• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    On the effect of pitch and yaw angles in oblique impacts of smallcaliber projectiles

    2024-02-29 08:21:52TeresaFras
    Defence Technology 2024年1期

    Teresa Fras

    French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis (ISL), Saint-Louis, France

    Keywords: Ballistic impact Small-caliber projectile Pitch and yaw impact angles Shadowgraphy IMPETUS Afea Numerical simulations

    ABSTRACT A terminal ballistic analysis of the effects of 7.62 mm × 51 AP P80 rounds on inclined high-strength armor steel plates is the focus of the presented study.The findings of an instrumented ballistic testing combined with 3D advanced numerical simulations performed using the IMPETUS Afea? software yielded the conclusions.The experimental verification proved that slight differences in the pitch-andyaw angles of a projectile upon an impact caused different damage types to the projectile’s core.The residual velocities predicted numerically were close to the experimental values and the calculated core deviations were in satisfactory agreement with the experimental results.An extended matrix of the core deviation angles with combinations of pitch-and-yaw upon impact angles was subsequently built on the basis of the numerical study.The presented experimental and numerical investigation examined thoroughly the influence of the initial pitch and yaw angles on the after-perforation projectile’s performance.

    1.Introduction

    The projectile’s terminal ballistic performance depends on a number of variables.Firstly, the projectile’s and targets’ compositions and geometries.Further, the target’s orientation and the initial impact kinematics-the projectile’s velocity and the projectile’s position upon an impact.The target is typically stationary during a terminal ballistics experiment, especially when tested against a small-caliber ammunition-its orientation can be easily controlled.With an established accuracy, light-detection barriers are used to measure the projectile’s velocity.It is more difficult,however,to measure accurately the orientation of the bullet at the moment of impact.

    Projectiles are initially spun about their rotational axis by grooves inside the gun barrel to stabilize them during their flight.The spinning mass creates gyroscopic forces that keep the projectile length axis resistant to the destabilizing overturning torque[1].Most of the time, the projectile is somewhat unbalanced as these forces readjust the bullet position.In consequence,at the moment of the impact the projectile is typically not perfectly aligned with the vector of its velocity along the trajectory defined by the movement of the projectile’s center of gravity.The projectile orientation is described by two angles representing a misalignment with the projectile trajectory-pitch and yaw angle,and also its spin(roll).The principles of behavior of yawing projectiles are presented in the classical works of Goldsmith(for example[2,3]),in which the subsequent phases of blunt cylinder impacts into a perpendicular target plate are analyzed and 2 modeled with an influence of the initial yaw angles.Because of the oblique entry position, the striker’s deformation was affected by anon-symmetric stress distribution which increased due to additional angular changes of its movement.In consequence,the projectile underwent bending that resulted in its fracture.Despite a proven influence of the initial projectile position with respect to the target,in the literature in the most of analyzed terminal ballistic experiments,the information on the initial yaw and pitch angles of the projectile is rarely reported.This data becomeseven more important when the projectile hits the target inclined to the shot.In oblique impacts,the asymmetric interactions between the projectile and the oblique target become even more pronounced and the resulted angular momentum affecting the projectile core increases too [4].

    On the contrary to studies on the normal impacts,there are not many open access studies which investigate oblique shots.Furthermore, it is the behavior of the target plates or the mechanisms of penetration and perforation, which are the main focus of such investigations.Normal and oblique impacts on 20 mm thick AA6082-T4 aluminum plates are analyzed both experimentally and numerically in the study[5].Two types of small arms bullets were used in the ballistic tests,the 7.62 mm×63 NATO Ball(with a soft lead core)and the 7.62 mm×63 APM2(with a hard steel core).The targets were struck at 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°and 60°, with an overall impact velocity 830 m/s.The key interest was the critical oblique angle at which the penetration process changes from perforation to embedment or ricochet.While the information on the materials composing the projectile was primarily sourced from the literature,a material test program was carried out for the AA6082-T4 plate in order to calibrate a modified Johnson-Cook constitutive relation and the Cockcroft-Latham failure criterion.The 3D non-linear FE simulations were performed and succeeded to obtain results of good agreement with the experimental observations.With the aim of determining the effects of the angle of obliquity, the study [6]examined the ballistic performance of monolithic, multi-layered and spaced mild steel target plates (of thickness varied between 4 mm and 16 mm)at normal and oblique impacts(0°,30°,45°and 60°) of 7.62 mm AP bullets.For 60°angle of obliquity, the monolithic target experienced a projectile ricochet, in contact layered target-a projectile embedment,and for the spaced target,it was a perforation.At low angles of obliquity, the difference between the ballistic performance of monolithic, layered in contact and spaced targets was not significant.The numerical simulations used the Johnson-Cook elasto-viscoplastic material model calibrated for the mild steel with which the targets were composed.The employed approach provided results corroborating the experimental findings.In the study[7],a series of oblique ballistic experiments with x-ray monitoring was carried out to study the effect of obliquity angle and armor steel plate thickness on the fragmentation of 14.5 mm API projectiles.According to X-ray records of the oblique impact experiments, fragmentation patterns of the core were found to be dependent on both the angle of obliquity and the thickness of the steel armor plate.Through a simplified fracture modeling implemented in the numerical simulation, all the traits of the core fragmentation were not captured but a reasonable agreement between the experimental and simulated results was obtained.The pitch and yaw angles of the projectile were not addressed in any of the aforementioned works.Since these experimental features were not verified, also in the simulations, the bullets were assumed as impacting perfectly straight.

    Usually,both in numerical and in-field experimental studies the effect of the pitch and yaw angles,as well as of the projectile’s spin upon an impact are not subjected to in-situ measurements.Experimental measurements of the bullets orientation are challenging(especially for small-and medium-caliber projectiles,since artillery-or mortar projectiles and missiles may have an on-board instrumentation).Possible techniques which may be used to identify the projectile position before an impact are yaw cards(several paper sheets located along the projectile trajectory),highspeed cameras, radiography and shadowgraphs, [8].However, not all laboratories are outfitted with this kind of equipment.The NATO Standard AEP-55 [9] explains that for an evaluation of the protection level of armor components, all shots with a total pitch angle below 5°are considered as valid.It is quite unlike that a misalignment higher than 5°would occur in a professional terminal ballistic laboratory.On the other hand,when a numerical model takes into account the pitch and yaw angles of the projectile impact in addition to the target’s obliquity, this creates calculation challenges and increases the computation costs.However, precise values of the pitch and yaw angles prior to the moment of contact are crucial for further in-depth research inquiries on the projectile/target interactions.Armors and protection systems frequently use a combination of materials with various geometrical and material characteristics.A line of sight (LOS) of an armor is designed typically to extend the way during which a projectile traverses a protective shield,which favors obliquely assigned armoring.Although perfectly perpendicular strikes may be of the highest piercing potential, on the battlefield they are less common than slanted impacts.

    The objective of the hereby presented experimental-numerical inquiry is to analyze how an armor-piercing hard-core bullet behaves after penetrating an armor steel plate inclined at 10°NATO.The initial impact conditions(i.e.projectile’s velocity,pitch and yaw angles) were experimentally measured and the study emphasizes effects of these traits on the projectile’s post-perforation characteristics (i.e.the projectile’s residual velocity, core damage, and angle of deviation).The armor-piercing(AP)7.62 mm×51 FMJ/PB/HC AP P80(0.308 Win)(fullmetal jacket,pointed bullet,hard steel core) projectiles and the 4.5 mm thick Armox 500T armor steel plates made up the impact arrangement.The undertaken measurements in the performed terminal ballistics experiments included flash X-rays imaging, digital high-speed cameras recording, due to which the initial and residual conditions of the impacts were registered.

    Fig.1.Experimental stand: (1) laboratory gun; (2) velocity light-barriers; (3) pitch and yaw angle measurement set-up; (4) spall-protecting screens; (5) high-speed camera; (6)target inside the supporting frame.

    The impact configuration’s components maybe considered as illustrative, but they are also included in the IMPETUS Afea? numerical software’s commercial library.The pre-defined components in the calculation software were used to prepare the numerical study in terms of their geometry and material modeling.Therefore, the ballistic experimental investigation was compared with its numerical representation not affected by a user way of preparation of the geometrical model, meshing and last but not least,constitutive functions of the materials composing the threat/target configuration.The subsequent sections report on the findings of the experimental, terminal ballistics investigation and confront them with the numerical results.The proposed approach intends to contribute to a still valid query-to which extent a numerical simulation is able to represent an experimental testing(which is also a laboratory rendition of battle-field possible impact scenarios).

    2.Terminal ballistics testing

    The objective of the study was to conduct an experiment verification of a variance in measured initial yaw and pitch angles of small-caliber projectiles upon impacts.As it was mentioned previously, the NATO Standard [9] accepts results of which the total yaw angle is below 5°.There are many alternative pairs of yaw and pitch angles that meet this requirement,therefore it’s interesting to see how the values permitted by the standardized ballistic procedure affect the behavior of projectiles.The experimental configuration composed with the 4.5 mm thick Armox 500T steel plates were aligned at 10°NATO to shots of the projectiles of caliber 7.62 mm × 51 AP P80.

    Fig.1 depicts the experimental set-up,presenting a lab-adapted cannon placed 10 m in front of the testing stand equipped with the measurement devices.The gun consisted of a universal block with changeable barrels fixed to the recoil absorber mount.The gun barrel of a heavy profile had a length of 900 mm.The weapon was firmly fixed to the ground, which created astable platform preventing gun jerking.Shots were fired remotely.The primed cases were standard P80 cartridges filled with the original factorysupplied powder load, which amount was not changed.The hereby analyzed shots were performed one after another, using the projectiles taken directly from a factory box-as the amount of the powder in the cartridges was not changed,the measured velocities of impacts varied.

    Fig.2.Projectile cal.7.62 mm×51 AP P80:(a)Cross-section;(b)Radiographic and(c)topographic slice and (d) surface-rendering of segmented components.

    As the threat,the 7.62 mm×51 FMJ/PB/HC AP P80(0.308 Win)projectiles were chosen.Fig.2 presents the cross-section of the used projectile inside the cartridge filled with a powder.The projectile consists of brass jacket, lead cap filing and the hard-steel core.Following the requirements of the standard VPAM APR 2006[10],this particular caliber is used to evaluate the protection level 9 if it is shot at the impact velocity 820 ± 10 m/s from a distance of 10 m.The impact energy transmitted to the shot body exceeds 3200 J.

    As the targets,the 4.5 mm thick Armox 500T steel plates of the size 250 mm × 250 mm were used.This armour steel has the nominal hardness of 500 HBW and its other properties, following the producer datasheet [11], are collected in Table 1.Fig.3(a) presents the plate of Armox 500T prepared for the ballistic impact test.The target plates were inclined at the angle of 10°(following the NATO requirements, Fig.3(b)).Each plate was shot 2 times, a distance of min.60 mm was kept between the shot points and the plate edge.Before each shot, it was verified if the plate was still inclined at 10°.

    During the tests, these projectile’s kinetics were measured:

    · Initial impact velocity (by the optical light gates)

    · Yaw and pitch impact angles (by the optical light gates), Fig.4

    · Residual velocities(based on the high-speed camera recording)

    · Based on a previous investigation, the initial spin of the projectile was assumed as equal 21050 rad/s.

    The measurements of the initial projectile characteristics were undertaken by the PROTYPA measurement system.From the side,each shot was recorded using a high-speed camera Phantom.Its resolution was 640 × 256 pixels, frame rate: 41000 fps, time exposure:300 ns,lens:100 mm,opening:level 2,flash occurred at 10 ns.

    2.1.Pitch and yaw angle measurements

    As a result of the projectile’s spinning motion after leaving the grooved gun barrel, the direction of its velocity vector typically differs from that of its longitudinal axis[12-14].An orientation of a projectile is thus defined by three rotations about the principal axes passing through its center of mass [2].The three fundamental angular motions of the striker are described by yaw and pitch angles, and the spin/roll.The spinning occurs about the projectile’s axis of symmetry and the yawing angles are defined in terms of the striker centerline to its velocity vector.For a better mnemonic visualization, the pitch angle may be schematically described by the head movement of "nodding", whereas yawing by the head"European no-shaking" [15].

    In terms of the terminal ballistics investigations, the Standard[9] gives the definition of the horizontal, vertical and compound yaw angles.Thus, as the yaw angle the Standard defines the maximum resultant angle between the main axis of the projectile and its trajectory (velocity vector) irrespective of plane [9].As the angle of impact, the Standard describes the angle between the projectile trajectory and the direction perpendicular to the plane tangent to the point of impact on the target [9].These definitions are respected(though,the yaw angles have other designations)by both the calculation code IMPETUS [16] and the measurement device PROTOTYPA[17],Fig.4.In Fig.5,there are presented the yaw angles following their designation in the NATO Standard AEP-55.

    The total yaw angle is calculated following the definition given in the report[18].The total yaw angle yt of a projectile is the angle between the vector of velocity of the projectile and the vector of its axis of symmetry in the plane defined by those two vectors.Thesymmetry axis can be aligned with the velocity by moving down through the pitch angle a and across through theyawangle β.

    Table 1Properties of the ARMOX 500T steel according to the producer’s datasheet.

    Fig.3.The plate of Armox 500 in the supporting frame prepared for testing: (a) Front view; (b) Side view; (c) Schematic description of the NATO angles designation.

    Following Fig.5 and the considerations presented in Ref.[18],these angles are related to the total yaw angle through the dependences given by Eqs.(1)-(3).

    Consequently, the total yaw angle γtis given by Eq.(4).

    To measure the bullet velocity, as well as the yaw and pitch angles before the impact,the optical light gates were used.The light gates(LS-01L by PROTOTYPA)consisted of two light screens(gates)placed along a distance of 1 m between the gates(measuring base)perpendicularly to the bullet longitudinal axis.NATO STANARD AEP-55 [9] recommends measurement plane located perpendicularly to the projectile trajectory at a maximum distance of 2.5 m ahead of the aim point on the target.For the tests, the entry gate was located 1.5 min front of the target.An interruption of the light beam, caused by the bullet passage through, was caught by an electronic sensor and transferred to an electrical pulse.The velocity was determined from a time measured between the first and the second gate pulses [17].The measurements of the initial velocity are performed with the accuracy of 0.5% and the resolution of 0.1 m/s.

    Fig.4.(a) The optical light gates and (b) the position of a projectile capture by it presented in the shadowgraphs of two planes.

    Further, a pair of orthogonal cameras and flash-lights allowing acquisition of bullet images and evaluation of bullet yaw before impact on the target were used(PYAWMS by PROTOTYPA[17]).The system measured yaw and pitch angles relative to a reference line,Fig.4.A heavy and stable mounting system for the target plates was adopted in order to prevent the sample montage from influencing the experimental outcomes.The yaw measurements in close proximity to the tested target are not possible due to the design of the PROTOYPA setup.Additionally, the equipment needed to be shielded from potential spalls.Therefore, pitch/yaw angles measurements were taken 300 mm in front of the target (NATO STANARD AEP-55 does not precise an exact measurements method,neither a distance of the measures from a shot target).The angles are measured with the accuracy of ±0.005°[17].The calibration method is based on the comparison of yaw angles measured by the calibrated instrument PYAWMS andyaw angles of a reference calibration jig.Although,the measurements were taken in a certain distance from the target and the precise values of yaw and pitch angles of the projectile at an impact instant are unknown,it may be assumed that this interval is sufficiently short that the bullet orientation did not change significantly.

    2.2.Experimental results

    Fig.5.Definition of yaw and pitch angles following the Standard [9] and the considerations given in Ref.[18].

    Table 2Summary of the results of the reference ballistic testing(*measured at 125 μs based on the side-view images,Threat:7.62×51 AP P80 Target:Armox 500T 4.5 mm thick at 10°NATO).

    Fig.6.Shot 22V 368, Vi = 861 m/s, total yaw angle γt = 0.48°.

    Fig.7.Shot 22V 369, Vi = 854 m/s, total yaw angle γt = 0.98°.

    Fig.8.Shot 22V 370, Vi = 816 m/s, total yaw angle γt = 1.53°.

    The summary of the performed tests is collected in Table 2,which gives an overview on the initial and residual bullet characteristics-the measured projectile’s initial yaw and pitch angles, as well as its velocity and the calculated projectile’s deviation angle and its residual velocity.The frames from the high-speed camera recordings are collected in the subsequent Figs.6-11.The frames presented the last moment before projectile stroke the target registered by the HS camera, which were described as the initial instant of the impact process-thus, they present the contractual time instant 0 μs.The subsequent frames were chosen 90 μs and 125 μs later.Fig.12 shows damages of the projectiles’cores at 245 μs.The angles of deviation after the plate perforation were calculated for the time instant 125 μs and they arepresented in Fig.13.It was assumed that the initial position of the projectile before hitting the plate(along the projectile axis of symmetry,the middle of the tip and the middle of the back part) sets the initial direction of the projectile passage.Whereas,the axis of the largest projectile core fragment determines the angle of its deviation in the observed plane(the pitch angle).Obviously,such angles are only a general estimation of the core deviation after plate perforation-it is difficult to estimate their accuracy.Fig.13 presents the measured angles recorded on the side view of the projectile’s core deviation after it perforated the target plate.

    Fig.9.Shot 22V 371, Vi = 842 m/s, total yaw angle γt = 0.98°.

    Fig.10.Shot 22V 372, Vi = 853 m/s, total yaw angle γt = 0.72°.

    Fig.11.Shot 22V 373, Vi = 852 m/s, total yaw angle γt = 0.89°.

    Fig.12.Magnifications of the damaged core (frames at 245 μs).

    Fig.14 shows the front and back faces of the perforated steel plates.It maybe observed that the craters have either the circular(average diameter 5.9 mm) or slightly elongated shapes (with average dimensions 10.3 mm × 7.3 mm).Following the X-ray images,it may be observed that plates were not failing due to plugging[19].Hereby observed petalled peripheries of the exit holes characterized the ductile hole enlargement type of failure, typical for pointed bullets [20].

    Summarizing the ballistic testing results, it may be concluded that:

    1) The yaw and pitch angles of the performed shots would fulfill the requirements of the NATO Standard [9], i.e.the total yaw angle smaller than 5°(but this particular caliber is not used for evaluation of protection level according to the standardized procedure [9]).

    2) Initial velocities varied between 815 m/s and 861 m/s (the original powder amount in the cartridge was not modified).

    3) Total yaw angles varied between 0.48°and 1.53°.

    4) Residual velocities-measured for the largest remained core pieces - varied between 660 m/s and 772 m/s.

    5) The angles of deviation-measured for the largest core pieces-registered at 125 μs at the plane "X"-the side view, i.e.the view which the camera recorded.These angles varied between 4°and 5 14°.

    6) The experiment proved that the projectiles’ cores may behave differently after perforating the oblique hard steel plates.It was observed that out of six shots:

    - The core broke in the middle (two times)

    - The core was fragmented into several irregular smaller pieces(two times)

    - The core remained intact (once)

    Fig.13.Measurements of the angles of deviation at 125 μs of the impact process.

    - And once, it had a front part separated (sheared off) from the remaining two-thirds of its length.

    It seems however that at the angle of inclination 10°, the projectile’s core is more prone to be broken or fragmented than to remain intact.In oblique impacts,due to the asymmetrical contact with the target, the transverse forces act on the projectile which may undergo an angular change in its direction of movement,while it passes through the plate.The asymmetric loading, to which the projectile is subjected,causes bending in the projectile.Therefore,a crack may initiate in a high hardness (thus, not very ductile) projectile’s core.

    In the next section,there is presented an analysis performed in a FE code aiming to verify to which extend the numerical simulation is susceptible to the observed slight variations of the initial impact conditions.

    3.Numerical modeling

    The IMPETUS Afea Solver? is the non-linear transient dynamic explicit Finite Element code that takes advantage of a GPU technology.The parallelization of the solver is done with the GPU,meaning that large clusters of processors are not necessary to run a single large model.Using the IMPETUS? Lagrangian solver, the above described experimental configurations were represented numerically.Like in the experiment, the used projectile was 7.62 mm×51 FMJ/PB/HC AP P80 and as the target,the 4.5 mm thick Armox 500T steel plates were taken.

    3.1.Meshing approach

    For both tested components, the meshes were proposed automatically by the software.The projectile is meshed with 8,104 hexahedral elements(fully integrated,64 nodes and 64 integration points per element formulation)[25].A minimal distance between two nodes is 0.00009136 m.The characteristic element size is 0.000521 m.In the direct impact zone,the target plate was meshed by cuboid elements of the edge size 0.00053 m.Each element in the impact zone was additionally four times refined.In total,the default impact configuration consisted of 25,304 elements and 1,409,600 nodes.The parts of the configuration are connected employing a penalty-based surface-to-surface contact algorithm which uses a high order representation of the surface, as well as a default Coulomb friction coefficient equaled to 0.3.Fig.15 presents the projectile mesh and Fig.16 shows the zooms-into the impact zone of the steel plate.

    3.2.Models for the materials of the impact configuration

    The IMPETUS’ library contains a number of predefined target materials, as well as specific threats.The user may decide to keep the material model proposed by the software or to assign the model option and values of its parameters on its own.In the current approach, the choice of the material implemented into the threat and target was limited to the option proposed by the software in its library.Both the projectile of caliber 7.62 mm × 51 AP P80 (so, its jacket, cup and core) and the steel Armox 500T were available in the IMPETUS’ library (in the IMPETUS ver.7.0.1, the models for Armox 500T steel is not available anymore).This choice has at least two advantages-the modeled configuration remained free of the influences of the user with respect to the material models and a choice of its parameters and further,it is possible to verify to which extent the solutions proposed by the default software library may represent the tested impact configuration [21].

    For the lead building the projectile cup and the brass of the jacket, flow stress vs.effective plastic strain is based on the calibration presented in Ref.[22].Elastic and thermal properties are in accordance to data presented in Ref.[23].The parameters fulfilling the models of the Armox 500T steel were applied following the 15 results of Ref.[24].

    ·Plasticity models

    The material models proposed by the software were not changed in the carried out simulations.Thus.

    (1) The plasticity model used to describe the flow behavior of the brass,lead and the Armox steel is the Johnson-Cook flow model *MAT_JC,Eq.(5).

    (2) The plasticity model of the projectile core is the generic highstrength steel*MAT_HSS,Eqs.(6)-(8)the material model is specified for high-strength steels and hard metals in ballistic applications.The in-house approach used in IMPETUS defined simply an elastic material model with a brittle damage model, due to which the resulted yield stress is artificially high (and nonphysical).

    Fig.14.(a) Front and (b) back faces of the perforated Armox 500T plates.

    Fig.15.Mesh of the projectile 7.62×51 AP P80:cross-section through the jacket,core and lead cup [16].

    The Johnson-Cook model formulation implemented in IMPETUS is as follow:

    Fig.16.Impact zone of the target plate-meshing details: (a) Side view; (b) Front view.

    Following the IMPETUS Manual[16],the yielding criterion is the function of the effective plasticstrain, its strain rate and temperature.The parameters for yield strength, A, and strain hardening, B and n, are determined from quasi-static tensile tests at room temperature.The parameters for strain rate hardening C andare identified based on the dynamic split Hopkinson pressure bar tests.The parametersTmandmare affecting the thermal softening of the described material.

    The so-called model HSS-the generic model of a high-strength steel was developed and calibrated by IMPETUS specifically to describe the hard-core armor piercing projectiles.Following the description in the manual, in the *MAT_HSS, the yielding of a material occurs when the effective elastic stressreaches the yield stress σy.

    In the yield stress expression,is a material softening function.Its purpose is to capture the effects of dynamic recrystallization or the formation of.adiabatic shear bands.is astrain measure that grows faster at high effective plastic strain rates andis the reference rate for strain rate hardening,are principal elastic stresses and mis the Hosford yield surface exponent.

    Further,pis the material pressure,Kis the bulk modulus,αTis the thermal heat expansion coefficient andTrefis the reference temperature.

    More detailed theoretical background, one may found in the IMPETUS User’s manual [16].

    To model fracture of the materials composing the impact configuration, three different functions were used.

    · Fracture models

    (1)For brass and lead,a simple fracture criterion was applied-a crack initiates if the deviatoric erosion strain reaches its 300%:This is a default value proposed in the code, which was not modified.

    An analysis of the lead filler and brass jacket’s deformation was not the study’s primary objective.Their presence affects the performance of the projectile [26,27], thus they must be accurately represented in the numerical simulation as well.The numerical simulations demonstrate that the jacket appears to behave in a realistic manner whereas the lead cup seems to be unrealistically ductile.Therefore, the values of these default failure conditions should be later-on updated.

    (2) For the steel building the projectile core, the modified Hosford-Coulomb failure criterion is applied to approximate fracture occurrence.The material fails when the damage parameterDreaches 1:

    where εfstrain at failure equals

    The functiong(η,θ)is a function of the stress triaxiality η and the Lode angle parameter θ.The function parameters are denoted by symbolsa,b,candn.

    (3) For the Armox 500T steel, the Cockcroft-Latham fracture model is valid.Ductile damage is there defined as

    where σ1is the maximum principal stress,Wcis the damage parameter,is the effective plastic strain.

    The complementing tensile damage is thus defined as

    and

    where σ1devis the maximum deviatoric principal stress andpis the material pressure.With βs=equals the maximum principal stress.The tensile fracture term only contributes to the damage growth if>σs.The material fails when the damage parameterDreaches 1.

    Table 3 collects some general information about the materials and their modeling approaches.

    The parameters of the applied models are summarized in Tables 4-6.Whereas,Table 7 presents the overview on the models’parameters.

    3.3.Calculating position of the projectile after plate perforation

    In IMPETUS,the global coordinate system is linked to the target,Fig.17.Contrary to the experiment in which the target is adapted to the demanded inclination angle,the angle of impact in the code is defined by a position of the projectile, Fig.17(b).The code enables defining the angle of target obliquity, as well as the pitch and yaw projectile’s angles.As it was stated in Section 2 and presented in Fig.4,IMPETUS respects the definition of the pitch and yaw angles presented in Ref.[9].

    To avoid an ambiguity of the deviation angles calculation, the values of the angles were calculated based on the exact positions of the projectile’s core - i.e.theX,Y,Zcoordinates of the points determining the axis of symmetry of the projectile’s core beforeand afterplate’s perforation.The vectors were determined by the points indicating the core tip (XT,YT,ZT) and the middle of its"bottom part"(XB,YB,ZB),Fig.18.The vectordetermining the core position after the plate perforation was referred to its "idealized"initial position-when the yaw and pitch initial angles equal 0°.Such a superposition allowed a comparison with the experimental results,in which only the side view of the impacts is registered and an influence of the initial pitch angles is unknown.

    and

    The angle θ between the vectorof the projectile core axis in the position "0" and the vectordescribing the axis of the projectile core after the plate perforation(the position"f")is calculated using the 10 dot (scalar) product of these vectors, Eq.(15).

    3.4.Verification of the calculation method

    The calculation method of the after-perforation core deviation was verified based on the scenario of the normal impact configurations but with different yaw and pitch options:

    (A) Normal impact, yaw and pitch angles are both equal 0°,Fig.19

    (B) Normal impact, pitch angle equals 3°, yaw angle equals 0°,Fig.20

    (C) Normal impact, pitch angle equals 0°, yaw angle equals 3°,Fig.21.

    The cases (B) and (C) should result in the same total yaw angle after the plate perforation.After passing of the core through the plate,theXZangle in the case(B)should be of the same value of theYZangle in the case (C).

    In the case(A),when the projectile hit perpendicularly the plate,with no pitch and yaw angles influence; the calculated total deviation of the projectile core was identified as 0.41°.In the planeXZ,the angle of deviation is 0.4°,in the planeYZ,the angle is calculated as 0.09°, Fig.19.The total deviation angle is not exactly zero even though the meshing of all the related components is symmetrical.This imprecision may occur due to the meshing method.Either, a failure and fracture propagation in the elements may result in a certain deviation.Additionally, as stated in the above subsection,values of the angles were calculated based on the positions of the projectile’s core coordinates of the points determining the core’s axis of symmetry before and after plate perforation.These calculations may contain slight inaccuracies, too.

    In the case (B), the projectile’s pitch angle was assumed as 3°and the yaw angle 0°.The total yaw angle is then equaled to 3°.The assumed pitch angle is visible in the planeXZ, Fig.20(a).The total yaw angle after the plat perforation for that case is calculated as 9.17°,in the planeXZit is calculated as equaled to 9.1°, whereas in the planeYZ,the deviation angle was identified as 0.09°.In the case(C),the pitch angle is assumed as 0°whereas the yaw angle is taken as 3°.The assumed yaw angle is then represented in the planeYZ,Fig.21(b).After the plate perforation, the total yaw angle of the projectile core for that case is calculated as 9.2°,in the planeXZit is equaled to 0.1°, whereas in the planeXZ, the deviation angle was calculated as 9.1°.

    Based on the above comparison, it maybe concluded that the method of angles calculations, as well as the results produced by the numerical simulation may be considered as reliable.The calculations give a similar deviation angles after the normal plate perforation when the projectile hits at the same total yaw angle but with the alternating pitch and yaw angles.

    Table 3Overview on the modeling approaches.

    Table 4Parameters of the JC model for the lead, brass and Armox 500T steel[16,22-24].

    Table 5Parameters of the HSS model for the projectile’s core steel[16].

    Table 6Parameters of the fracture models for the core steel and the Armox 500T steel,[16,24].

    Table 7List of parameters used in the models.

    4.Numerical results

    The performed experimental shots have proven that the projectile’s behavior may differ significantly from one shot to another,Fig.12.Presumably then,the initial impact conditions play a role in the resulted projectile failure.

    4.1.Modeling of the experimental cases

    In the experiment, the target was inclined at 10°for the shot.The experiments showed that the subsequent six shots, during which the total initial yaw angles varied between 0.48°and 1.53°,resulted in different types of the residual core performance(intact,broken in the middle, fragmented).The numerical simulation was aimed to mirror the experimental set-up and repeat its initial conditions, i.e.the initial velocities of the projectile and the measured initial yaw and pitch angles.They were built on the default threat/target configuration and material modeling available in the card"terminal ballistic setting"of the IMPETUS software.The objective of the study was to verify if the numerical code may represent efficiently the experimental observations.

    It must be noted that the calculations of the angle of deviation after the plate perforation have a certain error resulted from the post-processing of the experimental evidence based on which they were measured.Therefore,the comparison of the deviation angles obtained in the experiment and the simulation can be considered only as an approximation.Nevertheless,the experiment provides a clear visualization of the projectile core damages.

    In Table 8, there is presented a comparison between the measurements taken due to the experiment and the calculations resulted from the simulations.In Fig.22, there are collected the visualizations of the side views of the performed shots and the suitable simulations.Similarly to the experiment, the time instant chosen to observe the projectile was set as 125 μs after the projectile hit the steel target.

    It may be thus concluded that:

    · The simulation of the experiments 22V 372, 370 and 369 modeled well the phenomenologically observed behavior of the cores.The core was intact in the shot 369 and broken in the shots 370 and 372.

    · The simulations showed generally good tendencies of the core deviation after the plate perforation-at 120 μs,the pitch angles varied between 7°up to 10°comparing to the experiment, in which the core deviation angle was estimated between 4°and 14°.

    · The calculated residual velocities were close to the experimental results (the average value of 740 m/s calculated for the experiment and the average value of 754 m/s calculated for the simulations).

    Fig.17.(a)Default software position of the impact configuration at 10° inclination;(b)Global coordination system rotated, so that the numerical view might be compared with the experimental one.

    · In each modeled case,the initial projectile spinning of the value 21050 rad/s was assumed.In average,the value of the spin after the plate perforation was calculated as 18540 rad/s.This characteristic is experimentally not verified.

    However,

    · In the three(out of five)cases,the default configuration did not result in the core breakage.

    The computations produced a nearly perfect approximation of the residual velocity of the projectiles’cores;the average error was less than 3%(see Table 8).When the residual velocity is of interest in engineering approaches,a high efficiency of the IMPETUS should be valued.However, the deviation angles of the projectiles’ debris were less precise when compared to the values of after-perforation pitch angle of the cores determined experimentally based on the HS camera movies taken from the side.The average discrepancy between measured and calculated pitch angles is 34%,with a range of the simulation accuracies varied between 4 and 63%.It should be noted that the method used to measure pitch angles after the experimental testing may need improvements and is hampered by a hard-to-estimate inaccuracy.

    Fig.18.(a)Superposition of the idealized position(no pitch and yaw deviation)initial position and the after-perforation position of the projectile’s core;(b)Core axis of symmetry.

    Fig.19.Perpendicular impact with the pitch and yaw angle equals 0°.View of the plane XZ: (a) Projectile before hitting the plate; (b) Projectile after the perforation.

    Fig.20.Impact with the pitch angle equaled 3° and the yaw angle equaled 0°.Side view on the plane (a) XZ and (b)YZ.

    Fig.21.Impact with the pitch angle equaled 0° and the yaw angle equaled 3°.Side view on the plane (a)XZ and (b) YZ.

    Table 8Comparison between the experimental and numerical results and the difference between the experimental and numerical results.

    Users of IMPETUS may access the material card and modify values of the constituent functions applied in calculations and thus,affect the simulation according to alternations introduced by them.A reduced parametric study for the experimental case 22V 369 is therefore performed.This is the experimental test, in which the pitch and yaw angles upon an impact did not cause the projectile’s core fragmentation.Table 9 displays the results of the study.The analysis shows that reducing of Hosford-Coulomb damage parametersa,b,n,cdoes not affect the core sensitivity to a crack initiation.Decreasing values of the spall fracture stress sensitivity does not change the core behavior either, however their increase resulted in a more significant cracking of the projectile’s core.A similar effect is observed when the threshold of spall stress was reduced.With the decreasing values of σs,a number of cracks in the core and their range increased.Knowing that high-strength metals are susceptible to tensile stresses,this effect may be considered as justified.

    Fig.22.Comparison between the experiments and the simulations.

    The study also demonstrates that varying the fracture model parameters does not affect the core fracturing as easily as it might have been anticipated.Experimentally, it was observed that the core remained intact in a single test, whereas the cores cracked more readily in most combinations of the yaw angles.As in the simulation varying the HC parameters does not affect greatly the core sensibility to onset of cracks,this may prove that the position of the projectile upon an impact plays a role in the resulting core performance.

    Nevertheless, user-introduced modifications of the constitutive function should be always undertaken with caution and based either on the material characterization or on a detailed parametric study of the analyzed experiment test.In the discussed case,modifications implemented in the software material modeling should result in an acceptable description of all aforementioned experimental scenarios of the core behavior.

    4.2.Discussion on the numerical results

    Figs.23 and 24 present the visualizations of the damage parameter for the projectile’s core for the experiments 22V 369 and 22V 372.These are two different experimental cases, which were well repeated by the simulations.After the plate perforation, the projectile’s core remained intact in the case 369 and the core was broken in the case 372.The differences between the measured initial pitch and yaw angles were not large-for the shot 369:the pitch angle was measured as 0.26°and theyaw angle as 0.94°and for the shot 372:the pitch angle equaled to 0.62°and theyawangle to 0.38°.The collected images present five time instants proceeding an occurrence of the crack in the core of the experiment 372-i.e.the time period between 27.6 μs and 31.2 μs.One may observe the target and the core on the side view(planeXZFigs.23(a)and 24(a))and the"bottom"of the core(planeYZFigs.23(b)and 24(b)),where the crack started and propagated leading to the full core fracturing in the case 372.

    Fig.25(a) presents the development of the damage parameter for an element which failed as the first in the simulation 372(indicated with an arrow).It is seen that about the 30 μs in the case 372, the damage parameter reached value 1.0 and following the fracture definition, it proceeded a crack initiation.The technique which was chosen to enable fracture in the projectile’s core was the node splitting,so the failed elements were not eroded and deleted from the mesh-they remained in the simulations but the connectivity with their neighbors was broken.In the modeled scenario 369,the damage parameter reached the value 0.7,the stress-strain state in the core did not cause a sufficient straining of the material,so that the failure criterion was activated.One may observe in Figs.25(b)and 25(c)that the values of the effective stress and strain in the directionZdo not vary much for the tests 369 and 372.About the time instant 30.0 μs, the core of the projectile in the impact scenario 372 was characterized by the effective stress of higher values(3100 MPa for the case 372,and 2000 MPa for the case 369),and similarly the strain ZZ(for the experiment 372,strain reached 0.014, whereas the experiment 369 it was calculated as 0.01).In Figs.25(d)and 25(e),it may be also observed that the values of the Lode angle parameter and the triaxiality factor have a generally similar course.

    The triaxiality stress factor and the Lode angle parameter are the arguments of the Hosford-Coulomb failure criterion which modeled the projectile’s core failure.Failure criteria which account for these two arguments become more and more popular in dynamic modeling.Therefore, it is interesting to observe how these measures develop through the penetration phase up to themoment of the crack occurrence in the case 22V 372 (and to the equivalent moment in the not-fractured scenario of the case 22V 369).The detailed discussion on the not-intuitive parameter of the Lode angle may be found in the study [28].The Lode angle parameter together with a more straightforward meaningful parameter of the stresses triaxiality may be considered as the useful numerical measures and a convenient way of presenting stress states underwent by an analyzed component.Exemplary discussions may be found in works [29,30].

    Table 9Parametric study of the sensitivity of the projectile’s core model.

    Table 10Matrix of the total angles of deviation calculated for the projectile core in dependence of the initial impact angles("C"-projectile’s core is fractured).Target inclination 10°NATO.

    Fig.26 shows the maps of the stress triaxiality for the target steel plate at the beginning of the penetration process and for the projectile core just before the crack initiation.It may be observed that the rear part of the plate is bent (denoted by values of the triaxiality factor about 0.67 and the red color)and the front part of the plate just before the projectile’ stip is compressed (values reaching-0.67 and the blue color).Due to the contact with the plate,the projectile’s bottom part was bent (red color, triaxiality exceeding 0.67) and the upper periphery compressed (blue color,triaxiality factor about -0.67).The shearing state of stresses is denoted by the values of the triaxiality factor about 0 (and the green color).

    The presentation of the dependences between the effective strain and the triaxiality factor and the normalized Lode angle parameter in Figs.25(d) and 25(e) allows to conclude that for the case 22V 372 up to 21.6 μs, the analyzed elements underwent a strong compression (the triaxiality exceeded -2/3, the Lode angle parameter about - 1).Later-on, between 21.6 μs and 24 μs in the both cases 372 and 369,the elements were sheared but not strongly enough to cause their failure.Finally, the loading path of the element in the case 372 led to the plain strain tension stress state(at 28.8 μs, the triaxiality factor reached the value about 0.35, the Lode angle was about 1), which was the stress state in which the element failed.A similar loading profile occurred to the equivalent element in the case 369,but an extent of the shear and tension state was not high enough that a fracture initiated.

    The projectile’s core, as it may be seen on Fig.26(b), was in a direct contact with the plate along its periphery.The stress triaxiality map reveals that its upper part was compressed,whereas the bottom part was slightly stretched.The crack initiated because high-strength steels are susceptible to straining at tensile loading regimes.The numerical outcomes of the experiment 22V 372 are presented in further detail in Fig.27, on which the evaluation of stresses and strains can be followed for three nodes close to- and inside the crack (node B).Because node-splitting technique was employed to simulate fracturing, the over-strained elements were not removed but their nodes were broken apart.As it can be seen,the node’s B damage parameter reached 1 at time instant 30 μs,yet it was included in the calculation and still slightly loaded.An occurrence of the crack caused the release of straining of the nodes A and C.Their damage parameters hit 0.9 but after the crack appeared,the values of damage felt down quickly to the initial state close to zero.For all 3 nodes,the evolution of effective stress,stressZZ, and strainsZZwas comparable.Just before the onset of crack,these values reached their maximum for all three nodes and further, they decreased.

    Based on the above discussion, it is important to note how refined are the interactions between the stress states preceding an onset of the crack in the oblique impact configuration with the influence of the initial pitch and yaw angles.It may be observed that the slight change of the angle of attack may result in slightly different loading states of the projectile’s core.As the simulation shows,a small bit more of shear-tensile loading decides if the crack occurs or not.

    Fig.28 presents the front and back view on the crater which remained in the steel plate after the projectile passage.For all simulated cases,it has a regular circular shape and the diameter of 6.5 mm.Fig.14, which gives an overview on the steel plates perforated experimentally,shows that the entry and exit holes may have a regular circular shape but they maybe also elongated.The diameter in the circular craters is of the value very similar to the approximation obtained numerically,whereas the elongated entry holes were not repeated by the simulations.The features of the crater observed in the experiment, i.e.smooth entry and a slight petalling on the rear target side are correctly modeled in the FE simulations.

    Despite not fully precisely simulated after-perforation behavior of the projectile’s core in comparison to the performed experiment,a parametric study was realized using the default IMPETUS configuration.Its results are summarized in the next section.

    4.3.Matrix of the deviation angles

    The matrix of the total angle deviation independence on the initial yaw and pitch angles was calculated for the configuration in which the steel plates were inclined at 10°NATO.The targets were made of ARMOX 500T and the threat was the 7.62 mm×51 AP P80 projectile.The projectile spin was set as 21050 rad/s.The plate size(117 mm×117 mm),projectile velocity(833 m/s),material models(see Section 3),time of calculations(90 μs)are default setting in the IMPETUS terminal ballistics modeling scenario.The total angles of the core deviation were calculated referring to the position of the core,when there was no pitch and yaw angle influence.

    Table 10 presents a matrix of dependences between the initial pitch/yaw angles and the final core deviation given by the total deviation angle.This matrix shall be considered as a purely numerical approximation of the core deviation tendencies.As the limitations and drawbacks of the code modeling approaches are presented in the previous sections,the matrix may be claimed to be as good as the modeling techniques allow.Nevertheless, based on the performed simulations, some tendencies of the projectile core performance due to perforation of the HS steel plate aligned at 10°may be noted.

    With the increasing values of the initial pitch and yaw angles of the projectile, the deviation angle of the projectile core after the plate perforation increases.

    · Yaw angle has a more significant influence on the total core deviation than the pitch angle.

    · Core fragmentation occurs more likely when the inclination is affected by both pitch and yaw angles.

    The presented matrix obtained numerically indicates a tendency of the projectile core performance in dependence to the initial yaw and pitch angles characterizing the impact moment; an experimental confirmation of this finding would be a challenging but interesting perspective.

    5.Conclusions

    The numerical study was based on the experimental investigation of the behavior of the small-caliber 7.62 mm × 51 AP P80 projectiles shot against the 4.5 mm thick ARMOX 500T steel plates,inclined to the shots at the angle of 10°NATO.

    The terminal ballistic testing comprised six shots, which each time had the different initial yaw and pitch angles at the impact moment-the total yaw angles varied between 0.48°and 1.53°.The resulting damages of the projectile core after the plate perforation varied depending on the case.Out of six shots,two shots resulted in a breakage of the core in the middle,three times the projectile core was fragmented in severalpieces and once the core remained intact.

    Fig.25.Variables history for the element indicated by an arrow for the cases 22V 369 and 22V 372: (a) Damage; (b) Effective stress; (c) Strain ZZ; (d) Effective strain vs stress triaxiality (time instances for the case 372); (e) Effective strain vs normalized Lode angle (time instances for the case 372).

    Fig.26.Stress triaxiality in: (a) Middle-cross-section of the steel target plate at 10 μs and (b) of the periphery of the projectile at 28.8 μs.

    Despite being based on a small number of shots, this study demonstrates the intricacy of interactions that can occur in a setup used in terminal ballistics investigations.NATO STANARD AEP-55[9] requires a verification of the total yaw angle upon an impact but the performed testing proved that even total yaw angles much lower than required 5°may cause different types of the projectile core failure.The Standard suggests that yaw angles were measured by any suitable method-i.e.yaw card, orthogonal photographic or flash X-ray system, Doppler radar system,etc., which may provide results with different accuracy.

    Knowing that an impact angle affects the performance of the projectile after target perforation, it would be of interest to regularize the standardized yaw angle measurements.

    Fig.27.Case 22V 372:(a)Maps of the effective stress(bottom view).Graphs for 3 nodes in the fracture zone of:(b)Damage parameter;(c)Effective stress;(d)Stress ZZ;(e)Strain ZZ.

    Since a single experimental example may not be representative and may lead to misinterpretation of experimental results, the information on yaw angles at the moment of impact should also be taken into consideration in academic studies.

    Last but not least, a tendency to fracture observed for highstrength, high-hardness projectiles’ cores under even slight bending loads occurred during asymmetrical or oblique impacts,may also be considered as an effective defeat mechanism, which might be further optimized (e.g.Refs.[31-33]).

    The experimental ballistic testing proved how complex the impact tests are.The initial impact conditions of the performed shots did not vary much but they resulted in different types of the residual core damages.An accurate representation of such an experiment with a slight variation of initial conditions and the different resulting projectile failure types is a challenge for numerical modeling,independently of a chosen calculation software.

    The numerical simulations were performed using the default setting for the terminal ballistic scenarios available in IMPETUS Afea solver?.All objects required to represent the experimental configuration were available in the software library.The computation cost of each simulation was low, thus dozens of simulations were performed in a reduced time and without much effort necessary for their preparations.A simplicity of setting-up the test configuration should be hereby highlighted.

    The numerical results showed generally a correct tendency in calculations of the core deviation.The calculated after-perforation pitch angles varied between 7.3°up to 10.5°, whereas in the experiment the average core deviation in the observed plane was estimated as close to 9°.The calculated residual velocities were close to the experimental results (the average value of 740 m/s calculated for the experiment and the average value of 755 m/s calculated for the simulations).The simulation captured the stressstrain fields in the projectile’s core which complex game causes a presence of crack or its lack.It should be emphasized that small changes of the initial projectile position in oblique impacts result in much different performances of the projectiles’ cores.Both the simulations and the experimental investigation prove that observation.

    Acknowledgements

    Sincere thanks are expressed to Mr.Paul Beillard (ISL), Mr.Laurent Sinniger(ISL)for performing the ballistic investigation and to Mr.Fabien Rondot(ISL)for valuable discussions.A feedback of Dr.Jerome Limido(IMPETUS)and Mr.Jiri Dohnal(PROTYPA)is hereby also acknowledged.

    国产精品一区二区性色av| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| av卡一久久| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 国产成人精品婷婷| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 国产精品无大码| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃 | 国产极品天堂在线| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说 | 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 五月开心婷婷网| 三级经典国产精品| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产精品.久久久| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 秋霞伦理黄片| 欧美潮喷喷水| 欧美潮喷喷水| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 天堂网av新在线| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 国产高清三级在线| av在线app专区| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 欧美潮喷喷水| 欧美+日韩+精品| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 免费看不卡的av| 天堂网av新在线| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 美女国产视频在线观看| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 综合色av麻豆| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 亚洲成色77777| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 精品久久久久久久久av| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 一级毛片我不卡| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 久久精品夜色国产| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 看免费成人av毛片| 全区人妻精品视频| av网站免费在线观看视频| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 日日撸夜夜添| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 国产在视频线精品| 免费看av在线观看网站| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 亚洲精品一二三| 少妇的逼好多水| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲在久久综合| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 搡老乐熟女国产| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 在线观看三级黄色| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 五月天丁香电影| 欧美激情在线99| 夫妻午夜视频| 美女主播在线视频| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 免费看不卡的av| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 亚洲无线观看免费| 九草在线视频观看| 国产乱人视频| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 日日撸夜夜添| 国产视频首页在线观看| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看 | 国产高清三级在线| 久久久久久久久久成人| av.在线天堂| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 亚洲av一区综合| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 日本一二三区视频观看| 一级黄片播放器| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产成人a区在线观看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 精品一区在线观看国产| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 成人特级av手机在线观看| av卡一久久| 亚洲精品第二区| 久久久久久久国产电影| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 国产在线男女| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 成人免费观看视频高清| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 国产综合精华液| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 国产 一区精品| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 舔av片在线| 欧美成人a在线观看| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 在线精品无人区一区二区三 | 熟女电影av网| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 在线观看三级黄色| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 简卡轻食公司| 老女人水多毛片| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 国产成人91sexporn| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 丝袜喷水一区| 岛国毛片在线播放| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 少妇的逼水好多| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 少妇的逼好多水| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 91精品国产九色| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 三级经典国产精品| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 嫩草影院精品99| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 免费观看av网站的网址| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 日韩中字成人| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 精品一区二区三卡| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 精品久久久久久久久av| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 久久久欧美国产精品| 午夜日本视频在线| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 亚洲国产av新网站| 亚洲四区av| 国产色婷婷99| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 国产乱来视频区| 亚洲在久久综合| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 欧美成人a在线观看| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 免费看a级黄色片| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 色网站视频免费| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 一本一本综合久久| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 欧美潮喷喷水| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 久久久精品94久久精品| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 插逼视频在线观看| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 观看免费一级毛片| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 色哟哟·www| 99热全是精品| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 国产成人91sexporn| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 一级毛片电影观看| 国产精品一二三区在线看| av在线app专区| 欧美+日韩+精品| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 在线观看免费高清a一片| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级 | 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 欧美+日韩+精品| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 久久精品人妻少妇| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| av黄色大香蕉| 免费观看在线日韩| 精品一区在线观看国产| 91精品国产九色| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 日韩av免费高清视频| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 欧美另类一区| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 高清毛片免费看| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 日本色播在线视频| 高清欧美精品videossex| 人妻一区二区av| 日日撸夜夜添| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 亚洲色图av天堂| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 中文字幕制服av| 熟女电影av网| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 亚洲不卡免费看| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 一区二区av电影网| 51国产日韩欧美| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 国产永久视频网站| 色播亚洲综合网| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 日本色播在线视频| 一本一本综合久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 亚州av有码| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 成人综合一区亚洲| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 特级一级黄色大片| 亚洲内射少妇av| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 国产极品天堂在线| 婷婷色综合www| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 日韩av免费高清视频| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 有码 亚洲区| 高清毛片免费看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 成人无遮挡网站| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 国产高潮美女av| 精品久久久久久久末码| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 国产成人91sexporn| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 国产av国产精品国产| 伦精品一区二区三区| 九色成人免费人妻av| 在线观看人妻少妇| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 51国产日韩欧美| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 色网站视频免费| 午夜福利视频精品| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 岛国毛片在线播放| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 观看免费一级毛片| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 1000部很黄的大片| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 国产毛片在线视频| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 丝袜喷水一区| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 一区二区三区精品91| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 中文字幕久久专区| 成人国产av品久久久| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 国产毛片在线视频| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 日日撸夜夜添| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| av国产精品久久久久影院| 日韩电影二区| 少妇丰满av| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 国产精品无大码| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 精品人妻视频免费看| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 日日啪夜夜撸| 青春草国产在线视频| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 久久久久精品性色| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 久久久久网色| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| av国产精品久久久久影院| 亚洲在久久综合| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 伦精品一区二区三区| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 亚洲最大成人中文| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 国产视频首页在线观看| 在线 av 中文字幕| 在线看a的网站| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 一级毛片我不卡| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 国产一级毛片在线| 久久精品人妻少妇| 99热全是精品| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 99热全是精品| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 午夜福利高清视频| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 久久久久久久国产电影| 一区二区av电影网| 国产综合懂色| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃 | 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 免费av不卡在线播放| 久久久色成人| 久久热精品热| 99热全是精品| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 亚洲在久久综合| 午夜福利视频精品| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 一本久久精品| 在线看a的网站| 99热6这里只有精品| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 国产综合懂色| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 亚洲在线观看片| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产视频内射| 国产 一区精品| 国产综合懂色| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 久久久精品94久久精品| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 亚洲av福利一区|