8206

Numerical simulation of ballistic impacts on ceramic material
A.P.T.M.J. Lamberts MT07.33
Committee: prof. dr. ir. M.G.D. Geers dr. ir. J.A.W. van Dommelen dr. ir. H.C. de Lange ir. A.T.M.J.M. Huizinga Eindhoven University of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering Materials Technology PDE Automotive B.V. Computer Aided Engineering Eindhoven, August 22nd , 2007
Contents
Samenvatting Summary 1 Introduction 2 State of the art: ceramic armouring 2.1 2.2 2.3 Ceramic material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramic armour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV VI 1 3 3 6 9 13
3 Material characterisation 3.1 3.2 3.3
Plate impact experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Bar impact experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Penetration experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17 21
4 Bullet impact experiments 5 Material modelling 5.1 5.2 5.3
Simha model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 JohnsonHolmquist ceramic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Microphysical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 I
II 5.4 5.5 5.6
CONTENTS Material model selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Material models for metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 31 35
6 MSC.Dytran code 7 Model validation 7.1 7.2
Plate impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Thick target impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 43
8 Numerical issues in MSC.Dytran 8.1 8.2 8.3
Voids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Bullet impact tting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Depth of penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 53
9 Conclusion and recommendations 9.1 9.2 Conclusion
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 59 61 63 65
Bibliography Acknowledgement A Experimental results B Additional pressure
Samenvatting
Binnen PDE Automotive, onderdeel van de Benteler Automotive Company, is een speciale divisie die zich bezig houdt met het ontwikkelen en bouwen van gepantserde voertuigen. Hiervoor wordt een zelf ontwikkeld pantserstaal gebruikt. Om het ballistisch beschermingsniveau te verhogen, is het toepassen van eenvoudigweg dikkere staalplaten geen optie vanwege een te hoge toename van het voertuiggewicht. Keramische tegels daarentegen bieden het voordeel een lagere dichtheid te hebben, maar toch zeer hard te zijn. Door deze tegels op pantserstaalplaten te lijmen, kan eenzelfde of zelfs hogere beschermingsgraad verkregen worden met een lager gewicht per oppervlakte eenheid, in vergelijking tot het gebruik van pantserstaal alleen. Om te voorspellen wat er gebeurt als een kogel een keramiek/pantserstaal doel treft, wil PDE Automotive gebruik gaan maken van eindige elementen analyses. In het eindige elementen programma MSC.Dytran, dat binnen PDE wordt gebruikt voor ballistische simulaties uit te voeren, is echter geen geschikt keramiek model aanwezig. Het doel van deze afstudeeropdracht is dan ook, om een geschikt keramisch materiaal model te implementeren, dit vervolgens te valideren en uiteindelijk keramisch pantsermateriaal te simuleren. Uit een literatuurstudie kwam naar voren, dat het JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model (JHB) het meest geschikt was om het gedrag van keramisch materiaal te beschrijven. Daar keramisch materiaal ook nog enige sterkte onder compressie bezit nadat het gefaald is, werden de intacte en gefaalde materiaal sterktes door twee afzonderlijke vergelijkingen beschreven. Een schade parameter bepaalde wanneer welke vergelijking gebruik dient te worden. Daarnaast was ook een speciek model aanwezig om de hydrostatische drukvolume respons te beschrijven. Met behulp van usersubroutines, werd het JHB model in MSC.Dytran ge mplementeerd. Om de implementatie van het JHB model te valideren, werden zogeheten plate III
IV
CONTENTS
impact simulaties uitgevoerd. Een keramische plaat werd op een andere keramische geschoten, waardoor een schokgolf gegenereerd werd in beide platen. De resultaten verkregen uit deze simulaties toonden een goede overeenkomst met experimentele resultaten, verkregen uit de literatuur. Daarnaast werden ook thick target impact simulaties uitgevoerd, waarin een lange staaf werd afgevuurd op een dik blok keramiek. De gegenereerde resultaten vertoonden wederom grote gelijkenis met experimentele waarden. Ook het karakteristieke schadeverloop in het keramiek, zoals radiale scheurgroei en het ontstaan van een schadeconus in het gebied v o or het projectiel, was duidelijk zichtbaar. Tijdens deze simulaties, kwam ook een beperking naar voren van het gebruik van een Euler gebaseerde aanpak. Materiaal dat met elkaar in contact staat, maar geen enkele binding met elkaar heeft, kan niet correct gemodelleerd worden in MSC.Dytran bij gebruik van de Euler methode, omdat materiaal met samenvallende oppervlaktes geacht wordt aan elkaar vast te zitten. Tijdens simulaties van kogelinslagen op pantserstaalplaten, om nieuwe materiaal parameters voor het pantserstaal te verkrijgen, bleek dat MSC.Dytran onjuiste resultaten genereerde. Bij gebruik van de axiaal symmetrie optie traden onjuiste void fractie berekeningen op. Dit resulteerde in onverwacht materiaal falen. Daarnaast was het niet mogelijk een eenduidige materiaal parameterset aan te wijzen. Resultaten van depth of penetration simulaties, uitgevoerd in MSC.Dytran met gebruik van het JohnsonCook model, vertoonden signicante verschilllen met resultaten uit andere eindige elementen programmas. Na onderzoek werden twee onjuistheden gevonden. Het opnieuw uitvoeren van de berekeningen met de aangepaste programmatuur resulteerde echter niet in betere resultaten. Voor model validatie of voor het verkrijgen van keramische material parameters, werden ballistische experimenten op keramiek/pantserstaal doelen uitgevoerd. Vanwege het feit dat het staal niet correct kon worden gemodelleerd, was het echter niet mogelijk deze experimenten te simuleren.
Summary
Within PDE Automotive, a part of the Benteler Automotive Company, armoured passenger cars are developed and built with in house developed specialised armour steel. To improve the ballistic protection level, ceramic tiles are used as addon armour. The advantage of using ceramic material instead of simply adding more armoured steel, is the fact that it is less dense but still providing excellent armouring capabilities. Therefore an equal or even higher ballistic performance can be achieved with a notably reduced weight per area. To predict the impact of various projectiles on the ceramic/steel armouring, PDE Automotive wants to use nite element analyses. Within the FEcode MSC.Dytran, which is used by PDE for ballistic simulations, a ceramic material model was not available. Therefore this thesis objective was to implement a suitable ceramic material model and to validate and simulate ceramic armour material. A literature study learnt that the JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model (JHB) was to be the most suitable for describing the response of ceramic material. As ceramic material remains to have some compressive strength after failure, this model described the intact and failed material strength by two separate analytic expressions, both being strain rate dependent. A damage parameter distinguished between the intact and failed response. Furthermore, a specic model was used for the hydrostatic response. By use of usersubroutines, this model has been implemented into the MSC.Dytran code. To validate the JHB model implementation, plate impact simulations on silicon carbide have been performed. In this simulation a ceramic plate was impacted by another ceramic plate, creating a shock wave in both disks. By using laser, the material velocity at the back of the impacted plate was measured during experiments. The generated results were in good agreement with experimental results, obtained from literature. Next to this, thick target impact simulations, where a thick ceramic V
VI
CONTENTS
block is impacted by a long rod, also showed satisfying results. The distinctive ceramic damage propagation, like the forming of radial cracks and the creation of a damage conoid in front of the projectile, was clearly observed. These simulations, however, also revealed a limitation of an Eulerian based approach for this type of target setup. Material interfaces without any bonding cannot be modelled correctly in MSC.Dytran using an Eulerian approach, since materials with coinciding surfaces are considered to be bonded together. During simulations of bullet impacts on armour steel plates, for obtaining new steel material model parameters, the MSC.Dytran code generated incorrect results. When using the axial symmetry option, inconsistencies in the void fraction calculation created unexpected material cracking. Beside this, it appeared not to be possible of obtaining unique material parameters. Depth of penetration simulations, performed in MSC.Dytran using the JohnsonCook material model, did not generate the same results as other FEcodes. Two inconsistencies in the code were found, but calculations with the adjusted program did not compute more agreeable results. For validation purposes or for obtaining material parameters, bullet impact experiments on various ceramic/steel targets have been conducted. Because the backing material could not be modelled correctly in MSC.Dytran, these experiments could not be used for model validation nor for obtaining ceramic material model parameters.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Wars, criminal activities and violence have always been part of our society since the beginning of mankind. Thereby all kinds of weapons are used to harm the opponent. Because of this, there has always been the need for protection against these attacks. Throughout the centuries, weapons have been improved to be able to attack from a larger distance, to improve the accuracy of attacks and to increase injury capabilities. In return, armouring techniques needed to be upgraded to follow these developments in order to withstand the increasing impact forces. Today, specialised armoured steel is used to provide adequate protection against bullet impacts. Police and military personnel are equipped with lightweight armour vests made of Kevlar or ceramics. But not only police or military forces are faced with the danger of being attacked by use of re arms. For example representatives of governments, public gures or UN employees have to be protected from being assaulted by activists or terrorist groups as well. This need for armoured protection is still increasing, since these acts of violence are not constrained by any country borders. Car manufacturers and companies, specialised in ballistic protection, anticipate to this by providing the necessary armour protection. One of these suppliers is PDE Automotive, which is part of the Benteler Automotive Company, where armoured passenger cars are being developed and built with specialised armour steel developed in house. Since many types of bullets exist, they are categorised into classes by their ballistic impact severity. Armoured vehicles therefore have to be specically certied according to the class they need to comply to. The experiments required as well as the certication itself are rather expensive. The development of these products can be facilitated by prediction of the material response to bullet impacts on armour steel plates before performing real life testing 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
and certication. Beside the fact that with the use of Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) the development process is less expensive, it also gives better understanding of the dynamic behavior and variables at high velocities. In a previous graduation project at PDE, B. Adams successfully simulated several bullet impacts on armour steel plates [1]. Also, important knowledge was gained about the bodywork eect. Having some experience in the eld, PDE now intends to develop armoured civil vehicles with ballistic protection of a higher level. By using only steel for this, the increased weight of the car would be unacceptable. The complete body and suspension of the car would have to be modied and a much stronger engine would be needed. This is hard to achieve with a standard civil vehicle without compromising the objective not to aect the normal appearance of the vehicle. To increase the ballistic performance combined with a smaller increase in vehicle weight, the use of addon ceramic tiles is being considered. As with the steel armour, there was a need to simulate the behaviour of this type of armour impact situations as well. In MSC.Dytran, the software code used by PDE for simulating bullet impacts, no ceramic material model was available. The objective of the current graduation project was to implement a suitable material model and to validate and simulate ceramic armour material. A literature study has been conducted about the state of the art concerning the use of ceramics in several applications, especially ballistic protection and the sort of experiments that are performed to investigate the ceramic material behaviour at high impact conditions. Various ceramic material models have been compared from which one is selected to be implemented into the software code. After this, a validation of the predictive capabilities of the model for impact situations is presented. Subsequently several issues with the software programme will be discussed and probable causes of incorrect computational results will be given. Finally, the present state of the ability at PDE Automotive to simulate bullet impacts on ceramic/steel armour is given as well as recommendations for future work.
Chapter 2
State of the art: ceramic armouring

2.1 Ceramic material
Next to metals and polymers, ceramics constitute one of the three main material classes. They can be dened as compound material between metallic and non-metallic elements having interatomic bondings that range from purely ionic to totally covalent having a hard but brittle character. The most ordinary and well-known ceramic materials are traditional ceramics. They primarily consist of raw materials such as clay, cement or glass. Products that are considered to be made of traditional ceramics are for example pottery, porcelain, bricks and tiles. Since the 1950s signicant progress has been made in the understanding of the fundamental character of ceramic material and the phenomena that are responsible for some of their unique properties [2]. Consequently, the variety of applications has been greatly extended. In table 2.1, an overview is given of the most common categories with some examples of applications for each category. Manufacturing process Ceramics are formed from a variety of compounds, usually a metallic and nonmetallic element, such as aluminium and oxide (alumina), calcium and oxygen or silicon and nitrogen. Ceramic products that use naturally occurring minerals rst must undergo special processing in order to control purity, particle size and heterogeneity, before going to production. This is an important part of the manufacturing process, since the material structure greatly inuences the nal properties of the nished material. For chemically prepared powders no such treatment is needed, because they can be 3
CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART: CERAMIC ARMOURING
Table 2.1: Industrial use of ceramics [3].

Category Structural clay products Whitewares Examples Brick, sewer pipe, roong tile, clay oor and wall tile Dinnerware, oor and wall tile, sanitaryware ,electrical porcelain, decorative ceramics Brick and monolithic products are used in iron and steel, nonferrous metals, glass, cements, energy conversion, petroleum and chemical industries Flat glasses (windows), container glasses (bottles), pressed and blown glasses (dinnerware), glass bres (home insulation) and advanced/specially glass (optical bres) Natural (garnet, diamond, etc.) and synthetic (silicon carbide, diamond, fused alumina), abrasives are used for grinding, cutting, polishing Used to produce concrete roads, bridges, buildings, dams and the like Structural (bioceramics, armouring, engine components) Electrical (insulators, integrated circuit packages) Coatings (engine components, cutting tools) Chemical and environmental (membranes, lters, catalysts)
Refractories
Glasses
Abrasives
Cements
Advanced Ceramics
controlled with precise composition and particle size. As-mined raw material usually has to go through a milling or grinding operation to reduce the particle size and create a powdered product. By the addition of water and other ingredients, the minerals become highly plastic and pliable and may therefore be formed without cracking. Two common shaping techniques are utilised: hydroplastic forming (e.g. extrusion) and slip casting. The liquid which was added to assist in the forming operation is removed in a drying process. This is manifested as shrinking. Finally, this so-called green body is baked in an oven between 900 and 1400 , called ring or sintering, where diusion processes cause the body
2.1. CERAMIC MATERIAL
Figure 2.1: Overview of production methods for ceramic materials [2]. to shrink further and strength is increased. Another production method is powder pressing. A powdered mass is compacted into a desired shape by pressure. Dierently sized particles are mixed in appropriate proportions to maximise the compaction and minimise the fraction of void space. As the powder particles do not deform plastically, usually a small amount of water or other binder is added to lubricate the particles as they slide along each other. After the pressing operation, the product needs to be red. The powder particles coalesce into a more dense mass by a sintering process. A complete overview of ceramic production methods is shown in gure 2.1.
Ceramic properties The properties of a material are dictated by the types of atoms present, the types of bonding between the atoms and the way the atoms are packed together. Ceramic materials can be crystalline or amorphous and are usually ionic or covalently bonded. A material held together by either bonding type will tend to fracture before signicant plastic deformation takes place, which results in a poor toughness. Because these materials also tend to be porous, the pores and other imperfections lead to stress concentrations, decreasing the toughness even further. These imperfections combine as the material is loaded, resulting in brittle failure. The chemical bond for metals on the other hand, called metallic bond, is much weaker than the covalent and ionic bonding, leading in general to a much more ductile failure.
2.2
Ceramic armour
Advanced ceramics are used for a broad range of innovative applications, from articial bones or complete engines to space shuttles. They must meet the highest quality criteria because they are specially selected for their many excellent characteristic properties: high melting point, oxidation resistance, high hardness, being non magnetic, chemically stable and low weight. The use of ceramics in ball bearings, for example, has proven to be very useful because they are much less dense than other materials, which helps to reduce centrifugal forces and increase the maximum rotation speed. Also in comparison to the steel alternative, a ceramic bearing is smoother, harder, has a higher tolerance, shows less wear because of reduced friction and has a longer operating life. Another application of ceramics if the use for ballistic protection of military personnel and vehicles against gun and rie ammunition, exploding mines and mortar fragments. In a hostile situation, it is most important not to be hit by a projectile at all. If this did not succeed, proper armouring is required. Key feature of ceramic material is the low density in comparison to armoured steel; An equal or even higher ballistic performance can be achieved with a notably reduced weight per area. This results in a better manoeuvrability and consequently increases the ability of a rapid escape when being attacked. Whereas conventional armour protection vests are not sucient for direct gun re, ceramic monolithic plate inserts do provide adequate protection. Ceramicpolymer composites fully comply to the requirements for protection levels of the upper body. To provide some additional comfort to the wearer, the plates can be adapted to the body shape by means of single or doublecurved tiles (see gure 2.2). For the use in armoured vehicles, like tanks and transport vehicles, ceramics are applied as a socalled addon armour (see gure 2.3). The front side of the composite armour consists of ceramic material. For the backing dierent materials can be used, depending on the application. The small ceramic tiles are glued on the backing plate in a stretcher bond with broken joints. On top of this, dierent types of top layers can be used, like foil or a thin metallic plate. In armour vests, highperformance polyaramide (e.g. Twaron) or polyethylene bres are used. In vehicles, a metal backing of steel or aluminium is used. The contact layer between the ceramic layer and the backing material is of critical importance for the whole system. Exclusive highperformance adhesives are to be used, to prevent the individual layers from loosening when a bullet strikes the armour system.
2.2. CERAMIC ARMOUR
Figure 2.2: Armour vest with ceramic insert [4].
Figure 2.3: Addon armour setup, consisting of ceramic tiles on top of a layer of glue and a metal backing [4]. To provide maximum protection in the case of multihit ring, the ceramic front is based on 50x50 mm or 100x100 mm tiles. When impacted, only single tiles fracture whereas a monolithic insert can develop a major crack, which reduces the impact resistance considerably for subsequent shots. The thickness to be chosen depends on the ballistic performance required and is usually between 5 and 15 mm. Dierent shapes, bore holes, or chamfered edges are also available, but need to be custom produced by a diamond cutting machine.
Ceramic materials used for ballistic protection are required to meet the following properties:
High hardness High fracture resistance High E-modulus Low weight per area
The requirements for a ceramic material which is to be used for ballistic applications are met by several materials. The most important materials which are currently used are:
Boron Carbide (B4 C) Silicon Carbide (SiC) Silicon Nitride (SiN) Alumina (Al2 O3 ) Aluminium nitride (AlN)
From these, Aluminium Oxide, also known as Alumina, is the most important. This is due to the fact that its raw material is relatively low cost, that the production technique is well mastered and that the sinter process can be carried out in air atmosphere. The only disadvantage is that the density is higher than for the other materials. Aluminium oxide is the main component of bauxite, the principal ore (i.e. raw mining material) of aluminium. It is available in dierent purities ranging from 85% to 99.9%. For ballistic protection, the higher grades (starting from 95%) are more favourable because of their higher penetration resistance, but are also more expensive. For ballistic protection of objects which need to be extremely light, for example helicopters and airplanes, the more expensive but lower density materials as Boron Carbide and Silicon Carbide are used. Two kinds of silicon carbide are available in the market today; S SiC (sintered silicon carbide) and LPS SiC (liquid phase sintered silicon carbide). The dierence is that for the LPS process, the sintering temperature is above the melting point of some of the elements. The ceramic production technologies should meet high requirements when ballistic applications are concerned. For all components there should be an absence of
2.3. BULLETS
cracks and pores and the nished tiles are only allowed to show very little damage at the edges. Important is also the reproducibility and errorfree production of all individual tiles to ensure that extreme tight tolerances regarding dimension, plane parallelism and evenness are achieved. Only if all these requirements are met, closejointed packing can be guaranteed. A joint wider than 0.3 mm will already be a weak point which may have a negative inuence on the ballistic strength. Beside the geometrical properties, the physical properties also have little tolerance.
2.3
Bullets
There is a wide variety of bullets, each designed for a specic purpose or target type. In general, two major groups can be distinguished: bullets for wound ballistics and for armour piercing. Bullets designed to incapacitate personnel or kill animals cause an extensive wound by crushing, lacerating or displacing body tissue. When a bullet strikes into body tissue, a temporary cavity is formed around the crushed tissue which results from the acceleration and stretching of soft tissue radial to the wound track. This temporary cavity aects solid organs such as the liver and kidneys and the suction eect draws contaminants such as clothes and bacteria into the wound track. Wholly lead bullets deform on impact, resulting in high levels of wounding. The later developed full metal jacketed bullets were more stable and therefore more suitable for the longer ranges, but had the disadvantage that they did not deform on impact. Hollow nose semi-jacketed bullets, the so-called DumDum bullets, caused very extensive wounding and were therefore outlawed by the The Hague Declaration of 1899 [5]. Military bullets are only allowed to have a full metal jacket. To still achieve a high wounding potential, the bullets are specially designed to yaw and tumble in the body after a certain penetration distance. Bullets designed for armour piercing are used to penetrate hardened armour targets such as body armour, vehicle armour, concrete, tanks and other defences. They typically consist of a brass or ordinary steel jacket with a very hard and sti penetrator like hardened steel, tungsten-carbide or depleted-uranium. Because of the diversity in bullets, armour materials have to be classied by their ballistic protection level. Therefore dierent standards are developed like EN 1063 (European), NIJ (US), UL (US), DIN or STANAG. In table 2.2 an overview is given of the European EN 1522 class, which is used within PDE Automotive.
10
Table 2.2: Euronorm: EN1522 [6].

Bullet Mass (g) Test condition Test Bullet Range(m) velocity (m/s) 10 0.5 360 10 5 0.5 400 10 5 0.5 430 10 5 0.5 430 10 5 0.5 440 10 10 0.5 950 10 10 0.5 950 10 10 0.5 830 10 10 0.5 820 10
Class Type of weapon FB 1 FB 2 FB 3 FB 4 FB 5 FB 6 FB 7 FJ1 = FJ2 =
Calibre
Type
Rie 22 LR Hand gun 9 mm Luger Hand gun 357 Mag. Hand gun 357 Mag. Hand gun 44 RemMag Rie 5.56 x 45 Rie 5.56 x 45 Rie 7.62 x 51 Rie 7.62 x 51 Full steel jacket (plated) Full copper alloy jacket
L/RN 2.6 0.1 FJ1 /RN/SC 8.0 0.1 FJ1 /CB/SC 10.2 0.1 FJ1 /CB/SC 10.2 0.1 FJ2 /FN/SC 15.6 0.1 FJ2 PB/SCP1 4.0 0.1 FJ2 PB/SCP1 4.0 0.1 FJ1 /PB/SC 9.5 0.1 FJ2 /PB/HC1 9.8 0.1 L = lead CB = coned bullet FJ = full metal jacket bullet FN = at nose bullet HC1 = steel hard core (>63 HRC) PB = pointed bullet RN = round nose bullet SC = soft core(lead) SCP1 = soft core (lead) with steel penetrator
For certication, the bullet impact speed has to correspond to that dened by the standard of table 2.2. But not only the impact speed, also the entire experimental procedure should meet specic requirements which are described in [6]. These requirements range from room temperature and shooting distance to the number of shots to be red. Not all the bullets presented in table 2.2 are of interest for PDE Automotive when ceramic material is to be used. Especially the higher classes FB 6, FB 7 or even higher are modelled for impact simulations. Since bullet material components are classied, they have to be obtained by analysing the material with a Scanning Electron Microscope. From that the material composition is known which makes it possible to identify the material. Although only the composition is known, material properties can be obtained from literature. In gure 2.4 an overview is given of 4 types of bullets used within PDE Automotive. The SS109 bullet (see gure 2.4(a)) has a steel penetrator and a soft lead core with a brass jacket. The diameter is 5.56 mm and the total weight is 4.0 gram. The average shooting velocity is 950 m/s. Having the same dimension but a tungsten carbide core, the 5.56x45 WC bullet has armour piercing capabilities (see gure 2.4(b)). The M80
2.3. BULLETS
11
bullet (see gure 2.4(c)) has a complete lead core and a brass jacket. With a diameter of 7.62 mm it is bigger and heavier (9.55 gram) than the SS109 bullet. The average shooting velocity is 830 m/s. The P80 bullet is the same a the M80, but having a hard steel core, it is used for armour piercing.
(a) SS109
(b) 5.56x45 WC
(c) M80/P80
Figure 2.4: Overview of bullets [7].
12
Chapter 3
Material characterisation
The brittle nature of ceramic material and the dynamic nature of the application makes it very dicult to perform traditional material characterisation experiments as used for metals and polymers at low and moderate strain rates, such as a tensile test. Two types of experiments can be distinguished for obtaining information on ceramics in armour applications: experiments to evaluate material properties in high strain-rate environments and penetration experiments to evaluate the material behaviour under ballistic impact conditions. The rst type attempts to subject the material to a controlled high rate loading with a one or twodimensional stress-strain state. The penetration experiment is a less controlled complex threedimensional loading condition.
3.1
Plate impact experiments
In plate impact experiments [8] a propellant gas gun accelerates a projectile carrying a disc-shaped sample (i.e. impactor) of the ceramic of interest to velocities up to several kilometres per second. This impactor undergoes a planar impact with a stationary sample of the same shape and material, generating a shock wave into both disks. The impactor and sample dimensions are chosen so that reected waves from the edges do not reach the centerline in time to interfere with the recording of data. That way a uniaxial strain experiment is created. The diameter of the disks thus depends on the speed of sound of the ceramic used. A thick disk of lithium uoride is bonded to the back of the stationary disk (see gure 3.1(a)) and performs as a transparent laser interface window for a VISAR (Velocity Interferometer for any Reecting Surface) system, that measures interface velocity versus time. Some distinct areas can be pointed out. The initial part of the wave prole with almost zero rise-time is the elastic wave. It travels 13
14
CHAPTER 3. MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION
(a) Plate impact
(b) Wave prole
Figure 3.1: Plate impact experiment [9]. with the longitudinal speed of sound of the ceramic. The break in the curve indicates the Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL), which separates the elastic wave from the plastic wave. The HEL is analogous to the yield point in a onedimensional tensile experiment and thus represents the onset of inelastic behaviour. To calculate the stress at the HEL, the velocity at the HEL in the wave prole is converted with HEL = 0 Cl v , where 0 is the initial density, Cl the material speed of sound and v the material particle speed. As variation of this experiment, a spall experiment can be conducted, which is used to determine the tensile fracture strength of the ceramic. As the impactor hits the sample disk, a compression waves travels into both disks. In the sample disk, after some time, the compression wave reaches the lithium uoride window and, due to the higher impedance of the ceramic, is reected as a release wave back to the impact interface (see gure 3.2(a)). In the impactor the compression waves reaches the free surface and is also reected as a release wave. At some point these two waves interact and cause a fracture in the target. In the velocitytime prole this point can be identied by the dip v seen in gure 3.2(b), also called the pull back signal. Because the height of the dip is proportional to the spall strength, it can be related to the tensile fracture stress.
3.2
Bar impact experiments
In this experiment, a long ceramic bar (length/diameter ratio about 46) is impacted by either another bar or a plate. The impacted bar can have two setups; conned and unconned (see gure 3.3). Just after impact this experiment has much resemblance with
3.3. PENETRATION EXPERIMENTS
15
(a) Wave interaction
(b) Pullback signal
Figure 3.2: Tensile fracture strength experiment [9]. the plate impact, but release waves from the edges of the bar cause a twodimensional stress and strain loading. Further down the bar, the propagating wave has become a onedimensional stress wave travelling at the bar wave speed. In gure 3.4 a typical stresstime prole is shown where the peak stress is a measurement of the maximum stress the rod can support. Results of unconned and conned experiments are dierent because the connement delays the arrival of unloading waves from the edges of the bar and therefore delays failure.
(a) unconned
(b) conned
Figure 3.3: Bar impact experiment [9].
3.3
Penetration experiments
Penetration experiments have such a setup that the investigated ceramic can qualitatively be tested for real armour applications The goal of penetration experiments is to analyse the actual ceramic armour application behaviour. A long rod projectile
16
CHAPTER 3. MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION
Figure 3.4: Stresstime prole from bar impact experiment. penetrates a ceramic body, which can have dierent dimensions and setups. In a semi innite penetration experiment, as shown in gure 3.5(a), the target consists of a thick ceramic block covered with a steel or aluminium plate. During testing, the length of the penetrator can be measured in time by Xray. Also the nal depth of penetration is measured. A dierent type of penetration experiment is a depth of penetration (DOP) experiment, shown in gure 3.5(b). A ceramic tile is bonded to a thick metal backing in a conned or unconned conguration. Experimental analysis is done by measuring the ballistic performance of the ceramic by the residual penetration depth. This means the nal penetration into the metal block is compared to the reference penetration depth of the same projectile into the block without the ceramic tile. A special feature is the socalled interface defeat, when the impactor is completely defeated by the ceramic tile, resulting in no residual penetration into the steel backing plate.
(a) Semi-innite
(b) DOP
Figure 3.5: Penetration experiments [9].
Chapter 4
Bullet impact experiments

For model validation purposes bullet impact experiments on ceramic/steel targets have been conducted by the TNO Defence, Security & Safety department at the Laboratory for Ballistic Research in Ypenburg. The ceramic tiles, 95% pure aluminium oxide used were provided by Morgan Advanced Ceramics. The tile thicknesses were 5 mm, 7 mm and 10 mm, all having the same surface area of 50x50 mm. The pink colour does not originate from the chemical composition but is only used for identication of the specic ceramic. In table 4.1 an overview is given of the ceramic material properties. The steel armour backing Table 4.1: Material properties of Alumina 95% [10]. Material Density Bulk modulus Shear modulus Porosity Tile size Tile thickness Al2 O3 = 3740 kg/m3 K = 320GPa G = 130GPa 0% (fully dense) 50x50 mm 5, 7, 10 mm
material was BSEC510 from Benteler Automotive Company. Plates of 400x400 mm were cut, having three dierent thicknesses of 3.0 mm, 5.0 mm and 6.3 mm. Material properties of this material are classied and are therefore not given in this report. Dierent ceramic/steel combinations were impacted by 2 types of bullets (P80 and 5.56x45 WC) with varying velocities. These combinations were chosen specically to generate results varying from a complete bullet stop by the ceramic tile to a full 17
18
CHAPTER 4. BULLET IMPACT EXPERIMENTS
Table 4.2: Experimental procedure. Backing thickness [mm] 3.0 Ceramic thickeness [mm] 5.0 Bullet type 5.56x45 WC P80 5.0 5.5 5.56x45 WC P80 6.3 7.0 5.56x45 WC P80 6.3 10.0 5.56x45 WC P80 impact speed [m/s] 850, 900, 950 750, 800, 850 850, 900, 950 750, 800, 850 850, 900, 950 750, 800, 850 850, 900, 950 750, 800, 850 Objective
Complete bullet penetration
Bullet stop penetration
and
Complete bullet stop with bulging backing plate Complete bullet stop by ceramic tile
bullet penetration. The dierence in speed between these extremes should be as small as possible, because the material model can than be validated with the highest precision. In table 4.2 an overview is given of the ceramic/steel combinations tested, bullets used and the speeds of the bullet impacts. Polyurethane was used to glue the ceramic tiles onto the steel backing. Because of the limited number of ceramic tiles they are not packed close together. Also from a simulation point of view this setup is better dened than when close packed tiles were used. For the same reason, the bullets impact a bare ceramic tile, without any plate or tape in front of the tile. Between the individual tiles wooden boards are glued to prevent ceramic debris from damaging intact neighbouring tiles. In gure 4.1 the experimental conguration is shown. During testing it became clear that the target material responded dierently than the objective given in table 4.2. Therefore the bullet impact speeds were adjusted to generate, when possible, perforations and stops for all target combinations in a close speed range., which is useful for simulation purposes. In appendix A all experimental
19
Figure 4.1: Experimental setup for ceramic/steel target. results are given as well as a discussion of the results. Whether the ceramic tile completely stopped the bullet or if penetration occurred, the complete tile broke up in pieces and fell o the backing plate. Although larger pieces could be recovered, they could not be used for later analysis, since they did not originate from the area of interest on the tile, which is located closely around the crack.
20
CHAPTER 4. BULLET IMPACT EXPERIMENTS
Chapter 5
Material modelling
The response of ceramic material to impact loading is of a complex nature. Material models should be able to represent the evolving macromechanical material properties which result from the detailed and complex micromechanical structure. Damage evolution, due to stress concentrations at triple points of grains and in the intergranular glassy phase, should be taken into account. Also the model should have the ability to provide some compressive strength after the material has failed. First, an overview of existing ceramic materials model is given. Then, the models will be compared and nally one is selected. This selected model will be discussed in more detail in section 5.5.
5.1
Simha model
A phenomenological model of the response of a ceramic material under impact loading conditions is developed by Simha et al. [11] (see gure 5.1) The yield stress, y , is a d . During plastic deformation, function of the pressure p and the deviatoric strain rate damage accumulates until failure (D = 1). The yield stress of the material is a weighted sum of the intact material strength, intact , and the failed strength, f ailed . Because 0 D 1 all intermediate states of failure can be described and the material is softened gradually. y = intact (1 D) + f ailed D + where f ailed = min[p, max ] 21 = 0 exp[1 (p pHEL )], 3 , 2
d
(5.1)
22
CHAPTER 5. MATERIAL MODELLING
Figure 5.1: Simha strength model (without strain rate eect). with the slope of the curve shown in gure 5.1, 0 and 1 material parameters and pHEL the pressure at the Hugoniot elastic limit, which is the onset of inelastic behaviour. The term controls the contribution of the eective deviatoric strain rate, d to the strength of the material. Taking this rate-dependent term into account is a phenomenological contribution of micro-crack sliding, dislocation activity and grain boundary sliding within the material during deformation. In [11] this model is used for plate impact simulations, depth of penetration simulations and interface defeat computations. A very characteristic feature of this model, is the higher material strength of failed material with respect to intact material.
5.2
JohnsonHolmquist ceramic models
One of the most widely used models for ceramic materials in the ballistic research eld is the JohnsonHolmquist model. The past several years, these authors developed three ceramic models [12, 13, 14] (see gure 5.2). All these models (JH1, JH2 and JHB) are based on two sets of curves of yield stress vs pressure, i.e. intact and failed. Each curve depends on plastic strain and plastic strain rate. A damage variable, D, denes the level of fracture. For the JH1 and JHB model, the intact material curve is used prior to fracture (D < 1.0). Once fracture has occurred (D = 1.0) the failed material curve is used. The JH2 model also has an intact and failed material curve, but the model is gradually softened as damage accumulates. Most recently Johnson, Holmquist and Beissel developed the socalled JHB model [12]. This model is an improved version of the JH1 model. Material strength and damage are smooth analytical functions of pressure, whereas JH1 uses a piecewise approximation. In both models the material strength does not decrease until complete
5.3. MICROPHYSICAL MODELS

Strength of intact material (D<1) P2,2 P1,1
23
Strength of failed material (D=1)

0
Pressure
(a) JH1 model
(b) JH2 model
Strength of intact material (D<1)
P ,
i
P ,
f
Strength of failed material (D=1)
Pressure
(c) JHB model
Figure 5.2: JohnsonHolmquist ceramic models for high pressure, high strain and high strain rate conditions (at dimensionless strain rate 1.0). damage (D = 1) has occurred. This in contrast to the JH2 model which gradually softens the material strength (from intact to failed) as damage accumulates. The JohnsonHolmquist models have been used to compute plate impact simulations and long rod penetrations on silicon carbide and aluminium nitride [15, 16, 17]. All these simulations generated acceptable results.
5.3
Microphysical models
The previously mentioned ceramic material models describe the material response from a phenomenological point of view. Intact and failed strength, as well as damage accumulation are functions of pressure. However as damage originates from an existing distribution of micro-cracks, Rajendran and Groove [18] and Addesio and Johnson [19] developed microphysical models where damage is described by a crack density parameter. Crack nucleation and growth are based on a generalised Grith criterion. Due to this microcracking, a shear modulus and bulk modulus reduction was modelled. These
24
models were used to successfully reproduce velocity histories under one dimensional strain conditions. Modelling steel projectile impact on ceramic targets resulted in less acceptable results, especially for unconned experiments [18].
5.4
Material model selection
For many ceramic materials, a change in physical (especially mechanical) properties can be observed with dierent physical environments. Compressive strengths and ductility may be enhanced under an increased pressure, due to the suppressing or favouring of certain slip systems [20]. Besides that, strength increases with increasing strain rate. Microphysical modelling, which is based on evolving microcracks, is one way of modelling ceramic material. But since this theory is only based on a single crack propagation and no crack interaction is considered, this way of describing the ceramic material response remains to be more phenomenological than properly micromechanical based. Therefore, this type of constitutive modelling will not be adopted for computations of ceramic impact simulations. When analysing phenomenological constitutive models, they appear to be in essence a MohrCoulomb type of model [11]. This trend is observed by several authors. In [21] for example the JH1 model was simplied and approached by a MohrCoulomb model. Results of depth of penetration simulations were in reasonable agreement with the experimental data. The ceramic model of Simha [11] appears to be very appropriate. Computational results are within a few percent of experimental results and it also generated the interface defeat feature (i.e. no residual penetration into steel backing in a depth of penetration experiment). One part however of the model is not consistent with any other constitutive model. In the Simha model it is assumed that failed material in compression is stronger than intact material. The reason given for this is that failed material consists of more (but smaller) particles with therefore more surface area that interacts during deformation [9]. This increases the internal friction, which results is higher strength. This is contradicting with what is to be expected, because it also can be stated that failed material has almost innite slip possibilities, resulting is less strength than intact material, which has a very limited number of slip systems. Because of this inconsistency, this model will not be selected.
5.5. JOHNSONHOLMQUISTBEISSEL MODEL
25
The JohnsonHolmquist models are frequently used in ballistic research of brittle materials because of their relatively easy implementation. In CenturyDynamics AUTODYN [22] the rst two JohnsonHolmquist models (i.e. JH1 and JH2) are implemented. This software is especially used for simulating impact loading on various types of structures, like spacecrafts, armour material or brick walls. In LSDyna [23] these same model are also available to model brittle material behaviour. In both program codes the JohnsonHolmquist models generate agreeable results which therefore can provide good insight in the ceramic material response. The latest model however, the JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model (JHB), has not yet been implemented in any of these codes since it is rather new. This model is, as already mentioned, very similar to the JH1 model, both having a discrete damage model. The JH2 model is somewhat dierent since it has a continuous damage model. To model the correct material behaviour, the intact strength of the JH2 model is always higher than that of the JH1 or JHB model, because the damage reduces the strength as plastic strain accumulates. This eventually results in similar material strengths for all three models. However determination of the JH2 parameters is more dicult, since the damage evolution has to be taken into account. Therefore the JHB model will be selected to be implemented into MSC.Dytran to model the ceramic material behaviour. This model is more favourable than the JH1 model, since it has smooth analytical functions.
5.5
JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model
In section 5.4 the JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model (JHB) was found to be the most suitable for describing the response of ceramic material. This model describes the intact and failed material strength by two separate analytic expressions (see gure 5.2(c)), both being strain rate dependent. A damage parameter distinguishes between the intact and failed response. Furthermore, a specic model is used for the hydrostatic response [16]. A Von Mises yield criterion is used to decide at which stress a purely elastic deformation will be followed by elastoplastic deformation. To determine the amount of plastic strain, an associated ow rule is used. Intact material strength The strength of the intact material is given by
i intact = i + max i [1.0 exp (i (p pi ))] ,
(5.2)
26
i max Pi,i
Pf,f
f max
Pressure
Pressure
(a) JHB model intact material strength
(b) JHB model failed material strength
Figure 5.3: Intact and failed material strength for the JHB model where i =
i (max
i . i )(pi + T )
(5.3)
i Here i , max and Pi are material parameters, where the subscript i indicates intact 1 material. Pressure, p, is dened as p = 3 tr( ). T is the maximum tensile stress of the
ceramic. Equation (5.2) holds for a pressure greater than pi . For smaller pressures, the strength is a linear function from (p = T ) = 0 to (p = pi ) = i . In gure 5.3(a) the intact material strength is shown with its characteristic points marked. Failed material strength The strength of failed material is represented in a similar way as intact material. For pressures greater than pf , failed material strength is dened by
f f ailed = f + max f [1.0 exp (f (p pf ))] ,
(5.4)
with f =
f f pf (max
f )
(5.5)
where f , max and pf are material parameters and the subscript f denotes the failed material. For pressures smaller than pf the failed strength is a linear function from (p = 0) = 0 to (p = pf ) = f . In gure 5.3(b) the failed material strength is shown with the characteristic points marked. Strain rate dependence Equations (5.2) and (5.4) hold for a dimensionless strain rate of = 1.0, where / the eective strain rate. To include = 0 , with 0 the reference strain rate and
5.5. JOHNSONHOLMQUISTBEISSEL MODEL
27
Failure strain
p=D (P +T ) 1
* n
T 0
Pressure
Figure 5.4: Plastic strain to failure in JHB model.
strain rate dependence, the strength at other eective strain rates is dened as y = (1.0 + C ln ), (5.6)
where C is the dimensionless strain rate constant and is the material strength with = intact, f ailed, denoting intact (eq. 5.2) and failed (eq. 5.4) material, respectively.
Damage The JHB model has a pressure dependent damage model included. Damage is accumulated in a similar manner as in the JohnsonCook failure model (which will be discussed in section 5.6) and is dened as: D= p f p , (5.7)
where p is the current increment in equivalent plastic strain. The plastic strain to failure, f p , is dened as
n f p = D1 (P + T ) ,
(5.8)
i i are and P = P/max where D1 and n are dimensionless constants. T = T /max
dimensionless pressures. The material fails if damage, D, equals unity or if the tensile hydrostatic pressure is greater than the maximum tensile pressure, T . Once the material has failed, no damage will be accumulated anymore and damage is set to D = 1. In gure 5.4 the plastic strain to failure is shown.
28 Pressure
In compression the hydrostatic pressure-volume response before failure is a polynomial function of the volumetric compression, : P = K1 + K2 2 + K3 3 , (5.9)
where K1 is the bulk modulus, K2 and K3 are material tting parameters. The volumetric compression, , is dened as = V0 1= 1, V 0 (5.10)
with V0 and V the initial and current volume respectively and 0 and the initial and current density. After complete failure has occurred the dilatancy occurs because of a pressure and/or volume increase [24]. Therefore an additional pressure, P , is added to equation (5.9). This pressure increase is determined by energy considerations. The loss of internal elastic energy, U , is converted into potential hydrostatic energy. The derivation of this is given in Appendix B. The pressure increase is dened as P = K1 f + (K1 f )2 + 2K1 U , (5.11)
with the fraction of converted internal energy loss (0 1) and f the volumetric compression at failure. In tension, the pressure is represented by a linear dependence on the volumetric strain: P = K1 . If the material fails under tension no bulking pressure is computed. (5.12)
5.6
Material models for metals
SteinbergGuinan The SteinbergGuinan model [25] is applicable for metals subjected to high strain rates. In the work of B. Adams [1] this model was used for copper in bullet impact simulations. The material strength, y , increases with increasing pressure and decrease
5.6. MATERIAL MODELS FOR METALS with increasing temperature. The ow stress is written as:
n y = [A + B ( p + 0 ) ] 1 + H1
29
P J3
1
H2 (T Tr ) ,
where A is the initial yield stress, B and n workhardening parameters, p the equivalent plastic strain, 0 the initial equivalent plastic strain, T the temperature and Tr the room temperature. H1 and H2 are material parameters.
JohnsonCook model A model frequently used in ballistic simulations is the JohnsonCook model [26]. It describes the strength of metals at large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. An independent term is created for each of these phenomena, which makes characterisation relatively easy. For this reason this model is frequently used in ballistic impact simulations. The material strength is given by y = A + B n p 1 + C ln p 0 1 T Tr Tm Tr
m
(5.13)
with A the initial yield stress, B the strain hardening coecient and n the strain p is the eective plastic strain rate, hardening exponent. 0 the reference strain rate, C the strain rate coecient and m the temperature softening exponent. T , Tr and Tm are temperature, room temperature and melting temperature, respectively. The JohnsonCook model also has a failure model incorporated, which is based on Von Mises stress, , the average of the three normal stresses, m , eective plastic p and temperature, T . Damage, D, is dened as [27] strain rate, D= where f = D1 + D2 exp D3 m 1 + D4 ln p 0 1 + D5 T Tr Tm Tr , (5.15) p , f (5.14)
where D1 ,. . . ,D5 are material parameters. The damage can have a continuous or a discrete eect on the yield stress. When modelled continuously, the material strength is weakened during damage accumulation by multiplying equation (5.13) with a factor (1 D). When D equals unity, material strength is zero and the material fails. The same
30
holds for a discrete damage eect, but than material fails instantly when D reaches unity.
Chapter 6
MSC.Dytran code
For calculating the mechanical response of material during impact simulations, within PDE Automotive the nite element code MSC.Dytran is used. This program uses an explicit method to solve the equation of motion, given in equation 6.1 [28] t + C u t + Kut = F t , Mu (6.1)
where M is the mass matrix, C the damping matrix and K the stiness matrix. The columns u t , u t , ut and F t are the nodal accelerations, velocities, displacements and forces, respectively. The equation of motion at the current time t is used to predict a solution of the acceleration at time t + t. The equilibrium determines the acceleration at the beginning of the increment and it is assumed to be constant over the time step, t. Therefore equation 6.1 can be rewritten as [1]: u t+t = M 1 F res t . To advance in time, nodal velocities and displacements are calculated by [1]: u t+t = u t + tu t+t and ut+t = ut + tu t+t . (6.4) (6.3) (6.2)
In gure 6.1 the calculation loop is shown, carried out by MSC.Dytran each time step, to calculate the material response. Because the accelerations are assumed to be constant over the time step, the time step has to be chosen small. For stability reasons it must be chosen smaller than the smallest natural period in the mesh. This means, 31
32
CHAPTER 6. MSC.DYTRAN CODE
Figure 6.1: Diagram of loop carried out by MSC.Dytran each time step [28]
the time step has to be smaller than the time for a stress wave to travel through the smallest element. Within the MSC.Dytran code, two solving techniques are available, Langrian and Eulerian (see gure 6.2). The code can use either one, or both, and can couple the two types to dene an interaction. In the Lagrangian approach, nodes correspond to material points. During deformation, the grid points move, distorting the element. In the Eulerian approach, the mesh has a x reference frame, which means that grid point are xed in space and material ows through the elements. The mesh itself is dened the same as for the Lagrangian approach, only the use is dierent because the mesh for the Eulerian approach should be large enough to contain the material after deformation. Unless specied, the material is not allowed to cross the boundary of the mesh, which therefore act as a boundary condition. In general, a Lagrangian approach is used for engineering applications. The Eulerian solver is used for uids or materials that undergo very large deformations [28]. Because bullet impact experiments shown very large deformations, an Eulerian approach will be used to simulate these kind of experiments. Therefore an explanation will be given of some important numerical aspects when working within an Eulerian domain. Following the scheme presented in gure 6.1, at the beginning of an increment
33
(a) Lagrange
(b) Euler
Figure 6.2: Lagrange and Euler approach [28]. the grid point velocities are known. From this, the transported volume V can be determined by V = v A t, (6.5)
where v is the speed of the moving material in normal direction of the boundary surface,A, the material passes and t is the time step. Now the transported volume from donor to acceptor element is known, it can be lled up with mass of the donor element by using the donor material density. When more than one material is present in an element, the transported volume can be lled up with more than one material. In order to maintain an interface between dierent materials, this is done in a specic order. If the donor and acceptor element have common material, this will be transported rst. If there still remains volume to be lled up, the remaining material in the donor element will be transported according to the largest material fraction in this element. To calculate elemental stresses and strains, dierent subroutines are used. The pressure (or hydrostatic stress), is determined by an equation of state subroutine. In the yield stress subroutine, the yield stress is calculated by selecting one the available yield models. To initiate damage and/or nally failure, a failure routine has to be used. When a specic pressure, yield and/or failure model is not present in the MSC.Dytran library, users can program their own subroutine by socalled user subroutines. Since the JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model was not included in the MSC.Dytran material models library, it therefore had to be programmed. Although the user is free of programming within the user subroutine, some special features, needed for
34
CHAPTER 6. MSC.DYTRAN CODE
incorporating the JHB model, were not available. In cooperation with MSC.Software the user subroutine for damage was adjusted so that a material failure would not lead to zero strength, as would happen in the standard code. Also the user subroutine for the equation of state was modied to be able to account for the additional pressure. In MSC.Dytran, no conventional axisymmetric elements are available. Although this shortcoming, axisymmetric can be performed by using a 5wedge. On the centerline, 6node pentahedral elements are used. For the remaining part of the mesh, 8node hexahedral elements are used. In tangential direction there is only 1 element. Since the edge length in tangential direction of the pentahedral elements is small, the time step also becomes very small. Because there is no material ow in this direction, the time step is much smaller than needed for still being able of generating stable results. To increase the time step and reduce calculation time, an axial symmetry option is used. The time step is then determined only by element sizes in radial and axial direction. Also, this option aligns all the element face normals in tangential direction, so that all element faces are in one plane. Without the axial symmetry option, this may not be the case because of roundo dierences.
Chapter 7
Model validation
To validate the implementation of the JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model (JHB), in MSC.Dytran various simulations have been conducted. These applications dier from the onedimensional strain response to complex threedimensional behaviour. The simulations are compared to experimental results and to computations performed by other authors as well. In all examples, silicon carbide (SiC) is considered, for which the constants for the JHB model are shown in table 7.1 Table 7.1: Constants for the JHB model for Silicon Carbide [16]. parameter Density Shear modulus Hydrostatic tensile strength Intact strength constant Intact strength constant Maximum intact strength Strain rate constant Failure strength constant Failure strength constant Maximum failure strength Bulk modulus Pressure coecient Pressure coecient Damage coecient Damage exponent Energy conversion factor Value 0 = 3215 kg/m3 G = 193 GPa T = 0.75 GPa i = 4.92 GPa Pi = 1.5 GPa max = 12.2 GPa C = 0.009 f = 0.10 GPa Pf = 0.25 GPa f = 0.20 GPa max K1 = 220 GPa K2 = 361 GPa K3 = 0 GPa D1 = 0.16 n = 1.0 = 1.0
35
36
CHAPTER 7. MODEL VALIDATION
7.1
Plate impact
Plate impact experiments, as mentioned in chapter 3, are frequently used for model validation purposes. Grady and Moody performed extensive research on the impact response of several ceramic materials [29]. Johnson and Holmquist [16] simulated two silicon carbide plate impact experiments from Grady and Moody [29],using the JHB model within a Lagrangian nite element approach. The same simulations have been performed using MSC.Dytran with the implemented JHB model. The thickness of the silicon carbide target is 9 mm and is backed by a lithium uoride (LiF) window with a thickness of 25.4 mm. The silicon carbide projectile with a thickness of 4.5 mm has a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) backing with a thickness of 8.0 mm. Both simulation have the same congurations but dier in speed. One impact is at 2259 m/s, the other at 1566 m/s. Table 7.2: Material constants for LiF [30] and PMMA [9]. Material LiF 0 2638 kg/m3 n 0 0 1180 kg/m3 K1 6 GPa G 49 GPa H1 -3.028 MPa G 2.3 GPa K2 29 GPa K 63 GPa cp 129 J/kg y 190 MPa K3 13 GPa A 360 MPa Tm 1207 B 0
Material PMMA
During the experiments Grady and Moody measured the particle velocity of the samplewindow interface and plotted this against time. In order to compare the computed results with experimental data, the same information needed to be obtained from the simulation in MSC.Dytran. Since the JHB model is only available in an Eulerian approach, tracking a single material point is not possible (i.e. material travels from element to element). Therefore a LagrangeEuler interface has been modelled, with the window material dened in a Lagrangian mesh. In gure 7.1, the simulation setup used in MSC.Dytran is shown. To assure axial symmetry, the bottom notes of the Lagrangian mesh are constrained in radial direction. The right bottom node is constrained in all directions. The free surface at the back of the Lagrange mesh is constrained not to move in axial direction. The remaining nodes are not allowed to move in tangential direction. Although this is a simplication of the actual experimental setup, it is however permitted since the recording time is of such short period that this constraining
7.1. PLATE IMPACT
37
Figure 7.1: Plate impact setup with Eulerian and Lagrangian elements
Experiments JohnsonHolmquist MSC.Dytran Experiments JohnsonHolmquist MSC.Dytran
1200
1500
Particle speed [m/s]
800 600 400 200 0 0
Particle speed [m/s]

0.5 1 1.5 2 x 10 2.5
6
1000
1000
500
0 0
0.5
1.5
2 x 10
2.5
6
time [s]
time [s]
(a) 1566 m/s
(b) 2259 m/s
Figure 7.2: Silicon carbide plate impact data at two dierent impact speeds.
does not inuence the results. The Eulerian mesh consisted of 22500 elements with an element size of 0.1x0.2 mm. The Langragian mesh consisted of 29680 elements with an element size of 0.1x0.25 mm. A SteinbergGuinan model is used to model the LiF window. To model the PMMA backing an elastic perfectly plastic model is used. In table 7.2 the material parameters for LiF and PPMA are shown. In gure 7.2, data is plotted of results obtained from MSC.Dytran using the implemented JHB model, the experimental data of Grady and Moody and results of Johnson and Holmquist also using the JHB model. It can be seen that there is good agreement between the individual results. Although the release waves of both simulated results show some dierences with the experimental results, they show very similar behaviour.
38
(a) Target conguration duced from [32]
repro- (b) Wedge shape conguration
simulation
Figure 7.3: Thick target geometry.
7.2
Thick target impact
Lundberg et al [31] performed experiments on thick conned silicon carbide targets impacted by long rods. In gure 7.3, the target geometry is presented. The Eulerian mesh contains 69080 elements with an element size of 0.1 mm. The projectile is a tungsten rod of 80 mm in length and 2 mm in diameter. The silicon carbide target is conned by a high strength steel tube (S7 steel) with a steel top and bottom plug (4340 steel). The target dimensions are 20 mm in diameter and 20 mm in height. The steel tube is 28 mm in diameter with a height of 36 mm. The plugs are both 20 mm in diameter and 8 mm in height. The JohnsonCook strength and fracture model constants to model the materials of the connement are given in table 7.3. In gure 7.4 computed results are presented together the experimental data. The three impact velocities are 1410, 1645 and 2175 m/s and are identical to the velocities used in the experiments. Also plotted in this gure are results from [32] where the same experiments were simulated using the JH1 model in a Lagrangian mesh and meshless particles. The mesh initial only held Lagrangian elements, which were automatically converted into meshless particles during the course of computations. The simulations performed with MSC.Dytran and from [32] show similar behaviour. Both generate a
7.2. THICK TARGET IMPACT
39
Table 7.3: JC material constants for 4340 steel, S7 steel and tungsten [26, 27, 17, 32]. Material o (kg/m3 ) G (GPa) K1 (GPa) K2 (GPa) K3 (GPa) Tm () cp (J/kg) A (MPa) B (MPa) n C m D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 4340 steel 7850 78 164 294 500 1520 477 600 510 0.26 0.014 1.03 0.05 3.44 -2.12 0.0020 0.61 S7 steel 7750 78 164 0 0 1490 475 2000 477 0.18 0.012 1.0 -0.80 2.10 -0.50 0.0020 0.61 Tungsten 17600 124 285 470 335 1768 250 1300 141 0.18 0.016 1.0 0 0.33 -1.50 0 0
slightly to high penetration depth for 1410 m/s and 2175 m/s with respect to the experimental results. The evolution of penetration in MSC.Dytran at 1645 m/s however diers from the experimental results as well as from the computational results from [32]. Materials dened in an Eulerian based approach that have coinciding surfaces are considered to be bonded together. At the contact surface there is no friction dened, only the shear modulus of both materials has inuence on the resistance against movement. Separating the materials is only possible when internal forces are in opposite direction. This is also the case when a real interface (without any bonding) is present, but the force needed in simulations is higher, because the material are considered to be bonded together. When the tungsten cylinder arrives at the interface of the steel plug and the ceramic block, dwelling occurs (i.e. during a short period of time the impactor continuous to deform without any penetration into the ceramic material). During the dwelling, the tungsten therefore has to ow radially between the contacting surfaces of the ceramic block and the steel plug by separating these materials from another. In the experimental conguration, the plug and the ceramic block are placed against each other without any bonding forces. In the Eulerian simulations there is a bonding though, thereby restricting the radial movement of the
40
25
Ceramic penetration [mm]
MSC.Dytran
20
JohnsonHolmquist
15
V = 2175 m/s
Experiment
10 V = 1645 m/s V = 1410 m/s 0 0 1 2 3 x 10 4

5
time [s]
Figure 7.4: Thick Target impact results at various speeds.
tungsten at the steel plug/ceramic interface. In gure 7.5 is shown what takes place during the simulation at the interface. Instead of owing radially the tungsten material starts to swirl. This has an eect on the penetration progress. During the 1645 m/s impact simulation the swirling of the tungsten at rst delays the penetration into the ceramic. Once less projectile material ows into the swirl during the movement of the projectile, the penetration is increased because more projectile material is now used to penetrate the target material. The swirl creates an open space and therefore more material is owing into this area resulting in less material penetrating the ceramic block. This space would not be present in this amount when the tungsten material ow was more radial. The open area created would be lled sooner, forcing the projectile to penetrate into the ceramic, leading to a more continuous penetration. For the tungsten not being able to have enough radial ow at the steel plug/ceramic interface also results in the larger penetration results of the 1410 m/s impact simulation. Since the material cannot move enough in radial direction, it will ow into the ceramic block, resulting in some penetration. Figure 7.6 shows the damage contour at several simulation times. Very clearly can be observed the forming of radial cracks as well as the typical creation of the damage conoid in front of the projectile. Because of wave reection at the ceramic/steel
7.2. THICK TARGET IMPACT
41
plug interface at the bottom, a fracture conoid is also formed from this surface upwards to the projectile. This type of behaviour is typically what is to be expected as ceramic material response to impact loading conditions [16].
(a) 12 s
(b) 18 s
(c) 24 s
(d) 30 s
Figure 7.5: Material movement during a thick target impact simulation at v=1645 m/s.
(a) 8 s
(b) 12 s
(c) 14 s
(d) 16 s
Figure 7.6: Damage contour of thick target impact simulation at v=2175 m/s.
42
Chapter 8
Numerical issues in MSC.Dytran

The validity of some of the results generated during the performed simulations were questioned because of unexpected material responses. Before performing actual impact simulations which are to be used as a replacement for experiments, it is necessary to nd the origin of these inconsistencies and, if possible, solve the problems. In the work of B. Adams [1], the steel parameters used were obtained by tting numerical simulations to bullet impact experiments. The steel used there was designated as BSEC180. The steel used in the experiments of chapter 4, designated as BSEC510, diered from the BSEC180 steel (i.e. the BSEC510 material had less ballistic protection capabilities). For this reason, an adjustment of the material parameters obtained by B. Adams was required. Various bullet impact experiments on BSEC510 plates were conducted by Benteler Automotive. The results from these experiments were used to determine the BSEC510 material parameters. From the experimental data, two sets of bullet impacts were used which are given in table 8.1. All bullets were launched at the same steel plate,
Table 8.1: Bullet impact data used for BSEC510 material tting. Bullet type SS109 Impact velocity (m/s) 550 560 870 880 Result Stop, small bulge Full penetration (bullet diameter size hole) Stop, heavy bulge Full penetration (bullet diameter size hole)
M80
43
44
CHAPTER 8. NUMERICAL ISSUES IN MSC.DYTRAN
(a) SS109
(b) M80
Figure 8.1: Initial conguration for simulations of bullet impacts on a 6.3 mm steel plate. which had a thickness of 6.3 mm. A numerical simulation of these experiments was used to obtain the constitutive parameters of the target material. In gure 8.1 the simulation conguration is shown.
8.1
Voids
The axial symmetry option, mentioned in chapter 6, reduces calculation time signicantly by increasing the time step of the simulation. However when using this option, computed results dier from those obtained with a simulation performed without this option set. In gure 8.2 two M80 bullet impacts at 870 m/s on a 6.3 mm steel plate are shown with and without the axial symmetry option being activated. Without the axial symmetry option, the bullet is completely stopped by the steel plate, whereas in case the axial symmetry option is used, the bullet penetrates the plate. When the axial symmetry option is activated, in every simulation, regardless of the material parameters, a cracks develops at the back of the steel plate (see gure 8.3). In order to be able to stop the bullet at this speed, the material should bulge signicantly. This however is not possible since the material cracks when the material starts to bulge. This cracking is caused by the development of voids at the back of the plate. A void is an element where the stress and the pressure are set to zero. It contains a certain amount of material mass (or no mass at all) that causes the pressure to be less than the limited minimum pressure (pmin ). When there is a very small
8.1. VOIDS
45
(a) Without option activated
(b) With option activated
Figure 8.2: Signicant dierence in results when using the axial symmetry option.
Figure 8.3: Loss in material when using the axial symmetry option. amount of mass present in an element, the density (which is dened by the mass inside the element and the element volume) becomes very small with respect to the initial material density. This causes the volumetric strain, dened in equation (5.10), to approximately equal 1. Calculating in that case the pressure would give a value close to K , with K the bulk modulus (assuming a linear pressure model). To avoid an element to have a pressure of the physical impossible value of K , the limit pressure is set slightly above K . To calculate the void fraction in an element the following equation is used FV = Vm Vm
m 0
(8.1)
46
where F V is the void fraction, Vm , the current volume occupied by the mass present in the element, m, the mass in the element and 0 the reference density. The term
m 0
represents the volume that the mass would occupy if it had the reference density.
An element is considered to be void if the void fraction is greater than a dened tolerance fraction, F Vtol . Note that equation 8.1 is only used in case the pressure is less the pmin . This means that only if the calculated element pressure is less than pmin a void fraction, calculated by equation 8.1), that is larger than F Vtol leads to a void element. If an element already had a void fraction the previous increment, negative pressures are not allowed. Therefore a void can only generate stress and pressure again, if enough mass has entered the element to generate a positive pressure. In that case the void fraction will be less than F Vtol . In that case the void fraction of the element will be set to zero.
Figure 8.4: Computed and manually calculated values of 4 elements near and at the vicinity of the crack initiation. Looking closely at what happens at the position where the crack starts to grow it becomes clear that the void fraction is not calculated correctly. In gure 8.4 the element output of 4 elements near and at the vicinity of the crack initiation is given together with manually calculated values, calculated from the current element data. Element 1, 2 and 4 are correctly calculated by MSC.Dytran. Note that manually calculated values can show a small dierence from computed values, because MSC.Dytran performs calculations with double precision. The manually calculated values are calculated with single precision. The void fractions of elements 2 and 4 are greater
8.2. BULLET IMPACT FITTING
47
than the tolerance void fraction, which is set to be 6.104 . This however, does not lead to a void fraction, because the element pressure is greater than the limit pressure, pmin . Element 3 however, had a void fraction after the previous increment. To be able to contain nonzero pressures, the element rst should have enough mass to generate a positive pressure (which is not the case). Although a negative pressure is being generated during the increment, a void fraction of F V = 0 is computed by MSC.Dytran. The manually calculated value however indicates a void fraction larger than the tolerance value of F Vtol = 6.104 , which should lead to a void element. As a consequence, element 3 is capable of having tensile stresses, while element 1 is not. This leads to material separation at this point which is manifested by a crack initiation. The steel plate therefore is not able of bulging anymore but starts to fracture and hence the bullet is not stopped. Performing calculations with the axial symmetry option activated with a time step close to the time step used by the code when axial symmetry is not active, leads to results similar to those computed when the axial symmetry options is not activated. Therefore the larger time step source of the inaccurate void fraction calculations.
8.2
Bullet impact tting
Because of the inconsistencies discussed in the previous section the axial symmetry option will not be used for bullet impact simulations. In table 8.1, an overview is given of the data which will be used for determining the values of the BSEC510 steel parameters values for the JohnsonCook model. For each bullet type the ballistic limit velocity, the velocity at which 50% of the bullets red will be stopped, was taken within 10 m/s to guarantee an accurate material tting. Using the material parameters obtained by Adams [1] as a rst approximation, it was expected that the parameters should not be altered extensively. During the simulations, however, a discrepancy occurred (see gure 8.5). Parameter set 1 represents a material with a higher strength than parameter set 2. Using the rst set an M80 bullet impacting at 870 m/s is stopped as well as an SS109 bullet impacting at 960 m/s. According to table 8.1, the M80 bullet should indeed be stopped but the SS109 bullet should penetrate the steel plate. To generate this result, the material parameters should be changed such that bullet penetration and bullet stops would occur at the proper velocities, described in 8.1.
48
(a) SS109 bullet at 960 m/s against a (b) M80 bullet at 870 m/s against a 6.3 mm BSEC510 steel plate with 6.3 mm BSEC510 steel platewith parameter set 1 parameter set 1
(c) SS109 bullet at 960 m/s against (d) M80 bullet at 870 m/s against a a 6.3 mm BSEC510 steel platewith 6.3 mm BSEC510 steel platewith parameter set 2 parameter set 2
Figure 8.5: Discrepancy in BSEC510 material tting. The second set has a reduced strength but looking at gure 8.5(c) and 8.5(d) the steel plate still stops the SS109 bullet but is penetrated by the M80 bullet. This results in an impossible situation because the material should have a higher strength when impacted by a M80 bullet and a reduced strength when impacted by a SS109. After performing calculations with a large number of other parameter sets, the discrepancy still occurred. Therefore it must be concluded that the material parameters for the BSEC510 steel can not be uniquely determined.
8.3
Depth of penetration
Depth of penetration tests (DOP), mentioned in section 3.3, are frequently used to investigate the ballistic performance of ceramic material. The depth of penetration into
8.3. DEPTH OF PENETRATION
49
(a) Simulation conguration
(b) Computational result at v=1770 m/s
Figure 8.6: Depth of penetration experiment setup and computational result. a steel block with a ceramic tile in front of it, is compared to the depth of penetration the same projectile has into the bare steel, impacted with the same velocity (see gure 8.6(a)). In [33], ve ceramics were impacted by a tungsten projectile and backed by a thick steel block. This data could be used to further validate the JHB model implementation and to determine JHB material parameters of other types of ceramics, like aluminium oxide. Before tting the ceramic material parameters, the impact into the bare steel block is modelled to determine the accuracy of the JohnsonCook model in MSC.Dytran. In [17], the experiments have also been simulated. The material parameters used in these simulations are given in table 8.2. Using the these parameters, the same simulations were performed in MSC.Dytran. In gure 8.6(b), the computed result is given of a tungsten projectile with an impact velocity of 1770 m/s into the bare steel block. The nal depth of penetration is 30 mm, but according to the experimental data, this should be 36 mm [33]. When comparing the results from MSC.Dytran with results from [17], which are very close to the experimental data, there is a signicant dierence. However, the only dierence between both simulations is that the simulations in [17] are performed with a Lagrangian approach. When looking in detail at how the JohnsonCook model is programmed in MSC.Dytran, a few inconsistencies can be observed:
The material parameter D3 in the JohnsonCook damage model (see equation
(5.15)) determines the inuence of the mean stress to equivalent stress ratio,
50
Table 8.2: JC material constants for 4340 steel and tungsten[17]. Material o (kg/m3 ) G (GPa) K1 (GPa) K2 (GPa) K3 (GPa) Tm () cp (J/kg) A (MPa) B (MPa) n C m D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 4343 steel 7850 78 164 294 500 1520 477 910 586 0.26 0.014 1.03 -0.08 2.10 -0.50 0.002 0.61 Tungsten 18360 124 302 470 335 1768 250 770 177 0.12 0.016 1.0 0 0.33 -1.50 0 0
on the plastic strain to failure, which is implemented in the MSC.Dytran code as

p
. In the reference manual of MSC.Dytran [34], however, this is documented

p
as
. According to this manual the sign of all parameter values of D3 mentioned
in literature should be changed. It is clear this change of sign is not correct and generates incorrect results.
In equation (5.13) the strain rate inuence on the material strength is determined p . In MSC.Dytran this eective plastic strain by the eective plastic strain rate,
. This should be allowed unrate is replaced by the eective total strain rate, der the assumption that the eective plastic strain rate equals the eective total strain rate. For high strain rates, the dierence between both strain rate denitions is small and the assumption is valid. However, the initial yield stress is increased, because the eective total strain rate is nonzero in case of elastic deformation. The strain rate therefore has a continuous inuence on the material strength. This is not correct, since the eective plastic strain rate is zero for elastic deformation and therefore has no inuence on the initial yield strength. As a solution for the strain rate implementation problem, the inuence of the strain rate the material strength was activated only if the yield strength was exceeded.
8.3. DEPTH OF PENETRATION
51
Changing the sign of the material parameter D3 and the use of the adjusted strain rate inuence, however, did not generate depth of penetration results close enough to the experimental data. The results shown in gure 8.6(b) are computed with the adjusted material parameter and strain rate inuence. In the work of Adams [1] all D3 material parameters used were changed in sign. The obtained parameters for the BSEC180 steel are therefore not completely correct. Material parameters for the BSEC510 steel therefore could dier more from the BSEC180 material parameters than just a few percentages. With this knowledge, new simulations of bullet impacts on BSEC510 steel plates were performed but still did not generate unique material parameters, because the inconsistency mentioned in section 8.2 still occurred.
52
Chapter 9
Conclusion and recommendations

9.1 Conclusion
To model ceramic material subjected to high strain rates and high pressures, various constitutive models have been reviewed. From the models presented, the JohnsonHolmquistBeissel model was determined to be the most appropriate. Because it was not available in the FEcode MSC.Dytran it was implemented through usersubroutines. Various features needed for a correct model implementation were not available in these subroutines and were therefore adaptations were made by MSC.Software. For model validation purposes, plate impact experiments on silicon carbide were performed and compared to experimental data. The characteristic material loading and unloading was successfully reproduced. To further investigate the validity of the model implementation, a tungsten projectile impacting a thick ceramic block was simulated. The overall results of the depth of penetration and the damage propagation were satisfying but the simulations also revealed limitations when using an Eulerian based approach. These limitations however are no restriction for being able to simulate bullet impacts on ceramic material in MSC.Dytran since the limiting features are not present in this type of application. The successful simulations show a correct model implementation of both the strength model and the damage model. Obtaining new material parameters for the BSEC510 steel revealed a discrep53
54
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ancy. Simulations of the impact of a SS109 bullet above the ballistic limit velocity, resulted in bullet stops, whereas simulations with a M80 bullet below the ballistic limit velocity resulted in full penetration, which should not occur according to experimental results. It appeared not to be possible to dene a unique set of parameters to model the armour steel material response for both bullet impacts. The depth of penetration experiments did not generate the required penetration distance. Although correct material parameters were used, a signicant error occurred. After analysing the implementation of the JohnsonCook model in MSC.Dytran two inconsistencies were found. The actual implementation diered from what was documented, which initially resulted in incorrect use of material parameters obtained from literature. Also the strain rate behaviour was not correctly modelled. Performing depth of penetration simulations with a modied implementation still did not result in an accurate penetration distance. The axial symmetry option which can be used in MSC.Dytran to signicantly reduce calculation time, did not generate the same results as when this option was not used. Using the option resulted in material cracking leading to a bullet penetration. Performing the simulation without this option resulted in a complete bullet stop. Detailed analysis of what initiates the incorrect material cracking revealed an inconsistency in the void fraction calculation procedure.
9.2
Recommendations
Having a ceramic material model available in MSC.Dytran, it is possible to simulate bullet impacts on ceramic/steel targets. Before reliable results can be obtained the following issues need to be taken care of rst:
The incorrect calculation of void fraction should be thoroughly investigated. Al-
though only the void fraction algorithm inuences the void fraction, another yet unknown procedure also adjusts or inuences the void fraction. A possible cause could be the void fraction tolerance which could be altered during calculations and therefore sets an element incorrectly to a zero void fraction. Apparently this only takes place when the axial symmetry option is used, but at this point it cannot be excluded that without this option activated this does not happen as well.
9.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
55
The JohnsonCook model has to generate correct results when proven material
parameters are used. If these software problems are solved, the following steps towards the development of ceramicbased armouring solutions need to be taken by PDE Automotive:
Dene the correct material parameters for the BSEC510 steel. Dene material parameters for aluminium oxide by tting plate impact experi-
ment data. As a parameter validation the performed bullet impact experiments on ceramic/steel targets can be simulated.
Investigate the ballistic performance of conned ceramic tiles, or ceramic tiles
with tape or a metal plate in front of it [35].

Simulate oblique impacts on ceramic material and compare the generated results
to experimental results to extend the validation and reliability of ballistic impact simulations.
Find an optimum thickness ratio of a ceramic/steel target that is able of stopping
bullets from the FB7 class in order to reduce the weight of the armouring system.
56
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Bibliography
[1] B. Adams. Simluation of ballistic impacts on armored civil vehicles. Masters thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2006. [2] W. D. Callister Jr. Materials Science and Engineering an Introduction. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 5th edition, 1999. ISBN 0-471-32013-7. [3] J.A. Zukas, T. Nicholas, H.F. Swift, L.B. Greszczuk, and D.R. Curran. Impact Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1982. ISBN 0-471-08677-0. [4] E.H. Lutz and H. Hoppert. High-Tech Ceramics in Ballistic Protection. Catalogue, 2001. [5] Declaration (iv,3) concerning expanding bullets. International Committee of the Red Cross, 1899. http://www.icrc.org. [6] Beschussamt Ulm. PM2000, Richtlinie zur Pr ufung und Zertizierung Durchschusshemmende plattenartige Materialien. Vereinigung der Pr ufstellen fur angrihemmende Materialien und Konstruktionen, 2002. [7] Metallwerk Elisenh utte GmbH Nassau. www.men-nassau.de. [8] D.E. Grady. Dynamic Properties of Ceramic Materials. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, Feb 1995. Experimental Impact Physics Department 1433. [9] C.H.M. Simha. High rate loading of a high purity ceramicone dimensional stress experiments and constitutive modeling. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1998. [10] Morgan Advanced Ceramics. www.morganadvancedceramics.com. [11] C.H.M. Simha, S.J. Bless, and A. Bedford. A constitutive model for high strain rate response of a high purity ceramic. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, 2003. DAAA2193C101. 57
58
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[12] G.R. Johnson, T.J. Holmquist, and S.R. Beissel. Response of aluminum nitride (including phase change) to large strains, high strain rates and high pressures. J. Appl. Phys., 94(3):16391646, 2003. [13] G.R. Johnson and T.J. Holmquist. A computational constitutive model for brittle materials subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high pressures. Proceedings of Explomet Conference, pages 10751081, 1990. [14] C.E. Anderson Jr., G.R. Johnson, and T.J. Holmquist. Ballistic experiments and computations of conned 99.5 Al2 O3 . 15th Int. Symp. on Ballistics, pages 6572, 1995. Jerusalem, Israel. [15] T.J. Holmquist and G.R. Johnson. Response of silicon carbide to high velocity impact. J. Appl. Phys., 91(9):58585866, 2002. [16] T.J. Holmquist and G.R. Johnson. Characterisation and evaluation of silicon carbide for high-velocity impact. J. Appl. Phys., 97:112, 2005. [17] T.J. Holmquist, D.W. Templeton, and K.D. Bishnoi. Constitutive modeling of aluminum nitride for large strain, highstrain rate and highpressure applications. Int. J. Impact Eng., 25:211231, 2001. [18] A.M. Rajendran. Modeling the impact behavior of ad85 ceramic under multiaxial loading. Int. J. Impact Eng., 15(6):749768, 1994. [19] F.L. Addessio and J.N. Johnson. A constitutive model for the dynamic response of brittle materials. J. Appl. Phys., 67:32753286, 1990. [20] C.F. Cline H.C. Heard and. Mechanical behaviour of polycrystalline beo, Al2 O3 and aln at high pressure. Journal of Materials Science, 15:18891897, 1980. [21] E. Dekel Z. Rosenberg and, V. Hohler, A.J. Stilp, and K. Weber. Hypervelocity penetration of tungsten alloy rods into ceramic tiles: experiments and 2d simulations. Int. J. Impact Eng., 20:675683, 1997. [22] Century Dynamics. Autodyn. www.century-dynamics.com. [23] J.O. Hallquist. LSDyna Theoretical manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2876 Waverly Way, Livermore, California, 94550-1740, 1998. [24] W.F. Brace. Dilatancy in the fracture of crystalline rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research, 71(16):39393953, 1966.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
59
[25] D.J. Steinberg, S.G. Cochran, and M.W. Guinan. A constitutive model for metals applicable at high-strain rate. J. Appl. Phys., 51:14981503, 1980. [26] G.R. Johnson and W.H. Cook. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ballistics, pages 541647, 1983. The Hague, The Netherlands. [27] G.R. Johnson and W.H. Cook. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strain, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng. Fract. Mech, 21:3148, 1985. [28] MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana. MSC.Dytran theory manual, 2005 r3 edition. [29] D.E. Grady and R.L. Moody. Shock compression proles in ceramics. Sandia Report SAND96-0551, 1996. Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque. [30] X. Quan, R.A. Clegg, M.S. Cowler, N.K. Birnbaum, and C.J. Hayhurst. Numerical simulation of long rods impacting silicon carbide targets using JH1 model. Int. J. Impact Eng., 33:634644, 2006. om, and B. Lundberg. Impact of metallic projectiles on [31] P. Lundberg, R.Renstr ceramic targets: transition between interface defeat and penetration. Int. J. Impact Eng., 24:259275, 2000. [32] T.J. Holmquist and G.R. Johnson. Modeling prestressed ceramic and its eect on ballistic performance. Int. J. Impact Eng., 31:113127, 2005. [33] J.E. Reaugh, A.C. Holt, M.L. Wilkins, B.J. Cunningham, B.L. Hord, and A.S. Kusubov. Impact studies of ve ceramic materials and pyrex. Int. J. Impact Eng., 23:771782, 1999. [34] MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana. MSC.Dytran Reference manual, 2005 r3 edition. [35] S. Sarva, S. Nemat-Nasser, J. Mcgee, and J. Isaacs. The eect of thin membrane restraint on the ballistic performance of armor grade ceramic tiles. Int. J. Impact Eng., 34(2):277302, 2007. [36] M.G.D. Geers. Applied Elasticity in Engineering. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, lecture notescourse 4a450 edition, 2002.
60
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor at PDE Automotive, Freddie Huizinga, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this interesting project. I also thank him for his help and guidance during this project. Especially, I would like to thank my academic coach, Hans van Dommelen, for his critical reviews and remarks. They signicantly helped me to stay focused on the project objective and the way to proceed. I thank MSC Software for their help during this project, since the material model implementation was not always straightforward. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues at PDE Automotive for the pleasant and stimulating working atmosphere and for their interest and useful feedback.
61
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix A
Experimental results
CONFIDENTIAL
63
64
APPENDIX A. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Appendix B
Additional pressure
In gure 5.2(c) is shown that a decrease in material strength occurs when the material changes from an intact (D < 1) state to a failed state (D = 1). This represents a decrease of the internal elastic energy corresponding to the deviatoric stress. The total energy present,Et , for a linearly elastic material is: [36] 1 : 2 1 : 4S : 2 1 h : 4S : h + h : 4S : d + d : 4S : h + d : 4S : d , 2
Et = = =
(B.1)
where is the stress tensor, the strain tensor, 4 S the compliance tensor, h the hydrostatic stress tensor and d the deviatoric stress tensor. This can be split into a hydrostatic and a deviatoric part, U . The deviatoric part is given by U = d : 4S : d 1 = J2 ( d ) 2G 1 ( d : d ) = 4G 2 = , 6G
(B.2)
where J2 ( d ) is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress, is the equivalent Von Mises stress and G is the shear modulus. The decrease in internal elastic energy now 65
66 is expressed as
APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL PRESSURE
U = Ui Uf ,
(B.3)
where Ui is the internal deviatoric elastic energy of the material before failure (D < 1) and Uf is the internal deviatoric elastic energy after failure (D = 1), both calculated at the volumetric strain at time of failure, f . The loss of internal energy is partly or completely converted into potential hydrostatic pressure, which is determined by the parameter . The potential energy of the material at a certain volumetric strain is complete the marked area in gure B.1. The potential energy increase, Up , when the pressure is increased by P , is approximately Up = P f + (P 2 /2K1 ), (B.4)
where f is the volumetric strain at failure. Here, the rst expression is the area of the marked parallelogram in gure B.1. The second expression if the area of the marked triangle in gure B.1. Converting the internal elastic energy partly or completely to potential hydrostatic energy leads to U = Up . Substituting herein equation B.4 and solving for P gives P = K1 f + (K1 f )2 + 2K1 U . (B.6) (B.5)
P+ P
Pressure
P
0 0
Volumetric strain
Figure B.1: Potential energy increase at failure.

8206

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

8206

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Numerical simulation of ballistic impacts on ceramic material

A.P.T.M.J. Lamberts MT07.33

3 Material characterisation 3.1 3.2 3.3

Plate impact experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Bar impact experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Penetration experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17 21

4 Bullet impact experiments 5 Material modelling 5.1 5.2 5.3

Simha model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 JohnsonHolmquist ceramic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Microphysical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 I

II 5.4 5.5 5.6

6 MSC.Dytran code 7 Model validation 7.1 7.2

Plate impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Thick target impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 43

8 Numerical issues in MSC.Dytran 8.1 8.2 8.3

Voids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Bullet impact tting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Depth of penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 53

9 Conclusion and recommendations 9.1 9.2 Conclusion

Bibliography Acknowledgement A Experimental results B Additional pressure

State of the art: ceramic armouring

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART: CERAMIC ARMOURING

Table 2.1: Industrial use of ceramics [3].

2.1. CERAMIC MATERIAL

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART: CERAMIC ARMOURING

2.2. CERAMIC ARMOUR

Figure 2.2: Armour vest with ceramic insert [4].

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART: CERAMIC ARMOURING

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART: CERAMIC ARMOURING

Table 2.2: Euronorm: EN1522 [6].

Class Type of weapon FB 1 FB 2 FB 3 FB 4 FB 5 FB 6 FB 7 FJ1 = FJ2 =

Figure 2.4: Overview of bullets [7].

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART: CERAMIC ARMOURING

Plate impact experiments

CHAPTER 3. MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION

(a) Plate impact

(b) Wave prole

Bar impact experiments

3.3. PENETRATION EXPERIMENTS

(a) Wave interaction

(b) Pullback signal

Figure 3.3: Bar impact experiment [9].

CHAPTER 3. MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION

Figure 3.5: Penetration experiments [9].

Bullet impact experiments

CHAPTER 4. BULLET IMPACT EXPERIMENTS

Complete bullet penetration

Bullet stop penetration

CHAPTER 4. BULLET IMPACT EXPERIMENTS

CHAPTER 5. MATERIAL MODELLING

JohnsonHolmquist ceramic models

5.3. MICROPHYSICAL MODELS

Strength of failed material (D=1)

(a) JH1 model

(b) JH2 model

Strength of intact material (D<1)

Strength of failed material (D=1)

(c) JHB model

CHAPTER 5. MATERIAL MODELLING

Material model selection

5.5. JOHNSONHOLMQUISTBEISSEL MODEL

CHAPTER 5. MATERIAL MODELLING

(a) JHB model intact material strength

(b) JHB model failed material strength

5.5. JOHNSONHOLMQUISTBEISSEL MODEL

Figure 5.4: Plastic strain to failure in JHB model.

i i are and P = P/max where D1 and n are dimensionless constants. T = T /max

CHAPTER 5. MATERIAL MODELLING

Material models for metals

CHAPTER 5. MATERIAL MODELLING

CHAPTER 6. MSC.DYTRAN CODE