Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 5755–5765 | Cite as

Estimation of penetration equation parameters by comparing numerical analysis and experimental results

  • A. Hyoun Cho
  • Kang ParkEmail author
  • Gun In Kim


Penetration analyses are needed to improve the survivability of combat vehicles. The penetration analysis can be achieved by numerical analysis or experiments. Because excessive time is required to obtain results in both cases, it is needed to derive a penetration equation using numerical analysis. But, the constants for the penetration equation are hardly found in the literature. Therefore, in this paper, the penetration equation is derived using the following steps: (1) Setting up a numerical analysis model and proving it with experimental data, and (2) determining the constants of the penetration equations for various target materials and impact conditions using the numerical analysis model. This procedure can be used to predict penetration when there are no sufficient penetration experimental data for a given material and impact conditions. In this paper, ANSYS Explicit Dynamics was used for creating the simulated penetration data to estimate the parameters of the penetration equation. The penetration numerical analysis was performed for a high-velocity collision between a 7.62 mm AP (armor piercing) bullet and the targets, which include RHA (rolled homogeneous armor) steel and 7075 aluminum. As a result, the error rate between the results of the numerical analysis and penetration experiments is approximately 5 %, which verifies the accuracy of the numerical analysis. The constants of the penetration equation for RHA steel and 7075 aluminum were determined using the numerical analysis model. In vulnerability analyses, penetration equation with the constant that was identified using our methodology can replace the numerical penetration analysis, which requires excessive calculation time.


Penetration equation Numerical analysis Penetration analysis Vulnerability analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    M. H. Nam and K. Park, The vulnerability assessment of hydro–pneumatic suspension of ground combat vehicles using vulnerable area method and DMEA, Korean Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 22 (2) (2017) 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. G. Shin and K. Park, Numerical Analysis of Penetration Characteristics of 5.45mm and 7.62mm AP Bullet on Al 7075–T651 plate, Korean Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 22 (3) (2017) 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    G.–C. Jine and C. Choe, The vulnerability analysis of the combat vehicle and reduction techniques, National Defense and Technique, 166 (1992) 48–55.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    H.–G. Hwang, J.–W. Lee, J.–S. Lee and J.–S. Park, A development of 3D penetration analysis program for survivability analysis of combat system: Focused on tank model, The Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering, 19 (2015).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Yoo and E.–S. Jang, The target modeling and the shot line analysis system to assess vulnerability of the ground combat vehicle, Korean Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 20 (3) (2015) 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Ramon, Autodyn theory manual, Century Dynamics Inc., California, USA (1998).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Z. Fawaz and W. Wheng, Numerical simulation of normal and oblique ballistic impact on ceramic composite armours, Composite Structures, 63 (3–4) (2004) 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. D. Lynch, R. W. Kunkel and ·S. S. Juarascio, An analysis comparison using the vulnerability analysis for surface targets (VAST) computer code and the computation of vulnerable area and repair time (COVART III) computer code, Army Research Laboratory (1997).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. A. Zook, K. Frank and G. F. Silsby, Terminal ballistics test and analysis guidelines for the penetration mechanics branch, Ballistic Research Laboratory (1992).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. Deniz, Ballistic penetration of hardened steel plate, A Thesis (submitted), Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University (2010).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    W. Kang, D. Kim and G. Bang, The interpretation of Explosive bolt using analysis code, The Korean Society of Propulsion Engineering (2014) 741–744.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Gwak and K. W. Kwon, Modeling of damage caused to injectors used in pulverized–coal–oxygen–combustion furnace, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 34 (11) (2010) 957–964.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. H. Song and H. Huh, Dynamic material property of the sinter–Forged Cu–Cr alloys with the variation of chrome content, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 30 (6) (2006) 670–677.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    F. C. Jula and T. F. U Gent, FEA modeling of orthogonal cutting of steel: A review, Sustainable Construction and Design, 3 (2) (2012) 98–105.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Y. Ayed and G. Germain, Experimental and numerical study of laser–assisted machining of Ti6Al4V titanium alloy, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 92 (2014) 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. Banerjee and S. Dhar, Determination of Johnson cook material and failure model constants and numerical modelling of Charpy impact test of armour steel, Materials Science & Engineering: A, 640 (2015) 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Gökhan Öztü R. K., Numerical and experimental investigation of perforation of ST–37 steel plates by oblique impact, A Thesis (submitted), Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University (2010).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    N. S. Brar and V. S. Joshi, Constitutive model constants for Al7075–T651 and Al7075–T6, Proc. of AIP Conference (2010) 1195 (1).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    N. Kılıc and B. Ekici, Ballistic resistance of high hardness armor steels against 7.62mm armor piercing ammunition, Materials and Design, 44 (2013) 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. H. Cho, K. Park and G. I. Kim, Numerical analysis approach to calculate the damage degree of the combat vehicle, Korean Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 22 (2) (2017) 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    K. Krishnan and S. Sockalingam, Numerical simulation of ceramic composite armor subjected to ballistic impact, Composites Part B: Engineering, 41 (8) (2010) 583–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    H.–C. Lu and W. R. Guadros, Evaluation of user–guided semi–automatic decomposition tool for hexahedral mesh generation, Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 4 (4) (2017) 330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    A. N. Chaudhury and D. Datta, Analysis of prismatic springs of non–circular coil shape and non–prismatic springs of circular coil shape by analytical and finite element methods, Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 4 (3) (2017) 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. J. Forrestal and T. Børvik, Perforation of 7075–T651 Aluminum Armor Plate with 7.62mm APM2 Bullets, Experimental Mechanics, 50 (8) (2010) 1245–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    T. L. Jones and R. D. Delorme, Ballistic evaluation of magnesium alloy AZ31B, Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, ADA466839 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    W. Gooch and M. Burkins, Ballistic analysis of bulgarian electroslag remelted dual hard steel armor plate, Proc. of 22nd International Symposium on Ballistics, Vancouver (2005).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Mechanical EngineeringMyongji UniversityGyeonggi-doKorea
  2. 2.School of Mechanical EngineeringMyongji UniversityGyeonggi-doKorea
  3. 3.Graduate School of Information SecurityKorea UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations