2 views

Uploaded by Kapil Nandwana

Project Report

- ansiotropic damage plasticity
- Stiffened Plates Subjected to Uniform Blast Loading
- 13 Chapter 1
- 1610150502_ftp
- R.B. Pęcherski, P.Szeptyński, M.Nowak, An extension of Burzyński hypothesis of material effort accounting for the third invariant of stress tensor, Archive of Metallurgy and Materials, 56, 503-508, 2011.
- 07910127
- Finite Element Analysis of Flush End Plate Moment Connections Under Cyclic Loading
- Analysis of Von- Mises-Stress for Interference Fit and Pull-Out States by using Finite Element Method
- BENDS.docx
- Report_VTT-R-02199-10_FRAS-1-1-3_26Apr2010
- Session12_Paper1
- Continuum Mechanics
- High-Rise Buildings in Germany Soil-Structure Interaction of Deep
- GSI, Q, RMR
- Varco Pruden Manual
- ANSYS 1D Structural Truss Tutorial _ Stepped Bar in Tension - Online Finite Element Analysis Consultancy Service
- 16-399
- deformacao plastica2014
- w02 Tapered Beam
- 1449.full.pdf

You are on page 1of 30

Project Report By

Kapil Nandwana

Department of Mechanical Engineering

The Ohio State University

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

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.

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.

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

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”

Dia: 0.5”

Figure 1: Projectile Geometry

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

20”

Typ

6.5”

6.5”

17”

5.0” 24”

15” 5.0”

(typ)

through hole (typ)

15” 24”

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

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).

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

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.

Back View

11

Y

X Z

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.

σ y = A + Bε ( )

pn 1 + c ln εɺ* ……………. (1)

Where

p

ε Effective plastic strain

εɺ

εɺ* = Effective strain rate

εɺo

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Projectile Velocity (ft/s)

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)

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.

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

120000

100000

80000

uStrain ZZ

60000

Model

Johnson Cook Model

20000

Experiment

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

-20000

Time (ms)

located at Strain Gauge #1

23

3000

2000

1000

0

uStrain YY

-1000

-2000

-3000

Barlat's Anisotropic Model

-4000

Johnson Cook Model

-5000 Experiment

Time (ms)

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

-1000

-2000

-3000

Barlat's Anisotropic

-4000 Model

Johnson Cook Model

-5000 Experiment

Time (ms)

located at Strain Gauge #4

3000

2000

1000

uStrain ZZ

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

-1000

-2000

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)

located at Strain Gauge #1

3000

2000

1000

0

uStrain YY

-1000

-2000

-3000

Barlat's Anisotropic

Model

-4000 Johnson Cook Model

Experiment

-5000

Time (ms)

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

-1000

-2000

-3000

Barlat's Anisotropic

-4000 Model

Johnson Cook Model

-5000 Experiment

Time (ms)

located at Strain Gauge #4

27

3000

2000

1000

uStrain ZZ

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

-1000

-2000

Johnson Cook Model

-4000 Experiment

Time (ms)

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

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

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

- ansiotropic damage plasticityUploaded byferasalkam
- Stiffened Plates Subjected to Uniform Blast LoadingUploaded byYong Kim
- 13 Chapter 1Uploaded byडॉ. कनिष्क शर्मा
- 1610150502_ftpUploaded byTrong Nhan Do
- R.B. Pęcherski, P.Szeptyński, M.Nowak, An extension of Burzyński hypothesis of material effort accounting for the third invariant of stress tensor, Archive of Metallurgy and Materials, 56, 503-508, 2011.Uploaded byRyszard B. Pecherski
- 07910127Uploaded byRuben Higuera
- Finite Element Analysis of Flush End Plate Moment Connections Under Cyclic LoadingUploaded byraj vaddi
- Analysis of Von- Mises-Stress for Interference Fit and Pull-Out States by using Finite Element MethodUploaded byIRJET Journal
- BENDS.docxUploaded byRicardo Ferreira
- Report_VTT-R-02199-10_FRAS-1-1-3_26Apr2010Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Session12_Paper1Uploaded byali
- Continuum MechanicsUploaded byPraveen Jain
- High-Rise Buildings in Germany Soil-Structure Interaction of DeepUploaded byClayton Roberson
- GSI, Q, RMRUploaded byDeepthi Achar
- Varco Pruden ManualUploaded byelidstone@hotmail.com
- ANSYS 1D Structural Truss Tutorial _ Stepped Bar in Tension - Online Finite Element Analysis Consultancy ServiceUploaded byAnonymous lGK9Y6
- 16-399Uploaded byJoel C. Silva
- deformacao plastica2014Uploaded byKauê Carvalho
- w02 Tapered BeamUploaded byBala Murugan
- 1449.full.pdfUploaded byAlinda Ratna S
- Note de Calcul-oulad Ayad11.DocUploaded byAmar Aliche
- Material Selection GuideUploaded byUrvashee Devi Jadheea
- Stat to TaleUploaded byPaolo Rugarli
- Optimization of Microwave Assisted Hydrodistillation of Lemongrass (Cymbopogon Citratus) Using Response Surface MethodologyUploaded byesatjournals
- 00089518Uploaded bymsmsoft
- Intro_7Uploaded byChandra Clark
- Zayas 1981Uploaded bycmkoh
- 4th-IntConf-SCESCMUploaded bypiscesas45
- A Study of Contact Stresses in Pin Loaded Orthotropic PlatesUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- Engadvanced Concept Training - FemUploaded byJevgenijsKolupajevs

- Extracted Pages From 20180109112834788Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- energies-09-00340Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- UBC VOL 1Uploaded byAbdullah Yamani
- HgGa2Se4 Gomis Et Al-2015-Physica Status Solidi (b)Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Table 3 a Ubc Vol 1Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Table 3 a Ubc Vol 1Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Swagelok VibrationUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- ANSYS Explicit Dynamics Analysis GuideUploaded byArun Jacob Cherian
- ANSYS Explicit Dynamics Analysis GuideUploaded byArun Jacob Cherian
- ANSYS Explicit Dynamics Analysis GuideUploaded byArun Jacob Cherian
- Y14.5-2009_FM (1)Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- GuidelinesOCIUploaded byshahhd
- IJERTV1IS3065Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Y14.5-2009_FM (1).pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Extracted pages from 20180109112834788.pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- jhgUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- jhgUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Extracted Pages From 16-0132-ESOR Rev 1Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Floor covering Tarkett Acczent Excellence.pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Floor covering Tarkett Acczent Excellence.pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- 2.5 Amplification.pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Selecting the Right Vibro-Isolators _ Karman Rubber Company.pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Extracted Pages From 20180109112834788Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- rfdeUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Graph Data Rev. 1Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Extracted pages from 20180109112834788.pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana
- Scan1Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- ANCHORBOLT(318-08).Uploaded byKapil Nandwana
- 2.5 Amplification.pdfUploaded byKapil Nandwana

- Test Bending RebarUploaded byaminiskandar
- 504_J_7921Uploaded byRabab M Aly
- gateUploaded byfarhan danish
- 41023-1146_2.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Shahid Hussain
- BUILT UP EDGE pptUploaded byAnish Ahmed
- APPROXIMATE-ANALYSIS-OF-PILED-RAFT.pdfUploaded byMisgun Samuel
- LEP1301_01 Hooke’s law.pdfUploaded byJose Galvan
- SEO Electromagnetic Blank Restrainer IJMS 2008Uploaded byCalvin James
- 7-Ottawa County Farms Cp 7-Vi Pipe-stress-calculations 530131 7Uploaded byRaakze Movi
- F. F. Lange -- Transformation TougheningUploaded byYu Gen Xin
- RollingUploaded byswainpiyush
- Modeling Techniques in GeomechanicsUploaded bysmanoj354
- Lajes Planas Apoiadas Sobre Pilares MetalicosUploaded bymarcelopfontes
- Accident MV ConfortUploaded byAher256
- Mechanics of Material Lab6Uploaded byNiroex
- Ce6306 Strength of Materials Lecture NotesUploaded byRakeshkumarceg
- IndexUploaded byGunaedy Utomo
- Duaso Test YourselfUploaded bySharmaine Cruzat Austria
- Weeks1-2Uploaded byppmaster
- SAE Paper Number 2001014072Uploaded bylr2008
- CH01 Basic ConceptsUploaded bycjones2013
- ResearchProjectsBurrFormationandDeburring_0304_TECH2Uploaded byBebzy Muetz
- A. Hillerborg-Strip Method Design Handbook-CRC Press (1996)Uploaded byNabigh Ahmad
- TOPIC 2 – ANALYSIS OF RECT SECTIONS (EC2) (1).pptxUploaded byNur Syaf Fiqah
- Deformation of Noncrystalline MaterialsUploaded bycynthialeo94
- DESIGN OF RC PRESSURE TUNNELS.pdfUploaded bypramods_8
- mechanical properties of wood and steelUploaded byritolab
- Misumi Punches Coating WPCUploaded byPeter Nomikos
- Fundamentals of Metal FatigueUploaded bypkpnitian_152297088
- 87822_01.pdfUploaded byjesuselvisele