Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Abstract
Simple relationships are given in this paper to predict the penetration and perforation of monolithic bre-reinforced plastic
(FRP) laminates struck normally by projectiles with dierent nose shapes over a wide range of impact velocity. The approach is
based on the assumption that the deformation is localized and that the mean pressure oered by the laminate targets to resist the
projectiles can be decomposed into two parts. One part is a cohesive quasi-static resistive pressure due to the elasticplastic deformation of the laminate materials. The other is a dynamic resistive pressure arising from velocity eects. Equations are obtained
for predicting the depth of penetration (DOP) in the FRP laminate targets and the ballistic limits in the case of perforation. It is
shown that the model predictions are in good correlation with available experimental data. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: FRP Laminates; Projectile; Penetration; Perforation; Ballistic limits
Notations
rs
a
A
A0
D
Ek
F
G
T
L
LN
P
S
Vi
Vb
b
g
h
qp
qep
qt
r
rd
re
u
u0
w
projectile radius
instant cross-sectional area of a projectile
cross-sectional area of projectile shank
projectile diameter
initial impact energy of a projectile
mean resistive force
projectile mass
thickness of monolithic FRP laminates
projectile shank length
projectile nose length
depth of penetration
dened in Fig. 1(a)
initial impact velocity of a projectile
Critical impact velocity; ballistic limit
constant, dened in Eq. (2)
constant, evaluated by Eq. (13d)
cone angle of a conical-nosed projectile
projectile density
equivalent projectile density
density of FRP laminates
mean resistive pressure of FRP laminates
dynamic resistive pressure of FRP laminates
elastic limit of FRP laminates in
through-thickness compression
1. Introduction
The penetration and perforation of targets by projectiles involve highly complex processes which have
been investigated experimentally for more than two
centuries and analytically largely during the last few
decades. Accounts of this work can be found in the
reviews by Backman and Goldsmith [1], Zukas [2],
Anderson and Bodner [3] and Corbett, Reid and
Johnson [4]. Depending on impact velocity, the material and geometric properties of both the projectile and
the target, several theoretical models (analytical and
numerical) have been proposed over the years to predict the level of the penetration in thick targets or the
impact conditions for the perforation of plates as can
be seen from these reviews. However, many of the
analytical models are single-mechanism models which
have so far enjoyed limited applications. Numerical
simulations have been successful in predicting the response of targets to projectile impact but, unfortunately, they still require considerable resources in terms
0263-8223/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 4 - 7
322
Lee and Sun [15] carried out a combined experimental and numerical study on the dynamic penetration
of clamped circular CFRP laminates by a 30 g, 14.5 mm
diameter at-ended projectile in the velocity range 24
91 m/s. The composite material examined was Hercules
AS4/3501-6 graphite/epoxy and the stacking sequence of
all the laminates was based on a basic pattern, namely
[0/90/45/)45]s . Three types of impact tests were conducted on the graphite/epoxy laminates which had two
thicknesses (i.e., 2 mm and 4 mm) and the ballistic limits
were determined. The penetration process of composite
laminates by a at-ended missile consisted of three
stages: pre-delamination, post-delamination before
plugging and post-plugging. Based upon these three
stages, a nite element model was established to simulate the static punch process. The material was modelled
using eective moduli so that the details of the stacking
sequence were not included in the model. The simulated
static load-punch displacement curve was subsequently
employed in the dynamic penetration analysis, and the
displacements at certain specic checkpoints were
adopted as the penetration criteria. It was shown that
the computational results were in good agreement with
the limited experimental data.
Recently, Mines et al. [16] conducted an experimental
investigation into the high velocity perforation behaviour
of fully-clamped 200 mm 200 mm polymeric composite
laminates at impact velocities of up to 571 m/s. Woven
roving, z-stitched and through-thickness z-stitched glass
polyester laminates for a number of laminate thicknesses (6, 12, 24 ply), three types of impactors (i.e., at,
hemispherical and conical), and two missile masses (6 g,
12 g) were examined. The results were presented in terms
of static and impact perforation energies and energy
absorption mechanisms during high velocity perforation
were also discussed with a view to identifying improved
combinations of materials. It was found that all types of
construction behave in a similar manner.
Wen et al. [1719] carried out a comprehensive study
on the penetration and perforation of FRP laminates
and sandwich panels with such laminates as skins and
with foam cores in the context of oshore applications
as part of the UK collaborative research programme on
the Cost Eective Use of Fibre-Reinforced Composites
Oshore. The results of penetration and perforation
tests performed on composite laminates and sandwich
panels using at-faced, hemispherical-ended and conical-nosed indenters/missiles under quasi-static, dropweight and ballistic impact conditions with impact velocities up to 305 m/s were reported. Loaddisplacement
characteristics under quasi-static loading were presented
and the energies corresponding to dierent degrees of
damage were calculated. Fracture patterns observed in
sandwich panels loaded dynamically were compared
with those observed in identical panels under quasistatic loading. Ballistic limits and perforation energies
323
Fig. 1. Projectile geometries: (a) ogival nose and (b) conical nose.
324
a). L and LN are the lengths of the shank and nose for
ogival and conical projectiles as shown in Figs. 1(a) and
1(b), respectively. Fig. 1(a) shows the ogive prole as the
arc of a circle that is tangent to the projectile shank. It is
also common to dene the ogive in terms of calibreradius-head, viz.
CRH
S
w;
2a
where S and a are dened in Fig. 1(a). If a rigid projectile has a complex conguration (for example, it is
hollow or has a sabot system) then the projectile still can
be described as one of those depicted in Fig. 1 but with
an eective density (qep ) which is taken to be the ratio of
the projectile mass to the volume of the basic conguration as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2 shows the impact of a rigid projectile with a
conical nose on an FRP laminate target at normal incidence with an initial impact velocity Vi . Two situations
may arise depending upon the initial kinetic energy of
the projectile, as shown in Fig. 2. One scenario is that
the nal depth of penetration has not reached the
shoulder of the projectile when its kinetic energy has
been dissipated and the other is that the nal depth of
penetration is larger than the nose length. Similar situations may occur for a rigid ogival-nosed projectile
transversely impacting an FRP laminate target. Equations are derived in the following sections for the depth
of penetration into the FRP laminate targets by rigid
projectiles with conical and ogival noses.
b
Ek
Vi ;
8
3L2N
re
after using tan h=2 a=LN and A0 pa2 . Here A0 is
the cross-sectional area of the projectile shank. Substituting Ek 1=2GVi 2 into Eq. (8) and rearranging gives
qp qt Vi 2
P
1
h
q i
;
9
LN
qt
re 2 1 b qt Vi P 2
L 3
3
LN
re
after using G A0 L LN =3qp .
2.2.1.2. Case II, P > LN . As shown in Fig. 2(II), the
penetration process can be divided into two stages. The
rst stage when P 6 LN has been described in the previous section. For the second stage when P > LN , the
resistive force (F) can be written as
r
qt
Vi ;
10
F A0 r A0 re 1 b
re
after using Eq. (2). According to energy balance, one
obtains
Z LN
Z p
F dP
F dP :
11a
Ek
0
LN
Substituting Eqs. (6) and (10) into Eq. (11a) and rearranging yields
r
2
qt
P LN A0 re 1 b
Vi :
re
3
325
:
12
LN
3LN 1
qt
re 2 1 b qt Vi
L 3
re
penetration for a rigid projectile with conical nose impacting on a nite plate. First, the nose enters the plate,
second, the nose is fully embedded and nally, the nose
exits the plate. The same arguments can also apply to
the rigid projectile with ogival nose. From energy consideration, it is easy to show that
r
qt
2
Ek pa T re 1 b
Vb :
15
re
Ek
2.2.2.1. Case I, P 6 LN .
3
11b
1
cos 3 u
3
1
u sin 2u sin u0
2
sin 2 u0 cosu
p
sin u0 g
2
13a
p
4w 1 2w cosu a
13b
qt
re 2 1 b qt Vi
L 8w3 ga
re
p
3
4w 1 8w ga
:
L 8w3 ga
13d
14
Fig. 3. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the penetration of thick GRP (S2-glass/phenolic)
laminates struck normally by a 7.5 mm diameter conical-nosed projectile : Eq. (9), ____: Eq. (12); m experiments [12].
326
Fig. 4. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 18.7 g, 10.5 mm diameter conical-nosed missile. ____: Eq. (16); s experiments [17].
17
qt
re 2 1 2 qt Vi
L
re
and
s #
"
p
p qt re D2 T
2G
1 1
:
Vb
2G
pqt D2 T
18
Fig. 5. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by 7.6 mm diameter conical-nosed missiles [16].
____: Eq. (16); (a) G 6 g and (b) G 12 g.
327
Fig. 6. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the perforation of KFRP (Kevlar 29/polyester) laminates struck transversely by a 28.9 g, 12.7 mm diameter conical-nosed
missile. ____: Eq. (16); s experiments [13].
Fig. 8. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by 7.6 mm diameter at-faced missiles [16]. ____:
Eq. (18); (a) G 6 g and (b) G 12 g.
Fig. 7. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 20.4 g, 10.5 mm diameter at-faced missile.
____: Eq. (18); s experiments [1719].
Fig. 9. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experimental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/phenonic) laminates
struck transversely by a 5 g, 6 mm diameter ogival-nosed AP projectile.
____: Eq. (16); m experiments [21].
328
L 23 a
qp
qt
qt V i 2
1
h
q i
:
q
re 2 1 1:5 t Vi P 1 P 2
a
3 a
re
19
L 23 a
qp qt Vi 2
1
1
h
q i L
q
3a 2
qt
re 2 1 1:5 t Vi
re
20
and
s #
"
p
3p qt re D2 T
32G
1 1
;
Vb
8G
9pqt D2 T
21
dierent nose shapes over a wide range of impact velocity. The approach is based upon the assumption that
the deformations are localized (i.e., wave-dominated
response) and the mean pressure provided by FRP
laminate targets to resist the projectiles can be decomposed into two parts. One part is the cohesive quasi-static
resistive pressure due to the elasticplastic deformations
of the target materials, the other is the dynamic resistive
pressure arising from the velocity eects. Equations have
been derived for the depth of penetration and the ballistic
limits in case of perforation.
It is demonstrated that the theoretical predictions are
in good agreement with experimental observations for
FRP laminates struck normally by rigid projectiles with
at, conical, hemispherical and ogival noses in terms of
penetration depth and ballistic limits.
References
[1] Backman ME, Goldsmith W. The mechanics of penetration of
projectiles into targets. Int J Eng Sci 1978;16:199.
[2] Zukus JA. Penetration and perforation of solids. In: Zukus JA
et al., editors. Impact dynamics. New York: Wiley, 1982. p. 155
214.
[3] Anderson Jr. CE, Bodner SR. Ballistic impact: the status of
analytical and numerical modelling. Int J Impact Eng 1988;7:935.
[4] Corbett GG, Reid SR, Johnson W. Impact loading of plates and
shells by free-ying projectiles: a review. Int J Impact Eng
1996;18(2):141230.
[5] Wen HM, Jones N. Semi-empirical equations for the perforation
of plates struck by a mass. In: Bulson PS editor. Structures under
shock and impact-II. Southampton and Boston and Thomas
Telford London: Computational Mechanics Publications, 1992.
p. 36980.
[6] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composite materials. Appl Mech
Rev 1991;44(4):15590.
[7] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composites: recent advances. Appl
Mech Rev 1994;47(11):51743.
329
[8] Rutherford KL. Indentation and penetration resistance of composite materials to pointed projectiles. Unpublished UK DRA
Report, 1992.
[9] Zhao Y, Pang SS, Grin SA. Force-indentation study of
transversely isotropic composite materials using a conical-tip
indenter. Comp Eng 1991;1(6):393402.
[10] Greaves LJ. Failure mechanisms in GFRP armour. Unpublished
UK DRA Report, 1992.
[11] Greaves LJ. Progress in modelling the perforation of GFRP by
ballistic projectiles. Unpublished UK DRA Report, 1994.
[12] Reid SR, Reddy TY, Ho HM, Crouch IG, Greaves LJ. Dynamic
indentation of thick bre-reinforced composites. In: Rajapakse
YDS, Vinson JR, editors. High Rate Eects on Polymer, Metal
and Ceramic matrix Composites and Other Advanced Materials.
ASME, AD-vol. 48. 1995. p. 719.
[13] Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH. Penetration of laminated
Kevlar by projectiles I. experimental investigation. Int J Solids
and Structures 1992;29(4):399420.
[14] Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH. Penetration of laminated
Kevlar by projectiles II. analytical model. Int J Solids and
Structures 1992;29(4):42136.
[15] Lee S-W, Sun R. Dynamic penetration of Graphite/Epoxy
laminates impacted by a blunt-ended projectile. Comp Sci Technol
1993;49:36980.
[16] Mines RAW, Roach AM, Jones N. High velocity perforation
behaviour of polymer composite laminates. Int J Impact Eng
1999;22:56188.
[17] Wen HM, Reddy TY, Reid SR, Soden PD. Indentation penetration and perforation of composite laminates and sandwich panels
under quasi-static and projectile loading. Key Eng Mater
1998;141143:50152.
[18] Reddy TY, Wen HM, Reid SR, Soden PD. Penetration and
perforation of composite sandwich panels by hemispherical
and conical projectiles. Trans ASME, J Pres Ves Techn
1998;120:18694.
[19] Reid SR, Wen HM, Soden PD, Reddy TY. Response of single
skin laminates and sandwich panels to projectile impact. In: Wang
SS, Williams JJ, Lo KH, editors. Composite Materials for
Oshore Operation- 2. Amer Bur Shipp, 1999. p. 593617.
[20] Wen HM. Penetration and perforation of targets subjected to
projectile impact. To be published.
[21] Siva K, Kumar T. Response of composite laminates on impact of
high velocity projectiles. Key Eng Mater 1998;141143:33748.