A Study of a Steel Right Circular 

Cylinder (RCC) Striking 23 Plies 

of KM2 Fabric Using the 

LS-DYNA Lagrangian Hydrocode 

by Dennis S. Pritchard 

ARL-TR-2673 February 2002 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

20020325 17 
The findings in this report are not to be conshed as an 

official Department of the Army position unless so 

designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not 

constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use 

thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not 

return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

ARL-TR-2673 February 2002 

A Study of a Steel Right Circular 

Cylinder (RCC) Striking 23 Plies 

of KM2 Fabric Using the 

LS-DYNA Lagrangian Hydrocode 

Dennis S. Pritchard 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Avvroved for vublic release; distribution is unlimited. 
Abstract 

A study was conducted to examine the terminal effects of a 1.0-g steel RCC 

impacting 23 plies of KM2 fabric using the LS-DYNA Lagrangian hydrocode. 

The simulated impact velocities were 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, and 

1400 m/s. The fabric was a plain weave of 850 denier yarn. The LS-DYNAsimulated V, versus V, data points generated at the U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory (ARL) were compared to both experimental data and EPIC-generated 

data. Also, the LSPOST software package was used to view the simulated 

physical descriptions of the penetrator and target at various stages of the 

penetration process. 

ii 
Acknowledgments 

This work was supported in part by a grant of computer time from the DOD 

High Performance Computing Modernization Program at Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD. Mr. D. Grove is gratefully acknowledged for his efforts in support 

of the work reported here. 

. . . 

111 
. 

iV 
Contents 

Acknowledgments 

List of Figures 

List of Tables 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Review and Analysis 1 

2.1 Experimental Data ......................................................................................... 1 

2.2 LS-DYNA Simulations .................................................................................. 4 

2.3 EPIC Simulations ........................................................................................... 6 

3. Summary 

4. References 

Appendix A. LS-Ingrid Input Deck for RCC and 23-Ply Target 

15 

Appendix B. Abbreviated LS-DYNA Input Deck for RCC Impacting 

23-Ply Target (V, = 200 m/s) 25 

Distribution List 

Report Documentation Page 43 

V 
. 

vi 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Comparison of simulation results with experimental VS versus V, 

data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 2 

Figure 2. LS-DYNA RCC and target simulation grid prior to impact 

(V, = 200 m/s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Figure 3. LS-DYNA simulation at 70 us into run showing damage up to the 

fifth ply (v, = 200 m/s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Figure 4. LSDYNA simulation at 70 us into run showing damage up to the 

sixteenth ply (V, = 400 m/s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I................................................... 9 

Figure 5. LS-DYNA simulation at 30 us into run (V, = 600 m/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Figure 6. IS-DYNA simulation at 30 us into run (VS = 800 m/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Figure 7. LS-DYNA simulation at 25 us into run (V, = 1000 m/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Figure 8. BDYNA simulation at 20 ps into run (V, = 1200 m/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Figure 9. LS-DYNA simulation at 15 us into run (V, = 1400 m/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Vii 
. . . 

Vlll 
List of Tables 

Table 1. V, versus V, values ........................................................................................... 3 

Table 2. Selected material properties used in LS-DYNA input deck. ..................... .4 

ix 
. 

‘. 

X 
1. Introduction 

A study was conducted to examine the terminal effects of a 1.0-g steel right 

circular cylinder (RCC) impacting 23 plies of KM2 fabric. Simulations and 

analyses were conducted using the IS-DYNA Lagrangian hydrocode* in support 

of the Science and Technical Objective (STO) titled “Ballistic Protection for 

Improved Individual Survivability.” This joint ST0 between the U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory (ARL) and the Natick Soldier Center is advancing materials 

technology to improve the protection of personnel armor systems against current 

and emerging fragment and bullet threats. The ST0 is also providing tools to 

benefit the development, design, and acquisition of personnel armor. 

2. Review and Analysis 

Experimental V, (striking velocity) versus VI (residual velocity) data and 

hydrocode simulations using LS-DYNA and EPIC are discussed in the following 

sections. 

2.1 Experimental Data 

Experimental data forms the baseline for comparison to the computed results. 

The experimental data from Johnson et al. (1999) are shown in Figure 1 and 

Table 1. The RCC, having a length-to-diameter ratio of one, struck the targeted 

fabric layup at 0” obliquity. It is seen that a VSO of approximately 600 m/s can be 

assigned to the experimental data. The VSO is defined within a narrow Vs range 

as the V, that is bracketed by half of the projectiles in a test sampling in that 

narrow range not making it through the target layup (V, = 0), balanced by a 

corresponding half number of projectiles barely penetrating the target layup 

(V, > 0) in the same range. Once the exact “over” and “under” data points are 

determined, the VSO equals the average of the Vs values for these points. From an 

experimental standpoint of obtaining VSO for a particular penetrator and target 

configuration, this data set is exemplary, as the cost of determining the VXI is 

roughly proportional to the number of shots fired; the fewer the shots, the lower 

the cost. The VSO number often forms the decision point describing the 

acceptability of an armor configuration on a pass/fail basis when attacked by a 

particular penetrator. For a more rigorous explanation of how to experimentally 

find a V50, the military standard MIL-STD-662E (Department of the Army 1992) 

should be studied. As the V, increased, the fabric layup became less effective in 

stopping the RCC as a function of the fabric’s decreasing ability to withstand 

dynamic loading. 

* LS-DYNA Version 950d, Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation. 
. 

1500 

1400 

1300 

1200 

1100 

1000 

900 

2. 800 

.g. 700 

>L 600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

0 Experimental data 

+ LS-DYNA simulations 

__ -D- EPIC simulations 

* . . . V, = V, (upper limit) 

-- 

: I 

: .* 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100011001200130014001500 

I f , 

-I I I I i I 

._L~ .--. 

j r-l-- -------j ------ I 

v, (m/s> 

Figure 1. Comparison of simulation results with experimental VS versus V, data. 
Table 1. V, versus V, values. 

Experimental Experimental LS-DYNA 

V, (m/s) V, (m/s> V, (m/s) 

574 0 200 

581 0 400 

589 0 600 

594 0 800 

I 599 I 383 I 1000 

I 604 1 0 I 1200 

I 607 1 299 I 1400 

I 610 I 191 I 

I 615 I 0 I 

613 100 

620 167 

625 0 

694 440 

723 488 

761 560 

824 635 

852 656 

I 880 I 702 I 

I 907 I 750 I 

I 936 I 786 I 

I 1111 I 981 I 

I 1191 I 1042 I 

I 1301 I 1157 I 

1416 1255 

LS-DYNA 1 EPIC 1 EPIC 

V, (m/s> V, h/s> V, (m/s) 

0 600 0 

1100 

3 

This statement is evidenced by the increase in Vr as V, increased after the V, 

value of 600 m/s had been significantly surpassed. The V, versus V, values 

starting at and including the point with the 599 m/s VS value could reasonably 

be fit with a straight line that roughly parallels the V, = V, line. 

3 
2.2 LS-DYNA Simulations 

The ARL-simulated VS versus V, data were obtained by using LS-DYNA Version 

950d and are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. The RCC and fabric target grid 

generation was accomplished by running the IS-INGRID computer software 

package* with the ARL-designed input deck presented in Appendix A. This run 

gave the properly formatted (Fortran 77) node and element data that was 

stripped from the LS-INGRID output deck called ingrido. This stripped deck 

was inserted into the LS-DYNA keyword formatted deck for each LS-DYNA run, 

with the material property cards, among others, preformatted. A resultant 

typical LSDYNA input deck used in this report, with only the extensive node 

and element (8-node brick) data abbreviated, is shown in Appendix B. The 

projectile had a total of 1331 nodes and 1000 solid elements. Each ply had 

3362 nodes and 1600 solid elements, with individual element dimensions of 

0.1578 x 0.5000 x 0.5000 mm. The projectile and target element sizing were 

comparable. Each ply was one element thick, with the ply dimensions equal to 

0.1578 x 20 x 20 mm. Changes were made to the LS-DYNA input deck for each 

initial impact velocity, where at least each different impact velocity had to be 

specified, and some changes were required for the other material properties as 

shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Selected material properties used in LSDYNA input deck. 

Property KM2Ply KM2IJly Steel 

(V, = 200 and 400 m/s) (V, = 600 m/s and up) 

Density (g/cm3) 1.438" 1.43Ba 7.8P 

Young’s Modulus (Mbar) 0.08325 0.74 2.068395~ 

Poisson’s Ratio 0.2" 0.2a 0.29* 

Yield Stress (Mbar) - 0.010342c 

Failure Strain 0.2 0.025 - 

a Johnson et al. (1999). 

b Lyman (1961). 

c Flinn and Trojan (1975). 

d Kolsky (1963). 

The steel was modeled as an elastic-perfectly plastic material. Although many of 

the material properties in Table 2 were directly obtained from the listed 

references, explanations for the choice of others are required as follows. 

The KM2 volumetric density in Table 2 was derived from constants found in the 

Johnson et al. (1999) paper and is close to the commonly quoted value of 

1.44 g/cm3, but is not that exact value. The fabric description was modified from 

‘. 

* LS-INGRID Version 3.5, Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation. 

4 
the actual weave pattern for each ply into a plate of solid elements with 

nominally the same material properties as the actual ply. The volumetric density 

for a simulated KM2 ply is dependent on the way the change from the actual 

weave pattern to a solid element description is interpreted. The area1 density of 

the experimental layup was quoted as 5.22 kg/m2 with a modeled effective 

thickness (not the true experimental thickness) of 3.63 mm given by Johnson et 

al. (1999) for the 23 plies. These constants force each ply thickness to be 

0.1578 mm and the volumetric density for this thickness to be 1.438 g/cm3. Since 

each actual ply was a plain weave of 850 denier yarn, this fact fixes the maximum 

total target thickness allowed. With 23 plies and 22 gaps between plies built in, 

this makes each gap 0.1391 mm wide to give a reasonable approximation of the 

total target thickness as 6.6896 mm, which was equal to the measured thickness 

of a 23-ply layup measured in the laboratory, within a small error band. It was 

thought that the solid elements with gaps between plies were required to 

minimize the effect of geometric nonproportionality on the simulated 

penetration process. One would encounter this effect by equating the 23 plies to 

some type of single-layer shell element description, for example. 

Two quantities in Table 2 that definitely require an explanation for their origins 

are the Young’s modulus and failure strain values. Shim et al. (2001) found, 

while conducting high strain-rate testing with the Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar 

(SHPB), that the failure of Twaron fabric (similar to KM2 fabric) is highly strainrate dependent with the tensile strength and modulus increasing with increasing 

strain rate, while the failure strain decreases with increasing strain rate. They 

also found that Twaron fabric failed in a more brittle manner as a function of 

increasing strain rate, which significantly reduced the amount of energy that 

could be absorbed by a particular yarn prior to its failure. This is consistent with 

the observed behavior described in the previous sentence. These experimental 

observations can be used to help describe the failure behavior of fabrics during 

ballistic penetration as follows. In a set of ballistic experiments, the strain rate 

experienced by the target material increases in some proportion to increasing 

projectile impact velocity, holding all other initial conditions constant. Thus, at 

higher impact velocities, the KM2 fabric should exhibit a higher Young’s 

modulus and a lower strain to failure (see Table 2). Now, the Young’s modulus 

and failure strains in Table 2 do not exactly fit the values given by Shim et al. 

(2001), but are extrapolated from their data. It was assumed, given the high 

strain rates achieved in the ballistic testing modeled in this report, that the yarns 

in the fabric weave could be thought to have elastic material properties to the 

point of failure with virtually no onset of plastic deformation. This assumption 

can be thought of as an elastic-perfectly brittle model. The highest modulus 

found for the Twaron fabric (more similar to Kevlar 29 fabric than to KM2 fabric) 

by Shim et al. (2001) was close to 0.74 Mbar at the highest testing strain-rate they 

used (495 s-r). This was assumed to be a fair estimate corresponding to the 

strain-rate encountered on the high end of the striking velocity range of the 

5 
simulated ballistic tests with the KM2 fabric. However, KM2 fibers are 

somewhat tougher than Twaron or Kevlar 29 fibers, so the Shim et al. (2001) 

strain to failure of about 0.016 was increased to match the toughness-related 

increase in the ductile-to-brittle strain-to-failure criterion for the KM2 (failure 

strain = 0.025). Shim et al. (2001) f ound very low Young’s moduli at the lowest 

end (quasi-static) of their strain-rate range (see their Figure 4). To reflect the 

strain-rate condition of a lower Young’s modulus for a lower strain rate, a 

midrange-value Young’s modulus was picked for the 200 and 400 m/s striking 

velocities as shown in Table 2. Based on the Shim et al. (2001) data values for 

strain-rate conditions approaching and equal to the quasi-static values for 

Twaron, a KM2 failure strain of 0.2 appeared to be reasonable. However, if 

actual SHPB data were ever obtained for KM2 fabric, the method for determining 

the Young’s modulus and failure strain values in Table 2 would have to be 

readdressed. 

The LS-DYNA-programmed V, values were 200,400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, and 

1400 m/s. The simulated penetration behavior for each Vs is visually 

summarized in Figures 2-9 as a product of the IS-POST software package.* For 

scaling purposes in these figures, it must be remembered that the projectile 

diameter was 5.45 mm, but this value is directly scalable only in the y-direction, 

as the simulations have been rotated about the y-axis to enhance the view of the 

deformation of the projectile and the failure of the target material. With the 

200 m/s V,, five simulated plies were penetrated and only severe deformation 

without failure occurred in all remaining plies. Obviously, the condition that no 

part of the projectile exits the last ply was met exactly for a “no perforation” 

condition. For the 400 m/s Vs, significantly more simulated plies (16) were 

penetrated than at the 200 m/s Vs, which is consistent with the fact that deeper 

penetration occurs experimentally as the striking velocity increases; the “no 

perforation” condition was still met. For Vs of 600 m/s and above, the V, was 

determined by tracking, in time, the velocity of the center rear node on the back 

of the RCC. When the projectile’s rear surface velocity converged sufficiently to 

a constant velocity after penetration, that velocity was picked for the Vr. 

2.3 EPIC Simulations 

The EPIC-simulated V, versus V, points from Johnson et al. (1999) are shown in 

Figure 1 and Table 1. Comparisons to the LS-DYNA results can be made. For 

example, the difference between the V, values for the 600 m/s V, runs is not a 

major disparity, since any V, in that vicinity has been shown experimentally to be 

a difficult number to interpret also. Hydrocodes do not predict V, values at or 

near the experimentally determined V~O, a meta-stable point in the true 

penetration process, with accuracy any better than that found experimentally. 

Experimental anomalies occur near the VSO because of subtle shot-to-shot 

* LS-POST Version 1.0, Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation. 

6 
RCC(1.04Gtvl); 0.02 CMlMlCROSEC;23PLY KM2 

lime= 0 

Figure 2. LS-DYNA RCC and target simulation grid prior to impact (V, = 200 m/s) 

7 
- 

FlCC(1.04Gbd); 0.02 CMMCROSEC;23PLY KM2 

Time = 70 

.-:, 

i, 

Figure 3. LS-DYNA simulation at 70 p into run showing damage up to the fifth ply 

(V, = 200 m/s). 

. 

l 

8 
RCC(l 

mrne = 

.osGMI: 0.04 CMIMICROSEC:PBPLY KM2 

Figure 4. LS-DYNA simulation at 70 p into run showing damage up to the sixteenth ply 

(V, = 400 m/s). 

9 
RCC( 

iii= 

1.04GMI: 0.06 CM/tviICROSEC:23PLY KM2 

30 

l 

Figure 5. LS-DYNA simulation at 30 ps into run (V, = 600 m/s). 

10 
RCC(l.O~GM): 0.08 CMlMlCROSEC23PLY KM2 The= 

Y 

La 

\ 

Figure 6. LS-DYNA simulation at 30 p into run (V, = 800 m/s). 

11 
RCC(1.04GM); 0.10 CMIMICROSEC;23PLY KM2 

llms !- 2 ‘5 -- 

-- 

,.p ‘- 

Figure 7. LS-DYNA simulation at 25 ps into run (V, = 1000 m/s). 

. 

12 
Figure 8. LS-DYNA simulation at 20 ps into run (V, = 1200 m/s). 

/ 

i 

,’ 

k 

! I 

./Xi 

C’ 

13 
. 

Rcc(1.04GM); 0.14 CM/hi~CROSEC;23PLY KM2 - Time = 

Figure 9. LS-DYNA simulation at 15 ps into run (V, = 1400 m/s). 

14 
variations in the way real fabrics tear in the final penetration process. This effect 

leads to some penetrators being just caught by the last fabric ply or just making it 

. through that ply with little velocity to spare, given the same V,. The LSDYNA 

computations are flexible, as they allow for the uncertainty of such behavior by 

letting key input material properties change as required, specifically the Young’s 

modulus and failure strain in Table 2 in this case, accounting for this behavior. 

Actually, EPIC picked a V, value that can be thought of as a VO value. VO is 

defined as the V, at which no residual velocity can be obtained. Although EPIC 

predicted a VO in this case, VO is not usually obtained experimentally with 

exacting precision, so its determination to an overly precise number for 

comparison purposes should not be a computational goal. 

3. Summary 

The work here forms a baseline for the simulation of fabric penetration by 

fragment and bullet threats. Future plans include extending the LS-DYNA 

simulation techniques reported here to a study of g-mm bullet impact on similar 

fabric layups. Also, more SHPB testing needs to be sponsored to assist in the 

process of defining increasingly accurate values for the Young’s modulus and 

failure strain (as functions of strain rate) of KM2 and other ballistic fabrics of 

interest. This could lead to the development of analytical expressions describing 

Young’s modulus and failure strain as functions of strain rate rather than the 

first-order discontinuous step model used in the present study. This report 

demonstrates a technique for reasonably describing the ballistic response of KM2 

fabric using the IS-DYNA Lagrangian hydrocode. Using this technique, 

simulations can be performed to gain additional insight into understanding how 

the fabric components of armored vests resist ballistic penetration. 

15 
. 

16 
4. References 

Department of the Army. Vso Ballistic Test fir Armor. MIL-STD-662E, 

Washington, DC, 27 May 1992. 

Flinn, R. A., and P. K. Trojan. Engineering Materials and Their Applications. 

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 61 and 72,1975. 

Johnson, G. R., S. R. Beissel, and P. M. Cunniff. “A Computational Model for 

Fabrics Subjected to Ballistic Impact.” Proceedings of the 18th International 

Synposium on Ballistics, pp. 962-969, San Antonio, TX, November 1999. 

Kolsky, H. Stress Waves in Solids. New York: Dover Publications, p. 201,1963. 

Lyman, T. (editor). Metals Handbook - 8th Edition, Volume 1: Properties and 

Selection of Materials. Metals Park, OH: American Society for Metals, p. 798, 

1961. 

Shim, V. I’. W., C. T. Lim, and K. J. Foo. “Dynamic Mechanical Properties of 

Fabric Armour.” International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 25, p. 1-15, 

2001. 

17 
4 
Appendix A. LS-Ingrid Input Deck for RCC and 

2345~ Target 

19 
20 
GRID 1.0 GM RCC AND 23 PLIES KM2 

dn3d kw93 

c Definition of Parts 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 1 - Impactor) 

1 11;l 11;l 11; 

c geometry 

0.0545 -0.0545 0.0545 -0.0545 0.000 0.545 

a 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 0.2725 

C Assign a part number. 

mate 1 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 2 - Ply 1) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

c geometry 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.58500 0.60078 

c Assign a part number. 

mate 2 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 3 - Ply 2) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.61469 0.63047 

mate 3 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 4 -, Ply 3) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.64438 0.66016 

mate 4 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 5 - Ply 4) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.67407 0.68985 

mate 5 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 6 - Ply 5) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.70376 0.71954 

mate 6 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 7 - Ply 6) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.73345 0.74923 

mate 7 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 8 - Ply 7) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.76314 0.77892 

21 
. 

mate 8 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 9 - Ply 8) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.79283 0.80861 

mate 9 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 10 - Ply 9) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.82252 0.83830 

mate 10 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part ll- Ply 10) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.85221 0.86799 

mate 11 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 12 - Ply 11) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.88190 0.89768 

mate 12 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 13 - Ply 12) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.91159 0.92737 

mate 13 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 14 - Ply 13) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.94128 0.95706 

mate 14 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 15 - Ply 14) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 0.97097 0.98675 

mate 15 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 16 - Ply 15) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.00066 1.01644 

mate 16 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 17 - Ply 16) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.03035 1.04613 

22 
mate 17 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 18 - Ply 17) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.06004 1.07582 

mate 18 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 19 - Ply 18) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.08973 1.10551 

mate 19 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 20 - ply 19) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.11942 1.13520 

mate 20 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 21 - Ply 20) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.14911 1.16489 

mate 21 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 22 - ply 21) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.17880 1.19458 

mate 22 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 23 - Ply 22) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.20849 1.22427 

mate 23 

end 

start 

c ijk notation (Part 24 - Ply 23) 

1 41;l 41;l 2; 

1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.23818 1.25396 

mate 24 

end 

end 

23 
. 

. 

I~~~NALLY Lm+r BLANK. 

24 
Appendix B. Abbreviated LS-DYNA Input Deck for RCC 

Impacting 23-Ply Target (V, = 200 m/s) 

25 
c 

26 
*KEYWORD 

*TITLE 

RCC(l.Ulgm); 0.02 cm/microsec;23ply KM2 

$ mass, length, time, force, pressure & modulus & stress, energy 

$ Unit= gm, cm, microsec, le+07 N, Mbar, le+07 N-cm 

$ 

*CONTROL-TIMESTEP 

$ dtinit tssfac 

0.0000 0.7000 

*CONTROL-TERMINATION 

$ endtime 

70.0 

*CONTROL-CONTACT 

$ slsfac 

1.0 

$ usrstr 

0 

*CONTROL-ENERGY 

s hgen rwen 

2 2 

*CONTROL-OUTPUT 

$ wept neecho 

0 0 

$ 

*DATABASE-EXTENT-BINARY 

$ neiph neips maxint 

0 0 0 

$ 

$ cmpflg ieverp beamip 

0 0 0 

$ 

*DATABASE-BINARYpD3PLOT 

$ dt/cycl 

5.0 

*DATABASE-BINARYmD3THDT 

$ dt/cycl 

5.0 

l DATABASEMATSUM 

$ dt/cycl 

1.0 

*DATABASE-HISTORY-NODE 

$ node id1 id2 

1 61 

*DATABASE-NODOUT 

$ dt/cycl 

1.0 

*DATABASE-ELOUT 

$ dt/cycl 

1.0 

*DATABASE-NODFOR 

$ dt/cycl 

1.0 

*DATABASE-GLSTAT 

$ dt/cycl 

1.0 

*DATABASE-TRHIST 

$ dt/cycl 

1.0 

*DATABASE-TRACER 

Sstart dt L(O)/E(l) x 

0.0 0 0.0 

$ 

strflg 

1 

sigflg 

0 

epsflg rltflg 

0 0 

engflg 

0 

dcomp 

0 

shge 

0 

stssz n3thdt 

0 0 

id3 id4 id5 id6 id7 id8 

0.; 0.: 

Sslave impactor to all plies $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$S$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$~~~~~~~~~~~ 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

27 
I 

$ fric 

2 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 3 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 4 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 5 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

5 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1. 6 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

S isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

S ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 7 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

S sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 8 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

28 
$ ssid msid sstYP mstm 

1 9 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 10 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 11 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SS+-YP mstyp 

1 12 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

5 sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

5 ssid msid SstYP mstyp 

1 13 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 14 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstYP 

1 15 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

29 
I I 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 16 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

S isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 17 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

S ssid msid sstYP mstye 

1 18 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstm 

1 19 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 20 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT~ERODING..SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

1 21 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

S 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstw 

1 22 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

30 
1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

1 23 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TQSURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

1 24 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

iinitiate master-slave routine for each ply SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

2 3 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

S ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

2 4 3 3 

S fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

3 4 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstm 

3 5 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

31 
4 5 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

4 6 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO&SJRFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

5 6 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstyp 

5 7 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

6 7 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

6 0 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TQSURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

7 0 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

32 
*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

7 9 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstw 

8 9 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstyp 

8 10 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

9 10 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

S sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

9 11 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TQSURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstyp 

10 11 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

10 12 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

33 
1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TQSURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

11 12 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

11 13 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SSWP mstyp 

12 13 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

.I. 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

12 14 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

13 14 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

13 15 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

14 15 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

* 

. 

34 
$ isym erosop 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

14 16 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

15 16 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstyp 

15 17 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

s isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstm 

16 17 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ."":z 

msid sstYP mstw 

18 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstw 

17 18 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

17 19 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

35 
1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE_TO_SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstyp 

18 19 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

S 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

18 20 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

c 

J. 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid =tYP mstyp 

19 20 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid ms id SstYP mstyp 

19 21 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

s sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TQSURFACE 

$ ssid msid SstYP mstyp 

20 21 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

20 22 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING~SURFACE~TO..SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstYP mstw 

21 22 3 3 

$ fric 

36 
0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

s 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

s ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

21 23 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstyp mstyp 

22 23 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT-ERODING-SURFACE-TO-SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstye mstye 

22 24 3 3 

s fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*CONTACT~ERODING,...SURFACE~TO~SURFACE 

$ ssid msid sstye mstw 

23 24 3 3 

$ fric 

0.0 

$ sfs 

1.0 

$ isym erosop 

1 1 

$ 

*INITIAL~VELOCITY~GENERATION 

$ sid stYP omega vx 

1 1 

$ xc YC ZC 

$ 

*SET-PART 

$ setid 

1 

s pidl 

1 

$ 

*PART 

$ pid sid 

16 gr RCC 

1 1 

1st ply of KM2 

2 1 

2nd ply of KM2 

3 1 

3rd ply of KM2 

4 1 

mid 

1 

2 

2 

2 

VY 

37 
4th ply of KM2 

5 

5th ply of KM2 

6 

6th ply of KM2 

7 

7th ply of KM2 

8 

8th ply of KM2 

9 

9th ply of KM2 

10 

10th ply of KM2 

11 

11th ply of KM2 

12th ply of Ku2 

13 

13th ply of KM2 

14 

14th ply of KM2 

15 

15th ply of KM2 

16 

16th ply of KM2 

17 

17th ply of KM2 

18 

18th ply of KM2 

19 

19th ply of KM2 

20 

20th ply of KM2 

21 

21s.t ply of KM2 

22 

22nd ply of KM2 

23 

23rd ply of KM2 

24 

$ 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 9999.0 

$ pfail sigpl sigvm ewpl epssh sigth impulse 

99.0 99.0 99.0 0.200 99.0 99.0 99.0 

$ 

*SECTION-SOLID 

S sid elform 

1 1 

$ $---+----1----+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----~- ---6----+----7----+----E 

$ 

*NODE 

Snode id X Y z tc rc 

1 1.9268663233-01 1.9268663233-01 0.000000000E+00 0 0 

c 

n 

38 
2 1.601715088E-01 2.2045718133-01 0.000000000E+00 

3 1,237124354E-01 2.4279934173-01 0.000000000E+00 

4 8.420714736E-02 2.591629624E-01 O.OOoOOOOOOE+OO 

5 4.2628396303-02 2.691451609E-01 O.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 

6-1.0564447093-08 2.7250006793-01 0.000000000E+00 

7-4.2628418653-02 2,691451609E-01 0.000000000E+00 

E-8.4207177163-02 2.591629922E-01 0.000000000E+00 

g-1.2371247263-01 2.4279935663-01 O.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 

10-1.6017155353-01 2.2045721113-01 0.000000000E+00 

11-1.9268663233-01 1.9268663233-01 O.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 

12 2.2045718133-01 1.601715088E-01 0.000000000E+00 

NOTE: THE MISSING NODES IN THIS ABBREVIATED DECK ARE HERE 

78646-4.499999881E-01-l.OOOOOOOOGE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78647-5.OOOOOOOOOE-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.253960252E+OO 

78648-5.500000119E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78649-6.000000238E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78650-6.499999762E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78651-6.999999881E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78652-7.5OOOOOOOOE-01-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78653-8.000000119E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78654-8.500000238E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78655-8.999999762E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.2539602523+00 

78656-9.499999881E-Ol-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.253960252E+OO 

78657-1.OOOOOOOOOE+OO-l.OOOOOOOOOE+OO 1.253960252E+OO 

*ELEMENT-SOLID 

1 1 1 2 13 12 122 

2 1 2 3 14 13 123 

3 1 3 4 15 14 124 

4 1 4 5 16 15 125 

5 1 5 6 17 16 126 

6 1 6 7 18 17 127 

7 1 7 8 19 18 128 

8 1 8 9 20 19 129 

9 1 9 10 21 20 130 

10 1 10 11 22 21 131 

11 1 12 13 24 23 133 

12 1 13 14 25 24 134 

NOTE: THE 

37789 

37790 

37791 

37792 

37793 

37794 

37795 

37796 

37797 

37798 

37799 

37800 

*END 

MISSING SOLID ELEMENTS IN THIS ABBREVIATED DECK ARE HERE IN THE ACTUAL RUN 

24 76923 76924 76965 76964 78604 78605 78646 78645 

24 76924 76925 76966 76965 78605 78606 78647 78646 

24 76925 76926 76967 76966 78606 78607 78648 78647 

24 76926 76927 76968 76967 78607 78608 78649 78648 

24 76927 76928 76969 76968 78608 78609 78650 78649 

24 76928 76929 76970 76969 78609 78610 78651 78650 

24 76929 76930 76971 76970 78610 78611 78652 78651 

24 76930 76931 76972 76971 78611 78612 78653 78652 

24 76931 76932 76973 76972 78612 78613 78654 78653 

24 76932 76933 76974 76973 78613 78614 78655 78654 

24 76933 76934 76975 76974 78614 78615 78656 78655 

24 76934 76935 76976 76975 78615 78616 78657 78656 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

IN THE ACTUAL RUN 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

123 134 133 

124 135 134 

125 136 135 

126 137 136 

127 138 137 

128 139 138 

129 140 139 

130 141 140 

131 142 141 

132 143 142 

134 145 144 

135 146 145 

39 
c 

40 
NO. OF 

COPIES 

2 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

ORGANIZATION 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

INFORMATION CENTER 

DTIC OCA 

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

STE 0944 

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

HQDA 

DAM0 FDT 

400 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20310-0460 

OSD 

OUSD(A&T)/ODDR&E(R) 

DRRJTREW 

3800 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20301-3800 

COMMANDING GENERAL 

US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

AMCRDA TF 

5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

US MILITARY ACADEMY 

MATH SC1 CTR EXCELLENCE 

MADN MATH 

THAYER HALL 

WEST POINT NY 10996-1786 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL D 

DR D SMITH 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD,20783-1197 

DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI AI R 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

3 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI LL 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

3 DIRECTOR 

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

AMSRL CI IS T 

2800 POWDER MILL RD 

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 

2 DIR USARL 

AMSRL CI LP (BLDG 305) 

41 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

4 COMMANDER 

US ARMY ARDEC 

T HAAR 

R MAHTOOK 

R MAZESKI 

R MCHUGH 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

07806-5000 

3 COMMANDER 

US ARMY NGIC 

T SHAVER 

J CRIDER 

J LILLY 

220 SEVENTH ST NE 

CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 

22902-5396 

2 COMMANDER 

US ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE 

K IYER 

J BAILEY 

P 0 BOX 12211 

RSRCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

27709-2211 

2 COMMANDER 

US ARMY TARDEC 

R GOODMAN 

G BAKER 

WARREN MI 48397-5000 

1 COMMANDER 

PM SOLDIER 

B KIRKWOOD 

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060 

1 COMMANDER 

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL 

J STERNBERG 

MONTEREY CA 93943 

5 COMMANDER 

US ARMY SOLDIER SYSTEMS CTR 

J WARD 

P CUNNIFF 

S WACLAWIK 

J MACKIEWICZ 

S BENNETT 

NATICK MA 01706-5010 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 

23 DIR USARL 

AMSRL CI HC 

D GROVE 

AMSRL SL BE 

J LIU 

AMSRL SL BG 

J PLOSKONKA 

AMSRL WM MB 

T BOGETT’I 

B CHEESEMAN 

C HOPPEL 

AMSRL WM TA 

W GILLICH 

T HAVEL 

AMSRL WM TB 

P BAKER 

W LAWRENCE 

AMSRL WM TC 

G SILSBY 

R SUMMERS 

W WALTERS 

AMSRL WM TD 

T HADUCH 

D PRITCHARD (6 CI’S) 

M RAFTENBURG 

E RAF’ACKI 

S SCHOENFELD 

42 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

bbllc repming burden for this collection of infomtation IS estimated to average 1 hour per response. lncl~dlng the time for wievdng Insbuctionr. searching existing data *ourCB% 

,a,hedng and mlnlaining the daP nesded, and com,9e,,ng and rsvlsvlng the colktlon of information. Send com”,e”ts regarding this burden estl”%ate Or il”y other a6Pct Of this 

:o,,ect,an of infomutlon. Including suggedlans for mduclng this burden, lo Washington Headquarters Servl~et, Dlrectonte for lnfomtion Opsndons and ReporlS. 1215 .k”0,~0n 

hvls Hls9v.w”. Wt.3 12M. Adlnqton. “A 222024302. and to the ORice of Manmemn, and Budget. Pa~enwork Reduction PraietiK3704dl88~. WaShinQtOn. DC 20503. 

I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT NPE AND DATES COVERED 

February 2002 Final, October 2000 - September 2001 

1. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

A Study of a Steel Right Circular Cylinder (RCC) Striking 23 Plies of KM2 Fabric 622105~~84 

Using the LS-DYNA Lagrangian Hydrocode 

i. AUTHOR(S) 

Dennis S. Pritchard 

r. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory REPORT NUMBER 

4Tl-N: AMSRL-WM-TD ARL-TR-2673 

4berdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

a. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAMES(S) AND ADDRESS lO.SPONSORINGIMONITORlNG 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

12a. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

4pproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. ABSTRACT(Maximum 200 words) 

A study was conducted to examine the terminal effects of a 1.0-g steel RCC impacting 23 plies of KM2 fabric 

using the LS-DYNA Lagrangian hydrocode. The simulated impact velocities were 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 

and 1400 m/s. The fabric was a plain weave of 850 denier yarn. The LS-DYNA-simulated V, versus V, data points 

generated at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) were compared to both experimental data and EPICgenerated data. Also, the LS-POST software package was used to view the simulated physical descriptions of the 

penetrator and target at various stages of the penetration process. 

4. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

teel, right circular cylinder, RCC, KM2, fabric, LS-DANA, Lagrangian hydrocode, 43 

triking velocity, residual velocity, simulation, impact, fragment, penetration 16. PRICE CODE 

7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL 

SN 7540-01-280-5500 43 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102