Hydrocode validation project i
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 16

Hydrocode validation project - I PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 69 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Hydrocode validation project - I. Mark Price. 4 th November 2008. What is the “validation project”?. Concerted effort to validate various hydrocodes (Autodyn, iSALE, Zeus, etc.) against each other and against experimental data. Participants: "Elisabetta Pierazzo" [email protected]

Download Presentation

Hydrocode validation project - I

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hydrocode validation project i

Hydrocode validation project - I

Mark Price.

4th November 2008.


What is the validation project

What is the “validation project”?

  • Concerted effort to validate various hydrocodes (Autodyn, iSALE, Zeus, etc.) against each other and against experimental data.

  • Participants:

    • "Elisabetta Pierazzo" [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • "Keith Holsapple" <[email protected]>

    • [email protected]

    • "Erik Asphaug" <[email protected]>

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]

    • [email protected]


What is a hydrocode

What is a hydrocode?

Originally developed in the ‘50s and ‘60s to model hydrodynamic fluid flow through pipes, ballistic impacts, effects of explosions etc.

Can be (crudely) subdivided into three main types.

  • Euler

  • Lagrangian (and variants, i.e. Arbitrary Lagrangian Euler (ALE)).

  • SPH


1 euler

1) Euler

  • Fixed grid type where material ‘flows’ from one grid cell to another. Original hydrocodes were Euler based.


2 lagrangian

2) Lagrangian

  • Grid distorts. No material ‘flow’. Preserves material positional information (lost in Euler solvers). Large grid distortions can lead to very small time steps and hence very long run times.


3 sph smoothed particle hydrodynamics

3) SPH (Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics).

  • Gridless solver. Based on interacting ‘particles’.


Autodyn

Autodyn

  • Commerically available software package supporting multiple solvers (i.e. can run as purely Lagrangian, Euler, SPH or in combination and in 2D and 3D).


Q1 what difference does our solver choice have on final result

Q1: What difference does our solver choice have on final result?

Example: Crater diameter formed by a 12 µm glass sphere impacting aluminium at 6.1 km/sec.

Experimental result = 51.6 µm ± ~10 µm

Autodyn result (so far!) = 54.3 µm ± 3 µm (say, ±10%)

Conclusion: Choice of solver combination doesaffect answer, but within experimental data spread…so far…


Example 2 crater growth aluminium into aluminium

Example 2: Crater growth: aluminium into aluminium.

  • 6.35mm Al sphere impacting Aluminium-6061 target at 7 km/sec. (SPH projectile into Lagrangian target)


Comparison of modelled output vs experimental data sph projectile into lagrangian target

Comparison of modelled output vs. experimental data(SPH projectile into Lagrangian target).


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Choice of solver combination can influence result by ±10% (possibly more once more tests are done).

    [Q: Is the 10% variation model independent?]

  • Large parameter space to investigate BEFORE looking at equation-of-state effects (i.e. which solver combination is most accurate for our modelling?).

  • Interesting to compare identical solvers in different codes (e.g. iSALE, Zeus ?).


Ongoing work 2 3 months

Ongoing work (2 – 3 months).

  • Fill in final values in solver ‘matrix’.

    • Do identical analysis for crater depths and compare (i.e. do modelled crater depths also vary by ±10%?).

  • ‘Validation project’ models (impacts into sand at 2 km/sec – possible LPSC poster).

  • More experimental shots of sodalime beads into aluminium (for bead diameters <10 µm and >100 µm – ‘Stardust’ foil calibration).

  • Setup ‘iSALE’ PC and compare output to Autodyn’s.

  • Investigate effects of mesh size, ALE solvers, 2D vs. 3D (LPSC poster?).

  • Aggregates…………


Complex craters in stardust foils

Complex craters in Stardust foils


Hydrocode validation project i

Proposed impactor (Kearlsey et. Al.)


Autodyn equivalent

Autodyn equivalent


And after about 10 days

…and after about 10 days…


  • Login