Adaptive Multiscale Modeling and Simulation for Munitions Simulations* Progress Report - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 14
About This Presentation
Title:

Adaptive Multiscale Modeling and Simulation for Munitions Simulations* Progress Report

Description:

Adaptive Multiscale Modeling and Simulation for Munitions Simulations* Progress Report PIs: Jacob Fish and Mark S. Shephard Post-docs: Gal Davidi, Caglar Oskay – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:89
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 15
Provided by: Jacob194
Learn more at: https://scorec.rpi.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Adaptive Multiscale Modeling and Simulation for Munitions Simulations* Progress Report


1
Adaptive Multiscale Modeling and Simulation for
Munitions SimulationsProgress Report
  • PIs Jacob Fish and Mark S. Shephard
  • Post-docs Gal Davidi, Caglar Oskay
  • Students Zheng Yuan, Rong Fan

AFRL support leveraged by support from NSF, ONR
and General Motors
2
Roadmap of Developments
  • Assessment of commercial code capabilities
  • Mesh sensitivity studies (Gal Davidi)
  • Validation studies (Rong Fan)
  • Fragmentation capabilities for metals
  • Homogenization based approach (Gal Davidi)
  • Integration of homogenization in ABAQUS (Zhen
    Yuan)
  • PUM based (Zhen Yuan and Rong Fan)

3
Roadmap of Developments (cont)
  • Fragmentation capabilities for composites
  • Reduced order methodology (Oskay)
  • Validation studies (Oskay)
  • Integration in ABAQUS
  • Multiscale Enrichment based PUM
  • Applications

4
Fragmentation in MetalsExperimental setup
The experimental parameters considered Steel
target plate DH36 steel 3/16 inch thick 6 inch
diameter Impact velocity In the range
between 920 ft/sec. Backing material
Polyurea 0.215 inch Impactor non-deformable
5
Experiment vs ABAQUS simulation (without backing)
Mises stress (without backing)
Equivalent plastic strain (without backing)
6
Experiment vs SimulationDH36
7
Drawbacks of commercial software
  1. Cost of 3D simulations (4 days for 21
    layer-model, r-adaptivity)
  2. Mesh dependency of both 3D and shell models

3.00E05
3D models (4-8 layers)
2.50E05
2.00E05
1.50E05
Fine (160)
1.00E05
Coarse (80)
Very Coarse (40)
5.00E04
0.00E00
0
0.00005
0.0001
0.00015
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0004
0.00045
8
Remedy Multiscale Enrichment
  • Global (structure) Enrichment
  • Enrich the kinematics of the global mesh with
    failure characteristic (delamination, shear
    banding, fragmentation) characteristic computed
    on the local patch
  • For computational efficiency
  • Local (material) Enrichment
  • Embed discontinuities (strong or weak) into
    material (micromechanical) model
  • For regularization of failure models

9
Global Enrichment (MEPU)
Better
(Superposition)
(Domain decomposition)
10
Global Enrichment (metals)3D simulations
300
DH36 ERC (3D-21 layers)
250
MEPU
200
Velocity of Impactor (m/s)
150
100
50
0
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
Time (s)
11
Local Enrichment (metals)(in progress)
  • Calculate discontinuity direction at each Gauss
    point
  • Align the RVE local coordinate system with one of
    the axis normal to the localization plane
  • Develop a 3-point RVE model as follows

Constrained RGB
Gauss point
Constrained periodicity
Shell
master
12
Impact Fragmentation of composites
  • Phenomenological
  • Advantages
  • Fast
  • Disadvantages
  • Reliability
  • Experiments architecture
  • dependent
  • Direct Homogenization
  • Advantages
  • Reliability
  • Architecture independent Exp.
  • Disadvantages
  • Computationally formidable
  • Eigendeformation-based Reduced Order
    Homogenization

13
Validation Tube Crush Experiment
  • Experiments by Oak Ridge (Starbuck et al.)
  • Impact Velocity 4000 mm/sec
  • Microstructure Woven composite

14
Model Validation (composites)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com