Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Investigation on the ballistic impact behavior of various alloys

against 7.62 mm armor piercing projectile
Teyfik Demir a, Mustafa Übeyli a,*, R. Orhan Yıldırım b
a
TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Mechanical Engineering, 06560 Ankara, Turkey
b
Middle East Technical University, Mechanical Engineering, Ankara, Turkey

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

Article history: In this study, impact behavior of the aluminum alloys of 7075 and 5083 and the high-strength low-alloy
Received 6 December 2007 steel, AISI 4140 was investigated under 7.62 mm armor piercing (AP) projectile experimentally. Various
Accepted 3 April 2008 heat treatments were applied to the alloys AISI 4140 and 7075 to see the effect of hardness and strength
Available online 8 April 2008
on their ballistic behaviors. Experimental results showed that among the investigated materials, the best
ballistic performance was attained with the alloy, 7075-T651 which maintained the ballistic protection
Keywords: with the areal density P85 kg/m2.
A. Ferrous metals and alloys
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Nonferrous metals and alloys
E. Impact and ballistic

1. Introduction creased hardness of ceramic layer. Therefore, the composites with

Selection of suitable armor materials for defense applications is
very crucial with respect to increasing mobility of the systems as
well as maintaining safety. Therefore, determining the material
with the lowest possible areal density that resists the predefined
threat successfully is required in armor design studies. A number
of various material systems can be considered in this perspective.
However, steel still seems to be a major candidate material for ar-
mor applications due to its superior mechanical properties. Fur-
thermore, it has a very large technological database and can be
produced easily. Moreover, it is relatively more or less cheaper
than other possible armor materials. On the other hand, although
the main disadvantage of steel is its relatively high density, it
can be compensated by increasing its hardness via numerous heat
treatments. After steel, high-strength aluminum alloys have also
some potential to be used as armor due to relatively higher specific
strength. Another potential candidate material is titanium alloys
but their relatively high cost restricts their use significantly.
Furthermore, laminated composites containing a ceramic front
layer and a metallic or a composite backing layer have strong po-
tential to decrease armor weight compared to armor steels. The
ceramic front layer, due to its very high hardness and compressive
strength compared to projectile core, erodes and breaks the projec-
tile while the backing layer supports the front layer and absorbs
the remaining energy of the projectile. In this group of materials,
the ballistic protection ability increases significantly with in-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 2924085; fax: +90 312 2924091.
E-mail address: mubeyli@etu.edu.tr (M. Übeyli).
harder ceramic front layer appear to be very advantageous to pro-
duce lightweight armor systems. Although the laminated compos-
ites offer a great saving in the armor weight compared to armor
steels, their cost is substantially higher and spalling in these mate-
rials under the ballistic impact decreases their multi-hit capability
remarkably.
In an earlier study, it was pointed out that under the armor
piercing (AP) projectiles, the aluminum alloy 7039 showed better
ballistic performance than armor steel [1]. The ballistic resistance
of these materials increased with the obliquity. Therefore, accord-
ing to this study [1], use of the aluminum alloy 7039 would be
advantageous with respect to saving weight in comparison to the
armor steel. In another earlier work, Woodward [2] proposed a
comparison criterion for selection of metallic armor materials. In
a table, for different metallic materials, namely SAE1020,
SAE4130, P8 Hadfield steel, AA5083, AA7039, Titanium, Titanium
alloy 318 and Ti-8Al-1Mo-1V, a comparison was given by using
their physical and mechanical properties. According to this work,
titanium alloys and Hadfield steel appeared to be more advanta-
geous than the others with respect to the ballistic performance
[2]. Manganello and Abbott [3] investigated the influence of steel
properties on the low velocity impact behavior of steel armors. It
was figured out that the hardness was the most critical property
affecting the ballistic performance. An investigation on the ballistic
performance of single and multilayered plates of mild steel (with
thicknesses varying between 4.7 mm and 25 mm), rolled homoge-
neous armor (having various thicknesses between 8 mm and
20 mm) and aluminum (for thicknesses in the range of 6.1 mm
and 40 mm) was carried out by Gupta and Madhu [4] against

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.010
2010 T. Demir et al. / Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016

6.2 mm projectiles with a velocity range of 800–880 m/s. They con- with the increase in the plate thickness [6]. Reddy et al. [7] inves-
cluded that when the number of layers was more than two, the tigated the ballistic performance of high-strength low-alloy steel
ballistic resistance of the materials decreased. Dikshit et al. [5] weldments under a threat of 7.62 projectiles by using various
examined the impact of plate hardness on the ballistic behavior welding types. Shield metal arc weld exhibited the higher ballistic
of steel plates over the velocity range 300–800 m/s. They found resistance compared to either gas tungsten arc weld or flux cored
that the effect of hardness of a plate on the ballistic performance arc weld [7].
depended on whether the stress state was predominantly plane Furthermore, Anderson et al. [8] investigated the effect of pro-
strain or plain stress. Moreover, a study by Gupta and Madhu [6] jectile core hardness on the ballistic resistance of steels. According
was made on the normal and oblique impact of a 6.2 mm projectile to the results of this study, ballistic limit velocity was independent
for mild steel. It was shown that the difference between the angles on the hardness of projectile core until the hardness of the core
of obliquity for the ballistic limit and the critical ricochet increased was greater than target hardness. Edwards and Mathewson [9]
studied the ballistic behavior of tool steel (with 0.95% C) in the un-
welded and welded condition under the impact of 7.62 mm ball
Table 1 and armor piercing projectiles. They found that gross cracking oc-
Heat treatment procedures applied for the AISI 4140 and 7075
curred at a plate hardness of 510 HV [9].
Material Hardness Austenitizing Austenitizing Tempering Tempering Moreover, various grades of armor steels were investigated un-
level temperature time (min) temperature time (min) der 5.56 mm round by Maweja and Stumpf [10–12] to see the ef-
(HRC) (°C) (°C)
fect of microstructure and mechanical properties on the ballistic
AISI 4140 38 860 90 580 120 behavior of these steels. They found that the microstructure and
50 450 the ratio of yield to tensile strength had a significant influence
53 400
60 250
on their ballistic performance. On the other hand, Hu and Lee
[13] examined the ballistic performance of a modified rolled
Hardness Annealing temperature (°C) Annealing time (min)
(HB)
homogeneous armor steel (MRHA) against 44 grain fragment sim-
ulating projectiles to determine ballistic limit velocity. They con-
7075 60 420 180
cluded that ballistic limit velocities of 2.5 mm thick MRHA were
higher than those of AISI 1045 and 4130.
In a very recent study [14], the ballistic testing of the high-
Table 2 strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel (50CrV4) armors against 7.62 mm
Thicknesses of the materials corresponding to areal densities armor piercing projectiles was carried out for comparison to lam-
Specimen group Areal density (kg/m2) 55 70 85 100 115 inated composites. This study pointed out that when the hardness
1A Thickness (mm) 7.2 9 10.8 12.7 14.4
of the steel plates was increased the penetration and propagation
1B ability of the projectile decreased significantly [14]. In addition,
1C alumina/aluminum laminated composite maintained 26% saving
1D in armor weight compared to this steel which maintained the full
2A Thickness (mm) 20 25 30 35 40 protection with an areal density of 89 kg/m2 [14,15].
3A This study presents the ballistic behavior of aluminum alloys of
3B
7075 and 5083 and HSLA steel, AISI 4140 against 7.62 mm armor
3C
piercing projectile. In addition to the variety of the alloys, effect

Fig. 1. A schematic view of the experimental setup used for the ballistic testing. Dimensions were given in mm.

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic view of the 7.62 mm AP projectile and (b) cross-sectional view of the core of the projectile [19].
 T. Demir et al. / Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016 2011

of mechanical properties on the ballistic behavior of these alloys Table 3

was investigated. Some properties of 7.62 mm AP projectile [19]

Type Property
Cartridge length 71.12 ± 0.76 mm
2. Experimental procedure
Cartridge weight 25.47 ± 1.75 g
Case material 7.62  51 mm Brass (CuZn30)
First of all, the alloys used in this study were supplied from the market and then
Core material DIN 100Cr6 (HRC 61–62)
prepared to get suitable sizes which were 70 mm in diameter for round specimens
Bullet weight 9.75 ± 0.1 g
or 70  70 mm in size for square specimens. Five different areal densities, namely
Length of bullet 32.95 mm
55, 70, 85, 100 and 115 kg/m2 were selected to be used for each alloy to see the
Nose type Conical (cone half angle, a = 17°)
change in the ballistic resistance with thickness of the material and compare these
materials. For this purpose, thicknesses of the specimens were determined and ma-
chined with respect to these areal densities. Areal density formulation can be given in the experiments. After finishing of ballistic tests, macro and micro examinations
as follows: of the fractured surfaces of the specimens were carried out. In a ballistic perfor-
Areal density ðkg=m2 Þ ¼ t  d ð1Þ mance test, the most important parameter is whether the target plate is perforated
(completely penetrated) or not. Therefore, this result was selected as the main ref-
3
where t (in m) and d (in kg/m ) are thickness and density of the armor, respectively. erence point to compare various alloys having different mechanical properties in
Nomenclature for the specimens was used as shown below: this study.

1A2 3. Results and discussion

2
Areal Density: 1) 55, 2) 70, 3) 85, 4) 100, 5) 115 kg/m
3.1. Mechanical properties
Heat Treatment:
Table 4 gives some important mechanical properties for the
A) 38 HRC (for the AISI 4140)
specimen groups. It can be seen that for the steel AISI 4140, a wide
H111 (for the AA5083) range of mechanical properties was reached due to the fact that
their hardness level and strength varied depending on the temper-
TO: annealed (for the AA7075) ing temperature. One can see that its yield and tensile strengths
B) 50 HRC (for the AISI 4140) and T651 (for the AA7075) changed in the ranges of 1150–1500 MPa and 1450–1800 MPa,
respectively depending on the tempering temperature. Moreover,
C) 53 HRC (for the AISI 4140) and T7351 (for the AA7075) the hardness for the steel, AISI 4140 was between 38 and
D) 60 HRC (for the AISI 4140) 60 HRC. Fig. 3 represents a typical microstructure of the steel AISI
4140 heat treated to 50 HRC. Microstructure of tempered martens-
Material type: 1) AISI 4140, 2) AA5083, 3) AA7075 ite consisting of cementite plates in the ferrite matrix is observed
in this figure apparently. On the other hand, the hardness levels
were 170, 150 and 60 HB, for the 7075-T651, the 7075-T7351
After that, various heat treatments were applied to the alloys, AISI 4140 and and the 7075-TO, respectively. Artificial aging treatment in the al-
7075 to get different mechanical properties. Table 1 gives the heat treatment pro- loy 7075 causes the formation of coherent precipitates leading to
cedure for these materials. On the other hand, the alloy 5083 was used as in re- high hardness and so strength in the structure. Therefore, the high-
ceived condition (H111). For the steel AISI 4140, austenitization of all steel
est hardness level is observed for the alloy 7075-T651. However,
specimens was done at 860 °C firstly. And then, they were quenched into water
to get fully martensitic structure. Finally, they were tempered at different temper- overaging destroys the coherency of the precipitates with matrix
atures to find out different hardness levels of 38, 50, 53 and 60 HRC by forming the atoms that causes some reduction in both hardness and strength.
tempered martensitic microstructure. A heat treatable aluminum alloy 7075 was The lowest hardness and strength values belonged to the 7075-
received in two different heat treatment conditions, T651 (aged) and T7351 (over-
TO in which the effective precipitation strengthening is not ob-
aged). Furthermore, a third heat treatment condition, namely annealing at 420 °C
was also applied to the 7075 to see the effect of mechanical properties on the bal- served. In addition, the hardness and strength of the alloy, 5083-
listic behavior of this alloy more clearly (Table 1). H111 were comparable with those of 7075-TO but much lower
Table 2 gives the thicknesses of the investigated materials corresponding to the than those of either 7075-T651 or 7075-T7351.
areal densities mentioned above. One can see that eight specimen groups were pre-
pared when considering both material type and different heat treatment conditions.
3.2. Ballistic testing
After finishing the heat treatment processes, the standard mechanical tests, tension
and hardness, were applied to determine important mechanical properties such as,
yield strength, tensile strength and hardness according to the ASTM standards Penetration is the entry of the projectile into any region of the
[16–18]. Hardness of the steel specimens was measured by applying a weight of targets, whereas perforation occurs when the projectile passes
150 kg with a diamond indenter while that of aluminum specimens was measured
by a force of 1500 kg with a ball of 2.5 mm diameter. Three measurements for each Table 4
specimen were carried out in the hardness tests. And also, tension tests were Some important mechanical properties of the investigated materials
repeated three times for each specimen group with a test speed of 2 mm/min.
Next, microstructure characterization of the steel specimens was made by using Specimen Hardness Standard Yield Tensile Ductility
a scanning electron microscope (SEM) before the ballistic test. For this, the speci- group (HRC) deviation for strength strength (% elongation)
mens were etched by using suitable etchants to see phase(s) clearly. In order to hardness (MPa) (MPa)
facilitate ballistic testing, an experimental setup for target materials was prepared
1A 37.8 0.9 1150 1450 17.0
(Fig. 1).
1B 49.9 0.9 1250 1570 13.8
Finally, the ballistic testing of the prepared specimens was carried out using
1C 53.4 1.1 1400 1640 12.7
7.62  51 mm M61 type AP projectiles in a ballistic laboratory of a state company.
1D 60 1.3 1500 1800 11.0
Fig. 2 represents a general view of the projectile and its core structure. And also
some properties and materials of this projectile are given in Table 3 [19]. The bullet Hardness Standard Yield Tensile Ductility
of the projectile was made of hardened steel DIN 100Cr6. In addition gliding case (HB) deviation for strength strength (% elongation)
was manufactured from cartridge brass CuZn30. Specimens were placed in a rigid hardness (MPa) (MPa)
frame of target placed 15 m away from the projectile exit zone. Five separate 2A 85 1.4 190 300 16.0
specimens were tested for each specimen groups due to the five different areal den- 3A 60 1.5 105 230 17.0
sities. And all tests were repeated five times. Targets were subjected to a single shot 3B 170 1.3 500 570 11.0
for every specimen at normal impact. Therefore, in total 200 specimens were tested 3C 150 1.2 435 505 13.0
using AP projectiles. The inlet velocity of projectile was measured as 782 ± 5.4 m/s
2012 T. Demir et al. / Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016

sities since they did not resist the impact of the projectiles effi-
ciently due to their lowest hardness and strength among the
investigated specimen groups. Fig. 4 shows the front and rear
views of the specimen group 3A after ballistic testing. At the rear
side of these specimens, petalling that is a common failure mode
for ductile materials under ballistic impact was formed after the
projectile exit. And also, the ductile hole formation mechanism
was taken place in these specimens without any crack formation
(Fig. 5). The failure mechanism for the specimen group 2A was
found to be the same with that of the 3A. On the other hand, the
specimen group 3B was satisfactory at an areal density P85 kg/
m2, whereas 3C samples provided the full ballistic protection for
an areal density P100 kg/m2. Fig. 6 represents the cross-sectional
view of the specimens 3B3, 3B4 and 3B5 through the centerline of
the impact point after the ballistic testing. One can see that
advancement of the projectile in the specimen was stopped at a

Fig. 3. Microstructure of the AISI 4140 heat treated to 50 HRC (1000, etched by 5%
nital for 15 s).

through the target [20]. In other words, perforation can be defined

as the complete penetration. Ballistic performance of the investi-
gated alloys was evaluated by considering the probability of perfo-
ration of these alloys out of 5 shots which is given in Table 5. The
specimen groups; 2A and 3A, were fully perforated at all areal den-

Table 5
Probability of the non-perforation of the specimen groups out of five shots

Specimen group Areal density (kg/m2) 55 70 85 100 115

1A Performance (%) 0 0 0 0 0
1B 0 0 0 0a 0a
1C 0 0a 0a 100 100
1D 0a 0a 0a 0a 80a
2A 0 0 0 0 0
3A 0 0 0 0 0
3B 0 0 100 100 100
3C 0 0 0 100b 100b Fig. 5. Macro cross-sectional view of the specimen 3A5 through the hole created by
the projectile after the ballistic testing. Steel core of the projectile perforated the
a
Specimen was not penetrated but broken into several pieces. sample easily by leaving its brass jacket at nearly 10 mm away from the impact
b
Specimen was successful but rear surface had some cracks. point.

Fig. 4. Macro views of the front (at top of the Figure) and rear (at bottom of the Figure) of the 3A having the areal density of (a) 55 kg/m2, (b) 70 kg/m2, (c) 85 kg/m2, (d)
100 kg/m2 and (e) 115 kg/m2 after the ballistic impact.
 T. Demir et al. / Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016 2013

Fig. 6. Macro view of the cross-section of the specimens (a) 3B3, (b) 3B4 and (c) 3B5 through the centerline of the impact point after the ballistic test. It can be seen that the
penetration depth of the projectile was almost the same for the 3B samples having different thicknesses. (Scale was given in mm).

Fig. 7. Photographs of the specimen group 1A with (a) 55 kg/m2, (b) 70 kg/m2, (c) 85 kg/m2, (d) 100 kg/m2 and (e) 115 kg/m2 after the ballistic impact. All samples failed
under the impact of AP projectiles.

depth of 27 mm. It is clear that an increase in the hardness and so

Fig. 8. Ductile hole formation in the specimen of 1A5. The projectile inlet and outlet
regions were shown as in the circles of A and B, respectively. Petalling was observed
only at the rear side of the specimen.
strength of the alloy 7075 caused an improvement in its ballistic
resistance drastically since increase in the hardness of a material
leads to propagation of the projectile becomes more difficult by
enhancing the erosion and fracture of the projectile. Again, for
the failed specimens in the groups of 3B and 3C, the failure mech-
anisms of ductile hole formation was observed.
For the steel AISI 4140, the samples having a hardness of
38 HRC were perforated by the projectiles via forming a ductile
hole as seen in the failed aluminum alloy specimens (Figs. 7 and
8). Due to its lower thickness and higher hardness compared to
the aluminum alloy samples, petalling at the front side of the 1A
specimens was not occurred (Fig. 8). When its hardness was in-
creased to 50 HRC, the brittle fracture was observed for the spec-
imens at all investigated areal densities (Fig. 9). The number of
pieces after ballistic testing decreased with increased areal density
of the specimen.
Among the steel specimen groups, the best performance was
found for the 1C having a hardness of 53 HRC. As shown in
Fig. 10, the samples 1C4 and 1C5 withstood the impact of the AP

Fig. 9. Photographs of the 1B specimens having an areal density of (a) 55 kg/m2, (b) 70 kg/m2, (c) 85 kg/m2, (d) 100 kg/m2 and (e) 115 kg/m2 after the ballistic impact. All
samples fractured into several pieces in a brittle manner. Radial fractures on the samples occurred.
2014 T. Demir et al. / Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016

Fig. 10. Front views of the 1C specimens with (a) 55 kg/m2, (b) 70 kg/m2, (c) 85 kg/m2, (d) 100 kg/m2 and (e) 115 kg/m2, after the impact of the projectile. The samples 1C4
and 1C5 achieved to stop the AP projectiles whereas the others failed.

Fig. 11. View of the specimen 1D failed by fracturing into several pieces under the impact of the AP projectiles. The number of fractured pieces decreased when its areal
density was increased from (a) 55 kg/m2, (b) 70 kg/m2, (c) 85 kg/m2, (d) 100 kg/m2 and (e) 115 kg/m2.

projectile successfully and maintained the full ballistic perfor-

mance. Moreover, there were no cracks observed on these speci-
mens. When the hardness was increased to 60 HRC, the
specimens were fractured into several pieces depending on the
areal density (Fig. 11). The number of pieces also decreased with
increased areal density as in the case of 1B specimens. Only the
specimen 1D5 exhibited a successful performance by 80% out of
five shots.
When a projectile hits the target material, compressive stress
waves occur firstly. After that, these compressive waves reflect
back from the rear side of the material as tensile waves and finally
interaction of these waves causes crack initiation, crack propaga-
tion and failure. In order to handle these waves, strength and

Fig. 12. Macro view of the fractured surface of the specimen 1C3 through its Fig. 13. SEM photos of fractured surface of 1C3 (a) near to the impact zone and (b)
thickness. at the middle zone through thickness.
 T. Demir et al. / Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016
Fig. 14. SEM view of impact zone of the specimen1C2 and EDS analysis of the spherical particle in this zone.
toughness of the target material should be high. Upon impact of
the projectile, high strain rate deformation is localized in narrow
shear bands at target material causing the catastrophic failure
[21–28]. Fig. 12 illustrates macro view of the fractured surface of
the specimen, 1C3 by SEM. One can observe the shear bands due
to the reflected tensile stress waves. The shear bands revealed that
the ballistic impact induced cyclic loading in the plates due to mul-
tiple reflections of tensile waves [10]. It can be thought that major
part of the failure was taken place due to these tensile stresses.
Fig. 13 shows the SEM photos of fractured surface of 1C3 at near
to the impact zone and at the middle zone through thickness of
the specimen. Very fine dimples were observed at the impact zone
for a depth of about 0.3 mm from the edge. However, at the rest of
the fractured surface through the thickness of brittle fracture type
was seen. In addition, mainly intergranular type of fracture was
seen through the fractured surface of the sample. Appearances of
the shear bands on the fractured surface of the sample verified
the failure caused by the reflected tensile stress waves from the
edge of the specimen. Maweja and Stumpf [10] also reported the
similar observations on the fractured surface of the failed steel
samples tested with 5.56 mm rounds. Furthermore, local melting
of lead coming from the projectile took place at the impact zone
2015
of the specimens. Chemical composition of the small particles on
the impact zone was recorded by the EDS analysis (Fig. 14). It is
seen that these spherical and small particles mainly consisted of
the lead.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the ballistic performance of various alloys against
7.62 mm AP projectiles was investigated. According to the experi-
mental data gathered, the main conclusions can be given as
follows:
 Among the investigated materials, the best performance was
attained with the aluminum alloy 7075-T651.
 Increase in the hardness of the aluminum alloys led to increase
in the resistance to the projectiles effectively. On the other hand,
the best performance in the steel, AISI 4140 was achieved for a
hardness level of 53 HRC. Although the increase in the hard-
ness of the steel improved its ballistic behavior, the steel speci-
mens having either 50 or 60 HRC were broken in a brittle
manner rather than perforation by the projectiles.
2016 T. Demir et al. / Materials and Design 29 (2008) 2009–2016

 The aluminum alloy 7075-T651 could provide at least a reduc-
tion in the weight of armor by 25% in comparison to RHA of
380 HB [29].
Acknowledgement
_
This work was supported by the Research Fund of TÜBITAK,
Project # 106M211.
References
[1] Orgorkiewicz RM. Armor for combat vehicles. New armor materials. Mach Des
1969:36–42.
[2] Woodward RL. A rational basis for the selection or armour materials. J Aust Inst
Metals 1977;22:167–70.
[3] Manganello J, Abbott KH. Metallurgical factors affecting the ballistic behavior
of steel targets. J Mater JMLSA 1972;17:231–9.
[4] Gupta NK, Madhu V. An experimental study of normal and oblique impact of
hard-core projectile on single and layered plates. Int J Impact Eng
1997;19:395–414.
[5] Dikshit SN, Kutumbarao VV, Sundararajan G. The influence of plate hardness
on the ballistic penetration of thick steel plates. Int J Impact Eng
1995;16(2):293–320.
[6] Gupta NK, Madhu V. Normal and oblique impact of a kinetic energy projectile
on mild steel plates. Int J Impact Eng 1991;12(3):333–43.
[7] Reddy GM, Mohandas T, Papukutty KK. Effect of welding process on the
ballistic performance of high-strength low-alloy steel weldments. J Mater
Process Technol 1998;74:27–35.
[8] Anderson Jr CE, Hohler V, Walker JD, Stilp AJ. The influence of projectile
hardness on ballistic performance. Int J Impact Eng 1999;22:619–32.
[9] Edwards MR, Mathewson A. The ballistic properties of tool steel as a potential
improvised armour plate. Int J Impact Eng 1997;19(3):297–309.
[10] Maweja K, Stumpf W. Fracture and ballistic-induced phase transformation in
tempered martensitic low-carbon armour steels. Mater Sci Eng A
2006;432:158–69.
[11] Maweja K, Stumpf W. The design of advanced performance high strength low-
carbon martensitic armour steels, Part 1. Mechanical property considerations.
Mater Sci Eng A 2008;485:140–53.
[12] Maweja K, Stumpf W. The design of advanced performance high strength low-
carbon martensitic armour steels, Microstructural considerations. Mater Sci
Eng A 2008;480:160–6.
[13] Hu CJ, Lee PY. Ballistic performance and microstructure of modified rolled
homogeneous armor steel. J Chinese Inst Eng 2002;25:99–107.
[14] Übeyli M, Yıldırım RO, Ögel B. On the comparison of the ballistic performance
of steel and laminated composite armors. Mater Design 2007;28(4):1257–62.
[15] Übeyli M, Yıldırım O, Ögel B. Investigation on the ballistic behavior of Al2O3/
Al2024 laminated composites. J Mater Process Technol 2008;196:356–64.
[16] ASTM Standards, Designation E 8M-93, Standard test methods for tension
testing of metallic materials; 1993.
[17] ASTM Standards, Designation E 10-84, Standard test method for brinell
hardness of metallic materials; 1984.
[18] ASTM Standards, Designation E 18-93, Standard test methods for rockwell
hardness and rockwell superficial hardness of metallic materials; 1993.
[19] MIL-C-60617A, Military Specification, Cartridge, 7.62 mm: NATO, Armor
Piercing, M61, 1991.
[20] Backmann ME, Goldsmith W. The mechanics of penetration of projectiles into
targets. Int J Impact Eng 1978;16:1–99.
[21] Zener C, Hollomon JH. Effect of strain rate upon plastic flow of steel. J. Appl
Phys 1944;15:22–32.
[22] Bedford AJ, Wingrove AL, Thompson KRL. The phenomenon of adiabatic shear
deformation. J Aust Inst Metals 1974;19:61–73.
[23] Rogers HC. Adiabatic plastic deformation. Ann Rev Mat Sci 1979;9:283–311.
[24] Nakkalil R, Hornaday Jr, Bassim MN. Characterization of the compression
properties of rail steels at high temperatures and strain rates. Mater Sci Eng A
1991;141:247–60.
[25] Meyers MA. Dynamic failure: mechanical and microstructural aspects. J
Physique III 1994;6:C8-597–621.
[26] Bassim MN, Panic M. High strain rate effects on the strain of alloy steels. J
Mater Process Technol 1999;92–93:481–5.
[27] Klepazko JR. Failure dynamics: new area of research. J Physique IV
2003;110:615–20.
[28] Schoenfield SE, Wright TW. A failure criterion based on material instability. Int
J Solids Struct 2003;40:3021–37.
[29] Ogorkiewicz RM. Advances in armor materials. Int Def Rev 1991;4:349–52.