International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Ballistic impact simulation of an armour-piercing projectile on hybrid

ceramic/ber reinforced composite armours
Daniel Brger a, *, Alfredo Rocha de Faria b, Srgio F.M. de Almeida b, Francisco C.L. de Melo a,
Maurcio V. Donadon b
a
b

Instituto de Aeronutica e Espao, Praa Mal. Eduardo Gomes, 50 Vila das Accias, 12.228-904 So Jos dos Campos - SP, Brazil
Instituto Tecnolgico de Aeronutica, Praa Mal. Eduardo Gomes, 50 Vila das Accias, 12.228-900 So Jos dos Campos - SP, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 20 December 2010
Received in revised form
19 August 2011
Accepted 3 December 2011
Available online 13 December 2011

This paper presents a ballistic impact simulation of an armour-piercing projectile in hybrid ceramic/ber
reinforced composite armour. The armour is composed by an alumina plate and an ultra high molecular
weight polyethylene composite. In order to model the armour behavior three different constitutive
models were formulated and implemented into ABAQUS/Explicit nite element code. Comparisons
between numerical predictions and experimental results in terms of damage shape/extent and V50 are
also presented and discussed in the paper.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Armour
Ballistic impact
Constitutive models
Finite elements

1. Introduction
Until World War II, armours were composed basically of metal.
However, the projectile development forced the use of larger and
heavier metal armours. Instead, new materials were introduced
and combined to improved armours performance, such as ber
composites and ceramics. Recently, the most used bers for ballistic
protection are aramid and Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE). But the armours composed only of composites are inefcient against Armour Piercing (AP) projectiles. For AP
projectiles protection a ceramic plate is used to break projectile
tips. So the composite can hold both ceramic and projectile fragments. The most used ceramics are alumina, silicon carbide and
boron carbide.
As the prices of the materials involved in the experiments
increase, the need for developing accurate simulation tools
becomes more important. The rst attempt to simulate armour was
made by Tate [1], using an analytical model to study the
phenomena of impact. The impact onto ceramic/composite armour
was rst studied by Woodward [2]. Later Benloulo and SnchezGlvez [3] used the Woodward model as a base to a more

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 55 12 3947 6433; fax: 55 12 3947 6405.

E-mail address: bur.daniel@gmail.com (D. Brger).
0734-743X/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.12.001

comprehensive model. Parga-Landa and Hernndez-Olivares [4]

developed an analytical model for composite armours, taking into
account the fabric architecture. With dynamic properties the
simulations had a very good agreement with experiments, but the
study did not present a larger number of experimental results.
Vaziri et al. [5] proposed a model to predict the transient response
of composite plates subjected to non-penetrating impacts. The
model uses 2-D elements to simulate the composite, so the internal
phenomena cannot be predicted, but it can predict in a simple and
efcient mean the structural impact response. The study of impact,
using an analytical model, provides a very limited solution, since
every geometry or type of material requires a new model. This
results in a very large number of analytical models. As an example,
Ben-dor et al. [6] compile several analytical models and classied
20 of them as the most cited models. The compilation had 280
models.
Another way to study the problem is through nite element
method. In the last few decades, with the advance in computers,
this method had a large progress. The rst constitutive model for
brittle materials specic for ballistic was developed by Espinosa
et al. [7], modied later by Espinosa et al. [8] and by Zavattieri et al.
[9]. The model was based on micro cracks in multi planes, so the
damage could evolve to any direction. Johnson and Holmquist
developed one of the most used constitutive models for brittle
materials, the JH-1 [10]. This model uses two yield strengths, an

64

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

intact, and a failed. This model was upgraded by their authors,

leading to the JH-2 [11] model, which allows a gradual stiffness
reduction, as the damage increases. Also, the model was less
sensitive to model parameters, besides, some numerical problems
in Eulerian codes when the material reaches complete failure
(damage 1.0) were xed. However, major advances of JH-1 were
kept, such as: pressure-dependent strength, damage and fracture,
signicant strength after fracture, bulking, and strain rate effects.
Rajendran and Grove [12] proposed a model for silicon carbide,
boron carbide and titanium diboride, the main achievement of this
model is the property loss under tension and compression. Simha
et al. [13] proposed a model based on impact experiments in
alumina, the model shows a great agreement with experiments at
impact velocities from 1.5 km/s to 3.5 km/s.
Recently, a large number of constitutive models for composite
materials have been proposed. Lim et al. [14] proposed a model
based on membrane elements, suitable for aramid armours. The
model presented a good prediction for the projectile residual
velocity for high speeds. But for velocities close to V50 the error
became larger. The main restriction to the model is the membrane
element, which cannot represent the internal composite
phenomena. Grujicic et al. [15] develop a model to study impact on
carbonecarbon composites. Later, Grujicic et al. [16] used this
model to simulate a projectile impact in a panel composed by
a ceramic plate and a composite base, obtaining a good description
of the phenomena involved. However, the model does not account
for ceramic-composite interfacial bonding. Iannucci [17] proposed
a model suitable for thin woven carbon composites. The main
characteristics of this model are: a stress threshold for damage to
commence; damage cannot grow faster than the crack velocity;
gradual reduction in the properties and gradual energy dissipation
(with increasing damage). The model presents good predictions for
several parameters such as force-time history and damage extend,
but the author highlights the difcult to obtain some of the
constants for the model.
One of the rst attempts for modeling the adhesive layer was
made by Zaera et al. [18], where the authors assumed that the
armour is composed by an alumina plate and an aluminum base in
an analytical model. The solution usually adopted to simulate the
adhesive is to use a CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE (LSDYNA 3D) [19], or an equivalent, which allows to connect ceramic
and composite layers. This solution uses two failure criteria to
detect damage initiation: maximum normal tensile stress criterion,
and maximum shear stress criterion. Despite of giving reasonable
predictions for damage initiation, the approach aforementioned is
not able to predict damage extent accurately for problems having
a variable mixed normal to shear failure interaction. Moreover, the
solution is also mesh dependent.
This work presents a numerical model for ballistic impact
simulations in hybrid ceramic/ber reinforced composite armours.
The simulations were carried out using ABAQUS/Explicit nite
element code. Four different material models have been used for
this purpose: (i) Johnson-Cook model to predict the material
behaviour of the projectile; (ii) JH-2 model to predict the material
behaviour of the ceramic; (iii) a new 3-D progressive failure model
to predict the structural response of the composite base; (iv)
a contact-logic to predict debonding between the ceramic plate and
the composite base. The material models (ii), (iii) and (iv) have been
implemented into ABAQUS as user dened material models within
solid elements.
The aim of the model is to achieve an accurate V50, that is, the
velocity at which there is a 50% probability of specimen complete
perforation in the armour. Different models were run at different
velocities, and then the results were compared to experimental
results.

2. Constitutive models
2.1. JH-2 model
2.1.1. Description of the JH-2 model
The JH-2 model is a constitutive model suitable to predict the
behaviour of brittle materials subjected to extreme loading. The
main features of the model include pressure-dependent strength,
damage and fracture, signicant strength after fracture, bulking
and strain rate effects. A general overview of the JH-2 model in
terms of strength is shown in Fig. 1. The idea behind the model
formulation is that the material begins to soften when damage
begins to accumulate (D > 0). This allows for gradual softening of
the material under increasing plastic strain. The strength generally
is a smoothly varying function of the intact strength, fracture
strength, strain rate and damage [11].
The normalized equivalent stress shown in Fig. 1 is dened as

s* s*i  D s*i  s*f

(1)

where s*i and s*f are the normalized intact and fractured equivalent
stress, respectively; and D is the damage (0 < D < 1) [11].
The normalized intact and fractured strengths are respectively
given by:

N 

M 

1 Cln_*

s*i A P * T *
s*f B P *

1 Cln_*

(2)
(3)

The material constants are A, B, C, M, and N. P* and T* are the

normalized pressure and maximum tensile hydrostatic stress. The
dimensionless strain rate is _ * _ =_0 , where _ is the actual strain
rate and _ 0 is the reference strain rate. The damage for fracture is
accumulated in a manner similar to that used in JohnsoneCook
fracture model [20], and it is expressed as,

X Dp

(4)

pf

where Dp is the equivalent plastic strain increment during a cycle

p
of integration and f f(P) is the plastic strain to fracture under
constant pressure. The expression for pf is given as follows,

Fig. 1. Description of the JH-2 model.

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

D 2
pf D1 P * T *

(5)

D1 and D2 are material constants. The hydrostatic stresses are

dened in terms of the pressure given by the following equation of
state (EOS),

P K1 m K2 m2 K3 m3

P K1 m K2 m2 K3 m3 DP

(7)

The pressure increment is determined from energy considerations: it varies from DP 0 at D 0 to DP DPmax at D 1.
A detailed description on the model formulation can be found in
Ref. [11].
2.1.2. Numerical implementation
The JH-2 model has been implemented into ABAQUS Explicit
nite element code within brick elements. The code formulation is
based on the updated Lagrangian formulation which is used in
conjunction with the central difference time integration scheme for
integrating the resultant set of nonlinear dynamic equations. The
method assumes a linear interpolation for velocities between two
subsequent time steps and no stiffness matrix inversions are
required during the analysis. The drawback of the explicit method
is that it is conditionally stable for nonlinear dynamic problems and
the stability for its explicit operator is based on a critical value of
the smallest time increment for a dilatational wave to cross any
element in the mesh. A detailed description on the model implementation into ABAQUS VUMAT user-dened material model
subroutine is given step-by-step as follows.
1) Based on the current time step compute strain, stress increments and update strain and trial stresses at current time:

fgn1 fgn fDg

trail

fsgn1 fsgn CfDg

 n1
1

_
fDg
Dt
_ n1
eff

(6)

K1 is the bulk modulus, K2 and K3 are material constants. m is the

compressibility factor.
After damage begins to accumulate (D > 0), bulking can occur.
Now an additional incremental pressure, DP is added, such as,

(8)
(9)

where [C] andfDgT f Dxx Dyy Dzz Dxy Dyz Dzx g are
the material stiffness matrix and strain increment vector, respectively. The superscripts n and n 1 refer to previous and current
time, respectively.

65

(11)

r
2



2
n1 2
n1 2
n1 2
_ xx

_ yy
_ zz
0:5 g_ n1
xy
3
!
2

2  1=2


n1
_
g
g_ n1

yz
zx

4) Compute current equivalent stress:

sn1

2

2

2 
p 1


trial n1
3
Sxx
trial Sn1
trial Sn1
yy
zz
2
2

2

2
12


trial n1
trial n1

S
trial Sn1
xy
yz
zx

5) Compute current normalized Yield stress s* n1

=_0 ;
_* n1 _ n1
eff

s*i
s*f
s*

fSgn1

trial

fsgn1 sn1
H dij

(10)

where dij is the Dirac delta function.

3) Based on the current time step Dt and current strain increments {D}, compute the current strain rate vector f_gn1 and
:
current effective strain rate _ n1
eff

with

N



n1
 n1 
1 Cln _ *
A P*
T *

(14)

n1

n1 M

 n1 
1 Cln _ *
B P*

(15)

n1

s*i

n1

D

s*i

n1
n1 
 s*f

(16)

n1
with P * n1 sH
=PHEL

6) Check for Yielding at current time n 1:

n1
F n1 s sn1  sHEL s*

(17)

If F n1 s > 0, return the deviatoric stresses to the Yield surface

using the Radial Return Algorithm,

fSgn1

s*

n1

sHEL =sn1



trial

fSgn1

(18)

and compute the equivalent

plastic strain increment Dp, current
 n1
and update the damage variable
plastic strain to failure pf
Dn1,

  r
2

2

2 h

2

2

2 i
fagT C _ Dt
n1
n1
n1
n1
n1
n1
n1
n1
n1
S

S

S

S

S

S
6
S

S
xx
yy
xx
yy
xy
zz
zz
yz
zx
2fagT Cfag

trial

(13)

n1

Dp p

2) Compute the current deviatoric trial stresses trial fSgn1 based

on the decomposition of the total trial stresses trial fsgn1 into
stresses:
deviatoric trial fSgn1 and hydrostatic sn1
H

12

(19)

n1


n1
D2
p
f
D1 P *
T *

(20)

Dp
Dn1 Dn
n1
pf

(21)

else, Dp 0 and Dn1 Dn

where fag vF n1 s; sHEL ; s* =vfSg

66

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

7) Compute compressibility factor mn1 based on the current

volumetric strain vn1 :
n1

ln

n1
v

(22)

8) Update pressure using EOS:


P n1


2
3
K1 mn1 K2 mn1 K3 mn1 if mn1 >0
n1
otherwise
K1 m

(23)

If Dn1 > 0 compute energy loss due to damage DU and update total
pressure Pn1 using additional pressure increment DP n1 :

DU

s2HEL


* n 2

* n1 2 

s
 s
6G

DP n1 K1 mn1

q

 K1 mn1 DP n 2bK1 DU

(24)

(25)

else, DP n1 0

n1

n1

DP

n1

(26)

9) Update total stresses:

fsgn1 fSgn1 P n1 dij

(27)

10) End of one-direct integration cycle.

11) Compute new stable time increment Dt and strain increments
{D} using the central difference method integration scheme
and return to step 1).

2.1.3. Validation
Johnson and Holmquist [11] present three validation cases for
this constitutive model. All cases involve the conned compression and release of a ceramic material with variation of damage
representation to demonstrate the response of the model. For all
three cases the model consists of a cube with sides 1.0 m in length
modeled using a single three-dimensional element. The
displacements on ve faces of the element were constrained in
respect to the faces normal direction, and loaded under normal
displacement control on the sixth face (top). For each test, the
material was displaced vertically downwards by 0.05 m and then
released until a zero stress-state was reached. Due to bulking, the
nal volume of the material was larger than the original volume
resulting in a non-zero displacement corresponding to zero stress.
Table 1 presents the material properties for the three validation
cases.
For case A, the material was dened as having no fracture
strength and was not allowed to accumulate plastic strain. As such,
the material is fully damaged once the strength was exceeded. This
led to an instantaneous increase in bulking pressure of 0.56 GPa. A
comparison between predictions obtained using the actual JH-2
implemented into ABAQUS and the results published by Johnson
and Holmquist [11] for the case A is depicted in Fig. 2.
In case B, the material was dened as having no fracture
strength but was allowed to accumulate plastic strain so that
complete damage did not occur instantaneously. In this case the
bulking pressure increased with damage to a maximum value of
0.72 GPa when the material was completely damaged. A comparison between predictions obtained using the actual JH-2 implemented into ABAQUS and the results published by Johnson and
Holmquist [11] for the case B is depicted in Fig. 3.

Table 1
Material model constants.

Density (kg/m3)
Shear modulus (Pa)
Strength constants
A
B
C
M
N
Ref. strain rate
T (Pa)
HEL (Pa)
PHEL (Pa)
D1
D2
K1 (Pa)
K2 (Pa)
K3 (Pa)

Case A

Case B

Case C

3700
9.016 e 10

3700
9.016 e 10

3700
9.016 e 10

0.93
0
0
0
0.6
1.0
2e8
2.79 e 9
1.46 e 9
0.0
0.0
1.3095 e 11
0.0
0.0
1.0

0.93
0
0
0
0.6
1.0
2e8
2.79 e 9
1.46 e 9
0.005
1.0
1.3095 e 11
0.0
0.0
1.0

0.93
0.31
0
0.6
0.6
1.0
2e8
2.79 e 9
1.46 e 9
0.005
1.0
1.3095 e 11
0.0
0.0
1.0

Case C incorporated both fractured material strength and the

accumulation of plastic strain. A comparison between predictions
obtained using the actual JH-2 implemented into ABAQUS and the
results published by Johnson and Holmquist [11] for the case C is
depicted in Fig. 4.
2.2. JohnsoneCook model
The JohnsoneCook model [20] is a phenomenological model
that is commonly used to predict the material response of metals
subjected to impact and penetration, since it can reproduce strain
hardening, strain-rate effects, and thermal softening. These properties are coupled in a multiplicative manner by using the following
expression,

N i
h
_ peff
sy C1 C2 peff
1C3 ln
_ 0

!!
1

T TR
TM TR

(28)

where eff is the effective plastic strain, TM is the melting temperature; TR is the reference temperature when determining C1, C2, C3,
M and N; _ 0 is the reference strain rate; C1, C2, C3, N and M are
material constants. The fracture in the JohnsoneCook model [20] is

Fig. 2. Stress versus pressure histories for a single element validation based on case A.

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

67

2.3. Contact-logic

Fig. 3. Stress versus pressure histories for a single element validation based on case B.

based on the value of the equivalent plastic strain. Failure is

assumed to occur when damage exceeds 1. The cumulative damage
is given by

X Dpeff

(29)

with

"
F

D1 D2 exp D3

seff

!#

T  TR M
 1 D5
TM  TR

1 D4 ln

_ peff

!!

_ 0
30

where P is the pressure, seff is the Mises stress; D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 are
failure parameters. The Johnson-Cook model used in this work is
currently available in the ABAQUS Explicit material model library
for both shell and solid elements.

Fig. 4. Stress versus pressure histories for a single element validation based on case C.

A typical failure mode experimentally observed in hybrid

ceramic-ber reinforced composite armors is delamination.
Delamination occurs mainly due to high interlaminar stresses
developed at the bonding interface between layers of dissimilar
orientation and/or materials. The delamination failure modes are
usually classied into mode I, mode II, mode III and mixed-mode
delamination modes according to the predominant stresses acting
on the interface. For instance for Mode I, also dened as opening
mode, the delamination is exclusively due to the through-thickness
tensile normal stress which leads to layer debonding in the direction normal to the interface. Mode II and III are related to the outof-plane shear stresses which results in relative sliding between
upper and lower layers. Mixed-mode delamination is a combination of modes I, II and III.
Different techniques for delamination modelling have been
proposed by many researchers in recent years. Approaches based
on stress criteria like those proposed by Lee [21], Kim and Soni [22],
Brewer and Lagace [23], Liu and co-workers [24] and Jen et al. [25]
are suitable to model the initiation of delamination. However, they
do not predict delamination growth realistically. Moreover, they
require a precise calculation of stresses and usually the stresses are
singular at the crack tip or free edge. Therefore, the determination
of stresses using nite element models becomes mesh dependent.
Also, as discussed before, they do not give any information about
the delamination mode involved in the failure process. Numerical
approaches based on fracture mechanics require an initial aw and
they are used in conjunction with techniques such as the Virtual
Crack Closure (VCC) method for the determination of the strain
energy release rate. The VCC method is based on Irwins assumption that when a crack extends by a small amount, the energy
release in the process is equal to work required to close the crack to
its original length. The energy release rates can then be computed
from the nodal forces and displacements obtained from the solution of the nite element model and crack propagation is simulated
by advancing the crack front when the local energy release rate
rises to a critical value [26]. The method predicts well the delamination growth, however as aforementioned the structure must be
pre-cracked and different meshes are required for each delamination front as the crack advances.
An alternative and efcient way for delamination modelling
which has been widely reported in the literature is by using
interface elements. Interface elements offer the possibility of
coupling stress based criteria and fracture mechanics based criteria
within a unied way. Therefore, they enable the model to predict
both initiation and growth of delamination. For bi-dimensional
problems interface elements can be dened as a one-dimensional
entity inserted between two adjacent layers. In a similar way
they can be extended to three-dimensional problems which the
one dimensional element is replaced by two dimensional element
connecting adjacent layers. In elastic cases the interface elements
are very stiff in order to ensure the transference of displacement
and traction between the adjacent layers. To model delamination
growth an interfacial material behaviour is assumed to control the
relative displacements and traction between layers and as soon as
certain failure criteria are fullled, the delamination is allowed to
initiate and propagate. Mi, Criseld and Davies [27] proposed
a continuous interface element for delamination modelling in bre
composites. The interface element was embedded between two
eight-noded isoparametric plane strain elements. A bi-linear softening stress-relative displacement relationship was assumed for
the interface material model and linear and quadratic interaction
criteria were used for mixed-mode prediction. For unloading
conditions a simple elastic damage model was adopted in which

68

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

the material is assumed to unload directly towards the origin.

Excellent agreement was obtained between simulations, experimental and closed form solutions for mode I, mode II and mixedmode delamination.
Daudeville and Ladeveze [28] proposed a delamination model
based on a damage mechanics approach. In their model connecting
layers were used to represent the resin rich interface between two
adjacent layers. Three internal damage variables were used in order
to describe delamination associated with modes I, II and III. The
authors studied the delamination in the vicinity of a straight edge
of a specimen under static tension or compression. Good correlation between numerical simulations and experimental results was
obtained for the prediction of damaged areas and onset strains.
Based on the works proposed by Daudeville and Ladeveze [28] and
Criseld and Davies [27], Camanho and co-workers [29] proposed
a mixed-mode decohesion interface elements to model delaminations in composite laminates. The authors obtained a good correlation between numerical predictions and experimental results for
DCB, ENF and MMB specimens. Their interface element is currently
available in ABAQUS FE code and it was later implemented into LSDYNA 3D explicit nite element code via user-dened material
models within brick elements by Pinho et al. [30]. An alternative
version of their model for dynamic delamination modelling in
composites was also proposed by Iannucci [31].
An alternative contact logic to predict mixed-mode delamination growth in composites is presented in this section. The
formulation for the interfacial material behaviour is dened in
terms of a linear-polynomial stress-relative displacement constitutive law. Based on fracture mechanics concepts, the area under
the curve dened by the constitutive law is equal to the fracture
energy or energy per unit of area, and once this energy is consumed
the crack propagates. In order to simulate the mixed-mode
delamination, a stress-based criterion is used for the failure initiation and interactive mixed-mode criteria are used to predict
damage propagation. The advantage of the proposed contact logic
formulation over the existing formulations is the use of a single
damage variable to predict interaction between different delamination failure modes, without knowing a priori the modes mixity
ratio. The proposed formulation also uses a high-order damage
evolution law which avoids both numerical instabilities and articial stress waves propagation effects commonly observed in the
numerical response of Finite Element Codes based on Explicit Time
Integration Schemes. These laws compared to the widely used
bilinear law ensure smoothness at damage initiation and fully
damaged stress onsets leading to a more stable numerical response.
The numerical predictions obtained using the proposed model was
validated against experimental results for Double Cantilever Beam
(DCB) Mixed Mode Bending (MMB) specimens.

Fig. 5. Three-dimensional contact element.

constitutive law without membrane effects for the contact

element can be written as follows

8
9
< sI =

Kww
sII
4 0
:
sIII ;
0

0
Kuu
0

38 9
0 <w=
0 5 u
: ;
v
Kvv

where sI, sII and sIII are the interfacial stresses between upper and
lower surfaces associated with mode I, II and mode III delamination, respectively.
2.3.2. Constitutive laws
A linear-polynomial constitutive law has been used to dene the
interfacial material behaviour. The advantage of the linearpolynomial over others is that it is numerically more stable due
to its smoothness on both damage initiation and fully failed
displacement onsets.
2.3.2.1. Mode I delamination. The interfacial behaviour for mode-I
opening (sI > 0) is given by

sI Kww 1  dI ww

w gT

h* gxz

h* gyz

h* zz

oT

dI w 1 

i
w0 h
1 k2I w2kI w  3
w

(34)

with

kI w

w  w0
wf  w0

(35)

where w0 sI/Kww and s0I is the through-thickness interfacial

strength in mode I. Kww is the through-thickness interfacial

(31)

where u uT  ub, v vT  vb, and w wT  wb. h* is the element

thickness of the updated geometry Fig. 6. Following the standard
interface element formulation, the uncoupled linear-elastic

(33)

where the damage evolution law dI(w) is dened in terms of normal

relative displacements.
For a linear-polynomial constitutive law, the expression for
damage evolution law dI(w) is written as follows,

2.3.1. Formulation
The interfacial material behaviour is dened in terms of tractions and relative displacements between the upper and lower
surfaces of the interface. The relative displacement vector is
composed of the resultant normal and sliding components dening
by the relative movement between upper and lower surfaces of the
contact element (Fig. 5). For a single integration point hexahedron
solid element the relative displacement vector can be written in
terms of through-thickness normal strain and out-of-plane shear
strains as follows,

fdg f u

(32)

Fig. 6. Constitutive law for a three-dimensional stress case.

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

stiffness given in terms of the adhesive through-thickness Young

modulus, that is, Kww Ezz/h0 where h0 is the initial thickness of the
element associated with the undeformed conguration.
The strain energy release rate associated with mode I delamination is dened by the area underneath the stress-relative
displacement dened by the bi-linear constitutive law, that is

Zwf
GIc

sI dw

s0I wf
2

2GIIIc

vf

max0; sI

2GIc

(37)

s0I

The material behaviour in compression (sI < 0) is assumed to be

linear-elastic in order to avoid element interpenetration,

sI Kww w

(38)

2.3.2.2. Mode II and III delamination. Similarly to mode I, the

interfacial behaviour is dened in terms of resultant shear stressresultant sliding displacement for both mode II and mode III
delamination modes, that is,

sII Kuu 1  dII uu

(39)

sIII Kvv 1  dIII vv

(40)

i
u0 h
1 k2II u2kII u  3
u

(41)

dIII v 1 

i
v0 h
1 k2III v2kIII v  3
v

(42)

where u0 s0II/Kuu and s0II is the interfacial transverse shear

strength in the XeZ plane. Kuu is the interfacial shear stiffness given
in terms of the adhesive shear modulus, that is, Kuu Gxz/h0 where
h0 is the initial thickness of the element associated with the
undeformed conguration. Similarly, v0 s0III/Kvv and s0III is the
transverse shear strength in the YeZ plane. Kvv is the interfacial
shear stiffness given in terms of the shear modulus, that is,
Kvv Gyz/h0.
where

GIIc

sII du

(43)

s0II uf
2

(44)

uf

2GIIc

(45)

s0II

and

kIII v

v  v0
vf  v0

Zvf
GIIIc

sIII dv
0

(46)

s0III vf
2

!2

sIII
s0III

!2
1

(49)

The formulation enables the prediction of damage propagation

within an energy-based framework. For this purpose two distinct
energy based failure criteria available in the open literature have
been incorporated into the formulation. The rst criterion is an
extension of the power law criterion proposed by Wu and coauthors [33], for mixed-mode I/II. The criterion is written in
terms of interactions between the strain energy release rates and
interlaminar fracture toughnes. It also takes into account the
contribution of mode III in the mixed-mode delamination process,




GI l
GII l
GIII l

1
GIc
GIIc
GIIIc

(50)

The power law criterion obtained from Eq. (50) with l 1 was
found to be suitable to predict failure of thermoplastic PEEK matrix
composites whilst for fabrics based laminates embedded into
epoxy resin system l 2 is recommended [34]. The second criterion incorporated into the formulation is the BeK criterion (Fig. 6)
proposed by Benzeggagh and Kenane [35], which is given by,

h
GS
GI GS
GI GS

dII u 1 

Zuf

sII
s0II

GIc GIIc  GIc

with the damage evolutions given by

u  u0
kII u
uf  u0

!2

s0I

wf

(48)

s0III

2.3.2.3. Mixed-mode delamination. A quadratic stress based criterion [32] given in the following forms was used to detect damage
initiation for mixed-mode delamination,

(36)

where wf is the relative displacement in which the interfacial stress

in mode I is equal to zero (complete decohesion). From Eq. (36) wf
can be written in terms of the strain energy release rate as follows,

69

(47)

(51)

where GIc and GIIc are the mode I and mode II interlaminar fracture
thoughnesses, respectively. GI and GS are the strain energy release
rates associated with mode I and resultant mode II/III shear
delamination, respectively. It is worth mentioning that BeK criterion assumes that GIIc GIIIc, since there are no test standards
currently available in the literature to characterize GIIIc. Under
mixed-mode loading the resultant displacement vector can be
written as follows,

p
u2 v2 w2

(52)

where the components of relative displacements vector are illustrated in Fig. 7 and they written as follows,

u dsinbcosa

(53)

v dsinbsina

(54)

w dcosb

(55)

wherep
b acos(max(0,w)/d) and a acos(u/ds) with
ds u2 v2 .
By combining Eqs. (32), (49), (53)e(55) leads to the following
expression for the mixed-mode delamination damage onset
displacement vector,

"

d0

Kww cosb

s0I

!2

Kuu sinbcosa

!2 #1
2
Kvv sinbsina

s0III

!2

s0II
56

70

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

8
9
>
< sI >
=
>
:

6
sII
4
>
;
sIII

Kww 1  dm d

Kuu 1  dm d

Kvv 1  dm d

0
8 9
w
>
>
< =
 u
>
;
: >
v

7
5

61

fsg Kdm dfdg

(62)

The proposed formulation incorporates a consistent single

damage variable dm d for all delamination modes which enables
the prediction of variable mixed mode delamination growth
without knowing a priori the mixity ratio between different
delamination modes.
2.3.3. Numerical implementation
The contact-logic has been implemented into ABAQUS/Explicit
FE code within single integration solid elements using VUMAT
user-dened material model subroutine. Details on the model
implementation are given as follows.
Fig. 7. Resultant relative displacement vector.

Now writing Eqs. (36), (44), (47), (53)e(55) in terms of the

relative displacement components and substituting them into
Power Law criterion (Eq. (50)) we obtain, for any mode ratio, the
following expression for nal resultant displacement associated
with the fully debonded interfacial behavior,

df

"

!l
Kww cosb

s0I

d0

Kvv sinbsina

1) Based on the current time step and strain increments, compute

local relative displacement vector increment and update the
local relative displacement vector at current time:

9
8
8
9
< Dw =
< Dzz =
n
w h0 Dgxz
Du
fDdg
:
: Dg ;
Dv ;
yz

!l
Kuu sinbcosa

!l #1

s0II

fdg

n1

s0III

57

The nal resultant displacement associated with the fully

debonded interfacial behavior based on the BeK (Benzeggagh and
Kenane) criterion is given by

8
3h 9
2
>
1 >


>
>
>
>
2
2
2
2
>
>
>
sin bGIIc GIc 4 Kuu cosa Kvv sina 5 >
>
>
>
>
=
<
2 GIc
1



>
2>
>
>
>
Kww cos2 bsin2 b Kuu cosa2 Kvv sina2 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
:
df
2
3
1


2
d0 4Kww cos2 bsin2 b Kuu cosa2 Kvv sina2 5

9
8 9n1 8 9n 8
<w=
< w = < Dw =
u
u

Du
: ;
: ; :
v
v
Dv ;

dm d 1 

i
d0 h
1 k2m d2km d  3
d

2) Compute total elastic stresses acting on the interface and the

n1

resultant relative displacement d

at current time:

8
9n1
< sI =
:

sII
sIII ;

n1

sn1

Kww
4 0
0

d  d0
df  d0

38 9n1
0 <w=
0 5 u
: ;
Kvv
v

(65)

(66)

q
2  n1 2  n1 2


sII
sIII
max 0; sn1
I

(67)

3) Check for interfacial failure at current time n 1:

(59)

n1

sI ; sII ; sIII

(60)

and the mixed-mode stress-relative displacement relationships are

given by,

0
Kuu
0

and resultant stress sn1

q

2 
2 
2
un1 vn1 wn1

where

kIII d

(64)

where the subscripts n and n1 refer to the previous and current

time step, respectively. h0 is the initial interface thickness associated with the undeformed conguration.

(58)
The resultant damage evolution is given by

(63)


!2
max 0; sn1
I

s0I

sn1
II 0
sII

!2

sn1
III0
sIII

!2

(68)
F n1 sI ;

sII ; sIII  0 compute, b

If
variable:

n1

an1 ,

and update de damage

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

n1 

n1 


n1 
i
d0 h
d
d
1  n1
1 k2m d
2kn1
3
dn1
m
m
else,

n1
dm

n1

(69)

dnm

4) Compute damaged interfacial stress at current time n 1:

8
9n1
< sI =
:

sII
sIII ;


2 Kww 1  dn1 dn1
m
6
4
0
0

d
Kuu 1  dn1
m

damage variables were dened in order to quantify damage

concentration associated with each possible failure mode and
predict the gradual stiffness reduction during the fracture process.
Details about the formulation are given in Donadon et al. [37]. The
different failure modes predicted by this model include ber failure
in tension/compression, inter-ber failure (IFF) and in-plane shear
failure.

38 9
n1
<w=
7
0
5 u

n1  : v ;


n1

5) End of one direct integration cycle.

6) Compute new stable time increment Dt and strain increments
{D} using the central difference method integration scheme
and return to step 1).

d
Kvv 1  dn1
m

F1c s1

s1
Xt

1

js1 j
1
Xc

(71)

(72)

Xt and Xc are respectively the longitudinal strengths in tension

and compression. When one of the criteria is met damage
commences and grows according the following damage evolution
law [38],







c

t

c

d1 1 dt1
1 d1 1  d1 1 d1 1

(73)

c 
where dt1
1 and d1 1 are the contributions of the irreversible
damage due to ber breakage in tension and ber kinking in
compression, respectively given by







i
t1; 0 h
1  1 k21; t
2k1; t
3
dt1
1
1
1
1

2.4. Composite failure model

The formulation for this model is based on the Continuum
Damage Mechanics (CDM) approach and enables the control of the
energy dissipation associated with each failure mode regardless of
mesh renement and fracture plane orientation by using a smeared
cracking formulation. Internal thermodynamically irreversible

(70)

2.4.1. Fiber failure in tension/compression

The maximum stress criterion is used to detect ber failure in
tension and compression and is given respectively by

F1t s1
2.3.4. Contact-logic validation
Numerical predictions obtained using the proposed contactlogic were compared with experimental results taken from
Ref. [36] for Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) and Mixed-Mode
Bending (MMB) composite specimens. The dimensions of the
coupons for the double cantilever beam (DCB) and Mixed-Mode
Bending (MMB) consisted of 170  20  3.6 mm with a lay-up

of (0 )8. The loading conguration for DCB and MMB specimens
are shown in Fig. 8. The initial crack lengths for the DCB and MMB
specimens were a0 50 mm and a0 37 mm, respectively. The
MMB tests were carried out using a span length of 2L 100 mm
and a relative position for the lever loading roller and the loading
saddle/yolk ca 51.8 mm, which results in mixed-mode ratio of
GII/G 50%. The arms were modelled using 4-nodes shell
elements available in ABAQUS. A linear orthotropic elastic material model was used to model the behavior of the arms and a layer
of interface contact elements with a nite thickness of 0.021 mm
(1/10 of the thickness of each individual layer of the laminate) was
placed at the midplane of the virtual coupon to represent a resin
rich area between two adjacent layers. The tie constrains option
available in ABAQUS was used to connect the interface layer and
the arms. The MMB upper loading device was modelled using rigid
shell elements. The contact between the upper loading device and
MMB specimen was modeled using constraint equations available
in ABAQUS. The mechanical properties for the composite arms are
given in Table 2 and the mechanical properties for the resin rich
interface are presented in Table 3. The simulations were carried
out quasi-statically under displacement control using the dynamic
relaxation method. Comparisons between experimental results
and numerical predictions are shown in Fig. 9. A very good
agreement between experimental and numerical results obtained
using the proposed contact-logic was found. Fig. 10 shows the
predicted interfacial damage extent for the DCB and MMB
specimens.

71

Fig. 8. Loading conguration for (a): DCB Specimen, (b) MMB Specimen.

(74)

72

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

Table 2
Mechanical properties of a single composite ply.
1750 kg/m3
297 GPa
10.8 GPa
5.0 GPa
0.30

r
E1
E2
G12

n12







i
c1; 0 h

1

1 k21;c 
2k1; c 
dc1 
1
1
1 3

1

(75)


with k1; t
1 and k1; c 1 dened as

t



1  1; 0
t
k1; t
1
1; f  t1; 0

(76)

c



1  1; 0
c
k1; c 
1
1; f  c1; 0

(77)

t1; 0 and c1; 0 are the failure strain in tension and compression
t

c
respectively.
1 max1 t; 1; 0 and 1 maxj1 tj; 1; 0 are
the maximum achieved strains in the strain time history in tension
(s1 > 0) and compression (s1 < 0), respectively. t1; f and c1; f are the
nal strain in tension and compression which is written as a function of the tensile ber breakage and compression ber kinking
fracture toughness as follow:

t1; f

c1; f

2Gtfiber

(78)

Xt l*
2Gcfiber

(79)

X c l*

where l* is the characteristic length associated with the length of

the process zone; Gtfiber and Gcfiber are the intralaminar fracture
toughnesses associated with ber breakage in tension and
compression, respectively.
2.4.2. Inter-ber failure
The inter-ber failure modes consist of transverse matrix
cracking in tension or compression. For tensile matrix a failure
index based on an interactive quadratic failure criterion written in
terms of tensile and shear stresses is used as following:

F2t s2 ; s23 ; s12

 
s2 2 s23 2 s12 2

1
Yt
S23
S12

(80)

For compressive matrix a failure index based on the criterion

proposed by Puck and Schurmann [39,40] is used, where n, l, and t
subscripts refer to the normal and tangential directions with
respect to the fracture plane direction

Normal to thickness Young Modulus of the resin

Out-of-plane Shear Modulus of the resin
Normal strength associated with mode I
Normal strength associated with mode II
Normal strength associated with mode III
Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness
Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness
Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness

F2c snt ;

snl

snt
SA23 mnt snn

!2 
2
snl

1
S12 mnl snn

(81)

When the criterion is met, the damage grows according the

following equation:







i
im; 0 h
1 k2m; i im 2km; i im  3 with i c; t
dim im 1  i
m
(82)
where:


im  im; 0
km; i im i
with i c; t
m; f  im; 0

(83)

For traction tm is dened as the resultant strain, given by:

Table 3
Interface mechanical properties.

Fig. 9. Comparisons between experimental and numerical predictions for the DCB and
MMB tests.

1750 kg/m3
2.97 GPa
1.08 GPa
50 MPa
100 MPa
100 MPa
585 J/m2
3.5 kJ/m2
3.5 kJ/m2
1

tm

q
22 g212 g223

(84)

tm; 0 is the damage onset resultant strain.


tm;0 tm F t 1

(85)

The nal strain due to the combined tensile and shear stress
state, tm; f , is:

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

73

Fig. 10. Failed elements with dm 1.0 shown in red color for (a): DCB and (b): MMB test specimens. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

tm; f

"

cos2 q
t
gm
c

stm; 0

!l

!l #1
l
sin2 q

s
gmc

(86)

with:

stm; 0 stm F t 1

(87)

where

q
s22 s212 s223

stm

G
*Ic
l

s
gm
c

G
IIc
l*

(88)

(90)

where GIc and GIIc are the mode I and mode II interlaminar fracture
toughnesses. q is the angle dened between the resultant stress and
tensile normal stress in the transverse direction.

q acos

stm

The resultant nal strain for transverse compression, cm; f , is

given by:

cm; f

2Gcmatrix
2GcIIc

c
sm; 0 l*
scm; 0 l*

(94)

scm;0 scm F c 1

(95)

(89)




max 0; st2

(93)

where:

The specic fracture energies associated with tensile and shear

stresses are respectively given by:
t
gm
c


cm; 0 cm F c 1

and scm is the resultant shear stress:

scm

q
s2nl s2nt

(96)

2.4.3. In-plane shear failure

The constitutive model formulation includes rate dependence,
and it accounts for shear nonlinearities, irreversible strains and
damage within the RVE (Representative Volume Element).
The stress-strain behavior for in-plane shear failure is dened
as:

s12 aG12 g12

(97)

(91)

For compression cm is dened as the resultant shear strain:

cm

2nl 2nt
cm; 0 is the damage onset resultant strain:

Table 4
Ceramic and composite constants.

(92)

Ceramic [42]
3840 kg/m3

970 kg/m3

210 GPa
0.17
2.79 GPa
1.46 GPa
0.93
0.31
0
0.6
0.6
0.005
1
1
200 MPa
0
0
1

E1
E2
E3

24.9 GPa
24.9 GPa
3.6 GPa
0.046
0.046
0.046
1.08 GPa
1.73 GPa
1.73 GPa
530 MPa
100 kJ/m3
64.3 MPa
30 kJ/m3
25%
64.3 MPa
77 MPa
30 kJ/m3
530 MPa
100 kJ/m3
543 MPa

n
HEL
PHEL
A
B
C
N
M
D1
D2
SFmax
T
K2
K3

Fig. 11. Conguration on the ballistic impact.

Composite [43]

n12
n13
n23

G12
G13
G23
XT
G1T
XC
G1C
Crushing factor
YC
S12
G2C
YT
G2T
S23

74

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

Table 5
Contact logic and metal constants.
Contact logic [34]

Metal

1750 kg/m3

Normal to thickness Young

Modulus of the resin
Out-of-plane Shear Modulus of the resin
Normal strength associated with mode I
Shear strength associated with mode II
Shear strength associated with mode III
Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness
Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness
Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness

1.0 GPa

1.0 GPa
60 MPa
100 MPa
100 MPa
600 J/m2
2.0 kJ/m2
2.0 kJ/m2
1

r
E

n
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
TM
TR
_
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5

Cooper
[44]

Steel
[45]

8900
kg/m3
124 GPa
0.34
440 MPa
150 MPa
0.025
0.31
1.09
1357 K
300 K
1.0
0.30
0.28
3.03
0.014
1.12

7850
kg/m3
200 GPa
0.33
490 MPa
807 MPa
0.012
0.73
0.94
1800 K
300 K
5.104
0.0705
1732
0.54
0.0123
0,0

with

G12

G012

c1 g12

c1 e

1

(98)

G012 is the initial shear modulus, c1 and c2 are material

constants. a is the strain-rate enhancement given by:

Fig. 12. Ceramic microstructure.

gi12;0 gi12 

(105)

S12

g12,f is written in terms of the interlaminar toughness in shear. For

UD plies is reasonable to assume Gshear GIIc.

g12; f

2GIIc
2Gshear

S12 l*
S12 l*

(106)

g_ 

a 1e

12
c3

(99)

c3 is a material constant. The total shear-strain can be decomposed

into inelastic and elastic components. The inelastic shear-strain can
be written as follows.

gi12 g12  ge12 g12 

s12 g12

(100)

G012

The failure index is based on the maximum stress criterion and

it is:

F12 s12

js12 j
1
S12

(101)

The proposed damage evolution law is given by:

d12 g12 1 

i
g12; 0  gi12; 0 h
2
g
g
1

2k


3
12
12
12
12
g12  gi12; 0
(102)

k12 g12

g12  g12; 0  2gi12; 0

g12; 0  g12; f  gi12; 0

3. Material and methods

3.1. Experimental procedure
The ballistic tests were carried out according to MIL-STD-662F
[41]. The ammunition used for tests was 7.62  51 mm AP,
composed by a steel core, and a cooper jacket. The results are
presented as complete (CP) or partial penetration (PP) according to
MIL-STD-662F [41].
3.1.1. Ceramic
The ceramic used was alumina, with two different grain sizes.
The composition used was 80% alumina A (smaller grain size) and
20% alumina B (larger grain size), both provided by Almatis Inc. The
ceramic was sintered in air at 1600  C for 1 h, and the plates had
5 mm thickness.
The ceramic was characterized by density, hardness, 4 points
bending test and analyzed by SEM.
3.1.2. Composite
The composite used was Dyneema HB25, provided by DSM,
and it was processed according to DSM instructions [42]. The
composite panel was pressed with 72 layers.

(103)

g12,0 and gi12; 0 are the total strain and total inelastic strain at
failure:

g12 g12 jS

(104)

Table 6
Ceramic mechanical properties.
Density

Hardness

srup

3.84 g/cm3

14.30 GPa

280 MPa

121 GPa

Table 7
5 mm ceramic target ballistic results.
Test

Velocity (m/s)

Experimental result

Numerical result

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

810
771
711
626
645
622
552
525

CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP

CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
PP
PP

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

75

Fig. 14. 10 mm target after the impact.

Fig. 13. 5 mm target after the impacts.

3.2. Simulation
The model consists of a composite base of 0.1  0.1  0.01 m,
with a central hexagonal ceramic plate on the top. The projectile is
7.62  51 mm NATO AP. The projectile impacts at the center of the
ceramic plate in the normal to the plate direction. The nite
element is shown in Fig. 11. In order to save computational time,
a quarter of the model was simulated. The boundary conditions are:
(i) symmetry to divide the model, (ii) the composite base plate was
assumed to be clamped. The elements used were: C3D8R, a hexahedral element for the regular model parts and C3D4, a tetrahedron element code. The constants used in simulation are presented
in Table 4 [43,44] and 5 [45,46].
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Ceramic analysis
Table 6 shows the measured mechanical properties of the
material of study. As can be seen in Table 6, the density achieved
96% of its theoretical value, and so the high mechanical properties
were observed. The ceramic microstructure is presented in Fig. 12,
where two-grain sizes can be noticed. The larger ones become
exposed when the ceramic breaks, fragmenting the projectile tip.
The smaller one, in higher concentration, provides high mechanical
properties.
4.2. Experimental results
Two experiments were carried out; in the rst one, a ceramic
plate was bonded to the composite panel in order to assemble the

Table 8
10 mm ceramic target ballistic results.
Test

Velocity (m/s)

Experimental Result

Numerical result

1
2

765
665

CP
PP

CP
PP

target with a 5 mm thickness ceramic. In the second, two ceramic

plates were bonded to the composite panel, so the target with
a 10 mm thickness ceramic was made. Table 7 presents the ballistic
results of the 5 mm ceramic target. As there was not a Partial
Penetration, the only conclusion obtained from this experiment
was that V50 is below 525 m/s in this conguration. Fig. 13 presents
the 5 mm target after the impacts.
Table 8 presents the ballistic results of the 10 mm ceramic
target. Fig. 14 presents the 10 mm target after the PP impact. As can
be seen in Table 7, V50 is between 765 and 665 m/s.

4.3. Simulations
The two different experiments, with one and two ceramic
plates, were analyzed using the proposed models. The rst case,
with a 5 mm thick ceramic layer, V50 550 m/s was predicted
(Table 7). The experimental value was below 525 m/s. Thus the
model predicted the low performance of this armour conguration.
Since the initial velocity for this projectile is 850 m/s and the
projectile, due to the air resistance, reaches 550 m/s only at
a distance of 500 m [41]. As an example, Fig. 15 presents the
simulation evolution for this conguration, with V 700 m/s
(complete penetration). It can be seen in Fig. 15(a) the projectile
tips eroding. Fig. 15(b) presents the ceramic/composite interface
beginning to failure and Fig. 15(c) shows the ceramic completely
debonded from the composite plate. The simulation reproduces
exactly what happens experimentally when such adhesive (epoxy)
is used to bond the ceramic plate into the Dyneema base. Fig. 15
(d) shows the projectile defeating the armour indicating
a Complete Penetration.
The second case consists of a ballistic impact on a hybrid
composite armor with a 10 mm thick ceramic layer. For this case
a V50 690 m/s was predicted. The experimental value was around
715 m/s (Table 8). A very good correlation between experimental
and numerical results was found for this case. Fig. 16 presents the
simulation evolution. Fig. 16(b) and (c) show the failure between
the ceramic plate and the composite base. Fig. 16(d) presents the
projectile stuck in the composite plate. It can be seen in Fig. 16 (d)
the failure of some elements of the composite base; however, the
projectile has not enough energy to continue to penetrate the
armour. Therefore, the armour holds the projectile indicating
a Partial Penetration.

76

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

Fig. 15. Simulation evolution 5 mm V 700 m/s.

Fig. 16. Simulation evolution 5 mm V 665 m/s.

5. Conclusions
Analyzing the simulations and the experiments it can be
concluded that the adhesive model adopted is consistent, since it
predicts a completely failure, which is experimentally conrmed.
The metal model adopted is consistent, since it presented large
deformations and mass loss for cooper jacket and small deformation and mass loss for steel core. The ceramic model adopted did
not present all the failure mechanisms involved, since only a small
part presented damage, unlike the experiments. The composite
model adopted can predict accurately the energy absorption;
however, it does not account for delamination, and has a poor
quality in terms of residual deformation prediction.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the nancial support received for this
work from the Brazilian Research National Council (CNPq), contract

numbers 303287/2009-8, 300236/2009-3; and from the Project

and Study Funding (FINEP) contract number 01.06.1201.00. The
authors are also indebted to MSc. Mariano Andres Arbelo from ITA,
for his help with the FE simulations for the DCB and MMB
specimens.
References
[1] Tate A. A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact. J Mech Phys
Solids 1967;15:387e99.
[2] Woodward RL. A simple one-dimensional approach to modelling ceramic
composite armour defeat. Int J Impact Eng 1990;9(4):455e74.
[3] Benloulo ISC, Snchez-Glvez V. A new analytical model to simulate impact
onto ceramic/composite armors. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(6):461e71.
[4] Parga-Landa B, Hernndez-Olivares F. An analytical model to predict impact
behaviour of soft armours. Int J Impact Eng 1995;16(3):455e66.
[5] Vaziri R, Quan X, Olson MD. Impact analysis of laminated composite plates
and shells by super nite elements. Int J Impact Eng 1996;18(7e8):765e82.
[6] Ben-dor G, Dubinski A, Elperin T. Ballistic impact: recent advances in
analytical modeling of plate penetration dynamics. A review. Appl Mech Rev
2005;58(6):355e71.

D. Brger et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 43 (2012) 63e77

[7] Espinosa HD. Experimental observations and numerical modeling of inelasticity in dynamically loaded ceramics. J Hard Mater 1992;3:285e313.
[8] Espinosa HD, Zavattieri PD, Dwivedi SK. A nite deformation continuum/
discrete model for the description of fragmentation and damage in brittle
materials. J Mech Phys Solids 1998;46(10):1909e42.
[9] Zavattieri PD, Raghuram PV, Espinosa HD. A computational model of ceramic
microstructures subjected to multi-axial dynamic loading. J Mech Phys Solids
2001;49(1):27e68.
[10] Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ. In: Meyers MA, Murrm LE, Staudhammer KP,
editors. A computational constitutive model for brittle materials subjected to
large strains, high strain rates, and high pressures. New York: Marcel Dekker
Inc; 1992. p. 1075e81.
[11] Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ. An improved computational constitutive model for
brittle materials. In: High pressure Science and technology-1993. New York:
American Institute of Physics; 1994. p. 981e4.
[12] Rajendran AM, Grove DJ. Modeling the shock response of silicon carbide,
boron carbide and titanium diboride. Int J Impact Eng 1996;18(6):611e31.
[13] Simha CHM, Bless SJ, Bedford A. Computational modeling of the penetration
response of a high-purity ceramic. Int J Impact Eng 2002;27(1):65e86.
[14] Lim CT, Shim VPW, Ng YH. Finite-element modeling of the ballistic impact of
fabric armor. Int J Impact Eng 2003;28(1):13e31.
[15] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Zhao CL, Biggers SB, Morgan DR. Hypervelocity
impact resistance of reinforced carbon-carbon/ carbon-foam thermal protection systems. Appl Surf Sci 2006;252:5035e50.
[16] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Zecevic U, Koudela KL, Cheeseman BA. Ballistic
performance of alumina/S-2 glass ber-reinforced polymer-matrix composite
hybrid lightweight armor against armor piercing (AP) and non-AP projectiles.
Multidiscipline Model Mater Struct 2007;3:287e312.
[17] Iannucci L. Progressive failure modelling of woven carbon composite under
impact. Int J Impact Eng 2006;32(6):1013e43.
[18] Zaera R, Snchez-Sez S. Modeling of the adhesive layer in mixed ceramic/
metal armours subjected to impact. Composites: Part A 2000;31:823e33.
[19] Fawaz Z, Zheng W, Behdinan K. Numerical simulation of normal and oblique
ballistic impact on ceramic composite armours. Compos Struct 2004;63:387e95.
[20] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to
large strains, high strain rate and high temperature. In: Proceedings of the 7th
international symposium on ballistics; 1983 [The Hague, The Netherlands].
[21] Lee J. Three-Dimensional nite element analysis of Layered ber-reinforced
composite materials. Comput Struct 1980;12(3):319e33.
[22] Kim R, Soni SR. Experimental and analytical studies on the onset of delamination in laminated composites. J Compos Mater 1984;18(4):70e84.
[23] Brewer J, Lagace P. Quadratic stress criterion for initiation of delamination.
J Compos Mater 1988;22(12):1141e55.
[24] Liu S, Kutlu Z, Chang F. Matrix cracking-induced delamination propagation in
graphite/epoxy laminated composites due to a transverse concentrated load.
In: Stinchcomb WW, Ashbaugh NH, editors. Composite materials: fatigue and
fracture ASTM STP 1156, vol 4. Philadelphia (: American Society for Testing
and Materials; 1993. p. 86e101.
[25] Jen H, Kau Y, Hsu J. Initiation and propagation of delamination in centrally
notched composite laminate. J Compos Mater 1993;27(3):272e85.
[26] Davidson B, Schapery R. A technique for predicting mode I energy release
rates using a rst-order shear deformable plate theory. Eng Fract Mech 1990;
36(1):157e65.

77

[27] Mi Y, Criseld M, Davies G. Progressive delamination using interface elements.

J Compos Mater 1998;32(14):1247e71.
[28] Daudeville L, Ladeveze P. A damage mechanics tool for laminate delamination.
Compos Struct 1993;25(1e4):547e55.
[29] Camanho PP, Davila CG. Mixed-mode decohesion nite elements for the
simulation of delamination in composite materials; 2002. NASA/TM2002e211737.
[30] Pinho S, Robinson P, Iannucci L. Formulation and implementation of decohesion elements in an explicit nite element code. Composites Part A 2006;
37(5):778e89.
[31] Iannucci L. Dynamic delamination modelling using interface elements. Comput Struct 2006;84(15e16):1029e48.
[32] Cui WC, Wisnson MR, Jones M. Criteria to predict delamination of unidirectional glass/epoxi specimens waisted through the thickness. Composites
1992;23:158e66.
[33] Wu EM, R.J.R.C.. Crack extension in berglass reinforced plastics, T. and AM
report N 275. University of Illinois; 1965.
[34] Donadon, MV The structural behaviour of composite structures manufactured
using Resin Infusion under Flexible Tooling. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Aeronautics,
Imperial College London, United Kingdom, 2005.
[35] Benzeggagh ML, Kenane M. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination
fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxi composites with mixed-mode
bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol 1996;56:439e49.
[36] Toyoda JD, Donadon MV, Almeida SFM. Interlaminar fracture toughness
characterization of a carbon-epoxy composite material. In: Proceedings of the
20th International Congress Of Mechanical Engineering - COBEM 2009; 2009.
Gramado-RS, Brasil.
[37] Donadon MV, Almeida SFM de, Arbelo MA, Faria AR de. A three-dimensional
ply failure model for composite structures. Int J Aerosp Eng; 2009:1e22.
[38] Donadon MA, Almeida SFM. A progressive failure model for composite laminates subjected to low velocity impact damage. Comput Struct 2007;86:
1232e52.
[39] Puck A, Schurmann H. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of physically based phenomenological models. Compos Sci Technol 1998;58:
1045e67.
[40] Puck A, Schurmann H. Failure analyisi of FRP laminates by means of physically
based phenomenological models. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1633e62.
[41] Department of Defense. Test method standard, MIL-STD-662F: V50 ballistic
test for armor; 1997.
[42] DSM Corporate, Manual for Dyneema ballistic panels. [Urmond,
Netherlands].
[43] Zhang JT, Liu L-S, Zhai P-C, Fu Z-Y, Zhang Q-J. The prediction of the dynamic
responses of ceramic particle reinforced MMCs by using multi-particle
computational micro-mechanical method. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67:
2775e85.
[44] Dingenen J. High performance Dyneema bres in composites. Mater Design
1989;10:101e4.
[45] Poizat C, Campagne L, Daridon L, Ahzi S, Husson C, Merle L. Modeling and
simulation of thin sheet blanking using damage and rupture criteria. Int J
Form Processes 2005;8:29e47.
[46] Rusinek A, Rodrguez-Martnez JA, Arias A, Klepaczko JR, Lpez-Puente J.
Inuence of conical projectile diameter on perpendicular impact of thin steel
plate. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:2946e67.