本文介绍了对可用数值技术在弹丸冲击条件下绘制弹道陶瓷特征行为的有效性的分析。作为工作的一部分,在层状陶瓷/钢复合装甲上进行了弹道测试,并用7.62×39mm,穿甲燃烧弹(API)BZ弹丸。然后使用计算机模拟对实验测试进行映射。在数值分析中,使用四种不同的技术来描述放置在ARMOX500T钢垫板上的立方瓷砖Al2O3,即,:无侵蚀有限元法(FEM),带侵蚀的有限元(FEM+侵蚀),平滑粒子流体动力学(SPH)和一种混合方法,该方法在超过定义的失效标准(FEM到SPH转换)后将有限元转换为SPH粒子。在质量(在渗透过程中发生的特征现象的映射)方面比较了各个方法的有效性,完成计算所需的数量(垫板的凸起高度)和时间。在实验和数值模拟的基础上,人们注意到,通过使用混合方法可以获得AP弹丸对陶瓷/钢复合装甲的弹道冲击现象的最准确再现,将有限元转换为SPH粒子。如果结果的准确性比完成计算所需的时间更重要,则应使用此方法。在其他情况下,计算的目的不是确定,例如,穿透深度的确切值,但只能观察到一定的趋势,具有定义的侵蚀标准的有限元方法(变体2),速度快10倍以上,可以成功使用。
This article presents an analysis of the effectiveness of available numerical techniques in mapping the characteristic behavior of ballistic ceramics under projectile impact conditions. As part of the work, the ballistic tests were performed on the layered ceramic/steel composite armor and tested with the 7.62 × 39 mm, armor-piercing incendiary (API) BZ projectile. The experimental tests were then mapped using computer simulations. In numerical analyses, four different techniques were used to describe cubic ceramic tiles Al2O3 placed on the ARMOX 500T steel backing plate, i.e.,: the Finite Element Method without Erosion (FEM), Finite Element with erosion (FEM + Erosion), Smoothed Particles Hydrodynamics (SPH) and a hybrid method that converts finite elements to SPH particles after exceeding the defined failure criteria (FEM to SPH conversion). The effectiveness of the individual methods was compared in terms of quality (mapping of characteristic phenomena occurring during the penetration process), quantity (bulge height of the backing plate) and time needed to complete the calculations. On the basis of the results of the experiments and numerical simulations, it was noticed that the most accurate reproduction of the phenomenon of ballistic impact of AP projectiles on ceramic/steel composite armor can be obtained by using a hybrid method, incorporating the conversion of finite elements into SPH particles. This method should be used in cases where accuracy of the results is more important than the time required to complete the calculations. In other situations where the purpose of the calculation is not to determine, for example, the exact value of penetration depth but only to observe a certain trend, the FEM method with defined erosion criteria (variant 2), which is more than 10 times faster, can be successfully used.