Lightweight ceramic composite armour system

E. Medvedovski
The development of lightweight armour systems for ballistic protection is under continuing
attention of the manufacturers and users. A new design of the composite armour systems has
been developed and ballistically tested. A new armour system consists of a ceramic plate, an
intermediate ceramic–polymer layer and a polymer fibre lining as a backing material. The
proposed composite armour systems prepared with a use of specially selected compositions of
the intermediate layer promoting the absorption of the kinetic energy of projectiles provide
adequate ballistic protection to National Institute of Justice (NIJ) level III and level IV, and they
Downloaded by [National University of Sciences & Technology] at 23:48 26 June 2016

successfully withstand multiple hits.

Keywords: Ceramics, Composites, Armour, Ballistic performance

Introduction such as Kevlar or Twaron (the number of aramid fabric

During the last decade, intensive studies are devoted to
the development of lightweight armour systems for
personnel and vehicular applications, which are desig-
nated for multihit situations.1–5 Advanced ceramics is
one of the important components of the armour
systems; ceramics assist to defeat projectiles through
the ballistic impact energy dissipation. Usually ceramic
armour systems consist of a front monolithic ceramic
plate covered by ballistic nylon and bonded with a lining
from high tensile strength fibres, such as Kevlar, Twaron
and Spectra; in some cases, soft metallic layers may be
used. Upon ballistic impact (projectile velocity .700–
800 m s21), the hard ceramic body used is cracked and
broken, and the residual energy is absorbed by the soft
reinforced backing material. This backing material also
must support the post-impact fracturing of the ceramic
body and the defeated bullet.
Different ceramics are used as armour materials; they
include some oxide ceramics (mostly, alumina ceramics
with different Al2O3 contents) and non-oxide ceramics
(carbides, nitrides, borides, such as materials based on
B4C, SiC, Si3N4, AlN and some others). These materials
have high mechanical properties (e.g. hardness, Young’s
modulus, strength). Also ceramic matrix composite
materials, which may be reinforced with whiskers, fibres,
particulates, or cermets prepared by the infiltration
routes may be used owing to their mechanical properties
and impact energy dissipation ability.
Ceramic armour systems may be designed taking into
consideration several different factors, including the
properties of the armour components. The nature and
thickness of backing materials may have a significant
influence on crack propagation owing to their own
abilities to reduce the stress. Ceramic plates with
thicknesses of 7–9 mm bonded with aramid fabrics,
Umicore Indium Products, 50 Sims Ave., Providence, RI 02909, USA
(formerly with Ceramic Protection Corporation, Canada)
*Corresponding author, email emedvedovski@cox.net
layers depends on the ballistic requirements, type of
fabrics and ceramic performance) can stop a variety of
projectiles. In general, the thinner the ceramic plate, the
greater the number of aramid fabric layers or other
backing materials is required. Some examples of the
ballistic protection of armour systems consisted of
alumina ceramic plates and Kevlar backing with
different thicknesses are performed by Ravid et al.5
Practical experience shows that a decrease in a ceramic
plate thickness of 0.5–1 mm, when the thickness ranges
from 5 to 7 mm, may require a significant increase in
aramid backing. The systems based on 5–5.5 mm
ceramic plates (all types of ceramics) require thick
aramid backing. In this case, aramid backing made of
flexible fibres with a small diameter of filaments (the
materials, such as Kevlar 129 or KM or Twaron T-flex
with 1000–600 denier v. Kevlar 29) are preferable. The
systems based on thin ceramic plates with a thickness of
4.5–5.5 mm bonded with laminated polyethylene back-
ing, e.g. Spectra (20–25 mm thickness) have been shown
to successfully defeat even armour piercing (AP)
projectiles with a tungsten carbide (WC) core. In many
cases, more complicated designs based on the face
ceramics and backing made from different materials
(e.g. aluminium plus Kevlar or some other combina-
tions) increase performance; however, it may decrease
manufacturing productivity and, hence, increase the cost
of the armour. In general, armour systems are designed
based on the requirements of performance, weight,
application and manufacturing ability.
Fracturing of ceramic armour systems upon ballistic
impacts was studied by a number of authors.5–9 They
noted several stages of ceramic fracturing. As noted,6
this process includes: initial impact with hydrodynamic
flow of penetrator and armour ceramics; breakup and
continued flow of penetrator and high speed jetting of
debris; ceramic fracture, formation of Hertzian cone
cracks and tensile cracks on the back face with
continued penetrator breakup and flow; erosion of
penetrator and widespread fracture of the ceramics. At
increased bullet velocities, the energy transmission

ß 2006 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 21 January 2006; accepted 21 April 2006
DOI 10.1179/174367606X113537 Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 5 241
 Medvedovski Lightweight ceramic composite armour system
through ceramic armour and across boundaries via
shock waves becomes more valuable, i.e. the ability of
ceramics to dissipate the bullet kinetic energy and to
prevent the crack propagation is very important. During
the ballistic impact, the disintegration of the ceramic
plate into particles ranging from a very fine powder to
relatively large fragments (up to several square centi-
metres) is occurring. The impact area of a ceramic is
comminuted and compacted under the compressive
action of the projectile.
Different kinds of cracks may be formed during the
ballistic impact. A locus of conoidal coaxial cracks starts
at the impact point; while radial tensile cracks are
initiated at the back surface close to the axis of impact.
Star cracks are formed at the side of conoids. Tangential
spall cracks occur owing to shear stress waves reflected
from the edges of a plate and owing to the formation of
the cone cracks; lateral spall cracks may also form owing
Downloaded by [National University of Sciences & Technology] at 23:48 26 June 2016
to the longitudinal stress waves reflected from the
backing support. Fragments of damaged ceramics with
different sizes ranging from big chunks to a fine powder
are noted after fracturing. As noted, cracks formation
owing to the wave reflection from the backing may have
a significant effect on the ceramic destruction.
Especially, it is important when a ceramic front plate
has a small thickness, e.g. ,6 mm. In this case, the
armour system is generally weak owing to insufficient
erosion of the projectile penetrating through a thin
ceramic. A shock wave reflection from the backing
results in the weakening of the armour system. In order
to provide the adequate ballistic protection, a relatively
thick layer of the backing is required. If ceramic plates
are relatively thin (,6 mm) and in the case of the use of
aramid backing, the fabric based on the filaments with
small diameters (1000–600 denier) and a high flexibility
should be used. Such types of aramid backing are rather
expensive, and a use of very many plies of these aramid
fabrics requires, as practical experience shows, intensive
labour involvement. However, even in this case, the
adequate protection is hardly achieved, especially, if a
thickness of the ceramic plates is in the range of 4–
4.5 mm, i.e. when a decrease in the weight of armour
systems is attained by a decrease in a thickness of
ceramics.
A use of more complex armour may increase ballistic
protection; however, the weight of armour systems is
still one of the critical factors. As one of the directions of
the lightweight armour system design, a ‘separation’ of
the front ceramic plate and aramid based backing may
be effective. However, in this case, a whole system
should be bond properly, and a ‘separating’ layer should
not decrease the armour system performance.
Table 1 General properties of ceramics used for studied composites
Properties
Density, g cm23
Young’s modulus, GPa
Sonic velocity, km s21
Vickers hardness*, GPa
.
Fracture toughness KIc, MPa m0 5
Flexural strength, MPa
Brittleness B, 61026 m21
Ballistic energy dissipation criterion D, 610212 s21 (calculated)
*Tested at the load of 10 kg for AL98 and AM2 ceramics and at 1 kg for RBSC ceramics for the major grains.
242 Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 5
Armour system design and
manufacturing
A new lightweight composite armour system design has
been proposed. This system consists of the following
three major components:
(i) an armour face plate made from ceramics with
high hardness and mechanical properties in order
to brake the bullet and to dissipate its impact
energy
(ii) an aramid based backing material for impact
energy absorption and for stopping the bullet
and occurred fragments
(iii) a ceramic–polymer ‘separating’ layer.
As the face component, ballistic grade plates made from
high alumina ceramics, alumina–mullite ceramics and
reaction bonded silicon carbide ceramics (RBSC) with a
high level of mechanical properties (hardness, strength,
etc.), relatively low brittleness, optimised microstructure
and ballistic impact energy dissipation ability were used.
The properties (summarised in Table 1), structures and
manufacturing features of these ceramic materials were
described earlier.4 These selected ceramic materials
provide multihit ballistic performance of the armour
systems, and they are relatively inexpensive; because of
these reasons the mentioned materials were selected
among other armour ceramics. Ceramic plates were used
as two types of thicknesses, i.e. ‘thin’ plates made from
alumina AL98, alumina–mullite AM2 and RBSC
ceramics with a thickness of 4.0–4.5 mm (such type of
plates should significantly reduce weight of armour
systems) and ‘thick’ plates made from alumina and
alumina–mullite ceramics with a thickness of 8.0–
8.5 mm. The alumina or alumina–mullite plates of 8.5–
9 mm were used for the AP testing. The plates had a
single curve configuration with a general format of
approximately (200–270)6(2506320) mm, i.e. nor-
mally used for personnel protection. Also flat tiles of
similar formats and above mentioned thicknesses were
used.
As the backing materials, commercially used Kevlar
or Twaron ballistic fabrics were used. Types and
thicknesses of these backing materials were selected
depending on the thickness of the face ceramic plates.
The compositions of the intermediate ceramic–
polymer layer have been developed. As the ceramic
ingredient of these compositions, either lightweight solid
ceramic filler, such as relatively coarse boron carbide or
silicon carbide powders, or hollow (bubble) alumina
ceramic spheres (manufactured by PEM-Pechiney,
France) were used. The particle size distribution of the
used ingredients was taken into consideration in order to
AL98 AM2 RBSC
3.80–3.82 3.52–3.56 3.0–3.05
325–360 230–245 320–350
10.0–10.5 8.6–8.7 10.5–11.0
12.2–12.9 11.0–11.2 23.0–24.0
3.0–3.3 2.5–2.6 2.2–2.5
300–350 330–350 190–240
370–430 400–420 –
1.50–1.60 1.20–1.40 –

Downloaded by [National University of Sciences & Technology] at 23:48 26 June 2016
1 Ballistic test results (7.62654R LPS, 3 rounds) for the
proposed armour system based on 4.5 mm AM2 single
curve ceramic plate (left – front face, right – back
face)
achieve adequate compaction of the ceramic particles at
acceptable ability to mix them. From the weight
concern, hollow spheres are preferable. These composi-
tions can be easy prepared by the mixing of selected
fillers (solid or hollow particles) with proper polymeric
ingredients. A number of special compositions consisted
of lightweight ceramic fillers and polymer substances
were prepared; these mixes cured and hardened pretty
fast; however, there was enough time between mixing
and hardening, i.e. these compositions provided an
acceptable workability. The curing did not require
special expensive thermal equipment.
The manufacturing of these armour systems includes
bonding of the ceramic armour plates with a ‘separating’
layer and then bonding with a backing. Prepared mix for
the intermediate layer was placed onto the back face of
ceramic plates wrapped with fibreglass (prepreg). In
order to maintain a consistent thickness of this layer and
also for its use for the body armour plates with special
curvatures, special polymeric (aramid) honeycomb
structures were used. After the curing of the intermedi-
ate ‘separating’ layer, the bonding of the backing was
carried out in the autoclave using a commercial
procedure for the bonding of armour ceramics with
backing materials.
Ballistic testing
The ballistic performance of the proposed composite
armour systems was tested using weapons such as the
M16, AK47 and some others (caliber 0.30). Depending
on the application and the required level of protection,
the ammunition 7.62651 mm NATO Ball full metal
jacket (FMJ) with a lead core, 7.62654R light
penetrating steel (LPS) with a steel core and
7.62663 mm AP M2 with a WC core were used.
Depending on the ammunition, the bullet weight,
velocity and energy were varied, e.g. the bullet velocities
for the mentioned projectiles were 830–870, 700–730 and
820–870 m s21 respectively. The bullet velocity during
testing was measured using an optical chronograph. The
Medvedovski Lightweight ceramic composite armour system
trauma after shooting was evaluated using a Roma
Plastilina modelling clay placed behind the armour
system; the trauma in clay shows the transient deforma-
tion of the composite on the back of the system. The
damage zone of the ceramics, including ceramic
fragmentation, and the subsequent post-impact condi-
tion of the bullet, were observed. Multihit performance
of the armour systems was evaluated, i.e. the plates were
shot using 3 or 6 rounds of NATO Ball and LPS
ammunitions with a required distance between shots.
Armour systems were selected for testing depending on
the ammunition. The armour systems based on ‘thin’
alumina, alumina–mullite and RBSC plates were tested
for NATO Ball and LPS threats, while armour systems
based on ‘thick’ alumina and alumina–mullite plates
were tested for NATO Ball and AP threats.
Ballistic testing results
The composite armour systems of the proposed designs
tested in accordance with the mentioned procedure
demonstrated satisfactory multihit (3 or 6 rounds)
ballistic performance defeating projectiles (NATO Ball
and LPS ammunition) and one AP round. The example
of the ballistic test results is exhibited in Fig. 1 and
Table 2. The plates with optimised designs and bonding
technique did not exhibit delamination of the backing
material after ballistic testing. Upon ballistic impacts,
the front ceramic plates were fracturing. They had the
cracks described above; however, the cracks related to
the shock wave reflection practically were not observed.
The crack formation of the ballistically impacted
ceramic plates may be observed in Figs. 2 and 3.
In comparison with a ‘conventional’ design (front
ceramic plates bonded with aramid backing consisted of
a selected amount of laminated plies), the proposed
designs demonstrated improved ballistic performance.
The proposed design with a use of ‘thick’ ceramic plates
(8–8.5 mm) allowed to reduce substantially the quantity
of the backing material layers (comparatively with a
‘conventional’ design) with adequate ballistic perfor-
mance (successfully defeated 3 or 6 rounds of NATO
Ball and LPS ammunitions and 1 round of the AP
ammunition) that resulted in a cost reduction in the
materials utilised for the manufacturing (the backing
materials such as Kevlar or Twaron have the highest
cost among the used armour system components). In the
case of ‘thin’ ceramic armour plates (4.0–4.5 mm), the
effect of the proposed design was even more significant.
The ‘conventional’ armour systems based on such
ceramic plates bonded with aramid backing could not
defeat 3 rounds of the projectile (both NATO Ball and
LPS ammunitions) or required an extremely high
number of the plies. In general, velocity and energy of
the projectile are reduced by the solid hard ceramic front
plate; however, in the case of ‘thin’ ceramic plate, the
residual velocity and energy of the projectile are still
high enough for penetration in the case of the
‘conventional’ design. Opposite to them, the proposed
systems with even lower numbers of aramid plies
successfully defeated both NATO and LPS projectiles
(3 rounds of each to one plate) with acceptable trauma
(i.e. not greater than 40 mm). At the same time, the
weights of the armour systems were not greater than
2.5 kg. For example, the armour systems based on
4.5 mm alumina–mullite (AM2) ceramic plates bonded
Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 5 243
 Medvedovski Lightweight ceramic composite armour system

2 Crack formation at AM2 ceramic plate after ballistic 3 Crack formation at RBSC ceramic plate after ballistic
impact (7.62651 mm NATO Ball FMJ); backing material impact (7.62651 mm NATO Ball FMJ); backing material
Downloaded by [National University of Sciences & Technology] at 23:48 26 June 2016

was removed was removed

protection against the ‘shock waves from the backing,

with a ceramic (bubble alumina)–polymer ‘separating’
layer and aramid backing had a total weight of 2000–
2100 g. It should be noted that, despite lower mechan-
ical properties (hardness, fracture toughness, sonic
velocity) of alumina–mullite ceramics in comparison
with high alumina ceramics, the armour systems made
with a use of these materials require the same thickness
of backing material and have the same level of ballistic
performance; but the use of AM2 ceramics provides
some decreases in weight of the armour systems owing
to its lower density (3.52–3.56 versus 3.8–3.85 g cm23).
In the case of the use of RBSC ceramics, the armour
systems required some increase in thickness of the
ceramic plates (up to 5.0–5.5 mm) to obtain adequate
ballistic performance. The ‘conventional’ system design
also required thicker RBSC plates (5.5–6.0 mm) and
more backing.
The improved performance of the proposed designs
relies on the point that the ‘separating’ layer, besides the
promotes to the overall structure a capacity to plastic
deformation. The hard ceramic grits compacted by a
proper manner or, especially, hollow ceramic spheres
provide to the structure a multiplicity of surfaces and
thus a multiplicity of cracks initiation sites. Owing to the
hollow shape of spheres, the cracks initiated cannot
propagate within these spheres, i.e. these spheres
significantly improved the energy dissipation upon the
ballistic impact. The projectile is thus always facing new
surfaces of the hard material. Because of these particles
(grains or spheres), the part of residual energy of the
projectile is used to initiate a multiplicity of cracks at the
surface of those particles. This intermediate layer
promotes the absorption of kinetic energy of the
projectile. Honeycomb used for the intermediate layer
preparation provides rigidity of the structure of this
layer and reduces deformation of the armour system.
The erosion of the projectile against the surfaces of
the ceramic grits or fragmented microspheres also

Table 2 Ballistic test results of some armour systems*{

Armour system Weight, g Testing Trauma, mm Penetration

Plate AM (4.5 mm)zbacking 1980–2080 NATO Ball, 3 rounds 25 Complete penetration of the second
and third rounds
Plate AM (4.5 mm)zcp (SiC)zbacking 2050–2150 NATO Ball, 3 rounds 25–33 No complete penetration
(thinner than no. 1)
Plate AM (4.5 mm)zcp (BA)zbacking 2000–2100 NATO Ball, 3 rounds 20–26 No complete penetration
(thinner than no. 1)
Plate RBSC (5.5 mm)zbacking 2250–2300 NATO Ball, 3 rounds 33–38 Complete penetration of the
third round
Plate RBSC (5.2 mm)zcp (SiC)zbacking 2350–2450 NATO Ball, 3 rounds 28–40 No complete penetration
(thinner than no. 4)
Plate RBSC (5.2 mm)zcp (BA)zbacking 2300–2400 NATO Ball, 3 rounds 30–38 No complete penetration
(thinner than no. 4)
Plate AL98 (8.5 mm)zbacking 2150–2200 NATO Ball, 6 rounds 25–40 No complete penetration
Plate AL98 (8.5 mm)zcp (BA)zbacking 2200–2250 NATO Ball, 6 rounds 20–35 No complete penetration
(thinner than no. 7)
Plate AL98 (9 mm)zbacking 2700–2750 AP, 1 round 35 No complete penetration
Plate AL98 (9 mm)zcp (BA)zbacking 2750–2800 AP, 1 round 30 No complete penetration
*cp – ceramic–polymer layer, BA – bubble alumina.
{
In the case of penetration, trauma was not measured. The weight comparison between armour systems may be possible only for the
same types of systems (e.g. based on AM thin plates with different backings); the comparison between thin and thick plate systems is
not possible owing to different system designs and different formats of plates (e.g. AL98 plates shot with AP had large formats and
another backing system than AL98 plates shot with NATO Ball). The systems based on thin plates had similar performance in the case
of shooting with NATO and LPS projectiles.

244 Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 5


greatly promotes limiting the capacity of this projectile
to further penetrate within the armour. Hard sharp
ceramic grits’ or fragmented ceramic spheres have a high
level of abrasiveness that additionally destroys the
projectile during its penetration to the armour system.
The particle size distribution of the ceramic grits or
microspheres was specially selected to provide a higher
compaction between these particles to decrease the
volume occupying by the bonding phase, and, therefore,
to increase the erosion of the projectiles. It was noted that
in the case of the use of hard SiC or B4C grits as the filler,
the erosion of the projectiles tended to be visually greater
than in the case of the use of bubble alumina. It may be
easy explained by the comparison of hardness and
abrasiveness of these materials. This erosion was easy
observed for the NATO Ball projectiles, which have a
‘mushroom’ shape after ballistic impacts. Also increased
fragmentation was observed for the AP projectiles if the
Downloaded by [National University of Sciences & Technology] at 23:48 26 June 2016
proposed systems with SiC or B4C grits were used.
Summary
A new proposed armour system design consisted of a
front ceramic plate, intermediate lightweight ceramic–
polymer layer and aramid backing’ demonstrated a high
level of ballistic performance defeating 7.62651 mm
NATO Ball FMJ, 7.62 54R LPS and 7.62663 mm AP
M2 projectiles depending on the thickness of the front
ceramic plate. The proposed armour systems demon-
strated higher ballistic performance comparatively with
‘conventional’ armour systems based on front ceramic
plates and aramid backing that allows to reduce the
thickness (a number of plies) of the backing. The
improved ballistic performance is achieved owing to the
three component design with the developed composition
Medvedovski Lightweight ceramic composite armour system
of the intermediate layer with the selected lightweight
ceramic filler promoted the formation of multiplicity of
surfaces upon ballistic impact and increased kinetic
energy absorption, the decrease in the crack propaga-
tion, especially shock wave induced cracks, and addi-
tional erosion of the projectile. The developed armour
systems are lightweight; the weight of the composite
systems based on thin alumina–mullite ceramic plates of
actual format provided acceptable multihit protection
against NATO Ball and LPS ammunitions may be
decreased up to 2000–2100 g. The proposed composite
design may be used for armour systems for personnel,
vehicular and structural protection.
Acknowledgement
The participation of the specialists of Ceramic
Protection Corporation (Calgary, AB, Canada), which
the author worked with, is appreciated greatly.
References
1. W. A. Gooch, Jr: Brit. Ceram. Trans., 2002, 134, 3–21.
2. B. A. Gama, T. A. Bogetti, B. K. Fink, C. J. Yu, T. D. Claar and
H. H. Eifert: Compos. Struct., 2001, 52, 381–395.
3. R. A. W. Mines: Compos. Struct., 2004, 64, 55–62.
4. E. Medvedovski: Brit. Ceram. Trans., 2006, 178, 3–17.
5. M. Ravid, S. Chocron and S. R. Bodner: Brit. Ceram. Trans., 2003,
151, 145–152.
6. D. J. Viechnicki, M. J. Slavin and M. I. Kliman: Am. Ceram. Soc.
Bull., 1991, 70, (6), 1035–1039.
7. V. D. Frechette and C. F. Cline: Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull., 1970, 49,
(11), 994–997.
8. D. Sherman and D. G. Brandon: J. Mater. Res., 1997, 12, (5),
1335–1343.
9. E. B. Zaretsky, V. E. Paris, G. I. Kanel and A. S. Savinykh: Brit.
Ceram. Trans., 2003, 151, 105–115.
Advances in Applied Ceramics 2006 VOL 105 NO 5 245