International Journal of Impact Engineering 102 (2017) 55
61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

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

Predicting the perforation of ceramic-faced light armors subjected to

projectile impact
2XTagedPD1 XR.T.
XD Tang, 4XD3 XH.M.
XD Wen*
TagedPCAS Key Laboratory for Mechanical Behavior and Design of Materials, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province 230027, China

TAGEDPA R T I C L E I N F O TAGEDPA B S T R A C T

Article History: An analytical model is presented herein for the perforation of ceramic-faced light armors subjected to
Received 4 May 2016 impact by flat-ended projectiles at normal incidence using energy balance method. The backing plates of
Revised 3 November 2016 ceramic-faced light armors consist of either metals or fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) laminates. It is assumed
Accepted 13 November 2016
that during ballistic impact the kinetic energy of a projectile is dissipated by deformation (mushrooming)
Available online 2 December 2016
and erosion of the projectile, compression/fragmentation and shear failure of the ceramic facing tile as well
as perforation of metal or FRP backing plate. Various equations are obtained and compared with available
TagedPKeywords:
experiments. It transpires that the present model predictions are in good agreement with the test data for
Projectile
Perforation
the perforation of ceramic-faced light armors under impact by flat-faced projectiles in terms of ballistic
Ceramic-faced light armor limit and residual velocity. It also transpires that, to a first approximation, the present model can also be
Energy balance method applied to ceramic-faced light armors struck normally by non-flat missiles.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tTagedP he perforation of AD995/5083 aluminum alloy or AD995/6082 alu-

TagedPCeramic-faced light armors have now been widely used in
defense industry due to its high specific strength and excellent bal-
listic performance. High strength ceramic facing tile is designed to
break/defeat an incoming projectile by deformation (mushrooming)
and erosion of the projectile, ceramic cone (conoid) formed in the
ceramic plate to spread the loading over a large area of the backing
plate.
TagedPIn the past fifty years or so many researchers have conducted the-
oretical investigation into the perforation of ceramic/metal light
armors or ceramic/FRP composite armors subjected to impact by
flat-nosed projectiles and suggested many analytical models. Flor-
ence [1] proposed an analytical model for predicting the ballistic
limit velocity of a ceramic-faced light armor struck transversely by a
rigid flat-ended missile using the conservation of energy. Woodward
[2] suggested a simple one dimensional approach to modeling
ceramic composite armor defeat and Reijer [3] formulated a series of
equations to describe the time histories of various parameters in the
penetration process. Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez [4] examined the
ballistic perforation of ceramic/metal light armor by employing the
A-T model to describe the projectile penetration process of the
ceramic facing tile and the model proposed by Woodward [2] to
depict the energy absorption of the backing plate. The model predic-
tions were found to be in good agreement with the test results for
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hmwen@ustc.edu.cn (H.M. Wen).
minum alloy light armors struck by 20 APDS in terms of residual
velocity, residual mass of projectile and ballistic limit. On the basis
of the work done by Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez [4], Feli et al. [5]
described the deformation of projectile by using the model proposed
by Walker and Anderson [6] and modified the semi-cone angle in
their model. It was shown that the modified model can be used to
calculate the residual velocity more accurately as compared to the
model suggested by Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez [4]. On the other
hand, Naik et al. [7] proposed an engineering model for the perfora-
tion of ceramic/FRP composite armors under impact by flat-ended
projectiles based upon energy balance method and stress wave the-
ory. Various energy absorbing mechanisms in the perforation pro-
cess were delineated and the model predictions were shown to be in
reasonable agreement with the experimental results for the perfora-
tion of alumina/FRP composite armors subjected to impact by a flat-
nosed projectile in terms of residual velocity.
TagedPHowever, it should be noted here that the failure mechanisms
considered in the analytical models mentioned above are not com-
prehensive and, in particular, the values of some explicit parameters
or the method for determining the parameter values are not given.
As such the applicability of some existing models is quite limited.
TagedPThe objective of this paper is to suggest an analytical model to
predict the perforation of ceramic-faced light armors struck nor-
mally by flat-ended projectiles using energy balance method. The
backing plates are made of either metals or fiber reinforced plastic
(FRP) laminates. Various equations are derived based upon the
assumption that the main energy absorbing mechanisms are

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.11.008
0734-743X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 R.T. Tang and H.M. Wen / International Journal of Impact Engineering 102 (2017) 55
61

TagedPprojectile deformation (mushrooming) and erosion, ceramic com-

Notation
pression (crushing) and shear failure, backing plate perforation. The
analytical model is compared with available test data as well as
Cv heat capacity of metal plate
some existing models and discussed.
D, q empirical constants chosen to describe rate sen-
sitivity of a metal material
2. Formulation of an analytical model
d0 initial diameter of projectile
dp diameter of projectile after deformation/
TagedPConsider a flat-ended projectile of length l0 penetrating into a
mushrooming
ceramic-faced light armor at impact velocity v0, the initial kinetic
Eb energy absorbed by backing plate
energy of the projectile can then be expressed as
Ec energy absorbed by ceramic facing plate
Ecc energy absorbed by ceramic facing plate with 1 2
Ek D mp v20 D pd0 rp l0 v0 2 =8 ð1Þ
compression failure 2
Ecs energy absorbed by ceramic facing plate with where mp, d0 and rp are the mass, initial diameter and density of the
shear failure projectile, respectively. From the energy balance, one obtains
Ek initial kinetic energy of projectile
Ek D Ep C Ec C Eb C Ekr ð2Þ
Ekb kinetic energy of residual projectile when it
strikes backing plate where Ep, Ec and Eb are the energies absorbed by the projectile, the
Ekr kinetic energy of residual projectile ceramic facing tile and the backing plate, respectively; Ekr is the
Ep energy absorbed by projectile kinetic energy of the residual projectile. The expressions for various
Fcc ceramic compressive force resistive to projectile energy parameters will be constructed in the following sections.
motion
Fcs shear force a ceramic plate can withstand when 2.1. Energy dissipation of projectile
shear failure occurs
hb thickness of backing plate TagedPOn the basis of the experimental observation, it is assumed
hc critical thickness of the ceramic plate between that when a projectile strikes a ceramic-faced light armor the
shear and compress deformations (thickening/mushrooming) and erosion of the pro-
hc0 thickness of ceramic facing plate jectile occur before it penetrates into the backing plate, and the
k1 ratio of projectile deformed diameter to its initial kinetic energy loss of the projectile is mainly related to the
diameter energy associated with the erosion of the projectile itself. Hence,
k2 ratio of penetration velocity to initial velocity one obtains
l0 initial length of projectile 2
Ep D pd0 YP ¢ le =4 ð3Þ
le erosion length of projectile
leq equivalent length of non-flat-nosed missile in which Yp is the dynamic yield strength of the projectile, le is the
mp initial mass of projectile erosion length of the projectile.
mb lugging mass of the backing plate
mr mass of residual projectile after erosion 2.2. Energy dissipation of ceramic facing tile
n shear strain hardening exponent
rb, rc, rp densities of backing plate, ceramic facing plate TagedPA ceramic facing tile under impact by a blunt projectile can fail,
and projectile depending upon its thickness relative to the projectile diameter, in
u penetration velocity of projectile two modes: direct formation of ceramic cone; first penetration/com-
v0 initial velocity of projectile pression and then followed by ceramic cone formation. The former
vr residual velocity of projectile ceramic tile is defined as thin whilst the latter as thick. Fig. 1 shows
vs velocity of residual projectile when it impacts schematic diagram of a typical cone formed in a ceramic plate struck
backing plate normally by a flat-faced projectile as observed experimentally by
Yp dynamic yield strength of projectile Wilkins et al. [8]. Damage can also occur in ceramic plate when it
a thermal softening coefficient contacts the bullet, and part of its kinetic energy is absorbed by
bc empirical constant, defined in Eq. (8) ceramic. It should be mentioned here that failure mechanisms of
b empirical constant, defined in Eq. (12)
z heat transfer coefficient of metal plate
ξ empirical constant used in Eq. (16)
se linear elastic limit of FRP laminates in through-
thickness compression
HEL Hugoniot elastic limit of ceramic
t0 quasi-static shear strength when shear strain
g D1
ts shear strength of ceramic
g shear strain of metal plate
gm: average shear strain rate
gf critical shear strain when adiabatic shear occurs
d reduction of cross-section area
ef true fracture strain of projectile material
u semi-angle of ceramic cone as defined in Fig. 1

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a typical ceramic cone.

 R.T. Tang and H.M. Wen / International Journal of Impact Engineering 102 (2017) 55
61
TagedPceramic can change with increasing thickness. Assuming that the
initial thickness of ceramic is hc0, and the critical thickness of
ceramic is hc. If hc0 < hc, the ceramic is defined as thin plate, ceramic
cone formed in the facing plate directly; if hc0 > hc, the ceramic is
defined as thick plate, ceramic would be penetrated first, and crush-
ing happens before the cone forms.
TagedPThe ceramic cone is formed by shearing, and the maximum shear
force (Fcs) ceramic plate can withstand when shear failure occurs
can be expressed as
Fcs D pðdp C hco tan uÞhco = cos u ¢ t s
where dp is the diameter of deformed/thickened projectile (i.e.
dpDk1d0 with k1 being an empirical constant), t s is the shear strength
of ceramic, u is the semi-angle of the ceramic cone as shown in Fig. 1.
It has been shown in Refs. [9
12] that projectile tail velocity and its
penetration velocity remain almost unchanged during quasi-steady
penetration phase. Thus, to a first approximation, it is assumed that
the maximum compressive force (Fcc) resistive to the projectile
motion can be written as [13].
2
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p
dp 3 thickness quasi-static compression, b is an empirical constant and
Fcc D p t s p C 1 C bp 2rc t s u sin ð5Þ
4 2 4 taken to be b D 2 for a flat-ended projectile.
where bp is taken to be 2.0 for a flat-ended projectile, rc the density
of ceramic plate, and u the penetration velocity of projectile.
TagedPThe critical thickness of ceramic hc which distinguish between
thin plate and thick plate can be calculated when FccDFcs, namely
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
hc D ¡dp C dp 2 C 4Fcc sin u =ð2 tan uÞ ð6Þ
TagedPThe energy dissipated by shear in ceramic facing tile can be writ-
ten as
(
pts ðdp hc0 2 =2 C hc0 3 tan u=3Þ=ð cos uÞ2 for hc0  hc
Ecs D ð7Þ
pts ðdp hc 2 =2 C hc 3 tan u=3Þ=ð cos uÞ2 for hc0 > hc
TagedPIt has been experimentally observed that the material ahead of
the incoming projectile in the ceramic cone is fully crushed (commi-
nuted). Thus, the crushing energy not only includes the energy dissi-
pated in penetration/compression, but also includes the energy
dissipated in cone crushing. The failure modes of ceramic cone are
schematically shown in Fig. 1. The crushing energy can be approxi-
mated as

 le =d0 D f ðhc0 =d0 ; v0
dp
2
3
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p
Ecc D Fcc ¢ hc0 D p hc0 t s p C 1 C bc 2rc t s u sin ð8Þ
4 2 4
TagedPThe energy dissipation of the ceramic facing tile mainly consists
of the shearing energy and the crushing energy, namely EcDEcsCEcc .
2.3. Energy dissipation of backing plate
TagedPAfter the projectile penetrates through the ceramic facing tile, it
exerts a force on the backing plate over an area Ap, here Ap is the pro-
jectile cross-sectional area after deformation. The kinetic energy of
the residual projectile (Ekb) at this instant when it strikes the backing
plate can be expressed as
Ekb D Ek ¡Ep ¡Ec
T he speed of the residual projectile when it impacts the backing
agedPT
plate can be written as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2Ekb 2Ekb
vs D D 2
ð10Þ
mr mp ¡pd0 r le =4
p
where mr is the mass of the residual projectile.
TagedPIt is further assumed that the backing plate is thick enough to
cause localized deformations and failure [14,15]. If the backing plate
is made of metal then its energy dissipation through localized
57
TagedPadiabatic shear plugging can be written as [14].
Z  g : 1=q 
pnt 0 dp 2 hb g f n
Eb D g 1C m ð11Þ
2ð1¡nÞ 0 D
  : 1=q

az g t0 n C 1 m p m b vs 2
exp ¡ 1C m g dg C
rb Cv D nC1 2ðmp C mb Þ
where n is the shear strain hardening exponent, t 0 is the quasi-static
shear strength when shear strain g D 1, g m : is the average shear
strain rate, D and q are the empirical constants describing the sensi-
ð4Þ tive of strain rate, g f is the critical shear strain when adiabatic shear
occurs, a the thermal softening coefficient, z the material heat trans-
fer coefficient (usually taken to be z D 0.9), Cv the heat capacity of
metal plate, rb is the density of backing plate, and hb the backing
plate thickness, mb plugging mass of backing plate, mbDpdp2rbhb/4.
If the backing plate is made of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) laminate
then its energy dissipation can be expressed as [15
17].
2
Eb D pdp hb s e ½1 C bðrb =s e Þ1=2 vs =4 ð12Þ
where s e is the elastic limit of the backing FRP laminates in through-
TagedPThe residue velocity of the projectile can be calculated by the fol-
lowing equation after the ceramic faced light armor is perforated
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vr D ðmr vs 2 ¡2Eb Þ=ðmr C mb Þ ð13Þ
TagedPThus, an approximate ballistic limit can be obtained when vr D 0.
3. Determination of various parameters
TagedPErosion length of the projectile le is the key to calculate the pro-
jectile energy dissipation and to calculate the residual mass of the
projectile. le is closely related to projectile velocity, material and
geometrical properties of both projectile and ceramic facing plate.
TagedPOn the basis of dimensional analysis the erosion length le can be
written in the following functional form:
le D f ðv0 ; Yp ; HEL; hc0 ; d0 ; rp Þ ð14Þ
or
pffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
rp = YP ; HEL=Yp Þ ð15Þ
where f denotes a function relating le to various relevant variables
and HEL is Hugoniot elastic limit of ceramic. Further analysis leads to
the following equation, viz.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
le =d0 D ξ HELv0 hc0 rp =Yp 3 =d0 ð16Þ
where ξ is an empirical constant which can be determined from
experiments. Fig. 2 shows comparison between Eq. (16) with
ξ D 0.06 and the test results obtained by Sanchez-Galvez [18] for
AD95/5083-H116 struck by 20 mm APDS and Hou et al. [19] for
AD995/Q235 steel struck by 14.8 mm diameter steel projectile.
20 mm APDS is a sub-caliber heavy projectile consisting of tungsten
alloy core, the diameter of the projectile is 12 mm and the mass is
ð9Þ 72 g. Its geometry can be approximated as flat bottomed. It can be
seen from Fig. 2 that good correlation is obtained between Eq. (16)
with ξ D 0.06 and the test data.
TagedPAs for the value of parameter k1 Naik et al. [7] gave a value of 1.25
(k1 D 1.25) whilst Serjouei et al. [20] observed that the diameters of
metal plugs were about 1.45 » 1.71 times the diameter of the projec-
tile. On the other hand, Wen et al. [21] found that the final diameter
of mushrooming area of long rod penetrators is weekly dependent
upon impact velocity. Further analysis shows that the final diameter
of the mushrooming head is close to the value calculated by the
reduction of cross-section area (d). Thus, k1 is determined by the
58 R.T. Tang and H.M. Wen / International Journal of Impact Engineering 102 (2017) 55
61

Fig. 3. Comparison between the present model predictions and the experimental data
Fig. 2. Comparison between Eq. (16) and the experimental data for erosion length of for the perforation of AD995/5083-H116 and AD995/6082 light armors by 20 mm
cylindrical projectiles [18,19]. APDS [4].

agedPfT ollowing form, k1 D eef =2 D ð1¡dÞ¡1=2 with ef being true fracture TagedPSanchez-Galvez [4], Woodward [2] and Feli et al. [5] are also shown
strain of the projectile material. in Fig. 3.
TagedPIn the present paper the semi-angle of ceramic cone is estimated TagedPIt is clear from Fig. 3 that the present model gives more consis-
by the formula proposed by Fellows and Barton [22], viz. tent results as compared to the models proposed by others. It is also

 clear from Fig. 3 that the model by Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez pre-
v ¡220 34p 34p
uD 0 C ð17Þ dicts well the experiments for AD995/5083 and overestimates the
780 180 180
experiments for AD995/6082 whilst the model by Feli et al. predicts
TagedPPenetration velocity u is related mainly to the material properties well the experiments for AD995/6082 and underestimates the
of both projectile and ceramic as well as impact velocity [9
12]. In experiments for AD995/5083 with the model by Woodward being
order to simplify the calculation, it is assumed that the penetration the worst which significantly underestimates the experiments both
velocity remains constant and it can be written as u D k2v0 with k2 for AD995/6082 and AD995/5083 composite armors. The reason that
being determined empirically. For tungsten alloy projectiles k2 has all the three models proposed by Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez [4], Feli
been estimated to be k2 D 0.4 and for steel projectiles k2 D 0.15. et al. [5] and Woodward [2] have failed to produce consistent results
TagedPThe values of other parameters used in the present model are is simply because major energy absorbing mechanisms were not
listed in Tables 1
3. For aluminum alloys D D 1288000s-1, q D 4 [23] catered for in their formulations. For instance, in the models pro-
are chosen to describe their strain rate sensitivity. posed by Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez [4] and Woodward [2] projectile
mushrooming effect was not considered and in all the three models
by Sanchez-Galvez [4], Feli et al.[5] and Woodward [2] the energy
dissipated by shear in ceramic conoid was not accounted for.
4. Compared with the experimental results and discussions TagedPSanchez-Galvez [18] also conducted tests on the other ceramic/
metal composite armors impacted normally by the 20 mm APDS at
TagedPFig. 3 shows comparison of the present model predictions with the an impact velocity of 1250 m/s. The present model predictions are
experimental data for the perforation of AD995/5083-H116 and also compared with the test data for AD95/5083-H116 in Table 4
AD995/6082 composite armors struck normally by 20 mm APDS at an and for AD995/5083-H116 in Table 5. As can be seen from Tables 4
impact velocity of 1250 m/s [4]. The core material was made of tung- and 5 that good agreement is obtained and all the errors are within
sten alloy and in the calculation 12 mm diameter tungsten alloy pro- 10%.
jectiles were used instead of 20 mm APDS as reported in [4]. The TagedPTable 6 shows comparison of the present model predictions with
composite armors were made of 20 mm AD995 C 10 mm 6082AL、 the test data for the perforation of AD95/2024-T3 composite armors
20 mm AD995 C 15 mm 6082AL, 25 mm AD995 C 12 mm 5083- impacted by 7.56 mm diameter 4340 steel flat-nosed projectiles at
H116AL, 25 mm AD995 C 15 mm 5083-H116AL. In Fig. 3, abscissa rep- normal incidence as reported by Serjouei et al. [20]. Since a few of
resents total thickness and ordinate designates the ratio of residual residual velocities were not measured in the tests, the numerical
velocity to initial velocity. The values of various parameters used in simulation results obtained by Serjouei et al. [20] are also listed in
the calculations are given in Table 1 » Table 3. For the sake of com- Table 6 for reference. It is evident from Table 6 that the present
parison, the analytical predictions from the models by Zaera and model predictions are in good agreement with the test results and
the numerical simulation results.
Table 1
TagedPFig. 4 shows comparison of the present model predictions with
Values of some parameters for projectiles. the experimental results for the ballistic limits of ceramic/metal
light armors impacted by a 7.62 mm diameter 8.32 g flat-nosed pro-
Allegheny 609[24] 4340[20] Tungsten Alloy[25] 45#steel[19]
jectile at normal incidence as reported by Wilkins and summarized
m0(g) 8.32 10.65 72 26.3 in [24]. The projectile was made of Allegheny 609 steel. Two types of
d0(mm) 7.62 7.56 12 14.8 ceramics were employed as facing tiles in the tests, i.e. AD85 and
rp(kg/m3) 7650 7770 18,100 7800
AD995, and the backing plates were 6.35 mm thick 6061-T6 alumi-
Yp(GPa) 1.5 1.66 2.4 1.06
d 0.35 0.35 0.56 0.4 num alloy. The values of all the other parameters in the calculations
are also listed in Tables 1
3. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the
 R.T. Tang and H.M. Wen / International Journal of Impact Engineering 102 (2017) 55
61 59

Fig. 4. Comparison between the present model predictions and the experimental data Fig. 6. Comparison between the present model predictions and the experimental data
for the perforation of AD85/6061-T6 and AD995/6061-T6 light armors by blunt pro- for the perforation of AD995/5083 light armors by 7.62 mm AP [29].
jectiles [24].

TagedPpresent model predictions are in good agreement with the test data
for the ballistic limit of AD995/6061-T6 light armors and are in rea-
sonable agreement with the experimental results for the ballistic
limit of AD85/6061-T6 light armors.
TagedPThe present model proposed in the previous sections considers a
flat-ended cylindrical projectile perforating ceramic/metal or
ceramic/FRP composite armors. However, in many situations non-
flat cylindrical projectiles (i.e. conical or ogival-nosed) are used to
defeat ceramic faced light armors. To a first approximation, a non-
flat cylindrical projectile can be treated as an equivalent flat-nosed
missile on the basis of the same mass. Hence, the length of an equiv-
alent flat-ended projectile leq can be estimated by the following
expression:
 
2
leq D 4m0 = pd0 rp ð18Þ
where m0 is the mass of the non-flat-nosed missile and d0 the diam-
eter of the non-flat-nosed missile.
TagedPFig. 5 shows comparison of the present model predictions with
the test data for the ballistic limit of AD85/6061-T6 light armors
impacted normally by a 7.62 mm diameter 8.32 g conical-nosed pro-
jectile as reported by Wilkins and summarized in [24]. The projectile
was made of Allegheny 609 steel and the backing plate had a thick-
ness of 4.95 mm. It is seen from Fig. 5 that for ceramic thickness less
tTagedP han 8 mm the present model overestimates a little the ballistic limit
whilst for ceramic thickness greater than 8 mm the model slightly
underestimates the ballistic limit. By and large the present model
predictions are found to be in reasonable agreement with the test
results for the perforation of AD85/6061-T6 light armors impacted
normally by a 7.62 mm diameter 8.32 g conical-nosed projectile.
TagedPFig. 6 shows comparison of the present model predictions with the
test results for the perforation of AD995/5083 light armors impacted
by a 7.62mmAP [29]. In the theoretical calculation, rc D 3867 kg/m3,
rb D 2667 kg/m3, mp D 9.75 g, rp D 7800 kg/m3, Yp D 1.66 GPa,
k1 D 1.24. The values of all the other parameters used in the calcula-
tion are listed in Tables 2 and 3. The diagonal line is the equality line.
If the data points lie exactly on this line, this will indicate that the
model predictions fully match with the experimentally observed bal-
listic limit velocities. If the data points lie above the equality lines this
will represent that the model overestimates the experiments,
whereas the data points lie below the equality line this will indicate
that the model underestimates the experiments. Two more lines are
drawn, one below and another above the equality line representing
§10% difference between observed and predicted ballistic limit veloc-
ities, respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that good agreement is
obtained between the model predictions and the experimental data.
TagedPTable 7 shows comparison of the present model predictions with
the experimental results for the perforation of ceramic/FRP compos-
ite armors as reported by Hetherington and Rajagopalan [30]. The

Table 2
Values of some parameters for ceramic facing tiles.

AD85[24] AD95[24] AD995[7,24]

HEL(GPa) 6 7 7.5
ts(MPa) 280 300 350
rc(kg/m3) 3400 3600 3900

Table 3
Values of some parameters for backing metal plates.

2024-T3[26] 5083-H116[27] 6061-T6[26] 6082[28]

t 0(MPa) 440 280 245 240

n 0.16 0.2 0.13 0.2
a 0.00125 0.0019 0.00125 0.0019
Cv 875 900 896 900
Fig. 5. Comparison between the present model predictions and the experimental data rb(kg/m3) 2820 2660 2700 2660
for the perforation of AD85/6061-T6 light armors by conical-nosed projectiles [24].
60 R.T. Tang and H.M. Wen / International Journal of Impact Engineering 102 (2017) 55
61

Table 4 Table 7
Comparisons between the present model predictions and the test data for the Comparisons between the present model predictions and the experimental results
perforation of AD95/5083 light armors by 20 mm APDS [18]. for the perforation of AD85/GFRP composite armors by US Ball M33 0.5in. round
[30].
hc0(mm) hb(mm) v0(m/s) vr(exp)(m/s) vr(cal)(m/s) error
hc0(mm) hb(mm) v0(m/s) vr(exp)(m/s) vr(cal1)(m/s) vr(cal2)(m/s)
12 16 1250 1056 962 ¡8.9%
18 16 1250 973 934 ¡4.0% 4 5 893.2 832.6 749 811.8
20 10 1250 990 1017 2.7% 4 8 882.3 826.3 677 769.7
20 15 1250 954 939 ¡1.6% 4 10 881.4 802.4 635 747.9
25 12 1250 923 959 3.9% 6 5 880.7 800.5 686 781.7
25 14 1250 918 925 0.8% 6 8 893.9 802.5 638 764.6
6 10 878.1 760.6 579 726.2
9 5 898.2 693.9 662 786.9
9 8 880.1 658.3 574 734.7
9 10 882.9 621.5 533 716.2
Table 5
18 5 895.6 425.5 539 738.4
Comparisons between the present model predictions and the experimental
18 8 888.5 329.5 451 695.9
data for the perforation of AD995/5083 light armors by 20 mm APDS [18].
18 10 876.2 299.3 373 657.8
hc0(mm) hb(mm) v0(m/s) vr(exp)(m/s) vr(cal)(m/s) error

20 10 1250 945 979 3.6%

20 15 1250 944 900 ¡4.7%
25 10 1250 960 943 ¡1.8% Table 8
Comparisons between the present model predictions and the test data for the
perforation of AD85/5083light armors by sharp projectiles [31].

hc0/hb vbl(exp)(m/s) vbl(cal)(m/s) error

Table 6
Comparisons of the present model predictions with the test and simulation results 0.39 751 708 ¡5.7%
for the perforation of AD95/2024-T3 composite armors by flat-ended projectiles [20]. 0.79 778 726 ¡6.7%
1.65 825 753 ¡8.7%
hc0(mm) hb(mm) v0(m/s) vr(exp)(m/s) vr(sim)(m/s) vr(cal)(m/s) 3.95 758 796 5.0%

6.1 6 650 - 341 289

6.12 6 655 351 364 297
6.14 6.03 830 559 559 550
6.1 5.87 712 430 406 393 TagedP redicted results are listed as column vr(cal2). It is evident from
p
6.04 5.96 493 - 112 0 Table 7 that the present model predictions using d0 D 9.36 mm are in
6.16 5.9 820 - 581 540 much better agreement with the experimental data for thinner fac-
8.96 6 775 370 333 397
ing ceramics as compared to those calculated using d0 D 12.7 mm.
8.98 5.97 845 463 444 505
6.12 4.07 819 649 636 578
Six of the twelve data points have less than 10% error and three have
6.14 6.88 860 580 601 570 less than 15% error as can be seen from table 7. It is also evident
6.12 8.25 834 532 539 508 from Table 7 that the present model predictions using d0 D 9.36 mm
9.14 5.91 948 605 580 645 are in much worse agreement with the experimental data for thicker
9.08 5.94 982 - 637 690
facing ceramics (hc0 D 18 mm) as compared to those calculated using
9.04 5.87 1062 772 732 794
d0 D 12.7 mm. The reasons for this might be due to the fact that the
energy absorbing mechanisms of both the thicker facing ceramics
and the backing FRP laminates may be quite different from those
TagedPprojectiles used in the experiments were the US Ball M33 0.5in cali- assumed in the present model formulation. This will be examined in
ber, boat tailed pointed core 46.8 g rounds. The ceramic facing tiles any future investigation.
were AD85 and the backing plates S-2glass/phenolic laminates. In TagedPComparison is also made in Table 8 between the present
the calculations, Yp D 1.66 GPa, k1 D 1.24. s e D 755 MPa and the val- model predictions and the experimental data for the perforation
ues of all the other parameters used in the calculation are listed in of AD85/5083 light armors struck normally by a 12.5 mm diame-
Table 2. The predicted results are listed in Table 7 as column vr(cal1). ter 40.7 g conical-nosed steel projectile [31]. In the model calcula-
It is clear from Table 7 that the present model predictions are in rea- tion: Yp D 2.3 GPa, rc D 3380 kg/m3, rb D 2667 kg/m3, rp D 7850 kg/
sonable agreement with the experimental results. m3. The values of all the other parameters are listed in
TagedPIt should be mentioned here that the differences between the Table 1 » Table 3. It is evident from Table 8 that the present
model predictions and the test data for the FRP backed ceramic model predictions are in good agreement with the experimental
plates struck by US ball M33 are caused by several reasons. One observation in terms of ballistic limit.
major reason might be that the present model is developed for solid
cylindrical projectiles whereas the US Ball M33 has a very complex
structure/configuration. In the calculation, the US Ball M33 is mod- 5. Conclusions
elled as an equivalent flat-nosed projectile and the equivalent length
is estimated using Eq. (18) with m0 D 46.8 g and d0 D 12.7 mm, here TagedPAn analytical model has been suggested in this paper for the per-
m0 and d0 are the whole mass and the outside diameter of the US foration of ceramic-faced light armors struck normally by flat-nosed
Ball M33, respectively. Closer examination of the US Ball M33 reveals projectiles on the basis of energy conservation. The backing plates
that it consists of a core penetrator which has a diameter consider- are made of either metals or fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) laminates.
ably smaller than its outside diameter (core diameter 9.36 mm ver- It is assumed that during the ballistic impact the main energy dissi-
sus outside diameter 12.7 mm). This might overestimate the loading pating mechanisms are deformation (mushrooming) and erosion of
area and, hence, the energies absorbed in the penetration process. the projectile, compression/fragmentation and shear failure of the
TagedPTable 7 gives the new results of the present model predictions ceramic facing tile as well as perforation of metal or FRP backing
using d0 D 9.36 mm instead of d0 D 12.7 mm and the values of all the plate. Various equations are obtained and the values of relevant
other parameters are kept the same in the calculation. The newly parameters determined.
 R.T. Tang and H.M. Wen / International Journal of Impact Engineering 102 (2017) 55
61
TagedPIt transpires that the present model predictions are in good
agreement with the test data for the perforation of ceramic-faced
light armors struck normally by flat-faced projectiles in terms of bal-
listic limit and residual velocity. It also transpires that, to a first
approximation, the present model can also be applied to ceramic-
faced light armors subjected to impact by non-flat missiles at normal
incidence.
References
TagedP [1] Florence AL. Interaction of projectiles and composite, part II. California: Stand
Res Ins Menlo Park 1969 AMMRC-CR-69-15.
TagedP [2] Woodward RL. A simple one-dimensional approach to modeling ceramic com-
posite armor defeat. Int J Impact Eng 1990;9(4):455–74.
TagedP [3] Den Reijer PC. Impact on ceramic faced armor. Delft University of Technology
PhD Thesis; 1991.
TagedP [4] Zaera R, Sa nchez-Ga lvez V. Analytical modeling of normal and oblique ballistic
impact on ceramic/metal lightweight armors. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(3):133–
48.
TagedP [5] Feli S, Aaleagha MEA, Ahmadi Z. A new analytical model of normal penetration of
projectiles into the light-weight ceramic
metal targets. Int J Impact Eng
2010;37(5):561–7.
TagedP [6] Walker JD, Anderson CE. A time-dependent model for long-rod penetration. Int J
Impact Eng 1995;16(1):19–48.
TagedP [7] Naik NK, Kumar S, Ratnaveer D, et al. An energy-based model for ballistic impact
analysis of ceramic-composite armors. Int J Damage Mech 2012;22(2):145–87.
TagedP [8] Wilkins ML, Cline CF, Honodel CA. Fourth progress report of light armor pro-
gram. California Uni, Livermore. Lawrence Radiation Lab 1969.
TagedP [9] Lan B, Wen HM. Alekseevskii-Tate revisited: An extension to the modified
hydrodynamic theory of long rod penetration. Sci China Technol Sci 2010;53
(5):1364–73.
TagedP[10] Wen HM, Lan B. Analytical models for the penetration of semi-infinite targets by
rigid, deformable and erosive long rods. Acta Mechanica Sinica 2010;26(4):573–
83.
TagedP[11] Wen HM, He Y, Lan B. A combined numerical and theoretical study on the pene-
tration of a jacketed rod into semi-infinite targets. Int J Impact Eng 2011;38
(12):1001–10.
TagedP[12] He Y, Wen HM. Predicting the penetration of long rods into semi-infinite metal-
lic targets. Sci China Technol Sci 2013;56(11):2814–20.
TagedP[13] Xian YX, Wen HM. An Engineering model for the penetration of flat-ended pro-
jectiles into semi-infinite concrete targets. Protective Eng 2012;34(2):35–8 in
Chinese.
61
TagedP[14] Wen HM, Sun WH. Transition of plugging failure modes for ductile metal plates
under impact by flat-nosed projectiles. Mech Based Des Struct Mach 2010;38
(1):86–104.
TagedP[15] Wu QG, Wen HM, Qin Y, et al. Perforation of FRP laminates under impact by flat-
nosed projectiles. Compos Part B 2012;43(2):221–7.
TagedP[16] Wen HM. Predicting the penetration and perforation of FRP laminates struck
normally by projectiles with different nose shapes. Compos Struct 2000;49
(3):321–9.
TagedP[17] Wen HM. Penetration and perforation of thick FRP laminates. Compos Sci Tech-
nol 2001;61(8):1163–72.
TagedP[18] Sanchez-Galvez V. Impact behavior of lightweight armors. In: Proceedings of
international conference on structures under shock and impact; 1996. p. 91–
102.
TagedP[19] Hai-liang H, Xi Z, Wei L. Investigation on bullet proof mechanism of light
ceramic/steel composite armor. Acta Armamentarii 2013;34(1):105–14 in Chi-
nese.
TagedP[20] Serjouei A, Chi R, Zhang Z, et al. Experimental validation of BLV model on bi-layer
ceramic-metal armor. Int J Impact Eng 2015;77:30–41.
TagedP[21] Wen HM, He Y, Lan B. Analytical model for cratering of semi-infinite metal-
lic targets by long rod penetrators. Sci China Technol Sci 2010;53(12):3189–
96.
TagedP[22] Fellows NA, Barton PC. Development of impact model for ceramic-faced semi-
infinite armor. Int J Impact Eng 1999;22(8):793–811.
TagedP[23] Jones N. Structural impact. Cambridge University Press; 2011.
TagedP[24] Holmquist TJ, Templeton DW, Bishnoi KD. A ceramic armor material database.
Tacom Res Dev Eng Center, Warren MI 1999.
TagedP[25] Benloulo ISC, Sanchez-Galvez V. A new analytical model to simulate impact onto
ceramic/composite armors. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(6):461–71.
TagedP[26] Abotula S, Chalivendra VB. An experimental and numerical investigation of the
static and dynamic constitutive behavior of aluminum alloys. J Strain Anal Eng
Des 2010;45(8):555–65.
TagedP[27] Clausen AH, Børvik T, Hopperstad OS, et al. Flow and fracture characteristics of
aluminium alloy AA5083
H116 as function of strain rate, temperature and tri-
axiality. Mater Sci Eng 2004;364(1):260–72.
TagedP[28] Wang YJ, Qian HL, Fan F. Experimental study on stress-strain relationship
and mechanical properties of aluminum alloy 6082-T6. Eng Mech
2013;30:309–19.
TagedP[29] Hetherington JG. The optimization of two component composite armor. Int J
Impact Eng 1992;12(3):409–14.
TagedP[30] Hetherington JG, Rajagopalan BP. An investigation into the energy absorbed
during ballistic perforation of composite armor. Int J Impact Eng 1991;11
(1):33–40.
TagedP[31] Lee M, Yoo YH. Analysis of ceramic/metal armor systems. Int J Impact Eng
2001;25(9):819–29.