Material failure models in SPH simulation of debris cloud

DI Dening; CHEN Xiaowei

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2017-0328

Volume 38 Issue 5

Jul. 2018

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Article Navigation > Explosion And Shock Waves > 2018 > 38(5): 948-956

DI Dening, CHEN Xiaowei. Material failure models in SPH simulation of debris cloud[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2018, 38(5): 948-956. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2017-0328

Citation:

DI Dening, CHEN Xiaowei. Material failure models in SPH simulation of debris cloud[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2018, 38(5): 948-956. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2017-0328

DI Dening, CHEN Xiaowei. Material failure models in SPH simulation of debris cloud[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2018, 38(5): 948-956. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2017-0328

Citation:

DI Dening, CHEN Xiaowei. Material failure models in SPH simulation of debris cloud[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2018, 38(5): 948-956. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2017-0328

PDF( 5946 KB)

Material failure models in SPH simulation of debris cloud

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2017-0328

DI Dening¹,
CHEN Xiaowei^{2, 3
,
,}

1.
Institute of Systems Engineering, China Academy of Engineering Physics, Mianyang 621999, Sichuan, China
2.
Advanced Research Institute for Multidisciplinary Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
3.
State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China

Received Date: 2017-08-26
Rev Recd Date: 2017-11-08
Publish Date: 2018-09-25

Abstract

Abstract

The smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method is widely used in debris cloud simulation under hypervelocity impact. The SPH solver in AUTODYN was employed to investigate the effects of the no-failure model, the Grady failure model and the maximum tension failure model on the simulation results of debris cloud. When using the no-failure model, the simulation result and material response were not consistent with the experiment. Compared with the Grady model, the material under the maximum tension model was more difficult to fail, which would slightly weaken the expansion of debris cloud, produce less but heavier debris because of particles gathering, and thus improve the penetration performance of debris cloud. Similarly, by increasing the failure stress threshold, the above result was also obtained. Considering the material response and debris distribution, the simulation result by the Grady model was closer to the experiment. However, the difference between the Grady model and the maximum tension model was related to the impact condition, and more complete fragmentation of the material would lead to a smaller difference.
- failure model,
- SPH method,
- debris cloud,
- debris distribution,
- hypervelocity impact

FullText(HTML)

References(8)

References

[1]	LIU G R, LIU M B.光滑粒子流体动力学: 一种无网格粒子法[M].韩旭, 杨刚, 强洪夫, 译.长沙: 湖南大学出版社, 2005: 12-32.
[2]	GROENENBOOM P H L. Numerical simulation of 2D and 3D hypervelocity impact using the SPH option in PAM-SHOCK^TM[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1997, 20(1/2/3/4/5):309-323. DOI: 10.1016/S0734-743X(97)87503-3.
[3]	张伟, 庞宝君, 贾斌, 等.弹丸超高速撞击防护屏碎片云数值模拟[J].高压物理学报, 2004, 18(1):47-52. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5773.2004.01.009. ZHANG Wei, PANG Baojun, JIA Bin, et al. Numerical simulation of debris cloud produced by hypervelocity impact of projectile on bumper[J]. Chinese Journal of High Pressure Physics, 2004, 18(1):47-52. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5773.2004.01.009.
[4]	HIGASHIDE M E, KHISHCHENKO K V, LEVASHOV P R. Hypervelocity impact modeling with different equations of state[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2006, 33(1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12):625-633. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.09.078.
[5]	李宝宝, 汤文辉, 冉宪文.两种物态方程在超高速碰撞数值模拟中的比较[J].航天器环境工程, 2010, 27(5):576-580. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-1379.2010.05.006. LI Baobao, TANG Wenhui, RAN Xianwen. Comparison of two kinds of equation of state in numerical simulation of hypervelocity impact[J]. Spacecraft Environment Engineering, 2010, 27(5):576-580. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-1379.2010.05.006.
[6]	PIEKUTOWSKI A J. Formation and description of debris cloud produced by hypervelocity impact: NASA CR-4707[R]. USA: NASA, 1996.
[7]	GRADY D E. The spall strength of condensed matter[J]. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1988, 36(3):353-384. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5096(88)90015-4.
[8]	PIEKUTOWSKI A J. A simple dynamic model for the formation of debris clouds[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1990, 10(1/2/3/4):453-471. DOI: 10.1016/0734-743X(90)90079-B.

Relative Articles

[1]	JIANG Hongjie, LU Wenbo, WANG Gaohui, LIU Yijia, WANG Yang. On characteristics of failure zones in mass concrete subjected to underwater contact explosion[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2023, 43(10): 102202. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2022-0415
[2]	SONG Yiping, MIAO Chunhe, SHAN Junfang, WANG Pengfei, XU Songlin. Effect of stress-state adjustment on fragmentation behavior of quartz glass beads subjected to low-velocity impact[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2022, 42(7): 073103. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2021-0244
[3]	YIN Zhiyong, CHEN Xiaowei. Analysis of characteristic control parameters of long-rod penetration[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2021, 41(2): 023302. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0057
[4]	Yang Liyun, Ma Jiahui, Wang Xuedong, Zhang Wucheng, Zhang Lei. Experimental study on blasting crack initiation and propagation behaviorin compression stress field[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2017, 37(2): 262-268. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2017)02-0262-07
[5]	Xie Yaoguo, Yao Xiongliang, Cui Hongbin, Li Xinfei. Wavelet analysis on shock response of a real ship subjected to non-contact underwater explosion[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2017, 37(1): 99-106. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2017)01-0099-08
[6]	Pi Zhengdi, Chen Lang, Liu Danyang, Wu Junying. Shock initiation of CL-20 based explosives[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2017, 37(6): 915-923. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2017)06-0915-09
[7]	Pei Shan-bao, Liu Rong-zhong, Guo Rui. Analysis of characteristics of sequential underwater explosion sound signal based on wavelet transform[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2015, 35(4): 520-526. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2015)04-0520-07
[8]	Mu Chao-min, Han Jing. Mechanical characteristics of high-pressure water jets impinging on coal[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2015, 35(3): 442-448. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2015)03-0442-07
[9]	Hao Chun-yue, Zheng Zhong. Main characteristics for three explosion events based on explosion waves[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2014, 34(6): 730-735. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2014)06-0730-06
[10]	Lai Hua-wei, Wang Zhan-jiang, Yang Li-ming, Wang Li-li. Characteristics analyses of linear viscoelastic spherical waves[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2013, 33(1): 1-10. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2013)01-0001-10
[11]	Chen Lang, Liu Qun, Wy Jun-ying. On shock initiation of heated explosives[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2013, 33(1): 21-28. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2013)01-0021-08
[12]	LI Xiao-jie, ZHAO Chun-feng. Characteristiccurvemethodforanalyzingmovementofflyerplate basedonuniversalequationofstateofexplosive[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2012, 32(3): 237-242. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)03-0237-06
[13]	YANG Bao, TANG Li-qun, LIU Yi-ping, HUANG Xiao-qing, . Mesodeformationcharacteristicsanalysisofaluminumfoamunderimpact[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2012, 32(4): 399-403. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)04-0399-05
[14]	YAN Jun-wei, LONG Yuan, FANG Xiang, ZHOU Chun-hua. Analysis on features of energy distribution for blasting seismic wave based on wavelet transform[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2007, 27(5): 405-410. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2007)05-0405-06
[15]	WANG Rong-bo, TIAN Jian-hua, HE Li-hua, LI Ze-ren, ZHAO Jian-heng, WU Ting-lie. Application of fiber-optic pin to nonmetallic shock experiments[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2006, 26(3): 284-288. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2006)03-0284-04
[16]	LIN Da-chao, BAI Chun-hua. Analysis of blast vibration characteristics by using discretization of continuous wavelet transform[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2005, 25(5): 430-436. doi: 10.11883/1001-1455(2005)05-0430-07