Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Holmquist
Gordon R. Johnson
Southwest Research Institute,
5353 Wayzata Blvd.,
Minneapolis, MN 55416
A Computational Constitutive
Model for Glass Subjected to
Large Strains, High Strain Rates
and High Pressures
This article presents a computational constitutive model for glass subjected to large
strains, high strain rates and high pressures. The model has similarities to a previously
developed model for brittle materials by Johnson, Holmquist and Beissel (JHB model),
but there are significant differences. This new glass model provides a material strength
that is dependent on the location and/or condition of the material. Provisions are made
for the strength to be dependent on whether it is in the interior, on the surface (different
surface finishes can be accommodated), adjacent to failed material, or if it is failed. The
intact and failed strengths are also dependent on the pressure and the strain rate. Thermal softening, damage softening, time-dependent softening, and the effect of the third
invariant are also included. The shear modulus can be constant or variable. The pressure-volume relationship includes permanent densification and bulking. Damage is accumulated based on plastic strain, pressure and strain rate. Simple (single-element)
examples are presented to illustrate the capabilities of the model. Computed results for
more complex ballistic impact configurations are also presented and compared to experimental data. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4004326]
Introduction
Contributed by Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURAPPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received October 15, 2010; final manuscript
received May 6, 2011; published online July 27, 2011. Assoc. Editor: Bo S. G. Janzon.
NAL OF
C 2011 by ASME
Copyright V
(1)
ai ri =rmax ri Pi T
(2)
where
Fig. 1
This form provides a continuous slope at Pi and it limits the maximum strength to rmax (for e_ 1:0).
The strength for the surface and the strength for the interior
have similar forms and are defined by two dimensionless constants Dsurf and Dint respectively. Dsurf is a factor 0:01
Dsurf 1:0 to allow the strength to be increased for material
on the surface that is not adjacent to failed material. This increase
becomes more pronounced as the pressure becomes more tensile.
For Dsurf 0.01 (the minimum allowed for numerical considerations) the surface strength is slightly below rmax , and for
Dsurf 1.0 the surface strength is identical to the reference intact
strength. For intermediate values of Dsurf a reference angle
href < 90o is determined that defines the angle between the horizontal line at rmax and the extrapolated line formed for the linear
relationship between the strength at r 0 (at P T) to the
strength at r ri (at P Pi) as illustrated in Fig. 2. The corresponding angle for the strength defined by Dsurf is
hsurf Dsurf href . The two extrapolated lines (defined by href
1
J3 s3x s3y s3z 3sx s2xy 3sx s2xz 3sy s2xy 3sy s2yz
3
3sz s2xz 3sz s2yz 6sxy syz sxz
(8)
J3fact
1 sin3h 1=J3fact 1 sin3h
2
(9)
where
af rf
.
Pf rfmax rf
(4)
The intact and failed strengths in Eqs. (1)(4) are for a dimensionless strain rate of e_ 1:0. If ro is the strength at e_ 1:0, then
the strength at other strain rates is
r ro 1:0 C ln e_
(5)
(7)
(10)
D R Dep =e fp
where Dep is the increment of equivalent plastic strain during the
current cycle of integration and e fp is the plastic strain to failure
under the current dimensionless pressure, P P=rmax . The general expression for the failure strain is
e fp D1 P T N 1 Cf ln e_
(11)
DU Ui Uf
(12)
where K1, K2 and K3 are constants (K1 is the bulk modulus); and
l Vo =V 1 q=qo 1 for current volume and density (V and
q), and initial volume and density (Vo and qo ). The pressure for
l > llock is simply
P Plock K4 l llock
(13)
where Plock is the pressure at llock, and K4 and llock are constants.
The process of unloading is more complex and is a function of
the magnitude of the permanent densification, lperm, and the maximum volumetric strain attained, lmax. When lmax < lelastic there
is no permanent densification and unloading occurs along the
loading path described by Eq. (12). When lmax llock permanent
densification is complete and unloading occurs along the permanent densification curve (from llock to lperm). The unloading path
(from llock to lperm) is determined by interpolating between the
response provided by Eq. (12) and the response provided by
Eq. (13) (when extrapolated down to lolock ). The interpolation is
based on the ratio lperm =lolock and produces unloading along a path
described by Eq. (12) when lperm =lolock 0, and by Eq. (13) when
lperm =lolock 1.0.
There is also the possibility to unload in the transition zone
(lelastic < lmax < llock ). The unloading path is interpolated
between the path describe by Eq. (12) and the permanent densification curve previously described. The interpolation is based on
the ratio / lmax lelastic =llock lelascic and produces
unloading along a path described by Eq. (12) when / 0, and
along the permanent densification curve when / 1.0.
For tensile pressures
l < 0, P K1 l where K 1 K1 and
l l when lmax < lelastic, K1 is the stiffness at lperm and
l l lperm when lmax llock , and in the transition zone
(lelastic < lmax < llock ) K1 is interpolated and l l l0 where
l0 lperm lmax lelastic =llock lelascic is the permanent volumetric strain at P 0.
During the softening/failure process (from damage or time-dependent softening) bulking (pressure and/or volume increase) can
occur. This requires an additional pressure increment, DP, such
that
P K1 l K2 l2 K3 l3 DP
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Acknowledgment
This work was performed for the U. S. Army RDECOMTARDEC under Contract No. W56HZV-06-C-0194. The authors
would like to thank D. Templeton and R. Rickert (U. S. Army
TARDEC) and to C. Gerlach (Southwest Research Institute) for
their contributions to this work. The authors would like to especially thank C. Anderson, Jr. for his helpful discussions and experimental work in support of this effort.
References
[1] Bridgman, P. W., 1948, The Compression of 39 Substances to 100,000 kg/
cm2, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 76(3), pp.
5587.
[2] Bridgman, P. W. and Simon, I., 1953, Effects of Very High Pressures on
Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 24(4), pp. 405413.
[3] Uhlmann, D. R., 1973, Densification of Alkali Silicate Glasses at High Pressure, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 13, pp. 8999.
[4] Rouxel, T., Ji, H., Hammouda, T., and Moreac, A., 2008, Poissons Ratio and
the Densification of Glass Under High Pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100,
p. 225501.
[5] Sakka, S. and Mackenzie, J. D., 1969, High Pressure Effects on Glass, J.
Non-Cryst. Solids, 1, pp. 107142.
[6] Mackenzie, J. D., 1963, High-Pressure Effects on Oxide Glasses: I, Densification in Rigid State, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 46(10), pp. 461470.
[7] Rosenberg, Z., Yaziv, D., and Bless, S., 1985, Spall Strength of Shock-Loaded
Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 58(8), pp 32493251.
[8] Brar, N., Rosenberg, S., and Bless, S., 1991, Spall Strength and Failure Waves
in Glass, J. Phys. (Paris), 1, pp. 639634.
[9] Cagnoux, J., 1985, Deformation et Ruine dun Verre Pyrex Soumis a un Choc
Intense: Etude Experimentale et Modelisation du Comportement, Ph.D. thesis,
LUniversite de Poitiers.
[10] Cagnoux, J. and Longy, F., 1988, Spallation and Shock-Wave Behaviour of
Some Ceramics, J. Phys. (Paris), 49(9), pp. 310.
[11] Kanel, G. I., Bogatch, A. A., Razorenov, S. V., and Chen, Z., 2002,
Transformation of Shock Compression Pulses in Glass due to the Failure
Wave Phenomena, J. Appl. Phys., 92(9), pp. 50455052.
[12] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Orphal, D. L., Behner, T., and Templeton, D. W., 2009,
Failure and Penetration Response of Borosilicate Glass During Short-Rod
Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36, pp. 789798.
[13] Nie, X., Chen, W., Wereszczak, A., and Templeton, D., 2009, Effect of Loading Rate and Surface Conditions on the Flexural Strength of Borosilicate
Glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 92(6), pp. 12871295.
[14] Anderson, C. Jr., Weiss, C., and Chocron, S., 2009, Impact Experiments into
Borosilicate Glass at Three Scale Sizes, Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX, Technical Report No. 18.12544/018.
[15] Sun, X., Khaleel, M., and Davies, R., 2005, Modeling of Stone-Impact Resistance of Monolithic Glass Ply using Continuum Damage Mechanics, Int. J.
Damage Mech., 14, pp. 165178.
[16] Wereszczak, A. A., Kirkland, T. P., Ragan, M. E., Strong, K. T., Jr., and Lin,
H., 2010, Size Scaling of Tensile Failure Stress in a Float Soda-Lime-Silicate
Glass, International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 1(2), pp. 143150.
[17] Chocron, S., Anderson, C. E., Jr., Nicholls, E., and Dannemann, K. A.,
Characterization of Confined Intact and Damaged Borosilicate Glass, J. Am.
Ceram. Soc. (to be published).
[18] Simha, C. and Gupta, Y., 2004, Time-Dependent Inelastic Deformation of
Shocked Soda-Lime Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 96(4), pp. 18801890.
[19] Sundaram, S., 1993, Pressure-Shear Plate Impact Studies of Alumina Ceramics
and the Influence of an Intergranular Glassy Phase, Ph.D. thesis, Brown University, Providence, RI.
[20] Cagnoux, J., 1982, Shock-Wave Compression of a Borosilicate Glass up to
170 kbar, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1982, pp. 392296.
[21] Alexander, C. S., Chhabildas, L. C., Reinhart, W. D., and Templeton, D. W.,
2008, Changes to the Shock Response of Fused Quartz due to Glass Modification, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 13761385.
[22] Handin, J., Heard, H. C., and Magouirk, J. N., 1967, Effects of the Intermediate Principal Stress on the Failure of Limestone, Dolomite, and Glass at Different Temperatures and Strain Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 72(2), pp. 611640.
[23] Chen, W., 2010, Purdue University, private communication.
[24] Glenn, L. A., Moran, B., and Kusubov, A. S., 1990, Modeling Jet Penetration
in Glass, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA., Technical Report
No. UCRL-JC-103512.
[25] Behner, T., Anderson, C., Jr., Orphal, D., Hohler, V., Moll, M., and Templeton,
D., 2008, Penetration and Failure of Lead and Borosilicate Glass against Rod
Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 447456.
[26] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Behner, Th., Holmquist, T. J., Wickert, M., Hohler, V.,
and Templeton, D. W., 2007, Interface Defeat of Long Rods Impacting Borosilicate Glass, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics,
Tarragona, Spain, pp. 10491056.
[27] Johnson, G. R., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 2003, Response of Aluminum Nitride (Including a Phase Change) to Large Strains, High Strain Rates,
and High Pressures, J. Appl. Phys., 94(3), pp. 16391646.
[28] Frank, A. and Adley, M., 2007, On the Importance of a Three-Invariant Model
for Simulating the Perforation of Concrete Targets, Proceedings from the 78th
Shock and Vibration Symposium, Philadelphia, PA.
[29] Johnson, G. R. and Holmquist, T. J., 1994, An Improved Computational Constitutive Model for Brittle Materials, High Pressure Science and Technology
1993, S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Schaner, G. A. Samara, and M. Ross, eds., AIP,
New York, pp. 981984.
[30] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 1997,
Numerical Algorithms in a Lagrangian Hydrocode, Wright Laboratory, FL,
Technical Report No. WL-TR-1997-7039.
[31] Johnson, G. R., Beissel, S. R., and Stryk, R. A., 2002, An Improved Generalized Particle Algorithm that Includes Boundaries and Interfaces, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng., 53, pp. 875904.
[32] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Beissel, S. R., and Holmquist, T. J., 2002,
Conversion of Finite Elements into Meshless Particles for Penetration Computations Involving Ceramic Targets, Shock Compression of Condensed
Matter2001, M. D. Furnish, N. N. Thadhani, and Y. Horie, eds., AIP, New
York.
intact surface is again encountered. Unloading continues plastically from points 6 to 7. At point 7, both the axial deviator stress
and the pressure go to zero. For J3fact 0.5 the unloading is different because a lower intact surface is used for the tensile meridian. Elastic unloading continues from points 4 to 5 where the
lower intact strength is encountered. Unloading continues plastically from Points 5 to 7. At point 7, both the axial deviator stress
and the pressure go to zero.
Figure 6 presents the effect of time-dependent failure and the
ability to develop high-internal-tensile strength. Four tensile-spall
plate-impact computations are used to demonstrate these effects.
The material constants are the same as those presented previously
except the interior strength is increased to Dint 0.7 (this provides
a significant increase in the interior tensile strength and corresponds to a spall strength of approximately 450 MPa). The plate
impact configuration consists of a 5 mm glass impactor and a 15
mm glass target (this configuration will produce a tensile stress 5
mm from the rear target surface). The impact velocity is 200 m/s
and the particle velocity-time histories are taken at the rear target
surface. In the upper left quadrant of Fig. 6 is the computed wave
profile for tfail 0.4 ls, in the lower left is the wave profile for
tfail 0.2 ls, in the upper right is the wave profile for tfail 0.02
ls and in the lower right is the wave profile for tfail 0.
Before the results in Fig. 6 are discussed, a brief overview of a
tensile-spall plate-impact test is provided. In a spall experiment,
an impactor strikes a target producing an elastic compressive
wave that travels into the target and into the impactor. The elastic
compressive wave reflects off the rear surface of the target and
propagates back toward the impact surface. Due to wave interactions a tensile stress is created in the interior of the target located
one impactor thickness from the rear target surface (this is true
when both the impactor and target are made of the same material).
If the material can withstand the magnitude of the tensile stress,
the material does not fail and no spall is produced. If the material
cannot withstand the tensile stress, the material fails, creating a
pullback signal which travels back to the rear surface where it is
measured. The magnitude of the pullback signal is proportional to
the tensile stress at which the material fails (the spall strength,
rspall). Since spall occurs inside the material (but is measured at
the rear surface), a spall experiment provides an indirect measure
of the internal tensile strength.
Returning to Fig. 6, the computed result for tfail 0.4 ls is discussed first. This response is described with the help of the stresspressure insert in the lower right quadrant in Fig. 6 (the stresspressure response is taken at the spall location, 5 mm from the
rear surface). The impactor strikes the target at 200 m/s and the
stress goes from point 1 to point 2. The peak compressive stress is
elastic and is maintained until the arrival of the release wave. The
release wave rapidly takes the material into tension (at the spall
location). The stress goes from point 2 to point 1 to point 3 where
the interior intact strength is encountered. The material can develop no plastic strain and failure occurs producing the pullback
signal. The magnitude of the pullback signal is proportional to the
spall stress of 450 MPa. Since the tensile stress occurs in the interior of the target the interior intact strength governs the response
(point 3) and not the reference intact strength (point 4). Also note
the time delay of approximately 0.4 ls in the pullback signal, due
to the time-dependent failure. The result for tfail 0.2 ls is similar
to that of tfail 0.4 ls except the duration of the pullback signal is
reduced, which is due to the reduction in the time it takes the material to fail. The result for tfail 0.02 ls is more complex. The
magnitude of the pullback signal is significantly smaller than produced for tfail 0.4 ls and tfail 0.2 ls. This is due to the very
short duration of failure, the condition of the material and the
propagation of the pullback signal. When failure occurs at the
spall plane a new surface is created. This new surface is adjacent
to failed material (created at the spall plane) and is governed by
the reference intact strength. If the time to failure is sufficiently
short, the magnitude of the pullback signal cannot be maintained
as it propagates to the rear surface. The pullback signal will
051003-6 / Vol. 78, SEPTEMBER 2011
Fig. 10 Comparison of computed and experimental results for a steel projectile impacting borosilicate glass
velocities using the 0.50-cal projectile. At Vs 300 m/s the projectile exits the target with a very low velocity of 22 m/s and there
is a large spall cone produced on the rear target surface. There
also has been some erosion of the projectile. At Vs 400 m/s and
500 m/s the projectile exits the target at a much higher exit velocity and with less projectile erosion. The targets appear similar,
exhibiting large cone cracks that propagate from the target mid-
section to near the rear surface. The lower right portion of Fig. 10
presents a comparison of the residual velocity as a function of
impact velocity for the computed and experimental results. The
computed exit velocities are in good agreement at Vs 400 m/s
and for Vs > 600 m/s, but the targets are too strong for Vs < 400
m/s. The computed results also do not capture the target response
for 500 m/s Vs 600 m/s where the maximum projectile
Fig. 11 Comparison of computed results for a steel projectile impacting borosilicate glass at
two scales
Acknowledgment
This work was performed for the U. S. Army RDECOMTARDEC under Contract No. W56HZV-06-C-0194. The authors
would like to thank D. Templeton and R. Rickert (U. S. Army
TARDEC) and to C. Gerlach (Southwest Research Institute) for
their contributions to this work. The authors would like to especially thank C. Anderson, Jr. for his helpful discussions and experimental work in support of this effort.
References
[1] Bridgman, P. W., 1948, The Compression of 39 Substances to 100,000 kg/
cm2, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 76(3), pp.
5587.
[2] Bridgman, P. W. and Simon, I., 1953, Effects of Very High Pressures on
Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 24(4), pp. 405413.
[3] Uhlmann, D. R., 1973, Densification of Alkali Silicate Glasses at High Pressure, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 13, pp. 8999.
[4] Rouxel, T., Ji, H., Hammouda, T., and Moreac, A., 2008, Poissons Ratio and
the Densification of Glass Under High Pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100,
p. 225501.
[5] Sakka, S. and Mackenzie, J. D., 1969, High Pressure Effects on Glass, J.
Non-Cryst. Solids, 1, pp. 107142.
[6] Mackenzie, J. D., 1963, High-Pressure Effects on Oxide Glasses: I, Densification in Rigid State, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 46(10), pp. 461470.
[7] Rosenberg, Z., Yaziv, D., and Bless, S., 1985, Spall Strength of Shock-Loaded
Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 58(8), pp 32493251.
[8] Brar, N., Rosenberg, S., and Bless, S., 1991, Spall Strength and Failure Waves
in Glass, J. Phys. (Paris), 1, pp. 639634.
[9] Cagnoux, J., 1985, Deformation et Ruine dun Verre Pyrex Soumis a un Choc
Intense: Etude Experimentale et Modelisation du Comportement, Ph.D. thesis,
LUniversite de Poitiers.
[10] Cagnoux, J. and Longy, F., 1988, Spallation and Shock-Wave Behaviour of
Some Ceramics, J. Phys. (Paris), 49(9), pp. 310.
[11] Kanel, G. I., Bogatch, A. A., Razorenov, S. V., and Chen, Z., 2002,
Transformation of Shock Compression Pulses in Glass due to the Failure
Wave Phenomena, J. Appl. Phys., 92(9), pp. 50455052.
[12] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Orphal, D. L., Behner, T., and Templeton, D. W., 2009,
Failure and Penetration Response of Borosilicate Glass During Short-Rod
Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 36, pp. 789798.
[13] Nie, X., Chen, W., Wereszczak, A., and Templeton, D., 2009, Effect of Loading Rate and Surface Conditions on the Flexural Strength of Borosilicate
Glass, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 92(6), pp. 12871295.
[14] Anderson, C. Jr., Weiss, C., and Chocron, S., 2009, Impact Experiments into
Borosilicate Glass at Three Scale Sizes, Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX, Technical Report No. 18.12544/018.
[15] Sun, X., Khaleel, M., and Davies, R., 2005, Modeling of Stone-Impact Resistance of Monolithic Glass Ply using Continuum Damage Mechanics, Int. J.
Damage Mech., 14, pp. 165178.
[16] Wereszczak, A. A., Kirkland, T. P., Ragan, M. E., Strong, K. T., Jr., and Lin,
H., 2010, Size Scaling of Tensile Failure Stress in a Float Soda-Lime-Silicate
Glass, International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 1(2), pp. 143150.
[17] Chocron, S., Anderson, C. E., Jr., Nicholls, E., and Dannemann, K. A.,
Characterization of Confined Intact and Damaged Borosilicate Glass, J. Am.
Ceram. Soc. (to be published).
[18] Simha, C. and Gupta, Y., 2004, Time-Dependent Inelastic Deformation of
Shocked Soda-Lime Glass, J. Appl. Phys., 96(4), pp. 18801890.
[19] Sundaram, S., 1993, Pressure-Shear Plate Impact Studies of Alumina Ceramics
and the Influence of an Intergranular Glassy Phase, Ph.D. thesis, Brown University, Providence, RI.
[20] Cagnoux, J., 1982, Shock-Wave Compression of a Borosilicate Glass up to
170 kbar, Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1982, pp. 392296.
[21] Alexander, C. S., Chhabildas, L. C., Reinhart, W. D., and Templeton, D. W.,
2008, Changes to the Shock Response of Fused Quartz due to Glass Modification, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 13761385.
[22] Handin, J., Heard, H. C., and Magouirk, J. N., 1967, Effects of the Intermediate Principal Stress on the Failure of Limestone, Dolomite, and Glass at Different Temperatures and Strain Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 72(2), pp. 611640.
[23] Chen, W., 2010, Purdue University, private communication.
[24] Glenn, L. A., Moran, B., and Kusubov, A. S., 1990, Modeling Jet Penetration
in Glass, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA., Technical Report
No. UCRL-JC-103512.
[25] Behner, T., Anderson, C., Jr., Orphal, D., Hohler, V., Moll, M., and Templeton,
D., 2008, Penetration and Failure of Lead and Borosilicate Glass against Rod
Impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35, pp. 447456.
[26] Anderson, C. E., Jr., Behner, Th., Holmquist, T. J., Wickert, M., Hohler, V.,
and Templeton, D. W., 2007, Interface Defeat of Long Rods Impacting Borosilicate Glass, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics,
Tarragona, Spain, pp. 10491056.
[27] Johnson, G. R., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 2003, Response of Aluminum Nitride (Including a Phase Change) to Large Strains, High Strain Rates,
and High Pressures, J. Appl. Phys., 94(3), pp. 16391646.
[28] Frank, A. and Adley, M., 2007, On the Importance of a Three-Invariant Model
for Simulating the Perforation of Concrete Targets, Proceedings from the 78th
Shock and Vibration Symposium, Philadelphia, PA.
[29] Johnson, G. R. and Holmquist, T. J., 1994, An Improved Computational Constitutive Model for Brittle Materials, High Pressure Science and Technology
1993, S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Schaner, G. A. Samara, and M. Ross, eds., AIP,
New York, pp. 981984.
[30] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Holmquist, T. J., and Beissel, S. R., 1997,
Numerical Algorithms in a Lagrangian Hydrocode, Wright Laboratory, FL,
Technical Report No. WL-TR-1997-7039.
[31] Johnson, G. R., Beissel, S. R., and Stryk, R. A., 2002, An Improved Generalized Particle Algorithm that Includes Boundaries and Interfaces, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng., 53, pp. 875904.
[32] Johnson, G. R., Stryk, R. A., Beissel, S. R., and Holmquist, T. J., 2002,
Conversion of Finite Elements into Meshless Particles for Penetration Computations Involving Ceramic Targets, Shock Compression of Condensed
Matter2001, M. D. Furnish, N. N. Thadhani, and Y. Horie, eds., AIP, New
York.