Automated design of threats and shields under hypervelocity impacts by using successive optimization methodology

Abstract In this study, predictive hydrocode simulations are coupled with approximate optimization (AO) methodology to achieve successive design automation for a projectile-Whipple shield (WS) system at hypervelocity impact (HVI) conditions. Successive design methodology is first applied to find the most dangerous threat for a given WS design by varying the shape and orientation of a projectile while imposing constraints on the total projectile mass and radar cross section (RCS). Subsequent optimization procedure is then carried on to improve the baseline WS design parameters. A parametric multi-layered stuffed WS model is considered with varying thicknesses of each layer and variable positions of the inter-layers while having a constraint on the areal density. HVI simulations are conducted by using a non-linear explicit dynamics numerical solver, LS-DYNA. Coupled finite element and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) parametric models are developed for the predictive numerical simulations. LS-OPT is employed to implement the design optimization process based on response surface methodology. It is found that the ideal spherical projectiles are not necessarily presenting the most dangerous threat compared to the ones with irregular shapes and random orientations, which have the same mass and RCS. Therefore, projectiles with different shapes and orientations should be considered while designing a WS. It is also shown that, successive AO methodology coupled with predictive hydrocode simulations can easily be utilized to enhance WS design.

[1]  Ryo Ito,et al.  A single energy-based parameter to assess protection capability of debris shields , 2007 .

[2]  Garret N. Vanderplaats,et al.  Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design , 1999 .

[3]  Lalit C. Chhabildas,et al.  Shock-induced vaporization in metals , 2006 .

[4]  Frank Schäfer,et al.  Shape effects in hypervelocity impact on semi-infinite metallic targets , 2001 .

[5]  Jonas A. Zukas,et al.  High velocity impact dynamics , 1990 .

[6]  S. Dey,et al.  The effect of target strength on the perforation of steel plates using three different projectile nose shapes , 2004 .

[7]  D. Lesuer,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF MATERIAL MODELS FOR TI-6A1-4V TITANIUM AND 2024-T3 ALUMINUM. , 2000 .

[8]  P. Groenenboom,et al.  Numerical simulation of 2D and 3D hypervelocity impact using the SPH option in PAM-SHOCK™ , 1997 .

[9]  Frank Schäfer,et al.  Simulation of ellipsoidal projectile impact on whipple shields , 2003 .

[10]  Roberto Destefanis,et al.  Ballistic limit evaluation of advanced shielding using numerical simulations , 2001 .

[11]  Shen-Yeh Chen,et al.  An approach for impact structure optimization using the robust genetic algorithm , 2001 .

[12]  Hasan Kurtaran,et al.  Design automation of a laminated armor for best impact performance using approximate optimization method , 2003 .

[13]  F. Chang,et al.  A Progressive Damage Model for Laminated Composites Containing Stress Concentrations , 1987 .

[14]  B. P. Denardo.  Projectile size effects on hypervelocity impact craters in aluminum , 1967 .

[15]  Jasbir S. Arora,et al.  Introduction to Optimum Design , 1988 .

[16]  Justin H. Kerr,et al.  Projectile shape effects on shielding performance at 7 km/s and 11 km/s , 1997 .

[17]  Roberto Destefanis,et al.  Whipple shield ballistic limit at impact velocities higher than 7 km/s , 2001 .

[18]  Z. Hashin.  Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites , 1980 .

[19]  Odd Sture Hopperstad,et al.  Perforation of 12 mm thick steel plates by 20 mm diameter projectiles with flat, hemispherical and conical noses: Part II: numerical simulations , 2002 .

[20]  David L. Littlefield,et al.  Dependence of debris cloud formation on projectile shape , 2008 .

[21]  C. Hayhurst,et al.  Cylindrically symmetric SPH simulations of hypervelocity impacts on thin plates , 1997 .

[22]  William P. Schonberg,et al.  RCS-based ballistic limit curves for non-spherical projectiles impacting dual-wall spacecraft systems , 2006 .

[23]  G. Bessette,et al.  Debris generation and propagation phenomenology from hypervelocity impacts on aluminum from 6 to 11 km/s , 2003 .

[24]  M. Lambert,et al.  Effect of multi-layer insulation on top of spacecraft meteoroids/debris shields: predictions of the automated transfer vehicle pressure module ballistic limit , 2003 .

[25]  Fu-Kuo Chang,et al.  Post-Failure Analysis of Bolted Composite Joints in Tension or Shear-Out Mode Failure , 1987 .

[26]  Rade Vignjevic,et al.  Coupling between meshless and finite element methods , 2005 .

[27]  Nielen Stander,et al.  Optimization of nonlinear dynamical problems using successive linear approximations , 2000 .

[28]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[29]  Seishiro Kibe,et al.  Numerical and experimental study on the shaped charge for space debris assessment , 2001 .

[30]  R. H. Morrison.  A preliminary investigation of projectile shape effects in hypervelocity impact of a double-sheet structure , 1972 .

[31]  William P. Schonberg,et al.  Characterizing secondary debris impact ejecta , 1999 .

[32]  William P. Schonberg,et al.  Ballistic limit curves for non-spherical projectiles impacting dual-wall spacecraft systems , 2002 .

[33]  Fred L. Whipple,et al.  Meteorites and space travel. , 1947 .

[34]  Justin H. Kerr,et al.  Ballistic limit equations for spacecraft shielding , 2001 .

[35]  R. Haftka,et al.  Elements of Structural Optimization , 1984 .

[36]  Makoto Tanaka,et al.  Development of a lightweight space debris shield using high strength fibers , 2001 .

[37]  Charles E. Anderson,et al.  Variation of crater geometry with projectile L/D for L/D ≤ 1 , 1995 .

[38]  Jonas A. Zukas,et al.  Introduction to Hydrocodes , 2004 .