SANDIA REPORT

SAND2018-9205
Unlimited Release
Printed August 2018

An Evaluation of Different Plasticity and

Failure Laws in Simulating Puncture in
7075-T651 Aluminum
Nathan Bieberdorf, Zachary Towner, Neal B. Hubbard, and Dr. Walter Gerstle

Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550

Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated

by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy's
National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.

Sandia National Laboratories

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by
National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC.

NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any
warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise,
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The
views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government, any agency thereof, or any oftheir contractors.

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best
available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from

U.S. Department ofEnergy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Telephone: (865)576-8401
Facsimile: (865)576-5728
E-Mail: reports@osti.gov
Online ordering: http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available to the public from

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5301 Shawnee Rd
Alexandria, VA 22312

Telephone: (800)553-6847
Facsimile: (703)605-6900
E-Mail: orders@ntis.gov
Online order: https://classic.ntis.gov/help/order-methods/

2
 SAND2018-9205
Printed August 2018
Unlimited Release

An Evaluation of Different Plasticity and Failure

Laws in Simulating Puncture in 7075-T651
Aluminum
Nathan Bieberdorf and Zachary Towner
Dept. 1556, Component Science & Mechanics
Sandia National Laboratories
P. O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0346

Neal B. Hubbard
Dept. 9432, Weapon Analysis
Sandia National Laboratories
P. O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0405

Dr. Walter Gerstle

Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering
MSCO1 1070
1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1070

Abstract
In this work, various material models were studied for their ability to simulate puncture
in a thin aluminum 7075-T651 plate due to low-velocity probe impact. Material models were
generated by mixing and matching various work hardening laws with different failure criteria,
and several hybrid material models were investigated. Finite element simulations of aluminum
impact-response, based on each material model, were employed to predict the energy required
for puncture and final plate tear-out geometry. Probes of different size and shape were used to
impose various loading regimes, and numerical predictions were compared to experimental
results from a previous study. It was found that no single combination of hardening and failure
laws yielded universally accurate data, but that several material models could be used more
reliably than others. Further, the importance of obtaining unique parameter-sets for work-
hardening and failure criteria was illustrated.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 7
2. Constitutive Model and Failure Criteria 9
2.1. Constitutive Modeling 9
2.1.1. Multilinear Elastic-Plastic Hardening(MLEP) 9
2.1.2. Johnson-Cook Hardening 9
2.2. Failure Criteria 10
2.2.1. Wellman Tearing Parameter 10
2.2.2. Johnson-Cook Damage 10
2.2.3. Additional Failure Criteria 11
3. Finite Element Modeling 13
3.1. Fracture Energy for Varying Element Size 13
3.2. Geometry and Mesh Generation 14
3.3. Finite Element Solver 15
4. Results and Discussion 17
4.1. Energy Absorption 17
4.1.1. Experimental Results 17
4.1.2. Finite Element Model Results 17
4.2. Failure Geometry 20
4.2.1. Flat 0.25 inch Probe 20
4.2.2. Flat 1.00 inch Probe 21
4.2.3. Corner 1.00 inch Probe 23
5. Conclusions 25
References 26

4
 FIGURES

1. Aluminum 7075-T651 Coupon 8

2. Probe Types in Puncture Analysis:(a) Flat 0.25",(b)Flat 1.00",(c) Corner 1.00" 8
3. Geometry and Mesh for 7075-T651 Plate and F0250 Probe 15
4. Kinetic Energy Time Response and Probe/Plate Interaction 17
5. Puncture Energy Predictions from Different Material Models for Each Probe 18
6. Kinetic Energy Time Response for Johnson-Cook Material Models from Corona [4] and
Brar [11] 19
7. Experimental Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F0250 Probe 20
8. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F0250 Probe using Johnson-Cook(Corona)/
Strain Energy Density Material Model 21
9. Experimental Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F1000 Probe 21
10. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F1000 Probe using Johnson-Cook(Corona)/
Strain Energy Density Material Model 22
11. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F1000 Probe using Johnson-Cook(Corona)/
Wellman Tearing Material Model 22
12. Experimental Tear-out Geometry Prediction for C1000 Probe 23
13. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for C1000 Probe using Johnson-Cook(Corona)/
Stress Material Model 23
14. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for C1000 Probe using Johnson-Cook(Corona)/
Stress Material Model at Onset of Regime 2 24

TABLES

1. Parameters for Constitutive Laws, Failure Criteria, and General Properties 12

2. Experimental Results from Probe-Plate Puncture Simulations 17

5
 NOMENCLATURE

Abbreviation Definition
6 Stress
63, Yield stress
EP Plastic strain, average
*E Strain rate, current
.8o Strain rate, reference
T Temperature, current
Tref Temperature, reference
Tmelt Temperature, melting
B,N,M Johnson-Cook plasticity model parameters
ie Fraction of plastic work converted to heat
p Mass density
cv Specific heat
D Damage
Ef Strain, failure
Cf * Stress triaxiality
D1 - Ds Johnson-Cook damage model parameters
tP Wellman tearing parameter
a1 Stress, maximum principle
CTm Stress, hydrostatic
m Tearing parameter exponent
Es Fracture energy
Ys Free surface energy
a Crack length
Fu Ultimate force
0-
. Ultimate stress
UCTOD Crack tip opening displacement
ECCOS Critical crack opening strain
sd Death steps
At Simulation time step

6
1. INTRODUCTION
Efforts in numerical modeling at the continuum scale have lead towards a wide range of
phenomenologically derived constitutive models which capture material response as a function
of displacements, loading rates, temperatures, and other inputs. These models are sometimes
generated from homogenizing interactions at low length scales to bridge up to macro-scale
effects. However, more readily available models with simple bulk-scale parameterization often
yield predictions of adequate fidelity for engineering applications.

One such application is understanding the safety and security conditions required for U.S.
nuclear stockpile stewardship, where minor errors in routine maintenance procedures have led to
nearly catastrophic loss of weapon control, also known as "broken arrow" incidents. For
instance, the Damascus, Arkansas, Titan II ICBM explosion in 1980 initially resulted from a
technician dropping a socket wrench attachment, which struck a fuel tank that leaked and
eventually ignited. This incident showcased the necessity for a better understanding of the
puncture resistance for various metals, which could lead to enhanced safety protocols limiting
tool weight or potential drop height.

Indeed, numerical models could be used to quickly harvest data to improve our understanding of
this puncture resistance. As these numerical models aim to take the place of costly
experimentation, their success depends upon the ability to predict material response (elasticity,
plasticity, and failure) across a wide range of inputs. For instance, models that define plastic
hardening using a strain rate-independent formulation are perhaps only adequate at describing
material behavior within a narrow band of quasi-static analyses. Higher-order material models
for plastic work hardening, such as Johnson-Cook plasticity [1], are often used to provide more
reliable material descriptions across applications that vary in loading, temperature, and stress
state.

At the continuum scale, fracture behavior can be described using a binary criterion, where above
a critical threshold (equivalent stress, equivalent plastic strain, etc.) a material point is considered
to have failed and its load-carrying capability rapidly decays to zero. Similar to work hardening,
it has been assumed that higher-order descriptions for this failure criterion, such as the Wellman
tearing parameter [2] and Johnson-Cook damage model [3], will be more robust compared to
rate- or temperature-independent thresholds.

This work aims to investigate the validity of various numerical descriptions, for work hardening
and material failure, at modeling puncture in a plate of 7075-T651 aluminum due to low-velocity
impact. In a previous SAND report, Corona and Orient [4] modeled a similar problem using
Johnson-Cook hardening and damage descriptions for the same material system. The current
work aims to utilize their findings to model several different probe types and compare multiple
material descriptions.

In previous experimental investigations [5], high strength steel probes of different geometries
were allowed to fall and penetrate a thin plate of 7075-T651 aluminum. In each test, the initial
and final probe velocities were compared to determine the amount of energy required for
puncture. The aluminum 7075-T651 plate can be seen in Figure 1, and the three probe types are
shown in Figure 2, where all dimensions are in millimeters.

7
 Probe 12.70
Path
1
45.72
•

1
A.E- Section A-A
45.72 —>1
91.44

Figure 1. Aluminum 7075-T651 Coupon

Figure 2. Probe Types in Puncture Analysis:(a)Flat 0.25",(b)Flat 1.00",(c) Corner 1.00"

In this work, a finite element model was generated and different constitutive descriptions for
work hardening and material failure were tested for their accuracy in predicting this puncture
energy. Constitutive laws based in multi-linear rate-independent hardening and Johnson-Cook
plasticity were considered. The failure criteria examined included critical values for stress,
plastic strain, and strain energy density, as well as more complex state variables such as
Wellman tearing parameter and Johnson-Cook damage. Further, the final plate tear-out
geometries for experiments and finite element results were compared for each material
description.

A wide range of loading states/regimes were found present within the finite element model of the
aluminum plate, as a result of plate-probe interaction. It was therefore hypothesized that that the
current simulations could elucidate which combinations of constitutive behavior and failure
criteria are most predictive across many different engineering applications for 7075-T651
aluminum

8
2. CONSTITUTIVE MODEL AND FAILURE CRITERIA
In the present work, care is taken to delineate between constitutive models and failure
criteria. Constitutive models are defined, following Malvern [6] and Lubliner [7], as the
mathematical relations between mechanical and thermodynamic properties that capture the
response of a material under applied loads. These models should consider phenomena such as
viscoplasticity, work hardening, and damage softening, among others. Failure, in this work, is
defined simply as a limit beyond which the load carrying capability is quickly reduced to zero.
This limit can be characterized with one static material parameter-based threshold (critical stress,
strain, etc.), or perhaps with a dynamic threshold that varies as a function of several material
parameters. The constitutive models and failure criteria which are studied in this work are briefly
described in the following subsections.

2.1. Constitutive Modeling

2.1.1. Multilinear Elastic-Plastic Hardening(MLEP)

A rate-independent model for work hardening is considered, which can be defined as a
piecewise-linear relation between true plastic strain and true stress. This relationship can be
easily harvested using experimental data from uniaxial tension testing, which in this model is
fitted using Equation 1, where plastic strain is assumed to begin after yielding, i.e. 0.2% strain
offset. Prior to yielding, the material is assumed to behave in a linear elastic regime according to
Young's modulus. Thermal effects may be included by using a temperature-dependent yield
stress.

6 = 0- + BE N Eq.(1)

2.1.2. Johnson-Cook Hardening

The Johnson-Cook [1] model is the most widely used constitutive law for rate-dependent
plasticity, and also accounts for thermal and stress-state effects. The flow stress is defined as a
product decomposition of the effects of equivalent plastic strain, plastic strain rate, and
temperature on work hardening, as follows:

=(0-y + B—EpN)(1+ CE *)(1 — TM) Eq.(2)

Where •E * and fi are the effective total strain rate and homologous temperature, respectively,
defined as

• *
E _—
Eq.(3)
Ep

(T — Tref)
T— Eq.(4)
(Tmelt — Tref)

The parameters which govern the effects of temperature and strain rate can be determined
experimentally based on a series of uniaxial tension tests, where each input is varied and the

9
resultant impact on flow stress is determined. Stress-state effects must be determined
numerically so that different triaxiality ratios, imposed from notches in a uniaxial specimen, can
be explicitly measured. This is typically accomplished using finite element modeling.

The effect of plastic deformation on the temperature variation at a material point is captured
using the following relation:

13
AT = —a AE
-
pC, Y P Eq.(5)

where essentially a fraction, 16, of the plastic work done is converted to thermal energy which
increases local temperature. Once again, material response prior to yielding is assumed to behave
in a linear elastic manner.

2.2. Failure Criteria

2.2.1. Wellman Tearing Parameter

Originally proposed as a simple method for determining ductile failure of a metal, the
Wellman tearing parameter [2] [8] is a metric derived from the principal tensile stress and
hydrostatic stress state ofthe material, as shown below.
£
t =i 20-1
P m CrEP Eq.(6)
(cri - am)
0 3

where
(x\ = fx, if x>0
' 1.0, if x0 Eq.(7)

Since the Macaulay brackets in the above only evaluate positive expressions, it can be seen that
this tearing parameter only considers the effects from tensile loading.
Once this tearing parameter exceeds the critical threshold, the stress is linearly, and
isotropically, decreased as a function of strain, until finally reaching zero once the critical crack
opening strain is realized. Critical tearing parameter and critical crack opening strain are both
user-defined values.

2.2.2. Johnson-Cook Damage

Johnson and Cook also proposed a damage law to accompany the original constitutive
model [3], which phenomenologically considers the effects of stress state, strain rate, and
temperature variance on a material's failure. This damage formulation assumes that there is a
critical strain required for failure, and asserts that it is a dynamic threshold which varies
depending upon the loading conditions as follows:

D u
Ef=(D1 +D )
(1 + D41n.E*)(1 + D5T) Eq.(8)

10
This dynamic failure strain is attained once the following integral reaches unity:
f
t = p

E
D= dt Eq.(9)
f
o

2.2.3. Additional Failure Criteria

In addition to the relatively high-order and dynamic failure criteria already mentioned,
several simplified, static thresholds were also considered for material failure. Strength of
materials is often measured by the ultimate stress or strain found from uniaxial tension testing. A
strain energy density-like damage criterion proposed by Cockcroft and Latham [9] has also
previously been considered for this material system [10]. These criteria for failure, critical von
Mises stress, critical plastic strain, and critical strain energy density, have been considered in the
current work, and specific thresholds were determined either from literature or from a brief
parameterization.

The parameters for each plasticity and failure model are given in Table 1. Two different
parameter-sets for Johnson-Cook work hardening and damage are considered, originally
determined by Corona and Orient[4] and Brar et al. [11]for aluminum 7075-T651.

11
 Table 1. Parameters for Constitutive Laws, Failure Criteria, and General Properties

Multilinear Plasticity [12]

Cry, yield stress 465 MPa
B, hardening constant 723 MPa
N, hardening exponent 0.00872
Johnson-Cook Plasticity Corona [4] Brar [11]
Cry, yield stress 465 MPa 572 MPa
B, hardening constant 405 MPa 575 MPa
N, hardening exponent 0.41 0.72
c, strain-rate constant 0.0075 0.017
M,thermal exponent 1.1 1.61
Eo, reference strain rate 0.00016 1
Tref, reference temperature [4] 293 K
fl, adiabatic fraction [4] 0.95
Johnson-Cook Damage Corona [4] Brar [11]
D1, damage constant(Corona, Brar) 0.005 0.110
D2, damage constant(Corona, Brar) 0.34 0.572
D3, damage constant(Corona, Brar) -1.5 -3.446
D4, damage constant(Corona, Brar) -0.039 0.016
D5, damage constant(Corona, Brar) 8.0 1.099
Wellman Tearing [8]
t 0.133
1), tearing parameter
m,tearing exponent 4
E 0.2
CMS', critical crack opening strain

Additional Failure Criteria

0c, critical von Mises equivalent stress 700 MPa
8c, critical von Mises equivalent plastic strain [2] 0.078
Wc, critical strain energy density [10] 106 MPa

General Material Properties

E, Young's modulus of elasticity [4] 71 GPa
v, poisson's ratio [4] 0.33
P, mass density [4] 2810 kg/m3
Ys, surface energy (approximated from [13]) 1 J/m2
Cv, specific heat[4] 960 J/kg•K
Tmeit, melting temperature [4] 750 K

12
3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

3.1. Fracture Energy for Varying Element Size

Modeling material failure has been shown quite sensitive to the discretization technique
utilized [14] [15]. For a finite element formulation, analytical stress concentrations or
singularities can lead to solutions that do not converge as mesh resolution is increased. Further,
reduced-order models for components in an assembly tend to utilize very coarse meshes, where
plasticity and failure models are calibrated for a low mesh density which is never refined in the
analysis. In the present work, it was ensured that no singularities were present in the simulation.
Further, a strategy was employed to maintain mesh size objectivity in the context of free surface
energy, which is explained here.

As a crack propagates through a material, two new free surfaces are generated which require
some energy for creation. This surface energy is a function of the size of the new surfaces,
equivalent to the crack length a, and the surface energy density for the material as follows:

Es = 2y,a2 Eq.(10)

In finite element analysis, crack propagation is modeled using element erosion, where once an
element reaches the failure criterion it reduces over time in load-carrying capability to zero. If
element size varies between two simulations, then the larger elements which reach the critical
threshold for failure will decay in the same fashion as smaller elements, leading to different-
sized crack propagation. In reality, given Equation 10, a larger crack created from a larger
element's erosion, should require more energy to propagate. This element-specific fracture
energy can be measured from the area under an element's force-displacement curve, between the
ultimate loading point and the location where force response has reached zero:
1
Es = 2FteUCTOD Eq.(11)

In this work, a constant surface energy density is maintained by setting the final fracture energy
under the force-displacement curve in Equation 11 equal to energy required to generate two new
free surfaces, of size a, in Equation 10. This can be used to solve for an erosion displacement, or
strain, over which an element decays as a function of its size:

UCTOD 4Ys
—
Eccos — Eq.(12)
a aua

The finite element modeling suite utilized, Sierra Solid Mechanics [16], relies on a "death steps"
parameter to prescribe the number of time-steps over which an element will erode. While a user-
defined element erosion process could have perhaps been programmed in Sierra, it was found in
preliminary simulations that strain rates just ahead of the crack tip were relatively consistent
(between 101 and 102). This meant that an element-size-dependent term for number of death-
steps could be well-approximated using the following equation:

13
 Eq.(13)

Since the maximum allowable time-step for a simulation is directly proportional to element size,
it can be said that the number of death steps exponentially increases as element size is decreased.

3.2. Geometry and Mesh Generation

To model the plate and probe using finite elements, the geometry and mesh generation
software CUBIT [17] was utilized. Only hexahedral elements were used to discretize the
geometry, except for the table, which was modeled with two dimensional rectangular elements.
Typically, meshes are refined spatially around areas where material response is expected to have
a large gradient. However, the death steps formulation in the previous subsection assumes
consistent mesh sizing ahead of the crack tip, and as such the elements in the thin portion of the
plate are maintained at a relatively constant size, with aspect ratios of approximately one. Given
the symmetry of geometry as well as initial and boundary conditions, it was determined that
modeling only one half ofthe probe, plate, and table configuration was necessary.

Based on a mesh convergence study, it was found that using 9 elements through the thickness of
the plate, i.e. —0.18 mm element length, adequately captured material response within 7%
accuracy for each simulation. In total, this resulted in a mesh made up of approximately 1.1
million elements, which is shown for the flat 0.25" probe simulation in Figure 3, where the green
mesh is the probe, the grey mesh is the coupon, and the red mesh is the table.

14
 Figure 3. Geometry and Mesh for 7075-T651 Plate and F0250 Probe

3.3. Finite Element Solver

The Sierra Solid Mechanics code suite was used to simulate the plate puncture using the
finite element mesh shown in Figure 3. PRESTO explicit solving was used, and a maximum
allowable time step was automatically enforced based on the material properties and nodal
spacing in the mesh, to maintain temporal sampling of elastic wave propagation. Interpolation
between element vertices was linear; hexahedral and rectangular elements were modeled using 8
and 4 nodes, respectively.

The probe, plate, and table were all constrained in the y-direction to account for symmetry
conditions. Each probe was given an initial velocity in the negative z-direction to match
experimental testing, which ranged between 0.54 and 0.99 m/s depending on probe type, and was
constrained in the x-y plane. The aluminum 7075-T651 coupon was constrained only by friction
interactions with the table, which was constrained in all directions. This meant that the coupon

15
could slide, against friction, in the x-direction and displace in the positive z-direction. Friction
between the probe and plate was also enforced. Static and kinetic coefficients for friction were
modeled using a Coulomb model which incorporated slight damping due to energy absorption.
Contact between all objects was enforced according to a face-face interaction. For explicit
analyses, the active contact sets are defined after the displacement of that time-step, after which
the reaction forces are implemented and zero-interpenetration is reestablished. Contact surfaces
were appropriately redefined upon element erosion.

16
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Energy Absorption

4.1.1. Experimental Results

For each probe, experimentally determined puncture energies were found to vary by less
than 10% from mean value. Table 2 gives the mean energy required for coupon penetration,
along with the standard deviation in results [5].

Table 2. Experimental Results from Probe-Plate Puncture Simulations

Probe Type Mean Puncture Energy [J] Std. Dev.[J]

Flat, 0.25" dia.(F0250) 11.9 0.3
Flat, 1.00" dia.(F1000) 54.8 3.2
Corner, 1.00" dia.(C1000) 54.2 3.9

It can be seen that experimental results vary depending on the probe type used, especially for the
flat 0.25" probe where the energy required to penetrate the plate is 80% less than the those found
using the larger flat and corner probes. Given the relatively small deviation in experimental
results, the mean energy absorption for each probe was used for numerical model validation.

4.1.2. Finite Element Model Results

From finite element analysis, it was seen that the probe tended to operate in three distinct
kinetic energy regimes over time, during plate/probe interaction, as illustrated in Figure 4 for the
flat 0.25" probe (F0250).

Figure 4. Kinetic Energy Time Response and Probe/Plate Interaction

17
In the first regime, the probe begins making contact with the aluminum coupon, causing a
dramatic reduction in probe velocity and imposing elastic and plastic deformation in the coupon.
While perhaps some elements have failed in this first regime, the probe is not deemed to have
penetrated the coupon until the kinetic energy response has entered the second regime, when a
probe's full diameter has extended beyond the plate thickness. After penetrating the coupon, the
probe enters the third regime where it continues to reduce slightly in velocity as it scrapes along
the tear-out petals and hole now present in the coupon. Matching the penetration criteria used
experimentally, the energy required for plate puncture is assumed to be the difference between
initial kinetic energy and the kinetic energy at regime 2.

This puncture energy varies according to the combination of constitutive law and failure criterion
used to describe the aluminum 7075-T651 response to probe interaction. Further, different
probes will impose difference stress states and variations in local strain rates which, as seen
experimentally, impact load carrying capability and overall puncture "resistance for the
material.

Figure 5. Puncture Energy Predictions from Different Material Models for Each Probe

In total, 9 descriptions of material response were formed using different combinations of work
hardening and damage laws, and the prediction of puncture energy from each composite material
law is shown in Figure 5, for the three probe types. For the flat 0.25" probe, the best numerical
predictions resulted from using the Johnson-Cook plasticity model (from Corona) paired with
critical strain or strain energy density failure criteria, and the rate-independent MLEP model
paired with Wellman tearing parameter-based failure. For the flat 1.00" probe, the Johnson-Cook
plasticity and damage model(from Brar) was very accurate, and was the only model that yielded
predictions within 40% of experimental data. For the corner 1.00" probe, the Johnson-Cook
plasticity model(from Corona) paired with a critical stress failure criterion, as well as the MLEP
model combined with the Wellman tearing parameter, were most accurate.

18
Indeed, no single combination of hardening and failure laws yielded universally accurate data.
Further, it can be seen that numerical predictions of the energy required to penetrate the coupon
vary dramatically depending on the material description chosen, both above and below the
experimentally determined puncture energies denoted by the horizontal blue lines in Figure 5.
Interestingly enough, this variation is particularly prominent for the two Johnson-Cook
plasticity/damage parameterization attempts by Corona and Brar. Using the Johnson-Cook work
hardening and damage parameters determined by Corona, the flat 0.25" probe is predicted to
only lose 5 Joules of kinetic energy as it penetrates the probe, which is less than half of the
experimental value. On the other hand, Johnson-Cook parameters from Brar et al. predict that the
energy required for puncture of this 7075-T651 aluminum coupon is so large that neither the flat
0.25" probe nor the corner probe will have enough kinetic energy for penetration and both will
actually bounce back off the plate, denoted by the up-arrows on the plot of Figure 5.

The differences between these two parameter sets are studied further in Figure 6, where each
prediction of the kinetic energy time response is plotted for the flat 0.25" probe. It can be seen
that in the first regime of elastic/plastic coupon deformation, the kinetic energy decay is nearly
identical between the two parameter sets. However, the material model parameters from Corona
predict a much earlier beginning to regime 2 (i.e. earlier puncture that requires less energy as
seen in Figure 5), compared to using the parameters from Brar.

0.01
0.005 0.015 0.02
Time [s]
Figure 6. Kinetic Energy Time Response for Johnson-Cook Material Models from Corona
[4] and Brar [11]

In the case of the flat 0.25" probe simulations, it was found that plate puncture occurs just after
the first element fails. Conveniently, this allows for an isolated analysis of only work hardening
material descriptions in regime 1 before any damage criteria are met just prior to regime 2. From
Figure 6 it can be seen that the elastic/plastic responses are nearly identical between the two
parameter sets. This is somewhat surprising considering that, given all the same inputs, flow

19
stress predictions between Corona and Brar parameters vary by approximately 25%. However,
the material model parameters from Corona predict a much earlier initiation of damage and
eventual failure, compared to those from Brar.

This uncovered a trend that was consistent across all material models and probe types: variation
in work-hardening descriptions does not appreciably affect probe velocities during the
elastic/plastic regimes of the current simulations, and the selected failure criterion is the major
determinant in final puncture energy prediction accuracy. This is not to say that selection of a
work hardening model is arbitrary, as different flow stress laws will certainly enhance the
quantities for material response which are used as damage criteria. For instance, strain rate-
independent formulations for flow stress from the MLEP model will not be as great as those
from the rate-dependent Johnson-Cook model, which illustrates why the Wellman tearing
parameter is reached much earlier in Johnson-Cook simulations than in MLEP.

4.2. Failure Geometry

In addition to numerically forecasting the energy required for puncture of the aluminum
7075-T651 coupon, it was also of interest to accurately predict the final three-dimensional
geometry of each coupon after failure. By analyzing the tear-out shapes, one can perhaps deduce
the failure modes in the material and consider methods for enhancing fracture resistance and/or
limiting application type for the material. Therefore, predicting these failure geometries and
modes numerically is considered highly advantageous.

4.2.1. Flat 0.25 inch Probe

Experimental tear-out that results from coupon penetration from the flat 0.25" probe is
shown in Figure 7, and compared to simulated tear-out in Figure 8 which is color-contoured by
equivalent plastic strain. The numerical results from using the Johnson-Cook (Corona)/strain
energy density material description for plasticity/failure is selected for viewing based on
experimental agreement illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 7. Experimental Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F0250 Probe

20
 Figure 8. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F0250 Probe using Johnson-
Cook(Corona)/Strain Energy Density Material Model

It can be seen that, in experiment, the probe forces a very localized deformation in the aluminum
plate, which causes a plug to eject from the coupon. A closer examination of the experimental
punch-out reveals some spall-type damage from probe interaction with plate. Numerically, these
tear-out patterns are predicted quite well, as it can be seen that equivalent plastic strain is very
localized to the area of probe-plate contact. Further, a proper plug is ejected from the aluminum
coupon in the same manner as experiment. By zooming in on the finite element model of the
plate, some indication of spall damage is also present, but not to the same extent as in reality.

4.2.2. Flat 1.00 inch Probe

A typical tear-out geometry for the flat 1.00" probe experiments is shown in Figure 9,
and compared to numerical predictions in Figure 10, once again color-contoured by the
equivalent plastic strain. Numerical results for Johnson-Cook (Corona)/strain energy density
laws for plasticity/failure are shown based on their agreement with experimental energy
absorption results.

Figure 9. Experimental Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F1000 Probe

21
 Figure 10. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F1000 Probe using Johnson-
Cook(Corona)/Strain Energy Density Material Model

In reality, the failure from this plate/probe interaction results in a tear-out that is much larger
than the probe itself and peels away in a manner than resembles a tin can opening. Additionally,
the edge of the tear-out closest to the plate edge exhibits bending that reflects an initial shear
loading at this location. Numerically, this phenomenon is only somewhat captured. Tear-out does
seem to peel back similarly to experiment, but the width of tear-out is limited by the probe
diameter itself. Further, no evidence of plate bending or shearing is shown in simulations as
predicted by this material response description.

It was noticed, however, that the Johnson-Cook/Wellman tearing parameter law combination
yielded a very realistic prediction for tear-out in this example, shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for F1000 Probe using Johnson-
Cook(Corona)/Wellman Tearing Material Model

22
Despite this material law not accurately predicting the energy required for the flat 1.00" probe to
puncture the aluminum coupon, resultant tear-out width extends far beyond the probe diameter,
matching reality. Additionally, slight bending is found in the initial tear-out edge, similar to
experimental results. This implies that perhaps an improved parameterization of this material
model might very well predict energy absorption in addition to coupon tear-out.

4.2.3. Corner 1.00 inch Probe

Images of experimental failure geometry resulting from penetration from the corner
probe are shown in Figure 12, and can be used to validate the numerical tear-out predictions
shown in Figure 13, which are color-contoured by equivalent plastic strain. The numerical results
from the Johnson-Cook (Corona)/critical stress combination of plasticity/failure laws are selected
for viewing based on their accuracy in Figure 5.

Figure 12. Experimental Tear-out Geometry Prediction for C1000 Probe

Figure 13. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for C1000 Probe using Johnson-
Cook(Corona)/Stress Material Model

23
In the experimental geometry results, fracture is promoted along the three directions aligned with
probe edges, which leads to the formation of "petals" of torn material in the directions
perpendicular to the probe faces. For the numerical model, this petal phenomenon is only
captured in one direction, and cracking is not aligned with probe edges. To elucidate the origin of
the numerically-predicted fracture patterns, simulated tear-out geometry from an earlier time-
step is studied in Figure 14. At this point, the probe is considered to have penetrated the plate,
since the full probe diameter has ruptured the coupon. The plate fracture path that lies within the
diameter of the probe appears to run along the probe's edges, matching experimental results.
This initial cracking path is, for the most part, enforced by the probe, as these edge-locations are
the first points of contact between probe and plate, and elements at these coordinates undergo the
most deformation. However, it is seen that once the crack path extends beyond the probe
diameter, the tearing path only remains self-similar in one of the three directions.

Figure 14. Numerical Tear-out Geometry Prediction for C1000 Probe using Johnson-
Cook(Corona)/Stress Material Model at Onset of Regime 2

From the enhanced element-view, it can be seen that in the self-similar path the cracking lies
along one direction of the mesh, and maintains this direction beyond the probe diameter.
However, for the non-self-similar crack, the original probe-initiated tearing is not along an
element direction but quickly changes path to match element axes. This reflects an obvious mesh
dependency in the current numerical models which, in this example, leads to abnormal square
punch-out rather than a tearing pattern shown in reality.

24
5. CONCLUSIONS
In summary, this work aimed to compare multiple hybrid material models for plasticity
and failure, and evaluate their fidelity in simulating puncture in a thin aluminum 7075-T651
plate due to low velocity probe impact. Numerical model fidelity was gaged against the ability to
accurately predict the energy threshold required for plate penetration and predict three-
dimensional coupon tear-out geometry through a comparison with experimental results from [5].
Puncture from three different probe types were simulated, and a total of 9 different material
models were investigated.

First, it was seen that predictions for puncture vary dramatically depending upon the combination
of material laws used, and that no one model could accurately predict puncture energy for each
probe. A closer examination revealed that different work hardening models will produce nearly
identical elastic/plastic predictions for plate deformation, and that different metrics for failure
will determine final puncture energies.

It was also seen that the parameterization of work hardening and failure criteria is very
subjective. Particularly, multiple sets of parameters for the same Johnson-Cook material model
were found to exist for 7075-T651 aluminum, leading to numerical predictions for puncture
energy that varied by more than 200%. Future studies are encouraged to accomplish their own
rigorous parameterization for the material system, and acknowledge/account for uncertainty in
individual terms that might influence numerical predictions for failure in different applications.

Finally, it was seen that in the current simulations, fracture is quite mesh dependent, and
therefore predictions for coupon tear-out are limited in accuracy. Even so, several numerical
predictions of final coupon geometry for the flat 0.25" probe, and flat 1.00" probe were found to
qualitatively match those from experiment. The notion of finite element mesh sensitivity in crack
propagation is well acknowledged in the fracture mechanics community [14] [15] and several
different material discretization techniques have been proposed to alleviate this issue. In future
iterations of this puncture analysis, one might consider using extended finite element method
[18] or peridynamics [19] modeling techniques to more accurately predict the fracture path in the
coupon.

25
 REFERENCES

[1] G. Johnson and W. Cook,"A Constitutive Model and Data for Metals Subjected to Large
Strains, High Strain Rates, and High Temperatures," in Proceedings ofthe 7th International
Symposium ofBallistics, The Hauge, 1983.
[2] G. Wellman,"SAND2012-1343: A Simple Approach to Modeling Ductile Failure," Sandia
National Laboratories, 2012.
[3] G. Johnson and W. Cook,"Fracture Characteristics of Three Metals Subjected to Various
Strains, Strain Rates, Temperatures and Pressures," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol.
21, no. 1, pp. 31-48, 1985.
[4] E. Corona and G. Orient,"SAND2014-1550: An Evaluation ofthe Johnson-Cook Model of
Simulate Puncture of 7075 Aluminum Plates," Sandia National Laboratories, 2014.
[5] M.Knarr, M.Fuentes and M. Spletzer,"SAND2015-10748: Impact Analysis of Aluminum
7075-T6 and a B61 Bomb Case," Sandia National Laboratories, 2015.
[6] L. Malvern, Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium,Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
[7] J. Lubliner, Plasticity Theory, Courier Corporation, 2008.
[8] E. Corona, W. Witkowski, N. Breivik, K. Hu, J. Gorman, M. Spletzer and T. Cordova,
"SAND2012-7604: ASC V&V L2 Milestone No. 4485 Puncture Failure Simulations,"
Sandia National Laboratories, 2012.
[9] M.Latham and D. Cockcroft, "Ductility and Workability of Metals," Journal ofthe Institute
ofMetals, 1968.
[10] T. Borvik, O. Hopperstad and K. Pederson, "Quasi-brittle Fracture During Structural Impact
of AA7075-T651 Aluminium Plates," International Journal ofImpact Engineering, 2010.
[11] N. Brar, V. Joshi and B. Harris, "Constitutive Model Constants Al 7075-T651 and Al 7075-
T6," in American Institute ofPhysics, 2009.
[12] "Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures," Department of
Defense, MIL-HDBK-5J,2003.
[13] L. Vitosa, A. Rubana, H. Skrivera and J. Kollarb,"The Surface Energy of Metals," Surface
Science, 1998.
[14] A. Needleman and V. Tvergaard,"Mesh Effects in the Analysis of Dynamic Ductile Crack
Growth," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1994.
[15] J. Newman,"Fracture Analysis of Various Cracked Configurations in Sheet and Plate
Materials," American Societyfor Testing Materials, 1976.
[16] SIERRA Solid Mechanics Team,"Material Models," in SAND2017-9759:
Sierra/SolidMechanics 4.48 Users's Guide, Sandia National Laboratories, 2018, pp. 205-
364.
[17] CUBIT Modeling Team,in SAND2017-6895W.• CUBIT 15.3 User Documentation, Sandia
National Laboratories, 2017.
[18] N. Moes, J. Dolbow and T. Belytschko,"A Finite Element Method for Crack Growth
Without Remeshing," International Journalfor Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1999.
[19] S. Silling, "Reformulation of Elasticity Theory for Discontinuities and Long-range Forces,"
Journal ofthe Mechanics and Physics ofSolids, 2000.

26
27
DISTRIBUTION

1 MS0346 R. J. Kuether 1556

1 MS0346 J. A. Smith 1556
1 MS0405 J. L. Dohner 9432
1 MS0405 M.F. Pasik 9432
1 MS0428 J. T. Bond 9430
1 MS0899 Technical Library 10756 (electronic copy)

28
Sandia National Laboratories