Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Ceramics International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ceramint
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The aim of this study is to investigate the ballistic behavior of ceramic/composite structures with different
Ballistic performance thicknesses and different reinforcements, numerically. The guns were shot at four different velocities on com-
Alumina posite models using armor-piercing 7.62 M61 AP projectiles. The alumina ceramics forming the front surface of
7.62 M61 AP projectile the composite structure were used in three different thicknesses. The fabric-reinforced epoxy composite is
Hybrid composite
modeled to have six different compositions in total: aramid/epoxy, S2 glass/epoxy, carbon-aramid/epoxy, and
Aramid/epoxy
Carbon-aramid/epoxy
hybrid aramid/S2 glass/epoxy with three different thickness ratios. ANSYS was used as preprocessor and LS-
S2 glass/epoxy DYNA was used as solver. Multilayer MAT 59 and MAT 22 models were used for composite materials while MAT
110 material model was used for alumina ceramic material. As a result, the numerical analysis revealed that the
alumina/S2 glass/ epoxy composites show higher ballistic performance than the others in the data, based on the
input-output velocity of the projectiles when the areal density of armors is not considered. Also, when all the
ceramic thicknesses and areal density of armors are considered, it is found that the aramid/epoxy backing plate
gives higher ballistic performance than the others.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ramazan.karakuzu@deu.edu.tr (R. Karakuzu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.10.042
Received 13 September 2018; Received in revised form 5 October 2018; Accepted 5 October 2018
Available online 10 October 2018
0272-8842/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
In this study, JH-2 material model is used for modelling ceramic on where ρ0 is the initial density and ρ is the present density. The Hugoniot
the front side of the target. Composite Failure Solid Model and elastic limit is given by
1652
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
Table 2
Mechanical parameters for composite materials [19–21].
Aramid/ Epoxy S2 Glass/ Epoxy Carbon-Aramid/ Epoxy
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Table 3 2 3 4μhel
HEL = K1 μhel + K2 μ hel + K3 μ hel +g
Mechanical parameters for 4340 Steel [22]. 3(1 + μhel ) (9)
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
and the pressure component at the Hugoniot elastic limit is given by
Density ρ 7830 kg/m3 2 3 3
Elastic Modulus E 209.5 GPa
P hel = K1 μhel + K2 μ hel + (K3 μ hel ) (10)
Poisson's Ratio ν 0.28 –
Static Yield Strength A 792 MPa where K1, K2, and K3 are the material constants. μhel can be found by
Strain Hardening Modulus B 510 MPa solving Eq. (9) [19].
Strain Hardening exponent n 0.26 – Composite Failure Solid Model is based on the Composite Damage
Strain rate coefficient C 0.014 s−1
Model. Corresponding relationships for Composite Failure Solid Model
is demonstrated in the following equations [20,22].
Longitudinal tension is given as,
σ12 τ2 τ2
+ 122 + 312 > 1, σ1 > 0
Xt2 S12 S31 (11)
σ22 2
τ12 τ2
+ + 232 > 1, σ2 > 0
Yt2 2
S12 S23 (12)
σ12
> 1, σ1 < 0
Xc2 (16)
σ22 σ ⎛ Yc2 τ2 τ2
2
+ 2⎡⎢ ⎜
2
−1⎟⎞ ⎤
⎥ + 122 + 312 > 1, σ2 < 0
Fig. 2. Isometric view of quarter model of the geometry. (S12 + S23) Yc ⎣ ⎝ (S12 + S23) ⎠⎦ S12 S31 (17)
1653
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
Fig. 3. Right views of models with three different ceramic thicknesses, (a) 6 mm, (b) 8 mm, (c) 10 mm.
Table 4
Combinations of composite back side of Al2O3 ceramic.
Combination Composite material Thickness (mm)
1 S2 Glass/epoxy 10
2 Aramid/epoxy 10
3 Carbon-Aramid/epoxy 10
4 Hybrid 1 S2 glass/epoxy 7
Aramid/epoxy 3
5 Hybrid 2 S2 glass/epoxy 5
Aramid/epoxy 5
6 Hybrid 3 S2 glass/epoxy 3
Aramid/epoxy 7
Table 5
Comparison between residual velocities of reference versus residual velocities
of present study.
Initial impact velocity (m/s) 1400 1250 1100 900 800 600 500
Reference residual velocity (m/s) 995 721 630 550 470 285 175
Present residual velocity (m/s) 940 732 595 526 489 300 160
the transverse shear stresses. S12 is the in-plane shear strength and S31
and S23 are the transverse shear strengths.
Projectile material is chosen as the hard steel. Thus, The Johnson-
Fig. 4. Front view of quarter geometry mesh.
Cook material model can be used for projectile. In this study, Simplified
Johnson-Cook Model is used instead of Full Johnson-Cook Model.
σ32 σ ⎛ Zc2 2 2
⎞ ⎤ + τ31 + τ23 > 1, σ < 0 Although the Johnson-Cook Model consists of thermal effect, thermal
+ 3⎡ ⎜ −1⎟ 3
(S31 + S23) 2 Zc ⎢
⎣ ⎝ (S31 + S23)
2
⎠⎦
⎥ 2
S31 2
S23 (18) softening and damage are neglected in Simplified Johnson-Cook Model.
It works 50% faster than Full Johnson-Cook Model and it does not re-
Where Xt, Yt, and Zt are the tensile strengths in longitudinal, transverse, quire using the EOS (Equations of State) parameters compared to Full
and out-of plane directions, respectively. Xc, Yc, and Zc are the com- Johnson-Cook Model. Corresponding relationship for Simplified
pressive strengths in longitudinal, transverse, and out-of plane direc- Johnson-Cook model is given in the following equation [20].
tions, respectively. τ12 is the in-plane shear stress whereas, τ23andτ31 are
1654
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
Table 6
Strike velocities and residual velocities of projectile on target model with
16 mm thickness for all used backing plates.
Backing plates
Strike velocity of projectile (m/ 850 800 750 700
s)
Table 7
Strike velocities and residual velocities of projectile on target model with
18 mm thickness for all used backing plates.
Backing plates
Strike velocity of projectile (m/ 850 800 750 700
s)
Table 8
Asgari's study [4]. Mechanical properties are given in Table 1 with JH-2
Strike velocities and residual velocities of projectile on target model with
20 mm thickness for all used backing plates. model parameters.
Mechanical properties of aramid/epoxy, S2 glass/epoxy, and
Backing plates
carbon-aramid/epoxy composite materials are taken from Berk et al.
Strike velocity of projectile (m/ 850 800 750 700
s)
[20–22]. Mechanical properties with derived mechanical parameters
are shown in Table 2.
Residual velocity of projectile Aramid/Epoxy 473 366 281 250 M61 type 7.62 × 51 mm AP (Armor Piercing) projectile is used as
(m/s) Carbon-Aramid/ 461 361 303 220 an impactor. 4340 steel is chosen for projectile material. Material
Epoxy
S2 Glass/Epoxy 399 316 265 207
properties are taken from ANSYS 17 Engineering Data Material Model
Hybrid 1 460 362 287 230 [23]. Mechanical parameters of 4340 steel are shown in Table 3 with
Hybrid 2 445 351 299 225 the Simplified Johnson-Cook Model.
Hybrid 3 427 349 268 231
1655
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
Fig. 10. Views of target model with 16 mm thickness for aramid/epoxy backing plate at 800 m/s strike velocity, (a) t = 0 ms, (b) t = 0.025 ms, (c) t = 0.05 ms, (d)
t = 0.05 ms without projectile view.
1656
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
Fig. 11. View of target model with 18 mm thickness for aramid/epoxy backing plate at 800 m/s strike velocity, (a) t = 0 ms, (b) t = 0.03 ms, (c) t = 0.06 ms, (d)
t = 0.06 ms without projectile view.
the same after the modified placement sequences, only hybrid sorts composites at all strike velocities when the backing plate is aramid/
with front face S2 glass/epoxy and back face aramid/epoxy are given. epoxy for all ceramic thicknesses. For the ceramic thickness of 6 mm,
Six different target combinations are shot by four different velocities the least damaged area occurs when the backing plate is also S2 glass/
for every target thickness. Strike velocities versus residual velocities of epoxy. It is observed that when the backing plates are different, da-
projectile on target models with 16 mm, 18 mm and 20 mm thicknesses maged area of the ceramic after the impact did not affect the ballistic
are shown in Tables 6–8 and Figs. 7–9 for all used backing plates, re- performance of the target at the same time. For the ceramic thicknesses
spectively. of 8 mm and 10 mm, the damaged area was determined to be almost the
When the Figs. 7–9 and Tables 6–8 are investigated, ballistic per- same on the other backing plate composites.
formance of target with S2 glass/epoxy backing plate gives better re- It was found that the deformation increases on the projectile when
sults than others for all strike velocities and all ceramic thicknesses the same backing plate is used on the target and as the impact velocity
Hybrid 3, Hybrid 2, Hybrid 1, aramid/epoxy and carbon-aramid/epoxy increases for the ceramic thicknesses of 6 mm and 10 mm. As the impact
follow S2 glass/epoxy, respectively. The ballistic performances of Hy- velocity increases, the further blunting on the projectile is observed for
brid 1, Hybrid 2 and Hybrid 3, formed by the combination of aramid/ both ceramic thicknesses of 6 mm and 10 mm. In addition, the effect of
epoxy and S2 glass/epoxy, were found to match the combined thickness mushrooming is observed to increase for ceramic thickness of 6 mm to
ratios of S2 glass/epoxy and aramid/epoxy. In hybrid composites, when decrease for ceramic thickness of 10 mm. For the ceramic thickness of
the thickness of aramid increases and the thickness of S2 glass de- 8 mm, it was observed that there are no deformation differences on the
creases, ballistic performance of hybrid composite increases. The dif- projectile when the same backing plate was used on the target and as
ference in the ballistic performance between the Aramid/epoxy and the the impact velocity increases. After the impact, blunting on the pro-
Carbon-aramid/epoxy was slightly reduced for 750 m/s and 800 m/s jectile is observed and the effect of mushrooming is observed.
velocities. At 750 m/s strike velocity, the ballistic performance of It was also observed that the ceramic and composite surfaces were
Carbon-aramid/epoxy is better than the ballistic performance of separated by the impact in all ceramic-composite combinations. In high
Aramid/epoxy for ceramic thicknesses of 6 mm and 8 mm (Figs. 6 and strike velocities of the projectile, the connection between composite
7) while Aramid/epoxy is better than the ballistic performance of and ceramic was more stable for all ceramic thicknesses.
Carbon-aramid/epoxy for ceramic thicknesses of 10 mm (Fig. 8). The When compared to the response of targets with all the used com-
ballistic performances of Hybrid 1 and Hybrid 2 are also even worse posite backing plates to projectile, at the same strike velocity, it was
than the ballistic performance of Aramid/epoxy for ceramic thicknesses found that deformation was directly proportional to ballistic perfor-
of 10 mm as shown in Fig. 8. mance. As a result, when using S2 glass/epoxy backing plate, it was
Views of target models with 16 mm, 18 mm and 20 mm thicknesses observed that the deformation of the projectile had the highest value
for aramid/epoxy backing plate can be seen in Figs. 10–12 at 800 m/s and when using Carbon-aramid/epoxy backing plate for ceramic
strike velocity, respectively. thicknesses of 6 mm and 8 mm and Aramid/epoxy for ceramic thickness
It is seen from Figs. 10–12 that the damage is spread out to a larger of 10 mm, it was observed that the deformation of the projectile was the
area on ceramic front face after impact compared to other backing plate lowest. Moreover, there was no difference between the appearance of
1657
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
Fig. 12. View of target model with 20 mm thickness for aramid/epoxy backing plate at 800 m/s strike velocity, (a) t = 0 ms, (b) t = 0.05 ms, (c) t = 0.1 ms, (d)
t = 0.1 ms without projectile view.
Fig. 13. Velocity versus time curves of targets model with 16 mm, 18 mm and 20 mm thicknesses for all used backing plates at 800 m/s strike velocity.
1658
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
ceramic thicknesses.
Comparison of velocity versus time curve of target model with
16 mm, 18 mm and 20 mm thicknesses is given in Fig. 13 for all used
backing plates at 800 m/s strike velocity. It is seen from this figure that
the differences between projectile velocities for all composites decrease
by increasing the ceramic thickness. Projectile residual velocity is the
lowest for the target when S2 glass/epoxy is used as the backing plate
for all thicknesses. It means that target with S2 glass/epoxy has the best
protection. Hybrid 3, Hybrid 2 and Hybrid 1 follow S2 glass. Residual
velocities which are nearly same in the aramid and carbon-aramid ones
have the worst results.
Residual velocity of projectile versus thickness of ceramic with all
Fig. 14. Residual velocity of projectile versus thickness of ceramic curve with
used backing plates is shown in Figs. 14–17. From these figures, the
all used backing plates at 700 m/s strike velocity.
effect of the ceramic thickness on ballistic performance can be seen
more clearly. It is also seen from these figures that residual velocities
decrease nearly linear according to the ceramic thickness except for
strike velocity of 700 m/s.
Lastly, when the ballistic performance/areal density ratio is con-
sidered, it can be said that the highest possible ceramic thickness should
be preferred. Furthermore, S2 glass/epoxy had the highest ballistic
performance at 6 mm ceramic thickness. Hybrid 1 had the highest
ballistic performance at 8 mm ceramic thickness and carbon-aramid/
epoxy had the highest ballistic performance at 10 mm ceramic thick-
ness.
When all the ceramic thicknesses and areal density of armors are
considered, aramid/epoxy backing plate had a higher ballistic perfor-
Fig. 15. Residual velocity of projectile versus thickness of ceramic curve with mance than the others. Hybrid 1, S2 glass/epoxy, carbon-aramid/
all used backing plates at 750 m/s strike velocity. epoxy, Hybrid 2, and Hybrid 3 follow aramid/epoxy in ballistic per-
formance, respectively.
5. Conclusions
1659
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
1660