PVP-Vol.

4 8 9 , Problems Involving Thermal-Hydraulics,

Liquid Sloshing, and Extreme Loads on Structures
July 2 5 - 2 9 , 2004, San Diego, California USA

PVP2004-3049

PERIDYNAMIC MODELING OF IMPACT DAMAGE

S. A. Silling
Computational Physics Department
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0820,USA

E. Askari
Math Group
Boeing Phantom Works
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, USA

ABSTRACT

For this reason, an alternative theory of continuum mechanics,

known as the peridynamic theory [1-3], is under development. This
model avoids the fundamental mathematical difficulty by using integral
equations as a description of material motion rather than differential
equations. Therefore, the presence of discontinuities in a deforming
body does not limit the applicability of the peridynamic theory. A computer code called EMU that implements the peridynamic theory is also
currently under development. The following discussion contains a
description of the peridynamic theory, associated constitutive modeling, numerical implementation, and three example problems.

The peridynamic theory is an alternative formulation of continuum mechanics oriented toward modeling discontinuites such as
cracks. It differs from the classical theory and most nonlocal theories in
that it does not involve spatial derivatives of the displacement field.
Instead, it is formulated in terms of integral equations, whose validity is
not affected by the presence of discontinuities such as cracks. It may be
thought of as a "continuum version of molecular dynamics" in that particles interact directly with each other across a finite distance. This
paper outlines the basis of the pefidynamic theory and its numerical
implementation in a three-dimensional code called EMU. Examples
include simulations of a Charpy V-notch test, accumulated damage in
concrete due to multiple impacts, and crack fragmentation of a glass
plate.

2. PERIDYNAMIC THEORY
As remarked above, the peridynamic theory reformulates the basic
equations of the classical theory of continuum mechanics. The equation
of motion in the peridynamic theory is

1. INTRODUCTION
Malay problems of fundamental importance in mechanics involve
the spontaneous emergence of discontinuities, such as cracks, in the
interior of a body. This is particularly true of impact and penetration
problems, in which target response typically involves dynamic fracture.
The classical theory of continuum mechanics is in some ways poorly
suited to modeling this type of problem, because the theory uses partial
differential equations as a mathematical description. The required spatial derivatives, by definition, do not exist on the surfaces of discontinuity, so the entire formulation breaks down when such discontinuities
form. Although much work has been devoted to special techniques
aimed at working around this problem, particularly in the theory of
fracture mechanics, these techniques are not fully satisfactory either in
principle or in practice as general descriptions of fracture. This difficulty is inherited by numerical methods that implement the classical
theory, including nearly all finite-element and finite-difference codes in
common usage.

P/d = L.u +/2

(1)

where p is mass density, u is the displacement vector field, b is the

body force density, and L is a functional of displacement. There are
many possible choices fo~ L u . The most intuitive and most widely
studied is as follows:

Lu(X, t) = I f(u(x' , t) - u(x, t), x' - Ls)dVx,

(2)

R
where f is a vector-valued fimction. Note that here x is the point
where acceleration is being evaluated while x' is the dummy variable
of integration (Figure 1). The physical interaction between x and x' is
referred to as a bond. It is convenient and reasonable to assume that
material particles separated by a distance greater than some fixed dis-

197
1

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

materials in the classical theory with regard to the thermodynamic

reversibility of deformations. This assumption will be relaxed later in
this discussion to allow dependence on a damage type variable at the
bond level.
Although the classical idea of a- stress tensor plays no role in the
peridynarnic theory, it is possible to define a stress tensor through

~ij(~x~ t) = AA. ~ O ~1 rr
, # f J(u(x'" t) - u(x', t), L$"- _x')dVx,,dV x,

R_R+

(6)

where R is the half-space x i' < xi , R+ is the half-space xi" > xi , and
the integral is taken over all bonds that intersect the small area AA in a
plane through x with normal parallel to the x i axis (Figure 2).

x, -,,,
Figure 1. Acceleration at x is determined by summing the
forces exerted on it by each point x' within the horizon 6 .
tance 6 do not interact. This distance is called the horizon for the matefial.

3. CONSTITUTIVE MODELING
Figure 2. Force vector through a small area AA.

The function f contains all the constitutive information about the

material. It represents the force per unit volume squared that x' exerts
on LS due to the bond between these points. Note the resemblance
between the current formulation and molecular dynamics (MD) due to
the summation of forces between particles separated by a finite distance. However, the pefidynamic theory is also fundamentally different
from MD in that the pefidynamic model is truly a continuum theory
and is not restricted in size scale to the atomic level.
The response of a homogeneous material to deformation is supplied by the function

_f("3,_~),

For an isotropic material, the bond force f is independent of the direction of ~. It might, however, depend on the length I_ 1, i e., the distance
between the endpoints of the bond in the reference configuration.
Now define f (~) = f ( 0 , ~) so that f is the bond force in the
-0
. . . .
'
~0
reference configuration~ There is nothing in the theory that requires f-o
to vanish. Even if these forces in the reference configuration are nonzero, it is still possible that the reference configuration is equilibrated,
i.e., the bond forces sum to zero at every point. In fact, it is possible that
the reference eontiguration is unstressed as well as equilibrated [1] with
nonzero f _ . This situation is similar to a nanoscale view of an
-O
unstressed crystal, in which there are forces present between the atoms,
but the net foree on any atom is zero. Nevertheless, for macroscale
modeling, the simplest assumption is that f-0 ~"0, which will be
assumed for the remainder of this discussion.
It is possible to linearize the theory in the ease of small displacements, with a resulting simplification of the integral equations [1].
However, since applications involving impact damage generally require
large displacements, the linear pefidynamic theory will not be pursued
further here. Instead, consider an isotropic material that uses a linear
bond force model but allows for large displacements:

c3)

where
rl = u ' - u ,

~ = x'-x.

(4)

Balance of linear and angular momenta lead to the following requirements on f :

f(-rI,-~) =-f(~,~), and f(~,~)(~+~) = O,

(5)

the second of which states that the force vector is parallel to the current
(deformed) orientation of the bond.
Implicit in the functional dependence of f in Equation (3) is the
assumption that the force in the bond depends only on its length and
orientation (i.e., the vector ~ ) in the reference configuration and the
current relative displacement at the ends ~. This assumption implies
that there is no history dependence in the bond. A material of this type
is called microelastic and has properties similar to those of elastic

Copyright 2004 by A S M E

= cam,

1_1

(7)

198

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

where c is a constant, m is the current (deformed) direction of the

bond, and s is the current bond stretch:

pie, a convenient measure of local damage that takes into account all
the bonds, broken or unbroken, connected to a given point is

(8)

j'g(x, t, ~)av~
~0(x, t)

By requiring that the total strain energy in this material equal that in the
classical theory for an isotropic linear elastic solid with bulk modulus
k, it is easily shown that
2k
c = --

I_~l -< 6

(10)

~)= ~ 1 ifs(t',~)_<s o for all t ' S t

(1 1)

0 otherwise

where s o is a constant that is the critical stretch f o r bond failure. By

summing up the work per unit surface area required to separate two
halves of a large body across a fracture plane, this constant can be
shown to be

so =

(13)

where H x is the spherical region centered at x with radius equal to the

horizon. The damage measure defined in this way varies from 0 (representing virgin material) to 1 (representing complete breakage of all
bonds locally). Other notions of damage that reflect anisotropy introduced by bond breakage can be defined similarly.
Various enhancements to the PMB material model allow more
sophisticated modeling of real materials, including nonlinear dependence of bond force on bond stretch. One such type of nonlinearity
occurs by limiting the force in a bond to some constant value that is
first reached at a given stretch Sy, resulting in a yielding type of
model at the bond level. A further eithancement of this yielding model
is to allow unloading (prior to bond breakage) along a different path
from the loading path; this is the simplest way to build plasticity into
the peridynamic theow. The resulting material model, which allows
permanent deformation upon unloading, is called microplastic. The
PMB material model, together with some of these refinements, is iUustrated in Figure 3.
It is sometimes found that the assumption of a constant stretch to
failure s o that is independent of all other conditions, as described
above, is an oversimplification. In particular, the failure of some brittle
materials is better modeled taking into account compressive strains that
may be present locally. Therefore, a useful refinement of the bond
breakage model is to allow the critical bond stretch to failure to vary as
follows:

where ~ is a variable that starts out with a value of 1 for bonds in a virgin material but then changes to 0 irreversibly when a bond breaks:

x
Hx

In the peridynarnic theory, material failure is introduced at the bond

level. To do this, a notion of irreversible bond breakage is introduced.
The microelastic bond force function is modified to take the form

~t(t,

(9)

~4"

f(~_, _~, ~,) = c~=m,

H
=

(12)
s' 0 = s0-CtSmi n

where G is the fracture energy in a brittle solid, which is a measurable

quantity. The peridynamic material specified by Equations (7) through
(11) is called the prototype microelastic brittle (PMB) material.
Damage, when introduced in this way at the bond level, is treated
consistently throughout the deformation, regardless of whether a crack
is present at a particular location or not. This is an important distinction
between the present approach and fracture mechanics concepts such as
the Barenblatt hypothesis, which adds special assumptions about
behavior at the crack tip that are extraneous to the basic equations of
the classical theory of elasticity.
By introducing bond breakage as the fundamental unit of damage,
all other aspects of damage growth follow in a natural way. For exam-

(14)

where ct is a constant and Smin is the minimum (most compressive)

stretch among all bonds connected to a given point. Thus, compression
in some direction makes the bonds stronger in the other directions.
Bodies containing interfaces between materials are treated in a
consistent way. Bonds that connect different materials can have properties that are different from those of bonds within the constituent materials. For example, in a body containing two materials called A and B, a
PMB model would involve b~ree ~ t s of parameters, the linear
microelastic constants c
, c
, c u ; and the critical stretches for
AA BB AB
bond failure, s o , s o , s o . If the inter-material bond propemes are

199

Copyright 2004 by A S M E

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

IA

so

Sy

so

'7

Figure 3. Three microelastic constitutive models for bond force as a function of bond stretch. Left: linear. Center: PMB material. Right: nonlinear with yielding and bond breakage.

weaker than either of those in the constituent materials, interfacial fracture will. be the preferred mode of failure in the structure.

4.

Integration over time is performed using explicit central differencing,

n+l
n
n-1
.n
gi
- 2-ui + -ui
u_i =
At 2

NUMERICAL METHOD

EMU evaluates the integral in L using the "brute force"

approach illustrated in Figure 4. The acceleration of node i a time step
n is being evaluated, and the integration occurs over all nodesj located
within a distance ~ from node i. The acceleration is found from the discretized form of L :

A numerical stability condition similar to the Courant-Ftiedrichs-Lcvy

condition can be derived for this numerical scheme, with the length
scale provided by ~ rather than by Ax. This numerical met~2od c~. be
shown to have convergence properties on the order of O(Ax , At ) in
one dimension with constant spacing between the nodes.
The method described here is meshfi'ee in the sense that there are
no elements or other geometrical objects connecting the nodes, nor is
there any geometrical structure required for differencing. Figure 4 illustrates an initially rectangular grid, but generalization to nonrectangular
grids with arbitrary arrangements of nodes is straightforward. In this
generalization, all the nodes that happen to be within the horizon for
node i contribute to its acceleration. However, the volume corresponding to each node is variable, rather than the constant value (Ax) that
appears in Equation (15) above.
Parallelizafion may be performed by allowing each processor to be
responsible for a fixed region of space. As the body deforms, nodes are
permitted to migrate between processors. After each time step, the
updated variables for nodes within a distance 6 of a given processor
are passed to that processor to be used in the following cycle. This parallelization technique has the advantage of simplicity and works well
for applications in which the motion of the nodes is not too large. More
sophisticated load balancing methods will be considered as part of
future development of EMU for improved efficiency in problems
involving large displacements.
The method discussed here treats fracture as a natural outgrowth
of the equation of motion and the constitutive model that incorporates
failure at the bond level. The model does not use fracture toughness
explicitly, except through determination of the critical stretch for bond
failure. Nor does it use stress intensity factors, since these are rooted in
the crack-tip singularities of linear elastic fracture mechanics, which do
not occur in the pefidynaimic theory.
Fracture initiation, growth, arrest, and all other fracture phenomena occur "autonomously" in the peridynamic model without the need
for supplemental kinetic relations that control these events as a function
of local conditions, as is required in traditional fracture mechanics

~U

..n =
Pgi

-f(gjn _ u-7'-xj--xi)(Ax)3+~ib n .

(15)

[xj-~i[ <5

Ax

""

"

7 "

\,,

""

""

""

t,

,,/

,I
" ~'

Figure 4. Discretized region. The force on node i is determined

by summing the forces acting on it due to interaction with each
nodej within the horizon of/.

Copyright 2004 by A S M E

(16)

200

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

models. Any number of cracks, including their interactions with each

other, occur spontaneously in the peridynarnic model according to the
evolution of the problem. Examples of fracture growth and failure modeling of complex materials under dynamic loading conditions are given
in the next section.
Many meshfree methods have been proposed for computational
mechanics, and some of these are being adapted to the modeling of
cracks. The most widely used among the meshfree techniques is
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), which originated in the
work of Lucy [4] and is now incorporated into many mechanics and
physics codes. Although SPH bears a superficial resemblance to the
peridynamic method described here because it involves integration over
nodes within finite subregions of a body, in SPH this integration is used
only for purposes of evaluating the spatial derivatives that are required
by the classical theory. These derivatives are not used in the peridynamic approach, so the present approach has very little in common with
SPH. The entire mathematical structure is different, and predicted
results converge to different solutions. This is reflected in the absence
from the peridynamic method of the "tensile instability" that has been
reported with SPH.
Similar considerations apply to the many other meshfree methods
that are under development. Most of these, such as MLS, EFG, MLPG,
RKMP, and the method of finite spheres [5-9] rely on the weak form of
the classical PDEs. Use of the weak form does not eliminate the fundamental problem of how to treat the discontinuity on a crack tip or surface. Several schemes have been proposed for adapting these methods
to fracture [10-15], but as remarked in Section 1, they all inherit from
the classical theory the difficulty due to the inapplicability of the basic
PDEs. Aside from the geometrical difficulties in evaluating strain and
stress tensors on opposite sides of a crack surface, such methods
require additional kinetic relations that govern when, at what velocity,
and in what direction a crack should grow. These difficulties are compounded when multiple interacting cracks are present. All these problems are avoided by the peridynamic method, demonstrating the
practical as well as theoretical potential advantages of the method proposed here. (Further discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the
method appears in Section 8.)

test in a material similar to steel. This test measures the energy lost by a
projectile as it impacts a specimen constructed so that the impact
causes the growth of a single crack through the cross-section. The
energy loss is a qualitative measure of the fracture toughness of the
material.
Figure 5 shows the EMU grid before and after impact. The specimen and support dimensions conform to the standard test
procedure [16]. Parameters in the calculation include Ax=0.001m,
p =8000kg-m "3, 8 =0.003m, k =162GPa,
c = 1.27x102rN-m "6,
s =0.00164, ct=0, and s0=0.25. This corresponds to an ultimate
s~rength of about 800MPa and an elongation at failure of 25%. The projectile mass is 25kg, with striking velocity 5m-s "1, resulting in an initial
kinetic energy of the projectile of 312.5J. Of this, 40J is lost due to the
impact. This is typical of CVN energies obtained experimentally for
various steels [17]. This value cannot, however, be translated unambiguously into an energy release rate because not all of this energy is used
for crack growth.

6. EXAMPLE 2: DAMAGE IN CONCRETE DUE TO MULTIPLE IMPACTS

In the second example, a concrete slab is struck repeatedly by a
large hammer, and the accumulation of damage and resulting fracture
phenomenology are predicted. The slab is a homogeneous rectangular
block with properties corresponding to an unconfined compressive
strength of 35 MPa. The parameters used in the calculation are
Ax =0.02m,
p =2200kg-m "3,
8 =0.06m,
k =14.9GPa,
c =7.32x1014N-m "6, s =0.00839, ct =0, and s0 =0.001. The slab has
dimensions 1.04m x 0.8~m x 0.80m, and it is held in place from below
by an essentially rigid support. The hammer is a rigid cylinder with
mass 28kg, diameter 0.15m, and height 0.20m. Its impact velocity is
5.0m-s q directed normal to the slab surface. The impact point is 0.17m
from the right edge of the slab (Figure 6). When the hammer comes to
rest after its initial impact, it is brought back up to its initial position
and its initial velocity is restored. This process is repeated for many
cycles, always repeating the same impact point and velocity. A total of
125 impacts were simulated in this calculation. The predicted evolution
of the shape of the slab as a result of fracture is shown in the four plots
in Figure 6. These plots show the remaining material that has not yet
detached from the slab but omit fragments that would obscure the fracture surface.

5.

EXAMPLE 1: CHARPY V-NOTCH TEST

As an illustration of how the method applies to dynamic single
fracture growth, the first example problem models a Charpy V-notch

Figure 5. Emu simulation of a Charpy V-notch test on a material similar to steel, illustrating initiation and
growth of a crack.

201

Copyright 2004 by A S M E

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Very little visible damage occurs prior to 31 impacts, but invisible

damage is evidently accumulating within the body. After 58 impacts,
material has fractured offthe free surface. After 125 impacts, the fractured zone has extended to underneath the hammer. This calculation
illustrates the properties of the peridynarnie model in simulating the
accumulation of damage as a result of multiple impacts. This feature
has not yet been compared with experimental data. Application of the
peridynamic model to concrete structures is under study by Gerstle

8.

For modeling structural damage due to impact, the primary advantages of the peridynamic model are the following:

The same equations apply either on or off of a crack, since spatial

derivatives are not used.

Damage is incorporated as part of the constitutive model at the

bond level.

There is no need for supplemental kinetic relations that govern

crack growth since this occurs naturally as a result of the equation
of motion and constitutive models.

The theory lends itself to implementation in a meshfree

Lagrangian numerical method that is amenable to parallelization.

Degradation of the bulk material properties due to damage is

implied by the pattern of bond breakage, including possible
anisotropy induced by damage.

Behavior at material interfaces is treated in a consistent way, since

bonds connecting different materials can have properties independent of those in the individual materials.

[18].
As described above, bond breakage is the only aspect of the peridynamic model that incorporates damage, and this bond breakage is
based on a critical stretch criterion. The model does not include any
other explicit evolutionary law for the growth of damage. Nor does the
model have any explicit dependence of elastic properties on damage,
yet this dependence emerges as a natural outgrowth of the bond breakage process. After a bond breaks, it no longer contributes to the elastic
response of the material, so the net effect of extensive bond breakage is
softening. As a result of this softening, the peak acceleration experienced by the hammer during each successive impact is reduced. The
peak acceleration during impact 125 is about 50% lower than during
impact 1.

All of these advantages together allow the possibility of modeling fracture and failure in complex, heterogeneous materials and structures
with potentially great generality. Similarly, this approach appears
promising for detailed studies of fragmentation, because of its ability to
model large numbers of cracks and their mutual interaction.
Disadvantages of this approach include the following:

7. EXAMPLE 3: HERTZIAN CRACKING AND FRAGMENTATION OF GLASS

Consider the impact of a rigid sphere against a homogeneous
block of brittle material. The sphere has mass 0.00416kg, diameter
0.01m, and impact velocity 35m-s -1 directed normal to the target surface. The target material has density p =2200kg-m -3, bulk modulus
k =14.9GPa, and fracture energy G.~l.10J-m -2. A three-dimensi?~al
cubic grid with spacing Ax =5.010--m and horizon 8 = 1.510-- m
is used. T ~ corresponding parameters for the PMB model are
c =1.8710-" N-m "6 and s o =4.9610 -'~ , with an assumed value of
ct =0.25. The target is a cylinder with diameter 0.0344m and height
0.0250m. The sphere is treated as rigid, and interactions with the peridynamic nodes are modeled similarly to a Lagrangian slide-line in a
finite-element code.
Figure 7a contains on the left a cross-section of the target after the
projectile has rebounded, showing damage contours in the target material, where damage is the quantity ~p defined in Equation (13). The
damage is localized in a cone-shaped surface which is known as a Hertzian crack or Hertzian cone. A three-dimensional view of this crack is
shown in the plot on the right, which excludes all nodes that are undamaged. The curvature near the circular crack tip is presumably due to
interaction with the free cylindrical surface. The formation of conical
Hertzian cracks in glass under impact by spheres is observed experimentally, for example by Ball [19].
A prediction for a similar problem, but with impact velocity
100m-s "1 and a target with diameter 0.074m and thickness 0.0025m,
are shown in Figure 7b. The upper plot shows the classic debris cloud
of high-velocity impact on a thin target. The lower plot omits the small
debris and shows the predicted fragmentation of the entire target (displacements are exaggerated by a factor of 5). This illustrates the ability
of the method to model complex patterns of crack growth and mutual
interaction.

Copyright 2004 by A S M E

CONCLUSIONS

Boundary conditions are treated differently than in the classical

theory. For example, a traction boundary condition in the classical
theory cannot be applied directly in the peridynamic theory,
although a body force density field can be applied in a layer adjacent to the boundary.
Since there are no strain and stress tensors in the peridynamic theory, constitutive models that have been developed for the classical
theory generally cannot be applied directly in the peridynarnic
model.
The theory as described in this paper is fimited to materials with
Poisson ratio 1/4, due to the assumption of pairwise interaction of
particles. However, an alternative version of the theory avoids this
restriction [1].

The EMU code, which produced the results shown above in the example problems, is currently undergoing validation against a variety of
experiments including both simple and complex fracture patterns. A
fatigue model is also currently under development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by the Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

REFERENCES
[1] Silling, S.A, 2000, "Reformulation of Elasticity Theory for Discontinuities and Long-Range Forces," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 48, pp. 175-209.

202

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Co

,.~ I l l l l p i i l , / , t ~

58 impacts

125 impacts

Figure 6. EMU simulation of the effect of repeated impacts on a concrete slab. The stripes are included as an aid to visualization of the fracture surface. Very little visible damage occurs through the first 31 impacts.

[2] Silling, S.A., 2003, "Dynamic Fracture Modeling with a Meshfree

Peridynamic Code", Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics 2003,
K. J. Bathe, ed., Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 641-644.

[5] Belytschko, T., Krongauz, Y., Organ, D., Fleming, M., and Krysl, P.,
1996, "Meshless Methods: An Overview and Recent Developments,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 139, pp. 347.

[3] Silling, S.A., Zimmermann, M., and Abeyaratne, R., 2004, "Deformation of a Peridynamic Bar, Journal of Elasticity, to appear.

[6] Belytschko, T., Lu, Y.Y., and Gu, L., 1994, "Element-Free Galerkin
Methods," International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 37, pp. 229-256.

[4] Lucy, L.B., 1977, "A Numerical Approach to the Testing of the Fission Hypothesis (Close Binary Star Formation)," Astronomical Journal,
82, pp. 1013-1024.

203

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

(a)

(b)
Figure 7. Impact of a rigid sphere onto glass. (a) Low velocity impact onto a
thick cylinder. (b) Higher velocity impact onto a thin plate.

Copyright 2004 by ASME

204

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

[7] Atlun, S.N. and Zhu, T., 1998, "New Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) Approach in Computational Mechanics," Computational
Mechanics, 22, pp. 117-127.

ties," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191,

pp. 941-957.
[14] Johnson, G.R., Stryk, R.A., and Beissel, S.R., 1996, "SPH for
High Velocity Impact Computations," Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 139, pp. 347-373.

[8] Liu, W.-K., Jun, S., Li, S.F., Adee, J., and Belytschko T., 1995,
"Reproducing Kernel Particle Methods for Structural Dynamics," International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 38, pp. 16551679.

[15] Randles, P.W. and Libersky, L.D., 1996, "Smoothed Particle

Hydrodynamics: Some Recent Improvements and Applications," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 139, pp. 375408.

[9] De, S. and Bathe, K.-J., 2001, "The Method of Finite Spheres with
Improved Numerical Integration," Computers and Structures, 79, pp.
2183-2196.

[16] ASTM Standard A370-03a, 2003, "Standard Test Methods and

Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products;' ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

[10] Krysl, P. and Belytsehko, T., 1999, "The Element Free Galerkin
Method for Dynamic Propagation of Arbitrary 3-D Cracks," International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 44, pp. 767-800.

[17] Baumeister, T., Avallone, E.A., and Baumeister, T. III, eds., 1978,
Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 8th edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 5-8.

[11] Li, S.F., Liu, W.-K., Qian, D., Guduru, E R., and Rosakis, A. J.,
2001, "Dynamic Shear Band Propagation and Micro-Structure of Adiabatic Shear Bands," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 191, pp. 73-92.

[18] Gerstle, W., 2004, "Peridynamic Modeling of Concrete Structures;' Proceedings, FRAMCOS V, to appear.

[12] Chen, Y.E, Lee, J. D, and Eskandarian, A. 2002, "Dynamic Meshless Method Applied to Nonlocal Crack Problems," Theoretical and
Applied Fracture Mechanics, 38, pp. 293-300.

[19] Ball, A., 1996, "On the Bifurcation of Cone Cracks in Glass
Plates, Philosophical Magazine A, 73, pp. 1093-1103.

[13] Carpinteri, A., Ferro, G., and Ventura, G., 2001, "An Augmented
Lagrangian Element-Free (ALEF) Approach for Crack Discontinui-

205

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/16/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use