Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
r
e
: (2)
Here q
t
and V
i
are the density of the FRP laminates and
the initial impact velocity of the projectile respectively. b
is a constant which are determined empirically.
The resistive pressure is generally expected to be a
function (usually a polynomial function) of the pene-
tration velocity, as noted in [1,20]. In Eq. (2), the mean
pressure provided by the FRP target material to resist
the projectile is simply taken as a linear function of the
initial impact velocity. For bre-reinforced plastics it
has been observed in the static indentation tests [15] that
the rst term in Eq. (2) is related to the static strengths
of FRP laminates in compression in the two principal
directions, through the thickness and in-plane.
2.2. Penetration of semi-innite FRP laminates
Fig. 1 shows the geometries of rigid projectiles with
conical or ogival noses. The projectiles are assumed to
have density q
p
and mass G with diameter D (or radius
Fig. 1. Projectile geometries: (a) ogival nose and (b) conical nose.
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 323
a). L and L
N
are the lengths of the shank and nose for
ogival and conical projectiles as shown in Figs. 1(a) and
1(b), respectively. Fig. 1(a) shows the ogive prole as the
arc of a circle that is tangent to the projectile shank. It is
also common to dene the ogive in terms of calibre-
radius-head, viz.
CRH =
S
2a
= w; (3)
where S and a are dened in Fig. 1(a). If a rigid pro-
jectile has a complex conguration (for example, it is
hollow or has a sabot system) then the projectile still can
be described as one of those depicted in Fig. 1 but with
an eective density (q
e
p
) which is taken to be the ratio of
the projectile mass to the volume of the basic congu-
ration as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2 shows the impact of a rigid projectile with a
conical nose on an FRP laminate target at normal in-
cidence with an initial impact velocity V
i
. Two situations
may arise depending upon the initial kinetic energy of
the projectile, as shown in Fig. 2. One scenario is that
the nal depth of penetration has not reached the
shoulder of the projectile when its kinetic energy has
been dissipated and the other is that the nal depth of
penetration is larger than the nose length. Similar situ-
ations may occur for a rigid ogival-nosed projectile
transversely impacting an FRP laminate target. Equa-
tions are derived in the following sections for the depth
of penetration into the FRP laminate targets by rigid
projectiles with conical and ogival noses.
2.2.1. Conical-nosed projectiles
2.2.1.1. Case I, P 6L
N
. For a rigid conical-nosed pro-
jectile, the motion and the nal depth of penetration can
be calculated if the resistive forces are known. The re-
sistive force of a conical-nosed projectile penetrating an
FRP laminate target at normal incidence as shown in
Fig. 2(I) can be written as
F = rA; (4)
where F is the resistive force and r is the mean resistive
pressure provided by the target material and is dened
by Eq. (2). A is the instant cross-sectional area and can
be determined from the geometrical conguration de-
picted in Fig. 2(I), i.e.,
A = pP
2
tan
2
h
2
; (5)
in which h and P are the cone angle and the depth of
penetration, respectively. Substituting Eqs. (2) and (5)
into Eq. (4) gives
F = pP
2
tan
2
h
2
r
e
1
_
b
q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
; (6)
From energy conservation, one obtains
E
k
=
_
p
0
F dP; (7)
where E
k
is the initial kinetic energy of the projectile.
Substituting Eq. (6) into the above equation yields
E
k
=
P
3
A
0
r
e
3L
2
N
1
_
b
q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
; (8)
after using tan(h=2) = a=L
N
and A
0
= pa
2
. Here A
0
is
the cross-sectional area of the projectile shank. Substi-
tuting E
k
= (1=2)GV
2
i
into Eq. (8) and rearranging gives
P
L
L
N
3
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2
3
1 b
q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
(
P
L
N
)
2
; (9)
after using G = A
0
(L L
N
=3)q
p
.
2.2.1.2. Case II, P > L
N
. As shown in Fig. 2(II), the
penetration process can be divided into two stages. The
rst stage when P 6L
N
has been described in the pre-
vious section. For the second stage when P > L
N
, the
resistive force (F) can be written as
F = A
0
r = A
0
r
e
1
_
b
q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
; (10)
after using Eq. (2). According to energy balance, one
obtains
E
k
=
_
L
N
0
F dP
_
p
L
N
F dP: (11a)
Substituting Eqs. (6) and (10) into Eq. (11a) and rear-
ranging yields
Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams of a conical-nosed projectile impacting on
semi-innite FRP laminate targets. (I) P 6L
N
; (II) P > L
N
.
324 H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
E
k
= P
_
2
3
L
N
_
A
0
r
e
1
_
b
q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
: (11b)
Substituting E
k
= (1=2)GV
2
i
into the above equation and
using G = A
0
(L L
N
=3)q
p
gives the nal depth of the
penetration
P
L
L
N
3
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 b
q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
2
3(
L
L
N
) 1
: (12)
2.2.2. Ogival-nosed projectiles
Similarly, Eqs. (13a)(14) can be obtained for the -
nal depth of penetration into an FRP laminate target by
a rigid projectile with ogival nose.
2.2.2.1. Case I, P 6L
N
.
q
p
(L 8w
3
ga)V
2
i
= 16w
3
ar
_
cosu
1
3
cos
3
u
u
_
1
2
sin2u
_
sinu
0
sin
2
u
0
cosu
p
2
sinu
0
g
_
(13a)
P =
4w 1
_
_
2wcosu
_
a (13b)
in which u is dened in Fig. 1(a) and the mean resistive
pressure r is determined by Eq. (2). u
0
and g are eval-
uated by the following equations
u
0
= sin
1
2w 1
2w
_ _
(13c)
g =
p
2
sinu
0
cosu
0
1
3
cos
3
u
0
u
0
_
1
2
sin2u
0
_
sinu
0
sin
2
u
0
cosu
0
: (13d)
2.2.2.2. Case II, p > L
N
.
P
L 8w
3
ga
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 b
q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
4w 1
_
8w
3
g)a
L 8w
3
ga
: (14)
2.3. Perforation of nite FRP laminates
The ballistic limit condition for an FRP laminates
with nite thickness struck transversely by a rigid pro-
jectile with conical or ogival noses can be estimated by
the energy balance method. There are three phases of
penetration for a rigid projectile with conical nose im-
pacting on a nite plate. First, the nose enters the plate,
second, the nose is fully embedded and nally, the nose
exits the plate. The same arguments can also apply to
the rigid projectile with ogival nose. From energy con-
sideration, it is easy to show that
E
k
= pa
2
Tr
e
1
_
b
q
t
r
e
_
V
b
_
: (15)
Substituting E
k
= (1=2)GV
2
b
into the above equation and
rearranging yields
V
b
=
pb
q
t
r
e
_
D
2
T
4G
1
_
1
8G
pb
2
q
t
D
2
T
_
; (16)
where V
b
is the critical impact velocity or ballistic limit.
3. Correlation with experimental data and discussion
The equations derived in section 2 can be compared
with experimental data for the penetration and perfo-
ration of FRP laminate targets by rigid projectiles with
dierent nose shapes. The values of the parameter (b) in
the equations have been empirically determined and are
taken to be 2sin(h/2) and 3/(4w) for conical-nosed and
ogival-nosed projectiles, respectively [20].
3.1. Conical-nosed projectiles
Fig. 3 shows comparison of the model predictions
with the experimental data for GRP (S2-glass/phenolic)
laminates impacted by a 7.5 mm diameter conical-nosed
Fig. 3. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the penetration of thick GRP (S2-glass/phenolic)
laminates struck normally by a 7.5 mm diameter conical-nosed pro-
jectile : Eq. (9), ____: Eq. (12); m experiments [12].
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 325
missile with a mass of 47 g which was examined in Ref.
[12]. In the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 2200 kg/m
3
,
r
e
= 755 MPa and h = 90
and
hence b = 2sin(h=2) = 2sin 45
= 1:414. It is evi-
dent from Fig. 5 that the theoretically predicted ballistic
limits (Eq. (16)) are in good agreement with the exper-
imental data.
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between Eq. (16) and the
test results for the perforation of KFRP (Kevlar 29/
polyester) laminates impacted normally by a 12.7 mm
diameter conical projectile with a mass of 28.9 g [13]. In
the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 1231 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 145
MPa and h = 60
q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _ (17)
and
V
b
=
p
q
t
r
e
_
D
2
T
2G
1
_
1
2G
pq
t
D
2
T
_
: (18)
after using b = 2sin(h=2) = 2sin 90
= 2.
Fig. 7 shows comparison between the theoretically
predicted ballistic limits and the experimental observa-
tions for GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by a 10.5 mm diameter at-faced projectile
with a mass of 20.4 g [1719]. In the theoretical calcu-
Fig. 4. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 18.7 g, 10.5 mm diameter conical-nosed mis-
sile. ____: Eq. (16); s experiments [17].
Fig. 5. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by 7.6 mm diameter conical-nosed missiles [16].
____: Eq. (16); (a) G = 6 g and (b) G = 12 g.
326 H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
lation, q = 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225 MPa. It is seen from
Fig. 7 that Eq. (18) is in good agreement with the ex-
perimental data.
Fig. 8 shows comparison between the model predic-
tions (Eq. (18)) and the experimental data for the per-
foration of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by 7.6 mm diameter at-faced missiles with
masses of 6 g and 12 g [16]. In the theoretical calcula-
tion, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225 MPa. It is evident from
Fig. 8 that the theoretically predicted ballistic limits (Eq.
(16)) are in good agreement with the experimental data.
3.3. Ogival-nosed projectiles
Fig. 9 shows comparison between the theoretical
predictions and the experimental data for the perfora-
Fig. 8. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by 7.6 mm diameter at-faced missiles [16]. ____:
Eq. (18); (a) G = 6 g and (b) G = 12 g.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/phenonic) laminates
struck transversely by a 5 g, 6 mm diameter ogival-nosed AP projectile.
____: Eq. (16); m experiments [21].
Fig. 7. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 20.4 g, 10.5 mm diameter at-faced missile.
____: Eq. (18); s experiments [1719].
Fig. 6. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of KFRP (Kevlar 29/polyester) lami-
nates struck transversely by a 28.9 g, 12.7 mm diameter conical-nosed
missile. ____: Eq. (16); s experiments [13].
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 327
tion of GRP (E-glass/phenonic) laminates struck nor-
mally by a 6 mm diameter ogival-nosed AP projectile
with a mass of 5 g [21]. In the theoretical calculation,
q
t
= 2200 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 755 MPa and w = 2 and hence
b = 3=(4w) = 3=8. It is seen from Fig. 9 that Eq. (16) is
in good agreement with the experimental data which
were reported in Ref. [21].
3.4. Hemispherical-ended projectiles
A hemispherical-ended projectile can be seen as the
special case of an ogival-nosed missile with w = 0:5.
Hence, the corresponding equations can be rewritten as
follows:
3.4.1. Case I, P 6a
P
L
2
3
a
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 1:5
q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
[
P
a
1
3
(
P
a
)
2
[
: (19)
3.4.2. Case II, P > a
P
L
2
3
a
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 1:5
q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
1
3(
L
a
) 2
(20)
and
V
b
=
3p
q
t
r
e
_
D
2
T
8G
1
_
1
32G
9pq
t
D
2
T
_
; (21)
after using b = 3=(4w) = 1:5.
Fig. 10 shows comparison between the theoretically
predicted ballistic limits (Eq. (21)) and the experimental
data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester)
laminates struck transversely by a 10.5 mm diameter
hemispherical-ended projectile with a mass of 17.9 g [17
19]. In the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
,
r
e
= 225 MPa. It is clear from Fig. 10 that Eq. (21) is in
good agreement with the experimental observations.
Fig. 11 shows comparison between the model pre-
dictions (Eq. (21)) and the experimental data for the
perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by hemispherical-ended projectiles with di-
ameters of 10 and 7.6 mm and masses of 6 and 12 g [16].
In the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225
MPa. It is evident from Fig. 11 that the theoretically
predicted ballistic limits (Eq. (21)) are in good agree-
ment with the experimental data.
4. Concluding remarks
Simple equations have been obtained in this paper for
the penetration and perforation of monolithic FRP
laminates struck transversely by rigid projectiles with
Fig. 10. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 17.9 g, 10.5 mm diameter hemispherical-ended
missile. ____: Eq. (21); s experiments [1719].
Fig. 11. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by hemispherical-ended missiles [16]. ____: Eq.
(21); (a) D = 10 mm, G = 6 g and (b) D = 7:6 mm, G = 12g.
328 H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
dierent nose shapes over a wide range of impact ve-
locity. The approach is based upon the assumption that
the deformations are localized (i.e., wave-dominated
response) and the mean pressure provided by FRP
laminate targets to resist the projectiles can be decom-
posed into two parts. One part is the cohesive quasi-static
resistive pressure due to the elasticplastic deformations
of the target materials, the other is the dynamic resistive
pressure arising from the velocity eects. Equations have
been derived for the depth of penetration and the ballistic
limits in case of perforation.
It is demonstrated that the theoretical predictions are
in good agreement with experimental observations for
FRP laminates struck normally by rigid projectiles with
at, conical, hemispherical and ogival noses in terms of
penetration depth and ballistic limits.
References
[1] Backman ME, Goldsmith W. The mechanics of penetration of
projectiles into targets. Int J Eng Sci 1978;16:199.
[2] Zukus JA. Penetration and perforation of solids. In: Zukus JA
et al., editors. Impact dynamics. New York: Wiley, 1982. p. 155
214.
[3] Anderson Jr. CE, Bodner SR. Ballistic impact: the status of
analytical and numerical modelling. Int J Impact Eng 1988;7:935.
[4] Corbett GG, Reid SR, Johnson W. Impact loading of plates and
shells by free-ying projectiles: a review. Int J Impact Eng
1996;18(2):141230.
[5] Wen HM, Jones N. Semi-empirical equations for the perforation
of plates struck by a mass. In: Bulson PS editor. Structures under
shock and impact-II. Southampton and Boston and Thomas
Telford London: Computational Mechanics Publications, 1992.
p. 36980.
[6] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composite materials. Appl Mech
Rev 1991;44(4):15590.
[7] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composites: recent advances. Appl
Mech Rev 1994;47(11):51743.
[8] Rutherford KL. Indentation and penetration resistance of com-
posite materials to pointed projectiles. Unpublished UK DRA
Report, 1992.
[9] Zhao Y, Pang SS, Grin SA. Force-indentation study of
transversely isotropic composite materials using a conical-tip
indenter. Comp Eng 1991;1(6):393402.
[10] Greaves LJ. Failure mechanisms in GFRP armour. Unpublished
UK DRA Report, 1992.
[11] Greaves LJ. Progress in modelling the perforation of GFRP by
ballistic projectiles. Unpublished UK DRA Report, 1994.
[12] Reid SR, Reddy TY, Ho HM, Crouch IG, Greaves LJ. Dynamic
indentation of thick bre-reinforced composites. In: Rajapakse
YDS, Vinson JR, editors. High Rate Eects on Polymer, Metal
and Ceramic matrix Composites and Other Advanced Materials.
ASME, AD-vol. 48. 1995. p. 719.
[13] Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH. Penetration of laminated
Kevlar by projectiles I. experimental investigation. Int J Solids
and Structures 1992;29(4):399420.
[14] Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH. Penetration of laminated
Kevlar by projectiles II. analytical model. Int J Solids and
Structures 1992;29(4):42136.
[15] Lee S-W, Sun R. Dynamic penetration of Graphite/Epoxy
laminates impacted by a blunt-ended projectile. Comp Sci Technol
1993;49:36980.
[16] Mines RAW, Roach AM, Jones N. High velocity perforation
behaviour of polymer composite laminates. Int J Impact Eng
1999;22:56188.
[17] Wen HM, Reddy TY, Reid SR, Soden PD. Indentation penetra-
tion and perforation of composite laminates and sandwich panels
under quasi-static and projectile loading. Key Eng Mater
1998;141143:50152.
[18] Reddy TY, Wen HM, Reid SR, Soden PD. Penetration and
perforation of composite sandwich panels by hemispherical
and conical projectiles. Trans ASME, J Pres Ves Techn
1998;120:18694.
[19] Reid SR, Wen HM, Soden PD, Reddy TY. Response of single
skin laminates and sandwich panels to projectile impact. In: Wang
SS, Williams JJ, Lo KH, editors. Composite Materials for
Oshore Operation- 2. Amer Bur Shipp, 1999. p. 593617.
[20] Wen HM. Penetration and perforation of targets subjected to
projectile impact. To be published.
[21] Siva K, Kumar T. Response of composite laminates on impact of
high velocity projectiles. Key Eng Mater 1998;141143:33748.
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 329