Influence of Impact Velocity and Steel Armour Hardness on Breakage of Projectile 14.5 × 114 API/B32

Mikulíková, Regina; Řídký, Radek; Rolc, Stanislav; Křesťan, Jan

doi:10.3849/aimt.01222

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other alternatives include the use of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and other composite materials such as spall liners on the back of standard bulk metal armors for testing against AP threats [14]. In addition to layered armors, geometric layups have also been tested against larger caliber rounds in order to redirect and trap the core of the projectile [14,15]. This category also includes armors that use an air gap between layers in order to redirect and tumble the core [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to layered armors, geometric layups have also been tested against larger caliber rounds in order to redirect and trap the core of the projectile [14,15]. This category also includes armors that use an air gap between layers in order to redirect and tumble the core [14,15]. Geometric armors have the potential for improved protection but require larger thicknesses and complex arrangements to ensure complete tipping and disruption of the round when attached to the exterior of a vehicle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of Composite Metal Foam Armors against Various Threat Sizes

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ballistic capabilities of composite metal foam (CMF) armors were experimentally tested against a 14.5 × 114 mm B32 armor-piercing incendiary (API) and compared to various sizes of armor-piercing (AP) ballistic threats, ranging from a 7.62 to 12.7 mm. Three different arrangements of layered hard armors were designed and manufactured using ceramic faceplates (in one layer, two layers or multiple tiles), a combination of ceramic and steel face sheets, with a single-layered CMF core, and a thin aluminum backing. The performance of various CMF armor designs against the 14.5 mm rounds are compared to each other and to the performance of the rolled homogeneous armor standard to identify the most efficient design for further investigations. The percentage of kinetic energy absorbed by the CMF layer in various armor arrangements and in tests against various threat sizes was calculated and compared. It appears that the larger the threat size, the more efficient the CMF layer will be due to a greater number of hollow metal spheres that are engaged in absorbing the impact energy. The results from this study will help to model and predict the performance of CMF armors against various threat sizes and impact energies.

show abstract