On computing the evolution of temperature for materials under dynamic loading

Modeling and simulation of the dynamic response of materials is important to many applications including the development of armor systems, understanding the safety of explosives, and assessing the crashworthiness of vehicles. Within such applications it is often critical to accurately compute the evolution of the temperature because it is a state variable that affects the kinetics of competing active processes within the material (e.g., dislocation motion, phase transformation, decomposition). Depending on the selection of an independent state variable, e.g. temperature or entropy, the approach for computing temperature is well understood based on the thermodynamic framework attributed to Coleman and Noll. However, different computational codes used for modeling the dynamic response of materials adopt different independent state variables. In this work, two thermodynamically consistent strategies for computing the temperature of a coupled thermodynamic state are compared and implemented into two different Lagrangian computational codes. The equivalence of these two approaches is established through the numerical solutions of several test problems. Finally, the implication of various approximations made to each of these approaches within the literature are assessed in the context of uniaxial stress conditions (split Hopkinson pressure bar experiments) and uniaxial strain conditions (plate impact experiments). It is shown that the temperature rate or energy partition approaches are equivalent when implemented in their complete forms, but that several common simplifying assumptions, that are warranted in the case of uniaxial stress, lead to significant errors in the resulting Hugoniot state for plate impact. •Thermodynamically consistent temperature rate and energy partition methods for computing temperature of a solid are compared.•The equivalence of these two approaches is demonstrated through the numerical solutions of several test problems.•The implication of approximations commonly made when computing temperature are assessed under various loading cases.•Under some loading conditions, common simplifying assumptions lead to significant errors in the resulting Hugoniot state.