Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ceramics International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ceramint

Ballistic performance of ceramic/composite structures T

a b,⁎
Baha Tepeduzu , Ramazan Karakuzu
a
The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

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.

1. Introduction new analytical model for ceramic/multilayered composites and flat-

The necessity of composite structures has been increased due to
their high stiffness to weight and high strength to weight ratios.
Therefore, composites have been used in industries such as aerospace,
automotive, military and many other fields in the past decades. Ballistic
protection is the one of the usage of composites in military field. Thanks
to their light weight, composites are preferred for aircrafts, tanks and
bullet proof body armors.
Benloulo and Sánchez-Gálvez [1] developed a new analytical model
of ceramic/composite structures on ballistic performance. Results were
compared with both numerical studies by AUTODYN-2D and experi-
mental study and analytical solution is almost in good agreement with
the numerical and the experimental studies. However, when the initial
velocity of projectile was close to ballistic limit of structure, analytical
model was not working properly. Sanchez Galvez and Diaz-Rubio [2]
investigated the ballistic performance of Alumina/Kevlar 29 in deri-
vative thickness and areal density ratios with three different projectile
types which were 7.62 AP, 12.7 AP, and 14.5 API. AUTODYN-2D and
Chocron-Gálvez were used as the numerical solver and analytical
model, respectively. Numerical, analytical and experimental results
were compared and similar results were found. The optimal design of
ceramic/composites armor was specified. Feli et al. [3] developed a
faced cylindrical projectiles. In this study, Zaera–Sanchez-Gálvez ana-
lytical model with the help of the conoid fragmentation angle of
ceramic was used to improve on the Chocron– Gálvez numerical and
analytical models. Results were much better than Chocron–Gálvez
analytical model when the initial velocity of projectile is close to bal-
listic limit of the structure. Feli and Asgari [4] modeled 2D-axisym-
metric model of ceramic front faced composite armor. Simulation was
modeled in LS-DYNA-2D with using Lagrangian elements method.
Study was compared with Chocron-Gálvez numerical and analytical
models and results were found in good agreement with each other. At
the end of the study, it was shown that when the impact velocity of
projectile increases on the ceramic face, the fracture behavior of
ceramic tile changes. Moreover, impact velocity of projectile is close to
ballistic limit of the structure and delamination between composite
layers decreases. Hajheydari and Eftekhari [5] modeled the ballistic
impact of ceramic/composite armor with using a 9 mm caliber blunt
projectile. LS-DYNA explicit solver was used for numerical solution.
Hetherington equation [6] was used to adjust thickness. Numerical
study was found in good agreement with Chocron-Gálvez analytical
method. Mobasseri et al. [7] studied thickness optimization on ballistic
performance of ceramic/composite and ceramic/aluminum structures.
LS-DYNA explicit solver was used for numerical solution. Results were

⁎
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

compared with the previous optimization studies by Hetherington [6], Table 1

Wang [8] and Ben Dor [9]. Optimum thickness of ceramic/composite Mechanical parameters for 99.5% purity Alumina ceramic in JH-2 [4].
and ceramic/aluminum armors were specified with their best fit light Parameter Symbol Value Unit
weight/energy absorption ratio.
Fawaz et al. [10] studied on normal and 30° oblique impact of Density ρ0 3700 kg/m3
Shear modulus G 90.16 GPa
ceramic/composite armor by using LS-DYNA explicit solver. It was
Intact strength coefficient A 0.93 –
demonstrated that in oblique impact, the force applied by the projectile Fractured strength coefficient B 0.31 –
where effects on the ceramic face and the interface between ceramic Strain rate coefficient C 0 s−1
and composite, was smaller than the normal impact one. Furthermore, Fractured strength exponent M 0.6 –
erosion on the oblique impacted projectile was higher than normal Intact strength exponent N 0.6 –
Normalized maximum fractured strength f
σmax 0.2 –
impacted one. Shokrieh and Javadpour [11] modeled the B4C/Kevlar49
Hugoniot elastic limit HEL 19 GPa
epoxy composite structure to investigate difference between oblique
Pressure at Hugoniot elastic limit PHEL 1460 MPa
and normal ballistic impacts. Model was created with LS-DYNA explicit Bulking factor β 1 –
solver. Thickness of structure was determined with Hetherington Elastic bulk modulus K˭K1 130.95 GPa
equation. This study was compared with Chocron–Gálvez analytical Coefficient for 2nd degree term in EOS K2 0 GPa
model to verify accuracy. At the end of the work, it was shown that the Coefficient for 3rd degree term in EOS K3 0 GPa
Damage coefficient D1 0.005 –
ballistic limit of composite structure increases when oblique impact is Damage exponent D2 1 –
applied to composite structure.
Talib et al. [12] studied the effect of high velocity ballistic impact
on woven Kevlar-29/epoxy and Al2O3 powder/epoxy composites both Composite Damage Model are used for modelling composites on the
theoretically and experimentally. It was observed that changing the backside of the target. Johnson-Cook material model is also used for
thickness and the placement of the composite have an effect on the modelling projectile.
ballistic limit and the absorbed energy which depends on the loss of The Johnson-Holmquist material model (JH-2) is commonly used to
kinetic energy of the projectile. Theoretical and experimental results obtain behavior of ceramics under ballistic impact. The JH-2 model is a
were in good agreement. The results of the study have demonstrated suitable model to predict the behavior of brittle materials subjected to
that the ballistic limit increases when thickness increases and also when ballistic loadings. The main features of the model include pressure-
using cross–ply laminated placing instead of unidirectional laminated dependent strength, damage and fracture, significant strength after
placing on composite. fracture, bulking and strain rate effects [17]. JH-2 material model is
Tasdemirci et al. [13] considered the effects of various interlayers of available in LS-DYNA explicit code as MAT 110 Johnson Holmquist
Ceramic/S2-Glass-SC15 epoxy composite on the ballistic impact. LS- Ceramics. Corresponding relationships for JH-2 ceramics are given by
DYNA explicit solver was used as the numerical solver. Good agreement the following equations [4,18,19];
with both numerical and experimental studies was observed. As a result The equivalent stress is given by
of this study, it was found that Teflon and aluminum foam interlayers
σ * = σi*−D (σi* − σ f*) (1)
gave better results for ballistic performance, which are reduced stress
and delayed stress distribution to composite instead of rubber interlayer Normalized effective stress equations are shown in Eqs. (2) and (3),
and without interlayer.
Grujicic et al. [14] modeled a hybrid armor which contains ceramic σi* = A (P * + T *) N (1 + Clnε *̇ ) (2)
and polymer matrix composites in ABAQUS/Explicit code to investigate represents undamaged behavior,
the role of the adhesive on ballistic limit. Analytical model was com-
pared with Zaera et al. model [15] and results were found similar to σ f* = B (P *) M (1 + Clnε )̇ ≤ SFMAX (3)
each other.
represents the damaged behavior,
Liu et al. [16] modeled a scale-like ceramic/composite armor in-
spired by grass carp. LS-DYNA explicit was used as the numerical Δε P
solver. Simulation results showed that bio-inspired scaled armors divert
D= ∑
ε fP (4)
the projectile to a different way and help in decreasing the kinetic
energy of projectile. represents the accumulated damage based upon the increase in plastic
In this study, ballistic performance of alumina ceramic front faced strain per computational cycle and the plastic strain to fracture given in
composites, which are aramid/epoxy, carbon-aramid/epoxy, S2 glass/ Eq. (5)
epoxy, hybrid S2 glass/aramid/epoxy, were investigated numerically ε fP = D1 (P * + T *) D2 (5)
by using ANSYS/LS-DYNA for modelling and LS-DYNA solver for ana-
* *
lysis. Quarter model was used for target and M61 type 7.62 mm × where P is the normalized pressure, T is the normalized tensile
51 mm AP projectile. Moreover, the effects of the thickness of the strength, and ε̇* is the normalized strain rate. SFMAX is the maximum
ceramic and the projectile velocity on the ballistic performance are normalized fractured strength, and, A, B, C, M, N, D1, and D2 are the
examined. material constants.
The hydrostatic pressure is given by
2. Finite element simulation
P = K1 μ + K2 μ2 + K3 μ3 (6)
In this study, 3D models are created and meshed by using ANSYS/ and in compression
LS-DYNA. In addition, LS-PREPOST preprocessor is used for make ad-
P = K1 μ (7)
justments in model. LS-DYNA explicit dynamic solver is also used for
processor. where μ is
ρ
2.1. Material models μ=
ρ0 −1 (8)

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

Density ρ 1117 1750 1148 kg/m3

Elastic Modulus-Longitudinal E1 17,230 20,256 47,700 MPa
Elastic Modulus-Transverse E2 17,230 30,310 47,700 MPa
Elastic Modulus-Normal E3 10,340 15,170 28,620 MPa
Poisson's Ratio ν23 0.12 0.11 0.06 –
Poisson's Ratio ν31 0.12 0.11 0.06 –
Poisson's Ratio ν12 0.2 0.17 0.1 –
Tensile Strength-Longitudinal Xt 425 630 552 MPa
Compressive Strength-Longitudinal Xc 88 397 273 MPa
Tensile Strength-Transverse Yt 425 590 552 MPa
Compressive Strength-Transverse Yc 88 426 273 MPa
Tensile Strength-Normal Zt 255 366 331 MPa
Compressive Strength-Normal Zc 53 247 164 MPa
Shear Modulus-Transverse G23 3300 2580 1407 MPa
Shear Modulus-Transverse G31 3300 2580 1407 MPa
Shear Modulus-Inplane G12 5510 4300 2245 MPa
Shear Strength-Transverse S23 40 60 49 MPa
Shear Strength-Transverse S31 40 60 49 MPa
Shear Strength-Inplane S12 66 99 82 MPa

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)

Transverse tension is given as,

σ22 2
τ12 τ2
+ + 232 > 1, σ2 > 0
Yt2 2
S12 S23 (12)

Through-thickness shear with longitudinal tension is given as,

2
σ12 τ31
+ > 1, σ1 > 0
Xt2 2
S31 (13)

Delamination is given as,

Fig. 1. Isometric view of ballistic test model geometry.
σ32 τ2 τ2
+ 232 + 312 > 1, σ3 > 0
Zt2 S23 S31 (14)

Through-thickness shear with transverse tension is given as,

2
σ22 τ23
+ > 1, σ2 > 0
Yt2 2
S23 (15)

Longitudinal compression is given as,

σ12
> 1, σ1 < 0
Xc2 (16)

Transverse compression is given as,

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)

Through-thickness compression is given as,

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

Fig. 5. Zoomed in ceramic front view of quarter geometry mesh.

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

Fig. 7. Strike velocities versus residual velocities of projectile on target model

Fig. 6. Velocity versus Time curve for 1250 m/s strike velocity on Al2O3-
with 16 mm thickness for all used backing plates.
Twaron composite target of validation study.

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)

Residual velocity of projectile Aramid/Epoxy 652 612 562 496

(m/s) Carbon-Aramid/ 670 616 556 512
Epoxy
S2 Glass/Epoxy 607 563 539 469
Hybrid 1 646 603 558 481
Hybrid 2 637 592 560 493
Hybrid 3 635 577 555 478
Fig. 8. Strike velocities versus residual velocities of projectile on target model
with 18 mm thickness for all used backing plates.

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)

Residual velocity of projectile Aramid/Epoxy 538 498 440 396

(m/s) Carbon-Aramid/ 573 502 429 408
Epoxy
S2 Glass/Epoxy 495 435 387 375
Hybrid 1 531 465 404 393
Hybrid 2 528 473 402 379
Hybrid 3 527 456 395 378 Fig. 9. Strike velocities versus residual velocities of projectile on 20 mm target
model with thickness for all used backing plates.

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

2.3. Geometry of structures

σy = (A + B ε̄ pn )(1 + Clnε̇*)
where A, B, C, and n are the material constants, ε̇* is the normalized
strain rate, and ε̅ p is the effective plastic strain.
2.2. Mechanical properties and model parameters of structures
Mechanical properties of Al2O3 ceramic are taken from Feli and
(19)
Geometry of full ballistic test model is given in Fig. 1. Hexagonal
Alumina ceramic has width across flat of 40 mm and three different
thicknesses of 6 mm; 8 mm and 10 mm. Composites have dimensions of
300 mm x 300 mm x 10 mm. In numerical analysis, the quarter model is
preferred to save computational time. X and Y axis are set as the
symmetry planes. The quarter model is shown in Fig. 2.
In the analysis, aramid/epoxy, S2 glass/epoxy, carbon-aramid/

1655
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu
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.
epoxy with carbon-aramid fabric, and hybrid S2 glass/aramid/epoxy
are used. Layer numbers of aramid/epoxy, S2 glass/epoxy, and carbon-
aramid/epoxy composite materials are taken as 20, 80 and 40, re-
spectively. M61 type AP projectile is modeled in 60° conical–cylinder
with the diameter of 7.62 mm and the length of 28.1 mm. Performance
of this model was found analogous with M61 type 7.62 mm x 51 mm AP
(Armor Piercing) projectile [10].
There are three different cases in combinations of targets. Cases
change with ceramic layer thicknesses which are 6 mm, 8 mm and
10 mm (Fig. 3). In addition, each case has six different conditions in
itself and 18 different combinations of target are modeled totally.
Combinations of model are shown in Table 4. Projectile hits to targets at
four different strike velocities. Thus, 72 different simulations were done
with 18 different target combinations and four different strike velo-
cities. In order to make new hybrid S2 glass/aramid/epoxy composites,
three hybrid models are created.
Ceramic and composite materials were modeled with eight-node
hexahedron solid elements. Six-node tetrahedron solid elements were
used for modelling of projectile [10]. When the total target thickness is
set 16 mm, 18 mm, and 20 mm, 296184, 310359, and 324534 elements
are determined in total model, respectively. Front views of quarter
geometry mesh are seen in Figs. 4 and 5 when the total target thickness
is set to 16 mm (ceramic thickness is 6 mm and composite thickness is
10 mm). All nodes are fixed in every direction at the top edge with
20 mm high of the quarter model of composite. Segment based Eroding
Surface to Surface card is chosen between all contacts, including in-
terfaces in composite. The coefficient of friction between interfaces in
composite is 0.3; while the coefficient of friction projectile-ceramic and
ceramic–composite is considered as 0.28 respectively [4]. All scale
factors for computed time steps are lowered from 0.9 to 0.67 by default.
1656
Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
3. Verification of model
Numerical model was validated with Ref. [4]. Simulation is mod-
eled in LS-DYNA 3D instead of 2D. Composite, ceramic and tungsten
projectile are modeled in eight-node hexahedron solid elements. Al2O3
ceramic is modeled in JH-2 Model. Twaron composite, which has si-
milar properties to Kevlar49, is modeled in Composite Damage Model
while tungsten alloy projectile is modeled in Johnson-Cook Model card.
Projectile is modeled cylindrically with dimensions of 10 mm diameter
and 30 mm length. Ceramic is modeled cylindrically with dimensions of
100 mm diameter and 20 mm length. Each composite ply is cylindrical
with dimensions of 100 mm diameter and 0.4 mm length. Composite
with 50 plies is set as backing plate. Projectile and ceramic are given in
0.5 mm x 0.5 mm element size while composite is 0.5 mm x 0.2 mm
element size. Quarter of geometry is modeled to save time. 2,206,024
elements exist in the quarter model. Outer edge nodes of both ceramic
and composite plies are fixed in all directions.
The results are found similar to those given in Ref. [4]. Comparison
between residual velocities of reference and residual velocity of present
study can be seen in Table 5. Velocity versus time curve for 1250 m/s
strike velocity is given in Fig. 6.
4. Results and discussion
After solving totally 72 different target-impact combinations nu-
merically, residual velocities of projectile are found for every target
combination. New Hybrid backing plate composite placements are
formed as follows:
In the first instance, S2 glass/epoxy is stationed on the front side of
the composite while using aramid/epoxy on the back side. Later on, in
the second instance, the components were reversed. These instances
were analyzed in numerical order. However, since the results are almost
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu
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
with front face S2 glass/epoxy and back face aramid/epoxy are given.
Six different target combinations are shot by four different velocities
for every target thickness. Strike velocities versus residual velocities of
projectile on target models with 16 mm, 18 mm and 20 mm thicknesses
are shown in Tables 6–8 and Figs. 7–9 for all used backing plates, re-
spectively.
When the Figs. 7–9 and Tables 6–8 are investigated, ballistic per-
formance of target with S2 glass/epoxy backing plate gives better re-
sults than others for all strike velocities and all ceramic thicknesses
Hybrid 3, Hybrid 2, Hybrid 1, aramid/epoxy and carbon-aramid/epoxy
follow S2 glass/epoxy, respectively. The ballistic performances of Hy-
brid 1, Hybrid 2 and Hybrid 3, formed by the combination of aramid/
epoxy and S2 glass/epoxy, were found to match the combined thickness
ratios of S2 glass/epoxy and aramid/epoxy. In hybrid composites, when
the thickness of aramid increases and the thickness of S2 glass de-
creases, ballistic performance of hybrid composite increases. The dif-
ference in the ballistic performance between the Aramid/epoxy and the
Carbon-aramid/epoxy was slightly reduced for 750 m/s and 800 m/s
velocities. At 750 m/s strike velocity, the ballistic performance of
Carbon-aramid/epoxy is better than the ballistic performance of
Aramid/epoxy for ceramic thicknesses of 6 mm and 8 mm (Figs. 6 and
7) while Aramid/epoxy is better than the ballistic performance of
Carbon-aramid/epoxy for ceramic thicknesses of 10 mm (Fig. 8). The
ballistic performances of Hybrid 1 and Hybrid 2 are also even worse
than the ballistic performance of Aramid/epoxy for ceramic thicknesses
of 10 mm as shown in Fig. 8.
Views of target models with 16 mm, 18 mm and 20 mm thicknesses
for aramid/epoxy backing plate can be seen in Figs. 10–12 at 800 m/s
strike velocity, respectively.
It is seen from Figs. 10–12 that the damage is spread out to a larger
area on ceramic front face after impact compared to other backing plate
1657
Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
composites at all strike velocities when the backing plate is aramid/
epoxy for all ceramic thicknesses. For the ceramic thickness of 6 mm,
the least damaged area occurs when the backing plate is also S2 glass/
epoxy. It is observed that when the backing plates are different, da-
maged area of the ceramic after the impact did not affect the ballistic
performance of the target at the same time. For the ceramic thicknesses
of 8 mm and 10 mm, the damaged area was determined to be almost the
same on the other backing plate composites.
It was found that the deformation increases on the projectile when
the same backing plate is used on the target and as the impact velocity
increases for the ceramic thicknesses of 6 mm and 10 mm. As the impact
velocity increases, the further blunting on the projectile is observed for
both ceramic thicknesses of 6 mm and 10 mm. In addition, the effect of
mushrooming is observed to increase for ceramic thickness of 6 mm to
decrease for ceramic thickness of 10 mm. For the ceramic thickness of
8 mm, it was observed that there are no deformation differences on the
projectile when the same backing plate was used on the target and as
the impact velocity increases. After the impact, blunting on the pro-
jectile is observed and the effect of mushrooming is observed.
It was also observed that the ceramic and composite surfaces were
separated by the impact in all ceramic-composite combinations. In high
strike velocities of the projectile, the connection between composite
and ceramic was more stable for all ceramic thicknesses.
When compared to the response of targets with all the used com-
posite backing plates to projectile, at the same strike velocity, it was
found that deformation was directly proportional to ballistic perfor-
mance. As a result, when using S2 glass/epoxy backing plate, it was
observed that the deformation of the projectile had the highest value
and when using Carbon-aramid/epoxy backing plate for ceramic
thicknesses of 6 mm and 8 mm and Aramid/epoxy for ceramic thickness
of 10 mm, it was observed that the deformation of the projectile was the
lowest. Moreover, there was no difference between the appearance of
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
Fig. 14. Residual velocity of projectile versus thickness of ceramic curve with
all used backing plates at 700 m/s strike velocity.
Fig. 15. Residual velocity of projectile versus thickness of ceramic curve with
all used backing plates at 750 m/s strike velocity.
Fig. 16. Residual velocity of projectile versus thickness of ceramic curve with
all used backing plates at 800 m/s strike velocity.
Fig. 17. Residual velocity of projectile versus thickness of ceramic curve with
all used backing plates at 850 m/s strike velocity.
the projectile after it had penetrated the ceramics, and the appearance
of the projectile after it had penetrated the composite.
Displacement of the hybrid composites placed behind the ceramic
has no effect on the results. Crushing and/or delamination between the
surfaces of S2 glass/epoxy and Aramid/epoxy composites were ob-
served in the armor used with the hybrid backing plate for all the
1659
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
used backing plates is shown in Figs. 14–17. From these figures, the
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-
mance than the others. Hybrid 1, S2 glass/epoxy, carbon-aramid/
epoxy, Hybrid 2, and Hybrid 3 follow aramid/epoxy in ballistic per-
formance, respectively.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the effect of ceramic thickness on the structure of the
armor and the effect of different reinforcement type as backing plates
on fixed thickness were investigated. Ballistic performances of 72 dif-
ferent combination armor types are carried out. From the results, the
following conclusions can be drawn.
As the impact velocity increases at low ceramic thickness, the
blunting on the projectile is observed and the effect of mushrooming is
observed to increase. When the ceramic thickness and the impact ve-
locity are increased, blunting of the projectile is observed and the effect
of mushrooming is observed to decrease. However, as the thickness of
the ceramics increases, the effect of the backing plate substitution on
the deformation of the projectile reduces and the deformation of the
projectile remains mostly unchanged.
When the thickness of the ceramics increases, it becomes more ap-
parent that the ceramic tends to break in a conical shape and the se-
paration of ceramic and composite seems to increase significantly. In
the high strike velocities of projectile, the connection between com-
posite and ceramic seems to be more stable. It is found that the da-
maged area on ceramic decreases when the ceramic thickness increases
for different backing plates. However, crushing and/or delamination
between the surfaces of S2 glass/epoxy and aramid/epoxy composite
was observed in the armor with the hybrid backing plate. As the
thickness of the ceramics increases, it is generally seen that the residual
velocity difference of projectile diminishes for all the types of compo-
sites. It is observed that the armor with S2 glass/epoxy has the highest
ballistic performance for every possible combination when the areal
density of armors is not considered. The armor with Hybrid 3 gives
higher ballistic performance than the ones with Hybrid 2. It is observed
that the results are very similar when Hybrid 1 or aramid/epoxy is used
as the backing plate. As the ceramic gets thicker, it is observed that the
ballistic performance of the armor with aramid/epoxy diminishes
compared to other armors. When all ceramic thicknesses and areal
density of armors are considered, aramid/epoxy backing plate shows
better ballistic performance than the others.
B. Tepeduzu, R. Karakuzu
References
[1] I.S.C. Benloulo, V. Sanchez-Galvez, A new analytical model to simulate impact onto
ceramic/composite armors, Int. J. Impact Eng. 21 (6) (1998) 461–671.
[2] V. Sánchez-Gálvez, F.G. Díaz-Rubio, Ballistic impact on ceramic/composite ar-
mours, Trans. Built Environ. (1998) (Retrieved October 1, 2017, from 〈https://
www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/SU98/SU98059FU.pdf 〉)..
[3] S. Feli, M.H. Yas, M.R. Asgari, An analytical model for perforation of ceramic/multi-
layered planar woven fabric targets by blunt projectiles, Compos. Struct. 93 (2011)
548–556.
[4] S. Feli, M.R. Asgari, Finite element simulation of ceramic/composite armor under
ballistic impact, Compos.: Part B 42 (2011) 771–780.
[5] M. Hajheydari, S.A. Eftekhari, Simulation and numerical analysis of optimized
ceramic-composite armor under vertical ballistic impact, Int. J. Basic Sci. Appl. Res.
3 (2014) 184–199.
[6] J.G. Hetherington, The optimization of two component composite armours, Int. J.
Impact Eng (1992) 409–414.
[7] A.A. Mobasseri, A.R. Reza Ansari, H.R. Zarei, M. Sedighi, F. Mobasseri,
Optimization of combined layers produced by the ceramic/composite and ceramic/
aluminum plates, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7 (6) (2013) 199–210.
[8] B. Wang, G. Lu, On the optimization of two-component plates against ballistic
impact, Int. Mater. Process. Technol. 57 (1996) 141–145.
[9] G. Ben-Dor, A. Dubinsky, T. Elperin, N. Frage, Optimization of two component
ceramic armor for a given impact velocity, Int. Fract. Mech. 33 (2000) 185–190.
[10] Z. Fawaz, W. Zheng, K. Behdinan, Numerical simulation of normal and oblique
ballistic impact on ceramic composite armours, Compos. Struct. 63 (2004)
387–395.
[11] M.M. Shokrieh, G.H. Javadpour, Penetration analysis of a projectile in ceramic
composite armor, Compos. Struct. 82 (2008) 269–276.
[12] A.R. Abu Talib, L.H. Abbud, A. Ali, F. Mustapha, Ballistic impact performance of
Kevlar-29 and Al2O3 powder/epoxy targets under high velocity impact, Mater. Des.
1660
Ceramics International 45 (2019) 1651–1660
35 (2012) 12–19.
[13] A. Tasdemirci, G. Tunusoğlu, M. Güden, The effect of the interlayer on the ballistic
performance of ceramic/composite armors: experimental and numerical study, Int.
J. Impact Eng. 44 (2012) 1–9.
[14] M. Grujicic, M. Pandurangan, B, B. d’Entremont, The role of adhesive in the bal-
listic/structural performance of ceramic/polymer–matrix composite hybrid armor,
Mater. Des. 41 (2012) 380–393.
[15] R. Zaera, S. Sanchez-Saez, J.L. Perez-Castellanos, C. Navarro, Modelling of the
adhesive layer in mixed ceramic/metal armours subjected to impact, Compos.: Part
A 31 (2000) 823–833.
[16] P. Liu, D. Zhua, Y. Yao, J. Wang, T.Q. Bui, Numerical simulation of ballistic impact
behavior of bio-inspired scale-like protection system, Mater. Des. 99 (2016)
201–210.
[17] D. Bürger, A.R. de Faria, S.F.M. de Almeida, F.C.L. de Melo, M.V. Donadon, Ballistic
impact simulation of an armour-piercing projectile on hybridceramic/fiber re-
inforced composite armours, Int. J. Impact Eng. 43 (2012) 63–77.
[18] Ls-dyna keyword user’s manual volume II material models R10.0 Retrieved October
1, 2017, from 〈http://www.dynasupport.com/manuals/ls-dyna-manuals/ls-dyna-
manual-r10.0-vol-ii/view〉.
[19] G. McIntoshThe Johnson-Holmquist Ceramic Model as used in LS-DYNA2D.
Retrieved October 1, 2017, from 〈http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/
a357607.pdf〉.
[20] B. Berk, Finite Element Simulation of Ballistic Impact on Composite Plates (M.Sc.
Thesis), Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey, 2014.
[21] B. Berk, R. Karakuzu, B.M. Icten, V. Arikan, Y. Arman, et al., An experimental and
numerical investigation on low velocity impact behavior of composite plates, J.
Compos. Mater. 50 (25) (2016) 3551–3559.
[22] B. Berk, R. Karakuzu, A.K. Toksoy, An experimental and numerical investigation on
ballistic performance of advanced composites, J. Compos. Mater. 51 (25) (2017)
3467–3480.
[23] Ansys 17 engineering data material model. Software Product, ANSYS, 2016.