AMME5912

Executive Summary
This project involves a study on the effectiveness of modern body armour on a variety of common
bullet cartridges that is used in combat through computational impact modelling in LS-DYNA.
Research was conducted on the different types of bullet cartridges with a criteria of the most
common types of bullets. This is to provide a more robust study of the body armour effective-
ness since the chances of being hit by such bullets is more likely. Based on research, the selected
cartridges were the 9x19mm Parabellum, 5.56x45mm M855A1, 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 and the new
6.8mm Remington SPC. The first three cartridges are standard-issue rounds to law-enforcement
and military personnel around the world hence, the choice in incorporating them into this study.
The 6.8mm cartridges was designed with an intention to provide better ballistics performance
against modern armour so evaluation
Similar research was conducted on the types of body armour that currently exists. Based on the
United States’ National Institute of Justice (NIJ) armour standards, two main armour classes were
investigated; type III and type IV class armours. Type III is typical for high-end military plate
carriers and the specific example used is the AR500 Steel plate armour. Type IV is the highest
rated armour and for this study, silicon-carbide ceramic armour was investigated.
The simulation was prepared using PreSYS and run on LS-DYNA as the solver. The ballistic
response of the two armour classes was investigated with the four cartridges at their respective
muzzle velocities. In particular, the deformation, stress and velocity response was investigated.
The results showed that each armour class performed to their set classification and the bullet
displayed consistent performance across both armour plate simulations. Only the 6.8mm showed
penetration on the type III steel plate armour and no penetration was observed for any of the
cartridges on the type IV ceramic armour.
It was recommended that for future studies the simulation should focus on improving the accuracy
of the results at representing real-life scenario. The suggested improvements include:
• Meshing: Solid or particle based meshing should be used for better demonstration of the
impact and potential debris generated.
• Material Model: To create more accurate deformation behaviour with account into the high
strain rate plastic behaviour using Johnson Cook Models.
• Consideration into ambient conditions: Such as air resistance and temperature, which can
alter the material behaviours and the trajectory motion of the bullet.
• Conduct experimental verification: To further check the accuracy of computational simu-
lations.

Page 1
 AMME5912

Contents
1 Introduction 3

2 Background 3
2.1 FEA in Ballistic Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Bullet Cartridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 5.56x45mm M855A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4 6.8mm Remington SPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Body Armour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1 Material Data and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 Numerical Simulation Environment 12

3.1 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Chosen Material Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1 Termination and Data Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Results 16
4.1 Results of Bullets Impact on Type III AR500 Armour Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.1 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.2 5.56x45mm M855A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.3 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1.4 6.8mm Remington SPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Results for Bullet Impact on Type IV Silicon Carbide Composite Armour Plate . 22
4.2.1 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.2 5.56x45mm M855A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.3 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.4 6.8mm Remington SPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5 Discussion 27
5.1 Performance of the type III AR500 Armour Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1.1 Resistance to Penetration and Trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1.2 Kinetic Energy Dissipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2 Performance of the type IV Silicon-Carbide Ceramic Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6 Further Improvement 29

7 Conclusion 30

References 31

Page 2
 AMME5912

1 Introduction
Ballistics involves the study of the behaviour of high-speed projectiles such as bullets, explosive
munitions and missiles. A subset of this field involves designing armoured protection against
these projectiles for military, defence and law-enforcement applications with well-documented
examples including body armour and vehicle armor. This field is highly reliant on experimen-
tal testing for an accurate result on the effectiveness of the armour design and thus, have been a
standard method as part of the design phase. However, this process is expensive and time consum-
ing to conduct, hence design assumptions have often been conservative for an effective response
against projectiles.
The dynamics of ballistic projectile impact against armour is a highly complex, non-linear process
which means a simplified analysis cannot be used to predict the penetration behaviour. It is heavily
dependent on a multitude of factors including projectile speed, angle, material and combined
with armour properties such as material, thickness. Such combination of factors would produce
varying responses and therefore, reliance on physical testing is limited which subsequently reduces
the potential effectiveness of designs.
The development and use of non-linear finite-element analysis (FEA) software has become a criti-
cal tool and part of the design process. Validation of the FEA software is then carried out through
physical testing and refinements to the model are made if necessary for an accurate ballistics re-
sponse. Advancements in material science, computing power has created an opportunity where
the ballistics response can be modelled with a relatively high-degree of accuracy.
This project aims to study the effectiveness of modern plate carriers against bullet cartridges
that are typically used in combat. Body armour is designed to resist projectile penetration to
protect the wearer, combined with dissipating energy upon bullet impact to reduce blunt-force
trauma [Citizen Armour, 2022].
The study is performed through a series of LS-DYNA simulations of bullet impact against armour
plates with variations in bullet type and armour class.

2 Background
2.1 FEA in Ballistic Modelling
The effect of ballistic impact often results in high strain rate temperature dependent plastic de-
formation and is closely associated with the viscous and thermal effects of the metal targets. The
usage of finite element analysis can clearly express the multi axial state of stress by calculating the
von Mises stress as a function of plastic strain, strain rate and also include the effect of tempera-
ture [Jørgensen and Swan, 2014].
Traditionally, physical ballistic tests have been used to assess the effectiveness of a ballistic armour
plate. The main result from this experiment have been the changes in velocity in the projectile
after its impact with the armour plate [Iqbal et al., 2016].

Page 3
 AMME5912

With the advancement in finite element analysis, the ballistic tests can be simulated to demon-
strate the high strain rate temperature dependent plastic deformation of a ballistic impact. These
simulations can also account for the viscous and thermal effects of the metal targets and express
the multi axial state of stress by calculating the von Mises stress as a function of plastic strain,
strain rate and also include the effect of temperature [Iqbal et al., 2016]. Furthermore, computa-
tional simulations can also provide a prediction of the stress distribution behaviour of the armour,
the failure mechanism, the creation of any debris and also account for any indenting deformation
which may be harmful to the user.

Figure 1: Example of FEA analysis using multiple shell elements to simulate the impact response
of fiber-reinforced composite laminates [He et al., 2019]

FEA analysis also allows for simulation of impact response from different types of materials, such
as composites, ceramics, and fibres. An example of this is shown in Figure.1, which demonstrates
the set-up for an ballistic test for fibre-reinforced composite laminates using a series of shell
elements at with different orientations.

2.2 Bullet Cartridges

All bullet cartridges fundamentally retain a similar structure in terms of components. There are
four main components; the case, primer, powder and the projectile itself as seen in Figure 2.
The powder is required for the explosive launch of the bullet from the gun and to the target, the
primer is designed to ignite the powder once the trigger is pulled and the projectile itself strikes
the intended target. The case holds all of these components together before the bullet is fired in
which the case is then ejected, leaving only the projectile travelling to the target [Crowder, 2016].
Four different ammunition types was modelled and used in the testing of body armour for this
study.

Page 4
 AMME5912

Figure 2: Four main components [Crowder, 2016]

• 9x19mm Parabellum
• 7.62x39mm M43
• 5.56x45mm NATO M855A1
• 6.8mm Remington SPC
A detailed overview of each cartridge model is given including the ballistics data and the dimen-
sions of the cartridge itself.

2.2.1 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr

The 9mm Parabellum, also known as the 9x19mm Parabellum, was designed by Georg Luger in
1901 and is considered to be the most popular handgun cartridge [Barnes, 2019]. It is the standard
cartridge for NATO forces and other non-Nato countries and can be seen in Figure 3. The 9mm
Parabellum is a low cost option and is widely available due to its’ popularity. Figure.3 below shows
the bullet cartridge and the corresponding dimensions.
This specific cartridge being modelled is a 115 grain or federal FMJ model with an average muzzle
velocity of 360m/s [Close Focus Research, 2009]. The bullet projectile is constructed from lead
with a thin copper casing coating the projectile and the entire casing is made from Cartridge
brass, an alloying metal with 70% copper and 30% brass [Bastida, 2014].
Due to the popularity of the cartridge with respect to law-enforcement and military usage, this
round is included in the study to properly determine the effectiveness of body armours against
potential threats.

Page 5
 AMME5912

Figure 3: 9x 19mm Parabellum [Turbosquid, 2015]

Figure 4: 9x19mm Parabellum SolidWorks Models

2.2.2 5.56x45mm M855A1

The 5.56 x 45mm M855A1 round is the standard classification of the typical cartridge used by
NATO forces as the standard service rifle cartridge. It is an intermediate cartridge and the specific
model used in the simulation study is the M855A1 variant recently adopted by the United States
Armed Forces in 2010. The M855A1 cartridge provides superior ballistics performance compared
to its earlier counterpart, the M855. The M855A1 was developed to reduce the usage of lead in
the projectiles and copper-brass alloy has consequently replaced lead as the projectile material, in
addition with an added steel-tip perpetrator for improved performance [Huston, 2022].

Figure 5: 5.56 x 45 mm NATO [Dominik, 2005]

Figure 5 above displays the M855A1 cartridge alongside its dimensions which is used to model
the bullet. It has a muzzle velocity of 961m/s [Huston, 2022]. Since the cartridge is a standard
round for militaries around the world, modelling its effect on armour classes would be valuable

Page 6
 AMME5912

in obtaining data for improved ballistics protection in addition with bullet effectiveness.

Figure 6: 5.56 x 45 mm NATO Parabellum SolidWorks Model

2.2.3 7.62x39mm 57-N-231

The 7.62x39mm cartridge is a rifle cartridge developed by the Soviet Union and was the standard
cartridge for the Soviet forces before being replaced by the 5.45x39mm for newer rifle designs, but
still remains in use by the Russian Armed Forces. The bullet currently remains as one of the most
widely used cartridges in the world due to the availability of the AK rifle [Ammunitiontogo.com,
2021]. This makes the study of the cartridge effects on modern armour valuable.

Figure 7: 7.62 x 39 mm [Ammunitionstore, 2022]

The 57-N-231 cartridge variant has a muzzle velocity of 718m/s with a steel-core construction
[Ammunitiontogo.com, 2021].

Figure 8: 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 SolidWorks Model

2.2.4 6.8mm Remington SPC

The 6.8mm is a rifle cartridge developed and intended to replace the 5.56x45mm standard car-
tridge in return for superior ballistics performance [Cox, 2019]. The 5.56x45mm rounds had is-
sues with a lack of stopping power (ability for a target to be immobilised) and range performance.

Page 7
 AMME5912

Consequently, it was suggested a round with a size between the standard 5.56 mm and the supe-
rior 7.61 mm be designed to mitigate these issues. In 2022, the United States Army awarded the
Next-Generation-Squad-Weapon (NGSW) program which will use the 6.8x51mm rifle cartridge
with the intention of providing enhanced lethality compared to prior rounds [Cox, 2019].

Figure 9: 6.8mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge [GunWiki, 2022]

The 6.8mm cartridge has a muzzle velocity of 750m/s and with a copper projectile and steel-
tip perpetrator [The Fire Arm Blog, 2022]. The U.S. Army’s transition to this new round as a
replacement over the traditional 5.56x45mm cartridge provides an opportunity for testing the
effectiveness of the 6.8mm against various classes of modern body armour.

Figure 10: 6.8mm Remington SPC SolidWorks Model

Summary
A table of the parameters of the different bullet cartridges can be seen in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bullet characteristics

Summary of bullet characteristics

9x19mm 5.56x45mm 7.62x39mm 6.8mm Remington
Bullet Cartridge
Parabellum M855A1 57-N-231 SPC
Velocity (m/s) 360 961 718 750
Projectile Material Lead Copper Steel Copper

The bullet models are created in SolidWorks and are created based on drawings provided by [Hus-
ton, 2022], [The Fire Arm Blog, 2022], [Ammunitiontogo.com, 2021] and [Close Focus Research,
2009].

Page 8
 AMME5912

2.3 Body Armour

The design of body armour varies in terms of performance based on the resistance to penetration
against various cartridge classes. Consequently, there are various classification systems which cat-
egorise the armour. Furthermore, the classification systems can vary depending on the application
in which the armour will be used such as either in a law-enforcement setting or military environ-
ment. The differences is attributed to testing standards, but for simplicity in categorisation, this
study considers National Institute of Justice (NIJ) armour standards for law enforcement in the
United States [NIJ, 2008]. The standards is summarised in the Table 2 below:

Table 2: Armour standards obtained from [NIJ, 2008]

Armour Level Protection Rating

- 9 mm Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets
with a specified mass of 8.0 g (124 gr) and a velocity of 373 m/s
Type IIA
- .40 S&W Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets
with a specified mass of 11.7 g (180 gr) and a velocity of 352 m/s
- 9 mm FMJ RN bullets with a specified
mass of 8.0 g (124 gr) and a velocity of 398 m/s
Type II
- .357 Magnum Jacketed Soft Point (JSP) bullets
with a specified mass of 10.2 g (158 gr) and a velocity of 436 m/s
- .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets with
a specified mass of 8.1 g (125 gr) and a velocity of 448 m/s
Type IIIA
- .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets
with a specified mass of 15.6 g (240 gr) and a velocity of 436 m/
- 7.62 mm FMJ, steel jacketed bullets (U.S. Military designation M80)
Type III
with a specified mass of 9.6 g (147 gr) and a velocity of 847 m/s
- .30 caliber AP bullets (U.S. Military designation M2 AP)
Type IV
with a specified mass of 10.8 g (166 gr) and a velocity of 878 m/s

Modern body armour is often either produced as a vest with woven bulletproof material, how-
ever such armour system contains limited protection to fragmentation and shrapnel thus, cannot
protect against rifle rounds in direct impact. Modern soldiers and tactical law-enforcement cur-
rently utilise plate-carriers which serves as a combined vest and protection system. The carrier
allows for storage of magazines and general-purpose equipment whilst allowing for the storage of
armour plates in the front and rear thereby giving the protection for the wearer.
This study investigates two classes of body armour in accordance with NIJ standards; type III
and type IV class armours. Type III armour is rated to provide protection against 7.62mm, steel-
jacketed bullets with a mass of 9.6 grams and muzzle velocity of 847m/s [Ammunitiontogo.com,
2021], in addition with all other rounds below the category. The specific armour used for this
study is AR500 Armour Heritage Plate by Armoured Republic which is classified as a Type III
armour as seen in Figure 11.
Type IV armour is the highest class of body armour and is rated to provide protection against
armour piercing rounds, more specifically against .30 calibre armour piercing bullets with a mass

Page 9
 AMME5912

Figure 11: Example of plate carrier [Cooper, 2021]

Figure 12: AR500 Steel Plate [Outlet, 2022]

of 10.8 grams and muzzle velocity of 878m/s. The armour in modelled in this category is made
from silicon carbide
For the armours, the design aim is to prevent the potential of the bullet from piercing through the
material, and also to prevent backface deformation from occurring. Backface deformation occurs
when the bullet is caught and prevented from exiting and penetrating the body, which can be
seen from the indent caused by the bullet [Citizen Armour, 2022]. However, too much backface
deformation can still cause danger in the user’s organs by causing blunt force trauma [Citizen
Armour, 2022]. The standard set by the National Institute of Justice (USA) restricts the allowable
backface deformation to be 44mm in the depth of the body armour [Citizen Armour, 2022].

Page 10
 AMME5912

2.3.1 Material Data and Parameters

The Type III AR500 Armour Heritage Plate is a steel-alloy armour plate. The AR500 steel is
known for its high tensile strength and good impact absorbance characteristics, making it suit-
able for most rifle rounds. The downside of the steel plate is that it can be very heavy, which is
also demonstrated from its higher density in comparison to the ceramic plate. Its alloying content
includes 0.31% carbon, maganese, silicon, chromium, nickel and molybdenum, and hence produc-
ing it high toughness and has high resistance to wear and corrosion [Jamil et al., 2016]. It also has
great formability to be shaped into various armour plate sizes. The properties of the AR500 steel
can be seen in Table 3 and were found in the International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical
Engineering [Jamil et al., 2016].
The Type IV silicon carbide ceramic material is utilised for protection against penetration through
its high harness and compressive strength [Bracamonte et al., 2016]. Ceramics are better at absorb-
ing and dispersing energy than steel as shown from its higher Young’s modulus and compressive
strength. However, the energy dissipation mechanism for ceramic materials typically result in
brittle fracture and fragmentation of the ceramic [Bracamonte et al., 2016], which can be catas-
trophic as the armour will simply break into pieces. The material properties for silicon carbide
(SiC) is obtained from Accuratus [Imetra.com, 2021].

Table 3: Material data for protective armour

Material Properties AR500 Silicon Carbide

Young’s Modulus (GPa) 220 410
Yield Strength (MPa) 1480 -
Tensile Strength (MPa) 1655 550
Compressive Strength (MPa) - 3900
Elongation (%) 12.5 -
Density (gcm−3 ) 7.86 3.1

The materials for the bullets are obtained from research and can be found in Section.2.2.

Table 4: Material data for bullet projectile model

Material Properties Copper Lead Steel

Young’s Modulus (GPa) 140 14 207
Yield Strength (MPa) 69 5.5 350
Tensile Strength (MPa) 210 18 420
Elongation (%) 40 30 15
Density (g/cm^3) 8.96 3.1 7.85

Page 11
 AMME5912

3 Numerical Simulation Environment

The simulation set-up is conducted using PreSys and the numerical simulation is calculated using
LS Dyna. For this project, the modelled simulation involves the ballistic impact between vari-
ous types of solid meshed bullets against a 100 × 100mm armour, which is produced from shell
elements. The bullets are modelled using SolidWorks as shown in Figure.4,6 , 8 and 10. Note
that the actual armour geometry was not modelled to be exact since only the physical response of
the material used in the armour is being investigated. Furthermore, the silicon-carbide ceramic
armour was modelled with a slight curve for ergonomics purposes.

3.1 Meshing
The bullet was meshed using a tetra mesh of 1.5mm while the plate was 2D auto meshed using
0.8mm for accuracy. The meshing step was repeated for the bent armour model using the same
mesh size as seen in Figure 13. Shell elements were used for the plate as they are capable of rep-
resenting the impact due to the force and the distribution onto the plate. However, for more
accurate results, solid-meshing should also be used for the plate itself. This would allow a clearer
visualisation for the armour impact, including any actual tearing or penetration.

Figure 13: Mesh in Presys

Particle meshing techniques such as SPH should also be used as these meshing techniques are
capable of producing great visual results for high plasticity deformation simulations, which would
be suitable for ballistic simulations. However, due to the large shape of the armour geometry, the
number of particles is high as tested by the group during the testing stages for the simulation.
Each simulation would require over seven hours to complete, and required a large amount of
memory, which was not feasibility given the time constraint and the lack of computational power.
The trajectory of the bullet into the plate can be displayed and will be further discussed in the
following sections.

Page 12
 AMME5912

3.2 Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions in this simulation consist of fixed supports on the plate of armour and
an initial velocity condition. Figure.14 below illustrates the boundary conditions placed on the
model.
The initial velocity was set as the bullet’s muzzle velocity to simulate it being fired at the armour.
There was an assumption of no air-resistance and lack of gravity for simplification of the numer-
ical method in addition, such options provided no meaningful input into the study on armour
response. The muzzle velocity of each bullet was mentioned in Table 1.
The armour in practice is to be suited on the plate carrier and so it is designed to be stationary
component which means a fixed support is used along the edges of the plate.

3.3 Contacts
A contact definition was established between the bullet and plate armour models in PreSys to
model the impact. The AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE contact was set with the bul-
let as the master and plate armour as slave with a physical parameter of SOFT=2. The option with
SOFT=2 physical parameter functions by updating the penetration with each time-step where the
initial penetration is used as a baseline for additional penetrations. These additional penetrations
produces contact forces [LS-DYNA Support, 2003]. This option also accounts for the thickness
and thickness scale factor for shell elements. This would be a more accurate representation of the
bullet impact as it would account for the hardening effect of the material upon impact.
The SURFACE_TO_SURFACE contact option was used opposing to typical NODE_TO_SURFACE
contacts is due to the complexity in the meshing of the systems, and it was suggested by [Flores-
Johnson et al., 2011] to model the collision of the surface segment based contacts.

(a) Boundary Conditions (b) Defined Contacts

Figure 14: Boundary conditions and defined contact in the simulation set-up demonstrated for a
Type IV armour

Page 13
 AMME5912

3.4 Chosen Material Model

The chosen material model for the armour is MAT_003 (MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC). This
material created based on the three dimensional Hooke’s Law and is suitable for modelling isotropic
and kinematic hardening plasticity, and is a computationally cost-effective model which is avail-
able for shell, particle and solid elements [LSTC, 2019]. In this case, this material was chosen as
the project aims to model the plastic deformation of the isotropic metal and composite materials
chosen for the body armours.
Other main choices of material model selection for the armour in this project was also selected
between the Johnson-Cook models:MAT_015 (Johnson Cook Model) and MAT_107 (Modified
Johnson Cook Model) [Iqbal et al., 2016].
The Johnson-Cook plasticity model is particularly popular with high-strain-rate deformation of
most metals, and therefore would be suitable for simulating high speed impact ballistics [Johnson
and Cook, 1985]. The Johnson-Cook hardening formula is expressed by the following equation

σ = (A + Bϵn )(1 + Clnϵ̇)(1 − T m ) (1)

where σ is the stress, A is the yield stress at the reference temperature and strain rate, B is the
coefficient of hardening, n is the exponent for strain hardening, ϵ is the true strain, and ϵ is
the dimensionless strain rate and T is the homologous temperature [Johnson and Cook, 1985],
calculated by

T − Tref
T = (2)
Tm − Tref

The parameters given by Eq.1 and 2 should be then inputted into LS Dyna. For MAT_15, the mate-
rial model also requires a equation of state model for for the corresponding material [LSTC, 2019].
The main difficulty of using MAT_15 is that the material model is only suitable for solid or parti-
cle based meshes as stated by the LS-DYNA Material Selector [LSTC, 2019]. Therefore it cannot
be used in this simulation where shell elements have been chosen for the material. For MAT_107,
the traditional Johnson Cook material model in LSDYNA has been simplified to remove the re-
quirement of the equation of states. This material includes the consideration of adiabatic heating
in the material formulation, and therefore can be used as a substitution for MAT_15. For this
project, the group has experimented with using using MAT_107 with researched stress and strain
parameters from literature. However, the plasticity formulation in the material created various
warnings for convergence when coupled with the usage of shell elements. This could be due to
inaccuracies in the strain rate input as most literature assumed the strain rate to be tested at a
value of 1s− 1, but the overall values have not been consistent. Therefore, the result may not be
accurate. Further research would be required into the true strain rates of the materials for a more
accurate result. The tested Johnson Cook model is provided in Figure.15

Page 14
 AMME5912

Figure 15: Tested Johnson Cook Model Parameters [Abdul Rahman et al., 2018]

For the bullet models, the material models have been chosen to be MAT_020, which models the
bullets as a rigid body. This choice was made because the aim of this project is to determine
the effectiveness of the armour materials, rather than focusing on the bullet. Furthermore, the
usage of the rigid materials allows the data output of RDBOUT data plots [Iqbal et al., 2016],
which accounts for changes in rigid body velocities, and accelerations. These plots can be used to
determine the trajectory of the bullet after its impact with the armour, which would be useful for
determining the armour’s rigidity and effectiveness [LSTC, 2019].

3.4.1 Termination and Data Plots

The simulation termination time is set for 5 × 10−5 s for every simulation, and the data collection
time increment for the binary and ascii data plots are collected every 5 × 10−7 s. These small time
increments are set to account for the above speed of sound velocity trajectory of the bullets, which
requires small time increments in order to capture the movement and impact from the bullet.
One important ascii data plot used for this simulation is the RDBOUT data plots. This plot is
used to determine the motion of the rigid body, including its displacement, velocity and acceler-
ation. The velocity plot is examined in this scenario to determine the kinetic energy absorption
capability of the material.

Page 15
 AMME5912

4 Results
The simulation is conducted for each bullet type and repeated for the two types of armours: Type
III and Type IV. For this section, the results demonstrates the stress distribution and deformation
of the armour plot, to determine its effectiveness at preventing backface deformation and also
shock absorption. The velocity of the bullet after its impact is also plotted for the same purpose.
From these results, the suitability of the armours at protecting the user from various types of
bullets can be determined.

4.1 Results of Bullets Impact on Type III AR500 Armour Plate

4.1.1 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr
Stress Distribution and Deformation

(a) Stress impact from a 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr (b) Deformation from 9x19mm Parabellum
on AR500 Steel 115gr on AR500 steel

Figure 16: Stress and Deformation Results for 9x19mm Parabellum

The Von Mises Stress plot for each bullet is captured at the maximum stress experienced by the
plate. The plot is displayed in a unit of MPa. From the stress distribution plot, it can be seen that
the stress concentrates about the initial impact point from the bullet, the gradually dissipates
outwards to the corners of the armour block. From examining the indention shape of the 9x19
Parabellum bullet, it can be seen that the round head would have result in a more distributed
stress across the plate. It is also considered that the 9x19 Parabellum travels at the lowest velocity,
nearly half when in comparison with the bullets. Therefore, the experienced impact would be
much lower as shown in the small circular red zone when comparing with other stress plots of the
same armour material.
From the deformation plot, it can be seen that the maximum displacement of the plate cause by
the bullet at the end of it trajectory was to a value of 6.464mm. This value lies safely below the

Page 16
 AMME5912

standard backface deformation value of 44mm. Therefore, the Type III armour band would safely
protect its users from pistol rounds.

Velocity Plot

Figure 17: Velocity a 9x19mm Parabellum on AR500 steel

From the velocity graph, the influence of the impact is more clearly displayed as it allows for the
analysis of the bullet trajectory. It can be seen that the point of impact would have occurred at a
point of 0.008ms when the velocity drastically reduced from 360m/s to 100m/s. The total time
for the bullet to stop pushing into the armour was 0.036ms.

Page 17
 AMME5912

4.1.2 5.56x45mm M855A1

Stress Distribution and Deformation

(a) Stress impact from a 5.56x45mm M855A1 on AR500 (b) Deformation from 5.56x45mm M855A1
steel on AR500 steel

Figure 18: Stress and deformation results for 5.56x45mm M855A1

The Von Mises stress plot shown in Figure.18a demonstrated a larger amount of distributed stress
from the 5.56x45mm rifle when comparing with the previous 9x19mm pistol round. From the
graph, the point of impact would be more focused about the tip of the bullet due to its sharp
geometry, which would cause a larger concentration about the tip of the bullet, which would lead
to a lager and sharper deformation.
As the bullet travels at a higher velocity of 961m/s, and thereby resulting in a larger impact. Since
the bullet has a sharp tip, the resulting stress from the impact would be more concentrated about
its tip, and resulting in a large deformation. From the displacement plot Figure 18, the highest
deformation is shown to be 29.627mm. Since the shell element was set at a thickness of 10mm,
the resulting penetration of the armour into its user would be even greater, and potentially cause
harm to the user’s organs.

Page 18
 AMME5912

Velocity Plot

Figure 19: Velocity a 5.56x45mm M855A1 on AR500 steel

By examining the velocity plot, it can be seen that the bullet took a much longer time to reach
0m/s at 0.1ms.

4.1.3 7.62x39mm 57-N-231

Stress Distribution and Deformation

(a) Stress impact from a 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 on (b) Deformation from 7.62x39mm 57-N-
AR500 steel 231 on AR500 steel

Figure 20: Stress and deformation results for 7.62x39mm 57-N-231

Page 19
 AMME5912

The Von Mises plot demonstrated a similar stress distribution pattern for the 7.62x39mm when
comparing the 5.56x45mm round. Although similar in bullet geometry to the 5.56x45mm, the de-
formation of the armour plate is smaller, at 20.995mm. This could be due to its smaller length, and
steel material, which has less density when comparing with the copper material for a 5.56x45mm
and thereby a smaller mass, resulting in less impact.
From the velocity plots, the bullet also demonstrated a lower trajectory, reaching 0m/s at 0.06ms.
From the concavity of the velocity graph, the bullet experienced a trend of deceleration after its
impact with the armour plate.

Velocity Plot

Figure 21: Velocity a 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 on AR500 steel

4.1.4 6.8mm Remington SPC

The 6.8mm Remington SPC pierces through the steel plate as seen in Figure 22. from the Von
Mises plot, it is shown that the bullet follows a similar stress distribution to other rifle rounds,
but the overall impact on the armour is simulated to be much greater, as it is the only round
which resulted in penetration of the armour. From the deformation graph, it is shown that the
final trajectory from the simulation demonstrated a high deformation of 28.764mm. From the
velocity plot, the bullet reached 0m/s after 0.07ms.

Page 20
 AMME5912

Stress Distribution and Deformation

(a) Stress impact from a 6.8mm Remington SPC (b) Deformation from 6.8mm Remington SPC on
on AR500 steel AR500 steel

Figure 22: Stress and deformation results for 6.8mm Remington SPC

Velocity Plot

Figure 23: Velocity a 6.8mm Remington SPC on AR500 steel

Page 21
 AMME5912

4.2 Results for Bullet Impact on Type IV Silicon Carbide Composite Armour
Plate
4.2.1 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr
Stress Distribution and Deformation

(a) Stress impact from a 9x19mm Parabellum on silicon car- (b) Deformation from 9x19mm Parabellum on
bide ceramic silicon carbide ceramic

Figure 24: Stress and deformation results for 9x19mm Parabellum

From the Von Mises plot, the stress distribution is demonstrated to be smaller than the previous
AR500 armour. This could be due to the high rigidity of the ceramic material, where the en-
ergy would be defused and dispersed more efficiently by the amour plate. After examining the
displacement plot, the maximum backface deformation is 5.646mm.

Page 22
 AMME5912

Velocity

Figure 25: Velocity of 9x19mm Parabellum 115gr after impact with silicon carbide armour

From the velocity vs time plot, the bullet quickly reached 0m/s after 0.01ms. Therefore, it can be
deduced that the silicon carbide ceramic is better at energy absorption than the AR500 plates.

4.2.2 5.56x45mm M855A1

(a) Stress impact from a 5.56x45mm M855A1 on sili- (b) Deformation from 5.56x45mm M855A1
con carbide ceramic on silicon carbide ceramic

Figure 26: Stress and deformation results for 5.56x45mm M855A1

Page 23
 AMME5912

The stress distribution shows a much larger region of high stress distributed over the plate area
compared to the 9mm cartridge. This indicates more force has been dispersed following the im-
pact. A maximum deformation of 15.408 mm was observed compared to the AR500 steel, com-
plementing the increased energy dissipation and stopping potential of the ceramic plate.

Velocity

Figure 27: Velocity of 5.56x45mm M855A1 after impact with silicon carbide armour

The bullet velocity decreases from 961m/s to 0m/s within 0.035ms and then rebounds.

Page 24
 AMME5912

4.2.3 7.62x39mm 57-N-231

Stress Distribution and Deformation

(a) Stress impact from a 7.62x39mm 57-N-231

(b) Deformation from 7.62x39mm 57-N-
on silicon carbide ceramic
231 on silicon carbide ceramic

Figure 28: Stress and deformation results for 7.62x39mm 57-N-231

The stress distribution of the 7.62mm cartridge shows a very similar pattern to the 5.56mm car-
tridge, which again indicates the high energy dissipation after impact. The maximum deformation
by the 7.62mm round is 13.237mm.

Velocity

Figure 29: Velocity of 7.62x39mm 57-N-231 after impact with silicon carbide armour

The 7.62mm cartridge shows a deceleration from 718m/s to 0m/s in roughly 0.035ms and then
rebounds.

Page 25
 AMME5912

4.2.4 6.8mm Remington SPC

Stress Distribution and Deformation

(a) Stress impact from a 6.8mm Remington SPC (b) Deformation from 6.8mm Rem-
on silicon carbide ceramic ington SPC on silicon carbide ceramic

Figure 30: Stress and deformation results for 6.8mm Remington SPC

Similar to the other rifle cartridges, the stress distribution pattern is virtually identical, with high
stress regions spread over the plate area. Hence, the kinetic energy was dissipated throughout the
plate. A maximum deformation of 14.503mm was observed which higher than the other rifle
cartridges.

Velocity

Figure 31: Velocity of 6.8mm Remington SPC after impact with silicon carbide armour

Page 26
 AMME5912

The 6.8mm cartridge decelerates from 750m/s to 0 in 0.038ms and then rebounds.

5 Discussion
5.1 Performance of the type III AR500 Armour Plate
5.1.1 Resistance to Penetration and Trajectory
Based on the type III armour rating on the AR500 steel plate, bullets below the kinetic perfor-
mance of a 7.62 mm M80 cartridge should not be able to penetrate the plate based on NIJ armour
standards. From the deformation results obtained on the four bullet cartridges, only the 6.8mm
Remington SPC cartridge was able to successfully penetrate the plate. The degree of penetration
based on the deformation values can be summarised in descending order as:
Examining the velocity plots of each cartridge against the AR500 plate reveals the trajectory
behaviour of the bullet before, during and after the bullet impact. Each cartridge either behaves
one of three ways; the first is a rebound after striking the plate which is represented by a change
in velocity magnitude, corresponding to a change in direction. The second is when the cartridge
embeds itself into the plate and without penetration, represented by the velocity convergence to a
0 value. Finally, the last is a complete penetration of the plate, represented by a non-convergence
in the same velocity direction, indicating that the bullet is still travelling in the direction in which
it has been fired. In addition, all bullets exhibit significant deceleration when striking the plate
as expected.
Out of the four bullets simulated, only the 9x19mm Parabellum and the 7.62x39mm 57-N-231
cartridges showed rebound with the 9mm pistol round exhibiting the highest rebound velocity of
50m/s compared to the 7.62mm round with a rebound velocity of roughly 10-25m/s based on the
graph in Figure 29. The 5.56x45mm M855A1 was the only bullet that embedded itself in the plate,
but did not physically penetrate the armour material. The 6.8mm Remington SPC cartridge was
the only one that was able to penetrate the Type III rated armour.
From the displacement diagram, the Type III rated armour is safe against backface deformation
against most bullets except for the 6.8mm Remington SPC cartridge which penetrated through
the bullet due to its sharp geometry. However, large indention can still cause discomfort to the
user, and therefore thicker materials or extra paddings may be required for better protection.

5.1.2 Kinetic Energy Dissipation

It is desirable for body armour to dissipate as much energy as possible from a bullet impact to
reduce the effect of blunt force trauma.
The stress distribution pattern gives an indication how much force is distributed over the plate
when the bullet strikes it. We can observe that for all cartridges impacting the AR500 plate, the
stress contours are relatively spread part with some variations in the exact pattern. The 9x19mm
Parabellum cartridge results in a circular stress pattern which indicates that force has been dissi-
pated outwards from the centre of impact. This is similarly observed for all other cartridges which

Page 27
 AMME5912

illustrate the effectiveness of the armour in dissipation of energy. The rifle cartridges all exhibit a
larger area of high stress concentrations in comparison to the 9mm pistol cartridge which suggests
rifle rounds produce more kinetic energy as expected.

Summary of Overall Armour Performance

The performance of the bullets was expected based on the armour rating of the AR500 plate. It
was notable that 7.62x39mm was the only rifle cartridge that rebounded when compared to the
5.56mm and 6.5mm cartridges. This was most likely due to a combination of kinetic power and
the projectile material was made from the same material as the armour. The 5.56mm cartridge
failed to penetrate the plate and only embedded itself along with sizable deformation, indicating
the round was semi-effect in causing armour damage, but not in providing lethality. The 6.8mm
cartridge functions as desired, having the ability stopping power to penetrate type III body ar-
mour and the kinetic energy to remain travelling in the same direction, further illustrating its
potential lethality.

5.2 Performance of the type IV Silicon-Carbide Ceramic Plate

Resistance to Penetration and Trajectory
Based on the type IV armour rating of silicon-carbine ceramic plate armour, the only rounds ex-
pected to penetrate the plate are armour-piercing cartridges. The four bullet cartridges modelled
are not of armour-piercing category and so there is an hypothesis that no penetration will occur
for all bullet cartridges in the simulation. Observing the deformation contours, it can be observed
that no visible penetration occurs for all bullet cartridges as predicted. Furthermore, the level of
penetration is significantly less compared to the results for the AR500 plate, attributed to the
type IV armour’s superior protection. The degree of penetration for each cartridge in descending
order is: This is an identical order to the observed penetration ability for type III armour and
thus, displays the consistency in the performance of the modelled cartridges.
Using the same analysis for the velocity plots discussed for type III armour in section 5.1.1, we
can observe that all bullet cartridges exhibit rebound upon impact. The 9mm pistol cartridge
rebounds with the least velocity due to its lower kinetic energy compared to the rifle rounds. As
expected, all bullet cartridges exhibit deceleration as it strikes the bullet, with the 9mm round
rapidly ricocheting of the plate indicated by the rapid deceleration. The rifle rounds have similar
deceleration values based on the time.
Furthermore, by examining the displacement plot in the x-axis, the armour was safe against back-
face deformation in all simulations.

Kinetic Energy Dissipation

The stress distribution pattern for the ceramic armour is similar to the AR500 steel plate. This
means the energy dissipation functions as intended for this type IV armour. Each cartridge pro-
duces the same dissipation pattern, with the 9mm cartridge producing the lowest region of stress

Page 28
 AMME5912

compared to the rifle cartridges. Overall, the armour demonstrated a better energy dissipation
ability due to its high elastic modulus.

Summary of Overall Armour Performance

The performance of each bullet cartridge against the ceramic armour was expected based on the
armour rating which was the highest class. No cartridges were able to penetrate the type IV body
armour with 6.8mm cartridge producing the highest deformation, an indication of its ballistic
power. It is noted that type IV armour is not issued as standard military equipment due to the
cost despite the protection it could potentially provide. In addition, weight of such material was
not considered in this study but plays a significant role in body armour design.

6 Further Improvement
For future improvements, the simulation should focus on improving the accuracy of the results at
representing real-life scenarios. The simulations can be improved in the following methods
• Meshing: For more realistic and accurate simulation, the meshing for both the bullet models
and the plate should be improved. The bullet models should be further simplified to prevent
sharp edges and tips to prevent the creation negative volume when meshed to a finer size.
The armour blocks should be produced using solid or particle meshing techniques for better
visualisation of the realistic impact result of the bullet penetration through the material.
Furthermore, SPH meshing could provide possibilities of debris modelling from the bullet
impact. For this improvement, further time and computational power allowance would be
required.
• Material Models: The simulation should also be conducted with more accurate material
models such as MAT_107. The stress-strain data used to obtain the Johnson-Cook parame-
ters should be further obtained from realistic laboratory data for the true-strain and strain-
rate value. Furthermore, the bullet should also be created using other materials, to allow for
the deformation of the bullet to be determine. Creation of potential tearing of the bullet
can be potentially demonstrated through hour hourglassing in materials. For the bullets,
Johnson Cook models would also be a suitable choice of material [Johnson and Cook, 1985].
• Air resistance: For more accurate projectile behaviour, the air resistance should also be
modelled as they can influence on the overall bullet rotation dynamic, and ultimately change
the impacting behaviour of the bullet.
• Temperature effects: The temperature of the ambient surrounding can cause an overall
influence on the material plasticity behaviour and also the projectile behaviour of the bullet.
If applicable, the Johnson Cook material can be utilised to test for the material behaviour
under various ambient temperatures.
• Experimental verification: To further validate the simulation, real-life experiments could
be performed to check for the accuracy of the simulations. An example of this is provided
in Figure.32.

Page 29
 AMME5912

Figure 32: Realistic experimental validation for computational ballistic simulations

7 Conclusion
A simulation study on the effectiveness of modern body armour against four common bullet car-
tridges was conducted using LS-DYNA. Based on the deformation and velocity analysis of each
cartridge, it can be concluded both armour models (type III AR500 steel plate and type IV silicon-
carbide ceramic) in the simulation performed as advertised. The AR500 steel plate was able to
successfully prevent full penetration for the two commonly used rifle cartridges in combat (5.56
and 7.62) and the 9mm pistol round. It was not able to stop penetration against the 6.8mm car-
tridge which was designed to penetrate level III armour. For the type IV ceramic armour, no
cartridges was able to penetrate the plate and resulted rebounding upon striking the armour.
Improvements in the simulation were suggested to increase the accuracy of the visualisation and
numerical results. Suggestions have been made for the following areas: solid or particle meshing
methods for armour, more accurate material models, incorporating air resistance and the effect of
temperature in the simulation, and finally conducting real-life experimental verification for the
simulation.

Page 30
 AMME5912

References
[Abdul Rahman et al., 2018] Abdul Rahman, N., Abdullah, S., Abdullah, F., Omar, M., Sajuri,
Z., and W Zamri, W. F. H. (2018). Ballistic limit of laminated panels with different joining ma-
terials subjected to steel-hardened core projectile. International Journal of Integrated Engineering,
10.
[Ammunitionstore, 2022] Ammunitionstore (2022). Full metal jacket. https:
//ammunitionstore.com/categories/rifle-ammunition/7-62x39/full-metal-
jacket.html. Accessed on: 23/05/2022.
[Ammunitiontogo.com, 2021] Ammunitiontogo.com (2021). 7.62.39mm.
[Barnes, 2019] Barnes, F. C. (2019). Cartridges of the World. Gun Digest Books.
[Bastida, 2014] Bastida, D. (2014). 9mm fmj brass cased bullet. http://www.designlife-
cycle.com/bullet. Accessed on: 24/05/2022.
[Bracamonte et al., 2016] Bracamonte, L., Loutfy, R., Yilmazcoban, I., and Rajan, S. (2016). 12
- design, manufacture, and analysis of ceramic-composite armor. In Bhatnagar, A., editor,
Lightweight Ballistic Composites (Second Edition), Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Sci-
ence and Engineering, pages 349–367. Woodhead Publishing, second edition edition.
[Citizen Armour, 2022] Citizen Armour (2022). What is backface signature (bfs) blunt force
trauma?
[Close Focus Research, 2009] Close Focus Research (2009). 9x19mm parabellum.
[Cooper, 2021] Cooper, F. (2021). How to set up a plate carrier. https://www.offgridweb.
com/gear/how-to-set-up-a-plate-carrier/. Accessed on: 27/05/2022.
[Cox, 2019] Cox, M. (2019). Inside the army’s quest for a revolutionary new bul-
let. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/10/27/inside-armys-quest-
revolutionary-new-bullet.html. Accessed on: 24/05/2022.
[Crowder, 2016] Crowder, J. (2016). 4 components of a cartridge. https://www.
agirlandagun.org/4-components-of-a-cartridge/.
[Dominik, 2005] Dominik, C. (2005). Gp90 ammunition for assault rifle sig 550. https:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56\%C3\%9745mm_NATO#/media/File:GP90.jpg. Ac-
cessed on: 24/05/2022.
[Flores-Johnson et al., 2011] Flores-Johnson, E., Saleh, M., and Edwards, L. (2011). Ballistic per-
formance of multi-layered metallic plates impacted by a 7.62-mm apm2 projectile. International
Journal of Impact Engineering - INT J IMPACT ENG, 38:1022–1032.
[GunWiki, 2022] GunWiki (2022). 6.8mm remington spc. https://guns.fandom.com/
wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC. Accessed on: 23/05/2022.

Page 31
 AMME5912

[He et al., 2019] He, J., He, L., and Yang, B. (2019). Analysis on the impact response of fiber-
reinforced composite laminates: an emphasis on the fem simulation. Science and Engineering of
Composite Materials, 26(1):1–11.
[Huston, 2022] Huston (2022). 5.56x45mm nato. https://www.snipercountry.com/5-56-
vs-7-62/. Accessed on: 23/05/2022.
[Imetra.com, 2021] Imetra.com (2021). How to set up a plate carrier. http://accuratus.com/
silicar.html. Accessed on: 29/05/2022.
[Iqbal et al., 2016] Iqbal, M., Kasilingam, S., Sharma, P., and Gupta, N. (2016). An investiga-
tion of constitutive behaviour of armox 500t steel and armour piercing incendiary projectile
material. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 96.
[Jamil et al., 2016] Jamil, W., Aripin, M., Sajuri, Z., Abdullah, S., Omar, M., Abdullah, F., and
W Zamri, W. F. H. (2016). Mechanical properties and microstructures of steel panels for lami-
nated composites in armoured vehicles. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engi-
neering, 13:3741–3753.
[Johnson and Cook, 1985] Johnson, G. R. and Cook, W. H. (1985). Fracture characteristics of
three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 21(1):31–48.
[Jørgensen and Swan, 2014] Jørgensen, K. C. and Swan, V. G. (2014). Modeling of armour-
piercing projectile perforation of thick aluminium plates.
[LS-DYNA Support, 2003] LS-DYNA Support (2003). Soft option. https:
//www.dynasupport.com/howtos/contact/soft-option?fbclid=
IwAR2nEibNbIkZMCLKbTdO7NGX5nD57YPPPxscNKEYjCp6Il7SFUjHoISos_c. Accessed
on: 29/05/2022.
[LSTC, 2019] LSTC (2019). Material selector for ls-dyna. https://www.lstc.com/dynamat/.
Accessed on: 26/05/2022.
[NIJ, 2008] NIJ (2008). Ballistic resistance of body armour nij standard-0.101.06. NIJ Standards,
pages 3–4.
[Outlet, 2022] Outlet, B. A. (2022). Bao tactical ar500 steel plate, level iii standalone, 10x12, single
curve. https://www.bodyarmoroutlet.com/products/bao-tactical-steel-plate.
[The Fire Arm Blog, 2022] The Fire Arm Blog (2022). 6.8mm remington spc.
[Turbosquid, 2015] Turbosquid, E. (2015). 9x19mm parabellum 1941. https://www.
turbosquid.com/3d-models/9x19mm-parabellum-1941-9x19-obj/916368. Ac-
cessed on: 24/05/2022.

Page 32