Steel spheres impact on alumina ceramic tiles: Experiments and finite element simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Finite element simulations can be very useful for assessing and optimizing the design of advanced armor systems, but they require capturing the mechanisms of damage and failure that occur in composite‐backed ceramic tiles when subjected to shock impact. The damage that occurs, primarily by the formation of radial and conical cracks and comminution, is complex. Therefore, the first step toward understanding these mechanisms are to simplify the problem. In this work, impact experiments using spherical steel projectiles were conducted on free‐standing bare alumina ceramic tiles of two different thicknesses. Observations of the damage were then used to investigate the ability of numerical codes to capture the damage mechanisms occurring in the alumina tiles at various impact velocities. Three constitutive material models, used to simulate brittle fracture in isotropic solids, were explored, using commercially available finite element hydrocode LS‐DYNA. These were the popular Johnson‐Holmquist model 2 for ceramic materials, the pseudo‐rheological Karagozian & Case Concrete model—Release III, and the elastic bond‐based peridynamics model. The numerical results obtained demonstrated the capability of each approach to capture the damage produced by the impact of steel spheres on alumina ceramic tiles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".