.
projectiles and target Because projectiles
plates are had with
discretized little
deformation
8-node solid during the The
elements. collision, the projectile model
plastic-kinematic is constructed
and theby a simple Johnson-Cook
simplified plastic materialmodel
model[29,31]
which
has a Young’s
are used modulus
as material of 200
models forGPa, Poisson’s ratio
the cylindrical of 0.3,
projectile andand yield respectively.
targets, stress of 710 MPa. The
Because material
projectiles
constants in Equation during
had little deformation (1) are listed in Tablethe
the collision, 4 by referring
projectile to the results
is constructed byina [32].
simple The projectile
plastic set
material
consists of a steel
model which has awarhead
Young’sand a polycarbonate
modulus of 200 GPa,sabot in theratio
Poisson’s test, of
whereas
0.3, andonly thestress
yield steelofwarhead
710 MPa. is
modeled for the
The material numerical
constants in simulation.
Equation (1) Toare
make the projectile
listed in Table 4mass quantity identical
by referring to the in
to the results experiment,
[32]. The
the total mass
projectile of the projectile
set consists of a steelset is given
warhead andto the numerical model
a polycarbonate sabotofinthe
thesteel
test,warhead
whereas by modifying
only the steel
the mass density.
warhead is modeled for the numerical simulation. To make the projectile mass quantity identical to
the experiment, the total mass of the projectile set is given to the numerical model of the steel warhead
by modifying the mass density.
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 7 of 15

Table 4. Parameters for simplified Johnson-Cook model for 7075-T651 aluminum plate.

Parameter a b n c
Value 5.20 × 108 4.77 × 108 0.52 0.001

We use the 8-node solid elements for all of the numerical models with the constant stress solid
element formulation. The projectile is discretized with 2592 solid elements, and the number of elements
for the target plate model is summarized in Tables 5 and 6. The targets are discretized with different
sizes of elements to investigate the effect of the element size on impact simulations. To alleviate the
computational
Materials 2019, 12, cost,
x FORthe inner
PEER part of the target (Figure 5b) is modeled with fine elements and is attached
REVIEW 7 of 15
to the outer part (Figure 5c) discretized with coarse elements (element size is 1.25 mm). The locations
of the nodes in the
Table inner and for
4. Parameters outer parts are
simplified not identical
Johnson-Cook because
model the element
for 7075-T651 size of
aluminum the inner part
plate.
varies. Therefore, the surface to surface contact condition [33] is used to attach the inner part to the
Parameter a b n c
outer part regardless of the nodal position. The element size of the inner part is considered as 0.31,
Value 5.20E8 4.77E8 0.52 0.001
0.50, 0.63, 0.83, and 1.25 mm to include 4 to 16 elements in the thickness direction for the 5 mm-thick
plates and 8 to 32 elements for 10 mm-thick plates. A total of 40 numerical models are constructed
We use the 8-node solid elements for all of the numerical models with the constant stress solid
considering two thicknesses of the plates, four impact velocities for each thickness, and five element
element formulation. The projectile is discretized with 2592 solid elements, and the number of
sizes. In order to describe the boundary condition of the plate mounted in the frame jig, all nodes in
elements for the target plate model is summarized in Tables 5 and 6. The targets are discretized with
the area where the plate and the jig meet are constrained. The area is 2 cm from the outer edge of the
different sizes of elements to investigate the effect of the element size on impact simulations. To
plate and is shown in Figure 5a. The required time step is determined by the material properties and
alleviate the computational cost, the inner part of the target (Figure 5b) is modeled with fine elements
the size of the element and is constantly updated during the simulation as the material deforms [33].
and is attached to the outer part (Figure 5c) discretized with coarse elements (element size is 1.25
All simulations are set to use the value of 0.9 times the required time step for stable analysis.
mm). The locations of the nodes in the inner and outer parts are not identical because the element
size of the inner part varies. Therefore,
Table the surface
5. The number to surface
of elements for 5 mmcontact condition [33] is used to attach
plate model.
the inner part to the outer part regardless of the nodal position. The element size of the inner part is
considered Component
as 0.31, 0.50, 0.63,Outer Part 1.25 mm to include 4 to 16
0.83, and Inner Part in the thickness direction
elements
for theElement
5 mm-thick Size plates
(mm) and 8 to 32 elements0.31
1.25 for 10 mm-thick
0.50 plates.
0.63A total of 40 numerical
0.83 1.25 models
Number of Elements 22,400 409,600 100,000 51,200 21,600
are constructed considering two thicknesses of the plates, four impact velocities for each thickness, 6400
and five element sizes. In order to describe the boundary condition of the plate mounted in the frame
jig, all nodes in the area Tablewhere6.the
Theplate
numberandofthe jig meet
elements aremm
for 10 constrained.
plate model.The area is 2 cm from the
outer edge of the plate and is shown in Figure 5a. The required time step is determined by the material
Component Outer Part Inner Part
properties and the size of the element and is constantly updated during the simulation as the material
deforms Element Sizesimulations
[33]. All (mm) 1.25
are set to use 0.31
the value of 0.50
0.9 times0.63
the required0.83time step1.25
for stable
Number of Elements 44,800 819,200 200,000 102,400 43,200 12,800
analysis.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Numerical
Numerical models
models of
of (a)
(a) projectile
projectile and
and target
target plate,
plate, (b) inner part,
(b) inner part, and
and (c)
(c) outer
outer part
part of
of the
the
target plate.
target plate.

Figure 6 shows the result

Table of numerical
5. The numberanalysis where
of elements for 5the
mmprojectile collides with a 10 mm thick
plate model.
aluminum plate at an initial velocity of 200.9 m/s, and the simulation takes 1080 s with the element size
Component Outer Part Inner Part
of 0.63 mm. The physical behavior of the perforation process is represented by numerical simulations.
Element Size (mm) 1.25 0.31 0.50 0.63 0.83 1.25
In the first step, the overall bend of the plate occurs as the projectile pushes the target in the direction of
Number of Elements 22,400 409,600 100,000 51,200 21,600 6400
impact. As the mass in front of the projectile is accelerated by the projectile and the elements near the
Table 6. The number of elements for 10 mm plate model.

Component Outer Part Inner Part

Element Size (mm) 1.25 0.31 0.50 0.63 0.83 1.25
Number of Elements 44,800 819,200 200,000 102,400 43,200 12,800
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 8 of 15

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

shear area are damaged, the elements beyond the critical failure strain are removed, and the formed
plug
and is separated
the formed
Materials from
plug
2019, 12, x FOR isthe target. As
separated
PEER REVIEW thethe
from projectile penetrates
target. As the target,
the projectile the elements
penetrates of the
the target, the plate
8 of 15are
elements
eroded in a circular
of the plate are eroded shape.
in a circular shape.
and the formed plug is separated from the target. As the projectile penetrates the target, the elements
of the plate are eroded in a circular shape.

𝑡 = 0.0 (ms) 𝑡 = 0.1 (ms)

𝑡 = 0.0 (ms) 𝑡 = 0.1 (ms)

𝑡 = 0.2 (ms) 𝑡 = 0.3 (ms)

𝑡 = 0.2 (ms) 𝑡 = 0.3 (ms)

𝑡 = 0.4 (ms) 𝑡 = 0.5 (ms)

𝑡 = 0.4 (ms) 𝑡 = 0.5 (ms)
Figure6.6. Impact
Figure Impact response
response of
of aa 10
10 mm
mm thick
thick aluminum
aluminum plate
plate by
by aa projectile
projectile with
withan
aninitial
initialvelocity
velocityof
of
Figure
200.9 m/s 6. Impact
with theresponse
element of a
size 10
of mm
0.63
200.9 m/s with the element size of 0.63 mm. thick
mm. aluminum plate by a projectile with an initial velocity of
200.9 m/s with the element size of 0.63 mm.
4.2.
4.2. Failure
Failure Strain
Strain Value
Value for
for Residual
Residual Velocity
Velocity
4.2. Failure Strain Value for Residual Velocity
The
The values
values of of the
the failure
failure strain
strain are
are obtained
obtained through
through iterative
iterative simulations
simulations so so that
that thethe residual
residual
Theare
velocities values of the
identical failure
with the strain
test are obtained
results. The through
changes in iterative
the failure simulations
strain so thaton
depending the residual
element size,
velocities are identical with the test results. The changes in the failure strain depending on element
velocities
impact are
velocity, identical
and plate with the test results. The changes in the failure strain depending on element
size, impact velocity, and thicknesses are summarized
plate thicknesses are summarized in Figure 7. From7.the
in Figure Fromvariation of the failure
the variation of the
size, itimpact
strain, is found velocity,
that theand platestrain
failure thicknesses
is are summarized
inversely proportional intoFigure
the 7. From
element theand
size variation
impact of the
velocity.
failure strain, it is found that the failure strain is inversely proportional to the element size and impact
failure strain, it is found that the failure strain is inversely proportional to the element size and impact
The valueThe
velocity. of failure
value strain for simulating
of failure accurate residual
strain for simulating accurate velocity
residualgradually
velocitydecreases
gradually as decreases
the element as
velocity. The value of failure strain for simulating accurate residual velocity gradually decreases as
size,
the and thesize,
element impact and velocity
the impact increases
velocity and is sensitive
increases and istosensitive
small element
to small and low impact
element and low velocity.
impact
the element size, and the impact velocity increases and is sensitive to small element and low impact
However,
velocity. the failurethe strain hardly changes even when thewhen
element size varies if the impact velocity
velocity.However,
However, thefailurefailure strain
strain hardly changes
hardly changes even
even when the theelement
element size
size varies
varies if the
if the impact
impact
is higher
velocity than
is 250
higher m/s.
than In
250 the
m/s.comparison
In the of
comparison the failure
of the strains
failure between
strains the
between 5 mm
the and
5 mm 10
andmm-thick
10 mm-
velocity is higher than 250 m/s. In the comparison of the failure strains between the 5 mm and 10 mm-
targets
thick with
targets similar
with impact
similar velocities
impact shown
velocities in Figure
shown 8,
in the failure
Figure 8, strain
the
thick targets with similar impact velocities shown in Figure 8, the failure strain varies similarly
varies
failure similarly
strain variesregardless
similarlyof
the thickness
regardless
regardlessofofthe of the plate.
thethickness The
thickness of failure
of the strain
the plate. significantly
The failure
plate. The failurestrain decreases
strainsignificantly by increasing
significantlydecreases
decreases the
byby element
increasing
increasing size at
thethe
relatively
element
elementsize low
sizeatvelocities,
atrelatively
relativelyaslowshown
low in Figure
velocities,
velocities, as 8a, and
as shown
shown inthe
in failure
Figure
Figure strain
8a,and
8a, andthe decreases
the failure
failure as the
strain
strain impact as
decreases
decreases velocity
as the
the
increases.
impact
impactvelocityThe change
velocityincreases. of the
increases.The failure
The change strain
change of the is relatively
the failure
failurestrain sensitive
strainisisrelatively if the element
relativelysensitive
sensitive is very
if the
if the small,
element
element which
is very
is very
implies
small, that
small,which
which the failurethat
implies
implies strain
that theshould
the failure be
failure carefully
strain
strain should
should handled
becarefully
be when
carefully using small
handled
handled when
when elements.
using
using small
small elements.
elements.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure7.7.Failure
Figure Failurestrain
strain by
by the change
change of
ofelement
elementsize. (a)𝑡 tpl==5 5mm
size.(a) mmand
and(b)(b)𝑡 tpl= =1010
mm.
mm.
Figure 7. Failure strain by the change of element size. (a) 𝑡 = 5 mm and (b) 𝑡 = 10 mm.
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 9 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Comparison of failure strains at similar impact velocities for the plates of thicknesses 5 mm
Comparison of
Figure 8. Comparison of failure
failure strains
strains at
at similar
similar impact velocities for the plates of thicknesses 5 mm
and 10 mm. Failure strins by (a) impact velocities at 187.4 and 200.9 m/s and (b) impact velocities at
and 10 mm. Failure
Failure strins
strins by
by (a)
(a) impact
impact velocities
velocities at
at 187.4
187.4 and
and 200.9
200.9 m/s and (b) impact velocities at
346.8 and 372.8 m/s.
346.8 and 372.8 m/s.

4.3.
4.3. The
The Relationship
Relationship Between
Between Element
Element Size
Size and
and Failure
Failure Strain
Strain with Various Impact Velocity
4.3. The Relationship Between Element Size and Failure Strain with Various Impact Velocity
Figure
Figure 99 represents
represents the comparison between failure strain values values from
from iterative simulations
simulations and
and
Figure 9 represents the comparison between failure strain values from iterative simulations and
Equation
Equation (3). The reference velocityv𝑣ref ininEquation
reference velocity Equation (3)(3)
is is determined
determined as as 110.0
110.0 m/sm/s
thatthat minimizes
minimizes the
Equation (3). The reference velocity 𝑣 in Equation (3) is determined as 110.0 m/s that minimizes
the error for all eight cases, and the reference element size ℎ is determined as the
error for all eight cases, and the reference element size h is determined as the unit length in mm scale unit length in
the error for all eight cases, and the reference elementrefsize ℎ is determined as the unit length in
mm scaleThe
(1 mm). (1 mm).
curvesThe curves
from from (3)
Equation Equation (3) adequately
adequately express theexpress
tendencytheoftendency of strain
the failure the failure strain
depending
mm scale (1 mm). The curves from Equation (3) adequately express the tendency of the failure strain
depending
on the element on the
sizeelement size and
and impact impact
velocity velocityThe
variation. variation. Theand
analytical analytical
numericalandvalues
numerical
are invalues
good
depending on the element size and impact velocity variation. The analytical and numerical values
are in good agreement in all eight cases considering both thicknesses and impact
agreement in all eight cases considering both thicknesses and impact velocities. The difference between velocities. The
are in good agreement in all eight cases considering both thicknesses and impact velocities. The
difference
the analyticalbetween
valuethe
andanalytical valuevalue
the numerical and the numericallarge
is relatively valuebecause
is relatively large because
the change the change
of the failure strain
difference between the analytical value and the numerical value is relatively large because the change
of the failure
caused by the strain
changecaused by the change
of the element of the
size is more elementinsize
sensitive is more
the case sensitive
of low impact in the case
velocity. of low
Although
of the failure strain caused by the change of the element size is more sensitive in the case of low
impact
there are velocity. Althoughin
slight differences there are slight differences
the low-velocity region, theinanalytical
the low-velocity region,values
and numerical the analytical and
tend to agree
impact velocity. Although there are slight differences in the low-velocity region, the analytical and
numerical valuesthicknesses
well at different tend to agreeandwell at different
various collisionthicknesses
velocities. and various collision velocities.
numerical values tend to agree well at different thicknesses and various collision velocities.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Comparison
Comparison of of numerically
numerically obtained
obtainedfailure
failurestrain
strainand
and damage model(𝑡(t == (a)
damagemodel (a) 55 mm
mm and
and
Figure 9. Comparison of numerically obtained failure strain and damage model (𝑡 pl = (a) 5 mm and
(b) 10 mm, v𝑣ref ==110.0
110.0 m/s).
m/s.).
(b) 10 mm, 𝑣 = 110.0 m/s).
5. Implementation
5. Implementation of of EDFS
EDFS toto UMAT
UMAT
5. Implementation of EDFS to UMAT
5.1. Implementation of EDFS in Johnson-Cook Constitutive Model
5.1. Implementation of EDFS in Johnson-Cook Constitutive Model
5.1. Implementation of EDFS in Johnson-Cook Constitutive Model
We implement the constitutive relationship of the Johnson-Cook material model in the UMAT.
We implement the constitutive relationship of the Johnson-Cook material model in the UMAT.
We implement
The material the constitutive
failure criterion, relationship
EDFS, is of the
defined in the Johnson-Cook
UMAT subroutinematerial model
during the in the
impact UMAT.
simulation
The material failure criterion, EDFS, is defined in the UMAT subroutine during the impact simulation
The material failure criterion, EDFS, is defined in the UMAT subroutine during the impact
by taking the element size and the impact velocity as input variables. In order to verify the UMAT simulation
by taking the element size and the impact velocity as input variables. In order to verify the UMAT
by taking the
subroutine, element
tension andsize andsimulations
impact the impact are
velocity as input
performed for variables.
comparison Inwith
orderexisting
to verify the UMAT
Johnson-Cook
subroutine, tension and impact simulations are performed for comparison with existing Johnson-
subroutine,
model. As atension
result ofand impact simulations
comparing are performed
the stress-strain fortensile
curves of the comparison with the
simulation, existing Johnson-
Johnson-Cook
Cook model. As a result of comparing the stress-strain curves of the tensile simulation, the Johnson-
Cook model. As a result of comparing the stress-strain curves of the tensile simulation, the Johnson-
Cook model is simulated to be perfectly matched with UMAT as shown in Figure 10. In the impact
Cook model is simulated to be perfectly matched with UMAT as shown in Figure 10. In the impact
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 10 of 15

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWmatched with UMAT as shown in Figure 10. In the impact simulation 10 of 15 10 of 15
model is simulated to be perfectly
withsimulation
a 5 mm thickwithaaluminum
a55mm
mmthick plate
thick and the
aluminum impact
plate and velocity of 215.5 m/s, the time the
historieshistories
of residual
simulation with aluminum plate and the
the impact
impactvelocity
velocityofof215.5
215.5m/s,
m/s, thetime
time histories
velocities almost identical in both cases, in
and residual velocities are 126.4 and 126.6 m/s for Johnson-Cook
ofofresidual
residual velocities
velocities almost
almost identical
identical both
in both cases,
cases, and
and residual
residualvelocities
velocitiesare
are126.4
126.4and
and126.6
126.6m/s
m/s forfor
model and UMAT,
Johnson-Cookmodel respectively.
modelandandUMAT,
UMAT, respectively.
respectively.
Johnson-Cook

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 10. 10. Comparison
Comparison betweenthe
between theJohnson-Cook
Johnson-Cook model
modelandandUMAT:
UMAT: (a)(a)
stress-strain curves
stress-strain of the
curves of the
Figure
tensile10. Comparison
simulation and between
(b) thevelocities
residual Johnson-Cook
of the model simulation
impact and UMAT: (a) astress-strain
with 10 mm thickcurves of the
aluminum
tensile simulation and (b) residual velocities of the impact simulation with a 10 mm thick aluminum
tensile and
simulation and (b) residual velocities of the impact simulation with a 10 mm thick aluminum
plateplate
and 264.9264.9
m/sm/s
of of
thethe initialvelocity.
initial velocity.
plate and 264.9 m/s of the initial velocity.
5.2. 5.2.
Comparative
Comparative Studies
Studies with
withJohnson-Cook
Johnson-CookDamage Model
Damage Model
5.2. Comparative Studies with Johnson-Cook Damage Model
We We verify thethe
verify effectiveness
effectivenessand andefficiency
efficiency of of the failure
failurecriteria,
criteria,EDFS,
EDFS, through
through thethe comparative
comparative
studystudyWebetween
betweenverify the
EDFS
EDFS effectiveness
andand Johnson-Cookand efficiency
Johnson-Cook damage
damage of the failure
model.
model. Impactcriteria,
Impact EDFS, through
simulations
simulations areare the out
carried
carriedcomparative
for two
out for two
study between
thicknesses of EDFS
aluminum and Johnson-Cook
plate and four damage
impact model.
velocities Impact
thicknesses of aluminum plate and four impact velocities per each thickness, and the accuracythe
per each simulations
thickness, are
and carried
the accuracyout for
of two
of the
thicknesses
solution andof aluminum
computational plate and
efficiency fourare impact velocities
investigated. The per each
parameters
solution and computational efficiency are investigated. The parameters for the Johnson-Cook damage thickness,
for the and the
Johnson-Cook accuracydamageof the
solution
model areanddetermined
computational as 𝐷efficiency
= 0.096,are𝐷investigated.
= 0.049, 𝐷 The = parameters
3.465, 𝐷 =for 0.016, and 𝐷 = 1.099
the Johnson-Cook damage
by
model are determined as D1 = 0.096, D2 = 0.049, D3 = 3.465, D4 = 0.016, and D5 = 1.099
referring
model are to the previous
determined 𝐷 = [32].
as study 0.096,The𝐷value of 𝑣 𝐷in EDFS
= 0.049, = 3.465, is 110𝐷 m/s,
= which
0.016, is and 𝐷 = 1.099
determined fromby
by referring to the previous study [32]. The value of vref in EDFS is 110 m/s, which is determined from
the parametric
referring study in Section
to the previous study [32].4.3. The value of 𝑣 in EDFS is 110 m/s, which is determined from
the parametric study in Section 4.3.
The residual
the parametric studyvelocities
in Section of the
4.3.impact simulations for 5 mm aluminum plates using the EDFS and
The residual damage
Johnson-Cook velocities of the
model areimpact
summarizedsimulations for 5 mm
in Figures aluminum plates using using
the EDFS and
The residual velocities of the impact simulations for 511 mm and 12. Impact
aluminum simulations
plates using the EDFS bothand
Johnson-Cook damage
the Johnson-Cook model
model and are summarized
EDFS predict the inresidual
Figuresvelocity
11 and 12. over Impact simulations using both the
Johnson-Cook damage model are summarized in Figures 11 and 12. the entire
Impact range. However,
simulations using the both
Johnson-Cook
error
the Johnson-Cookmodel
of the residual and
model EDFS
velocity
and EDFS predict
from the the residual
Johnson-Cook
predict velocity
the residual model over the
increases
velocity entire
over theas the range.
element
entire range. However,
size the
increases,
However, error
the
of the
and
errorresidual
the
of the velocity
velocity
residual from thefrom
is predicted
velocity toJohnson-Cook
be lower than the
the Johnson-Cook model
impact increases Inasthe
tests.increases
model the element
case
as of
thelow size
impact
element increases,
velocity
size and
(𝑣 the
increases,
velocity is predicted
= 163.2
and the to
m/s), theiserror
velocity be of
lower
predicted theto than
EDFS the
model
be lower impact tests.
is relatively
than the Inlarge
impact thetests.
case ofthe
compared
In lowcase
impact
to the velocity
Johnson-Cook
of low impact i =model.
(vvelocity
163.2 (𝑣m/s),
The
the= error reason is that when the impact velocity is not significantly higher
163.2 m/s), the error of the EDFS model is relatively large compared to the Johnson-Cook model. is
of the EDFS model is relatively large compared to the than
Johnson-Cook the ballistic
model. limit,
The the
reason
that residual
Thewhen
reason velocity
the is thatvaries
impact sensitively
velocity
when the is notwith
impact the failure
significantly
velocity strain.
higher
is not In
thanthethe
significantly other casesthan
ballistic
higher except thefor
limit, the the lowlimit,
residual
ballistic impact
velocity
the
velocity,
varies
residual the
sensitively EDFS
velocitywith model
varies predicts
thesensitively
failure strain. the residual
withIn the the velocity
otherstrain.
failure much
cases In more
except accurately
for the
the other than
lowexcept
cases impact the Johnson-Cook
forvelocity,
the low the impactEDFS
modelmodel, and the
predicts theeffect of element
residual velocitysizemuch
is alsomore
much accurately
smaller. than the Johnson-Cook model, and the
velocity, the EDFS model predicts the residual velocity much more accurately than the Johnson-Cook
model,
effect and thesize
of element effectis of element
also muchsize is also much smaller.
smaller.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Cont.

Materials 2019, 12, 2736 11 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure
Figure
Figure 11.Comparison
11.11. Comparison
Comparison betweenimpact
between
between impacttest
impact test and
test and numerical
numericalanalysis
analysisat
analysis an
atat initial
ananinitialvelocity
velocity
initial ofof(a)
velocity (a)163.2,
of 163.2,
(a) 163.2,
(b)187.4,
(b)(b) 187.4,
187.4, (c)298.8,
(c)(c) 298.8,
298.8, and and
and (d)
(d)
(d) 372.8
372.8
372.8 m/s(t(𝑡(𝑡 ===555mm).
m/s
m/s mm).
mm).
pl

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 12. 12. Initial
Initial and and residualvelocities
residual velocitiesof
of(a)
(a) Johnson-Cook
Johnson-Cook damage
damagemodel
modeland (b)(b)
and EDFS with
EDFS the the
with
Figure 12. Initial and residual velocities of (a) Johnson-Cook damage model and (b) EDFS with the
curve
curve fit fit from
from the the impact
impact tests
tests of of
5 5 mmaluminum
mm aluminum plates.
plates.
curve fit from the impact tests of 5 mm aluminum plates.
Figures
Figures 13 and13 and14 14 representsthe
represents thecomparison
comparison between
between EDFS
EDFSand andJohnson-Cook
Johnson-Cook model
model for for
10 mm10 mm
Figures 13 and 14 represents the comparison between EDFS and Johnson-Cook model for 10 mm
thickness plates. The residual velocity from Johnson-Cook model shows
thickness plates. The residual velocity from Johnson-Cook model shows significant differences significant differences withwith
thickness
the impactplates. The residual velocity from=Johnson-Cook model shows significant differences with
the impact test test at low
at low impactimpact velocity
velocity (vi (𝑣
= 200.9200.9 m/s),
m/s), andand even
even thethe failure
failure modemode is is contradictory
contradictory with
the impact
with the test As
test. at low
the impactvelocity
impact velocityincreases,
(𝑣 = 200.9 the m/s), and even
accuracy of the the failure mode
Johnson-Cook is contradictory
model improves,
thewith
test.the
Astest.
the impact
As the velocityvelocity
impact increases, the accuracy
increases, of the of
Johnson-Cook modelmodelimproves, but the
but the residual velocities are underestimated inthe
theaccuracy
overall range,theandJohnson-Cook
the element size improves,
dependency
residual
but velocities
the residual are underestimated in the overall range, and the element size dependency remains.
remains. On thevelocities
other hand, are the
underestimated
numerical resultsin the
of overall
EDFS arerange,
hardly and the element
affected by thesize dependency
element size in
Onremains.
the other On hand,
the the numerical
other hand, the results of EDFS
numerical resultsare
of hardly
EDFS affected
are hardly by the element
affected by the size in the
element impact
size in
the impact simulations for the 10 mm thick plates. EDFS predicts the residual velocity more precisely
simulations
the impact for the 10 mm
simulations for thick
the 10plates.
mm EDFS
thick predicts
plates. EDFS the residual
predicts the velocityvelocity
residual more precisely
more than the
precisely
than the Johnson-Cook model over the entire range and very accurately predicts the residual velocity,
Johnson-Cook
than
especially model
the Johnson-Cook
in overmodel
the high the entire
impact over range
the
velocity andrange
entire
range. very accurately
and predicts
very accurately
In summary, the the
EDFS predicts residual
model velocity,
the residual
predicts especially
velocity,
the relative
in especially
the high impact
accuracy of the velocity
in high impact
accurate range. Invelocity
summary,
velocity
residual range. thesummary,
In EDFS
regardless model
of the the predicts
elementEDFS the
model
size, whilerelative
predicts accuracy of the
the relative
the Johnson-Cook
accurate
accuracy
damageresidual
of thevelocity
model accurate
tends to regardless
residual of the the
velocity
underestimate element size,velocity
regardless
residual ofwhile the
andJohnson-Cook
the element while damage
size, element
shows the
size model tends
Johnson-Cook
dependent
to damage
results. model the
underestimate tends to underestimate
residual velocity andthe residual
shows velocity
element and shows results.
size dependent element size dependent
results.
One of the impact cases is selected to evaluate the effectiveness of the Johnson-Cook model
and EDFS by comparing the computation time and accuracy with element size changes as shown in
Figure 15. The Johnson-Cook model accurately predicts the residual velocity of a collision experiment
when the element size is small enough, but the error increases significantly compared to the EDFS when
the element size exceeds 0.6 mm. The Johnson-Cook model requires the element size of smaller than
0.6 mm in order to have an error of smaller than 5%, but the EDFS model ensures sufficient accuracy
regardless of the element size. Thus, using the EDFS model, numerical analyses are performed much
more efficiently while ensuring accuracy using large size of elements. To predict the residual velocity
in error by less than 5%, the Johnson-Cook model takes 6798 s in wall-clock time solved in parallel
with 4 threads by using the element size of 0.5 mm. On the other hand, the EDFS model predicts the
residual velocity in error by less than 5% using only the calculation time of 270 s solved in parallel with
4 threads using the 1.25 mm of the element size. A workstation which has Dual Intel ®Xeon(R) CPU
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 12 of 15

E5-2687W v2 @ 3.40 GHz of 32 threads and 64 GB memory was used to perform parallel processing.
Using the EDFS, it is possible to predict the residual velocity at the same accuracy with only 4%
of the computational cost compared to the Johnson-Cook damage model. Thus, numerical results
using the Johnson-Cook model requires a sufficiently small element size to ensure accuracy, but the
computational cost increases dramatically. If the EDFS model is used, it is possible to predict the
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
accurate residual velocity even with a small computational cost.

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure 13.
13. Comparison
Figure13.
Figure Comparison between
Comparison between impact
between impact test
impact test and
test and numerical
and numerical analysis
numerical analysis at
analysis at an
an initial
an initial velocity
initial velocity of
velocity of (a)
(a) 200.9,
(a) 200.9,
200.9,
(b) 215.5, (c) 264.9, and (d) 346.8 m/s (𝑡 = 10
(b) 215.5, (c) 264.9, and (d) 346.8 m/s (t = 10 mm).
(b) 215.5, (c) 264.9, and (d) 346.8 m/s (𝑡 = 10 mm).
mm).
pl

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 14.
14. Initial
Figure 14.
Figure Initial and
Initial and residual
and residual velocities
residual velocities of
velocities of (a)
of Johnson-Cook
Johnson-Cook damage
(a) Johnson-Cook
(a) damage model
damage model and
model and (b)
and EDFS
(b) EDFS
(b) with
EDFS with the
with the
the
curve fit
curvefit
curve from
fitfrom the
fromthe impact
theimpact tests
impacttests of
testsof 10
of10 mm
10mm aluminum
mmaluminum plates.
aluminumplates.
plates.

One
One ofof the
the impact
impact cases
cases is
is selected
selected to
to evaluate
evaluate the
the effectiveness
effectiveness ofof the
the Johnson-Cook
Johnson-Cook model
model and
and
EDFS
EDFS byby comparing
comparing the the computation
computation time
time andand accuracy
accuracy with
with element
element size
size changes
changes as as shown
shown in in
Figure
Figure15.
15.The
TheJohnson-Cook
Johnson-Cookmodel modelaccurately
accuratelypredicts
predictsthe
theresidual
residualvelocity
velocityof ofaacollision
collisionexperiment
experiment
when
when the
the element
element size size is
is small
small enough,
enough, but
but the
the error
error increases
increases significantly
significantly compared
compared to to the
the EDFS
EDFS
when
whenthe
theelement
elementsize sizeexceeds
exceeds0.6 0.6mm.
mm.The
TheJohnson-Cook
Johnson-Cookmodel modelrequires
requiresthetheelement
elementsize
sizeof
ofsmaller
smaller
than
than 0.6
0.6 mm
mm in in order
order to
to have
have anan error
error of
of smaller
smaller than
than 5%,
5%, but
but the
the EDFS
EDFS modelmodel ensures
ensures sufficient
sufficient
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 13 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

(a) (b)
Wall-clock time and residual velocity error versus element sizes using (a) the Johnson-Cook
Figure 15. Wall-clock
damage model and (b) the EDFS (𝑣i =
EDFS (v = 163.2
163.2m/s
m/sandand 𝑡tpl == 5 5mm).
mm).

6. Summary and Conclusions

6. Summary and Conclusions
In the finite element analysis, the accuracy of the numerical solution depends on the element
In the finite element analysis, the accuracy of the numerical solution depends on the element
size, and significant computational cost is essential to attain sufficient accuracy. For efficient and
size, and significant computational cost is essential to attain sufficient accuracy. For efficient and
accurate impact simulation, we propose an enhanced damage criterion. This criterion can alleviate
accurate impact simulation, we propose an enhanced damage criterion. This criterion can alleviate
computational costs in impact simulations while providing more accurate results than existing damage
computational costs in impact simulations while providing more accurate results than existing
criteria, and we verify the criterion by comparing the numerical results with the impact tests. Also,
damage criteria, and we verify the criterion by comparing the numerical results with the impact tests.
the damage criterion is combined with the Johnson-Cook constitutive relationship and implemented in
Also, the damage criterion is combined with the Johnson-Cook constitutive relationship and
UMAT of LS-DYNA for the usability of the damage criterion. Using a gas-gun system, impact tests
implemented in UMAT of LS-DYNA for the usability of the damage criterion. Using a gas-gun system,
were carried out to investigate the impact response of the 7075-T651 aluminum plate, and the test
impact tests were carried out to investigate the impact response of the 7075-T651 aluminum plate,
results are used as the reference data to verify the numerical model and damage criterion. Numerical
and the test results are used as the reference data to verify the numerical model and damage criterion.
models are constructed using various element sizes in order to evaluate the effect of the element size on
Numerical models are constructed using various element sizes in order to evaluate the effect of the
the impact simulation. The correlations among the failure strain, the impact velocity, and the element
element size on the impact simulation. The correlations among the failure strain, the impact velocity,
size are inversely obtained from numerical simulations by comparing the residual velocities with the
and the element size are inversely obtained from numerical simulations by comparing the residual
test results. It is found that the failure strain varies inversely with the element size and impact velocity.
velocities with the test results. It is found that the failure strain varies inversely with the element size
In particular, the sensitivity of the failure strain to the impact velocity significantly increases as the
and impact velocity. In particular, the sensitivity of the failure strain to the impact velocity
element size decreases and, therefore, the failure strain should be carefully determined when a small
significantly increases as the element size decreases and, therefore, the failure strain should be
element size is used. By applying the characteristic of the failure strain, which depends on the impact
carefully determined when a small element size is used. By applying the characteristic of the failure
velocity and element size, we have introduced an element-size dependent failure strain (EDFS) and the
strain, which depends on the impact velocity and element size, we have introduced an element-size
results show good agreement with experimental results regardless of the element size. To import EDFS
dependent failure strain (EDFS) and the results show good agreement with experimental results
in the subroutine of the material model, the Johnson-Cook constitutive relationship is implemented in
regardless of the element size. To import EDFS in the subroutine of the material model, the Johnson-
UMAT and the numerical results using UMAT are in good agreement with the existing Johnson-Cook
Cook constitutive relationship is implemented in UMAT and the numerical results using UMAT are
material model. Then, EDFS is imported in UMAT to implement a material model that combines
in good agreement with the existing Johnson-Cook material model. Then, EDFS is imported in UMAT
EDFS and Johnson-Cook configuration relationships. When using the Johnson-Cook damage model,
to implement a material model that combines EDFS and Johnson-Cook configuration relationships.
the accurate solution is obtained if we use a sufficiently small element size, but the computational
When using the Johnson-Cook damage model, the accurate solution is obtained if we use a
cost exponentially increases accordingly. The application of the EDFS allows the calculation time
sufficiently small element size, but the computational cost exponentially increases accordingly. The
to be reduced significantly because the numerical results are in good agreement with the results of
application of the EDFS allows the calculation time to be reduced significantly because the numerical
experiments even if the large element size is used. Using the damage criterion presented in this study,
results are in good agreement with the results of experiments even if the large element size is used.
efficient simulations can be carried out, ending up with a high accuracy as obtained without very
Using the damage criterion presented in this study, efficient simulations can be carried out, ending
fine discretization.
up with a high accuracy as obtained without very fine discretization.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/17/2736/s1,
Supplementary
Video Materials:
S1: Perforation The5 following
through are available
mm 7075-T651 online the
plate showing at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1,
residual velocity of 111.2Video
m/s byS1:projectiles
Perforationat
through
the initial5velocity
mm 7075-T651
of 163.2 plate showing
m/s, Video the residualthrough
S2: Perforation velocity5of
mm 111.2 m/s by plate
7075-T651 projectiles at the
showing theinitial velocity
residual of
velocity
of 144.4
163.2 m/sVideo
m/s, by projectiles at the initial
S2: Perforation velocity
through 5 mm of 7075-T651
187.4 m/s, Video S3: Perforation
plate showing through
the residual 5 mm 7075-T651
velocity of 144.4 m/splate
by
showing the residual velocity of 276.2 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocity of 298.8 m/s, Video S4:
projectiles at the initial velocity of 187.4 m/s, Video S3: Perforation through 5 mm 7075-T651 plate showing the Perforation
through 5 mm 7075-T651 plate showing the residual velocity of 348.3 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocity of
residual velocity of 276.2 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocity of 298.8 m/s, Video S4: Perforation through 5
372.8 m/s, Video S5: Perforation through 10 mm 7075-T651 plate showing the residual velocity of 91.5 m/s by
mm 7075-T651 plate showing the residual velocity of 348.3 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocity of 372.8 m/s,
Video S5: Perforation through 10 mm 7075-T651 plate showing the residual velocity of 91.5 m/s by projectiles at
the initial velocity of 200.9 m/s, Video S6: Perforation through 10 mm 7075-T651 plate showing the residual
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 14 of 15

projectiles at the initial velocity of 200.9 m/s, Video S6: Perforation through 10 mm 7075-T651 plate showing the
residual velocity of 128.2 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocity of 215.5 m/s, Video S7: Perforation through 10 mm
7075-T651 plate showing the residual velocity of 218.1 m/s by projectiles at the initial velocity of 264.9 m/s, Video
S8: Perforation through 10 mm 7075-T651 plate showing the residual velocity of 301.2 m/s by projectiles at the
initial velocity of 346.8 m/s.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.-W.J. and J.-W.H.; investigation, J.-W.J. and S.E.L.; methodology,
J.-W.H.; software, J.-W.J.; validation, J.-W.J. and S.E.L.; visualization, S.E.L.; writing—original draft, J.-W.J.;
writing—review and editing, J.-W.H.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the
Korea government (MSIT) (No.2018R1A2A1A05019453), and was also supported by a grant (19TSRD-B151228-01)
from Urban Declining Area Regenerative Capacity-Enhancing Technology Research Program funded by Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of Korean government.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Backman, M.E.; Goldsmith, W. The mechanics of penetration of projectiles into targets. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 1978,
16, 1–99. [CrossRef]
2. Kar, A.K. Residual velocity for projectiles. Nucl. Eng. Des. 1979, 53, 87–95. [CrossRef]
3. Johnson, W.; Ghosh, S.K.; Reid, S.R. Piercing and Hole-Flanging of Metal Sheets: General Study. Mem. Sci.
Rev. Met. 1980, 4, 585–606.
4. Johnson, W.; Chitkara, N.R.; Ibrahim, A.H.; Dasgupta, A.K. Hole flanging and punching of circular plates
with conically headed cylindrical punches. J. Strain Anal. 1973, 8, 228–241. [CrossRef]
5. Corbett, G.G.; Reid, S.R.; Johnson, W. Impact loading of plates and shells by free-flying projectiles: A review.
Int. J. Impact Eng. 1996, 18, 141–230. [CrossRef]
6. Lee, J.; Liu, W.; Hong, J.-W. Impact fracture analysis enhanced by contact of peridynamic and finite element
formulations. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2016, 87, 108–119. [CrossRef]
7. Garcia, C.; Trendafilova, I.; Zucchelli, A. The effect of polycaprolactone nanofibers on the dynamic and
impact behavior of glass fibre reinforced polymer composites. J. Compos. Sci. 2018, 2, 43. [CrossRef]
8. Garcia, C.; Trendafilova, I. Triboelectric sensor as a dual system for impact monitoring and prediction of the
damage in composite structures. Nano Energy 2019, 60, 527–535. [CrossRef]
9. Lee, K.; Han, S.E.; Hong, J.-W. Analysis of impact of large commercial aircraft on a prestressed containment
building. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2013, 265, 431–449. [CrossRef]
10. Lee, K.; Jung, J.-W.; Hong, J.-W. Advanced aircraft analysis of an F-4 Phantom on a reinforced concrete
building. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2014, 273, 505–528. [CrossRef]
11. Zerilli, F.J.; Armstrong, R.W. Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for material dynamics
calculations. J. Appl. Phys. 1987, 61, 1816–1825. [CrossRef]
12. Børvik, T.; Langseth, M.; Hopperstad, O.S.; Malo, K.A. Ballistic penetration of steel plates. Int. J. Impact Eng.
1999, 22, 855–886. [CrossRef]
13. Børvik, T.; Hopperstad, O.S.; Berstad, T.; Langseth, M. Numerical simulation of plugging failure in ballistic
penetration. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2001, 38, 6241–6264. [CrossRef]
14. Chen, G.; Li, J.; He, Y.; Ren, C. A new approach to the determination of plastic flow stress and failure initiation
strain for aluminum alloys cutting process. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2014, 95, 568–578. [CrossRef]
15. Krishnan, K.; Sockalingam, S.; Bansal, S.; Rajan, S.D. Numerical simulation of ceramic composite armor
subjected to ballistic impact. Compos. Part B Eng. 2010, 41, 583–593. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, K.; Wang, Z.; Tang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, G. Experimental and numerical analysis of laterally impacted
stiffened plates considering the effect of strain rate. Ocean Eng. 2015, 99, 44–54. [CrossRef]
17. Wiehahn, M.A.; Nurick, G.N.; Bowles, H.C. Some insights into the mechanism of the deformation and
tearing of thin plates at high strain rates incorporating temperature dependent material properties. WIT
Trans. Built Environ. 2000, 48, 35–46.
18. Alsos, H.S.; Amdahl, J.; Hopperstad, O.S. On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part II:
Numerical analysis. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2009, 36, 875–887. [CrossRef]
19. Gang, H.; Kwak, H.-G. A tensile criterion to minimize FE mesh-dependency in concrete beams under blast
loading. Comput. Concr. 2017, 20, 1–10.
Materials 2019, 12, 2736 15 of 15

20. Villavicencio, R.; Sutherland, L.; Soares, C.G. Numerical simulation of transversely impacted, clamped
circular aluminium plates. Ships Offshore Struct. 2012, 7, 31–45. [CrossRef]
21. Garg, A.K.; Abolmaali, A. Finite-element modeling and analysis of reinforced concrete box culverts. J. Transp. Eng.
2009, 135, 121–128. [CrossRef]
22. Ehlers, S. Strain and stress relation until fracture for finite element simulations of a thin circular plate.
Thin-Walled Struct. 2010, 48, 1–8. [CrossRef]
23. Raimondo, L.; Iannucci, L.; Robinson, P.; Curtis, P.T. A progressive failure model for mesh-size-independent FE
analysis of composite laminates subject to low-velocity impact damage. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2012, 72, 624–632.
[CrossRef]
24. Lee, W.-S.; Sue, W.-C.; Lin, C.-F.; Wu, C.-J. The strain rate and temperature dependence of the dynamic
impact properties of 7075 aluminum alloy. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2000, 100, 116–122. [CrossRef]
25. Senthil, K.; Iqbal, M.A.; Chandel, P.S.; Gupta, N.K. Study of the constitutive behavior of 7075-T651 aluminum
alloy. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2017, 108, 171–190. [CrossRef]
26. Yoshio, B. Extra super duralumin and successive aluminum alloys for aircraft. J. Jpn. Inst. Light Met.
(Sumitomo Light Met. Ind. Ltd. Jpn.) 2015, 39, 378–395.
27. Banerjee, A.; Dhar, S.; Acharyya, S.; Datta, D.; Nayak, N. Determination of Johnson cook material and failure
model constants and numerical modelling of Charpy impact test of armour steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2015,
640, 200–209. [CrossRef]
28. He, A.; Xie, G.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X. A comparative study on Johnson–Cook, modified Johnson–Cook and
Arrhenius-type constitutive models to predict the high temperature flow stress in 20CrMo alloy steel. Mater. Des.
2013, 52, 677–685. [CrossRef]
29. Johnson, G.R.; Cook, W.H. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain
rates and high temperatures. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, the Hague,
the Netherlands, 19–21 April 1983; Volnme 21, pp. 541–547.
30. Zukas, J.A.; Nicholas, T.; Swift, H.F.; Greszczuk, L.B.; Curran, D.R.; Malvern, L.E. Impact dynamics. J. Appl. Mech.
1983, 50, 702. [CrossRef]
31. Johnson, G.R.; Cook, W.H. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates,
temperatures and pressures. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1985, 21, 31–48. [CrossRef]
32. Jorgensen, K.C.; Swan, V. Modeling of armour-piercing projectile perforation of thick aluminium plates.
In Proceedings of the 13th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, MI, USA, 8–10 June 2014.
33. Hallquist, J.O. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual. 2007. Available online: http://lstc.com/pdf/ls-dyna_971_
manual_k.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2019).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).