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