Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 201–210 | Cite as

Modeling Dynamic Anisotropic Behaviour and Spall Failure in Commercial Aluminium Alloys AA7010

  • M. K. Mohd Nor
  • N. Ma’at
  • C. S. Ho


This paper presents a finite strain constitutive model to predict a complex elastoplastic deformation behaviour involves very high pressures and shockwaves in orthotropic materials of aluminium alloys. The previous published constitutive model is used as a reference to start the development in this work. The proposed formulation that used a new definition of Mandel stress tensor to define Hill’s yield criterion and a new shock equation of state (EOS) of the generalised orthotropic pressure is further enhanced with Grady spall failure model to closely predict shockwave propagation and spall failure in the chosen commercial aluminium alloy. This hyperelastic-plastic constitutive model is implemented as a new material model in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)-DYNA3D code of UTHM’s version, named Material Type 92 (Mat92). The implementations of a new EOS of the generalised orthotropic pressure including the spall failure are also discussed in this paper. The capability of the proposed constitutive model to capture the complex behaviour of the selected material is validated against range of Plate Impact Test data at 234, 450 and 895 ms−1 impact velocities.


Shockwave propagation Orthotropic materials New generalised orthotropic pressure Spall failure model 



Authors wish to convey a sincere gratitude to Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) and Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MOHE) for providing the financial means during the preparation to complete this work under Incentive Grant Scheme for Publication (IGSP), Vot U674 and Fundamental Research Grant Scheme, Vot 1547, respectively.


  1. 1.
    Aravas N (1994) Finite-strain anisotropic plasticity and the plastic spin. Model Simul Mater Sci 2:483–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehler JP (1977) On irreducible representations for isotropic scalar functions. ZAMM 57:323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bronkhorst CA, Cerreta EK, Xue Q, Maudlin PJ, Mason TA, Gray GT III (2006) An experimental and numerical study of the localization behaviour of tantalum and stainless steel. Int J Plast 22(7):1304–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butcher BM (1968) Behaviour of dense media under high dynamic pressure. Gordon and Breach, New York, p 245Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell J (1998) Lagrangian hydrocode modeling of hypervelocity impact on spacecraft, PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Vuyst TA (2003) Hydrocode Modelling of Water Impact, PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eidel B, Gruttmann F (2003) Elastoplastic orthotropy at finite strains: multiplicative formulation and numerical implementation. Comput Mater Sci 28:732–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fountzoulas CG, Gazonas GA, Cheeseman BA (2007) Computational modeling of tungsten carbide sphere impact and penetration into high-strength-low-alloy (HSLA)-100 steel targets. J Mech Mater Struct 2(10):1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grady DE (1988) The spall strength of condensed matter. J Mech Phys Solid 36:353–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grady DE, Kipp ME (1997) Fragmentation properties of metals. Int J Impact Eng 20(1–5):293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruneisen E (1959) The state of solid body, NASA R19542Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hallquist J (1983) Theoretical manual for DYNA3D, Technical report, Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc R Soc A 193:281–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin JI (2004) DYNA3D: A nonlinear, explicit, three-dimensional finite element code for solid and structural mechanics user manual, Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maudlin PJ, Bingert JF, House JW, Chen SR (1999) On the modeling of the Taylor cylinder impact test for orthotropic textured materials: experiments and simulations. Int J Plast 15(2):139–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohd Nor MK (2012) Modelling Rate dependent behaviour of orthotropic metals, PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohd Nor MK (2016) Modelling Inelastic behaviour of orthotropic metals in a unique alignment of deviatoric plane within the stress space. Int J Non-Linear Mech 87:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mohd Nor MK (2016) Unique rotation tensor formulation to predict three-dimensional deformation behaviour of aluminum alloy AA7010. Int J Mech Mechatron Eng 16(4):70–75Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reese S, Vladimirov IN (2008) Anisotropic modelling of metals in forming processes, IUTAM Symposium on Theoretical Computational and Modelling Aspects of Inelastic Media 11, 175–184Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sansour C, Karsaj I, Soric J (2006) A formulation of anisotropic continuum elastoplasticity at finite strains. Part I: modelling. Int J Plast 22:2346–2365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sansour C, Karsaj I, Soric J (2008) On a numerical implementation of a formulation of anisotropic continuum elastoplasticity at finite strains. J Comput Phys 227:7643–7663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt RM, Davies FW, Lempriere BM (1978) Temperature dependent spall threshold of four metal alloys. J Phys Chem Solids 39(4):375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stevens AL, Tuler FR (1971) Effect of shock precompression on the dynamic fracture strength of 1020 steel and 6061-T6 aluminum. J Appl Phys 42(13):5665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steinberg DJ (1991) Equation of State and Strength Properties of Selected Materials, Report No. UCRL-MA-106439. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trană E, Nicolae AR, Lixandru P, Cristian LM, Enache C, Zecheru T (2015) Experimental and numerical investigation on 6082 temper aluminium alloy cartridge tubes drawing. J Mater Process Technol 216:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vignjevic R, Bourne NK, Millett JCF, De Vuyst T (2002) Effects of orientation on the strength of the aluminum alloy 7010-T6 during shock loading: experiment and simulation. J Appl Phys 92(8):4342–4348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vignjevic R, Djordjevic N, Panov V (2012) Modelling of dynamic behaviour of orthotropic metals including damage and failure. Int J Plast 38:47–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vladimirov IN, Pietryga MP, Reese S (2008) On the modelling of non-linear kinematic hardening at finite strains with application to springback—comparison of time integration algorithms. Int J Numer Meth Eng 75(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson LT, Reedal DR, Kuhns LD, Grady DE, Kipp ME (2001) Using a numerical fragmentation model to understand the fracture and fragmentation of naturally fragmenting munitions of differing materials and geometries. 19th International Symposium of Ballistics, pp 7–11 Interlaken, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crashworthiness and Collisions Research Group (COLORED), Mechanical Failure Prevention and Reliability Research Centre (MPROVE), Faculty of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversiti Tun Hussein Onn MalaysiaBatu PahatMalaysia

Personalised recommendations