The effect of the interlayer on the ballistic performance of ceramic/composite armors: Experimental and numerical study

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThe effect of rubber, Teflon and aluminum foam interlayer material on the ballistic performance of composite armor was investigated both experimentally and numerically. Although, rubber interlayer did not cause any significant delay in the initial stress build-up in the composite layer, Teflon and aluminum foam interlayer caused a significant delay and reduction in the magnitude of the stress transmitted to the composite backing plate. Damage in the ceramic layer was found to be highly localized around the projectile impact zone for the configuration without interlayer and rubber interlayer while aluminum foam and Teflon interlayer spread the damage zone in the radial direction. Relatively large pieces of the ceramic around the impact axis in the rubber interlayer configuration were observed while the ceramic layer was efficiently fragmented in aluminum foam and Teflon interlayer configuration.

Ballistic Efficiency of an Individual Epoxy Composite Reinforced with Sisal Fibers in Multilayered Armor

“…The perforation of the first ceramic layer, which is responsible for most of the energy dissipation [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] , was associated with shuttering of the brittle ceramic plate. In order to investigate its fracture, Al 2 O 3 particles collected after the tests were observed by SEM after gold sputtering to provide an electrical conducting coating.…”

“…Beyond this depth the penetration can potentially cause serious blunt trauma to the human armor wearer 3 . Armor vests against relatively heavy ammunition, such as the 7.62 × 51 mm NATO caliber bullet, require multilayered armor systems (MAS) combining relatively lighter materials [4][5][6] The MAS aims not only at absorbing the impact energy of the projectile but also to impede the penetration of fragments from both the projectile and, mainly, the front ceramic 7,8 . For these purposes, MAS are usually composed of a harder front ceramic plate with the ability to deform, shatter and erode/fracture the projectile [9][10][11][12] .…”

“…As the projectile impacts the front ceramic plate, a compressive wave propagates and reaches the back of the plate 14 . There, the wave is partially reflected as a tensile pulse, which normally breaks the ceramic regardless of the material connecting the front layer 6 . A second MAS layer after the ceramic is usually chosen as a lighter composite material, which reduces even further the impact wave by absorbing part of the fragments (projectile or ceramic) kinetic energy.…”

SPH-FEM simulation of shaped-charge jet penetration into double hull: A comparison study for steel and SPS

“…Hence, special protection designs attracted a wide attention in the recent years. With the development of materials science and technology, traditional materials are gradually substituted with advanced ones [13][14][15][16][17] in engineering in order to improve impact resistance of structures. Although steels have been widely used as armour materials in defence applications, they have a disadvantage of a relatively high density.…”

The effect of strain rate on the mechanical behavior of Teflon foam

“…In addition to many other applications, these materials are used where impact or shock loadings can occur. A well-known example for these applications is the rubber inter-layer between composite backing plate and ceramic front face of integrated composite armor [1,2]. The rubber inter-layer in the composite armor functions to distribute the incoming projectile momentum to a wider area of the continuous backing composite plate, diminishing the damage.…”