under-body blast methodology development and validation · under-body blast methodology ....

1
Under-body Blast Methodology Development and Validation Craig Barker, (410) 278-0214 [email protected] S&T Campaign: Assessment & Analysis Assessing Mission Capability of Materiel Challenges Overcoming limitations of instrumentation for loading models Adequately addressing complex phenomenology and variability of outcomes Achieving computational efficiency ARL Facilities and Capabilities Available to Support Collaborative Research Experimental facilities to study the effects of buried high- explosives on structures Experimental facilities to study the effect of blast-like loading on anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and blast- resistant seats Complementary Expertise/ Facilities/ Capabilities Sought in Collaboration Advanced instrumentation methods that are sufficiently robust to capture the time and spatial distribution of buried blast loading on structures Advanced algorithms to develop metamodels from extremely complex computational physics models Alternative methods for modeling soil and explosive interactions with vehicle structures; must be efficient, accurate and robust Automated techniques to develop complex meshes of vehicle structures Developing fast-running methods to estimate injury APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED Small Scale (100 g) Mid Scale (1000 g) Large Scale (10000 g) ATD on crew seating blast effects simulator Lower leg of ATD on drop tower machine Objective Develop a robust, efficient and accurate methodology–consistent with results from high- fidelity multi-physics software–for estimating vehicle and occupant vulnerability to under-body blast threats Structural Response Finite-Element Model of Vehicle Injury/Incapacitation Seat and Occupant Response Impact of Crew with Vehicle Interior Seat and Occupant Loading Rigid-Body Vehicle Response Floor/Hull Structural Response Mine Blast Loading mine Buried Blast Time-History 3-D Target Loading Upper Torso Mass Lower Torso Mass Seat Mass Lumbar Spine FZ Example LS-DYNA LS-DYNA ALE MINE/ORBIT TRUCK 1D Seat & Occupant Model AMANDA LS-DYNA Empirical Data/Correlations Breaking the problem down with a wide range of capabilities VIMF Sand Box Berm Upper Torso Mass Lower Torso Mass Seat Mass 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 10 9 8 7 Fast-Running Injury Prediction Tools Notional Injury Results for Each Occupant Location time (ms) m/s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 -10 -7.5 -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 0 5 10 15 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 x = Z.26.Raw.Peak.Velocity..m.s. y = CH.86.Adjusted.Local.Displacement..m. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Pr [ B.2.tibia_lwr_fz_peak >= 7980 ] z ~ y + x^2 + y^2 Probability of exceeding tibia force threshold as a function of local displacement and peak velocity Probability of exceeding tibia force threshold Raw velocity (m/s) Local displacement (m) 0 5 10 15 Likelihood of Injury: Low Med High Dynamic plate response Vertical impulse Blast effects

Upload: trinhkiet

Post on 08-Sep-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Under-body Blast Methodology Development and Validation · Under-body Blast Methodology . Development and Validation . Craig Barker, (410) 278-0214 . craig.s.barker.civ@mail.mil

Under-body Blast Methodology Development and Validation

Craig Barker, (410) 278-0214 [email protected]

S&T Campaign: Assessment & Analysis Assessing Mission Capability of Materiel

Challenges • Overcoming limitations of instrumentation for loading

models • Adequately addressing complex phenomenology and

variability of outcomes • Achieving computational efficiency

ARL Facilities and Capabilities Available to Support Collaborative Research

• Experimental facilities to study the effects of buried high-explosives on structures

• Experimental facilities to study the effect of blast-like loading on anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and blast-resistant seats

Complementary Expertise/ Facilities/ Capabilities Sought in Collaboration

• Advanced instrumentation methods that are sufficiently robust to capture the time and spatial distribution of buried blast loading on structures

• Advanced algorithms to develop metamodels from extremely complex computational physics models

• Alternative methods for modeling soil and explosive interactions with vehicle structures; must be efficient, accurate and robust

• Automated techniques to develop complex meshes of vehicle structures

Developing fast-running methods to estimate injury

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED

Small Scale (100 g) Mid Scale (1000 g) Large Scale (10000 g)

ATD on crew seating blast effects simulator Lower leg of ATD on drop tower machine

Objective • Develop a robust, efficient and accurate

methodology–consistent with results from high-fidelity multi-physics software–for estimating vehicle and occupant vulnerability to under-body blast threats

Structural Response Finite-Element Model of Vehicle

Injury/Incapacitation

Seat and Occupant Response

Impact of Crew with Vehicle Interior

Seat and OccupantLoading

Rigid-Body Vehicle Response

Floor/Hull Structural Response

Mine Blast Loading

mineBuried Blast Time-History

3-D Target Loading

Upper Torso Mass

Lower Torso Mass

Seat Mass

Lumbar Spine FZ Example

LS-DYNA

LS-DYNA ALE MINE/ORBIT

TRUCK

1D Seat & Occupant Model

AMANDA

LS-DYNA

Empirical Data/Correlations

Breaking the problem down with a wide range of capabilities

VIMF Sand Box Berm

Upper Torso Mass

Lower Torso Mass

Seat Mass

1 2 3 4 5 6

11 10 9 8 7

Fast-Running Injury Prediction Tools Notional Injury Results for Each Occupant Location

time (ms)

m/s

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36-10

-7.5

-5

-2.5

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

0 5 10 15

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

x = Z.26.Raw.Peak.Velocity..m.s.

y = CH.86.Adjusted.Local.Displacement..m.

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Pr [ B.2.tibia_lwr_fz_peak >= 7980 ]

z ~ y + x^2 + y^2

Probability of exceeding tibia force threshold as a function of local displacement and peak velocityProbability of exceeding tibia

force threshold

Raw velocity (m/s)

Lo

cal d

isp

lace

men

t (m

)

0 5 10 15

Likelihood of Injury: Low Med High

Dynamic plate response

Vertical impulse

Blast effects