download

© All Rights Reserved

0 vues

download

© All Rights Reserved

- Carbon-carbon Matrix Composites.
- Article 40
- 40207_05
- 25-24-1-PB
- Composite Materials Using Bone
- 16792-ASME3
- Our Research
- LITEM 2013
- ASTM C0274_1 (EN) ᴾᴼᴼᴮᴸᴵᶜᴽ
- BLEST Curing Sim by Autoclave RI
- Protective Textiles
- Mechanical Properties of Polymer Composite Materials
- 15 Mode I Interfacial Toughening Through Discontinuous Interleaves for Damage Suppression and Control
- Flexural Analysis of Balsa Core Sandwich Composite- Failure Mecha
- Three Gorge HPP Spiral Case Dynamic Analysis
- International Journal of Damage Mechanics 2003 Al Shayea 305 29
- ME Afternoon
- Nadlene Et Al-2016-Polymer Composites
- B Tech _Mechanical Engineering _ Production Engineering _ Industrial & Production Engineering _ Mechanical & Industrial Engineering_ 4th Year Syllabus
- tmp2E98.tmp

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j i m p e n g

composite armors

Aswani Kumar Bandaru a,*, Vikrant V. Chavan b, Suhail Ahmad a, R. Alagirusamy b,

Naresh Bhatnagar c

a Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

b Department of Textile Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

c

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The ballistic impact response of thermoplastic-based composite armors made from Kevlar® fabric and

Received 14 May 2015 polypropylene (PP) matrix has been investigated against ballistic test standard NIJ-STD 0106.01 Type IIIA.

Received in revised form 27 October 2015 Kevlar® fabrics of different architectures, namely 2D plain woven, 3D orthogonal and 3D angle interlock

Accepted 28 October 2015

fabrics, were produced and used as reinforcements to fabricate composite armor panels, using compres-

Available online 4 November 2015

sion molding technology. Interfacial property between PP and Kevlar® was improved by adding a coupling

agent called maleic anhydride grafted PP. Reduced density was observed in Kevlar® thermoplastic-

Keywords:

based composites as compared to that of the thermoset-based laminates. Ballistic impact tests were

Kevlar®

Thermoplastic matrix imparted with 9 mm full metal jacket (FMJ) on armor panels having different fabric architecture. Ballis-

Ballistic limit tic test results revealed that 2D armor was 2.4–7% more susceptible to damage than 3D armors. Hydrocode

Ballistic impact simulations were carried out using ANSYS AUTODYN v. 14.0 to obtain an estimate for the ballistic limit

Hydrocode simulations velocity and simulate failure modes. Post-impact damage patterns obtained from the simulations were

compared with the experimental results to assess the performance of the simulations. Good correlation

between the hydrocode simulations and experiments was found, both in terms of failure modes and damage

patterns. 3D composite armors were able to confront the 9 mm FMJ projectile; however, the 2D plain

woven armors failed. The increase in the ballistic limit from 2D plain woven armor to 3D orthogonal and

3D angle interlock armors was 16.44% and 20%, respectively, indicating the effect of fabric architecture.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ical simulations, and analytical models. Silva et al. [11] investigated

the ballistic impact response of Kevlar® 29/Vinylester panels im-

With the requirement of light weight body armors, the need for pacted with a fragment simulating projectile (FSP) (320–360 m/

performance improved ﬁber reinforced composites is signiﬁcantly s). Numerical simulations were carried out using AUTODYN

increasing. The architecture of the fabric plays a signiﬁcant role in commercial software. Post-impact damage patterns obtained from

the protection against ballistic impact and provides a unique bal- the simulations were in good agreement with the experimental

listic penetration resistance for varied orientations. The main results. Further, simulations were extended to obtain ballistic limit

structural parameters of the fabric, which shows the effect on the velocity and residual velocity. Similarly, hydrocode simulations were

ballistic performance, are type of weave (with a twist in the yarns), carried out using AUTODYN to investigate the ballistic response of

yarn crimp, fabric structure, projectile geometry, impact velocity and a Kevlar® helmet by Tham et al. [12]. The response of the helmet

friction [1–5]. from simulations was compared with the ballistic impact test results

The ballistic impact response of thermoset-based composite lami- in terms of post-impact damage. Further, simulations were ex-

nates, such as S2 glass/polyester [6], E-glass/epoxy [7,8], S2 glass/ tended to assess the ballistic resistance of helmet against NIJ-STD-

epoxy [9,10], Kevlar® 29/Vinylester [11] and Kevlar®/epoxy [12], was 0106.01 Type II (9 mm FMJ) and 1.1 g FSP. It was found that the

investigated by several researchers through experiments, numer- helmet was able to stop both the projectiles. Grujicic et al. [13] de-

veloped a material model based on the unit cell method and

integrated with ANSYS/AUTODYN as a user deﬁned subroutine. Dif-

* Corresponding author. Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of

ferent stages of armor penetration such as shearing of the ﬁlament,

Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India. Tel.: +91 11 26596412. delamination, and stretching of the ﬁlament on the back face of the

E-mail address: aswani006@gmail.com (A.K. Bandaru). target were observed. Kevlar® fabric was also used as a hybrid layer

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.10.014

0734-743X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2 A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13

in hybrid composites with other laminates reinforced with carbon the ballistic impact response of Kevlar® thermoplastic laminates ac-

and glass ﬁbers [14–17]. cording to NIJ-STD-0106.01 Type IIIA [27].

Designing of body armors based solely on the experimental data In the present study, Kevlar® 29 yarns were woven to get fabrics

requires huge material and manpower, which is time consuming with three different architectures, namely 2D plain woven (2D-P),

and also uneconomical. Recent advances concerning the ballistic 3D orthogonal (3D-O), and 3D angle interlock (3D-A). Composite

impact response of composite laminates offer the possibility of pre- armor panels were fabricated with PP matrix reinforced with the

venting tests by using numerical simulations such as hydrocodes above three types of fabrics using vacuum assisted compression

[11–14,17] that can reduce the expenses incurred in designing of molding machine. The interfacial property between the Kevlar® and

the body armors. Due to the continuous development of numeri- PP was improved by adding a coupling agent called maleic anhy-

cal algorithms and material models, the accuracy and the dride grafted (MAg)-PP. The objectives of the present work were dual.

applicability of simulation results are increasing. The ﬁrst objective was to perform a ballistic impact test on Kevlar®/

All the above discussed studies have been concentrated on the MAg-PP (K-MPP) composite armor panels for their perforation

ballistic impact behavior of thermoset-based composite lami- capability against the ballistic test standard NIJ-STD-0106.01 Type

nates. Though thermosets were extensively used as matrix materials, IIIA when impacted by a 9 mm FMJ projectile. The response ob-

the use of these matrices is limited due to a few shortcomings, tained from the ballistic test was used as a benchmark for later

namely, the need for low temperature storage and a long curing comparison with that obtained from hydrocode simulations. Post-

process. Thermoplastic-based composites, on the other hand, are impact damage patterns of the armors were acquired to determine

an alternative to thermoset-based composites due to their long shelf the extent of damage due to different failure modes and fabric struc-

life, short processing time, suﬃciently tough, chemical resistant melt- tures. The second objective was to study the inﬂuence of fabric

processability, and an ability to be recycled [18,19]. Also, architecture on the ballistic impact response of K-MPP laminates.

thermoplastic composites have relatively low brittleness transi- For the same mass and geometry of the projectile, ballistic limit ve-

tion temperatures, which allow potential improvements in terms locity and energy absorbed by the target were compared for the three

of greater ballistic resistance, higher mechanical toughness, and faster types of thermoplastic-based Kevlar® armor panels, and new ﬁnd-

manufacturing cycles [20,21]. Studies of Walsh et al. [20,21] re- ings on their ballistic impact response were reported.

ported that the thermoplastic aramid based composites exhibit

improved ballistic performance at a much lighter weight. Song [22] 2. Experimental

studied the inﬂuence of microscopic and macroscopic characteris-

tics on the ballistic impact response of thermoplastic composites 2.1. Materials

made of Kevlar® 29/nylon 66, Kevlar® 29/polyetheretherketone

(PEEK), Kevlar® 29 /polycarbonate, Kevlar® 29/Polysulfone, Kevlar® The high performance aramid (Kevlar® 29) ﬁber tow was con-

KM2/Polysulfone, and Kevlar® KM2 ﬁber/linear low-density poly- sidered with a linear density of 1000 Denier. Fabrics with three solid

ethylene (LLDPE) laminates. The characteristics, like processing woven structures viz. 2D-plain woven (2D-P), 3D-orthogonal (3D-

temperature, cooling rate, fabric conﬁguration, ﬁber wetting, polymer O) and 3D-angle interlock (3D-A) were prepared using CCI sample

morphology, and stiffness of the laminate, signiﬁcantly affected the weaving machine with rapier weft insertion mechanism. Physical

ballistic performance of the composite armor. The major energy ab- parameters of the fabric are given in Table 1a and Table 1b. Micro-

sorbing mechanisms observed were ﬁber breakage, ﬁber straining, scopic views of the woven structure are shown in Fig. 1. These fabrics

matrix cracking, and delamination. The review work of Kulkarni et al. were produced with two warp beams, one containing the binding

[19] stated that the thermoplastics have lower tensile strength than yarns and the other containing the ground yarns.

thermosets; as a result, ballistic performance was reduced. There- PP sheets were produced with two different grades, namely,

fore, thermoplastics are used with high ductile ﬁbers like Kevlar® MI3530 and CO15EG, using in-house extrusion facility with nitro-

to enhance the matrix stiffness. Carrillo et al. [23] has studied the gen gas at a pressure of 150 bar.

ballistic response of Kevlar® 129/PP laminates through experimen-

tal studies. The addition of PP matrix to aramid fabrics showed 2.2. Fabrication of laminates

improved impact resistance. However, low adhesion was reported

between Kevlar® fabrics and PP matrix, suggesting for improve- The vacuum assisted compression molding technique was used

ments in the interfacial property. Further, it was reported that for the consolidation of stacked fabrics and resins. The specimens

numerical modeling is required to validate the results obtained were cured at 200 °C. Fiber weight fractions obtained for 2D-P, 3D-O

through experiments. and 3D-A were 60.2%, 64%, and 64%, respectively. Three types of spec-

After a thorough literature review, it is observed that the bal- imen were prepared: ﬁrst, sixteen layer 2D-P laminate; second, eight

listic impact behavior of thermoset two dimensional (2D) Kevlar®

composite laminates was investigated with woven or unidirection-

al fabrics. The laminates with 2D plain woven fabrics evidence the Table 1

presence of crimp, exhibit poor in-plane stiffness, and suffer more (a) Physical parameters of Kevlar® 29 fabrics. (b) Properties of constituent materials.

damage due to delamination. On the other hand, in 3D fabrics, warp

(a)

and ﬁll tows do not have any crimp, and yarns in z-direction play

Property 2D-P 3D-A 3D-O

a vital role in holding all warp and ﬁll yarns together. The 3D struc-

ture of fabric provides increased areal density, thus increasing the Warp yarns/inch 40 40 40

amount of speciﬁc energy absorption [24]. Weft yarns/inch 32 120 120

Areal density (g/m2) 363.75 745.86 780.36

Studies on Kevlar®/PP composite laminates are not conclusive Thickness (mm) 0.64 1.17 1.24

due to low adhesion problem between aramid and PP [23,25,26].

(b)

Further studies are required in terms of enhancing the interfacial

property between Kevlar® fabric and PP matrix. Also, numerical val- Property Tenacity (gpd) Strain (%) Modulus (gpd)

idation is necessary to conﬁrm the experimental results [23]. Ballistic ®

Kevlar yarn 14.91 (6.13)a

2.99 (5.18) 547.30 (10.11)

impact resistance of thermoplastic-based body armors reinforced Polypropylene sheet 17.93 (14.23) 4.08 (14.20) 98.14 (19.18)

with 3D fabrics was also not reported in the open literature. To the a

Value enclosed in parentheses indicates the coeﬃcient of variance of corre-

author’s knowledge, there is no literature available to investigate sponding 15 readings for each sample.

A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13 3

Fig. 1. Microscopic views of woven samples: (a) 2D-P (b) 3D-O (c) 3D-A.

layer 3D-O laminate; and the third, eight layer 3D-A laminate. The length of the specimen considered was 160 mm, overall gauge length

cross-sectional views of 2D-P, 3D-O and 3D-A laminates are shown was 60 mm, and gauge length of the extensometer was 25 mm. Fig. 4

in Fig. 2. shows the failure in the tested specimen, and it was observed that

Uniform diffusion of PP was observed throughout the lami- the samples were failed within the region measured using the ex-

nate. The density of all the laminates was 4.8–29% (Table 2) less than tensometer. However, the main objective of the present study was

that of the thermoset-based Kevlar® reinforced composites re- the fabrication of a novel thermoplastic-based composite armor panel

ported in the literature. The reduction in the density indicates the and its ballistic response against NIJ-STD 0106.01 Type IIIA standard.

reduced weight of the armor panels.

While fabricating the laminates by using pure PP as a matrix, 2.4. Ballistic test

dispersion of matrix in the ﬁbers was incomplete. This was due to

the reason that PP resins are not cross-linked polymers and possess The ballistic test was performed at the army camp near

high melt viscosity. Therefore, these are characterized by relative- Kapurthala, Punjab, India. The test was carried out at a tempera-

ly low strength and poor creep resistance at slightly elevated ture of 39 °C and humidity of 78%. Each panel was impacted with

temperatures. Due to this nature, they form weak bonds with Kevlar® ﬁve rounds as shown in Fig. 5. The ﬁring locations were chosen ac-

ﬁbers [25,26]. Therefore, the adhesion between Kevlar® fabric and cording to NIJ-STD 0106.01, where the location of each shot was not

PP matrix was improved by adding a coupling agent called MAg- affected by previous impact damage. Three types of armor panel were

PP to PP. To select the best suitable combination of MAg-PP and PP, manufactured according to standard body armor dimensions

two layer Kevlar®/PP laminates were fabricated with different com- (301.6 mm × 253.8 mm). For the ballistic test of K-MPP laminate

binations of MAg-PP with MI3530 and CO15EG resins. Low velocity based on the NIJ-STD 0106.01 Type IIIA [27], target was impacted

impact tests were conducted on these laminates using Fractovis Plus by a 9 mm full metal jacket (FMJ) projectile within the velocity range

drop weight impact test machine with an impact velocity of 5.03 m/ of 350–440 m/s. The initial impact velocity is measured by placing

s. Laminates were tested according to ASTM D7136 standard [29] optical sensors in the ﬁeld which are connected to a data acquisi-

for three specimens with respect to same impact conditions, and tion system.

the corresponding observations are presented in Table 3. From

Table 3, it can be concluded that the combination of 10%MAg- 3. Material modeling

PP + MI3530 exhibited higher energy absorbing capability. Therefore,

ﬁnal armor panels were manufactured using the matrix combina- The ballistic impact resistance of K-MPP armors with different

tion of 10%MAg-PP + MI3530 PP. fabric architecture was assessed using ANSYS-AUTODYN-3D v. 14.0,

a commercial hydrocode. Hydrocodes are large computer pro-

2.3. Tensile testing of laminates grams that are particularly designed to simulate the response of

structures undergoing large deformation, at high strain rate con-

The basic mechanical properties of the K-MPP composite lami- ditions. An EOS was used to deﬁne the relationship between pressure,

nates were obtained by performing quasi-static tensile tests on the density and internal energy by taking account of changes in density

Zwick/Roell universal testing machine (UTM) (Fig. 3). and thermodynamic processes. A strength relation was used to deﬁne

The tensile properties of the laminates were measured in ac- suitable equivalent plastic strain, equivalent plastic strain rate and

cordance to ASTM D3039 standard [30]. Three specimens were tested temperature dependence of the yield surface. In addition, a failure

for each material. The dimensions of the samples were selected ac- criteria was implemented i.e. a relation illustrating the (hydrostatic/

cording to ASTM D-3039 standard. According to this standard, the deviatoric) stress and/or strain condition which, when fulﬁlled, causes

Weft yarns

Binder yarns

Stuffer yarns

Weft yarns

Warp yarns Stuffer yarns

Fig. 2. Cross-sectional views: (a) 2D-P (b) 3D-O and (c) 3D-A.

4 A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13

Table 2

Comparison of density.

(g/cm3)

Kevlar® 29/Epoxy [12] 1.65

Kevlar® 29 & 129/polyvinylbutyral [28] 1.23

Kevlar® 29 (2D-P)/MAg-PP (Present Study) 1.17

Kevlar® 29 (3D-O)/MAg-PP (Present Study) 1.19

Kevlar® 29 (3D-A)/MAg-PP (Present Study) 1.19

the material to break and drop its ability to support normal and shear

stresses.

An advanced material model [31,32], particularly designed to sim-

ulate the shock response of anisotropic materials, was implemented

⎡⎣C k ⎤⎦ = [T k ] [C k ][T k ]

−1 −T

in ANSYS-AUTODYN v 14.0. This model assumes that the compos- (2)

ite material can be idealized as an orthotropic material and considers

anisotropic strength degradation, material anisotropy, shock re- where C k is the elastic stiffness matrix of kth lamina within the prin-

sponse and coupling of volumetric and deviatoric response. cipal coordinate system of laminate and Tk is the transformation

Therefore, in the present study, the target was modeled using ortho matrix and is expressed as:

EOS along with the elastic strength model and material stress/

strain failure criteria. Proper erosion strain and Lagrange processor ⎡ C2 S2 0 0 0 S2 ⎤

were also utilized in the present simulations. ⎢ S2 C2 0 0 0 − S 2⎥⎥

⎢

⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥

3.1. Equation of state (EOS) [T k ] = ⎢⎢ 0 0 0 C −S 0 ⎥

⎥ (3)

⎢ 0 0 0 S C 0 ⎥

In general, the behavior of composite laminates can be repre- ⎢ ⎥

sented through a set of orthotropic constitutive relations. The ⎢ −S2 S2 ⎥

0 0 0 C2 ⎥

orthotropic EOS in ANSYS-AUTODYN allows a non-linear EOS to be ⎣⎢ 2 2 ⎦

used in conjunction with an orthotropic stiffness matrix [31]. The

where C2 = cos2 θk, S2 = sin2 θk, S2 = sin 2θk and C2 = cos 2θk.

stress tensor obtained from these constitutive relations is divided

To include non-linear shock effects in the above linear rela-

into hydrostatic (pressure) and deviatoric components. This ap-

tions, it is ﬁrst desirable to separate the volumetric (thermodynamic)

proach incorporates the possible occurrence of non-linear effects

response of the material from its ability to carry shear loads

(shocks) that can be attributed to the volumetric straining in the

(strength). The strain components are split into their average ε ave

material. The stress–strain relation for an orthotropic material follows

and ε ijd deviatoric components. The constitutive relation becomes

as:

[33]:

⎡σ 11 ⎤ ⎡C11 C12 C13 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ ε11 ⎤

⎢σ ⎥ ⎢C ⎡ d 1 ⎤

C 22 C 23 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ε 22 ⎥ ⎢ ε11 + 3 ε vol ⎥

⎢ 22 ⎥ ⎢ 21 ⎥⎢ ⎥

⎢σ 33 ⎥ ⎢C 31 C 32 C 33 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ε 33 ⎥ ⎡σ 11 ⎤ ⎡C11 C12 C13 0 0 0 ⎤⎢ ⎥

⎢σ ⎥ ⎢C 1

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ (1) C 22 C 23 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 22d

+ ε ⎥

⎢ τ 23 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 C 44 0 0 ⎥ ⎢γ 23 ⎥ ⎢ 22 ⎥ ⎢ 21 ⎥⎢ 3

vol

⎥

⎢ τ 31 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎢σ 33 ⎥ ⎢C 31 C 32 C 33 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥

0 0 0 C 55 0 ⎥ ⎢γ 31 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ d 1 ⎥ (4)

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥

⎢ τ 23 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 C 44 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 33 + ε vol ⎥

⎣ τ 12 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 C 66 ⎦ ⎣γ 12 ⎦ 3

⎢ τ 31 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 C 55 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ γ 23 ⎥

where Cij is the constitutive coeﬃcient matrix; σij, εij are the prin- ⎣ τ 12 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 C 66 ⎦ ⎢ γ 31 ⎥

cipal stresses and strains; and τij, γij are the shear stress and shear ⎢ ⎥

strains, respectively. It is also useful, since within the AUTODYN en- ⎣ γ 12 ⎦

vironment, each layer of the laminate is not explicitly modeled;

where ε vol = ε11 + ε 22 + ε 33 and ε ave = 31 (ε11 + ε 22 + ε 33 ) .

rather, continuum elements representing equivalent homoge-

Pressure is deﬁned as one-third of the trace of the stresses

neous anisotropic solids are used to represent thick laminates

consisting of a number of repeating lamina. The principal materi- 1

al directions of all the lamina in the laminate do not necessarily P=− (σ 11 + σ 22 + σ 33 ) (5)

3

coincide with the global axis of the laminate. Stiffness matrix for

each lamina has to be expressed within the laminate global mate- By expanding Eq. (4), separating deviatoric and volumetric terms

rial axis using the following transformation: grouped separately, the expressions for the direct stresses are:

Table 3

Impact response parameters of Kevlar® laminate with different PP combinations.

Kevlar® fabric + combination Vel. (m/s) Damage force (N) Peak def. (mm) Peak energy (J) Peak force (N) Total energy (J)

KF+5% MAg-PP + CO15EG 5.03 49.91 19.72 71.397 6344.464 82.486

KF+10% MAg-PP + MI3530 5.03 61.793 24.394 125.344 8861.335 133.287

KF+10% MAg-PP + CO15EG 5.03 39.215 18.439 53.498 5765.75 92.672

A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13 5

include non-linear terms. The ﬁrst term is replaced with the Mie–

Grüneisen EOS, and the remaining terms act as a correction due to

deviatoric strains. The Eq. (7) takes the following form:

1

[C11 + C 21 + C 31 ] Δε11d

ΔP = ΔPEOS (ε vol , e ) −

3 (9)

1 1

− [C12 + C 22 + C 32 ] Δε 22

d

− [C13 + C 23 + C 33 ] Δε 33

d

3 3

Γ( v )

where the pressure contribution PEOS = Pr (ε vol ) + v [e − er (ε vol )]from

volumetric strains can include the non-linear shock (thermody-

Fig. 4. Uniaxial tensile test specimen. namic) effects and energy dependence as in a conventional EOS. The

parameters Pr (ε vol ) and er (ε vol ) deﬁne the material pressure volume

and energy–volume relation along the Hugoniot reference curve.

1 The Grüneisen gamma is deﬁned as:

σ 11 = (C11 + C 22 + C13 ) ε vol + C11ε11

d

+ C12ε 22

d

+ C13ε 33

d

(6a)

3

⎛ ∂P ⎞

Γ (v ) = v ⎜ ⎟ (10)

1 ⎝ ∂e ⎠ v

σ 22 = (C 21 + C 22 + C 23 ) ε vol + C 21ε11

d

+ C 22ε 22

d

+ C 23ε 33

d

(6b)

3

The Grüneisen gamma allows the determination of thermody-

1 namic states away from reference Hugoniot states. Three forms of

σ 33 = (C 31 + C 32 + C 33 ) ε vol + C 31ε11

d

+ C 32ε 22

d

+ C 33ε 33

d

(6c) Grüneisen gamma EOS are available to link with an orthotropic re-

3

sponse in the model: linear EOS, shock EOS and polynomial EOS.

Substituting Eq (6a–c) into Eq (5), the following expression can The volumetric response of the material is deﬁned through the solid

be obtained for pressure: EOS. The shock EOS (Eq. 11) allows the coupling of non-linear EOS

with orthotropic material stiffness.

1 1

P=− [C11 + C 22 + C 33 + 2(C12 + C 23 + C 31 )]ε vol − [C11 + C12 + C13 ]ε11d K

9 3 C0 = (11)

1 1 ρ

− [C 21 + C 22 + C 23 ]ε 22

d

− [C 31 + C 32 + C 33 ]ε 33

d

(7)

3 3

where C0 is the bulk acoustic sound speed, K is the effective bulk

The ﬁrst term on the right side of Eq. (7) represents the stan- modulus, and ρ is the current material density. The above materi-

dard relationship between the pressure and volumetric strain al model has been used by other authors for simulating the non-

(Hooke’s law) at low compressions. The later terms comprise of cou- linear stress–strain relationships for Kevlar composites [11,12,14].

pling between the pressure and deviatoric strain. The contribution

to the pressure from volumetric and deviatoric components of strain 3.2. Failure model

can clearly be identiﬁed in Eq. (7). The ﬁrst term of Eq. (7) can, there-

fore, be used to deﬁne the volumetric (thermodynamic) response Laminated composites exhibit multi-failure modes under bal-

of an orthotropic material in which the effective bulk modulus of listic impact. The failure initiation can be based on any combination

the material K is deﬁned as of material stress and/or strain. After failure initiation, stiffness and

strength properties of the failed material are updated based on the

1

K= (C11 + C 22 + C 33 + 2(C12 + C 23 + C 31 )) (8) mode of the failure initiation. In a laminate, with 11-direction

9 through its thickness, the stress in 11-direction is set to zero, if de-

Under high strain rate ballistic impact conditions, the relation lamination occurs due to through-the-thickness tensile stresses (or

between pressure and volumetric strain is typically non-linear. For strains) or from excessive shear stress (or strain) results in delami-

the inclusion of non-linear shock effects, the contribution to pres- nation. If the failure is initiated in either of these two modes, the

sure from volumetric strain (ﬁrst term in Eq. (7)) is modiﬁed to stress in the 11-direction is instantaneously set to zero, and the strain

in the 11-direction of failure is stored. Subsequently, if the mate-

rial strain in the 11-direction exceeds the failure strain, the material

stiffness matrix is modiﬁed as [33]:

11-direction:

⎡ d 1 ⎤

⎢ ε11 + 3 ε vol ⎥

⎡σ 11 ⎤ ⎡0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎤⎢ ⎥

⎢σ ⎥ ⎢0 C 1

C 23 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 22 d

+ ε ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢

22 22

⎥⎢ 3

vol

⎥

⎢σ 33 ⎥ ⎢0 C 32 C 33 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ d 1 ⎥ (12)

τ

⎢ 23 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 α C 44 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 33 + ε vol ⎥

3

⎢ τ 31 ⎥ ⎢0 0 0 0 αC 55 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ γ 23 ⎥

⎣ τ 12 ⎦ ⎣0 0 0 0 0 αC 66 ⎦ ⎢ γ 31 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ γ 12 ⎦

Sometimes, reduction in the shear stiffness results in delami-

nation. A nominal value of 20% is typically used for the parameter

Fig. 5. Impact locations and ﬁring order for testing. α [34]. The 22- and 33-directions are assumed to be in the plane

6 A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13

of the composite, i.e. in ﬁber directions. Due to excessive stresses 4. Numerical simulations

and/or strains in 22- and 33-directions, in-plane failure mode

occurs. If failure is initiated in these two modes, the stress in the The main objective of the present study is to determine if K-MPP

failed direction is instantaneously set to zero, and the strain at failure armor with different fabric architectures can conform to NIJ Standard-

in the direction of failure is stored. The stiffness matrix is modi- 0106.01 Type IIIA, 9 mm FMJ (full metal jacket). In the numerical

ﬁed as: simulations, the projectile impacted the target with an initial impact

22-direction: velocity within the range of 350–440 m/s. The actual dimensions

of the panel used in the ballistic tests were equivalent to the stan-

⎡ d 1 ⎤ dard body armor dimensions, i.e. 301.6 mm × 253.8 mm. As the

⎢ ε11 + 3 ε vol ⎥

⎡σ 11 ⎤ ⎡C11 0 C13 0 0 0 ⎤⎢ ⎥ ballistic impact phenomenon is localized in nature, only a region

⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 22 d

+ ε ⎥ of the real panel was considered. For the selection of panel dimen-

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ 3

vol

⎥ sions for simulation, 2D axisymmetric simulations were carried out

⎢σ 33 ⎥ ⎢C13 0 C 33 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ d 1 ⎥ (13) on the 2D-P armor panel with three different dimensions in the y

⎢ τ 23 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 αC 44 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 33 + ε vol ⎥ direction by keeping the thickness constant. The dimensions con-

3

⎢ τ 31 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 αC 55 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥ sidered were Panel A (2.5 × 75 mm2), Panel B (2.5 × 100 mm2) and

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ γ 23 ⎥

⎣ τ 12 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 αC 66 ⎦ ⎢ Panel C (2.5 × 150 mm2). Both the edges of the panels were ﬁxed.

γ 31 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ The panel was impacted with an impact velocity of 426 m/s, and

⎣ γ 12 ⎦ the damage propagation was observed. Fig. 6 (a–c) shows the damage

propagation in different panels at different time cycles till the com-

33-direction:

plete penetration of the projectile.

⎡ d 1 ⎤ From Fig. 6 (a–c) it was found that for an impact velocity of

⎢ ε11 + 3 ε vol ⎥ 426 m/s, the stress waves were interacted with the boundary of the

⎡σ 11 ⎤ ⎡C11 C12 0 0 0 0 ⎤⎢ ⎥ Panel A. However, in the case of Panels B and C, damage propaga-

⎢σ ⎥ ⎢C 1

C 22 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 22 d

+ ε ⎥ tion was localized, and stress waves were not interacted with the

⎢ 22 ⎥ ⎢ 12 ⎥⎢ 3

vol

⎥

⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥ boundary. Therefore, the lateral dimension of 150 mm2 was envis-

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ d 1 ⎥ (14)

τ

⎢ 23 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 αC 44 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ε 33 + ε vol ⎥ aged for the simulation which is suﬃciently large to obtain the

3 solution without signiﬁcant disquiets due to reﬂected waves. Fig. 7

⎢ τ 31 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 αC 55 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ γ 23 ⎥ shows the ﬁnite element (FE) model of the projectile and the target.

⎣ τ 12 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 αC 66 ⎦ ⎢ γ 31 ⎥ The projectile and the target were analyzed using the Lagrange

⎢ ⎥ processor with a mesh of six-sided brick type (hexahedral) ele-

⎣ γ 12 ⎦

ments. To improve the accuracy of the analysis, smaller cells were

The combined effect of failure in all the three material direc- used near the impact zone, and the mesh size gradually increased

tions results in a material that can only withstand hydrostatic to the outer edges.

pressure, by a change in the material stiffness and strength to iso- A mesh sensitivity analysis was carried in order to ensure that

tropic with no stress deviators and no tensile material stresses [12]. the results obtained are not sensitive to the size of the elements

used. For this purpose, an FE model was modeled to predict the bal-

listic limit of Kevlar® laminate. The mesh sizes considered were

3.3. Erosion criteria

0.2 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.8 mm, and 1 mm. The ballistic limit was

estimated for all the mesh sizes of the laminate and compared. The

An erosion algorithm that removes highly distorted elements

differences of the ballistic limit between the mesh size of

when instantaneous geometric strain for erosion exceeds a deﬁ-

0.2 × 0.2 mm, 0.4 × 0.4 mm, 0.6 × 0.6 mm, and 0.8 × 0.8 mm were 0.3%

nite value was implemented. The mass of removing cells is

(374 m/s), 0.06% (375.25 m/s), 0.13% (375.5 m/s), and 0.06% respec-

distributed equally to the remaining nodes. By this distribution, the

tively. Therefore, all the simulations were carried out using mesh

inertia and spatial continuity of inertia are conserved in the mesh.

size equal to or less than 0.8 mm. The projectile was discretized into

The speciﬁc value of erosion criteria is deﬁned typically using a value

855 elements.

of 0.5–2 [34]. However, the ballistic impact response is not sensi-

The interaction between the projectile and the target was deﬁned

tive to the variation of erosion strain [17]. Principal strain

using gap interaction logic [33]. With this logic, each segment is sur-

components (εi, εij, i = 1 to 3, j = 1 to 3) are used to calculate the ge-

rounded by a contact detection zone, and the radius of this zone

ometric strain using the following equation:

is deﬁned as gap size. Any nodes entering into this detection zone

2 2 are repelled by a force about the depth of penetration of the nodes

[ (ε1 + ε 22 + ε 32 ) − (ε1ε 2 + ε 2ε 3 + ε 3ε1 ) + 3(ε122 + ε 232 + ε 312 ) ]

12

ε eff = (15) into the detection zone. The gap size used in the present simula-

3

tions was 0.0033 mm.

In the present study, the geometric strain for erosion was con- Numerical simulations were performed to predict the ballistic

sidered as 1.5 for Kevlar® composite targets, and it is similar to the limit velocity. Attempting to obtain this value, the panels were sub-

erosion strain considered in [11,12]. jected to an increasing impact velocity. Projectile velocity history

The above discussed material model was implemented through was recorded as shown in Figs. 15–17. The ballistic limit was mea-

hydrocode simulations to investigate the ballistic impact response sured based on the two standard methods available in the literature.

of armor panels to simulate failure modes and damage. The re- The ﬁrst method was based on the velocity time history in which

sponse obtained from the simulations was compared with the ballistic limit (Vbl) is deﬁned as the maximum impact velocity at

experimental data to evaluate the performance of the simula- which the projectile can be stopped [11,35]. The second method was

tions. Good correlation between the hydrocode simulations and according to US MIL-STD-662E [36] (V50). According to this method,

ballistic tests was succeeded in terms of damage patterns and failure the V50 can be calculated by taking the average of an equal number

modes. Further, simulations were extended to obtain an estimate of lowest velocities giving full perforations and highest velocities

for ballistic limit and to simulate different failure modes. Attempt- giving partial perforations which occur within a small velocity range

ing to obtain this value, projectile velocity time history was recorded of 38 m/s. The elastic constants obtained from the experimental char-

for various impact velocities. acterization are presented in Table 4.

A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13 7

13

(b) Panel B: 2.5 x 100 mm2

The projectile was made of brass jacket with lead core. The shear projectile material model were adopted from the standard ANSYS

response of the brass jacket and the lead core was modeled using AUTODYN 14.0 material library [39].

Johnson–Cook [37] and the Steinberg–Guinan [38] strength models,

respectively. The high strain rate response of these materials was 5. Results and discussion

modeled using Mie-Gruneinsen EOS. The constants for the

The ballistic impact tests on Kevlar® reinforced thermoplastic-

based armor panels revealed a number of failure modes. The

response of the armor panels from the ballistic impact test was used

as a benchmark for later comparison with that obtained from

hydrocode simulation. Ballistic limits were also predicted using ve-

locity time histories and residual velocities obtained from hydrocode

simulations.

(a) (b) Fig. 8 shows the damage in the form of a cruciﬁx that evolves

with velocity according to recognizable patterns for the given impact

Fig. 7. FE model: (a) projectile and (b) target. velocity, and similar observations were reported in [11,12]. The extent

8 A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13

Table 4

Description of material model for Kevlar® laminates of different fabrics under study.

Density (g/cm3) 1.176 1.192 1.192

Young’s modulus 11 (kPa) 14.625e+06 17.204e+06 18.330e+06

Young’s modulus 22 (kPa) 14.625e+06 17.204e+06 18.330e+06

Young’s modulus 33 (kPa) 4.293e+05 5.847e+05 5.847e+05

Poissons ratio 12 0.048 0.025 0.09

Poissons ratio 23 0.182 0.590 0.390

Poissons ratio 31 0.182 0.590 0.390

Strength Elastic Elastic Elastic

Shear modulus (kPa) 6.977e+06 8.392e+06 8.408e+06

Failure Material stress/strain Material stress/strain Material stress/strain

Tensile failure strain 11 0.025 0.087 0.074

Tensile failure strain 22 0.025 0.087 0.074

Tensile failure strain 33 0.010 0.054 0.033

Post failure option Orthotropic Orthotropic Orthotropic

Failed in 11, failure mode 11 only 11 only 11 only

Failed in 22, failure mode 22 only 22 only 22 only

Failed in 33, failure mode 33 only 33 only 33 only

Failed in 12, failure mode 12 & 11 only 12 & 11 only 12 & 11 only

Failed in 23, failure mode 23 & 11 only 23 & 11 only 23 & 11 only

Failed in 31, failure mode 31 & 11 only 31 & 11 only 31 & 11 only

Residual shear stiffness fraction 0.2 0.2 0.2

Erosion Geometric strain Geometric strain Geometric strain

Erosion strain 1.5 1.5 1.5

Type of geometric Strain Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous

of damage in the present study was lower compared to that of the it is found to be dominated by ﬁber stretching and shearing. The

reported results, indicating the inﬂuence of thermoplastic ogive nose of the projectile also showed an effect on the penetra-

matrix. tion through stretching of ﬁbers adjacent to the nose. The damage

Among the three armor panels, the projectile did not pene- was in the form of a cone with open in the direction of impact pe-

trate the armor panels with 3D-O and 3D-A fabrics. However, full riphery. Cone formation was due to the compression of the target

perforations were observed in armor panels with 2D-P fabrics. The material and lead to the upﬂow of the material (Fig. 10).

impact tests on the 2D-P armor panels uncover some of the failure

modes such as delamination, shear plugging, matrix cracking, in- 5.2. Comparison of test and numerical results

plane failure, and ﬁber crushing. In these laminates, experimental

results at velocities between 350 m/s and 376 m/s showed partial Damage patterns observed in the ballistic impact test showed

penetration of the projectile, i.e. remained inside the armor. Beyond different failure modes such as matrix cracking, delamination, ﬁber

this velocity, all the shots showed full perforation. failure, ﬁber crushing, and shear plugging. The three K-MPP lami-

From hydrocode simulations, different damage patterns were ob- nates exhibited different failure modes depending on their fabric

served in the armor panels. These damage patterns represent architecture. It should be noted that the ballistic impact param-

different failure modes, which occur in a composite laminate under eters, such as projectile mass and the projectile geometry, were kept

the ballistic impact. Propagation of the damage in the impact test the same for all the armor panels.

was not captured due to the limitations in the impact test. However, Fig. 11 shows the damage pattern observed in the 2D-P armor

through simulations, it was captured at different cycles as shown panel for an impact velocity of 426 m/s. Complete perforation of the

in Fig. 9. target was seen in hydrocode simulation as well as in the ballistic

When a projectile impacts the target, a compressive wave gen- impact test with shear plugging failure. From the ﬁgure, matrix,

erates through-the-thickness of the target and gets reﬂected as a cracking and delamination can be observed. The cracks were ob-

tensile wave from its inner surface causing delamination between served along the warp and weft direction on the top surface, and

the plies. As the projectile penetrates, the deformation in the target shear plugging at the bottom surface.

changes. During the initial stage of penetration, compression and Fig. 12 shows the failure near impact zone and shear plugging

displacement of the target material are dominant. At later stages, at the back of the target (major failure mode). The shear plug area

A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13 9

from the impact test exhibited a square shape area of 103.67 mm2, Fig. 13 shows the damage patterns observed in an armor panel

and from simulation, similar proﬁle was obtained with an area of with 3D-O fabrics when impacted with an impact velocity of 426 m/s.

112.16 mm2. Fiber crush near the impact zone was also one of the In the vicinity of the impact zone, diffused damage was observed.

major failure modes that was observed during the impact tests and The failure modes observed were delamination, ﬁber crush, matrix

hydrocode simulations. cracking, and ﬁber failure. At this impact velocity, the projectile was

Fig. 11. Damage patterns observed in both experimental and hydrocode simulations (2D-P laminate).

(a) Impact zone (b) Shear plugging at the back of the target

10 A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13

Table 5

Damage area at front and back surfaces (v = 426 m/s).

laminate test (mm2) (mm2) (%)

Back 103.67 112.16 8.19

3D-O Front 69.52 76.59 9.23

Back - - -

3D-A Front 66.04 70.88 7.32

Back - - -

Fig. 13. Damage patterns in 3D-O laminate. It can be observed that the extent of damage in the vicinity of

impact in 2D-P panels was 2.4% higher than that of the 3D-O panels

and 7.3% higher than that of the 3D-A panels. Among the three armor

struck in the target showing partial penetration with negligible panels, 3D-A panel showed better impact resistance than that of

backface signature. the remaining two panels, which can be further improved to study

Fig. 14 shows the damage that occurred in 3D-A fabrics rein- the behavior at various impact velocities with different thickness

forced armor panel when impacted with an impact velocity of of the target and effect of different projectiles.

426 m/s, and partial penetration was observed. Damage patterns ob-

tained from hydrocode simulations were in good correlation with 5.3. Ballistic limit (Vbl/V50)

the test results, which shows the capability of the simulations. Due

to the higher interlaminar strength of the 3D-A fabric structure, the Fig. 15 shows the velocity time histories of the projectile im-

delamination observed was very low in 3D-A armor panels com- pacting the 2D-P laminate. From Fig. 15, it can be observed that the

pared to the remaining armor panels. laminate with 2D-P fabrics decelerates the projectile slowly due to

Based on the above comparison of the damage patterns for dif- the presence of crimp. Therefore, the warp and ﬁll yarns have to

ferent armor panels, the following inferences can be explained ﬁrst decrimp before they can start to elongate in tension, thereby

relating to the fabric architecture: slowing down the projectile.

From Fig. 15a it can be observed that for an impact velocity of

– The warp and weft yarns in the 2D-P laminates are undulated 380 m/s and 400 m/s, the residual velocities observed were 68 m/s

because of the interlacing with each other. Moreover, in 2D-P and 131 m/s, respectively. However, for an impact velocity of 376 m/s,

laminates due to the presence of crimp, the factors that harm the residual velocity approaches to zero and subsequently nega-

the impact performance are: (a) more time for yarns to decrimp tive. At this instant, the target absorbed most of the impact energy

before they develop tension through elongation, (b) lower areal of the projectile and thereby resisted its penetration. Hence, Vbl of

density, and (c) greater weaving damages. 2D-P laminate obtained from numerical simulations was 376 m/s.

– When the projectile impacts the target, the stress waves spread Fig. 15b shows the estimation of the V50 as 377.5 m/s by taking the

in in-plane ﬁber direction and through-the-thickness direc- average of six initial impact velocities within the range of 38 m/s.

tion. z-yarns in the 3D panels reinforce the system in the thickness Fig. 16 shows the velocity time histories of the projectile im-

direction, thus effectively preventing the occurrence of pacting 3D-O laminate at various impact velocities. By analyzing

delamination. Fig. 16a, one can observe that, for an impact velocity of 400 m/s, the

– In 3D fabric structure, the z-yarns play a vital role in holding the residual velocity was negative, indicating rebounding of the projectile.

weft and warp yarns all together. Due to the presence of z-yarns, For an impact velocity of 450 m/s, the residual velocity ap-

areal density increases. Due to the increased areal density, warp proaches zero, indicating that the target absorbed most of the kinetic

and weft yarns contribute high in-plane stiffness and strength. energy of the projectile. This is the maximum velocity at which the

As the areal density is high, initial momentum transfer between target stopped the projectile, and for a velocity beyond this limit,

the projectile and the target occurs up to a great extent and in- full perforations were observed. Therefore, it can be concluded that

creases the speciﬁc energy absorption. the Vbl of a 3D-O laminate was 450 m/s. According to US military

standard, the V50 obtained was 452.5 m/s (Fig. 16b).

From the impact tests and hydrocode simulations, damage area Velocity time histories of the projectile impacting 3D-A lami-

observed on front and back surfaces was consistent. Table 5 pres- nate are presented in Fig. 17. During the ballistic impact test and

ents the experimentally and numerically obtained damage areas for simulations, 3D-A laminate showed partial penetration for an impact

the same mass and geometry of the projectile. velocity of 426 m/s. For an impact velocity of 500 m/s, projectile per-

forated carrying a residual velocity of 91 m/s. It indicates that the

ballistic limit is between 426 m/s and 500 m/s. Partial penetra-

tions were observed up to an impact velocity of 470 m/s above which

complete perforations were observed. Thus, the Vbl of 3D-A lami-

nate was 470 m/s. Fig. 17b shows the V50 of 471.2 m/s measured

according to US military standard.

An interesting observation in the velocity history is the decel-

eration of the projectile. Initially, the projectile decelerates faster

in the case of laminates reinforced with 3D fabrics (Figs. 16a and

17a) than that of the 2D-P laminates (Fig. 15a). This is due to the

absence of crimp in 3D fabrics and locking of yarns in their posi-

tion of the matrix. Hence, the deformations, energy absorptions, and

momentum transfers are spread out further, decreasing the occur-

Fig. 14. Damage patterns in 3D-A laminate. rence of damage. However, when z-yarns near the impact zone begin

A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13 11

500 387

2D plain woven, Impact Velocity (m/s) 2D plain woven

375 , 376, 380, 400 Full perforation Partial perforation

384

400

381

Velocity (m/s)

378

Velocity (m/s)

375

200

372

100

369

366

0

0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (ms) Impact number

(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Ballistic limit velocity for 2D-P laminates: (a) velocity time histories, (b) US standard.

to fail, the fabric structure becomes compromised, with little left higher than that of the 2D-P laminates and 4.2% higher than that

holding the warp and weft layers together. Thus, the velocity history of the 3D-O laminates. However, the percentage variation between

rapidly levels off, indicating complete fabric penetration. During the Vbl and V50 was up to 0.55%. The hierarchy of the ballistic limit ob-

time between which the warp and weft yarns at the impact zone tained is 3D-A > 3D-O > 2D-P.

have failed, the friction between the projectile and the target is the The variation of residual velocities with impact velocities for the

dominant mechanism by which the projectile velocity further three laminates predicted from simulations is shown in Fig. 18. For

reduces. A gradual decrease in the slope of the velocity history before 2D-P laminate, as impact velocity increases beyond the ballistic limit,

it completely levels off indicates a greater level of friction. This was an increase in residual velocity was observed with high rate.

observed to a greater extent in 2D-P laminates and to a lesser extent Whereas, in the case of 3D-O and 3D-A laminates, the increase was

in 3D laminates. not that steep. This is due to the architecture of the fabric that slows

The effect of fabric architecture was investigated by comparing down the projectile for further penetration.

the ballistic limit velocity. From Table 6, it can be observed that the Table 7 presents the ballistic impact response of the K-MPP lami-

ballistic limit velocity Vbl of 3D-A laminates was found to be 20% nates reinforced with fabrics of different architecture. By analyzing

3D orthogonal

525 480

Full perforation Partial perforation

3D orthogonal, Impact Velocity (m/s)

450

400, 450, 455 , 500

470

375

460

Ballistic limit = 452.5 m/s

Velocity (m/s)

Velocity (m/s)

300

450

225

440

150

75 430

0

420

0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (ms) Impact number

(a) (b)

Fig. 16. Ballistic limit velocity for 3D-O laminates: (a) velocity time histories, (b) US standard.

12 A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13

600 485

3D angle interlock, Impact Velocity (m/s) 3D angle interlock

Full perforation Partial perforation

450, 460, 470, 480, 500

480

400 475

Velocity (m/s)

Velocity (m/s)

Ballistic limit = 471.2 m/s

470

200

465

460

0

455

0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (ms)

Impact number

(a) (b)

Fig. 17. Ballistic limit velocity for 3D-A laminates: (a) velocity time histories, (b) US standard.

the results presented in Table 7, the effect of fabric structure on the between 2D-P laminate and 3D-A laminate was 36%. By compar-

ballistic impact response of the K-MPP laminates was studied in ing the ballistic response parameters between 3D-O laminates and

terms of residual velocity, energy absorption, and ballistic limit. For 3D-A laminates, it can be observed that, for the same thickness of

the same mass and geometry of the NIJ-STD-0101.06 Type IIIA pro- the target and same projectile, the energy absorbed at ballistic limit

jectile, fabric structure plays a signiﬁcant role in the ballistic impact by 3D-A laminate was 8.33% higher than that of the 3D-O laminate.

behavior of K-MPP laminates.

The increase in the ballistic limit from 2D-P laminates to 3D-A 6. Conclusions

laminates leads to an increase in the energy absorption. It was found

that the maximum difference of energy absorbed at the ballistic limit Three types of composite armor panels were manufactured using

between 2D-P laminate and the 3D-O laminate was 30.18%, and PP matrix and Kevlar® 29 fabrics with architectures of 2D plain

woven (2D-P), 3D orthogonal (3D-O), and 3D angle interlock (3D-

A). The adhesion between the Kevlar® fabric and PP was improved

Table 6 by adding a coupling agent called maleic anhydride grafted (MAg)-

Predictions of ballistic limit.

PP. The post-impact damage patterns of NIJ-STD-0106.01 Type IIIA

Type of Ballistic limit composite armor were obtained from ballistic impact tests. The

Laminate velocity (m/s)

3D-O 450 452.5 0.55 Ballistic impact performance of 2D-P, 3D-O and 3D-A laminates for NIJ-STD-

3D-A 470 471.2 0.25 0101.06 Type IIIA.

laminate penetration

376 −2.32 PP 565.50 - -

2D-P, 3D-O, 3D-A 400 131 FP 640.00 68.64 571.35

200 426 157 FP 725.90 98.59 627.30

450 198 FP 810.00 156.81 653.18

160 500 240 FP 1000.00 230.4 769.60

Residual Velocity (m/s)

426 −11.24 PP 725.90 - -

120 450 −3.2 PP 810.00 - -

480 55.88 FP 921.60 12.49 909.11

80 490 62.74 FP 960.40 15.74 944.65

500 74.57 FP 1000.00 22.24 977.75

3D-A 400 −31.72 PP 640.00 - -

40 426 −24.74 PP 725.90 - -

450 −14.19 PP 810.00 - -

0 470 −0.126 PP 883.60 - -

480 40.47 FP 921.60 6.55 915.05

360 390 420 450 480 510 490 53.27 FP 960.40 11.35 949.05

-40 Impact Velocity (m/s) 500 61.27 FP 1000.00 15.01 984.98

Fig. 18. Impact velocity-post impact residual velocity. tion, KEi = initial kinetic energy, KEf = ﬁnal kinetic energy, Ea = energy absorbed.

A.K. Bandaru et al./International Journal of Impact Engineering 89 (2016) 1–13 13

application of hydrocode simulations in assessing the ballistic re- [7] Naik NK, Doshi AV. Ballistic impact behavior of thick composites: analytical

formulation. AIAA J 2005;43(7):1525–36.

sistance of 3D armor panels was presented. The material modeling

[8] Naik NK, Shrirao P. Composite structures under ballistic impact. Compos Struct

was deﬁned through a material model that couples the non-linear 2004;66:579–90.

anisotropic constitutive equations to the equation of state (EOS). As [9] Bandaru AK, Ahmad S. Numerical simulation of progressive damage of laminated

a summary of this work, the following conclusions were drawn: composites under ballistic impact. Safety, Reliability, Risk and Life-Cycle

Performance of Structures and Infrastructures. Taylor & Francis Group; 2013.

[10] Yen CF. A ballistic material model for continuous-ﬁber reinforced composites.

– The thermoplastic Kevlar® composite laminates yielded a 16– Int J Impact Eng 2012;46:11–22.

29% reduction in the density over conventional thermoset- [11] Silva MAG, Cismasiu C, Chiorean CG. Numerical simulation of ballistic impact

on composite laminates. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31:289–306.

based laminates, while maintaining an equivalent protection level. [12] Tham CY, Tan VBC, Lee HP. Ballistic impact of a KEVLAR® helmet: experiment

– Post-impact damage patterns from the ballistic impact tests re- and simulations. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(5):304–18.

vealed that the 3D Kevlar® armor panels were able to confront [13] Grujicic M, Glomski PS, He T, Arakere G, Bell WC, Cheeseman B. Material

modelling and ballistic-resistance analysis of armor-grade composites reinforced

the 9 mm FMJ projectile unlike 2D Kevlar® armor panels. with high-performance ﬁbers. J Mater Eng Perform 2009;18:1169–82.

– The existence of z-yarns in 3D fabrics greatly improved the bal- [14] Bandaru AK, Vetiyatil L, Ahmad S. The effect of hybridization on the ballistic

listic performance by engaging failed layers that would otherwise impact behavior of hybrid composite armors. Compos Part B 2015;76:300–

19.

separate from the rest of the layers. Due to the absence of crimp [15] Muhi RJ, Najim F, de Moura MFSF. The effect of hybridization on the GFRP

in 3D fabrics, their strength retentions were much higher than behavior under high velocity impact. Compos Part B 2009;40:798–803.

that of the 2D-P fabric. [16] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Koudela KL, Cheeseman B. A computational analysis

of the ballistic performance of light weight hybrid composite armors. Appl Surf

– The global damage and failure modes from hydrocode simula-

Sci 2006;253:730–45.

tions were in good agreement with ballistic impact test results. [17] Tan P. Ballistic protection performance of curved armor systems with or without

For the same mass and geometry of the projectile, the extent of debondings/delaminations. Mater Des 2014;64:25–34.

damage on the front surface of the 2D-P laminate was 2.4% higher [18] Vieille B, Casado VM, Bouvet C. About the impact behavior of woven-ply carbon

ﬁber-reinforced thermoplastic- and thermosetting-composites: a comparative

than that of the 3D-O laminates and 7.3% higher than that of the study. Compos Struct 2013;101:9–21.

3D-A laminates. [19] Kulkarni SG, Gao XL, Horner SE, Zheng JQ, David NV. Ballistic helmets – their

– The ballistic limit velocity was increased with the change in the design, materials, and performance against traumatic brain injury. Compos

Struct 2013;101:313–31.

fabric architecture from 2D-P to 3D-O and 3D-A. The ballistic limit [20] Walsh SM, Scott BR, Spagnuolo DM. The development of a hybrid thermoplastic

velocity of 3D-A laminates was 20% higher than that of the 2D-P ballistic material with applications to helmets. U.S. Army Research Laboratory,

laminates and 4.2% higher than that of the 3D-O laminates. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. ARL-TR-3700; 2005. 19 p.

[21] Walsh SM, Scott BR, Spagnuolo DM, Wolbert JP. Hybridized thermoplastic

– For same mass and geometry of the projectile, the hierarchy of aramids: enabling material technology for future force headgear. Aberdeen

overall ballistic performance of NIJ-STD 0106.01 Type IIIA armor Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory; 2006. 8 p.

made of Kevlar®/PP laminates consisting of different fabric ar- [22] Song JW. Thermoplastic composite for ballistic application [Ph.D. dissertation].

University of Massachusetts at Lowell; 1986. 118 p.

chitectures is as follows: [23] Carrillo JG, Gamboa RA, Flores-Johnson EA, Gonzalez-Chi PI. Ballistic

3D-A > 3D-O > 2D-P. performance of thermoplastic composite laminates made from aramid woven

– The present study emphasized the use of thermoplastic-based fabric and polypropylene matrix. Polym Test 2012;31(4):512–19.

[24] Shockey DA. Improved barriers to turbine engine fragments: interim report II.

composite laminates with different fabric architectures and design

Report no: DOT/FAA/AR-99/8, II; 1999.

prospects that could be used to engineer a lightweight body [25] Choi CH, Ok YS, Kim BK, Ha CS, Cho WJ, Shin YJ. Melt rheology and property

armor that meets the requirements prescribed in test stan- of short aramid ﬁber reinforced polyethylene composites. J Korean Ind Eng Chem

dards from government agencies. 1992;3(1):81–7.

[26] Petrie EM. Hand book of adhesives and sealants. McGraw-Hill; 2000.

[27] National Institute of Justice-USA. Ballistic resistance of body armor. (NIJ)

Acknowledgement Standard 0101.06; 2008.

[28] Gower HL, Cronin DS, Plumtree A. Ballistic impact response of laminated

composite panels. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(9):1000–8.

The authors acknowledge the dedicated efforts of Col. Anil Yadav, [29] ASTM D7136. Standard test method for measuring the damage resistance of a

Army ﬁeld camp, Kapurthala, Punjab, India, for conducting a ﬁeld ﬁber-reinforced polymer matrix composite to a drop-weight impact event, 2007.

[30] ASTM D 3039. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix

test on the laminates under study. composite materials, 2000.

[31] Hiermaier S, Riedel W, Hayhurst CJ, Clegg RA, Wentzel CM. Advanced Material

References Models for Hypervelocity Impact Simulations, EMI-Report No. E43/99, ESA CR(P)

4305; 1999.

[32] Hayhurst CJ, Hiermaier SJ, Clegg RA, et al. Development of material models for

[1] Behera B, Hari P. Woven textile structure-theory and applications. Woodhead Nextel and Kevlar-Epoxy for high pressures and strain rates. Int J Impact Eng

publishing series in textiles. CRC Press; 2010. 1999;23:365–76.

[2] Pan N, Lin Y, Wang X, Postle R. An oblique ﬁber bundle test and analysis. Text [33] AUTODYN® composite modelling, Revision 1.3, ANSYS Inc.; 2011.

Res J 2000;70(8):671–4. [34] AUTODYN Theory Manual, Revision 4.3, Century Dynamics Inc.; 2005.

[3] Yunqiao R, Richard FJ. A modeling and experimental study of the inﬂuence of [35] Twaron in Soft body armor. Wuppertal: AKZO; 1993.

twist on the mechanical properties of high-performance ﬁber yarns. J Applied [36] Military Standard V50 ballistic test for armor. MIL-STD-662E; 1987.

Polym Sci 2000;77(9):1938–49. [37] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to

[4] Briscoe BJ, Motamedi M. The ballistic impact characteristics of aramid fabrics: large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the

the inﬂuence of interface friction. Wear 1992;158:229–47. seventh international symposium on ballistics, Hague, Netherlands; 1983.

[5] Cheeseman BA, Bogetti TA. Ballistic impact into fabric and compliant composite [38] Steinberg DJ. Equation of state and strength properties of selected materials.

laminates. Compos Struct 2003;61:161–73. UCRL-MA-106439. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

[6] Cheng WL, Scott L, Shigeru I. High velocity impact of thick composites. Int J 1991.

Impact Eng 2003;29(1–10):167–84. [39] ANSYS AUTODYN. ANSYS Workbench Release 14.0; 2011.

- Carbon-carbon Matrix Composites.Transféré parVijay Shakar
- Article 40Transféré paramran2914
- 40207_05Transféré parsupriyo1970
- 25-24-1-PBTransféré parBenjamin Tee
- Composite Materials Using BoneTransféré parRing Master
- 16792-ASME3Transféré parNguyen Xuan Hai
- Our ResearchTransféré parCer Litem
- LITEM 2013Transféré parCer Litem
- ASTM C0274_1 (EN) ᴾᴼᴼᴮᴸᴵᶜᴽTransféré parsvvasin2013
- BLEST Curing Sim by Autoclave RITransféré parTaha_Khot_1705
- Protective TextilesTransféré parmaninarayan
- Mechanical Properties of Polymer Composite MaterialsTransféré parInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- 15 Mode I Interfacial Toughening Through Discontinuous Interleaves for Damage Suppression and ControlTransféré parcaptaincoffin
- Flexural Analysis of Balsa Core Sandwich Composite- Failure MechaTransféré parManjinderSingh
- Three Gorge HPP Spiral Case Dynamic AnalysisTransféré parjhoward2012np
- International Journal of Damage Mechanics 2003 Al Shayea 305 29Transféré parshinetheviosa
- ME AfternoonTransféré parPrabhu Charan Teja
- Nadlene Et Al-2016-Polymer CompositesTransféré parBalaji
- B Tech _Mechanical Engineering _ Production Engineering _ Industrial & Production Engineering _ Mechanical & Industrial Engineering_ 4th Year SyllabusTransféré parAnkit Kumar
- tmp2E98.tmpTransféré parFrontiers
- buckypaper -1Transféré parMax Yee Min Juey
- 1ch1 NotesTransféré parBara Salah
- Man ZoliTransféré parMárcio Alves
- Effect of Natural Durian Skin on Mechanical and Morphological Properties of Kevlar Composites in Structural ApplicationsTransféré parSuhad D. Salman
- EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON E-GLASS FIBER, FLY-ASH AND EPOXY RESINTransféré parIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- 1stTransféré parthai avvai
- Lesson 24 - Laminate Modeling - Rev C.pdfTransféré parraduga_fb
- Handbook on Form Work for BuildingsTransféré parraahul_n
- A New Method for Calculating the Stiffness of Filament Wound Composites Considering the Fibre Undulation and CrossoverTransféré parVishwanadh
- An Experimental Study of the Insert Join (1)Transféré parmuhanned

- Candle MakingTransféré parnorthsage
- Advanced Body Armor Utilizing Shear Thickening FluTransféré parTibebu Meride
- 3. Robust DesignTransféré parTibebu Meride
- 1-s2.0-S0263822318343435-mainTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Chapter 12 Working DrawingTransféré parAlexShear
- Symmetric LaminatesTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Us 5200256Transféré parTibebu Meride
- Final SummerTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Main Components of Pressure VesselTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Mechanical Seal DesignTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Types of Composite MaterialsTransféré parTibebu Meride
- 0389-4304(94)90003-5Transféré parTibebu Meride
- OneTransféré parTibebu Meride
- AAU SponsorshipLetterFormTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Multi.docxTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Significant AdvantagesTransféré parTibebu Meride
- ClutchTransféré parAvinash Kumar
- 1111128618_276985Transféré parTibebu Meride
- ClutchTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Problem of StatementTransféré parTibebu Meride
- Manual Paper Recycling Machine DesignTransféré parLakshmanan Arunachalam
- Fertilizer Materials.docxTransféré parTibebu Meride
- TillageTransféré parAbhilash Dwivedy
- logo bduTransféré parTibebu Meride
- The Size of the Crac1Transféré parTibebu Meride
- behal_solodyankin_crack_growth_simulation_in_the_course.pdfTransféré parTibebu Meride
- What Are Different Types of FertilizerTransféré parTibebu Meride

- ETABS BALOK B160Transféré parFerdianz Ngefenz D'masiv
- Understanding the Gas LawTransféré parMydah Mai
- Analisis Cfd PusherTransféré parGiancarlo Rivera Leon
- Steam Distribution systemTransféré parAmzad DP
- Column Relief load calsTransféré parAGP
- Bernoulli's PrincipleTransféré parWaqar Ahmed
- duo-visTransféré parFranz Becker
- A tensileTransféré parOsama Bin Anwar
- Laterally Loaded PileTransféré parvpamatya
- MM301 Deney I FöyüTransféré parSavaş Koparal Dündar
- Fabrication of U-type, V-type, L-type Angle Bending MachineTransféré parCrisp
- Hydraulic Ram Pump instalationTransféré parGreen Action Sustainable Technology Group
- FAGUS6__Materials and Analysis ParametersTransféré parRamon Gutierrez
- simulacion de cohete.pdfTransféré parAnge Quintriqueo
- H.K. Moffatt- Formation and disruption of concentrated vortices in turbulenceTransféré parVortices3443
- Test2 H&PTransféré parjayadevakodi
- Volume 3 Wet DedustersTransféré parcymy
- Unit Test-I CE 6452_2014Transféré parAravind Phoenix
- Design and Finite Element Assessment of Mounded Bullet.pdfTransféré parc0g
- mini project for jntuTransféré parPhanindra Kumar
- heat transferTransféré parabhinavbansal007
- 9.24Transféré parAly Arquillano Jr
- answers_to_problems.pdfTransféré parcarlosixx
- A model for prediction of time from corrosion initiation to corrosion crackingTransféré parMehdi Kashani
- Heat Exchanger ManualTransféré parSherry Henry
- [GREEN] an Energy-based Excess Pore Pressure Generation Model for Cohesionless SoilsTransféré parhal9000_mark1
- Ansys Steps for Civilea (1)Transféré pardashoo7
- hobas.pdfTransféré parseby_77
- energeticsTransféré parSabyasachi Patjoshi
- Introduction to Computational Fluid DynamicsTransféré parJonyzhitop Tenorio

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.