Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

MAE 409A - 02
Finite Element Methods 1
Dr. Daniel Whisler
Fall 2016

FINAL PROJECT
Submitted by

Lorenzo Brito 010329707


Christian Orozco 010360426

Date Submitted: Thursday, November, 8 2016


Table of Contents
i. Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...1

ii. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….1

iii. Background Review…………………………………………………..…………..2

iv. Equations…………………………………………………..……………………...4

v. Procedures.……………………………………………………..…………….…....5

vi. Results………………………………………………………………………….….7

vii. Discussion………………………………………………………………………..11

viii. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….…….12

ix. References……………………………………………………………….….…….14

x. Appendices…………………………………………………………………..…....15
Abstract
To prove that we can abaqus, analysis on a Hopkinson bar
will be performed with a dynamic test under uniaxial
compression. Using ABAQUS, several iterations must be performed
to fully analyze a specimen. When running these simulations
several conditions must be met to match true experimental
results. These conditions must be changed to get an applied
force to converge to an exact curve representing how the
material of the specimen will react.

Introduction
In this lab we were tasked with determining contact force
to validate a prototype armor specimen. Using ABAQUS, finite
element analysis will be used to conduct two simulations. The
first simulation will demonstrate the proper use of a foam
material. The simulation will confirm that a 160 kg/m^3 density
for polymer foam was submitted incorrect. Therefore, the foam
projectile, with a corrected 80 kg/m^3, will be constructed to
validate the true deformation analysis of the material. A static
test will provide the true stress and strain curve with a static
change over the incorrect material property. Next a dynamic test
will validate the true stress and strain curve. The setup for
the second simulation test was comprised of a foam projectile
with an aluminum face colliding with a cubic specimen attached
to a Hopkinson pressure bar. The specimen was comprised of
different layers of materials (Aluminum 5058, polyurethane, and
an aluminum foam) with the aluminum foam being the principal
material of interest. The projectile was fired at 38, 70, and 98
meters per second at the specimen and the contact forces of the
collision surfaces were plotted against time and compared to the
actual experimental data provided by Dr. Whisler.
Background Review/Literature Review
The previous lab was conducted using ABAQUS where foam
material properties were added blindly. While ABAQUS performs an
extensive analysis of every finite element of the foam, several
iteration must be performed to verify the results with true
experimental results.

To understand material properties, proper understanding of


these element must be understood. Young’s Modulus is stress over
strain where stress is the force applied under a specified cross
sectional area. Strain is the displacement of the compressed
length over total length. Young's Modulus is the ability of a
material to deform considering the applied force under a cross
sectional area.
Poisson's Ratio considers deformation of a specimen. Both
the longitudinal displacement and the lateral displacement is
considered. Each material has a different Ratio because of how
the material is affected and how the material is effected by a
force applied.
Crushable Foam Hardening, is dependent on Yield Stress and
Plastic Strain. Yield Stress is the value of stress at a yield
point. The yield point is the point of deformation, in other
words where the material becomes plastic. Plastic Strain is the
stress at onset of plastic deformation. These are core values
that define the point of deformation of the material. Stress
ratio is the ratio of maximum stress a material can take with
the minimum material a specimen can take.
Foma Density influence the crash response such as more
compact will have a stronger effect on compressing than compared
to a lower density foam which won’t be dense enough and allow
compression rate to increase substantially.
The Hopkinson pressure examines sandwich structures with
foam cores at specified strain rates. Quasi-static analysis
increases the strain rate by 125%-238% according to an article
written by Dr. Whisler. Because of the high density foam SHPB
setup generates a high stress and high strain. Since
experimental analysis has been conducted. A validation of the
analysis will be conducted to verify the results under new
material and different velocity rates.
The specimen is 51 mm in height with a new density of 80
kg/m^3. According to the experimental data, the finite element
analysis simulation will verify that the manufacturer provided
and incorrect 160 kg/m^3 density for a 51 mm specimen. Using the
material properties define by the instructor, Dr. Daniel
Whisler, a dynamic test will be used to verify that the 80
kg/m^3 density is the true density when applying different
velocities.
Equations
Hook’s Law

True Stress
=exp(Engineering Strain)*Engineering Stress (7)
Plastic Strain
= True Strain – ln(1 + (True Stress/Modulus of Elasticity) (8)
ε_t = Transverse strain
ε_t = Longitudinal strain
F_p = Force in the parallel direction
F_p = Force in the normal direction
*Modulus of Elasticity under Plastic Strain is found from True
Procedures
Since the model is similar to the models created in previous
simulations procedures will begin with reference to those
procedures.

Part A

1. Assuming the model has been created with the same material
properties, the user will be changing the density value
from 160 kg/m^3 to 80 kg/m^3.
2. Create a section for the different material if you will be
applying a new material. Assign the section to a part.
3. Apply the new material if needed to the part by aplying the
section.
4. Run a static test by performing the similar load as the
previous lab.
5. Create a new Job.
6. Simulate the results.
7. Generate your date by using the XY data option with sub
selection ODB field output.
8. Select a nodal element as your selection.
9. Click save and dismiss.
10. Select the same option but now select Operate on XY data
to generate your stress and strain graph.
11. Generate the outputs of these graphs onto excel to
calculate and graph the true stress as true strain graphs.
12. Redo steps 1-9 but change your density to 240 kg/ m^3 to
compare the results of true.
Part B:
1. Create the Plate, projectile, and specimen with specified
dimensions as stated in the appendix. Make sure your radius
for the projectile and plate are actually imputed as
radii’s
2. Once the parts are finished, return to the specimen to
partition the body by using the command Partition Cell:
Define Cutting Plane. Calculate the dimension of the
partitions to do this for every subsection of the specimen.
3. Once finished create your material by creating a section
for each material.
4. Create a constraint where the projectile touches the plate.
Set your master surface as the projectile and slave surface
as the plate.
5. Next Set up your boundary conditions for the end of the
specimen, Input it into the initial step and set it as
encastre.
6. Set a predefined field for the projectile to allow a
velocity of 38 m/s. Similarly you will be testing a
velocity of 70 and 98 m/s.
7. Create a step to simulate how long the simulation will run
for. Set your time period as 0.0025.
8. Run your job
9. Select write input to collect your .inp file.
10. Compare your results of the different velocities by
inputting 70 and 98 m/s in step 6.
11. Generate your true stress and true strain graphs by
following the Part A steps 7-11.
Results
Part B:

38 m/s

In the initial test, the parameter for velocity was set to 38


m/s for the collision. The simulation provided a very realistic
model in which the projectile impacted the specimen, the
specimen compressed slightly, and the projectile experienced a
small deformation wave travel through the body. The simulation
from with the maximum axial compression is shown in the figure
below.

Following the completion of the simulation, the contact forces


between the surface of the specimen and the surface of the
projectile were extracted and plotted against time. A history
output is created for contact force at a node on the surface of
the specimen. The data is saved and opened in excel. The data
points were then plotted using an Excel scatter-plot and an
average trendline (shown as a solid line) was added to the plot
using points in groups of 25.The y-axis represents contact force
in Newtons and the x-axis represents time.
For the collision at a velocity of 38 m/s, the average trendline
reaches a maximum of approximately 35 kN before the trendline
begins to attenuate and ultimately converges to zero as the
projectile separates completely from the specimen.

70 m/s
For the second simulation the velocity parameter was set to 70
m/s and the simulation was run again. The second simulation with
increased projectile velocity yielded a slightly greater
compression of the specimen while also causing more deformation
of the projectile’s foam body. The simulation frame showing the
maximum compression of the specimen is shown below. Note the
obviously increased deformation of the foam projectile around
the perimeter of the aluminum face.
Again a node on the face of the specimen was selected for a
contact force history output. The data was extracted to Excel
where it was again plotted in a scatter-plot with an average
trendline (shown as a solid line) using groups of 25.
The higher velocity produced notably higher individual
magnitudes of contact force, as well as higher averages for the
data set as a whole. This collision produced a peak average of
approximately 41 kN and subsequently begins to attenuate. This
simulation also yielded a longer contact duration for the
collision. Therefore, a longer duration is needed for the set to
converge to zero.

98 m/s

Lastly, the velocity parameter was set to 98 m/s and the


simulation was run a final time. As expected the specimen was
compressed slightly more than the previous run, with the most
obvious deformation occurring in the projectile body as shown in
the figure below.
Extracting the data to Excel and plotting in same manner as the
previous simulations yields the scatter-plot below.

At a velocity of 98 m/s the length of contact is again increased


(as noted by the width of the data set as it converges to zero)
as well as the average contact forces. At this velocity the
maximum average contact forces are increased to approximately 60
kN. Both of these increasing characteristics are in accordance
with the trend noticed with the increase from an initial
velocity of 38 m/s to 70 m/s.

Discussion
In analyzing the data extracted from the simulation, we are
fairly confident in assuming the simulations are a close
representation of real world experiments. The specimen deforms
only slightly when subjected to the collisions.
Unfortunately, due to malfunctioning abaqus Part A data for
part A was unable to proceed.
Our plots closely resemble those provided to us by Dr.
Whisler, which can be found in the introduction.
References
[1] D. Whisler and H. Kim, "Experimental and simulated high
strain dynamic loading of polyurethane foam," Polymer Testing,
vol. 41, pp. 219–230, Feb. 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01429418140026
45. Accessed: Dec. 5, 2016
Appendices

*Material, name=ALUM_REGULAR
*Density
2700.,
*Elastic
7e+10, 0.33
*Material, name=ALUM_5058_EP
*Density
2660.,
*Elastic
7.1e+10, 0.33
*Plastic
2.15e+08, 0.
2.3e+08, 0.5
*Material, name=P_POLYUREA
*Density
300,
*Elastic
2.7e+07, 0.3
*Plastic
1.2e+07, 0.00
4.0e+07, 1.00
1.2e+08, 1.50
5.0e+10, 2.00
*Material, name=STEEL
*Density
7850.,
*Elastic
2e+11, 0.3
*Material, name=ALUM_FOAM
*Density
500.0,
*Elastic
202e+06, 0.000
*CRUSHABLE FOAM,HARDENING=ISOTROPIC
1.43, 0.16
*CRUSHABLE FOAM HARDENING
2.04e+06, 0.000
2.41e+06, 0.086
1.50e+07, 0.600
4.50e+07, 1.200
1.50e+08, 1.750
*Rate Dependent, type=YIELD RATIO
1.0, 0.00
2.0, 2500
*Material, name=FOAM_080KG
*Density
160.00,
*Elastic
32.00e+06, 0.00
*CRUSHABLE FOAM,HARDENING=VOLUMETRIC
1.32, 1.00
*CRUSHABLE FOAM HARDENING
1.00e+06, 0.000
1.40e+06, 0.817
2.10e+06, 1.415
5.00e+06, 2.361
1.00e+07, 3.300
1.00e+08, 4.000
*Rate Dependent, type=YIELD RATIO
1.0, 0.00
1.1, 2500
*Material, name=FOAM_160KG
*Density
160.00,
*Elastic
80.90e+06, 0.00
*CRUSHABLE FOAM,HARDENING=VOLUMETRIC
1.16, 0.83
*CRUSHABLE FOAM HARDENING
2.50e+06, 0.000
2.80e+06, 0.123
4.18e+06, 0.700
8.24e+06, 1.200
50.00e+07, 2.234
10.00e+08, 4.343
*Rate Dependent, type=YIELD RATIO
1.0, 0.00
1.1, 2500

Procedure for Previous Labs:


1. First, create the foam by switching the Module to, Part.
2. A new set of options will appear and you will be able to select “Create
Part”
3. Give your part a name and click continue.
4. Select create lines in the new options that appear
5. Smart dimension can be used to define the length of each side.
6. The foam will be 26.3144 mm in length, 25.146 mm in width.
7. Once done the extrude property will pop up to give the foam its desired
height of 44.3738 mm.
8. Alternatively, the corner rectangle may be selected to create the foam.
9. The shape may be formed by inputting initial corner coordinates as
(-26.3144, -25.146, 0) and final corner coordinates as (26.3144, 25.146, 0).
This will be helpful when creating the assembly.
10. Once done, the extrude property may be entered with 44.3738 units.
11. Create a new part with a circle of radius 31.75. Click done to
extrude the circle to 25.4 mm. Name it Top Plate and recreate this for
the Bottom Plate.
12. Switch the module to Assembly.
13. Under the new options, select create instance. Create instance from:
Part will remain the same. Select all the parts with Independent (mesh
on instance)
14. Click okay
15. Click translate instances to move the foam so that it will be placed
on top of the bottom surface.
16. Similarly, move the top surface so it will be placed on top of the
foam.
17. Switch the module to Property.
18. Select create material for foam
19. Name the material Foam, select the General tab, Density, and input
160 for Density.
20. Create another material, name it Aluminum with a density of 0.
21. Select Mechanical tab, Elasticity, Elastic.
22. For Young’s Modulus enter 71700000000, and for Poisson’s Ratio enter
0.33
23. Click Foam under the Model tab, far left. Select Create section to
assign the material to this part. Do not change anything and click
continue. Choose your material.
24. Similarly apply the material to the top and bottom plates
25. Switch the Module to Step.
26. Select Create Step, Type: Static General, Time Period: 1,
27. Under incremenation tab, Maximum number of increments: 1000, initial
Increment size: 0.1, minimum increment size is 1E-007, max increment
size is 1.
28. Switch the model to Interactions.
29. Select create constraint, Type: Tie, master surface will be the top
of the bottom plate, and slave surface will be bottom foam surface.
30. Similarly, apply another constraint on the bottom of the top plate
being the master surface and the top of the foam being the slave
surface.
31. Switch Module to mesh. Initiate mesh size. Add Mesh to all parts.
32. Switch the module to Load, select create boundary conditions, Type
for selected step: Symmetry/Antisymmetry/Encastre, Step: Initial ,select
the Bottom Plate, and choose Encastre. This will fix the Bottom Plate.
33. Switch Module to load. Type is Pressure, Step: Step 1, Region: top of
Surface, Distribution: uniform, Magnitude: 10000, Amplitude: (Ramp).
34. Switch the Module to Job. Create a job for Model-1
35. Click ok.
36. Select the job and submit for analysis.
37. Once finished find the file in the temp folder for abaqus
38. Scroll down to the portion where density was entered for foam
properties. Copy and paste the provided data on beachboard.
39. Save the file
40. Back on abaqus select job manager. Submit job file for analysis.
41. A complete compression with the given load will appear.
42. Success.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Data
For the initial calculations of true stress, true strain, and plastic strain, a sample has been
provided below as well as the plot for the entire group of data

True Strain True Plastic Strain


Stress(Pa)

0.000126831 34452.77552 -0.000311479

0.000380445 26820.36808 3.92181E-05

0.000570106 38289.27693 8.29996E-05

0.000823608 60467.9847 5.44577E-05

0.001203233 58961.56292 0.000453237

0.001583221 80404.76179 0.000560605

0.002152426 93463.48799 0.000963823

0.00259531 112650.048 0.001162881

0.003227156 135709.8921 0.001501757

0.003479986 148774.4477 0.001588642


0.004048112 184137.2126 0.001707734

0.004616421 207262.6435 0.001982506

0.005120808 232702.5806 0.002164078

0.005499311 280408.785 0.001937501

0.006066291 301316.372 0.002239417

0.006632951 340701.2972 0.002306948

0.007136826 387030.4338 0.002224009

0.007514063 413342.2526 0.002268128

0.00795458 458179.792 0.00214124

0.00852017 505430.7208 0.002109233

0.008897388 541841.788 0.002026192

0.009399622 589918.2112 0.001921034

0.009964396 627282.0196 0.002014013

0.010466596 669277.3322 0.001986201

0.011030768 715992.5333 0.001961123

0.011407041 750255.7177 0.001905431