Influence of interfacial bonding conditions on the anti-penetration performance of ceramic/metal composite targets

  • Ruixia Yao
  • Fei SuEmail author
  • Ronghai Mao


This study analyzes the influence of bonded and unbonded interface conditions on the anti-penetration performance of a ceramic/metal composite target and determines the associated mechanism. The 3D finite element and 3D smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulation results revealed that a bonded ceramic/metal target exhibited better anti-penetration performance than an unbonded target, and the associated mechanism was determined. Notably, the bond strength between the ceramic and metal backplate plays an important role in the formation of the ceramic conoid, and the ceramic conoid that formed in the bonded target effectively consumed the kinetic energy of the projectile, thereby improving the anti-penetration performance of ceramic composite armor. To verify this conclusion, we also compare and analyze the anti-penetration performance of interface bonded and unbonded metal/metal composite targets. The results show that due to the absence of the ceramic conoid, the interfacial bonding conditions have little influence on the anti-penetration performance of a metal/metal composite target.


Ceramic/metal composite Ballistic impact Damage Bonding conditions Finite element Smoothed particle hydrodynamics 



The authors thank financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Numbers 11372024 and 11672340).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists in the submission of this manuscript.


  1. Anderson Jr., C.E., Johnson, G.R., Holmquist, T.J.: Ballistic experiments and computations of confined 99.5% Al2O3 ceramic tiles. In: Mayseless, M., Bodner, S.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Ballistics, vol 2, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 65–72 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. Cronin, D.S., Bui, K., Kaufmann, C. et al.: Implementation and validation of the Johnson–Holmquist ceramic material model in LS-DYNA. In: Proceedings of the 4th European LS-dyna users conference, vol. 1, pp. 47–60 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Den Reijer, P.C.: Impact on ceramic faced armour [D]. Delft University of Technology, Delft (1991)Google Scholar
  4. Fellows, N.A., Barton, P.C.: Development of impact model for ceramic-faced semi-infinite armour. Int. J. Impact Eng. 22(8), 793–811 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Florence, A.L., Ahrens, T.J.: Interaction of projectiles and composite armor. Final Report, US Army, pp. 135 Ä(1967)Google Scholar
  6. Grujicic, M., Pandurangan, B., D’Entremont, B.: The role of adhesive in the ballistic/structural performance of ceramic/polymer–matrix composite hybrid armor. Mater. Des. 41, 380–393 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, G.R., Cook, W.H.: A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, pp. 541–547 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, G.R., Holmquist, T.J.: An improved computational constitutive model for brittle materials. High pressure science and technology. AIP, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, G.R., Holmquist, T.J.: Response of boron carbide subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high pressures. J. Appl. Phys. 85(12), 8060–8073 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaufmann, C., Cronin, D., Worswick, M., et al.: Influence of material properties on the ballistic performance of ceramics for personal body armour. Shock Vib. 10(1), 51–58 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee, M., Yoo, Y.H.: Analysis of ceramic/metal armour systems. Int. J. Impact Eng. 25(9), 819–829 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. López-Puente, J., Arias, A., Zaera, R., et al.: The effect of the thickness of the adhesive layer on the ballistic limit of ceramic/metal armours. An experimental and numerical study. Int. J. Impact Eng. 32(1–4), 321–336 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Madhu, V., Ramanjaneyulu, K., Bhat, T.B.: An experimental study of penetration resistance of ceramic armour subjected to projectile impact. In: International Symposium on Impact Engineering ISIE (2004)Google Scholar
  14. Nemat-Nasser, S.: Phenomenological theories of elastoplasticity and strain localization at high strain rates. Appl. Mech. Rev. 45(3S), S19 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Subramani, K., Vinoth Kanna, I.: Numerical simulation of high velocity impact on composite targets using advanced computational techniques. Innovative Design, Analysis and Development Practices in Aerospace and Automotive Engineering (I-DAD 2018), pp. 399–413. Springer, Singapore (2018)Google Scholar
  16. Tepeduzu, B., Karakuzu, R.: Ballistic performance of ceramic/composite structures. Ceram. Int. 45(2), 1651–1660 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tian, Chao, An, Xuanyi, Sun, Qitian, Dong, Yongxiang: Experimental and numerical analyses of the penetration resistance of ceramic-metal hybrid structures. Compos. Struct. 211, 264–272 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Übeyli, M., Yıldırım, R.O., Ögel, B.: Investigation on the ballistic behavior of Al(2)O(3)/Al2O24 laminated composites. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 196(1–3), 356–364 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Woodward, R.L.: A simple one-dimensional approach to modelling ceramic composite armour defeat. Int. J. Impact Eng. 9(4), 455–474 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yi, R.C., Yin, L.K., Wang, J.R., et al.: Study on the performance of ceramic composite projectile penetrating into ceramic composite target. Def. Technol. 13, 299 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. Zaera, R., Sánchez-Gálvez, V.: Analytical modelling of normal and oblique ballistic impact on ceramic/metal lightweight armours. Int. J. Impact Eng. 21(3), 133–148 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aeronautic Science and EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Aero Engine Corporation of China, CAEShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations