Advanced Numerical Simulation of Failure in Solids Under Blast and Ballistic Loading: A Review



Analyses of structural response to blast and projectile penetration require advanced computational modeling. The problems are geometrically and materially nonlinear. Accuracy of the solutions is sensitive to several numerical algorithms: robust contact, air blast/structure coupling, nonlinear error estimation, adaptive mesh, and cohesive element. Description of the damage and failure processes demand high mesh resolution and often extremely small time steps. If the localization phenomenon leads to large-scale plastic yielding and large deformations, the accuracy of the solution tends to depend on our ability to capture the time and space resolved extreme gradients of stress, strain, and other internal state variables. This chapter discusses the computational requirements on the accurate modeling of structure, armor, and projectile responses as well as the blast phenomenon.


Blast Dynamic fracture Shock wave propagation Hydrocodes Projectile penetration Diagnostics penetration experiments Particles methods Adaptive mesh Contact 



The author acknowledge Dr. Gordon Johnson and Dr. Charles Anderson, Jr., of Southwest Research Institute for providing ballistic simulation results and references. Dr. Paul Mlakar of ERDC and for his helpful discussions and suggestions on the blast loading applications. The technical support and encouragement of Dr. Yapa Rajapakse of Office of Naval Research and Prof. Arun Shukla, University of Rhode Island, RI are also gratefully acknowledged.


  1. A.M. Rajendran and N. Elfer, “Debris Impact Protection of Space Structures,” Chapter in Structural Failures, eds. Wierzbicki and Jones, John-Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 41–78, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. J.A. Zukas, “High Velocity Impact Dynamics,” John-Wiley & Sons, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. S.J. Bless and A.M. Rajendran, “Initiation and Propagation of Damage Caused by Impact on Brittle Materials,” A Chapter in Dynamic Fracture and Fragmentation, Eds. L. Davison, D. Grady, and M. Shahinpoor, in print, Springer-Verlag Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Protecting Buildings from Bomb Damage: Transfer of Blast-Effects Mitigation Technologies from Military to Civilian Applications, (2000) ISBN-10: 0–309–05375–7, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Geoffrey C., Mays and P.D. Smith, “Blast Effects of Buildings: Design of Buildings to Optimize Resistance to Blast Loading,” ISBN-13: 9780727720306, Telford, Thomas Limited publishing, Jan 1995.Google Scholar
  6. R. Smilowitz and P.E. Mlakar, “Vulnerability to Malevolent Explosions,” Chapter 15 in Structural Condition Assessment, Ed. R.T. Ratay, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 495–513, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. R. Houlston and C.G. DesRochers, “Nonlinear structural response of ship panels subjected to air blast loading,” Computers & Structures, Volume 26, Issues 1–2, 1987, Pages 1–15.Google Scholar
  8. A. Tate, “Long rod penetration models–part II. Extensions to the hydrodynamic theory of penetration,” Int. J. Engng Sci. 2(8) 599 ∼ 512 (1986).Google Scholar
  9. C.E. Anderson, Jr. and S.R. Bodner, “Ballistic impact: the status of analytical and numerical modeling,” Int. J. Impact Engng 7(1), 9–35 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. C.E. Anderson, Jr. and J.D. Walker, “An examination of long-rod penetration,” Int. J. Impact Engng 11(4), 481–501 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. C.E. Anderson Jr., V. Hohler, J.D. Walker, and A.J. Stilp, “Time-resolved penetration of long rods into steel targets,” Int. J. Impact Engng, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Ravid and S. R. Bodner, “Dynamic perforation of viscoplastic plates by rigid projectiles,” Int. J. EngngSci. 21(6), 577–591 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. G.R. Johnson, R.A. Stryk, T.J. Holmquist, and S.R. Beissel, (2000) “Numerical Algorithms in a Lagrangian Hydrocode,” Report No. WL-TR-1997–7039, Wright Laboratory, Eglin AFB, FL 91997.Google Scholar
  14. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. LS-DYNA - Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures. Version 950. Livemore, California, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. ANSYS Code (2000):
  16. Century Dynamics, AUTODYN-2D & 3D; (2000)
  17. ADINA R&D Inc., “ADINA: Theory and Modeling Guide,” Reports ARD 97–7; 97–8, ADINA R&D Inc., Watertown, MA (1997).Google Scholar
  18. C.E. Anderson Jr., “An overview of the theory of hydrocodes” International Journal of Impact Engineering, 5, 33–59, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. G.F. Kinney, K.J. Graham, “Shock waves in Air,” Second Edition by Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1985.Google Scholar
  20. M.J. Hargather and G.S. Settles, “Optical measurement and scaling of blasts from gram-range explosive charges,” Shock Waves (2007) 17:215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. J.M. McGlaun, S.L. Thompson, and M.G. Elrick, “CTH: a three-dimensional shock wave physics code,” Int. J. Impact Engn, 10(1–4), 351–360 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ALE3D (2000): Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94551.Google Scholar
  23. N. Kambouchev, L. Noels, and R. Radovitzky, “Numerical simulation of the fluid–structure interaction between air blast waves and free-standing plates,” Computers & Structures, Volume 85, Issues 11–14, June-July 2007, Pages 923–931.Google Scholar
  24. Konrad, C.H., Reinhart, L.C., Mann, G.A., Mosher, D.A., Kipp, M.E., Truncano, T.G., Summers, R.M., and Peery, J.S. Experimental benchmark data for ALEGRA Code Validations. In: M. D. Furnish, L. C. Chhabildas and R. S. Hixon, ed(s). Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, AIP, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. A.M. Rajendran, “Critical measurements for validation of constitutive equations under shock and impact loading conditions,” Journal of Optics and Lasers in Engineering, Vol. 40, pp. 249–262, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenberg, Z., Mayseless, M., and Partom, M., 1984, “The use of Manganin stress transducers in impulsively loaded long rod experiments,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 51, pp. 202–204.Google Scholar
  27. Brar, N.S. and Gupta, Y.M., “Phase Transition in Shocked Ytterbium Foils,” Shock Compression of Condensed Matter – 1987, Edited by S.C. Schmidt and N.C. Holmes, pp. 151–153, North-Holland Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. Nicholas, T., “Tensile testing of materials at high rates of strain,” Exp. Mech., pp. 177–185, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. John, R., Antoun, T., and Rajendran, A.M., “Effect of Strain Rate and Size on Tensile Strength of Concrete,” Shock Compression of Condensed Matter - 1991, Edited by S.C. Schmidt, R.D. Dicks, J.W. Forbes, and D.G. Tasker, Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 501–504, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. Baker, L.M. and Hollenbach, R.E., “Laser interferometer for measuring high velocities of any reflecting surface,” J. Appl. Phys., 43, pp.4669–4675, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vincent, P. M. and Chang, A. L. Ballistic impact pressure pulse measurement. 41st Meeting of the Aeroballistic Range Association, San Diego, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  32. Chang, A. L. and Rajendran, A. M. Novel in-situ ballistic measurements for validation of ceramic constitutive models. In: K. R Iyer and S. C. Chou, ed(s). Proceedings of the 14th US Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, Batelle Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. Gooch, W. A., Burkins, M. S., Kingman, P., Netherwood, P. and Benck, R. Dynamic X-ray imaging of 7.62mm APM2 projectiles penetrating boron carbide. Journal of Physics IV France, Les Ulis, EDP Sciences, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. Heider H, Weber K, Weidemaier P., (April 2004). “Experimental and numerical simulation analysis of the impact process of structured KE penetrators onto semi-infinite and oblique targets” Proceedings of 21st International Symposium on Ballistics, Adelaide, South Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Radovitzky, R., Ortiz, M., (1999). “Error estimation and adaptive meshing in strongly nonlinear dynamic problems,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 172, pp. 203–240.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Camacho, G.T., Ortiz, M., (1997). “Adaptive Lagrangian modeling of ballistic penetration of metallic targets,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 142, pp. 269–301.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ortiz, M. and Pandolfi, A., (1999). “Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 44, pp. 1267–1282.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. P. Lundberg, R. Renstrom, and B. Lundberg, “Impact of metallic projectiles on ceramic targets: transition between interface defeat and penetration,” International Journal of Impact Engineering, 24, p. 259, (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. T.J. Holmquist and G.R. Johnson, “Modeling Ceramic Dwell and Interface Defeat,” in Ceramic Armor Materials by Design, Edited by J.W. McCauley, A. Crowson, W.A. Gooch Jr., A.M. Rajendran, S.J. Bless, K.V. Logan, M. Normandia, and S. Wax, Ceramic Transactions, VOl. 134, The American Ceramic Society, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. G.R. Johnson and T. J. Holmquist, “An improved computational constitutive model for brittle materials,” High Pressure Science and Technology1993, Edited by S. C. Schmidt, J. W. Schaner, G. A. Samara, and M. Ross, AIP 1994.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson G.R., Beissel S.R., and Stryk R.A. “An improved generalized particle algorithm that includes boundaries and interfaces,” Int J Numer Meth Engng 53, 2002a.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson G.R., Stryk R.A., Beissel S.R., and Holmquist T.J. “An algorithm to automatically convert distorted finite elements into meshless particles during dynamic deformation,” Int J Impact Eng 27, 2002b.Google Scholar
  43. Johnson G.R. and Stryk R.A. “Conversion of 3D distorted elements into meshless particles during dynamic deformation,” Int J Impact Eng 28, 2003.Google Scholar
  44. Johnson, G.R., Stryk R.A., Gerlach C.A., Holmquist T.J., Rowe N.L.. A quantitative assessment of computational results for behind armor debris, Proceedings of 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics, Tarragona, Spain, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Sciences DirectorateArmy Research OfficeDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MississippiOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations