3) Dynamic behavior

a- Split Hopkinson bar test

• Reminder about uniaxial elastic wave propagation
 2u 2  2u E u ( x, t )  f ( x  ct )  g ( x  ct )
c 0 where c
t 2 x 2  u
 ( x, t )  E
x
Effect of boundary conditions
fixed ended bar (x=0) t1
incident wave ui(x,t)=f(x-ct) u(x=0,t)=0

reflected wave ur(x,t)=g(x-ct)

c
 0  c x

(x=0,t)=?
t3
t3 u(x,t)=f+g t2

c
 c  x

=> same wave in the opposite direction (x,t)=E(f’+g’)

*2 at the fixed end 1
• Reminder about uniaxial elastic wave propagation (2)
 2u 2  2u E u ( x, t )  f ( x  ct )  g ( x  ct )
c 0 where c
t 2 x 2 
 ( x, t )  E  f ' ( x  ct )  g ' ( x  ct ) 

free ended bar (x=0)

incident wave ui(x,t)=f(x-ct) t1
reflected wave ur(x,t)=g(x-ct)
(x=0,t)=0

c  c
 0 x

u(x=0,t)=?

t2
t3 t3
u(x,t)=f+g

 c c
 x

(x,t)=E(f’+g’)

=> opposite wave in the opposite direction

u*2 at the fixed end

2
• Split Hopkinson bar test

Projectile Input bar (1) Specimen (s) Output bar (2)

D
Vp
Gage 1 Gage 2

Lp Lb Ls Lb

Hypothesis : Lp>>D (uniaxial propagation) and Lb>>Lp>>Ls

3
• Split Hopkinson bar test: 1 - Loading
Projectile/input bar impact

Vp V V u=0
  
u
Reminder shock wave theory:
x Z1
 V Vp
Z1  Z 2
Z1 Z 2
V V   Vp
  Z1  Z 2

Z1  Z 2  Z  Eb b
u
Eb
x c
b


V=0 V V
  

u Duration of the loading t = 2*Lp/c

x

2*Lp 4
 • Split Hopkinson bar test: 2 – Sample equilibrium
Interaction incident wave/sample

Lb

Ls

V=0 V V1 V2 V=0
Gage 1 s Gage 2
    

i r t

2*Lp

Stress level: If Z s  Z b Magnitude of r << t Sample equilibrium

Aluminum bars 1   i   r   s   2   t
for concrete
 s  E t
V V
Strain rate level:  s  2 1 Part of the loading which
Ls went through the sample
u1 (measured by gage 2)
u1 ( x, t )  f ( x  ct )  g ( x  ct ) 1   f ' g '   i   r
x Stress level controled by the
u
V1  1  c f ' c g '  c( i   r ) impact velocity    Z V /2
t s b p

V2  c  t
c
 s  ( t   i   r ) 2c
Ls  s  r Reflected wave
i r  t i   r  t Ls (measured by gage 1)
5
• Tension Hopkinson bar test

Lp<Ls the compressive wave is reflected in a traction wave at the free ended specimen

6
 • Hopkinson bar test: Experimental results

Strain rate effect in compression Strain rate effect in tension

[Malvar & Crawford 98]
[Bischoff & Perry 91]

Free water Inertial Free water Defects

phenomenon ? (Hild et al. 2003)

• Modeling : PRM model

7
 • Confined Hopkinson bar test (Ispra, Italia) G. Solomos, 2006
Prestessed cable
(incident bar)
P
Inversion cage Transmited bar

Prestessed cable Inversion cage Transmited bar

(incident bar)

Inversion cage Concrete sample

8

The strain rate effect decreases with the confining pressure

 b -Discrete Element Modeling
• Framework

Impact loading
Penetration, Scabbing, Perforation
Sandia National Laboratories

Large amount of discontinuities, fragmentation, granular flow

which are difficult to reproduce with continuous approach

Discrete Element Method

Based on work carried out to study geomaterials [Cundall et Strack 79]

The medium is represented by a set of non deformable elements

interacting by simple behavior laws

Easy to represent discontinuities, granular flow and fragmentation

9
 • Discrete Element Modeling: Algorithm

Positions
Detection of interactions

Integration of the
motion equations Constitutive
(explicit in time) behaviour

Kn
A B
Forces on each
discrete element Ks

10
• Discrete Element Modeling: Constitutive behavior

Main features sphere B

contact plane
 Elasticity 
 Compaction in compression
Fn t1
Fs
 Softening in traction 
 Cohesive interactions
t2 Mr

 Contact interactions n

Normal force sphere A

Shear force - Failure criterion
Fs

A.Co i

c
AT
. Fn

Interaction characteristics depend on local dimensions

11
• Local parameters : identification process
From the macroscopic behavior :
Simulation of experimental tests

Numerical sample

Macroscopic properties : E, , Gf, ft, fc

• Micro-macro relations  Kn, Ks

• Elastic compression : energy-based correction
• Traction to rupture  T, softening
• Compression to rupture  C0, i
Local parameters

12
 • Simulation of static uniaxial tests
Compression behavior Tension behavior
uniaxial compression test uniaxial tension test

Discretization size effect

24000 DE 2400 DE

Color = Number of broken links / initial number of links

13
• Simulation of static triaxial tests

p=100 MPa p=500 MPa

Experimental Experimental
Numerical Numerical

The Discrete Element Model is able to reproduce

- compaction (hydrostatic phase)
- hardening (deviatoric phase)
- dilatancy at the end of the loading (loop strain)

14
• Validation of the model with dynamic tests

Discrete Element Modelling of Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar tests

Compression tests
Tension tests (36 and 72 s-1)
(350, 500, and 700 s-1)

Test 36 s-1 Test 108 s-1

Test 19.2 33.5
Simulation 21 (9%) 28 (16%)

T   n
Model-intrinsic rate effect in Introduction of a rate depency in tension
compression

15
• Behavior law for rebars
Uniaxial behavior

Elastic-plastic

Concrete-Steel Interface

Pull-out test
Sliding at the interface Steel failure

16
 • Application to rock fall impact (low energy)

Classical rock fall protection New concept Validation tests

Gravel Fusible
support
Concrete slab

Small
Large foundation
dropped
foundation concrete
block

Concrete slab

Fusible
support
17
• Application to rock fall impact (low energy)

Discrete element model

Concrete slab
Rebars

RC slab : 221000 elements

Fusible support
(steel pipe)

18
• Application to rock fall impact (low energy)

Simulation of the centered 30m test

19
20
 • Application to higher velocity impact test
Experimental data provided
by the CEA-EDF (Berriaud et al., 1978)

 Concrete slab:
 reinforcement : four layers • dimensions : 0.208 m * 1.46 m * 1.46 m
 number of DE 17408 • number of DE : 19403
 radius : 0.005 m • average radius 0.005 m ~ 0.02 m
 Missile: rigid with a flat nose,
diameter of 0.278 m and a mass of 34 kg

21
• Application to higher velocity impact test

Penetration V=102 m/s Perforation V=186 m/s

22
• Conclusion of the discrete modeling

 Behavior law for concrete material

is able to reproduce most of the phenomena
 Limitations
- no effect of water (work in progress)
- very expensive in term of calculation time

Rock impact on a concrete

slab Hentz & al, 2004
Missile impact on a concrete 42h50 of calculation
slab Shiu & al, 2008
small target

How to manage impact calculations on large structures ?

23
• Combined FE/DE method: Framework

Concerned problems
Localized impact on large
structures

Discrete Element Method Local damage

Finite Element Method Structural displacements

Coupling with bridging domains

24
• Combined FE/DE method: Application

Impact on a concrete slab

DE model VS Coupled Model - 3 layers of bridging

September 7, 2007

25
 • Combined FE/DE method: Results comparison
In the DE zone

DE

FE

Bridging domain projectile

Coupled Model

DE Model

In the impact area

In the FE domain

26
• Combined FE/DE method: cost comparison

DE Model Coupled Model - 3 layers of bridging

42h50 calculation 3h40 calculation

broken links
Damage=
initial links

27