EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE IMPACT STRENGTH OF BEAMS AND PLATES

Bin Liu

Thesis for obtaining the degree of Master in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

Jury
President Supervisor Member : Prof. Yordan Ivanov Garbatov : Prof. Carlos Antonio Pancada Guedes Soares : Dr. Leigh Stuart Sutherland

December 2011

Abstract

Abstract
The structural design of ships concerning collision requires an accurate prediction of the energy absorption and damage of plates and stiffeners under impact loading. Thus, in this thesis experimental and numerical analyses are conducted in order to study the impact plastic response and failure of structural components, such as beams, plates and stiffeners with attached plate. The experimental program includes drop weight impact tests in a fully instrumented falling weight machine using different types of indenters. The numerical simulations are carried out using the finite element package LS-DYNA Version 971 which is appropriate for nonlinear explicit dynamic simulations with large deformations. The assumptions adopted in the numerical model are validated by means of drop weight impact tests. The impact behavior of the structural elements is validated by comparison of their experimental and numerical force-displacement responses. Special attention is paid in the definition of the true material properties and the representation of the experimental boundary conditions. Thus, the plastic response and failure of the material is calibrated by numerical simulation of tensile tests used to obtain the mechanical properties of the material, and the experimental boundary conditions are partially represented by coarse mesh of rigid shell elements.

Keywords: Impact; Experiment; Numerical simulation; Beam; Plate; Stiffener with attached plate;
Boundary condition; Force-displacement response; Axial displacement.

Abstract

ii

Resumo

Resumo
O projeto estrutural de navios resistentes a coliso precisa previso do absoro de energia e dano das placas e reforos sujeitos a impacto. Nesta tese anlises experimentais e numricas so realizadas para estudar a resposta plstica ao impacto e fractura dos componentes estruturais, tais como vigas, placas e placas reforadas. O programa experimental inclui testes de impacto instrumentado usando diferentes tipos de projectil. As simulaes numricas so realizadas no software de elementos finitos LS-DYNA verso 971 que apropriado para simulaes dinmicas com grandes deformaes. As premissas adotadas no modelo numrico so validada por meio de testes de impacto. O comportamento dos elementos estruturais ao impacto validado por comparao da resposta de fora-deslocamento entre ensaios e simulaes numricas. Ateno dada na definio do material e na representao das condies de fronteira. A resposta plstica e a fratura do material so calibrados com simulaes numricas dos ensaios de trao utilizados para obter as propriedades mecnicas do material, e as condies de contorno experimentais so representadas com elementos de placa rgida.

Palabra chave: Impacto; Experimento; Simulao numrica; Viga; Placa; Placa reforada;
Condio de fronteira; Resposta de fora-deslocamento; Deslocamento longitudinal.

iii

Resumo

iv

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Professor Carlos Guedes Soares and my friend Richard Villavicencio for all the guidance and unlimited help during the research and completion of this thesis. The author would also like to thank his family and friends for all their patience, understanding and support.

Acknowledgements

vi

Table of contents

Table of contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................................i Resumo ................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................v Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... vii List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... xi List of tables ........................................................................................................................................... xv Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................................... xvii CHAPTER 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview and background ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives and scope of the work .............................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation .................................................................................... 7 2.1 Material stress-strain relationship .............................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Engineering stress-strain curve ....................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 True stress-strain curve ................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Mathematical expressions for the true material curve ..................................................... 9 2.2 Dynamic yield strength ............................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Dynamic fracture strain ............................................................................................................ 12 2.3.1 Failure criteria ................................................................................................................ 12 2.4 Contact-impact algorithm ......................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Kinematic constraint method.......................................................................................... 14 2.4.2 Penalty method .............................................................................................................. 14 2.4.3 Initial contact Interpenetrations ...................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 Friction definition ............................................................................................................ 15

vii

Table of contents 2.4.5 Contact automatic surface to surface ............................................................................ 15 2.5 Mesh size ................................................................................................................................. 15 2.6 Simulation of tensile tests ........................................................................................................ 16 2.7 Representation of experimental supports ................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact .................................................... 21 3.1 Impact test machine ................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Impact tester software .............................................................................................................. 22 3.3 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 23 3.4 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 25 3.5 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 27 3.6 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 28 3.7 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact .............................. 33 4.1 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 33 4.2 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 35 4.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 37 4.3.1 Boundary conditions ...................................................................................................... 38 4.3.2 Material definition using tensile test simulation.............................................................. 38 4.4 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 39 4.5 Comparison with a theoretical analyses .................................................................................. 42 4.6 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 43 CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact .................................. 45 5.1 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 45 5.2 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 46

viii

Table of contents 5.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 49 5.3.1 Boundary conditions ...................................................................................................... 49 5.4 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 49 5.4.1 Thin plates...................................................................................................................... 49 5.4.2 Thick plates .................................................................................................................... 53 5.5 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 54 CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact ................................. 57 6.1 Experimental details and results .............................................................................................. 57 6.2 Numerical model and results .................................................................................................... 58 6.3 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 62 CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact ................. 63 7.1 Experimental details ................................................................................................................. 63 7.2 Experimental results ................................................................................................................. 64 7.3 Numerical model ...................................................................................................................... 65 7.4 Numerical results...................................................................................................................... 66 7.5 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................. 67 CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and further work ........................................................................................... 69 8.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 69 8.2 Future work .............................................................................................................................. 70 References ............................................................................................................................................ 71

ix

Table of contents

List of figures

List of figures
Figure 2.1 Engineering stress-strain curve. Intersection of the dashed line with the curve determines the offset yield strength. (cf. Dieter 1986) .............................................................. 7 Figure 2.2 Engineering and true stress-true strain curves. (cf. Dieter 1986) ................................... 8 Figure 2.3 Log-log plot of true stress-strain curve n is the strain-hardening exponent; K is the strength coefficient. (cf. Dieter 1986) ...................................................................................... 10 Figure 2.4 Dynamic yield strength, Yd (normalized by the static yield strength, Y), plotted versus

strain rate, , for mild and high-tensile steels. (cf. Paik 2007). ............................................ 11
Figure 2.5 Dynamic fracture strain (normalized by the static fracture strain) versus strain rate for mild steels. (cf. Paik 2007) ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.6 Nodes of the master slide surface designated with an x are treated as free surface nodes in the nodal constraint method. (cf. Hallquist 2010) ..................................................... 14 Figure 2.7 Undetected interpenetration. Such interpenetrations are frequently due to the use of coarse meshes. (cf. Hallquist 2010)........................................................................................ 15 Figure 2.8 Finite element model. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c) ........................... 17 Figure 2.9 Time steps of a typical tensile test simulation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c) ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2.10 Fracture propagation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c) ......................... 18 Figure 2.11 Sketch of end view of rectangular test piece after fracture showing constraint at corners indicating the difficulty of determining reduced area. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c) ......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2.12 Models of boundary conditions. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares in press a) .... 19 Figure 3.1 Fully instrumented Rosand IFW5 falling weight machine. (Drawing provided by R. Villavicencio) ........................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3.2 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011a) ........................................ 23 Figure 3.3 Beam struck transversely by a mass. ........................................................................... 23 Figure 3.4 Experimental set-up. ..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.5 Deformed shape of beams after the impact.................................................................. 26 Figure 3.6 Deformation of the beam impacted at velocity 2.0 m/s................................................. 26 Figure 3.7 Force-displacement responses using different torque on the bolts. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s........................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3.8 Numerical model. .......................................................................................................... 27 xi

List of figures Figure 3.9 Engineering and true stress-strain curve of material. ................................................... 28 Figure 3.10 Force-displacement responses with different friction coefficient at the supports. ...... 29 Figure 3.11 Maximum force and displacements at different impact velocities............................... 29 Figure 3.12 Shape of the deformation and von Mises stress distribution at maximum force. ....... 29 Figure 3.13 Axial displacements at the supports at different velocity. ........................................... 30 Figure 3.14 Experimental and numerical force-displacement responses using different torque at the bolts. Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical results: continuous lines. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s. ...................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3.15 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque at the bolts. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s. ................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 4.1 Pre-notched beam stuck transversely by a mass. ........................................................ 33 Figure 4.2 Experimental set-up. ..................................................................................................... 34 Figure 4.3 Measure the depth of notch. ......................................................................................... 34 Figure 4.4 Position of notch and striking mass. ............................................................................. 35 Figure 4.5 Tension failure. (a): Specimen N115_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M. .............. 36 Figure 4.6 Shear failure. (a): Specimen N75_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N115_4mm_M. ................. 36 Figure 4.7 Shape of the deformation: (a) Specimen N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M. 36 Figure 4.8 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement. P: Specimen N15_2mm_M (plastic deformation); F: Specimen

N15_4mm_M (fracture). .......................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.9 Maximum forces of beams with different notch. ........................................................... 37 Figure 4.10 Mesh sizes of beam and striking mass. ...................................................................... 38 Figure 4.11 Boundary conditions of pre-notched beam. ................................................................ 38 Figure 4.12 True and engineering material curves. ....................................................................... 39 Figure 4.13 Results of numerical simulations. ............................................................................... 39 Figure 4.14 Comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement responses: (a) Specimen N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M. .......................................................... 40 Figure 4.15 Comparisons of experimental and numerical force-displacement curves with different boundaries (Specimen N15_4mm_M). ................................................................................... 40 Figure 4.16 Failure modes (Specimen N15_4mm_M). .................................................................. 40 Figure 4.17 Time steps of a typical simulation of the pre-notched beams (Specimen N15_4mm_M). ................................................................................................................................................ 41

xii

List of figures Figure 4.18 The failure of the notch (Specimen N15_4mm_M). (a): Numerical; (b): Experimental. ................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 4.19 Comparison of the numerical triaxiality (Specimen N15_4mm_M)............................. 42 Figure 4.20 Variation of dimensionless maximum permanent transverse deformation dimensionless external dynamic energy

W f / H with

. Equation (4.1) with static yield stress 0; - - -

- Equation (4.1) with dynamic flow stress 0 given by equation (4.1); (1) circumscribing yield curve (2) inscribing yield curve; Experimental results: Simulation results: ................. 43 Figure 5.1 Experimental set-up. ..................................................................................................... 45 Figure 5.2 Different types of indenters. .......................................................................................... 46 Figure 5.3 Engineering stress-strain curve of material with thickness 1.4 and 4.0 mm................. 46 Figure 5.4 Force-displacement responses of thin plates at different velocity. ............................... 47 Figure 5.5 Deformation of thin plate at velocity of 2.7 m/s. ............................................................ 47 Figure 5.6 Experimental force-displacement responses using different diameters of indenters. .. 48 Figure 5.7 Experimental force-displacement responses using different types of indenters with the same diameter. ....................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 5.8 Boundary conditions of rectangular plate. .................................................................... 49 Figure 5.9 Comparison of different materials. ................................................................................ 50 Figure 5.10 Comparison of the shape of deformation. ................................................................... 50 Figure 5.11 Comparison of different mesh sizes. .......................................................................... 51 Figure 5.12 Comparison of shell model and solid model. .............................................................. 51 Figure 5.13 Comparison of different support. ................................................................................ 51 Figure 5.14 Comparison of different dynamic yield strength. C40.4q5: mild steel coefficients; C3200q5: high tensile steel coefficients. ................................................................................. 52 Figure 5.15 Position of selected element. ...................................................................................... 52 Figure 5.16 Strain rate of selected elements from numerical simulation. ...................................... 53 Figure 5.17 Force-displacement responses of the clamped and supported models. (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s) ................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 5.18 Force-displacement responses of experimental results and numerical results. E: experimental, S: Simulation .................................................................................................... 54 Figure 5.19 Different type of indenter............................................................................................. 54 Figure 5.20 Comparison of numerical results using different type of indenter. (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s) ......................................................................................................................................... 54 xiii

List of figures Figure 6.1 Experimental force-displacement responses of thin plates with different indenter....... 57 Figure 6.2 Failure modes of the plates. (a) indenter 20 mm; (b) indenter 30 mm ......................... 58 Figure 6.3 Force-displacement responses of experimental and numerical results with different true material curves. (Indenter 30 mm) .......................................................................................... 58 Figure 6.4 Experimental and numerical failure modes. (Indenter 30 mm) ..................................... 59 Figure 6.5 Force-displacement responses of shell model and solid model. (Indenter 30 mm) ..... 59 Figure 6.6 Force-displacement responses of different support. (Indenter 30 mm) ........................ 60 Figure 6.7 Force-displacement responses with different failure strain. (a): indenter 10 mm; (b): indenter 16 mm; (c): indenter 20 mm; (d): indenter 30 mm; ................................................... 61 Figure 6.8 Force-displacement responses with different mesh size and corresponding failure strain. (a) indenter 10 mm; (a) indenter 16 mm; (a) indenter 20 mm; (a) indenter 30 mm. ............... 61 Figure 7.1 Experimental set-up ...................................................................................................... 63 Figure 7.2 Specimens: stiffeners with attached plate .................................................................... 63 Figure 7.3 Force-displacement responses ..................................................................................... 65 Figure 7.4 Force-displacement responses. Panel A2 and Panel A3 impacted at 2.7 m/s............. 65 Figure 7.5 Details of finite element model ...................................................................................... 65 Figure 7.6 Previous and new finite element models ...................................................................... 66 Figure 7.7 Force-displacement response, Specimen A2V2.7. (E): Experimental. (1): Shell. (2): Solid. (3): Shell Weld. (4): Solid Weld. .................................................................................... 66 Figure 7.8 Force-displacement response, Panel A2. Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical results: continuous lines (Solid Weld model). ......................................................................... 67 Figure 7.9 Shape of deformation and von mises stress distribution. Panel A2. (a) Transversal view; (b) Longitudinal view. .............................................................................................................. 67

xiv

List of tables

List of tables
Table 2.1 Sample coefficients for the Cowper--Symonds constitutive equation (cf. Paik 2007) ... 11 Table 2.2 Static and sliding coefficient of friction (cf. Hallquist 2010) ............................................ 15 Table 3.1 Mechanical properties of material .................................................................................. 25 Table 3.2 Summary of experimental results at different impact velocity........................................ 25 Table 3.3 Axial displacements at the supports .............................................................................. 26 Table 3.4 Experimental results using different torques on the bolts. (Impact velocity 1.0 m/s) ..... 26 Table 3.5 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque on the bolts. (Impact velocity 1.0 m/s) ................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 4.1 Experimental results ....................................................................................................... 35 Table 5.1 Mechanical properties of material .................................................................................. 46 Table 5.2 Summary of experimental results of thin plates at different velocity .............................. 47 Table 5.3 Summary of experimental results using different indenters (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s). 48 Table 6.1 Summary of experimental results of thin plates with different indenter ......................... 58 Table 6.2 Mesh size with corresponding failure strain ................................................................... 60 Table 7.1 Mechanical properties of the material. ........................................................................... 64 Table 7.2 Results of impact tests ................................................................................................... 64

xv

List of tables

xvi

Nomenclature

Nomenclature
A A0 Ag B D E e G H K L L0 P Rm T V0 Wf eng t Y Yd eng t True area Original area Maximal uniform strain Width Diameter Yongs modulus Natural logarithmic constant Mass Thickness Torque coefficient True length Original length Load Ultimate tensile stress Torque Initial velocity Maximum permanent transverse deformation Dimensionless external dynamic energy Engineering stress True stress Static yield stress Dynamic yield stress Engineering strain True strain Strain rate

xvii

Nomenclature

xviii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1 Overview and background
Ship grounding and collision could cause loss of human lives and severe environmental damage. In order to minimize these consequences, it is necessary to design crashworthy marine structures. The structural design of ships concerning collision requires an accurate prediction of the damage of ships under impact loading. Finite element analysis is a useful tool to predict the extent of ship collision and consequent damage to structural components. However, the nonlinear dynamic analysis should be compared with experimental tests before being used for structural design. Unfortunately, experimental tests on full scale ship collision are rare and very expensive. One approach is to perform scaled collision test on typical ship structural members to validate the numerical methods for impact analysis. Theoretical and experimental analyses of individual ship structural components under lateral impact loads, such as beams and plates, have been widely analyzed. However, comparison between experiments and numerical simulations still require investigation especially when fracture occurs. Thus, this thesis aims at summarizing definitions adopted in numerical models that use lateral impact load to reproduce the experimental impact response until maximum load and fracture. Studies of the energy absorption of different structural elements have been made for a long time in order to understand the basic mechanisms associated with large plastic deformations. Initially studies were made comparing rigid plastic theory with experiments and more recently comparisons have been made with finite element results, which allow obtaining detailed information of the structural response of the specimens. Concerning to the behavior of beams, Parkes (1955) studied the deformation of a cantilever modeled as a rigid-plastic material struck transversely at its tip by a moving mass. The theoretical and experimental results were compared, finding good agreement at points remote from the impact, and concluding that the prediction of local damage depends on accurate definition of the boundary conditions at the striking point. It was found that the motion producing the deformation can be divided into three phases, which were represented by curves that define the plastic behavior in each phase. Menkes and Opat (1973) conducted an experimental study on the dynamic plastic response and failure of fully clamped beams subjected to different velocities over the entire span, proposing three basic failure modes for fully clamped beams: large inelastic deformation, tensile tearing and transverse shear failure at the supports. Jones (1973) conducted an approximate theoretical study in order to examine the influence of axial displacement at the supports of rotationally fixed and rotationally free rigid perfectly plastic beams. Jones found that small in-plane displacements at the boundaries can change the response from a completely restrained beam to one with complete axial freedom and no increase in strength beyond the limit load. Based on the theoretical analysis of Jones, Hodge (1974) re-examined those loaded beams with a more physical basis, proposing that a simply supported beam can undergo a relative axial 1

CHAPTER 1 Introduction displacement proportional to the induced axial force. Hodge proposed complete formulae and curves for transverse displacements of the order of the beam thickness. Complete load-deflection relationships of a rigid-plastic beam loaded through a rigid circular indenter at mid-span were derived by Low (1981). In that analysis the axial displacements at the supports and the geometrical effects of large rotations were considered, concluding that the elasticity of the beam material has a similar effect to the elastic displacement at the supports. Grkk (1981) studied the influence of finite deflections on the behavior of rigid perfectly-plastic beams with support conditions specified by an axial and a rotational constraint factor. He first proposed a complete solution for axially-restrained rectangular beams with a certain degree of rotational end-fixity constraint. Then, the restriction of complete axial restraint was removed and a separate analysis was performed considering the effect of horizontal displacements at the supports. It was found that the load-carrying capacity is considerably increased showing a strong dependence on the axial restraint provided at the supports. Similar studies were conducted by Tin-Loi (1990) proposing load-deflection relationships of a beam subjected to a non-symmetrically placed point load. In the analysis the supports were considered capable of combine axial and rotational restraints concluding that the increase in load-carrying capacity with deflection can be quite large for certain support conditions. Numerical studies on the dynamic failure of beams have been conducted, proposing theoretical predictions on the initial impact energy for the different failure modes of beams using various failure criteria. However, experimental studies are still very important in order to depth study the failure modes of structures, to propose the more accurate theoretical analysis predictions on the dynamic failure of structure and to verify the finite element simulations. One of the first numerical simulations using beam elements was performed by Symonds and Fleming (1984). They examined the problem of rigid-plastic structural dynamics, finding the deformations of a beam carrying a mass at its tip which was subjected to a short pulse loading. A finite element analysis of a clamped aluminum beam struck transversely by a mass was presented by Yu and Jones (1989). As in previous experiments, two specimen types were modeled, one with enlarged ends and the other with flat ends. The numerical predictions agreed with the experimental results, however significant differences were found between the behavior of flat end beams and beams with enlarged ends. Experimental investigations on the failure of clamped steel beams under impact loads were simulated numerically by Yu and Jones (1997). They observed that the large deformations of the beams in the experimental study caused the upper surfaces of the beams to lose contact with the supports. Chen and Yu (2004) conducted experiments aiming to systematically investigate the failure behavior of clamped beams with one pre-notch or two pre-notches under impact loading from a projectile strike.

CHAPTER 1 Introduction Dimas and Guedes Soares (2006) performed numerical studies of the absorbed energy in clamped steel beams under transverse impact at the mid-span and along their length by relatively heavy masses and compared them with experiments. Harsoor and Ramachandra (2009) reported the experimental and numerical results on deformation and failure of clamped mild steel beams with and without notches subjected to low velocity impact. Analysis of the response of clamped beams to impact loading along their length, for various thicknesses, was performed by Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2009). They compared the experimental tests with the theoretical rigid plastic analysis proposed by Liu and Jones (1987) and with a finite element analysis. Good agreement was found between them, although in the numerical simulations the material was defined as a rigid perfectly plastic material, which does not give a true indication of the deformation characteristics of the metal. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011a) presented a numerical model to simulate the experimental boundary conditions of beam impacted along its span, proposing rigid shell support plate simulating the pressure on the supported length of the beam and the axial displacement between the supports. Plates are one of the principal structural components of ship structure. The history of the dynamic plastic response of plates goes back to the fifties. Cox and Morland (1959) gave the theoretical solution for a simply supported square plate subjected to a uniformly distributed rectangular pressure pulse. The most important results concerned the maximum displacement and the total time of motion. Jones (1971) proposed an approximate theoretical procedure to estimate the permanent transverse deflections of rectangular plates under uniformly distributed loading. The influence of finite-deflections or geometry changes was retained in the analysis but elastic effects were disregarded. Yu and Chen (1992) completed a theoretical investigation to trace the large deflection dynamic plastic response of simply-supported or fully-clamped rectangular plates, assuming a kinematically admissible time-dependent velocity field and considering the global equilibrium of all the forces acting on each rigid segment during large deflection of a plate. Zhu and Faulkner (1994a) reported results on the dynamic response of plates under impact load in minor ship collision using a simplified model. Their work gave a better understanding of the collision process. Zhu et al. (1994b) presented an experimental investigation on clamped metal plates struck by a rigid wedge mass. A simple theoretical procedure based on the rigid perfectly plastic method was used to study the dynamic behavior of locally impacted plates, using a strain-rate sensitivity factor on the average dynamic yield stress. Caridis et al. (1994) summarized the response of thin plates subjected to dynamic loads, obtaining good predictions of the permanent deflections. Shen (1997) presented a theoretical analysis to examine the dynamic response of thin rectangular 3

CHAPTER 1 Introduction plates struck transversely by a wedge. The analysis employed a pure membrane model with two traveling hinge phases. Good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the experimental results obtained on the maximum permanent deflections for various impact energies. Shen et al. (2002a) presented a series of tests to examine the dynamic response and petalling failure of thin circular plates struck transversely at the centre by a mass. He observed that a necking circle was initiated approximately in the central part of plates along a small circle, which was directly under the transition circle from the spherical surface to conical surface of the drop mass. This was due to the excessive in-plane tensile strain. A through-thickness crack, then, was formed at one point on the circle, which was recognized as in-plane tearing failure. Shen (2002b) proposed a theoretical analysis of the petalling failure of thin circular plates. A failure criterion of plastic work density was employed for predicting the onset of petalling failure. Good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the experimental results was obtained for the critical impact energy required to cause failure of the plates with various diameters struck transversely by a mass. Shen et al. (2003) presented a series of experimental results to examine the dynamic response and failure of thin rectangular plates struck transversely at the centre by wedges. He found that the critical impact energy required for the onset of failure varied significantly with the thickness of plates. Jones et al. (2008) studied the perforation of mild steel square and rectangular plates struck normally by cylindrical projectiles having blunt, hemispherical, and conical impact faces. The plates were struck at the center and at several positions near the fully clamped supports. The effect of the aspect ratio on the perforation energies of rectangular plates was examined, and comparisons were made with the perforation behavior of fully clamped circular plates. The predictions of several empirical equations were compared with the corresponding experimental values of the perforation energies. Simple design equations were presented for predicting the maximum permanent transverse displacements of square plates prior to any cracking or perforation. The structural design of ships concerning collision also requires an accurate prediction of the damage of stiffened plates under impact loading. Thus, experimental studies on laterally loaded panels have been conducted in order to derive analytical expressions. Hagiwara et al. (1983) proposed a method for predicting low-energy ship collision damage based on combined experiments, which determined the initiation of plate fracture, the effects of structural details and the deformation of a typical ship panel. Manolakos and Mamalis (1985) used a rigid plastic analysis for predicting the structural behavior of longitudinally framed shell plating of struck vessel during a minor oblique collision. Cho and Lee (2009) developed a simplified method for the prediction of the extent of damage on stiffened plates due to lateral collisions. Lehmann and Peschmann (2002) presented a large-scale collision experiment to validate numerical calculations of the collision process. The results obtained with respect to the failure strains

CHAPTER 1 Introduction were used in the calculations and other parameters numerical calculations were performed of a double-skin structure with austenitic inside wall and austenitic shell and inside wall. Wu et al. (2004) presented results of a scaled double hull structure representing ship to ship collision, obtaining good results in terms of general structural response. Ehlers et al. (2008) performed numerical simulations of the collision response of ship side structures, finding a strong sensitivity of the failure criteria. Alsos and Amdahl (2009a) dealt with hull damage in ships which were subjected to grounding actions. Various configurations of stiffened panels were loaded laterally by a cone shaped indenter until fracture occurs. Alsos and Amdahl (2009b) investigated two failure criteria, which were implemented into the impact analysis. The influence of the element size with respect to onset of failure was studied. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011b) studied numerically the deflection and failure of small panels subjected to lateral impact using different stiffener distributions and impact locations. The analysis of the sensitivity of different parameters, such as the impact velocity, type and distribution of stiffeners, width of panel, and impact along the width is summarized.

1.2 Objectives and scope of the work

The thesis aims at studying small-scale ship structural elements subjected to lateral impact. Experimental and numerical methods are used to study the impact strength of structural components. Detailed information of the impact response of structural components is obtained through drop weight impact tests and nonlinear finite element simulations. The study considers the following ship structural components: beams, plates and stiffeners with attached plate. The impact behavior of the structural elements is validated by comparison of their experimental and numerical force-displacement responses. Special attention is paid to the definition of the true material properties and the representation of the experimental boundary conditions. The thesis is organized as follows: Chapter 2 introduces the definitions for nonlinear finite element simulations: material stress-strain relationship, dynamic yield strength, dynamic fracture strain, failure criteria, contact-impact definition, and mesh size. The simulation of tensile tests and the representation of the boundary conditions are also summarized. Chapter 3 studies the plastic response of beams using the definition of the coefficient of friction at the modeled experimental supports. The true material curve and boundary conditions are studied in the definition of the numerical simulations, comparing the numerical results with the experimental results. Chapter 4 studies the plastic behavior and fracture propagation of clamped pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact by a mass. The true material and critical failure strain in the numerical simulation of impact test is obtained from numerical simulation of tensile test of the material. Chapter 5 presents experimental and numerical analyses of laterally loaded rectangular plate to 5

CHAPTER 1 Introduction study the impact plastic response. The impact tests use different impact velocities and different types of indenters. Chapter 6 presents the initiation and propagation of fracture on laterally loaded rectangular plate through experiments and numerical simulations, studying the influences of indenter type on the failure of rectangular plates. The sensitivity of mesh size and critical failure strain are reviewed using the force-displacement response of plates. Chapter 7 summarizes results from experiments and numerical simulations of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral loads, predicting the absorption of energy during the impact event. The sensitivity of the incident velocity and the stiffener type is reviewed using the force-displacement response of the tested specimens. Chapter 8 contains the conclusions and the further work.

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation

The nonlinear finite element method is one of the most powerful approaches to simulate the impact response of structural elements subjected to large deformation. However, the results of finite element simulations are significantly affected by the modeling technique used. There are different parameters that must be defined in numerical models in order to represent a realistic impact event. This chapter summarizes the definitions in nonlinear finite element simulations, such as: material stress-strain relationship, dynamic yield strength, dynamic fracture strain, failure criteria, contact-impact definition and mesh size. The simulation of tensile tests and the representation of the boundary conditions are also summarized in this chapter.

2.1 Material stress-strain relationship

Material stress-strain relationship is an important definition in nonlinear finite element analysis. The mechanical behavior of materials is described by their deformation and fracture characteristics under applied tensile, compressive or multi-axial stresses. The engineering tension test is widely used to provide basic design information on the strength of materials. In this section, the interpretation of the tension test results and the determination of the true stress-strain curve are briefly summarized (Dieter 1986). The procedures for conducting tensile tests can be found in ASTM (1989).

2.1.1 Engineering stress-strain curve

The engineering stress-strain curve (Figure 2.1) is a graphical representation of the result of metal tensile test which is from the load-elongation measurements of the test specimen. The engineering stress (eng) is the average longitudinal stress in the tensile test specimen. It is obtained by dividing the load (P) by the original area of the cross section of the specimen (A0).

eng =

P A0

(2.1)

Figure 2.1 Engineering stress-strain curve. Intersection of the dashed line with the curve determines the offset yield strength. (cf. Dieter 1986)

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation The engineering strain (eng) is the average linear strain, which is obtained by dividing the elongation of the gauge length of the specimen () by its original length (L0).

eng =

L0

L L L0 = L0 L0

(2.2)

There are many influence factors to the shape and magnitude of the stress-strain curve, such as composition, heat treatment, prior history of plastic deformation, strain rate, temperature, and state of stress imposed during the testing. The parameters that are used to describe the stress-strain curve of a metal are the tensile strength, yield strength or yield point, percent elongation, and reduction in area. The first two are strength parameters; the last two indicate ductility (Dieter 1986). In the elastic region, stress is linearly proportional to strain. When the stress exceeds the yield strength, the specimen undergoes gross plastic deformation. After the yield stress, the engineering stress continues to rise with increasing strain until ultimate tensile stress. A point is reached where the decrease in specimen cross-sectional area is greater than the increase in deformation load arising from strain hardening (Dieter 1986). This condition will be reached first at some point in the specimen that is slightly weaker than the rest. All further plastic deformation is concentrated in this region, and the specimen begins to neck or thin down locally. Because the cross-sectional area now is decreasing far more rapidly than the deformation load is increased by strain hardening, the actual loading required to deform the specimen falls off, and the engineering stress defined in Equation (2.1) continues to decrease until fracture occurs. More details of the engineering stress-strain curve can be found in Dieter (1986).

2.1.2 True stress-strain curve

The engineering stress-strain curve is only based on the original dimensions of the test specimen (A0 and L0), not indicating the true deformation characteristics of a metal. The engineering stress based on the original area decreases after necking. If the true stress and true strain based on the actual cross-sectional area of the specimen is used, the stress-strain curve increases continuously until fracture, as shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Engineering and true stress-true strain curves. (cf. Dieter 1986)

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation The true stress (t) expressed in terms of engineering stress and strain by:

t =

P ( eng + 1) = eng ( eng + 1) A0

(2.3)

Equation (2.3) can be used only until the onset of necking, because its assumption is a homogeneous distribution of strain along the gauge length of the test specimen, which is far from the truth after necking. Thus, beyond the ultimate tensile stress, the true stress should be determined from actual cross-sectional area.

t =

P A L L0

(2.4)

The true strain (t) can be determined from the engineering strain (eng) by:

t = ln( eng + 1) = ln

(2.5)

Equation (2.5) also can be used only until the onset of necking. Beyond maximum load, the true strain should be determined from actual cross-sectional area.

t = ln

A0 A

(2.6)

However, highly accurate optical measuring systems are needed to measure the actual cross-sectional area. Ehlers and Varsta (2009) obtained experimentally true stress-strain material curves from tensile test specimens using highly accurate optical measuring systems. Unfortunately, in most of the cases the material property information is just reduced to the engineering stress-strain curve. More details of the true stress-strain curve can be found in Dieter (1986).

2.1.3 Mathematical expressions for the true material curve

Since a dynamic calculation involves extreme structural behavior with both geometrical and material nonlinear effects, the input of material properties up to the ultimate tensile stress has a significant influence on the extent of critical deformation energy. The information of the engineering stress-strain curve can only be used to obtain true stress-strain curve only until necking. Thus, mathematical approximations should be used to define the true material curve beyond the maximum load. Two true material curves are introduced in this section: the power law curve and the true material curve proposed by Zhang et al. (2004). The true curve of many metals in the region of uniform plastic deformation can be expressed by the simple power curve relation:

t = Kt n

(2.7)

where n is the strain-hardening exponent, and K is the strength coefficient. A log-log plot of true stress and true strain up to maximum load will results in a straight line (Figure 2.3). The linear slope of this line is n, and K is the true stress at t = 1.0 (correspond to A/A0 = 0.63). For most metals, n has values between 0.10 and 0.50.

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation

Figure 2.3 Log-log plot of true stress-strain curve n is the strain-hardening exponent; K is the strength coefficient. (cf. Dieter 1986)

Another mathematical expression defining the true material curve is the one proposed by Zhang et al. (2004). They recommended to use the following true stress-strain relationship:

t = C t p
where

(2.8)

p = ln(1 + Ag )
and

(2.9)

C = Rm (e / p ) p
Ag is the maximal uniform strain related to the ultimate tensile stress Rm, and

(2.10)

e is the natural

logarithmic constant. Both values can be measured from a specimen tensile test. If only the ultimate stress Rm (MPa) is available, the following approximation can be used to obtain the proper Ag value:

Ag = 1/(0.24 + 0.01395 Rm )

(2.11)

The material was defined by Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011c, in press b) to represent the true stress and strain relationship finding good agreement when compared with the experimental engineering stress and strain curve. This material combine two of the previous defined material, i.e. before necking the material is defined by Equations (2.3) and (2.5) and beyond localization is represented by Equation (2.8). The two material definitions are well combined by the material model of Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011c) to express the true stress-stain relationship. In the present work, the material curve defined by Zhang et al. (2004) is denoted by GL, and the true stress-strain curve until the onset of necking is denoted by UN, and the power law curve is denoted by PL. The true material defined with UN curve and beyond continued with GL curve is denoted by UN+GL. Thus, Equations (2.3) and (2.5) define the process before and Equation (2.8) after the necking is localized.

2.2 Dynamic yield strength

The material yield stress is dependent on both the rate of deformation (strain rate) and the temperature at which the deformation occurs. The relationship between yield stress and strain rate at constant 10

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation temperature can be well described (Paik 2007). The dynamic yield strength of the material may be expressed as follows (Jones 1989):

Yd = f ( ) g ( ) Y
where

(2.12)

g ( ) = a material strain-hardening function, and = strain rate.

Table 2.1 Sample coefficients for the Cowper--Symonds constitutive equation (cf. Paik 2007) Material Mild steel High-tensile steel Aluminum alloy -Titanium (Ti 50A) Stainless steel 304 C (s ) 40.4 3,200 6,500 120 100
1

Y , Yd =

static and dynamic yield stresses,

f ( ) = strain rate sensitivity effect function,

q 5 5 4 9 10

Reference Cowper and Symonds (1957) Paik and Chung (1999) Bodner and Symonds (1962) Symonds and Chon (1974) Forrestal and Sagartz (1978)

If the strain-hardening effect is negligible, one can take that function follows:

g ( ) = 1. The strain rate sensitivity

f ( ) is often given using the CowperSymonds equation (Cowper and Symonds 1957) as Yd = 1.0 + ( )1/ q Y C
(2.13)

where C and q are coefficients determined on the basis of test data, see Table 2.1. It is evident that these coefficients depend on the material. Figure 2.4 plots the CowperSymonds equation together with the relevant coefficients for mild or high-tensile steels when

g ( ) = 1.

Figure 2.4 Dynamic yield strength, Yd (normalized by the static yield strength, Y), plotted versus strain rate, for mild and high-tensile steels. (cf. Paik 2007).

11

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation

2.3 Dynamic fracture strain

Both crushing effects and yield strength increase as the loading speed gets faster, whereas any fracture or tearing of steel (and the welded regions) of a structure tends to occur earlier (Paik 2007). The following approximate formula, which is the inverse of the CowperSymonds constitutive equation for the dynamic yield stress, is then used for the estimation of the dynamic fracture strain as a function of the strain rate (Jones 1989), namely,

fd = [1.0 + ( )1/ q ]1 C f
where

(2.14)

f , fd =

static and dynamic fracture strains,

=
.

ratio of the total energies to rupture for

dynamic and static uniaxial loadings. The dynamic fracture strain element simulations in place of static fracture strain

fd

will then be set for the finite

If the energy to failure is assumed to be invariant, i.e., independent of , then it may be taken that

= 1.

Figure 2.5 plots Equation (2.14) with three sets of the coefficients together with experimental

results for mild steels when

= 1. The expression in Equation (2.14) represents the decrease of the

dynamic fracture strain with increase in the strain rate, but the coefficients for the dynamic fracture strain differ from those for the dynamic yield strength. It is again evident that the strain rate is a primary parameter affecting the impact mechanics and the structural crashworthiness. Also, it is seen from the figure that Equation (2.14) with C = 40.4 and q = 5 for mild steel gives a very small value for the fracture strain. Rather, it is recommended to adopt C in the range from 7,000 to 10,000 and q in the range from 2 to 4.

Figure 2.5 Dynamic fracture strain (normalized by the static fracture strain) versus strain rate for mild steels. (cf. Paik 2007)

2.3.1 Failure criteria

The failure predicted by a finite element analysis can be represented by the initial fracture of a finite element which has an extreme large plastic strain (Zhang 2004).Usually the first rupture of an element 12

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation will be defined with a failure strain value. If the calculated strain, such as plastic effective strain, principal strain or for a shell element strain in the thickness direction exceeds its defined failure strain value, the element will be fractured and deleted from the finite element model. The deformation energy in this element will keep in a constant value in the further calculation steps. Numerical calculations have shown that the deformation energy is very sensitive to the defined failure criteria. The definition of the failure strain value is a most important key point for a correct prediction of realistic critical deformation energy and it can result in an incorrect assessment of the energy absorption, if an improper failure criterion is defined. In fact the development of rupture of a structural component is a very complicated process and is influenced from many factors. Firstly it is directly related to material characteristics such as yield stress, the maximal uniform strain and the fracture strain. Secondly it is well known from numerous practical experiences and theoretical investigations that an initiation of a fracture depends also on the stress states resulting under complicated loads on the structures. In addition, it is also influenced by the production process, manufacture quality as well as environmental and operational conditions. For a mesh size, element shape as well as selected element types plays also very important roles because in reality a fracture process is developed from a uniform deformation state over the whole component to a very local necking in a very small area with extreme large strain values. To obtain practical failure strain definitions under consideration of element size, stress state and manufacture influence many thickness measurements from prototype damaged structure components such as shell plating and stiffeners etc. have been carried out and the uniform strain, the necking as well as the necking length have been determined. There are two failure criteria for the definition of failure strain of a shell element. The criterion proposed by Peschmann (2001) is based on quasi-static uniaxial tension. The ratio of uniform and necking strain must be scaled by the length of necking:

crit = g + m ( e )

x t

t l

(2.15) the plate thickness and l

g is the uniform strain, m is the necking strain, xe the length of neck, t

failure strain for plate thickness smaller than 12 mm:

the element length. Thus, based on tests, Peschmann proposed the following values for the critical

crit = 0.1 + 0.8

t l

(2.16)

The values of uniform and necking strain achieved from thickness measurements related to the calculated stress states proposed by Zhang et al. (2004) of 0.056 for the uniform strain and 0.54 for the necking strain in the case of shell elements.

crit = 0.056 + 0.54

2.4 Contact-impact algorithm

t l

(2.17)

The treatment of sliding and impact along interfaces are important definitions in nonlinear analysis 13

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation when two bodies interact (Hallquist 2010). Interfaces can be defined in three dimensions by triangular and quadrilateral segments. One side of the interface is designated as the slave side, and the other as the master side. Nodes lying in those surfaces are referred to as slave and master nodes, respectively. Thus, the slave nodes are constrained to slide on the master surface and must remain on the master surface until a tensile force develops between the node and the surface. Automatic contact definitions are commonly used. In this approach the slave and master surfaces are generated internally from the part given for each surface. Two distinct methods for defining contact are implemented in LS-DYNA: the kinematic constraint method and the penalty method.

2.4.1 Kinematic constraint method

In this method, the constraints are imposed on the global equations by a transformation of the nodal displacement components of the slave nodes along the contact interface. This transformation has the effect of eliminating the normal degree of freedom of nodes. To preserve the efficiency of the explicit time integration, the mass penetrates into the specimen allowing that the global degrees of freedom of each master node are coupled. The impact is imposed to the conservation of moment. Problems arise with this method when the master surface mesh is finer than the slave surface mesh as shown in two dimensions in Figure 2.6. Here, certain master nodes can penetrate through the slave surface without resistance and create a twist node in the slide line. Such twist nodes are relatively common with this formulation, and, when interface pressures are high, these twist nodes occur whether one or more quadrature points are used in the element integration.

Slave surface Master surface Indicates nodes treated as free surface nodes
Figure 2.6 Nodes of the master slide surface designated with an x are treated as free surface nodes in the nodal constraint method. (cf. Hallquist 2010)

2.4.2 Penalty method

The penalty method consists of placing normal interface springs between all penetrating nodes and the contact surface. Quite in contrast to the nodal constraint method, the method excites little if any mesh hourglassing is used. Three implementations of the penalty algorithm are available in LS-DYNA: (1) Standard penalty formulation, where the interface stiffness is chosen to be approximately the same order of magnitude as the stiffness of the interface element. (2) Soft constraint penalty formulation, which treat contact between bodies with dissimilar material properties (e.g. steel-foam). (3) Segment-based penalty formulation, which uses a slave segment-master segment approach 14

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation instead of a traditional slave node-master.

2.4.3 Initial contact Interpenetrations

The offset to account the thickness of the shell elements contributes to initial contact interpenetrations, which cannot be detected since the contact node interpenetrates completely through the surface at the beginning of the calculation. This is illustrated in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7 Undetected interpenetration. Such interpenetrations are frequently due to the use of coarse meshes. (cf. Hallquist 2010)

2.4.4 Friction definition

Friction in LS-DYNA is based on a Coulomb Formulation. The frictional algorithm uses the equivalent of an elastic plastic spring. The interface shear stress that develops as a result of Coulomb friction can be very large and in some cases may exceed the ability of the material to carry such a stress. Typical values of friction are indicated in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Static and sliding coefficient of friction (cf. Hallquist 2010) Materials Hard steel on hard steel Mild steel on mild steel Aluminium on mild steel Aluminium on aluminium Tires on pavement (40 psi) Static 0.78 (dry) 0.74 (dry) 0.61 (dry) 1.05 (dry) 0.90 (dry) Sliding 0.08 (greasy), 0.42 (dry) 0.10 (greasy), 0.57 (dry) 0.47 (dry) 1.4 (dry) 0.69 (wet), 0.85 (dry)

2.4.5 Contact automatic surface to surface

Automatic contact formulations are recommended for most explicit simulations. Contact automatic surface to surface can handle situations such as shell edge to surface, and beam to shell surface. The contact search algorithms employed by automatic contacts is well suited to handling disjoint meshes. In the case of shell elements, automatic contact types determine the contact surfaces by projecting normally from the shell mid-plane a distance equal to one-half the contact thickness. Further, at the exterior edge of a shell surface, the contact surface wraps around the shell edge with a radius equal to one-half the contact thickness thus forming a continuous contact surface.

2.5 Mesh size

15

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation In the finite element simulation, mesh size has important effects on the calculation results (Paik 2007). To properly capture highly nonlinear characteristics of structures, a very fine finite element mesh is required. For many reasons, however, it is not always the case that a very fine mesh modeling can be adopted. For example, very large complex structures need a huge number of finite elements so that it is not easy to execute the numerical simulations with such number of elements. Convergence studies with varying mesh size and element number often need to be undertaken to define the relevant mesh size, with large computational efforts still being required for that purpose. In this regard, it will be very helpful for nonlinear finite element structural modeling if the relevant mesh size can be readily determined, even without a convergence study. Actually, the mesh size is not very important in analysis of plastic deformation, but plays an important role when fracture occurs. In collisions or grounding, major failure modes are crushing, fracture (tearing or cutting), and plate tension. Among them, the crushing mechanism requires very fine mesh size to reflect folded configuration.

2.6 Simulation of tensile tests

A tensile specimen is a standardized sample cross-section. It has two shoulders and a gauge section in between. The shoulders are large so that they can be gripped. The gauge section has a smaller cross-section so that the deformation and failure can occur in this area. The standard test specimen dimensions and tolerances can be found in ASTM (1989). Finite element simulations of structures subjected to impact loads require the input of the true stress-strain relationship until failure. The adopted stress-strain relationship affects the necking and rupture behavior obtained by the finite element simulations. The mesh size for simulating the internal mechanics needs to be fine enough to capture the nonlinear structural response. Another important parameter is the prediction and simulation of initiation and propagation of fracture. However, the failure due to material rupture is still not well resolved numerically, because the fracture length is much smaller than the side length of the elements in a finite element model. Thus, it is difficult to establish a procedure suitable for prediction of failure in the engineering practice. In practical terms, numerical simulations of tensile tests have been conducted to predict the critical failure strains used in the finite element models of small-scale structures such as plates subjected to impact loads. For example, Ehlers and Varsta (2009) obtained experimentally true stress-strain material curves from tensile test specimens using highly accurate optical measuring systems. Simonsen and Lauridsen (2000) approached the critical failure strain used in finite elements models through numerical simulations of the tensile tests using different failure strains and mesh densities. Villavicencio et al. (in press a) conducted tensile tests to calibrate the plastic response of aluminum plates, as a result the true stress-strain relationship for thin and thick circular plates subjected to impact was defined and the local out-of-plane deformation and the indentation into the thickness were adequately predicted. For a purely plastic response without necking or fracture, the plastic parameters of the material can be determined by true stress-strain curve until necking which is from the results of a tensile test. However, fracture and necking occur over a length which is much smaller than the side length of the

16

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation elements considered in a finite element model. Thus, these elements cannot capture such a local phenomenon. The mesh sensitivity can be approached with an engineering method at the level of advanced industry practice (Simonsen and Lauridsen 2000) in which the critical failure strain required to give the material fracture strain is found through numerical simulations of the tensile tests using different failure strains and mesh densities. Here, failure strain denotes the strain value when fracture occurs. The failure strain is defined as the average normal strain over the element. The engineering tension tests are modeled using LS-DYNA Version 971 (Hallquist 2010) finite element package. The tensile specimens are modeled with shell (4-nodes, 5-integration points) or solid (8-nodes, 1-integration point) elements, depending on the type of structure in analysis. In the tensile test simulations, only the length of the tensile specimen between the clamping edges is modeled (Figure 2.8). For initiating necking, the width of the specimen at the centre is gradually reduced by 0.5 %. The mesh is diagonally orientated to avoid hourglassing and all components of the hourglass force vector are orthogonal to rigid body rotations. As the critical failure strain depends on the mesh density, various mesh sizes are simulated.

Figure 2.8 Finite element model. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)

The material selected from the library of LS-DYNA allows the definition of a true stress-strain curve as an offset table. Also, failure based on a plastic strain and arbitrary strain rate dependency can be defined (Mat.024-Piecewice linear plasticity). The translational degrees of freedom are restricted at one end and a constant displacement of 100 times the experimental speed is prescribed at the other. The force of the displaced nodes at the free end is obtained and then plotted versus the applied displacement, and these values used to give the engineering stress-strain behavior. To model failure, the solver deletes elements when their average strain reaches a critical value. The numerical simulations are calibrated using the experimental data to give the critical strain value that fit the experimental results using an iterative procedure. Figure 2.9 shows the time steps of a typical tensile test simulation. It is observed that when the stress exceeds the yield strength, the specimen undergoes gross plastic deformation and its cross-sectional area decreases uniformly along the gauge length (step 1). At some time, the decrease in specimen cross-sectional area is greater than the increase in axial deformation (step 2). All further plastic deformation is concentrated in this region, and the specimen begins to neck locally (steps 3 and 17

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation 4) until fracture occurs (step 5).

Figure 2.9 Time steps of a typical tensile test simulation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)

The beginning of a fracture is indicated by a crack in the center of the specimen (neutral axis), which propagates through the surface perpendicularly to the applied tension (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10 Fracture propagation. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)

Reduction of cross-sectional area is customarily measured only on test pieces with an initial circular cross section because the shape of the reduced area remains circular or nearly circular throughout the test for such test pieces. With rectangular tests pieces, in contrast, the corners prevent uniform flow from occurring, and consequently, after fracture, the shape of the reduced area is not rectangular (Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.11 Sketch of end view of rectangular test piece after fracture showing constraint at corners indicating the difficulty of determining reduced area. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011c)

18

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation

2.7 Representation of experimental supports

In the experimental tests it is almost impossible to satisfy precisely the zero displacement condition at the supports, because the load capacity of the structure is strongly dependent on the axial restraint provided at the supports. Therefore, when developing numerical models that are to be compared with experimental results, it is necessary that the real boundary conditions are represented in the numerical model, instead of the ideal ones that are the intention in the experimental program. The assumptions of simply supported or fully clamped boundaries in finite element analyses can lead to errors in the load carrying capacities of the analyzed structure. On the other hand, a complete representation of the experimental supports simulating the boundary conditions requires extra time in modeling and computations. In most of the numerical simulations, the support plates are represented using shell undeformable elements compressing the specimen as occurred in the experiments (Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12 Models of boundary conditions. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares in press a)

In this boundary condition representation, all the support plate length is modeled and no gap between the support plates and the supported area of the specimen is considered. The lower support plate is constrained in all degrees of freedom. The upper support plate is constrained in all degrees of freedom, except for vertical translation, because a prescribed vertical motion is imposed to compress the supported surface of the panel simulating the clamped condition. The value of the prescribed displacement is equal to yt/3 (Ehlers 2010), where y is the yield strain of the material and t is the thickness of the supported stiffened plate. Using this boundary condition representation, some small longitudinal displacements of the supported portion of the specimen between the support plates are observed, which are due to the high incident energy applied. More details of the representation of experimental supports may be found in Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2011a).

19

CHAPTER 2 Nonlinear finite element simulation

20

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact

Experiments and numerical simulations were conducted in order to study the plastic response of beams laterally impacted by a mass. Most of researches use standard boundary conditions, such as simple supported and fully clamped, and studies on the influence of the coefficient of friction at the supports are rare. Thus, this chapter studies the plastic response of beams using the definition of the coefficient of friction at the modeled experimental supports and proposes some useful conclusions. Also, as is difficult to define all the parameters in a finite element model, such as the true material curve and boundary conditions, in the numerical simulations these important parameters were obtained experimentally, for instance measuring the displacements of the supported length of the beams.

3.1 Impact test machine

The basic requirement of the instrumented falling weight impact test (Figure 3.1), is to gain an understanding of the mechanism by which materials (e.g. plastics, metals, ceramics etc.) or structures (e.g. fabricated articles, composites, adhesive joints), fail in impact situations, i.e. at high rates of strain.

ROSAND

ROSAND

Flag Striking mass Load cell (50kN) Indenter

ROSAND

Instrumented Falling Weight Impact Tester, Type 5 Support Specimen plates

Guide rails Optical gate

Structural support

Figure 3.1 Fully instrumented Rosand IFW5 falling weight machine. (Drawing provided by R. Villavicencio)

Details of the impact machine are summarized in Rosand Precision Impact Tester User manual (version 1.3). The impact machine is composed by two main parts: (1) A frame to hold the sample, and guide the falling weight onto it. (2) The electronics, which: i. Control the impact process, in a reproducible and safe manner. ii. Acquire, display and analyze the high-speed data. 21

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact iii. Communicate with the computer system, which is used for further analysis, and for data storage and retrieval and for presentation of results. The experiments were conducted using an instrumented falling weight impact test machine. A small, light hemispherical ended cylindrical projectile is dropped from a known, variable height between guide rails onto a clamped horizontally supported plate target. A much larger, variable mass is attached to the projectile and a load cell between the two gives the variation of impact force with time. An optical gate gives the incident velocity, and hence the displacement and velocity and the energy it imparts are calculated from the forcetime data by successive numerical integrations. Since the projectile is assumed to remain in contact with the specimen throughout the impact event, the indenter displacement is used to give the displacement and velocity of the top face of the specimen, under the indenter. By assuming that frictional and heating effects are negligible, the energy imparted by the indenter is that absorbed by the specimen. Thus, this energy value at the end of the test is that irreversibly absorbed by the specimen.

3.2 Impact tester software

Details of the software are summarized in Rosand Precision Impact Tester Software manual (version 1.3). This section describes the capabilities of the operating software of the Rosand impact machine. The software can be used to control the machine, and collect and analyze the test data. Two distinct functions of the software are to control the apparatus and to present the results of the test. The software provides direct control over the following aspects: Data capture speed and sample length Transducer amplifier gain, and filtering Catcher position and winch speed Chamber and anvil temperature Drop height, velocity and energy Operation of optional equipment, such as sample strippers and second strike preventers Drop cycle initiation, and optionally direct control over the drop itself Calibration of all transducers (impact force, catcher height and bungee force) Second data collection channel control After a drop test, data is automatically transmitted to the computer. The software allows great flexibility in the manipulation of this data, including the following functionality: Calculation, from the basic force-time (or acceleration-time) information, of velocity, distance and energy Plotting of force, and derived quantities, against time and distance Multiple, simultaneous, on-screen graphs. Flexible control over axis scaling, including fully automatic scaling. Simple graph zooming using the mouse to investigate features in detail. Saving and recalling of data to disk Recalling of multiple data sets for comparison and averaging Tabular test results 22

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact Moveable markers, used to define the start of event, peak force and end of event. Initial values set automatically, may be manually adjusted. Printing of graphs and tables Crack analysis calculations Data of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement can be obtained from the impact tester software (Figure 3.2), which are used to analyze the experimental results and compare with numerical simulation of these impact tests.

Figure 3.2 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement. (cf. Villavicencio and Guedes Soares 2011a)

3.3 Experimental details

The impact tests represent a situation in which it is considered that a partially clamped beam is struck at the mid-span by a mass travelling with an initial impact velocity, as shown in Figure 3.3. The beam is partially clamped between two support plates, i.e. the beam experiences some axial displacement at the supports during the impact event.
FRICTION V STRIKING MASS SUPPORT PLATE

BEAM

Figure 3.3 Beam struck transversely by a mass.

The experimental set-up can be seen in Figure 3.4. The specimen beams were 125 mm span length, 20 mm width and 3 mm thickness. Tests were carried out by using a striking mass of 24.42 kg 23

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact and impact velocities from 0.5 to 2.5 m/s. The length of the beams is divided in three: span length and two support lengths, where the span length is the distance between the supports and the support length is the length of the upper support plate (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4 Experimental set-up.

The specimen beams were supported between two thick rectangular steel plates (upper and lower support plates) and were compressed by two M16 bolts at each support. The lower support plates (thickness 16 mm) were stiffened by two relatively thick plates (12 mm) one of which was located below the supported length of the beam, and were fixed to a strong structural base to prevent their movement. Although the structural supports were made of mild steel and they could experience some deformation during the impact, it was assumed that they were stiff enough and did not suffer any important deformations. The torque applied to screw the bolts and to compress the supported length of the specimen beams was 60 Nm. This torque (T) gives the preload force (F) to the upper support plate. The relationship between the torque and preload force can be expressed by: F=T/KD (3.1)

where K is the dimensionless torque coefficient, ranging from 0.10 for a well lubricated or waxed assembly to over 0.30 for one that is dirty or rusty, and D is the diameter of the bolt. In this case, the 24

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact bolts are plain and slightly oily, so the torque coefficient takes 0.2. Therefore, the preload force of one bolt was estimated as 18750 N. The material is high-tensile steel and its mechanical properties were obtained from in-house tensile test which results are summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Mechanical properties of material Property Density Youngs modulus Poissons ratio Yield stress Ultimate stress Units kg/m
3

Steel 3.0 mm 7850 206 0.3 403 492

GPa -MPa MPa

3.4 Experimental results

The experimental results of the tested beams are summarized in Table 3.2. It is observed that the force and the displacement are in direct proportion to the impact velocity. When the impact velocity increases 0.5 m/s, the peak force increases about 1.6 kN and the maximum displacement about 4 mm. The rebound displacement is the difference between the maximum and the end displacement. This rebound displacement is larger at low impact velocities. As is a drop weight impact experiment, the maximum absorbed energy during the impact is larger than the initial input kinetic energy of the striking mass. Hence, the total absorbed energy must include the potential energy of striking mass caused by the vertical deformation of the beam.
Table 3.2 Summary of experimental results at different impact velocity Impact Velocity (m/s) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Values at Peak Force Force (kN) 1.60 2.86 4.27 5.85 8.35 Displ (mm) 3.65 7.37 12.64 16.64 21.99 Energy (J) 3.89 13.67 29.57 52.73 81.70 Values at End Displ (mm) 2.21 6.38 11.81 16.12 21.60 Energy (J) 2.98 12.72 28.31 52.14 80.63

The axial displacements at the supports were measured at the end of the impact event in order to analyze the coefficient of friction between the supported portion of the beam and the support plates. An average axial displacement was used, because of the asymmetrical displacement at each supports. The axial displacements at the supports are shown in Table 3.3. The axial displacement would be doubled when the impact velocity increases 0.5 m/s. The deformed shape of the beams at different impact velocities was shown in Figure 3.5. The maximum lateral displacement is in direct proportion to the impact velocity, which is different from the 25

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact axial displacement. Figure 3.6 shows a typical beam after the impact. The V-shape deformation was formed with plastic hinges at the impact position and the supports.
Table 3.3 Axial displacements at the supports Velocity (m/s) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Displacement (mm) 0.10 0.20 0.42 0.94 2.22

1.0m/s 2.0m/s 2.5m/s 1.5m/s

0.5m/s

Figure 3.5 Deformed shape of beams after the impact.

Figure 3.6 Deformation of the beam impacted at velocity 2.0 m/s.

Table 3.4 Experimental results using different torques on the bolts. (Impact velocity 1.0 m/s) Torque (Nm) 60 70 80 Values at Peak Force Force (kN) 2.83 3.01 3.24 Displ (mm) 7.10 6.93 6.85 Energy (J) 13.80 13.73 13.68 Values at End Displ (mm) 6.74 6.11 5.45 Energy (J) 13.08 12.57 11.84

The friction between the supported length of the beam and the support plates depends on the preload force. Thus, the beams were tested using different torque on the bolts in order to observe different axial displacements at the supports. Three beams were tested using an impact velocity of 1.0 m/s and using torques of 60, 70 and 80 Nm. The experimental results are summarized in Table 3.4,

26

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact and the force-displacement responses are shown in Figure 3.7. It is noted that the torque on the bolt has important influence on the response of beam, increasing the impact forces and, consequently, decreasing the lateral displacements. Also, the axial displacement at supports decreased in proportional magnitudes using larger torque (Table 3.5).

Figure 3.7 Force-displacement responses using different torque on the bolts. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s.

Table 3.5 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque on the bolts. (Impact velocity 1.0 m/s) Torque (Nm) 60 70 80 Displacement (mm) 0.20 0.15 0.10

3.5 Numerical model

The numerical model is illustrated in Figure 3.8. The specimen beam and the striking mass were modeled with solid (8-nodes, 1-integration point) elements. The mesh size of the beam and the striking mass was 221.5 mm and 111 mm, respectively. The striking mass was defined as a rigid material to ensure no deformation. The Mat.020-Rigid was selected from the material library of LS-DYNA, assigning mild steel mechanical properties (Youngs modulus 206GPa and Poissons ratio 0.3). As the falling weight assembly was modeled as a simple box, an artificially large density was used to give the same mass as used in the experiments. The contact between the striking mass and the beam was defined as Automatic Surface to Surface. The Load Body Z was chosen to define the acceleration of gravity in the simulation. In the constraint of striking mass, only the vertical translation was free, in which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned.
Tx,Ty Rx,Ry,Rz

F V

Tx,Ty Rx,Ry,Rz

Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz

Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz

Figure 3.8 Numerical model.

27

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact The definition of the beam material is the most important one, and thus the mechanical properties of the material used in the finite element model were obtained from in-house tensile tests carried out on the same beams from which the impact specimens were done. The material selected from the library of LS-DYNA was Mat.024-Piecewice lineal plasticity, which allows the definition of a true stress-strain curve as an offset table. The true material was defined using the exact true stress-strain relationship until maximum load and beyond necking was used the approximate relationship proposed by Zhang et al. (2004), (UN+GL, Section 2.1.3), see Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9 Engineering and true stress-strain curve of material.

Although the experiments allow studying the plastic response of the beams, the aim of the experiments was to measure the displacements at the supports in order to observe the influence of the coefficient of friction. The contact between the support plates and the beam was defined as Automatic Surface to Surface. Thus, the support plates modeled with 4-node shell elements were defined as a rigid material. All the degrees of freedom of the lower support plates were constrained, whereas only the vertical translation was free on the upper support plates. The Boundary Prescribed Motion Node was selected to define preload force of bolts on the upper support plates.

3.6 Numerical results

The tested beam with an impact velocity of 1.0 m/s was selected to compare with the numerical simulations. The sensitivity of the coefficient of friction was evaluated by modifying its magnitude in the contact definition. The results of the simulations are shown in Figure 3.10. The importance of the coefficient of friction is evident. Several coefficients of friction were chosen to analyze the influence on the plastic responses of beam. If the coefficient of friction is big enough, the beam does not experience any axial displacement at the support, i.e. represents a fully clamped condition. If the coefficient of friction is zero, the impact force remains constant after the elastic limit, whose characteristics is due to the high axial displacement at the support. The result of numerical simulation with coefficient of friction of 0.21 gives better agreement with the experimental result. The maximum force and displacement are shown in Figure 3.11. The numerical results show a straight line, predicting well the maximum displacement in the full range of impact velocities. However, the force is under predicted at higher impact velocities reaching a maximum difference of 14.9%.

28

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact

Figure 3.10 Force-displacement responses with different friction coefficient at the supports.

Figure 3.11 Maximum force and displacements at different impact velocities.

The maximum stress and deformation are mainly concentrated at the impact location and at the supports, as shown in Figure 3.12. The remaining length of the beams has low stresses and small axial deformations.

Figure 3.12 Shape of the deformation and von Mises stress distribution at maximum force.

The comparison of the axial displacements at the supports is shown in Figure 3.13. The axial displacements of the simulation are in agreement with the experimental results. The axial displacement has a relation with the maximum force and displacement shown in Figure 3.11. A good results would be obtained if the maximum force and displacement having agreement with the experimental results.

29

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact

Figure 3.13 Axial displacements at the supports at different velocity.

The comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement responses using different torque at the bolts are shown in Figure 3.14. Higher forces and smaller displacements are obtained increasing the magnitude of the torque. It is noted that the three force-displacement responses are similar at the beginning. The numerical results agree with the experimental results, only having the error of maximum force and displacement of 2.8% and 3.6%, respectively.

Figure 3.14 Experimental and numerical force-displacement responses using different torque at the bolts. Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical results: continuous lines. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s.

Figure 3.15 Axial displacements at the supports using different torque at the bolts. Impact velocity 1.0 m/s.

30

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact The axial displacements at the supports using different torque at the bolts are shown in Figure 3.15. The tendency of the axial displacement is the same with the experiments, decreasing with the torque at the bolts. Although, are seen big differences in the axial displacement at the supports, the magnitudes of these differences only reach 0.1 mm which is a magnitude difficult to measure in experiments.

3.7 Concluding remarks

(1) The force-displacement response is in direct proportion with the impact velocity. Also, the rebound displacement decreases with the impact velocity. (2) Moreover, the axial displacement at the supports increases with the impact velocity. The lateral displacement increases with the axial displacement using the same velocity. (3) The good agreements obtained between experiments and simulations obey a correct representation of the boundary condition. Thus, the preload force and the coefficient of friction are the most important parameters in the definition of the representation of the experimental supports.

31

CHAPTER 3 Plastic response of beams subjected to lateral impact

32

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact

Various studies on uniform and perfect structural members under impact loads have been made in order to understand their dynamic plastic behavior. However, real structures have imperfections in their geometry, such as notches or cracks. In engineering practice, the imperfections in the cross section are easier to fracture. Thus, it is imperative for the study of structural components including initial damage in their geometry. This chapter describes a series of impact tests conducted to study the plastic behavior and fracture propagation of clamped pre-notched beams subjected lateral impact by a mass. Also, numerical simulations were carried out using the LS-DYNA to predict the force-displacement response and the initiation of fracture in the pre-notched beams. The material definition in the numerical model was obtained from numerical simulation of tensile test, and the experimental supports were represented in order to obtain the stresses on the elements at the supports.

4.1 Experimental details

The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2. The impact test represents a situation in which it is considered that a clamped pre-notched beam is struck by a mass travelling with an initial impact velocity, as shown in Figure 4.1. The experimental set-up can be seen in Figure 4.2. The specimen beams were 250 mm span length, 20 mm width and 8.0 mm thickness. Tests were carried out using a striking mass of 74.8 kg and an impact velocity of 4.2 m/s. The indenter was a hemispherically ended cylindrical projectile of diameter 30 mm. The impact point was at the mid-span and at one-quarter of the support. Beams with and without notch were tested. Two notches were manually mechanized with a saw. Two depth of notch were considered: 2.0 mm and 4.0 mm (Figure 4.3). The width of the notch is 1.0 mm. The positions of the notch were 15, 75 and 115 mm from the support, as shown in Figure 4.4.

striking mass V notch

Figure 4.1 Pre-notched beam stuck transversely by a mass.

The length of the beams is divided in three: span length and two support lengths, where the span length is the distance between the supports and the support length is the length of the upper plate. Two short beams of length 100 mm were welded at the ends of the specimen beams (Figures 4.2). These short beams named stoppers were designed to prevent the axial displacement of the beams between the support plates. No gap between the stopper and the upper support plate was considered. The specimen beams were supported between two thick rectangular steel plates (upper and lower support plates) and were compressed by two bolts at each support. The lower support plates (thickness 16 mm) 33

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact were stiffened by two relatively thick plates (12 mm) one of which located below the supported length of the beam, and were fixed to a strong structural base to prevent their movement. Although the structural supports were made of mild steel and they could experience some deformation during the impact, it was assumed that they were stiff enough and did not suffer any important deformations.

Figure 4.2 Experimental set-up.

Figure 4.3 Measure the depth of notch.

34

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact

notch1

notch2

notch3

Figure 4.4 Position of notch and striking mass.

4.2 Experimental results

The experimental results are summarized in Table 4.1. Three failure modes were observed in the experiments: large inelastic deformation (failure mode I), tension failure (failure mode II) and transverse shear failure (failure mode III). The notation of the failure modes is only valid in this thesis. The failure mode II and III are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. Although both II and III failure modes are under a combination of tension and shear force, the tension failure denotes the specimen in which the cut area is smaller than the area seen in the shear failure, and also in the tension failure it is thought that the development of membrane force is more evident.
Table 4.1 Experimental results Values at Peak Specimen WN_Q WN_M N15_2mm_Q N15_4mm_Q N15_2mm_M N15_4mm_M N75_2mm_Q N75_4mm_Q N75_2mm_M N75_4mm_M N115_2mm_Q N115_4mm_Q N115_2mm_M N115_4mm_M Values at End Failure Mode I I I III I II I III I II I II I III

Force [kN] Defln [mm] Energy [J] Defln [mm] Energy [J] 44.6 38.9 41.6 37.9 38.2 29.7 43.3 32.9 38.5 28.3 43.1 41.7 38.5 24.6 33.4 43.2 34.0 36.4 44.2 40.6 33.6 33.8 44.3 39.5 33.8 37.5 44.3 34.7 669.8 683.3 678.3 646.4 677.3 542.0 678.8 480.2 685.5 468.3 686.7 663.3 685.5 347.8 29.1 38.7 29.3 36.4 39.2 40.6 27.6 33.8 39.0 39.5 27.6 37.5 37.5 34.7 617.6 637.3 622.3 646.4 620.4 542.0 618.6 480.2 628.5 468.3 627.1 663.3 620.6 347.8

*WN: Without notch; Q and M: Impact at one-quarter of the support and mid-span, respectively; N15, N75 and N115: Notch position 15, 75 and 115 mm from the support, respectively; 2mm and 4mm: The depth of notch 2.0 mm and 4.0 mm, respectively.

35

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.5 Tension failure. (a): Specimen N115_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.6 Shear failure. (a): Specimen N75_4mm_Q; (b) Specimen N115_4mm_M.

In all cases, the beams with 2.0 mm notch experienced large plastic deformation, whereas the beams with 4.0 mm notch fractured at the notch position. Two of the tested beams were selected to compare their impact response. The selected beams were specimens N15_2mm_M and N15_4mm_M, and their deformed shapes are shown in Figure 4.7.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.7 Shape of the deformation: (a) Specimen N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M.

The time dependant curves

of force, displacement and absorbed energy and the

force-displacement response are shown in Figure 4.8. The absorbed energy can be calculated by integrating the force-displacement curve. Both curves are similar at the beginning of the response, indicating that the depth of notch has small influence on the plastic response of pre-notched beams. The beam with 4.0 mm notch fractured, whereas the beam with 2.0 mm notch only reproduced plastic deformation. The absorbed energy until fracture is the most important parameter of the impact response of pre-notched beam. The maximum forces of the beams with different notches are shown in Figure 4.9. The results of the beams with 2.0 mm notches are similar with the results of the beams without notch. But the results with 4.0 mm notch differ from the results of the beams without notch, especially when the notch position 36

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact near the impact position, because the absorbed energy of fractured beam is smaller than the incident energy, and the beam is much easier to fracture when the notch near the impact position.

Figure 4.8 Experimental results of force-time, displacement-time, absorbed energy-time and force-displacement. P: Specimen N15_2mm_M (plastic deformation); F: Specimen N15_4mm_M (fracture).

Impact at Mid
40
without notch notch 2mm

50

Impact at Quarter
without notch

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

35 30 25 20 notch 1

45 40 35 30

notch 2mm notch 4mm

notch 4mm

notch 2

notch 3

notch 1

notch 2

notch 3

Figure 4.9 Maximum forces of beams with different notch.

4.3 Numerical model

The computations were carried out using the finite element package LS-DYNA Version 971 (Hallquist 2010) which is appropriate for non-linear explicit dynamic simulations with large deformations. The finite element model was designed with the specimen beam and striking mass. The specimen beam was modeled in 8-nodes solid elements with 1-integration point using constant stress solid element formulation. The striking mass was modeled with shell elements. As no material response information was obtained from the striking mass, zero-integration points were defined. The mesh size of the beam 37

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact and the striking mass was 111 mm, as shown in Figure 4.10. The material of beam and the striking mass were defined as Mat.024-Piecewice lineal plasticity and Mat.020-Rigid selected from the material library of LS-DYNA, respectively, assigning mild steel mechanical properties (Youngs modulus 206GPa and Poissons ratio 0.3).

Figure 4.10 Mesh sizes of beam and striking mass.

4.3.1 Boundary conditions

The experimental restraints are similar to fully clamped boundary conditions. In order to check the accuracy, two definitions of the boundary condition were evaluated in the numerical model. The clamped and supported boundary conditions are shown in Figure 4.11. In the constraint of striking mass, only the vertical translation was free, in which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned. In the clamped model, the beam length was the span length, and all the degrees of freedom of the ends of beam were constrained. But in the supported model, the beam length was the total of the span length and the two support lengths, and all the degrees of freedom of the ends of beam were constrained. The support plates modeled with 4-node shell elements were defined as a rigid material and constrained all the degrees of freedom.

V
Clamped model
Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz Tx,Ty,Tz Rx,Ry,Rz

Supported model

Figure 4.11 Boundary conditions of pre-notched beam.

4.3.2 Material definition using tensile test simulation

Three true material curves were evaluated in order to select the one that best fit the plastic response of the material and also to predict the point of fracture. The engineering and true material curves (GL, UN+GL and PL, Section 2.1.3) are plotted in Figure 4.12.

38

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact

Figure 4.12 True and engineering material curves.

The size of model is 100208 mm, and the mesh size is 1.0 mm. The critical failure strain was obtained by successive numerical simulation (f = 1.2). Figure 4.13 shows the results of the numerical simulations using the three material curves (GL, UN+GL, PL). The best approximation is given by the power law (PL) material curve, which follows the experimental curve quite precisely.

Figure 4.13 Results of numerical simulations.

4.4 Numerical results

First, the clamped model is used to analyze the numerical simulation of the impact test. The true stress-strain curve (PL), mesh size (1.0 mm) and failure strain (1.2) were determined by the numerical simulation of the tensile test. A series of numerical simulations are presented in this section to compare with the experimental results. The beams shown in Figure 4.7 (N15_2mm_M and N15_4mm_M) were selected to predict the experimental results. The experimental and numerical force-displacement curves are plotted in Figure 4.14. The results are similar to the experiments. The cause of the difference is that the boundary condition in the experiments is not absolutely fully clamped, but the experimental result is still reasonable. The appropriate true stress-strain curve and critical failure strain obtained from the simulation of the tensile test, helped to reproduce the experimental response in the impact model.

39

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.14 Comparison of experimental and numerical force-displacement responses: (a) Specimen N15_2mm_M; (b) Specimen N15_4mm_M.

The beam with notch of 4.0 mm and impact near the support (N15_4mm_M) was selected to study the difference between clamped and supported model. The force-displacement responses are shown in Figure 4.15, which are very similar between them. The displacement of the supported model is larger than the one of the clamped model, because the former experienced axial displacement at the support. The failure modes of both models are similar (Figure 4.16). Although both responses are similar, the supported model is selected as the best option because allows obtaining stress and strain information at the supports.

Figure 4.15 Comparisons of experimental and numerical force-displacement curves with different boundaries (Specimen N15_4mm_M).

Figure 4.16 Failure modes (Specimen N15_4mm_M).

Figure 4.17 shows the time steps of a typical simulation of the impact specimen. The original 40

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact model of the pre-notched beam before impact (step 1). The specimen is at the first stages of impact and the notch remains undeformable (step 2). The notch starts to undergo gross plastic deformation and its cross-section elongates when the stresses exceed the yield strength (step 3). All further plastic deformation is concentrated in this region (step 4). The notch begins to neck locally (steps 5). Fracture occurs (step 6). The fracture at the notch is shown in Figure 4.18. The fractured section is smaller than the original section, because at this location the beam necked. It is observed that the impact event is described sufficiently well by the numerical model. The failure strain predicted by tensile test simulations is considered satisfactory when used in the material definition of the impact model. The reacting force and the displacement at the point of fracture are well predicted. The shape of the failure mode observed in the experiment is captured accurately by the numerical simulation (Figure 4.18). The complete failure of the impact specimen starts at the notch corner and extends upwards to the neutral axis of the beam resulting in strength failure given as a combination of tension and shear. However, as an element in the original cross-section of the beam is deformed severely and displaced from the initial position, the most important effect of this change is the development of membrane force.

Figure 4.17 Time steps of a typical simulation of the pre-notched beams (Specimen N15_4mm_M).

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.18 The failure of the notch (Specimen N15_4mm_M). (a): Numerical; (b): Experimental.

The numerical triaxiality at failure for the tensile and impact specimens is compared in Figure 4.19 in order to verify the calibration of the critical failure strain by tensile test simulations. The presented 41

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact triaxiality is calculated by the ratio between the hydrostatic stress and the effective stress and is plotted versus the normalized axial displacement of the tensile model, on one hand, and versus the normalized transverse displacement of the impact model, on the other hand. The chosen critical failure strain is justified due to the close range of observed triaxiality values at the point of failure.

Figure 4.19 Comparison of the numerical triaxiality (Specimen N15_4mm_M).

4.5 Comparison with a theoretical analyses

Liu and Jones (1987) proposed a theoretical analysis to examine the transverse shear and bending response of clamped beams struck transversely by a mass at any point on the span. The maximum permanent transverse deformation at the impact point of a rigid-perfectly plastic clamped beam may be estimated from Equation (4.1), which includes the influence of finite transverse displacements, axial restraints and bending moments, but disregards material elasticity and the influence of the transverse

l1 , l2 is the length of beam from the impact point to the right-hand and left-hand supports, respectively ( l1 l2 ); H is the thickness of beam; B is the width of beam; G is the mass of striker; V0 is the initial impact
shear force in the yield condition. Wf is the maximum permanent transverse deformation; velocity; 0, 0 is the static and dynamic yield stresses, respectively.

Wf =
where

H 8 [ 1 + 1 + ] , r = l1 / l2 2 (1 + r ) GV02l1 = 2 BH 3 0

(4.1)

(4.2)

The lower and upper bound solutions of Equation (4.1) are obtained using circumscribing and inscribing square yield conditions, respectively. The strain rate sensitivity of the material is considered using the Cowper-Symonds empirical expression:

0 = 0 [1+( / D)1/ p ]
-1

(4.3)

where 0 and 0 are the static and dynamic flow stresses, respectively, and D = 40.4 s and p = 5 for mild steel. The yield stress of material 0 is equal to 318 MPa. Material strain rate sensitivity is a highly non-linear phenomenon. Therefore, in order to make an

42

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact estimate of its importance in the present problem, it is assumed that the strain rate remains constant throughout the entire response of the beam and equals 45 s (Liu and Jones 1987). Therefore, the dynamic flow stress for the steel beams is
-1

0 =[1+1.0218] 0 =2.0218 0
-1

(4.4)

It is possible that Equation (4.4) might overestimate the influence of material strain rate effects because the strain rate is less than 45 s during the later stages of a beam response. The theoretical predictions corresponding to an inscribing square yield condition use 0.618816.0=0 .The static yield stress 0 is replaced by 0.6180 in Equation (4.4):

0 = 2.0218 0.618 0 = 1.249 0

(4.5)

The maximum permanent transverse deformation of test beams is calculated by Equations 4.1-4.5 (Figure 4.20). is equal to 25.3 when the impact is at mid-span; is equal to 12.7 when the impact is at one-quarter of the support. The experimental and numerical results are between the upper and lower bound solution of Equation (4.1) without inclusion of strain rate effect.

Figure 4.20 Variation of dimensionless maximum permanent transverse deformation external dynamic energy

W f / H with dimensionless

Equation (4.1) with static yield stress 0; - - - - Equation (4.1) with dynamic flow Simulation results:

stress 0 given by equation (4.1); (1) circumscribing yield curve (2) inscribing yield curve; Experimental results:

4.6 Concluding remarks

(1) The selection of the mesh size and critical failure strain by numerical simulations of the tensile tests is valid for these particular experiments, because some elements in the original cross-section have deformed severely and the most important effect is the development of membrane forces. (2) The two basic assumptions used in the finite element simulations: model of the supports to represent the experimental boundary conditions and prediction of the critical failure strain by tensile tests are the most important parameters obtained from this simple failure analysis. These parameters are valid in small-scale structures subjected to impact where such a small mesh size can be defined and full modeling of the boundary conditions can be performed. Future work should extend the applicability of these definitions in complex structures and to investigate the effects of all the parameters involved in this type of impact analysis. 43

CHAPTER 4 Failure prediction of pre-notched beams subjected to lateral impact (3) The experimental results show three failure modes: large inelastic deformation, tension failure and transverse shear failure.

44

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

In this chapter, experimental and numerical analyses of laterally loaded rectangular plate are described. The impact tests use different types of indenters. Then, the numerical simulations were carried out using the LS-DYNA to predict the experimental plastic behavior of the plates. Discussion of the results and useful conclusions are given.

5.1 Experimental details

The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2. The impact tests represent a situation in which it is considered that a fully clamped rectangular plate is struck at the center by a mass travelling with an initial impact velocity. The experimental set-up can be seen in Figure 5.1. The plate thicknesses are 1.4 and 4.0 mm (henceforth referred to as thin and thick, respectively) in the experiments. Specimen plates were fully clamped by four bolts between two thick rectangular steel plates with internal cut-out of 127 76.2 mm. The bolts passed through holes in the specimen plate, providing the clamping force. The striking mass is 54.34 kg. A hemispherical indenter of 30 mm was used to impact two thin plates at different velocity to study the plastic response of plate. In order to investigate the effects of global deformation and local indentation, tests were carried out on thick plates using of 6 different types of indenters with a impact velocity of 1.94 m/s. The indenters were hemispherically ended projectiles of diameter 10, 20 and 30 mm, and cylindrically ended projectiles of diameter 10, 20 and 30 mm. The different types of indenters are shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.1 Experimental set-up.

The material of the plate is structural carbon steel and its mechanical properties were obtained by

45

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact in-house tensile tests using standard tensile specimens and procedures (ASTM 1989). The results of the tensile tests of the thin and thick plates are presented in Table 5.1, and the engineering stress-strain curves are shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.2 Different types of indenters.

Table 5.1 Mechanical properties of material Properties Density Youngs modulus Poissons ratio Yield stress Ultimate stress Unit kg/m
3

Thickness 1.4 mm 7850 206 0.3 228 364

Thickness 4 mm 7850 206 0.3 347 466

GPa -MPa MPa

Figure 5.3 Engineering stress-strain curve of material with thickness 1.4 and 4.0 mm.

5.2 Experimental results

Two thin plates were impacted at velocity 2.7 and 3.3 m/s and using the hemispherical indenter of 30 mm. The maximum and end results of force, displacement and energy are summarized in Table 5.2. The end of the test is determined by zero contact force. It occurs when the indenter leaves the surface of the specimen and the specimen acquires its permanent deformation (Values at End in Table 5.2). The force-displacement responses of thin plates at different velocity are shown in Figure 5.4. 46

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact The shape of the deformation at velocity of 2.7 m/s is shown in Figure 5.5. The impacted plates experienced large plastic deformation, and the force-displacement responses are similar at the beginning of the response. The differences just depend on the incident energy.
Table 5.2 Summary of experimental results of thin plates at different velocity Impact Velocity (m/s) 2.7 3.3 Input Energy (J) 200 300 Maximum Values Force (kN) 21.5 26.8 Displ (mm) 17.3 20.7 Energy (J) 202.9 303.2 Value at End Displ (mm) 16.7 20.7 Energy (J) 202.1 303.2

Figure 5.4 Force-displacement responses of thin plates at different velocity.

Figure 5.5 Deformation of thin plate at velocity of 2.7 m/s.

In respect to the thick plate it was observed that the shape of the indenter has strong influence on the impact response. The results of the thick plates are summarized in Table 5.3, and Figure 5.6 shows the force-displacement responses using different types of indenters with impact velocity of 1.94 m/s. All the plates experience large plastic deformation, and the maximum energies are basically the same. The displacement increases and the force decreases using the smaller diameter of indenter. This effect is more evident with the cylindrical indenters. Figure 5.7 shows the responses using indenters with same diameter but different ends (sphere and cylinder). The force is larger using the cylindrical indenter and consequently reproduced smaller displacements. This effect is produced because the cylindrical indenter has more contact area and thus indentation out of the plane of the plate is less

47

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact evident.

Table 5.3 Summary of experimental results using different indenters (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s) Maximum Values Indenter Sphere 10 mm Sphere 20 mm Sphere 30 mm Cylinder 10 mm Cylinder 20 mm Cylinder 30 mm Force (kN) 23.2 24.2 25.8 26.1 31.6 36.2 Displ (mm) 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.0 4.3 Energy (J) 102.8 99.5 103.4 107.3 104.7 104.5 Values at End Displ (mm) 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.2 4.5 3.7 Energy (J) 101.5 97.6 101.8 105.3 100.4 98.2

Figure 5.6 Experimental force-displacement responses using different diameters of indenters.

Figure 5.7 Experimental force-displacement responses using different types of indenters with the same diameter.

48

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

5.3 Numerical model

The plate was modeled with 4-node shell elements with 5-integration points through the thickness. The contact mass-specimen uses nodal normal projections resulting in a continuous contact surface. The selected material provides a definition of the true stress-strain relationship as an offset table. The striking mass was modeled as a rigid material, and since the falling weight assembly was modeled as a simple hemisphere, an artificially large density was used to give the same mass as the one to use in the experiments.

5.3.1 Boundary conditions

The experimental restraints are similar to fully clamped boundary conditions. In order to check the accuracy, two definitions of the boundary condition were evaluated in the numerical model. The clamped and supported boundary conditions are shown in Figure 5.8. For the striking mass, only the vertical translation was free, in which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned. In the clamped model, the edges of the plate were constrained in all degrees of freedom. But in the supported model, the nodes of the plate at the bolts position were fully clamped. All the degrees of freedom of the lower support plates were constrained in numerical model, whereas in the upper support plates all the degrees of freedom except vertical translation were constrained. The Boundary Prescribed Motion Node was selected to define preload force to the upper support plates, loading an initial imposed displacement to clamp the plate. The contact between the support plates and the plate was defined as Automatic Surface to Surface. The support plates modeled with shell elements were defined as a rigid material.

Figure 5.8 Boundary conditions of rectangular plate.

5.4 Numerical results

5.4.1 Thin plates
The simulations were evaluated in terms of the true stress-strain curve, mesh size, element type and boundary conditions. The experimental results of the thin plates at impact velocity of 2.7 m/s were used 49

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact to compare the different parameters studied in the numerical model. Firstly, three true stress-strain material curves (PL, GL and UN+GL, Section 2.1.3) were used to compare their differences, as shown in Figure 5.9. The mesh size is 2.0 mm. As the three true material curves were similar, the impact responses are almost the same. The comparison of the shape of the deformation is shown in Figure 5.10, showing good agreement between them.

Figure 5.9 Comparison of different materials.

Figure 5.10 Comparison of the shape of deformation.

Three mesh sizes (4.0, 2.0 and 1.0 mm) were evaluated (Figure 5.11). The influence of the mesh size is very small, and thus the impact model reproduces similar plastic response. Smaller mesh sizes help to increase the displacement, because the indention out of the plane of plate is better defined and then the plate takes the same shape of the indenter as seen in the experiments. 50

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

Figure 5.11 Comparison of different mesh sizes.

The influence of the element type is illustrated in Figure 5.12. Better results were obtained with the shell model, because this model has 5-integration points through the thickness whereas the solid model only has one. This implies that a higher number of solid elements are necessary to reproduce the experimental plastic response.

Figure 5.12 Comparison of shell model and solid model.

A mesh size 2.0 mm was used for the simulations. The comparison between the clamped model and the supported model is shown in Figure 5.13. The model with supported plates reproduced higher displacement, but smaller force in the event, because of the sliding between the supports.

Figure 5.13 Comparison of different support.

51

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact The material strain rate sensitivity is evaluated in the support model using the coefficient of the Cowper and Symonds constitutive equation (Equation 2.13) for mild and high tensile steel (Figure 5.14). Using mild steel coefficients (C=40.4 and q=5), the force-displacement response shows a stiffer behavior. However, using high tensile steel coefficients (C=3200 and q=5), good agreement with the experiments is noticed at the first stage of impact although the results deviate at the end, leading in higher forces and consequently smaller displacement.

Figure 5.14 Comparison of different dynamic yield strength. C40.4q5: mild steel coefficients; C3200q5: high tensile steel coefficients.

Two elements near the impact point were selected to analyze the strain rate. The two elements are the typical elements under impact, having the maximum stresses in the impact process, and the positions of these elements (1 and 2) are shown in Figure 5.15. The strain-time and strain rate-time curve are shown in Figure 5.16. At the beginning of the impact, the average strain rate goes up to 80 s , but then, decreases to about 40 s . Actually, when time is 0.004 s, the displacement is 10 mm. At this point, the strain rate decreases to about 40 s . At the same time, the force-displacement response of high tensile steel coefficient starts to deviate with the experimental results.
-1 -1 -1

2 mm

impact point

element 1

element 2

Figure 5.15 Position of selected element.

52

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

Figure 5.16 Strain rate of selected elements from numerical simulation.

5.4.2 Thick plates

As mentioned the different indenters influenced the impact response of plate. The UN+GL true material curve was selected for the numerical simulation of the thick plate. First, the clamped model and the supported model mentioned above were compared. The numerical simulations using a spherical indenter of 30 mm with impact velocity of 1.94 m/s were selected to compare with the experimental result. The comparison of the clamped and supported models is shown in Figure 5.17. As similar results between them were obtained, the clamped model was selected for the remaining numerical simulations.

Figure 5.17 Force-displacement responses of the clamped and supported models. (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s)

The cylindrical and spherical indenters of 30 mm were selected to compare the experimental force-displacement responses (Figure 5.18). Good agreement between them was found, being the maximum forces and displacement well predicted. The obtained results were used to compare intermediate responses using a combination of spherical and cylindrical indenter as shown in Figure 5.19. Two transitive types of indenter between sphere and cylinder were defined cutting out the end of the sphere (Figure 5.19). The numerical results are shown in Figure 5.20. These two force-displacement curves are between the results of the spherical and cylindrical indenter, representing the transition between the responses. When the cut out at the bottom is small, the force decrease and the displacement increase. 53

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

Figure 5.18 Force-displacement responses of experimental results and numerical results. E: experimental, S: Simulation

Figure 5.19 Different type of indenter.

Figure 5.20 Comparison of numerical results using different type of indenter. (Impact velocity 1.94 m/s)

5.5 Concluding remarks

(1) The impact response of the plates is similar at the beginning when using the same indenter at different velocity. (2) The numerical analysis demonstrated that the results are insensitive to the mesh size and the type of element. (3) The material strain rate has strong effect on the plastic response of plate. Using the high tensile steel Cowper-Symonds coefficient gives good agreement in most of the response, especially the

54

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact magnitude of the strain rate is higher than the one that can be obtained for mild steel. (4) The types of indenter have strong influence on the impact response of plate. If the contact area is small, such as a sphere, the force decreases and the displacement increases.

55

CHAPTER 5 Plastic response of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

56

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

In this chapter, experiments and numerical simulation of laterally loaded plates were conducted in order to predict the initiation and propagation of fracture. The influence of the indenter on the initiation of failure plates was studied. The sensitivity of the mesh size and the critical failure strain are reviewed using the force-displacement response of plates. Discussion of the results and conclusions are given.

6.1 Experimental details and results

The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2, and the experimental details are the same given in Chapter 5, except for the impact velocity which in this case is 3.8 m/s. The plate thickness is 1.4 mm (thin plate). The indenters were hemi-spherically ended projectiles of diameter 10, 16, 20 and 30 mm. In all cases the initial incident energy is 400 J, which is large enough to provoke fracture. The results at peak force are summarized in Table 6.1. The maximum force and the displacement differ for each diameter of indenter. The absorbed energy increases with the diameter of indenter. The force-displacement responses are shown in Figure 6.1. The slope of force-displacement curve decreases for the smaller indenters. The failure of the plates by smaller indenters occurred at lower displacement and force, and thus smaller ratio of the input energy was absorbed for these specimens. The energy at fracture using the indenter of 10 mm is only one third of the energy at fracture using the indenter of 30 mm. Thus, it is needed more energy to yield fracture using the other indenters. All plates initiated fracture at peak force, being rapidly propagated. The failure modes of plates using the indenters of 20 and 30 mm are shown in Figure 6.2. There are large plastic deformations in the impact region and the plates start to fracture at the side of impact region.

Figure 6.1 Experimental force-displacement responses of thin plates with different indenter.

57

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

Table 6.1 Summary of experimental results of thin plates with different indenter Diameter of Indenter (mm) 10 16 20 30 Values at Peak Force Force (kN) 11.8 18.9 21.8 27.5 Displ (mm) 12.9 16.0 17.8 18.7 Energy (J) 76.9 149.4 209.6 257.1

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.2 Failure modes of the plates. (a) indenter 20 mm; (b) indenter 30 mm

6.2 Numerical model and results

The numerical models are the same as given in Section 5.3. The failure of the plate is predicted using different true stress-strain curves, mesh sizes, element types and boundary conditions. The specimen using an indenter of 30 mm was selected to evaluate the numerical simulation. First, the three true stress-strain curves (PL, GL and UN+GL curve, Section 2.1.3) using a critical failure strain of 0.9 were used to predict the experimental response (Figure 6.3). All the predicted force-displacement responses were similar to the experimental response, selecting the good true material curve and critical failure strain.

Figure 6.3 Force-displacement responses of experimental and numerical results with different true material curves. (Indenter 30 mm)

The predicted deformation shape of the plate was similar to the experimental one (Figure 6.4). The plate underwent a large plastic deformation when the stresses exceed the yield strength, and all further 58

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact plastic deformation was concentrated in the impact region. The plate began to failure locally at the side of impact region, and then the crack propagated. The shape of the failure mode observed in the experiment was captured accurately by the numerical simulation.

Figure 6.4 Experimental and numerical failure modes. (Indenter 30 mm)

Two models, one designed in shell and the other in solid elements, were simulated and their comparison is shown in Figure 6.5. Here the material curve was defined by the UN+GL approximation. The response of shell model is better than the one of solid model, because of its higher number of integration points. The shell element has 5-integration points through the thickness and the solid element only has one, so the shell element is much more suit to analyze the large deformation and failure in the numerical simulation.

Figure 6.5 Force-displacement responses of shell model and solid model. (Indenter 30 mm)

The clamped model and the supported model mentioned in Section 5.3 were also used to predict the failure using a mesh size of 2.0 mm (Figure 6.6). It is noted that the sliding between the supports has 59

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact important influence on the response of plate, decreasing the impact forces and, consequently, increasing the displacements. As the numerical result of clamped model is more similar with the experimental result, it is selected for the remaining numerical simulations.

Figure 6.6 Force-displacement responses of different support. (Indenter 30 mm)

Two failure criteria were mentioned in Section 2.3. As in the actual study

t equals 1.4 mm and l

equals 2 mm in this case, the failure strain of Peschmann (2001) and Zhang et al. (2004) is 0.660 and 0.434, respectively. These failure strains are used in the numerical model. The previous failure strain of 0.9 which was obtained by numerical simulation of tensile test is also included in the results. The comparisons of the different failure strain using different indenter are shown in Figure 6.7. The numerical simulations using the critical failure strain of 0.9 predict better the experimental results. The failure strain of 0.660 (Peschmann 2001) is in good agreement with the indentation of 30 mm. But all the numerical results using failure strain of 0.660 (Peschmann 2001) are smaller than the experimental results. Moreover, the numerical results using failure strain of 0.434 (Zhang et al. 2004) have big differences from the experimental results. As the critical failure strain depends on the mesh size (Paik 2007), the numerical models were calculated using smaller mesh sizes and their corresponding failure strains. The failure strains were calibrated by succesive numerical simulation of the tensile tests. The mesh size and their corresponding failure strain are shown in Table 6.2. The material curve proposed by Zhang (2004) was selected to represent the true material curve. The comparisons of force-displacement responses with different mesh size are shown in Figures 6.8. Similar impact responses were obtained using different mesh size and failure strain. The slope of force-displacement response with coarse mesh size is larger before fracture.
Table 6.2 Mesh size with corresponding failure strain Mesh size (mm) 4 2 1 Failure strain 0.6 0.9 1.3

60

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 6.7 Force-displacement responses with different failure strain. (a): indenter 10 mm; (b): indenter 16 mm; (c): indenter 20 mm; (d): indenter 30 mm;

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 6.8 Force-displacement responses with different mesh size and corresponding failure strain. (a) indenter 10 mm; (a) indenter 16 mm; (a) indenter 20 mm; (a) indenter 30 mm.

61

CHAPTER 6 Failure prediction of rectangular plates subjected to lateral impact The numerical models can just predict the point of fracture. Fracture propagation is still not predicted in numerical analysis because the length of the element is much larger than the one seen in experimental results. The element would be deleted from the finite element model if its strain exceeds the defined failure strain, which is different from the fracture propagation. But the crack appears at the point of fracture. So, if only considering the crack and water inflow, the force-displacement response before fracture is enough to predict the impact response.

6.3 Concluding remarks

(1) The critical failure strain is the most important parameter in the numerical simulation, which depends on the mesh size of the finite elements. (2) The deformed shape is well predicted by the numerical model. The plate undergoes a large plastic deformation when the stresses exceed the yield strength, and all further plastic deformation is concentrated in the impact region. The plate begins to failure locally at the side of impact region, and then the crack propagates. (3) The indenter type has strong effects on the failure of plate. The small indenter is easier to break through the plate, absorbing less energy until fracture.

62

CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact

CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact
This chapter summarizes results from experiments and numerical simulations of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral loads, thus allowing for predicting the absorption of energy during the impact event. The sensitivity of the incident velocity and the stiffener type is reviewed using the force-displacement response of the tested specimens. This chapter is summarized from Villavicencio et.al (2011d).

7.1 Experimental details

The descriptions of impact test machine and its software were given in Section 3.1-3.2. The experimental tests represent a situation in which a partially supported stiffener with attached plate is struck at the mid-span by a mass travelling with an initial impact velocity. After the impact, the striker is assumed to remain in contact with the specimen having an initial velocity at the instant of contact and a common velocity throughout the entire response. The experimental set up can be seen in Figure 7.1. The design of the specimens (denoted by Panel A2 and Panel A3) is shown in Figure 7.2. The indenter is a hemispherically ended projectile of diameter 30 mm which uses a striking mass of 54.0 kg.

Figure 7.1 Experimental set-up

Figure 7.2 Specimens: stiffeners with attached plate

63

CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact The specimens were partially supported, i.e. the edges in the length direction were fully clamped whereas the edges in the width direction were free (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). The restrained edges were supported between two thick rectangular steel plates and were compressed by two bolts at each support. The lower support plates were stiffened by two relatively thick plates, and were fixed to a strong structural base to prevent their movement. The torque applied to screw the bolts and compress specimens was measured providing a known clamping force. The material of the plate and stiffeners is structural carbon steel and its mechanical properties were obtained by in-house tensile tests using standard tensile specimens and procedures (ASTM 1989). The results of the tensile tests are presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Mechanical properties of the material. Property Units PL. 4.0 FB 4x25 L 50x50x5 Yield stress Ultimate tensile strength Rupture stress Rupture strain (in 100 mm) MPa MPa MPa 286 426 322 0.21 367 488 384 0.18

7.2 Experimental results

The impact test results are summarized in Table 7.2. The resulting force-displacement responses are shown in Figure 7.3. It is observed that when the impact velocity increases, larger transverse displacements and impact forces are developed in both Panel A2 and Panel A3. The initial reacting forces increase with the impact velocity. The magnitudes of the maximum force, maximum deflection and permanent deflection are similar between both panels when impacted at the same velocity. The shapes of the force-displacement responses of Panel A3 show more oscillations than the ones of Panel A2, especially at the first moment of the impact. The instant change of slope, respectively transition from plate-stiffener bending to membrane behavior, is less profound in Panel A2, as shown in Figure 7.4.
Table 7.2 Results of impact tests Values at Peak Force Specimen* Force (kN) A2V2.0 A2V2.7 A2V3.3 A3V2.0 A3V2.7 A3V3.3 35.7 40.4 46.6 36.3 40.5 46.9 Defln (mm) 4.51 6.73 9.83 4.43 6.44 8.92 Energy (J) 110.9 200.9 350.9 110.9 200.1 326.1 Values at End Defln (mm) 2.34 4.43 8.08 2.75 4.30 7.10 Energy (J) 80.7 165.9 326.2 86.1 168.1 295.9

*A2 denotes Panel A2 and A3 denotes Panel A3. V denotes the impact velocity (m/s).

64

CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact
50 40 Force [kN] 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Displacement [mm] 8 9 10 2.0 m/s

Panel A2
3.3 m/s 2.7 m/s Force [kN]

50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Panel A3
2.7 m/s 2.0 m/s

3.3 m/s

4 5 6 7 Displacement [mm]

10

Figure 7.3 Force-displacement responses

50 40 Force [kN] 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Displacement [mm] 6 7 Panel A3 Panel A2

2.7 m/s

Figure 7.4 Force-displacement responses. Panel A2 and Panel A3 impacted at 2.7 m/s

7.3 Numerical model

The model, sketched in Figure 7.5, was computed in LS-DYNA. The plate and stiffener were modeled in 4-node shell elements with 5-integration points through the thickness. The mesh size was 2.0 mm. The supported perimeter was constrained in all degrees of freedom. For the striking mass, only the vertical translation was free, in which direction the initial impact velocity was assigned. The contact mass-specimen uses nodal normal projections resulting in a continuous contact surface. The selected material provides a definition of the true stress-strain relationship as an offset table. The striking mass was modeled as a rigid undeformable material, and since the falling weight assembly was modeled as a simple hemisphere, an artificially large density was used to give the same mass as the one to use in the experiments.

Figure 7.5 Details of finite element model

65

CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact This basic finite element model was improved in order to reproduce the experimental plastic response. Three new models were used (Figure 7.6): One was designed in solid elements and the other two represented the weld joint using shell and solid elements. The fillet weld cross-section takes the shape of a triangle and the measured leg length is 4.0 mm.

Figure 7.6 Previous and new finite element models

7.4 Numerical results

Specimen A2V2.7 (Table 7.2) was selected to compare the force-displacement responses (Figure 7.7). The maximum reacting forces are similar in the four numerical models. The Shell and Solid model reproduce almost the same response, overestimating the maximum and the permanent deflections. Although Shell Weld model improves the results, the maximum and end displacements are still overestimated. The Solid Weld model has been favorably validated against maximum force and maximum deflection. However, the permanent deflection is not accurate. Certainly, the real representation of the weld joint helps to reproduce the experimental response in this model. As a validation of the Solid Weld model, Figure 7.8 shows a good agreement for the whole range of impact velocities.
50 40 Force [kN] 30 20 10 (1) (2) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Displacement [mm] 6 7 8 (E) (4) (3)

Figure 7.7 Force-displacement response, Specimen A2V2.7. (E): Experimental. (1): Shell. (2): Solid. (3): Shell Weld. (4): Solid Weld.

66

CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact
60 50
Force [kN]

40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Displacement [mm] 8 9 10
2.0 m/s 2.7 m/s 3.3 m/s

Figure 7.8 Force-displacement response, Panel A2. Experimental results: dashed lines. Numerical results: continuous lines (Solid Weld model).

The deformed shape and Von Mises stress distribution are shown in Figure 7.9. The three specimens suffer mainly global deformation. The observed local indentation in the plate thickness is very small. The maximum stresses occur on the lower surface of the plate opposite the impact point and on the lower edge of the stiffener. It is noted that the stresses are distributed in the modeled weld even for low incident energies.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7.9 Shape of deformation and von mises stress distribution. Panel A2. (a) Transversal view; (b) Longitudinal view.

7.5 Concluding remarks

(1) Detailed information of the impact response of stiffeners with attached plate has been obtained through drop weight impact tests and nonlinear explicit dynamic simulations. The discrepancies between numerical and experimental results were due to overestimation of the permanent deformation, whereas the maximum force and maximum deflection were generally very well predicted. (2) In minor impact events, the stiffener type does not play an important role in the absorption of energy and in the global deformation. The main influence of the stiffener is observed at the very beginning impact where the specimen reproduces its stiffness and initial bending. (3) The numerical simulations of small-scale structural elements require to include the weld joint in

67

CHAPTER 7 Plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected to lateral impact order to increase the stiffener resistance and represent a smoother cross-section transition between the stiffener and the plate.

68

CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and further work

CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and further work

8.1 Conclusions
This thesis studied the impact strength of structural components, in order to provide the basis for the studying ship collisions. Experimental and numerical methods were used to analyze the structural components of ship subjected to lateral impact. Thus, detailed information of the impact response of structural components was obtained through drop weight impact tests and nonlinear explicit dynamic simulations. In the analysis of plastic response of beams, the good agreements obtained between experiments and simulations result from a correct representation of the boundary condition. The preload force and the coefficient of friction are the most important parameters in the definition of the representation of the experimental supports. The force-displacement response is in direct proportion with the impact velocity. Also, the rebound displacement decreases with the impact velocity. Moreover, the axial displacement at the supports increases with the impact velocity, and the lateral displacement increases with the axial displacement using the same velocity. In the analysis of failure of pre-notched beams, the selection of the mesh size and critical failure strain by numerical simulation of the tensile tests is valid for numerical simulation of impact tests. Two basic definitions used in the finite element simulations: model of the supports to represent the experimental boundary conditions and prediction of the critical failure strain by tensile tests are the most important parameters obtained from this simple crushing analysis. These parameters are valid in small-scale structures subjected to impact where such a small mesh size can be defined and full modeling of the boundary conditions can be performed. These definitions can be applied in complex structures and to investigate the effects of all the parameters involved in this type of impact analysis. In the analysis of plastic response of plates, the numerical analysis demonstrated that the results are insensitive to the mesh size and the type of element. But, the material strain rate has strong effect on the plastic response of plate. Using the high tensile steel Cowper-Symonds coefficient gives good agreement in most of the response, especially are the magnitude of the strain rate is higher than the one that can be obtained for mild steel. The impact response of the plates is similar at the beginning when using the same indenter at different velocity. But, the indenter type has strong influence on the impact response of plate. If the contact area is small, such as a sphere, the force decrease and the displacement increase. In the analysis of failure of plates, the critical failure strain is the most important parameter in the numerical simulation, which depends on the mesh size of the finite elements. The deformed shape can be well predicted by the numerical model. The plate undergoes a large plastic deformation when the stresses exceed the yield strength, and all further plastic deformation is concentrated in the impact region. The plate begins to failure locally at the side of impact region, and then the crack propagates. The indenter type has strong effects on the failure of plate. The small indenter is easier to break through the plate, absorbing less energy until fracture.

69

CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and further work In the analysis of plastic response of stiffeners with attached plate, the differences between numerical and experimental results were due to overestimation of the permanent deformation, whereas the maximum force and maximum deflection were generally very well predicted. The main influence of the stiffener is observed at the very beginning impact where the specimen reproduces its stiffness and initial bending. The numerical simulations of small-scale structural elements require including the weld joint in order to increase the stiffener resistance and represent a smoother cross-section transition between the stiffener and the plate. All the above analysis studied the plastic response and failure of structural components, comparing the numerical results with the experimental results. The good results could be obtained if the material properties are correctly defined and the boundary conditions are correctly simulated. The simple impact test is a good way to define the material properties which can be used in the analysis of complex structures.

8.2 Future work

The object of this work is only structural components subjected to lateral impact, and all of them only have one type of boundary conditions, which are the most important factor in the analysis of impact strength. There are many works need to do in this research area, and the boundary conditions are also very hard to simulate in the ship grounding or collision. The analysis of beams and plates subjected to lateral impact has a big distance with the analysis of ship under grounding or collision. The boundary conditions of actual collision should be more deeply studied in the future. The dynamic yield strength is very hard to define the relation with the strain rate in the numerical simulation and many existing definitions are still not well suit for the experimental results. It need more work to study the relationship between dynamic yield strength and strain rate, and apply it into the impact analysis. Since the impact strength of complex structures requires more attention than the one of stiffened plates, it is necessary to conduct further experiments and numerical simulations to study their plastic response and failure propagation.

70

References

References
Alsos HS, Amdahl J. 2009a. On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part I: Experiments. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 36: 799-807. Alsos HS, Amdahl J, Hopperstad OS. 2009b. On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part II: Numerical analysis. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 36: 875-887. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1989. Section 3, Metal tests methods and analytical procedures. Bodner SR, Symonds PS. 1962. Experimental and theoretical investigation of the plastic deformation of cantilever beams subjected to impulsive loading. Journal of Applied Mechanics; 29: 719-728. Caridis PA, Samuelides E, Frieze PA. 1994. On the dynamic response of ship plating under lateral impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 15 (2): 149-164. Chen FL, Yu TX. 2004. An experimental study of pre-notched clamped beams under impact loading. International Journal of Solid and Structures; 41: 6699-6724. Cho SR, Lee HS. 2009. Experimental and analytical investigations on the response of stiffened plates subjected lo lateral collisions. Marine Structures; 22: 84-95. Cowper GR, Symonds PS. 1957. Strain-hardening and strain-rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever beams. Technical Report No. 28, Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA, September. Cox AD, Morland LW. 1959. Dynamic plastic deformations of simply-supported square plates. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids; 7: 229-241. Dieter GE. 1986. Mechanical behavior under tensile and compressive loads. ASM Handbook; 8: 99-108. Dimas DM, Guedes Soares C. 2006. Experimental and numerical study of clamped beams under impact load at a middle span (in Portuguese). Mecnica Experimental; 12: 11-22. Ehlers S, Broekhuijsen J, Alsos HS, Biehl F, Tabri K. 2008. Simulating the collision response of ship side structures: A failure criteria benchmark study. International Shipbuilding Progress; 55: 127-144. Ehlers S, Varsta P. 2009. Strain and stress relation for non-linear finite element simulations. Thin-Walled Structures; 47 (11): 1203-1217. Ehlers S. 2010. Strain and stress relation until fracture for finite element simulations of a thin circular plate. Thin-Walled Structures; 48 (1): 1-8. Forrestal MJ, Sagartz MJ. 1978. Elastic-plastic response of 304 stainless steel beams to impulse loads. Journal of Applied Mechanics; 45: 685-687. Grkk A. 1981. Plastic beams at finite deflections under transverse load with variable end-constraints.

71

References Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids; 29 (5): 447-476. Hagiwara K, Takanabe H, Kawano H. 1983. A proposed method of predicting ship collision damage. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 1 (3): 257-279. Hallquist JO. 2010. LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. Harsoor R, Ramachandra LS. 2009. Influence of notch on the elastic-plastic response of clamped beams subjected to low velocity impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 36: 1058-1069. Hodge PG Jr. 1974. Post-yield behavior of a beam with partial end fixity. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences; 16: 385-388. Jones N. 1971. A theoretical study of the dynamic plastic behaviour of beans and plates with finite-deflections. International Journal of Solids Structures; 7: 1007-1029. Jones N. 1973. Influence of in-plane displacements at the boundaries of rigid-plastic beams and plates. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences; 15: 547-561. Jones N. 1976. Plastic failure of ductile beams loaded dynamically. Transactions of the ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry; 98 (B1): 131-136. Jones N. 1989. Structural Impact. Cambridge University Press. Jones N, Birch RS, Duan R. 2008. Low-velocity perforation of mild steel rectangular plates with projectiles having different shaped impact faces. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, transactions of the ASME; vol. 130, no. 3. Lehmann E, Peschmann J. 2002. Energy absorption by the steel structure of ships in the event of collisions. Marine Structures; 15: 429-441. Liu J, Jones N. 1987. Experimental investigation of clamped beams struck transversely by a mass. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 6 (4): 305-335. Low HY. 1981. Behaviour of a rigid-plastic beam loaded to finite deflections by a rigid circular indenter. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences; 23 (7): 387-393. Manolakos DE, Mamalis AG. 1985. On ship collisions: The plastic collapse of longitudinally framed shell plating subjected to oblique loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 3 (1): 41-55. Menkes SB, Opat HJ. 1973. Broken beams. Journal of Experimental Mechanics; 13, 480-486. Paik JK. 2007. Practical techniques for finite element modeling to simulate structural crashworthiness in ship collisions and groundingPart I: theory. Ships and Offshore Structures; 2(1): 69-80. Paik JK, Chung JY. 1999. A basic study on static and dynamic crushing behavior of a stiffened tube. KSAE Transactions, the Korea Society of Automobile Engineers, Seoul, 7(1): 219-238. Parkes EW. 1955. The permanent deformation of a cantilever struck at its tip. Proceedings of the Royal Society A; (228): 462-476.

72

References Parkes EW. 1958. The permanent deformation of an encastr beam struck transversely at any point in its span. Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers; (10): 277-304. Peschmann J. 2001. Energy absorption computations of ship steel structures under collision and grounding. Doctoral Dissertation. Technical University of Hamburg. Rosand precision impact tester. User manual. Version 1.3. Rosand precision impact tester. Software manual. Version 1.3. Shen WQ. 1997. Dynamic response of rectangular plates under drop mass impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 19(3): 207-29. Shen WQ, Rieve NO, Baharun B. 2002a. A study on the failure of circular plates struck by masses. Part 1: experimental results. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 27: 399-412. Shen WQ. 2002b. A study on the failure of circular plates struck by masses. Part 2: theoretical analysis for the onset of failure. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 27: 413-432. Shen WQ, Wong PS, Lim HC, Liew YK. 2003. An experimental investigation on the failure of rectangular plate under wedge impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 28: 315-330. Simonsen BC, Lauridsen LP. 2000. Energy absorption and ductile failure in metal sheets under lateral indentation by a sphere. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 24 (10): 1017-1039. Symonds PS, Chon CT. 1974. Approximation techniques for impulsive loading of structures of time-dependent plastic behaviour with finite-deflections. In Mechanical properties of materials at high strain rates, Institute of Physics Conference Series, No. 21, pp. 299-316. Symonds PS, Fleming WT. Parkes revisited. 1984. On rigid-plastic and elastic-plastic dynamic structural analysis. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2 (1): 1-36. Tin-Loi F. 1990. Post-yield behavior of a rigid-plastic beam with partial axial and rotational end fixities. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences; 32 (7): 623-630. Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2009. Response of clamped beams to impact loading along their length. Proc. 13th Congress of International Maritime Association of Mediterranean, Istanbul, Turkey; 2: 437-445. Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2011a. Numerical modelling of the boundary conditions on beams stuck transversely by a mass. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 38(5): 384-396 Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2011b. Numerical prediction of impact loads in rectangular panels. Analysis and Design of Marine Structures (MARSTRUCT 2011), Hamburg, Germany, 28-30 March 2011; pp. 399-409 Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. 2011c. Tensile test simulations for nonlinear failure prediction. International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering (MARTECH 2011), Lisbon, Portugal, 10-12 May 2011. Villavicencio R, Liu B, Guedes Soares C. 2011d. Response of stiffeners with attached plate subjected 73

References to lateral impact. International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering (MARTECH 2011), Lisbon, Portugal, 10-12 May 2011. Villavicencio R, Sutherland LS, Guedes Soares C. In press a. Numerical simulation of transversely impacted, clamped circular aluminium plates. Ships and Offshore Structures. Villavicencio R, Guedes Soares C. In press b. Numerical plastic response and failure of a pre-notched transversely impacted beam. Ships and Offshore Structures. Wu F, Spong R, Wang G. 2004. Using numerical simulation to analyze ship collision. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Izu, Japan; pp. 27-33. Yu JL, Jones N. 1989. Numerical simulation of a clamped beam under impact loading. Computer & Structures; 32 (2): 281-293. Yu JL, Jones N. 1997. Numerical simulation of impact loaded steel beams and the failure criteria. International Journal of Solids and Structures; 34 (30): 3977-4004. Yu TX, Chen FL. 1992. The large deflection dynamic plastic response of rectangular plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 12(4): 605-616. Zhang L, Egge ED, Bruhns H. 2004. Approval procedure concept for alternative arrangements. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Izu, Japan; pp. 87-96. Zhu L, Faulkner D. 1994a. Dynamic inelastic behaviour of plates in minor ship collisions. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 15 (2): 165-178. Zhu L, Faulkner D, Atkins AG. 1994b. The impact of rectangular plates made from strain rate sensitive materials. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 15(3): 245-255.

74