Luca Landi

Department of Engineering,
University of Perugia,
Via G. Duranti 63,
Perugia 06125, Italy
e-mail: luca.landi@unipg.it

Eckart Uhlmann Evaluation of Testing

Institute for Machine Tools and Factory
Management,
Technische Universit€at Berlin,
Pascalstraße 8 – 9,
Berlin 10587, Germany
Robert H€
orl
Institute for Machine Tools and Factory
Management,
Technische Universit€at Berlin,
Pascalstraße 8 – 9,
Berlin 10587, Germany
Simon Thom
Institute for Machine Tools and Factory
Management,
Technische Universit€at Berlin,
Pascalstraße 8 – 9,
Berlin 10587, Germany
e-mail: thom@iwf.tu-berlin.de
Giuseppe Gigliotti
Department of Engineering,
University of Perugia,
Via G. Duranti 63,
Perugia 06125, Italy
Uncertainties for the Impact
Resistance of Machine Guards
Machine guards provide protection against the ejection of parts during operation, such
as chips or workpiece fragments. They are considered safe if the impact resistance is at
least as high as the resulting projectile energy in the worst case of damage. To protect
the machine operator, the impact resistance of machine guards is determined according
to ISO standards. The bisection method can be used to determine the impact resistance
through impact tests. However, this method is inaccurate for a small number of impact
tests and does not indicate uncertainties in the determination. Moreover, the result of
testing is validated in different ways depending on the standard utilized for testing. Rele-
vant uncertainties affecting impact testing and a new probabilistic approach for assess-
ing the impact resistance using the Recht and Ipson equation are presented. With
multiple impact tests at different initial velocities a Recht and Ipson best-fit curve and a
confidence interval for a ballistic limit can be obtained, which is used to determine the
impact resistance by defining a velocity reduction coefficient. This method can be applied
to any machine guard made of ductile material. This paper validates the Recht and Ipson
method by performing impact tests with a standardized 2.5 kg projectile on polycarbonate
sheets of different thicknesses. Determination of the ballistic limit showed good agree-
ment with experimental results. With the ballistic limits, the velocity reduction coeffi-
cients have been found to determine the impact resistances. Therefore, an alternative
method for standardized tests to determine the impact resistance was found.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4052995]

Alessandro Stecconi
Department of Engineering,
University of Perugia,
Via G. Duranti 63,
Perugia 06125, Italy
e-mail: alessandro.stecconi@unipg.it

1 Introduction impact resistance Y can be interpreted also like the so-called v50,
i.e., that impact velocity for which there is the same probability
In the design of safety guards, the designer aims to determine
that complete penetration occurs (i.e., the projectile do not com-
the impact resistance Y of the guard in relation to the thickness
pletely pass through the guard).
and material of the guard. However, the normative documentation
There are also specific type-C standards for certain types of
that defines the state of the art for the dimensioning of safety
machines, such as ISO 16090-1 [2] (2017) or ISO 19085-1 [3]
guards today presents different approaches in the definition of the
(2017), in which the validation conditions for impact tests are dif-
impact resistance Y.
ferent. In this type of standard, the impact resistance, again associ-
In general, the reference standard that defines the testing and
ated with a guard of given thickness and material, is that impact
validation methodologies of ballistic impact tests on machine
velocity for which a plastic buckling occurs without a passing
guards is the type-B2 standard ISO 14120 [1], Annex B. It defines
crack. This type of validation condition, which is certainly more
the main parameters that characterize an impact test, such as the
precautionary, is generally preferred in the industrial field to
shape and size of the projectile, the impact velocity, the size and
define the suitability of a guard to be mounted on the machine
thickness of the panels to be tested. The definition of impact
tool. For the sake of clarity, in the rest of the paper, we will define
resistance Y can instead be identified in the validation conditions
as impact resistance Y the condition defined by the speed v50 and
of the tests performed. In fact, according to Ref. [1], the test is
Ysf, as safe impact resistance, the speed for which no through-
failed if the projectile passes through the test object (e.g., material
crack occurs at all (even if the through the crack is very small the
sample, guard, etc.). In other words, according to Ref. [1], the
test is failed). In different standards for the safety of machinery,
both v50 and Ysf are generically referred to as impact resistance.
The common problem with the different standards listed above
Manuscript received May 28, 2021; final manuscript received November 2, 2021; is the number of tests required to determine the suitability or oth-
published online December 14, 2021. Assoc. Editor: Alba Sofi. erwise of the panels. In fact, it only takes one passed test to

ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, JUNE 2022, Vol. 8 / 021001-1
Part B: Mechanical Engineering C 2022 by ASME
Copyright V
determine that a panel of a given thickness and material is suitable
for installation.
It is now well known, thanks to the numerous studies and
experimental impact tests carried out over the years, that this
deterministic approach is too simplifying and limiting for an accu-
rate assessment of the effective impact resistance of guards. In
particular, one single shot is not sufficient to describe the overall
penetration resistance of a guard, because many physical parame-
ters can affect the guards and projectile behavior. The main crit-
icalities that characterize the current standardized tests will be
described in the following State of the Art section.
A method used in industry for greater accuracy in determining
the impact resistance Y is the bisection method. According to this
method, by performing multiple tests, the impact resistance Y of
guards is determined by delimiting the range between pass and
fail of the test model with a number of impact tests. However, for
a small number of impact tests the range may be too wide to deter-
mine the impact resistance Y with an exact value. In addition,
uncertainties in measurement and material properties are not con-
sidered. This approach is limited by a number of relevant con-
straints that should be considered and analyzed in order to achieve
a better design of machine guards with regard to safety.
Scientists at the University of Perugia in Italy in cooperation
with the Institute of Machine Tools and Factory Management
(IWF) of the Technische Universit€at Berlin in Germany investi-
gated a new approach to determine the impact resistance Y by a
probabilistic method using the Recht and Ipson (R&I) ballistic
equation. This method considers multiple impacts to determine a
ballistic limit vbl, where the projectile is close to fully penetrating
the test pattern and that can be considered equivalent to the impact
resistance Y as previously defined. Therefore, indications of
uncertainties and identification of outliers during the impact tests
are possible. In dependence of the ballistic limit vbl, the safe
impact resistance Ysf can be retrieved by defining a velocity reduc-
tion coefficient cR,v. The results are used to implement a more reli-
able method to determine the impact resistance Y and the safe
impact resistance Ysf for the standardized tests with an indication
of uncertainties. In brief, the authors aim is to measure, using a
reliable and reproducible statistical approach, the uncertainty
between the two verification methods proposed by the standards.
2 State of the Art
Impact tests can show variations in results of the same test setup.
Landi et al. [4,5] investigated the variation of single-trial attempts.
For the evaluation of uncertainties, the National Institute for Insur-
ance against Accidents at Work, which deals with finding a rough
index for the repeatability of tests, investigated the uncertainties of
impact tests where two consecutive standardized attempts, per-
formed under the same conditions of initial velocity vpr,i, projectile
shape, target material, and thickness dpm, led to different results. Var-
ious attempts were carried out according to ISO 14120 [1], Annex
B, using a projectile mass of mpr ¼ 0.1 kg, an initial velocity
vpr,i ¼ 70 m/s, and guard of low carbon steel with a thickness
dpm ¼ 2 mm. The materials tested were steel sheets of S235 and
DD11, which are widely used for the structural design of mechanical
components. Three consecutive tests were carried out for each of
them. The DD11 passed 2 out of 3 tests (no penetration in two cases)
while the S235 passed 1 out of 3. These very simple test results con-
firmed the evident dispersion in terms of the impact resistance Y of
the guards and the unreliability of the single-attempt test.
In general, standardized tests are not capable of assessing all
circumstances that may affect the influence of a tool or working
material on a machine guard. There are some relevant factors that
can significantly affect the results on the industrial environment:
 curved shape of the guard,
 nonperpendicular projectile impact to the target,
 eccentric projectile impact, and
 standardized projectile without rotational symmetry.
021001-2 / Vol. 8, JUNE 2022
The influence of these factors on the impact resistance Y of
machine guards has been investigated in other studies. In the study
of Landi et al. [5], the influence of inclination is considered when
using the standardized projectile shape. The influence of inclina-
tion is decisive, so that inclined impact tests must be rejected for a
proper ballistic limit vbl assessment.
As an example, Borvik et al. [6,7] and Landi et al. [8] per-
formed many experimental tests, respectively, on steel and poly-
carbonate sheets of different thickness dpm.
Also, the influence of aged polycarbonate sheets has been tested
using the bisection method for the determination of the impact
resistance Y, see Uhlmann et al. [9,10].
Finally, regarding the point of impact, which may not be coinci-
dent with the center of the target, the research conducted at IWF
by Bold [11] showed that the center of the polycarbonate sheet is
not the worst point for the penetration. In fact, the kinetic energy
Ep required to perforate the guard decreases as the point of impact
approaches the boundary, see Landi et al. [4,5] at least for poly-
carbonate, where the deflection capability of the plate is reduced
near the borders.
The normative annexes introduced in type C safety standards,
thanks to a more precautionary impact test validation method, led
to a remarkable reduction in the number of accidents, for referen-
ces see Ref. [11]. Although the reduction of injuries and deaths
can be seen as a degree of the appropriateness of the safety stand-
ards developed, there are factors that need to be considered in
order to further reduce the number of accidents. The determina-
tion of the impact resistances Y and Ysf with multiple impact tests
and the influence of the projectile head shape, material, and thick-
ness dpm on the impact resistance Y can be retrieved in a statistical
way. A degree of uncertainty about the accuracy of predicting real
behavior based on the deterministic approach of existing standar-
dized tests and an alternative probabilistic approach is presented
in the following sections.
3 Probabilistic Approach Based on Recht and Ipson
Estimation
3.1 Introduction of the Recht and Ipson Method. It follows
from the above considerations that a more detailed analysis of the
impact resistance Y is required. The resistance of a material to
penetration is often considered in terms of the ballistic limit vbl
defined as The minimum velocity required by a projectile to com-
pletely penetrate a target, see Recht and Ipson [12] and Borvik
et al. [6] as references.
The ballistic limit vbl can be defined deterministically as well as
probabilistically. The deterministic approach used in standardiza-
tion, as described in the previous sections, leads to not entirely
reliable results by defining a reference value for the ballistic limit
vbl or the impact resistance Y.
Therefore, a statistical approach seems necessary to evaluate
the dispersion of results in determining the impact resistance Y by
implementing a regression curve. The most commonly used equa-
tion for determining the ballistic limit vbl is the R&I in the follow-
ing equation:
vpr;r ¼ aðvppr;i  vpbl Þ1=p (1)
where vbl is the ballistic limit, vpr,i and vpr,r are, respectively, the
initial projectile velocity before and the residual projectile veloc-
ity after impact, when the target is fully penetrated; p and a are
two dimensionless parameters, see Landi and Amici [13]. Specifi-
cally, a is defined by the ratio mpr/(mpr þ mpl), where mpr is the
mass of the projectile and mpl is the mass of the plug ejected from
the plate following impact. In general, the ballistic limit vbl is
evaluated by a method of least-squares approximation based on
several impact tests with different initial velocities vpr,i. Figure 1
shows an example of a typical R&I curve.
Transactions of the ASME
 The application of a least square regression method for the
determination of the ballistic limit according to Eq. (1) necessarily
requires the execution of multiple impact tests, in contrast to the
current standards. In fact, at least five or six experimental data
pairs (vpr,i, vpr,r) are needed to determine the best-fit value of the
ballistic limit vbl. In other words, according to this approach,
impact tests must be performed for initial projectile velocities
well above the impact resistance Y of the guard, such that full pen-
etration is generated. The approach on which the current standards
are based follows an opposite trend, i.e., tests must be performed
for velocities that are close to or below the impact resistance Y or
the safe impact resistance Ysf, until the validation condition
required by the reference standard is verified.
However, it is sufficient to look at the best-fit R&I curve in
Fig. 1 to understand the problems associated with the standardized
approach. Because of the exponential nature of Eq. (1), there is a
relevant “instability” of residual velocities close to the ballistic
limit (i.e., small differences of initial velocities can give big dif-
ferences on residual velocities). Moreover, residual velocities
lower than 10 m/s are affected by an additional component of
acceleration due to gravity. On the other hand, it has been
observed from the many experimental tests conducted over the
years that tests conducted at velocities above the ballistic limit,
where full penetration occurs, give highly repeatable results. Two
tests conducted at the same initial velocity with equivalent impact
conditions give residual velocities with negligible differences. As
an example, two consecutive impact tests have been carried out
by the authors on polycarbonate guards with a thickness of 4 mm
and dimensions of 450 mm  450 mm. For the tests, the standard
projectile according to Ref. [1] shown in Fig. 2 and with a mass of
0.1 kg, the dimensions of which are given in Table 1, was used.
The tests were conducted at initial velocity vpr,i1 ¼ 77.74 m/s and
vpr,i2 ¼ 77.61 m/s. The measured residual velocities are
vpr,r1 ¼ 27.67 m/s and vpr,r2 ¼ 27.81 m/s, a difference of 0.5%.
Landi et al. [8] investigated the influence of parameters on the
R&I curve also providing a monoparametric statistical analysis,
which allows the dispersion of impact test results to be estimated
in consideration of the variation of the ballistic limit vbl. That
way, an upper ballistic limit Ubl and lower ballistic limit Lbl can
be identified by statistical analysis with a defined percentage of
reliability. The lower ballistic limit Lbl in Fig. 1 represents the
worst case, which constitutes a boundary between the unsafe
zone, where complete penetration with residual velocity of
Fig. 1 Exemplary visualization of the R&I curve
ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems,
Part B: Mechanical Engineering
vpr,r > 0 m/s is experienced, and the zone where the projectile is
not capable of fully penetrating the guard. The upper ballistic
limit Ubl represents the upper initial velocity vpr,i limit, where an
incomplete penetration of the test pattern after projectile impact
can occur, resulting in a residual velocity of vpr,r ¼ 0 m/s. For the
determination of the upper and lower ballistic limit only the two
most distant experimental points from the curve are considered,
which lie below and above the best fit curve, and an R&I curve is
plotted.
The upper and lower limits of the ballistic limit are determined
by constructing for each experimental point a corresponding R&I
curve passing through the specific point. Indeed, by setting the
values of the parameters a and p equal to the best-fit values deter-
mined by the least-squares regression process, a value of the bal-
listic velocity can be calculated for each experimental point from
Eq. (1). The higher and lower values thus obtained then define the
confidence interval associated with the ballistic limit. The confi-
dence interval of the two bounds can be adjusted as requested by a
safety standard depending on the consequence of the complete
penetration of the guard. Confidence intervals can also be esti-
mated by covariance with typical formulas from multivariate sta-
tistics, as reported in Stecconi and Landi [14].
However, the lower ballistic limit Lbl can’t be considered a safe
one according to type-C standards. For the lower ballistic limit Lbl
and an initial velocity vpr,i near to this limit, there is still a contin-
uous crack. The purpose of the method to be developed is to iden-
tify a velocity reduction coefficient cR,v in order to define a safe
reference value of the ballistic limit, Sbl, using the Eq. (2) starting
from the worst-case Lbl
Lbl
Sbl ¼ (2)
cR;v
A determination of the reduction coefficient cR,v will allow us to
find a statistically reliable safe ballistic limit Sbl whose impact test
results are also in accordance with the validation conditions of
standardized tests. The Sbl value to be determined is essentially
equivalent to the safe impact resistance Ysf.
The reduction coefficient cR,v will depend on several factors
such as the shape of the penetrator, the angle at impact, the dimen-
sion and material of the guard tested, or its boundary condition.
As far as the zone between the safe ballistic limit Sbl and the lower
ballistic limit Lbl is concerned, the response of the plate to the
penetration is not exactly predictable. This zone actually repre-
sents the uncertainty that characterizes the two verification meth-
ods proposed by the standards.
3.2 Comparison of Recht and Ipson Method and Bisection
Method. For current standardized deterministic tests for ballistic
impacts on machine guards, the bisection method can be used, as
shown exemplarily in Fig. 3. For this method an initial velocity
vpr,i need to be found, where the test pattern passes and fails the
test, the range between these two values is repeatedly delimited.
The initial velocity vpr,i obtained in this way serves as a reference
point for the next test. By pushing forward with this approach, the
interval will be limited further and further in order to finally
Fig. 2 Standardized projectile shape according to ISO 14120
JUNE 2022, Vol. 8 / 021001-3
Table 1 Standardized projectile mass and dimensions accord-
ing to ISO 14120
Mass mpr in kg Diameter Dpr in mm Impact area a  a in mm  mm
0.1 20 10  10
2.5 50 30  30
conclude on an impact resistance Y. Hence, many tests are
required to find an exact value. For a small number of test patterns
available, the range between passed and failed attempts could be
too great to determine the impact resistance Y exactly. For this
method, the results of impact tests with projectile energies Epr
near the impact resistance Y fluctuate between pass and fail and
can lead to misinterpretation for a small number of tests as well.
On the other hand, the probabilistic approach by Recht and
Ipson requires attempts where the test pattern is fully penetrated
by the projectile in order to obtain a more precise course of the
curve. Nevertheless, it is more feasible to predict an initial veloc-
ity vpr,i, where the test pattern is penetrated by finding a value
close to the ballistic limit vbl.
Based on the energetic approach and the functional correlation
between the initial velocity vpr,i before and the residual velocity
vpr,r after impact given by the R&I Eq. (1) the ballistic limit vbl is
determined by the least squares approximation. Also, outliers can
be identified quickly and possible uncertainties of the measure-
ment are considered.
The ballistic limit vbl obtained by the R&I method has to be
reduced by a velocity reduction coefficient cR,v in order to get a
statistically safe ballistic limit Sbl. The safe impact resistance Ysf
is not directly proven by this method.
4 Systematic Approach
In this section, the experimental impact tests carried out at the
IWF Technische Universit€at Berlin on polycarbonate sheets are
presented with an evaluation of a suitable reduction coefficient
cR,v. The lower limit Lbl is used to evaluate the reduction coeffi-
cient cR,v using the method already described for determining R&I
confidence intervals, see Landi et al. [8]. In this case, the impact
on polycarbonate sheets with a thickness of dpm ¼ 10 mm and
dpm ¼ 12 mm and with the dimensions of the polycarbonate sheets
of Lpm ¼ 300 mm  Wpm ¼ 300 mm is shown.
ISO 14120 [1] defines four standardized projectiles with differ-
ent masses and dimensions. The projectile dimensions used for
the tests presented in this paper are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1,
referring to the 2.5 kg mass projectile. The utilized steel for the
projectile has the following mechanical properties:
 Tensile strength of 560 N/mm2  R  690 N/mm2
 Yield strength R0,2  330 N/mm2
 Elongation rupture A ¼ 20%
The length of the projectile, although not defined in the stand-
ards, is approximately 163 mm.
Inside the gun barrel of the impact test rig, the projectile is
accelerated by compressed air and carried to the test pattern. The
initial projectile velocity vpr,i is adjusted by the operating pressure
pA released from the pressure tank and measured redundantly with
a double laser light barrier and a high-speed camera. The place of
impact at the test pattern is central. The setup of the impact testing
rig according to ISO 14120 is shown in Fig. 4. Figure 5 illustrates
the setup of the test rig with measurement equipment used in this
paper.
The experimental setup shown in Fig. 5 differs from the stand-
ardized one. For the experiments, the measurement of the residual
velocity vpr,r after impact is required to achieve the best fit of the
R&I curve. The initial velocity vpr,i is measured by the double
laser light barrier and a high-speed camera between the gun barrel
exit and the test pattern. This dual acquisition system has been
021001-4 / Vol. 8, JUNE 2022
Fig. 3 Exemplary visualization of two impact test series using
the bisection method
appropriately calibrated, as reported in Landi et al. [15], and is
verified periodically. The residual velocity vpr,r is measured by a
second high-speed-camera behind the test sample holder. The
high-speed-cameras record every impact test at 20,000 fps. With
the focal length of the optic, every pixel is about 0.9 mm  0.9 mm
and the camera field of view is about 900-pixel  300-pixel.
Thanks to this high sampling rate, it is possible to measure the
speed of the projectile with high accuracy by analyzing the video
images. For typical velocities of impact tests between 10 m/s and
100 m/s the uncertainty on velocity estimation is less than 2%.
Allowed error on the measurement of initial velocity is about 5%
according to standards. In addition, the error on the initial velocity
measurement is very low since the projectile follows a straight tra-
jectory on the viewing plane that is properly calibrated during
setup. Residual velocities are typically much lower than initial
velocities and therefore the associated error is also lower. Any
postimpact trajectories outside the plane of vision can be detected
by video analysis and, in case of excessive anomalies, the test is
repeated.
As a validation condition, the tested guard passes the impact
test if only bulging without continuous cracks occurs. If a crack
extends from one side to the other or heavier damage occurs, the
test failed. Pictures of test examples are presented in Fig. 6.
Even small projectiles penetrating the machine guard can cause
severe injuries to workers behind. Mewes and Trapp [16] defined
a standardized test procedure to determine the critical energy EC
in which a standardized projectile is no longer safely restrained by
the guard and is used to characterize the impact resistance Y. As
soon as the kinetic energy of the projectile Epr overcomes this
value, first cracks could be observed in the material until finally, a
complete penetration can occur. The kinetic energy of the projec-
tile Epr, which causes a complete penetration of the guard, is
defined by the authors as penetration energy Ep.
The test pattern dimensions for the following tests are not the
standardized one, because this research also investigated the influ-
ence of the test pattern dimensions of Lpm ¼ 300 mm and
Wpm ¼ 300 mm on the impact resistance Y.
Fig. 4 Equipment for impact tests according to ISO 14120
Transactions of the ASME
 Based on previous experiences, it was discovered that espe-
cially with ductile materials such as polycarbonate, smaller test
patterns do not allow the material to deform properly so that a
lower impact resistance Y is usually achieved. By determining the
reduction coefficient cR,v it is possible to find a safe ballistic limit
Sbl compatible with standard ISO conditions.
4.1 Results and Discussion. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the
results of impact tests on polycarbonate sheets with a thickness of
dpm ¼ 10 mm and dpm ¼ 12 mm, respectively. Table 4 shows the
determined best fit values of the parameters a, p, the ballistic limit
vbl, the lower ballistic limit Lbl, the upper ballistic limit Ubl and
the mean square error ems, the average squared difference between
the values given by the R&I curve for the best fit and the experi-
mentally determined values. Figures 7 and 8 show both the most
suitable R&I curve and the confidence intervals of the ballistic
limit vbl based on the experimental data mentioned above. The
mean square error ems is obtained by evaluating a, p, and vbl for

Table 4 Best fit parameters for R&I equation, extremal values

of confidence intervals and mean square error ems of the best
fit

PC sheet PC sheet
Parameter thickness dpm ¼ 10 mm thickness dpm ¼ 12 mm

a 01.00 00.99
p 01.70 01.87
Fig. 5 Experimental setup vbl (m/s) 58.50 64.20
Ubl (m/s) 59.55 65.57
Lbl (m/s) 57.47 62.31
ems 04.49 11.57

Fig. 6 Exemplary impact test results for PC: (a) passed and (b)
failed

Table 2 Test results for PC with dpm 5 10 mm

Initial velocity Residual velocity Energy

Test vpr,i (m/s) vpr,r (m/s) loss EL (J)

1 84.28 55.16 5095.92

2 79.54 46.98 5169.96
3 75.26 41.40 4957.39
4 71.24 32.93 5008.39
5 64.69 22.91 4593.21
6 47.34 N.P.a 2,812.55
7 45.03 N.P.a 2,544.76
a
Not penetrated.

Table 3 Test results for PC with dpm 5 12 mm

Test Initial Residual Energy

velocity vpr,i (m/s) velocity vpr,r (m/s) loss EL (J)

1 83.28 47.78 5839.05

2 78.38 44.18 5260.40
3 75.83 37.18 5481.63
4 70.35 24.56 5454.14
5 69.68 24.37 5348.06
6 65.54 11.50 5224.87
7 55.71 N.P.a 3895.05
8 50.21 N.P.a 3163.91
a
Not penetrated. Fig. 7 R&I curve for a PC sheet thickness dpm 5 10 mm

ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, JUNE 2022, Vol. 8 / 021001-5
Part B: Mechanical Engineering
the best fit. It is important to be aware that test 7 in Table 2 and
test 8 in Table 3 delivered results according to the validation con-
ditions of standardization with only bulging (permanent deforma-
tion without continuous crack).
Even though five tests to retrieve an R&I curve seem to be little
for a correct approximation, previous experiences based on best-
fit retrieval of other experimental tests, such as reported in Borvik
et al. [6,7] and Landi et al. [8], has proved that five valid tests are
sufficient to have a good approximation of the ballistic limit vbl.
Furthermore, every nonperpendicular impact is rejected as an
invalid test. Equation (2) can be used to determine the safe ballis-
tic limit Sbl required to ensure backward compatibility with the
ISO standard for both guards, which have been tested with differ-
ent thicknesses dpm as in the following:
Lbl10mm 57:47
cR;v10mm ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:28 (3)
Sbl10mm 45:03
Lbl12mm 62:31
cR;v12mm ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:24 (4)
Sbl12mm 50:21
From the given data it is possible to define a new area in the R&I
diagram, called the velocity gray zone (VGZ). This Zone is
defined as the velocity interval between the safe ballistic limit Sbl
and the lower ballistic limit Lbl for a given confidence interval. In
the tests, a 90% confidence interval is used.
The VGZ shown in Fig. 8 is a critical zone of the velocity field
where a safe impact resistance Ysf of the guard is not guaranteed
according to the conditions of the type-C standards. To support
Fig. 8 R&I curve for a PC sheet thickness dpm 5 12 mm
021001-6 / Vol. 8, JUNE 2022
Fig. 9 Impact test results of: (a) test 6 with sample thickness
of dpm 5 10 mm and (b) test 7 with sample thickness of
dpm 5 12 mm
these observations, two further tests (test 6 in Table 2 and test 7 in
Table 3) were carried out with initial velocities vpr,i within the
VGZ.
The test results, shown in Fig. 9, demonstrate that the projectile
penetrates the plate without passing completely to the opposite
side, resulting in a residual velocity vpr,r ¼ 0 m/s. However, the
guard behavior is highly uncertain and it depends on many param-
eters whose slightest variation can cause different responses to the
impact.
In relation to the energy of the reduction coefficient cR,v, the
term energy reduction coefficient cR,E is used analogously to gen-
erate an inference with the impact resistance Y
L2bl10mm
cR;E10mm ¼ c2R;v10mm ¼ ¼ 1:64 (5)
S2bl10mm
L2bl12mm
cR;E12mm ¼ c2R;v12mm ¼ ¼ 1:54 (6)
S2bl12mm
In other words, the measured energy for the safe ballistic limit
Sbl is approximatively 54% lower than the energy of the lower bal-
listic limit Lbl for PC sheets with a thickness dpm ¼12 mm and
64% lower for a thickness dpm ¼ 10 mm. That means, by reducing
the kinetic energy Ekin from the lower ballistic limit Lbl through
the energy reduction coefficient cR,E you reach the safe area inside
the R&I curve, where no complete penetration occurs. This uncer-
tainty is not a fixed value but depends, for safety applications, on
material, projectile, dimension of the test pattern, and more as
already discovered by Mewes and Trapp [16].
5 Conclusion
This paper introduces a new probabilistic method for determin-
ing the impact resistance Y and the safe impact resistance Ysf for
impact tests on machinery guards in relation to the ballistic limit
vbl and the reduction coefficient cR,v. All data used to determine
the reduction coefficient cR,v for polycarbonate sheets with the
length of Lpm ¼ 300 mm, width of Wpm ¼ 300 mm, and thickness
of dpm ¼ 10 mm and dpm ¼ 12 mm are shown. The testing proce-
dure is simple and reproducible by different testing institutes if
required.
The variance of data for the impact resistance Y of safety guards
can’t be determined by using the current bisection testing proce-
dure that is based on a deterministic approach. It should be noted
that the current method has proved to be sufficient in the past by
reducing the number of injuries caused by the complete penetra-
tion of safety guards around the world. Nevertheless, by defining
the ballistic limit vbl using the R&I estimation, a possible new
standard for testing procedures is introduced. A series of impact
tests at different initial velocities vi are required to obtain a good
R&I best fit curve and a confidence interval for the ballistic limit
Transactions of the ASME
vbl. Finding the worst case in relation to the ballistic limit vbl in [3] ISO 19085-1, 2017, Woodworking Machines – Part 1: Common Requirements,
order to obtain a reproducible safe ballistic limit Sbl by defining ISO International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
[4] Landi, L., Moedden, H., Pera, F., Uhlman, E., and Meister, F., 2017a,
an appropriate velocity reduction coefficient cR,v is now possible. “Probabilities in Safety of Machinery-Risk Reduction Through Fixed and Mov-
In this way, a new statistically reliable test method is introduced able Guards by Standardized Impact Test. Part 1: Applications and Considera-
while maintaining the validation conditions for standardization. tion of Random Effects,” The 2nd International Conference on Engineering
Sciences and Technologies, ESREL, pp. 1013-LL-rev2.
[5] Landi, L., Moedden, H., Pera, F., Uhlman, E., and Meister, F., 2017b,
Nomenclature “Probabilities in Safety of Machinery-Risk Reduction Through Fixed and Mov-
able Guards by Standardized Impact Test. Part 2: Possible Improvements With
a, p ¼ a-dimensional regression coefficients of Recht and FE Impact Simulations,” The 2nd International Conference on Engineering Sci-
Ipson equation ences and Technologies, ESREL, p. 995.
A ¼ projectile elongation rupture [6] Børvik, T., Langseth, M., Hopperstad, O. S., and Malo, K. A., 2002,
“Perforation of 12 mm Thick Steel Plates by 20 mm Diameter Projectile With
cR,E ¼ energy reduction coefficient Flat, Hemispherical and Conical Noses. Part 1: Experimental Study,” Int. J.
cR,v ¼ velocity reduction coefficient Impact Eng., 27(1), pp. 19–35.
dpm ¼ sample panel thickness [7] Børvik, T., Hopperstad, O. S., Berstad, T., and Langseth, M., 2002, “Perforation
Ec ¼ critical energy of 12 mm Thick Steel Plates by 20 mm Diameter Projectile With Flat, Hemi-
spherical and Conical Noses. Part 2: Numerical Simulations,” Int. J. Impact
ems ¼ mean-square-error Eng., 27(1), pp. 37–64.
Ep ¼ penetration energy [8] Landi, L., Stecconi, A., Pera, F., Del Prete, F., and Ratti, C., 2019, “Influence of
Epr ¼ projectile kinetic energy the Penetrator Shape on Safety Evaluation of Machine Tools Guards,” Proceed-
Lbl ¼ lower ballistic limit ings of the 29th European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL), Hann-
over, Germany, Sept. 22–26, pp. 2936–2943.
Lpm, Wpm ¼ sample panel dimensions [9] Uhlmann, E., Haberbosch, K., Thom, S., Drieux, S., Schwarze, A., and
mpr ¼ projectile mass Polte, M., 2019, “Investigation on the Effect of Novel Cuting Fluids With
R ¼ projectile tensile strength Modified Ingredients Regarding the Long-Term Resistance of Polycarbon-
R&I ¼ Recht and Ipson ate Used as Machine Guards in Cutting Operations,” Proceedings of the
29th European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL), Hannover,
R0,2 ¼ projectile yield strength Germany, Sept. 22–26, pp. 2944–2953.
Sbl ¼ safe ballistic limit [10] Uhlmann, E., and Duchstein, B., 2010, “Aufprallpr€ ufungen an Definiert
Ubl ¼ upper ballistic limit Gealterten Polycarbonat Sichtscheiben,” Futur Vision Innovation Realisierung,
vbl ¼ ballistic limit velocity Futur 01/2010.
[11] Bold, J., 2004, Trennende Schutzeinrichtungen F€ ur Werkzeugmaschinen Zur
vpr ¼ projectile velocity Hochgeschwindigkeitsbearbeitung (Separating Protective Devices for Machine
vpr,i ¼ impact velocity Tools for High-Speed Machining), Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, p. 201.
vpr,r ¼ residual velocity [12] Recht, R. F., and Ipson, T. W., 1963, “Ballistic Perforation Dynamics,” ASME
vsp ¼ maximum foreseeable tangential spindle speed J. Appl. Mech., 30(3), pp. 384–390.
[13] Landi, L., and Amici, D., 2016, “Steel Sheets Impact Simulation for Safety Guards
Y ¼ impact resistance Design: Problems and Pespectives,” ASME Paper No. IMECE 2016-65181.
Ysf ¼ safe impact resistance [14] Stecconi, A., and Landi, L., 2020, “Finite Element Analysis for Impact Tests on
Polycarbonate Safety Guards: Comparison With Experimental Data and Statis-
tical Dispersion of Ballistic Limit,” ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng.
Syst., Part B, 6(4), p. 041004.
References [15] Landi, L., Stecconi, A., Pera, F., and Prete, E. D., 2020, “Calibration of an Air
[1] ISO 14120, 2015, “Safety of Machinery Guards: General Requirements for the Cannon for Safety Penetration Tests,” Proceedings of the 30th European Safety
Design and Construction of Fixed and Movable Guards,” ISO International and Reliability Conference and the 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Management Conference, Venice, Italy, Nov. 1–5, pp. 3967–3973.
[2] ISO 16090-1, 2018, Machine Tools Safety – Machining Centres, Milling [16] Mewes, D., and Trapp, R. P., 2000, “Impact Resistance of Material Guards on
Machines, Transfer Machines – Part 1: Safety Requirements, ISO International Cutting Machine Tools – Requirements in Future European Safety Standards,”
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon., 6(4), pp. 507–520.

ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, JUNE 2022, Vol. 8 / 021001-7
Part B: Mechanical Engineering