materials

Article
Simulation of Bullet Fragmentation and Penetration
in Granular Media
Froylan Alonso Soriano-Moranchel 1 , Juan Manuel Sandoval-Pineda 1 ,
Guadalupe Juliana Gutiérrez-Paredes 1 , Usiel Sandino Silva-Rivera 2
and Luis Armando Flores-Herrera 1, *
1 Postgraduate Studies and Research Section, Instituto Politecnico Nacional, Higher School of Mechanical and
Electrical Engineering, U. Azcapotzalco, Av. Granjas 682, Mexico City 02250, Mexico;
fsorianom0800@alumno.ipn.mx (F.A.S.-M.); jsandovalp@ipn.mx (J.M.S.-P.); ggutierrezp@ipn.mx (G.J.G.-P.)
2 SEDENA, D.G.E.M., Rectory of the Army and Air Force University, Escuela Militar de Ingenieros,
Av. Industria Militar 261, Naucalpan de Juarez 53960, Estado de Mexico, Mexico; ussilvar@ing-mil.com
* Correspondence: lafloresh@ipn.mx




Received: 30 October 2020; Accepted: 18 November 2020; Published: 20 November 2020


Abstract: The aim of this work is to simulate the fragmentation of bullets impacted through
granular media, in this case, sand. In order to validate the simulation, a group of experiments were
conducted with the sand contained in two different box prototypes. The walls of the first box were
constructed with fiberglass and the second with plywood. The prototypes were subjected to the
impact force of bullets fired 15 m away from the box. After the shots, X-ray photographs were taken
to observe the penetration depth. Transient numerical analyses were conducted to simulate these
physical phenomena by using the smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) module of ANSYS® 2019
AUTODYN software. Advantageously, this module considers the granular media as a group of
uniform particles capable of transferring kinetic energy during the elastic collision component of an
impact. The experimental results demonstrated a reduction in the maximum bullet kinetic energy of
2750 J to 100 J in 0.8 ms. The numerical results compared with the X-ray photographs showed similar
results demonstrating the capability of sand to dissipate kinetic energy and the fragmentation of the
bullet caused at the moment of impact.

Keywords: impact; sand; bullet penetration; granular media; energy dissipation; transient analysis

1. Introduction
The analysis of bullet penetration through different materials is an important issue to achieve
adequate safety conditions during the design of containers, pressure vessels, vehicles, armor and
other similar products, especially barricades, to protect security forces. These studies have been
performed in previous works considering steels and aluminum alloys [1–3]. Børvik carried out several
tests with 6082-T651 and 6082-T4 aluminum plates with changes in the angle of impact and plate
characteristics [4,5]. In specific defense situations, the behavior of the material supporting bullet
impacts is analyzed depending on the crater formation, for example, in continuous media [6]. However,
granular media is another option to reduce the kinetic energy of a bullet over short distances [7,8],
especially when such media are used in the form of ballistic blocks. The granular nature of sand,
its recycling capability combined with its complex interaction dynamics creates unique physical
capabilities. The mixture of sand with other construction materials for example, creates important
characteristics suitable for several mechanical and construction applications [9–23]. This phenomenon
has been studied here as an alternative to achieve the goal of bullet fragmentation. Several containers
constructed with fiberglass and considering different geometries have been used as an alternative to

Materials 2020, 13, 5243; doi:10.3390/ma13225243 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 5243 2 of 13

constructing ballistic walls [24–30]. Based on these works, samples of ballistic walls were constructed in
this research to observe the behavior of a bullet when entering a coupled system. This system is formed
by continuous media as the initial impact material and sand as the granular media. The purpose of the
present study is to measure the penetration distance of a bullet impacting the materials considered in
the continuous system, which are plywood and fiberglass shells. The numerical and experimental
results obtained with the combination of materials used for the construction of continuous and granular
media are the main contributions of this study. A numerical analysis was carried out using ANSYS®
2019R1-AUTODYN to simulate the behavior of the bullet when impacting the samples and to obtain
the magnitudes of the kinetic energy absorbed by the coupled system [31]. The dynamic behavior of
the granular media as a group of uniform particles transferring the kinetic energy when receiving the
7.62 mm projectile was simulated using the smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) model, together
with the compaction equations of state (EOS) and the model option MO granular. This transient
analysis includes the interaction of the particles inside the coupled system when receiving the impact;
in some cases, the bullet deviates with respect to the original trajectory, and in other cases, the bullet is
destroyed because of the instantaneous heat and mechanical friction [32].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ballistic Blocks

Two types of block prototype were built for the experiment, one that forms the plywood-
sand-plywood (PSP) system and another that forms the fiberglass-sand-fiberglass (FSF) system.
The construction criteria for the block walls considered the minimum commercial thickness walls
required to support 10 kg of sand per block, but also allowing stacking up to 7 blocks to form a 2.1 m
high ballistic wall without presenting structural instabilities. As a result of the tests, the resulting
wall for the PSP system was 12 mm and for the FSF system it was 6 mm. Finally, a total of 6 blocks
were built for each system. The final dimensions of the blocks were 300 × 300 × 300 mm in length,
width and height, respectively. The experiment considered beach-type sand which was first passed
through a sieve to eliminate the presence of stones, garbage and other solid objects and it was left to
dry in the sun for 10 days, moved with a shovel and covered at night for the purpose of removing
traces of moisture. It is very important to remove moisture before the experiments to maintain uniform
distribution of the granular media and to avoid a lubricating effect during the friction between the
sand and the bullet.

2.2. Ballistic Workbench

Figure 1 shows the components of the experimental setup. Two types of bullets were used for the
experiments, the Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) and the Armor Piercing (AP). An Oehler ballistic chronograph
with optical barriers was used to obtain pressure, energy and velocity values. In the figure, the
Marlin XL7 rifle is shown on the left side and the ballistic block is located 15 m away on the right side
(distance A). Between the rifle and the ballistic block, a pair of infrared frames were located to measure
the velocity of the bullet. The first infrared fame which was the start trigger was located 12 m away
from the rifle (distance B). The second infrared frame was the stop trigger and it was located 1.5 m
from the first one. The rifle was mounted on an adjustable rifle bench rest located 15 m away from
the target. This distance reduced the possibility of nutation, yaw or precession of the bullet before
the impact. The rifle bench rest was adjusted and used in a fixed position for every shot. Behind the
ballistic block, a layer of 0.2 mm of aluminum foil was located to verify the presence of any remaining
fragment after the shots. X-ray photographs were taken on the ballistic blocks after the shots with a
Vertex II equipment (VJ Technologies, Inc., Suffolk County, NY, USA), with capacity of 160 kV.
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 3 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

Figure
Figure 1. Configuration of
1. Configuration of the
the ballistic
ballistic workbench.
workbench.
Figure 1. Configuration of the ballistic workbench.
Figure 2 shows a close view of the perforations produced by the impacts in each system. The circular
Figure 22 shows
shows aa close
close view
view of
of the
the perforations
perforations produced by by the
the impacts
impacts in in each
each system.
system. The
The
shapeFigure
of the craters show that the bullet has penetrated produced
without inclination, this means the longitudinal
circular
circular shape
shape of the craters
of enters
the craters show that the
show thatwith bullet
the bullet has
has penetrated without inclination, this means the
axle of the bullet perpendicular respect to penetrated without
the wall surface. inclination,
It can be seen inthis
(a)means the
the brittle
longitudinal axle
longitudinal axle of
of the
the bullet
bullet enters
enters perpendicular
perpendicular withwith respect
respect to
to the
the wall
wall surface.
surface. It
It can
can be
be seen
seen in
in
fracture of the FSF system and in (b) the ductile hole growth of the PSP system.
(a) the brittle fracture of the FSF system and in (b) the ductile hole growth of the
(a) the brittle fracture of the FSF system and in (b) the ductile hole growth of the PSP system.PSP system.

Figure 2.
Figure Resulting crater
Resulting of the
crater 7.62
of 7.62 mm
the mm FMJ
7.62 FMJ (Full
mm(Full Metal
FMJMetal Jacket)
(FullJacket) bullet
Metal bullet
Jacket)impacted in (a) the fiberglass-
bullet impacted in (a) the
Figure 2.2.Resulting crater of the impacted in (a) the fiberglass-
sand-fiberglass (FSF) system
fiberglass-sand-fiberglass and
(FSF) (b) the plywood-sand-plywood (PSP) system.
sand-fiberglass (FSF) system andsystem
(b) theand (b) the plywood-sand-plywood
plywood-sand-plywood (PSP) system.
(PSP) system.

Table 111 shows

Table
Table shows the
showsthe obtained
the velocities
obtained
obtained measured
velocities
velocities as indicated
measured
measured as indicated in “Cartridge,
“Cartridge,
as indicated
in 7.62 mm:
in “Cartridge,
7.62 mm: NATO,
7.62 mm:
NATO,
Ball-M80MIL-DTL-46931”
NATO, standards
Ball-M80MIL-DTL-46931” for FMJ
standards M80
for bullets
FMJ and
M80 “MIL-C-60617A”
bullets and for armor-piercing
“MIL-C-60617A”
Ball-M80MIL-DTL-46931” standards for FMJ M80 bullets and “MIL-C-60617A” for armor-piercing for
bullets.
armor-piercing
bullets. bullets.

Table 1.
Table 1. Bullet velocities obtained in the experimental
experimental shots.
shots.
Table 1. Bullet velocities obtained in the experimental shots.
Bullet
Bullet Type
TypeType Weight
Weight (±0.01
(±0.01 g) Energy
g)g) Energy at 15
15 m
m Velocity atat0 0
m Velocity at 15 m Velocity at 23.77 m
Bullet Weight (±0.01 Energy at
at 15 m Velocityat
Velocity 0 m m Velocity
Velocity
at 15atm15 m Velocity
Velocity at m
at 23.77 23.77 m
AP M61 9.75 g 3 481 J 852 m/s 843 m/s 835 m/s
AP M61
AP M61 9.75
9.75 g g 333481
481 JJ 852 m/s
852 m/s 843 m/s
843 m/s 835 m/s
835 m/s
FMJ M80 9.65 g 445 J 855 m/s 845 m/s 839 m/s
FMJ M80 9.65 g 3 445 J 855 m/s 845 m/s 839 m/s
FMJ M80 9.65 g 3 445 J 855 m/s 845 m/s 839 m/s
2.3. Numerical
2.3. Numerical Simulation
Simulation
2.3. Numerical
3D-CAD Simulation
models were
were constructed
constructed for for the
the numerical
numerical analysis
analysis simulation
simulation to to observe
observe the
the
3D-CAD models
penetration
3D-CAD
penetration depth
models
depth of the
of were bullet through
constructed
the bullet through the
forthe constructed
theconstructed systems
numerical analysis
systems and compare
simulation
and compare the
to observe resulting values
the penetration
the resulting values
with
depth the
of experimental
the bullet test.
through Figure
the 3 shows
constructedthe corresponding
systems and diagram
compare for
the
with the experimental test. Figure 3 shows the corresponding diagram for each system. Two each system.
resulting Two sidewalls
values sidewalls
with the
represent the
experimental
represent thetest.
continuous media,the
Figure 3 media,
continuous shows and
and aa region
region between
corresponding between
diagramthefor
the walls represents
each represents
walls system. Two the
the granular
sidewalls
granular media.
represent
media.
Figure
the
Figure 3a shows
3a shows
continuous the FSF
media,
the FSF
andsystem,
a region
system, and
and Figurethe
between
Figure 3b shows
3b showsrepresents
walls the PSP
the PSP system.
system. The bullet
the granular
The bullet
media. is located
is located with
Figure 3a the
shows
with the
longitudinal
the FSF axis
system, perpendicular
and Figure 3b to
shows the surface
the PSP of the
system. wall,
The and
bulleteffects
is of
locatednutation,
with the
longitudinal axis perpendicular to the surface of the wall, and effects of nutation, yaw or precessionyaw or precession
longitudinal axis
are not
not included.
included.
perpendicular
are to the surface of the wall, and effects of nutation, yaw or precession are not included.
Materials2020,
Materials 13,x5243
2020,13, FOR PEER REVIEW 44ofof13
13

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure3.3.Components
Componentsofofthe
theballistic
ballisticblocks
blocksinin(a)
(a)the
theFSF
FSFsystem
systemand
and(b)
(b)the
thePSP
PSPsystem.
system.

The AP
The AP (M61) and
and FMJ
FMJ(M80)
(M80)bullets
bulletscontain
contain anan
external jacket
external of brass.
jacket TheThe
of brass. left side of each
left side of block
each
showsshows
block the location of theofbullet
the location with with
the bullet initialinitial
velocities of 845
velocities ofm/s
845 and
m/s 843
andm/s
843 for
m/sthe
forlead and steel
the lead and
cores, respectively. The material properties considered for the simulation are shown in Table
steel cores, respectively. The material properties considered for the simulation are shown in Table 2. 2.

Mechanicalproperties
Table2.2.Mechanical
Table propertiesrequired
requiredin
inthe
thesimulation.
simulation.

Material
Material Media
Media Material
Material Density (kg/m33))
Density (kg/m ShearModulus
Shear Modulus (GPa)
(GPa)
BrassBrass Continuous
Continuous Orthotropic
Orthotropic 8450
8450 35.9
35.9
LeadLead Continuous
Continuous Orthotropic
Orthotropic 11,350
11,350 44
Steel
Steel
Continuous
Continuous
Orthotropic
Orthotropic
7896
7896
81.8
81.8
Sand Granular Anisotropic 2641 76.9
Sand Granular Anisotropic 2641 76.9
Plywood Continuous Anisotropic 680 0.75
Plywood Continuous Anisotropic 680 0.75
Fiberglass Continuous Anisotropic 1310 0.82
Fiberglass Continuous Anisotropic 1310 0.82
With respect to the boundary conditions, the ballistic block models were subjected to the same
restricted
Withconditions; the boundary
respect to the horizontalconditions,
displacement
theof the external
ballistic block faces
models of were
the continuous media
subjected to was
the same
restricted in the form of fixed support along the Z-axis but not for the remaining
restricted conditions; the horizontal displacement of the external faces of the continuous media wasperpendicular
directions
restricted (X andform
in the Y). The creation
of fixed of the
support resulting
along meshbut
the Z-axis fornot
eachformodel was also perpendicular
the remaining the result of
improved trials to achieve suitable values for the orthogonal and skew qualities. To improve
directions (X and Y). The creation of the resulting mesh for each model was also the result of improved in the
simulation time, suitable
trials to achieve the bullet was located
values 1 mm awayand
for the orthogonal from
skewthequalities.
contact face, with oneinsmall
To improve timestep
the simulation
simulated beforewas
time, the bullet the impact.
located The
1 mmsimulation
away from scenarios were face,
the contact divided
withinto
one4 small
different cases, simulated
timestep as shown
in Tablethe
before 3: two for an
impact. initial
The velocityscenarios
simulation of 843 m/s anddivided
were two forinto
845 m/s.
4 different cases, as shown in Table 3:
two for an initial velocity of 843 m/s and two for 845 m/s.
Table 3. Bullet velocities considered for each case of analysis.
Table 3. Bullet velocities considered for each case of analysis.
Case Model Type–Projectile Velocity (m/s)
1Case Model
FSF–AP (M61)
Type–Projectile 843(m/s)
Velocity
2 1 PSP–AP
FSF–AP(M61)
(M61) 843
843
3 FSF–FMJ (M80) 845
2 PSP–AP (M61) 843
4 PSP–FMJ (M80) 845
3 FSF–FMJ (M80) 845
4
Figure 4 shows the simulation PSP–FMJ
process (M80) as a result 845
flowchart of the previous research conducted
for the construction of the models. The behavior of continuous media considers all the material
particles interconnected
Figure 4 shows the and working
simulation as a single
process piece as
flowchart in acomparison with
result of the granular
previous mediaconducted
research in which
the
for mechanical property
the construction of the
of the particleThe
models. interacts and of
behavior reorganizes
continuousduring
media theconsiders
dynamic all
process.
the material
particles interconnected and working as a single piece in comparison with granular media in which
the mechanical property of the particle interacts and reorganizes during the dynamic process.
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 5 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

Figure 4. Simulation process flowchart.

Figure 4. Simulation process flowchart.
This configuration is a combination of selected parameters that involve the material models
This configuration is a combination of selected parameters that involve the material models
available in the software (ANSYS®2019R1, Canonsburg, PA, USA), and the constants were taken from
available in the software (ANSYS ® 2019R1, Canonsburg, PA, USA), and the constants were taken
the AUTODYN library. The Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Lagrangian particle method (SPH) from
the AUTODYN library. The Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Lagrangian particle
of ANSYS AUTODYN 2019R1 was selected for this simulation, the continuous media is considered
® method (SPH) of
ANSYS ® AUTODYN 2019R1 was selected for this simulation, the continuous media is considered
as a uniform set of particles interacting with the energies created during the evolution of the impact.
as a uniform setisotropic
Multilinear of particles interacting
hardening with
behavior wasthealso
energies created
selected during
to establish thethe evolution
plastic of of
behavior thethis
impact.
materialisotropic
Multilinear [33–38]. hardening behavior was also selected to establish the plastic behavior of this
material [33–38].
In the simulation, the effect caused by the angular velocity of the bullet is not considered,
and because of that, it was expected that there would be differences between the experimental and
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 6 of 13

numerical simulation results. The mechanical behavior of the lead and steel, which are the core
materials, were included by considering the Steinberg–Guinan strength formulation. The fiberglass
was modeled with the Johnson–Holmquist continuous-strength formulation and the plywood was
modeled considering the polynomial Equation of State (EOS) formulation. The behavior of the granular
media was modeled as MO Granular Failure Model together with tensile pressure failure and the
walls were configured with the shock EOS linear formulation [39–43]. This combination allows the
granular media to transfer the load vectors and reorganize the media during the displacement of the
bullet. The Grüneisen parameter is conventionally written as a dimensionless combination of the
expansion coefficient, bulk modulus, density and specific heat and can also be presented in terms
of elastic moduli and their pressure derivatives, providing a quantitative link between thermal and
mechanical parameters [44]. The material properties and constant values considered for the simulation
are shown in Table 4 [25,32,45,46].

Table 4. Configuration parameters for the simulation.

Lead Brass Steel Sand Fiberglass Plywood

Shock EOS Linear - - - X - X
Grüneisen Coefficient 2.74 2.04 2.17 X 1.18 X
C1 (m/s) 2006 3726 4569 X 2746 X
S1 1.429 1.434 1.49 X 1.319 X
Quadratic S2 (s/m) 0 0 0 X 0 X
Specific Heat (J/kg C) 124 X 447 X X X
Steinberg Giunan Strength - X - X X X
MO Granular X X X - X X
offset X X X 0 X X
Tensile Pressure Failure X X X - X X
Max. Tensile Pressure (Pa) X X X 1000 X X
Compaction EOS Linear X X X - X X
Solid Density (kg/m3 ) X X X 2641 X X
Compaction Path X X X - X X
Linear Unloading X X X - X X
Johnson-Holmquist Strength X X X X X -
Failure type X X X X X Gradual
Hugoniot Elastic Limit X X X X X 5.92 × 109 Pa
Intact Strength Constant A X X X X X 0.93
Intact Strength Exponent N X X X X X 0.77
Strain Rate Constant C X X X X X 0.003
Fracture Strength Constant B X X X X X 0.088
Fracture Strength Exponent m X X X X X 0.35
Max. fracture strength Ratio X X X X X 0.5
Damage constant D1 X X X X X 0.053
Damage constant D2 X X X X X 0.85
Bulking constant B X X X X X 1
Hydrodynamic Tensile Limit X X X X X −0.15 × 109 Pa
Bulk Modulus X X X X X 45.4 × 109 Pa
Shear Modulus X X X X X 15,000 MPa
Polynomial EOS X X X X X -
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13

This combination
Materials 2020, 13, 5243of parameters, as shown below, allowed us to observe the fragmentation 7 of 13 of
the bullet caused by the initial contact with the walls which is of special importance in terminal
ballistics andThismilitary
combinationmedicine [47–49].as shown below, allowed us to observe the fragmentation of the
of parameters,
bullet caused by the initial contact with the walls which is of special importance in terminal ballistics
3. Results
andand Discussion
military medicine [47–49].

3. Results
Figure and Discussion
5 shows (a) the results of the numerical simulation compared with (b) the experimental
X-ray photography. This(a)figure
Figure 5 shows corresponds
the results to the
of the numerical FSF AP
simulation M61 block
compared (case
with (b) 1). The numerical
the experimental
simulation
X-raypredicted
photography.a penetration distancetoof
This figure corresponds the237
FSF AP mm M61and the
block appearance
(case of compaction
1). The numerical simulation waves
predicted a penetration distance of 237 mm and the appearance
along the penetration trajectory showing fragmentation of the brass after 204 mm. In of compaction waves along
thethe
simulation
penetration trajectory showing fragmentation of the brass after 204 mm. In the simulation and the
and the X-ray photograph, an expanded distribution of the compacting wave is observed [50]. Even
X-ray photograph, an expanded distribution of the compacting wave is observed [50]. Even when
when the finalpenetration
the final penetration distances
distances aresame,
are not the not both
the circumstances
same, bothshow circumstances show brass jacket
brass jacket fragmentation
fragmentation
before thebefore thestops.
steel core steelThe
core stops.
steel The steel
core showed core showed
an additional advanceanofadditional
at least 30 mm advance
ahead. Inofthe
at least 30
mm ahead.
X-rayIn the X-ray aphotography,
photography, a maximum
maximum fragmentation fragmentation
of the brass was 148 mm,of andthean brass wasadvance
additional 148 mm,of and an
the steel core of 49 mm which gives a total depth of 197.76 mm. In both analyses,
additional advance of the steel core of 49 mm which gives a total depth of 197.76 mm. In both the final position of
the bullet rotated with respect to the initial entry orientation.
analyses, the final position of the bullet rotated with respect to the initial entry orientation.

Figure 5.Figure
Comparison of fragmentation
5. Comparison of fragmentationand
andpenetration depths
penetration depths for for the mm
the 7.62 7.62AP
mm APinbullet
bullet in the FSF
the FSF
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
The results of the fragmentation and penetration distance reached by the 7.62 mm AP projectile for
Thetheresults
PSP APofM61
theblock
fragmentation
are shown in and
Figurepenetration
6 (case 2). In distance reached
(a) the numerical by the and
simulation 7.62(b)mm AP projectile
the X-ray
for the PSP AP M61the
photography, block are shown
maximum in Figure
penetration 6 (case
distance 2). In
is 183.47 and(a) the numerical
200.22 simulation
mm, respectively. and (b) the
The X-ray
photography shows more concentrated compacting wave in the upward direction
X-ray photography, the maximum penetration distance is 183.47 and 200.22 mm, respectively. The X- following the bullet
trajectory and
ray photography the final
shows morelocation of the fragments
concentrated are very close
compacting wave to in
thethe
core.upward direction following the

bullet trajectory and the final location of the fragments are very close to the core.
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 8 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

Figure 6. Comparison
Comparison of fragmentation
fragmentation and penetration
penetration depths
depths of
of the 7.62
7.62 mm AP
AP bullet in
in the PSP
PSP
Figure 6. Comparison of
Figure 6. of fragmentation and
and penetration depths of the
the 7.62 mm
mm AP bullet
bullet in the
the PSP
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
Figure 7
Figure 7 shows
shows the
theresults
resultsofof(a)
(a)the
thenumerical
numerical simulation
simulation and (b) (b)
and X-ray photography
X-ray photographyfor the
for 7.62
the
Figure 7 shows the results of (a) the numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography for the 7.62
mm mm
7.62 FMJFMJ
M80M80
projectile impacting
projectile impactingthe the
FSFFSF
block (case
block 3). 3).
(case In the simulation,
In the simulation,a penetration distance
a penetration distanceof
mm FMJ M80 projectile impacting the FSF block (case 3). In the simulation, a penetration distance of
116.59
of mm
116.59 mmwas obtained,
was obtained,and
andininthetheX-ray
X-rayphotography,
photography,aa measured
measured distance
distance of 126.56 mm
of 126.56 mm waswas
116.59 mm was obtained, and in the X-ray photography, a measured distance of 126.56 mm was
obtained. A
obtained. A wide
wide compaction
compactionwavewaveisislocated
locatedahead
aheadthe
thecore
coreand
andthe
theexpanded
expandedfragments
fragments showing
showing a
obtained. A wide compaction wave is located ahead the core and the expanded fragments showing
a reduced
reduced penetration
penetration distance
distance with
with respect
respect to to
thethe previous
previous cases.
cases.
a reduced penetration distance with respect to the previous cases.

Figure 7. Comparison of fragmentation and penetration depths of the 7.62 mm FMJ bullet in the FSF
Figure 7.
7. Comparison
Comparison of
of fragmentation and
and penetration depths
depths of the 7.62 mm FMJ bullet in the FSF
Figure
block from (a) numerical fragmentation
simulation and (b) penetration
X-ray photography.of the 7.62 mm FMJ bullet in the FSF
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
Figure 8 shows the results of case 4 in which an FMJ M80 bullet impacts the PSP box. The
Figure88shows
Figure showsthethe results
results of inof case
case 4 in which an FMJ M80 bulletthe
impacts theThe
PSP box. The
penetration distances obtained (a)4 the
in which an FMJsimulation
numerical M80 bullet impacts
and PSP box.
(b) the X-ray penetration
photography were
penetration
distances distances obtained in (a) the numerical simulation and (b) the X-ray photography were
115.47 and 126.07 mm, respectively. A unique zone of extreme fragmentation was not identifiedand
obtained in (a) the numerical simulation and (b) the X-ray photography were 115.47 but
115.47 mm,
126.07 and 126.07 mm, respectively.
respectively. A unique zone A unique zonefragmentation
of extreme of extreme fragmentation was not
was not identified butidentified but
was the most
was the most extended instead.
was the most
extended extended instead.
instead.
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 9 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

Figure 8. Comparison of fragmentation and penetration depths of the 7.62 mm FMJ bullet in the PSP
8. Comparison of fragmentation and penetration depths of the 7.62 mm FMJ bullet in the PSP
Figure 8.
block from (a) numerical simulation and (b) X-ray photography.
from (a)
block from (a) numerical
numerical simulation
simulation and
and (b)
(b) X-ray
X-ray photography.
photography.

Figure9a
Figure
Figure 9ashows
9a shows
shows thethe numerical
numerical
the results
results
numerical ofpenetration
of the
results of the penetration
the penetration depth
depthdepth with respect
with respect
with respect to the
the velocity
to the velocity
to velocity
starting
starting
from
starting from
thefrom the penetration
the penetration
penetration velocity
velocityvelocity for
for eachfor each
of the
each of the
four
of the fourand
cases,
four cases, and 9b
Figure
cases, and Figure 9b the
shows
Figure 9b shows the penetration
penetration
penetration
shows the depth
depth
with with
depthrespect respect to time.
to time.to time.
with respect

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 9. Penetration
Penetration depth with
with respect to
to (a)velocity
velocity and(b)
(b) time.
Figure 9. Penetration depth
Figure 9. depth with respect
respect to (a)
(a) velocity and
and (b) time.
time.

Figure10
Figure
Figure 10shows
10 showsthe
shows the
the dependence
dependence
dependence of the
of of
the the bullet’s
bullet’s velocity
velocity
bullet’s inside
inside
velocity the blocks
the blocks
inside the blocks with
withwith
respectrespect
to time.
respect to time.
to time.
In all
In all
cases, cases,
the the
velocity velocity
is zero is zero
after after
0.8 ms.0.8 ms.
Although Although
the the
spinningspinning
effect effect
of the of the
bullet bullet
in the
In all cases, the velocity is zero after 0.8 ms. Although the spinning effect of the bullet in the simulationin the simulation
simulation is not
is not
not considered,
considered,
considered,
is the hardness
the hardness
the hardness and ordering
and ordering
and ordering
of each wallof each
of each
materialwallhas
wall material has an
an important
material has aneffect
important effect on
on penetration.
important effect on
penetration.
In the case ofIn the case
fiberglass, of
thefiberglass,
fibers do the
not fibers
have do
a not
unique have a unique
arrangement arrangement
and
penetration. In the case of fiberglass, the fibers do not have a unique arrangement and the energy the and
energy the energy
absorption
absorptionindissipates
dissipates
absorption dissipates
random in in random
randomatdirections
directions directions
each instant.at each
at each instant.
Asinstant.
the bullet As advances
As the bullet
the bulletthrough
advances
advances the through the
fiberglass,
through the
fiberglass,
it encounters it encounters
new fibers new
every fibers
layerevery
reactinglayer reacting
together together
with the with the
neighboring neighboring
fibers.
fiberglass, it encounters new fibers every layer reacting together with the neighboring fibers. In the In fibers.
the In
plywood, the
plywood, the
plywood, the fibers
fibers are
are arranged
arranged in in the
the same
same direction
direction and
and they
they are
are all
all compressed
compressed together
together at at the
the
same time,
same time, deforming
deforming and and deflecting
deflecting thethe energy
energy inin aa single
single direction.
direction. This
This also
also causes
causes an an opening
opening of of
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 10 of 13

the fibers are arranged in the same direction and they are all compressed together at the same time,
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13
deforming and deflecting the energy in a single direction. This also causes an opening of the fibers
due
thetofibers
the spinning
due to the effect and allowing
spinning theallowing
effect and bullet tothe
advance
bulletwith greaterwith
to advance forcegreater
than inforce
the case
thanofinthe
the
fiberglass wall.
case of the fiberglass wall.

Figure 10.Numerical
Figure10. Numericalvelocity
velocityresults
resultswith
withrespect
respecttototime
timeobtained
obtainedinin
the numerical
the simulations.
numerical simulations.

Table
Table5 5shows
showsthe thenumerical
numericalvalues
valuesobtained
obtainedininthe
thenumerical
numericalanalyses
analysescompared
comparedwith
withthe
the
experimental results, the shortest stopping distance was found for case 4. This minimum value
experimental results, the shortest stopping distance was found for case 4. This minimum value was was
obtained
obtainedininthe
thenumerical
numericalsimulation
simulationasas
well asas
well inin
the experimental
the experimentalmeasurements.
measurements.

Table
Table5. 5.Comparison
Comparisonofof
numerical and
numerical experimental
and results
experimental forfor
results each case.
each case.
Penetration
Penetration Depth
Depth(mm)
(mm)
Case
Case Model Type–Projectile
Model Type–Projectile Velocity
Velocity(m/s)
(m/s) Time
Time (ms)
(ms)
Numerical
Numerical Experimental
Experimental
11 FSF–AP(FMJ)
FSF–AP (FMJ) 843
843 237.12
237.12 197.76
197.76 0.80.8
22 PSP–AP(FMJ)
PSP–AP (FMJ) 843
843 207.41
207.41 200.22
200.22 0.80.8
3 FSF–FMJ (M80) 845 116.59 126.56 0.8
3 FSF–FMJ (M80) 845 116.59 126.56 0.8
4 PSP–FMJ (M80) 845 115.35 126.07 0.8
4 PSP–FMJ (M80) 845 115.35 126.07 0.8

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
During the impact, the bullet entered first into a continuous medium of wood with a thickness
During
of 12 mm and the the
impact, the bullet
penetration entered
depth wasfirst into aup
reduced continuous
to 50.48%medium
compared of to
woodthe with a thickness
distance obtained
ofwithout
12 mm the andshells.
the penetration depth was reduced up to 50.48% compared to
A variation of 7.53 m/s between the experimental results and numericalthe distance obtained
results
without the shells.
was found. A variation
The numerical and of 7.53 m/s between
experimental results the experimental
showed results and numerical
similar fragmentation distributionresults
of the
was
bullets with 95.34% similarity in the penetration distance of the FMJ projectile and 88.63% for the of
found. The numerical and experimental results showed similar fragmentation distribution AP
the bullets with
projectile. The 95.34%
impact similarity in the
surface areas penetration
were 100 mm2distance
and 300ofmm the2 FMJ
withprojectile
a depth and 88.63%
of 300 mm. for
The
the AP projectile. The impact surface areas were 100 mm 2 and 300 mm2 with a depth of 300 mm.
numerical analysis was solved with the SPH module of ANSYS ® Autodyn. It was determined that

The numerical analysis was solved with the SPH module of ANSYS ® Autodyn. It was determined
the initial impact of this type of projectile through a continuous medium, such as the 12 mm wood
that the reduces
plate, initial impact of this typecapacity
the penetration of projectile
by upthrough a continuous
to 48.62%. medium,
The presented such as theand
fragmentation 12 mm wood
contention
plate,
of thereduces the penetration
bullet material capacity
can represent by up toadvantage
a tactical 48.62%. The presented
since the impactfragmentation andAP
of the 7.62 mm contention
projectile
ofreaches
the bullet material can represent a tactical advantage since the impact
a maximum penetration distance of 52 mm compared with 100 mm obtained withoutof the 7.62 mm AP projectilethe
reaches a maximum
thick initial penetration
continuous distance
medium. of 52
The use ofmm
the compared with 100provides
fibrous materials mm obtained without the
the advantage thick
that they
initial continuous
are cheap, medium.
eco-friendly andThe
easyuse of the compared
to repair fibrous materials
to otherprovides the advantage
ballistic blocks based onthat they are
ceramics and
plastics which once fractured cannot be repaired and, in some cases, they must be discarded.
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 11 of 13

cheap, eco-friendly and easy to repair compared to other ballistic blocks based on ceramics and plastics
which once fractured cannot be repaired and, in some cases, they must be discarded.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.A.F.-H., methodology and validation, U.S.S.-R. and J.M.S.-P.,
numerical and experimental analysis, F.A.S.-M. and U.S.S.-R., literature review, F.A.S.-M. and J.M.S.-P., validation,
G.J.G.-P. and U.S.S.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Instituto Politécnico Nacional—Secretaría de Investigación y Posgrado
through the grant numbers 20200530 and 20200529 of the SIP projects.
Acknowledgments: Authors acknowledge the Instituto Politécnico Nacional and the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia
y Tecnología (CONACYT).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Keneubuehl, B.P.; Coupland, R.M.; Rothschild, M.A. Wound Ballistics: Basic and Application; Springer Science
& Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.
2. Andreotti, B.; Forterre, Y.; Pouliquen, O. Granular Media: Between Fluid and Solid; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2013.
3. Gillis, C.S. Ballistics-Resistant Fabrications. U.S. Patent US20120167754A1, 5 July 2012.
4. Holmen, J.K.; Johnsen, J.; Jupp, S.; Hopperstad, O.S.; Børvik, T. Effects of Heat Treatment on the Ballistic
Properties of AA6070 Aluminium Alloy. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2013, 57, 119–133. [CrossRef]
5. Børvik, T.; Dey, S.; Olovsson, L. Penetration of Granular Materials by Small-Arms Bullets. Int. J. Impact Eng.
2015, 75, 123–139. [CrossRef]
6. Gomez, J.T.; Shukla, A. Multiple Impact Penetration of Semi-Infinite Concrete. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2001, 25,
965–979. [CrossRef]
7. Kılıç, N.; Bedir, S.; Erdik, A.; Ekici, B.; Taşdemirci, A.; Güden, M. Ballistic Behavior of High Hardness
Perforated Armor Plates against 7.62mm Armor Piercing Projectile. Mater. Des. 2014, 63, 427–438. [CrossRef]
8. Manes, A.; Serpellini, F.; Pagani, M.; Saponara, M.; Giglio, M. Perforation and Penetration of Aluminium
Target Plates by Armour Piercing Bullets. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2014, 69, 39–54. [CrossRef]
9. Cole, R.P. Ballistic Penetration of a Sandbagged Redoubt Using Silica Sand and Pulverized Rubber of Various Grain
Sizes; Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing: Charleston, SC, USA, 2011.
10. Lohse, D.; Bergmann, R.; Mikkelsen, R.; Zeilstra, C.; van der Meer, D.; Versluis, M.; van der Weele, K.; van
der Hoef, M.; Kuipers, H. Impact on Soft Sand: Void Collapse and Jet Formation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 93,
198003. [CrossRef]
11. Ding, T.; Xiao, J.; Zou, S.; Wang, Y. Hardened Properties of Layered 3D Printed Concrete with Recycled Sand.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 113, 103724. [CrossRef]
12. Sldozian, R.J.; Tkachev, A.G.; Burakova, I.V.; Mikhaleva, Z.A. Improve the Mechanical Properties of
Lightweight Foamed Concrete by Using Nanomodified Sand. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 101923. [CrossRef]
13. Pilegis, M.; Gardner, D.; Lark, R. An Investigation into the Use of Manufactured Sand as a 100% Replacement
for Fine Aggregate in Concrete. Materials 2016, 9, 440. [CrossRef]
14. Natarajan, S.; Pillai, N.N.; Murugan, S. Experimental Investigations on the Properties of Epoxy-Resin-Bonded
Cement Concrete Containing Sea Sand for Use in Unreinforced Concrete Applications. Materials 2019, 12,
645. [CrossRef]
15. Ling, Y.-F.; Zhang, P.; Wang, J.; Shi, Y. Effect of Sand Size on Mechanical Performance of Cement-Based
Composite Containing PVA Fibers and Nano-SiO2 . Materials 2020, 13, 325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Moxnes, J.F.; Frøyland, Ø.; Skriudalen, S.; Prytz, A.K.; Teland, J.A.; Friis, E.; Ødegårdstuen, G. On the Study
of Ricochet and Penetration in Sand, Water and Gelatin by Spheres, 7.62 Mm APM2, and 25 Mm Projectiles.
Def. Technol. 2016, 12, 159–170. [CrossRef]
17. Savvateev, A.F.; Budin, A.V.; Kolikov, V.A.; Rutberg, P.G. High-Speed Penetration into Sand. Int. J. Impact Eng.
2001, 26, 675–681. [CrossRef]
18. Van Vooren, A.; Borg, J.; Sandusky, H.; Felts, J. Sand Penetration: A Near Nose Investigation of a Sand
Penetration Event. Procedia Eng. 2013, 58, 601–607. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 12 of 13

19. Ishfaq, K.; Ali, M.A.; Ahmad, N.; Zahoor, S.; Al-Ahmari, A.M.; Hafeez, F. Modelling the Mechanical
Attributes (Roughness, Strength, and Hardness) of Al-Alloy A356 during Sand Casting. Materials 2020, 13,
598. [CrossRef]
20. Khan, R.; Ya, H.H.; Pao, W.; Majid, M.A.A.; Ahmed, T.; Ahmad, A.; Alam, M.A.; Azeem, M.; Iftikhar, H.
Effect of Sand Fines Concentration on the Erosion-Corrosion Mechanism of Carbon Steel 90◦ Elbow Pipe in
Slug Flow. Materials 2020, 13, 4601. [CrossRef]
21. Li, J.; Cui, J.; Shan, Y.; Li, Y.; Ju, B. Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio of Sand–Rubber Mixtures
under Large Strain Range. Materials 2020, 13, 4017. [CrossRef]
22. Borek, K.; Czapik, P.; Dachowski, R. Recycled Glass as a Substitute for Quartz Sand in Silicate Products.
Materials 2020, 13, 1030. [CrossRef]
23. Guan, W.; Qi, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Nan, S. Effect of Sand Particle Size on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties
of Gypsum-Cemented Similar Materials. Materials 2020, 13, 765. [CrossRef]
24. Alshahrani, R.F.; Merah, N.; Khan, S.M.A.; Al-Nassar, Y. On the Impact-Induced Damage in Glass Fiber
Reinforced Epoxy Pipes. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2016, 97, 57–65. [CrossRef]
25. Bless, S.J.; Berry, D.T.; Pedersen, B.; Lawhorn, W.; Elert, M.; Furnish, M.D.; Anderson, W.W.; Proud, W.G.;
Butler, W.T. Sand Penetration by High-Speed Projectiles; American Institute of Physics: College Park, MD, USA,
2009; pp. 1361–1364. [CrossRef]
26. De Economía, S. Seguridad al Usuario-Chalecos Antibalas-Especificaciones y Métodos de Prueba
NOM-166-SCFI-2005. Available online: http://www.economia-noms.gob.mx/normas/noms/2005/nom166scfi.
pdf (accessed on 1 June 2020).
27. Li, J.; Hunt, J.F.; Gong, S.; Cai, Z. High Strength Wood-based Sandwich Panels Reinforced with Fiberglass
and Foam. Bioresources 2014, 9, 1898–1913. [CrossRef]
28. Nolte, R.A.; Selke, D.L. Armored Building Modules and Panels—Installation and Removal. U.S. Patent
7,802,414 B1, 28 September 2009.
29. Schaeffer, W.; Warren, D.H. Methods and Apparatus for Providing Ballistic Protection. U.S. Patent
No. 7,954,415, 7 June 2011.
30. Telander, W. Basalt Particle-Containing Articles for Ballistic Shield Mats/Tiles/Protective Building Components.
U.S. Patent Application 11/176,872, 27 September 2007.
31. Chen, X.; Liu, Y. Finite Element Modeling and Simulation with ANSYS Workbench, 1st ed.; CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
32. Rosenberg, Z.; Dekel, E. Terminal Ballistics, 2nd ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2016. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, M.B.; Liu, G.R.; Lam, K.Y. Constructing Smoothing Functions in Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
with Applications. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2003, 155, 263–284. [CrossRef]
34. Lind, S.J.; Xu, R.; Stansby, P.K.; Rogers, B.D. Incompressible Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for
Free-Surface Flows: A Generalised Diffusion-Based Algorithm for Stability and Validations for Impulsive
Flows and Propagating Waves. J. Comput. Phys. 2012, 231, 1499–1523. [CrossRef]
35. Liu, M.B.; Liu, G.R.; Zong, Z.; Lam, K.Y. Computer Simulation of High Explosive Explosion Using Smoothed
Particle Hydrodynamics Methodology. Comput. Fluids 2003, 32, 305–322. [CrossRef]
36. Shadloo, M.S.; Zainali, A.; Sadek, S.H.; Yildiz, M. Improved Incompressible Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics Method for Simulating Flow around Bluff Bodies. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2011,
200, 1008–1020. [CrossRef]
37. Monaghan, J.J. A Turbulence Model for Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Eur. J. Mech. B Fluids 2011, 30,
360–370. [CrossRef]
38. Adami, S.; Hu, X.Y.; Adams, N.A. A Generalized Wall Boundary Condition for Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 2012, 231, 7057–7075. [CrossRef]
39. Liu, M.B.; Liu, G.R.; Lam, K.Y. Adaptive Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for High Strain Hydrodynamics
with Material Strength. Shock. Waves 2006, 15, 21–29. [CrossRef]
40. Libersky, L.D.; Petschek, A.G.; Carney, T.C.; Hipp, J.R.; Allahdadi, F.A. High Strain Lagrangian
Hydrodynamics: A Three-Dimensional SPH Code for Dynamic Material Response. J. Comput. Phys.
1993, 109, 67–75. [CrossRef]
41. Johnson, G.R.; Petersen, E.H.; Stryk, R.A. Incorporation of an SPH Option into the EPIC Code for a Wide
Range of High Velocity Impact Computations. Int. J. Impact Eng. 1993, 14, 385–394. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 5243 13 of 13

42. Plimpton, S.; Attaway, S.; Hendrickson, B.; Swegle, J.; Vaughan, C.; Gardner, D. Parallel Transient Dynamics
Simulations: Algorithms for Contact Detection and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. J. Parallel Distrib.
Comput. 1998, 50, 104–122. [CrossRef]
43. Brown, K.; Attaway, S.; Plimpton, S.; Hendrickson, B. Parallel Strategies for Crash and Impact Simulations.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2000, 184, 375–390. [CrossRef]
44. Stacey, F.D.; Hodgkinson, J.H. Thermodynamics with the Grüneisen Parameter: Fundamentals and
Applications to High Pressure Physics and Geophysics. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2019, 286, 42–68.
[CrossRef]
45. Allen, W.A.; Mayfield, E.B.; Morrison, H.L. Dynamics of a Projectile Penetrating Sand. J. Appl. Phys. 1957, 28,
370–376. [CrossRef]
46. Ahmed, M.; AlQadhi, S.; Mallick, J.; Desmukh, M.N.; Hang, H.T. Advances in Projectile Penetration
Mechanism in Soil Media. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6810. [CrossRef]
47. Uzar, A.İ.; Dakak, M.; Saǧlam, M.; Özer, T.; Ögunç, G.; İde, T.; Öner, K.; Sen, D. The Magazine: A Major
Cause of Bullet Fragmentation. Mil. Med. 2003, 168, 969–974. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Knudsen, P.J.; Theilade, P. Terminal Ballistics of the 7.62 Mm NATO Bullet. Autopsy Findings. Int. J. Leg. Med.
1993, 106, 61–67. [CrossRef]
49. Fackler, M.L.; Surinchak, J.S.; Malinowski, J.A.; Bowen, R.E. Bullet Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue
Disruption. J. Trauma 1984, 24, 35–39. [CrossRef]
50. Borg, J.P.; Sable, P.; Sandusky, H.; Felts, J. In Situ Characterization of Projectile Penetration into Sand Targets.
In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC.: Melville, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 1793, p. 120014.
[CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).