Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ensemble-Based Data Assimilation for Material Model Characterization in High-Velocity Impact

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an ensemble Kalman filter, applied to the back-face deflection recorded during a single high-velocity impact test, can recover sensitive material model parameters to within a few percent error in about five iterations

desk verdict Useful twin-experiment EnKF calibration for SPH HVI, but the abstract overstates the evidence and Case 4 undercuts the ensemble-spread-as-accuracy diagnostic. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.09703 v2 pith:OWWKAAFJ submitted 2025-10-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.data-an

Rong Jin , Guangyao Wang , Xingsheng Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.data-an
keywords ensembleKalmanfilterdataassimilationhigh-velocityimpactsmoothedparticlehydrodynamicsmaterialmodelcalibrationJohnson-CookMie-GrüneisenEOSidentifiability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that ensemble Kalman filtering—a data-assimilation workhorse from geoscience—can replace the usual manual, multi-experiment fitting of material models in high-velocity impact simulation. Using synthetic back-face deflection data from a single impact test on an AZ31B magnesium plate, it shows that parameters the response is sensitive to (the Johnson-Cook strain-rate coefficient C and the Grüneisen EOS parameter γ0) are recovered to within about 1–2% of truth in roughly five filter iterations, with ensemble spread shrinking by an order of magnitude. A deliberately insensitive parameter (JC fracture coefficient D4) does not converge and retains wide spread. The paper claims that this ensemble spread is a practical, built-in diagnostic of sensitivity, identifiability, and calibration quality, and that the framework is an order of magnitude cheaper than MCMC. If correct, it means one instrumented impact test—read by a black-box forward solver—can replace many calibration experiments while quantifying which parameters are actually constrained.

What carries the argument

The engine is the ensemble Kalman filter on an artificial time step, with the augmented state vector x = [G(u), u] binding each parameter vector to its full simulation output; the Kalman gain computed from the spread of an ensemble of SPH runs correlates observed back-face deflection misfit with parameter updates, and RTPS covariance inflation (κ=0.7, βmax=1.2) restores part of the prior spread after each analysis to prevent filter collapse. The ensemble standard deviation of each parameter, tracked across the iterations, is the paper's diagnostic: for identifiable parameters it shrinks toward a small convergent value as the mean approaches truth; for unidentifiable parameters it remains per

What would settle it

Use the same EnKF loop to calibrate against back-face deflection from a physical impact experiment (or from a forward model with a deliberately injected model-form error, such as nonzero S2/S3 or altered SPH artificial viscosity). If the recovered C and γ0 do not fall within the claimed few-percent error, or if the ensemble standard deviation no longer tracks which parameters are trustworthy, the central claim and the diagnostic interpretation fail. A cheaper check: take the Case-1 setup and replace the symmetric Gaussian observation error with a heteroskedastic or biased error model; if recov

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ensemble Kalman filter, with material parameters appended to the state vector and an artificial time step in which each observation is a full back-face deflection time series, accurately and efficiently recovers any material parameter to which the observations are sufficiently sensitive: in twin experiments with the LS-DYNA SPH forward model, C and γ0 converge within five iterations to errors of +0.91%/+1.92% (under-biased prior) and +0.63%/+1.76% (over-biased prior), with posterior ensemble standard deviations reduced roughly tenfold (Table 5). The same filter fails to identify the insensitive parameter D4, whose mean drifts to a persistently biased val

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the forward model is perfect—the synthetic observations are generated by the same SPH solver that the filter inverts—so all discrepancy is attributed to the parameters; any real model-form error would act as an unrepresented bias that the Gaussian likelihood cannot absorb, undermining both the claimed recovery accuracy and the spread-based diagnostic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, one high-velocity impact test—with back-face deflection recorded by 3D-DIC or DGS—can replace the multiple dedicated calibration experiments (tension, Hopkinson bar, plate impact) currently needed for Johnson-Cook, fracture, and EOS parameters.
  • Material parameters that the deflection response is sensitive to (C, γ0) can be recovered to about 1% error in about five EnKF iterations, at least an order of magnitude cheaper than MCMC at comparable accuracy.
  • The ensemble standard deviation at convergence becomes a reliability label for each calibrated parameter: a small, steady spread marks trustworthy values, while a large spread flags parameters the data cannot pin down.
  • Halving the observation set does not destroy convergence for sensitive parameters but pushes it later and leaves larger final spread, so the amount of measured data directly controls calibration speed and precision.
  • Even with the truth outside the initial ensemble, the filter stays stable and reduces prediction error, but sensitive parameters can stall with residual bias—an explicit warning that prior design and observability limit what a single test can calibrate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct consequence the paper leaves implicit: because the twin-experiment design removes model-form error, applying this loop to real experimental data will almost certainly degrade the claimed recovery errors; the magnitude of that degradation is itself the key unknown, and the ensemble-spread diagnostic would need to be re-validated on physical data.
  • The spread-based identifiability argument suggests a practical experimental-design rule: choose observation times and sensor positions to minimize posterior ensemble spread for the parameters of interest—the framework's own output can drive where to put 3D-DIC cameras or which times to record.
  • The drift-then-stall behavior under extreme prior bias points to an easy extension: re-initializing or rejuvenating the ensemble (e.g., resampling perturbed members) once the Kalman gain becomes small could break the stall, something the paper mentions but does not implement.
  • Because EnKF treats the solver as a black box, the same loop should work with reduced-order or machine-learning surrogates of the SPH model, which would make joint calibration of the full 14-parameter set—currently screened down to 3—computationally plausible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) based data assimilation framework for calibrating material model parameters in high-velocity impact (HVI) simulations, using back-face deflection time series as observations. The forward model is an LS-DYNA SPH simulation of a steel sphere impacting an AZ31B magnesium plate, with Johnson-Cook plasticity, Johnson-Crack fracture, and Mie-Gruneisen EOS parameters. After a one-at-a-time sensitivity screening, the unknown vector is reduced to three parameters: the JC strain-rate coefficient C, the JC fracture parameter D4, and the Gruneisen EOS parameter gamma0. Four synthetic twin-experiment cases are presented: under-biased, over-biased, limited-observation, and strongly biased initial guesses. The paper reports accurate recovery of C and gamma0 in the first two cases, failure to identify the insensitive D4, and a drift-then-stall behavior in the strongly biased case. The abstract additionally claims a computational efficiency advantage over MCMC and a parameter 'rejuvenation strategy' that are not substantiated in the body.

Significance. If the central claims held, the framework would be a useful non-intrusive tool for calibrating HVI material models from a single experiment, with ensemble spread as a practical identifiability diagnostic. The machine-checked aspects here are limited to the internal consistency of the twin experiments: Cases 1–2 recover C and gamma0 to within roughly 1–2% with reduced spread (Table 5), which is a legitimate demonstration that the EnKF loop, RTPS inflation, and the SPH forward model are self-consistent. The framework is derivative-free and black-box, which is a genuine practical strength. However, the paper's most distinctive advertised contribution—ensemble standard deviation as an accuracy diagnostic—is internally contradicted by Case 4, where the spread collapses while the error remains very large. The abstract also makes two unsupported claims (MCMC benchmark and rejuvenation strategy) that must be corrected before the paper can be evaluated for publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6 and Table 5] The core diagnostic claim that 'ensemble standard deviation provides a diagnostic tool to assess parameter sensitivity and calibration accuracy' is internally falsified by Case 4. In Table 5, posterior std for C is 4.71e-5, which is smaller than the std in the accurate Cases 1–2 (1.38e-4 and 1.52e-4), yet its relative error is +57.63%. For gamma0, std 2.15e-2 accompanies +16.50% error, while Cases 1–2 have comparable or larger stds with errors below 2%. A user following the proposed diagnostic would conclude that Case 4 is accurately calibrated, when in fact the filter has stalled. The 'drift-then-stall' discussion in §6 describes the phenomenon but does not reconcile it with the diagnostic claim. This is a load-bearing internal inconsistency that must be resolved, either by restricting the diagnostic claim to cases where the initial ensemble contains the truth or by replacing it with a
  2. [Abstract and body] The abstract claims that 'A simple benchmark first shows that the framework is at least one order of magnitude more computationally efficient than Markov chain Monte Carlo at comparable identification accuracy.' No such benchmark appears anywhere in the body. The Introduction (Section 1) discusses MCMC cost qualitatively, but there is no comparison experiment, no MCMC run, no accuracy comparison, and no computational cost table. This unsupported claim must either be removed from the abstract or substantiated with a real benchmark.
  3. [Abstract and §5.5] The abstract states that 'a parameter rejuvenation strategy drives sensitive parameters toward the true values even when the truth lies outside the initial ensemble spread.' No rejuvenation strategy is defined or implemented in the manuscript. Case 4 uses the same EnKF algorithm as the other cases; the paper explicitly describes the outcome as 'drift-then-stall' (§6) with persistent bias, not rejuvenation. This claim should be removed or a genuine rejuvenation procedure must be added and tested.
  4. [§5.5 and Conclusion 1] The conclusion that 'with a sufficient amount of data, the EnKF framework efficiently recovers the sensitive model parameters ... within the first five iterations' is not uniformly supported. Case 1 text says that both C and gamma0 converge 'within the first eight iterations' (Section 5.5, first paragraph of Case 1), while Case 2 converges within five iterations and Case 3 requires additional iterations. Table 5 reports statistics at iteration 20. The 'five iterations' claim should be stated per case, not as a general property.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.5, Case 2] The sentence 'Fig. 6(d) further demonstrates...' should refer to Fig. 7(d), since Fig. 6 shows Case 1.
  2. [§5.5, Case 3] The sentence 'maintaining the initial estimate as in Case 3' should read 'as in Case 1'.
  3. [§7, Conclusion 1] The claim that posterior standard deviations are 'up to three orders of magnitude smaller than the mean' is not supported by Table 5: posterior std/mean ratios are approximately 1.0e-2 for C and 1.7e-2 for gamma0 in Case 1, i.e., about two orders of magnitude smaller, not three.
  4. [§5.5, Fig. 10] The near-Gaussian histograms of the final ensemble are presented as verifying that the first two moments are sufficient. Since EnKF updates only first two moments, the final ensemble being near-Gaussian is partly a consequence of the prior and linear update, and does not independently validate the Gaussian assumption for the nonlinear forward map. A residual or predictive check would be more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EnKF validation is a twin-experiment self-consistency check, not a definitional reduction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are validated in an explicitly synthetic twin setting: Eq. (25) constructs observations from the same SPH forward operator G that the EnKF inverts, and Sec. 2 states 'we further assume G is perfect, so all discrepancy arises from imperfect parameters.' This is a self-consistency test of the inversion algorithm rather than a circular derivation: the EnKF update equations (Eqs. 18-24) never receive the true parameter values, and Case 4 demonstrates that recovery is not automatic, with C ending at +57.63% error while the posterior std collapses to 4.71e-5. The claimed recovery is therefore not equivalent to its input by construction. The paper also explicitly flags the synthetic-to-experimental limitation in Sec. 7: 'the proof-of-concept must be transitioned from synthetic to in-situ experimentation.' No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation; the self-citations (e.g., [13], [61], [73], [74]) supply parameter values, prior UQ references, or context, but not the EnKF inversion result itself. Case 4 does create an internal tension with the Sec. 6 diagnostic claim that ensemble std 'provides a diagnostic tool to assess parameter sensitivity and calibration accuracy,' since small posterior std accompanies large bias for C, but this is a correctness/consistency issue, not a definitional or fit-based circularity. Similarly, the abstract's MCMC benchmark and 'parameter rejuvenation strategy' are not developed in the body, which is an omitted-support concern rather than a circular step. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'artificial time step' (§4) is a methodological device for repeated filtering, not an invented entity. The free-parameter count is dominated by EnKF tuning constants and synthetic-data design choices; the two most consequential are the 10% prior-spread scale and the 0.01 mm noise level, which together set how easy the inversion is.

free parameters (7)
  • RTPS inflation rate κ = 0.7
    Chosen from Ref. [39]; §4.2 says 'we find that RTPS inflation effectively alleviates filter collapse' but no sensitivity study versus κ or β_max is shown.
  • Inflation cap β_max = 1.2
    From Ref. [39]; upper bound on multiplicative inflation in Eq. (24); no sensitivity analysis.
  • Prior standard deviation scale = 10% of initial guess
    §5.5; C0 diagonal with 10% std; determines ensemble spread and the Case-4 failure mode (truth outside spread).
  • Observation noise standard deviation = 0.01 mm
    §5.3: computed as 4% (DIC error) × smallest observed deflection 0.25 mm; fixed across all times; sets signal-to-noise ratio.
  • Systematic observation bias η0 = −0.001 mm
    §5.3, Eq. (25); arbitrary constant added to synthetic observations.
  • OAT perturbation δi = ±25% of baseline
    §5.4; local sensitivity metric Eq. (26) depends on this magnitude; drives which parameters are deemed sensitive and therefore which are calibrated.
  • Observation window and line length = t = 10, 11, 12 μs; L = 6.6 mm (20 particles); Case 3: L = 3.3 mm (10 particles)
    §5.3; chosen to avoid DIC correlation failure; data-selection choices that directly affect identifiability and required iteration count.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption G is perfect: all discrepancy arises from imperfect parameters (§2, Eq. 1)
    Stated in §2 Problem Statement. In a twin experiment, the same SPH model generates both truth and forward predictions; any real model-form error would break the recovery guarantee.
  • domain assumption Observation noise is zero-mean Gaussian with known diagonal covariance R (Eq. 1)
    §2 and §5.3; the EnKF analysis step, Eqs. (21)-(22), is only optimal under this likelihood model.
  • domain assumption Posterior distribution is adequately described by its first two moments (Gaussian)
    EnKF is a Gaussian filter; §5.5 Fig. 10 checks normality of the filter's own ensemble, which is self-consistent but does not validate the assumption against the true posterior.
  • domain assumption JC plasticity, JC fracture, and Mie–Grüneisen EOS with S2=S3=0 describe AZ31B at 1.2 km/s
    §3.2-3.4; parameter values from refs [59-62]; no validation against experiments in this paper. The linear us–up relation is imposed in §3.4.
  • domain assumption LS-DYNA SPH with 320,572 + 1,791 particles is a faithful forward model
    §5.1; fidelity is demonstrated only against the simulation's own output (Fig. 2), not against experimental data.
  • standard math Ensemble statistics with N_e = 100 are a valid proxy for forecast error covariance after RTPS inflation
    §4.1, Eqs. (18)-(19); standard EnKF assumption; the paper asserts 'sufficient accuracy' without a convergence study on N_e.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ensemble-Based Data Assimilation for Material Model Characterization in High-Velocity Impact." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWWKAAFJ

@misc{pith2026251009703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ensemble-Based Data Assimilation for Material Model Characterization in High-Velocity Impact},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWWKAAFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.09703}
}
read the original abstract

High-fidelity simulations are essential for predicting material behavior under high-velocity impact (HVI), but their accuracy depends on material models and parameters that are often calibrated by manual fitting to multiple costly experiments. In this study, we develop an ensemble-based data assimilation framework for automatic calibration of selected plasticity, fracture, and equation-of-state (EOS) parameters in HVI simulations using data from a single HVI test. The framework combines Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics, the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF), and adaptive covariance inflation to mitigate variance collapse. A simple benchmark first shows that the framework is at least one order of magnitude more computationally efficient than Markov chain Monte Carlo at comparable identification accuracy. We then use synthetic back-face deflection data for an AZ31B magnesium plate to identify representative parameters in the Johnson-Cook plasticity and fracture models and the Mie-Gruneisen EOS. Results under under-biased, over-biased, and limited-observation cases show that parameters to which the data are sufficiently sensitive can be accurately recovered within about five iterations, with convergent ensemble standard deviations. In contrast, insensitive parameters tend to converge to incorrect values and retain large ensemble spreads. With fewer observations, convergence is still achieved for sensitive parameters but requires more iterations. Under extreme prior bias, a parameter rejuvenation strategy drives sensitive parameters toward the true values even when the truth lies outside the initial ensemble spread. These results show that ensemble standard deviation provides a practical diagnostic for parameter sensitivity, identifiability, and potential non-uniqueness. Overall, the proposed framework offers an efficient and robust approach for material model characterization in HVI problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.09703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the SPH model of the HVI problem with half the geometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerical simulation results. (a) Maximum principal stress contours of the target plate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Node set selected for observation in the numerical experiment, highlighted by inverted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RMSD of back-face deflection computed at (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Back-face deflection profiles produced by the extreme perturbations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: EnKF results for Case 1 with initial ensemble mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: EnKF results for Case 2 with initial ensemble mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: EnKF results for Case 3 with initial ensemble mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: EnKF results for Case 4 with initial ensemble mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of the final EnKF parameter estimates with fitted Gaussian curves for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optimal Uncertainty Quantification under General Moment Constraints on Input Subdomains

    physics.comp-ph 2025-12 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Subdomain-wise truncated moment constraints are used to compute optimal upper and lower bounds on failure probability, with an evidence-theory equivalence claimed for zeroth-order moments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Zukas.High velocity impact dynamics

    Jonas A. Zukas.High velocity impact dynamics. Wiley, 1990. URLhttps://cir.nii.ac.jp/ crid/1130282271478700032

    arXiv 1990

  2. [2]

    Ionization induced by fluid–solid interaction during hypervelocity impact.International Jour- nal of Solids and Structures, 312:113278, 2025

    Shafquat T Islam, Aditya Narkhede, Paul D Asimow, John G Michopoulos, and Kevin Wang. Ionization induced by fluid–solid interaction during hypervelocity impact.International Jour- nal of Solids and Structures, 312:113278, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Hierarchical multi- scale quantification of material uncertainty.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 153:104492, 2021

    Burigede Liu, Xingsheng Sun, Kaushik Bhattacharya, and Michael Ortiz. Hierarchical multi- scale quantification of material uncertainty.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 153:104492, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    An uncertainty quantification guided ap- proach to modeling high-velocity impact into advanced ceramics.Mechanics of Materials, 205: 105316, 2025

    Sakshi Braroo, Xingsheng Sun, and KT Ramesh. An uncertainty quantification guided ap- proach to modeling high-velocity impact into advanced ceramics.Mechanics of Materials, 205: 105316, 2025. 28

    2025

  5. [5]

    Stefano Signetti and Andreas Heine. Transition regime between high-velocity and hypervelocity impact in metals–a review of the relevant phenomena for material modeling in ballistic impact studies.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 167:104213, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Stefano Signetti and Andreas Heine. Characterization of the transition regime between high- velocity and hypervelocity impact: thermal effects and energy partitioning in metals.Inter- national Journal of Impact Engineering, 151:103774, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    First contact: Fine struc- ture of the impact flash and ejecta during hypervelocity impact.PNAS nexus, 2(7):pgad214, 2023

    Gary Simpson, Justin Moreno, Matthew Shaeffer, and KT Ramesh. First contact: Fine struc- ture of the impact flash and ejecta during hypervelocity impact.PNAS nexus, 2(7):pgad214, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Ultra-high velocity impacts: cratering studies of microscopic impacts from 3 km/s to 30 km/s.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 14(1-4):719–727, 1993

    GL Stradling, GC Idzorek, BP Shafer, HL Curling Jr, MT Collopy, AA Hopkins Blossom, and S Fuerstenau. Ultra-high velocity impacts: cratering studies of microscopic impacts from 3 km/s to 30 km/s.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 14(1-4):719–727, 1993

    1993

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Remarks on impact shearing.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 46(10):2139–2153, 1998

    JR Klepaczko. Remarks on impact shearing.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 46(10):2139–2153, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Petalling of plates under explosive and impact loading.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 22(9-10):935–954, 1999

    Tomasz Wierzbicki. Petalling of plates under explosive and impact loading.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 22(9-10):935–954, 1999

    1999

  3. [11]

    Dynamic fracture (spalling) of metals

    Marc Andr´ e Meyers and Catherine Taylor Aimone. Dynamic fracture (spalling) of metals. Progress in Materials Science, 28(1):1–96, 1983

    1983

  4. [12]

    Numerical and experimental studies of high-velocity impact fragmentation.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 14(1-4):427–438, 1993

    ME Kipp, DE Grady, and JW Swegle. Numerical and experimental studies of high-velocity impact fragmentation.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 14(1-4):427–438, 1993

    1993

  5. [13]

    Characterization of energy dissipation and material failure mechanisms in high-velocity impact of magnesium alloys

    Rong Jin and Xingsheng Sun. Characterization of energy dissipation and material failure mechanisms in high-velocity impact of magnesium alloys. InASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, volume 88612, page V003T04A028. American Society of Mechanical E...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Phase transformation and mechan- ical properties of ti50ni50 alloy after high-velocity impact.Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 664:223–228, 2016

    Yingying Zhu, Haizhen Wang, Zhiyong Gao, and Wei Cai. Phase transformation and mechan- ical properties of ti50ni50 alloy after high-velocity impact.Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 664:223–228, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Fluid–solid coupled simulation of hypervelocity impact and plasma formation.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 180:104695, 2023

    Shafquat T Islam, Wentao Ma, John G Michopoulos, and Kevin Wang. Fluid–solid coupled simulation of hypervelocity impact and plasma formation.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 180:104695, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Cth: A three-dimensional shock wave physics code.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 10(1-4):351–360, 1990

    J Michael McGlaun, SL Thompson, and MG Elrick. Cth: A three-dimensional shock wave physics code.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 10(1-4):351–360, 1990

    1990

  9. [17]

    Arbitrary lagrangian– eulerian method for large-strain consolidation problems.International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 32(9):1023–1050, 2008

    Majidreza Nazem, Daichao Sheng, John P Carter, and Scott W Sloan. Arbitrary lagrangian– eulerian method for large-strain consolidation problems.International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 32(9):1023–1050, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Cylindrically symmetric sph simulations of hyperve- locity impacts on thin plates.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 20(1-5):337–348, 1997

    Colin J Hayhurst and Richard A Clegg. Cylindrically symmetric sph simulations of hyperve- locity impacts on thin plates.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 20(1-5):337–348, 1997. 29

    1997

  11. [19]

    Peridynamic modeling of impact damage

    Stewart Andrew Silling and E Askari. Peridynamic modeling of impact damage. InASME pressure vessels and piping conference, volume 46849, pages 197–205, 2004

    2004

  12. [20]

    A constitutive model and data for materials subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high temperatures.Proc

    Gordon R Johnson. A constitutive model and data for materials subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high temperatures.Proc. 7th Inf. Sympo. Ballistics, pages 541–547, 1983

    1983

  13. [21]

    Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for material dynamics calculations.Journal of applied physics, 61(5):1816–1825, 1987

    Frank J Zerilli and Ronald W Armstrong. Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for material dynamics calculations.Journal of applied physics, 61(5):1816–1825, 1987

    1987

  14. [22]

    Constitutive description of dynamic deformation: physically-based mechanisms.Materials Science and Engineering: A, 322(1-2):194–216, 2002

    MA Meyers, DJ Benson, O V¨ ohringer, BK Kad, Q Xue, and H-H Fu. Constitutive description of dynamic deformation: physically-based mechanisms.Materials Science and Engineering: A, 322(1-2):194–216, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures.Engineering fracture mechanics, 21 (1):31–48, 1985

    Gordon R Johnson and William H Cook. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures.Engineering fracture mechanics, 21 (1):31–48, 1985

    1985

  16. [24]

    The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges.Engineering fracture mechanics, 69(2):137–163, 2002

    MGGV Elices, GV Guinea, J Gomez, and J Planas. The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges.Engineering fracture mechanics, 69(2):137–163, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    Theorie des festen zustandes einatomiger elemente.Annalen der Physik, 344(12):257–306, 1912

    Eduard Gr¨ uneisen. Theorie des festen zustandes einatomiger elemente.Annalen der Physik, 344(12):257–306, 1912

    1912

  18. [26]

    Metallic equations of state for hypervelocity impact

    James H Tillotson. Metallic equations of state for hypervelocity impact. Technical report, 1962

    1962

  19. [27]

    High-throughput quantification of quasistatic, dynamic and spall strength of materials across 10 orders of strain rates.PNAS nexus, 3(5):pgae148, 2024

    Suhas Eswarappa Prameela, Christopher C Walker, Christopher S DiMarco, Debjoy D Mallick, Xingsheng Sun, Stephanie Hernandez, Taisuke Sasaki, Justin W Wilkerson, KT Ramesh, George M Pharr, et al. High-throughput quantification of quasistatic, dynamic and spall strength of mater...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Direct measurement of high rate stress–strain curves using in- strumented falling weight and high-speed photography.The Imaging Science Journal, 52(4): 193–201, 2004

    SF Lee and GM Swallowe. Direct measurement of high rate stress–strain curves using in- strumented falling weight and high-speed photography.The Imaging Science Journal, 52(4): 193–201, 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading.Proceedings of the physical society

    Herbert Kolsky. An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading.Proceedings of the physical society. Section B, 62(11):676, 1949

    1949

  22. [30]

    Bayesian calibration of computer models.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 63(3):425–464, 2001

    Marc C Kennedy and Anthony O’Hagan. Bayesian calibration of computer models.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 63(3):425–464, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    Computer model calibra- tion using high-dimensional output.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(482): 570–583, 2008

    Dave Higdon, James Gattiker, Brian Williams, and Maria Rightley. Computer model calibra- tion using high-dimensional output.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(482): 570–583, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Bayesian calibration of strength parameters using hydrocode simulations of symmetric impact shock experiments of al-5083.Journal of Applied Physics, 124(20), 2018

    David J Walters, Ayan Biswas, Earl C Lawrence, Devin C Francom, Darby J Luscher, D An- thony Fredenburg, Kelly R Moran, Christine M Sweeney, Richard L Sandberg, James P Ahrens, et al. Bayesian calibration of strength parameters using hydrocode simulations of symmetric impact s...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Bayesian calibration of a physics-based crystal plasticity and damage model.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 149:104284, 2021

    Thao Nguyen, Devin C Francom, Darby Jon Luscher, and JW Wilkerson. Bayesian calibration of a physics-based crystal plasticity and damage model.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 149:104284, 2021. 30

    2021

  26. [34]

    Geir Evensen. Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi-geostrophic model using monte carlo methods to forecast error statistics.Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 99 (C5):10143–10162, 1994

    1994

  27. [35]

    Springer, 2009

    Geir Evensen.Data assimilation: the ensemble Kalman filter. Springer, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Shunxiang Cao and Daniel Zhengyu Huang. Bayesian calibration for large-scale fluid structure interaction problems under embedded/immersed boundary framework.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 123(8):1791–1812, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ensemble kalman methods for inverse problems.Inverse Problems, 29(4):045001, 2013

    Marco A Iglesias, Kody JH Law, and Andrew M Stuart. Ensemble kalman methods for inverse problems.Inverse Problems, 29(4):045001, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Understanding the ensemble kalman filter.The American Statistician, 70(4):350–357, 2016

    Matthias Katzfuss, Jonathan R Stroud, and Christopher K Wikle. Understanding the ensemble kalman filter.The American Statistician, 70(4):350–357, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Characterizing viscoelastic materials via ensemble- based data assimilation of bubble collapse observations.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 152:104455, 2021

    Jean-Sebastien Spratt, Mauro Rodriguez, Kevin Schmidmayer, Spencer H Bryngelson, Jin Yang, Christian Franck, and Tim Colonius. Characterizing viscoelastic materials via ensemble- based data assimilation of bubble collapse observations.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of So...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Phase-resolved ocean wave forecast with ensemble-based data assimilation.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 918:A19, 2021

    Guangyao Wang and Yulin Pan. Phase-resolved ocean wave forecast with ensemble-based data assimilation.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 918:A19, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Phase- resolved ocean wave forecast with simultaneous current estimation through data assimilation

    Guangyao Wang, Jinfeng Zhang, Yuxiang Ma, Qinghe Zhang, Zhilin Li, and Yulin Pan. Phase- resolved ocean wave forecast with simultaneous current estimation through data assimilation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 949:A31, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Akinori Yamanaka, Yuri Maeda, and Kengo Sasaki. Ensemble kalman filter-based data assimi- lation for three-dimensional multi-phase-field model: Estimation of anisotropic grain boundary properties.Materials & Design, 165:107577, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Data assimilation for phase-field models based on the ensemble kalman filter.Computational Materials Science, 141: 141–152, 2018

    Kengo Sasaki, Akinori Yamanaka, Shin-ichi Ito, and Hiromichi Nagao. Data assimilation for phase-field models based on the ensemble kalman filter.Computational Materials Science, 141: 141–152, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Mod- ified reflective digital gradient sensing applied to hypervelocity impact applications.Interna- tional Journal of Impact Engineering, 203:105342, 2025

    Pinkesh Malhotra, Chengyun Miao, Justin Moreno, Matthew Shaeffer, and KT Ramesh. Mod- ified reflective digital gradient sensing applied to hypervelocity impact applications.Interna- tional Journal of Impact Engineering, 203:105342, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and its diverse applications.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 44(1):323–346, 2012

    Joseph J Monaghan. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and its diverse applications.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 44(1):323–346, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics.In: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics

    Joe J Monaghan. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics.In: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Vol. 30 (A93-25826 09-90), p. 543-574., 30:543–574, 1992

    1992

  39. [47]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars.Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 181(3): 375–389, 1977

    Robert A Gingold and Joseph J Monaghan. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars.Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 181(3): 375–389, 1977

    1977

  40. [48]

    Sph for high velocity impact computations.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 139(1-4):347–373, 1996

    Gordon R Johnson, Robert A Stryk, and Stephen R Beissel. Sph for high velocity impact computations.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 139(1-4):347–373, 1996. 31

    1996

  41. [49]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics techniques for the physics based simulation of fluids and solids.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06944, 2020

    Dan Koschier, Jan Bender, Barbara Solenthaler, and Matthias Teschner. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics techniques for the physics based simulation of fluids and solids.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06944, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Springer, 2019

    Carlos Alberto Dutra Fraga Filho, Carlos Alberto Dutra Fraga Filho, and Castro.Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Springer, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: some recent improve- ments and applications.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 139(1-4): 375–408, 1996

    PW Randles and Larry D Libersky. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: some recent improve- ments and applications.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 139(1-4): 375–408, 1996. [52]LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore Software Technology, ANSYS Company, Livermore, Cal...

    1996

  44. [54]

    A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems

    Rudolph Emil Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. 1960

    1960

  45. [55]

    Kalman and extended kalman filters: Concept, derivation and properties

    Maria Isabel Ribeiro. Kalman and extended kalman filters: Concept, derivation and properties. Institute for Systems and Robotics, 43(46):3736–3741, 2004

    2004

  46. [56]

    Data assimilation in the geosciences: An overview of methods, issues, and perspectives.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(5):e535, 2018

    Alberto Carrassi, Marc Bocquet, Laurent Bertino, and Geir Evensen. Data assimilation in the geosciences: An overview of methods, issues, and perspectives.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(5):e535, 2018

    2018

  47. [57]

    Evaluating methods to account for system errors in ensemble data assimilation.Monthly Weather Review, 140(9):3078–3089, 2012

    Jeffrey S Whitaker and Thomas M Hamill. Evaluating methods to account for system errors in ensemble data assimilation.Monthly Weather Review, 140(9):3078–3089, 2012

    2012

  48. [58]

    Flow and fracture behaviour of fv535 steel at different triaxialities, strain rates and temperatures.Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 79:1–17, 2012

    B Erice, F G´ alvez, DA Cend´ on, and Vicente S´ anchez-G´ alvez. Flow and fracture behaviour of fv535 steel at different triaxialities, strain rates and temperatures.Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 79:1–17, 2012

    2012

  49. [59]

    Tensile high strain rate behavior of az31b magnesium alloy sheet

    Dan Hasenpouth. Tensile high strain rate behavior of az31b magnesium alloy sheet. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo, 2010

    2010

  50. [60]

    A constitutive and fracture model for az31b magnesium alloy in the tensile state

    Fei Feng, Shangyu Huang, Zhenghua Meng, Jianhua Hu, Yu Lei, Mengcheng Zhou, and Zhen- zhen Yang. A constitutive and fracture model for az31b magnesium alloy in the tensile state. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 594:334–343, 2014

    2014

  51. [61]

    Uncertainty quantification of material properties in ballistic impact of mag- nesium alloys.Materials, 15(19):6961, 2022

    Xingsheng Sun. Uncertainty quantification of material properties in ballistic impact of mag- nesium alloys.Materials, 15(19):6961, 2022

    2022

  52. [62]

    Reaction zone structure in supracompressed detonating explosives

    LG Green, Craig M Tarver, and David J Erskine. Reaction zone structure in supracompressed detonating explosives. Technical report, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), 1989

    1989

  53. [63]

    Thermal conductivity of magnesium alloys in the temperature range from- 125 c to 400 c.International Journal of Thermophysics, 34:2343–2350, 2013

    Sanghyun Lee, Hye Jeong Ham, Su Yong Kwon, Sok Won Kim, and Chang Min Suh. Thermal conductivity of magnesium alloys in the temperature range from- 125 c to 400 c.International Journal of Thermophysics, 34:2343–2350, 2013. 32

    2013

  54. [64]

    On the conversion of plastic work to heat in mg alloy az31b for dislocation slip and twinning deformation.Mechanics of Materials, 134:176–184, 2019

    Owen T Kingstedt and Jeffrey T Lloyd. On the conversion of plastic work to heat in mg alloy az31b for dislocation slip and twinning deformation.Mechanics of Materials, 134:176–184, 2019

    2019

  55. [65]

    Stress wave and damage propagation in transparent materials subjected to hypervelocity impact.Procedia Engineering, 103:287–293, 2015

    N Kawai, S Zama, W Takemoto, K Moriguchi, K Arai, S Hasegawa, and E Sato. Stress wave and damage propagation in transparent materials subjected to hypervelocity impact.Procedia Engineering, 103:287–293, 2015

    2015

  56. [66]

    Modeling of failure resulting from high-velocity ballistic impact

    T Fras. Modeling of failure resulting from high-velocity ballistic impact. InHandbook of Damage Mechanics, pages 1–30. Springer, 2020

    2020

  57. [67]

    Estimating model parameters with ensemble-based data assimilation: A review.Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan

    Juan Jose Ruiz, Manuel Pulido, and Takemasa Miyoshi. Estimating model parameters with ensemble-based data assimilation: A review.Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. II, 91(2):79–99, 2013

    2013

  58. [68]

    Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances

    Emanuele Borgonovo and Elmar Plischke. Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(3):869–887, 2016

    2016

  59. [69]

    Univ of California Press, 1980

    Stanley P Marsh.LASL shock Hugoniot data, volume 5. Univ of California Press, 1980

    1980

  60. [70]

    Numerical study on the interfacial behavior of mg/al plate in explosive/impact welding

    Xiaodan Yuan, Wenxian Wang, Xiaoqing Cao, Tingting Zhang, Ruishan Xie, and Ruifeng Liu. Numerical study on the interfacial behavior of mg/al plate in explosive/impact welding. Science and Engineering of Composite Materials, 24(4):581–590, 2017

    2017

  61. [71]

    Altair hyperworks help, 2025

    2024 Altair Engineering, Inc. Altair hyperworks help, 2025. URLhttps: //help.altair.com/hwsolvers/rad/topics/solvers/rad/eos_gruneisen_starter_ r.htm#eos_gruneisen_starter_r__eos_gruneisen_starter_r_fn_qyd_dwd_jfb

    2024

  62. [72]

    Uncertainty quantification for 3d digital image correlation dis- placement measurements using monte carlo method.Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 170: 107777, 2023

    Jianhui Zhao and Bing Pan. Uncertainty quantification for 3d digital image correlation dis- placement measurements using monte carlo method.Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 170: 107777, 2023

    2023

  63. [73]

    Rigorous uncertainty quantification and design with uncertain material models.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 136:103418, 2020

    X Sun, T Kirchdoerfer, and M Ortiz. Rigorous uncertainty quantification and design with uncertain material models.International Journal of Impact Engineering, 136:103418, 2020

    2020

  64. [74]

    A learning-based optimal uncertainty quantification method and its application to ballistic impact problems.Mechanics of Materials, 184:104727, 2023

    Xingsheng Sun and Burigede Liu. A learning-based optimal uncertainty quantification method and its application to ballistic impact problems.Mechanics of Materials, 184:104727, 2023. 33

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.