INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.

85-90

FEBRUARY 2011 / 85

DOI: 10.1007/s12541-011-0010-2

A Study on the Ballistic Damage Tolerance Design of

Aircraft Structure from Armor Piercing Bullet Hits
Jang-Wook Hur1,#
1 Defense Acquisition Program Administration, 2-3 Yongsango-gil, Yongsan-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, South Korea, 140-841
# Corresponding Author / E-mail: hhjw88@hanmail.net, TEL: +82-2-6497-4362, FAX: +82-2-6497-4362
KEYWORDS: Armor Piercing Bullet, Angle of Attack, Damage Shape, Ballistic Damage Tolerance Design, Penetration Damage Diameter, Minors Rule

A damage reference database from armor piercing bullet hits was established for tube and plate specimens with
different thicknesses. The penetration damage diameters of the tube specimens showed larger at the center than the
periphery in the front, but they resulted larger at the periphery than the center in the rear. As the angle of attack of
the plate specimens increased, the penetration damage diameters increased as well, with the penetration damage
diameters becoming larger in the rear than the front. Using the damage reference database, the fatigue analysis was
performed to determine whether the safety requirements for the military aircraft could be met.
Manuscript received: April 19, 2010 / Accepted: October 24, 2010

NOMENCLATURE
d = diameter of tube specimen
t = thickness of tube and plate specimen
= angle of attack to live rounds test
D = penetration damage diameter
TD = total damage
ni = number of cycles at the i th stress level
Ni = number of cycles to failure corresponding at the i th stress level
L = safety life
eq = equivalent stress
N = number of cycles
S= stress

1. Introduction
In military aircrafts, the ballistic damage tolerance design
against the bullet hit is very important as it is related with its
survivability. However, in most countries having advanced aircraft
technology, such information keeps being undisclosed. Therefore,
extensive studies are required on this area when developing a new
military aircraft. Hence, in terms of survivability for aircraft
structure, it is necessary to examine the enemy threats and assess
the vulnerable points to such threats based on the past combat
experiences.1-3 Following such assessments, analysis need to be
KSPE and Springer 2011

performed on the vulnerability from ballistic damage. Only then,

the survivability of aircraft structure will be secured by
incorporating the results from such analysis onto the design.
A series of experimental studies were carried out concerning the
normal and oblique impact of armor piercing bullets on single and
layered plates made of mild steel, RHA steel and Al alloy.4-6 In the
studies, target damage and measurement of residual velocities and
the angles in both normal and oblique impact were observed.
However, the demands and standards for ballistic damage are dealt
in a very limited manner for structure design in military aircraft
specifications as it is not easy to quantify and apply them as an
analytical tool.7-9
Therefore, in the current study, as a method to meet the
requirement for a specific level of survivability of a military aircraft
structure, fundamental data on ballistic damage tolerance design
will be obtained through testing the live rounds fire, suggesting a
procedure and an example of applying this data to the ballistic
damage tolerance design.

2. Experimental Method
2.1 Specimens and Fixtures
Tube and plate configurations of test specimens are shown in
Fig. 1. To establish statistically, the specimens penetration damage
diameter, live rounds tests were repeated numerous times. Table 1

86 / FEBRUARY 2011

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 12, No. 1

(a) Tube

and 2 show the diameter and thickness of the specimens, angle

ofattack and number of rounds employed in the tests. Specifically to
the tube specimens, in order to examine the damage shapes incurred
by penetrations through the path (center or periphery of tube) of
projectile when a bullet hit the target, tests were performed only at
0 angle of attack. Fig. 2 shows the specimen locking fixtures
employed in the tests. They were designed not only to firmly
support the specimens but also to prevent them from breaking away
from the bullet impact force and to maintain the preset angle of
attack (0, 30, 60).

(b) Plate

Fig. 1 Specimen configurations

Table 1 Tube specimens to the live rounds tests
Number of rounds
Diameter, Thickness, Angle of attack,
d (mm)
t (mm)
()
Al alloy Stainless steel
2.7
24
39.0
0
3.5
20
50.0
4.0
0
6
Table 2 Plate specimens to the live rounds tests
Number of rounds
Thickness,
Angle of attack,
t (mm)
()
Al alloy
Stainless steel
0
5
30
5
3.2
60
5
0
5
2
30
5
2
12.7
60
5
2
0
5
2
30
5
2
25.4
60
5
2
Total
45
12

(a) 0

(b) 30

(c) 60

Fig. 2 Specimen locking fixture configurations

Fig. 3 Experimental arrangement to the live rounds tests

2.2 Live Rounds Test

Live rounds tests were performed at a domestic professional
testing facility and armor piercing bullets were used. Experimental
arrangement to the live rounds tests is shown in Fig. 3. Machine
gun(Cal. 50) was used in the tests and impact velocity to the target
was about 520 m/s. In order to measure the bullet velocity at impact,
photo screen sensors were placed at 2 m intervals in front of the
target, and a universal counter (5335A) was used. In addition, high
speed camera (15,000 frames/s) was used to observe the behavior at
impact. Target configurations after live rounds tests are shown in
Fig. 4. The shape of penetration damage hole with angle of attack
presented an ellipse. Therefore, the penetration damage diameter
was defined by the length (D1) of major axis of Fig. 4(b).
Furthermore, the yaw angles defined by the differences in bullets
lengthwise path of flight angles were measured. To secure the tests
reliability, the actual tests were performed only after the measured
reentering angles within the tolerance range of 5.6

(a) Section view

(b) Front view

Fig. 4 Target configurations after live rounds tests

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 12, No. 1

3. Test Results and Discussions

Photographs taken at the moments of bullet impact on the Al
alloy with a high speed camera are shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a) shows
the bullet penetrating the tube through its center in a straight line.
Fig. 5(b) shows the bullet penetrating the tube through its periphery,
which looks as if it has been divided in two due to the difference in
light intensity of camera direction. Fig. 6 displays the front and rear
photographs of the tube specimens after live rounds tests. In case of
the Al alloy specimen, due to its low strength property, the rear side
appeared as if it had been torn while the stainless steel specimen
having relatively high strength property showed a much cleaner cut.
Table 3 and Fig. 7 show the average penetration damage
diameter in the front and rear side of the tube specimens. In both
tube thicknesses of 2.7 mm [Fig. 7(a)] and 3.5 mm [Fig. 7(b)], the
penetration damage diameters were greater at the rear than the front.
Furthermore, the penetration damage diameters showed larger at the
center than the periphery in the front but they resulted larger at the

(a) Tube center

FEBRUARY 2011 / 87

periphery than the center in the rear. Also, the penetration damage
diameters at the rear of tube specimens showed a tendency to
increase in the thickness of 3.5 mm compared to the thickness of
2.7 mm. These phenomena are seen in case of spaced armor where
ballistic testing is carried out on two plates with some distance kept
between them.10 The first plate attempts to resist and break the
bullet. In doing so the path of the projectile is changing. So instead
of hitting the second plate at 0 angle of attack, the projectile hits at
some angle. This angle of attack increases the damage area at the
back plate. Therefore, the cylindrical hollow tube has an equivalent
effect as seen in the spaced armor. And irregular edge effect caused
large standard deviation at the periphery in the front. However,
spaced armor effect was not presented at the stainless steel having
relatively high strength property. From Table 3, maximum
penetration damage diameters of the Al alloy tubes of 2.7 mm and
3.5 mm thick are respectively 21.9 mm and 25.7 mm while that of
the stainless steel tube of 4.0 mm thick is 14.8 mm.
Fig. 8 shows the front and rear photographs of the plate
specimens after live rounds tests. At 0 angle of attack, the
penetration limit was approximately 25.4 mm (1.0 inch) to the Al
alloy plate while it was approximately 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) to the
stainless steel plate because the bullets got stuck in the mentioned
thickness of both plates. Therefore, the bullets were either
penetrated or stuck up to the thickness of 25.4 mm of the Al alloy
plate as well as the thickness of 12.7 mm of the stainless steel plate.
But at more than 30 angle of attack, the bullets were just bounced
off the same thickness plate specimen surface.

(b) Tube periphery

Fig. 5 Photographs depicting Al alloy tube specimens at bullet
impact
Type

Center

Front
Periphery

Center

Rear
Periphery

Al alloy
d : 39mm
t : 3.5mm
Stainless steel
d : 50mm
t : 4.0mm
Fig. 6 Photographs showing the front and rear sides of tube
specimens after live rounds tests (0 angle of attack)

Fig. 7 Graph showing the change in penetration damage diameter

at different Al alloy tube thicknesses
Type

Table 3 The results of penetration damage diameter to the tube

specimens
Front (mm)
Rear (mm)
Number
Thickness, Shape of
Material
of
t (mm) penetration Ave. Standard Ave. Standard
deviation
deviation testing
Al
alloy
Stainless
steel

2.7

Center 17.7
Periphery 15.5

0.9
8.5

20.9
21.9

4.2
2.3

18
6

3.5

Center 18.8
Periphery 16.8

1.3
5.4

22.6
25.7

4.1
3.0

16
4

4.0

Center 14.8
Periphery 13.9

1.8
3.8

14.3
15.1

0.7
0.7

3
3

Front
t : 12.7mm t : 25.4mm

Rear
t : 12.7mm T : 25.4mm

Al alloy

Stainless
steel
Fig. 8 Photographs showing the front and rear side of plate
specimens (0 angle of attack)

88 / FEBRUARY 2011

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 12, No. 1

Table 4 and Fig. 9 display the relationship between the angle of

attack and penetration damage diameters to the plate specimens. As
the angle of attack increased, the penetration damage diameters
increased as well, with the penetration damage diameters larger in
the rear than the front. This phenomenon is deemed to occur due to
the angle effect, and as the angle of attack increased, the bullets
penetration irregularity did as well, increasing the standard
deviations in the penetration damage diameter. As shown in Fig. 9,
the penetration damage diameters were slightly larger in the
specimens of 3.2 mm thick than those of 12.7 mm thick. The
influence of the thickness became more pronounced as the angle of
attack increased. At 60 angle of attack, the bullet failed to
completely penetrate the 12.7 mm thick specimen and thus, data
was not obtained. And, maximum penetration damage diameters of
the Al alloy plates of 3.2 mm, 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm thick are
respectively 37.8 mm, 47.0 mm and 65.4 mm and that of stainless
steel plate of 12.7 mm thick is 15.6 mm.

4. Application of Ballistic Damage Tolerance Design

Fig. 10 shows the general flow chart for the ballistic damage
tolerance design. For the aircraft safety critical structures, the
configurations and materials vulnerable to bullet hit need to be
selected. Thereafter, through the live rounds tests, damage reference
database is constructed for use in determining the damage shape
and size, and completing the ballistic damage tolerance sizing by
iteration of analysis up to the certain level satisfying the specific
requirements. In this study, damage reference database for
application of design was obtained through 3. Test Results and
Discussions.
Such ballistic damage tolerance design application will be
performed to the aircraft structures whose safety is threatened under
the fire of heavy machine gun from the enemy. One example would
be the engine support structure shown in Fig. 11.

4.2 Application Model and Stress Analysis

The engine support structure, as shown in Fig. 11, is supported
at 3 points on the left, right and end points. However, because the
end point is not exposed to the outside, the engine only requires
ballistic damage tolerance designs on the left and right support

4.1 Procedure for ballistic damage tolerance design

Table 4 The results of penetration damage diameter to the plate
specimens
Material

Thickness,
t (mm)

3.2
Al
alloy

12.7

25.4
Stainless
steel

12.7

Angle of Front (mm)

attack,
Standard
Ave.
()
deviation
0
12.7
0.5
30
18.3
1.0
60
37.8
1.7
0
11.1
0.3
30
13.0
2.2
60
47.0 10.1
0
11.0
0.4
30
18.4
2.4
60
65.4
6.4
0
10.4
0.4
30
60
-

Rear (mm)
Number
of
Standard
Ave.
deviation testing
13.8
1.0
5
19.0
1.0
5
30.9
1.4
5
13.4
1.5
5
14.1
4.8
5
5
2
2
2
15.6
0.7
2
2
2

Fig. 10 Flow chart for the ballistic damage tolerance design

Fig. 9 Relation between the angle of attack and penetration damage

diameter to the Al alloy plate specimens

Fig. 11 Configuration of engine support structure

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 12, No. 1

Table 5 Damage to the engine support structure

Penetration damage
Material
Angle of attack, ()
diameter, D(mm)
Stainless steel
15.6
0

Fig. 12 A model of the engine support structure with ballistic

damage

FEBRUARY 2011 / 89

structures. In the ballistic damage analysis, the considered damage

size was, as shown in Table 5, the penetration damage diameter
obtained from the live rounds test at 0 angle of attack to the 12.7
mm thickness of stainless steel plate which is similar to the engine
support structure in view of thickness and material property.
The 3-dimensional FEM analysis was performed with the
ballistic damage located at the edge of stress concentration area of
engine support structure as it was the worst condition for the fatigue
analysis and ballistic damage tolerance design in terms of aircraft
safety, as shown in Fig. 12. The analysis model in Fig. 12 was
established using CHEXA, CBUSH and RBE2 model of the
NASTRAN program. Here, the engine support structures design
load was divided into static and dynamic load spectrums and most
of the loads worked as the compressive load to the engine support
structure. The stress distribution obtained from FEM analysis is
shown in Fig. 13. It resulted that the maximum von Mises stress of
168 MPa occurred at the damaged area and such stresses less than
90.8 MPa were distributed to the surrounding areas.

4.3 Fatigue Analysis and Ballistic Damage Tolerance Design

The safety of a military aircraft is judged by the minimum flight
time (required life time) for the safe return to base after having been
hit from the enemy heavy machine gun, and this can be verified
with the fatigue life expectancy curve (S-N curve) that shows the
ingredient property of the structure.
The equivalent stress can be calculated from the static and
dynamic loads of design load spectrums. Total damage (TD) can be
obtained as shown in Eq. (1) by using Minor's Rule and S-N curve.
n n
n
n
TD = i = 1 + 2 + 3 +

N i N1 N 2 N 3

Fig. 13 Stress analysis results for engine support structure with

ballistic damage

Where, ni is number of cycles at the i th stress level, Ni is

number of cycles to failure corresponding to the i th stress level and
ni /Ni is damage ratio at the i th stress level. Therefore, the safety life
(L) can be calculated as shown in Eq. (2) from the required life time
(minimum flight time) and Eq. (1).11,12
L=

Fig. 14 Relation between number of cycles and equivalent stress of

engine support structure with ballistic damage

(1)

1
Required Life Time
TD

(2)

For the engine support structure, the mean S-N curve, and the
working S-N curve that takes in consideration the safety factor are
shown in Fig. 14. Generally, the working S-N curve for predicting
the aircraft structures fatigue expectancy considers the number of
testing and reliability level to apply the reduction factors that falls
approximately ~ of mean S-N curve.13,14 The signs in Fig.
14 show the equivalent stresses, the results of fatigue analysis of
engine support structure with ballistic damage. Because the
equivalent stresses under the design load spectrums were very low,
the safety life expectancy was evaluated to meet the required level.
From such fatigue analysis results, the safety of the military aircraft
structure having ballistic damage was verified, and these results
were applied to ballistic damage tolerance design.

90 / FEBRUARY 2011

5. Conclusion
To establish the damage design concept of the military aircraft,
study of the damage shape by armor piercing bullet was performed
and its design application was examined. The summary of findings
is as follows:
1) The penetration damage diameters of the tube specimens
showed larger at the center than the periphery in the front, but
they resulted larger at the periphery than the center in the rear.
2) The maximum penetration damage diameters of the Al alloy
tubes of 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm thick are respectively 21.9 mm
and 25.7 mm, and that of stainless steel tube of 4.0mm thick is
14.8 mm.
3) As the angle of attack of the plate specimens increased, the
penetration damage diameters increased as well, with the
penetration damage diameters becoming larger in the rear than
the front.
4) The maximum penetration damage diameters of the Al alloy
plates of 3.2 mm, 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm thick are respectively
37.8 mm, 47.0 mm and 65.4 mm, and that of stainless steel
plate of 12.7mm thick is 15.6 mm.
5) The damage reference database was constructed through the
live rounds tests in this study, and its fatigue analysis results
could make it possible to verify whether the military aircraft
met the specific required level of survivability.

REFERENCES
1. John, G. E., Design Manual for Impact Damage Tolerant
Aircraft Structure, AGARD-AG-238-ADD, 1981.
2. Jensen, J. E., The Ballistic Damage Characteristics and
Damage Tolerance of Wing Structural Elements, Damage
Tolerance in Aircraft Structures, ASTM, pp. 215-229, 1971.
3. Donald, F. H., Damage Tolerance of Semi-monocoque Aircraft:
Specialists Meeting on Impact Damage Tolerance of
Structures, AGARD, 1976.
4. Anderson Jr., C. E., Hohler, V., Walker, J. D. and Stilp, A. J.,
The influence of projectile hardness on ballistic performance,
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp.
619-632, 1999.
5. Gupta, N. K. and Madhu, V., An experimental study of normal
and oblique impact of hard-core projectile on single and layered
plates, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 19,
No. 5-6, pp. 395-414, 1997.
6. Gupta, N. K. and Madhu, V., Normal and oblique impact of a
kinetic energy projectile on mild steel plates, International
Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 333-343,
1992.
7. U.S. Department of Defense, Military Handbooks:
Survivability, Aircraft, Nonnuclear, General Criteria - Vol. 1,
MIL-HDBK-336-1, 1982.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 12, No. 1

8. U.S. Department of Defense, Military Handbooks:

Survivability, Aircraft, Nonnuclear, Airframe - Vol. 2, MILHDBK-336-2, 1983.
9. U.S. Department of Defense, Military Standard: V50 Ballistic
Test for Armor, MIL-STD-662F, 1997.
10. Jena, P. K., Ramanjeneyulu, K., Kumar, K. S. and Bhat, T. B.,
Ballistic studies on layered structures, Materials and Design,
Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1922-1929, 2009.
11. Park, T. G., Choi, C. H., Won, J. H. and Choi, J. H., An
Efficient method for fatigue reliability analysis accounting for
scatter of fatigue test data, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf., Vol. 11,
No. 3, pp. 429-437, 2010.
12. Lee, S. H., Park, T. W., Park, J. K., Yoon, J. W., Jun, K. J. and
Jung, S. P., A fatigue life analysis of wheels on guide-way
vehicle using multi-body dynamics, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.,
Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 79-84, 2009.
13. Bannantine, J. A., Comer, J. J. and Handrock, J. L.,
Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis, Prentice Hall, pp. 615, 1990.
14. U.S. Department of Defense, Military Handbooks: Metallic
Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structure, MILHDBK-5H, 1998.