Dynamic Stress Analysis of the effect of an Air Blast Wave on a Stainless Steel Plate

by Brian Cabello A Project Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved: _________________________________________ Professor Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Hartford, Connecticut May, 2011

 Copyright 2011 by Brian Cabello All Rights Reserved

CONTENTS
LIST OF SYMBOLS ..................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... 1 1 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND....................................................................................... 2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 3 2.1 AIR BLAST WAVES ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 DETONATIONS ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 AIR BLAST WAVES ............................................................................................. 4 2.1.3 PRESSURE-TIME DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................... 5 2.1.4 MAXIMUM/MINIMUM PRESSURE..................................................................... 6 2.1.5 IMPULSE ................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.6 NEGATIVE PHASE ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.7 WAVE FORM PARAMETER................................................................................. 8 2.1.8 SHOCK FRONT VELOCITY ................................................................................. 9 2.1.9 SPECIFIC HEAT RATIO ........................................................................................ 9 2.2 TNT-METHOD .................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS ................................................................................... 12 3 METHODOLOGY/APPROACH........................................................................................... 13 3.1 ABAQUS MODELING APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUES .................................... 14 3.2 ANALSIS TYPES ........................................................................................................... 15 3.3 MATERIAL MODEL ..................................................................................................... 15 4 5 6 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 16 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 18 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................ 20

LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol r W, WTNT WHC ta td tn, tneg pmax p0 pmin pr d I u c0 cp cv V p TH Eng. Unit meter kg kg sec sec sec Pa Pa Pa Pa N/A meter Pa-sec m/sec m/sec kJ/kg K kJ/kg K m3 N/A Kelvin Description Radius of explosion TNT equivalent of the explosion Mass of hydrocarbons The arrival time The positive phase duration The duration of the negative phase The peak overpressure The reference pressure The maximum negative pressure The reflected overpressure Ratio of specific heat of air Distance of the centre of the charge Impulse of the air blast wave Shock front velocity Sound velocity Specific heat at constant pressure Specific heat at constant volume Total volume of the congested region Effective plastic strain Homologous Temperature

ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0 Blast wave propagation Figure 2.0 Pressure-time curve for a free air blast wave Figure 3.0 Model of Kingery [4] with scaled distances Figure 4.0 Different parameters for the negative phase Figure 5.0 Peak explosion pressure (side-on) vs. distance for TNT ground burst Figure 6.0 Peak explosion pressure (side-on) vs. distance for TNT equivalent method Figure 7.0 Plate Boundary Condition Figure 8.0 Blast Source Figure 9.0 Element Mesh Figure 10.0 Displacement of Top/Bottom Center Surface for Various Weight Charge Figure 11.0 0.5kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec Figure 12.0 1.0kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec Figure 13.0 2.0kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec Figure 14.0 3.0kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec

iii

KEYWORDS
Blast Wave Detonations Pressure Time Distribution Impulse Negative Phase Shock Front Velocity TNT Method Abaqus Finite Element Method Dynamic stress analysis CONWEP Johnson-Cook Flow Stress Model

iv

ABSTRACT
In this report I analyzed the effect of a blast loading on a Stainless Steel Plate. The Dynamic analysis was performed using the Abaqus explicit finite element program. Solutions were computed up to 1.5 milliseconds, where no further permanent deformation was observed for all load values. The modeling of the blast was implemented using the blast modeling software CONWEP (Conventional Weapons Effects), which is an empirically based loading model within Abaqus. The report identified key areas needed for the modeling a CONWEP blast load. The property of the blast load was specified using the incident wave interaction property and the CONWEP charge property at the model level and the incident wave interaction at the step level. The different weight charges used for the analysis were 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kg TNT. The Johnson-Cook flow stress model was used for the computation of the deformation due to the impulse loading produced by the explosive detonation. Plots were created to show maximum deflection of the plate under these loads. Calculations show that the Stainless Steel plate was permanently deformed with 1, 2, 3 kg TNT charges but that it withstood elastically the 0.5 kg TNT.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

A bomb explosion within or immediately nearby a building can cause catastrophic damage on the buildings external and internal structural frames, collapsing of walls and blowing out of large pieces of structure. Loss of life and injuries to occupants can result from many causes, including direct blast-effects, structural collapse, debris impact, fire and smoke. Due to the threat from such extreme loading conditions, efforts have been made during the past three decades to develop methods of structural analysis and design to resist blast loads. The analysis and design of structures subjected to blast loads require a detailed understanding of blast phenomena and the dynamic response of various structure elements. An explosion is a rapid release of stored energy characterized by a bright flash and an audible blast. Part of the energy is released as thermal radiation (flash); and part is coupled into the air as air blast and into the soil (ground) as ground shock, both as radially expanding shock waves. The rapid expansion of hot gases resulting from the detonation of an explosive charge gives rise to a compression wave called a shock wave, which propagates through the air. The blast wave instantaneously increases to a value of pressure above the ambient atmospheric pressure. This is referred to as the positive phase that decays as the shock wave expands outward from the explosion source. After a short time, the pressure behind the front may drop below the ambient pressure. A schematic representation of these processes is shown in Figure 1.0. During such a negative phase, a partial vacuum is created and air is sucked in. This is also accompanied by high suction winds that carry the debris for long distances away from the explosion source.

Figure 1.0 Blast wave propagation [3] As the shock wave travels outward from the charge, the pressure in the front of the wave, called the peak pressure, steadily decreases. At great distances from the charge, the peak pressure is infinitesimal, and the wave can be treated as a sound wave. 1

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

This project will focus on the analysis of how different blast loading (shock wave) affects a plate of High Ductility Stainless Steel Alloy (Al-6XN). The specimen will consist of a 0.305 m x 0.305 m x 0.061 m plate. The solid plate is modeled with three-dimensional continuum elements and is subjected to CONWEP blast loading [12] using different charge masses (0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kg TNT).

2.1 Air Blast Waves 2.1.1 Detonations

Explosions can be distinguished in detonations and deflagrations. The difference between detonations and deflagrations is the velocity of the reaction zone in the explosive. Deflagrations have a slower reaction zone than the sound speed. Examples for deflagrations are the burning of gas-air-mixtures and slow explosives like gun powder. Detonations have a faster reaction zone than the sound speed. The most common explosives react with detonations. To compare different explosive the TNT equivalent can be used. The TNT equivalent is a method for quantifying the energy released in the detonation of an explosive substance, by comparing it to that of an equal quantity of TNT. It is known that 1 kg TNT releases the energy of 4.520x106 J. The effects of an explosion can be distinguished in three ranges: Contact detonation: The explosive is in contact with the loaded material. The load-time function depends on the loaded material, which, in most cases, is destroyed. Occurrences are the blasting of concrete (demolition etc.) or terrorist attacks where the explosive is located directly on the structure. Near zone of the explosion: In most cases the material is also directly damaged like in the contact zone. Far zone. The blast wave resulting from the detonation dominates the effects on humans and structures. The size of all these zones depends on the quantity of the explosive charge.

Additional parameters for a detonation, depending on the size of the explosive, can be defined. For example, the radius in which debris from the explosion (not from the blast wave) are possible is give by Kinney [5] as
1

45W 3

(1)

Where, r is expressed in m and W is the TNT equivalent of the explosive in kg. 2.1.2 Air Blast Waves The pressure that arrives at a certain point depends on the distance and on the size of the explosive.

Figure 2.0 Pressure-time curve for a free air blast wave [5] The main characteristics of the development of this pressure wave are the following: The arrival time ta of the shock wave to the point under consideration. This includes the time of the detonation wave to propagate through the explosive charge. The peak overpressure pmax The pressure attains its maximum very fast (extremely short rise-time), and then starts decreasing until it reaches the reference pressure p0 (in most cases the normal atmospheric pressure). The positive phase duration td, which is the time for reaching the reference pressure. After this point the pressure drops below the reference pressure until the maximum negative pressure pmin. The duration of the negative phase is denoted as tn. The incident overpressure impulse, which is the integral of the overpressure curve over the positive phase td. 3

The idealized (free air blast) form of the pressure wave of Figure 5.0 can be greatly altered by the morphology of the medium encountered along its propagation. For instance, peak

pressure can be increased up to 8 times if the wave is reflected on a rigid obstacle. The effects of the reflection depend on the geometry, the size and the angle of incidence. By setting =1.4 (ratio of specific heats of air), it can be shown that the reflected overpressure pr is

pr

2 p max

7 po 4 p max 7 p0 p max

(2)

All parameters of the pressure time curve are normally written in terms of a scaled distance
Z
3

d W

(3)

where W is the mass of the explosive charge and d the distance of the centre of the charge. 2.1.3 Pressure-Time Distribution There are several pressure-time-curves for different kinds of explosions. The effects of nuclear explosions here should be disregarded. The pressure at a known point can be described by the modified Friedlander equation (from Baker [6]) and depends on the time t from the arrival of the pressure wave at the time (t = t0-ta)

p(t )

p0

t pmax(1 ) td

bt td

(4)

The other parameters involved are the atmospheric pressure p0, the maximum overpressure pmax and the duration of the positive pressure td. The parameter b describes the decay of the curve. It can be calculated with a known minimum pressure after the positive phase. Alternatively, the parameter b can be calculated with the knowledge of the impulse. All parameters for the pressure-time curve can be taken from different diagrams and equations (Baker [6], Kinney [5], Kingery [4]) See Figure 6.0.

Figure 3.0 Model of Kingery [4] with scaled distances 2.1.4 Maximum/Minimum Pressure Kingery [4] developed in 1984 curves for the description of the different air blast parameters by using a rich body of experimental data, which had been properly homogenized. 5

The parameters are presented in double logarithmic diagrams with the scaled distance Z as abscissa, but are also available as polynomial equations. These diagrams and equations enjoy the greatest overall acceptance and are widely used as reference by most researchers. The

parameters are also implemented in different computer programs that can be used for the calculation of air blast wave values. e.g. they are implemented in CONWEP. The same curves are also used for an easy air blast load model in ABAQUS. 2.1.5 Impulse The impulse of the air blast wave has a big influence on the response of the structures. The impulse is defined here as the area under the pressure time curve with the unit of pressure*sec. The impulse can be calculated with [5].
I 0.067 1 ( Z / 0.23) 4 Z 2 3 1 ( Z / 1.55 ) 4

(5)

2.1.6 Negative Phase Detonations produce an overpressure peak, and afterwards the pressure decreases and drops below the reference pressure (generally the atmospheric pressure). The influence of the so-called negative phase depends on the scaled distance. For scaled distances Z larger than 20 and especially for Z larger than 50 the influence of the negative phase can not always be neglected. The size of the positive impulse and of the negative impulse is then nearly the same. If the structure can react successfully to the positive pressure but is more sensitive to negative pressure, failure of parts of the structure can result from this negative pressure phase [8]. However, in several cases the negative phase is neglected e.g. in the air blast function of the CONWEP-Code. Smith [7] presents the following equation to calculate the value of the negative pressure.
pmin 0.35 5 10 Pa for Z > 1.6 Z

(6)

The duration time of the negative pressure pmin can be calculated with

tn

0.00125 W

1 3

[sec]

(7)

Another possibility to get these parameters in a diagram (see Figure 7.0) in Krauthammer [xx]. By using this diagram the limitation of equation (7) can be overcome by assuming
pmin 0.35 5 10 Pa for Z > 3.5 Z 6

(8)

pmin

0.35 5 10 Pa for Z < 3.5 Z

(9)

The duration of the negative phase in the diagram of Krauthammer can be described with the following function

tneg tneg tneg

0.0104 W

[sec]
1 3

for Z < 0.3 [sec] for Z < 0.3 & Z 1.9 for Z > 1.9

(10)

(0.003125 log(Z ) 0.01201) W 0.0139 W

1 3

[sec]

Figure 4.0 Different parameters for the negative phase [5] 2.1.7 Wave Form Parameter The decay or form parameter b in the Friedlander equation (4) describes the decay of the pressure-time curve. The Friedlander equation has the parameters pmax, td, and b. pmax and td can be readily found as explained before. There are several possibilities to calculate the decay parameter b by using another known value of the pressure-time curve: 1. Using the minimal pressure in the negative phase. Then, as it will be shown, the impulse of the positive phase is not accurate.

2. Using the impulse of the positive phase. Then, as it will be shown, the minimal pressure in the negative phase is not accurate. An additional equation for the negative phase should be used to avoid a smaller underpressure than the atmospheric pressure. 2.1.8 Shock Front Velocity The arrival time of the shock front at different points can be used to calculate the velocity of the shock front. With the knowledge of this velocity the pressure can be obtained with the Rankine Hugoniot relationship. Kingergy [4] calculates also the shock front velocity depending on the pressure as

u c0 (1

1 pmax 12 ) 2 po

(11)

The parameter (ratio of specific heats of air) depends also on the overpressure and can be taken from a table in [9]; c0 is the sound velocity in air (331 m/sec); pmax is the peak overpressure and p0 is the atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa). 2.1.9 Specific Heat Ratio The specific heat ratio is defined as

cp cv

(12)

with cp being the specific heat at constant pressure and cv the specific heat at constant volume. Both the specific heat ratio and the speed of sound depend on the temperature, the pressure, the humidity, and the CO2 concentration. Kingery [4] defines the variation of the specific heat ratio with a range of 1.402 to 1.176. 2.2 TNT-Method The diagram for TNT detonations (Figure 8.0) have been used for estimations of blasts from gas explosions, even though there are differences between the blasts from a gas explosion and a TNT-detonations (Shepherd et al., 1991, van den Berg, 1985). In a gas explosion the local pressure may reach values as high as a few bars. The blast pressure for TNT explosions is much higher close to the charge. Such near-field data are therefore irrelevant for gas explosions and it is recommended not to use TNT-data indicating pressures higher than 1 bar to estimate gas explosion blasts.

Figure 5.0 Peak explosion pressure (side-on) vs. distance for TNT ground burst [4] The so-called TNT equivalence method has been widely used for gas explosions. The TNT equivalence method applies pressure-distance curves for TNT explosions to gas explosions and the equivalent TNT charge is estimated from the energy content in the exploding gas cloud. For typical hydrocarbons, such as methane, propane, butane etc., the heat of combustion is 10 times higher than the heat of reaction of TNT. The relation between the mass of

hydrocarbons WHC and the equivalent TNT charge WTNT is then

WTNT 10 * * WHC

(13)

where h is a yield factor ( = 3%-5%), based on experience, see Gugan, 1978. In the original TNT equivalence method, the mass of hydrocarbon WHC was based on the total mass released and the yield factor . In order to estimate consequences of gas explosions, the geometrical conditions (i.e. confinement and obstructions) have to be taken into account. In the original TNT equivalence method, the geometrical conditions are not taken into account. The results from this type of analysis have therefore hardly any relevance and should in general not be used. The drawbacks of the TNT equivalence method can be listed as follows: a non-unique yield factor is necessary representation of weak gas explosions is a problem positive phase duration only gas explosion processes are not represented well choice of "blast centre" is problematic (no well-defined and sensible method exists) 9

In order to take the geometrical effects into account in the TNT equivalence method, Harris and Wickens (1989) proposed to use a yield factor of 20% ( = 0.2) and the mass of hydrocarbon, WHC, contained in Stoichiometric proportions in any severely congested region of the plant. For natural gas the equivalent mass of TNT can be estimated from (assuming atmospheric pressure initially)
WTNT 0.16V [kg]

(14)

where V [m3] is the smaller of either the total volume of the congested region or the volume of the gas cloud. Equation 14 will also hold for most hydrocarbons, since the energy content per volume Stoichiometric mixture is approximately the same (~3.5MJ/m3). Figure 9.0 shows the results from a TNT equivalent analysis, as suggested by Harris and Wickens, in comparison with CMR's experimental results from 50 m3 tests.

Figure 6.0 Peak explosion pressure (side-on) vs. distance for TNT equivalent method [4] As we can see from this figure there is fairly good agreement between the predicted values and the experimental values as long as the explosion pressure in the cloud is in a few bars range. Weak gas explosions (less than 0.5 bar) are not represented satisfactorily. This indicates that the TNT equivalence method can be useful as a rough approximation if one uses a yield factor of 20% and appropriate values for WHC or V. However, for explosion pressures below 1 bar, the TNT equivalence method will overestimate the blast. More sophisticated methods must therefore be applied for such cases.

10

2.3

Computational Methods Computational methods in the area of blast-effects mitigation are generally divided into

those used for prediction of blast loads on the structure and those for calculation of structural response to the loads. Computational programs for blast prediction and structural response use both first-principle and semi-empirical methods. Programs using the first principle method can be categorized into uncouple and couple analyses. The uncouple analysis calculates blast loads as if the structure were rigid and then applying these loads to a responding model of the structure. The shortcoming of this procedure is that when the blast field is obtained with a rigid model of the structure, the loads on the structure are often over-predicted, particularly if significant motion or failure of the structure occurs during the loading period. For a coupled analysis, the blast module is linked with the structural response module. In this type of analysis the computational fluid mechanics (CFD) model for blast-load prediction is solved simultaneously with the computational solid mechanics (CSM) model for structural response. To account for the motion of the structure while the blast calculation proceeds, the pressures that arise due to motion and failure of the structure can be predicted more accurately by using ABAQUS, AUTODYN, DYNA3D AND LS-DYNA.

11

METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The boundary conditions for the analysis will have all degrees of freedom including the rotational degrees of freedom fixed at the top and bottom side of the plate (Figure 2.0).

Fixed Boundary Condition

Figure 7.0 Plate Boundary Condition The 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kg TNT blast source (RP-1) is kept at a standoff distance of 0.20 m from the front surface and center of the plate (Figure 3.0). The plate surface uses a 31 x 31 C3D8R element with five layers of elements through the thickness of the plate (Figure 4.0).

12

Blast Source

Figure 8.0 Blast Source

Figure 9.0 Element Mesh 3.1 Abaqus modeling approaches and simulation techniques This project demonstrates the usage of CONWEP blast loading using Abaqus. The solid plate is modeled using three-dimensional continuum elements and subjected to CONWEP blast loads due to 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kg of TNT. 13

Summary of analysis cases Case 1 Solid plate modeled with C3D8R continuum elements under 0.5 kg TNT blast load. Case 2 Solid plate modeled with C3D8R continuum elements under 1.0 kg TNT blast load. Case 3 Solid plate modeled with C3D8R continuum elements under 2.0 kg TNT blast load. Case 4 Solid plate modeled with C3D8R continuum elements under 3.0 kg TNT blast load. 3.2 Analysis Types Dynamic analysis using Abaqus is performed for all cases. Solutions are computed up to 1.5 milliseconds, where no further permanent deformation is observed for all load values. 3.3 Material Model The mechanical properties of the steel alloy as described in Nahshon [11] are specified as follows: Youngs modulus of 1.61 x 105 MPa, Poissons ratio of 0.35, density of 7.85 x 10-9 metric tons/mm3, and coefficient of expansion of 452 x 106 Nmm/metric tons,K. A Johnson-Cook model [13] is used to model the elasticplastic behavior with the following coefficients and constants: A=400 MPa, B=1500 MPa, C=0.045 , n=0.4, m=1.2, and p0=0.001 s-1. The Johnson-Cook model is a phenomenological model, i.e. it is not based on traditional plasticity theory that reproduces several important material responses observed in impact and penetration of metals. The three key material responses are strain hardening, strainrate effects, and thermal softening.
Y

( p , p , T ) [ A B( p )n ](1 C ln * 1 (T )m ] p )[

(15)

Where

is the equivalent plastic strain, p is the plastic strain-rate, and A, B, C, n, m are

material constants. The normalized strain-rate and temperature in equation (15) are defined as

* p
T*

p p0
(T T0 ) (Tm T0 )

(16)

(17)

Where p 0 is a user defined plastic strain-rate, T0 is a reference temperature, and Tm is a reference melt temperature. For conditions where T * < 0, we assume that m = 1.

14

DISCUSSION

The center displacement after 1.5 milliseconds was monitored to compare each case with experimental results. The animation of the deformed plate over the entire time period of 1.5 milliseconds shows large deformation at the center. The plate stabilizes after few oscillations. The top surface center deflection and the bottom surface center deflection were quite close to each other. The two values were plotted (Figure 10.0) for each case to compare the midsection deflection of the solid plate.

Figure 10.0 Displacement of Top/Bottom Center Surface for Various Weight Charge

15

Figure 11.0, 0.5kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec

Figure 12.0, 1.0kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec

Figure 13.0, 2.0kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec 16

Figure 14.0, 3kg TNT Charge at 1.5 millsec

CONCLUSION

This report describes the results of dynamic stress analysis of the effect of a blast loading on a Stainless Steel Plate using the finite element method. The solid plate was a high ductility stainless steel alloy (Al-6XN) comprised of 49% Fe, 24% Ni, 21% Cr, and 6% Mo by weight. Solutions were computed up to 1.5 milliseconds, where no further permanent deformation was observed for all load values. The mechanical behavior of the material of the plate was

represented by Johnson-Cook Flow Stress Model and the blast wave modeling was represented by the CONWEP model. All calculation were carried out using Abaqus explicit. The different weight charges used for the analysis were 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kg TNT and the maximum displacement at various charges weights were 7.14 mm, 14.64 mm, 27.47 mm, and 55.86 mm respectively. Results show that the plate was permanently deformed for the 1, 2, and 3 kg TNT charges and that it deformed elastically for the 0.5 kg TNT charge with a maximum deflection of 0.4 mm at 1.5 millisec.

17

REFERENCES

[1] Dobratz, B.M and Crawford, P.C., "LLNL Explosives Handbook", UCRL-52997 Rev.2 January 1985 [2] Longinow, Anatol and Alfawakhiri, Farid, Modern Steel Construction, Blast Resistant Design with Structural Steel, October 2003. [3] Remennikov, Alexander M. Journal of battlefield technology, A review of methods for predicting bomb blast effects on buildings, Vol 6, no3. Pg 155-161. 2003. [4] Kingery, Charles N.: Bulmash, Gerald: Airblast Parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface Burst, Defense Technical Information Center, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 1984. [5] Kinney, Gilbert F.; Graham, Kenneth J.: Explosive Shocks in Air, Springer, Berlin, 1985. [6] Baker, Wilfrid E.: Explosions in the Air, University of Texas Pr., Ausint, 1973. [7] Smith, P.D.; Hetherington, J.G.: Blast and Ballistic Loading of Structures. Laxtons 1994. [8] Krauthammer, T.; Altenberg, A.: Negative phase blast effects on glass panels, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 24 (1), pp. 1-18; 2000. [9] Kingery, C.N.; Pannill, B.F.: Parametric Analysis of the Regular Reflection of Air Blast, BRL Report 1249, June 1964 (AD 444997). [10]Dharmasena, K. P., H. N. G. Wadley, Z. Xue, and J. W. Hutchinson, Mechanical Response of Metallic Honeycomb Sandwich Panel Structures to High-Intensity Dynamic Loading, Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 35, pp. 10631074, 2008. [11]Nahshon, K., M. G. Pontin, A. G. Evans, J. W. Hutchinson, and F. W. Zok, Dynamic Shear Rupture of Steel Plates, Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, vol. 210, pp. 20492066, December 2007. [12] Conventional Weapons Effects (ConWep, 1991), is a computer programme, based on the content of technical manual TM 5-855-1 (1986) Fundamentals of protective design for conventional weapons, Structural Laboratory, Waterways Experimental Station, for the Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers. [13] Johnson, G.R.; Cook, W.H. (1983), "A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high", Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics: 541547,

18

7 7.1 Abaqus Input Files (Hyperlink)

APPENDIX

..\02 Abaqus Modeling\Input Files\Result_05TNT.inp ..\02 Abaqus Modeling\Input Files\Results_1TNT.inp ..\02 Abaqus Modeling\Input Files\Results_2TNT.inp ..\02 Abaqus Modeling\Input Files\Results_3TNT.inp

19