Experimental and Numerical Study On The Impact Strength of Beams and Plates

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE IMPACT
STRENGTH OF BEAMS AND PLATES
Bin Liu
Thesis for obtaining the degree of Master in
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
Jury
President : Prof. Yordan Ivanov Garbatov

Supervisor : Prof. Carlos Antonio Pancada Guedes Soares
Member : Dr. Leigh Stuart Sutherland
December 2011
Abstract
Abstract
The structural design of ships concerning collision requires an accurate prediction of the energy
absorption and damage of plates and stiffeners under impact loading. Thus, in this thesis experimental
and numerical analyses are conducted in order to study the impact plastic response and failure of
structural components, such as beams, plates and stiffeners with attached plate. The experimental
program includes drop weight impact tests in a fully instrumented falling weight machine using different
types of indenters. The numerical simulations are carried out using the finite element package
LS-DYNA Version 971 which is appropriate for nonlinear explicit dynamic simulations with large
deformations.
The assumptions adopted in the numerical model are validated by means of drop weight impact
tests. The impact behavior of the structural elements is validated by comparison of their experimental
and numerical force-displacement responses. Special attention is paid in the definition of the true
material properties and the representation of the experimental boundary conditions. Thus, the plastic
response and failure of the material is calibrated by numerical simulation of tensile tests used to obtain
the mechanical properties of the material, and the experimental boundary conditions are partially
represented by coarse mesh of rigid shell elements.
Keywords: Impact; Experiment; Numerical simulation; Beam; Plate; Stiffener with attached plate;
Boundary condition; Force-displacement response; Axial displacement.
i
Abstract
ii
Resumo
Resumo
O projeto estrutural de navios resistentes a colisão precisa previsão do absorção de energia e dano
das placas e reforços sujeitos a impacto. Nesta tese análises experimentais e numéricas são
realizadas para estudar a resposta plástica ao impacto e fractura dos componentes estruturais, tais
como vigas, placas e placas reforçadas. O programa experimental inclui testes de impacto
instrumentado usando diferentes tipos de projectil. As simulações numéricas são realizadas no
software de elementos finitos LS-DYNA versão 971 que é apropriado para simulações dinâmicas com
grandes deformações.
As premissas adotadas no modelo numérico são validada por meio de testes de impacto. O
comportamento dos elementos estruturais ao impacto é validado por comparação da resposta de
força-deslocamento entre ensaios e simulações numéricas. Atenção é dada na definição do material e
na representação das condições de fronteira. A resposta plástica e a fratura do material são calibrados
com simulações numéricas dos ensaios de tração utilizados para obter as propriedades mecânicas do
material, e as condições de contorno experimentais são representadas com elementos de placa rígida.
Palabra chave: Impacto; Experimento; Simulação numérica; Viga; Placa; Placa reforçada;
Condição de fronteira; Resposta de força-deslocamento; Deslocamento longitudinal.
iii
Resumo
iv
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Professor Carlos Guedes Soares and my friend Richard Villavicencio for
all the guidance and unlimited help during the research and completion of this thesis. The author would
also like to thank his family and friends for all their patience, understanding and support.
v
Acknowledgements
vi
Table of contents
Table of contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................................i
Resumo ................................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................v
Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... vii
List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... xi
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................... xv
Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................................... xvii
CHAPTER 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview and background ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives and scope of the work .............................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation .................................................................................... 7
2.1 Material stress-strain relationship .............................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Engineering stress-strain curve ....................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 True stress-strain curve ................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Mathematical expressions for the true material curve ..................................................... 9
2.2 Dynamic yield strength ............................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Dynamic fracture strain ............................................................................................................ 12
2.3.1 Failure criteria ................................................................................................................ 12
2.4 Contact-impact algorithm ......................................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Kinematic constraint method.......................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Penalty method .............................................................................................................. 14
2.4.3 Initial contact Interpenetrations ...................................................................................... 15
2.4.4 Friction definition ............................................................................................................ 15
vii
Table of contents
2.4.5 Contact automatic surface to surface ............................................................................ 15
2.5 Mesh size ................................................................................................................................. 15
2.6 Simulation of tensile tests ........................................................................................................ 16
2.7 Representation of experimental supports ................................................................................ 19
CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact .................................................... 21
3.1 Impact test machine ................................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Impact tester software .............................................................................................................. 22
3.3 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 23
3.4 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 25
3.5 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 28
3.7 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact .............................. 33
4.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.1 Boundary conditions ...................................................................................................... 38
4.3.2 Material definition using tensile test simulation.............................................................. 38
4.5 Comparison with a theoretical analyses .................................................................................. 42
CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact .................................. 45
viii
Table of contents
5.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 49
5.3.1 Boundary conditions ...................................................................................................... 49
5.4.1 Thin plates...................................................................................................................... 49
5.4.2 Thick plates .................................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact ................................. 57
6.1 Experimental details and results .............................................................................................. 57
6.2 Numerical model and results .................................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact ................. 63
7.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and further work ........................................................................................... 69
8.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 69
8.2 Future work .............................................................................................................................. 70
References ............................................................................................................................................ 71
ix
Table of contents
x
List of figures
List of figures
Figure 2.1 Engineering stress-strain curve. Intersection of the dashed line with the curve
determines the offset yield strength. (cf. Dieter 1986) .............................................................. 7
Figure 2.2 Engineering and true stress-true strain curves. (cf. Dieter 1986) ................................... 8
Figure 2.3 Log-log plot of true stress-strain curve n is the strain-hardening exponent; K is the
strength coefficient. (cf. Dieter 1986) ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.4 Dynamic yield strength, σYd (normalized by the static yield strength, σY), plotted versus
strain rate, εɺ , for mild and high-tensile steels. (cf. Paik 2007). ............................................ 11
Figure 2.5 Dynamic fracture strain (normalized by the static fracture strain) versus strain rate for
mild steels. (cf. Paik 2007) ...................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.6 Nodes of the master slide surface designated with an “x” are treated as free surface
nodes in the nodal constraint method. (cf. Hallquist 2010) ..................................................... 14
Figure 2.7 Undetected interpenetration. Such interpenetrations are frequently due to the use of
coarse meshes. (cf. Hallquist 2010)........................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.8 Finite element model. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c) ........................... 17
Figure 2.9 Time steps of a typical tensile test simulation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares
2011c) ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.10 Fracture propagation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c) ......................... 18
Figure 2.11 Sketch of end view of rectangular test piece after fracture showing constraint at
corners indicating the difficulty of determining reduced area. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes
Soares 2011c) ......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.12 Models of boundary conditions. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares in press a) .... 19
Figure 3.1 Fully instrumented Rosand IFW5 falling weight machine. (Drawing provided by R.
Villavicencio) ........................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.2 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and

force-displacement. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011a) ........................................ 23
Figure 3.3 Beam struck transversely by a mass. ........................................................................... 23
Figure 3.4 Experimental set-up. ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.5 Deformed shape of beams after the impact.................................................................. 26
Figure 3.6 Deformation of the beam impacted at velocity 2.0 m/s................................................. 26
Figure 3.7 Force-displacement responses using different torque on the bolts. Impact velocity 1.0
m/s........................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.8 Numerical model. .......................................................................................................... 27
xi
List of figures
Figure 3.9 Engineering and true stress-strain curve of material. ................................................... 28
Figure 3.10 Force-displacement responses with different friction coefficient at the supports. ...... 29
Figure 3.11 Maximum force and displacements at different impact velocities............................... 29
Figure 3.12 Shape of the deformation and von Mises stress distribution at maximum force. ....... 29
Figure 3.13 Axial displacements at the supports at different velocity. ........................................... 30
Figure 3.14 Experimental and numerical force-displacement responses using different torque at
the bolts. Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical results: continuous lines. Impact
velocity 1.0 m/s. ...................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.15 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque at the bolts. Impact velocity
1.0 m/s. ................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.1 Pre-notched beam stuck transversely by a mass. ........................................................ 33
Figure 4.3 Measure the depth of notch. ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 4.4 Position of notch and striking mass. ............................................................................. 35
Figure 4.5 Tension failure. (a): Specimen N115_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M. .............. 36
Figure 4.6 Shear failure. (a): Specimen N75_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N115_4mm_M. ................. 36
Figure 4.7 Shape of the deformation: (a) Specimen N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M. 36
Figure 4.8 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and

force-displacement. P: Specimen N15_2mm_M (plastic deformation); F: Specimen
N15_4mm_M (fracture). .......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.9 Maximum forces of beams with different notch. ........................................................... 37
Figure 4.10 Mesh sizes of beam and striking mass. ...................................................................... 38
Figure 4.11 Boundary conditions of pre-notched beam. ................................................................ 38
Figure 4.12 True and engineering material curves. ....................................................................... 39
Figure 4.13 Results of numerical simulations. ............................................................................... 39
Figure 4.14 Comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement responses: (a)

Specimen N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M. .......................................................... 40
Figure 4.15 Comparisons of experimental and numerical force-displacement curves with different
boundaries (Specimen N15_4mm_M). ................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.16 Failure modes (Specimen N15_4mm_M). .................................................................. 40
Figure 4.17 Time steps of a typical simulation of the pre-notched beams (Specimen N15_4mm_M).
................................................................................................................................................ 41
xii
List of figures
Figure 4.18 The failure of the notch (Specimen N15_4mm_M). (a): Numerical; (b): Experimental.
................................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 4.19 Comparison of the numerical triaxiality (Specimen N15_4mm_M)............................. 42
Figure 4.20 Variation of dimensionless maximum permanent transverse deformation W f / H with

dimensionless external dynamic energy λ . —— Equation (4.1) with static yield stress σ0; - - -
- Equation (4.1) with dynamic flow stress σ0‫ ׳‬given by equation (4.1); (1) circumscribing yield
curve (2) inscribing yield curve; Experimental results: ▲ Simulation results: ■ ................. 43
Figure 5.2 Different types of indenters. .......................................................................................... 46
Figure 5.3 Engineering stress-strain curve of material with thickness 1.4 and 4.0 mm................. 46
Figure 5.4 Force-displacement responses of thin plates at different velocity. ............................... 47
Figure 5.5 Deformation of thin plate at velocity of 2.7 m/s. ............................................................ 47
Figure 5.6 Experimental force-displacement responses using different diameters of indenters. .. 48
Figure 5.7 Experimental force-displacement responses using different types of indenters with the
same diameter. ....................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 5.8 Boundary conditions of rectangular plate. .................................................................... 49
Figure 5.9 Comparison of different materials. ................................................................................ 50
Figure 5.10 Comparison of the shape of deformation. ................................................................... 50
Figure 5.11 Comparison of different mesh sizes. .......................................................................... 51
Figure 5.12 Comparison of shell model and solid model. .............................................................. 51
Figure 5.13 Comparison of different support. ................................................................................ 51
Figure 5.14 Comparison of different dynamic yield strength. C40.4q5: mild steel coefficients;
C3200q5: high tensile steel coefficients. ................................................................................. 52
Figure 5.15 Position of selected element. ...................................................................................... 52
Figure 5.16 Strain rate of selected elements from numerical simulation. ...................................... 53
Figure 5.17 Force-displacement responses of the clamped and supported models. (Impact velocity
1.94 m/s) ................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 5.18 Force-displacement responses of experimental results and numerical results. E:

experimental, S: Simulation .................................................................................................... 54
Figure 5.19 Different type of indenter............................................................................................. 54
Figure 5.20 Comparison of numerical results using different type of indenter. (Impact velocity 1.94
m/s) ......................................................................................................................................... 54
xiii
List of figures
Figure 6.1 Experimental force-displacement responses of thin plates with different indenter....... 57
Figure 6.2 Failure modes of the plates. (a) indenter 20 mm; (b) indenter 30 mm ......................... 58
Figure 6.3 Force-displacement responses of experimental and numerical results with different true
material curves. (Indenter 30 mm) .......................................................................................... 58
Figure 6.4 Experimental and numerical failure modes. (Indenter 30 mm) ..................................... 59
Figure 6.5 Force-displacement responses of shell model and solid model. (Indenter 30 mm) ..... 59
Figure 6.6 Force-displacement responses of different support. (Indenter 30 mm) ........................ 60
Figure 6.7 Force-displacement responses with different failure strain. (a): indenter 10 mm; (b):
indenter 16 mm; (c): indenter 20 mm; (d): indenter 30 mm; ................................................... 61
Figure 6.8 Force-displacement responses with different mesh size and corresponding failure strain.
(a) indenter 10 mm; (a) indenter 16 mm; (a) indenter 20 mm; (a) indenter 30 mm. ............... 61
Figure 7.1 Experimental set-up ...................................................................................................... 63
Figure 7.2 Specimens: stiffeners with attached plate .................................................................... 63
Figure 7.3 Force-displacement responses ..................................................................................... 65
Figure 7.4 Force-displacement responses. Panel A2 and Panel A3 impacted at 2.7 m/s............. 65
Figure 7.5 Details of finite element model ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 7.6 Previous and new finite element models ...................................................................... 66
Figure 7.7 Force-displacement response, Specimen A2V2.7. (E): Experimental. (1): Shell. (2):
Solid. (3): Shell Weld. (4): Solid Weld. .................................................................................... 66
Figure 7.8 Force-displacement response, Panel A2. Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical
results: continuous lines (Solid Weld model). ......................................................................... 67
Figure 7.9 Shape of deformation and von mises stress distribution. Panel A2. (a) Transversal view;
(b) Longitudinal view. .............................................................................................................. 67
xiv
List of tables
List of tables
Table 2.1 Sample coefficients for the Cowper--Symonds constitutive equation (cf. Paik 2007) ... 11
Table 2.2 Static and sliding coefficient of friction (cf. Hallquist 2010) ............................................ 15
Table 3.1 Mechanical properties of material .................................................................................. 25
Table 3.2 Summary of experimental results at different impact velocity........................................ 25
Table 3.3 Axial displacements at the supports .............................................................................. 26
Table 3.4 Experimental results using different torques on the bolts. (Impact velocity 1.0 m/s) ..... 26
Table 3.5 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque on the bolts. (Impact velocity
1.0 m/s) ................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 4.1 Experimental results ....................................................................................................... 35
Table 5.1 Mechanical properties of material .................................................................................. 46
Table 5.2 Summary of experimental results of thin plates at different velocity .............................. 47
Table 5.3 Summary of experimental results using different indenters (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s). 48
Table 6.1 Summary of experimental results of thin plates with different indenter ......................... 58
Table 6.2 Mesh size with corresponding failure strain ................................................................... 60
Table 7.1 Mechanical properties of the material. ........................................................................... 64
Table 7.2 Results of impact tests ................................................................................................... 64
xv
List of tables
xvi
Nomenclature
Nomenclature
A True area
A0 Original area
Ag Maximal uniform strain
B Width
D Diameter
E Yong’s modulus
e Natural logarithmic constant
G Mass
H Thickness
K Torque coefficient
L True length
L0 Original length
P Load
Rm Ultimate tensile stress
T Torque
V0 Initial velocity
Wf Maximum permanent transverse deformation
λ Dimensionless external dynamic energy
σeng Engineering stress
σt True stress
σY Static yield stress
σYd Dynamic yield stress
εeng Engineering strain
εt True strain
εɺ Strain rate
xvii
Nomenclature
xviii
CHAPTER 1 – Introduction
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1 Overview and background
Ship grounding and collision could cause loss of human lives and severe environmental damage. In
order to minimize these consequences, it is necessary to design crashworthy marine structures. The
structural design of ships concerning collision requires an accurate prediction of the damage of ships
under impact loading. Finite element analysis is a useful tool to predict the extent of ship collision and
consequent damage to structural components. However, the nonlinear dynamic analysis should be
compared with experimental tests before being used for structural design. Unfortunately, experimental
tests on full scale ship collision are rare and very expensive. One approach is to perform scaled
collision test on typical ship structural members to validate the numerical methods for impact analysis.
Theoretical and experimental analyses of individual ship structural components under lateral
impact loads, such as beams and plates, have been widely analyzed. However, comparison between
experiments and numerical simulations still require investigation especially when fracture occurs. Thus,
this thesis aims at summarizing definitions adopted in numerical models that use lateral impact load to
reproduce the experimental impact response until maximum load and fracture.
Studies of the energy absorption of different structural elements have been made for a long time in
order to understand the basic mechanisms associated with large plastic deformations. Initially studies
were made comparing rigid plastic theory with experiments and more recently comparisons have been
made with finite element results, which allow obtaining detailed information of the structural response of
the specimens.
Concerning to the behavior of beams, Parkes (1955) studied the deformation of a cantilever
modeled as a rigid-plastic material struck transversely at its tip by a moving mass. The theoretical and
experimental results were compared, finding good agreement at points remote from the impact, and
concluding that the prediction of local damage depends on accurate definition of the boundary
conditions at the striking point. It was found that the motion producing the deformation can be divided
into three phases, which were represented by curves that define the plastic behavior in each phase.
Menkes and Opat (1973) conducted an experimental study on the dynamic plastic response and
failure of fully clamped beams subjected to different velocities over the entire span, proposing three
basic failure modes for fully clamped beams: large inelastic deformation, tensile tearing and transverse
shear failure at the supports.
Jones (1973) conducted an approximate theoretical study in order to examine the influence of axial
displacement at the supports of rotationally fixed and rotationally free rigid perfectly plastic beams.
Jones found that small in-plane displacements at the boundaries can change the response from a
completely restrained beam to one with complete axial freedom and no increase in strength beyond the
limit load.
Based on the theoretical analysis of Jones, Hodge (1974) re-examined those loaded beams with a
more physical basis, proposing that a simply supported beam can undergo a relative axial
1
displacement proportional to the induced axial force. Hodge proposed complete formulae and curves
for transverse displacements of the order of the beam thickness.
Complete load-deflection relationships of a rigid-plastic beam loaded through a rigid circular

indenter at mid-span were derived by Low (1981). In that analysis the axial displacements at the
supports and the geometrical effects of large rotations were considered, concluding that the elasticity of
the beam material has a similar effect to the elastic displacement at the supports.
Gürkök (1981) studied the influence of finite deflections on the behavior of rigid perfectly-plastic
beams with support conditions specified by an axial and a rotational constraint factor. He first proposed
a complete solution for axially-restrained rectangular beams with a certain degree of rotational
end-fixity constraint. Then, the restriction of complete axial restraint was removed and a separate
analysis was performed considering the effect of horizontal displacements at the supports. It was found
that the load-carrying capacity is considerably increased showing a strong dependence on the axial
restraint provided at the supports.
Similar studies were conducted by Tin-Loi (1990) proposing load-deflection relationships of a

beam subjected to a non-symmetrically placed point load. In the analysis the supports were considered
capable of combine axial and rotational restraints concluding that the increase in load-carrying capacity
with deflection can be quite large for certain support conditions.
Numerical studies on the dynamic failure of beams have been conducted, proposing theoretical
predictions on the initial impact energy for the different failure modes of beams using various failure
criteria. However, experimental studies are still very important in order to depth study the failure modes
of structures, to propose the more accurate theoretical analysis predictions on the dynamic failure of
structure and to verify the finite element simulations.
One of the first numerical simulations using beam elements was performed by Symonds and
Fleming (1984). They examined the problem of rigid-plastic structural dynamics, finding the
deformations of a beam carrying a mass at its tip which was subjected to a short pulse loading.
A finite element analysis of a clamped aluminum beam struck transversely by a mass was
presented by Yu and Jones (1989). As in previous experiments, two specimen types were modeled,
one with enlarged ends and the other with flat ends. The numerical predictions agreed with the
experimental results, however significant differences were found between the behavior of flat end
beams and beams with enlarged ends.
Experimental investigations on the failure of clamped steel beams under impact loads were
simulated numerically by Yu and Jones (1997). They observed that the large deformations of the
beams in the experimental study caused the upper surfaces of the beams to lose contact with the
supports.
Chen and Yu (2004) conducted experiments aiming to systematically investigate the failure
behavior of clamped beams with one pre-notch or two pre-notches under impact loading from a
projectile strike.
2
Dimas and Guedes Soares (2006) performed numerical studies of the absorbed energy in
clamped steel beams under transverse impact at the mid-span and along their length by relatively
heavy masses and compared them with experiments.
Harsoor and Ramachandra (2009) reported the experimental and numerical results on deformation
and failure of clamped mild steel beams with and without notches subjected to low velocity impact.
Analysis of the response of clamped beams to impact loading along their length, for various
thicknesses, was performed by Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2009). They compared the
experimental tests with the theoretical rigid plastic analysis proposed by Liu and Jones (1987) and with
a finite element analysis. Good agreement was found between them, although in the numerical
simulations the material was defined as a rigid perfectly plastic material, which does not give a true
indication of the deformation characteristics of the metal.
Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011a) presented a numerical model to simulate the
experimental boundary conditions of beam impacted along its span, proposing rigid shell support plate
simulating the pressure on the supported length of the beam and the axial displacement between the
supports.
Plates are one of the principal structural components of ship structure. The history of the dynamic
plastic response of plates goes back to the fifties. Cox and Morland (1959) gave the theoretical solution
for a simply supported square plate subjected to a uniformly distributed rectangular pressure pulse.
The most important results concerned the maximum displacement and the total time of motion.
Jones (1971) proposed an approximate theoretical procedure to estimate the permanent

transverse deflections of rectangular plates under uniformly distributed loading. The influence of
finite-deflections or geometry changes was retained in the analysis but elastic effects were
disregarded.
Yu and Chen (1992) completed a theoretical investigation to trace the large deflection dynamic
plastic response of simply-supported or fully-clamped rectangular plates, assuming a kinematically
admissible time-dependent velocity field and considering the global equilibrium of all the forces acting
on each rigid segment during large deflection of a plate.
Zhu and Faulkner (1994a) reported results on the dynamic response of plates under impact load in
minor ship collision using a simplified model. Their work gave a better understanding of the collision
process.
Zhu et al. (1994b) presented an experimental investigation on clamped metal plates struck by a
rigid wedge mass. A simple theoretical procedure based on the rigid perfectly plastic method was used
to study the dynamic behavior of locally impacted plates, using a strain-rate sensitivity factor on the
average dynamic yield stress.
Caridis et al. (1994) summarized the response of thin plates subjected to dynamic loads, obtaining
good predictions of the permanent deflections.
Shen (1997) presented a theoretical analysis to examine the dynamic response of thin rectangular
3
plates struck transversely by a wedge. The analysis employed a pure membrane model with two
traveling hinge phases. Good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the experimental
results obtained on the maximum permanent deflections for various impact energies.
Shen et al. (2002a) presented a series of tests to examine the dynamic response and petalling
failure of thin circular plates struck transversely at the centre by a mass. He observed that a necking
circle was initiated approximately in the central part of plates along a small circle, which was directly
under the transition circle from the spherical surface to conical surface of the drop mass. This was due
to the excessive in-plane tensile strain. A through-thickness crack, then, was formed at one point on the
circle, which was recognized as in-plane tearing failure.
Shen (2002b) proposed a theoretical analysis of the petalling failure of thin circular plates. A failure
criterion of plastic work density was employed for predicting the onset of petalling failure. Good
agreement between the theoretical predictions and the experimental results was obtained for the
critical impact energy required to cause failure of the plates with various diameters struck transversely
by a mass.
Shen et al. (2003) presented a series of experimental results to examine the dynamic response
and failure of thin rectangular plates struck transversely at the centre by wedges. He found that the
critical impact energy required for the onset of failure varied significantly with the thickness of plates.
Jones et al. (2008) studied the perforation of mild steel square and rectangular plates struck
normally by cylindrical projectiles having blunt, hemispherical, and conical impact faces. The plates
were struck at the center and at several positions near the fully clamped supports. The effect of the
aspect ratio on the perforation energies of rectangular plates was examined, and comparisons were
made with the perforation behavior of fully clamped circular plates. The predictions of several empirical
equations were compared with the corresponding experimental values of the perforation energies.
Simple design equations were presented for predicting the maximum permanent transverse
displacements of square plates prior to any cracking or perforation.
The structural design of ships concerning collision also requires an accurate prediction of the
damage of stiffened plates under impact loading. Thus, experimental studies on laterally loaded panels
have been conducted in order to derive analytical expressions. Hagiwara et al. (1983) proposed a
method for predicting low-energy ship collision damage based on combined experiments, which
determined the initiation of plate fracture, the effects of structural details and the deformation of a
typical ship panel.
Manolakos and Mamalis (1985) used a rigid plastic analysis for predicting the structural behavior
of longitudinally framed shell plating of struck vessel during a minor oblique collision.
Cho and Lee (2009) developed a simplified method for the prediction of the extent of damage on
stiffened plates due to lateral collisions.
Lehmann and Peschmann (2002) presented a large-scale collision experiment to validate

numerical calculations of the collision process. The results obtained with respect to the failure strains
4
were used in the calculations and other parameters numerical calculations were performed of a
double-skin structure with austenitic inside wall and austenitic shell and inside wall.
Wu et al. (2004) presented results of a scaled double hull structure representing ship to ship
collision, obtaining good results in terms of general structural response.
Ehlers et al. (2008) performed numerical simulations of the collision response of ship side
structures, finding a strong sensitivity of the failure criteria.
Alsos and Amdahl (2009a) dealt with hull damage in ships which were subjected to grounding
actions. Various configurations of stiffened panels were loaded laterally by a cone shaped indenter until
fracture occurs.
Alsos and Amdahl (2009b) investigated two failure criteria, which were implemented into the
impact analysis. The influence of the element size with respect to onset of failure was studied.
Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011b) studied numerically the deflection and failure of small
panels subjected to lateral impact using different stiffener distributions and impact locations. The
analysis of the sensitivity of different parameters, such as the impact velocity, type and distribution of
stiffeners, width of panel, and impact along the width is summarized.
1.2 Objectives and scope of the work
The thesis aims at studying small-scale ship structural elements subjected to lateral impact.
Experimental and numerical methods are used to study the impact strength of structural components.
Detailed information of the impact response of structural components is obtained through drop weight
impact tests and nonlinear finite element simulations. The study considers the following ship structural
components: beams, plates and stiffeners with attached plate. The impact behavior of the structural
elements is validated by comparison of their experimental and numerical force-displacement responses.
Special attention is paid to the definition of the true material properties and the representation of the
experimental boundary conditions.
The thesis is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 introduces the definitions for nonlinear finite element simulations: material stress-strain
relationship, dynamic yield strength, dynamic fracture strain, failure criteria, contact-impact definition,
and mesh size. The simulation of tensile tests and the representation of the boundary conditions are
also summarized.
Chapter 3 studies the plastic response of beams using the definition of the coefficient of friction at
the modeled experimental supports. The true material curve and boundary conditions are studied in the
definition of the numerical simulations, comparing the numerical results with the experimental results.
Chapter 4 studies the plastic behavior and fracture propagation of clamped pre-notched beams
subjected to lateral impact by a mass. The true material and critical failure strain in the numerical
simulation of impact test is obtained from numerical simulation of tensile test of the material.
Chapter 5 presents experimental and numerical analyses of laterally loaded rectangular plate to
5
study the impact plastic response. The impact tests use different impact velocities and different types of
indenters.
Chapter 6 presents the initiation and propagation of fracture on laterally loaded rectangular plate
through experiments and numerical simulations, studying the influences of indenter type on the failure
of rectangular plates. The sensitivity of mesh size and critical failure strain are reviewed using the
force-displacement response of plates.
Chapter 7 summarizes results from experiments and numerical simulations of stiffeners with
attached plate subjected to lateral loads, predicting the absorption of energy during the impact event.
The sensitivity of the incident velocity and the stiffener type is reviewed using the force-displacement
response of the tested specimens.
Chapter 8 contains the conclusions and the further work.
6
CHAPTER 2 – Nonlinear finite element simulation
CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation

The nonlinear finite element method is one of the most powerful approaches to simulate the impact
response of structural elements subjected to large deformation. However, the results of finite element
simulations are significantly affected by the modeling technique used. There are different parameters
that must be defined in numerical models in order to represent a realistic impact event. This chapter
summarizes the definitions in nonlinear finite element simulations, such as: material stress-strain
relationship, dynamic yield strength, dynamic fracture strain, failure criteria, contact-impact definition
and mesh size. The simulation of tensile tests and the representation of the boundary conditions are
also summarized in this chapter.
2.1 Material stress-strain relationship
Material stress-strain relationship is an important definition in nonlinear finite element analysis. The
mechanical behavior of materials is described by their deformation and fracture characteristics under
applied tensile, compressive or multi-axial stresses. The engineering tension test is widely used to
provide basic design information on the strength of materials. In this section, the interpretation of the
tension test results and the determination of the true stress-strain curve are briefly summarized (Dieter
1986). The procedures for conducting tensile tests can be found in ASTM (1989).
2.1.1 Engineering stress-strain curve
The engineering stress-strain curve (Figure 2.1) is a graphical representation of the result of metal
tensile test which is from the load-elongation measurements of the test specimen. The engineering
stress (σeng) is the average longitudinal stress in the tensile test specimen. It is obtained by dividing the
load (P) by the original area of the cross section of the specimen (A0).
P
σ eng = (2.1)
A0
Figure 2.1 Engineering stress-strain curve. Intersection of the dashed line with the curve determines the offset yield
strength. (cf. Dieter 1986)
7
The engineering strain (εeng) is the average linear strain, which is obtained by dividing the
elongation of the gauge length of the specimen (δ) by its original length (L0).
δ ∆L L − L0
ε eng = = = (2.2)
L0 L0 L0
There are many influence factors to the shape and magnitude of the stress-strain curve, such as
composition, heat treatment, prior history of plastic deformation, strain rate, temperature, and state of
stress imposed during the testing. The parameters that are used to describe the stress-strain curve of a
metal are the tensile strength, yield strength or yield point, percent elongation, and reduction in area.
The first two are strength parameters; the last two indicate ductility (Dieter 1986). In the elastic region,
stress is linearly proportional to strain. When the stress exceeds the yield strength, the specimen
undergoes gross plastic deformation.
After the yield stress, the engineering stress continues to rise with increasing strain until ultimate
tensile stress. A point is reached where the decrease in specimen cross-sectional area is greater than
the increase in deformation load arising from strain hardening (Dieter 1986). This condition will be
reached first at some point in the specimen that is slightly weaker than the rest. All further plastic
deformation is concentrated in this region, and the specimen begins to neck or thin down locally.
Because the cross-sectional area now is decreasing far more rapidly than the deformation load is
increased by strain hardening, the actual loading required to deform the specimen falls off, and the
engineering stress defined in Equation (2.1) continues to decrease until fracture occurs. More details of
the engineering stress-strain curve can be found in Dieter (1986).
2.1.2 True stress-strain curve
The engineering stress-strain curve is only based on the original dimensions of the test specimen
(A0 and L0), not indicating the true deformation characteristics of a metal. The engineering stress based
on the original area decreases after necking. If the true stress and true strain based on the actual
cross-sectional area of the specimen is used, the stress-strain curve increases continuously until
fracture, as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Engineering and true stress-true strain curves. (cf. Dieter 1986)
8
The true stress (σt) expressed in terms of engineering stress and strain by:
P
σt = (ε eng + 1) = σ eng (ε eng + 1) (2.3)
A0
Equation (2.3) can be used only until the onset of necking, because its assumption is a
homogeneous distribution of strain along the gauge length of the test specimen, which is far from the
truth after necking. Thus, beyond the ultimate tensile stress, the true stress should be determined from
actual cross-sectional area.
P
σt = (2.4)
A
The true strain (εt) can be determined from the engineering strain (εeng) by:
L
ε t = ln(ε eng + 1) = ln (2.5)
L0
Equation (2.5) also can be used only until the onset of necking. Beyond maximum load, the true
strain should be determined from actual cross-sectional area.
A0
ε t = ln (2.6)
A
However, highly accurate optical measuring systems are needed to measure the actual
cross-sectional area. Ehlers and Varsta (2009) obtained experimentally true stress-strain material
curves from tensile test specimens using highly accurate optical measuring systems. Unfortunately, in
most of the cases the material property information is just reduced to the engineering stress-strain
curve. More details of the true stress-strain curve can be found in Dieter (1986).
2.1.3 Mathematical expressions for the true material curve
Since a dynamic calculation involves extreme structural behavior with both geometrical and material
nonlinear effects, the input of material properties up to the ultimate tensile stress has a significant
influence on the extent of critical deformation energy. The information of the engineering stress-strain
curve can only be used to obtain true stress-strain curve only until necking. Thus, mathematical
approximations should be used to define the true material curve beyond the maximum load. Two true
material curves are introduced in this section: the power law curve and the true material curve
proposed by Zhang et al. (2004).
The true curve of many metals in the region of uniform plastic deformation can be expressed by
the simple power curve relation:
σ t = Kεt n (2.7)
where n is the strain-hardening exponent, and K is the strength coefficient. A log-log plot of true stress
and true strain up to maximum load will results in a straight line (Figure 2.3). The linear slope of this line
is n, and K is the true stress at εt = 1.0 (correspond to A/A0 = 0.63). For most metals, n has values
between 0.10 and 0.50.
9
Figure 2.3 Log-log plot of true stress-strain curve n is the strain-hardening exponent; K is the strength coefficient.
(cf. Dieter 1986)
Another mathematical expression defining the true material curve is the one proposed by Zhang et
al. (2004). They recommended to use the following true stress-strain relationship:
σ t = Cε t p (2.8)
where
p = ln(1 + Ag ) (2.9)
and
C = Rm (e / p ) p (2.10)
Ag is the maximal uniform strain related to the ultimate tensile stress Rm, and e is the natural
logarithmic constant. Both values can be measured from a specimen tensile test. If only the ultimate
stress Rm (MPa) is available, the following approximation can be used to obtain the proper Ag value:
Ag = 1/(0.24 + 0.01395 Rm ) (2.11)
The material was defined by Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011c, in press b) to represent the
true stress and strain relationship finding good agreement when compared with the experimental
engineering stress and strain curve. This material combine two of the previous defined material, i.e.
before necking the material is defined by Equations (2.3) and (2.5) and beyond localization is
represented by Equation (2.8). The two material definitions are well combined by the material model of
Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011c) to express the true stress-stain relationship.
In the present work, the material curve defined by Zhang et al. (2004) is denoted by “GL”, and the
true stress-strain curve until the onset of necking is denoted by “UN”, and the power law curve is
denoted by “PL”. The true material defined with “UN” curve and beyond continued with “GL” curve is
denoted by “UN+GL”. Thus, Equations (2.3) and (2.5) define the process before and Equation (2.8)
after the necking is localized.
2.2 Dynamic yield strength
The material yield stress is dependent on both the rate of deformation (strain rate) and the temperature
at which the deformation occurs. The relationship between yield stress and strain rate at constant
10
temperature can be well described (Paik 2007). The dynamic yield strength of the material may be
expressed as follows (Jones 1989):
σ Yd
= f (εɺ ) g (ε ) (2.12)
σY
where σ Y , σ Yd = static and dynamic yield stresses, f (εɺ ) = strain rate sensitivity effect function,
g (ε ) = a material strain-hardening function, and εɺ = strain rate.
Table 2.1 Sample coefficients for the Cowper--Symonds constitutive equation (cf. Paik 2007)
−1
Material C (s ) q Reference
Mild steel 40.4 5 Cowper and Symonds (1957)
High-tensile steel 3,200 5 Paik and Chung (1999)
Aluminum alloy 6,500 4 Bodner and Symonds (1962)
α-Titanium (Ti 50A) 120 9 Symonds and Chon (1974)
Stainless steel 304 100 10 Forrestal and Sagartz (1978)
If the strain-hardening effect is negligible, one can take that g (ε ) = 1. The strain rate sensitivity
function f (εɺ ) is often given using the Cowper–Symonds equation (Cowper and Symonds 1957) as
follows:
σ Yd εɺ
= 1.0 + ( )1/ q (2.13)
σY C
where C and q are coefficients determined on the basis of test data, see Table 2.1. It is evident that
these coefficients depend on the material. Figure 2.4 plots the Cowper–Symonds equation together
with the relevant coefficients for mild or high-tensile steels when g (ε ) = 1.
Figure 2.4 Dynamic yield strength, σYd (normalized by the static yield strength, σY), plotted versus strain rate, εɺ ,
for mild and high-tensile steels. (cf. Paik 2007).
11
2.3 Dynamic fracture strain
Both crushing effects and yield strength increase as the loading speed gets faster, whereas any
fracture or tearing of steel (and the welded regions) of a structure tends to occur earlier (Paik 2007).
The following approximate formula, which is the inverse of the Cowper–Symonds constitutive equation
for the dynamic yield stress, is then used for the estimation of the dynamic fracture strain as a function
of the strain rate (Jones 1989), namely,
ε fd εɺ
= ξ [1.0 + ( )1/ q ]−1 (2.14)
εf C
where ε f , ε fd = static and dynamic fracture strains, ξ= ratio of the total energies to rupture for
dynamic and static uniaxial loadings. The dynamic fracture strain ε fd will then be set for the finite
element simulations in place of static fracture strain εf .
If the energy to failure is assumed to be invariant, i.e., independent of εɺ , then it may be taken that
ξ = 1. Figure 2.5 plots Equation (2.14) with three sets of the coefficients together with experimental
results for mild steels when ξ = 1. The expression in Equation (2.14) represents the decrease of the
dynamic fracture strain with increase in the strain rate, but the coefficients for the dynamic fracture
strain differ from those for the dynamic yield strength. It is again evident that the strain rate is a primary
parameter affecting the impact mechanics and the structural crashworthiness. Also, it is seen from the
figure that Equation (2.14) with C = 40.4 and q = 5 for mild steel gives a very small value for the fracture
strain. Rather, it is recommended to adopt C in the range from 7,000 to 10,000 and q in the range from
2 to 4.
Figure 2.5 Dynamic fracture strain (normalized by the static fracture strain) versus strain rate for mild steels. (cf.
Paik 2007)
2.3.1 Failure criteria
The failure predicted by a finite element analysis can be represented by the initial fracture of a finite
element which has an extreme large plastic strain (Zhang 2004).Usually the first rupture of an element
12
will be defined with a failure strain value. If the calculated strain, such as plastic effective strain,
principal strain or for a shell element strain in the thickness direction exceeds its defined failure strain
value, the element will be fractured and deleted from the finite element model. The deformation energy
in this element will keep in a constant value in the further calculation steps.
Numerical calculations have shown that the deformation energy is very sensitive to the defined
failure criteria. The definition of the failure strain value is a most important key point for a correct
prediction of realistic critical deformation energy and it can result in an incorrect assessment of the
energy absorption, if an improper failure criterion is defined.
In fact the development of rupture of a structural component is a very complicated process and is
influenced from many factors. Firstly it is directly related to material characteristics such as yield stress,
the maximal uniform strain and the fracture strain. Secondly it is well known from numerous practical
experiences and theoretical investigations that an initiation of a fracture depends also on the stress
states resulting under complicated loads on the structures. In addition, it is also influenced by the
production process, manufacture quality as well as environmental and operational conditions. For a
mesh size, element shape as well as selected element types plays also very important roles because in
reality a fracture process is developed from a uniform deformation state over the whole component to a
very local necking in a very small area with extreme large strain values. To obtain practical failure strain
definitions under consideration of element size, stress state and manufacture influence many thickness
measurements from prototype damaged structure components such as shell plating and stiffeners etc.
have been carried out and the uniform strain, the necking as well as the necking length have been
determined.
There are two failure criteria for the definition of failure strain of a shell element. The criterion
proposed by Peschmann (2001) is based on quasi-static uniaxial tension. The ratio of uniform and
necking strain must be scaled by the length of necking:
x t
ε crit = ε g + ε m ⋅ ( e ) ⋅ (2.15)
t l
ε g is the uniform strain, ε m is the necking strain, xe the length of neck, t the plate thickness and l
the element length. Thus, based on tests, Peschmann proposed the following values for the critical
failure strain for plate thickness smaller than 12 mm:
t
ε crit = 0.1 + 0.8 ⋅ (2.16)
l
The values of uniform and necking strain achieved from thickness measurements related to the
calculated stress states proposed by Zhang et al. (2004) of 0.056 for the uniform strain and 0.54 for the
necking strain in the case of shell elements.
t
ε crit = 0.056 + 0.54 ⋅ (2.17)
l
2.4 Contact-impact algorithm
The treatment of sliding and impact along interfaces are important definitions in nonlinear analysis
13
when two bodies interact (Hallquist 2010). Interfaces can be defined in three dimensions by triangular
and quadrilateral segments. One side of the interface is designated as the slave side, and the other as
the master side. Nodes lying in those surfaces are referred to as slave and master nodes, respectively.
Thus, the slave nodes are constrained to slide on the master surface and must remain on the master
surface until a tensile force develops between the node and the surface. Automatic contact definitions
are commonly used. In this approach the slave and master surfaces are generated internally from the
part given for each surface. Two distinct methods for defining contact are implemented in LS-DYNA:
the kinematic constraint method and the penalty method.
2.4.1 Kinematic constraint method
In this method, the constraints are imposed on the global equations by a transformation of the nodal
displacement components of the slave nodes along the contact interface. This transformation has the
effect of eliminating the normal degree of freedom of nodes. To preserve the efficiency of the explicit
time integration, the mass penetrates into the specimen allowing that the global degrees of freedom of
each master node are coupled. The impact is imposed to the conservation of moment.
Problems arise with this method when the master surface mesh is finer than the slave surface
mesh as shown in two dimensions in Figure 2.6. Here, certain master nodes can penetrate through the
slave surface without resistance and create a twist node in the slide line. Such twist nodes are relatively
common with this formulation, and, when interface pressures are high, these twist nodes occur whether
one or more quadrature points are used in the element integration.
Slave surface
Master surface
Indicates nodes treated as free surface nodes
Figure 2.6 Nodes of the master slide surface designated with an “x” are treated as free surface nodes in the nodal
constraint method. (cf. Hallquist 2010)
2.4.2 Penalty method
The penalty method consists of placing normal interface springs between all penetrating nodes and the
contact surface. Quite in contrast to the nodal constraint method, the method excites little if any mesh
hourglassing is used. Three implementations of the penalty algorithm are available in LS-DYNA:
(1) Standard penalty formulation, where the interface stiffness is chosen to be approximately the same
order of magnitude as the stiffness of the interface element.
(2) Soft constraint penalty formulation, which treat contact between bodies with dissimilar material
properties (e.g. steel-foam).
(3) Segment-based penalty formulation, which uses a slave segment-master segment approach
14
instead of a traditional slave node-master.
2.4.3 Initial contact Interpenetrations
The offset to account the thickness of the shell elements contributes to initial contact interpenetrations,
which cannot be detected since the contact node interpenetrates completely through the surface at the
beginning of the calculation. This is illustrated in Figure 2.7.
D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
U
n
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Figure 2.7 Undetected interpenetration. Such interpenetrations are frequently due to the use of coarse meshes. (cf.
Hallquist 2010)
2.4.4 Friction definition
Friction in LS-DYNA is based on a Coulomb Formulation. The frictional algorithm uses the equivalent of
an elastic plastic spring. The interface shear stress that develops as a result of Coulomb friction can be
very large and in some cases may exceed the ability of the material to carry such a stress. Typical
values of friction are indicated in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Static and sliding coefficient of friction (cf. Hallquist 2010)
Materials Static Sliding

Hard steel on hard steel 0.78 (dry) 0.08 (greasy), 0.42 (dry)
Mild steel on mild steel 0.74 (dry) 0.10 (greasy), 0.57 (dry)
Aluminium on mild steel 0.61 (dry) 0.47 (dry)
Aluminium on aluminium 1.05 (dry) 1.4 (dry)
Tires on pavement (40 psi) 0.90 (dry) 0.69 (wet), 0.85 (dry)
2.4.5 Contact automatic surface to surface
Automatic contact formulations are recommended for most explicit simulations. Contact automatic
surface to surface can handle situations such as shell edge to surface, and beam to shell surface. The
contact search algorithms employed by automatic contacts is well suited to handling disjoint meshes. In
the case of shell elements, automatic contact types determine the contact surfaces by projecting
normally from the shell mid-plane a distance equal to one-half the ‘contact thickness’. Further, at the
exterior edge of a shell surface, the contact surface wraps around the shell edge with a radius equal to
one-half the contact thickness thus forming a continuous contact surface.
2.5 Mesh size
15
In the finite element simulation, mesh size has important effects on the calculation results (Paik 2007).
To properly capture highly nonlinear characteristics of structures, a very fine finite element mesh is
required. For many reasons, however, it is not always the case that a very fine mesh modeling can be
adopted. For example, very large complex structures need a huge number of finite elements so that it is
not easy to execute the numerical simulations with such number of elements. Convergence studies
with varying mesh size and element number often need to be undertaken to define the relevant mesh
size, with large computational efforts still being required for that purpose. In this regard, it will be very
helpful for nonlinear finite element structural modeling if the relevant mesh size can be readily
determined, even without a convergence study. Actually, the mesh size is not very important in analysis
of plastic deformation, but plays an important role when fracture occurs. In collisions or grounding,
major failure modes are crushing, fracture (tearing or cutting), and plate tension. Among them, the
crushing mechanism requires very fine mesh size to reflect folded configuration.
2.6 Simulation of tensile tests
A tensile specimen is a standardized sample cross-section. It has two shoulders and a gauge section in
between. The shoulders are large so that they can be gripped. The gauge section has a smaller
cross-section so that the deformation and failure can occur in this area. The standard test specimen
dimensions and tolerances can be found in ASTM (1989).
Finite element simulations of structures subjected to impact loads require the input of the true
stress-strain relationship until failure. The adopted stress-strain relationship affects the necking and
rupture behavior obtained by the finite element simulations. The mesh size for simulating the internal
mechanics needs to be fine enough to capture the nonlinear structural response. Another important
parameter is the prediction and simulation of initiation and propagation of fracture. However, the failure
due to material rupture is still not well resolved numerically, because the fracture length is much smaller
than the side length of the elements in a finite element model. Thus, it is difficult to establish a
procedure suitable for prediction of failure in the engineering practice.
In practical terms, numerical simulations of tensile tests have been conducted to predict the critical
failure strains used in the finite element models of small-scale structures such as plates subjected to
impact loads. For example, Ehlers and Varsta (2009) obtained experimentally true stress-strain
material curves from tensile test specimens using highly accurate optical measuring systems.
Simonsen and Lauridsen (2000) approached the critical failure strain used in finite elements models
through numerical simulations of the tensile tests using different failure strains and mesh densities.
Villavicencio et al. (in press a) conducted tensile tests to calibrate the plastic response of aluminum
plates, as a result the true stress-strain relationship for thin and thick circular plates subjected to impact
was defined and the local out-of-plane deformation and the indentation into the thickness were
adequately predicted.
For a purely plastic response without necking or fracture, the plastic parameters of the material can
be determined by true stress-strain curve until necking which is from the results of a tensile test.
However, fracture and necking occur over a length which is much smaller than the side length of the
16
elements considered in a finite element model. Thus, these elements cannot capture such a local
phenomenon.
The mesh sensitivity can be approached with an engineering method at the level of advanced
industry practice (Simonsen and Lauridsen 2000) in which the critical failure strain required to give the
material fracture strain is found through numerical simulations of the tensile tests using different failure
strains and mesh densities. Here, failure strain denotes the strain value when fracture occurs. The
failure strain is defined as the average normal strain over the element.
The engineering tension tests are modeled using LS-DYNA Version 971 (Hallquist 2010) finite
element package. The tensile specimens are modeled with shell (4-nodes, 5-integration points) or solid
(8-nodes, 1-integration point) elements, depending on the type of structure in analysis.
In the tensile test simulations, only the length of the tensile specimen between the clamping edges
is modeled (Figure 2.8). For initiating necking, the width of the specimen at the centre is gradually
reduced by 0.5 %. The mesh is diagonally orientated to avoid hourglassing and all components of the
hourglass force vector are orthogonal to rigid body rotations. As the critical failure strain depends on
the mesh density, various mesh sizes are simulated.
Figure 2.8 Finite element model. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)
The material selected from the library of LS-DYNA allows the definition of a true stress-strain curve
as an offset table. Also, failure based on a plastic strain and arbitrary strain rate dependency can be
defined (Mat.024-Piecewice linear plasticity).
The translational degrees of freedom are restricted at one end and a constant displacement of 100
times the experimental speed is prescribed at the other. The force of the displaced nodes at the free
end is obtained and then plotted versus the applied displacement, and these values used to give the
engineering stress-strain behavior.
To model failure, the solver deletes elements when their average strain reaches a critical value.
The numerical simulations are calibrated using the experimental data to give the critical strain value
that fit the experimental results using an iterative procedure.
Figure 2.9 shows the time steps of a typical tensile test simulation. It is observed that when the
stress exceeds the yield strength, the specimen undergoes gross plastic deformation and its
cross-sectional area decreases uniformly along the gauge length (step 1). At some time, the decrease
in specimen cross-sectional area is greater than the increase in axial deformation (step 2). All further
plastic deformation is concentrated in this region, and the specimen begins to neck locally (steps 3 and
17
4) until fracture occurs (step 5).
Figure 2.9 Time steps of a typical tensile test simulation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)
The beginning of a fracture is indicated by a crack in the center of the specimen (neutral axis),
which propagates through the surface perpendicularly to the applied tension (Figure 2.10).
Figure 2.10 Fracture propagation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)
Reduction of cross-sectional area is customarily measured only on test pieces with an initial circular
cross section because the shape of the reduced area remains circular or nearly circular throughout the
test for such test pieces. With rectangular tests pieces, in contrast, the corners prevent uniform flow
from occurring, and consequently, after fracture, the shape of the reduced area is not rectangular
(Figure 2.11).
Figure 2.11 Sketch of end view of rectangular test piece after fracture showing constraint at corners indicating the
difficulty of determining reduced area. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)
18
2.7 Representation of experimental supports
In the experimental tests it is almost impossible to satisfy precisely the zero displacement condition at
the supports, because the load capacity of the structure is strongly dependent on the axial restraint
provided at the supports. Therefore, when developing numerical models that are to be compared with
experimental results, it is necessary that the real boundary conditions are represented in the numerical
model, instead of the ideal ones that are the intention in the experimental program.
The assumptions of simply supported or fully clamped boundaries in finite element analyses can
lead to errors in the load carrying capacities of the analyzed structure. On the other hand, a complete
representation of the experimental supports simulating the boundary conditions requires extra time in
modeling and computations.
In most of the numerical simulations, the support plates are represented using shell undeformable
elements compressing the specimen as occurred in the experiments (Figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12 Models of boundary conditions. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares in press a)
In this boundary condition representation, all the support plate length is modeled and no gap
between the support plates and the supported area of the specimen is considered. The lower support
plate is constrained in all degrees of freedom. The upper support plate is constrained in all degrees of
freedom, except for vertical translation, because a prescribed vertical motion is imposed to compress
the supported surface of the panel simulating the clamped condition. The value of the prescribed
displacement is equal to εyt/3 (Ehlers 2010), where εy is the yield strain of the material and t is the
thickness of the supported stiffened plate. Using this boundary condition representation, some small
longitudinal displacements of the supported portion of the specimen between the support plates are
observed, which are due to the high incident energy applied. More details of the representation of
experimental supports may be found in Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011a).
19
20
CHAPTER 3 – Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact
CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact

Experiments and numerical simulations were conducted in order to study the plastic response of
beams laterally impacted by a mass. Most of researches use standard boundary conditions, such as
simple supported and fully clamped, and studies on the influence of the coefficient of friction at the
supports are rare. Thus, this chapter studies the plastic response of beams using the definition of the
coefficient of friction at the modeled experimental supports and proposes some useful conclusions.
Also, as is difficult to define all the parameters in a finite element model, such as the true material curve
and boundary conditions, in the numerical simulations these important parameters were obtained
experimentally, for instance measuring the displacements of the supported length of the beams.
3.1 Impact test machine
The basic requirement of the instrumented falling weight impact test (Figure 3.1), is to gain an
understanding of the mechanism by which materials (e.g. plastics, metals, ceramics etc.) or structures
(e.g. fabricated articles, composites, adhesive joints), fail in impact situations, i.e. at high rates of strain.
ROSAND
ROSAND
Flag
Striking mass
Load cell (50kN)
Indenter
ROSAND
Instrumented Falling Weight Impact Tester, Type 5

Guide rails
Support Specimen
plates
Optical gate
Structural support
Figure 3.1 Fully instrumented Rosand IFW5 falling weight machine. (Drawing provided by R. Villavicencio)
Details of the impact machine are summarized in Rosand Precision Impact Tester User manual
(version 1.3). The impact machine is composed by two main parts:
(1) A frame to hold the sample, and guide the falling weight onto it.
(2) The electronics, which:
i. Control the impact process, in a reproducible and safe manner.
ii. Acquire, display and analyze the high-speed data.
21
iii. Communicate with the computer system, which is used for further analysis, and for data storage
and retrieval and for presentation of results.
The experiments were conducted using an instrumented falling weight impact test machine. A
small, light hemispherical ended cylindrical projectile is dropped from a known, variable height between
guide rails onto a clamped horizontally supported plate target. A much larger, variable mass is attached
to the projectile and a load cell between the two gives the variation of impact force with time. An optical
gate gives the incident velocity, and hence the displacement and velocity and the energy it imparts are
calculated from the force–time data by successive numerical integrations. Since the projectile is
assumed to remain in contact with the specimen throughout the impact event, the indenter
displacement is used to give the displacement and velocity of the top face of the specimen, under the
indenter. By assuming that frictional and heating effects are negligible, the energy imparted by the
indenter is that absorbed by the specimen. Thus, this energy value at the end of the test is that
irreversibly absorbed by the specimen.
3.2 Impact tester software
Details of the software are summarized in Rosand Precision Impact Tester Software manual (version
1.3). This section describes the capabilities of the operating software of the Rosand impact machine.
The software can be used to control the machine, and collect and analyze the test data. Two distinct
functions of the software are to control the apparatus and to present the results of the test.
The software provides direct control over the following aspects:
Data capture speed and sample length

Transducer amplifier gain, and filtering
Catcher position and winch speed
Chamber and anvil temperature
Drop height, velocity and energy
Operation of optional equipment, such as sample strippers and second strike preventers
Drop cycle initiation, and optionally direct control over the drop itself
Calibration of all transducers (impact force, catcher height and bungee force)
Second data collection channel control
After a drop test, data is automatically transmitted to the computer. The software allows great
flexibility in the manipulation of this data, including the following functionality:
Calculation, from the basic force-time (or acceleration-time) information, of velocity, distance and
energy
Plotting of force, and derived quantities, against time and distance
Multiple, simultaneous, on-screen graphs. Flexible control over axis scaling, including fully
automatic scaling. Simple graph zooming using the mouse to investigate features in detail.
Saving and recalling of data to disk
Recalling of multiple data sets for comparison and averaging
Tabular test results
22
Moveable markers, used to define the start of event, peak force and end of event. Initial values set
automatically, may be manually adjusted.
Printing of graphs and tables
Crack analysis calculations
Data of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement can be

obtained from the impact tester software (Figure 3.2), which are used to analyze the experimental
results and compare with numerical simulation of these impact tests.
Figure 3.2 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement.
(cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011a)
3.3 Experimental details
The impact tests represent a situation in which it is considered that a partially clamped beam is struck
at the mid-span by a mass travelling with an initial impact velocity, as shown in Figure 3.3. The beam is
partially clamped between two support plates, i.e. the beam experiences some axial displacement at
the supports during the impact event.
FRICTION STRIKING MASS

SUPPORT PLATE
V
BEAM
Figure 3.3 Beam struck transversely by a mass.
The experimental set-up can be seen in Figure 3.4. The specimen beams were 125 mm span
length, 20 mm width and 3 mm thickness. Tests were carried out by using a striking mass of 24.42 kg
23
and impact velocities from 0.5 to 2.5 m/s. The length of the beams is divided in three: span length and
two support lengths, where the span length is the distance between the supports and the support
length is the length of the upper support plate (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4 Experimental set-up.
The specimen beams were supported between two thick rectangular steel plates (upper and lower
support plates) and were compressed by two M16 bolts at each support. The lower support plates
(thickness 16 mm) were stiffened by two relatively thick plates (12 mm) one of which was located below
the supported length of the beam, and were fixed to a strong structural base to prevent their movement.
Although the structural supports were made of mild steel and they could experience some deformation
during the impact, it was assumed that they were stiff enough and did not suffer any important
deformations.
The torque applied to screw the bolts and to compress the supported length of the specimen
beams was 60 N·m. This torque (T) gives the preload force (F) to the upper support plate. The
relationship between the torque and preload force can be expressed by:
F=T/KD (3.1)
where K is the dimensionless torque coefficient, ranging from 0.10 for a well lubricated or waxed
assembly to over 0.30 for one that is dirty or rusty, and D is the diameter of the bolt. In this case, the
24
bolts are plain and slightly oily, so the torque coefficient takes 0.2. Therefore, the preload force of one
bolt was estimated as 18750 N.
The material is high-tensile steel and its mechanical properties were obtained from in-house
tensile test which results are summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Mechanical properties of material
Property Units Steel 3.0 mm

3
Density kg/m 7850
Young’s modulus GPa 206
Poisson’s ratio -- 0.3
Yield stress MPa 403
Ultimate stress MPa 492
3.4 Experimental results
The experimental results of the tested beams are summarized in Table 3.2. It is observed that the force
and the displacement are in direct proportion to the impact velocity. When the impact velocity increases
0.5 m/s, the peak force increases about 1.6 kN and the maximum displacement about 4 mm. The
rebound displacement is the difference between the maximum and the end displacement. This rebound
displacement is larger at low impact velocities. As is a drop weight impact experiment, the maximum
absorbed energy during the impact is larger than the initial input kinetic energy of the striking mass.
Hence, the total absorbed energy must include the potential energy of striking mass caused by the
vertical deformation of the beam.
Table 3.2 Summary of experimental results at different impact velocity
Impact Velocity Values at Peak Force Values at End

(m/s) Force (kN) Displ (mm) Energy (J) Displ (mm) Energy (J)
0.5 1.60 3.65 3.89 2.21 2.98
1.0 2.86 7.37 13.67 6.38 12.72
1.5 4.27 12.64 29.57 11.81 28.31
2.0 5.85 16.64 52.73 16.12 52.14
2.5 8.35 21.99 81.70 21.60 80.63
The axial displacements at the supports were measured at the end of the impact event in order to
analyze the coefficient of friction between the supported portion of the beam and the support plates. An
average axial displacement was used, because of the asymmetrical displacement at each supports.
The axial displacements at the supports are shown in Table 3.3. The axial displacement would be
doubled when the impact velocity increases 0.5 m/s.
The deformed shape of the beams at different impact velocities was shown in Figure 3.5. The
maximum lateral displacement is in direct proportion to the impact velocity, which is different from the
25
axial displacement. Figure 3.6 shows a typical beam after the impact. The V-shape deformation was
formed with plastic hinges at the impact position and the supports.
Table 3.3 Axial displacements at the supports
Velocity (m/s) Displacement (mm)

0.5 0.10
1.0 0.20
1.5 0.42
2.0 0.94
2.5 2.22
1.0m/s 0.5m/s
2.0m/s 1.5m/s
2.5m/s
Figure 3.5 Deformed shape of beams after the impact.
Figure 3.6 Deformation of the beam impacted at velocity 2.0 m/s.
Table 3.4 Experimental results using different torques on the bolts. (Impact velocity 1.0 m/s)
Torque Values at Peak Force Values at End

(Nm) Force (kN) Displ (mm) Energy (J) Displ (mm) Energy (J)
60 2.83 7.10 13.80 6.74 13.08
70 3.01 6.93 13.73 6.11 12.57
80 3.24 6.85 13.68 5.45 11.84
The friction between the supported length of the beam and the support plates depends on the
preload force. Thus, the beams were tested using different torque on the bolts in order to observe
different axial displacements at the supports. Three beams were tested using an impact velocity of
1.0 m/s and using torques of 60, 70 and 80 Nm. The experimental results are summarized in Table 3.4,
26
and the force-displacement responses are shown in Figure 3.7. It is noted that the torque on the bolt
has important influence on the response of beam, increasing the impact forces and, consequently,
decreasing the lateral displacements. Also, the axial displacement at supports decreased in
proportional magnitudes using larger torque (Table 3.5).
Figure 3.7 Force-displacement responses using different torque on the bolts. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s.
Table 3.5 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque on the bolts. (Impact velocity 1.0 m/s)
Torque (Nm) Displacement (mm)

60 0.20
70 0.15
80 0.10
3.5 Numerical model
The numerical model is illustrated in Figure 3.8. The specimen beam and the striking mass were
modeled with solid (8-nodes, 1-integration point) elements. The mesh size of the beam and the striking
mass was 2×2×1.5 mm and 1×1×1 mm, respectively. The striking mass was defined as a rigid material
to ensure no deformation. The ‘Mat.020-Rigid’ was selected from the material library of LS-DYNA,
assigning mild steel mechanical properties (Young’s modulus 206GPa and Poisson’s ratio 0.3). As the
falling weight assembly was modeled as a simple box, an artificially large density was used to give the
same mass as used in the experiments. The contact between the striking mass and the beam was
defined as “Automatic Surface to Surface”. The “Load Body Z” was chosen to define the acceleration of
gravity in the simulation. In the constraint of striking mass, only the vertical translation was free, in
which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned.
Tx,Ty F F Tx,Ty
Rx,Ry,Rz Rx,Ry,Rz
V
Tx,Ty,Tz Tx,Ty,Tz
Rx,Ry,Rz Rx,Ry,Rz
Figure 3.8 Numerical model.
27
The definition of the beam material is the most important one, and thus the mechanical properties
of the material used in the finite element model were obtained from in-house tensile tests carried out on
the same beams from which the impact specimens were done. The material selected from the library of
LS-DYNA was ‘Mat.024-Piecewice lineal plasticity’, which allows the definition of a true stress-strain
curve as an offset table. The true material was defined using the exact true stress-strain relationship
until maximum load and beyond necking was used the approximate relationship proposed by Zhang et
al. (2004), (UN+GL, Section 2.1.3), see Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9 Engineering and true stress-strain curve of material.
Although the experiments allow studying the plastic response of the beams, the aim of the
experiments was to measure the displacements at the supports in order to observe the influence of the
coefficient of friction. The contact between the support plates and the beam was defined as “Automatic
Surface to Surface”. Thus, the support plates modeled with 4-node shell elements were defined as a
rigid material. All the degrees of freedom of the lower support plates were constrained, whereas only
the vertical translation was free on the upper support plates. The “Boundary Prescribed Motion Node”
was selected to define preload force of bolts on the upper support plates.
3.6 Numerical results
The tested beam with an impact velocity of 1.0 m/s was selected to compare with the numerical
simulations. The sensitivity of the coefficient of friction was evaluated by modifying its magnitude in the
contact definition. The results of the simulations are shown in Figure 3.10. The importance of the
coefficient of friction is evident. Several coefficients of friction were chosen to analyze the influence on
the plastic responses of beam. If the coefficient of friction is big enough, the beam does not experience
any axial displacement at the support, i.e. represents a fully clamped condition. If the coefficient of
friction is zero, the impact force remains constant after the elastic limit, whose characteristics is due to
the high axial displacement at the support. The result of numerical simulation with coefficient of friction
of 0.21 gives better agreement with the experimental result.
The maximum force and displacement are shown in Figure 3.11. The numerical results show a
straight line, predicting well the maximum displacement in the full range of impact velocities. However,
the force is under predicted at higher impact velocities reaching a maximum difference of 14.9%.
28
Figure 3.10 Force-displacement responses with different friction coefficient at the supports.
Figure 3.11 Maximum force and displacements at different impact velocities.
The maximum stress and deformation are mainly concentrated at the impact location and at the
supports, as shown in Figure 3.12. The remaining length of the beams has low stresses and small axial
deformations.
Figure 3.12 Shape of the deformation and von Mises stress distribution at maximum force.
The comparison of the axial displacements at the supports is shown in Figure 3.13. The axial
displacements of the simulation are in agreement with the experimental results. The axial displacement
has a relation with the maximum force and displacement shown in Figure 3.11. A good results would be
obtained if the maximum force and displacement having agreement with the experimental results.
29
Figure 3.13 Axial displacements at the supports at different velocity.
The comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement responses using different

torque at the bolts are shown in Figure 3.14. Higher forces and smaller displacements are obtained
increasing the magnitude of the torque. It is noted that the three force-displacement responses are
similar at the beginning. The numerical results agree with the experimental results, only having the
error of maximum force and displacement of 2.8% and 3.6%, respectively.
Figure 3.14 Experimental and numerical force-displacement responses using different torque at the bolts.
Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical results: continuous lines. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s.
Figure 3.15 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque at the bolts. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s.
30
The axial displacements at the supports using different torque at the bolts are shown in Figure 3.15.
The tendency of the axial displacement is the same with the experiments, decreasing with the torque at
the bolts. Although, are seen big differences in the axial displacement at the supports, the magnitudes
of these differences only reach 0.1 mm which is a magnitude difficult to measure in experiments.
3.7 Concluding remarks
(1) The force-displacement response is in direct proportion with the impact velocity. Also, the rebound
displacement decreases with the impact velocity.
(2) Moreover, the axial displacement at the supports increases with the impact velocity. The lateral
displacement increases with the axial displacement using the same velocity.
(3) The good agreements obtained between experiments and simulations obey a correct
representation of the boundary condition. Thus, the preload force and the coefficient of friction are the
most important parameters in the definition of the representation of the experimental supports.
31
32
CHAPTER 4 – Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact
CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to

lateral impact
Various studies on uniform and perfect structural members under impact loads have been made in
order to understand their dynamic plastic behavior. However, real structures have imperfections in their
geometry, such as notches or cracks. In engineering practice, the imperfections in the cross section are
easier to fracture. Thus, it is imperative for the study of structural components including initial damage
in their geometry.
This chapter describes a series of impact tests conducted to study the plastic behavior and fracture
propagation of clamped pre-notched beams subjected lateral impact by a mass. Also, numerical
simulations were carried out using the LS-DYNA to predict the force-displacement response and the
initiation of fracture in the pre-notched beams. The material definition in the numerical model was
obtained from numerical simulation of tensile test, and the experimental supports were represented in
order to obtain the stresses on the elements at the supports.
The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2. The impact test
represents a situation in which it is considered that a clamped pre-notched beam is struck by a mass
travelling with an initial impact velocity, as shown in Figure 4.1. The experimental set-up can be seen in
Figure 4.2. The specimen beams were 250 mm span length, 20 mm width and 8.0 mm thickness. Tests
were carried out using a striking mass of 74.8 kg and an impact velocity of 4.2 m/s. The indenter was a
hemispherically ended cylindrical projectile of diameter 30 mm. The impact point was at the mid-span
and at one-quarter of the support. Beams with and without notch were tested. Two notches were
manually mechanized with a saw. Two depth of notch were considered: 2.0 mm and 4.0 mm (Figure
4.3). The width of the notch is 1.0 mm. The positions of the notch were 15, 75 and 115 mm from the
support, as shown in Figure 4.4.
striking mass
V
notch
Figure 4.1 Pre-notched beam stuck transversely by a mass.
The length of the beams is divided in three: span length and two support lengths, where the span
length is the distance between the supports and the support length is the length of the upper plate. Two
short beams of length 100 mm were welded at the ends of the specimen beams (Figures 4.2). These
short beams named stoppers were designed to prevent the axial displacement of the beams between
the support plates. No gap between the stopper and the upper support plate was considered. The
specimen beams were supported between two thick rectangular steel plates (upper and lower support
plates) and were compressed by two bolts at each support. The lower support plates (thickness 16 mm)
33
were stiffened by two relatively thick plates (12 mm) one of which located below the supported length of
the beam, and were fixed to a strong structural base to prevent their movement. Although the structural
supports were made of mild steel and they could experience some deformation during the impact, it
was assumed that they were stiff enough and did not suffer any important deformations.
Figure 4.3 Measure the depth of notch.
34
1
5
m
m
notch1
1
0
m
m
7
5
m
m
notch2
1
0
m
m
1
1
5
m
m
notch3
Figure 4.4 Position of notch and striking mass.
The experimental results are summarized in Table 4.1. Three failure modes were observed in the
experiments: large inelastic deformation (failure mode I), tension failure (failure mode II) and transverse
shear failure (failure mode III). The notation of the failure modes is only valid in this thesis. The failure
mode II and III are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. Although both II and III failure modes are
under a combination of tension and shear force, the tension failure denotes the specimen in which the
cut area is smaller than the area seen in the shear failure, and also in the tension failure it is thought
that the development of membrane force is more evident.
Table 4.1 Experimental results
Values at Peak Values at End

Specimen Failure Mode
Force [kN] Defln [mm] Energy [J] Defln [mm] Energy [J]
WN_Q 44.6 33.4 669.8 29.1 617.6 I
WN_M 38.9 43.2 683.3 38.7 637.3 I
N15_2mm_Q 41.6 34.0 678.3 29.3 622.3 I
N15_4mm_Q 37.9 36.4 646.4 36.4 646.4 III
N15_2mm_M 38.2 44.2 677.3 39.2 620.4 I
N15_4mm_M 29.7 40.6 542.0 40.6 542.0 II
N75_2mm_Q 43.3 33.6 678.8 27.6 618.6 I
N75_4mm_Q 32.9 33.8 480.2 33.8 480.2 III
N75_2mm_M 38.5 44.3 685.5 39.0 628.5 I
N75_4mm_M 28.3 39.5 468.3 39.5 468.3 II
N115_2mm_Q 43.1 33.8 686.7 27.6 627.1 I
N115_4mm_Q 41.7 37.5 663.3 37.5 663.3 II
N115_2mm_M 38.5 44.3 685.5 37.5 620.6 I
N115_4mm_M 24.6 34.7 347.8 34.7 347.8 III
*WN: Without notch; Q and M: Impact at one-quarter of the support and mid-span, respectively; N15, N75 and
N115: Notch position 15, 75 and 115 mm from the support, respectively; 2mm and 4mm: The depth of notch
2.0 mm and 4.0 mm, respectively.
35
(a) (b)
Figure 4.5 Tension failure. (a): Specimen N115_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M.
(a) (b)
Figure 4.6 Shear failure. (a): Specimen N75_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N115_4mm_M.
In all cases, the beams with 2.0 mm notch experienced large plastic deformation, whereas the
beams with 4.0 mm notch fractured at the notch position. Two of the tested beams were selected to
compare their impact response. The selected beams were specimens N15_2mm_M and N15_4mm_M,
and their deformed shapes are shown in Figure 4.7.
(a) (b)
Figure 4.7 Shape of the deformation: (a) Specimen N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M.
The time dependant curves of force, displacement and absorbed energy and the
force-displacement response are shown in Figure 4.8. The absorbed energy can be calculated by
integrating the force-displacement curve. Both curves are similar at the beginning of the response,
indicating that the depth of notch has small influence on the plastic response of pre-notched beams.
The beam with 4.0 mm notch fractured, whereas the beam with 2.0 mm notch only reproduced plastic
deformation. The absorbed energy until fracture is the most important parameter of the impact
response of pre-notched beam.
The maximum forces of the beams with different notches are shown in Figure 4.9. The results of
the beams with 2.0 mm notches are similar with the results of the beams without notch. But the results
with 4.0 mm notch differ from the results of the beams without notch, especially when the notch position
36
near the impact position, because the absorbed energy of fractured beam is smaller than the incident
energy, and the beam is much easier to fracture when the notch near the impact position.
Figure 4.8 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement.
P: Specimen N15_2mm_M (plastic deformation); F: Specimen N15_4mm_M (fracture).
Impact at Mid Impact at Quarter

40
without notch 50
without notch
notch 2mm 45
35
Force [kN]
Force [kN]
40 notch 2mm
30
notch 4mm 35 notch 4mm

25
20 30
notch 1 notch 2 notch 3 notch 1 notch 2 notch 3
Figure 4.9 Maximum forces of beams with different notch.
4.3 Numerical model
The computations were carried out using the finite element package LS-DYNA Version 971 (Hallquist
2010) which is appropriate for non-linear explicit dynamic simulations with large deformations. The
finite element model was designed with the specimen beam and striking mass. The specimen beam
was modeled in 8-nodes solid elements with 1-integration point using constant stress solid element
formulation. The striking mass was modeled with shell elements. As no material response information
was obtained from the striking mass, zero-integration points were defined. The mesh size of the beam
37
and the striking mass was 1×1×1 mm, as shown in Figure 4.10. The material of beam and the striking
mass were defined as ‘Mat.024-Piecewice lineal plasticity’ and ‘Mat.020-Rigid’ selected from the
material library of LS-DYNA, respectively, assigning mild steel mechanical properties (Young’s
modulus 206GPa and Poisson’s ratio 0.3).
Figure 4.10 Mesh sizes of beam and striking mass.
4.3.1 Boundary conditions
The experimental restraints are similar to fully clamped boundary conditions. In order to check the
accuracy, two definitions of the boundary condition were evaluated in the numerical model. The
clamped and supported boundary conditions are shown in Figure 4.11. In the constraint of striking
mass, only the vertical translation was free, in which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned.
In the clamped model, the beam length was the span length, and all the degrees of freedom of the ends
of beam were constrained. But in the supported model, the beam length was the total of the span
length and the two support lengths, and all the degrees of freedom of the ends of beam were
constrained. The support plates modeled with 4-node shell elements were defined as a rigid material
and constrained all the degrees of freedom.
V
Clamped model
Tx,Ty,Tz Tx,Ty,Tz
Rx,Ry,Rz Rx,Ry,Rz
Tx,Ty,Tz
V
Tx,Ty,Tz
Rx,Ry,Rz Rx,Ry,Rz
Tx,Ty,Tz Tx,Ty,Tz
Rx,Ry,Rz Rx,Ry,Rz
Supported model
Figure 4.11 Boundary conditions of pre-notched beam.
4.3.2 Material definition using tensile test simulation
Three true material curves were evaluated in order to select the one that best fit the plastic response of
the material and also to predict the point of fracture. The engineering and true material curves (GL,
UN+GL and PL, Section 2.1.3) are plotted in Figure 4.12.
38
Figure 4.12 True and engineering material curves.
The size of model is 100×20×8 mm, and the mesh size is 1.0 mm. The critical failure strain was
obtained by successive numerical simulation (εf = 1.2). Figure 4.13 shows the results of the numerical
simulations using the three material curves (GL, UN+GL, PL). The best approximation is given by the
power law (PL) material curve, which follows the experimental curve quite precisely.
Figure 4.13 Results of numerical simulations.
First, the clamped model is used to analyze the numerical simulation of the impact test. The true
stress-strain curve (PL), mesh size (1.0 mm) and failure strain (1.2) were determined by the numerical
simulation of the tensile test. A series of numerical simulations are presented in this section to compare
with the experimental results. The beams shown in Figure 4.7 (N15_2mm_M and N15_4mm_M) were
selected to predict the experimental results. The experimental and numerical force-displacement
curves are plotted in Figure 4.14. The results are similar to the experiments. The cause of the
difference is that the boundary condition in the experiments is not absolutely fully clamped, but the
experimental result is still reasonable. The appropriate true stress-strain curve and critical failure strain
obtained from the simulation of the tensile test, helped to reproduce the experimental response in the
impact model.
39
(a) (b)
Figure 4.14 Comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement responses: (a) Specimen
N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M.
The beam with notch of 4.0 mm and impact near the support (N15_4mm_M) was selected to study
the difference between clamped and supported model. The force-displacement responses are shown
in Figure 4.15, which are very similar between them. The displacement of the supported model is larger
than the one of the clamped model, because the former experienced axial displacement at the support.
The failure modes of both models are similar (Figure 4.16). Although both responses are similar, the
supported model is selected as the best option because allows obtaining stress and strain information
at the supports.
Figure 4.15 Comparisons of experimental and numerical force-displacement curves with different boundaries
(Specimen N15_4mm_M).
Figure 4.16 Failure modes (Specimen N15_4mm_M).
Figure 4.17 shows the time steps of a typical simulation of the impact specimen. The original
40
model of the pre-notched beam before impact (step 1). The specimen is at the first stages of impact
and the notch remains undeformable (step 2). The notch starts to undergo gross plastic deformation
and its cross-section elongates when the stresses exceed the yield strength (step 3). All further plastic
deformation is concentrated in this region (step 4). The notch begins to neck locally (steps 5). Fracture
occurs (step 6).
The fracture at the notch is shown in Figure 4.18. The fractured section is smaller than the original
section, because at this location the beam necked. It is observed that the impact event is described
sufficiently well by the numerical model. The failure strain predicted by tensile test simulations is
considered satisfactory when used in the material definition of the impact model. The reacting force and
the displacement at the point of fracture are well predicted. The shape of the failure mode observed in
the experiment is captured accurately by the numerical simulation (Figure 4.18). The complete failure
of the impact specimen starts at the notch corner and extends upwards to the neutral axis of the beam
resulting in strength failure given as a combination of tension and shear. However, as an element in the
original cross-section of the beam is deformed severely and displaced from the initial position, the most
important effect of this change is the development of membrane force.
Figure 4.17 Time steps of a typical simulation of the pre-notched beams (Specimen N15_4mm_M).
(a) (b)
Figure 4.18 The failure of the notch (Specimen N15_4mm_M). (a): Numerical; (b): Experimental.
The numerical triaxiality at failure for the tensile and impact specimens is compared in Figure 4.19
in order to verify the calibration of the critical failure strain by tensile test simulations. The presented
41
triaxiality is calculated by the ratio between the hydrostatic stress and the effective stress and is plotted
versus the normalized axial displacement of the tensile model, on one hand, and versus the normalized
transverse displacement of the impact model, on the other hand. The chosen critical failure strain is
justified due to the close range of observed triaxiality values at the point of failure.
Figure 4.19 Comparison of the numerical triaxiality (Specimen N15_4mm_M).
4.5 Comparison with a theoretical analyses
Liu and Jones (1987) proposed a theoretical analysis to examine the transverse shear and bending
response of clamped beams struck transversely by a mass at any point on the span. The maximum
permanent transverse deformation at the impact point of a rigid-perfectly plastic clamped beam may be
estimated from Equation (4.1), which includes the influence of finite transverse displacements, axial
restraints and bending moments, but disregards material elasticity and the influence of the transverse
shear force in the yield condition. Wf is the maximum permanent transverse deformation; l1 , l2 is
the length of beam from the impact point to the right-hand and left-hand supports, respectively ( l1 ≤ l2 );
H is the thickness of beam; B is the width of beam; G is the mass of striker; V0 is the initial impact
velocity; σ0, σ0‫ ׳‬is the static and dynamic yield stresses, respectively.
H 8λ
Wf = [ −1 + 1 + ] , r = l1 / l2 (4.1)
2 (1 + r )
where
GV02l1
λ= (4.2)
2 BH 3σ 0
The lower and upper bound solutions of Equation (4.1) are obtained using circumscribing and
inscribing square yield conditions, respectively. The strain rate sensitivity of the material is considered
using the Cowper-Symonds empirical expression:
σ 0′ = σ 0 [1+(εɺ / D)1/ p ] (4.3)
-1
where σ0 and σ0‫ ׳‬are the static and dynamic flow stresses, respectively, and D = 40.4 s and p = 5 for
mild steel. The yield stress of material σ0 is equal to 318 MPa.
Material strain rate sensitivity is a highly non-linear phenomenon. Therefore, in order to make an
42
estimate of its importance in the present problem, it is assumed that the strain rate remains constant
-1
throughout the entire response of the beam and equals 45 s (Liu and Jones 1987). Therefore, the
dynamic flow stress for the steel beams is
σ 0′ =[1+1.0218]σ 0 =2.0218σ 0 (4.4)
It is possible that Equation (4.4) might overestimate the influence of material strain rate effects
-1
because the strain rate is less than 45 s during the later stages of a beam response. The theoretical
predictions corresponding to an inscribing square yield condition use σ0.618‫=׳‬0.618σ0‫׳‬. The static yield
stress σ0 is replaced by 0.618σ0 in Equation (4.4):
σ 0′ = 2.0218 × 0.618σ 0 = 1.249σ 0 (4.5)
The maximum permanent transverse deformation of test beams is calculated by Equations 4.1-4.5
(Figure 4.20). λ is equal to 25.3 when the impact is at mid-span; λ is equal to 12.7 when the impact is at
one-quarter of the support. The experimental and numerical results are between the upper and lower
bound solution of Equation (4.1) without inclusion of strain rate effect.
Figure 4.20 Variation of dimensionless maximum permanent transverse deformation W f / H with dimensionless
external dynamic energy λ. —— Equation (4.1) with static yield stress σ0; - - - - Equation (4.1) with dynamic flow
stress σ0‫ ׳‬given by equation (4.1); (1) circumscribing yield curve (2) inscribing yield curve; Experimental results: ▲
Simulation results: ■
(1) The selection of the mesh size and critical failure strain by numerical simulations of the tensile tests
is valid for these particular experiments, because some elements in the original cross-section have
deformed severely and the most important effect is the development of membrane forces.
(2) The two basic assumptions used in the finite element simulations: model of the supports to
represent the experimental boundary conditions and prediction of the critical failure strain by tensile
tests are the most important parameters obtained from this simple failure analysis. These parameters
are valid in small-scale structures subjected to impact where such a small mesh size can be defined
and full modeling of the boundary conditions can be performed. Future work should extend the
applicability of these definitions in complex structures and to investigate the effects of all the
parameters involved in this type of impact analysis.
43
(3) The experimental results show three failure modes: large inelastic deformation, tension failure and
transverse shear failure.
44
CHAPTER 5 – Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact
CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to

lateral impact
In this chapter, experimental and numerical analyses of laterally loaded rectangular plate are described.
The impact tests use different types of indenters. Then, the numerical simulations were carried out
using the LS-DYNA to predict the experimental plastic behavior of the plates. Discussion of the results
and useful conclusions are given.
The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2. The impact
tests represent a situation in which it is considered that a fully clamped rectangular plate is struck at the
center by a mass travelling with an initial impact velocity. The experimental set-up can be seen in
Figure 5.1. The plate thicknesses are 1.4 and 4.0 mm (henceforth referred to as ‘thin’ and ‘thick’,
respectively) in the experiments. Specimen plates were fully clamped by four bolts between two thick
rectangular steel plates with internal cut-out of 127 × 76.2 mm. The bolts passed through holes in the
specimen plate, providing the clamping force. The striking mass is 54.34 kg. A hemispherical indenter
of Ø 30 mm was used to impact two thin plates at different velocity to study the plastic response of plate.
In order to investigate the effects of global deformation and local indentation, tests were carried out on
thick plates using of 6 different types of indenters with a impact velocity of 1.94 m/s. The indenters were
hemispherically ended projectiles of diameter 10, 20 and 30 mm, and cylindrically ended projectiles of
diameter 10, 20 and 30 mm. The different types of indenters are shown in Figure 5.2.
The material of the plate is structural carbon steel and its mechanical properties were obtained by
45
in-house tensile tests using standard tensile specimens and procedures (ASTM 1989). The results of
the tensile tests of the thin and thick plates are presented in Table 5.1, and the engineering
stress-strain curves are shown in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.2 Different types of indenters.
Table 5.1 Mechanical properties of material
Properties Unit Thickness 1.4 mm Thickness 4 mm

3
Density kg/m 7850 7850
Young’s modulus GPa 206 206
Poisson’s ratio -- 0.3 0.3
Yield stress MPa 228 347
Ultimate stress MPa 364 466
Figure 5.3 Engineering stress-strain curve of material with thickness 1.4 and 4.0 mm.
Two thin plates were impacted at velocity 2.7 and 3.3 m/s and using the hemispherical indenter of
Ø 30 mm. The maximum and end results of force, displacement and energy are summarized in Table
5.2. The end of the test is determined by zero contact force. It occurs when the indenter leaves the
surface of the specimen and the specimen acquires its permanent deformation (‘Values at End’ in
Table 5.2). The force-displacement responses of thin plates at different velocity are shown in Figure 5.4.
46
The shape of the deformation at velocity of 2.7 m/s is shown in Figure 5.5. The impacted plates
experienced large plastic deformation, and the force-displacement responses are similar at the
beginning of the response. The differences just depend on the incident energy.
Table 5.2 Summary of experimental results of thin plates at different velocity
Impact Velocity Input Energy Maximum Values Value at End

(m/s) (J) Force (kN) Displ (mm) Energy (J) Displ (mm) Energy (J)
2.7 200 21.5 17.3 202.9 16.7 202.1
3.3 300 26.8 20.7 303.2 20.7 303.2
Figure 5.4 Force-displacement responses of thin plates at different velocity.
Figure 5.5 Deformation of thin plate at velocity of 2.7 m/s.
In respect to the thick plate it was observed that the shape of the indenter has strong influence on
the impact response. The results of the thick plates are summarized in Table 5.3, and Figure 5.6 shows
the force-displacement responses using different types of indenters with impact velocity of 1.94 m/s. All
the plates experience large plastic deformation, and the maximum energies are basically the same.
The displacement increases and the force decreases using the smaller diameter of indenter. This effect
is more evident with the cylindrical indenters. Figure 5.7 shows the responses using indenters with
same diameter but different ends (sphere and cylinder). The force is larger using the cylindrical
indenter and consequently reproduced smaller displacements. This effect is produced because the
cylindrical indenter has more contact area and thus indentation out of the plane of the plate is less
47
evident.
Table 5.3 Summary of experimental results using different indenters (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s)
Maximum Values Values at End

Indenter Force (kN) Displ (mm) Energy (J) Displ (mm) Energy (J)
Sphere 10 mm 23.2 6.0 102.8 5.7 101.5
Sphere 20 mm 24.2 5.9 99.5 5.5 97.6
Sphere 30 mm 25.8 5.8 103.4 5.5 101.8
Cylinder 10 mm 26.1 5.6 107.3 5.2 105.3
Cylinder 20 mm 31.6 5.0 104.7 4.5 100.4
Cylinder 30 mm 36.2 4.3 104.5 3.7 98.2
Figure 5.6 Experimental force-displacement responses using different diameters of indenters.
Figure 5.7 Experimental force-displacement responses using different types of indenters with the same diameter.
48
5.3 Numerical model
The plate was modeled with 4-node shell elements with 5-integration points through the thickness. The
contact mass-specimen uses nodal normal projections resulting in a continuous contact surface. The
selected material provides a definition of the true stress-strain relationship as an offset table. The
striking mass was modeled as a rigid material, and since the falling weight assembly was modeled as a
simple hemisphere, an artificially large density was used to give the same mass as the one to use in the
experiments.
5.3.1 Boundary conditions
The experimental restraints are similar to fully clamped boundary conditions. In order to check the
accuracy, two definitions of the boundary condition were evaluated in the numerical model. The
clamped and supported boundary conditions are shown in Figure 5.8. For the striking mass, only the
vertical translation was free, in which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned. In the clamped
model, the edges of the plate were constrained in all degrees of freedom. But in the supported model,
the nodes of the plate at the bolts position were fully clamped. All the degrees of freedom of the lower
support plates were constrained in numerical model, whereas in the upper support plates all the
degrees of freedom except vertical translation were constrained. The “Boundary Prescribed Motion
Node” was selected to define preload force to the upper support plates, loading an initial imposed
displacement to clamp the plate. The contact between the support plates and the plate was defined as
“Automatic Surface to Surface”. The support plates modeled with shell elements were defined as a rigid
material.
Figure 5.8 Boundary conditions of rectangular plate.
5.4.1 Thin plates
The simulations were evaluated in terms of the true stress-strain curve, mesh size, element type and
boundary conditions. The experimental results of the thin plates at impact velocity of 2.7 m/s were used
49
to compare the different parameters studied in the numerical model.
Firstly, three true stress-strain material curves (PL, GL and UN+GL, Section 2.1.3) were used to
compare their differences, as shown in Figure 5.9. The mesh size is 2.0 mm. As the three true material
curves were similar, the impact responses are almost the same. The comparison of the shape of the
deformation is shown in Figure 5.10, showing good agreement between them.
Figure 5.9 Comparison of different materials.
Figure 5.10 Comparison of the shape of deformation.
Three mesh sizes (4.0, 2.0 and 1.0 mm) were evaluated (Figure 5.11). The influence of the mesh
size is very small, and thus the impact model reproduces similar plastic response. Smaller mesh sizes
help to increase the displacement, because the indention out of the plane of plate is better defined and
then the plate takes the same shape of the indenter as seen in the experiments.
50
Figure 5.11 Comparison of different mesh sizes.
The influence of the element type is illustrated in Figure 5.12. Better results were obtained with the
shell model, because this model has 5-integration points through the thickness whereas the solid
model only has one. This implies that a higher number of solid elements are necessary to reproduce
the experimental plastic response.
Figure 5.12 Comparison of shell model and solid model.
A mesh size 2.0 mm was used for the simulations. The comparison between the clamped model
and the supported model is shown in Figure 5.13. The model with supported plates reproduced higher
displacement, but smaller force in the event, because of the sliding between the supports.
Figure 5.13 Comparison of different support.
51
The material strain rate sensitivity is evaluated in the support model using the coefficient of the
Cowper and Symonds constitutive equation (Equation 2.13) for mild and high tensile steel (Figure 5.14).
Using mild steel coefficients (C=40.4 and q=5), the force-displacement response shows a stiffer
behavior. However, using high tensile steel coefficients (C=3200 and q=5), good agreement with the
experiments is noticed at the first stage of impact although the results deviate at the end, leading in
higher forces and consequently smaller displacement.
Figure 5.14 Comparison of different dynamic yield strength. C40.4q5: mild steel coefficients; C3200q5: high tensile
steel coefficients.
Two elements near the impact point were selected to analyze the strain rate. The two elements are
the typical elements under impact, having the maximum stresses in the impact process, and the
positions of these elements (1 and 2) are shown in Figure 5.15. The strain-time and strain rate-time
-1
curve are shown in Figure 5.16. At the beginning of the impact, the average strain rate goes up to 80 s ,
-1
but then, decreases to about 40 s . Actually, when time is 0.004 s, the displacement is 10 mm. At this
-1
point, the strain rate decreases to about 40 s . At the same time, the force-displacement response of
high tensile steel coefficient starts to deviate with the experimental results.
2 mm
impact point
element 1
element 2
Figure 5.15 Position of selected element.
52
Figure 5.16 Strain rate of selected elements from numerical simulation.
5.4.2 Thick plates
As mentioned the different indenters influenced the impact response of plate. The UN+GL true material
curve was selected for the numerical simulation of the thick plate. First, the clamped model and the
supported model mentioned above were compared. The numerical simulations using a spherical
indenter of Ø30 mm with impact velocity of 1.94 m/s were selected to compare with the experimental
result. The comparison of the clamped and supported models is shown in Figure 5.17. As similar
results between them were obtained, the clamped model was selected for the remaining numerical
simulations.
Figure 5.17 Force-displacement responses of the clamped and supported models. (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s)
The cylindrical and spherical indenters of Ø30 mm were selected to compare the experimental
force-displacement responses (Figure 5.18). Good agreement between them was found, being the
maximum forces and displacement well predicted. The obtained results were used to compare
intermediate responses using a combination of spherical and cylindrical indenter as shown in Figure
5.19. Two transitive types of indenter between sphere and cylinder were defined cutting out the end of
the sphere (Figure 5.19). The numerical results are shown in Figure 5.20. These two
force-displacement curves are between the results of the spherical and cylindrical indenter,
representing the transition between the responses. When the cut out at the bottom is small, the force
decrease and the displacement increase.
53
Figure 5.18 Force-displacement responses of experimental results and numerical results. E: experimental, S:
Simulation
Figure 5.19 Different type of indenter.
Figure 5.20 Comparison of numerical results using different type of indenter. (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s)
(1) The impact response of the plates is similar at the beginning when using the same indenter at
different velocity.
(2) The numerical analysis demonstrated that the results are insensitive to the mesh size and the type
of element.
(3) The material strain rate has strong effect on the plastic response of plate. Using the high tensile
steel Cowper-Symonds coefficient gives good agreement in most of the response, especially the
54
magnitude of the strain rate is higher than the one that can be obtained for mild steel.
(4) The types of indenter have strong influence on the impact response of plate. If the contact area is
small, such as a sphere, the force decreases and the displacement increases.
55
56
CHAPTER 6 – Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact
CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to

lateral impact
In this chapter, experiments and numerical simulation of laterally loaded plates were conducted in order
to predict the initiation and propagation of fracture. The influence of the indenter on the initiation of
failure plates was studied. The sensitivity of the mesh size and the critical failure strain are reviewed
using the force-displacement response of plates. Discussion of the results and conclusions are given.
6.1 Experimental details and results
The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2, and the
experimental details are the same given in Chapter 5, except for the impact velocity which in this case
is 3.8 m/s. The plate thickness is 1.4 mm (thin plate). The indenters were hemi-spherically ended
projectiles of diameter 10, 16, 20 and 30 mm. In all cases the initial incident energy is 400 J, which is
large enough to provoke fracture.
The results at peak force are summarized in Table 6.1. The maximum force and the displacement
differ for each diameter of indenter. The absorbed energy increases with the diameter of indenter. The
force-displacement responses are shown in Figure 6.1. The slope of force-displacement curve
decreases for the smaller indenters. The failure of the plates by smaller indenters occurred at lower
displacement and force, and thus smaller ratio of the input energy was absorbed for these specimens.
The energy at fracture using the indenter of Ø 10 mm is only one third of the energy at fracture using
the indenter of Ø 30 mm. Thus, it is needed more energy to yield fracture using the other indenters. All
plates initiated fracture at peak force, being rapidly propagated.
The failure modes of plates using the indenters of Ø 20 and 30 mm are shown in Figure 6.2. There
are large plastic deformations in the impact region and the plates start to fracture at the side of impact
region.
Figure 6.1 Experimental force-displacement responses of thin plates with different indenter.
57
Table 6.1 Summary of experimental results of thin plates with different indenter
Diameter of Indenter Values at Peak Force

(mm) Force (kN) Displ (mm) Energy (J)
10 11.8 12.9 76.9
16 18.9 16.0 149.4
20 21.8 17.8 209.6
30 27.5 18.7 257.1
(a) (b)
Figure 6.2 Failure modes of the plates. (a) indenter 20 mm; (b) indenter 30 mm
6.2 Numerical model and results
The numerical models are the same as given in Section 5.3. The failure of the plate is predicted using
different true stress-strain curves, mesh sizes, element types and boundary conditions. The specimen
using an indenter of Ø 30 mm was selected to evaluate the numerical simulation.
First, the three true stress-strain curves (PL, GL and UN+GL curve, Section 2.1.3) using a critical
failure strain of 0.9 were used to predict the experimental response (Figure 6.3). All the predicted
force-displacement responses were similar to the experimental response, selecting the good true
material curve and critical failure strain.
Figure 6.3 Force-displacement responses of experimental and numerical results with different true material curves.
(Indenter 30 mm)
The predicted deformation shape of the plate was similar to the experimental one (Figure 6.4). The
plate underwent a large plastic deformation when the stresses exceed the yield strength, and all further
58
plastic deformation was concentrated in the impact region. The plate began to failure locally at the side
of impact region, and then the crack propagated. The shape of the failure mode observed in the
experiment was captured accurately by the numerical simulation.
Figure 6.4 Experimental and numerical failure modes. (Indenter 30 mm)
Two models, one designed in shell and the other in solid elements, were simulated and their
comparison is shown in Figure 6.5. Here the material curve was defined by the UN+GL approximation.
The response of shell model is better than the one of solid model, because of its higher number of
integration points. The shell element has 5-integration points through the thickness and the solid
element only has one, so the shell element is much more suit to analyze the large deformation and
failure in the numerical simulation.
Figure 6.5 Force-displacement responses of shell model and solid model. (Indenter 30 mm)
The clamped model and the supported model mentioned in Section 5.3 were also used to predict the
failure using a mesh size of 2.0 mm (Figure 6.6). It is noted that the sliding between the supports has
59
important influence on the response of plate, decreasing the impact forces and, consequently,
increasing the displacements. As the numerical result of clamped model is more similar with the
experimental result, it is selected for the remaining numerical simulations.
Figure 6.6 Force-displacement responses of different support. (Indenter 30 mm)
Two failure criteria were mentioned in Section 2.3. As in the actual study t equals 1.4 mm and l
equals 2 mm in this case, the failure strain of Peschmann (2001) and Zhang et al. (2004) is 0.660 and
0.434, respectively. These failure strains are used in the numerical model. The previous failure strain of
0.9 which was obtained by numerical simulation of tensile test is also included in the results. The
comparisons of the different failure strain using different indenter are shown in Figure 6.7. The
numerical simulations using the critical failure strain of 0.9 predict better the experimental results. The
failure strain of 0.660 (Peschmann 2001) is in good agreement with the indentation of 30 mm. But all
the numerical results using failure strain of 0.660 (Peschmann 2001) are smaller than the experimental
results. Moreover, the numerical results using failure strain of 0.434 (Zhang et al. 2004) have big
differences from the experimental results.
As the critical failure strain depends on the mesh size (Paik 2007), the numerical models were
calculated using smaller mesh sizes and their corresponding failure strains. The failure strains were
calibrated by succesive numerical simulation of the tensile tests. The mesh size and their
corresponding failure strain are shown in Table 6.2. The material curve proposed by Zhang (2004) was
selected to represent the true material curve. The comparisons of force-displacement responses with
different mesh size are shown in Figures 6.8. Similar impact responses were obtained using different
mesh size and failure strain. The slope of force-displacement response with coarse mesh size is larger
before fracture.
Table 6.2 Mesh size with corresponding failure strain
Mesh size (mm) Failure strain

4 0.6
2 0.9
1 1.3
60
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 6.7 Force-displacement responses with different failure strain. (a): indenter 10 mm; (b): indenter 16 mm; (c):
indenter 20 mm; (d): indenter 30 mm;
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 6.8 Force-displacement responses with different mesh size and corresponding failure strain. (a) indenter 10
mm; (a) indenter 16 mm; (a) indenter 20 mm; (a) indenter 30 mm.
61
The numerical models can just predict the point of fracture. Fracture propagation is still not
predicted in numerical analysis because the length of the element is much larger than the one seen in
experimental results. The element would be deleted from the finite element model if its strain exceeds
the defined failure strain, which is different from the fracture propagation. But the crack appears at the
point of fracture. So, if only considering the crack and water inflow, the force-displacement response
before fracture is enough to predict the impact response.
(1) The critical failure strain is the most important parameter in the numerical simulation, which
depends on the mesh size of the finite elements.
(2) The deformed shape is well predicted by the numerical model. The plate undergoes a large plastic
deformation when the stresses exceed the yield strength, and all further plastic deformation is
concentrated in the impact region. The plate begins to failure locally at the side of impact region, and
then the crack propagates.
(3) The indenter type has strong effects on the failure of plate. The small indenter is easier to break
through the plate, absorbing less energy until fracture.
62
CHAPTER 7 – Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact
CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate

subjected to lateral impact
This chapter summarizes results from experiments and numerical simulations of stiffeners with
attached plate subjected to lateral loads, thus allowing for predicting the absorption of energy during
the impact event. The sensitivity of the incident velocity and the stiffener type is reviewed using the
force-displacement response of the tested specimens. This chapter is summarized from
Villavicencio et.al (2011d).
The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2. The
experimental tests represent a situation in which a partially supported stiffener with attached plate is
struck at the mid-span by a mass travelling with an initial impact velocity. After the impact, the striker is
assumed to remain in contact with the specimen having an initial velocity at the instant of contact and a
common velocity throughout the entire response.
The experimental set up can be seen in Figure 7.1. The design of the specimens (denoted by
Panel A2 and Panel A3) is shown in Figure 7.2. The indenter is a hemispherically ended projectile of
diameter 30 mm which uses a striking mass of 54.0 kg.
Figure 7.1 Experimental set-up
Figure 7.2 Specimens: stiffeners with attached plate
63
The specimens were partially supported, i.e. the edges in the length direction were fully clamped
whereas the edges in the width direction were free (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). The restrained edges were
supported between two thick rectangular steel plates and were compressed by two bolts at each
support. The lower support plates were stiffened by two relatively thick plates, and were fixed to a
strong structural base to prevent their movement. The torque applied to screw the bolts and compress
specimens was measured providing a known clamping force.
The material of the plate and stiffeners is structural carbon steel and its mechanical properties
were obtained by in-house tensile tests using standard tensile specimens and procedures (ASTM
1989). The results of the tensile tests are presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Mechanical properties of the material.
Property Units PL. 4.0 FB 4x25

L 50x50x5
Yield stress MPa 286 367
Ultimate tensile strength MPa 426 488
Rupture stress MPa 322 384
Rupture strain (in 100 mm) - 0.21 0.18
The impact test results are summarized in Table 7.2. The resulting force-displacement responses
are shown in Figure 7.3. It is observed that when the impact velocity increases, larger transverse
displacements and impact forces are developed in both Panel A2 and Panel A3. The initial reacting
forces increase with the impact velocity. The magnitudes of the maximum force, maximum deflection
and permanent deflection are similar between both panels when impacted at the same velocity. The
shapes of the force-displacement responses of Panel A3 show more oscillations than the ones of Panel
A2, especially at the first moment of the impact. The instant change of slope, respectively transition
from plate-stiffener bending to membrane behavior, is less profound in Panel A2, as shown in Figure
7.4.
Table 7.2 Results of impact tests
Values at Peak Force Values at End

Specimen* Force Defln Energy Defln Energy
(kN) (mm) (J) (mm) (J)
A2V2.0 35.7 4.51 110.9 2.34 80.7
A2V2.7 40.4 6.73 200.9 4.43 165.9
A2V3.3 46.6 9.83 350.9 8.08 326.2
A3V2.0 36.3 4.43 110.9 2.75 86.1
A3V2.7 40.5 6.44 200.1 4.30 168.1
A3V3.3 46.9 8.92 326.1 7.10 295.9
*A2 denotes Panel A2 and A3 denotes Panel A3. V denotes the impact velocity (m/s).
64
50 50
Panel A2 Panel A3
3.3 m/s 3.3 m/s
40 40 2.7 m/s
2.7 m/s
2.0 m/s 2.0 m/s
Force [kN]
Force [kN]
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
Figure 7.3 Force-displacement responses
50 Panel A3
40 Panel A2
Force [kN]
30
20
10
2.7 m/s
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement [mm]
Figure 7.4 Force-displacement responses. Panel A2 and Panel A3 impacted at 2.7 m/s
7.3 Numerical model
The model, sketched in Figure 7.5, was computed in LS-DYNA. The plate and stiffener were modeled
in 4-node shell elements with 5-integration points through the thickness. The mesh size was 2.0 mm.
The supported perimeter was constrained in all degrees of freedom. For the striking mass, only the
vertical translation was free, in which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned. The contact
mass-specimen uses nodal normal projections resulting in a continuous contact surface. The selected
material provides a definition of the true stress-strain relationship as an offset table. The striking mass
was modeled as a rigid undeformable material, and since the falling weight assembly was modeled as
a simple hemisphere, an artificially large density was used to give the same mass as the one to use in
the experiments.
Figure 7.5 Details of finite element model
65
This basic finite element model was improved in order to reproduce the experimental plastic response.
Three new models were used (Figure 7.6): One was designed in solid elements and the other two
represented the weld joint using shell and solid elements. The fillet weld cross-section takes the shape
of a triangle and the measured leg length is 4.0 mm.
Figure 7.6 Previous and new finite element models
Specimen A2V2.7 (Table 7.2) was selected to compare the force-displacement responses (Figure 7.7).
The maximum reacting forces are similar in the four numerical models. The ‘Shell’ and ‘Solid’ model
reproduce almost the same response, overestimating the maximum and the permanent deflections.
Although ‘Shell Weld’ model improves the results, the maximum and end displacements are still
overestimated. The ‘Solid Weld’ model has been favorably validated against maximum force and
maximum deflection. However, the permanent deflection is not accurate. Certainly, the real
representation of the weld joint helps to reproduce the experimental response in this model. As a
validation of the ‘Solid Weld’ model, Figure 7.8 shows a good agreement for the whole range of impact
velocities.
50 (3)
(4)
(E)
40
Force [kN]
30
20
10
(1) (2)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement [mm]
Figure 7.7 Force-displacement response, Specimen A2V2.7. (E): Experimental. (1): Shell. (2): Solid. (3): Shell
Weld. (4): Solid Weld.
66
60
50
40
Force [kN]
30 2.0 m/s 2.7 m/s 3.3 m/s
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement [mm]
Figure 7.8 Force-displacement response, Panel A2. Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical results:
continuous lines (Solid Weld model).
The deformed shape and Von Mises stress distribution are shown in Figure 7.9. The three
specimens suffer mainly global deformation. The observed local indentation in the plate thickness is
very small. The maximum stresses occur on the lower surface of the plate opposite the impact point
and on the lower edge of the stiffener. It is noted that the stresses are distributed in the modeled weld
even for low incident energies.
(a) (b)
Figure 7.9 Shape of deformation and von mises stress distribution. Panel A2. (a) Transversal view; (b) Longitudinal
view.
(1) Detailed information of the impact response of stiffeners with attached plate has been obtained
through drop weight impact tests and nonlinear explicit dynamic simulations. The discrepancies
between numerical and experimental results were due to overestimation of the permanent deformation,
whereas the maximum force and maximum deflection were generally very well predicted.
(2) In minor impact events, the stiffener type does not play an important role in the absorption of energy
and in the global deformation. The main influence of the stiffener is observed at the very beginning
impact where the specimen reproduces its stiffness and initial bending.
(3) The numerical simulations of small-scale structural elements require to include the weld joint in
67
order to increase the stiffener resistance and represent a smoother cross-section transition between
the stiffener and the plate.
68
CHAPTER 8 – Conclusions and further work
CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and further work
8.1 Conclusions
This thesis studied the impact strength of structural components, in order to provide the basis for the
studying ship collisions. Experimental and numerical methods were used to analyze the structural
components of ship subjected to lateral impact. Thus, detailed information of the impact response of
structural components was obtained through drop weight impact tests and nonlinear explicit dynamic
simulations.
In the analysis of plastic response of beams, the good agreements obtained between experiments
and simulations result from a correct representation of the boundary condition. The preload force and
the coefficient of friction are the most important parameters in the definition of the representation of the
experimental supports. The force-displacement response is in direct proportion with the impact velocity.
Also, the rebound displacement decreases with the impact velocity. Moreover, the axial displacement
at the supports increases with the impact velocity, and the lateral displacement increases with the axial
displacement using the same velocity.
In the analysis of failure of pre-notched beams, the selection of the mesh size and critical failure
strain by numerical simulation of the tensile tests is valid for numerical simulation of impact tests. Two
basic definitions used in the finite element simulations: model of the supports to represent the
experimental boundary conditions and prediction of the critical failure strain by tensile tests are the
most important parameters obtained from this simple crushing analysis. These parameters are valid in
small-scale structures subjected to impact where such a small mesh size can be defined and full
modeling of the boundary conditions can be performed. These definitions can be applied in complex
structures and to investigate the effects of all the parameters involved in this type of impact analysis.
In the analysis of plastic response of plates, the numerical analysis demonstrated that the results
are insensitive to the mesh size and the type of element. But, the material strain rate has strong effect
on the plastic response of plate. Using the high tensile steel Cowper-Symonds coefficient gives good
agreement in most of the response, especially are the magnitude of the strain rate is higher than the
one that can be obtained for mild steel. The impact response of the plates is similar at the beginning
when using the same indenter at different velocity. But, the indenter type has strong influence on the
impact response of plate. If the contact area is small, such as a sphere, the force decrease and the
displacement increase.
In the analysis of failure of plates, the critical failure strain is the most important parameter in the
numerical simulation, which depends on the mesh size of the finite elements. The deformed shape can
be well predicted by the numerical model. The plate undergoes a large plastic deformation when the
stresses exceed the yield strength, and all further plastic deformation is concentrated in the impact
region. The plate begins to failure locally at the side of impact region, and then the crack propagates.
The indenter type has strong effects on the failure of plate. The small indenter is easier to break
through the plate, absorbing less energy until fracture.
69
CHAPTER 8 – Conclusions and further work
In the analysis of plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate, the differences between
numerical and experimental results were due to overestimation of the permanent deformation, whereas
the maximum force and maximum deflection were generally very well predicted. The main influence of
the stiffener is observed at the very beginning impact where the specimen reproduces its stiffness and
initial bending. The numerical simulations of small-scale structural elements require including the weld
joint in order to increase the stiffener resistance and represent a smoother cross-section transition
between the stiffener and the plate.
All the above analysis studied the plastic response and failure of structural components,
comparing the numerical results with the experimental results. The good results could be obtained if the
material properties are correctly defined and the boundary conditions are correctly simulated. The
simple impact test is a good way to define the material properties which can be used in the analysis of
complex structures.
8.2 Future work
The object of this work is only structural components subjected to lateral impact, and all of them only
have one type of boundary conditions, which are the most important factor in the analysis of impact
strength. There are many works need to do in this research area, and the boundary conditions are also
very hard to simulate in the ship grounding or collision. The analysis of beams and plates subjected to
lateral impact has a big distance with the analysis of ship under grounding or collision. The boundary
conditions of actual collision should be more deeply studied in the future.
The dynamic yield strength is very hard to define the relation with the strain rate in the numerical
simulation and many existing definitions are still not well suit for the experimental results. It need more
work to study the relationship between dynamic yield strength and strain rate, and apply it into the
impact analysis.
Since the impact strength of complex structures requires more attention than the one of stiffened
plates, it is necessary to conduct further experiments and numerical simulations to study their plastic
response and failure propagation.
70
References
References
Alsos HS, Amdahl J. 2009a. On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part I: Experiments.
International Journal of Impact Engineering; 36: 799-807.
Alsos HS, Amdahl J, Hopperstad OS. 2009b. On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part II:
Numerical analysis. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 36: 875-887.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1989. Section 3, Metal tests methods and
analytical procedures.
Bodner SR, Symonds PS. 1962. Experimental and theoretical investigation of the plastic deformation of
cantilever beams subjected to impulsive loading. Journal of Applied Mechanics; 29: 719-728.
Caridis PA, Samuelides E, Frieze PA. 1994. On the dynamic response of ship plating under lateral
impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 15 (2): 149-164.
Chen FL, Yu TX. 2004. An experimental study of pre-notched clamped beams under impact loading.
International Journal of Solid and Structures; 41: 6699-6724.
Cho SR, Lee HS. 2009. Experimental and analytical investigations on the response of stiffened plates
subjected lo lateral collisions. Marine Structures; 22: 84-95.
Cowper GR, Symonds PS. 1957. Strain-hardening and strain-rate effects in the impact loading of
cantilever beams. Technical Report No. 28, Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University,
Providence, RI, USA, September.
Cox AD, Morland LW. 1959. Dynamic plastic deformations of simply-supported square plates. Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids; 7: 229-241.
Dieter GE. 1986. Mechanical behavior under tensile and compressive loads. ASM Handbook; 8:
99-108.
Dimas DM, Guedes Soares C. 2006. Experimental and numerical study of clamped beams under
impact load at a middle span (in Portuguese). Mecânica Experimental; 12: 11-22.
Ehlers S, Broekhuijsen J, Alsos HS, Biehl F, Tabri K. 2008. Simulating the collision response of ship
side structures: A failure criteria benchmark study. International Shipbuilding Progress; 55:
127-144.
Ehlers S, Varsta P. 2009. Strain and stress relation for non-linear finite element simulations.
Thin-Walled Structures; 47 (11): 1203-1217.
Ehlers S. 2010. Strain and stress relation until fracture for finite element simulations of a thin circular
plate. Thin-Walled Structures; 48 (1): 1-8.
Forrestal MJ, Sagartz MJ. 1978. Elastic-plastic response of 304 stainless steel beams to impulse loads.
Journal of Applied Mechanics; 45: 685-687.
Gürkök A. 1981. Plastic beams at finite deflections under transverse load with variable end-constraints.
71
References
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids; 29 (5): 447-476.
Hagiwara K, Takanabe H, Kawano H. 1983. A proposed method of predicting ship collision damage.
International Journal of Impact Engineering; 1 (3): 257-279.
Hallquist JO. 2010. LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Harsoor R, Ramachandra LS. 2009. Influence of notch on the elastic-plastic response of clamped
beams subjected to low velocity impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 36:
1058-1069.
Hodge PG Jr. 1974. Post-yield behavior of a beam with partial end fixity. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences; 16: 385-388.
Jones N. 1971. A theoretical study of the dynamic plastic behaviour of beans and plates with
finite-deflections. International Journal of Solids Structures; 7: 1007-1029.
Jones N. 1973. Influence of in-plane displacements at the boundaries of rigid-plastic beams and plates.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences; 15: 547-561.
Jones N. 1976. Plastic failure of ductile beams loaded dynamically. Transactions of the ASME Journal
of Engineering for Industry; 98 (B1): 131-136.
Jones N. 1989. Structural Impact. Cambridge University Press.
Jones N, Birch RS, Duan R. 2008. Low-velocity perforation of mild steel rectangular plates with
projectiles having different shaped impact faces. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
transactions of the ASME; vol. 130, no. 3.
Lehmann E, Peschmann J. 2002. Energy absorption by the steel structure of ships in the event of
collisions. Marine Structures; 15: 429-441.
Liu J, Jones N. 1987. Experimental investigation of clamped beams struck transversely by a mass.
International Journal of Impact Engineering; 6 (4): 305-335.
Low HY. 1981. Behaviour of a rigid-plastic beam loaded to finite deflections by a rigid circular indenter.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences; 23 (7): 387-393.
Manolakos DE, Mamalis AG. 1985. On ship collisions: The plastic collapse of longitudinally framed
shell plating subjected to oblique loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 3 (1): 41-55.
Menkes SB, Opat HJ. 1973. Broken beams. Journal of Experimental Mechanics; 13, 480-486.
Paik JK. 2007. Practical techniques for finite element modeling to simulate structural crashworthiness
in ship collisions and grounding—Part I: theory. Ships and Offshore Structures; 2(1): 69-80.
Paik JK, Chung JY. 1999. A basic study on static and dynamic crushing behavior of a stiffened tube.
KSAE Transactions, the Korea Society of Automobile Engineers, Seoul, 7(1): 219-238.
Parkes EW. 1955. The permanent deformation of a cantilever struck at its tip. Proceedings of the Royal
Society A; (228): 462-476.
72
References
Parkes EW. 1958. The permanent deformation of an encastré beam struck transversely at any point in
its span. Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers; (10): 277-304.
Peschmann J. 2001. Energy absorption computations of ship steel structures under collision and
grounding. Doctoral Dissertation. Technical University of Hamburg.
Rosand precision impact tester. User manual. Version 1.3.
Rosand precision impact tester. Software manual. Version 1.3.
Shen WQ. 1997. Dynamic response of rectangular plates under drop mass impact. International
Journal of Impact Engineering; 19(3): 207-29.
Shen WQ, Rieve NO, Baharun B. 2002a. A study on the failure of circular plates struck by masses. Part
1: experimental results. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 27: 399-412.
Shen WQ. 2002b. A study on the failure of circular plates struck by masses. Part 2: theoretical analysis
for the onset of failure. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 27: 413-432.
Shen WQ, Wong PS, Lim HC, Liew YK. 2003. An experimental investigation on the failure of
rectangular plate under wedge impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 28: 315-330.
Simonsen BC, Lauridsen LP. 2000. Energy absorption and ductile failure in metal sheets under lateral
indentation by a sphere. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 24 (10): 1017-1039.
Symonds PS, Chon CT. 1974. Approximation techniques for impulsive loading of structures of
time-dependent plastic behaviour with finite-deflections. In Mechanical properties of materials at
high strain rates, Institute of Physics Conference Series, No. 21, pp. 299-316.
Symonds PS, Fleming WT. Parkes revisited. 1984. On rigid-plastic and elastic-plastic dynamic
structural analysis. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2 (1): 1-36.
Tin-Loi F. 1990. Post-yield behavior of a rigid-plastic beam with partial axial and rotational end fixities.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences; 32 (7): 623-630.
Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2009. Response of clamped beams to impact loading along their
length. Proc. 13th Congress of International Maritime Association of Mediterranean, Istanbul,
Turkey; 2: 437-445.
Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2011a. Numerical modelling of the boundary conditions on beams
stuck transversely by a mass. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 38(5): 384-396
Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2011b. Numerical prediction of impact loads in rectangular panels.
Analysis and Design of Marine Structures (MARSTRUCT 2011), Hamburg, Germany, 28-30 March
2011; pp. 399-409
Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2011c. Tensile test simulations for nonlinear failure prediction.
International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering (MARTECH 2011), Lisbon,
Portugal, 10-12 May 2011.
Villavicencio R, Liu B, Guedes Soares C. 2011d. Response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected
73
References
to lateral impact. International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering (MARTECH

2011), Lisbon, Portugal, 10-12 May 2011.
Villavicencio R, Sutherland LS, Guedes Soares C. In press a. Numerical simulation of transversely

impacted, clamped circular aluminium plates. Ships and Offshore Structures.
Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. In press b. Numerical plastic response and failure of a pre-notched
transversely impacted beam. Ships and Offshore Structures.
Wu F, Spong R, Wang G. 2004. Using numerical simulation to analyze ship collision. Proceedings of
the 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Izu, Japan; pp. 27-33.
Yu JL, Jones N. 1989. Numerical simulation of a clamped beam under impact loading. Computer &
Structures; 32 (2): 281-293.
Yu JL, Jones N. 1997. Numerical simulation of impact loaded steel beams and the failure criteria.
International Journal of Solids and Structures; 34 (30): 3977-4004.
Yu TX, Chen FL. 1992. The large deflection dynamic plastic response of rectangular plates.
International Journal of Impact Engineering; 12(4): 605-616.
Zhang L, Egge ED, Bruhns H. 2004. Approval procedure concept for alternative arrangements.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Izu, Japan;
pp. 87-96.
Zhu L, Faulkner D. 1994a. Dynamic inelastic behaviour of plates in minor ship collisions. International
Journal of Impact Engineering; 15 (2): 165-178.
Zhu L, Faulkner D, Atkins AG. 1994b. The impact of rectangular plates made from strain rate sensitive
materials. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 15(3): 245-255.
74

Experimental and Numerical Study On The Impact Strength of Beams and Plates

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Experimental and Numerical Study On The Impact Strength of Beams and Plates

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE IMPACT

STRENGTH OF BEAMS AND PLATES

Thesis for obtaining the degree of Master in

Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

President : Prof. Yordan Ivanov Garbatov

Resumo ................................................................................................................................................... iii

Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... vii

List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... xi

List of tables ........................................................................................................................................... xv

Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................................... xvii

1.1 Overview and background ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives and scope of the work .............................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation .................................................................................... 7

2.1 Material stress-strain relationship .............................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Engineering stress-strain curve ....................................................................................... 7

2.1.2 True stress-strain curve ................................................................................................... 8

2.1.3 Mathematical expressions for the true material curve ..................................................... 9

2.2 Dynamic yield strength ............................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Dynamic fracture strain ............................................................................................................ 12

2.3.1 Failure criteria ................................................................................................................ 12

2.4 Contact-impact algorithm ......................................................................................................... 13

2.4.1 Kinematic constraint method.......................................................................................... 14

2.4.2 Penalty method .............................................................................................................. 14

2.4.3 Initial contact Interpenetrations ...................................................................................... 15

2.4.4 Friction definition ............................................................................................................ 15

2.4.5 Contact automatic surface to surface ............................................................................ 15

2.5 Mesh size ................................................................................................................................. 15

2.6 Simulation of tensile tests ........................................................................................................ 16

2.7 Representation of experimental supports ................................................................................ 19

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact .................................................... 21

3.1 Impact test machine ................................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Impact tester software .............................................................................................................. 22

3.3 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 23

3.4 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 25

3.5 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 27

3.6 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 28

3.7 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 31

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact .............................. 33

4.1 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 33

4.2 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 35

4.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 37

4.3.1 Boundary conditions ...................................................................................................... 38

4.3.2 Material definition using tensile test simulation.............................................................. 38

4.4 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 39

4.5 Comparison with a theoretical analyses .................................................................................. 42

4.6 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 43

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact .................................. 45

5.1 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 45

5.2 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 46

5.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 49

5.3.1 Boundary conditions ...................................................................................................... 49

5.4 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 49

5.4.1 Thin plates...................................................................................................................... 49

5.4.2 Thick plates .................................................................................................................... 53

5.5 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 54

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact ................................. 57

6.1 Experimental details and results .............................................................................................. 57

6.2 Numerical model and results .................................................................................................... 58

6.3 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 62

7.1 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 63

7.2 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 64

7.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 65

7.4 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 66