## 5 Material Parameter Calibration  
The numerical calculations gave the parameters for the craters (depth, diameter, and volume), which were compared with experimental data for all screens. As the calculated craters had a shape close to an ellipsoid, as seen in Figure 6a, an ellipse with semi-axes \(a\) and \(b\) was inscribed in the transverse section of the calculated crater to determine its volume by the formula:  
\[V_{calc}=\pi\left(\frac{b}{a}\right)^{2}h^{2}\left(a-\frac{h}{3}\right)\]  
In most calculations, an ellipsoid with semi-axes \(a=h\) and \(b=d/2\) can be inscribed in the crater, and the volume of the crater is calculated using the formula:  
\[V_{calc}=\pi\;h\;d^{2}/6\]  
The results of numerical modeling of the interaction of a spherical particle with screens of different structures were summarized, and the obtained crater parameters were compared with the experimental data from [18]. The experimental data and the results of numerical simulations of the formed craters for all considered screens are presented in Table 2, where \(h,\;d,\;V\) are the depth, diameter, and volume of the crater as measured in the experiment, and \(h_{calc},\;d_{calc},\;V_{calc}\) are the depth, diameter, and volume of the crater as obtained through numerical simulation. To determine the parameters of the calculated crater, a plate with a thickness of approximately the step of the division of the computational grid was cut out of the screen, passing through the center of the crater. The comparison between the calculated shape of the crater in screen #1, made of 316L steel, and the shape of the experimental crater is presented in Figure 6. Since the \"REACTOR 3D\" software package uses a hybrid meshless-mesh calculation method, the destroyed material is represented by finite-size particles, differentiated by color in all figures. It is worth noting that the depth of the calculated crater exceeds the depth of the experimental one by approximately 10%, while the calculated diameter almost coincides with the experimental one. However, there is a deviation in the volume of the crater; it reaches 14%. The thickness of the spalled part on the screen's backside is comparable to the experimental thickness. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Screen** \\ **Type** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Experiment**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Numerical Simulation**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \(h\)**, mm** & \(d\)**, mm** & \(V\)**, mm3** & **Spall** & \(h_{calc}\)**, mm** & \(d_{calc}\)**, mm** & \(V_{calc}\)**, mm3** & **Spall** \\ \hline \#1 & 2.1 & 5.7 & 36 & spall & 2.30 & 5.60 & 31 & spall \\ \hline \#2 & 4.5 & 8.2 & 158 & spall & 4.86 & 7.20 & 133 & spall \\ \hline \#3 & 2.4 & 6.4 & 52 & spall & 3.70 & 5.35 & 55 & spall \\ \hline \#4 & 4.5 & 8.4 & 166 & no & 4.25 & 7.40 & 162.6 & no \\ \hline \#5 & 4.7 & 8.0 & 55 & delamination & 3.28 & 6.38 & 63 & single grain detachment \\ \hline \#6 & - & - & - & - & 3.20 & 5.84 & 54 & single grain detachment \\ \hline \#7 & - & - & - & - & 3.62 & 6.63 & 78 & no \\ \hline \#8 & - & - & - & - & 3.01 & 5.47 & 39 & spall \\ \hline \#9 & - & - & - & - & 4.67 & 7.42 & 134 & spall \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Crater size in the screens. The calculated crater in screen #2, made of aluminum alloy A356, was found to be 8% deeper, 12% smaller in diameter, and 16% smaller in volume than the experimental one, as shown in Figure 7. There are cracks on the front side of the screen which allow the \"sponges\" of the crater to separate from the screen. The thickness of the spall on the screen's backside is slightly smaller than the experimental one. Radial cracks caused by bending deformations are also present, as well as in the experiment. To ensure consistency in areal density, screen #2, made from A356 aluminum alloy, should possess a thickness of 13.4 mm. We conducted calculations for screen #9 with the required thickness.