International Conference on

Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)

IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

ESTIMATION OF IMPACT STRENGTH OF 7075-T651

ALUMINIUM PLATE AGAINST STEEL PENETRATOR
K. Senthil1, M.A. Iqbal 2, V. Bhardwaj3 and N.K. Gupta4
1
Assistant Professor, Deptt. of Civil Engg., NIT Jalandhar, Jalandhar, India, urssenthil85@yahoo.co.in
2
Associate Professor, Deptt. of Civil Engg., IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India, iqbal_ashraf@rediffmail.com
3
Scientist, TBRL (DRDO), Sector 30, Chandigarh, India, bhardwajtbrl@yahoo.com
4
Emiratus Professor, Deptt. of Applied Mech., IIT Delhi, Delhi, India, narinder_gupta@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

In the present study, the calibrated Johnson-Cook material parameters proposed in our
previous studies [1] has been validated through the simulations on 7075-T651 aluminium
against various size, shape and mass of projectiles. Three-dimensional numerical simulations
of the problem were carried out using finite element code ABAQUS. First phase, the ballistic
resistance of 20 mm thick 7075-T651 aluminium plates has been studied against API
projectiles through numerical simulations and validated with our own experiments. Second
phase is the numerical investigations were carried out on 7075-T651 aluminium plates
against 7.62 API projectile, blunt and ogival nose projectiles validated with the available
experimental results [2, 3]. Overall, the predicted failure modes were in close agreement to
their actual failure modes. Also the predicted ballistic limit and residual velocities are found
in good agreement with the experimental results.

Key Words: 7075-T651 aluminium alloy, 12.7 API projectile, 7.62 API projectile, Blunt nose
projectile and Ballistic limit.

INTRODUCTION

The 7000 series aluminium alloys have major applications in commercial and military air
carriers, owing to their associated light weight, high strength and good machinability
characteristics. 7075-T6 is the highest strength alloy of aluminium, possessing high fracture
toughness and low fatigue crack growth, and hence it is ideally suited for primary airframe
structure including fuselage and wing skin. Borvik et al. [2] conducted ballistic experiments
and simulations on 20 mm thick 7075 aluminium alloy against blunt and ogival nose
projectiles. Forrestal et al. [3-4] studied experimentally the ballistic response of 7075-T651
aluminium against ogival nose rods. However, few authors studied the response of different
metals against various size and shapes of projectiles [5-12]. It is observed the numerical
investigation on 7075 aluminium alloy is rarely available in the literature. In the present
study, ABAQUS/Explicit finite element code in conjunction with Johnson-Cook elasto-
viscoplastic material model calibrated is available in literature was employed to perform the
simulation. The numerical results thus obtained were compared with those of experimental
results carried by [1-3].

CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING

The flow and fracture behavior of material was predicted employing the Johnson-Cook
elasto-viscoplastic material model, Johnson and Cook [13, 14] available in ABAQUS finite
element code, ABAQUS [15]. The material model includes the effect of linear thermo-
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
elasticity, yielding, plastic flow, isotropic strain hardening, strain rate hardening, softening
due to adiabatic heating and damage. The conventional flow stress, 𝛔𝟎 , for ductile material
under static loading at ambient temperature could be defined as; σ0 = [A + B(ε̅pl )n ], where
ε̅pl is equivalent plastic strain, A is static yield stress, B is strain hardening parameter and n is
the strain hardening exponent. Johnson-Cook incorporated the effect of thermal softening in
the flow stress expression in an un coupled fashion and the resultant expression became;
σ0 = [A + B(ε̅pl )n ][1 − T ̂ m ], where m is thermal softening parameter and T ̂ is the non-
dimensional temperature defined as;
0 for T < T0
̂ = (T − T0 )⁄(Tmelt − T0 )
T for T0 ≤ T ≤ Tmelt (1)
1 for T > Tmelt
Where T is the current temperature, Tmelt is the melting point temperature and T0 is the
transition temperature defined as the one at or below which there is no temperature
dependence on the expression of the yield stress. When T > Tmelt , the material melts down
and behaves like fluid and hence does not offer shear resistance i.e., σ0 = 0. The Johnson-
pl pl
Cook strain rate dependence assumes; σ ̂) 𝑅(ε̇ ), ε̇ = ε̇ 0 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ⌊1 (𝑅 −
̅ = σ0 (ε̅pl , T 𝐶
pl
0
1)⌋for ̅σ ≥ σ , where σ ̅ is the yield stress at non zero strain rate, ε̇ is equivalent plastic
strain rate, ε̇ 0 is the reference strain rate, C is the material parameters measured at or below
pl
̂) is the static yield stress and 𝑅(ε̇ ) is the ratio of the
the transition temperature T0 , σ0 (ε̅pl , T
yield stress at non zero strain rate to the static yield stress. The elastic strain is thus
negligible, and the total strain provides a sufficiently accurate approximation to the plastic
strain. The true stress is determined by dividing the measured force with the current area and
this stress is uniform over the cross section of the specimen before necking. Moreover, this
stress state is uniaxial, and consequently the von Mises equivalent stress 𝜎 equals σ. After
necking, however, the stress state becomes three dimensional in the neck, and all further
development of plastic deformation takes place here. The equivalent von Mises stress 𝜎 of
the Johnson-Cook model is defined as;
pl
pl ε̇
̅(ε̅pl , ε̇ , T
σ ̂) = [A + B(ε̅pl )n ] [1 + Cln ( )] [1 − T
̂ m] (2)
ε̇ 0

The Johnson and Cook [14] extended the failure criterion proposed by Hancock and
Mackenzie [16] by incorporating the effect of strain path, strain rate and temperature in the
fracture strain expression, in addition to stress triaxiality. The fracture criterion is based on
damage evolution wherein the damage of the material is assumed to occur when the damage
∆ε̅pl
parameter, 𝜔, exceeds unity; 𝜔 = ∑ ( 𝑝𝑙 ) , where ∆ε̅pl is an increment of the equivalent
𝜀̅𝑓

plastic strain, 𝜀̅𝑓𝑝𝑙 is the strain at failure. The strain at failure 𝜀̅𝑓𝑝𝑙 is assumed to be dependent
pl
ε̇
on a non-dimensional plastic strain rate, ; a dimensionless pressure-deviatoric stress ratio,
ε̇ 0
σm
̅
(where σm is the mean stress and σ ̅ is the equivalent von-Mises stress) and the non-
σ
dimensional temperature, T̂, defined earlier in the Johnson-Cook hardening model. The
dependencies are assumed to be separable and are of the form;

𝜎 pl ̇ pl
̂ ) = [D1 + D2 exp (D3 σm )] [1 + D4 ln (ε )] [1 + D5 T
ε̅𝑓𝑝𝑙 ( 𝜎̅𝑚 , ε̇ , T ̂] (3)
̅
σ ε̇ 0
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
pl
Where D1 − D5 are material parameters determined from different mechanical test, ε̇ is
equivalent plastic strain rate and ε̇ 0 is a reference strain rate.

(c) (d)
(a) (b)

Figure 1 Typical finite element model Geometry of (a) 7.62 (b) 12.7 API projectiles [1] and
197 grams [2-3] of (c) blunt and (d) ogive nose projectiles

Figure 2 Typical finite element model of target and projectiles

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

The computational model of the projectile and the target was developed on ABAQUS/CAE.
The span of modelled target, 200 mm x 200 mm, was considered smaller than its actual
dimensions, 500 mm x 500 mm, in order to reduce the computational time. The steel core of
the 7.62 and 12.7 API projectile was modelled for all the finite element simulations assuming
that the brass jacket is stripped off and had no influence on the perforation process, [17, 18].
The 7.62 and 12.7 API projectile was modelled as deformable body whereas the blunt and
ogival nose projectile was modelled as rigid body, see Fig. 1. The hexahedral elements of 1
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
mm3 were used to discretize the 7.61 and 12.7 API projectile throughout its body, See Fig.
1(a-b). The contact between projectile and target was modelled employing the Kinematic
contact algorithm assuming a coefficient of friction 0.02. [17, 18]. The projectile was
considered as master and the through thickness contact region of target as node based slave
surface. The target was meshed with eight node linear hexahedral elements with hourglass
control, Fig. 2. The mesh sensitivity of 20 mm thick target was studied by varying the
element size as 0.65, 0.55, 0.45, 0.35 and 0.25 mm3 in the impact region corresponding to 31,
37, 45, 58 and 80 elements at the thickness keeping the aspect ratio close to unity. The 12.7
API projectile was normally impacted on 20 mm thick target at 820 m/s velocity and the
residual velocity was found to be 717, 705, 695, 687 and 680 m/s respectively. The residual
velocity converged corresponding to element size 0.35 mm3. Hence, the element size in the
impact zone of the target was considered to be 0.35 mm3 and the aspect ratio close to unity
for all the simulations. Away from the impact region, however, the size of element was
slightly increased.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The ballistic evaluation of 7075-T651 aluminium target of 20 mm thickness was studied

against 7.62 and 12.7 mm API projectiles. Also the target was studied against hardened steel
of 197 grams blunt and ogival nose projectiles and their responses were discussed in this
Section.

Response of Target against 12.7 API projectile

The 12.7 API projectiles were fired through Air Defence Gun on 20 mm thick 7075-T651
aluminium targets at the normal incidence velocity of about 820 m/s. The experiments were
conducted at the ballistic test range in the open field at TBRL, Chandigarh and discussed in
detail in [1]. A large number of fragments ejected from 20mm thick target from the back
surface of the target during projectile perforation at normal impact, see Fig. 3. The
fragmentation phenomenon was also predicted through finite element results. The flash
produced during experimentation due to the contact of projectile and target is also visible in
the frame and captured through the high speed video camera. The projectile made a clean cut
circular hole at the front as well back surface which has been accurately reproduced by all
sets of parameters in [1]. The chipping of material at the rear surface although could not be
reproduced however, higher stresses developed in that region describe the proximity with the
actual findings. The pattern of stresses predicted by Set-4 parameters is in closest agreement
with that of the observed chipping.

Frame I Frame II

Experiment Simulation Experiment Simulation

Figure 3 Perforation of 12.7 API projectile on 20 mm thick target
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

Table 1 Ballistic limit velocity of 12.7 API projectile impacted on 20 mm thick target

Impact Residual velocity (m/s) Model constants Ballistic

velocity Numerical Recht-Ipson limit
a p
(m/s) results model results (m/s)
820.82 687.8 705.88
700 559.1 563.45
600 437.7 436.46
500 284.2 290.64 1.0 1.91 397.5
440 169.2 177.38
420 117.6 125.69
400 24.9 39.32
395 0.0 0.00

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4 (a) Experimental results at incidence velocity Vi = 642 m/s and (b) Vi = 626 m/s;
and (c) the numerical results obtained by set 4 parameter at Vi = 642 m/s (d) set 4 parameter
at Vi = 626 m/s against 7.62 API projectiles

The ballistic limit of 20 mm thick target has been reproduced numerically with Set 4
parameter against 12.7 API projectiles at normal impact. The numerical simulations were
carried out at assumed incidence velocities to obtain the ballistic limit velocity, see Table 1.
The ballistic limit velocity was calculated as the average of the highest projectile velocity not
giving perforation and the lowest projectile velocity giving complete perforation of the target.
This critical velocity also known as “V50” has 50% probability to perforate the target. Thus,
the target is not expected to be perforated if the velocity of projectile is lower than this
critical velocity. Moreover, for any given wall thickness of the target to be successfully
perforated, the velocity of projectile should be greater than V50. After obtaining the ballistic
limit velocity, the residual projectile velocity corresponding to a given incidence velocity was
also calculated using the Recht-Ipson model. The residual velocities were calculated based on
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
the empirical model proposed by Recht and Ipson [19]. The least square method was used to
obtain a best fit to the numerical data and thus calibrate the parameter a and p of the model.
The ballistic limit velocity, V50, has been found to be 397.5 m/s and the parameters a and p
were calibrated to be 1 and 1.91 respectively.

Response of Target against 7.62 API projectile

The ballistic test conducted by Forrestal et al. [2] on 20 mm thick target against 7.62 API
projectiles were numerically simulated. The material parameters of Set-4 was employed
along with the JC damage model (0 orientation). The computational modelling was identical
to what has been discussed earlier. The size of element in 7.62 API projectile, Fig. 1(a), was
considered same as in case of 12.7 API projectile. The Set-4 parameters predicted the ballistic
limit, 628 m/s, in accurate agreement with the actual ballistic limit, 633 m/s, see Table 2. The
projectile experienced perforation until a minimum velocity, 642 m/s, and at 626 m/s velocity
it embedded in the target, see Figs. 4(a) and (b) respectively. Both the perforation and
embedment have been accurately reproduced at the corresponding incidence velocities, see
Figs. 4(c) and (d) respectively.

Table 2 Ballistic resistance of 20 mm thick target against 7.62 API projectiles

Impact Residual velocity (m/s) Ballistic limit velocity (m/s)
velocity Experimental Numeric Experimental Numerical
(m/s) results [2] al results results [2] results
867.8 579.7 576.3
715.7 357.1 338.3
670.3 190.6 204.0
667.0 198.9 199.1
169.5 633 628
654.0 140.5
640.5 129.2 128.2
630.0 - 28.3
626.0 0.0 0.0

Response of Target against Blunt Nose projectile

The ballistic test conducted by Borvik et al. [3] on 20 mm thick target against blunt nose
projectiles were numerically simulated. The simulations carried out using 20 mm diameter,
197 g mass hardened steel projectiles with blunt nose shapes to reveal the alloy’s resistance
to ballistic impact, and both the ballistic limit velocities and the initial versus residual
velocity curves are obtained, see Fig 5(a). It is found that the alloy is rather brittle during
impact, and severe fragmentation and plugging of the target in the impact zone are detected
and same thing was observed during the simulations, see Fig. 5(b). The initial versus residual
velocities are predicted and compared with the experimental results, see Fig. 6. Overall the
impact and residual velocities obtained through numerical simulations are found in good
agreement. The predicted ballistic limit velocity is 174 m/s is found in good agreement as
compare to experiments, i.e. 183 m/s.
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
(b)
(a)

(a) (b)

(a)
(b)

Figure 5 Comparison of (a) experimental [3] and (b) numerical results of perforation of blunt
nose projectile (Vi = 199.8 m/s) on 20 mm thick target

300
Experiments (Borvik et al 2010)
250 Numerical results
Residual Velocity m/s

200

150

100

50

0
150 200 250 300 350
Impact Velocity m/s
Figure 6 Comparison of experimental [3] and numerical results of aluminium targets against
blunt nose projectiles

Response of Target against Ogival Nose projectile

The ballistic test conducted by Borvik et al. [3] on 20 mm thick target against 193 gram
ogival nose projectiles were numerically simulated. The simulations carried out using 20 mm
diameter, 197 g mass hardened steel projectiles with blunt nose shapes to reveal the alloy’s
resistance to ballistic impact, and both the ballistic limit velocities and the initial versus
residual velocity curves are obtained. The initial versus residual velocities are predicted and
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
compared with the experimental results. It is found that the alloy is rather brittle during
impact, and severe fragmentation and delamination of the target in the impact zone were
detected and same thing was observed during the simulations, see Fig. 7(a)-(b). Overall the
impact and residual velocities obtained through numerical simulations are found in good
agreement. The predicted ballistic limit velocity is 218 m/s is found in good agreement as
compare to the experiments, i.e. 208 m/s, see Fig. 8.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

Figure 7 Comparison of (a) experimental [3] and (b) numerical results of perforation of ogive
nose projectile (Vi = 277.7 m/s) on 20 mm thick target

300
Experiments (Borvik et al 2010)
250 Numerical results
Residual Velocity m/s

200

150

100

50

0
200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Impact Velocity m/s

Figure 8 Comparison of experimental [3] and numerical results of aluminium targets against
ogive nose projectiles
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
CONCLUSIONS

The ballistic tests performed on 7075-T651 targets against various projectiles have been
simulated using the material models calibrated in our previous studies. The ballistic
resistance of aluminium target was studied and the results obtained were compared with the
experimental results and the following conclusions were drawn.
The plate deformation on 20 mm thick target was observed during an experiment and similar
deformation has been witnessed through numerical simulation. The plug, fragmentation and
delamination of size equivalent to the projectile diameter was observed in all the deformed
targets is found in good agreement. The ballistic limit of 20 mm thick target was found in
good agreement with experimental value against given projectiles.

REFERENCES

1. Senthil, K., Iqbal, M.A, Chandel, P., and Gupta, N.K. (2017), “Study of the constitutive
behavior of 7075-T651 aluminum alloy”, Int. J. Impact Eng., 108, 171-190.
2. Forrestal, M.J., Borvik, T., and Warren, T.L. (2010), “Perforation of 7075-T651
aluminium armor plates with 7.62 mm APM2 bullets”, Exp. Mech., 50, 1245–51.
3. Borvik, T., Hopperstad, O.S., and Pedersen, K.O. (2010), “Quasi-brittle fracture during
structural impact of AA7075-T651 aluminium plates”, Int. J. Impact Eng., 37, 537–551.
4. Forrestal, M.J., and Luk, V.K., Rosenberg, Z., and Brar, N.S. (1992), “Penetration of
7075-T651 aluminum targets with ogival-nose rods”, Int. J. Solids Struct., 29 (14-15),
1729-36.
5. Demir, T., Ubeyli, M., and Yildirim, R.O. (2008), “Investigation on the ballistic impact
behavior of various alloys against 7.62 mm armor piercing projectile”, Mat. Design, 29,
2009-16.
6. Dey, S., Borvik, T., Hopperstad, O.S., Leinum, J.R., and Langseth, M. (2004), “The
effect of target strength on the perforation of steel plates using three different projectile
nose shapes”, Int. J. Impact Eng., 30, 1005–38.
7. Børvik, T., Langseth, M., Hopperstad, O.S., and Malo, K.A. (2002), “Perforation of
12mm thick steel plates by 20mm diameter projectiles with blunt, hemispherical and
conical noses, Part I: experimental study”, Int. J. Impact Eng., 27, 19–35.
8. Iqbal, M.A., Diwakar, A., Rajput, A., and Gupta, N.K. (2012), “Influence of projectile
shape and incidence angle on the ballistic limit and failure mechanism of thick steel
plates”, Theo. Applied Fra. Mech., 62, 40-53.
9. Iqbal, M.A., Gupta, G., Diwakar, A., and Gupta, N.K. (2010), “Effect of projectile nose
shape on the ballistic resistance of ductile targets”, Euro. J. Mech. A/Solids, 29, 683-694.
10. Senthil, K., Arindam, B., Iqbal, M.A., and Gupta, N.K. (2017), “Ballistic response of
2024 aluminium plates against blunt nose projectiles”, Proc. Eng., 173, 363-368.
11. Senthil, K., Iqbal, M.A., Arindam. B., Mittal, R., and Gupta, N.K. (2017), “Ballistic
resistance of 2024 aluminium plates against hemispherical, sphere and blunt nose
projectiles”, Thin-Walled Struct. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2017.02.028.
12. Senthil, K. (2015), “Response of metallic plates to small arms projectile impact”, Ph. D
Thesis, Deptt. Of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10203.77600.
13. Johnson, G.R., and Cook, W.H. (1983), “A constitutive model and data for metals
subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures”, In: Proc. 7th Int.
Symp. Ballistics, The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 541–547.
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018
14. Johnson, G.R., and Cook, W.H. (1985), “Fracture characteristics of three metals
subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures”, Eng. Fracture
Mech., 21, 31–48.
15. ABAQUS/Explicit User’s Manual, 2008. Version 6.8.
16. Hancock, J.W., and Mackenzie, A.C. (1976), “On the mechanisms of ductile failure in
high-strength steels subjected to multi-axial stress-states”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 24,
147–169.
17. Iqbal, M.A., Senthil, K., Bhargava, P., and Gupta, N.K. (2015), “The characterization
and ballistic evaluation of mild steel Int. J. Impact Eng. 78 98–113.
18. Iqbal, M.A., Senthil, K., Sharma, P., and Gupta, N.K. (2016), “An investigation of
constitutive behaviour of Armox 500T steel and armour piercing incendiary projectile
material”, Int. J. Impact Engg., 96, 146-164.
19. Recht, R.F., and Ipson, T.W. (1963), “Ballistic perforation dynamics”, J. Applied Mech.,
30, 384–390.