First Annual Progress Seminar report

on

Modelling of Ballistic Behaviour of Light Weight

Armours Using Phase Change Materials.

Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements of

Doctor of Philosophy

by

Sagar Ramesh Ingle

Roll no:164100015

Under the supervision of

Prof. Sushil Mishra

Prof. Anirban Guha
Prof. Chandra Sekher Yerramalli

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY

August 2017

1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 ……………………………………..………………..4

1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………….4

1.2 Objective of present work ……………………………………………………….4
1.3 Types of approach to design ceramic armour ………………………………………………………. 4
1.4 Phenomenon of Perforation Process ………………………………………………………. 5
Chapter 2: Literature Review ………………………………………………………. 7
Study of different analytical models ………………………………………………………. 7
2.1 Woodward’s model. ………………………………………………………. 7
2.2 Woodward’s Modified model ………………………………………………………. 10
2.3 Zaera analytical model ………………………………………………………. 15
2.4 R.T Tang model ………………………………………………………. 18
2.5 S. Feli model ………………………………………………………. 22
Chapter 3: ……………………………………………………….24
3.1 Comparison between different analyitcal models. …………………………………………………….24
Chapter 4: Shear Thickening Fluids ……………………………………………………….27
4.1 Shear thickening mechanism ……………………………………………………….28
4.2 Rheological properties of STFs. ………………………………………………………29
4.3 Impact energy absorbtion modesand their analysis.…………………………………………………31
Chapter 5: …………………………………………………………39
5.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………..39
5.2 Gaps in literature and Future work plan …………………………………………………………40
References …………………………………………………………41

2
 Table of Figures
Figure 1 Ballistic System ...................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Stages in perforation process. [1] .............................................................................................
Figure 3:a) Projectile mushrooming b) Projectile Rigid c) constant semi angle of ceramic [3] ........... 7
Figure 4 : Ductile Instability failure of metal backing [1] .................................................................... 7
Figure 5:The effect of backing material, comparing Mayseless et al. empirical data, for two steels,
4130 (HR) and 1020, and two aluminium’s, 6061 -T6 and 2024-0, with model calculations [1] ........ 9
Figure 6:Modifications in perforation process. [3] ............................................................................. 10
Figure 7: Reduction in velocity during impact event. ......................................................................... 11
Figure 8:Ogival Projectile ................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: The assumed reduction in effective dimensions of the conoid and ..................................... 12
Figure 10: Reducing the semi-angle ceramic cone in an impact. ...........................................................
Figure 11:Comparison of ballistic limit velocity for two compressive strength cases in a similar
impact on the target with Al6061-T6 as a back plate: a) constant and b) Reduced[3] ....................... 14
Figure 12:Ballistic Limit velocity versus ceramic thickness when a projectile .................................. 14
Figure 13:Comparison of ballistic limit velocity of two type of ceramic with different hardness ..... 15
Figure 14:Meeting of projectile tip and radial cracking front. ............................................................ 17
Figure 15:Comparison between present model and experimental data using blunt projectile.[4] ...... 20
Figure 16:Comparison between present model predictions and experimental data using conical nosed
projectile.[4] ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure17:Ballistic limit velocity comparison between analytical model data and experimental
data.[4] ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 18:Analytical and experimental ballistic limit velocities for a surrogate 7.62AP projectile ... 22
Figure 19:The ballistic limit velocity versus ceramic thickness when a low-calibre projectile.......... 23
Figure 20:The residual velocity of 20APDS projectile perforates onto the target with alumina AD
99.5, .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 21:Analycal and experimental results f ballistic limit of 7.62AP Projectile impacting........... 24
Figure 22:Comparison between different model predictions vs experimental data for ...................... 26
Figure 23:Schematic illustration of shear thinning and shear thickening behaviour of suspensions
[20] ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 24:Effect of particle shapes on the shear thickening effect. .................................................... 29
Figure 25:Fabrics after ballistic impacts with (a) wedge through phenomenon and (b) fiber breakage,
for approximate projectile velocities of 600 and 800 m/s, respectively. [20] ..................................... 31
Figure 26:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of untreated Kevlar fabric.[21] .............. 32
Figure 27:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of STF ..................................................... 33
Figure 28:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of STF ..................................................... 33
Figure 29:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of STF ..................................................... 34
Figure 30:Kevlar fabrics deformed during impact testing (a) untreated Kevlar fabric, (b) STF treated
Kevlar fabric. [21]............................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 31:Energy absorption data and trendline for all cases. [22] .................................................... 36
Figure 32:Areal density specific energy absorption data .................................................................... 37
Figure 33:Thickness and areal density specific energy absorption data ............................................. 37

3
 Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction:
Many objects in the universe such as aircraft turbine, spacecraft’s and case wall of centrifugal
separators are always in danger of being damaged by high speed impacts and need to be
protected. The protective materials weights have to be minimal, especially of body armours.
Much effort has been made to clarify the behaviour of the materials involved, in attempts to
increase safety and decrease the accompanying weight penalty. Fortunately, the development
of such protective materials can benefit significantly from the experience and knowledge
gained from the evolution of armour materials over the centuries.
During world war 1st there wasn’t substantial research in field of armour design,
first modern tank appeared during this period it was armoured with flat rolled steel plates.
This increased the weight of armour and reduced its mobility. Hence armour material research
was stimulated to find the solution for major problems associated with armours: weight, cost,
penetrability. Research started to grow in designing ceramic armours.
Ceramic due to properties like high compressive strength, low density, hardness, heat
resistance and high impact strength proved to be a very good option for ballistic armours
applications. Unfortunately, when projectiles are fired on to single ceramic tiles, they are only
able to provide a limited amount of protection. Their brittle behaviour and poor tensile
strength cause failure and prevent them from absorbing significant amount of energy. By
supporting the ceramic facing with ductile back plate however the performance of armour was
dramatically increased due to following reasons, ceramic destroyed projectile tip, slowed the
projectile motion and distributed the load over large area of the back-up plate. CFRP and
Kevlar are also being used as back up materials due light weight, high stiffness and impact
resistance properties which served purpose by supporting ceramic and bringing comminuted
ceramic and projectile to rest also taking part in energy absorbing mechanism. Healthy
research in use of Shear Thickening Fluids in protective applications initiated in 2004 and
was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL). Considering flexibility and
viscous property of STFs several investigations were performed to improve efficiency of
protective systems in later years. Kevlar fabrics impregnated with colloidal STFs and
Multiphase STFs with additives shows a lot of promise and is hot topic of research in past
few years due to highly increasing terrorist activities around the world.

1.2 Objective of Present work:

Objective of present work is to study different analytical models to predict the perforation of
ceramic-faced light armours struck normally by projectiles and role of phase change materials
in enhancing the ballistic properties of body armours. Shear thickening fluids (STFs) are
dense colloidal suspensions exhibiting an abrupt increase in viscosity with increasing shear
rate, there is appreciable change in behaviour of material which tends towards solidus state
after application of force. Hence study of rheological properties and Impact energy absorption
mechanism of STFs is of prime importance.

1.3 Types of approach to design ceramic armours:

In the past, the design of such ceramic armours systems was based predominantly on
experimental ballistic performance data. However, the large number of parameters
influencing such an armour performance render the sole use of traditional experimental
ballistic performance data inefficient. The most fruitful results can be expected when
experiments are supplemented by an analytical approach, which includes the dynamic
mechanisms accounting for behaviour of these armours. Empirical method is the most widely

4
used, taken into account the difficulty of the analysis of such problems. It provides the highest
accuracy but it has the disadvantage of being valid exclusively for the definite missile target
system on hand. Moreover, empirical models need to be supported by huge amount of
experimental data in order to predict ballistic limit velocities. By geometric scaling, empirical
models become more versatile although such procedures do not allow projectile geometry,
armour geometry, armour composition or impact velocity to be varied independently.
Numerical modelling method involves solving of differential equations of continues media in
order to obtain full solution of perforation process. Accuracy of codes mainly depends upon
materials constitutive equations which represents behaviour of material. This approach
provides wider information about process which helps in better understanding. Disadvantage
associated with this process is large CPU time required. Analytical approach on the other
hand makes certain assumptions in order to make the perforation mechanism simple. Usage
of few material parameters obtained from experiments and simple equations makes material
description simple. Analytical models are best suited for parametric studies which involves
variation of geometry, armour composition and materials independently. [2]

1.4 Phenomenon of perforation process:

Ductile Metal Backing

Bbacking

Penetrator

Ceramic tile

Figure 1 Ballistic System

a) b) c)

Figure 2 Stages in perforation process. [1]

5
Fig:1 shows the ballistic armour system which consists of penetrator, ceramic tile and ductile
metal backing. When penetrator is fired at certain velocity usually with medium calibre barrel
strikes the ceramic tile. When penetrator strikes the ceramic tile erosion of penetrator occurs
followed by the mushrooming of penetrator. Initial kinetic energy of penetrator is lost and loss
of energy of projectile is mainly related to energy associated with the erosion of projectile. [1]
This erosion is mainly due to forces acting at the interface of penetrator and ceramic tile. Same
magnitude of interface forces acts in direction of ceramic tile, if magnitude of the interface
pressure is greater than compressive strength of erosion of ceramic tile takes place up to certain
thickness (Fig 2a). This process absorbs some amount of penetrator energy.
As soon as penetrator strikes the ceramic tile during first microseconds a stress wave
starts propagating from the impact surface producing crack front in material in impact direction.
This front produces circumferential and conical cracks. These cracks are generated by tensile
stress waves propagating from the border of impact area. When compressive wave produced
due to interface pressure reaches the rear surface of tile, tensile circumferential stresses are
generated which will propagate upwards. Ceramic fragmentation is continuing event taking
place during complete perforation process but fragmentation occurring during first instant after
impact decreases ceramic strength. When radial cracks generated at rear surface of tile reach
the front face and also when compressive waves have travelled through the tile thickness conoid
formation occurs (Fig 2b) and first stage is completed. [1]
Now three consequences are possible when penetrator strikes the target i.e. the
ceramic can be eroded to zero thickness and if there is still a velocity difference between
projectile and backing the projectile may perforate. If there is no residual velocity difference,
the backing may continue to bulge till either the velocity is reduced to zero or bursting of the
bulge occurs and system can slow to zero velocity stopping the projectile or the projectile can
be completely eroded and thus stopped.

6
 Chapter 2: Literature review
Study of different analytical models:

2.1. Woodward’s Model: [1]

Woodward’s developed analytical model predict the perforation of ceramic-faced light
armours struck normally by projectiles. In his analysis, he made certain assumption’s i.e.
Crack propagation was sufficiently faster compared to projectile velocity, Projectile
mushrooming and Rigid phase was not been considered fig (3.a and 3.b) Ceramic yield
strength remained constant throughout the perforation process, Semi angle of ceramic cone
was assumed to be constant throughout the perforation process and forces at the interface of
projectile/ceramic and ceramic/metal backing remains constant. Fig (3.c) [1]

a) b)

c)

Figure 3:a) Projectile mushrooming b) Projectile Rigid c) constant semi angle of ceramic [3]

Target Failure Criteria:

Criteria 1: Ductile instability in metal backing plate.
In this type of failure ceramic still separates projectile from backing plate, projectile, ceramic
and backing move with same velocity. In this situation bulging of metal plate takes place,
kinetic energy of system is being dissipated in plastic deformation of backing plate terminated
either by reduction to zero velocity or rupture. Plate deformation is assumed to ideal plastic.
If system still contains some kinetic energy it will further bulge the plate and ultimately results
in rupture. Thus, a bulge height ‘h’ is considered as failure criterion.

Figure 4 : Ductile Instability failure of metal backing [1]

7
Backing material stress/strain properties were curve fit to an equation of the form:
 
  A  B n

 = Effective Stress

 = Effective Strain
A, B, n = curve fitting constants A, B, n
By solving equation 9 strain at instability can be calculated:
11B i n1  4(2n  1) B i n  11A i  4 A  0

Substituting value of strain at instability in equation (2.1.1) angle through sides of cone are
bent at failure is calculated, simple geometry then gives value of displacement ‘h’ of cone.

 i  ln(3cos   2) ………………. (2.1.1)

Effective energy of system is given by Equation below:

•
1 •
 D 2U
EK  M P U P 2  ( C . c   B . b ).( R T ) 2 ………………………
2 8 5 3 D D
R P

(2.1.2)
Backing plate fails if:
•
1 •
 D 2U 2b h
EK  M P U P 2  ( C . c   B . b ).( R T ) 2
5 3 D D
 W =  bhYT ( + )
2 8 R P
3 2

Criteria 2: Failure with ceramic eroded to zero thickness.

In this type of failure ceramic tile is completely eroded to zero thickness. Here the velocity of
backing causing bulging did not contribute for failure but the difference between projectile
and backing plate velocity allowed perforation. [1]
• •
1
2 M P (U B  U P )2   DP 2bYT / 2

Where,
F = Force DO = Base diameter of cone.
M = Mass c = Ceramic tile thickness.
∆t = Time increment
•
U = velocity
••
U = Acceleration
h = bulge displacement

 = plate yield strength.

8
Comparison with experimental results:
Fig (5) shows plot of BVL with backing thickness of different material. It is evident from the
graph that steel backing (4130 HR) gives maximum BVL at any particular value of backing
thickness compare to aluminium backing material. This is due to fact that yield strength of
steel is high compare to aluminium hence large energy is absorbed by steel before failure
compared to aluminium. [1]

Figure 5:The effect of backing material, comparing Mayseless et al. empirical data, for two steels, 4130 (HR) and 1020,
and two aluminium’s, 6061 -T6 and 2024-0, with model calculations [1]

9
2.2 Woodward’s modified model: [3]
This model is based on Woodward’s basic model with some modifications that made analytical
formulations more realistic to actual perforation process which enhanced the efficiency of process and
results were in line with experimental results. This model studied the contribution of different phases of
projectile during perforation phase i.e. projectile eroding, projectile mushrooming and projectile rigid
phase. Modification of semi angle of ceramic during perforation process and modified shape of nose of
projectile was taken into consideration. During perforation of ceramic, ceramic yield strength doesn’t
remain constant, due to initial impact change in ceramic yield strength occurs which was considered in
his formulations. [3]

a) b) c)

e)

d)
Figure 6:Modifications in perforation process. [3]

Modifications:
1.Different Phases of Projectile during Perforation:
a) Mass Erosion Phase: Initially when projectile strikes the ceramic tile due to high
velocity projectile and ceramic tile is subjected to high interface pressure, if these
interface pressure exceeds projectile and ceramic erosion strength both projectile and
ceramic tile will erode. Interface force at these stage is given by:
• •
FI  [  P A0 (U P  U C )2 ]  FP

b) Mushrooming phase: After striking ceramic tile velocity of projectile falls when the
• •
relative velocity (U P  U C ) falls below the plastic wave velocity U PLAS The relative
displacement between the end of the projectile and the projectile ceramic interface can
then start to be accommodated by plastic deformation of the projectile thus
mushrooming of projectile occurs. Interface value changes due to change in velocity
and plastic deformation.
• • ••
FI   P A0 [U PLAS (U P  U C )  U C ( LERO  LELA) )]  FP

10
 LERO = Length of projectile at start of mushrooming phase.
LELA = Length of projectile unaffected by plastic wave.

c) Rigid Phase: At some point in time the velocity of projectile will become equal to the
velocity of the mushrooming stage which is penetrating the ceramic. At this point it is
assumed that the projectile becomes a rigid body.
••
FI  U P  P A0 LERO

Figure 7: Reduction in velocity during impact

event.

2.Modification to the Projectile Nose Shape:

Figure 8:Ogival Projectile

In Woodward’s basic model penetrator was considered to be a flat ended with perfectly
cylindrical shape while actual projectile usually has ogival nose. In this model, equivalent
diameter and equivalent length will be defined for non-cylindrical projectiles. Below
equations gives equivalent diameter and equivalent length of ogival projectile.

11
 LP

 D ( Z ).dz 4M P
3

Deq  Leq 
 Deq 2 P
0
LP

D
2
( Z ).dz
0

3.Modification to the Conoid Semi-angle at Initial Impact:

Figure 9: The assumed reduction in effective dimensions of the conoid and

backing plate as a result of ceramic erosion. [3]

The ceramic conoid semi-angle is an important parameter. There are different ideas about this
angle Woodward’s considered this angle as 680 while Florence claimed it 630 . Due to high
energy of projectile, interface pressure produced is greater than erosion strength of ceramic
tile this causes ceramic tile to erode to certain thickness which in turn has influence over semi
conoid angle. When erosion of ceramic takes place effective dimension of ceramic conoid are
reduced. Thus, we can conclude that conoid semi angle is function of penetrator initial
velocity whose value varies as shown below: [3]

•
680  U P  600
 
  5 •
 •
  [ ( U P  900)  63] 600  U P  900
180 300  •

 630

 U P  900

4.Modification to the Conoid Semi-angle during Perforation at a Specified Impact:

Woodward’s Basic model assumed that semi conoid angle remains constant during
perforation process but this model claimed that due to continues fragmentation and erosion of
ceramic tile semi cone decreases during perforation process and results of this model were
found closer to experimental results.

12
.

Figure 10: Reducing the semi-angle ceramic cone in an

impact.

  0  34 
  (tc  x)  34  ………………... (2.4)
180  tc 

 0 = Conoid angle formed after initial impact

tc = thickness of ceramic tile
x = eroded thickness of ceramic

a) In case there is no erosion of ceramic the angle φ is as its maximum value.

b) In case there is highest possible erosion (total ceramic thickness) the angle φ is 34º

5.Modification to Ceramic Strength after Impact:

Ceramic penetration strength is intensely lowered after fragmentation. Furthermore, the back-
up plate is deformed and some particles being expelled from the crater. More space for the
fragments motion is available and thus the penetration resistance decreases. The expression
for fragmented ceramic strength can be found.
• •
U W
YC  YC 0 ( •
)2
U0
•
U = Velocity during perforation
•
W = Velocity of backing plate
•
U o = Initial penetration velocity
YC 0 = Compressive strength of the intact ceramic plate
YC = Compressive strength after fragmentation.

13
Comparison with the experimental results and discussions:
Fig (11) shows the BLV Vs. Backing thickness plot. It can be seen that for any one value of
backing thickness Ballistic limit velocity for model considering reduced compressive strength
during perforation process is less as compared to model claiming constant compressive
strength. [3]

Figure 11:Comparison of ballistic limit velocity for two compressive strength cases in a similar
impact on the target with Al6061-T6 as a back plate: a) constant and b) Reduced[3]

Fig (12) shows, the ballistic limit velocity of Modified analytical model versus ceramic
thickness for two different backing thicknesses. According to this figure, the ballistic limit
velocity of projectile will increase when the thickness of ceramic increases. In fact, when the
thickness of ceramic increases, the projectile will remain longer behind ceramic tile due to
more volume of fragmentation of ceramic and its velocity will be reduced.

Figure 12:Ballistic Limit velocity versus ceramic thickness when a projectile

impacting the two-layer target AD85+Al6061-T [3]

14
Ceramic hardness one of the important parameter to determine the ballistic performance of
ceramic composites. To compare the effectiveness of hardness of ceramics, two types of
ceramics, AD85 and B4C, with different hardness are considered for the same impact scenario
Fig. (13). According to the present model, if the energy of projectile is high enough so that
the ceramic is eroded, the resistance to penetration is more when B4C is used. But when the
energy of projectile is low enough so that the ceramic is not eroded there will be little
difference between the ballistic performance of the two ceramics (AD85 and B4C).
Fig. (13) shows that when the ballistic limit velocity increases due to increase in backing
thickness, the difference between the behaviour of two types of ceramic will be more
pronounce.

Figure 13:Comparison of ballistic limit velocity of two type of ceramic with different hardness
for same impact scenario on the target with Al6061-T6 as a back-up plate.[3]

2.3. Zaera Analytical Model [5]

The model is based on Tate and Alekseevskii’s equation for the projectile penetration into the
ceramic tile. Whilst the response of the metallic Backing is modelled following the ideas of
Woodward’s and Den reijer’s models. This paper mainly talks about Crack propagation in
ceramic tile, Calculation of time for conoid formation, Calculation of limit velocity that
penetrates ceramic tile, Failure criteria for metal backing, Calculation of ballistic limit and
residual velocity. [5]
Model Development:
The equations of the model are: [5]

1 1
YP   P (v  u ) 2  Rt  t u 2 …………… (2.3.1)
2 2

dL
  (v  u ) ……………. (2.3.2)
dt

15
 dv Y
 P ……………(2.3.3)
dt P L

Where,

YP = Dynamic strength of projectile material.

 P = Density of projectile material.
v = Projectile velocity
u = Penetration velocity
Rt = Penetration strength of ceramic target
 t = Density of Ceramic target.

Eqn (2.3.1) is used to calculate Penetration velocity for all the given values. Eqn (2.3.2) gives
amount of projectile erosion. Eqn (2.3.3) shows that change in velocity of projectile is
function of its own properties i.e. Dynamic yield strength of projectile, density of projectile
and length of projectile.

1
Rt  t v 2
dv 2
 … ……….. (2.3.4)
dt pL

When the projectile velocity has been sufficiently reduced, the pressure on its tip is not able
to erode the projectile, therefore it will behave thereafter as a rigid body. Linear momentum
equation in that case is given by Eqn. (2.3.4)
hc h
tconoid   c ……………………… (2.3.5)
ulong vcrack

Eqn (2.3.5) gives time required to complete first stage i.e. time required for radial cracks
generated at the rear surface of the tile reach the front face and also cracks produced when
compressive waves have travelled through the tile thickness.
2(YC 0  YP )
vlim  …………………… (2.3.6)
P
Eqn (2.3.6) gives limit of penetration velocity into armour i.e. velocity of penetrator should
be greater than this limiting velocity in order to perforate into ceramic tile. If the penetration
speed derived in Eqn (2.3.1) is positive, the time to finish the first stage must be changed,
because the projectile tip will meet the cracking front before its arrival at the front surface.
That means that projectile tip and cracking front positions must be checked continuously
along the first stage, ending it when both positions coincide. Therefore, the condition for
Finishing stage one is given by Eqn (2.3.7)

x  scrack  hc …………………(2.3.7)

16
 Figure 14:Meeting of projectile tip and radial cracking front.

1 1
Yp   p (v  u ) 2  Rt  t (u  w) 2 ………
2 2
(2.3.8)
Eqn (2.3.8) gives value of velocity of backing plate “ w ”
Failure criterion:

1
dv
Yb  b (v  w) 2
 2
dt pL

 Yb Deq 2 2
  hbYb ( hb   )
dw 4 3

dt Mb

D 2 eq
M b   p ( R hb 
2
(hb  hbt )
4

Criteria 1: Velocity of projectile at speed much higher than ballistic limit.

In this type of failure criteria, the velocity of penetrator is such high that it completely
fragments the ceramic tile and comes at substantial velocity and strike metal backing
perforating it completely without producing important bending of metal plate. Perforation
criterion is then fulfilled when central metal plate thickness is reduced to zero, which means
according to the proposed model. [5]

hbt  0
17
Criteria 2: Typically for lower impact speeds.
In this criteria metal plate shows important bending which absorbs greater amount of energy
from the system moving with some velocity. As can be seen by numerical simulations, when
projectile speed v is approximating metal speed w, the armour is defeated even though a full
perforation of the ceramic tile or the metal plate is not yet achieved. Therefore, a kinematic
failure criterion has been chosen, assuming armour defeat when:

vw
2.4. R.T Tang Model [4]

This paper mainly talks about energy absorbing mechanisms and calculation of BLV i.e.
Amount of energy absorbed by projectile during erosion and mushrooming, amount of energy
absorbed during compression and shear failure, amount of energy absorbed by metal plate
backing. [4]
Total Energy:

Ek  Ep  Ec  Eb  Ekr

E p = Energy absorbed by projectile.

Ec = Energy absorbed by ceramic tile.

Eb = Energy absorbed by backing plate.

Ekr = Residual energy.

Kinetic Energy of Projectile:

1  d 0 2  p l0 v0 2
EK  m p v0 2 
2 8

Energy dissipation of projectile:

Kinetic energy of penetrator is dissipated in following Mechanisms. [4]

Energy dissipated in Erosion of projectile:

When projectile strikes the ceramic tile, erosion, mushrooming of projectile occurs before it
penetrates into backing plate. Loss of kinetic energy of projectile is associated with erosion
of projectile itself. Loss of energy is given by:

 d 0 2Yp .le
Ep 
4

18
Energy dissipation of ceramic facing tile:
Ceramic tile under the impact of blunt projectile depending upon its thickness relative to the
projectile diameter, in two modes: direct formation of ceramic cone; first penetration/com-
pression and then followed by ceramic cone formation. Thick ceramic tile is subjected to
compression first followed by the conoid failure whilst direct cone formation takes place in
thin ceramic tile. Therefore, a part of kinetic energy is also absorbed by ceramic tile. The
energy dissipated by shear in ceramic facing tile can be written as:


2
d p hco 2 hco3 .tan( )
ECS   S (  3 )
for hco  hc
2 cos( )2


d p hc 2 h3c .tan( )
ECS   S (  3 for hc  hco
2 cos( )2

Where hc is calculated by equating FCS  FCC .

[d p  d p 2  4 FCC sin  ]

hc 
(2 tan  )

The crushing energy can be approximated as:

d p2 3 
Ecc  Fcc .hco   hco [ s (   1)   c 2  c s u sin( )]
4 2 4

Energy dissipation of backing plate:

The kinetic energy of the residual projectile Ekb at this instant when it strikes the backing
plate can be expressed as:
Ekb  Ek  E p  Ec
The speed of the residual projectile vs when it impacts the backing plate can be written as:
2 Ekb 2 Ekb
vs  
mr m p   d 0 2  p le
4

It is further assumed that the backing plate is thick enough to cause localized deformations
and failure. If the backing plate is made of metal then its energy dissipation through localized
adiabatic shear plugging can be written as

f
 n 0 d p 2 hb  m
1
  
 
1
 
 m p mb vs 2
Eb    1  ( ) q  exp  [1  ( m ) q ] 0  n1  d  
n

2(1  n) 0  D   bCV
 D n 1 
 2(m p  mb )

19
n = shear strain hardening exponent.
 0 =quasi static shear strength
 m =average shear strain rate
D , q = sensitive strain rate constant
 f =critical shear strain when adiabatic shear occurs
 =thermal softening coefficient.
 =material heat transfer c0efficent.
b =density of backing
mb =plugging mass of backing plate.

The residue velocity of the projectile can be calculated by the following equation after the
ceramic faced light armour is perforated

( mr vs 2  2 Eb )
vr 
( mr  mb )
Thus, an approximate ballistic limit can be obtained when vr =0.

Comparison with the experimental results and discussions:

Fig (15) shows comparison of the present model predictions with the experimental results for the
ballistic limits of ceramic/metal light armours impacted by a 7.62mm diameter 8.32g flat-nosed
projectile at normal incidence. The projectile was made of Allegheny 609 steel backing plates were
6.35mm thick 6061-T6 aluminium alloy. It can be seen that present model predictions are in good
agreement with the test data for the ballistic limit of AD995/6061-T6 light armours and are in
reasonable agreement with the experimental results for the ballistic limit of AD85/6061-T6
light armours. [4]

Figure 15:Comparison between present model and experimental data using blunt projectile.[4]

20
Fig (16) shows comparison of the present model predictions with the test data for the ballistic
limit of AD85/6061-T6 light armours impacted normally by a 7.62mm diameter 8.32 g
conical-nosed projectile as reported by Wilkins. The projectile was made of Allegheny 609
steel and the backing plate had a thick-ness of 4.95 mm. It is seen that for ceramic less than
8mm the present model overestimates a little the ballistic limit whilst for ceramic thickness
greater than 8mm the model slightly underestimates the ballistic limit.

Figure 16:Comparison between present model predictions and experimental data using conical nosed projectile.[4]

In Fig (17) the diagonal line is the equality line. If the data points lie exactly on this line, this
will indicate that the model predictions fully match with the experimentally observed ballistic
limit velocities. If the data points lie above the equality lines this will represent that the model
overestimates the experiments, whereas the data points lie below the equality line this will
indicate that the model underestimates the experiments Two more lines are drawn, one below
and another above the equality line representing  10% difference between observed and
predicted ballistic limit velocities, respectively. Ceramic thickness 6mm and analytical results
matches exactly with experimental while thickness 4.5 mm and 8mm gives over estimated
and underestimated results respectively.

Figure17:Ballistic limit velocity comparison between analytical model data and experimental data.[4]

21
2.5. S. Feli Model [8]
S. Feli model is based on previous analytical model i.e. Zaera and Sanchez model, Present
model incorporated few changes that enhanced the accuracy in results. Modelling the
deformation of projectile by one-dimensional equation of motion, considering flattening and
erosion in projectile tip, using work hardening material behaviour for back-up plate, and a
modification of semi-angle of ceramic conoid, have been included in the model.
Drawbacks of Zaera model were mushrooming effect was neglected, Conoid angle was
considered constant i.e. 65 degrees and back up material was considered as rigidly plastic.
These drawbacks were corrected in the new model. [8]

Comparison with the experimental results and discussions:

Fig (18) shows Ballistic limit velocity of new analytical model has good consistency with the
experimental results and is better than Woodward [1] and Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez [5]
analytical models in most cases. From Fig. 6 it is clear that in the back-up plate thickness of
more than 6 mm, the ballistic limit velocity of new analytical model is lower than
experimental results [8]. Stretching and bending of back-up plate that is considered in new
analytical model occurs in thin targets but for thick back-up plate thickness, mechanism of
failure is plugging and shear force in plug is important. In this analytical model, the effects of
shear force are ignored.

Figure 18:Analytical and experimental ballistic limit velocities for a surrogate 7.62AP projectile
impacting 7.85 mm AD85 þ Al 6061-T6.[8]

22
Fig (19) shows The comparison between new analytical model, experiment results
,Woodward [1] and Zaera and Sanchez-Galvez [5] models shows that the current analytical
model is a good prediction ballistic limit velocity than Woodward [1] and Zaera and Sanchez-
Galvez [5] models this is due to the fact that this model has condidered mushroomin of bullet
and change in conoid angle.

Figure 19:The ballistic limit velocity versus ceramic thickness when a low-calibre projectile
impacting the two-layer target B4C þ 6.35 mm Al 6060-T6. [8]

Fig (20) shows According to figure new analytical model shows good result in agreement
with experimental results. Wood ward and Reijer models on other hand showed inaccurate
results in poor agreement with experimental results. [8]

Figure 20:The residual velocity of 20APDS projectile perforates onto the target with alumina AD 99.5,
which is supported by aluminium alloy 6082, 5083

23
 Chapter 3
3.1 Comparison Between Analytical Models studied:

1. Woodward’s Model (Basic)

2. Woodward’s Modified Model.
3. Zaera Model
4. R.T Tang Model
5. S. Feli Model

Plot 1: BLV Vs. Backing Thickness (Ceramic tile with constant thickness).

Figure 21:Analycal and experimental results f ballistic limit of 7.62AP Projectile impacting
the target AD85+Al6061-T6[4]

24
Here,

In Fig (21) it can be seen that Woodward’s(basic) model shows linear variation with positive
slope i.e. as backing thickness increases ballistic limit velocity increases. Initially it has good
agreement with experimental results but gives under safe results as backing thickness
increases. Woodward’s approach is quite simplified approach it doesn’t consider erosion,
mushrooming and rigid phase of projectile. Moreover, ceramic conoid angle is assumed
constant throughout perforation process and also ceramic strength is also assumed to be
constant throughout process. All these assumptions make Woodward’s model less realistic
and hence doesn’t have high accuracy compare to other models.
Zaera on the other hand shows over safe results from beginning itself. Zaera in
analytical model does consider phenomenon like erosion of projectile, actual shape and size
of projectile is also taken into consideration but still fails to make phenomenon more realistic.
Woodward’s modified model gives best results as compared to other two analytical models.
This model analytical results have great agreement with experimental results.[4]
Woodward’s modified model in its analytical model have considered phenomenon
like erosion, mushrooming and rigid phase of projectile, variation of conoid angle during
initial impact as well as during perforation is also taken into consideration. Compressive
strength of ceramic tile is reduced considerably due to fragmentation of ceramic tile, so this
modified compressive strength was used for analytical calculation, all this phenomenon
considered made perforation process more realistic and hence yielded results great agreement
with experimental.

25
Plot 2: Ratio of Residual vel. to Ballistic limit vel. Vs Total armour thickness.

Figure 22:Comparison between different model predictions vs experimental data for

perforation of light armours.[4]
Here,

From Fig (22) it is clear that R.T Tang model gives more consistent results as compared to
models proposed by others, reason behind is that this model considered different energy
absorbing mechanism taking place during perforation process at different stages. It is also
clear from Fig (22) that model zaera predicts well the experiments for AD996/5083 and
overestimates the experiments for AD995/6082. Woodward’s model being less accurate
compared to all other models giving underestimates results for both AD996/5083 and
AD995/6082.
Reason behind less accuracy for Zaera and Woodward’s model is that they simply
haven’t considered major energy absorbing mechanism in their formulations for instance
energy dissipated by shear in ceramic conoid was not accounted for.[4]

26
 Chapter 4: Shear Thickening Fluids

Shear thickening fluids (STFs) are dense colloidal suspensions exhibiting an abrupt increase
in viscosity with increasing shear rate. The main favourable feature of STFs is that the
processes reversible, so that the fluids turn to the initial liquid state after removing the loading
from the medium Fig (23). Healthy research in use of STF’s in protective applications initiated
in 2004 and was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL). Considering
flexibility and viscous property of STFs several investigations were performed to improve
efficiency of protective systems in later years.
In more recent times, multi-phase STF systems including additive particles in the suspensions
have been developed to take the advantage of additive particles. A combination of STF and
magnetorheological (MR) fluid is the best example of multi-phase STF magneto rheological
shear thickening fluid(MRSTF). From last couple of years, additives of ceramic particles and
carbon nanotubes are gaining the attention of researchers. These additives have been
investigated in multi-phase STFs in order to observe their influences on the rheology of these
smart fluids and to adapt them for protective applications. [20]
The mechanism of shear thickening phenomenon will be discussed in accordance with the:
Hydro-clustering theory, Order-disorder and the contact rheology model. The shear
thickening mechanism is dependent on various factors such as: Particles, Liquid medium,
Particle interactions, Additives and Temperature.
Shear Thickening Fluid is colloidal suspensions made of:
1. Solid particles: Silica, Calcium Carbonate.
2. Inert Carrier Liquids: Water, Ethylene glycol, Polyethylene glycol.
3. Additives: Ceramic particles, carbon nanotubes.

Figure 23:Schematic illustration of shear thinning and shear thickening behaviour of suspensions [20]

27
4.1 Shear thickening mechanism:
1. Order Disorder Theory:
Particles in suspension are in equilibrium and layered order below a critical shear rate,
but beyond a critical shear rate, hydrodynamic forces acting on the particles become
dominant and stronger and the layered orientation is disrupted; as a result of this
process, layered particles disorder and the transition from order to disorder causes a
drastic increase in suspension viscosity.
2. Formation of Hydro clusters:
An ordered orientation is not sole reason of shear thickening behaviour because
thickening can take place with particle clusters extending in different directions while
hydrodynamic forces dominate the particles. According to this approach, suspension
easily flow at low shear rates is due to interactions between particles either
electrostatic or Brownian.
However, at increasing shear rates, hydrodynamic forces begin to dominate
suspension by suppressing the inter-particle repulsive forces and therefore, leading to
the formation of stress-bearing particle clusters called hydro-clusters. In contrast to
order-disorder theory these units cause a dramatic increase in viscosity by blocking
the flowing and may be formed without particle orientation in the suspension.
3. Contact Rheology Model: Purely hydrodynamic effect is only responsible for mild
thickening at the thickening onset, but not the explanation of the strong shear
thickening mechanism because stress transmission on a big scale is realized through
contact inter-actions. Contact forces grow stronger for the thickening point where the
colloidal particles contact each other at high shear rates.
For the further increase in the shear rate, contact forces generate force
networks that dominate thickening where the hydrodynamic interactions are claimed
to be insufficient. The influence of contact forces is pronounced along the suspension
as the shear rate increases [20]
Note: Major contribution to the viscosity increase, stems from inter-particle contacts rather
than hydrodynamic interactions, and the mechanism works in a way where particle attraction
only induces the formation of the contact networks; these extended branch-like structures
exhibit resistance to shear deformation during flowing and ultimately enhance the viscosity
to higher levels. In other words, hydrodynamic interactions are necessary and sufficient for
mild viscosity increase but not the resistance to flow that generates the main thickening.
Maximum viscosity beyond the thickening point to the viscosity at the critical shear rate is
defined as thickening ratio, and exhibits the intensity of thickening in the suspension. The
thickening period is the difference between critical shear rate and the shear rate at maximum
viscosity after the thickening point.

28
4.2 Rheological properties of STFs:
1. Effect of particle volume fraction:
Volume fraction is defined as the ratio of particle volume to particle volume. Barnes
et al. stated that at a particle at volume fraction of 0.5. commencement of thickening
occurs. The thickening ratio becomes higher and thickening period reduces, showing
that thickening grows stronger by increasing the particle volume fraction.[26]
2. Effects of particle aspect ratio:
Due to particle interlocking and rotational motion in the flow field particles with high
aspect ratios are more prone to increase the viscosity of STFs .Higher aspect ratio
particles have more possibility to contact neighbour particles during flowing and
therefore, these particles are more prone to activate and enhance the thickening
behaviour of STFs Fig(24).According to Bossis et al. hydrodynamic stresses are
directly proportional to the cube of the larger dimension of hydro-clusters, this means
that the elongated clusters contribute much more to the thickening behaviour than
spherical ones.

Figure 24:Effect of particle shapes on the shear thickening effect.

3. Effects of particle size:

Smaller particles in the suspensions enhance the viscosity of mixtures regardless of
thickening. Increase in viscosity due to the enhanced density of inter-particle
bonding occurs due to increase in number of particles per unit volume of finer
particles dispersions Previous investigations into the characteristics of STFs found
that critical shear rate increases as the particle size reduces.
4. Effects of particle hardness:
Harder particles are suggested for a shear thickening mechanism due to their advanced
mechanical properties. Problem with soft particles is that they could not withstand the
increased stresses and therefore, particle deformations become prevalent under high
shear rates. [22]

29
 5. Effects of liquid medium:
It is found that higher molecular weight fluid based STFs exhibit higher viscosity, this
is due to the fact that longer molecular chains hinder the relative movement of adjacent
layers of fluid relative to each other. Regardless of shear thickening mechanism this
trend is also observed in pure carrier fluids. As molecular weight of carrier fluid is
increased value of critical shear rate is lowered in suspensions the effect can be
particularly strong if the molecular weight of the carrier fluid is high enough to induce
entanglement effects. In the same manner, shear thickening is achieved with lower
amounts of solid particles using higher molecular weight fluids in suspensions.
6. Effects of Temperature:
Colloidal particles and liquid medium are linked with hydrogen bond as temperature
increases this bond weakens and results in decrease in viscosity of suspensions. As
temperature increases value of critical shear rate increases which disrupts thickening
of suspension. Inter-particle repulsive forces increase at elevated temperatures and
formation of the hydro-clusters takes place at larger shear rates.

STFs in protective applications:

In protective applications of STFs, these fluids are bonded with various materials to
constitute composite systems. For body protection, in the most preferred cases, high
performance fabrics such as aramid based Twaron, Kevlar, Technora and Ultra High
Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) based Dyneema, Spectra become prominent to
provide flexible structures for users. [20]

Preparation of composite System (STFs + Fabrics):

Homogenous suspension solution consisting of Solid particles and liquid medium is made
to disperse the colloidal particles. The mixing stage can be completed using magnetic,
mechanical or ultrasonic devices. However, ultrasonic methods are suggested for adequate
dispersion of solid phase into a polymeric matrix. Excessive amount of alcohol is used to
dilute the suspensions because STFs are highly viscous fluids and without dilution it is
troublesome to impregnate fabrics. After the dilution, fabrics are soaked into the diluted
mixture, enabling the mixture to penetrate between fibres.

Energy Absorption in composite system:

According to Srivastava et al. plausible mechanisms of improved energy absorption in STF
impregnated fabrics as: Energy dissipation due to shear thickening behaviour, increased inter-
yarn friction (yarn pull out energy) and better coupling and load transfer between fiber to fiber
and yarn to yarn shear.

30
Deformation Characteristics of Fabric:
In low-velocity and quasi-static conditions, only boundary conditions determine the
deformation characteristic of fabrics, the deformation on the fabric exhibited a wedge through
phenomenon seen in targets with low in-plane constraints because projectile easily pushes the
yarns ahead instead of breaking them. In high velocity condition, the movement of the
impacted yarns were constrained due to the fixed end conditions and fibres were broken. In
addition to boundary conditions, fiber strength at high strain rates is another factor in the
protective performance of fabrics under ballistic impacts.

Figure 25:Fabrics after ballistic impacts with (a) wedge through phenomenon and (b) fiber breakage, for
approximate projectile velocities of 600 and 800 m/s, respectively. [20]

4.3 Impact energy absorption modes and their analysis:

Abhijit Majumdar et al. probably for the first time, attempted methods to discuss the role of
shear thickening fluids in influencing the impact deformation of a Kevlar fabric and its
resultant energy absorption. Fig (27-29) present the energy absorbed and force generated
against time in STF treated Kevlar fabrics at 50%, 60% and 70% concentrations respectively
[21]. The shape of the plots necessitated dividing them into three distinct zones namely: [21]
Elastic zone (Zone 1)
Slippage/breakage zone (Zone 2)
Failure zone (Zone 3)

Elastic Zone:
Elastic zone (Zone 1) was found to be almost linear in all the cases. It is assumed that in the
elastic zone either the entire fabric or the primary yarns (engaged by the impactor) are first
de-crimped and then extended up to the elastic limit under the force exerted by the impactor.
This extension of the yarns builds up force and absorbs the energy of the impactor. Once the
fabric is deformed to the limit of the elastic zone, it can either start to fail or absorb more
energy depending on the roles played by the secondary yarns which are not in direct contact
with the impactor.

31
Slippage/Breakage zone:
The Zone 2 is characterized by fluctuating values of force and it is clearly understood in all
the plots. These fluctuations are most probably caused by slippage of yarns, exhibiting almost
a stick–slip sort of behaviour. As during the slippage force cannot increase monotonically, the
force curve becomes zigzag. Compared to STF treated fabrics in untreated fabric, there is too
much fluctuation in this zone which does not lead to any additional build-up of force. On the
other hand, in all STF treated fabrics, force keeps on increasing and there is substantial gain
in energy absorbed as well as force by the end of the Zone 2.
For all the samples, the peak force generation occurs invariably in Zone 2. The
slippage (resulting in yarn pull-out) exhibited in the Zone 2 could result due to two possible
factors: a) Either the penetration of the structure by the impactor facilitated by yarn pull-out
(in case of untreated Kevlar fabric) b) Deformation of the entire test area (in case of STF
treated Kevlar fabrics).

Failure zone:
Zone 3 is characterized by a drop-in force which means failure of the structure. In untreated
fabric, the drop is gradual which means some yarns which are engaged with the impactor and
are still being pulled-out which causes some resistance and this is manifest in continuous
albeit slow drop in force. In case of STF treated fabrics, however, this drop is sudden which
suggests catastrophic failure of the structure.

Plots: Energy Vs. Time

Graph between energy and time is plotted for neat kevlar fabric and STF treated Kevlar
fabrics at 50%, 60% and 70% concentrations respectively.Comparion between graphs and
analysis of different zones are given below:

1.

Figure 26:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of untreated Kevlar fabric.[21]

32
 2.

Figure 27:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of STF

treated Kevlar fabric (50% ,2 bar) [21]

3.

Figure

28:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of STF

treated Kevlar fabric (60%, 2bar) [21]

33
4.

Figure 29:Force generation and energy absorption graphs of STF

treated Kevlar fabric (70%, 2 bar) [21]

Figure 30:Kevlar fabrics deformed during impact testing (a) untreated Kevlar fabric, (b) STF treated Kevlar
fabric. [21]

A comparison between different graphs revealed that the elastic zone was wider in case of
STF treated samples Figs. (27–29) as compared to that of untreated samples Fig. (26) which
resulted in higher absorption of impact energy and build-up of force in the elastic zone. The
progressive increase in time, force generated and impact energy absorption, in Zone 1 with
the increase in silica concentration in STF reveals an interesting pattern. Higher concentration

34
of silica in STF leads to higher STF add-on% on fabric. Higher amount of STF creates better
bridging of yarns and thereby forms a coherent structure. As a result of change in frictional
properties of Kevlar fabrics, the time, force generated as well as energy absorbed in Zone 1
increases. It is also noted from the figures that the Zone 2 is also invariably wider for the STF
treated fabric Figs. (27–29) as compared to the untreated fabric
In untreated fabrics, the peak force occurs at 2.66 ms time (1200 N) while in treated
fabrics, it gradually increases up to 4.75 ms (3900 N) for 70% STF treated Kevlar fabrics
which signifies that the entire STF treated fabric structure, including the secondary yarns,
shares the energy as an integral structure. In the first two zones, untreated Kevlar fabric
absorbs only about 40% (10 J) of total energy while it is around 80% for the STF treated
Kevlar fabrics irrespective of concentration. This means that at the time of failure, untreated
Kevlar fabric has actually absorbed very small amount of energy as compared to the STF
treated Kevlar fabric. This observation is very significant when two sets of fabrics are
compared because generally the comparisons are made on the basis of total amount of impact
energy absorbed by samples during testing. [21] The untreated fabric clearly shows big loops
of yarns formed by the slippage of a few primary yarns in the center, while rest of the fabric
(secondary yarns) remains almost undisturbed. This brings out the inability of the untreated
Kevlar fabric structure in engaging secondary yarns in energy sharing during impact. As fewer
yarns participate in response to the impact, resistance is lower. While in treated fabrics, the
loops are small and broken.
In case of STF treated fabrics, it is postulated that at the time of impact, the shear
rates build up to such an extent that the STF experiences drastic rise in viscosity. This causes
the STF distributed in the fabric to act as a bridging or matrix phase as a result of solidification
of the STF. Hence, even though the initial strike of the impactor takes place at the center of
the specimen initially engaging only the primary yarns, due to shear thickening phenomenon,
the secondary yarns also get engaged and the entire fabric structure shares the impact as a
single element. Thus, the fabric can bear more impact force and absorbs more energy in the
Zone 1 (elastic zone). Hence the onset of slippage of yarns in the Zone 2 is delayed. In case
of untreated fabric, almost all the force that the impactor transfers are taken up by the primary
yarns only (six ends and six picks). Since the force per yarn is high, the force at which the
slippage starts is reached early, not allowing enough energy to be absorbed in the Zone 1.
Once the STF treated fabrics reach the limit of Zone 1, some yarns start slipping. However,
the bridging by STF does not allow much slippage to occur. Hence one does not see many
loops in tested samples. Since negligible slippage of a few yarns in Zone 2 does not cause
much change in the structure, force and energy absorption in STF treated Kevlar fabrics keep
building almost at the rate witnessed in the Zone 1 and fluctuation is less intense. However,
in case of untreated fabric, slippage or failure of even a single yarn would disturb the force
build up as only a few yarns are participating in force sharing. Hence one can witness intense
fluctuation in this zone.

Frictional Characteristics of Filament(Kevlar):

The presence of STF also modifies the frictional characteristics of Kevlar filaments. It should
be noted that the as received Kevlar fabrics in this study were pre-treated with a water
repellent finish. Application of STF forms a fine coating over these filaments and coefficient
of friction of the yarns in treated fabric increases. Although the coefficient of friction of the
yarns was not measured, increase in the yarn pull out energy in a similar study by the authors

35
is taken as an indirect indication of increase in coefficient of friction. Effect of friction has
been mentioned as an important parameter in influencing the ballistic performance of plain
woven fabrics by Sadegh and Cavallaro. Briscoe and Motamedi have shown that small
differences in frictional co-efficient of Kevlar fabrics result in significant differences in
ballistic performance of aramid fabrics. [21]

Plots: Energy Absorption Vs. Impact Velocity

Yurim Park et al. performed several experiments on neat Kevlar fabric and STFs impregnated
Kevlar fabrics, experiments revealed that the STF impregnation provides substantial energy
absorption enhancement in terms of volume, areal density, and fabrication material cost.
Thinner shielding configurations with equivalent energy absorption performance was found
to be possible through STF impregnation as the 5-layer STF impregnated Kevlar
configuration showed the same energy absorption as the 8-layer neat Kevlar while the energy
absorption normalized for areal density and thickness revealed that the STF impregnated
Kevlar provides an approximately 70% enhanced specific energy absorption performance
over neat Kevlar.[22]
1.

Figure 31:Energy absorption data and trendline for all cases. [22]

36
2.

Figure 32:Areal density specific energy absorption data

and trendline for all cases. [22]
3.

Figure 33:Thickness and areal density specific energy absorption data

and trendline for all cases. [22]

37
From above plots it is found that the 5-layer STF Kevlar and 8-layer neat Kevlar trendlines
almost coincide as well as the 1-layer STF Kevlar and 2-layer neat Kevlar cases, implying
that in terms of areal density, these pairs of configurations exhibit very similar energy
absorption characteristics and performances. Fig (32) shows the volume specific energy
absorption characteristics of all absorption in the 1000 ~ 1800 m/s range, a cost-wise
perspective was applied. Fig (33) reveal that the 5-layer STF Kevlar trendline exhibits
enhanced energy absorption in terms of areal density, thickness, and cost.
Although the 5-layer STF impregnated Kevlar used 37.5% less number of layers than
the 8-layer neat Kevlar configuration, energy absorption was on average greater by
approximately 70% per areal density and thickness of the specimen. Considering that the total
material cost for preparing 1 layer of STF impregnated Kevlar is more expensive than that of
neat Kevlar, the results show that STF treated Kevlar fabric specimens provide an energy
absorption performance enhancement of approximately 21% on average even when 5 layers
of STF impregnated Kevlar were stacked in comparison to the 8 layers of neat Kevlar. [22]
Extensive investigation on the effect of STF impregnation on the energy absorption
mechanism of Kevlar fabric may offer STF impregnation as an effective technique to
designing a ballistic resistant configuration for high velocity impact applications with
minimized volume and mass while maintaining or enhancing the impact resistance of the
structure.

38
 Chapter 5:
5.1 Conclusion

• All five-model studied used their own approach to formulate the perforation process
of projectile into ceramic faced metal armour. These models had made certain
assumptions in order to simplify the perforation process. It was found that accuracy of
the process was dependent upon number of assumptions made, less number of
assumptions made the process more realistic and increased the accuracy and yielded
consistent results.
• After studying these models and comparing them we can conclude that Woodward’s
modified model by GH. Liaghat and R.T Tang model yielded best results that had
good agreement with experimental results, reason behind this is that Modified
Woodward’s model considered all three phases of projectile i.e. erosion, mushrooming
and rigid phase, he also considered variation of conoid angle during initial impact as
well as during perforation process, reduced compressive strength value was
considered in his analytical formulations.
• R.T Tang on the other hand considered all major energy absorbing mechanism in his
analysis i.e. energy absorbed in plastic deformation of projectile, Energy absorbed in
shearing and crushing mechanisms while perforating ceramic tile. Energy absorbed
by backing plate was also given in his formulations.
• S. Feli model which is based on Zaera model showed better results than zaera model
due to consideration of work hardening material behaviour for back-up plate,
modification of semi-angle of ceramic conoid and mushrooming of penetrator.
• Till date all the models which have been developed use metal or composite as backing
material to ceramic, use of STFs as backing material has not yet been researched
moreover there is no analytical model developed on STFs to simulate actual
perforation process in STFs.
• Extensive investigation on the effect of STF impregnation on the energy absorption
mechanism of Kevlar fabric may offer STF impregnation as an effective technique to
designing a ballistic resistant configuration for high velocity impact applications with
minimized volume and mass while maintaining or enhancing the impact resistance of
the structure.
• 5-layer STF impregnated Kevlar used 37.5% less number of layers than the 8-layer
neat Kevlar configuration, energy absorption was on average greater by approximately
70% per areal density and thickness of the specimen.

39
5.2 Gaps in literature and Future work plan:
• Use of STFs in development of protective armours is relatively a new area, there is
wide scope of research in this field due to its flexibility, light weight and peculiar
property of viscosity.
• No analytical model has yet been developed for shear thickening fluids to model the
actual perforation process.
• All protective armours that have been studied use either metal or composite as a
backing material but no armour has ever used STFs as backing material.
• Ceramic Plate can be replaced with ceramic pellets and backed by STFs material this
will add more flexibility to armour maintaining same weight.
• Due to relatively new field very less experimental data has been obtained in
performing ballistic experiments on STFs.
• Composite system i.e. (Fabrics + STFs) hasn’t been studied extensively, only Kevlar
+ STFs composite system has been researched. Kevlar can be replaced with ceramic
particles, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibres and ballistic performance can be studied.
• Effect of hardness of fabric, size of fabric on ballistic performance of armour hasn’t
been studied.
• Composite system consisting of STFs + Honeycomb structure has yet to be studied,
this can prove to be a good combination for armour as it is flexible and light weight.
• In more recent times, multi-phase STF systems including additive particles in the
suspensions have been developed to take the advantage of additive particles.

40
References:
1) R. L. Woodward, A simple one-dimensional approach to modelling ceramic
composite armour defeat, Int. Impact Engng., 9(4), 455-474 (1990).
2) P. C. den Reijer, Impact on Ceramic Faced Armours. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University
of Technology (1991).
3) GH. Liaghat, A Modified Analytical Model for Analysis of Perforation of Projectile
into Ceramic Composite Targets. International Journal of Composite Materials 2013,
3(6B): 17-22.
4) R.T. Tang, Predicting the perforation of ceramic-faced light armours subjected to
projectile impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering102(2017)55-61
5) R. Zaera, Analytical modelling of normal and oblique ballistic impact on
ceramic/metal lightweight armours. Int. J. Impact Engng Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 133Ð148,
1998.
6) A. Tate, A theory for the deceleration of long rods after impact. J. Mech. Phys. Solids,
15, 387-399 (1967).
7) V. P. Alekseevskii’s, Penetration of a rod into a target at high velocity. in Combustion,
Explosion and Shock waves, Vol. 2. Faraday Press, New York, USA (1966).
8) S. Feli, A new analytical model of normal penetration of projectiles into the light-
weight ceramic–metal targets, International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010)
561–567.
9) Ahmad Serjouei, An empirical model for the ballistic limit bilayer ceramic-metal
armour, Procedia Engineering 75 (2014) 14 – 18.
10) Daniel Burger, Ballistic impact simulation of an armour-piercing projectile on hybrid
ceramic/fiber reinforced composite armours, International Journal of Impact
Engineering 43 (2012) 63-77.
11) Weilan Liu, Influence of different back laminate layers on ballistic performance of
ceramic composite armour, Materials and Design 87 (2015) 421–427.
12) A. Tasdemirci, The effect of the interlayer on the ballistic performance of
ceramic/composite armours: Experimental and numerical study, International Journal
of Impact Engineering 44 (2012) 1-9.
13) Runqiang Chi, Pre-stress effect on confined ceramic armour ballistic performance,
International Journal of Impact Engineering 84 (2015) 159-170.
14) Vit shanel, Ballistic impact experiments and modelling of sandwich armour for
numerical simulations, Procedia Engineering 79 (2014) 230 – 237.
15) Weilan Liu, Design and ballistic penetration of the ceramic composite armour,
Composites Part B 84 (2016) 33-40.
16) Ahmad Serjouei, On improving ballistic limit of bi-layer ceramic-metal armour,
International Journal of ImpactEngineering105(2017)54-67.

41
17) Ahmad Serjouei, Experimental validation of BLV model on bi-layer ceramic-metal
armour, International Journal of Impact Engineering 77 (2015) 30-41.
18) M.J. Pawar, Comparison of ballistic performances of Al2O3 and AlN ceramics,
International Journal of Impact Engineering 98 (2016) 42–51.
19) Edison E. Haro, Ballistic impact response of laminated hybrid materials made of 5086-
H32 aluminium alloy, epoxy and Kevlar fabrics impregnated with shear thickening
fluid, Composites: Part A 87 (2016) 54–65.
20) Selim Gürgen, Shear thickening fluids in protective applications, Prog Polym Sci
(2017).
21) Abhijit Majumdar, An analysis of deformation and energy absorption modes of shear
thickening fluid treated Kevlar fabrics as soft body armour materials, Materials and
Design 51 (2013) 148–153.
22) Yurim Park, Empirical study of the high velocity impact energy absorption
characteristics of shear thickening fluid (STF) impregnated Kevlar fabric,
International Journal of Impact Engineering 72 (2014) 67-74.
23) Ankita Srivastava, Improving the impact resistance performance of Kevlar fabrics
using silica based shear thickening fluid, Materials Science and Engineering A 529
(2011) 224– 229.
24) Yurim Park, Numerical simulation and empirical comparison of the high velocity
impact of STF impregnated Kevlar fabric using friction effects, Composite Structures
125 (2015) 520–529.
25) Selim Gürgen, The rheology of shear thickening fluids with various ceramic particle
additives, Materials and Design 104 (2016) 312–319.
26) Oren E. Petel, A comparison of the ballistic performance of shear thickening fluids
based on particle strength and volume fraction, International Journal of Impact
Engineering 85 (2015) 83-96.
27) A.H. Mirrahimi, Numerical Modelling of Ballistic Impact on HMPP Woven Fabric
Impregnated with Shear-thickening Fluids, Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 73 – 76.
28) A. Haris, Shear thickening fluid impregnated ballistic fabric composites for shock
wave mitigation, International Journal of Impact Engineering 80 (2015) 143-151.
29) April L. Bohannan, Simulation of STF Kevlar Shielding Performance in a Stuffed
Whipple Configuration,50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference 17th 4 - 7 May 2009, Palm Springs, California.
30) Wonjin Na, Shear behaviour of a shear thickening fluid-impregnated aramid fabric at
high shear rate, Composites Part B 97 (2016) 162-175.
31) Kadir Bilisik, Two-dimensional (2D) fabrics and three-dimensional (3D) preforms for
ballistic and stabbing protection: A review, Textile Research Journal 0(00) 1–30

42