Studying the Effects of Repeated Impacts on Titanium 6Al-4V Alloy

by
Christopher Anason
An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
Major Subject: Mechanical Engineering

Approved:

______________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Engineering Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartford, CT
December, 2010
(For Graduation December, 2010)

 Copyright 2010
by
Christopher Anason
All Rights Reserved

ii

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vi
NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .................................................................................................. ix
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... x
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
1.1

Problem Description........................................................................................... 2

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1

Static Analysis of Dynamic Impacts .................................................................. 3

2.1.1

Impact Pressure as a Function of Radius ............................................... 4

2.2

Axis-Symmetric Assumption ............................................................................. 5

2.3

Single and Multiple Impact Simulations ............................................................ 6

2.4

Saint-Venants Principle .................................................................................... 8

3. Results and Discussion .............................................................................................. 10

3.1

Determination of the Hertzian Pressure Distribution ....................................... 10

3.2

Modeling the First Impact ................................................................................ 13

3.3

3.2.1

Mesh, Boundary Conditions, Material Conditions, and Loads ............ 13

3.2.2

First Impact - Loading and Unloading ................................................. 14

Analysis of Four Loading/Unloading Cycles for Specified Case .................... 17

3.3.1

3.4

Analysis of Subsequent Impacts .......................................................... 19

Analysis of Maximum Stress/Strain Values For All Cases ............................. 26

4. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 32
4.1

Suggestions and Recommendations for Future Work ...................................... 33

5. References.................................................................................................................. 35
6. Appendices ................................................................................................................ 36

iii

6.1

Appendix A ...................................................................................................... 36

6.2

Appendix B ...................................................................................................... 38

6.3

Appendix C ...................................................................................................... 41

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Steel Shot Radius and Velocity used by (5) ....................................................... 7
Table 2 - Projectile Size and Velocity to be Simulated by COMSOL Model ................... 7
Table 3 - Featured case analyzed by MATLAB (R=0.00025m) ..................................... 11
Table 4 - Mesh Statistics of COMSOL Model Ti-6AL-4V Impact.mph ..................... 14
Table 5 - Parameters for Specific Case Discussed in Section 3.3 ................................... 18
Table 6 - Calculated values of amax and pmax for each tested combination of R and v ..... 27
Table 7 - Stress/Strain Results for specific case (R = 0.00025m, v = 35 m/s)................. 28
Table 8 - Maximum Compressive Radial Stresses After Impacts 1-4 with Incremental
and Percent Changes ........................................................................................................ 31
Table 9 - Material Properties for Ti 6Al-4V and Steel .................................................... 36
Table 10 - Derived Parameters used in COMSOL Analyses .......................................... 37

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Sketch representing the axis-symmetric model and 2-dimensional projection
to be modeled ..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 - Sketches showing the "Projectile" and "Target" prior to the first impact ......... 6
Figure 3 - Sketches showing the second projectile and the deformed target before and
during the second impact ................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 - Mesh Showing Finer Element Resolution Near the Impact Site ...................... 8
Figure 5 - Deformed shape and effective plastic strain (plotted by color), after first
impact (R = 0.0003m, v = 60 m/s) ..................................................................................... 9
Figure 6 - Plot of Pressure vs. Radius for R = 0.00025m ................................................ 12
Figure 7 - Boundary Conditions and Load applied to COMSOL model ......................... 13
Figure 8 - Surface Plot of Radial Stress After First Impact (load active)........................ 15
Figure 9 - Photograph of Meteor Crater, Arizona from (7) .......................................... 16
Figure 10 - Surface Plot of Radial Stress After First Impact (unloaded) ........................ 17
Figure 11 - Radial Stress and Radial Displacement plotted for the Loading and
Unloading of Impacts 1-4 (2 plots), Top Surface ............................................................ 20
Figure 12 - Radial Stress and Axial Displacement plotted for Impacts 1-4 (2 plots),
Along Axis of Impact ...................................................................................................... 22
Figure 13 - Axial Strain plotted for Impacts 1-4 (2 plots) ............................................... 24
Figure 14 - Plastic Strain plotted for Impacts 1-4 (2 plots) ............................................. 25
Figure 15 - Plastic Strain for Impacts 1-4 ........................................................................ 29
Figure 16 - Maximum Tensile Radial Stress - Impacts 1-4 Loading/Unloading Cycles. 30
Figure 17 - Maximum Compressive Radial Stress - Impacts 1-4 Loading/Unloading
Cycles .............................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 18 - Maximum Compressive Radial Stresses After Impacts 1-4 ......................... 31

vi

LIST OF EQUATIONS
[1]

Maximum Force Developed at Impact

((2), Equation 2.8) ................ 4

[2]

Maximum Radius of the Circle of Contact ((2), Equation 2.9) ... 4

[3]

Maximum Normal Pressure in the Circle of Contact

((2), Equation 2.10) ... 4

[4]

Normal Pressure Distribution ((2), Equation 2.2).. 5

[5]

Applied Pressure Load to Boundary 3.. 14

vii

NOMENCLATURE
Symbol

Description

Units

Pm

Maximum Force Developed During Impact

Density of the Projectile

Radius of the Impacting Projectile

Radius from the Axis of Impact

Velocity of the Impacting Sphere

m/s

Poissons Ratio

[]

am

Maximum Radius of the Circle of Contact

Radius of the Circle of Contact

Distance from Top Surface (in z-direction)

Youngs Modulus

Pa

p m , p max

Maximum Normal Pressure in the Circle of Contact

Pa

Normal Pressure

Pa

Normal Pressure in the Circle of Contact

Pa

Yield Strength

Pa

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

E pl

Modulus of Plasticity

Pa

Strain at Onset of Yielding

[]

pl , max

Maximum Plastic Strain

[]

r ,t ,max

Maximum Tensile Radial Stress

Pa

r ,c , max

Maximum Compressive Radial Stress

Pa

Axial Strain

[]

pl

Plastic Strain

[]

uz

Axial Displacement

Johnson-Cook Yield Strength

Pa

Johnson-Cook Hardening Coefficient

Pa

Johnson-Cook Strain Hardening Exponent

[]

viii

kg
m

10 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank my family and friends for their support throughout my graduate
study and through the completion of this Engineering Project. I would also like to thank
the faculty and staff of Rensselaer for their assistance throughout these past three years.
Lastly, I would like to thank Professor Gutierrez-Miravete for his guidance and advice
with the intricacies of this project, not the least of which were technical issues with
COMSOL, plastic deformation, and finite element analysis technique. Thank you!

ix

ABSTRACT
The goal of this project was to model and analyze the repeated impact of steel projectiles
onto a sample of Titanium 6Al-4V (Ti64) Alloy. In lieu of a dynamic finite element
analysis, the effects of a dynamic impact were represented as a Hertzian pressure
distribution. The Ti64 sample was loaded and unloaded statically, to simulate the effect
of an impact without the costly dynamic analysis. The analysis was run for 4 impacts of
25 combinations involving 5 projectile sizes and 5 projectile velocities. For each of the
cases, the residual stresses and strains were analyzed after each impact. The condition
was quantified by recording the maximum plastic strain, and the maximum tensile and
compressive radial stresses.

After completion of COMSOL analysis of several

combinations of projectile size and projectile velocity, the resulting data suggests that
the majority of the impact effects (residual stresses and plastic strains) were inflicted
during the first impact, and to a smaller extent, the second impact. Subsequent impacts
produced negligible effects in the stress/strain fields, suggesting that additional impacts
will have a decreasing effect as the number of impacts increase.

1. Introduction
In all fields of engineering, components must be designed with a certain level of
robustness so that in normal operating conditions (and sometimes adverse conditions),
the component will function as designed. This includes components that must be able to
withstand impacts, which include objects that are in motion (automobiles, airplane jet
turbines, etc.), objects that are stationary but at risk of being hit by moving objects
(bridge pilings, highway guardrails, etc.), and objects that are designed to protect
humans from workplace dangers (Kevlar bulletproof vests, safety glasses, sports
helmets, etc.). During the design of these products, thousands of hours of painstaking
research, analysis, and testing were put into designing the component so that it could
survive one impact; however whether they are designed for more than one impact
remains to be seen.
When discussing the example of safety glasses, the product is designed to protect
the wearer from one major impact event, and then the products are disposed of. Once
the glasses are cracked, the structural integrity of the plastic is compromised, and the
glasses are replaced. Similarly, when automobiles are subjected to high-speed impacts
(on road or in crash testing), the metal portions of the frame and body are more than
likely scrapped, as large deformations are difficult to repair.
For components that do not see catastrophic impacts, gradual effects from smallmagnitude impacts must be analyzed to determine what happens to a material when it is
subjected to repeated impact loadings. Parts that are difficult to manufacture, parts that
are built to be durable, and parts that are too expensive to be disposable could all benefit
from the analysis of repeated impact damages.
Examples of the usefulness of analysis of repeated impacts are many in number
and varied in type, and include examples such as:

Civil Engineers must be able to say with certainty that a bridge support can
withstand numerous small impacts throughout its service life.

Sports protective helmets must be durable enough to withstand many impacts

throughout their lives, which may span several seasons. In addition,

motorcycle helmets must conform to D.O.T. regulations in regards to safety

requirements.

Kevlar bulletproof vests must be capable of withstanding multiple bullet

impacts, in the case that a police officer or military soldier is hit multiple
times.

Shot peening treatment of metals for fatigue life enhancement

1.1 Problem Description

Through this project, as will be explained in the following chapters, finite element
analysis will be utilized to analyze trends in how certain materials will respond to single
and repeated impacts. Numerous impact simulations involving a spherical element
(henceforth referred to as the projectile) hitting a flat plate (henceforth referred to as
the target) will be performed. Additionally, the effects of variables such as:

Projectile Velocity

Projectile Size

will be studied in order to determine trends in repeated impact situations.

(2) shows that through experiment, the forces and stresses imparted by a steel
ball onto a steel plate (whether being pressed into the plate or being dropped onto the
plate) can be approximated by a pressure distribution over the impact area. Thus, a static
simulation using this approximation pressure distribution can be performed for the
purposes of this project, using a static analysis Finite Element solver such as COMSOL,
in lieu of a solver more tailored towards the more cumbersome and costly dynamic
analysis, such as LS-DYNA. As a result, more analyses can be performed, allowing the
testing of the variables mentioned in the previous paragraph.

2. Methodology
Impacts can happen in an infinite number of situations and geometries; however this
study will analyze the residual stresses and plastic strains based upon one specific
geometry. A spherical projectile will be impacting a flat plate target, with the dynamic
impact being approximated using static analysis. This impact simulation will then be
repeated in order to extract various trends in stresses or strains as a function of projectile
size or impact velocity.

2.1 Static Analysis of Dynamic Impacts

Dynamic analysis of an impact event is complicated when using Finite Element solvers,
due to non-linear factors such as:
1. Large deformations occurring in both objects
2. Changing boundary conditions due to contact between the two objects
3. Dissipation of momentum in the projectile
For these reasons, a dynamic impact simulation is cumbersome and costly (both in time
and computing power), and would make it especially difficult to run repeated impacts
models while varying certain parameters of the impact, as is this projects goal.
Alternately, performing a static analysis can be achieved many times with
relatively small run-times, easily changing variables between runs, and quickly getting
large amounts of data that could reveal trends during repeated impacts. Approximation
of a dynamic impact can be performed using a static analysis because it has been shown
experimentally that impacts of a spherical projectile impart a stress distribution on the
base material that is a function of radius from the center of impact, the material
properties of both objects, and dimensional properties of the projectile.
(2) shows that experimentally, the pressure imparted by the steel sphere onto a flat
plate can be well represented by a system of equations that involve projectile size,
projectile velocity, and material properties of the sphere. For the purposes of this
analysis, the pressure as a function of radius from impact location can be determined for
a given projectile size, velocity, or material, as is shown in Section 2.1.1.

2.1.1

Impact Pressure as a Function of Radius

In (2), it is shown that dynamic impacts can be equated to a distributed load applied as a
static force, through an extrapolation of Hertzs theory of contact between two elastic
spheres. Davies assumes that one elastic sphere is large enough to be considered semiinfinite when compared to the other, thus equating the system to a sphere impacting a
flat plate.
It follows that for a Hertzian impact between an elastic sphere and an elastic
plate, the initial contact between the two bodies will produce a force of zero, but as the
elastic bodies begin to deform, the force of impact will increase until it reaches a
maximum. This maximum force is the point at which the bodies stop flattening (see
Equation [1]), and begin to spring back to their original shapes. The contact force
between the sphere and flat plate will therefore decrease after reaching its maximum.
2

3
2
E 5 2 2
Pm = (2.5 ) 5
R v
2
3
1

[1]

The radius of the circle of contact between the sphere and the flat plate can be
calculated based on geometrical and material factors, and is used to calculate the normal
pressure. See Equation [2].
1

1 2
a m = 2.5
E

5 52
Rv

[2]

Additionally, the maximum normal pressure, p m , in the circle of contact can be

determined by Hertzs equations of contact, particularly Equation [3], shown below:
4

E 5 5
p m = (2.5 )
v
2

1
1

1
5

[3]

Using the relation represented by Equation [4], the distribution of normal pressure as a
function of radius, p (r ) , from the center of impact can then be determined.
Furthermore, using Equation [1] through Equation [4], the normal pressure distribution
can thus be shown to be functions of projectile velocity, size, and material, and the
radius from the center of impact.

p = p

(a

r2
a

)
[4]

The static representation of a dynamic impact explained above, in addition to using an

assumption of axis symmetry (See Section 2.2), this simplifies the problem at hand.

2.2 Axis-Symmetric Assumption

In order to further simplify the model in order to reduce run-time, increase the number of
simulations that can be run, and ultimately increase the number of variables that can be
tested, the analyses will be run on an axis-symmetric target (see Figure 1). In lieu of
having an object set in a coordinate system such as Cartesian, the use of a model with
axial symmetry allows for reduction of one variable in the coordinate system. Of the
three coordinates (radial r, circumferential , and axial z), the analysis parameters only
vary with changes in r and z. Nothing varies with changes in . Essentially, as (1)
explains it: the problem is mathematically two-dimensional.

Figure 1 - Sketch representing the axis-symmetric model and 2-dimensional projection to be

modeled

Since the assumption of axial symmetry requires all boundary conditions and
loads to be symmetric about the main axis, the model to be analyzed will simulate the
impact to occur at the center of the top of the target disk. The cross section of the
cylinder, extending from the axis of symmetry to the outside edge, will therefore be a 2dimensional model, to be oriented such that the center of the impact will occur at the
top-left corner of the cross-sectional view (see Figure 4).

This simplification of the model from 3-dimensions to a 2-dimensional crosssection, and the additional reduction of taking one-half of the planar cross-section, will
drastically reduce the complexity of the model and run-time of the analysis, and allow
for a more refined mesh (where it is needed see Section 2.4) for the same computing
power used.

2.3 Single and Multiple Impact Simulations

In order to study the effects of repeated impact simulations, multiple separate impacts
must be modeled in succession in order to analyze the effects after each impact (See
Figure 2 and Figure 3). Initially, the target will be undamaged, and the first impact will
be analyzed (as a static load approximation of an impact load). When the applied load is
removed from the model, the elastic deformation will be eliminated, leaving the plastic
(permanent) deformation and residual stresses. The target will have been permanently
deformed by the first impact (Figure 2). Using the deformed shape of the target as the
initial state, another impact is simulated (Figure 3), resulting in additional plastic
deformation.

Figure 2 - Sketches showing the "Projectile" and "Target" prior to the first impact

Figure 3 - Sketches showing the second projectile and the deformed target before and during the
second impact

Post-impact parameters to be analyzed include plastic deformation at locations

around the impact zone and residual stresses in the deformed region. These parameters
will be obtained for each impact simulation, allowing for comparison from impact to
impact. The goal of this repeated analysis is to reveal and analyze trends in residual
stresses and strains after several impacts.
Other factors that will be analyzed by this impact simulation include the size of
the projectile and the velocity of the projectile. Increasing the size (i.e. diameter of the
sphere) of the projectile will increase the area that is affected by the impact, however the
affected regions will remain within the enhanced mesh determined using Saint-Venants
Principle (see Section 2.4). Increasing or decreasing the velocity of the projectile as it
impacts the target will affect the penetrating power of the projectile, thus affecting how
deep the impact effects are felt each time.
In the shot-peening analysis performed in (5), projectile radius and velocity were
chosen to be a particular value, which is commonly used in shot-peening applications.
These values, from Table 2 of (5), are shown in Table 1. In order to study the effect of
each of these parameters, for this analysis, the radius and velocity will vary. The
projectile sizes and velocities to be simulated by this project are shown in Table 2.
Table 1 - Steel Shot Radius and Velocity used by (5)

Description

Value

Radius, R

0.18 mm

Impact Velocity, v

18-50 m/s

Table 2 - Projectile Size and Velocity to be Simulated by COMSOL Model

Size of Projectile (m)

Velocity of Projectile (m/s)

0.00010

10

0.00015

20

0.00020

35

0.00025

50

0.00030

60

2.4 Saint-Venants
Venants Principle
Invoking Saint-Venants
Venants Principle allows for additional simplification of the models
mesh, and will allow for quicker run
run-times
times and the elimination of unnecessary elements
and nodes from the model. In (6), Saint-Venants Principle is stated as:

If
If an actual distribution of fforces
orces is replaced by a statically equivalent system, the
distribution of stress and strain throughout the body is altered only near the regions of
load application.

In the context of (6), the definition above means that loads applied to one end of
a long beam are unlikely to significantly affect the other end. However, in using this
projects finite element model to study the effects of impact, it means that areas far from
the impact zone are unlikely to see the same amounts of stresses and strains than the
areas closer to the impact zone. As a result, fewer elements and nodes need to be located
at areas far from the impact site, as represented in Figure 4.. Additionally, a finer mesh
can be utilized
tilized nearest the impact site to provide the resolution needed for an accurate
analysis.

Figure 4 - Mesh Showing Finer Element Resolu

Resolution
tion Near the Impact Site
S

The use of the adjusted mesh to invoke Saint-Venants

Venants Principle is validated
when the initial impact is sim
simulated.
ulated. As shown in the deformed mesh in Figure 5, the
deformation and stress eff
effects are limited to the upper-left
left corner of the mesh (i.e. near
the axis of impact). Even for the combination of the largest projectile (R
( = 0.0003m)
and highest impact velocity ((v = 60 m/s), the impact effects
ects are limited to within the area
of the refined mesh. This suggests that the mesh is sufficient, and that refining the mesh
in distant corners of the model would do little towards increasing the accuracy of the
simulation.

Figure 5 - Deformed
eformed shape and effective plastic strain (plotted by color), after first impact (R =
0.0003m, v = 60 m/s)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Determination of the Hertzian Pressure Distribution
Using equations from (2) (Equation [1] through Equation [4]) to find the pressure
distribution imparted on the target by the projectile, the static approximation of the
impact force can be determined. Using the MATLAB code findpressure_R00025.m
included in Appendix B, the following steps were performed for the various
combinations of Projectile Radius (R) and Projectile Velocity (v):
1. The material properties for the steel projectile are established
2. The projectile radius and projectile velocity are established (Note: For the
ease of data visualization, only one of these variables remain constant the
other varies between the values shown in Table 2)
3. The Maximum Radius of the Circle of Contact ( a m ) is determined per
Equation [2]
4. The Maximum Normal Pressure ( p m ) in the circle of contact is determined
per Equation [3]
5. The Pressure Distribution ( p ) is determined per Equation [4]
6. By using many data points for the Radius from the Center of Impact (r)
incremented by 0.000001m, the pressure distribution is plotted against the
radius. The different cases of the variable iterated in Step 2 are plotted on
the same set of axes
7. The matrix of data (p) created by the m-file is written to a MS Excel
worksheet, for further analysis if needed

The process of analyzing the various combinations of R and v involves several

related MATLAB m-files, because testing combinations of 5 different projectile radii
and 5 different velocities will result in 25 different combinations of the two variables.
Testing each one of these by the same m-file would result in a very large matrix of data
that would cause difficulty for the computer (and user) to analyze and would result in
excessive file sizes.

10

Instead, for each case, one of the two variables was held constant, and the other
iterated within the specified values of Table 2. This results in 10 different cases, and 10
different m-files. The particular case shown in this results section will be shown in
Table 3 below.

All other M-files, and all MS Excel results files and MATLAB

comparative plots are included in the Resource CD of this report.

Table 3 - Featured case analyzed by MATLAB (R=0.00025m)

Radius

Velocity

(m)

(m/s)
10
20

0.00025

35
50
60

By running the MATLAB M-file shown in Appendix B, the following outputs are
obtained:
1. Microsoft Excel Worksheet containing columns for:
a. Projectile Radius (R) in this case, R = 0.00025m.
b. Projectile Velocity (v) for the last loop in this case, v = 60.
c. Radius from the Center of Impact (r) varies from 0.0000m to 0.0025m
d. Pressure for the 1st case: v = 10 m/s
e. Pressure for the 2nd case: v = 20 m/s
f. Pressure for the 3rd case: v = 35 m/s
g. Pressure for the 4th case: v = 50 m/s
h. Pressure for the 5th case: v = 60 m/s

NOTE: Due to worksheet size (~2,500 rows), the Microsoft Excel outputs are
included in the Resource CD for this project.

11

2. MATLAB Plot of all five pressure distributions (see d through h above) against
the radius from the center of impact. This plot for the featured case is shown in
Figure 6. All other plots are included in the Resource CD for this project.

Figure 6 - Plot of Pressure vs. Radius for R = 0.00025m

The MATLAB plot in Figure 6 indicates that for a given projectile radius, an
increase in the velocity will create a larger affected area and higher localized pressures at
all points of the affected area. For example, the top data series (for v = 60 m ) has a
s
higher pressure at the impact location, roughly 17.8 GPa, than the data series for the next
smallest velocity (for v = 50 m ), which is roughly 16.6 GPa.
s

Additionally, for

v = 60 m , the pressure distribution is non-zero up to 0.000062m, compared to only

s
0.000058m for v = 50 m .
s

12

As a result, it can be shown that for a given projectile radius, the pressure
distribution imparted by a projectile is larger and more penetrating if the velocity of the
projectile is larger. Likewise, the constant-velocity calculations show that as the radius
increases, the pressure and penetrating power of the impact is also larger.

3.2 Modeling the First Impact

3.2.1

Mesh, Boundary Conditions, Material Conditions, and Loads

Starting with the mesh defined for the impact analysis (shown in Figure 4), the
appropriate boundary conditions and loads were applied to the mesh to simulate an
object being hit on its upper surface (see Figure 7). Recall from Section 2.2 that the
model is being simulated as axis-symmetric; therefore a COMSOL model of type Axial
Symmetry (2D) will be used.

Figure 7 - Boundary Conditions and Load applied to COMSOL model

13

Table 4 - Mesh Statistics of COMSOL Model Ti-6AL-4V Impact.mph

Parameter

Value

Number of Degrees of Freedom

26156

Number of Mesh Points

3307

Number of Elements

6465

Triangular

6465

Quadrilateral

Number of Boundary Elements

147

Number of Vertex Elements

Minimum Element Quality

0.6028

Element Area Ratio

0.0064

After specifying the mesh (see Table 4 for mesh statistics), boundary conditions
and material conditions, the load is applied for the case being studied. After determining
the values of a and p for the specific values of R and v, the pressure distribution can be
determined. To input into COMSOL, the pressure distribution is applied as a piecewise
analytical function:
p(r ) = p

a2 r 2
a
0

,r < a
,r > a

[5]

The piecewise analytical function shown in Equation [5] ensures that the pressure
distribution is applied to the upper boundary at locations inside the circle of impact
(where r < a ). All other locations ( r > a ) along the upper boundary will receive no
external pressure, even if the effects of the applied pressure are felt at those locations.

3.2.2

First Impact - Loading and Unloading

After the setup of the model was completed, the finite element analysis was run. The
resulting surface plot (see Figure 8) that was produced provides valuable information as
to the physical effects of the projectile impact on the target material. The resulting plot
is a surface plot showing the radial stress of the target, while also representing the

14

displacement by the shape of the model. Also shown are the locations and values of the
maximum and minimum plastic stains.

Figure 8 - Surfa
Surface Plot of Radial Stress After First Impact (load
load active)
active

As can be seen by the surface plot coloration, both compressive (blue) and tensile
(red) radial stresses occur. The majority of the compressive radial stresses occur in a
region underneath the projectile impact, while the tensile stresses are just outside the
affected area of impact. Simply speaking, the impact is pushing lower-surface
lower
material
laterally away from the impact up to a certain point, where the effects are pulling toptop
surface material towards the edge of the impact. On a very large scale, this would create
a ridge of material around the edge of tthe impact site, which in principle is what happens
in meteorite impacts on the earth (see Figure 9). In a meteorite impact, many dynamic
factors, such as the very high speed and high energy of the projectile, and the physical
and chemical reactions of the impact explosion, contribute to the additional complexity
of the dynamic impact.

15

Figure 9 - Photograph of Meteor Crater, Arizona from (7)

Since the COMSOL model was explicitly defined to be a static loading of the
target, the stresses and strains represented in Figure 8 are not the residual effects. In
order to calculate the residual stress/strain field of the material following impact, the
applied load must be removed, so that the elastic deformation and recoverable stresses
will leave the material, and the condition of the post-impact target can be analyzed. By
removing the pressure distribution, and running the simulation again with the Current
Solution as the base model, this allows the model to partially bounce back to the state
without elastic deformation see Figure 10 for the unloaded shape.

16

Figure 10 - Surface Plot of Radial Str

Stress After First Impact
mpact (unloaded)

After the load is removed, there are distinct regionss with residual radial stresses
(compressive stresses are blue, tensile stresses are red), along with the accompanying
strains. The vast majority of the model has neglig
negligible
ible residual stresses, with most of the
effects being felt in the small sq
square of high-density mesh these results highlight the
efficiency of the mesh being used. The areas of compressive stress are very different
between the two states, particularly in their size. The loaded state has a very well
defined and very small area of high stresses, whereas the unloaded surface plot shows a
larger area of lower stress. A
Additionally,
dditionally, the maximum compressive stress is an order of
magnitude larger in the loaded state than in the unloaded state. In Section 3.3, the
numerical results of an impact (including three additional impacts) will be discussed as it
relates to progressive impact effects.

3.3 Analysis of Four Loading/Unloading Cycles for Specified Case

In analyzing the numerical results of multiple impacts, it is important to determine
determi the
parameters that will be recorded and compared between the loaded and unloaded states

17

of each impact. This section will analyze one combination of projectile radius and
velocity, resulting in the values of a max and p max shown in Table 5.
Analysis of the first impact using the methods described in Section 3.2.2 results
in deformed shapes which have elevated interior stresses and strains. Using the postprocessing features of COMSOL the following quantities of interest are determined after
each run:

Radial stress ( r ) along the top surface, z = 0.000250 m

Radial stress ( r ) , along the axis of impact, r = 0

Axial displacement (u z ) , along the top surface, z = 0.000250 m

Axial displacement (u z ) , along the axis of impact, r = 0

Axial strain ( z ) along the axis of impact, r = 0

Plastic Strain

( ) along the axis of impact, r = 0

pl

These sets of data are exported from COMSOL into .txt format, so that they
can be plotted against each other for multiple impact cycles. MS Excel will be used to
compile data and generate comparative plots.
Table 5 - Parameters for Specific Case Discussed in Section 3.3

Parameter

Value

Unit

Projectile Radius, R

0.00025

Projectile Velocity, v

35

m/s

5.059E-5

1.435E10

Pa

Radius of the Circle of

Impact, a max
Maximum Normal
Pressure in the Circle of
Contact, p max

18

3.3.1

Analysis of Subsequent Impacts

The second impact began with the deformed shape from the first impact after it was
unloaded meaning that the plastic deformation and residual stress field from the first
impact was incorporated the model. Similar to the way that the first impact was run
again with zero-load to unload it, the appropriate pressure distribution was then reapplied, and the model was run again. The results were analyzed and upon unloading a
second time, the stress/strain field was analyzed once more.
The data files for each residual stress and displacement state, in addition to the
MS Excel worksheets are included in the Resource CD of this report.

19

Radial Stresses of Top Surface - Impacts 1-4

6.00E+09
4.00E+09
sr1

2.00E+09

Stress (Pa)

0.00E+00
-2.00E+09 0

sr2
0.00005

0.0001

0.00015

0.0002

0.00025

0.0003

-4.00E+09

sr3
sr4

-6.00E+09
sr5

-8.00E+09
-1.00E+10

sr6

-1.20E+10

sr7

-1.40E+10

sr8

-1.60E+10

Radius from the Axis of Impact (m)

Axial Displacement Along the Top Surface

- Impacts 1-4
-2.62E-04

Stress (Pa)

-2.64E-04 0

0.000002

0.000004

0.000006

0.000008

0.00001
ztop1

-2.66E-04

ztop2

-2.68E-04

ztop3

-2.70E-04

ztop4

-2.72E-04

ztop5
ztop6

-2.74E-04

ztop7

-2.76E-04

ztop8
-2.78E-04

Radius from Axis of Impact (m)

Figure 11 - Radial Stress and Radial Displacement plotted for the Loading and Unloading of
Impacts 1-4 (2 plots), Top Surface

The radial stresses taken along the upper surface of the model show that there are
distinct regions of compression and tension, as was previously discussed. The data sets,
in order, represent loading and unloading stresses for impacts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Negative
stresses indicate compression, whereas positive stresses indicate tension. From a high

20

level view of the entire top surface (Top plot of Figure 11), it appears that there are no
differences within any of the loaded stresses or any of the unloaded stresses. This would
indicate either:
1. There is no change in the target when it is hit repeatedly
2. There is an issue with the finite element analysis in that the load is not
accurately applied upon the previously deformed model
However, the impact effects of the material represented by the displacement in the axial
direction (u z ) , show that four distinct plots can be seen (see the bottom plot of Figure
11). These represent (from top to bottom), the level of compression displacements after
unloading from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impacts, respectively.
From the initial state of zero-displacement, the largest change occurs during the
first impact. In that impact, the displacement line shifted to the red line (labeled sr2).
After the 2nd impact, the displacement made another jump to the purple sr4 line. As
the residual stresses progressed to the 3rd (sr6) and 4th (sr8) impacts, however, the
changes became smaller and smaller. If more and more impacts were plotted on this
chart, it is likely that the changes would reduce in magnitude until the plots were on top
of each other. To summarize, the majority of the effects are felt in the first two impacts,
after which the additional changes are negligible.
It should be noted that the previously discussed radial stresses and axial
displacements were along the top surface of the target (at z = 0). Also recorded were the
radial stresses and axial displacements along the axis of impact (at r = 0), which are
shown in Figure 12. While the effects of the stress increments between impacts are
consistent with the previous discussion, the results themselves are different for the
stresses along the axis of impact. Instead of having areas of compressive stresses and
tensile stresses as the top surface had, the cross section along the axis of impact is in
varying stages of compression. In the loaded states, the stresses exceed 1.20 x 1010 Pa,
whereas the unloaded states do not exceed 2.50 x 109 Pa.

21

Radial Stress Along Axis of Impact

Impacts 1-4
2.00E+09
rsz1

0.00E+00

Stress (Pa)

-2.00E+09 0

0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003

rsz2

-4.00E+09

rsz3

-6.00E+09

rsz4

-8.00E+09

rsz5

-1.00E+10

rsz6

-1.20E+10

rsz7

-1.40E+10

Depth (m)

rsz8

Axial Displacement Along Axis of Impact

- Impacts 1-4
-2.60E-04
0

0.000001 0.000002 0.000003 0.000004 0.000005

z-displacement (m)

-2.62E-04
zaxis2

-2.64E-04

zaxis4
-2.66E-04

zaxis6
zaxis8

-2.68E-04
-2.70E-04

Distance From Top Surface (m)

Figure 12 - Radial Stress and Axial Displacement plotted for Impacts 1-4 (2 plots), Along Axis of
Impact

The radial stresses along the top surface of the target are important to study
because if cracks were to begin spreading throughout the material, they would most
likely be initiated at the top surface. The top surface is also the location where cracks
can most easily be inspected and evaluated. The radial stresses within the material must
be studied because once a crack forms, it must have the proper stress field in order to

22

propagate throughout the material. By determining whether the stress field necessary for
crack creation and/or propagation is bred from the repeated impact scenario, analyses of
fatigue life will be enhanced.
It should be noted that in the top plot of Figure 12 that at a depth of
z = 250 10 6 m , the stress values for both the loaded and unloaded states have a

magnitude that is negligible when compared to the peak compressive and tensile
stresses. This shows that the mesh is adequate as it pertains to Saint Venants Principle.
Theoretically, the stresses would be zero at that part of the model, but practically, the
results show that the mesh is suitably assembled for these simulations.
In addition to the radial stress, the values for the effective plastic strain and axial
strain were obtained for each of the four impacts. These data sets were taken along the
axis of impact and exported to .txt format and imported to MS Excel same as the
residual stresses. The data files and MS Excel worksheets (Axial Strain - Impacts 1 and
2.xls and Plastic Strain Impacts 1 and 2.xls) are included in the Resource CD of this
report. The figures resulting from the plotting the cross-sectional axial strain ( z ) and
cross-sectional plastic strain ( pl ) against the radius from axis of impact are shown in
this report. See Figure 13 for cross-sectional axial strain (2 plots) and Figure 14 for
cross-sectional plastic strain (2 plots).

23

Axial Strain - Impacts 1-4

(R = 0.00025m, v = 35 m/s)
Distance from Top Surface (m)
0
-0.5 0

ez1
0.00005

0.0001

0.00015

0.0002

0.00025

0.0003

-1

ez2
ez3

-1.5

ez4

-2

ez5

-2.5

ez6

-3

ez7

-3.5

ez8

-4
-4.5

Axial Strain - Impacts 1-4

(Enlargement of Peak Strain Region)
Distance from Top Surface (m)
-4
0.000015

0.00002

0.000025

3E-05

3.5E-05

ez1
ez2

-4.05
ez3
ez4
-4.1

ez5
ez6

-4.15

ez7
ez8

-4.2
Figure 13 - Axial Strain plotted for Impacts 1-4 (2 plots)

24

Plastic Strain - Impacts 1-4

(R = 0.00025m, v = 35 m/s)
0
-0.5 0

0.00005

0.0001

0.00015

0.0002

0.00025

0.0003

-1
-1.5

epz2

-2

epz4

-2.5

epz6

-3

epz8

-3.5
-4
-4.5

Distance from Top Surface (m)

Plastic Strain - Impacts 1-4

(Enlargement of Peak Strain Region)
-4
0.000015
-4.02

0.00002

0.000025

3E-05

3.5E-05

epz2

-4.04

epz4
-4.06

epz6
epz8

-4.08
-4.1

Distance from Top Surface (m)

Figure 14 - Plastic Strain plotted for Impacts 1-4 (2 plots)

Through the analysis of the COMSOL axial strain results in Figure 13, it can be
seen that the axial strain within the target varies between the loaded and unloaded states
of impacts 1-4. For each successive impact, both the loaded and unloaded states exhibit
an increase in the axial strain. This passes the sanity check in that an impacted piece
of metal will be increasingly deformed the more it is hit. Provided there is plastic
deformation after impact, the metal will never bounce back to its original state. Similar

25

to the radial stresses previously discussed, however, the axial strain increases at a
decreasing rate there will come a point where additional repeated impacts will have
negligible effects. Likewise, the plastic strains increase after each impact, as is shown in
Figure 14. Between the loading and unloading cycles of each impact, the plastic strain
does not change, since no additional loading is being applied to the model. As a result,
the loaded and unloaded plots share the same line for each impact.

3.4 Analysis of Maximum Stress/Strain Values For All Cases

After examining the cross-sectional strain and stress results for the one case discussed in
Section 3.3, the effects of multiple impacts was studied for the remainder of the cases.
In order to quickly access the values of p and a for use in testing the different
combinations, a MATLAB code find_amax_pmax.m, included in Appendix B, was
written to explicitly calculate each of the values and export them into a MS Excel
worksheet. The resulting MS Excel file (with added column headings) is shown in Table
6.

26

Table 6 - Calculated values of amax and pmax for each tested combination of R and v

For each case, the impact loading / unloading cycle was performed four times,
and the following information was recorded at each step (8 steps per case):

Maximum Plastic Strain ( pl ,max )

Maximum Tensile Radial Stress ( r ,t ,max )

Maximum Compressive Radial Stress ( r ,c , max )

27

Although all of the cases shown in Table 6 were analyzed, the results from only
one case will be discussed. For consistency sake, the same case previously discussed in
Section 3.3 (R = 0.00025m, v = 35 m/s) will be discussed. Due to the similarity of the
data sets for each run, the discussion and conclusions for all other cases would be
similar, albeit with different stress and strain values.

The trends, however, are

consistent. All COMSOL results for the four-impact analysis are included in Appendix
C, and the specific case (R = 0.00025m, v = 35 m/s) is shown in Table 7.
Table 7 - Stress/Strain Results for specific case (R = 0.00025m, v = 35 m/s)

0.00025

35

p-m

State

Max
Plastic
Strain

1.435E+10

Load 1
Unload 1
Load 2
Unload 2
Load 3
Unload 3
Load 4
Unload 4

4.0596
4.0596
4.0750
4.0750
4.0874
4.0874
4.0915
4.0915

a-m

5.059E05

Max Sig-r
(Tension)

Max Sig-r
(Compression)

3.734E+09
2.058E+09
3.703E+09
2.059E+09
3.658E+09
2.048E+09
3.635E+09
2.038E+09

-1.316E+10
-2.328E+09
-1.315E+10
-2.388E+09
-1.314E+10
-2.409E+09
-1.314E+10
-2.418E+09

At first glance, the data suggests that the majority of the plastic strain in the
target is due to the first impact, which imparts a plastic strain of roughly 4.05. In the
three subsequent impacts, this value of plastic strain only increase to 4.09, roughly 1% of
the initial strain. This means that even though the model was being exposed to the same
impact pressures for the second, third, and fourth impacts, little additional strain was
being caused. See Figure 15 for a graphical representation of the Maximum Plastic
Strain shown in Table 7.

28

Plastic Strain for Impacts 1-4

Plastic Strain

(R=0.00025m, v = 35m/s)
4.0950
4.0900
4.0850
4.0800
4.0750
4.0700
4.0650
4.0600
4.0550

e-pl

10

Step Number

Figure 15 - Plastic Strain for Impacts 1-4

While the values of the plastic strain increase between impact loadings (while not
changing between the loading and unloading of a given impact), the tensile and
compressive radial stresses fluctuate between loading cases and unloading cases, as is
shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17.

Most importantly, however, are the unloaded

compressive radial stress values (i.e. Steps 2, 4, 6, and 8). These values show the true
residual stresses after each impact, since in reality, the time between loading and
unloading is very quick when the impact occurs. See Table 8 and Figure 18 for the
stress levels and graphical representation, respectively.

29

Tensile Radial Stress for Impacts 1-4

Radial Stress (Pa)

(R=0.00025m, v = 35m/s)
4.000E+09
3.500E+09
3.000E+09
2.500E+09
2.000E+09
1.500E+09
1.000E+09
5.000E+08
0.000E+00

SigR-T

10

Step Number

Figure 16 - Maximum Tensile Radial Stress - Impacts 1-4 Loading/Unloading Cycles

Compressive Radial Stresses

for Impacts 1-4
(R=0.00025m, v = 35m/s)

Radial Stress (Pa)

0.000E+00
0

10

-5.000E+09
SigR-C
-1.000E+10

-1.500E+10

Step Number

Figure 17 - Maximum Compressive Radial Stress - Impacts 1-4 Loading/Unloading Cycles

30

Table 8 - Maximum Compressive Radial Stresses After Impacts 1-4 with Incremental and Percent
Changes

Max Sig-r-C
[Pa]
0.000E+00
-2.328E+09
-2.388E+09
-2.409E+09
-2.418E+09

Impact #
0
1
2
3
4

Change
-2.328E+09
-6.000E+07
-2.100E+07
-9.000E+06

Percent
Change
100.000%
2.513%
0.872%
0.372%

Compressive Radial Stress After

Impact Unloading
Impact Number

0.000E+00
0

Radial Stress (Pa)

-5.000E+08
-1.000E+09
-1.500E+09

Max Sig-r-C [Pa]

-2.000E+09
-2.500E+09
-3.000E+09

Figure 18 - Maximum Compressive Radial Stresses After Impacts 1-4

The maximum compressive radial stress increases after each of the impacts, but
in comparison to the magnitude of the stresses themselves, the changes are not
significant. As shown in Table 8, between impacts 1 and 2, there was a stress increase
of roughly 2.5%, between 2 and 3: 0.87%, and between 3 and 4: 0.37%. This suggests
that after the first two impacts, the effects resulting from subsequent impacts are
negligible.

31

4. Conclusions
The goal of this project was to model and analyze the repeated impact of steel projectiles
onto a sample of Titanium 6Al-4V Alloy. In lieu of a dynamic finite element analysis,
the effects of a dynamic impact were represented by a Hertzian pressure distribution
which was loaded and unloaded statically to simulate an impact without the need for
dynamic analysis. This allowed for multiple runs so that the analysis could be run for 4
impacts of 25 combinations involving 5 projectile sizes and 5 projectile velocities.
When studying one case in particular, several important parameters such as radial
stress ( r ) , axial displacement (u z ) , total axial strain ( z ) , and plastic strain ( pl ) were
recorded. The goal of this data was to examine the effects of four impacts on the
material; by taking data along the top surface and along the axis of impact, the effects in
two directions were studied.

When studying all of the chosen cases, the residual

condition was analyzed after each impact. The condition was quantified by recording
the maximum plastic strain ( pl ,max ) , the maximum tensile radial stress ( r ,t ,max ) , and the
maximum compressive radial stress ( r ,c , max ) .
The data suggests that the majority of the impact effects were felt after the first
impact, and to a smaller extent, the second impact. For the specific case tested, the first
impact produced compressive stress increases roughly 40 times larger than the second
impact. Subsequent impacts produced negligible effects both in the plastic strain and
radial stresses. In the specific case studied, the third impact produced a mere 0.872%
increase in peak stress, while the fourth impact produced a 0.372% increase in peak
stress. These impacts pale in comparison to the first two impacts.
The results obtained by this study suggest that in an impact situation between two
specific metals (steel and titanium), once a few impacts have affected and deformed a
certain area, then that area is essentially impervious to additional deformation and/or
damage.

To an extent, due to strain hardening of the material and the deformed

geometry of the new target (i.e. the projectile impacting straight at the target is no longer
hitting the surface normal to the surface a glancing blow), this may be partly true.
On the other hand, the repeated impact in the same location and same size may
have skewed the results to be very dependent on the first and second impacts. This
32

effect is similar to a stamping machine for auto body panels, where a given pressure is
applied to a certain sized piece of sheet metal repeatedly in order to shape it as desired.
In this case, the sheet metal die is replaced by a steel sphere hitting the metal in the same
place at the same pressure.

4.1 Suggestions and Recommendations for Future Work

1.

To prevent the sheet metal die effect as described above, additional

analyses should be run that vary the impact location, projectile size, and
projectile velocity from impact to impact. This will vary the pressure
distributions seen by the targets, allowing for a more varied and realistic
analysis. Conversely, the additional variables being tested will make it
difficult to test the effects of each parameter in this study no parameters
changed from impact to impact, therefore the effect of projectile size and
projectile velocity could be compared from case to case. NOTE: varying
the location of impact will render the axis-symmetric assumption invalid
and introduce additional modeling complexity.

2.

The long-term effects of repeated impacts should be analyzed for their

contributions to fatigue life.

In this study only four impacts were

simulated, however many engineered components undergo many more

impacts tests for qualification purposes.

The effects of hundred of

consecutive impact simulations would provide valuable information for

the study of component fatigue.

3.

In addition to varying the projectile size and projectile velocity, the

materials being simulated should be analyzed.

In this case, steel

projectiles were impacting a Titanium 6Al-4V alloy plate, however

analyzing the following material combinations (among others) would
enrich the understanding of repeated impacts for other engineering fields:

Steel - Steel

33

4.

Steel - Concrete

Steel - Wood

Steel - Plastic

Steel - Aluminum

Steel - Composite

The results from the static simulations used in this study should be
compared to a finite element analysis using dynamic impact, using a
program such as LS-DYNA, to determine the validity of these results and
the suitability of the static approximation. Additionally, comparing these
results to real-life impact analysis (using strain gages) would lend
additional validation to the method.

34

5. References
(1)

Cook, R. D. (2004). Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis,

Fourth Edition. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia).

(2)

Davies, R. M. (1949). The determination of static and dynamic yield stresses

using a steel ball. Royal Society of London , 416-432.

(3)

Hibbeler, R. (2000). Mechanics of Materials. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

(4)

Lesuer, D. R. (2000). Experimental Investigations of Material Models for Ti-6Al4V Titanium and 2024-T3 Aluminum. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration - Office of Aviation Research.

(5)

Meguid, S. A. (2007). Development and Validation of Novel FE Models for 3D

Analysis of Peening of Strain-Rate Sensitive Materials. Journal of Engineering
Materials and Technology , 129, 271-283.

(6)

Ugural, A. C., & Fenster, S. K. (2003). Advanced Strength and Applied

Elasticity, Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

(7)

Terrestrial

Impact

Craters

Slide

Set.

Accessed

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/craters/slide_10.html

35

12/3/10.

6. Appendices
6.1 Appendix A
Material Properties

Table 9 - Material Properties for Ti 6Al-4V and Steel

NOTE: Material Properties obtained from (3)

Property

Density ()

Ti 6Al-4V

Steel (Structural

Alloy

A36 Alloy)

4430
kg/m

7860 kg/m3

Modulus of
Elasticity

120 GPa

200 GPa

0.36

0.286

924 MPa

250 MPa

of Thermal

9.4 x

12.0 x

Expansion

10 6 / o C

10 6 / o C

(E)
Poissons
Ratio ()
Yield
Strength
( y )
Coefficient

(a)

36

Table 10 - Derived Parameters used in COMSOL Analyses

Ti 6Al-4V

Property

Alloy

A*

1.098 GPa

B*

1.096 GPa

n*

0.93

Modulus of
Plasticity

1.016 GPa

(E )
pl

Strain at
Onset of

9.24 x 10-3

Yielding
( y )

* NOTE: A, B, and n are parameters for the

Johnson-Cook Material Model as determined by (4)

37

6.2 Appendix B
MATLAB M-File findpressure_R00025.m for R = 0.00025m:
% Chris Anason
% Engineering Project
% Find Pressure: Radius Constant
clear all
clc
%% STEEL PROJECTILE MATERIAL CONSTANTS %%
Poisson = 0.32; % Poisson's ratio of the Projectile [ ]
E = 200e9;
% Modulus of Elasticity for the Projectile [Pa]
rho = 7860 ; % Density of Projectile [kg/m^3]
%% DEFINE VARIABLES (SPHERE RADIUS AND VELOCITY) %%
Radii = [.0001;.00015;.0002;.00025;.0003]; % Radius of the Projectile
[m]
Velocities = [10;20;35;50;60]; % Velocity of Projectile at Impact [m/s]
Xmax = 2500e-6; % Maximum radius of target [m]
R = 0.00025;
for i=1:1:5
v = Velocities(i);
%% Find 'a_max' (Maximum Radius of the "Circle of Contact")
a_max = (2.5 * pi * rho * ((1-Poisson^2)/E))^(1/5) * R * v^(2/5);
%% Find 'p_max' (Maximum Normal Pressure applied during impact)
p_max = (1/pi) * (2.5 * pi * rho)^(1/5) * (E/(1-Poisson^2))^(4/5) *
v^(2/5);
%% Loop to solve for p(r) over 0<r<1
ii = 1; % Initialize Counter "ii" to 1
for r=0:0.000001:Xmax
p(ii,1) = R;
p(ii,2) = v;
p(ii,3) = r;
p(ii,3+i) = p_max * sqrt(a_max^2 - r^2) / a_max;
Distribution as a function of r
ii = ii+1;
end
i = i + 1;
end

38

%% Pressure

p;
% Plot Pressure against Radius for various velocities
plot(p(:,3),p(:,4),'-r')
xlabel('Radius (m)')
xlim([0 0.0001])
ylabel('Pressure (Pa)')
title('Normal Pressure as a Function of Radius from the Center of
Impact, R = 0.00025m')
hold on
plot(p(:,3),p(:,5),'-g')
plot(p(:,3),p(:,6),'-b')
plot(p(:,3),p(:,7),'-k')
plot(p(:,3),p(:,8),'-c')
h = legend('V=10 m/s','V=20 m/s','V=35 m/s','V=50 m/s','V=60 m/s',5);
set(h,'Interpreter','none')
%% Write data to Excel File
xlswrite('R00025', p)

39

MATLAB M-File: find_amax_pmax.m

% Chris Anason
% Engineering Project
% MATLAB File: "find_amax_pmax.m"
clear all
clc
%% STEEL PROJECTILE MATERIAL CONSTANTS %%
Poisson = 0.32; % Poisson's ratio of the Projectile [ ]
E = 200e9;
% Modulus of Elasticity for the Projectile [Pa]
rho = 7860 ; % Density of Projectile [kg/m^3]
%% DEFINE VARIABLES (SPHERE RADIUS AND VELOCITY) %%
Radii = [.0001;.00015;.0002;.00025;.0003]; % Radius of the Projectile
[m]
Velocities = [10; 20; 35; 50; 60]; % Velocity of Projectile at Impact
[m/s]
i = 1;
for j=1:5
R = Radii(j);
for k=1:5
v = Velocities(k);
%% Find 'a_max' (Maximum Radius of the "Circle of Contact")
a_max = (2.5 * pi * rho * ((1-Poisson^2)/E))^(1/5) * R * v^(2/5);
%% Find 'p_max' (Maximum Normal Pressure applied during impact)
p_max = (1/pi) * (2.5 * pi * rho)^(1/5) * (E/(1-Poisson^2))^(4/5) *
v^(2/5);
data(i,1)
data(i,2)
data(i,3)
data(i,4)

=
=
=
=

R;
v;
a_max;
p_max;

i = i+1; % Iterate "i"

end
end
data;
%% Write data to Excel File
xlswrite('ImpactParameters', data)

40

6.3 Appendix C
COMSOL Results of Four-Impact Analysis (MS Excel format)

41

42

43

44

45