Validation of a multi-physics code

Plasticity models & Taylor Impact

Biswajit Banerjee
University of Utah

McMat 2005, June 2005, Baton Rouge

Outline

 The UINTAH multi-physics code

 Verification & Validation

 Materials & Models

 Taylor Impact Test

 Validation Metrics

 Results

 Conclusions
The UINTAH code
Verification

 Comparisons with exact solutions

 Rate of convergence of the truncation
error (theory vs. code)
 Manufactured test problems

 Monitoring of conserved parameters

 Preservation of symmetry

 Comparisons with existing codes

Validation

 Comparisons with experiments

 Level 1: Experiments to validate individual
component physics
 Level 2: Experiments to validate combinations
of components
 Level 3: Experiments to validate the complete
simulation
 Need experiments designed to validate
large codes.
Goals

 Determine plasticity model best suited

for fire-steel interaction
 Strain
rates - 0.001/s to 108/s
 Temperatures - 230 K - 800 K

 Validate Plasticity Models

 Taylor Impact Tests
 Flyer-Plate Impact Tests
Materials & Models
 Materials
 OFHC Copper (Annealed)
 6061-T6 Aluminum Alloy
 4340 Steel Alloy

 Yield Stress Models:

 Johnson-Cook (JC)
 Steinberg-Cochran-Guinan-Lund (SCG)
 Zerilli-Armstrong (ZA)
 Mechanical Threshold Stress (MTS)
 Preston-Tonks-Wallace (PTW)

 Shear Modulus/Melting Temp. Models:

 Nadal-Le Poac
 Follansbee-Kocks
 Steinberg-Cochran-Guinan
OFHC-Copper - strain rate

JC vs MTS JC vs PTW

JC vs SCG JC vs ZA
OFHC-Copper - temperature
JC vs MTS JC vs PTW

JC vs SCG JC vs ZA
OFHC-Copper - moduli/melting
Equation of State Shear Modulus

Melt Temp.
Taylor Impact Test
Experiments - OFHC Copper
Experiments - 6061-T6 Al
Experiments - 4340 Steel
Validation Metrics

 Eyeball-norm
 Final Length
 Elastic Length (green)
 Final vertical length
(red+green)
 Mushroom Diameter
 Diameter at 0.2 L (x)
 Final area
 Final volume
 Centroid (1st moment)
 Moment of Inertia
 Time of impact
Final Profiles: OFHC Copper

210 m/s, 295K 188 m/s, 718K 181 m/s, 1235K

Error Metrics: OFHC Copper

188 m/s, 718K

Time Metrics: OFHC Copper

188 m/s, 718K

Range of States: OFHC Copper

188 m/s, 718K

Final Profiles: 6061-T6 Al

373 m/s, 294K 194 m/s, 635K 354 m/s, 655K

Error Metrics: 6061-T6 Al

194 m/s, 635K

Final Profiles: 4340 Steel

308 m/s, 295K 312 m/s, 725K 160 m/s,1285K

Error Metrics: 4340 Steel

312 m/s, 725K

Conclusions

 Thermal softening is inadequate in the

physically based models
 Johnson-Cook is the best bet among
the models investigated
 More high temperature data are needed
in the high rate regime
 A temperature sensitive length scale
may be needed to prevent spurious
mesh sensitivity