Advertisement

Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 409–415 | Cite as

Perforation of Aluminum Armor Plates with Fragment-Simulating Projectiles

  • Zherui Guo
  • Michael J. Forrestal
  • Stephenie Martinez-Morales
  • Weinong ChenEmail author
Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Experiments with fragment-simulating projectiles (FSP) and aluminum plates are conducted to evaluate the performance of various aluminum alloys and plate thicknesses to resist perforation against fragments. Ballistic-limit velocity data for several aluminum alloys and plate thicknesses are presented in several US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) reports. In this study, we present additional ballistic-limit data for plates thinner than the plates reported by ARL. In addition, we present an equation that predicts the ballistic-limit velocity for fragment-simulating projectiles (FSP) that perforate aluminum armor plates. The ballistic-limit equation is presented in terms of dimensionless parameters so that the geometric and material problem scales are identified. Predictions and data from two different fragment-simulating projectiles and two different strength aluminum alloys show the range of plate thicknesses for reasonable model predictions.

Keywords

Fragment-simulating projectiles Aluminum armor plates Scaling law 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported in part by the U. S. Army Research Laboratory and the U. S. Army Research Office under Grant Number W911NF1710241. The authors would also like to thank Denver Gallardy of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD) for his comments and insightful discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    Gallardy DB (2015) Ballistic Evaluation of 6055 Aluminum (ARL-MR-0904). US Army Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gooch WA, Burkins MS, Squillacioti RJ (2007) Ballistic testing of commercial aluminum alloys and alternate processing techniques to increase the availability of aluminum armor. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international symposium on ballistics. Tarragona, Spain, pp 981–988Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheeseman A, Gooch W, Burkins M (2008) Ballistic evaluation of aluminum 2139-T8. In: Proceedings of the 24th international symposium on ballistics. New Orleans. pp 651–659Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Recht RF, Ipson TW (1963) Ballistic perforation dynamics. J Appl Mech 30(3):384–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hill R (1950) The mathematical theory of plasticity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones N (1989) Structural impact. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramesh KT (2008) High strain rate and impact experiments. Handbook of experimental solid mechanics. Springer, New York, p 874Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cao B, Shaeffer M, Cadel D et al (2018) An analysis of strengthening mechanisms and rate-dependence in a high strength aluminum alloy. J Dyn Behav Mater 4(1):6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zherui Guo
    • 1
  • Michael J. Forrestal
    • 2
  • Stephenie Martinez-Morales
    • 3
  • Weinong Chen
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Aeronautics and AstronauticsPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Fort WorthUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyPurdue University College of AgricultureWest LafayetteUSA
  4. 4.School of Materials EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations