4.7 Article

Eulerian adaptive finite-difference method for high-velocity impact and penetration problems

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS
卷 240, 期 -, 页码 76-99

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.01.013

关键词

Eulerian solid-dynamics; WENO; Adaptive mesh refinement (AMR); Level-sets; Ghost-fluid method; High-velocity impacts

资金

  1. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-FC52-08NA28613]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Owing to the complex processes involved, faithful prediction of high-velocity impact events demands a simulation method delivering efficient calculations based on comprehensively formulated constitutive models. Such an approach is presented herein, employing a weighted essentially non-oscillatory (WENO) method within an adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) framework for the numerical solution of hyperbolic partial differential equations. Applied widely in computational fluid dynamics, these methods are well suited to the involved locally non-smooth finite deformations, circumventing any requirement for artificial viscosity functions for shock capturing. Application of the methods is facilitated through using a model of solid dynamics based upon hyper-elastic theory comprising kinematic evolution equations for the elastic distortion tensor. The model for finite inelastic deformations is phenomenologically equivalent to Maxwell's model of tangential stress relaxation. Closure relations tailored to the expected high-pressure states are proposed and calibrated for the materials of interest. Sharp interface resolution is achieved by employing level-set functions to track boundary motion, along with a ghost material method to capture the necessary internal boundary conditions for material interactions and stress-free surfaces. The approach is demonstrated for the simulation of high velocity impacts of steel projectiles on aluminium target plates in two and three dimensions. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据