Advertisement

Strength of Materials

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 11–17 | Cite as

Simulation of the Lightweight Ceramic/Aluminum Alloy Composite Armor for Optimizing Component Thickness Ratios

  • Z.-L. Chang
  • W.-L. Zhao
  • G.-P. ZouEmail author
  • H.-Q. Sun
Article
  • 7 Downloads

The lightweight ceramic/aluminum alloy composite armor design is examined and optimized to get better protective performance. The armor penetrability is simulated via the smooth particle hydromechanics approach using the ANSYS/AUTODYN software. The accuracy of the program was verified by comparing with known data. Three composite armor types with the total thickness of 30, 40, and 50 mm, and five different ceramic/metal thickness ratios were analyzed in simulation of the residual bullet speed and the final distance. Simulation results are compared with the theoretical model. The best bullet protective performance of the three armor types was obtained with the ceramic/aluminum alloy thickness ratio of 4:1.

Keywords

ceramic composite armor smooth particle hydromechanics method penetration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11602068 and 11602066) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Nos. HEUCFM170203, HEUCFP201744, and HEUCFP201762).

References

  1. 1.
    H.-L. Hou, X. Zhu, Z.-J. Liu, et al., “Experimental study on performance of ceramic composite warship armor under impact of high speed fragment,” Ordnance Mater. Sci. Eng., No. 3, 5–10 (2007).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. B. Lucy, “A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis,” Astron. J., 82, 1013–1024 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. A. Gingold and J. J. Monaghan, “Smoothed particle hydrodynamics – Theory and application to non-spherical stars,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 181, 375–389 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. Sánchez Gálvez and L. Sánchez Paradela, “Analysis of failure of add-on armor for vehicle protection against ballistic impact,” Eng. Fail. Anal., 16, No. 6, 1837–1845 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. L. Florence and T. J. Ahrens, Interaction of Projectiles and Composite Armor, Final Report, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Wang and G. Lu, “On the optimisation of two-component plates against ballistic impact,” J. Mater. Process. Tech., 57, Nos. 1–2, 141–145 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Grady, “Impact failure and fragmentation properties of tungsten carbide,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 23, No. 1, 307–317 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. J. Steinberg, S. G. Cochran, and M. W. Guinan, “A constitutive model for metals applicable at high-strain rate,” J. Appl. Phys., 51, No. 3, 1498–1504 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. J. Holmquist, D. W. Templeton, and K. D. Bishnoi, “Constitutive modeling of aluminum nitride for large strain, high-strain rate, and high-pressure applications,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 25, No. 3, 211–231 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. R. Johnson and W. H. Cook, “Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 21, No. 1, 31–48 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Harbin Engineering UniversityHarbinChina
  2. 2.College of ScienceHeilongjiang University of Science and TechnologyHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations