Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Design and material selection guidelines and strategies for transparent

armor systems
M. Grujicic ⇑, W.C. Bell, B. Pandurangan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As evidenced by the recent experience of the US Armed Forces involved in the missions in Iraq and
Received 2 May 2011 Afghanistan, armoring military-vehicle windshields and side windows is a very challenging task. Apart
Accepted 3 July 2011 from providing the required single-hit and multi-hit ballistic protection to the vehicle occupants, the
Available online 2 August 2011
armor must also possess and retain optical transparency and be compatible with on-board imaging
and communications equipment. In addition, standard low cost and light-weight requirements are also
Keywords: critical in the design and engineering of transparent armor systems. At the present time, the design
Transparent-armor
and fabrication of transparent armor systems is done almost exclusively using empirical, trial-and-error
Ballistics
Design
and legacy approaches. Consequently, new transparent armor system development lead times are long,
the costs are quite high and many shortcomings of the systems become apparent only after they have
been fielded. To help better understand and overcome this situation, a brief overview and discussion
of the basic transparent armor architectures, functional layers and transparent materials is provided
and a set of design and material selection guidelines is proposed.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction There are several key functional requirements placed on the

Recent military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearly
demonstrated the critical importance of transparent armor in
many US military systems. As the threats have escalated and be-
come more versatile, the development and production of rapidly-
deployable, threat-specific, ballistically mass-efficient transparent
armor add-on/retro-fit packages have become extremely challeng-
ing. This difficult situation has been further compounded by the
fact that presently transparent armor systems are being de-
signed/developed almost exclusively using legacy designs and
empirical (trial-and-error) approaches.
Transparent armor is a system of functionally-integrated trans-
parent materials whose main role is to provide blast/ballistic pro-
tection while retaining structural integrity and optical
transparency of the constituent materials (e.g. [1,2]). Transparent
armor systems are used in a wide spectrum of applications ranging
from non-combat face-shields for law-enforcement/security per-
sonnel via explosive ordinance disposal equipment to ground/air
military/civilian vehicle occupant protection. Among these areas
of application, the deployment of transparent armor systems for
windshields and side-windows in military ground vehicles is the
most extensive.
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: 241 Engineering Innovation Building, Clemson
University, Clemson, SC 29634-0921, United States. Tel.: +1 864 656 5639; fax: +1
864 656 4435.
E-mail address: gmica@clemson.edu (M. Grujicic).
transparent armor systems used in ground-vehicle occupant pro-
tection applications such as:
(a) high single- and multi-hit blast/ballistic resistance;
(b) distortion-free and durable surfaces for optical clarity/
transparency;
(c) sufficiently low areal density in order to minimally compro-
mise vehicle’s mobility/stability, pay-load carrying capacity
and suspension/braking/steering systems performance/
durability;
(d) sufficiently small transparent-armor panel-thickness to
minimize vehicle internal space claim;
(e) compatibility with the on-board non-visible spectrum imag-
ing and communication equipment;
(f) high-wear/low-velocity impact-scratch/damage resistance;
and
(g) relatively high performance-to-cost ratio.
Transparent armor systems are traditionally constructed as
laminates of soda-lime glass laminae adhesive bonded with poly-
meric inter-layers (most often polyurethane or polyvinyl butyral),
Fig. 1. Due to a relatively high density of glass and since in these
systems, the single- and multi-hit penetration resistance usually
scales with the laminate thickness, thick laminates are needed to
obtain the required level of vehicle occupant protection. This solu-
tion is highly impractical as it leads to: (a) increased vehicle curb-
weight; (b) reduction in vehicle cabin space; (c) increased optical

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.007
 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819
(a) Glass
Glass
Glass
Glass
Glass
Glass
Glass
Glass
Polycarbonate
(b) Glass
Polycarbonate
Glass
Polycarbonate
Glass
Polycarbonate
Glass
Polycarbonate
Glass
Polycarbonate
Fig. 1. Traditional architectures of the transparent-armor systems based on glass laminates and polymeric inter-layers: (a) Bless and Chen [27]; (b) Dolan [28].
distortions; and (d) reduced optical clarity/transparency. As an
example of the aforementioned limitations of the traditional trans-
parent armor solution, the case of the ‘‘Armor Survivability Kit’’ em-
ployed to up-armor the High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicles (HMMWVs) can be cited [2], in which, the transparent ar-
mor contributed to over 30% of the vehicle weight while providing
only 15% of the vehicle’s external coverage. To overcome these lim-
itations, new lighter transparent armor solutions are being sought/
developed.
More recent transparent armor systems typically consist of
three functional layers: (a) a projectile-blunting/eroding/fragment-
ing hard strike face; (b) energy-absorbing, crack-arresting, ther-
mal-expansion-mismatch mitigating intermediate layer and (c) a
fragmented-armor debris containment spall-liner/backing layer.
Schematics of the three-functional-layer transparent armor sys-
tems displayed in Fig. 2 illustrate that the strike face is typically
made of glass, glass ceramic or transparent ceramics, the interme-
diate layers are made of glass or Poly-Methyl Methacrylate
(PMMA) while the backing layer is composed of Polycarbonate
(PC).
To ensure that its vehicles are combat ready, the US Army re-
quires their regular testing for ballistic-protection performance.
Also, new vehicles are being designed with improved protection
capabilities. However, the new vehicles must also have signifi-
cantly reduced weight (to ensure their high mobility, rapid deploy
ability, high fuel efficiency, etc.). Since windshield and side win-
dows are located in the upper portion of the vehicle, the added
weight associated with their up-armoring is of particular concern.
That is, due to the associated increase in the height of the center of
gravity, there is an increase in the vehicle’s rollover propensity and
809
Polyurethane
Inter-layers
Polyurethane
Inter-layers
a general reduction in its handling stability. Furthermore, consider-
ing the fact that the transparent-armor systems are one of the
weakest areas on the vehicle and provide the most inefficient
weight-normalized ballistic protection, they present the vehicle
designers with significant challenges. Consequently, successful de-
sign of the future military ground vehicles will entail a complete
understanding of the ballistic-protection performance of the com-
peting transparent-armor systems under different threats. In par-
ticular, knowledge of the ability of armor to simultaneously
provide single- and multi-hit ballistic protection without signifi-
cant loss in its optical transparency under different threats is of im-
mense importance.
In its current practice for acquiring the transparent armor, the
US Army uses the ballistic-performance specifications for commer-
cially-available armor like the ones mandated by the National Insti-
tute of Justice Test Standard 0108.01, Table 1 [3]. The specifications
listed in Table 1 define, for different threat levels (I, II, II-A, III, III-A
and IV), projectiles’ type, weight, velocity, barrel length and allow-
able number of penetrations for a given number of hits per armor
test panel. However, it has been well-recognized that current ballis-
tic threats far exceed the ones considered in commercial transpar-
ent-armor ballistic-performance specifications. That is, these
specifications typically cover only protection requirements against
handguns and small-caliber rifle rounds, while the US Army vehi-
cles face threats from a larger range of heavier ammunition. Conse-
quently, the US Army is developing a new transparent-armor test
specification standard ATPD 2352 [4] which outlines all of the
new key requirements for the transparent armor systems and
which will guide future armor acquisition by the Army. In addition
to specifying the ballistic-protection requirements with respect to
810 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819

Ceramic/Glass-Ceramic/ Glass
Glass
Polyurethane
Glass
Inter-layers
Glass
Polycarbonate

Glass
Polyurethane
PMMA Inter-layers
Polycarbonate

Fig. 2. Newer three-functional-layer designs of the transparent-armor systems: (a) Strassburger [19] and (b) Patel et al. [5].

Table 1
Ballistic performance requirements for armor as specified by the National Institute of Justice Test Standard 0108.01.

Armor Test Nominal bullet Suggested barrel Required bullet Required hits per armor test Permitted
type ammunition mass length velocity panel penetrations
I 22LHRV 2.6 g 15–16.5 cm 320 ± 12 m/s 5 0
Lead 40 gr 6–6.5 in. 1050 ± 40 ft/s
38 Special 10.2 g 15–16.5 cm 259 ± 15 m/s
R N lead 158 gr 6–6.5 in. 850 ± 50 ft/s
II-A 357 Magnum 10.2 g 10–12 cm 381 ± 15 m/s 5 0
JSP 158 gr 4–4.75 in. 1250 ± 50 ft/s
9 mm 8.0 g 10–12 cm 332 ± 12 m/s
FMJ 124 gr 4–4.75 in. 1090 ± 40 ft/s
II 357 Magnum 10.2 g 15–16.5 cm 425 ± 15 m/s 5 0
JSP 158 gr 6–6.5 in 1395 ± 50 ft/s
9 mm 8.0 g 10–12 cm 358 ± 12 m/s
FMJ 124 gr 4–4.75 in. 1175 ± 40 ft/s
III-A 44 Magnum 15.55 g 14–16 cm 426 ± 15 m/s 5 0
Lead SWCGC 240 gr 5.5–6.25 in. 1400 ± 50 ft/s
9 mm 8.0 g 24–26 cm 426 ± 15 m/s
FMJ 124 gr 9.5–10.25 in. 1400 ± 50 ft/s
III 7.62 mm 9.7 g 56 cm 838 ± 15 m/s 5 0
308 Winchester 150 gr 22 in. 2750 ± 50 ft/s
FMJ
IV 30–06 10.8 g 56 cm 868 ± 15 m/s 1 0
AP 166 gr 22 in. 2850 ± 50 ft/s

AP – Armor Piercing; FMJ – Full Metal Jacket; JSP – Jacketed Soft Point; LRHV – Long Rifle High Velocity; RN – Round Nose; SWCGC – Semi-Wadcutter Gas Checked.

the standard military threats (bullets of various shapes and sizes),
the ATPD 2352 will also include the ballistic-performance require-
ments with respect to the Fragment Simulating Projectiles (FSPs) as
well as the optical transparency and environmental durability
requirements. The inclusion of the armor-protection requirements
against the FSP threats is particularly critical considering the fact
that Improvised Explosive Devices (IED)-related vehicle occupant
deaths have been on the rise.
As mentioned earlier, the development of new transparent-
armor systems is currently being done almost exclusively using
legacy designs, prior experience and empirical approaches. The
lack of basic understanding of the deformation/fracture behavior
of transparent armor materials and the effect of their interac-
tions/integration has resulted in the absence of basic design guide-
lines/principles for these complicated ballistic-protection systems.
Consequently, the shortcomings of the developed transparent
-armor systems are often observed/revealed only after they have
been deployed/fielded resulting in costly maintenance/repair and
increased vehicle-service downtimes. Directly supporting this
claim is a cost analysis study on High Mobility Multi-purpose
Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) glass armor systems (prepared by
the US Army [5]), where it was calculated that $5.2 million was
spent per month in 2005 on the replacement of windshield and
door windows. This cost continued to rise in the subsequent years
as the number of up-armored HMMWVs deployed doubled and the
demand for transparent armor windshield and door windows in-
creased by 130% and 658%, respectively. It was observed that the
increased demand for transparent-armor replacement/repair was
not only the result of insurgent attacks but also due to sandstorm
damage, rock strikes, improper installation, and loss of transpar-
ency caused by environment-induced delamination and surface
degradation.
To help better understand the state of affairs related to the de-
sign, development and fabrication of the newer transparent-armor
systems, an overview of the public-domain literature is carried out
as a part of the present work, focusing on the identification of the
basic armor architectures, the role of different functional layers
and the behavior of the transparent ballistic materials. Among
the recently conducted studies the following appear particularly
noteworthy: (a) Walley et al., [6], conducted a systematic
 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819
investigation of the spall mechanism(s) occurring in bullet-proof
glass/polycarbonate laminates and observed that: (i) spall forma-
tion takes place at a rate which is significantly smaller than that
predicted by the release-wave interaction mechanism; and (ii) that
the radius of the spall scales with the thickness of the front glass
layer; (b) Hazell et al. [7], studied the penetration of a glass-faced
polyurethane elastomer by lead antimony-cored 7.62 mm radius,
28.73-mm long bullet as well as the accompanying damage of
the target material and the bullet. They observed very complex
temporal evolution and spatial distribution of the target/projectile
material damage and failure; (c) Forde et al. [8], studied the impact
and penetration of borosilicate glass by mild steel rods and ob-
served important roles played by the phenomena such as: (i) pro-
jectile dwelling on the target strike-face; (ii) associated Hertzian
cracks; (iii) generation and interaction of bulk and surface waves;
and (iv) projectile self-sharpening; (d) Dorogoy et al. [9], investi-
gated experimentally and numerically the penetration and perfora-
tion of stacked polycarbonate (PC) plates by an armor piercing
7.62 mm projectile and identified: (i) the projectile’s trajectory into
the target; (ii) formation of a cavity, cracked and plastic zones
around the advancing projectiles; and (iii) recovery of the de-
formed un-cracked target material; (e) Appleby-Thomas et al.,
[10] studied ballistic-penetration performance of glass-fronted
laminated transparent armor structures and clearly demonstrated
the role of: (i) comminution; and (ii) interaction between the glass
strike-face and the backing layer; and (f) in a series of papers, Gru-
jicic et al. [11–13], investigated the dynamic response and coarse-
and fine-scale fragmentation damage/fracture in single-ply and
stacked soda-lime based transparent-armor structures and identi-
fied the role of (i) stochastic nature of the material strength; and
(ii) differences in the flaw population at the lamina surface and
its bulk.
The main objective of the present work was then to provide
more physical insight into the behavior and performance of these
complex armor systems and to propose some general guidelines/
principles for their design and for the selection of the constituent
materials.
The organization of the paper is as follows: In Section 2, a brief
description of the fundamental requirements for the three basic
layers found in newer transparent armor architectures is pre-
sented. A brief discussion of the classification, defining features
and properties of the key materials used in transparent armor
applications is given in Section 3. A simple set of design and mate-
rial-selection guidelines and principles which should be followed
in the transparent-armor development process is proposed in Sec-
tion 4. The key conclusions resulting from the present work are
summarized in Section 5.
2. Transparent-armor functional layers
As mentioned earlier, newer transparent armor systems gener-
ally consist of three distinct functional layers. The main functional
requirements placed on each of these layers can be summarized as
follows:
2.1. Strike-face layer
 High optical transparency in the visible and infrared wave-
length ranges.
 High ability to blunt projectile through prolonged interfacial
dwelling and mechanical erosion.
 Good low-velocity (stones, pebble, etc.) impact damage
resistance.
 Good environmental resistance (e.g. to thermal gradients, sand
erosion, ultra-violet (UV) radiation), etc.
811
2.2. Intermediate layer
 High optical transparency in the visible and infrared wave-
length ranges;
 High kinetic energy absorption capability via fine-scale frac-
ture/fragmentation/comminution;
 High bending stiffness in order to provide stiff backing support
to the strike-face layer;
 The ability to localize cracking/damage in order not to cause a
serious compromise in the armor’s multi-hit ballistic
performance;
 Good environmental resistance (e.g. to thermal gradients, UV
radiation), etc.
2.3. Spall/backing layer
 High optical transparency in the visible and infrared wave-
length ranges.
 Projectile/armor spall containment capability.
 Good environmental resistance (e.g. to thermal gradients, sand
erosion, UV radiation).
 High chemical/chemical-warfare-agent resistance.
 High resistance to scratching, etc.
In addition to the three functional layers mentioned above, most
transparent-armors contain thin adhesive inter-layers whose main
purpose is to join adjacent plies/layers and mitigate the potential
thermal-expansion mismatch effects between the adjoining layers.
3. Ballistic transparent materials
A review of the public-domain literature carried out as part of
the present work identified the following four classes of materials
used in transparent armor applications: (a) glass; (b) (devitrified)
glass ceramics; (c) mono-crystalline and sub-micron grain size
polycrystalline ceramics; and (d) thermoplastic and thermosetting
amorphous glassy polymers. A summary of the relevant basic
mechanical, environmental and processing properties of these
materials is provided in Tables 2 and 3. In the following few para-
graphs, a brief overview is provided of the key functional and pro-
cessing attributes of each of these four material classes.
3.1. Glass
Traditionally, soda-lime glass (also known as float glass) is used
in transparent armor applications due to its good combination of
stiffness, compressive strength, and durability. Recently, 10%
lighter borosilicate glass is also being considered for use in trans-
parent armor applications [14]. In addition, high purity silica-based
glass (better known as fused silica) is being investigated as a poten-
tial transparent armor material [2]. While glass-based transparent
armor solutions are typically heavy (i.e. associated with large areal
densities), glass continues to remain an important constituent
material in transparent armor applications, due primarily to low
cost (arising from a lack of need for costly machining operations)
and a relative ease of production of curved panels (more critical
in air vehicles than in ground vehicles). Recently, Grujicic et al.,
[15–17] carried out a detailed investigation of shock-wave physics
in soda-lime glass laminae and constructed the appropriate shock-
hugoniot relations.
3.2. Glass ceramics
Certain types of glass can be devitrified/crystallized to produce
the so called glass ceramics. For example, AREVA, Ltd. has devel-
812 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819

Table 2
Select typical material properties of glass and ceramic armor materials.

Property Units AlON Fused silica Sapphire Spinel

3 3 3 3
Density kg/m 3.69  10 2.21  10 3.97  10 3.59  103
Areal density (at 100 kg/m2 93.89 55.85 100.97 90.86
thickness)
Elastic modulus Pa 334  109 70  109 344  109 260  109
Mean flexure strength Pa 380  106 48  106 742  106 184  106
Fracture toughness Pa m1/2 2.4  106 0.78  106 3.0  106 1.7  106
Knoop hardness Pa 17.7  109 4.5  109 19.6  109 14.9  109
Transmission in visual % 82–85 91–92 75–82 –
spectrum
Maturity of technology Relatively new technology Well established Well established Established, continued
(becoming commercially technology technology advancements
viable)
Cost 3–5 times that of glass Lowest material and Higher than ALON™ Lower than ALON™
processing costs
Manufacturing costs High due to high processing Relatively low due to High due to high Moderate due to surface
temperature, proprietary lower melting temps temperature processing and finish requirements
powder, and surface finish surface finish requirements
requirements
Bottleneck Cost and limited dimensions Limited ballistic Cost and limited Limited dimensions
protection enhancement dimensions
Commercial Sumert Corp., limited Widely available Widely available in smaller In the process of
availability availability sizes becoming more commercially
available
Environmental Low chemical reactivity and Low chemical reactivity and
resistance highly scratch resistant highly scratch resistant

Table 3
Select typical material properties of polymer armor materials.

Property Units Lexan polycarbonate Simula polyurethane Plexi glass G PMMA

Density kg/m3 1.2  103 1.104  103 1.19  103
Areal density kg/m2 30.27 27.83 30.27
Tensile strength Pa 66  106 62  106 72  106
Tensile modulus Pa 2.208  109 689  106 3.102  109
Shear strength Pa 45  106 – 62  106
Shear modulus Pa 1.000  109 – 1.151  109
Compressive strength Pa 83  106 72  106 124  106
Compressive modulus Pa 1.660  109 1.241  109 3.030  109
Flexural strength Pa 104  106 89  106 104  106
Flexural modulus Pa 2.586  109 2.020  109 3.280  109
Max operation temperature °C 121 149 95
Glass transition temperature °C 145 75 100
Manufacturing process Extrusion and injection molding Casting and liquid injection molding Casting and later thermoforming
Main limitations Degradation from chemical, Slight tinting in thicker sections Relatively brittle
UV-irradiation, scratches, abrasion

oped a glass–ceramic material known as TransArm™ which is a
devitrified form of lithium alumino-silicate-based glass [18]. This
material displays structural properties similar to those of crystal-
line ceramics, while maintaining lower density, good processabil-
ity and relatively low processing cost of conventional glass.
3.3. Crystalline ceramics
Due to their exceptional hardness/compressive-strength, crys-
talline ceramics are used (primarily as strike face layers) in the
most advanced transparent armor systems (the ones capable of
defeating the most lethal threats). Among these materials, three
groups are typically considered: (a) single crystal transparent
ceramics like Al2O3-based sapphire (e.g. [19]); (b) sub-micron
grain-size polycrystalline transparent ceramics like aluminum-
oxy-nitride (ALON™ [20]) and (c) magnesium-aluminate Spinel
(commonly known as Spinel [21]) fine-grain transparent ceramics.
From the transparent armor applications point of view, the
most important characteristics of sapphire are: (a) high stiffness
and hardness/compressive strength; (b) intermediate density; (c)
high chemical resistance; (d) wide availability (although the max-
imum panel sizes are limited) and (e) high cost (mainly due to
expensive machining and polishing processes) despite well-
matured production technology.
While sub-micron grain-size AlON has been found to match or
outperform sapphire with respect to most of the structural/envi-
ronmental properties mentioned above, this material is currently
manufactured only by Surmet Corporation [22] and the broader
market is in development in order to reduce the (otherwise rela-
tively high) cost of this material.
While Spinel is processed using the same powder-based sinter-
ing/hot-pressing/hot-isostatic-pressing process as AlON, the for-
mer material is less expensive for at least two reasons: (a)
commercial availability of its powder in bulk quantities and (b) sig-
nificantly lower processing temperatures. Nevertheless and de-
spite significant investments into transparent Spinel processing
technology, transparent Spinel panels are still mainly available
only for research applications. Overall, structural/mechanical prop-
erties of Spinel are comparable to, although somewhat lower than,
those of sapphire or AlON.
 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819
3.4. Amorphous glassy polymers
In ground-vehicle transparent armor applications, amorphous
glassy polymers are primarily used as intermediate or spall/back-
ing layers. While structural/mechanical properties of these materi-
als remain of primary concern (as in the case of glass, glass
ceramics and crystalline ceramics), additional properties such as
the ability to withstand thermal, chemical, ultra-violet radiation,
humidity and other environmental/in-service hazards are also crit-
ical during selection of these materials for transparent armor
applications.
Currently, both thermoplastics (e.g. PMMA, PC, etc.) and ther-
mosets (e.g. Polyurethane, PU) are used in ground-vehicle trans-
parent armor applications. The defining features of PMMA (also
known a plexi glass) as a transparent armor material are [23]: (a)
relatively low fracture toughness/tensile-elongation; (b) relatively
high rate of increase of ballistic protection performance with an in-
crease in the panel thickness; (c) relatively high elastic stiffness
and (d) relatively high thermal, ultra-violet radiation, chemical,
and scratch resistances. Also, PMMA is amenable to a variety of
processing techniques such as extrusion/thermo-forming and cast-
ing. Which allows fabrication of complex transparent armor geom-
etries/architectures. Typically, single-ply thick panels of PMMA are
used as the intermediate transparent armor layer.
While PC has superior fracture toughness relative to that in
PMMA, and is, hence, used generally as the spall/backing transpar-
ent armor panel, thermal, ultra-violet radiation, chemical and
scratch resistances of this material are relatively inferior [23]. To
overcome these limitations of the PC, the use of UV-stabilizers
and surface modification/hard-coatings is generally required.
While, ballistic protection resistance of PC is quite high when used
as thin-section personal protection gear (e.g. visors, goggles, etc.),
this material is not as efficient when used in the form of thick pan-
els in ground-vehicle transparent armor applications.
Due to its unique molecular microstructure (consists of hard
and soft domains), the properties of transparent thermosetting
PU can be tailored so that the properties of the material can vary
from rigid and brittle like glass to soft and flexible like elastomers.
Despite the fact that PU possesses superior fracture toughness even
in the form of thick sections and can be readily processed using a
variety of techniques (e.g. liquid-injection molding, casting, etc.),
this material is mainly used as thin-film adhesive interlayer in
ground-vehicle transparent armor applications. The main reason
for this is the presence of slight tinting in this material which af-
fects its optical transparency in thicker sections.
In addition to the monolithic amorphous-polymer transparent
armor solutions discussed above, there are few recent reports of
the use of polymer/polymer composite armor architectures. For
example, Sarva et al. [24] reported the use of hierarchical assembly
macro-composite material consisting of PMMA millimeter-size
platelets embedded in a continuum matrix. The resulting material
has been found to possess superior single-hit ballistic performance
in comparison with its monolithic amorphous-polymer counter-
parts. While these findings are very promising, significant work
is still required before these materials become fieldable.
4. Material selection and design guidelines
As it will be made clear (no pun intended) in the remainder of
this section, while the functional requirements of the three trans-
parent armor layers can be readily defined, the corresponding
properties/attributes of the associated transparent materials
needed to meet these requirements cannot always be readily iden-
tified (at least in the case of the strike face and the intermediate
layers). This is a simple consequence of the fact that transparent
813
armor is an integrated system of materials where the perfor-
mance/contribution of each material is not only a function of its
properties but also of the type and extent of interaction/integration
of this material with the adjacent materials.
4.1. Correlation between armor performance and constituent
material properties
In today’s engineering practice, material selection is carried out
by matching the functional requirements, objectives and con-
straints of the design with the basic properties/attributes and
cost/manufacturability of the constituent materials. The first step
in this process is the establishment of correlation(s) between the
degree of fulfillment of the functional requirements (design perfor-
mance) and the relevant material properties. Consequently, the
main goal of this section is to examine the existence of the corre-
lation(s) between the ballistic mass efficiency of various transpar-
ent armor systems (presented in open literature) and the relevant
mechanical properties of the constituent materials. This analysis
has been carried out separately for each functional layer.
4.1.1. Strike-face layer
As recently pointed out by Krell and Strassburger [25], numerous
experimental investigations revealed major, yet often contradic-
tory, effects of chemical composition/impurity level, microstructure
and the basic mechanical properties (e.g. elastic stiffness, hardness/
compressive strength, fracture toughness/tensile strength, etc.) on
the ballistic protection performance of strike-face materials. These
observations are supported by the results displayed in Fig. 3a–c
which pertain to the experimental determination of the ballistic
mass efficiency of 23 different alumina-based crystalline ceramics
as strike face material impacted by a long-rod penetrator at a veloc-
ity of 1335 m/s. The results shown in these figures suggest a lack of
correlation between ballistic-protection performance of the strike
face material on one hand and the impurity content, porosity per-
centage, and grain size of this material on the other. This finding
is particularly interesting considering the relatively large ranges
in these microstructural parameters (i.e. impurity content 0–12%,
porosity 0–7%, and grain size 2–20 lm). This apparent lack of corre-
lation between the aforementioned microstructural parameters
and the material ballistic protection performance is often attributed
to the fact that the experimental investigations were carried out
using commercially available alumina panels, in which a number
of microstructural parameters were simultaneously changed. How-
ever, similar findings were obtained in the case of laboratory test
panels in which a single microstructural parameter could be var-
ied/controlled.
It is generally agreed that the aforementioned lack of material
microstructure/property-to-performance correlation and the ob-
served inconsistencies are most likely a manifestation of the inter-
action between different material-microstructure effects as well as
the manifestation of the test condition effects. For example, as seen
in Fig. 4a, in the presence of a stiff backing layer, there is a strong
positive correlation between the ballistic mass efficiency and strike
face material hardness. At the same time, no correlation can be
seen between the ballistic mass efficiency and the strike face-
material bending/tensile strength, Fig. 4b. Furthermore, when a
more compliant armor backing is used, Fig. 4c, no correlation ap-
peared to exist between the armor’s ballistic performance and its
hardness. These observations suggest that not only the strike face
material microstructure and properties but also its interactions/
integration with the remainder of the transparent armor system af-
fect the ballistic efficiency of this material.
To explain the aforementioned lack of strike face material-
microstructure/property-to-performance correlations and associ-
ated inconsistencies, Krell and Strassburger [25] recently proposed
814 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819

(a) 1.9
(b) 1.9
1.8 1.8

Mass Efficiency, no units

Mass Efficiency, no units

1.7 1.7

1.6 1.6

1.5 1.5

1.4 1.4

1.3 1.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Impurity Content, % Porosity, %

(c) 1.9
1.8
Mass Efficiency, no units

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Grain size, µm

Fig. 3. Examination of the potential correlation between the ballistic mass efficiency and: (a) impurity content; (b) porosity; and (c) grain size for 23 different types of Al2O3
based ceramics [25].

the so-called ‘‘hierarchical ranking of influences approach’’. Within harder fragments act as potent eroders which give rise to efficient
this approach, a distinction is made between the upper-level influ- wear-out and fragmentation of the projectile. Using this approach,
ences (the ones associated with the largest effect and which also Krell and Strassburger [25] were able to explain why fine-grained
control the effect of other influences) and lower-level influences Spinel, which has inferior mechanical properties but a larger aver-
for both phases (i.e. the dwell phase and the penetration phase) age fragment size, can out-perform sapphire under identical test
of the projectile/armor interaction. In the dwell phase, when the conditions.
projectile is impinging upon the strike face without penetration, As mentioned earlier, in the case of stiff backing support, the
it is desirable (from the projectile defeat point-of-view) to extend (bending) strength seems not to have a measurable effect on the
the dwell time to ensure maximum blunting/fragmentation of ballistic mass efficiency of the transparent armor. Krell and Strass-
the projectile-tip. In this case, the dynamic stiffness (i.e. high-rate burger [25] offered the following explanation for this finding: (a) It
Young’s modulus) and the high-rate inelastic deformation resis- has been recognized that under high rate of loading, the strength
tance (scales inversely with grain size) are indentified as the two of brittle materials has two distinct contributors: (i) a rate-inde-
lone upper-level influencing parameters. In the penetration phase, pendent quasi-static strength component and (ii) a rate-depen-
on the other hand, it is assumed that the dominant mode of projec- dent (Young’s modulus proportional) dynamic component; (b)
tile defeat is erosion/plastic-deformation induced by its interaction under high loading rates on the order of 104 s1 encountered dur-
with the strike face material debris/fragments. Consequently, large ing ballistic impact, the contribution of the static strength is quite
average fragment size has been identified as a single upper-level small (<5%); and (c) since the experimental studies tried to cor-
influencing parameter. Typically, larger fragment sizes are associ- relate ballistic mass efficiency with the static strength component,
ated with: (a) smaller strike-face material grain size (related to a it is not surprising that no correlation was found. Krell and Strass-
smaller density of inter-granular cracks); (b) higher stiffness of burger [25] further argued that, higher dynamic strength (i.e. a
the backing layer (leading to a lesser bending deflection of the higher Young’s modulus) of the strike face material is beneficial
strike-face layer) and (c) lateral and through-the-thickness con- since it promotes growth of a fewer number of cracks over the
finement (related to a smaller density of inter-granular cracks). nucleation of a higher number of smaller cracks leading to larger
Accordingly, when the fragments are relatively large, hardness of fragment sizes. Specifically, a higher Young’s modulus (and lower
the strike-face material becomes an important factor affecting density) increases the sound speed (and also the terminal crack
the ballistic protection-performance of the armor. That is, larger, velocity).
 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819 815

3.5 3.5
(a) (b)

Ballistic Mass Efficiency, no units

Ballistic Mass Efficiency, no units

3 3

2.5 2.5

2 Backing Material: Steel 2

Vickers Hardness (HV10) = 20GPa

1.5 1.5
10 15 20 25 0 200 400 600 800

Vickers Hardness HV10 (GPa) Bending Strength, MPa

(c) 7
Ballistic Mass Efficiency, no units

3
Backing Material: Aluminum

1
10 15 20 25
Vickers Hardness HV10 (GPa)

Fig. 4. Examination of the potential correlation between the ballistic mass efficiency and: (a) Vickers Hardness in the presence of a stiff backing; (b) bending strength in the
presence of a stiff backing; and (c) Vickers Hardness in the presence of a compliant backing [25].

The discussion given above has attempted to establish correla- 4.1.2. Intermediate layer
tions between various material properties and the strike face bal- While in the case of the strike-face layer, the two main mecha-
listic mass efficiency. Numerous strategies (e.g. [25,26]) also nisms for projectile defeat were identified as: (a) contact-surface
showed that high stiffness of the intermediate/backing layer and dwelling and (b) projectile deformation/erosion/fragmentation
the presence of lateral confinement can promote the formation of and the energy absorbed by the fractured strike-face material
large fragments, and thus, increase the strike face ballistic protec- was considered less significant, the situation is quite different in
tion performance. the case of the projectile/intermediate layer interactions. In this
In the armor-performance/material-microstructure-property case, since the projectile has already been slowed down (and con-
correlation analysis presented so far in this section, (amorphous) sequently, fragment accelerations are lower), the effect of its ero-
glass was not considered as a strike-face material. While it is well- sion becomes secondary to the energy-absorption accompanying
established that glass is less effective as a strike face material than fracture/fragmentation of the intermediate-layer material. There-
glass ceramics or crystalline ceramics (e.g. [19,25]), fragment size, fore, fine scale fragmentation combined with good fracture tough-
material stiffness, material hardness, the presence of a stiffer back- ness appear to be the key functional requirements for the material
ing and lateral confinement are also important factors controlling to be used in the intermediate layer. This conjecture has been con-
ballistic performance of glass. However, due to the absence of grains firmed experimentally by Sarva et al. [24] who showed that less-
in glass, grain refinement cannot be used to increase the average tough PMMA (tends to undergo relatively-localized fine-scale frac-
fragment size. Instead, a broader distribution of the surface flaws ture during ballistic impact) generally outperforms PC (tends to fail
is generally believed to yield coarser fragments and, in turn, lead via a highly-localized ductile-shear process along the projectile/
to an improvement in the ballistic-protection performance of glass. target lateral interfaces) as the intermediate-layer material.
Lamination (single-ply versus multi-ply) of the strike-face layer Furthermore, since the intermediate layer is the majority con-
has been found to affect its ballistic mass efficiency when this layer stituent in a prototypical transparent armor system and, thus, a
is made of glass. Specifically, thicker single-ply glass layers have major contributor to the overall armor weight, the density of the
been found to be superior to their multi-ply counterpart with an intermediate-layer constituent material is of major concern with
analogous areal density with respect to both single-hit and mul- respect to attaining good ballistic mass-efficiency.
ti-hit performance. This effect has been attributed to the more-pro- As discussed in the previous section, the intermediate layer
nounced spatial confinement found in the single-ply strike-face plays an important role in providing back-support to the strike-
layer. face layer. Consequently, a high bending stiffness of this material
816 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819

due to their damage caused by enemy fire, but rather by the loss of
(a) 400
Selection Region armor transparency/clarity. Consequently, good scratch, chemical
Sapphire and environmental resistances of the backing layer are also of crit-
ical importance from the standpoint of ensuring high durability of
AlON
Young's Modulus, GPa

300
Spinel the transparent-armor systems.

4.2. Transparent armor material selection guidelines

200 The results/findings of the armor-performance/material-micro-

structure-property correlation analyses presented in the previous
section are now used to provide some simple material selection
LiAlO 2 guidelines for each of the three functional layers in a prototypical
100
Fused Silica transparent armor system.
Soda-lime Glass
Borosilicate
4.2.1. Strike-face layer
PMMA, PC, PU To maximize the material’s contribution to the projectile defeat
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 in the dwell stage, materials with a good combination of high
10 10 10 10 10 10
stiffness (as measured by Young’s modulus) and high inelastic
log (Inverse Grain Size, µm-1)
deformation resistance (typically the resistance to mechanical
24 twinning which scales inversely with the grain size) should be se-
(b)
Selection Region lected. The corresponding Young’s modulus versus inverse grain
20
size material selection chart is depicted in Fig. 5a. It is clear that
Sapphire
sub-micron grain-size crystalline ceramics like AlON and Spinel
are the best choice here.
Vickers Hardness, GPa

16
12 LiAlO 2
8 of the strike-face material is attained (through the combination
Fused Silica
4
Soda-lime Glass
Borosilicate
PMMA, PC, PU
0 selection chart is displayed in Fig. 5b. It is seen that again the fine
-4 -3 -2
10 10 10
log (Inverse Grain Size, µm
Fig. 5. Transparent-armor strike-face material selection charts: (a) the Young’s
modulus versus the inverse grain size used for material selection with respect to the
threat-defeat capability in the dwell stage; and (b) hardness versus the inverse
grain size used for material selection with respect to its projectile-defeat ability in
the penetration phase.
(achieved through the combination of a higher Young’s modulus
and a larger layer thickness) is also an important functional
requirement. As discussed earlier in conjunction with Fig. 3a–c,
stiffer backing support enhances ballistic mass efficiency of the
strike-face layer and enables the exceptionally high hardness of
sub-micron grain-size crystalline ceramic materials to be utilized
to its fullest for projectile defeat.
Finally, damage confinement within a narrow region surround-
ing the place of individual-projectiles impact is very critical from
the standpoint of multi-hit ballistic-protection performance of
the transparent armor.
4.1.3. Spall/backing layer
As discussed earlier, the main role of the backing layer is to pre-
vent strike-face and intermediate layer fragments from entering
the vehicle cabin while, at the same time, not undergoing spalling
at its own back face. In other words, this layer is not expected to
play a major role in defeating the projectile but rather in the con-
tainment/confinement of the projectile and armor fragments/
debris.
As mentioned earlier, the repair/replacement of armored wind-
shield and door windows in military vehicles is often required not
AlON
Spinel As far as the penetration stage is concerned, small grain size of
the strike-face material is still preferred (since it ensures a rela-
tively large fragment size). Also, since the dynamic strength gener-
ally scales with material stiffness, high Young’s modulus materials
are also preferred. Furthermore, if relatively coarse fragmentation
of small grain size, stiff armor backing and lateral confinement),
high hardness of the strike-face material becomes a critical
requirement. For a successful projectile defeat in the penetration
stage, the associated hardness versus inverse grain size material
grain crystalline ceramics are preferred as strike face-material
-1 0 1
10 10 10 candidates.
-1)
4.2.2. Intermediate layer
As discussed in Section 4.1, the intermediate layer is the major-
ity constituent of a prototypical three layer transparent armor sys-
tem which is expected to provide stiff backing support to the
strike-face layer. Hence, a good combination of low density and
high Young’s modulus is the first level functional requirement for
the intermediate-layer material candidates. If the intermediate
layer is temporarily viewed as a circular disk of radius R and thick-
ness t then its mass is W = qR2t, where q is the material density,
while its flexural stiffness scales with Et3/R2, where E is Young’s
modulus. To minimize the mass of this layer while maintaining
its flexural stiffness and size (i.e. the disk radius), one should select
materials with the largest E1/3/q ratio. A log–log type Young’s mod-
ulus versus density material selection chart is displayed in Fig. 6a.
A guideline with a slope of three consistent with the material
selection index E1/3/q is used in Fig. 6a to identify the selection re-
gion. It is seen that PMMA, glass ceramics and glass are ideal mate-
rial candidates for the intermediate layer relative to the roll of this
layer in providing needed backing support for the strike-face layer
while remaining relatively light-weight.
In addition to providing the necessary backing support to the
strike-face layer, the intermediate layer also acts as a major projec-
tile kinetic energy absorber. Therefore, a good combination of frac-
ture toughness (i.e. energy absorbed per unit fragment surface
area) and fine-scale fragmentation/comminution (i.e. a large total
surface area of the fragments) are of critical importance. Also,
localization of the damage/fragmentation within a narrow region
surrounding the places of individual-projectile impacts is quite
 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819 817

(a)
AlON, Spinel,
LiAlO 2 Sapphire

10 2

log (Young's Modulus, GPa)

Fused Silica,
Soda-lime Glass,
Borosilicate Glass

Selection
Region

10 1

PMMA

PC
0
10 PU

1 2 3 4 5
log (Density, g/cm3)

(b)
Selection Region
log (Fracture Toughness, kJ/m2)

-2
10

PC PC

-3
10

PMMA PMMA

PU PU
10 -4
LiAlO 2
LiAlO 2
Fused Silica,
AlON, Spinel, Soda-lime Glass,
Sapphire Borosilicate Glass
Fused Silica, AlON, Spinel,
10 -5 Soda-lime Glass, Sapphire
Borosilicate Glass

Large Medium Small

Small

Inverse Fragment Size

PC/PU
Inverse Fragment Size
Medium

AlON, Spinel,
Sapphire PMMA

LiAlO 2

Fused Silica,
Large

Soda-lime Glass,
Borosilicate Glass

Small Medium Large

Number of Fragments

Fig. 6. Transparent-armor intermediate-layer material selection charts: (a) the Young’s modulus versus density plot used for material selection with respect to its ability to
provide stiff backing support to the strike-face layer; (b) the best combination of large toughness, fine-scale fragmentation, and a large number of fragments is preferred
relative to the material’s ability to absorb energy.

important for multi-hit ballistic-protection performance. In other multi-hit ballistic protection point of view. An unfolded three-
words, numerous fine-scale fragments are preferred over numer- dimensional material selection chart showing the variation of
ous coarser fragments since the latter implies a larger lateral toughness with the inverse fragment size and the number of frag-
extent of the transparent-armor damage/degradation caused by ments is displayed in Fig. 6b. It is seen that PMMA and glass are
individual projectile impacts, which is undesirable from the most suitable materials in this case.
818
4.2.3. Spall/backing layer
Based on the discussion presented in Section 4.1, the most
important property of the material to be used in this layer is its
in-plane and through-the-thickness ductility. These properties en-
sure efficient containment of the strike-face/intermediate-layer
fragments and the absence of back-face spalling of this layer. While
chemical and scratch resistances of this layer are important func-
tional requirements for the backing material, deficiencies in these
properties can be overcome through the use of hard/chemically
resistant coatings. In the same fashion, UV-degradation resistance
can be improved using UV stabilizing additives. While low density
is still desirable, this property is of lower importance in this case
due to a relatively low overall thickness/weight of this layer. The
associated tensile ductility versus density material selection chart
is depicted in Fig. 7. It is seen that, from the standpoint of providing
a light-weight solution for the strike-face and intermediate layer
fragment containment, PC and PU are optimal materials for trans-
parent armor backing layer applications.
4.3. Transparent armor design guidelines/principles
Based on the overview of the public-domain literature pre-
sented in Sections 1 and 3, some basic transparent-armor design
principles can be established:
4.3.1. Strike-face layer
To maximize the projectile-defeat capability of the strike-face
layer via interface dwelling and projectile erosion/fragmentation,
both lateral and through-the-thickness confinement of this layer
is highly critical. This can be accomplished in several ways such
as: (a) through the use of a stiff front-face covering and a stiff
back-side supporting layer for through-the-thickness spatial con-
finement of the strike-face layer; (b) via the use of stiff laterally-
confining and through-the-thickness clamping side-armor frames;
(c) through integration of the front-face covering, strike-face and
the intermediate layers in such a way that the strike-face layer is
left pre-stressed in compression; and (d) making the strike-face
layer of a single ply (to maximize its self-containment effects).
4.3.2. Intermediate layer
For the intermediate layer, a large bending stiffness is highly
critical and this can be attained not only through the use of a thick-
10 3
log (Tensile Elongation, %)
10 2
10
1 Newslett 2000;4:3.
LiAlO 2
AlON
0
10 Spinel
Sapphire
0 0.0002 0.0004
Inverse Density, m3/kg
Fig. 7. Transparent-armor backing-layer material selection chart; a high tensile
ductility is critical for ensuring armor-fragment containment.
M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819
er cross-section and stiffer materials but also by providing a small
outward curvature to this layer. As far as the maximizing the
single-hit energy absorption capacity and the multi-hit ballistic-
protection-performance of the intermediate layer, the use of
single-ply architecture is preferred. Also the use of less number
of laminae ensures lower possibility for transparency loss due to
inter-laminar delamination.
4.3.3. Spall/backing layer
For the maximum fragment-containment capability, the back-
ing layer should be multi-plied so that the potential for fracture
is controlled by the high plane-stress fracture toughness value
rather than the lower plane-strain fracture toughness value. Also,
this layer should be mechanically isolated from the intermediate
layers by the use of a thicker section of polyurethane interlayer.
4.3.4. Additional remarks
As a final point regarding the design of transparent armor sys-
tems, it should be observed that one of the main reasons for the
relatively inferior ballistic performance of these armor systems in
comparison to the opaque ones is the requirement for large ar-
mor-panels to enable a broad field of view for the vehicle occu-
pants. Hence, any newer design of the transparent armor systems
(e.g. the ones used in the ULTRA AP concept vehicle developed
by Georgia Tech Research Institute [29]) which reduces the trans-
parent panel size could potentially result in significant improve-
ments in the ballistic mass-efficiency of these systems.
5. Conclusions
Based on the work reported in the present manuscript, the fol-
lowing main summary remarks and conclusions can be drawn:
1. Open-literature has been reviewed in order to understand the
current state of affairs in the area of design, material selection
and fabrication of transparent-armor systems for military vehi-
cle windshields and door windows.
2. Key functional requirements for different layers in laminated
transparent-armor systems as well as the associated properties
of the constituent materials are identified. It has been shown
that the extent of the effect of different material properties on
the ballistic mass efficiency of the transparent-armor systems
is highly dependent on the type and the degree of interaction/
integration of different functional layers.
Selection Region
3. Based on the results of the armor-performance/material-micro-
structure–property correlation analyses, a set of material selec-
PC, PU
tion guidelines/charts and a set of transparent-armor design
principles is suggested.
References
[1] Dehmar PG, Glide GA, McCauley JW, Patel PJ. Transparent armor. AMPTIAC
PMMA [2] Dehmar PG, Hsieh AJ, Patel PJ, Sands JM. Protecting the future force:
transparent materials safeguard the Army’s vision. AMPTIAC Quart 2004;8(4).
[3] Ballistic resistant protective materials. NIJ Standard 0108.01. National Institute
of Justice, US Department of Justice. Washington, DC, United States; September
1985.
Fused Silica [4] US Army purchase specification. ATPD-2352; 2008.
Soda-lime Glass
Borosilicate [5] Barnak R, Franks LP, Holm D. Transparent armor cost benefit study. In:
Proceedings of the structures and materials intelligence seminar. McLean, VA,
May 1–2, 2008.
0.0006 0.0008 0.001 [6] Walley SM, Field JE, Blair PW, Milford AJ. The effect of temperature on the
impact behavior of glass/polycarbonate laminates. Int J Impact Eng
2004;30:31–53.
[7] Hazell PJ, Edwards MR, Longstaff H, Erskine J. Penetration of a glass-faced
transparent elastomeric resin by lead-antimony-cored bullet. Int J Impact Eng
2009;36:147–53.
 M. Grujicic et al. / Materials and Design 34 (2012) 808–819
[8] Forde LC, Proud WG, Walley SM, Church PD, Cullis IG. Ballistic impact studies
of a borosilicate glass. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37:568–78.
[9] Dorogoy A, Rittell D, Brill A. Experimentation and modeling of inclined ballistic
impact in thick polycarbonate plates. Int J Impact Eng 2011;38(10):804–14.
[10] Appleby-Thomas GJ, Hazell PJ, Stennett C, Cooper G, Cleave R. The dynamic
behaviour of a modified polyurethane resin. DYMAT 2009. In: 9th
International conference on the mechanical and physical behaviour of
materials under dynamic loading; 2009. p. 1081–87.
[11] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Coutris N, Cheeseman BA, Fountzoulas C, Patel P,
et al. A ballistic material model for starphire. A soda-lime transparent armor
glass. Mater Sci Eng A 2008;492(1):397–411.
[12] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Bell WC, Coutris N, Cheeseman BA, Fountzoulas C,
et al. An improved mechanical material model for ballistic soda-lime glass. J
Mater Eng Perform 2009;18(8):1012–28.
[13] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Coutris N, Cheeseman BA, Fountzoulas C, Patel P. A
simple ballistic material model for soda-lime glass. Int J Impact Eng
2009;36:386–401.
[14] Patel PJ, Hsieh AJ, Gilde GA. Improved low-cost multi-hit transparent armor.
In: Proceedings of the 25th army science conference, Orlando, FL, November
2006.
[15] Grujicic M, Bell WC, Pandurangan B, He T. Blast-wave impact-mitigation
capability of polyurea when used as helmet suspension pad material. Mater
Des 2010;31:4050–65.
[16] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, King AE, Runt J, Tarter J, Dillon G. Multi-length
scale modeling and analysis of microstructure evolution and mechanical
properties in polyurea. J Mater Sci 2011;46(6):1767–79.
[17] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Bell WC, Cheeseman BA, Yen CF, Randow CL.
Molecular-level simulations of shock generation and propagation in polyurea.
Mater Sci Eng A 2011;528(10–11):3799–808.
819
[18] AREVA T&D UK Ltd., Registered Office. St. Leonards, Avenue, Stafford ST17 4
LX.
[19] Straßburger E. Ballisitic testing of transparent armour ceramics. J Eur Ceram
Soc 2009;29:267–73.
[20] Raytheon electronic systems. Lexington laboratory, 131 spring street.
Lexington MA 02421. Registered trademark no. 2554362, March 2002.
[21] Sands JM, Fountzoulas CG, Gilde GA, Patel PJ. Modelling transparent ceramics
to improve military armour. J Eur Ceram Soc 2009;29:261–6.
[22] Transparent Armor. <http://www.surmet.com/alonArmor.html>.
[23] Hsieh AJ, DeSchepper D, Moy P, Dehmer PG, Song JW. The effects of PMMA on
ballistic impact performance of hybrid hard/ductile all-plastic- and glass-
plastic-based composites. ARL-TR-3155, Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen
Proving Ground MD; 2004.
[24] Sarva S, Mulliken AD, Boyce MC, Hsieh AJ. Mechanics of transparent polymer
material assemblies under projectile impact: simulations and experiments. In:
Proceedings of the 24th US army science conference, vol. 42. Orlando, FL, USA;
2006. p. 227–34.
[25] Krell A, Straßburger E. Hierarchy of key influences on the ballistic strength of
opaque and transparent armor. Ceram Eng Sci Proc 2007;28(5):45–55.
[26] Woodward RL, Baxter BJ, Gooch Jr GA, O’Donnel RG, Pattie SD, Perciballi WL. A
study of fragmentation in the ballistic impact of ceramics. Int J Impact Eng
1994;15(5):605–18.
[27] Bless S, Chen T. Impact Damage in Layered Glass. Int J Fracture 2010;
162(1–2):151–8.
[28] Dolan AM. Ballistic transparent armor testing using a multi-hit rifle pattern
bachelors’ thesis. Kettering University; December 2007.
[29] Improving survivability and mobility. Concept vehicle illustrating new options
for military combat vehicles unveiled, September 12, 2005. <http://
gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/ultra-ap.htm>.