Comparative study of numerical simulations of projectile penetration into metal targets

CHEN Ya; TAN Chao; GUO Yazhou

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2021-0125

Volume 42 Issue 4

May 2022

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Explosion And Shock Waves > 2022 > 42(4): 044201

CHEN Ya, TAN Chao, GUO Yazhou. Comparative study of numerical simulations of projectile penetration into metal targets[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2022, 42(4): 044201. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2021-0125

Citation:

CHEN Ya, TAN Chao, GUO Yazhou. Comparative study of numerical simulations of projectile penetration into metal targets[J]. Explosion And Shock Waves, 2022, 42(4): 044201. doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2021-0125

Citation:

PDF( 28683 KB)

Comparative study of numerical simulations of projectile penetration into metal targets

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2021-0125

CHEN Ya^1
,,
TAN Chao²,
GUO Yazhou^{1, 3
,
,}

1.
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, Shaanxi, China
2.
Xi’an Institute of Modern Control Technology, Xi’an 710072, Shaanxi, China
3.
Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Impact Dynamics and Engineering Application, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, Shaanxi, China

Received Date: 2021-04-09
Rev Recd Date: 2021-12-23

Available Online: 2022-04-07

Publish Date: 2022-05-09

Abstract

Abstract

Numerical simulation is an important method to study the penetration into targets. Distinct results may be acquired if different kinds of software are adopted. In this paper, three kinds of commonly-used softwares (LS-DYNA, ABAQUS and PAM-CRASH) were adopted to simulate the same series of penetration experiments. The simulation results were analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of each kind of software were compared. The purpose of this work is to help the researchers and engineers to select the most suitable software. The results in this paper demonstrate that the calculation results of the three kinds of software are basically consistent with the experimental results. The simulation results of the flat-headed projectile are generally better than those of the hemispherical projectile. The residual velocity of the projectile and the plug velocity were simulated well using all of the three kinds of software. The calculated velocities by ABAQUS and PAM-CRASH are closer to the experimental results, and the average relative errors are generally lower than 15%. Moreover, the errors from most calculation results by PAM-CRASH are even less than 10%. However, for the deformation of the projectile, the calculation results of the three kinds of software are quite different from the experimental ones. There are other differences in the performance of the three kinds of software. For example, the ballistic limits calculated by ABAQUS and LS-DYNA are higher than the experimental results, while those by PAM-CRASH are lower. ABAQUS is most likely to report errors but is balanced by calculation time and effects. LS-DYNA has a low error rate and good robustness. The change of model parameters (such as mesh density, friction coefficient, contact stiffness, viscous damping coefficient, etc.) has little effect on its calculation results. PAM-CRASH is greatly affected by model parameters. The conclusion of this paper is based on the following conditions: the target material is Weldox 460E steel, the projectile is ARNE tool steel, and the impact velocity range is 180－450 m/s. However, it is also of guiding significance for the penetration problem simulation of other materials in this velocity range.
- target,
- projectile penetration,
- LS-DYNA,
- ABAQUS,
- PAM-CRASH

FullText(HTML)

References(17)

References

[1]	RUSINEK A, RODRÍGUEZ-MARTÍNEZ J A, ARIAS A, et al. Influence of conical projectile diameter on perpendicular impact of thin steel plate [J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75(10): 2946–2967. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.01.011.
[2]	IQBAL M A, CHAKRABARTI A, BENIWAL S, et al. 3D numerical simulations of sharp nosed projectile impact on ductile targets [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2010, 37(2): 185–195. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.09.008.
[3]	IQBAL M A, GUPTA P K, DEORE V S, et al. Effect of target span and configuration on the ballistic limit [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2012, 42: 11–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.10.004.
[4]	BØRVIK T, HOPPERSTAD O S, BERSTAD T, et al. Perforation of 12 mm thick steel plates by 20 mm diameter projectiles with flat, hemispherical and conical noses: Part Ⅱ: numerical simulations [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2002, 27(1): 37–64. DOI: 10.1016/S0734-743X(01)00035-5.
[5]	BØRVIK T, HOPPERSTAD O S, BERSTAD T, et al. Numerical simulation of plugging failure in ballistic penetration [J]. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2001, 38(34/35): 6241–6264. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7683(00)00343-7.
[6]	DEY S, BØRVIK T, HOPPERSTAD O S, et al. On the influence of fracture criterion in projectile impact of steel plates [J]. Computational Materials Science, 2006, 38(1): 176–191. DOI: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2006.02.003.
[7]	DEY S, BØRVIK T, HOPPERSTAD O S, et al. On the influence of constitutive relation in projectile impact of steel plates [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2007, 34(3): 464–486. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2005.10.003.
[8]	FLORES-JOHNSON E A, SALEH M, EDWARDS L. Ballistic performance of multi-layered metallic plates impacted by a 7.62-mm APM2 projectile [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011, 38(12): 1022–1032. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.08.005.
[9]	BØRVIK T, LANGSETH M, HOPPERSTAD O S, et al. Ballistic penetration of steel plates [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1999, 22(9/10): 855–886. DOI: 10.1016/S0734-743X(99)00011-1.
[10]	BØRVIK T, LEINUM J R, SOLBERG J K, et al. Observations on shear plug formation in Weldox 460E steel plates impacted by blunt-nosed projectiles [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2001, 25(6): 553–572. DOI: 10.1016/S0734-743X(00)00069-5.
[11]	BØRVIK T, LANGSETH M, HOPPERSTAD O S, et al. Perforation of 12 mm thick steel plates by 20 mm diameter projectiles with flat, hemispherical and conical noses: Part Ⅰ: experimental study [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2002, 27(1): 19–35. DOI: 10.1016/S0734-743X(01)00034-3.
[12]	DEY S, BØRVIK T, HOPPERSTAD O S, et al. The effect of target strength on the perforation of steel plates using three different projectile nose shapes [J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2004, 30(8/9): 1005–1038. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.06.004.
[13]	李晓杰, 张程娇, 王小红, 等. 水的状态方程对水下爆炸影响的研究 [J]. 工程力学, 2014, 31(8): 46–52. DOI: 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2013.03.0180. LI X J, ZHANG C J, WANG X H, et al. Numerical study on the effect of equations of state of water on underwater explosions [J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2014, 31(8): 46–52. DOI: 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2013.03.0180.
[14]	彭霞锋. 高氮合金钢的动态压缩实验及动态本构关系 [D]. 成都: 西南交通大学, 2009. DOI: 10.7666/d.y1572808. PENG X F. Dynamical compression experiment and dynamical constitutive law of high nitrogen steel [D]. Chengdu, China: Southwest Jiaotong University, 2009. DOI: 10.7666/d.y1572808.
[15]	CALDER C A, GOLDSMITH W. Plastic deformation and perforation of thin plates resulting from projectile impact [J]. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1971, 7(7): 863–868. DOI: 10.1016/0020-7683(71)90096-5.
[16]	肖新科, 王要沛. ABAQUS有限元程序中Jonson-Cook断裂准则与原始模型的差异及对比分析 [J]. 南阳理工学院学报, 2018, 10(6): 38–42. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5132.2018.06.008. XIAO X K, WANG Y P. The difference between the built-in Jonson-Cook fracture criterion in Abaqus finite element program and the original criterion as well as a comparative analysis [J]. Journal of Nanyang Institute of Technology, 2018, 10(6): 38–42. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5132.2018.06.008.
[17]	时党勇, 李裕春, 张胜民. 基于ANSYS/LS-DYNA 8.1进行显式动力分析 [M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2005: 139−160.