@article{WEI2025, 
author = {Guoxu WEI and Hao CUI and Hao ZHOU and Guitao YANG and Rui GUO},
title = {Numerical simulation method for tungsten alloy projectilepenetration into steel target},
year = {2025},
journal = {Explosion and Shock Waves},
volume = {45},
number = {8},
keywords = {finite element method (FEM), smoothed particle Galerkin (SPG), smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), secondary fragments, penetration},
url = {https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.11883/bzycj-2024-0147},
doi = {10.11883/bzycj-2024-0147},
abstract = {In order to improve the quantitative characterization of the penetration process of tungsten alloy projectile into the target, the numerical methods such as FEM (finite element method), SPG (smoothed particle Galerkin), SPH (smoothed particle hydrodynamics), and FE-SPH (finite element-smoothed particle hydrodynamics) adaptive simulation methods were employed to simulate the penetration of tungsten alloy projectiles into Q235A steel targets. Based on numerical simulations, a comparison was made of the advantages and disadvantages of the four numerical simulation methods for calculating the residual velocity of the projectile after penetrating the target, the perforation diameter of the target, and the distribution of secondary fragments by the projectile penetration. The results show that, for calculating the residual velocity of the projectile, FEM and FE-SPH adaptive methods strictly rely on the selection of failure criteria and corresponding parameters, as FEM employs an element erosion algorithm to model material failure, while SPG method, as it does not require adjusting the failure parameters in bond failure mode, can obtain relatively accurate calculations; for predicting perforation diameter, FEM and FE-SPH adaptive methods accurately represent material boundaries and perforation morphology, although the perforation diameter varies significantly under different failure criteria, while the SPG method can accurately predict the perforation diameter of target plates due to its insensitive to failure parameters; for analzing secondary fragments generation and distribution, both FE-SPH adaptive and SPH methods effectively characterize these phenomena, while the FE-SPH adaptive method provides detailed information on large fragments, it is less computationally efficient than the SPH method.}
}