ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Application of an improved contact algorithm for penetration

analysis in SPH
Songwon Seoa,, Oakkey Minb, Jaehoon Leea
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea
Received 22 April 2005; received in revised form 24 April 2007; accepted 25 April 2007
Available online 14 September 2007

Abstract

A numerical algorithm to analyze an elasto-plastic contact problem using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method is
proposed. In order to solve the contact problem with SPH when both bodies are deformable, a variational equation based on the virtual
work principle is derived and its solution is obtained by the penalty method. Methods to find the boundary particles and to determine the
boundary normal vector are reviewed to apply to the contact algorithm. In calculating the actual penetration and penetration rate, a
method that can determine the actual normal boundary vector through the contact relationship with a contact surface is proposed. A
numerical simulation is conducted to validate the proposed method in cylindrical coordinates. A steel ball 10 mm in diameter impacting a
thin steel plate of 1 mm thickness at a high velocity such as 200 m/s is chosen to verify that the contact algorithm can be applied to the
penetration problem. The final shape results obtained by the proposed contact algorithm are more similar to the experimental results
than the conventional SPH analysis results.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Contact algorithm; Penetration; Boundary vector; High velocity

1. Introduction smoothing length though two colliding bodies do not

Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), though origin-
ally developed for astrophysical applications, have also
been successfully applied to the problems of solid and fluid
mechanics. This method was proposed as an alternative to
mesh-based hydrocodes, which have drawbacks such as
mesh tangling, severe distortion at large deformations, and
increasing computational costs. Since SPH has no spatial
mesh to be distorted, it has the ability to handle large
deformations in solid mechanics [1–4]. However, when SPH
is extended to elasto-plastic problems with small deforma-
tions at lower velocities, we should consider the contact
properties because several problems still remain: ghost
stress and numerical instability (which result from uncon-
ditionally referring the information of particles within a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2123 2817; fax: +82 2 362 2736.
E-mail addresses: spacexman@hotmail.com (S. Seo),
minokey@yonsei.ac.kr (O. Min), hooni88@yonsei.ac.kr (J. Lee).
contact [5]), numerical fracture, and a separation of contact
particles due to an imaginary tensile force that resists
separation after impact between bodies.
There have been some efforts to resolve the deficiency of
particle behavior on the boundary and the study of a simple
contact problem. Randies et al. [1] reviewed the kernel sum
deficiency at boundaries and treated boundary conditions.
They proposed a more general treatment of the free surface
boundary condition based on an extension of the ghost
particles. Monaghan [6] handled the effects that a degree of
penetration and mixing of materials can cause at the
contact surface because SPH does not require the velocity
field to be single valued. Campbell et al. [5] checked whether
or not particles penetrate each other, and then judged
whether the contact force could be applied to each particle
by the penetration rate, which uses the concept of the
pinball algorithm proposed by Belytschko et al. [7].
Parshikov et al. [2] obtained the velocity and stress on an
interface using Riemann solutions instead of the mean

0734-743X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.04.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588 579

 rr  
value for velocity and stress between each particle, assum- dU ri 2X si I1
¼ 2 m j W c 2 ri  rj
ing that contacts occur independently as with fluid particles. dt h j ri I0
Contact problems are inherently non-linear and have a     
srr
j I0 þ I2 I1
variational inequality because the actual surface on which þ 2 ri  rj
these bodies meet is generally unknown a priori and has to be rj 2I 0 I0
  ! )
determined as part of the solution [8,9]. The penalty method syy I0  I2 srz srr
I
j i j 1
used as the solution technique in this study is used to convert þ 2 ri þ þ 2 zij þ Pij ,
rj 2I 0 r2i rj I 0
the inequality constraint into a variational equality on the
boundary. In this method, both a penetration and a ð4Þ
penetration rate are introduced and a method to determine
 rz  
their parameters is proposed. It is also described how to dU zi 2X si I1
determine normal vectors on the boundary, especially in ¼ 2 m j W c 2 ri  rj
dt h j ri I0
cylindrical coordinates, how to judge whether the actual   ! )
contact occurs or not, and how to reconstruct the actual srz
j I1 szz
i
szz
j
þ 2 ri  rj þ þ 2 zij þ Pij ,
boundary normal vector that is required to compute a real rj I0 r2i rj
penetration. A penetration problem is studied to validate
ð5Þ
whether the algorithm can be applied to a problem with
fracture in cylindrical coordinates. Body forces and the  rr   
traction enforced on bodies are ignored. dE i 2X si r I1
¼  2 m j W c 2 U i ri  rj
dt h j ri I0
  
2. The method I1 1 I2
þ U rj ri  rj 1 þ
I0 2 I0
2.1. Review of SPH theory rz
    
s I1 I1
þ i2 zij U ri  U rj þ U zij ri  rj
ri I0 I0
SPH is a Lagrangian method which uses particles instead zz yy

of a background mesh to compute the spatial derivative. s s I 0  I 2 Pij
þ i2 U zij zij  i2 U rj rj þ , ð6Þ
Physical quantities of each particle are calculated from the ri ri 2I 0 2
relation of neighbor particles using the kernel function for
where Wc is the 2D cylindrical kernel function, Ik
interpolation. Both the kernel approximation to estimate the
(k ¼ 0,1,2,y) is the modified Bessel function, zij ¼ zjzj,
physical quantities of a particle and the particle approxima-
Uijz ¼ UizUjz, and Pij is an artificial viscosity, which is
tion to convert an integral of a continuous system into the
introduced to reduce numerical oscillation occurring when
discrete form are used for numerical calculation [4].
two particles approach each other, suggested by Monaghan
Using the concept of unitary volume and kernel
and Gingold [11]. Libersky and Petschek [3] have for-
approximation to represent the form of particle approx-
mulated the elasto-plastic model in SPH in order to
imation, expressions for a function at any point X0, u(X0),
consider the strength of materials impacting under a
and its derivative are
velocity of about 2 km/s. Total stress sab, in which
X
n compressive stress is taken to be positive, is expressed in
uðxi Þ ¼ uðxj ÞW ðxi  xj ; hÞV j , (1) terms of a deviatoric stress tensor Sab and hydrostatic
j¼1
pressure P as follows:
X
n
sab ¼ Pdab  S ab , (7)
ruðxi Þ ¼ uðxj ÞrW ðxi  xj ; hÞV j , (2)
j¼1 where dab is Kronecker’s delta.
where W(x0x,h) is a kernel or smoothing function, h is a The equation of state (EOS) describes the relation-
smoothing length, and Vj represents the particle volume j. ship between pressure, density, and internal energy of a
The smoothing length controls the size of the compact material in a physical system. When the pressure is not too
support domain O. In order to analyze axisymmetric high, the Mie–Gruneisen equation [4] can be successfully
problems, the method proposed by Petschk et al. [10] is used to represent the deformation property of metallic
adopted. We can obtain the governing equations for the r materials.
and z directions using tensor transformation and the
symmetry of cylindrical coordinates:
   2.2. Elasto-plastic model
dri 2 X mj I1
¼  ri 2 W c U ri ri  rj
dt h j rj I0 The stress in a material during elastic deformation has
  the relationship of linear proportion to the strain, which is
I1 called Hooke’s law. A unique strain can thus be determined
þ U zij zij  U rj ri  rj , ð3Þ
I0 when a stress is given. However, once a material reaches the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
580 S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588

yield state exceeding the elastic state, the plastic deformation is the variation of admissible velocity satisfying both the
process represents history or a path-dependent phenomenon. velocity condition and the strain rate–velocity relation.
A material being deformed plastically under a multi-axial Integrating over the domain O and the boundary G, it is
stress condition transitions from elasticity to plasticity at the given as
limitation of combined stress. The von Mises yield criterion is Z Z
used to check the limitation and the exponential work sab;b dva dV þ rba dva dV
hardening model as the elasto-plastic constitutive model is O
Z O
Z
applied. Because a stress state computed during any load þ rv dv dV þ ðta  t̄a Þdva dA ¼ 0.
a a
ð9Þ
instant by an explicit method, for instance SPH, may not O G
strictly satisfy the yield condition, it is necessary to conduct
iterations to be able to satisfy the yield condition at a given Applying Gauss’ divergence theorem for the first term on
instant. The radial return method [12] regarded as a simple the left-hand side, we can obtain the equation of virtual
and efficient algorithm is adopted as the time integration of work. The penalty method is used to convert the inequality
the constitutive equation. constraint, which is caused by the kinematic constraint
The Prandtl–Reuss equation, called plastic flow theory and condition imposed on the contact problem, to an equality
known as the representative constitutive equation, is also constraint on the boundary. Therefore, the general varia-
used and is written as the following Eq. (8). This equation tion form can be written as the following equation, ignoring
assumes that the plastic strain increment is in proportion to the body force ba:
the deviatoric stress for an elasto-plastic material. Z Z
ab
dW ¼ sab dva;b dV þ rva dva dV
dp ¼ S ab dl, (8) O
Z O

p
where de denotes the plastic strain increment and dl þ ðl1 pn þ l2 pn Þna dv dG; ð10Þ
Gc
is a parameter that can be determined using the yield
criterion. where p is the penetration, p is the penetration rate, and l1
and l2 are the parameters for penetration and penetration
rate, respectively. Transforming the weak form of Eq. (10),
2.3. Contact theory
which is derived from the virtual work principle, into the
SPH formulation using the approximations in Eqs. (1) and
An interaction between contact bodies can be handled by
(2), we can represent it as
a particular algorithm called the slideline algorithm [13] in
numerical analysis. The main concept of this algorithm is to "
XN X X ab
impose the restriction that two bodies cannot occupy the vai rj W ij V j V i þ sj rW ij V j V i
same space at the same time. FEM or FDM imposes the i j2M i j2M i
3
condition of whether a penetration between finite element X
lattices whose consecutiveness is given on the contact þ ðl1 pn þ l1 pn Þni W ij Ai V j 5dvai ¼ 0, ð11Þ
surface occurs or not. However, SPH requires new contact j2M Bi c
conditions and consideration because the contact surface is
modeled by discontinuous particles. These characteristics where Mi and M Bi c denote the neighbor particles and
are illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. neighbor boundary particles within a 2-h distance of
The variational equation based on the virtual work particle i, respectively, and na is the boundary normal
principle can be derived to obtain the numerical formu- vector. Therefore, the momentum equation acting between
lation for SPH [14]. In order to obtain the weak form for two bodies in contact can be written as the following:
the contact problem, we can multiply the equation of
motion and the boundary constraint equation by dva, which mi vi ¼ Fint con
i  Fi , (12)

Fig. 1. Comparison of contact concept between FEM and SPH: (a) slideline contact algorithm in FEM and (b) contact in SPH.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588 581

where between two bodies contact using those vectors should be

X determined.
mi ¼ rj W c V j V i , (13) Determination of the boundary particles proposed by
j2M i
Sulsky [1] can be conveniently established by kernel
 rr   estimates of the ‘color’ or ‘kind’, denoted by c, of a body.
2 X si I1
F int;r
i ¼ m m
i j W c ri  r j A boundary is then indicated by
h2 j2M c r2i I0 X
rr      ci a cj mj W ij =rj : (17)
sj I0 þ I2 I1
þ 2 ri  rj j2M i
rj 2I 0 I0
! )
yy   The criterion for a boundary particle is that the inequal-
sj I0  I2 srz
i
srr
j I1
þ 2 ri þ þ 2 zij þ Pij , ity in Eq. (17) is sufficiently large so as to indicate either a
rj 2I 0 r2i rj I 0 boundary bordering empty space or a neighboring body of
ð14Þ a different ‘kind’ or ‘color’. It can be designated as a
 rz   boundary particle when the summation is less than
2 X si I1 0.85–0.90 compared with the original index value. If not,
F int;z
i ¼ 2 mi mj W c 2 ri  rj it may be considered as an interior particle, and then the
h j2M c ri I0
  ! ) boundary normal vector is set to zero.
srz
j I1 szz
i
szz
j If a particle is checked as a boundary particle, then we
þ 2 ri  rj þ þ 2 zij þ Pij ,
rj I0 r2i rj can determine its boundary normal vector. The normal
vector onto the boundary surface is computed by kerneling
ð15Þ
only for like materials as
( !
X rj C j ni ¼ ðrc=jrcjÞi ,
F con ¼ r Ci p
i
rj C j þ ri C i i
j2M Bi c where
  
Ei Ej 1 X
þ p ni W c A i V j , ð16Þ ðrcÞi ¼  cj mj rW ij =rj : (18)
Ei þ Ej d 0
j2M i
where C denotes local sound speed, ri density, Ei elastic
modulus, d0 an initial representative length of the particle, In cylindrical coordinates, boundary particles should be
and Ai, which is computed as 2prihi in the cylindrical checked and the boundary normal vector should be
analysis, the surface area (or line distance in 2D applica- calculated. Assuming that mirror particles with respect to
tions) associated with a contacted boundary particle. The the z-axis as illustrated in Fig. 2 (a) are referred to as
parameters for a penetration and a penetration rate in Eq. imaginary particles, Eq. (17) is applied to real particles and
(11), l1 and l2, can be obtained by the stress–strain imaginary particles, respectively, as follows:
relationship in the state of uniaxial stress and the elastic X X X
wave theory in ID, respectively, as in Eq. (16) [14]. Through cj mj W ij =rj ¼ cj W ij V j þ cj W ij V j , (19)
j2M i j2M R j2M Ii
these equations, we can obtain the acceleration of particle i

i,vi, using Eq. (12) and determine the velocity and position
by time integration.
2.4. Contact algorithm
Contact between particles is between two circles of radius
d/2, which is easily determined by checking the inter-
particle distance, and only the interaction of two particles is
considered at any one time. This approach adopted in this
paper has similarities with the pinball contact algorithm [7]
or Reimann solution [2]. This can be extended to hyper-
velocity large deformation analysis as well as to elasto-
plastic deformation, and it can utilize the properties of SPH
particles.
Whether boundary particles of two bodies are really in
contact or not must be determined to construct the
relationship between elasto-plastic bodies in SPH. The
boundary normal vectors for boundary particles of each
body should be calculated, and whether or not the particles
where MiR denotes real particles, MiI imaginary particles,
volume Vj is dr  dz, and Wij does not use the cylindrical
Gaussian type but 2D cubic B-spline type. Since the
imaginary particles are symmetrical to the z-axis, for the
imaginary particle j, the distance between particles is ri+rj
instead of rirj. If the boundary particle is detected through
the same method in 2D, we can determine the boundary
unit normal vector, similarly to Eq. (18).
ni ¼ ðrc=jrcjÞi ,
where
X X
ðrcÞi ¼  cj rW ij V j  cj rW ij V j . (20)
j2M R j2M Ii
i
The boundary normal vector determined by this method
in a cylindrical model is illustrated in Fig. 2(b). Once the
normal vector of a boundary is determined, it should be
checked whether boundary particles actually contact or not.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
582 S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588

Fig. 2. (a) Calculation of boundary normal vector in cylindrical coordinate. (b) Normal vectors on boundary of material (circle) in cylindrical coordinate.

Fig. 3. Detection of real contact: a case of (a) contact and (b) no contact.

For this purpose, the following criterion is first performed: where y denotes the angle formed with the normal
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
    vectors of particles i and j. If the angle obtained by
di dj 2 di þ dj 2 Eq. (22) is less than yc, the average normal vector of
jrij jp Max ; þ . (21)
2 2 2 the particle, nav, is computed as in Eq. (23a). If the
maximum among three values is rij  ni, then nav ¼ ni.
This criterion allows for unequal representative diameters
On the other hand, if the angle is larger than yc, it is
and for lateral offsets between approaching particles, like the
calculated as in Eq. (23b). If the contact surface is not
examples shown in Fig. 3. In this figure, (a) represents actual
very irregular, ycE701 is considered a reasonable criterion
contact, while (b) shows a case of no contact.
angle.
However, the above criterion is only to judge actual
The average normal vector determined by the above
contact and not to get the average normal vector nav, which
method is used to compute the contact force in Eq. (16). In
is the normal vector for an actual contact boundary. In this
this equation, the penetration is a quantity produced by
paper, the following method is suggested to determine this
moving particles from step n, at which they satisfy the
vector:
contact criterion, to step n+1. The penalty value will be
jyj ¼ ffðni ; nj Þ, (22) imposed only if it has a positive value. On the other hand, if

(i)
   
ni  nj ni  nj
jyjoyc if max rij  ni ; rij  nj ; rij  then nav ¼ ni ; nj ; , (23a)
jni  nj j jni  nj j

(ii) there is no penetration, contact force does not work

anymore. In the contact analysis in SPH, penetration p
ni  nj and penetration rate p for the contact between particles can
jyjXyc nav ¼ , (23b)
jni  nj j be computed by the following equations, which are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588 583

this moment, a launching valve is automatically moved

Fig. 4. Actual contact normal vector and penetration when contact
between particle and particle occurs.
to the back side by exhausting nitrogen gas with pressure
lower than the pressure of the inner vessel at the rear
of the launching valve. Finally, the propulsive power
that accelerates the ball is provided by a launching valve
that moves to the back side with the high-pressure nitro-
gen gas induced into the entrance of the accelerator tube,
where the ball is fixed. The accelerating ball receives the
expansive power of the high-pressure nitrogen gas, and the
ball flies in a direction of the specimen. The rigid wall is
placed in the rear of the specimen to receive the ball passing
through it.

3.2. Simulation and experiment

The impact of two identical cylindrical rods is first

simulated to see the contact accuracy of the algorithm in

Table 1
Analysis conditions for cylinder impact test by SPH

Analysis coordinate Cylindrical coordinate

Constitutive relation Elastic
Fig. 5. Schematic of the experimental setup for a rod impact test.
Equation of state Mie–Gruneisen EOS
Initial smoothing length (h) 0.1 mm
NPH (number of particles per 1.65
illustrated in Fig. 4: smoothing length)
Artificial viscosity coefficients 1.0, 1.0
pnav ¼ ðRi þ Rj  jrij  nav jÞ, (24) (a,b)
Total number of particles on each 200 EA
rod
pnav ¼ ðvi  vj Þ  nav , (25) Time increment (dt) 1.0 ns
where | | designates the absolute value, rij is the posi-
tion vector between particles i and j, and Ri and Rj
denote the radii of particles i and j, respectively. The normal Table 2
vector nj in Eq. (16) and the average normal vector nav Material properties and constants for Mie–Gruneisen EOS of iron and
determined in Eq. (23) can be substituted for the normal steel
vector nj. r0 C0 S G0 v E0 m0 Y0
(kg/m3) (m/s) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa)
3. Simulation and experiment
7850.0 3574.0 1.92 1.69 0.185 189.6 80.0 593.0

3.1. Experimental equipment

The experimental devices for a ball impact test are

composed of five main parts. The schematic of the ball
impact test used in this paper is shown in Fig. 5. The
accelerator part creates the propulsive power at the ball and
the acceleration tube, which receives the propulsive power,
induces straight line flight of the ball. The speed measure-
ment part measures the collision speed of the ball when it
impacts the specimen. The alignment base part ensures a
vertical front collision between the ball and the specimen.
And, the last part is a specimen and its fixed part.
The expansive power of nitrogen gas which is compressed
to high pressure is used as the propulsive power for flight.
Nitrogen gas is stored in an accelerator throughout a valve
connected to the nitrogen gas container and exhausts Fig. 6. Velocity–time histories at mid-particles for a rest rod in cylindrical
instantaneously when the solenoid valve is opened. In analysis.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
584 S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588

Fig. 7. Total stress–time histories at mid-particles for a rest rod in

cylindrical analysis. Fig. 9. Velocity profiles in elastic rods with kernel (RSPH) and contact
algorithm (CSPH).

Fig. 8. Comparison of average velocity between kernel (RSPH) and

contact (CSPH) algorithm in rod impact in cylindrical analysis.

Fig. 10. Configuration of a model for penetration analysis in cylindrical

coordinates: (a) dimensions of the model and (b) initial particle allocation.
cylindrical coordinates. The model used is a symmetrical
impact of two 20-mm-long, 1-mm-radius iron cylindrical
rods where 500 particles are placed. Each bar is given an Table 3
equal but opposite initial velocity of 10 m/s. Conditions of Analysis conditions for penetration test by SPH and model materials
the analysis listed in Tables 1 and 2 give the values of the Analysis condition (i) No contact algorithm
iron parameters for the Mie–Gruneisen equation of state. (conventional)
Because this model has a large L/D ratio, we can consider (ii) Contact algorithm (present)
that it may follow the 1D elastic wave propagation theory.
Fig. 6 shows that the velocity–time histories at mid-particles Constitutive model s ¼ Y0+Aen
Equation of state Mie–Gruneisen EOS
for one rod are very similar to the theory. Fig. 7 shows the Artificial viscosity a ¼ 2.5, b ¼ 2.5
total stress–time histories at mid particles for the same rod, Smoothing length (h) 0.2 mm
which has good agreement with the 1D result. Number of particle per h (NPH) 1.5
In 1D elastic wave propagation theory, the kinetic energy Total number of particles 3233 EA
of the impacting bodies exchanges mutually. The contact Pmin and zero criterion 13.0 GPa
Time increment (dt) 1.0 ns
duration for the two rods that have the same dimensions
and materials will be about 8.2 ms using the equation
Dt ¼ 2L/CL, where L is the length of the rod and CL is the
velocity of a longitudinal wave. The average velocity of
each rod is presented in Fig. 8. The curves with marks two impacting rods are illustrated in Fig. 9 at 12.0 ms after
represent the mean velocity without the contact algorithm, impact. In this figure, the contact surface is located at 0 mm
while the curves with solid lines show the mean velocity and there are two curves in each illustration. The curves
with the contact algorithm. with solid lines represent the SPH results without the
For a detailed analysis of elastic wave propagation and contact algorithm (RSPH), while the curves with dots show
kinetic energy transfer, the particle velocity profiles in the the results with the contact algorithm (CSPH).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588
Table 4
Material properties and constants for Mie–Gruneisen EOS of steel
r0 (kg/m3) C0 (m/s) S G0 v E0 (GPa)
7850.0 3600.0 1.90 1.70 0.30
Fig. 11. Comparison of the contact region at 5.0 ms: (left) conventional
SPH (RSPH) and (right) SPH with the contact algorithm (CSPH).
Without the contact algorithm, particles near the contact
surface in both rods have the same velocity, which means
that two die rods do not separate. On the other hand, the
two impact rods with the contact algorithm are separated
with opposite velocities since the particles in both rods have
no connection to each other.
A steel ball impacting a thin steel plate with high velocity is
selected in order to validate that the contact algorithm
proposed can be applied to the penetration problem.
Dimension and analysis conditions for the model used are
shown in Fig. 10 and listed in Table 3, respectively. A ball
with a diameter of 10 mm and a velocity of 200 m/s impacts
normal to the circular thin plate, whose thickness and
diameter are 1 and 178 mm, respectively. Both these materials
are steel, whose properties are the same as listed in Table 4.
Since a dynamic failure or a fracture is expected during
yielding, a criterion to check this is required. Numerical
fracture will occur under large strain because communica-
tion between neighbor particles is cut off due to the unique
quality of the SPH kernel method. Therefore, suitable
damage and fracture algorithms are required to incorporate
into SPH. As a criterion for SPH, the methods using Pmin,
shear damage, vector damage, and tensile damage exist.
The Pmin method compensates the pressure when it attains
the minimum tensile pressure Pmin as the limiting value. The
shear damage method defines the damage evolution thresh-
old equal to the static tensile strength and a time parameter
to control the rate of damage accumulation. Vector damage
has been developed to apply to multiple ply-laminated
composites subjected to impact or shock wave loading,
which may involve both shearing and tensile damage with
fracture. Also, tensile damage is a modified form of the
directionally dependent damage model, and is represented
as a time-dependent scalar that is carried on each particle
[1]. In this study, the Pmin method, which can be very easily
585
m0 (GPa) Y0 (MPa) A (MPa) n
200.0 77.0 600.0 275.0 0.36
installed in SPH, is used. The Pmin obtained by experiments
is postulated as 13.0 GPa [15] for the steel in this
simulation. If a pressure occurs lower than that of limiting
value, it is dropped to zero.
Fig. 11 shows the results that compare the conventional
SPH (RSPH) with SPH, which is added to the contact
algorithm (CSPH), in the contact region at 5.0 ms. In RSPH
cases, numerical fracture due to a tensile wave appears at
approximately 5.0 ms in the contact region. Artificial tensile
stress is also presented at a region not contacting with
particles belonging to a different material. This is caused by
referring unconditionally to the information of particles
within a smoothing length, and can make the contact delay.
In the analysis using CSPH, the contact between two
materials is shown to be maintained well. Figs. 12 and 13
illustrate the results by using the conventional SPH, and the
contact algorithm at progressive time steps, respectively.
The penetrated shape of the plate from experiment and the
results of the two analyses are compared in Fig. 14. This
comparison illustrates that the SPH implementation of the
contact algorithm can be used to simulate penetration of
the plate. The result of RSPH shows a little excessive
stretch, which is thought to result from the artificial tensile
force. The final deformed shape results obtained by the
contact algorithm are more similar to the experimental
results than the conventional SPH analysis results.
4. Conclusion
This paper presents an improved contact algorithm using
the penalty method in order to expand the SPH method to
an elasto-plastic problem with relatively small deformation.
As a simply elastic model, the impact of two identical
cylindrical rods with low velocity is first simulated to see the
contact accuracy of the algorithm in cylindrical coordi-
nates. The result of this simulation shows that the velo-
city–time histories and the total stress–time histories are
very similar to the theory, and the kinetic energy of the
impacting bodies exchanges mutually. A penetration
problem as another numerical model is considered, impact-
ing with a high velocity, 200 m/s. The contact algorithm
proposed was very stable in this simulation. The final
deformed shape results obtained by the contact algorithm
are more similar to the experimental results than the
conventional SPH analysis results. Therefore, the contact
algorithm proposed in this paper can be applied to pene-
tration with fracture. This algorithm has no artificial
contact or tensile force and can be expected to yield more
accurate results than conventional SPH.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
586 S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588

Fig. 12. Simulated penetration with time using conventional SPH (RSPH).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588 587

Fig. 13. Simulated penetration with time using the contact algorithm (CSPH).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
588 S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 578–588
Fig. 14. Comparison of simulated final deformed shapes and experimental (not to scale): (a) conventional SPH (RSPH), (b) SPH added to the contact
algorithm (CSPH), and (c) experimental results.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by Grant no. RO1-2001-00390-
0(2003) from the Korea Science & Engineering Foundation.
References
[1] Randies PW, Libersky LD. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: some
recent improvements and applications. Comput Method Appl Mech
Eng 1996;139:375–408.
[2] Parshikov AN, Medin SA, Loukashenko II, Milekhin VA. Improve-
ments in SPH method by means of interparticle contact algorithm and
analysis of perforation tests at moderate projectile velocities. Int J
Impact Eng 2000;24:779–96.
[3] Libersky LD, Petschk AG. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics with
strength of materials. In: Proceedings, The Next Free Lagrange
Conference, vol. 395, 1991. p. 248–57.
[4] Libersky LD, Petschek AG, Carney TC, Hipp JR, Allahdadi FA.
High strain lagrangian hydrodynamics; a three-dimensional SPH code
for dynamic material response. J Comput Phys 1993;109:67–75.
[5] Campbell J, Vignjevic R, Libersky L. A contact algorithm for
smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng
2000;184:49–64.
[6] Monaghan JJ. On the problem of penetration in particle methods.
J Comput Phys 1989;82:1–15.
[7] Belytschko T, Yeh I. The splitting pinball method for contact-impact
problem. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 1993;105:375–93.
[8] Czekanski A, Meguid SA, El-Abbasi N, Refaat MH. On the
elastodynamic solution of frictional contact problems using varia-
tional inequalities. Int J Numer Method Eng 2001;50:611–27.
[9] Simo JC, Laursen TA. An augmented Lagrangian treatment of
contact problems involving friction. Comput Struct 1992;42(1):
97–116.
[10] Petschk AG, Libersky LD. Cylindrical smoothed particle hydro-
dynamics. J Comput Phys 1993;109:76–83.
[11] Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics:
theory and application to non-spherical stars. Mon No R Astr Soc
1977;181:375–89.
[12] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element method. 4th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co; 1991.
[13] Hallquist JO, Goudreau GL, Benson DJ. Sliding interfaces with
contact-impact in large-scale Lagrangian computations. Comput
Method Appl Mech Eng 1985;51:107–37.
[14] Songwon Seo. A study on elasto-plastic contact algorithm in SPH
using reproducing condition and penalty method. PhD dissertation,
Yonsei University, 2004.
[15] Meyers MA. Dynamics behavior of materials. New York: Wiley;
1994.