Defeat by High Strength Targets

Chapter

Abstract

The protective capability of a structure against a given threat can be evaluated by several measures. One of them is the ballistic limit velocity (Vbl) of the specific armor/threat combination. Obviously, the aim of the armor designer is to increase the value of Vbl without increasing the weight of the structure. The relevant measure of the armor weight is its areal density (AD), given in units of kg/m2, which is simply the density of the protective structure multiplied by its thickness. The ballistic efficiency of a given structure is defined by its areal density, as compared with that of a reference target, which is needed to defeat a given threat. Frank (1981) suggested several measures for the ballistic efficiency of improved structures, through their mass (Em) and space (Es) efficiency, according to:
$$ {E_m} = \frac{{{{\left( {AD} \right)}_r}}}{{{{\left( {AD} \right)}_s}}} $$
$$ {E_s} = \frac{{{P_r}}}{{{P_s}}} $$
where the indices (r) and (s) denote the reference target and the improved structure, respectively, and P is the minimal thickness of the target which is needed to defeat the threat. It is clear that the ballistic efficiency should be higher than 1.0 and the task of the armor designer is to increase these efficiencies to higher values. As mentioned above, one of the more practical ways to defeat a given threat is by adding a relatively lightweight structure in front of the protected object, as shown in Fig. 6.1. This add-on armor structure can significantly reduce the penetration capability of a given threat through an effective defeat mechanism, as will be demonstrated in this part of the book.

Keywords

Impact Velocity Areal Density Ceramic Tile Backing Material Hugoniot Elastic Limit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abrate S (2011) Impact engineering of composite materials. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson CE (2002) Developing an ultra-lightweight armor concept. In: McCauley J et al (eds) Ceramic armor materials by design, ceramics transactions, vol 134. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, pp 485–498Google Scholar
  3. Anderson CE (2006) A review of computational ceramic armor modeling, advances in ceramic armor II. In: Frank LP (ed) Proceedings of the 30th international conference and explosion on advanced ceramics and composites, vol 27, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  4. Anderson CE, Walker JD (1999) Ceramic dwell and defeat of the 0.30-cal AP projectile. In: Proceedings of the 15th army symposium on solid mechanics, Myrtle Beach, Apr 1999Google Scholar
  5. Bazhenov SL, Dukhowskii IA, Kovalev PI, Rozhkov AN (2001) The fracture of SVM aramide fibers upon a high velocity transverse impact. Polym Sci Ser A 1:61–71Google Scholar
  6. Behner T, Anderson CE, Holmquist TJ, Wickert M, Tempelton DW (2008) Interface defeat for unconfined SiC tiles. Proceedings of the 24th international symposium on ballistics, Lancaster. vol 1, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  7. Bhatanagar A (2006) Lightweight ballistic composites- military and law-enforcement applications. Woodhead Publishing Limited, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bless SJ, Rosenberg Z, Yoon B (1987) Hypervelocity penetration of ceramics. Int J Impact Eng 5:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bless SJ, Benyami M, Apgar LS, Eylon D (1992) Impenetrable ceramic targets struck by high velocity tungsten long rods. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on structure under shock and impact, Portsmouth, June 1992Google Scholar
  10. Cheeseman BA, Bogetti TA (2003) Ballistic impact into fabric and compliant compositie laminates. Comp Struct 61:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chocron S, Kirchdoerfer T, King N, Freitas CJ (2011) Modeling of fabric impact with high speed imaging and nickel-chromium wires validation. J App Mech 78:051007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunniff PM (1992) An analysis of the system effects in woven fabrics under ballistic impact. Textile Res J 62:495–509Google Scholar
  13. Cunniff PM (1996) A semi-empirical model for the ballistic impact performance of textile-based personnel armor. Textile Res J 66:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunniff PM (1999a) Decoupled response of textile body armor. Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on ballistics, San Antonio, Nov 1999, pp 814–821Google Scholar
  15. Cunniff PM (1999b) Dimensionless parameters for optimization of textile based body armor systems. Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on ballistics, San Antonio, Nov 1999, pp 1303–1310Google Scholar
  16. Curran DR, Seaman L, Cooper T, Shockey DA (1993) Micromechanical model for comminution and granular flow of brittle materials under high strain rate application to penetration of ceramic targets. Int J Impact Eng 13:52–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duan Y, Keefe M, Bogetti TA, Cheeseman BA, Powers B (2006) A numerical investigation of the influence of friction on energy absorption by a high-strength fabrics subjected to ballistic impact. Int J Impact Eng 32:1299–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ernst HJ, Merkel T, Wolf T, Hoog K (2003) High-velocity impact loading of thick GFRP blocks. J Phys IV France 110:633–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finch DF (1990) The shaped charge jet attack on confined and unconfined glass targets. Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on ballistics, San Antonio, 1990, p 67Google Scholar
  20. Frank K (1981) Armor-penetration performance measures. Memorandum Report, ARBRL –MR-03097, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Mar 1981Google Scholar
  21. Gama BA, Guillespie JW (2011) Finite element modeling of impact, damage evolution and penetration of thick-section composites. Int J Impact Eng 38:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gooch WA (2002) An overview of ceramic armor applications. In: McCauley JW et al (eds) Ceramic armor material by design. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  23. Gooch WA, Burkins MS, Ernst HJ, Wolf T (1995) Ballistic penetration of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Proceedings of the lightweight armor symposium, Shrivenham, June 1995Google Scholar
  24. Hauver GE, Netherwood PH, Benck RF, Gooch WA, Perciballi WJ, Burkins MS (1992) Variation of target resistance during long-rod penetration into ceramics. Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on ballistics, Sundyberg, Sweden, vol 3, pp 257–264Google Scholar
  25. Hauver GE, Netherwood PH, Benck RF, Kecskes IJ (1993) Ballistic performance of ceramic targets. Proceedings of the 13th army symposium on solid mechanics, Plymouth, Aug 1993, pp 23–34Google Scholar
  26. Hauver GE, Netherwood PH, Benck RF, Kecskes IJ (1994) Enhanced ballistic performance of ceramic targets. Proceedings of the 19th Army Science conference, Orlando, June 1884Google Scholar
  27. Hauver GE, Rapacki EJ, Netherwood PH, Benck RF (2005) Interface defeat of long-rod projectiles by ceramic armor. Army Research Laboratory Report, ARL-TR-3590, Sept 2005Google Scholar
  28. Held M (1993) Armor. Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on ballistics, Quebec city, Canada, 1993, pp 45–57Google Scholar
  29. Hohler V, Stilp AJ, Weber K (1995) Penetration of tungsten-alloy rods into alumina. Int J Impact Eng 17:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR (2002) A detailed computational analysis of interface defeat, dwell and penetration for a variety of ceramic targets. Proceedings of the 20th international symposium on ballistics, Orlando, Sept 2002, pp 746–753Google Scholar
  31. Holmquist TJ, Anderson CE, Behner T (2005) Design, analysis and testing of an unconfined ceramic target to induce dwell. Proceedings of the 22nd international symposium on ballistics, Vancouver, Nov 2005, pp 860–868Google Scholar
  32. Holmquist TJ, Anderson CE, Behner T (2008) The effect of a copper buffer on interface defeat. Proceedings of the 24th international symposium on ballistics, Lancaster, 2008, pp 721–728Google Scholar
  33. Hornemann U (1989) The terminal ballistic resistance of glass against shaped charge penetration. Proceedings of the 11th international symposium on ballistics, Brussels, Belgium, vol II, May 1989, pp 381–389Google Scholar
  34. Irenmonger MJ (1999) Polyethylene composites for protection against high velocity small arms bullets. Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on ballistics, San Antonio, Nov 1999, pp 946–953Google Scholar
  35. Jacobs MJN, Van Dingenen JLJ (2001) Ballistic protection mechanisms in personal armor. J Mat Sci 36:3137–3142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jameson JW, Stewart GM, Petterson DR, Odell FA (1962) Dynamic distribution of strain in textile materials under high speed impact: part III, strain-time-position history in yarns. Textile Res J 32:858–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ (1990) A computational constitutive model for brittle materials subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high pressures. In: Meyers MA, Murr LE, Staudhammer KP (eds) Proceedings of the EXPLOMRT conference, San Diego, Aug 1990. Shock Wave and High Pressure Phenomena, Marcel Dekker Inc., pp 1075–1082 (1992)Google Scholar
  38. Jones TL, DeLorme RD, Burkins MS, Gooch WA (2007) Ballistic performances of magnesium alloy AZ31B. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international symposium on ballistics, Tarragona Spain, Apr 2007, pp 989–995Google Scholar
  39. Kozhushko AA, Rykova II (1994) On the shortening of the effective length of a shaped charge jet in penetrating ceramic materials. Tech Phys Lett 20:377–378Google Scholar
  40. Kozhushko AA, Rykova II, Sinani AB (1992) Resistance of ceramics to penetration at high interaction velocities. Combust Explos Shock Waves 28:84–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lampert S, Jeanquartier R (1999) Threat dependent protection efficacy of metal/liner compositions. Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on ballistics, San Antonio, Nov 1999, pp 970–977Google Scholar
  42. Lundberg P, Holmberg L, Janzon B (1998) An experimental study of long rod penetration into boron carbide at ordnance and hyper velocities. Proceedings of the 17th international symposium on ballistics. Midrand, South Africa, Mar 1998, vol 3, pp 251–258Google Scholar
  43. Lundberg P, Renstrom R, Lundberg B (2000) Impact of metallic projectiles on ceramic targets: the transition between interface defeat and penetration. Int J Impact Eng 24:259–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lundberg P, Renstrom R, Holmbrg L (2001) An experimental investigation of interface defeat at extended interaction time, 2001. Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on ballistics. Interlaken, Switzerland, pp 1463–1469Google Scholar
  45. Malaise F, Collombet F, Tranchet JY (2000) An investigation of ceramic block impenetrability to high velocity long rod impact. J Phys IV France 10:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCauley JW, Crowson A, Gooch WA, Rajendran AM, Bless SJ, Logan KV, Normandia M, Wax S (2002). Proceedings of the conference on ceramic armor material by design, Wailea, Hawaii, Nov 2001Google Scholar
  47. Mellgrad I, Holmberg L, Olsson GL (1989) An experimental method to compare the ballistic efficiencies of different ceramics against long rod projectiles. Proceedings of the 11th international symposium on ballistics, Brussels, Belgium, May 1989, pp 323–331Google Scholar
  48. Moran B, Glenn LW, Kusubov A (1991) Jet penetration in glass. J Phys IV 1(C3):147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orphal DL, Franzen RR (1997) Penetration of confined silicon carbide by tungsten long rods at impact velocities from 1.5 to 4.6 km/s. Int J Impact Eng 19:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orphal DL, Franzen RR, Piekutowski AJ, Forrestal MJ (1996) Penetration of confined aluminum nitride targets by tungsten long rods at 1.5-4.5 km/s. Int J Impact Eng 18:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Orphal DL, Franzen RR, Charters AC, Menna TL, Piekutowski AJ (1997) Penetration of confined boron carbide targets by long rods at impact velocities from 1.5 to 5.0 km/s. Int J Impact Eng 19:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rajendran AM, Grove DJ (1996) Determination of Rajendran-Grove ceramic constitutive model constants. Int J Impact Eng 18:611–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rao MP, DuanY KM, Powers BM, Bogetti TA (2009) Modeling the effects of yarn material properties and friction on the ballistic impact of a plain-weave fabric. Compos Struct 89:556–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reaugh JE, Holt AD, Wilkins ML, Cunningham BJ, Hord BL, Kusubov AS (1999) Impact studies of five ceramic materials and Pyrex. Int J Impact Eng 23:771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Recht R, Ipson TW (1963) Ballistic perforation dynamics. J App Mech 30:384–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenberg Z, Tsaliah J (1990) Applying Tate’s model for the interaction of long-rod projectiles with ceramic targets. Int J Impact Eng 9:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenberg Z, Yeshurun Y (1988) The relation between ballistic efficiency of ceramic tiles and their compressive strengths. Int J Impact Eng 7:357–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenberg Z, Bless SJ, Yeshurun Y, Okajima K (1987a) A new definition of ballistic efficiency of brittle materials based on the use of thick backing plates. In: Chiem CY, Kunze HD, Meyer LWP (eds) Proceedings of IMPACT 87 symposium, impact loading and dynamic behavior of materials. DCM Informationsgesellschaft Verlag, pp 491–498Google Scholar
  59. Rosenberg Z, Brar NS, Bless SJ (1991a) Shear strength of titanium-diboride under shock loading measured by transverse manganin gages, In: Schmidt SC, Dick, RD, Forbes JW, Tasker DG (eds) Proceedings of the 1991 conference on shock waves in condensed matter, Williamsburg, June 1991, pp 471–473Google Scholar
  60. Rosenberg Z, Brar NS, Bless SJ (1991b) Dynamic high-pressure properties of AlN ceramic as determined by flyer plate impact. J Appl Phys 70:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenberg Z, Dekel E, Yeshurun Y, Bar-On E (1995) Experiments and 2-D simulations of high velocity penetration into ceramic tiles. Int J Impact Eng 17:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosenberg Z, Dekel E, Hohler V, Stilp AJ, Weber K (1997b) Hypervelocity penetration of tungsten-alloy rods into ceramic tiles: experiments and 2-D simulations. Int J Impact Eng 20:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenberg Z, Ashuach Y, Yeshurun Y, Dekel E (2009) On the main mechanisms for defeating AP projectiles, long rods and shaped charge jets. Int J Impact Eng 36:588–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roylance D (1977) Ballistics of transversely impacted fibers. Textile Res J 47:679–684Google Scholar
  65. Senf H, Strassburger E, Rothenhausler H, Lexow B (1998) The dependency of ballistic mass efficiency of light armor on striking velocity of small caliber projectiles. Proceedings of 17th international symposium on ballistics, Midrand, South Africa, Mar 1998, pp 199–206Google Scholar
  66. Shim VPW, Tan VBC, Tay TE (1995) Modeling deformation and damage characteristics of woven fabrics under small projectile impact. Int J Impact Eng 16:585–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shockey DA, Marchand AH, Cort GE, Burkett MW, Parker R (1990) Failure phenomenology of confined ceramic targets and impacting rods. Int J Impact Eng 9:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shockey DA, Ehrlich DC, Simons JW (1999) Lightweight fragment barriers for commercial aircraft. Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on ballistics, San Antonio, 15–19 Nov 1999, pp 1192–1199Google Scholar
  69. Showalter DD, Gooch WA, Burkins MS, Koch RS (2008) Ballistic testing of SSAB ultra-high hardness steel for armor applications. Proceedings of the 24th international symposium on ballistics, New Orleans, Sept 2008, pp 634–642Google Scholar
  70. Smith JC, McCrackin FL, Scheifer HF (1958) Stress–strain relationships of yarns subjected to rapid impact loading, part V-wave propagation in long textile yarns impacted transversely. Textile Res J 28:288–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Solve G, Cagnoux J (1990) The behavior of pyrex glass against a shaped charge jet. In: Schmidt SC, Johnson JN, and Davison LW (eds) Proceedings of the APS conference on shock waves in condensed matter, 1989, Elsevier Science Publ., 1990, pp 967–970Google Scholar
  72. Subramanian R, Bless SJ (1995) Penetration of semi-infinite AD995 alumina targets by tungsten long rod penetrators from 1.5 to 3.5 km/s. Int J Impact Eng 17:807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Subramanian R, Bless SJ, Cazamias J, Berry D (1995) Reverse impact experiments against tungsten rods and results for aluminum penetration between 1.5 and 4.2 km/s. Int J Impact Eng 17:817–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tan VBC, Lim CT, Cheong CH (2003) Perforation of high-strength fabric by projectiles of different geometries. Int J Impact Eng 28:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van-Gorp EHM, van der Loo LLH, van-Dingenen JLJ (1993) A model for HPPE-based lightweight add-on armor. Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on Ballistics, Quebec, Canada, Sept 1993, pp 701–709Google Scholar
  76. Van-Wegen FTM, EP Carton (2008) New lightweight metals for armors. Proceedings of the 24th international symposium on Ballistics, New Orleans, Sept 2008, pp 830–837Google Scholar
  77. Vural M, Erim Z, Konduk BA, Ucisik AH (2002) Ballistic perforation of alumina ceramic armors. In: McCauley JW et al (eds) Ceramic armor materials by design. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, pp 103–110Google Scholar
  78. Walker JD (2001) Ballistic limit of fabrics with resin. Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on ballistics, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 2001, pp 1409–1414Google Scholar
  79. Walker JD (2003) Analytically modeling hypervelocity penetration of thick ceramic targets. Int J Impact Eng 29:747–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walker JD, Anderson CE (1996) An analytic model for ceramic- faced light armor. In: Proceedings of the 16th international symposium on ballistics, San Francisco, Sept 1996, vol 3, pp 289–298Google Scholar
  81. Westerling L, Lundberg P, Lundberg B (2001) Tungsten long-rod penetration into confined cylinders of boron carbide at and above ordnance velocities. Int J Impact Eng 25:703–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilkins ML (1968) Third progress report of light armor program. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, UCRL – 50460Google Scholar
  83. Wilkins ML (1978) Mechanics of penetration and perforation. Int J Eng Sci 16:793–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wilkins ML, Landingham RL, Honodel CA (1970) Fifth progress report of light armor program. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, UCRL – 50980Google Scholar
  85. Woolsey P, Mariano S, Dokidko D (1989) Alternative test methodology for ballistic performance ranking of armor ceramics. Presented at the 5th annual TACOM armor coordinating conference, Monterey, Mar 1989Google Scholar
  86. Yaziv D, Rosenberg G, Partom Y (1986) Differential ballistic efficiency of appliqué armor. Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on ballistics, Shrivenham, UK, pp 315–319Google Scholar
  87. Zaera R (2011) Ballistic impacts on polymer matrix composites composite armor, personal armor. In: Abrate S (ed) Impact engineering of composite materials. Springer, Vienna, pp 305–403Google Scholar
  88. Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH (1992a) Penetration of laminated Kevlar by projectiles–I. Experimental investigation. Int J Solids Struct 29:399–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH (1992b) Penetration of laminated Kevlar by projectiles–II. Analytical model. Int J Solids Struct 29:421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ballistics CenterRAFAELHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations