This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
3 Rigid projectile impacting eroding plate
Product: Abaqus/Explicit This example simulates the oblique impact of a rigid spherical projectile onto a flat armor plate at a velocity of 1000 m/sec. A failure model is used for the plate, thus allowing the projectile to perforate the plate. The example illustrates impact, shear failure, and the use of infinite elements.
The armor plate has a thickness of 10 mm and is assumed to be semi-infinite in size compared to the projectile. This is accomplished by using CIN3D8 infinite elements around the perimeter of the plate. The plate is modeled using 4480 C3D8R elements. The armor plate material has Young's modulus of 206.8 GPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.3, density of 7800 kg/m3, yield stress of 1220 MPa, and a constant hardening slope of 1220 MPa. The material definition also includes a shear failure model, which causes Abaqus/Explicit to remove elements from the mesh as they fail. Failure is assumed to occur at an equivalent plastic strain of 100%, at which point the element is removed from the model instantaneously. (The value of the failure strain is chosen somewhat arbitrarily; it is not intended to model any particular material.) The sphere has a diameter of 20 mm and is assumed to be rigid, with a mass corresponding to a uniform material with a density of 37240 kg/m3. The rotary inertia of the sphere is not needed in the model because we assume there is no friction between the sphere and the plate. Boundary conditions are applied to constrain the motion of the sphere in the y-direction. Two approaches for modeling the surface of the sphere are tested: using an analytical rigid surface and using R3D4 rigid elements. Analytical rigid surfaces are the preferred means for representing simple rigid geometries such as this in terms of both accuracy and computational performance. However, more complex three-dimensional surface geometries that occur in practice must be modeled with surfaces formed by element faces. Results for the faceted representations are presented here. The element formulation for the C3D8R elements is modified with the *SECTION CONTROLS option. The advocated formulation for this problem uses the CENTROID kinematic formulation and the COMBINED hourglass control. Additional combinations of kinematic formulation and hourglass control are included for comparison. Only half of the plate is modeled, using appropriate symmetry boundary conditions in the x– z plane. The model is shown in Figure 2.1.3–1. The complete sphere is modeled for visualization purposes. There are 17094 degrees of freedom in the model. Since elements in the plate will fail and be removed from the model, nodes in the interior of the plate will be exposed to contact with the surface of the rigid sphere. Thus, contact must be modeled between the surface of the sphere, defined as an element-based surface using the *SURFACE, TYPE=ELEMENT option, and a node-based surface that contains all of the nodes in the plate within a radius of 20 mm of the point of impact, defined with the *SURFACE, TYPE=NODE option. (See “Eroding projectile impacting eroding plate,” Section 2.1.4, for an example in which element-based surfaces are used to model erosion.) In the primary input files the *CONTACT PAIR option is used to define contact between the surface of the sphere and any of the nodes contained in the node set. Input files that use the general contact algorithm (*CONTACT and suboptions) are also provided.
Results and discussion
The spherical projectile impacts the plate at 1000 m/sec at an angle of 30° to the normal to the plate. Deformed shapes at different stages of the analysis are shown in Figure 2.1.3–2 through Figure 2.1.3–4 for the CENTROID kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options (analysis case pl3d_erode_ccs). Early in the analysis, shown in Figure 2.1.3–2, a relatively small amount of material has been eroded from the surface of the plate and the plate is still deforming
inp Model using the default section controls and the *ADAPTIVE MESH option. Analysis File Relative CPU Time Section Controls pl3d_erode pl3d_erode_ocs pl3d_erode_oes 1.1.1. Figure 2.88 Kinematic Hourglass average relax orthogonal combined orthogonal enhanced 2 .3–1 shows the analysis options used to obtain these results). The results show close agreement.inp Model using the ORTHOGONAL kinematic and ENHANCED hourglass section control options and the general contact capability.inp External file referenced in this input.3–1 Analysis options tested.3–6 show the history of the projectile's velocity (Table 2.1. pl3d_erode_ces_gcont.1.1.inp Model using the CENTROID kinematic and ENHANCED hourglass section control options and the general contact capability. pl3d_erode_gcont. pl3d_erode_ale. pl3d_erode.1. In Figure 2.0 0. pl3d_erode_anl.86 0.3–2 through Figure 2.inp Model using the default section controls and the general contact capability.inp Model using the ORTHOGONAL kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options and the general contact capability.3–5 and Figure 2.inp Model using the CENTROID kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options.inp Model using the CENTROID kinematic and ENHANCED hourglass section control options. Table Table 2. Input files pl3d_erode_ccs. sphere_e.inp Model using an analytical rigid surface and the default section controls. In Figure 2.inp Model using the ORTHOGONAL kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options.inp External file referenced in this input.1. pl3d_erode_ces.under the sphere.3–3 the plate has been perforated and the projectile is still in contact with the edge of the hole.inp Model using the default section controls.3–4 the failed elements have been eliminated by creating a display group in Abaqus/CAE that contains only the active elements. In Figure 2. pl3d_erode_oes_gcont. pl3d_erode_ocs_gcont. pl3d_erode_ocs. sphere_n. pl3d_erode_oes.3–4 the projectile has exited the plate and is moving away with a constant velocity. pl3d_erode_ccs_gcont.1.inp Model using the ORTHOGONAL kinematic and ENHANCED hourglass section control options.inp Model using the CENTROID kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options and the general contact capability.
Figure 2.1. 3 .3–3 Deformed shape at 30 microseconds (analysis using the CENTROID kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options).3–4 Deformed shape at 40 microseconds (analysis using the CENTROID kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options).3–5 Vertical component of the projectile velocity.1.1.3–6 Horizontal component of the projectile velocity. Figure 2. Figure 18.104.22.168–2 Deformed shape at 10 microseconds (analysis using the CENTROID kinematic and COMBINED hourglass section control options). Figure 2. Figure 2.Analysis File Relative CPU Time pl3d_erode_ccs pl3d_erode_ces 0.75 Section Controls Kinematic Hourglass centroid centroid combined enhanced Figures Figure 2.3–1 Undeformed mesh.73 0.1.
The plate and projectile material properties are identical. The material definition also includes failure models with progressive damage.4–5 (only active elements are shown in these figures). Problem description The undeformed mesh is shown in Figure 2. These nodes act as free-floating point masses that can experience contact with the active contact faces. which is 10 mm in length and has a radius of 1 mm. A relatively small rectangular region of the plate is modeled for simplicity. is used for both the projectile and plate.4–6 4 .4 Eroding projectile impacting eroding plate Product: Abaqus/Explicit This example simulates the oblique impact of a cylindrical projectile onto a flat armor plate at a velocity of 2000 m/sec. For comparison purposes. which calls for the use of element-based surfaces that can adapt to the exposed surfaces of the current non-failed elements. with approximately the leading half of the projectile elements failing during the analysis.4–5. The nodes and exposed faces of such fragments can take part in contact. Half of the projectile is modeled. The armor plate has a thickness of 3 mm. so nodal erosion is not recommended. Only the interior faces that are expected to participate in contact are included in the contact domain in this analysis to minimize the memory use (including interior faces for all elements in the model would more than double the memory use). The damage evolution energy is assumed to be 500 N/m.1. and the initial velocity of the projectile is aligned with its cylindrical axis.4–2 through Figure 2. To model eroding contact. with fully fixed boundary conditions specified on three cutting planes and y-axis symmetry specified on one cutting plane. Some broken-off fragments with active elements can be observed in Figure 2.1. The same material model. The cylindrical axis of the projectile is 20° from perpendicular to the plate. During the analysis elements from both bodies fail.4–1. The projectile. Nodes no longer attached to any active elements can take part in contact only in the analysis without nodal erosion (which corresponds to the primary input file). which causes the nodes to be removed from the contact calculations once all surrounding elements have failed (and can result in computational savings). with y-axis symmetry specified on the cutting plane. As shown in Figure 2.1. which causes Abaqus/Explicit to remove elements from the mesh as they fail. which includes a failure model with progressive damage.1. The NODAL EROSION parameter is set to NO on the *CONTACT CONTROLS ASSIGNMENT option (which corresponds to the default setting).4–5.2. has an initial speed of 2000 m/sec. The general contact algorithm supports element-based surfaces that evolve in this manner (whereas the contact pair algorithm does not).1. The momentum transfer associated with freeflying nodes is expected to be significant in this example. and density of 7800 kg/m3. so contact nodes will still take part in the contact calculations even after all of the surrounding elements have failed. the analysis is also conducted with NODAL EROSION=YES. The yield stress of the material is specified as a function of the equivalent plastic strain at different equivalent plastic strain rates. Figure 2. the projectile eventually perforates the plate. This example demonstrates the ability of the general contact algorithm to model surface erosion on multiple contacting bodies during high-speed impact.1. Results and discussion Deformed shapes at different stages of the analysis are shown in Figure 2.1.3. the user must include in the contact domain all surface faces that may become exposed during the analysis. Poisson's ratio of 0. with Young's modulus of 210 GPa. including faces that are originally in the interior of bodies. the shear criterion is specified in terms of the plastic strain at the onset of damage as a tabular function of the shear stress ratio. which requires the use of the INTERIOR face identifier on a data line of the *SURFACE option. Both the ductile and shear initiation criteria are used: the ductile criterion is specified in terms of the plastic strain at the onset of damage as a tabular function of the stress triaxiality.
4–6 Kinetic energy history. Figure 2.4–5 Deformed shape at 6 microseconds. erode_proj_and_plate.inp Model of impact of eroding projectile into eroding plate with nodal erosion. Figure 2. 5 . Figure 2. respectively. Figure 2.inp External file referenced in this input (material definition).4–1 Undeformed mesh. Input files erode_material.5 microseconds.inp Model of impact of eroding projectile into eroding plate without nodal erosion. erode_proj_and_plate2. whereas approximately 26% of the initial kinetic energy is absorbed for the model with nodal erosion.22.214.171.124. Figures Figure 2. Approximately 32% of the initial kinetic energy is absorbed by the impact for the model without nodal erosion.1.5 microseconds.4–4 Deformed shape at 4.1.compares total kinetic energy histories for the analyses conducted with and without nodal erosion.4–2 Deformed shape at 1.4–3 Deformed shape at 3 microseconds. Figure 2.
Input files eoscyl2d. The stresses have units of mega bars (M bar).2.8 Explosive pipe closure Product: Abaqus/Explicit This problem illustrates the following concepts: large deformation kinematics. Although not shown here.8–5 show a sequence of the deformed shapes computed by Abaqus/Explicit for the two-dimensional case.inp Two-dimensional case. The steel pipe is an elastic. Refer to “Equation of state. while the HE is modeled with 24 elements in the radial direction. Using these units. length is given in centimeters (cm).7596 cm/microsecond). The tension cutoff pressure is assumed to be zero and is specified using the *TENSILE FAILURE option. B = 5.inp Three-dimensional case.053 M bar). This analysis is run in two steps to reduce the amount of output written to the output database file.206 M bar).1 of the Abaqus Analysis User's Manual. These units are commonly used in shock wave physics applications because the pressures tend to have values on the order of unity.63 Joule/kg (0. sec.2. The undeformed configuration is shown superimposed on the deformed shapes.1.” Section 18.1 GPa (2. R2 = 1. A = 520. Hence.846 gm/cm3). Each pipe is modeled with 6 elements in the radial direction. mass in grams (gm). elastic-plastic material. Problem description The units used in this analysis are referred to as c. yield strength of 430 MPa (.35. eoscyl3d.9. The explosive material is detonated at four points around the circumference of the cylinder. the deformations are not of much interest. Because of the symmetry in this problem. R1 = 4. density = 1900 kg/m3 (1. = . equations of state.0043 M bar). transformations. and density of 7846 kg/m3 (7.279.8–1 shows the original geometry and the location of the detonation point for the model. the results of the threedimensional analysis are indistinguishable from those of the two-dimensional analysis. Figure 2. In the three-dimensional case the displacements are constrained to be zero in the out-of-plane direction. detonation points. only one-eighth of the pipe is modeled.1. for a description of this material model.g.3 GPa (0.1. perfectly plastic material with Young's modulus of 221. Both pipes are steel with a wall thickness of 2 mm. Poisson's ratio of 0. The explosive material is modeled using the JWL equation of state with detonation wave speed = 7596 m/sec (. This analysis is run as both a two-dimensional case using CPE4R elements and as a threedimensional case using C3D8R elements.8–2 through Figure 2. the first step has a duration of 6 sec.9 gm/cm3).1. and time is measured in microseconds ( sec). In the early part of the analysis. In this example problem two concentric pipes have the annulus between them filled with high explosive (HE). The inside radius of the outer pipe is 20 mm.5 sec. The second step has a duration of 1.1. and initial specific energy = 3. but it does not provide independent verification of them. The inside radius of the inner pipe is 10 mm. 6 .0363 T erg/gm). This problem tests the features listed. After 6 sec the deformations are becoming significant. The interface between the explosive material and the steel is modeled with NO SEPARATION contact that allows for relative slip without separation between the two materials. Results and discussion Figure 2.211 M bar). A transformed coordinate system is used to define the symmetry conditions along the sloping boundary.6 GPa (5.
1.8–2 Deformed configuration after 6. Figure 2.1.8–1 Original geometry.0 sec with undeformed configuration superimposed.5 sec with undeformed configuration superimposed.1.1.Figures Figure 2.1. Figure 2. Figure 2.8–4 Deformed configuration after 7.0 sec with undeformed configuration superimposed.5 sec with undeformed configuration superimposed. Figure 2.8–3 Deformed configuration after 6. 7 .8–5 Deformed configuration after 7.
13–3. and 1 s–1.4 × 3.1.1. Both energy curves plateau as the rod rebounds from the wall. impacts a rigid wall with an initial velocity of =340 m/sec. and the transition temperature is 25°C. The Johnson-Cook material parameters are taken from Johnson and Cook (1985) in which the following constants are used: 90 MPa.00005°C–1. The kinetic and internal energy histories are plotted in Figure 2. and the number of mesh sweeps used to smooth the mesh is increased to 3 from the default value of 1. ale_rodimpac_inclined_nodelem. with a friction coefficient of 0. 0.1. The analysis is performed for a period of 120 microseconds. Input files ale_rodimpac_inclined. Because the impact phenomenon modeled in this example is an extremely dynamic event with large changes in geometry occurring over a relatively small number of increments. Extremely high plastic strains develop at the crushed end of the rod.1. 1. The frequency value is reduced to 1 increment from a default value of 10.2. resulting in severe local mesh distortion. Figure 2. Symmetry boundary conditions are defined as Lagrangian surfaces (the default).31. a Poisson's ratio of 0. Coulomb friction is assumed between the rod and the wall.1.13 Oblique impact of a copper rod Product: Abaqus/Explicit This example simulates a high velocity.inp Analysis using adaptive meshing. 80. Adiabatic conditions are assumed with a heat fraction of 50%. The rod rebounds from the wall near the end of the analysis. and contact surfaces are defined as sliding contact surfaces (the default). oblique impact of a copper rod into a rigid wall.inp External file referenced by this analysis. Most of the initial kinetic energy is converted to internal energy as the rod is plastically deformed. Symmetry boundary conditions are applied at the y=0 plane.13–1. A cylindrical rod.34.2. A pure Lagrangian analysis of this finite element model fails as a result of excessive distortions. The default values are used for all other adaptive mesh controls.1. Adaptive meshing is used to reduce element distortion and to obtain an accurate and economical solution to the problem.13–5. the melting temperature is 1058°C. it is necessary to increase the frequency and intensity of adaptive meshing. TYPE=CYLINDER option in conjunction with the *RIGID BODY option. Results and discussion Deformed shape plots at 40.13–2. and Figure 2. 0.13–4. elastic-plastic material with a Young's modulus of 124 GPa. and a density of 8960 kg/m 3. The rod is modeled as a Johnson-Cook. The wall is perpendicular to the x– z plane and makes an angle of 30° with the x–y plane.09. Continuous adaptive meshing allows the analysis to run to completion while retaining a high-quality mesh.13–6. The Johnson-Cook model is appropriate for modeling high-rate impacts involving metals.025. and the thermal expansion coefficient is 0.1. High-speed collisions such as these result in significant amounts of material flow in the impact zone. 8 . The specific heat of the material is 383 J/Kg°C. respectively. The rod is meshed with CAX4R elements.2 mm. Adaptive meshing A single adaptive mesh domain that incorporates the entire rod is defined. and the wall is modeled as an analytical rigid surface using the *SURFACE. and 120 microseconds are shown in Figure 2. The half-symmetric finite element model is shown in Figure 2. Furthermore. measuring 32. Problem description The model geometry is depicted in Figure 2.
1. Figure 2. H.Reference Johnson. Figure 2. Cook.1..13–2 Initial configuration.13–3 Deformed configuration at 40 microseconds. 9 .” Engineering Fracture Mechanics.13–4 Deformed configuration at 80 microseconds.1. 31–48. 1985. Figure 2.13–1 Model geometry. G. Figures Figure 2. “Fracture Characteristics of Three Metals Subjected to Various Strains.13–6 Time history of kinetic and internal energies of the rod.1. 21.13–5 Deformed configuration at 120 microseconds. pp. Figure 2. Strain Rates.1. and W. Figure 2.1. Temperatures and Pressures. R.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.