Khalaf, W., Hamzah, M. (2024). Exploring the impact resistance of hybrid sandwich composite body armor through experimental analysis. , 42(7), 1001-1014. doi: 10.30684/etj.2024.142961.1555
Waad A. Khalaf; Mohsin N. Hamzah. "Exploring the impact resistance of hybrid sandwich composite body armor through experimental analysis". , 42, 7, 2024, 1001-1014. doi: 10.30684/etj.2024.142961.1555
Khalaf, W., Hamzah, M. (2024). 'Exploring the impact resistance of hybrid sandwich composite body armor through experimental analysis', , 42(7), pp. 1001-1014. doi: 10.30684/etj.2024.142961.1555
Khalaf, W., Hamzah, M. Exploring the impact resistance of hybrid sandwich composite body armor through experimental analysis. , 2024; 42(7): 1001-1014. doi: 10.30684/etj.2024.142961.1555

Exploring the impact resistance of hybrid sandwich composite body armor through experimental analysis

Engineering and Technology Journal
Volume 42, Issue 7, July 2024, Pages 1001-1014    PDF (1.75 M)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.30684/etj.2024.142961.1555
Authors
Waad A. Khalaf* ; Mohsin N. Hamzah
Mechanical Engineering Dept., University of Technology-Iraq, Alsina’a street, 10066 Baghdad, Iraq.
Abstract
Hybrid composite sandwich structures, known for remarkable energy absorption, rigidity, and strength, are emerging as a preferred choice for fortifying structures against a diverse range of firearms and artillery. Despite their higher density, these panels demonstrate commendable qualities, making them optimal for armored vehicles and body armor. Numerous structural options compete for recognition as effective ballistic shields in today's context.  In this study, three sample configurations were rigorously tested for ballistic impact using a 7.62×39 mm bullet. The first sample (S1) comprised silicon carbide ceramic tiles (SiC), Kevlar fiber, and carbon fiber in the face sheet, with an unfilled aluminum honeycomb core and a carbon fiber rear sheet. Subsequent samples, S2 and S3, maintained the S1 composition but varied in the core. S2 had a honeycomb core injected with polyurethane foam, while S3 utilized a silicone rubber-filled honeycomb core. Ballistic tests revealed a notable difference: S1 and S2 failed to prevent bullet penetration, whereas S3 successfully met this crucial objective. After penetration, the bullets' velocities were S1 -45.9 m/s, S2-22.9 m/s, and S3 -0m/s. Remarkably, S3 exhibited an optimal 0mm back face signature (BFS) and a penetration depth (DOP) of 13.74 mm, well within limits. Cumulative energy absorption (EA) was as follows: S1-2577.23 J, S2-2583.57 J, and S3-2617.92 J. The armors demonstrated specific energy absorptions (SEA) of 2386.33, 2389.97, and 2015.32 J/kg, respectively. Their areal densities were 48, 48.1, and 57 kg/m2, respectively. The ballistic limit velocities (BLV), derived from initial (IV) and residual velocities (RV), measured 802.68, 803.673, and 804 m/s for S1, S2, and S3.

Highlights
  • The hybrid composite sandwich was carefully assembled with silicon adhesive bonding the core and skins.
  • The composite skins were fabricated using the hand lamination technique.
  • Authentic ballistics tests were conducted on the fabricated specimens.
  • The refined design, sample (S3), effectively protected against penetration.
  • Silicone rubber fillings have higher energy absorption compared with foam fillings.
Keywords
Ballistic Impact; 7.62×39 mm bullet; Hybrid Sandwich Armor; Energy Absorption; Back Face Signature
References
  1. Ramanathan, P.K. Krishnan, R. Muraliraja, A review on the production of metal matrix composites through stir casting–Furnace design, properties, challenges, and research opportunities, J. Manuf. Process., 42 (2019) 213-245.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2019.04.017
  2. Medvedovski, Ballistic performance of armour ceramics: Influence of design and structure. Part 1, Ceram. Int., 36 (2010) 2103-2115.‏ .‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2010.05.021
  3. A. Nia, S.B. Razavi, G.H. Majzoobi, Ballistic limit determination of aluminum honeycombs-experimental study, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 488 (2008) 273-280.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2007.11.044
  4. Yang, C. Qi, D. Wang, R. Gao, H. Hu, J. Shu, A comparative study of ballistic resistance of sandwich panels with aluminum foam and auxetic honeycomb cores, Adv. Mech. Eng., 5 (2013) 589216.‏
  5. Qi, S. Yang, D. Wang, L.J .Yang, Ballistic resistance of honeycomb sandwich panels under in-plane high-velocity impact, Sci. World J., 2013 (2013) 20.‏ https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/892781
  6. Bhat, A. Honeycomb in hybrid composite armor resisting dynamic impact, Diss. Oklahoma State University, 2015.‏ https://hdl.handle.net/11244/299565
  7. Guo, S. Alam, L.D. Peel, Numerical analysis of ballistic impact performance of two ceramic-based armor structures, Compos. C: Open Access , 3 (2020) 100061.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100061
  8. Wang, Y. Yu, C. Wang, G. Zhou, A. Karamoozian, On the out-of-plane ballistic performances of hexagonal, reentrant, square, triangular and circular honeycomb panels, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 173 (2020) 105402.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105402
  9. H. Hassoon, M.S. Abed, J.K. Oleiwi, M. Tarfaoui‏, Experimental and numerical investigation of drop weight impact of aramid and UHMWPE reinforced epoxy, J. Mech. Behav. Mater., 31 (2022) 71-82.‏ https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0008
  10. B. Tan, X.M. Wang, M. Ma, J.X. Zhang, W.C. Liu, A study on microstructure and mechanical properties of AA 3003 aluminum alloy joints by underwater friction stir welding, Mater. Charact., 127 (2017) 41-52.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2017.01.039
  11. Mishra, J. Maity, Structure–property correlation of AISI 1080 steel subjected to cyclic quenching treatment, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 646 (2015) 169-181.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.08.018
  12. F. Jiang, Y.F. Wu, Identification of material parameters for Drucker–Prager plasticity model for FRP confined circular concrete columns, Int. J. Solids Struct., 49 (2012) 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.10.002
  13. B. Rao, D. Baskey, R.S. Rawat, Water jet cutter: an efficient tool for composite product development, in Proceedings of the national conference on scientific achievements of SC & ST scientists & technologists, ational Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, 17 , 2009, 104-107.
  14. S. Al-Khazraji, S.H. Bakhy, M.J. Jweeg‏, Modal analysis of specific composite sandwich structures, Eng. Technol. J., 41 (2023) 13-22.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.30684/etj.2022.133585.1195
  15. A. Saleem, M.S. Abed, P.S. Ahmed‏, Numerical and Experimental Study of Hybrid Composite Body Armor, Eng. Technol. J., 39 (2021) 1681-1687.‏ https://doi.org/10.30684/etj.v39i11.2274
  16. H. Mosa, M.N. Hamzah‏, Evaluating the Adhesive Properties of Four Types of Conventional Adhesives, Eng. Technol. J., 40 (2022) 120-128.‏ https://doi.org/10.30684/etj.v40i1.2137
  17. K. Rule, S.E .Jones, A revised form for the Johnson–Cook strength model, Int. J. Impact Eng., 21 (1998) 609-624.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(97)00081-X
  18. H. Mosa, M.N. Hamza, Influence of selection materials and construction techniques on the ballistic performance of armors: A review, AIP Conf. Proc., 2404 ,2021, 080025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0068916
  19. Shin, J. Chung, J.H. Kim, Test and estimation of ballistic armor performance for recent naval ship structural materials, Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng., 10 (2018) 762-781.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2017.10.007
  20. Rice, Kirk D., Michael A. Riley, and Amanda L. Forster, Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor, National Institute of Justice Office of Science and TechnologyWashington , 2008.‏
  21. A. Khalaf and M. N. Hamzah, Numerical Investigation of Impact Resistance of Honeycomb Composite Armor,‏ MESM, 2022.
  22. National Institute of Justice, Body Armor Guide: Selection & Application Guide 0101.06 to Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor, 2014‏.
  23. Marx, M. Portanova, A. Rabiei, Ballistic performance of composite metal foam against large caliber threats, Compos. Struct., 225 (2019) 111032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111032
  24. Medvedovski, Lightweight ceramic composite armour system, Adv. Appl. Ceram., 105 (2006) 241–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/174367606X113537
  25. K. Naik, S. Kumar, D. Ratnaveer, M. Joshi, K. Akella, An energy-based model for ballistic impact analysis of ceramic-composite armors, Int. J. Damage Mech., 22 (2013) 145–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789511435346
  26. Garcia-Avila, M. Portanova, A. Rabiei, Ballistic performance of composite metal foams, Compos. Struct., 125 (2015) 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.01.031
  27. Arora, A. Ghosh, Evolution of soft body armor, Adv. Text. Eng. Mater., 7 (2018) 499-552.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119488101
  28. Sun, D. Chen, H. Wang, P.J. Hazell, Q. Li, High-velocity impact behaviour of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels with different structural configurations, Int. J. Impact Eng., 122 (2018) 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.08.007
  29. F. Recht, T.W. Ipson, Ballistic perforation dynamics, J. Appl. Mech., 30 (1963) 384-390.‏ https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3636566
Statistics
Article View: 263
PDF Download: 294


Journal Management System. Powered by iJournalPro.com