Journal Pre-proofs

An investigation of deformation and failure mechanisms of fiber-reinforced

composites in layered composite armor

Guodong Guo, Shah Alam, Larry D. Peel

PII: S0263-8223(21)01543-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.115125
Reference: COST 115125

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 29 June 2021

Revised Date: 11 December 2021
Accepted Date: 13 December 2021

Please cite this article as: Guo, G., Alam, S., Peel, L.D., An investigation of deformation and failure mechanisms
of fiber-reinforced composites in layered composite armor, Composite Structures (2021), doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.115125

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

An investigation of deformation and failure mechanisms of fiber-reinforced composites in

layered composite armor

Guodong Guo, Shah Alam1, Larry D. Peel

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Texas A&M University-Kingsville,

Kingsville, TX 78363, USA

Abstract

This paper aims to study the deformation characteristics and failure mechanisms of fiber-

reinforced polymer composites used in layered composite armor under ballistic impact. A

Kevlar-29/epoxy composite and an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber-

reinforced composite backed bilayer ceramic armor were respectively impacted against 7.62 mm

APM2 projectiles at several different velocities. The dependence of failure mechanisms on

impact velocity was analyzed both experimentally and numerically. Ballistic tests revealed that

the Kevlar-29/epoxy composite backed armor displayed a lower perforation velocity than the

UHMWPE fiber reinforced composite backed armor. However, under non-perforated impacts,

the UHMWPE fiber reinforced composite exhibited a much higher back face deflection (BFD).

According to the post-mortem visual and SEM analysis, the failure of the Kevlar-29 fiber was

dominated by shear plugging in the front layers and fiber tensile breakage in the rear layers,

whereas in the UHMWPE fiber reinforced composite, failure was dominated by shear plugging

1
Corresponding author. E-mail address: Shah.Alam@tamuk.edu (Shah Alam).

1
initiated from the front layers. These results suggest that the UHMWPE panel is more effective

in resistant fiber tensile breakage which usually occurs on the back side of the panel. Using the

Ls-dyna explicit dynamic finite element (FE) program, the ballistic behavior of a layered armor

backed by a hybrid panel with varying mix ratios was studied numerically. The results show that

using high tensile resistant fiber in the rear layers can effectively prevent fiber tensile failure and

using high shear resistance fiber in the front layers can effectively prevent shear failure. These

results are valuable in making the best use of fiber-reinforced composites in advanced armor

design.

Keywords

A. Layered structures; B. Impact behavior; C. Finite element analysis (FEA); D. Mechanical

testing.

2
1. Introduction

In recent year, high performance fiber reinforced polymer composites have been a research focus

in the field of body armor and vehicle armor systems aimed at continuously improving their

ballistic resistance at a reduced weight. Aramid fibers, such as Kevlar and ultra-high molecular

weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fibers, such as Dyneema from DSM are among the most

promising candidates in these applications due to their excellent specific strength and stiffness

[1-4]. Due to the limited choice of fibers that are both protective and lightweight, as well as the

challenges associated with synthesis of new materials, strategies need to be developed to make

the best use of existing fibers.

In efforts to design advanced armor systems, material selection must be based on projected

deformation characteristics and failure mechanisms derived from specific structural design and

fundamental mechanical properties of the constituents. Regarding Kevlar reinforced composites,

Zhu et al. [5] measured the static and dynamic properties of Kevlar-29/polyester laminates under

various loading conditions. The obtained composite properties have been widely used in the

selection of material parameters in numerical simulations [6, 7]. Under a ballistic impact load,

the deformation and associated damage mechanisms of a composite laminate could be affected

by several factors, such as projectile morphology, target architecture and specimen size.

Cavallaro et al. [8] compared ballistic impact resistance and deformation mechanisms of woven

Kevlar/epoxy composites aroused due to different weave styles, i.e., plain weave, twill weave

and satin weave. Millan et al. [9] studied the ballistic performance of a Kevlar29/epoxy impacted

by projectiles of different nose shapes. It was found that the main failure mechanism of the

3
laminates when impacted by a conical projectile was tearing produced by fiber failure leading to

generation of local damage around the contact area, while when the laminates were impacted by

flat projectiles, the major failure mechanism was shearing leading to a wide extension of damage

due to delamination. Recently, Nunes et al. [10] investigated the effect of target thickness and

projectile morphology on the damage mechanisms of a Kevlar-29/epoxy composite under the

same ballistic testing environment. It was revealed that the main damage mechanism in the thin

composite was fiber breakage, and for the thick composite was delamination.

UHMWPE fiber is another type of advanced fiber that has attracted much attention in ballistic

protections. Being produced by a gel-spinning process, it has been considered as the strongest

and lightest available fibers. Although UHMWPE fiber was commercialized several decades

ago, its dynamic properties had not been comprehensively characterized until recently. Major

published work includes the research of Russel et at. [11], Chocron et al. [12], Lassig et al. [13],

and most of which concern the Dyneema HB26 produced by DSM. These efforts have facilitated

exploration of UHMWPE fibers in armor-grade composites. Under a ballistic impact load, Zhang

et al. [14] compared the ballistic resistance of laminates based on UHMWPE fiber with UD, 2D

and 3D architectures. It was observed that the UD laminates exhibited higher ballistic resistance

and the dominant failure mechanisms were plugging for thin laminates and delamination, fiber

tension and bulging for thick ones. Nguyen et al. [15] conducted an extensive experimental

program to understand the ballistic performance of UHMWPE composite panels with different

thickness using different projectiles. It was concluded that the failure mechanisms of thin panels

were dominated by fiber tension, while for the thick panel, they were dominated by shear

plugging, sub-laminate delamination and fiber tension. When it comes to non-perforated impacts,

4
Gilson et al. [16] found that the main damage mechanisms in the composite plates are fiber

breaking, delamination and permanent back face deflection.

Most of the research on the ballistic impact induced deformation and failure mechanisms of

either Kevlar composites or UHMWPE composites have focused on standalone panels. In fact, in

many ballistic protection applications, the fiber-reinforced composites are always integrated with

other materials to optimize their impact resistance. One such example is the ceramic faced

composite armor system [17-18], in which a ceramic tile is placed in front of a fiber-reinforced

composite panel to form an integral armor. In a layered ceramic/composite armor, the role of the

ceramic tile is to erode and shatter the intruding high-speed projectile, while the role of the fiber-

reinforced composite is to maintain the integrity of the armor and absorb the residual kinetic

energy of the eroded projectile. Under a high-speed projectile impact, due to the interaction with

the ceramic tile and probably its fragments, the deformation and dominant failure mechanisms of

the fiber-reinforced composite could be different from that experienced during a standalone

structure impact. In recent years, there has been some studies directed toward evaluating the

overall ballistic performance of fiber-reinforced composite backed ceramic armor [19-21], fewer

studies have focused on the deformation and damage mechanisms of the composite backing

material.

Identifying different deformation and failure mechanisms and their influences on the ballistic

response of fiber-reinforced composites aroused due to different loading conditions is critical in

future design of most optimal protective structures. Therefore, the first aim of this paper is to

directly compare the ballistic resistance of ceramic faced armor backed by two different types of

5
fiber-reinforced composites, namely Kevlar-29/epoxy composite and UHMPWE fiber reinforced

composite. The second aim is to identify the deformation characteristics and failure mechanisms

of the two types of composites under ballistic impact loading while used in an integral ceramic

armor. Ballistic impact tests were conducted with 7.62 mm armor piecing projectile (APM2) at

several different velocities to compare their ballistic resistance. Post-mortem visual and SEM

analysis were carried out to identify their failure mechanisms. In addition, based on the findings

from the experimental tests, we performed FE simulation aimed at investigating the ballistic

behavior of layered armor backed by hybrid composite panel with varying mix ratios to provide

guidelines for the best use of different fiber in integral armor design.

2. Experimental method

2.1 Materials

A schematic of the armor structure investigated in this study is shown in Fig. 1a. It is composed

of a ceramic tile backed by a fiber-reinforced composite panel. For comparison purpose, two

types of fiber-reinforced composite panels were fabricated as the backing material. The first type

consists of a thermoset matrix (West System 105 Epoxy/207 Hardener) reinforced by Kevlar-29

fabrics with a plain weave architecture. Fig. 1b displays a schematic of a single-ply Kevlar-29

fabric. Each Kevlar composite panel was manufactured out of 16 layers of the fabric through a

hand layup process. The dimension of the Kevlar-29 composite panel is 203.2 mm × 203.2 mm ×

8 mm, of which the fiber volume fraction is approximately 65%, and the average weight is 410 g.

6
The second type of composite panel consists of a UHMWPE composite made of Dyneema®

HB26. HB26 is an UHMWPE fiber-based composite produced by DSM. Each ply of HB26

contains four sub-layers of unidirectional (UD) fibers oriented in a direction of 0˚/90˚/0˚/90˚ and

impregnated with a polyurethane (PUR) matrix (volume fraction 83%). A schematic of a HB26

ply is shown in Fig. 1c. In the current study , consolidated UHMWPE panels were fabricated

through a hot-press procedure. To impose an equivalent weight with the Kevlar panel, 38 plies of

HB26 were used to achieve the desired area density. The finalized UHMWPE panel has a

dimension of 203.2 mm × 203.2 mm × 10.3 mm, slightly thicker than the Kevlar composite

panel.

The front layer of the armor is composed of an Alumina tile (Al2O3 99.7%, Precision Ceramics,

USA) with a dimension of 99.6 mm × 99.6 mm × 12.7 mm. Due to its extremely high hardness,

it can effectively erode the high-speed projectile during a ballistic impact. The ceramic tile was

bonded to the center of the composite panels using the West System epoxy, making an area

density of 57.75 kg/m2 for the integral armor structure. The tile was further covered by a single-

ply Kevlar fabric during the ballistic tests. Three specimens were manufactured for each

configuration. The same area density of the two armor structures allows for a direct comparison

of their ballistic performance.

2.2 Testing procedure

A schematic of the ballistic testing setup and the projectile used is shown in Fig. 2. The 7.62 mm

APM2 projectiles were fired using a rigidly mounted gun barrel. Different firing velocities

7
ranged from 870 m/s -1212 m/s were applied to identify the impact velocity dependent damage

modes. The different velocities were achieved by adjusting the amount of propellant loaded to

the bullet case. Two pairs of LED screens were placed in front of the target to determine the

projectile velocities separately, with the average value taken as the impact velocity. During the

test, each armor was clamped at the four edges of the composite panel with a steel frame. A high-

speed camera was used to detect transient response of target and the residual velocity of the

projectile if the target was penetrated.

2.3 Post-impact analysis

Failure characteristics of both types of the composite panels were examined during post-mortem

analysis using a combined approach of direct visual observation and photographic examination

to identify the dominant failure mechanisms of the composite panels at the fiber level. In

photographic examination, samples were cut around the impact site of the specimens by abrasive

cutting. Fractured surfaces of the samples were closely observed by a SEM equipment (TESCAN

VEGA3).

3. Numerical modelling

Finite element simulation was carried out at each tested impact velocity to validate the FE model,

which were then used to study the ballistic impact behavior of layered armor backed by hybrid

composite panels with varying hybrid ratios. All the FE simulation were carried out using the

explicit finite element software Ls-dyna [22]. A schematic of the FE model is displayed in Fig. 3.

8
Due to structural symmetry, only a quarter of each specimen was modelled. Based on the

experimental testing configuration, each component in the impact system except for the fixture

frame was modelled explicitly. Specifically, the backing composite panel, the ceramic tile and

the projectile were all discretized with 8-node brick elements. Since all the composite panels

slipped during the ballistic tests, a free boundary condition was applied as a first approximation

for the FE simulation. The Kevlar panel backed armor totally contains 966,648 elements, and the

UHMWPE panel backed armor totally contains 1,091,496 elements.

During the impact tests, it was observed that the projectiles were eroded, the ceramic tiles were

fractured, and the backing composite panels were either fully perforated or partially perforated.

Therefore, appropriate material models combined with an erosion criterion were used to model

the mechanical behavior of each component, as described in the following sections.

The 7.62 mm APM2 consists of three parts: a hard steel core, a brass jacket and a lead filler [23].

The three materials were all modelled with the simplified Johnson-cook plasticity model in Ls-

dyna [22], of which the material parameters were obtained by Anderson et al. [23] and Fras et al.

[24]. These material properties are listed in Table 1.

The Alumina ceramic was modelled with the Johnson-Holmquist (JH2) model [25]. JH2 models

assumes that the yield strength of the material is given by a weighted sum of the strength of the

material at the intact state and the fractured state. The material parameters of Alumina for the

JH2 model are listed in Table 2 [26].

9
Single layer plain weave Kevlar-29 fabric has an orthogonal woven structure, therefore the

material properties in the two perpendicular directions are almost the same. In the current

simulation, each Kevlar-29/epoxy layer is homogenized, and a single element incorporated with

an orthotropic material model associated with a damage law was utilized to model its mechanical

behavior. In Ls-dyna, the material model MAT_LAMINATED_COMPOSITE_FABRIC_SOLID

(MAT_058) was used for the modelling of the Kevlar-29/epoxy composite panel. MAT58 is

based on Matzenmiller-Lubliner-Taylor (MLT) anisotropic continuum damage mechanics model

[27]. The model has the capacity of modelling the damage in the normal directions as well as

shear directions of orthotropic materials. Under plane stress condition, the constitutive equation

is given as [28-30]:

𝜎11 (1 − 𝑤11 )𝐸11 (1 − 𝑤11 )(1 − 𝑤22 )𝑣21 𝐸22 0 𝜀11

1
[𝜎22 ] = [(1 − 𝑤11 )(1 − 𝑤22 )𝑣12 𝐸11 (1 − 𝑤22 )𝐸22 0 ] [𝜀22 ] (1)
𝐷
𝜏12 0 0 (1 − 𝑤11 )𝐺12 𝛾12

where 𝐷 = 1 − (1 − 𝑤11 )(1 − 𝑤22 ) 𝑣12 𝑣21

In the above equation, 𝜎𝑖𝑗 , 𝜏𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀𝑖𝑗 and 𝛾𝑖𝑗 (𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2) are stress and strain in normal and shear

directions; 𝐸𝑖𝑗 , 𝑣𝑖𝑗 and 𝐺12 are Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and shear modulus in

respective directions; 𝑤𝑖𝑗 is the parameter quantify the corresponding damage in each direction,

which varies from 0.0 to 1.0. The form of 𝑤𝑖𝑗 assumes an exponential form as follows [27-29]:

1 𝜀
𝑤𝑖𝑗 = 1 − exp[− 𝑚 ( )𝑚𝑖𝑗 ], (𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2)
𝑓 (2)
𝑖𝑗𝑒 𝜀𝑖𝑗

10
where 𝑚𝑖𝑗 is reciprocally related to the 'strain at the maximum stress' in each direction, denoted

as 𝐸11𝑇, 𝐸11𝐶, 𝐸22𝑇, 𝐸22𝐶, 𝐸𝑆, respectively, which are parameters need to be set

independently to control both damage initiation and evolution. In the current simulation, these

parameters were all calculated by assuming a linear relationship between the strength and
𝑓
stiffness in each direction. 𝜀𝑖𝑗 is the nominal failure strain in each direction, depending on

𝑓 𝑋
tension or compression. For example, 𝜀11 = 𝐸 𝑡 , if the fiber direction 11 is under tension, and 𝑋𝑡
11

denotes the tensile strength in 11 direction. 𝜀 is the maximum strain when all the strain

components on the normal plane is considered, to take into account the coupling effect. For

example, when calculating 𝑤11 , 𝜀 used will be 𝜀 = max(𝜀11 , 𝛾12 ). Finally, after reaching its

strength, a limit stress is introduced through modifying the damage parameter. Taking 𝑤11 as an

example, it would be expressed as:

𝛼𝑋𝑡
𝑤11 = 1 − 𝐸 (3)
11 𝜀

where 0< 𝛼 < 1 is introduced to characterize the ultimate stress to have a relation to the strength

value.

The stress-strain relation and the evolution of damage can be more easily observed in Fig. 4.

When the 1st fiber direction is under uniaxial tensile loading, the stress-strain relation and

damage evolution are completely determined by three parameters, 𝐸11 , 𝐸11𝑇, 𝑋𝑡 through Eq. (1)

and Eq. (2). The pre-peak curve represents the material response when it is not damaged, while

the post-peak curve represents that when it is damaged. The parameter 𝐸11𝑇 (strain at the

11
maximum stress) controls both damage initiation and evolution, with a smaller 𝐸11𝑇 models a

smaller damage initiation strain and a steeper damage evolution, and a higher 𝐸11𝑇 models a

higher damage initiation strain and a softer damage evolution (Fig. 4). Although 𝐸11𝑇 always

corresponds to the strain when the strength is achieved, the value is not automatically selected,

therefore the pre-damage behavior is not perfectly linear but depends on the user selected 𝐸11𝑇.

The area under the stress strain curve can be considered as the energy required to completely

damage the element, however which is not given explicitly, rather determined by 𝐸11𝑇. It

should be noted that in this model, the damage variable 𝑤11 starts to evolve smoothly as long as

the material is deformed. Therefore, there is no sudden change of stress-strain relation. The

effect of 𝛼 can also be noticed in the figure, which limits the value of ultimate stress and the

damage variable 𝑤11 . Finally, the element fails when the strain achieves the specified equivalent

strain. The material parameters used for the Kevlar-29/epoxy composite are given Table 3.

For the Dyneema HB26, which consists of cross-plied UHMWPE UD lamina of which the

thickness is ~ 65 µm, discretizing at the UD level is computationally unrealistic for the

composite panel. An effective modelling approach is homogenizing several UD laminas together

and extracting its macroscopic material properties. This approach has been used in many studies

and is called sub-laminate approach [31-32]. Because the UD laminas are cross plied (Fig. 1c),

the macroscopic laminate response shows an orthotropic behavior. Therefore, in the current

simulation, the material model MAT_058 in Ls-dyna was also used in the modelling of the

Dyneema HB26 panel, and the associated material parameters are given in Table 3. It should be

noted that although the architectures of the two types of composites are different, they are

modelled with the same material model at the macroscopic scale, therefore a direct comparison

12
of the material properties can be noticed. This approach also allows for a parametric study and

therefore the effect of individual properties on the ballistic response of the structure can be

detected.

Moreover, an important damage mechanism observed during the armor impact tests was

interface delamination, which occurred either at the interface between the ceramic tile and the

backing panel, and at the interface between different sub-layers of the backing panel. These

failure modes were modelled by the definition of a

CONTACT_TIEBREAK_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE contact behavior at the interface between

the ceramic tile and the composite panel, and zero thickness cohesive element technique

incorporated with MAT_138 in Ls_dyna [22, 33] between different sub-layers of the composite

panel. MAT_138 and the tiebreak contact algorithm are further explained in the Appendix.

4. Results and discussion

The 6 specimens described in sec. 2.1 were respectively impacted at 6 different velocities to

identify the dependence of failure mechanisms on impact velocity. The testing outcomes are

summarized in Table 4. It was found that the Kevlar backed armor was not perforated at the two

lower velocities but perforated at 1164 m/s, while the UHMWPE backed armor was only

partially perforated up to 1212 m/s. Since the testing conditions were the same, it becomes clear

that the UHMWPE backed armor exhibits a higher ballistic resistance than the Kevlar panel

backed armor. In the following sections, the transient response of the panels is first discussed,

followed by failure mechanism analysis.

13
4.1 Transient response of the composite panels

During each test, the impact process was recorded by a high-speed camera with a frame rate of

32000 fps. Fig. 5 shows photographs taken at several representative time instants, where Fig. 5a

and b show impact process of the Kevlar panel backed armor impacted at 884 m/s and 1164 m/s,

respectively; Fig. 5c and d show impact process of the UHMWPE panel backed armor impacted

at 877 m/s and 1163 m/s, respectively. These photographs have been selected to give a direct

visual comparison of the target response at the same impact level.

It can be observed that upon impact during each test, the ceramic tile fractured with a cluster of

fragments splashing outward from the impact site. In the meantime, a bulge formed on the rear

composite panel due to momentum transfer and transverse stress wave propagation, which is

followed by a full perforation, or an achievement of the maximum bulge height when the kinetic

energy carried by the projectile was completely dissipated. In the final stage, in the non-

perforated panels, rebound happened due to the stored elastic strain energy in the composite

panel. It is important to note that in the penetrated case, the penetration time was very short (~

150 µs for the Kevlar panel backed armor impacted at 1164 m/s), while in the non-penetrated

cases, it took a much longer time for the composite panels to achieve their maximum deflection.

Given that a hard ceramic tile can be broken easily by a high-speed projectile, it indicates

evidently that the combination with a flexible composite panel significantly prolongs the

interaction time of the ceramic tile with the projectile.

14
In body armor design, the back face deflection should be taken into account as it is a critical

indicator of behind armor blunt trauma (BABT) [34]. The back face deflection histories that

tracked at the peak of the bulge on each nonperforated panel are plotted in Fig. 6. It clearly

shows that for each material the deflection rate increases with the impact level, as more kinetic

energy needs to be dissipated through the deformation of the panel. If we compare the deflection

history of different materials, we can see that at the same impact level, the UHMWPE panel has

a higher deflection rate and amplitude than the Kevlar panel. Under a high-speed impact, the

composite panel is under a highly combined loading condition. The major factor that contributes

to the higher deflection of the UHMWPE panel is its low bending and shear resistance. To

further study this aspect, we performed a set of three point bending tests, in which we prepared

five specimens of each material that directly cut from the same composite panels described in

Sec. 2.1. Based on the standard ASTM D790 [35], the obtained stress-strain relations are plotted

in Fig. 7. It shows that the bending yield strength and bending stiffness of the Kevlar-29 laminate

is higher than the UHMWPE laminate. Ideally, the three point bending test measures the tensile

properties of the outer surface of the specimen and should be consistent with the tensile

properties of fiber, which in this case would have resulted in a higher value for the UHMWPE

panel. However, because of the highly anisotropic properties of composite laminates and

different matrix material, the bending properties obtained through the three point bending tests

are higher in the Kevlar panel. Additionally, Table 3 shows that the transverse shear modulus of

the UHMWPE panel is much lower than that of the Kevlar panel, which seriously reduces the

measured bending modulus due to shear deflection as well.

15
Fig. 6 also presents the deflection history of the panels obtained from the FE simulation. The

overall agreement is reasonable as it shows that the FE simulations successfully capture the trend

of the deflection history, i.e., a higher impact velocity leads to a higher back face deflection and

the deflection in the UHMWPE panel is higher than in the Kevlar panel at the same impact level.

The discrepancies of the absolute value of the deflection are mainly attributed to the lack of high

strain rates data of the projectile for the characterization of the material models which might

have led to an underestimate of the core strength under impact. A comprehensive

characterization of the proprieties of the projectile especially under high strain rates might

improve this aspect which will be a subject of future study.

4.2 Damage mechanisms

4.2.1 Damage mechanisms of the Kevlar/epoxy composite panels

After the ballistic tests, to perform a cross-sectional analysis of the damaged composite panels,

each panel was carefully cut using a micro bandsaw with a coarse-toothed blade. Fig. 8 shows

the cross-sectional view of the Kevlar panel after impacted at 884 m/s. The panel was slightly

deflected with no visible damage observed on either the top surface or the bottom surface.

However, a close view show that interface delamination has occurred between several sub-

layers . Under the 1070 m/s impact (Fig. 9), a pyramid shaped bulge was developed on the back

side of the panel, due to transverse wave propagation, which is a characteristic deformation of

woven fabric laminates under high velocity impact [36]. On the front surface of the panel, a

shallow crater, characterized by fractured fabric of the two top layers, formed at the center of the

16
panel. On the bottom surface, one layer of fabric was detached from the center of panel and the

fibers were fractured. Under the 1164 m/s impact (Fig. 10a), the panel was completely perforated

at the center of impact, with fractured fibers pointing out toward the impact direction. The

interface delamination of the top layer has extended to the edge of the panel.

Numerical simulations allow the assessment of continuous interaction between the projectile and

the armor, and between the ceramic tile and the composite panel. During the impact, the

projectile was eroded and shattered, and consequently its sharp tip became blunted. In the

meantime, the momentum carried by the projectile was transmitted to the ceramic fragments and

then to the composite panel. It is this process that mainly contribute to the bulging of the backing

plate. Fig. 8 shows that the bulge on the backing plate can be generated even without direct

contact with the projectile. Actually, when the impact velocity is low, a majority of its kinetic

energy will be consumed before arriving at the top surface of the backing panel and the direct

contact of the projectile fragment and the backing panel is not able to cause any obvious damage

to the panel, which is the case of the 884 m/s impact.

When the impact velocity of the projectile gets higher, a higher momentum will be transmitted to

the backing plate and consequently a deeper bulge will be generated, as shown in Fig. 9. Due to

the bulge, the rear surface of the backing plate is under a tensile force, which eventually leads to

fiber breakage on the surface layer. On the other hand, the residual projectile arrives at the

backing plate with a higher momentum. The blunted projectile fragment causes a shear plug on

the front layers of the backing panel. This type of failure is commonly seen in impact testing of

thick composite materials with blunt-ended projectile [37]. When the impact velocity further

17
increases, more layers on the back side of the panel fails due to bulging induced breakage, and a

deeper shear plug will be needed to dissipate the kinetic energy of the projectile which

eventually results in the perforation of the panel, as shown in Fig. 10a. Fig. 10(b, c) shows the

contour plot of damage variable 𝑤11 and 𝑤22 in the bottom layer, obtained at the instant when

the bottom layer just started to fail, shown in the undeformed configuration. Because in the

bottom layer, the shear strain is much smaller as compared to tensile strain, these fiber damage

are caused directly by the tensile strain in the fiber.

The fractured surface of the Kevlar panel after the 1164 m/s impact were observed by SEM, as

shown in Fig. 11. On the rear layer, most of the ruptured fibers show severe axial splitting (Fig.

11a). This is attributed to the highly crystalline and highly ordered fibrils in the aramid fiber,

being highly anisotropic with a low transverse strength leading to splitting upon failure under

tensile loading condition. Due to elongations and defibrations, the transverse sections of some

fibers are reduced. These fracture morphologies are typically found in the aramid fibers upon

tensile failure [38-39]. On the front layer, it is noticed that the fractured surface of the fiber

bundle is relatively flat (Fig 11b). Individual fibers in the fiber bundle are still well oriented. In

many fibers, reduction in transverse section is limited to a small segment near the fractured fiber

ends. These topographical features are likely to be caused by the shear force exerted

perpendicular to the fiber direction.

4.2.2 Damage mechanisms of the UHMWPE composite panels

18
Fig. 12-14 present cross-sectional view of damaged UHMWPE composite panels after impact

and FE simulation of the impact process. Under the 877 m/s impact, the deformation of the panel

is characterized by a pyramid shaped bulge (Fig. 12), which is similar to the Kevlar panel, except

that the residual bulge is higher than the Kevlar panel. Under the 1163 m/s impact (Fig. 13), the

interface delamination becomes more evident, which is consistent with the FE simulation, while

in the thickness direction, damage is limited to the very top layers and likely to be induced by the

ceramic fragments.

Under the 1212 m/s impact, the composite panel was partially penetrated at the impact center,

with only 2.5 mm of the thickness not penetrated. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the

ballistic limit of this armor is very close to this impact velocity. Nevertheless, under this impact,

still no systematic fiber breakage was noticed on the back face of the panel, indicating a strong

tensile resistance of the UHMWPE fiber. The penetrated hole can be divided into two regions.

The first region is characterized by a crater of larger diameter of 30 mm, which is four times of

the diameter of the projectile. The second region is characterized by a smaller diameter of 8 mm,

which is close to the diameter of the projectile core. Also noticed was a clear sub-layer interface

delamination dividing the first region and the second region. Based on these observations, it is

believed that the first region is caused by shear force exerted by the blunted projectile with the

jacket on it, while the second region is caused by the shear force exerted by the core only. We

speculated that after penetrated the first region, the jacket had been stripped off the core. This

was confirmed by the debris of the projectile dug out from the hole in the panel, with the jacket

debris found in the first region, and the fragmented core found to be inserted in the second region

(Fig. 14a). The FE simulation was not able to capture the separation of the jacket and the core,

19
but it clearly shows that the failure of the panel is dominated by shear mode caused by transverse

shear force. The observed damage mode in the top layer of the panel is displayed in Fig. 14(b, c),

which is obtained right at the moment the elements in the top layer started to fail, shown in

undeformed configuration. It shows that a severe transverse shear damage has occurred, as

indicated by 𝑤23 . In the meantime, fiber damage was also noticed, as indicated by 𝑤22 .

However, it should be noted that the high 𝑤22 value is caused by the high transverse shear strain,

which coupled into the contribution of the fiber damage.

The fractured surface of the UHMWPE panel after the 1212 m/s impact was characterized by

SEM micrographs. In region 1, as shown in Fig 15, most of the fractured fiber ends display a

smooth surface as a result of a transverse shear force. Some of the fractured fiber ends have

contracted to form globular ends. The contraction is a typical characteristic of the thermoplastic

fibers in melt. It is due to the extended or stretched molecules contracted into a random coil

conformation [40-41]. In region 2, it clearly shows that one fiber bundle was pushed aside by the

projectile core. The fractured fiber surface shows a similar topographical feature as in region 1.

Besides, a few fibers displaying tensile failure morphology was also found in this region.

Based on the overall experimental and simulation results, it can be concluded that the dominant

failure mechanisms of the two types of composites when used in layered ceramic armor are

different. The failure mechanism of the Kevlar panel is dominated by a combination of shear

plugging in the front layers and fiber breakage in the rear layers, while for the UHMWPE panel,

the failure mechanism is dominated by shear plugging initiated from the front layers. It was also

noticed that the back face deflection and sub-laminates interface delamination is more severe in

20
the UHMWPE panel than in the Kevlar panel. These competing damage mechanisms are

generally different in sequence and extent than those observed when standalone composite

panels are impacted by similar projectiles. The APM2 projectile has a conical shape, which

would cause a tearing type of the failure to a standard alone Kevlar panel if the tip had not been

blunted [9]. For a standalone UHMWPE panel under ballistic impact by a 20 mm caliber

fragment simulation projectile, Nguyen et al. [15] found that when its thickness is ~10 mm, the

dominant failure mode is fiber tension with negligible shear plugging. When a standalone

UHMWPE panel is impacted by a similar AP projectile [17], it can be easily penetrated without

significant back face deflection. These results highlight the significance of analyzing the

deformation and damage mechanisms of the composites pertaining to specific structural designs

and loading conditions. In the layered ceramic armor, the projectile morphology can be modified

due to eroding and shattering by the ceramic tile, which alone affects the damage mechanisms of

the backing composite panels. One thing clearly observed from the FE simulation (Fig. 8-10, Fig.

12-14) is that the bulge could develop on the backing panel even before the projectile arrives at

it, generating a tensile force on the rear surface of the panel. It suggests that the high tensile

resistance material should be placed on the rear surface of the panel. On the other hand, for both

types of panels, shear plugging was caused by the projectile and occurred to the front layers of

the panels, which suggests that high shear resistance material should be placed on the front

surface of the panel. The shear resistance material also plays an important role in preventing high

back face deflection.

4.3 Ballistic response of hybrid panel backed armor

21
Based on above analysis of the deformation characteristics and damage mechanisms of the

composite panels, this section studies the ballistic impact response of hybrid composite panel

backed integral armor through the numerical simulation method. Because it has shown that the

Kevlar composites is more shear resistant, and the UHMWPE panel is more tensile resistant, in

the hybrid panel design, the Kevlar panel is placed in the front layer and the UHMWPE panel is

placed in the rear layer to maximize their individual merits. In the framework of the developed

FE model, three hybrid panels with varying mix ratios and equivalent weight were studied, as

shown in Fig. 16. Since experimental tests have shown that under the 1164 m/s impact, the

Kevlar panel backed armor was penetrated while the UHMWPE panel backed armor was not, all

the impact simulations of the hybrid panel backed armor were conducted at 1164 m/s.

The FE simulations showed that all the three hybrid panel backed armors were able to stop the

projectile at 1164 m/s, confirming that even by adding a small portion of tensile resistant

material on the rear layers could significantly improve the ballistic resistance of the armor. The

simulated back face deflection histories of the three hybrid panels are plotted in Fig. 17 along

with that of the pure UHMWPE panel. In the worst case scenario, when the weight ratio of

UHMWPE is 1/4, the back face deflection is strikingly higher than the other cases. The

corresponding deformation morphology is presented in Fig. 18a, showing that most of the Kevlar

layer failed due to tensile breakage, leaving the UHMWPE layer to fully arrest the projectile.

Fig. 17 also reveals that when the weight ratio of the UHMWPE layer is 2/4 or 3/4, the

deflections of the panels are all most the same. Compared to the pure UHMWPE panel, the

difference is very small. It seems that the overall back face deflections in the two panels are

determined by the UHMWPE layer, at least at this impact velocity. Nevertheless, the maximum

22
deflection of the hybrid panels as indicated at 300 µs is less than that of the pure UHMWPE

panel, which is attributed to the high shear resistance of the Kevlar panel. The deformation

morphology of the panels in Fig. 18 again shows that most of the Kevlar layer failed in tensile

breakable mode, which is different than the shear mode found in that of the pure UHMPWE

panel shown in Fig. 14. Using high shear resistance Kevlar in the front layer has successfully

altered the failed mode of the panel with slight reduction in back face deflection due to its

vulnerability in tension. Since Table 3 shows that the tensile stiffness and strength of the Kevlar

panel is only half of that of the UHMWPE panel, further increasing the tensile stiffness of the

front layers to prevent tensile failure is expected further mitigate the back face deflection.

5. Conclusions

The deformation characteristics and failure mechanisms of two types of fiber reinforced

composites used in layered ceramic armor are studied using a combined approach of

experimental testing and numerical simulation. It was found that under an equivalent weight

basis, the UHMWPE panel backed armor show an overall superior resistance than the Kevlar

panel backed armor. However, the back face deflection in the UHMWPE panel is generally

higher than that of the Kevlar panel at the same impact level, due to the lower bending stiffness

and shear stiffness.

Different layers in each type of the composite panels shows a different failure mechanism, i.e.,

the failure mechanism of Kevlar panel is dominated by shear plugging in the front layers and

fiber breakage in the rear layers, whereas in the UHMWPE panel it is dominated by shear

23
plugging accompanied by severe interface delamination and high back face deformation. A

practical implication can be drawn from these observation is that high shear resistant material

should be placed in the front layers and high tensile resistance materials should be placed in the

rear layers in the design of integral armor to make the best use of each material.

Numerical simulation shows that for a hybrid panel design, adding high tensile resistance

UHMWPE fiber on the rear side of the panel could effectively improve the ballistic resistance of

the armor by preventing fiber tensile failure, whereas using high shear resistant material in the

front layers could efficiently alleviate the shear failure. The overall performance of the armor

depends on the impact velocity and the mix ratio of the two materials. These findings are

valuable for the development of advanced lightweight armor and other polymer fiber composites

based impact resistant structures.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Army Research Office (ARO) for support of this work through Grant

award number W911NF-18-1-0478.

Appendix

A.1 MAT138

24
MAT138, also designated as MAT_COHESIVE_MIXED_MODE in Ls_dyna, includes a

bilinear traction-separation law with quadratic mixed mode delamination criterion and a damage

formulation. The bilinear traction-separation law is shown in Fig. 19. GIC and GIIC are energy

release rate for mode I and mode II fracture, respectively; T and S are peak normal tractions and

shear tractions, respective; UND and UTD are ultimate displacement in the normal and shear

direction, respectively. The relationship between them is:

UND
GIC = T × 2
(A.1)

UTD
GIIC = S × (A.2)
2

In addition, the mixed-mode traction-separation law is defined through a mixed-mode relative

displacement 𝛿𝑚 , which is defined as [22]:

𝛿𝑚 = √𝛿𝐼2 + 𝛿𝐼𝐼2 (A.3)

where 𝛿𝐼 =𝛿3 is the separation in normal direction (mode I) and 𝛿𝐼𝐼 = √𝛿12 + 𝛿22 is the separation

in tangential direction (mode II). The mixed-mode damage initiation displacement 𝛿 0 is given by

[22]:

1+𝛽2
𝛿 0 = 𝛿𝐼0 𝛿𝐼𝐼0 √(𝛿0 )2+(𝛽𝛿0 )2 (A.4)
𝐼𝐼 𝐼

25
where 𝛿𝐼0 and 𝛿𝐼𝐼0 are the single mode damage initiation separations and 𝛽=𝛿𝐼𝐼 /𝛿𝐼 is the mode

mixity. The ultimate mixed-mode displacement 𝛿 𝐹 (total failure) is given by a power law

relationship as [22]:

−1
2(1+𝛽2 ) EN ET×𝛽2
𝛿𝐹 = (GIC + ) (A.5)
𝛿0 GIIC

where EN and ET are stiffness in the normal and in plane direction of the cohesive element,

respectively. The used parameters for GIC and GIIC in simulation are 4.0 N/mm and 4.0 N/mm

[42], respectively for Kevlar sub-laminate interface, and 0.544 N/mm and 1.088 N/mm [32],

respectively for UHMWPE sub-laminate.

A.2 CONTACT_TIEBREAK_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE

TIEBREAK is a contact algorithm that allows the modelling of connections which transmits both

compressive and tensile forces. This contact algorithm is mostly suitable for the modelling of

physically glued parts. Therefore, the CONTACT_TIEBREAK_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE

algorithm was used to model the contact between the backing plate and the ceramic tile. This

contact algorithm also allows the definition of a failure criterion as:

|𝜎𝑛| 2 |𝜎𝑠 | 2
( ) +( ) ≥1 (A.6)
NFLS SFLS

where NFLS and SFLS are tensile failure stress and shear failure stress, respectively. In our

simulation, NFLS and SFLS were assigned to be 62.8 MPa and 22.9 MPa, respectively [10].

26
Data Availability

Most of the raw data required to reproduce these findings are included in this article. Part of the
raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time due to
technical or time limitations.

27
References

[1] Bajya M, Majumdar A, Butola BS, Verma SK, Bhattacharjee D. Design strategy for

optimising weight and ballistic performance of soft body armour reinforced with shear

thickening fluid. Compos Part B Eng 2020;183:107721.

[2] Yuan Z, Wang K, Qiu J, Xu Y, Chen X. A numerical study on the mechanisms of Dyneema®

quasi-isotropic woven panels under ballistic impact. Compos Struct 2020;236:111855.

[3] Pach J, Pyka D, Jamroziak K, Mayer P. The experimental and numerical analysis of the

ballistic resistance of polymer composites. Compos. Part. B Eng. 2017, 113, 24–30.

[4] Huang W, Wang Y, Xia Y. Statistical dynamic tensile strength of UHMWPE fibers. Polym

2004;45:3729–34.

[5] Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH. Penetration of laminated Kevlar by projectiles I.

Experimental investigation. Int J Solids Struct 1992;29:399–420.

[6] Van Hoof J. Modelling impact induced delamination in composite materials. Ottawa:

Carleton University; 1999.

[7] Tan LB, Tse KM, Lee HP, Tan VBC, Lim SP. Performance of an advanced combat helmet

with different interior cushioning systems in ballistic impact: experiments and finite element

simulations. Int J Impact Eng 2012;50:99–112.

[8] Cavallaro PV. Effects of weave styles and crimp gradients in woven kevlar/epoxy

composites. Exp Mech 2016;56(4):617–35.

28
[9] Millan MR, Moreno CE, Marco M, Santiuste C, Miguelez H. Numerical analysis of the

ballistic behaviour of Kevlar® composite under impact of double nosed stepped cylindrical

projectiles. J Reinf Plast Compos 2016;35(2):124–37.

[10] Nunes Gonçalves Stephanie, Scazzosi R, Manes A, Amico Campos Sando, Junior

Wanderley Ferreira de Amorin, Giglio M. Influence of projectile and thickness on the

ballistic behavior of aramid composites: experimental and numerical study. Int J Impact Eng

2019;132:103307.

[11] Russell BP, Karthikeyan K, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. The high strain rate response of

ultra-high molecular-weight polyethylene: from fire to laminate. Int J Impact Eng

2013;60:1–9.

[12] Chocron S, King N, Bigger R, Walker JD, Heisserer U, van der Werff H. Impacts and

waves in Dyneema® HB80 strips and laminates. J Appl Mech 2013;80:031806.

[13] Lässig T, Nguyen L, May M, Riedel W, Heisserer U, van der Werff H, et al. A nonlinear

orthotropic hydrocode model for ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in impact

simulations. Int J Impact Eng 2015;75:110–122.

[14] Zhang D, Sun Y, Chen L, Zhang S, Pan N. Influence of fabric structure and thickness on the

ballistic impact behavior of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene composite laminate.

Mater Des 2014;54:315–22.

[15] Nguyen LH, Ryan S, Cimpoeru SJ, Mouritz AP, Orifici AC. The effect of target thickness

on the ballistic performance of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene composite. Int J

Impact Eng 2015;75:174–83.

[16] Gilson L, Imad A, Rabet L, Coghe F. On analysis of deformation and damage mechanisms

of DYNEEMA composite under ballistic impact. Compos Struct 2020;253:112791.

29
[17] Tasdemirci A, Tunusoglu G, Guden M. The effect of the interlayer on the ballistic

performance of ceramic/composite armors: experimental and numerical study. Int J Impact

Eng 2012;44:1–9.

[18] Sabadin G, Gaiotti M, Rizzo CM, Bassano A. Development and validation of a numerical

model for the simulation of high-velocity impacts on advanced composite armor systems.

Nonlinear Dyn 2018;91:1791.

[19] Hu D, Zhang Y, Shen Z, et al. Investigation on the ballistic behavior of mosaic

SiC/UHMWPE composite armor systems. Ceram Int 2017;43(13):10368–76.

[20] Nunn S, Hansen J, Frame B, Lowden R. Improved ballistic performance by using a polymer

matrix composite facing on boron carbide armor tiles. Adv Ceram Armor 2005;26(7):287–

92.

[21] Liu W, Chen Z, Cheng X, Wang Y, Amankwa AR, Xu J. Design and ballistic penetration of

the ceramic composite armor. Compos Part B Eng 2016;84:33–40.

[22] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA® theory manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation

(LSTC);2006

[23] Anderson Jr CE, Burkins MS, Walker JD, Gooch WA. Time-resolved penetration of B4C

tiles by the APM2 bullet. Comput Model Eng Sci 2005;8(2):91–104.

[24] Fras T, Murzyn A, Pawlowski P. Defeat mechanisms provided by slotted add-on bainitic

plates against small-calibre 7.62 mm x 51 AP projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 2017;103:241–

53.

[25] Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ. An improved computational constitutive model for brittle

materials. AIP conference proceedings. AIP Publishing;1994, p. 981–984.

30
[26] Anderson CE Jr, Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ. Ballistic experiments and computations of

confined 99.5% Al2O3 ceramic tiles. In: 15th International Symposium on Ballistics,

Jerusalem, Israel; 1995, pp. 65–72.

[27] Matzenmiller A, Lubliner J, Taylor RL. A constitutive model for anisotropic damage in

fiber-composites. Mech Mater 1995;20:125–52.

[28] Schweizerhof K. Crashworthiness analysis with enhanced composite material models in LS-

DYNA – merits and limits. In: LS-DYNA world conference, Detroit, Michigan, USA; 1998.

[29] Xiao X, Botkin M, Johnson NL. Axial crush simulation of braided carbon tubes using

Mat58 in LS-DYNA. Thin-Walled Structures 2009;47:740–9.

[30] Menna C, Manes Zinno A, Asprone D, Prota A. Numerical assessment of the impact

behavior of honeycomb sandwich structures. Compos Struct 2013;106:326–39.

[31] Nguyen L, Lässig T, Ryan S, Riedel W, Mouritz A, Orifici A. A methodology for

hydrocode analysis of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene composite under ballistic

impact. Compos Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf 2016;84:224–235.

[32] Hazzard M, Trask R, Heisserer U, Kamp M, Hallett S. Finite element modelling of

Dyneema® composites: From quasi-static rates to ballistic impact. Compos Part A Appl Sci

Manuf 2018;115:31–45.

[33] Guo G, Zhu Y. Cohesive-shear-lag modeling of interfacial stress transfer between a

monolayer graphene and a polymer substrate. J. Appl. Mech 2015; 82(3):031005.

[34] Wen Y, Xu C, Wang S, Batra RC. Analysis of behind the armor ballistic trauma. J Mech

Behav Biomed Mater 2015;45:11–21.

31
[35] ASTM International. Standard test methods for flexural properties of unreinforced and

reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materials. ASTM D790-07. West Conshohocken:

ASTM International; 2007.

[36] Bresciani LM, Manes A, Ruggiero A, Iannitti G, Giglio M. Experimental tests and

numerical modelling of ballistic impacts against Kevlar 29 plain-woven fabrics with an

epoxy matrix: macro-homogeneous and Meso-heterogeneous approaches. Compos Part B

Eng 2016;88:114–130.

[37] Alonso L, Navarro C, Garcia-castillo SK, Alonso L, Navarro C, Garcia-castillo SK.

Analytical models for the perforation of thick and thin thickness woven-laminates subjected

to high-velocity impact. Compos Part B 2018;143:292–300.

[38] Yasaee M, Bond IP, Trask RS, Greenhalgh ES. Mode II interfacial toughening through

discontinuous interleaves for damage suppression and control. Compos–Part A: Appl Sci

Manuf 2012;43:121–28.

[39] Bencomo-Cisneros JA, et al. Characterization of Kevlar-29 fibers by tensile tests and

nanoindentation. J Alloys Compd Sep. 2012;536:S456–9.

[40] Greenhalgh ES, Bloodworth VM, Iannucci L, Pope D. Fractographic observations on

Dyneema® composites under ballistic impact. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2013;44:51–

62.

[41] Yang YF, Chen XG. Investigation of failure modes and influence on ballistic performance

of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) uni-directional laminate for hybrid

design. Compos Struct 2017;174:233–43.

[42] Lapczyk I, Hurtado J a. Progressive damage modeling in fiber-reinforced materials. Compos

Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2007;38:2333–41.

32
Figure captions

Fig. 1. A schematic of the: (a) layered armor; (b) single ply Kevlar-29 fabric and (c) single ply

UHMWPE UD lamina.

Fig. 2. A schematic of the ballistic testing setup and a picture of the APM2 projectile.

Fig. 3. A schematic of the FE model used in simulation.

Fig. 4. (a) Stress strain relation for a single element tensile test in 1st fiber direction, and (b)

evolution of damage variable 𝑤11 . 𝐸11𝑇 is an independent parameter that controls both damage

initiation and evolution.

Fig. 5. Impact processes recorded by the high-speed camera. Kevlar backed armor impacted at

(a) 884 m/s and (b) 1164 m/s. UHMWPE backed armor impacted at (c) 877 m/s and (d) 1163

m/s.

Fig. 6. Dynamic back face deflection of the composite panel obtained using the high-speed

camera and FE simulation. (a) Kevlar panel; (b) UHMWPE panel.

Fig. 7. Stress strain relation of the Kevlar panel and UHMWPE panel measured through the

three-point bending tests.

Fig. 8. Cross-section view of the Kevlar panel after the 884 m/s impact and simulated impact

process.

Fig. 9. Cross-section view of the Kevlar panel after the 1070 m/s impact and simulated impact

process.

Fig. 10. (a) Cross-section view of the Kevlar panel after the 1164 m/s impact and simulated

impact process; (b) damage variable 𝑤11 and (c) damage variable 𝑤22 tracked at the bottom layer

of the Kevlar panel.

33
Fig. 11. SEM image of the Kevlar fiber in the (a) rear layer and (b) front layer of the Kevlar

panel after 1164 m/s impact.

Fig. 12. Cross-section view of the UHMWPE panel after the 877 m/s impact and simulated

impact process.

Fig. 13. Cross-section view of the Kevlar panel after the 1163 m/s impact and simulated impact

process.

Fig. 14. (a) Cross-section view of the Kevlar panel after the 1212 m/s impact and simulated

impact process; (b) damage variable 𝑤23 and (c) damage variable 𝑤22 tracked at the top layer of

the UHMPWE panel.

Fig. 15. SEM image of the UHMWPE fiber in the (a) region 1 and (b) region 2 of the UHMWPE

panel after the 1212 m/s impact.

Fig. 16. Hybrid composite panel with UHMWPE weight ratio of 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4.

Fig. 17. Back face deflection of the hybrid panel obtained by FE simulation.

Fig. 18. Deformation of the hybrid composite panels when the armor is impacted at 1164 m/s.

Fig. 19. Bilinear traction-separation relation used in the cohesive model.

34
Tables

Table 1

JC model parameters of the projectile material [23, 24].

Parameter Notation Core [23] Jacket [23] Lead [24]

Density 𝜌 (Kg/m3 ) 7800 8940 11340
Young’s modulus 𝐸 (GPa) 210 124.9 17.156
Poisson’s ratio 𝑣 0.29 0.35 0.44
Yield stress constant 𝐴 (GPa) 1.034 0.5 0.024
Strain hardening constant 𝐵 (GPa) 18.095 0 0.3
Strain hardening exponent 𝑛 0.64 1.0 0.59
Strain rate constant 𝐶 0.005 0.025 0
Thermal softening constant 𝑚 1.0 1.0 1.0
Reference strain rate 𝜀0̇ (𝑠 −1 ) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Melting temperature 𝑇𝑚 (K) 1790 1360 760
Failure equivalent plastic strain FS 10% 200% 100%

35
Table 2

JH-2 model parameters used for ceramic material [26].

Parameter Notation Value

Density 𝜌0 (Kg/m3 ) 3760
Shear modulus 𝐺(GPa) 152
Intact strength constant 𝐴 0.88
Intact strength exponent 𝑁 0.64
Fractured strength constant 𝐵 0.28
Fractured strength exponent 𝑀 0.6
Strain rate constant 𝐶 0.007
𝑓
Normalized maximum fractured strength 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 0.2
Tensile strength 𝑇(𝐺𝑃𝑎) 0.26
Hugoniot elastic limit 𝐻𝐸𝐿 (GPa) 6.57
Pressure at Hugoniot elastic limit 𝑃𝐻𝐸𝐿 (GPa) 1.46
Bulking factor 𝛽 1.0
Pressure constant 𝐾1(GPa) 231
𝐾2(GPa) -160
𝐾3(GPa) 2774
Damage coefficient 𝐷1 0.01
𝐷2 0.7
Failure equivalent strain Fs 2.0

36
Table 3

Material parameters of the Kevlar-29/Epoxy composite and UHMWPE composite.

Parameter Notation Kevlar [5-7] HB26 [11, 13, 31, 32]

Density 𝜌 (Kg/m3 ) 1259 970
Young’s modulus in direction 1 𝐸1 (GPa) 20.5 51.1
Young’s modulus in direction 2 𝐸2 (GPa) 20.5 51.1
Young’s modulus in direction 3 𝐸3 (GPa) 6.0 3.62
Poisson’s ratio in direction 12 𝑣12 0.21 0.01
Poisson’s ratio in direction 13 𝑣13 0.33 0.013
Poisson’s ratio in direction 23 𝑣23 0.33 0.013
Shear modulus in direction 12 𝐺12 (GPa) 0.77 0.17
Shear modulus in direction 13 𝐺13 (GPa) 2.71 0.548
Shear modulus in direction 23 𝐺23 (GPa) 2.71 0.548
Tensile strength in direction 1 𝑋1𝑡 (GPa) 0.595 1.15
Compressive strength in direction 1 𝑋1𝑐 (GPa) 0.595 0.115
Tensile strength in direction 2 𝑋2𝑡 (GPa) 0.595 1.15
Compressive strength in direction 2 𝑋2𝑐 (GPa) 0.595 0.115
Tensile strength in direction 3 * 𝑋3𝑡 (GPa) 6.0 3.62
Compressive strength in direction* 𝑋3𝑐 (GPa) 6.0 3.62
Shear
3* strength in direction 12 𝑆12 (GPa) 0.077 0.042
Shear strength in direction 13 𝑆13 (GPa) 0.54 0.56
Shear strength in direction 23 𝑆23 (GPa) 0.54 0.56
Failure equivalent strain Fs 0.2 0.8
*High strength value is used in the 3rd direction to prevent premature deletion of elements.

37
Table 4

Results of the ballistic tests. Al/K denotes alumina/Kevlar composite armor; Al/U denotes
alumina/UHMWPE composite armor; NP denotes non-penetrated.

Configuration Al/K-1 Al/K-2 Al/K-3 Al/U-1 Al/U-2 Al/U-3

Impact velocity (m/s) 884 1070 1164 877 1163 1212
Residual velocity (m/s) NP NP 495 NP NP NP
FE Residual velocity (m/s) NP NP 452* NP NP NP
FE dissipated energy (kJ) 4.28 6.27 6.99 4.21 7.40 8.04
* The error between the simulation and the experiment is 8.7%.

38
CRediT authorship contribution statement

Guodong Guo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing - original draft. Shah

Alam: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing - review & editing.

Larry Peel: Writing - review & editing.

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

62