Computational Simulation of Blast Effects on Structural Components

Daniel G. Linzell
Associate Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering

Lyle N. Long
Distinguished Professor Aerospace Engineering

Abner Chen
Ph.D. Candidate Civil and Environmental Engineering

Emre Alpman
Postdoctoral Researcher Aerospace Engineering

Acknowledgements
z

Office of Naval Research Penn State University Applied Research Lab

APCI

Objectives
z

Detailed coupled gas/chemistry simulations of detonations Large scale simulations of pressure loadings using time-accurate CFD Fluid/structure simulations under blast/impact loadings Coating materials to help make structures blast/impact resistant polyurea

Background Blast resistant materials (polyurea)

z Polyurea
z Introduced by Texaco in 1989 z Known Advantages vs. Polyurethanes (traditional coatings) z Applications
z DoD Civil Infrastructure z DoD other apps
Army/Navy Spray on armor (Humvees) Navy Ship hulls (U.S.S. Cole) Rail cars Water storage tanks Chemical plant infrastructure

z Other Civil Infrastructure

Sources:
PCI: http://www.pcimag.com/CDA/Archives/779f754db76a7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0 DefenseReview.com: http://www.defensereview.com/article502.html, Polymer Materials for Structural Retrofit, Knox et al., AFRL

Background Blast resistant materials (polyurea)

z

DoD applications Polyurea

z z z z z

Untreated stud wall

AFRL ERDC-WES Army Navy Pentagon

z Retrofit

Coated with polyurea

Public domain?

Source: Polymer Materials for Structural Retrofit, Knox et al., AFRL; Army Times

Blast Simulation CFD Method

z z z z

Unstructured-grid, time-accurate Euler code Finite volume, Runge-Kutta time marching Code is called PUMA2 Has been in use at Penn State for many years, thoroughly validated on a wide range of problems

Blast CFD - Assumptions

z z z

75 lbs. of TNT Explosive is spherical in geometry Uniform explosion

Blast CFD - Initial Pressure Profile

Initial Pressure Profile
160000 140000 120000 100000

p/p 0

80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

r/R

Blast CFD - Pressure History

P ressure H istories at D ifferent Locations
10000

1000

100

r = 1m r = 0.5m r = 0.2m

P (atm)

10

1 0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 t (sec) 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004 0.00045 0.0005

Blast CFD PUMA2 Comparisons to ConWep

Blast CFD - Simulations Including Steel Plate

z z z

Plate Dimensions (60in by 60in) 75 lbs. of TNT Plate located approx 3 ft away from the explosive

Blast CFD - Loading History at Plate Center

Loading History at the Center of the Plate
1000

100

P (atm)

10

0.1

0.01 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006

t (sec)

Background Fluid/structure simulations

z z

Commercial codes Interaction

z

Loosely coupled

z z

Mechanisms behind protection? Parameters to control performance?

3-D

Focus Areas fluid/structure interaction

z

Numerical fluid/structure program

z z z z

Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing

Experimental fluid/structure program

z z

Fluid/structure interaction
z

Numerical fluid/structure program

z z z z

Material models via literature Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing

Experimental fluid/structure program

z z

Material model - Steel

z

Steel (AISI 4340)

z

Johnson-Cook material model (Kurtaran and Eskandarian, 2003) A=66.7, B=100.4, n=0.26, C=0.014, and m=1.03

= A+B
pl

& )][ ( ) ][1 + Cln( 1 T

pl n *

*m

: equivalent plastic strain : normalized plastic strain rate

&*
*

T Troom T = Tmelt Troom

Material model - Polyurea

z
z

Polyurea (APCI)
Mie-Gruneisen equation of state (Fuentes 2006)
A hydrodynamic material model A function of density and internal energy

P PH = ( E m E H )
0 = 0
0 : material constant

: reference density

PH EH = 2 0
0C0 PH = (1 s ) 2
2

0 = 1
C0 and s are material constants

Numerical program
z z z

Abaqus - Explicit LS-Dyna PUMA2

Fluid/structure interaction
z

Numerical fluid/structure program

z z z z

Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing

Experimental fluid/structure program

z z

Numerical analysisABAQUS and LS-DYNA

Pressure time-history of the impact load

6.0E+004 5.0E+004

4.0E+004 Pressure (psi)

3.0E+004

2.0E+004

1.0E+004

0.0E+000 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 Time (sec) 0.01 0.012

Displacement
0.5 ABAQUS LS-DYNA 0

Displacement (in)

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 Time (sec) 0.01 0.012

Von Mises Stress

1.4x10
5

1.2x10

Von Mises Stress (psi)

1.0x10

8.0x10

6.0x10

4.0x10

2.0x10

ABAQUS LS-DYNA

0.0x10

0.002

0.004

0.006 0.008 Time (sec)

0.01

0.012

Internal energy
Comparison of internal energy for mesh size 1"x1"x1" LS-DYNA ABAQUS 1E+005

8E+004 Internal Energy (lb-in)

6E+004

4E+004

2E+004

0E+000 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 Time (sec) 0.01 0.012

Fluid/structure interaction
z

Numerical fluid/structure program

z z z z

Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing

Experimental fluid/structure program

z z

Numerical program Comparison of PUMA2 & ConWep

z z z

FEM program: LS-DYNA Steel plate: 60x60x0.25 Steel (AISI 4340)

z

Johnson-Cook material model literature, no failure criterion PUMA2 CFD code (complex spatial and temporal loading) ConWep (Blast function provided in LS-DYNA)

Load
z z

Background
z

CFD code, PUMA2

z z

Solve Euler equations Neglect viscous effect U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station Empirical model

Blast function (ConWep)

z z

Configuration of the model

Comparison of displacements
0 -2 PUMA2 ConWep

z-displacement (in)

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12 0 0.002 0.004 Time (s) 0.006 0.008

Comparison of von Mises stress

180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 0.002 0.004 Time (s) 0.006 0.008 PUMA2 ConWep

V-M stress (psi)

Fluid/structure interaction
z

Numerical fluid/structure program

z z z z

Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing

Experimental fluid/structure program

z z

Numerical program Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading

z z

Steel plate: 60x60x0.25 Thickness of coating: 0, 0.25, 0.5 Steel (AISI 4340) z Johnson-Cook material model Polyurea (Air Products) z Mie-Gruneisen Equation of State Load: PUMA2 CFD code (complex spatial and temporal loading)

Numerical program Steel plate without polyurea

Numerical program Steel plate with 0.25 thick polyurea

Numerical program Steel plate with 0.5 thick polyurea

Deflection at the center

20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.000 No coating 0.25" polyurea 0.5" polyurea

Displacement (in)

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Time (s)

Kinetic energy
9.E+06 Kinetic energy (lbf-in) 8.E+06 7.E+06 6.E+06 5.E+06 4.E+06 3.E+06 2.E+06 1.E+06 0.E+00 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 No coating 0.25" polyurea 0.5" polyurea

Time (s)

Current focus areas numerical program

z

Sensitivity analyses
z z

Model construction Constitutive model selection Polyurea (e.g. viscous or crushable foam vs. M-G) Coated plate Pressure, temperature, impact Relevant loading regimes Membrane action - polyurea Interface failure - polyurea and steel

Numerical failure mode prediction

z z z

Failure criteria prediction

z z

Fluid/structure interaction
z

Numerical fluid/structure program

z z z z

Material models Comparison of ABAQUS and LS-DYNA Comparison of PUMA2 and ConWep Effect of polyurea on steel plate under blast loading Material properties Validation testing

Experimental fluid/structure program

z z

Experimental program
z

Material properties
z

Characterization steel and polyurea

Validation Testing
z

Impact and/or Blast

z Coated and uncoated z Varying coating thickness

Locations
z PSU CITEL z Others

Coupon testing - Steel

ASTM E8 Extensometer - displacement

Results stress vs. strain

120000 100000

True stress (psi)

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

True strain (in/in)

Material constants for JC model

z

Using a least squares fitting method

z z

Material constant A = 66.7 (ksi) Material constant B = 100.4 (ksi)

= A+B

& )][ ( ) ][1 + Cln( 1 T

pl n *

*m

Current focus areas experimental program

z z z

Coupon testing Polyurea (APCI) Validation testing specimen prep Validation testing determination and matrix development

Summary

Questions?
Contact Info
z

Linzell
DLinzell@engr.psu.edu

Long
lnl@psu.edu