Pyramidal ceramic armor ability to defeat projectile threat by changing its trajectory

Open access


This paper presents a numerical study of a multilayer composite panel impacted by an AP (Armor Piercing) 14.5×114 mm B32 projectile. The composite consists of alternating layers of hard ceramic and a ductile aluminum alloy. While the alloy layer consists of typical plate, ceramics confront projectiles in the form of ceramic pyramids. The studied models are compared with a reference structure, which is a standard double layer panel.

The problem has been solved with the usage of modeling and simulation methods as well as a finite elements method implemented in LS-DYNA software. Space discretization for each option was built with three dimensional elements ensuring satisfying accuracy of the calculations. For material behavior simulation, specific models including the influence of the strain rate and temperature changes were considered. A steel projectile and aluminum plate material were described by the Johnson-Cook model and a ceramic target by the Johnson-Holmquist model.

The obtained results indicate that examined structures can be utilized as a lightweight ballistic armor in certain conditions. However, panels consisting of sets of ceramic prisms are a little easier to penetrate. Despite this fact, a ceramic layer is much less susceptible to overall destruction, making it more applicable for the armor usage. What is most important in this study is that significant projectile trajectory deviation is detected, depending on the impact point. Such an effect may be utilized in solutions, where a target is situated relatively far from an armor.

[1] T.J. Holmquist and C.L. Randow, “Modeling the ballistic response of the 14.5 mm BS41 projectile”, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 206, 129-137 (2012).

[2] T.J. Holmquist, G.R. Johnson, and W.A. Gooch, “Modeling the 14.5 mm BS41 projectile for ballistic impact computations”, Computational Ballistics II, WIT Trans. on Modelling and Simulation 4, 61-75 (2005).

[3] A. Bhatnagar, Lightweight Ballistic Composites: Military and Law-Enforcement Applications, Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Michigan, 2006.

[4] P. Chabera, A. Boczkowska, A. Morka, P. Kędzierski, T. Niezgoda, A. Oziębło, and A. Witek, “Comparison of numerical and experimental study of armour system based on alumina and silicon carbide ceramics”, Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 63 (2), 363-367 (2015).

[5] E. Medvedovski, “Ballistic performance of armour ceramics: Influence of design and structure. Part 2”, Ceramics Int. 36, 2117-2127 (2010).

[6] P. Kędzierski, A. Morka, G. Sławiński, and T. Niezgoda, “Optimization of two-component armour”, Bull. Pol. Ac.: Tech. 63 (1), 173-179 (2015).

[7] J. Jovicic, A. Zavaliangos, and F. Ko, “Modeling of the ballistic behavior of gradient design composite armors”, Composites Part A 31, 773-784 (2000).

[8] C.Y. Nia, Y.C. Lib, F.X. Xina, F. Jina, and T.J. Lu, “Ballistic resistance of hybrid-cored sandwich plates: numerical and experimental assessment”, Composites Part A 46, 69-79 (2013).

[9] M. Wilkins, “Mechanics of penetration and perforation”, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 16, 793-807 (1978).

[10] D.L. Hunn and S.J. Lee, “Development of a novel ceramic armor system: analysis and test”, 26th Int. Symp. Ballistic 1, 12-16 (2011).

[11] C.J. Yungwirth, D.D. Radford, M. Aronson, and H.N.G. Wadley, “Experiment assessment of the ballistic response of composite pyramidal lattice truss structures composite pyramidal lattice truss structures”, Composites Part B 39, 556-569 (2008).

[12] G.R. Johnson and W.H. Cook, “A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures”, Proc. 7th Int. Symp. Ballistics 1, 541-547 (1983).

[13] G. McIntosh, The Johnson-Holmquist Ceramic Model as Used in LS-Dyna 2D, Defence Research Establishment, Quebec, 1998.

[14] P.A. Du Bois, “A simplified approach to the simulation of rubber-like materials under dynamic loading”, 4th Eur. LSDYNA Users Conf. 1, CD-ROM (2003).

Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences

The Journal of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.156
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.238

CiteScore 2016: 1.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.457
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.239


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 147 147 15
PDF Downloads 76 76 8