0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

1 visualizzazioni12 paginePenetration into ductile metal targets with rigid spherical-nose rods

Mar 06, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

Penetration into ductile metal targets with rigid spherical-nose rods

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

1 visualizzazioni12 paginePenetration into ductile metal targets with rigid spherical-nose rods

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Copyright ~) 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd

Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0734-743X(95)00005-4 0734 743x/95 $9.50+ 0.00

WITH RIGID SPHERICAL-NOSE RODS

~'Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185-0312, U.S.A. and :~Department of

Mechanical Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A.

Summary We developed penetration equations for rigid spherical-nose rods that penetrate ductile

metal targets. The spherical cavity-expansion approximation and incompressible and compressible

elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive idealizations simplified the target analyses, so we obtained

closed-form penetration equations. We compared predictions from our models with previously

published penetration data and results from Lagrangian and Eulerian wavecodes.

INTRODUCTION

Analytical methods for penetration mechanics began with the work of Bishop et al. El]. They

developed equations for the quasi-static expansions of cylindrical and spherical cavities and

used these equations to estimate forces on conical nose punches pushed slowly into metal

targets. Later, Goodier [2] developed a model to predict the penetration depth of rigid

spheres launched into metal targets. That penetration model [2] included target inertial

effects, so Goodier approximated the target response by results from the dynamic, spherically

symmetric, cavity-expansion equations for an incompressible target material derived by Hill

[3, 4] and Hopkins [5].

In this study, we developed closed-form penetration equations for rigid, spherical-nose

rods that impact ductile metal targets. To obtain closed-form solutions, we idealized the

constitutive target description as incompressible or compressible, elastic-perfectly plastic. In

addition, we used the spherical cavity-expansion approximation I-1,2] that approximates the

two-dimensional target response with equations derived from spherically symmetric, cavity-

expansion analyses. Thus, the spherically symmetric, cavity-expansion equations are used as

an input to the penetration equations.

First, we modified the Goodier penetration model [2] to conform with recent experimental

observations [6, 7] and obtained penetration equations for an incompressible target ma-

terial. Next, we developed closed-form, spherically symmetric, cavity-expansion equations

for a compressible material and obtained penetration equations for a compressible target

material. Finally we compared predictions from our models with previously published

penetration data and results from Lagrangian and Eulerian wavecodes.

Figure 1 shows a post-test, X-ray photograph of a maraging steel, spherical-nose rod in

a 6061-T6 aluminum target [-6]. We observed from Fig. 1 that the projectile nose remained

visibly underformed and that the projectile produced a tunnel in the target about the size of

the shank diameter. We use these observations to formulate our penetration models.

As previously mentioned, we use the spherical cavity-expansion approximation to obtain

closed-form penetration equations. Thus, our procedure begins with spherically symmetric,

cavity-expansion analyses. These cavity-expansion equations are then used as input to our

penetration models.

Cavity expansion

A spherically symmetric cavity is expanded from zero initial radius to radius a in an

incompressible elastic-perfectly plastic material. As shown in Fig. 2, this expansion produces

699

700 M.J. Forrestal et al.

Fig. 1. Post-test, X-ray photograph for a spherical-nose rod with striking velocity 1120 m/s.

Penetration into ductile metal targets 701

~.,~lTY

/ PLASTIC

a b

L "

plastic and elastic response regions. The plastic region is bounded by the radii r = a and r = b,

where r is the radial Eulerian coordinate and b is the interface position between the plastic

and elastic response regions. The radial stress at the cavity surface [2, 3, 5] is given by

[ (2E)] [ - d Z a 3(da~2~

O'r(a)= ~ l+ln -~ +ptLadt-/+ 2\at/ ] (1)

where t is time, E is Young's modulus, Y is the yield stress, and tot is density. The first term in

(1) is called the quasi-static part and the second term is called the dynamic part [2].

Penetration models

Goodier [2] obtained penetration equations for a rigid, spherical projectile. For a rigid

spherical-nose rod, we replace the mass of a sphere with the mass of a spherical-nose rod

given by

m = rra2pp(L + 2a/3) (2)

where pp is the projectile density and L and a are defined in Fig. 3. Goodier [2] used the

spherically symmetric, cavity-expansion equation (1) to approximate axial force on the

projectile nose. For the quasi-static part in (1), he took the radial cavity-expansion stress as

the normal stress on the projectile nose. For the dynamic part, he identified the radius a in (1)

with the projectile radius. In addition, at the tip of the projectile (0 = 0 in Fig. 3), he identified

the velocity da/dt and the acceleration d2a/dt 2 with Vz and dVz/dt, which are the rigid-body

projectile velocity and acceleration, respectively. Because the radial velocity and acceleration

are zero at 0 = ~/2 in Fig. 3, he multiplied the dynamic term in (1) by cos0 as a simple

representation of the expected variation at the projectile-target interface. With the above

assumptions, axial force on the nose of a rigid, spherical projectile [2] is given by

{ [ d'v lt

F z=rta 2 A + p t ~ a ~ + (3a)

702 M.J. Forrestalet al.

For a rigid spherical-nose rod with mass given by (2) and Newton's second law,

+7) dt L + P'axe

(4a)

Collecting terms, we obtain

The second term in the bracket on the left of(4b) corresponds to the second term in the right

side of (4a). For steel projectiles and aluminum targets with L/2a = 5 and 10, the second term

in the bracket on the left side of (4a) gives 0.021 and 0.011, respectively. Thus, we neglect the

second term on the right side of (4a) and obtain

T/I--d-i- = - [A + ptV2]. (5)

Equation (5) is integrated to find the final penetration depth P for a striking velocity Vs. We

obtain

P

-I(pP'~ln 1+ . (6)

(L+2a/3) 2\ptJ

Equation (6) used the cavity-expan6ion approximation proposed by Goodier [2]. How-

ever, we propose a different method for the cavity-expansion approximation. Figure 1 shows

the target in contact with the spherical nose, so we equate the particle velocity in target at the

nose-target interface to the radial velocity produced by the rigid spherical nose. Thus, we

take

da

d--~= vz cos 0. (7)

Equation (7) is the same cavity-expansion approximation used in [6] where details are given

for the determination of force on the projectile nose. The equation for projectile motion is

(8)

(L+2a/3) 3 4A )

where A is given by (3b).

In this section, we obtain spherically symmetric cavity-expansion results for a compress-

ible elastic-perfectly plastic material. We obtain numerical results from the full nonlinear

equations and then develop accurate, closed-form approximations. The closed-form com-

pressible cavity-expansion results are then used as input to our penetration models.

Cavity-expansion

A spherically symmetric cavity is expanded from zero initial radius at constant velocity 1/.

As shown in Fig. 4, this expansion produces plastic and elastic response regions. The plastic

region is bounded by the radii r = Vt and r = ct, where r is the radial Eulerian coordinate, t is

time, and c is the elastic-plastic interface velocity. The radii r = et and r = cdt bound the

elastic region, where cd isJ the elastic dilational velocity.

Penetration into ductile metal targets 703

t

Vt et Cd t

Material in the plastic region is described with a linear, pressure-volumetric strain relation

and the Mises yield criterion. Thus,

p = Kr/= K(1 - Po/P), (10a)

p = 1/3(a r + 2%); a o = cr~ (10b)

O"r -- O"0 = Y (10c)

where p is hydrostatic pressure; K is bulk modulus; ~/is volumetric strain; Po and p are

densities of the undeformed and deformed material; a r, ao, and a4 are the radial, hoop, and

meridian components of Cauchy stress taken positive in compression; and Y is the yield

stress. The elastic region has material properties given by Young's modulus E and Poisson's

ratio v, where E is related to K by E = 3K(1 - 2v).

Equations of momentum and mass conservation in Eulerian coordinates are

Oar 2(at - a0) (0v 0v'],

Or -t - p ~+v (lla)

r Or]

where v is radial particle velocity measured positive outward. For the plastic response region,

Eqns (10a)-(1 lb) are combined to eliminate ao, p resulting in two equations in % v

2Y :po (0v 0q,

0r q r - ( 1 - - t l ) \ 0 t + v & } (12a)

Ov2v --I //O0"r _~f)

Or -t r - K ( 1 - - r / ) ~ - ~ +v ' (12b)

(7r 2Y

r/=K 3K (12c)

S = (Tr/Y, U : u/c, 8 ~- V / c , T = Y/K, J=PoV2/y (13a)

and introduce the similarity transformation

= r/ct. (13b)

With (13a, b), (12a,b) transform to

dU 2U T dS

+ (14a)

d¢ (1 + 2 T / 3 - TS) (~ - U)~-~,

dS 2 fie dS

(14b)

d~ - T(1 + 2 T / 3 - TS) (~ - U ) - ~ ,

fl=c/cp, cp2 = K / p o. (14c)

704 M.J. Forrestal et al.

u ( ~ = e) = e. (15)

The radial stress and particle velocity are continuous at the elastic-plastic interface at ~ = 1

[8], so

T(1 + v)

U(~=I)=U z 3(1-2v)' (16a)

2 2(1 + v) eJ

(16b)

S(¢=1)=52=~ ~ - ~ ) 1.LTr:7_ ) ej, ]J1 / 2

• F(1 - 2 v )

where Ug and S 2 are derived from the equations that govern the elastic response region [9].

First, we solve the full nonlinear equations (14a, b) numerically. For numerical evaluation,

we put the coupled equations (14a, b) in standard forms suitable for the Runge-Kutta

method [8].

2U+2T({-U'~

dU ¢ ~ \l--qJ

d--~: fl2(~-U~ 2-1 ' (17a)

\1-~;

dS j

de fl2(¢--U~ 2 --1 ' (17b)

\l-nj

We select a value offl = c/% and solve for dU/d~, dS/d~ subject to the boundary conditions at

the elastic-plastic boundary (~ = 1) given by (16a, b). The calculations proceed from ~ = 1 to

= e. When the boundary condition at the cavity surface (~ = e) given by (15) is satisfied, we

obtain the value of e = V/c corresponding to the chosen value of fl = c/%.

Next, we obtain accurate, closed-form approximate solutions for the nonlinear equations

(14a, b) with an iterative procedure. Post-analysis calculations showed that r/ is small

compared to unity, so we take (1 - q ) = (1 +2T/3 - TS) as unity. First, set the right side of

(14a) to zero, solve for U, and evaluate the integration constant from (15). The first

approximation for particle velocity is

gO(E) : g3/~ 2. (18a)

Next, substitute (18a) into the right side of (14b), integrate, and evaluate the integration

constant with (16b). The first order approximation for radial stress is

L-~ - 41 ( 2~ ) - 2e + ~ 1 + S 2 (1 8b)

where S 2 is given by (16b) and e is found from the boundary condition at { = 1. From (16a)

and (18a),

V ~(1 + v ) T ~ 1/3

-- c = L~I--~A " (18c)

Our penetration models use radial stress at the cavity surface ~ = e, s o w e write

2 3_~{ 4e e4 4(l+v) e } (19)

S ° ( ~ = e ) = 5 [ 1 - l n e a] + 1 -~-+~-+ 9(1-v~ 1 + [(1-2v)eJ/(1 -v)] 1/z "

Penetration into ductile metal targets 705

We point out that the solutions for U° and So are for an incompressible material in the plastic

response region and a compressible material in the elastic response region.

To include the effects of compressibility in the plastic response region, we proceed by

substituting (18b) into the right side of(14a). The second approximation to particle velocity is

(1-v)T 2T~3 2TeSln¢ t_[ (6 + 464 - 464 67]

UI(~) (1_2v)~2 } ~T-'~(fle) 2 --6-~- ~3-1-~'~ . (20al

For a compressible material in the plastic response region, the interface velocity c(fl = C/Cp)

depends on the cavity-expansion velocity V(fl6 = V/cp). We obtain the equation that relates

c and V from (20a) and the boundary condition (15). Thus,

(1 - v)T + ~ _

1 (~_-2v~ E1 -31n6]

flz _

962 66 (20b)

1- - - + 463 ----

2 2

The second approximation for radial stress is obtained by substituting (20a) into the right

side of (14b) and integrating. Thus

SX(0 = St(0 + SC(~) + B, (21a)

6 -- V)

sr(~): -21n~+JT[(~)(41n~+2+ ({~2v~3)-3\eJ

1(~-'~21

+jZT[(~)(_~+8a_64)_6 f6"~z 3 6 3

S°(0- 2- ~ 3\6J

21n{+(1-Zv)e3J

+J[-I +(6_'~2(L+46_5)_41"6"~31

,~,] ~,62

64

~ ) +.~(~)6]}2, (21C)

[ ~(1--V, 1 ] (! ~)

B, = S 2 - J r ( 2 3~z t-26 - j 2 T +262-

JTZ ( l +v ~ 2

+ ~ \l--(-L-~vvJ (21d)

where $2 is given by (16b).

Our penetration models require radial stress at the cavity surface ¢ = e, so we write

2(1 + v) 6J

Sl(e)-- [1-1n63]-t 3(1-v) l+[(1-2v)eJ/(1-v)] 1/2

- v) 5-4v'] 1 5

+ J T ( _ ~v~3 ~/~e 2 +41ne + ~ - 26

2 2 27 + 86-262-64 + ~ ] }

+J e2 e 5

JT2 ~ (l--v)

t- 21n6-~+ J ~-~+46-

2 [(1-2v)~ 3

+ \l (22a)

~ - - v ~ J ; = ~2 { 1 + 1 n [ 3 ( 1 _ v,d} (22b)

706 M.J. Forrestalet al.

Penetration models

To obtain closed-form penetration equations for the compressible models, we curve-fit

results from the compressible cavity-expansion models with

O'r(e) BsPt V2 (23)

y -As-~ y

where As and B s depend only on the target material properties. As is given by (22b), so only B s

is adjusted to fit the cavity-expansion results. We give values of B s for the cavity-expansion

models in the next section. From [7], penetration depth is given by

P (Pp/Pt) In 1 + (24)

( L + 2 a / 3 ) = Bs 2\As]\ Y /J"

CAVITY-EXPANSION N U M E R I C A L RESULTS

We present numerical results for 6061-T651 aluminum targets with v = l / 3 ,

E = K = 69.0 GPa, Y = 340 MPa, and Pt = 2710kg/m3. The yield stress Y was taken as an

approximation to the stress-strain data [7] for true strains to 0.8. Figures 5 and 6 present

results from cavity-expansion models. Figure 5 gives the elastic-plastic interface velocity

c versus the cavity-expansion velocity V. The zeroth order and first order solutions were

calculated from (18c) and (20b), respectively. For large values of V in the full nonlinear

solution, the interface velocity c approaches (K/po) ~/2, which is the interface velocity for the

I

iii ... - -

l 2.0 // .-""

0 / ""

II .."

8.0

//¢/ /

~/ --- f i r s t order

¥ -- f u l l nonlinear

0 " 0 . 0 . . . . . . . I .0 .i0" 3 .0

. . . . . . . . . 4.0 5.0

(p0/Y) 1/2 V

40.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •

/

- - incompressible ,' //

---- S0(~°), z e r o t h order , / ,

30.0 - -- St(~l), first order , / //,'~

• / • /

- - full nonhnear , //,~//

so(~) , /;~.(/"

°

I 0.0 ~.~

(po/Y) 1/2 V

Penetration into ductile metal targets 707

elastic-plastic, one-dimensional strain problem [10]. Figure 6 shows radial stress at the

cavity surface versus cavity-expansion velocity. The incompressible results were calculated

from (1) with a constant cavity-expansion velocity, so da/dt = Y and d2a/dt 2 = 0. The zeroth

order solution given by (18c) and (19) takes the elastic region as compressible and the plastic

region as incompressible. The first order solution given by (20b) and (22a) is an exact,

compressible solution for the elastic region and an approximate, compressible solution for

the plastic region. The S°(e ~) solution in Fig. 6 is given by (19) and (20b); that is, we use the

zeroth order equation for radial stress and the first order solution for the elastic-plastic

interface velocity. Figure 6 shows that the full nonlinear solution is bracketed closely by

S°(e ~) and S~(s~), which indicates that a reasonably accurate approximation for the interface

velocity c is required as the cavity-expansion velocity V increases.

ANALYTICAL M O D E L C O M P A R I S O N S W I T H P E N E T R A T I O N DATA

AND WAVECODE SIMULATIONS

In this section, we compare predictions from our analytical model with previously

published penetration data [6, 7] and predictions from Lagrangian [ 11, 12] and Eulerian

[13, 14] wavecodes.

Spherical-nose, maraging steel rods were launched to striking velocities Vs between

350 and 1200m/s into 6061-T651 aluminum targets [6,7]. These rods had density

pp = 8000kg/m 3, shank length L = 71.12 mm, nose radius a = 3.55 mm, and nominal mass

0.0235 kg. Figure 7 shows penetration data and predictions from our analytical models that

take the target as an incompressible and compressible material. We calculated the incom-

pressible target predictions from (3b) and (9). For the compressible target predictions, we

used the cavity-expansion results that corresponded to S°(el), s l ( e l ) , and the full nonlinear

solution. Results from these three calculations showed that penetration depth predictions

using S°(e 1) and Sl(e 1) bracketed closely the penetration depth predictions using the full

nonlinear solution. The results from S°(e ~) and S~(e ~) were within one percent of the

penetration depth predicted by using the full nonlinear, cavity-expansion results for

Vs = 1200 m/s. Thus, for our compressible-target, penetration-depth predictions, we used the

cavity-expansion predictions from S°(e ~) ((19) and (20b)) as input to (24). As previously

mentioned, we curve-fit results from the compressible cavity-expansion models with (23). In

(23), A s is given by (22b), so only B s is adjusted to fit the cavity-expansion results in Fig. 6. For

S°(e 1) in Fig. 6 we take B s = 1.04.

/

=0.0 /

CompressibleModel //J

IncompressibleModel / / /

• Data, [6] /~

/

2

• Data, [7] / J /

/ •

P

(L+2aJ3)

1

/:

0 ' I ' ' I ' [ I ' I ' I

V s (m/s)

Fig. 7. Analytical model predictions neglecting sliding frictional resistance and penetration data.

708 M.J. Forrestal et al.

Figure 7 shows that predictions from the incompressible target model are in close

agreement with the penetration data. By contrast, the more detailed, compressible target

model increasingly overpredicts penetration depth as striking velocity increases. We specu-

late from previous work [6] that the results of Fig. 7 neglect a tangential stress on the

projectile nose resulting from sliding frictional resistance. In [6], the authors took photomic-

rographs of the material adjacent to the tunnel (see Fig. 1) of some targets. These photomic-

rographs showed that a 5-15#m layer normal to the tunnel surface had undergone

microstructural changes that strongly suggested a thin melted region of the aluminum target.

With this limited information, the authors [6] assumed a tangential stress on the nose o- t

proportional to the normal stress a r and took

a t = #a, (25)

where # is the sliding friction coefficient. With both normal and tangential stress components

on the projectile nose, penetration resistance increased [6, 7]. To include the effects of sliding

frictional resistance [6, 7], replace As and Bs in (24) with -4s and/3s given by

As = (1 + rc#/2)As (26a)

with # = 0 and 0.10 and penetration data. With # = 0.10, model predictions agree well with

penetration data. Since we only speculate on the effect of sliding friction and have no

laboratory data for # with large sliding velocities and large normal stresses, we also compare

results of our analytical model with wavecode predictions. Figure 9 shows predictions from

our compressible, analytical model and finite-element simulations calculated by Hallquist

[11] and Chen [12]. Similarly, Fig. 10 shows predictions from our compressible, analytical

model and finite-difference simulations calculated by McGlaun et al. [13] and Silling [14].

Figures 9 and 10 show good agreement between the three prediction methods, and Fig. 8

shows good agreement with penetration data.

3-

/

Model, p = 0.0 / /

Model, P=O.I / /

/ /

• Data, [6] / / /

• Data, [7] / / /

2

P

(L+2-a/3~

//

/ / /

0 i i t i , i • i

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

V s (m/s)

Fig. 8. Compressible analytical model predictions that include and neglect sliding frictional resis-

tance and penetration data.

Penetration into ductile metal targets 709

p_= 0.1

_ _ AnalyticalModel /

P

(L+2a/3)

0

0 200 400 eoo 800 1000 1200 1400

Vs (m/s)

Fig. 9. Compressible analytical model predictions and Lagrangian wavecode simulations that

include sliding frictional resistance.

~t = 0 . 0 6 /

AnalyticalModel /

(L+2a/3)

V s (m/s)

Fig. 10. Compressible analytical model predictions and Eulerian wavecode simulations that include

sliding frictional resistance.

We developed a closed-form, experimentally verified penetration model. The model is in

good agreement with penetration data for an assumed sliding friction coefficient of # = 0.10.

Lagrangian and Eulerian wavecode solutions are also in good agreement with our compress-

ible, analytical penetration model for sliding friction coefficients of # = 0.10 and # = 0.06,

respectively.

We also point out a similarity of our work and the computational studies for eroding rods

published by Anderson et al. [15, 16]. Radial stress at the cavity surface for an incompressible

target (1) has a quasi-static term independent of cavity-expansion velocity. However, the

corresponding first term in (22a) for a compressible target depends on e, which, in turn,

depends on the cavity expansion velocity.

Acknowledgement This work was supported by the DoD/DOE Munitions Technology Program.

710 M.J. Forrestal et al.

REFERENCES

1. R.F. Bishop, R. Hill and N. F. Mott, The theory of indentation and hardness. Proc. Roy. Soc. 57, Part 3, 147 159

(1945).

2. J. N. Goodier, On the mechanics of indentation and cratering in solid targets of strain-hardening metal by

impact of hard and soft spheres. Proc. 7th Symposium on Hypervelocity Impact III, pp. 215 259. AIAA, New

York (1965).

3. R. Hill, Atheoryofearthmovementnearadeepundergroundexplosion. MemoNo.21 48, Armament Research

Establishement, Fort Halstead, Kent, U.K. (1948).

4. R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Oxford University Press, London (1950).

5. H. G. Hopkins, Dynamic expansion of spherical cavities in metals. Progress in Solid Mechanics, Vol. 1,

Chapter III (Edited by I. N. Sneddon and R. Hill). North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, New York (1960).

6. M.J. Forrestal, K. Okajima and V. K. Luk, Penetration of 6061-T651 aluminum targets with rigid long rods.

J. Appl. Mech. 55, 755 760 (1988).

7. M.J. Forrestal, N. S. Brar and V. K. Luk, Penetration of strain-hardening targets with rigid spherical-nose rods.

J. Appl. Mech. 58, 7-10 (1991).

8. W.H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky and W. T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes, the Art of Scientific Com-

puting. Cambridge University Press, New York (1989).

9. M. J. Forrestal and V. K. Luk, Dynamic spherical cavity-expansion in a compressible elastic plastic solid.

J. Appl. Mech. 55, 275-279 (1988).

10. P. C. Chou and A. K. Hopkins, Dynamic Response of Materials to Intense Impulse Loading, p. 68. Air Force

Material Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, U.S.A.

11. J. O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA2D, an explicit two-dimensional hydrodynamic finite element code with interactive

rezoning and graphical display. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, U.S.A. (1990).

12. E. P. Chen, Numerical simulation of penetration of aluminum targets by spherical-nose steel rods. Theoretical

and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 22, 159-164 (1995).

13. J. M. McGlaun, S. L. Thompson and M. G. Elrick, CTH: a three-dimensional shock wave physics code. In. J.

Impact Engng 10, 351-360 (1990).

14. Private communication from S. A. Silling, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185-0820,

U.S.A.

15. C. E. Anderson and J. D. Walker, An examination of long-rod penetration. Int. J. Impact Engng 11,481 501

(1991).

16. C. E. Anderson, J. D. Walker and G. E. Hauver, Target resistance for long-rod penetration into semi-infinite

targets. Nuclear Engng Design 138, 93-104 (1992).

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.