0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

On the Fluidic Response of Structures in Hypervelocity Impacts

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrew Thurber

Crashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and
Hybrids (CRASH) Lab,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Virginia Tech,
Signature Engineering Building,
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0238

Javid Bayandor

Fellow ASME
Crashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and
Hybrids (CRASH) Lab,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Virginia Tech,
Signature Engineering Building,
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0238
e-mail: bayandor@vt.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 2, 2014; final manuscript received October 12, 2014; published online December 3, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Alfredo Soldati.

J. Fluids Eng 137(4), 041101 (Apr 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1171; doi: 10.1115/1.4028854 History: Received April 02, 2014; Revised October 12, 2014; Online December 03, 2014

In a hypervelocity impact (HVI) event, the shock pressures exceed the strength of common aerospace materials, and brief shock-induced temperature rises cause melting and vaporization of most structural bodies. Under these extreme conditions, the failure and deformation of solids can resemble fluid flow. By using meshless Lagrangian models in an explicit computational framework, this work identifies analogous fluidic interactions and further quantifies the role of shear and inertial forces in HVIs.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Initial geometry of projectile and plate (left) and particle approximation of projectile and plate impact zone (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Simulation and radiograph of 6.64 km/s impact at 6 μs, with true material constants for aluminum on the bottom, strengthless fluid formulation on the top

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Primary eddy formation in the strengthless formulation (left) versus more random behavior in the solid model (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Initial configuration (top) and time history of four particles near the center of the aforementioned eddy for the fluidic formulation (center) versus the solid model (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Definition of α, between normal and plume, seen in 500 m/s Al–Al impact

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

α versus V/C0 for HVI and fluid impacts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Models of fluid impacts at 25 μs with increasing viscosity: (a) 0.001 Pa·s (water), (b) 1 Pa·s, (c) 10 Pa·s, and (d) 100 Pa·s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The volume used for convergence analysis, encompassing multiple particles under high deformation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of kinetic (top) and internal (center) energy in Mbar cm3 transferred from impactor to plate between the strengthless, viscous, and solid formulations, along with percent error from solid (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Viscous metal formulation (top) compared to experimental radiograph (bottom) of 6.64 km/s impact at 6 μs

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In