Failure Mode of Ductile Hole Formation in Thick Ti–6Al–4V Targets Having Equiaxed and Lamellar Microstructures

  • Chao Zheng
  • Xiurong Zhu
  • Haiying Xin
  • Zhiwen Shao
  • Huan Wang
  • Huaxin Peng
  • Xingwang Cheng
  • Fuchi Wang
Conference paper

Abstract

The 40 mm Ti–6Al–4V thick targets having equiaxed and lamellar microstructures were normally impacted by 12.7 mm and 14.5 mm arm-piercing projectiles. The Ti–6Al–4V targets having equiaxed microstructure showed better ballistic impact property compared with the Ti–6Al–4V targets having lamellar microstructure. The analysis of macro-damage and micro-damage features revealed that the failure mode of ductile hole formation in 40 mm thick Ti–6Al–4V targets should be divided into three stages: cratering, steady penetration and perforation. The role that adiabatic shear bands played varied in the different stages of penetration. In the stage of steady penetration, the plastic deformation was concentrated in adiabatic shear bands to coordinate with the squeezing into of the projectile. While in the stage of perforation, adiabatic shear bands were still failure paths for the formation of spalling fragments from the rear surface.

Keywords

Ti–6Al–4V targets Microstructure Ballistic impact property Adiabatic shear bands 

References

  1. 1.
    M. Burkins, W.W. Love, J.R. Wood, Effect of Annealing Temperature on Ballistic Limit Velocity of Ti-6Al-4V ELI; ARL-MR-359; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, August 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.D. Bartus, Evaluation of Titanium-5Al-5Mo-5V-3Cr(Ti-5553) Alloy Against Fragment and Armor-Piercing Projectiles; ARL-TR-4996; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, September 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.L. Woodward, Metallographic features associated with the penetration of titanium alloy targets. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 20 (1978) 599–607.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H.A. Grebe, H-R. Pak, M.A. Meyers, Adiabatic shear localization in titanium and Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Metall. Trans. A. 16A (1985) 761–775.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Leppin, R.L. Woodward, Perforation mechanisms in thin titanium alloy targets. Int. J. Impact Eng. 4(2) (1986) 107–115.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Me-Bar, Z. Rosenberg, On the adiabatic shear of Ti-6Al-4V ballistic targets. Int. J. Impact Eng. 19(4) (1997) 311–318.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Martinez, L.E. Murr, A. Ramirez, M.I. Lopez, S.M. Gaytan, Dynamic deformation and adiabatic shear microstructures associated with ballistic plug formation and fracture in Ti–6Al–4V targets. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 454–455 (2007) 581–589.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Sukumar, B.B. Singh, Ballistic impact behavior of β-CEZ Ti alloy against 7.62 mm armour piercing projectiles. Int. J. Impact Eng. 54 (2013) 149–160.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zheng C, Wang FC, Cheng XW, et al. Effect of microstructures on ballistic impact property of Ti–6Al–4V targets. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 608 (2014) (53–62).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    X. Liu, C. Tan, J. Zhang, F. Wang, H. Cai, Correlation of adiabatic shearing behavior with fracture in Ti-6Al-4V alloys with different microstructures. Int. J. Impact Eng. 36 (2009) 1143–1149.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Lutjering, J.C. Williams. Titanium, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.E. Backman, W. Goldsmith, The mechanics of penetration of projectiles into targets. Int. J. Impact Eng. 16 (1978) 1–99.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. I. Grace, T. Sherrick, K. D. Kimsey, Penetration studies of rods impacting targets of finite thickness using the CTH Eulerian hydrocode. Military, Government, and Aerospace Simulation, Simulation Series (SCS), 27 (1995) 53–58.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Demir, M. Ubeyli, R.O. Yildirim, Investigation on the ballistic impact behavior of various alloys against 7.62 mm armor piercing projectile. Mater. Design. 29(10) (2008) 2009–2016.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Ubeyli, T. Demir, H. Deniz, R.O. Yildirim, O. Keles, Investigation on the ballistic performance of a dual phase steel against 7.62 mm AP projectile. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 527 (2010) 2036–2044.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    YB. Gu, V.F. Nesterenko, Dynamic behavior of HIPed Ti–6Al–4V. Int. J. Impact Eng. 34 (2007) 771–783.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    XQ Liu, CW Tan, J Zhang, Influence of microstructure and strain rate on adiabatic shearing behavior in Ti–6Al–4V alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 501 (2009) 30–36.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.A. Meyers, C.T. Aimone, Dynamic fracture (spalling) of metals. Prog. Mater. Sci. 28(1) (1983) 1–96.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Antoun, L. Seaman, D.R. Curran, G. Kanel, S.V. Razorenov, A.V. Utkin, Spall Fracture, Springer-Verlag New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.K. Solberg, J.R. Leinum, J.D. Embury, S. Dey, T. Borvik, O.S. Hopperstad, Localised shear banding in Weldox steel plates impacted by projectiles. Mech. Mater. 39(9) (2007) 865–880.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.G. Lee, S-H. Lee, Correlation of dynamic torsional properties with adiabatic shear banding behavior in ballistically impacted aluminum-lithium alloys. Metall. Mater. Trans. A. 29 (1998) 227–235.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Zheng
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiurong Zhu
    • 1
  • Haiying Xin
    • 1
  • Zhiwen Shao
    • 1
  • Huan Wang
    • 2
  • Huaxin Peng
    • 2
  • Xingwang Cheng
    • 3
  • Fuchi Wang
    • 3
  1. 1.Ningbo Branch of China Ordnance AcademyNingboChina
  2. 2.Institute for Composites Science Innovation, School of Material Science and EngineeringZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  3. 3.National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Materials Under Shock and Impact, School of Material Science and EngineeringBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations