3rd International Conference on Protective Structures (ICPS3)

Newcastle, Australia, 3-6 February 2015, M.G. Stewart & M.D. Netherton (Eds.)

AN EVALUATION OF THE FORRESTAL SCALING LAW FOR PREDICTING

THE PERFORMANCE OF TARGETS PERFORATED IN DUCTILE HOLE
FORMATION

Shannon Ryan*
Defence Science and Technology Organisation
Fishermans Bend, VIC, 3207, Australia. shannon.ryan@dsto.defence.gov.au (Corresponding Author)

Stephen J. Cimpoeru
Defence Science and Technology Organisation
Fishermans Bend, VIC, 3207, Australia. stephen.cimpoeru@dsto.defence.gov.au

ABSTRACT

Algorithms for predicting the outcome of terminal velocity events can be generally categorized as
highly simplified analytical methods, empirically-adjusted analytical methods, or fully empirical
methods. Typically, they are valid for a range of interactions in which the target fails in a consistent
manner. Forrestal and co-workers developed a scaling law for the case of terminal ballistic events
resulting in penetration and perforation of the target plate by ductile hole formation based on cavity
expansion theory. Requiring a minimum of two ballistic limit data points and large strain compression
curves, the Forrestal scaling law was found to be highly accurate when applied to a wide range of
aluminium alloy ballistic limit data, including both 7.62 mm APM2 and 12.7 mm APM2 projectiles.
Additionally, the accuracy of the scaling law was consistent when applied to a range of steel plates for
which the perforation mechanism (i.e. ductile hole formation) was experimentally observed. Typically
predicting a target V50 to within 5% of the experimentally-measured value, the Forrestal scaling law
was found to be more accurate than an earlier, simplified cavity expansion equation from Woodward
and the sharp projectile against thick metallic target equation from the JTCG/ME penetration equation
handbook.

KEYWORDS

Ballistic protection, terminal ballistics, armour, aluminium, predictive modelling.

INTRODUCTION

Predicting the outcome of ballistic interactions is a highly complex problem due to the wide range of
materials, geometries, loading rates, and subsequent failure mechanisms of projectile and armour
components. As such, there are a vast range of methods available for application to the problem.
Initially, these methods can be categorised as analytical (e.g. Birkhoff et al., 1948), empirical (e.g.
Ballistic Analysis Laboratory, 1961), or numerical (e.g. Walker and Anderson, 1995) in nature,
although it should be considered that most analytical and numerical techniques also include some
degree of empiricism. Backman and Goldsmith (1978) provided an overview of target failure modes,
reproduced in Figure 1, which serves to illustrate the complexity of the problem. Typically, the
applicability of a penetration algorithm is limited to a single failure mode.

The impact of a hard, sharp-nosed penetrator on a thick, ductile target is amongst the simplest
conditions to evaluate (ductile hole enlargement in Figure 1). For this condition, the ballistic limit of
the target armour can be estimated by the work required to expand a hole from zero to the projectile
diameter according to cylindrical cavity expansion theory.

Figure 1. Classification of failure modes to illustrate the influence of material properties, structure,
projectile and plate geometry on the outcome of a ballistic event (Backman and Goldsmith, 1990).

FORRESTAL CAVITY EXPANSION LAW

The perforation of aluminium alloy plates by steel non-deforming projectiles has been experimentally
observed to occur through ductile hole formation (e.g. Woodward, 1978). The energy required for this
process can be equated to the work required to expand a cylindrical hole in the plate from a zero initial
radius to that of the penetrating projectile. Forrestal et al. (1990) derive a relationship for the ballistic
limit of a target perforated in ductile hole formation in terms of a quasi-static radial stress required to
open a cylindrical cavity from zero initial radius, s.. Assuming the effects of target inertia are
negligible, the ballistic limit velocity, Vbl, is calculated as:

2
(1)

where
1 (2)
3 3

ln
, 0 1 (3)
1

2 1
1 (4)
3

p is the projectile density, h is the target thickness, L is the projectile shank length, l is the projectile
nose length, k1 is related to the projectile nose geometry (see Forrestal and Warren, 2009), Y is the
target yield strength, E is the target elastic modulus, is the target Poissons ratio (assumed
incompressible, hence = 0.5), and n is the strain hardening exponent used to fit the stress-strain curve,

,
(5)
,

For a given projectile, Eq. (1) simplifies to:

(6)

where K is an empirically determined constant related to the projectile material and geometry.

Thus, if the compressive stress-strain behaviour of a material is known, and provided that material will
be perforated in ductile hole formation, Eq. (6) enables the ballistic performance of a wide range of
different materials and thicknesses to be predicted from only a small number of ballistic firings.

ICPS3 2015 2
MECHANICAL TESTING

To derive the material parameters required for the Forrestal model (Eq. (5)) a large magnitude, quasi-
static compression test is required. Skube (2009) prescribes a technique to measure the required
properties using an L/D = 1.5 cylindrical sample with grooved and lubricated ends to minimize friction
on the plattens and prevent barrelling of the sample. The test specimen geometry is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Sample geometry after Skube (2009) for large strain compression testing of aluminium.

The power law fit has been published for a number of aluminium alloys by Forrestal and co-workers
(see Table 1). Additional data has been generated for 2024-T351 and 5083-H112 aluminium, the
results of which are also provided in Table 1. Compression testing was performed on a minimum of
four samples of each alloy, machined from the through-thickness direction of nominally 38-40 mm
thick plates, and loaded at a constant engineering strain rate of 10-4/s. Selected photographs from the
compression tests are provided in Figure 3 together with an example of the power law fit for 2024-
T351. Some difficulties were experienced during the compression testing, primarily associated with
ensuring consistent axial loading of the specimens and fracturing of the 2024-T351 specimens. A
floating pivot was used to ensure the test specimen was centred.

7.E+05

6.E+05

5.E+05
Truestress(kPa)

4.E+05

3.E+05

2.E+05
2024T351c
1.E+05
Powerfit
0.E+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Truestrain()
Figure 3. Left: Large strain compression testing of aluminium alloys after Skube (2009); Right: fit of
the strain hardening power-law to a representative true stress-true strain curve for 2024-T351.

Table 1. Material stress-strain power law data.

Alloy E (GPa) Y (MPa) n (-) Source
2024-T351 73.1 324 0.12 New
2139-T8 73.1 430 0.085* Casem and Dandekar, 2012
5083-H112 70.3 200 0.108 New
5083-H116 71 240 0.108 Brvik et al., 2010
5083-H131 70.3 276 0.084 Forrestal et al., 1990
6061-T651 69 262 0.085 Piekutowski et al., 1996
6082-T651 69 265 0.06 Forrestal et al., 2014
7075-T651 71.1 520 0.06 Forrestal et al., 2010
*Fit to quasi-static (0.001/s) true stress-true strain curve (Casem and Dandekar, 2012)

ICPS3 2015 3
BALLISTIC TESTING

Ballistic testing has been performed on a range of aluminium alloys and thicknesses to determine the
V50, as per MIL-STD-662F (US Department of Defence, 1997). All tests have been performed with
7.62 mm APM2 projectiles at normal incidence (i.e. impact at 90 to the target surface). For details of
the projectile see Moynihan et al. (2000). A summary of the test results is provided in Table 2,
including additional data from literature.

Table 2. Ballistic limit data with 7.62 mm APM2 projectiles.

Alloy Thickness (mm) V50 (m/s) Ref
2024-T351 26 651.7 New
2024-T351 30 715.4 New
2024-T351 34 773.9 New
2024-T351 38 830.6 New
2139-T8 25.2 682.1 Cheeseman et al. (2008)
2139-T8 32.3 782.7 Cheeseman et al. (2008)
2139-T8 39.0 860.1 Cheeseman et al. (2008)
2139-T8 40.9 892.5 Cheeseman et al. (2008)
5083-H112 20 474.3 New
5083-H112 30 588.6 New
5083-H112 40 697.7 New
5083-H116 20 492 Brvik et al. (2010)
5083-H116 40* 722 Brvik et al. (2010)
5083-H116 60** 912 Brvik et al. (2010)
5083-H131 26 588 Forrestal et al. (2014)
5083-H131 37.8 712 Forrestal et al. (2014)
5083-H131 38 738.5 New
5083-H131 50.9 876 Forrestal et al. (2014)
5083-H131 54.7 890 Forrestal et al. (2014)
5083-H131 57.2 927 Forrestal et al. (2014)
6061-T651 25 578.3 New
6061-T651 25.7 596 Gooch Jr. et al. (2007)
6061-T651 26 583 Gooch Jr. et al. (2007)
6061-T651 38.8 754 Gooch Jr. et al. (2007)
6061-T651 50 896.2 New
6061-T651 51.2 883 Gooch Jr. et al. (2007)
6082-T651 20 501.0 Forrestal et al. (2014)
7075-T651 20 628 Forrestal et al. (2010)
7075-T651 26 718.4 New
7075-T651 30 784.3 New
7075-T651 32 817.5 New
7075-T651 38 909.5 New
7075-T651 40* 909 Forrestal et al. (2010)
*2 20 mm thick plates **3 20 mm thick plates

RESULTS

The ballistic test data (V50) from Table 2, excluding that on 2139-T8, is plotted in Figure 4 in terms of
(sh)1/2. Using a least squares fit the constant K is determined, as per Eq.(6), equal to 110.25. The
ballistic data on 2139-T8 has been excluded from the calculation as it will be used to assess the
predictive accuracy of the derived relationship. The coefficient of determination, R2, for the linear fit is
0.966, indicating a very high level of agreement.

In order to predict the ballistic performance of other aluminium alloys impacted by 7.62 mm APM2
projectiles, only the power law parameters of the material stress-strain relationship and the scaling
parameter, K = 110.25, are required. For 2139-T8, the ballistic performance predicted by the Forrestal
law is compared in Table 3 to experimental measurements from Cheeseman et al. (2008).

ICPS3 2015 4
 1000 1000
K=110.25
900 900

800 800
V50(m/s)

V50(m/s)
700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 4 5 6 7 8 9
Thickness(mm) (sh)1/2

Figure 4. Ballistic limit test results for impact of 7.62 mm APM2 projectiles on aluminium targets.
Left: in terms of target material and thickness; right: in terms of Forrestal et al.s scaling law.

Table 3. Predicting the ballistic limit of 2139-T8 aluminium plates impacted by 7.62 mm APM2
projectiles using the Forrestal scaling law for ductile hole formation.
Projectile Target Thickness V50 (m/s) Variance
(mm) Predicted Measured (m/s) %
7.62 mm APM2 2139-T8 25.2 713.5 682.1 31.4 4.6
7.62 mm APM2 2139-T8 32.3 808.0 782.7 25.3 3.2
7.62 mm APM2 2139-T8 39.0 887.7 860.1 27.6 3.2
7.62 mm APM2 2139-T8 40.9 909.1 892.5 16.7 1.9

Application of the Scaling Law to Other Projectiles and Target Materials

Additional data from testing on aluminium alloys with 12.7 mm APM2 projectiles was published by
Kymer and Farzinger (1957) and Showalter et al. (2008) and can be used to assess the applicability of
the Forrestal et al. scaling law for projectiles other than the 7.62 mm APM2. The results are plotted in
Figure 5 together with an evaluation of the predictive accuracy. The quasi-static stress parameter, s, is
defined for 7075-T6 using 7075-T651 data from Table 1, for 2024-T4 using 2024-T351 data from
Table 1, while for 5059-H131 and 5059-H136 yield strength and elastic modulus are sourced from
product technical data sheets and a power coefficient of n = 0.115 is determined from a fit to quasi-
static compression data from Prez-Bergquist et al. (2011). With the exception of the 19.05 mm thick
7075-T6 result, the scaling law is fitted to within 33 m/s (5.2%) of the measured V50.

Dey et al. (2004) performed ballistic tests on three steel grades with yield strengths ranging from 499
992 MPa. The conical nose, hardened tool steel projectile (51-53 RC) was reported as having
perforated all target materials by ductile hole enlargement. As such, the Forrestal scaling law should
be applicable. To assess the accuracy of the scaling law applied to steel plates perforated by ductile
hole formation, the scaling parameter K was derived from ballistic impact data of the 20 mm calibre
conical nose projectile on 5083-H116 aluminium (from Brvik et al., 2004). Mechanical properties Y
and E were defined for the three steels in Dey et al. (2004), and strain hardening parameters, n, were
empirically fit to quasi-static representations of the Johnson-Cook strength model (modified to include
elastic strain). The results of the assessment are summarised in Figure 6. As shown, provided the
perforation mechanisms remains ductile hole formation, the Forrestal scaling law remains highly
accurate, predicting the V50 of the three steel types within 7.7%. In all cases, the predicted
performance was below that of the measured V50, indicating that the calculated stress parameter s
may have been overly high.

ICPS3 2015 5
 900 Alloy h s V50 (m/s)
(mm) (GPa) Predict. Meas.
2024-T4 19.05 1.452 420.8 416.1
800 2024-T4 25.4 1.452 485.9 509.0
2024-T4 38.1 1.452 595.1 618.7
7075-T6 19.05 1.816 470.6 384.0
700
7075-T6 25.4 1.816 543.4 516.6
7075-T6 38.1 1.816 665.5 632.5
V50(m/s)

600 5059-H131 47.8 1.374 648.2 660.5

5059-H131 51.2 1.374 671.1 679.7
2024T4 5059-H131 51.4 1.374 672.1 670.3
500 7075T6 5059-H131 61.6 1.374 736.3 756.2
5059H131 5059-H131 64.2 1.374 751.3 753.5
400 5059H136 5059-H131 64.5 1.374 753.1 768.7
K=80.26
5059-H131 76.4 1.374 819.5 833.9
5059-H131 76.6 1.374 820.5 819.6
300 5059-H136 51.0 1.302 652.1 647.1
5 7 9 11 5059-H136 64.3 1.302 731.7 742.5
(sh)1/2 5059-H136 77.1 1.302 801.6 830.3

Figure 5. Forrestal scaling law applied to aluminium targets impacted by 12.7 mm APM2 projectiles.

450
Material Y E n*
(MPa) (GPa) (-)
400
Weldox 460E 499 210 0.065
Weldox 700E 859 210 0.030
350
Weldox 900E 992 210 0.028

* Fit to quasi-static Johnson-Cook strength curve (including elastic strain)

300
V50(m/s)

250
Material h s V50 (m/s)
5083H116 (mm) (GPa) Predict. Meas.
Weldox460E
5083-H116 15 1.109 212.4 216.8
200
5083-H116 20 1.109 245.2 249
Weldox700E
5083-H116 25 1.109 274.2 256.6
150 Weldox900E 5083-H116 30 1.109 300.3 309.7
K=52.07 Weldox 460E 12 2.209 268.1 290.6
100 Weldox 700E 12 3.155 320.4 335
3 4 5 6 7 8 Weldox 900E 12 3.532 339.0 340.1
(sh)1/2

Figure 6. Application of the Forrestal scaling law to steel targets perforated by 20 mm calibre conical
nose hardened steel projectiles by ductile hole formation. Projectile schematic from Dey et al. (2004).

Comparison with other methods

In Figure 7 the accuracy of the Forrestal scaling law is compared to a cavity expansion theory by
Woodward (1978) and the semi-empirical approach specified in the Joint Technical Coordinating
Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME), Anti-Air handbook (1990). The results are plotted in
terms of the ratio of predicted ballistic limit to measured ballistic limit, V50c/V50m. As such, a value
smaller than unity indicates a conservative prediction while a value greater than unity is non-
conservative. Although all three models consistently provide predictions within 20% of the measured
result, the Forrestal model is clearly the most consistently accurate. The Woodward model, also based
on cavity expansion theory, is shown to behave similarly to the Forrestal scaling law. The primary
difference between the two methods is in specification of the stress term. Forrestal et al. define a
quasi-static radial stress based on the target material mechanical properties and strain hardening power
law, while Woodward simply uses a flow stress value measured at a true strain of 1.0. For the 7.62 mm
APM2 projectiles the flow stress value is shown to provide an excellent agreement with the test data,
however for the 12.7 mm APM2 the flow stress term provides an over-prediction of target resistance,
while for the steel targets the flow stress term provides an under-prediction (more so for the harder

ICPS3 2015 6
steels which display less strain hardening). The predictive accuracy of the JTCG/ME equation varies
significantly with target material, and is highly sensitive to the definition of the empirical constants. Of
the 53 target configurations (i.e. material type and thickness), empirical constants were defined in the
JTCG handbook for 18 configurations, while for the remaining 35 the constants were estimated using
the recommended method.

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1
V50c/V50m ()

0.9

0.8

0.7
7.62 mmAPM2 12.7 mmAPM2 20mm
0.6
conical
Forrestal Woodward JTCG/ME

Figure 7. Comparing the predictive accuracy of the Forrestal scaling law, JTCG/ME penetration
equation for a sharp attack against a thick panel, and Woodwards ductile hole formation model in
terms of the ratio of predicted ballistic limit, V50c, to measured ballistic limit, V50m.

CONCLUSIONS

The ballistic limit of plates perforated in ductile hole formation can be estimated by the work done in
expanding a cavity from zero initial radius to that of the projectile calibre. Forrestal and co-workers
defined a method based on cylindrical cavity expansion theory in which the ballistic limit scales
linearly in terms of plate thickness and a stress term, s, calculated from material elastic modulus,
yield strength, and a strain hardening power law fit. The proposed technique was evaluated for a wide
range of ballistic tests against aluminium targets with 7.62 mm and 12.7 mm calibre armour piercing
projectiles, as well as a selection of steel targets against 20 mm conical-nose hardened steel projectiles
that were experimentally observed to fail in ductile hole formation. The predictions of the Forrestal
scaling law were consistently in very good agreement with the experimentally-measured V50
(typically 5%). The accuracy of the approach was found to be superior to that of an earlier, more
simplified ductile hole formation theory and a widely used empirical equation from the Joint Technical
Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME) penetration equation handbook.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The contributions of Frank Griffo (DSTO Melbourne), Steve Pattie (formerly DSTO Melbourne), and
Darren Edwards (DSTO Melbourne) in conducting the reported ballistic tests and providing additional
ballistic data are gratefully acknowledged.

ICPS3 2015 7
REFERENCES
Backman, M.E., Goldsmith, W. (1978) The Mechanics of Penetration of Projectiles into Targets,
International Journal of Engineering Science, Vol. 16(1), pp. 1-99.
Ballistic Analysis Laboratory (1961) The Resistance of Various Metallic Materials to Perforation by
Steel Fragments, Empirical Relationships for Fragment Residual Velocity and Residual Weight,
Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Birkhoff, G., MacDougall, D.P., Pugh, E.M., Taylor, G. (1948) Explosives with Lined Cavities,
Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 563-582.
Brvik, T., Clausen, A.H., Hopperstad, O.S., Langseth, M. (2004) Perforation of AA5083-H116
Aluminium Plates with Conical-Nose Steel Projectiles Experimental Study, International
Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 30(4), pp. 367-384.
Brvik, T., Forrestal, M.J., Warren, T.L. (2010) Perforation of 5083-H116 Aluminum Armor Plates
with Ogive-Nose Rods and 7.62 mm APM2 Bullets, Exp. Mechanics, Vol. 50, pp. 969-978.
Casem, D.T., Dandekar, D.P. (2012) Shock and Mechanical Response of 2139-T8 Aluminum,
Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 142(3-4), pp. 269-301.
Cheeseman, B., Gooch Jr, W.A., Burkins, M.S. (2008) Ballistic Evaluation of Aluminum 2139-T8,
Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Ballistics, 22-26 September, New Orleans.
Dey, S., Brvik, T., Hopperstad, O.S., Leinum, J.R., Langseth, M. (2004) The Effect of Target
Strength on the Perforation of Steel Plates Using Three Different Projectile Nose Shapes,
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 30, pp. 1005-1038.
Forrestal, M.J., Luk, V.K., Brar, N.S. (1990) Perforation of Aluminum Armor Plates with Conical-
Nose Projectiles, Mechanics of Materials, Vol. 10, pp. 97-105.
Forrestal, M.J., Warren, T.L. (2009) Perforation Equations for Conical and Ogival Nose Rigid
Projectiles into Aluminum Target Plates, Int. J. of Impact Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 220-225.
Forrestal, M.J., Brvik, T., Warren, T.L. (2010) Perforation of 7075-T651 Aluminum Armor Plates
with 7.62 mm APM2 Bullets, Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 50, pp. 1245-1251.
Forrestal, M.J., Brvik, T., Warren, T.L., Chen, W. (2014) Perforation of 6082-T651 Aluminum
Plates with 7.62 mm APM2 Bullets at Normal and Oblique Impacts, Experimental Mechanics,
Vol. 54, pp. 471-481.
Gooch Jr, W.A., Burkins, M.S., Squillacioti, R.J. (2007) Ballistic Testing of Commercial Aluminum
Alloys and Alternative Processing Technologies to Increase the Availability of Aluminum
Armor, Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics, 16-20 April, Tarragona.
Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness, Anti-Air (1985), Penetration
Equations Handbook for Kinetic Energy Penetrators, Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Kymer, J.R., Farzinger, H.E. (1957) Ballistic Tests of 2024-T4 and 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloys,
Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, R-1395.
Moynihan, T.J., Chou, S.-C., Mihalcin, A.L. (2000) Application of the Depth-of-Penetration Test
Methodology to Characterize Ceramics for Personnel Protection, Army Research Laboratory,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, ARL-TR-2219.
Prez-Bergquist, S.J., Gray III, G.T., Cerreta, E.K., Trujillo, C.P., Prez-Bergquist, A. (2011) The
Dynamic and Quasi-Static Mechanical Response of Three Aluminum Armor Alloys: 5059, 5083
and 7039, Materials Science and Engineering A, Vol. 528, pp. 8733-8741.
Piekutowski, A.J., Forrestal, M.J., Poorman, K.L., Warren, T.L. (1996) Perforation of Aluminum
Plates with Ogive-Nose Steel Rods at Normal and Oblique Impacts, International Journal of
Impact Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 877-887.
Showalter, D.D., Placzankis, B.E., Burkins, M.S. (2008) Ballistic Performance Testing of Aluminum
5059-H131 and 5059-H136 for Armour Applications, US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, ARL-TR-4427.
Skube, S. (2009) Large Strain Compression Testing of Ductile Materials at Quasi-Static and Dynamic
Strain Rates, Masters Dissertation, Purdue University.
US Department of Defense. (1997) V50 Ballistic Test for Armor, MIL-STD-662F.
Walker, J.D., Anderson Jr., C.E. (1995) A Time-Dependent Model for Long-Rod Penetration,
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 19-48.
Woodward, R. (1978) The Penetration of Metal Targets by Conical Projectiles, International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 599-607.

ICPS3 2015 8