Assignment 4-RADIOSS Material Laws Challenge

OBJECTIVE OF CHALLENGE: Analyzing Rupture plate in different case scenarios and determine best case which would be close to real life application.

OBSERVATIONS	CASE-1	CASE-2	CASE-3	CASE-4	CASE-5	CASE-6	CASE-7
Total Number of cycles	49380	49217	49408	49304	47969	47911	41113
Energy error(min,max)/Acceptable	(0%,1.3%) /Yes	(-0.3%,4.1%) /Yes	(-0.3%,1.3%) /Yes	(-0.6%,1.2%) /Yes	(-0.6%,4.0%) /Yes	(-0.7%,0.7%) /Yes	(-7.1%,0.5%) /Yes
Mass Error	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Simulation Time	71.46 s	81.65 s	77.62 s	97.11 s	68.17 s	59.27 s	50.96 s
Element behavior	ELEMENTS BEING DELETED AND ALSO FALLING OFF WHEN NEIGHBOURING ELEMENTS DISCONNECTED	ELEMENTS COINCIDED AND DELETED LATER. AND ALSO BREAKING OFF WHEN NEIGHBOURING ELEMENTS DISCONNECTED.	ELEMENTS BEING DELETED ON FIRST CONTACT BUT LATER SOME ELEMENTS ARE BEING COINCIDED.AND ALSO BREAKING OFF WHEN NEIGHBOURING ELEMENTS DISCONNECTED	ELEMENTS BEING DELETED ON FIRST BUT LATER AT SOME PLACES ELEMENTS ARE BEING COINCIDED.	ELEMENTS NEVER DELETED THROUGHOUT SIMULATION, MAY CRACK IF PROCEEDED FURTHER ANALYSIS.	ELEMENTS GOT DELETED ALL THE TIME WHENEVER THE BALL ELEMENTS GOT IN CONTACT ELEMENTS.	ELEMENTS NEING CRACKED AND BEING DELETED AT SOME POINT AND IF NOT SOME ELEMENTS BEING HANGED TO NEIGHBOURING ELEMENTS.AND ALSO BEING MERGED AT SOME POINTS.
When started colliding	PLATE ELEMENTS ARE DELETED AND BALL ELEMENTS ARE BEING APPEARING.	PLATE ELEMENTS AND BALL ELEMENTS ARE BEING MERGED AND LATER PLATE ELEMENTS GOT BEING DELETED.	PLATE ELEMENTS ARE DELETED AND BALL ELEMENTS ARE BEING APPEARING	BALL ELEMENTS SHOWS SOME ELASTIC BEHAVIOR BEFORE DELETING.	PLATE ELEMENTS SHOWED ELASTIC BEHAVIOR AND AT END OF SIMULATION ELEMENTS COINCIDED	BALL ELEMENTS GOT DELETED ON CONTACT AND CONTINUES TO DELETE ELEMENTS WHENEVEN GOT IN CONTACT.	PLATE ELEMENTS SHOWED ELASTIC NATURE AND GOT DELETED ON FURTHER SIMULATION.AND IN SOME PLACES ELEMENTS BEING MERGED TO BALL ELEMENTS.

FIG-1:PLATE DEFORMATION IN CASE-I(TOP LEFT),CASE-II(TOP RIGHT),CASE-III(BOTTOM LEFT),CASE-IV(BOTTOM RIGHT).

FIGURE-2:PLATE DEFORMATION IN CASE-V(LEFT),CASE-VI(TOP RIGHT),CASE-VII(BOTTOM RIGHT).

FIGURE-3: PLATE DEFORMATION IN CASE V(LEFT),CASE-VI(TOP RIGHT),CASE-VII(BOTTOM RIGHT) IN LEFT PLANE VIEW.

RESULT: Cases showed different behaviours with Input of different parameters from elastic to breaking plate.

CONCLUSION: The rupture of plate deformation due to impact of sphere in different parameters and failure model parameters were analyzed and compared.

In Case-I elements are breaking off from model so it is not recomended as best simulation of model like wise in case-III as elements are being merged.In Case-II the rupture of plate is almost similar to real life but as the energy loss is high and is near to unacceptable energy loss (+5%) could not be recomended as good simulation and in case-VI elements are being completly deleted by just ball elements coming to contact with plate showing brittleness behaviour this will be completly out of real life situation.Case-V is completly different,the plate elements never got deleted or merged the plate showed an elastic behavior throught simulation and made a pit shape and has high energy error.

Case-IV would be near to real life situation and is best of all other simulations,energy error is in check and deformation of plate is also decent. case-VII is different the plate deformation pattern is similar to real life scenario but the elements behavior is odd the elements are being deleted not most of the time showing brittleness the elements are being hanged to neighbouring elements this is not a real life scenario so law27 is not accurate to real but the energy error is quite decent of all.

so,case-IV is good of all and case-III are showing real life deformation pattern and case-V,case-II and case-VII is also having real life pattern but having their own drawbacks.case-II and case-VI are bad and far away from real life situation.