You are on page 1of 30

Effect of Anisotropic Material Model on Ballistic

Impact of 0.5” thick Al 2024 Plates

Project Report By
Kapil Nandwana
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University

Submitted to Prof. Amos Gilat,


Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The Ohio State University in partial fulfillment of
Master of Science

April 2009

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
List of Figures 3
List of Tables 5
1. Introduction 6
2. Finite Element Modeling 6
2.1. Simulation tools 6
2.2. Geometric Details for Projectile and Target Plate 7
2.2.1. Projectile Geometry Details 7
2.2.2. Target Plate Geometry Details 7
2.3. FE Mesh Details for Projectile and Target Plate 9
2.3.1. FE Mesh Details for Target Plate 9
2.3.2. FE Mesh Details for Projectile 11
2.4. Material Models 13
2.4.1. Simplified Johnson Cook Model 13
2.4.2. Barlat’s Anisotropic Plasticity Model 14
2.4.3. Element Failure Model 15
3. FE Simulation Results and Discussion 16
3.1. Mesh Convergence Study 16
3.2. Projectile Velocity History Comparison for the two material models and 19
experiments
3.3. Strain History Comparison for the two material models and experiments 23
4. Conclusion 30
References 31

2
List of Figures
Page No.
Figure 1 Projectile Geometry 7
Figure 2 Plate test specimen with strain gages 8
Figure 3(a) Fixture front plate 8
Figure 3(b) Fixture back plate 9
Figure 4 Eight Node Hexahedron Solid Element 10
Figure 5 Finite Element Butterfly Mesh for the Target Plate 11
Figure 6 Finite Element Butterfly Mesh for Cylindrical Projectile 12
Figure 7 Finite Element Mesh for the complete model 13
Figure 8 Isotropic hardening curve for Barlat’s Anisotropic Plasticity Model15
Figure 9 Projectile Velocity History 17
Figure 10 Nodal X-Displacement History at the centre of the non-impacted 17
side of target plate
Figure 11 Projectile Velocity History 18
Figure 12 Nodal X-Displacement History at the centre of the non-impacted 18
side of target plate
Figure 13 FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile 19
Impact Velocity of 717 ft/s
Figure 14 FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile 20
Impact Velocity of 843 ft/s
Figure 15 FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile 20
Impact Velocity of 906 ft/s
Figure 16 FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile 21
Impact Velocity of 961 ft/s
Figure 17 Comparison of FE Predicted Projectile Exit Velocity for 21
Different Projectile Impact Velocities
Figure 18 Yield Function for m=1 or ∞, m=2 or 4, m=8 in π plane 22
Figure 19 Strain gage locations on non-impacted side of the target plate and 23
their numbering scheme
Figure 20 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 23
176361 located at Strain Gauge #1
Figure 21 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain YY History of Element No. 24
145594 located at Strain Gauge #2
3
Figure 22 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 24
81591 located at Strain Gauge #3
Figure 23 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 25
64241 located at Strain Gauge #4
Figure 24 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 25
64681 located at Strain Gauge #5
Figure 25 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 26
176361 located at Strain Gauge #1
Figure 26 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain YY History of Element No. 26
145594 located at Strain Gauge #2
Figure 27 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 27
81591 located at Strain Gauge #3
Figure 28 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 27
64241 located at Strain Gauge #4
Figure 29 Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 28
64681 located at Strain Gauge #5
Figure 30 Comparison of FE Predicted Strains at SG#2 and SG#4 for 29
Projectile Impact Velocity of 717 ft/s
Figure 31 Comparison of FE Predicted Strains at SG#2 and SG#4 for 29
Projectile Impact Velocity of 843 ft/s

4
List of Tables
Page No.
Table 1 Johnson Cook Parameters for Target Plate 13
Table 2 Johnson Cook Parameters for Projectile 13
Table 3 Barlat’s Anisotropic Parameters for Target Plate 14
Table 4 Total number of elements in different Target Plate FE Mesh used 16
for convergence study

5
1. Introduction

Behavior of a material subjected to ballistic impact is of a major interest to the defense


industry. A material undergoing ballistic impact shows a highly nonlinear and dynamic
behavior including strain hardening, softening and fracture. The ballistic impact event is a
highly complicated phenomenon due to the involvement of many parameters, such as
impact velocity, the geometries and properties of the projectile and the target, dynamic
contact force and area, damage initiation and progression, etc.

Finite Element (FE) Method provides a practical option to simulate the complex
phenomenon of a ballistic impact. Once validated with the experiments, the FE model
can be executed with different parameters to study their effects on the impact dynamics.
A popular 3-D non linear dynamic Finite Element code LS-DYNA [2,3] with advanced
contact algorithms and material model is used successfully in this project to simulate the
impact of projectiles manufactured from A2 tool steel hardened to Rockwell 60C on the
target plate made of AL 2024 with a temper of T351.

These FE simulations are validated by comparing their predictions to the experimentally


obtained data. To study the effects of anisotropy of the target plate, simulations are
performed by assuming two different material models, an isotropic Johnson Cook (JC)
plasticity model [4] and Barlat’s anisotropic (BA) plasticity model [5] for the target plate.
Difference in their FE predictions demonstrates the effect of anisotropy of the target
plate.

2. Finite Element Modeling

2.1 Simulation tools

In the present study, the numerical analysis of non-linear impact and penetration was
performed using the non-linear finite element code LS-DYNA3D, which is dedicated to
the analysis of dynamic problems associated with large deformation, low- and high-
velocity impact, ballistic penetration and wave propagation, etc. As with all dynamics
codes, LS-DYNA3D seeks a solution to the momentum equation satisfying the traction
and displacement boundary conditions on the exterior and interior boundaries
respectively.

The energy equation is integrated in time and is used for evaluating the equation of state
and for a global energy balance. The integration scheme is based on the central difference
method and the velocities and displacements are updated accordingly. The principal
limitation during integration is the size of the time step, which should be small enough so
that a second wave cannot travel across the smallest element during one integration step.
The LS-PREPOST computer code was used for post-processing.

6
2.2 Geometric Details for Projectile and Target Plate

2.2.1 Projectile Geometry Details

The projectile geometry is shown in Figure 1. It’s essentially a cylindrical projectile with
a diameter of 0.5” and a length of 1.125”. The front face of the projectile had a large
radius of 2.75” and the edge of the front face was “broken” with a 1/32” radius. The
projectiles had a nominal mass of 28 gm, were manufactured from A2 tool steel and
hardened to Rockwell 60C.

1.125”

r=1/32”

R=2.75”

Material: A2 Tool Steel


Dia: 0.5”
Figure 1: Projectile Geometry

2.2.2 Target Plate Geometry Details

The target specimens were AL 2024 sheets with a temper of T351 and a thickness of
0.5”.

The test specimens were cut in squares, 15” on a side, with through holes for mounting
bolts (Figure 2). The through holes were 9/16 in diameter on 13 in bolt hole circle. They
were held in massive steel fixtures with a circular aperture shown in Figure 5 (note the
different scales in Figures 3a and 3b). The two parts of the fixture were 1.5” thick steel.

Details about the projectile and target plate have been taken from reference [1].

7
Figure 2: Plate test specimen with strain gages

9/16” through hole


20”
Typ

6.5”
6.5”

17”
5.0” 24”
15” 5.0”

13/16 through hole


(typ)

½ -13 unc threaded


through hole (typ)

15” 24”

Figure 3(a): Fixture front plate. Figure 3(b): Fixture back plate

Note scale difference between Figure 3(a) and 3(b)

8
2.3 FE Mesh Details for Projectile and Target Plate

In order to capture more realistically through the thickness deformations in the target
plate, solid modeling approach, as compared to shell modeling approach is used in this
analysis. Hence, FE mesh for the target plate and the projectile are generated using the
Eight Node Hexahedron Constant Stress (Elform=1) Solid Elements (Figure 4).

All the elements are numerically integrated using 1 point integration with Belytshko –
Bindemean [2] hourglass control (ihq=6).

Figure 4: Eight Node Hexahedron Solid Element

2.3.1 FE Mesh Details for Target Plate

FE model created is optimized for the stability, accuracy and efficiency of the impact
analysis. Since the impact is a localized phenomenon, acting on a very small volume of
the plate one way biased meshing is implemented which allows a dense mesh in the
impacted region and coarse mesh away from the region. Mesh transition between regions
is good enough to prevent stress wave reflection from the boundary of the regions [6].

This results in a butterfly mesh for the plate as shown in Figure 5. The plate contains a
total of 192000 solid elements with 10 uniform layers of through the thickness elements.
The element density has been chosen after performing a mesh convergence study, as
discussed in Section3.

9
Front View Exploded View

Side View

Figure 5: Finite Element Butterfly Mesh for the Target Plate

10
2.3.2 FE Mesh Details for Projectile

The projectile is made of a very hard material and therefore it is expected to undergo very
less deformations and that too only on the front impacting side of the projectile.
Therefore a mesh biasing is provided that results in finer mesh at the front of the
projectile and a coarser mesh at the end (Figure 6). The resulting projectile mesh contains
a total of 48000 solid elements.

Front View Side View

Back View

Figure 6: Finite Element Butterfly Mesh for Cylindrical Projectile

11
Y

X Z

Figure 7: Finite Element Mesh for the complete model

12
2.4 Material Models

To investigate the effect of the anisotropy of the target material on ballistic impact study,
FE analysis are repeatedly performed with two different material models for the target
plate, an isotropic simplified Johnson Cook plasticity model and a Barlat’s Anisotropic
plasticity Model. Both material models are accompanied with the same element failure
model.

The projectile material, however, in both the cases is assumed to follow an isotropic
simplified Johnson Cook Model. The material models utilized are introduced in detail in
the following section.

2.4.1 Simplified Johnson Cook Model

Johnson and Cook [4] express the flow stress as

σ y =  A + Bε ( )
pn  1 + c ln εɺ* ……………. (1)
 
Where

A, B, c and n are input constants


p
ε Effective plastic strain
εɺ
εɺ* = Effective strain rate
εɺo

Mass Density (gm/cc) 7.86


Young’s Modulus (dyne.cm-2) 2.03E12
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
A(dyne.cm-2) 9.9973E9
B(dyne.cm-2) 1.7853E10
C 0
N 0.1401
EPSO (s-1) 1

Table 1: Johnson Cook Parameters for Target Plate

Mass Density(gm/cc) 2.780


Young’s Modulus(dyne.cm-2) 73.1E10
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
A(dyne.cm-2) 2.25528E9
B(dyne.cm-2) 5.16142E9
C 0
N 0.2446
EPSO(s-1) 1

Table 2: Johnson Cook Parameters for Projectile

13
2.4.2 Barlat’s Anisotropic Plasticity Model

This model was developed by Barlat, Lege and Brem [5] for modeling material behavior
in forming process. The yield function for this model is defined as:

m
Φ = S1 − S 2 + S 2 − S3 + S3 − S1 = 2σ
m m m
…………….. (2)
Where σ is the effective stress and Si =1,2,3 are the principal values of the symmetric
matrix Sα , β ,

S xx = c (σ xx − σ yy ) − b (σ zz − σ xx )  3
S yy =  a (σ yy − σ zz ) − c (σ xx − σ yy )  3
S zz = b (σ zz − σ xx ) − a (σ yy − σ zz )  3
S yz = f σ yz
S zx = gσ zx
S xy = hσ xy

The material constant a, b, c, f, g and h represent anisotropic properties. If


a=b=c=f=g=h=1 then the material is isotropic and for m=1 yield surface reduces to
Tresca yield surface, whereas for m=2 or 4 yield surface reduces to von Mises yield
surface.

Mass Density(gm/cc) 2.780


Young’s Modulus(dyne.cm-2) 73.1E10
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
Flow potential exponent,m 8
A 0.9853
B 1.0452
C 0.9533
F 1.1835
G 1.1835
H 1.1475

Table 3: Barlat’s Anisotropic Parameters for Target Plate

14
The material is assumed to follow an isotropic hardening curve (effective stress versus
effective plastic strain) shown on Figure 8.

8.E+09

7.E+09
Effective Stress (dyne/cm^2)

6.E+09

5.E+09

4.E+09

3.E+09

2.E+09

1.E+09

0.E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Effective Plastic Strain

Figure 8: Isotropic hardening curve for Barlat’s Anisotropic Plasticity Model

2.4.3 Element Failure Model

To allow crack growth and fracture during penetration, the plasticity material in both the
cases is coupled with an element-kill algorithm (Using Mat_Add_Erosion Card) available
in LS-DYNA that removes the damaged elements from the mesh when the damage
variable reaches the predetermined critical value. In this study, failure/complete fracture
of finite elements is assumed to occur when maximum principal strain (erosion strain)
reaches the critical constant of 0.3

15
3. FE Simulation Results and Discussion

The developed 3-D FE model is simulated for the projectile impact velocities of 717, 843,
906 and 961 ft/s. for a total time of 0.2 microseconds. In FE analysis, eroding single
surface contact algorithm are employed to simulate the contact behavior between surfaces
during penetration. The boundaries of target plate are rigidly constrained for both the
translation and rotational movements. In the analysis, normal to the target plate is the
global x- direction and the plate itself lies on the y-z plane (Figure 7).

The simulations are validated by comparing their predictions with the experimentally
obtained projectile residual velocity and strain gauge data at different location.

3.1 Mesh Convergence Study

Mesh convergence studies are often overlooked in FE Simulations involving element


erosion. The reason for the same is Finite Element Simulations with element erosion are
meshing sensitive and their solutions depend on the mesh element size [7]. Therefore, it
is not possible to show mesh convergence in the current simulation. However, we follow
the standard practice of performing a mesh convergence study for the current model
without the element failure, i.e., element erosion card is commented out.

In order to support the element mesh density chosen in our current simulation, 5 FE
simulations with different mesh density for the target plate (keeping the same number of
through the thickness elements (10)), are performed at the projectile impact velocity of
843 ft/s. The projectile velocity and the nodal displacement at the centre of the non-
impacted side of the target plate are chosen to be the indicators of convergence. As can
be seen from Figures 9-12, all mesh above Mesh2 has converging results for both the
material models; therefore, we have chosen Mesh4 for our study for both the material
models.

Mesh Number Total Number of Element Degree of Refinement


Mesh1 48000 1
Mesh2 108000 2.25
Mesh3 147000 3
Mesh4 (Simulation Mesh) 192000 4
Mesh5 221880 4.6

Table 4: Total number of elements in different Target Plate FE Mesh used for
convergence study

16
Mesh Convergence for Barlat’s Anisotropic Plasticity Model

900

800 Mesh1
Mesh2
700 Mesh3
Mesh4
Projectile Velocity (ft/s)

600
Mesh5
500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
-100
Time (ms)

Figure 9: Projectile Velocity History

0.25

0.2
Nodal Displacement (in)

0.15

0.1
Mesh1
Mesh2
Mesh3
0.05
Mesh4
Mesh5

0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (ms)

Figure 10: Nodal X-Displacement History at the centre of the non-impacted side of target
plate

17
Mesh Convergence for Isotropic Johnson Cook Plasticity Model

900

800 Mesh1
Mesh2
700 Mesh3
Mesh4
Projectile Velocity (ft/s)

600
Mesh5
500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
-100
Time (ms)

Figure 11: Projectile Velocity History

0.2

0.15
Nodal Displacement (in)

0.1

Mesh1
Mesh2
0.05
Mesh3
Mesh4
Mesh5

0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (ms)

Figure 12: Nodal X-Displacement History at the centre of the non-impacted side of target
plate

18
3.2 Projectile Velocity History Comparison for the two material models and experiments

After impact, the kinetic energy of the projectile is transferred to the target plate, and as
the projectile penetrates the plate, the kinetic energy will be reduced while the internal
energy of the system will increase. This results in the decrease of the projectile velocity
as it penetrates through the plate.

In order to investigate the effect different material model for the target plate, the velocity
history profile of the projectile for both the material models compared among each other
and to the experimentally measured projectile exit velocity.

The comparisons for different projectile impact velocities are shown in Figure 13 (717
ft/s), Figure 14 (843 ft/s), Figure 15 (906 ft/s), and Figure 16 (961 ft /s).

800
Barlat's Anisotropic Model
700
Johnson Cook Model
600
Projectile Velocity (ft/s)

Experimental Exit Velocity


500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100

Time (ms)

Figure 13: FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile Impact
Velocity of 717 ft/s

19
900
Barlat's Anisotropic Model
800
Johnson Cook Model
700
Projectile Velocity (ft/s)

Experimental Exit Velocity


600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100

Time (ms)

Figure 14: FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile Impact
Velocity of 843 ft/s

1000

900
Barlat's Anisotropic Model

800 Johnson Cook Model


Projectile Velocity (ft/s)

700 Experimental Exit Velocity

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Time (ms)

Figure 15: FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile Impact
Velocity of 906 ft/s

20
1200
Barlat's Anisotropic Model
1000 Johnson Cook Model
Projectile Velocity (ft/s)

Experimental Exit Velocity


800

600

400

200

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Time (ms)

Figure 16: FE Predicted Projectile Velocity History comparison for Projectile Impact
Velocity of 961 ft/s

450
Experiment
400 Barlat's Anisotropic Model
Johnson Cook Model
350

300
Residual Velocity (ft/s)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-50

-100
Impact Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 17: Comparison of FE Predicted Projectile Exit Velocity for Different Projectile
Impact Velocities

21
The comparison of projectile exit velocity in Figure 17 indicates that Barlat’s Anisotropic
Model’s predictions are much closer to the experimentally obtained exit velocities as
against Johnson Cook Model which predicts a more penetration resistant material.

The reason for such a drastic difference between the two material models can be
attributed to their yield surface. The JC model has a Von-Mises type yield surface,
whereas the Barlat’s model consists of an anisotropic yield surface given by eqn. 2.

Comparison for both the yield surface is shown in Figure 18. It can be clearly seen from
the figure that Von-Mises yield surface results in higher yield stress for the material in
shear as compared to Barlat’s yield surface. Because the projectile penetration event is a
highly shear dominated phenomenon this plays a crucial role in predicting response of the
target material. Hence, by comparing the projectile velocities, it can be concluded that
Barlat’s Anisotropic Material Model and Johnson Cook Model results in very different
projectile velocity history.

Figure 18: Yield Function for m=1 or ∞, m=2 or 4, m=8 in π plane

22
3.3 Strain History Comparison for the two material models and experiments

Finite Element simulations are also validated by comparing the experimentally obtained
strain gauge data at 5 different location of the target plate (Figure 19). Since the Strain
Gauge Data were made available for only for the experiments with projectile impact
velocity of 717 ft/s and 843 ft/s comparisons are shown only for these two cases
(Figures 20-29).
Center of Test Panel
2”

1”

1”

1”

Figure 19: Strain gage locations on non-impacted side of the target plate and their
numbering scheme

Strain Comparison for Projectile Impact Velocity of 717 ft/s

120000

100000

80000
uStrain ZZ

60000

40000 Barlat's Anisotropic


Model
Johnson Cook Model
20000
Experiment

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-20000
Time (ms)

Figure 20: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 176361


located at Strain Gauge #1
23
3000

2000

1000

0
uStrain YY

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2


-1000

-2000

-3000
Barlat's Anisotropic Model
-4000
Johnson Cook Model

-5000 Experiment

Time (ms)

Figure 21: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain YY History of Element No. 145594


located at Strain Gauge #2

2000

1000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-1000
uStrain ZZ

-2000

-3000

-4000
Barlat's Anisotropic Model
-5000
Johnson Cook Model
-6000 Experiment
Time (ms)

Figure 22: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 81591 located
at Strain Gauge #3

24
3000

2000

1000

0
uStrain ZZ

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2


-1000

-2000

-3000
Barlat's Anisotropic
-4000 Model
Johnson Cook Model
-5000 Experiment
Time (ms)

Figure 23: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 64241


located at Strain Gauge #4

3000

2000

1000
uStrain ZZ

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-1000

-2000

-3000 Barlat's Anisotropic Model


Johnson Cook Model
-4000 Experiment
Time (ms)

Figure 24: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 64681 located
at Strain Gauge #5
25
Strain Comparison for Projectile Impact Velocity of 843 ft/s

200000

180000

160000

140000

120000
uStrain ZZ

100000

80000

60000
Barlat's Anisotropic
40000 Model
Johnson Cook Model
20000 Experiment
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-20000
Time (ms)

Figure 25: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 176361


located at Strain Gauge #1

3000

2000

1000

0
uStrain YY

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2


-1000

-2000

-3000
Barlat's Anisotropic
Model
-4000 Johnson Cook Model
Experiment
-5000
Time (ms)

Figure 26: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain YY History of Element No. 145594


located at Strain Gauge #2
26
2000

1000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-1000
uStrain ZZ

-2000

-3000

-4000
Barlat's Anisotropic Model
-5000
Johnson Cook Model
-6000 Experiment
Time (ms)

Figure 27: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 81591 located
at Strain Gauge #3

3000

2000

1000

0
uStrain ZZ

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2


-1000

-2000

-3000
Barlat's Anisotropic
-4000 Model
Johnson Cook Model
-5000 Experiment
Time (ms)

Figure 28: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 64241


located at Strain Gauge #4

27
3000

2000

1000
uStrain ZZ

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-1000

-2000

-3000 Barlat's Anisotropic Model


Johnson Cook Model
-4000 Experiment
Time (ms)

Figure 29: Comparison of FE Predicted Strain ZZ History of Element No. 64681


located at Strain Gauge #5
As can be inferred from the above the comparison, the predictions of the Barlat’s
Model’s and the Johnson Cook Model matches with experimentally obtained strain
values at Strain Gauge Location #2, #3, #4 and #5 and there is not much difference
between the strain prediction from Isotropic Johnson Cook Model and Barlat’s Anistropic
Model. The slight difference with the experimental results can be attributed to the
absence of damping in the numerical simulation.

At Strain Gauge #1, only the Barlat’s Model matches with the experimental strain values,
Johnson Cook Model on the other hand predicts higher strains. This can be directly
attributed, again, to their yield surfaces. Johnson Cook model results in higher yield
stresses for shear and therefore strains more.

To investigate if anisotropy has an effect on the region away from the impact, strain
history at the two Strain Gauges # 2 and # 4, which are located in the plane of the plate at
points equidistant from the origin of impact and at perpendicular directions to each other,
are compared. The comparison of the strain values for the two cases (Figure 30, 31)
shows that the strain value at the two locations are not too different from each others,
thereby, concluding that the use of anisotropic plasticity material model does not result in
different strain values at points away from the region of impact and equidistant from the
origin of impact, which we would have otherwise expected in an anisotropic material.
The reason for this could be the fact that the impact is a highly localized phenomenon and
all the plastic strains are concentrated at and very close to the region of impact. Hence the
material at the location away from the region of impact is still in isotropic elastic range.

28
3000

2000

1000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
uStrain

-1000

-2000

-3000
Barlat SG4
-4000 JC SG4
Experiment SG4
Barlat SG2
-5000 JC SG2
Time (ms) Experiment SG2

Figure 30: Comparison of FE Predicted Strains at SG#2 and SG#4 for Projectile
Impact Velocity of 717 ft/s

3000

2000

1000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
uStrain

-1000

-2000

-3000
Barlat SG4
-4000 JC SG4
Experiment SG4
Barlat SG2
-5000 JC SG2
Experiment SG2
Time (ms)

Figure 31: Comparison of FE Predicted Strains at SG#2 and SG#4 for Projectile Impact
Velocity of 843 ft/s
29
4. Conclusion

In this project, FE Simulations for ballistic impact of projectiles manufactured from A2


tool steel hardened to Rockwell 60C on the target plate made of AL 2024 with a temper
of T351 are performed. In order to investigate the effect of the anisotropy of the target
material on ballistic impact study, FE analysis are repeatedly performed with two
different material models for the target plate, an isotropic simplified Johnson Cook
plasticity model and a Barlat’s Anisotropic plasticity Model for different projectile
impact velocities.

Mesh convergence studies are performed for both the material models to select a FE
mesh for the model. The results of the simulations are validated with the experimentally
obtained data.

Comparison of the FE predicted projectile velocity history and Strain History at SG#1
concludes that Barlat’s Anisotropic Material Model and Johnson Cook Model results in
very different response at and around the region of impact.

At region away from the impact, the strain values are almost similar with both the
material model, thereby concluding that the use of anisotropic plasticity material model
does not result in different strain values at points away from the region of impact.

References

[1] J. M. Pereira, D. M. Revilock and C. R. Ruggeri, ‘Ballistic Impact Testing of AL2024


Sheet and Plate’, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
[2] John O. Hallquist, ‘LS DYNA Theoretical Manual’, Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, CA, 1998.
[3] ‘LS DYNA Keyword User Manual Volume 1’, Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, 2007.
[4] Johnson GR, Cook WH, ‘Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various
strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures’, Eng Fract Mech, 21 (1985), pp 31–48.
[5] F. Barlat, D.J. Lege and J.C. Brem, ‘A six-component yield functions for anisotropic
materials’, Int J Plasticity, 7 (1991), pp 693–712.
[6] H. Kurtaran, M. Buyuk, A. Eskandarian, ‘Ballistic impact simulation of GT model
vehicle door using finite element method’, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech., 40 (2003), pp 113–
121.
[7] H. Billon, ‘A Model for Ballistic Impact on Soft Armour’, Aeronautical and Maritime
Research Laboratory, DSTO-TR-0730.

30