In this example the Johnson-Holmquist-Beissel and the
Johnson-Holmquist material models are explored to investigate the penetration
velocity of a gold projectile impacting on a silicon carbide target. The
computed results are compared with published results given by Holmquist and
Johnson (2005).
The following
Abaqus
features are demonstrated:
using the Johnson-Holmquist-Beissel
(JHB) and the Johnson-Holmquist
(JH-2) ceramic material models, which are
available in
Abaqus/Explicit
as built-in user materials, to study the high-velocity impact of a silicon
carbide target;
achieving a similar material response for ceramics with proper
calibration of the Drucker-Prager plasticity and the equation of state
functionality in
Abaqus/Explicit;
and
comparing numerical results with published results.
Ceramic materials are commonly used in armor protection applications. In
recent years Johnson, Holmquist, and their coworkers have developed a series of
constitutive relations to simulate the response of ceramic materials under
large strain, high-strain rate, and high-pressure impacting conditions.
Geometry
The initial configuration is shown in
Figure 1.
Both target and projectile are of cylindrical shape. The silicon carbide target
has a radius of 7.5 mm and a length of 40 mm. The gold projectile has a radius
of 0.375 mm and a length of 30 mm.
Materials
The target material is silicon carbide. This material is very hard and
mainly used under compressive load conditions and can only sustain very little
tension. Typical applications include bulletproof vests and car brakes due to
its high endurance. The strength has a dependence on pressure. In high-speed
impact applications, damage to the material plays an important role in the
evolution of the strength. The totally failed silicon carbide will not sustain
any load. The projectile is gold, which is soft compared to the target
material.
Initial conditions
An initial velocity of 4000 m/s is prescribed for the projectile.
Interactions
The projectile will penetrate into the target due to the high-speed impact.
Abaqus modeling approaches and simulation techniques
Three cases are investigated, each using a different approach to model the
silicon carbide material: the first case uses the
JHB material model, the second uses the
JH-2 model, and the third case uses a
combination of several
Abaqus
options to obtain a similar constitutive model within a more general framework.
The Lagrangian description is used for both projectile and target. General
contact with surface erosion is used for all three cases. Element deletion and
node erosion are considered. A tonne-millimeter-second unit system was chosen
for all simulations.
Summary of analysis cases
Case 1
JHB
(built-in user material)
Case 2
JH-2
(built-in user material)
Case 3
Combination of Drucker-Prager plasticity,
equation of state, and Johnson-Cook rate dependence
The sections that follow discuss the analysis considerations that are
applicable to all cases.
Analysis types
An
Abaqus/Explicit
dynamic analysis is used for all the simulations. The total duration for the
penetration process is 7 μs.
Mesh design
An 11.5° slice of the cylinders is modeled. There are five elements along
the radial direction of the projectile. The element size along the radial
direction for the target is nearly the same as for the projectile. Due to the
large radius ratio between the projectile and the target, there are 343,980
elements for the target and 2000 elements for the projectile.
Figure 2
shows part of the meshes used for the analysis.
Materials
The different material models used for the silicon carbide target are discussed in detail in
subsequent sections. The JHB and
JH-2 models are available as built-in user
materials for Abaqus (i.e., via VUMAT subroutines that
are built-in). These built-in materials are invoked by using material names
starting with ABQ_JHB and
ABQ_JH2, respectively. For descriptions of
the ceramic material models, see “Analyzing ceramics with the Johnson-Holmquist
and Johnson-Holmquist-Beissel material models” in the Dassault Systèmes
Knowledge Base at http://support.3ds.com/knowledge-base/.
The material for the projectile is gold. The density is 19,240
kg/m3. The shear modulus is 27.2 GPa. The hydrodynamic behavior is
described by the Mie-Grüneisen equation of state. The linear
Hugoniot form is used. The parameters are
= 2946.16 m/s,
= 3.08623, and
= 2.8. The strength is 130 MPa described as a perfect plasticity. A ductile
damage initiation criterion with the equivalent plastic strain of 0.2 at the
onset of damage is used. The fracture energy is chosen as 0 for the damage
evolution.
Initial conditions
Initial velocity conditions of 4000 m/s are specified for all the nodes of
the projectile in the axial direction toward the target.
Boundary conditions
All the nodes on the symmetry axis, which is set up as the global
x-direction, can move only along this axis, so zero
velocity boundary conditions are prescribed for both the
y- and z-directions. To satisfy the
axial symmetry boundary conditions, a cylindrical coordinate system is
established. The circumferential degrees of freedom for all the nodes on the
two side surfaces except the nodes on the symmetry axis of both the target and
the projectile are prescribed with zero velocity boundary conditions. The nodes
on the non-impacting end of the target are fixed along the axial direction.
Interactions
General contact is used to model the interactions between the projectile and
the target. The interior surface of both the target and the projectile is
included to enable element removal.
Analysis steps
There is only one explicit dynamic analysis step, during which the
penetration takes place.
Output requests
In addition to the standard output identifiers available in
Abaqus,
the solution-dependent state variables described in
Table 1
and
Table 2
are also available for output for the JHB and
JH-2 models, respectively.
Constitutive models for ceramic materials under high-velocity
impact
This section provides a detailed description of the different constitutive
models for ceramic materials that are used to model the silicon carbide target
for each of the cases considered.
Case 1: Johnson-Holmquist-Beissel model
This case uses the JHB model for the
silicon carbide target. The JHB material
parameters for silicon carbide given in Holmquist and Johnson (2005) are used
in this study. They are listed in
Table 3.
The JHB model consists of three main
components: a representation of the deviatoric strength of the intact and
fractured material in the form of a pressure-dependent yield surface, a damage
model that transitions the material from the intact state to a fractured state,
and an equation of state (EOS) for the
pressure-density relation that can include dilation (or bulking) effects as
well as a phase change (not considered in this study).
Strength
The strength of the material is expressed in terms of the von Mises
equivalent stress, ,
and is a function of the pressure, ,
the dimensionless equivalent strain rate,
(where
is the equivalent plastic strain rate and
is the reference strain rate), and the damage variable,
().
For the intact (undamaged) material, ,
whereas
for a fully damaged material.
For a dimensionless strain rate of ,
the strength of the intact material ()
takes the form
where
and ,
,
,
and
are material parameters. The strength of the fractured material
()
is given by
where
and ,
,
and
are material parameters.
The intact and fractured strengths above are for a dimensionless strain
rate of .
The effect from strain rates is incorporated by the Johnson-Cook strain rate
dependence law as ,
where
is the strength corresponding to .
Plastic flow is volume preserving and is governed by a Mises flow potential.
Damage
The damage initiation parameter, ,
accumulates with plastic strain according to
where
is the increment in equivalent plastic strain and
is the equivalent plastic strain to fracture under constant pressure, defined
as
where
and
are material constants and
and .
The optional parameters
and
are provided for additional flexibility to limit the minimum and maximum values
of the fracture strain.
The JHB model assumes that the material
fails immediately,
when .
For other values of ,
there is no damage ()
and the material preserves its intact strength.
Pressure
The equations for the pressure-density relationship without phase change
are used in this study and are listed here.
where .
In the above, ,
,
and
are constants (
is the initial bulk modulus);
is the current density; and
is the reference density. The model includes the effects of dilation or bulking
that occur when brittle materials fail by including an additional pressure
increment, ,
such that
The pressure increment is determined from energy considerations as
where
is the current value of
at the time of failure and
is the fraction of the elastic energy loss converted to potential hydrostatic
energy (
). The bulking pressure is computed only for failure under compression
().
Case 2: Johnson-Holmquist model
The second case uses the JH-2 model. Unlike
the JHB model, the
JH-2 model assumes that the damage variable
increases progressively with plastic deformation. The material parameters used
for the JH-2 model are listed in
Table 4.
The JH-2 model similarly consists of three
components.
Strength
The strength of the material is expressed in terms of the normalized von
Mises equivalent stress as
where
is the normalized intact equivalent stress,
is the normalized fractured equivalent stress, and
is the damage variable. The normalized equivalent stresses
(,
and )
have the general form ,
where
is the actual von Mises equivalent stress and
is the equivalent stress at the Hugoniot elastic limit
(HEL). The model assumes that the normalized
intact and fractured stresses can be expressed as functions of the pressure and
strain rate as
The material parameters are
and the optional limits for the strengths
and .
The normalized pressure is defined as ,
where
is the actual pressure and
is the pressure at the .
The normalized maximum tensile hydrostatic pressure is
,
where
is the maximum tensile pressure that the material can withstand.
Damage
The damage initiation parameter, ,
accumulates with plastic strain according to
where
is the increment in equivalent plastic strain and
is the equivalent plastic strain to fracture under constant pressure, defined
as
The JH-2 model assumes that the damage
variable increases gradually with plastic deformation by setting
.
Pressure
The equations for the pressure-density relationship are similar to the
JHB model.
where .
The model includes the effects of dilation or bulking that occur when brittle
materials fail by including an additional pressure increment,
,
such that
The pressure increment is determined from energy considerations as
where
is the fraction of the elastic energy loss converted to potential hydrostatic
energy ().
Case 3: Drucker-Prager model
We use a calibrated Drucker-Prager plasticity model and an equation of
state to obtain a material behavior that is similar to that of the
JH-2 model. In this way we are not confined to
follow the specific expressions and, subsequently, the material parameters of
the JH models. The calibration of the
Drucker-Prager plasticity model and the equation of state is described below.
Strength
We use the general exponent form of the extended Drucker-Prager model
(Extended Drucker-Prager Models)
which, after some manipulations, can be written as follows:
We have replaced
with
and
with
to be consistent with the symbols used in the
JH-2 models. This expression is very similar
to that of the intact strength of the JH-2
model
Comparing these two expressions, the equations to calibrate the material
parameters in the Drucker-Prager model can be obtained as
After substituting the values for silicon carbide in
Table 4,
we find a = 3.920173 × 10−3 MPa
and b = 1.53846. After obtaining the material parameters
and ,
the uniaxial compression yield stress, ,
can be calibrated by solving the following equation.
For this silicon carbide,
= 6605.66 MPa. The Johnson-Cook type rate dependence can also be used together
with the Drucker-Prager plasticity model.
Damage
The ductile damage initiation criterion in
Abaqus
(Damage Initiation for Ductile Metals)
can be calibrated to reproduce the damage criterion used in the
JH-2 damage model. The ductile criterion
requires the specification of the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of
damage as a function of the stress triaxiality. Along the intact strength curve
of the JH-2 model, the stress triaxiality is
given as
Given ,
the damage evolution relation for the JH-2
model gives the following expression for the pressure :
Substituting this expression into the stress triaxiality expression, we
finally obtain the functional relationship between
and the stress triaxiality needed for the ductile damage initiation criterion.
An additional consideration when specifying the damage initiation criterion for
the Drucker-Prager plasticity model is that the definition of the equivalent
plastic strain is different from that used in the
JH-2 model. The two are related by the
following plastic work statement:
In summary, we specify some sampling points for
and calculate the corresponding pressure
and, in turn, the intact strength
for the JH-2 model. We calculate the stress
triaxiality using these
and
values. We convert the
values into
through the above plastic work statement. In this manner, we finally obtain a
table of data pairs for the equivalent plastic strain at damage initiation and
the stress triaxiality for the Drucker-Prager model.
Pressure
The Mie-Grüneisen equation of state (Mie-Grüneisen Equations of State)
is used to describe the hydrodynamic behavior of the silicon carbide material.
The linear
Hugoniot form is used. Without the energy contribution
(
= 0.0), the pressure is expressed as
where .
Using a Taylor expansion with respect to ,
the linear and quadratic coefficients of the polynomial can be identified as
and
in the pressure density relation for the JH-2
model, which gives
We solve for the parameters
and .
The values are
= 8272.2 m/s and
= 1.32.
Discussion of results and comparison of cases
The penetration depths from the three models and the published results in
the reference by Holmquist and Johnson (2005) at 3 μs, 5 μs, and 7 μs are
listed in
Table 5.
All results from the three models match the published results well. Especially,
the results obtained with the Drucker-Prager model are in satisfactory
agreement with all other results obtained with the
JH models. The final configurations for the
JHB, JH-2,
and Drucker-Prager models are shown in
Figure 3,
Figure 4,
and
Figure 5,
respectively. The wave propagation results can be improved by increasing the
angle of the wedge.
Holmquist, T. J., Johnson, G.
R., “Characterization and Evaluation of Silicon
Carbide for High-Velocity Impact,” Journal of Applied Physics,
vol. 97, 093502, 2005.
Johnson, G. R., Holmquist, T.
J., “An
Improved Computational Constitutive Model for Brittle
Materials,” High Pressure Science and Technology–1993, New
York, AIP Press, 1993.
Tables
Table 1. Solution-dependent state variables defined in
JHB model.
Output variables
Symbol
Description
SDV1
Equivalent plastic strain PEEQ
SDV2
Equivalent plastic strain rate
SDV3
Damage initiation criterion
SDV4
Damage variable
SDV5
Pressure increment due to bulking
SDV6
Yield strength
SDV7
Maximum value of volumetric strain
SDV8
Volumetric strain
SDV9
Material point status: 1 if active, 0 if failed
Table 2. Solution-dependent state variables defined in
JH-2 model.
Output variables
Symbol
Description
SDV1
Equivalent plastic strain
PEEQ
SDV2
Equivalent plastic strain rate
SDV3
Damage initiation criterion
SDV4
Damage variable
SDV5
Pressure increment due to bulking
SDV6
Yield strength
SDV7
Volumetric strain
SDV8
Material point status: 1 if active, 0 if failed
Table 3. Material parameters for JHB
model.
Line 1
3215 kg/m3
193 GPa
4.92 GPa
1.5 GPa
0.1 GPa
0.25 GPa
0.009
1.0
Line 2
0.75 GPa
12.2 GPa
0.2 GPa
1.0
Line 3
FS
0.16
1.0
999
0.2
Line 4
220 GPa
361 GPa
0 GPa
Line 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 4. Material parameters for JH-2
model.
Line 1
3215 kg/m3
193 GPa
0.96
0.65
0.35
1.0
0.009
1.0
Line 2
0.75 GPa
1.24
0.132
11.7 GPa
5.13 GPa
1.0
Line 3
FS
lDamage
0.48
0.48
1.2
0.0
0.2
0
Line 4
220 GPa
361 GPa
0 GPa
Table 5. Results comparison with the reference results.