Issue 57

R. Andreotti et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 57 (2021) 223-245; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.17

‐0,050 0,000 0,050 0,100 0,150 0,200 0,250 0,300 0,350 0,400

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

FE_EqPlStrain_45DEG

PlStrain_45DEG

Figure 39: Equivalent plastic strain field at 0.2 millimeters beneath the impact surface as calculated by means of simulation (continuous line) compared with the plastic strain values calculated form micro-hardness measures by means of the linear correlation taken from Qiao et al. [13]. Abscissa values represent the coordinate along the section of the plate in millimeters.

Figure 40: Decrease of the total energy of the simulation during the interaction time (in seconds).

6

5

4,63

4,49

4

Inox 1 Inox 2 Inox AVG FEM FEM Vcorrected

3,56

3,45

2,54 3,30

3

1,63 2,12

2 [mm]

1

0

45° Maximum Residual Displacement

60°

85°

90°

Impact Angle [Deg]

Figure 41: Comparison between experimental and numerical residual displacements. Light blue and orange lines represent the minimum and maximum experimental displacements. The grey line represents the average of the experimental results. The yellow line represents the results of the simulations without initial velocity correction. The dark blue line represents the simulation results with initial velocity corrected .

243