International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Effect of target span and configuration on the ballistic limit

M.A. Iqbal a, *, P.K. Gupta a, V.S. Deore a, S.K. Tak a, G. Tiwari a, N.K. Gupta b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India
b
Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Three-dimensional numerical simulations were carried out with ABAQUS/Explicit finite element code to
Received 9 July 2010 study the influence of target span and configuration on its ballistic limit. 1 mm thick 1100-H12 aluminum
Received in revised form targets of varying span diameter and configuration were impacted by blunt and ogive nosed projectiles of
10 October 2011
19 mm diameter and 52.5 g mass. The effect of target span was studied by varying the span diameter of
Accepted 25 October 2011
Available online 15 November 2011
1 mm thick monolithic target as 50 mm, 100 mm, 204 mm, 255 mm and 500 mm. The effect of
configuration was studied by taking the monolithic, double layered in-contact and double layered spaced
targets of 1 mm equivalent thickness and 255 mm span diameter. The spacing between the layers was
Keywords:
Span diameter
varied as 2 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm and 30 mm. In each case the target was impacted normally by
Layered target blunt and ogive nosed projectile to obtain the ballistic limit. The highest ballistic limit was observed for
Spaced target monolithic target followed by layered in-contact and spaced targets respectively. The variation of spacing
Projectile nose shape between the layers did not have significant influence on the ballistic limit in the case of ogive projectile
ABAQUS but some effect was seen in the case of blunt projectile. The ballistic limit was found to increase with
increase in target span diameter for both the projectiles and it was found to be higher for blunt nosed
projectile as compared to that of ogive nosed projectile for all the spans considered excepting in the case
of 50 mm span for which it was higher for ogive nosed projectile.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ballistic resistance of metallic targets such as armored vehicle,
military bunker and shields to arms and explosive is influenced by
various parameters such as target thickness, its configuration,
effective span, angle of incidence and projectile nose shape. The
influence of some of these parameters such as projectile nose
shape, angle of incidence and target thickness has been signifi-
cantly studied in the literature. The configuration of target is
another important parameter influence of which has also been
studied in the literature. It has been observed that a layered target
may offer greater resistance than equivalent monolithic target
when the deformation mode changes from bending to membrane
stretching of individual layer.
Marom and Bonder [1] carried out analytical and experimental
studies on the ballistic resistance of thin flat aluminum beams
arranged in various layers in-contact as well as spaced, impacted by
0.22 in. caliber projectiles. The multi-layered beams in-contact
showed greater resistance to penetration than the equivalent
monolithic beams. Corran et al. [2] investigated the performance of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 1332 285866.
E-mail addresses: iqbal_ashraf@rediffmail.com, iqbalfce@iitr.ernet.in (M.A. Iqbal).
multi-layered steel plates under projectile impact. Layers placed in-
contact were found superior to equivalent monolithic plate when
the response of individual layer changed from petalling and
shearing to membrane stretching. Radin and Goldsmith [3] studied
the ballistic resistance of monolithic and layered targets of 2024-
0 aluminum and polycarbonate with blunt and 60
conically-nosed
projectiles. Ballistic resistance of adjacent layers was found lesser
than that of the equivalent monolithic target. Spaced targets were
found less effective than layered in-contact targets. Nurick and
Walter [4] studied the penetration resistance of layered and spaced
steel plates using conical and blunt projectiles. Ballistic limit of
monolithic plate was 4e8% higher than that of in-contact layered
plate of equivalent thickness. The layered spaced targets were
found less efficient when compared to the layered in-contact
targets of equivalent thickness. Ballistic limit decreased when the
spacing between the targets was increased. The decrease in the
ballistic limit was more significant in the case of blunt projectile.
Almohandes et al. [5] investigated experimentally the ballistic
resistance of single and layered steel plates impacted by 7.62 mm
standard bullets. The effect of number, thickness and arrangement
of layer was explored. Single steel plates were found to be more
effective than layered plate of equal thickness. The resistance of
layered plate increased as the number of layers decreased and the
thickness of back plate increased. Gupta et al. [6,7] studied

0734-743X/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.10.004
12 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24

Fig. 1. Finite element model; (a) ogive nosed projectile case; (b) blunt nosed projectile case.

Table 1
Material parameters for 1100-H12 aluminum target. thickness, however, when the number of layers was increased the
Modulus of Elasticity, E (N/mm2) 65762 velocity drop in equivalent monolithic plate was found to be higher.
Poison’s Ratio, n 0.3 Dey et al. [8] studied the ballistic response of Weldox 700 E steel
Density, r (kg/m3) 2700 plates impacted by blunt and ogive nosed projectiles through
Yield Stress, A (N/mm2) 148.361 experiments and numerical simulations. For blunt nosed projectile
B (N/mm2) 345.513
two layered plate of 6 mm thickness showed better resistance as
n 0.183
Reference Strain Rate, έ0 (s1) 1.0 compared to 12 mm thick monolithic plate. When two layers were
C 0.001 separated by 24 mm air gap the resistance was greater than
m 0.859 monolithic plate but lesser than layered in-contact plate. For ogive
Tmelt (K) 893
nosed projectile however, monolithic plate showed highest resis-
T0 (K) 293
Specific Heat, Cp (J/kg K) 920 tance followed by layered in-contact and spaced plates respectively.
Inelastic heat fraction, a 0.9 Teng and Wierzbicki [9] performed numerical simulations wherein
D1 0.071 monolithic and double layered steel plates of 12 mm thickness
D2 1.248 having different ductility were impacted by blunt and conical nosed
D3 1.142
projectiles of different masses. The configuration with front layer of
D4 0.0097
D5 0.0 high ductility and low strength material and the rear layer of low
ductility and high strength material gave highest ballistic
resistance.
experimental and numerical behavior of single and layered 1100- The subject of target configuration has been studied in literature
H12 aluminum plates impacted by blunt, ogive and hemispherical by varying the number of in-contact as well as spaced layers. The
nosed projectiles. For two layered plate the residual velocity of order of layering of the plates with different thicknesses and
projectile was comparable to that of the single plate of equivalent material has also been studied. However, available studies have

Table 2
Experimental and numerical results for varying configuration of 1 mm thick target impacted by ogive nosed projectile.

Total Target Thickness ¼ 1 mm, Span Diameter ¼ 255 mm

Ogive Nosed Projectile (Mass ¼ 52.5 g, Diameter ¼ 19 mm)

Experimental Results Gupta et al. [7] Axi-symmetric 3D Numerical Results of Present Study
Numerical Results
Gupta et al. [7]

Double Layered Target Monolithic Target Double Layered Target Spaced Target

10 mm 20 mm 30 mm

Impact Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Residual Residual
Vi (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Velocity Velocity Velocity
Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s)
116.19 104.96 109.48 102.27 104.83 107.6 107.7 107.6
110.44 96.91 99.89 96.21 98.85 101.3 101.4 101.3
103.52 85.87 88.82 88.19 91.0 93.5 93.6 93.5
95.26 73.99 75.9 74.52 81.7 84.3 84.4 84.4
89.55 64.49 67.01 66.33 74.56 77.6 77.7 77.7
85.61 56.89 58.49 62.87 68.26 73.2 73.18 73.2
77.4 43.26 46.13 53.1 59.54 62.8 62.71 62.8
64.46 25.35 29.72 32.19 40.76 45.5 45.6 45.7
60.0 e e 14.31 e e e e
54.77 12.0 14.85 e 22.39 31.0 31.0 30.7
53.0 e e 0 e e e e
50.0 e e e 12.58 e e e
46.0 e e e 0 6.36 6.73 7.19
45.0 e e e e 1.5 1.9 2.1
44.0 e e e e 0 0 0
41.3 e 0 e e e e e
39.18 0 e e e e e e
 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24 13

Table 3
Experimental and numerical results for varying configuration of 1 mm thick target impacted by blunt nosed projectile.

Total Target Thickness ¼ 1 mm, Span Diameter ¼ 255 mm

Blunt Nosed Projectile (Mass ¼ 52.5 g, Diameter ¼ 19 mm)

Experimental Results Gupta et al. [7] Axi-symmetric 3D Numerical Results of Present Study
Numerical Results
Gupta et al. [7]

Double Layered Target Monolithic Target Double Layered Target Spaced Target

10 mm 20 mm 30 mm

Impact Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Residual Residual
Vi (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Velocity Velocity Velocity
Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s)
120.64 105.28 109.0 105.2 101.5 102.59 104.14 104.3
116.13 99.53 102.99 99.52 95.7 97.13 99.2 99.3
113.92 95.51 98.24 96.76 92.8 94.6 96.7 96.7
107.73 86.43 89.16 88.82 84.2 87.38 89.2 89.4
98.15 75.2 74.96 74.3 69.8 74.3 76.9 77.3
92.33 66.92 65.67 65.37 59.6 66.0 68.8 69.2
88.47 60.44 58.8 58.72 52.3 59.5 62.8 63.2
81.32 49.61 44.6 44.03 36.0 45.8 51.1 51.0
76.0 e e 27.66 e e e e
75.0 e e e 17.08 e e e
73.8 e e 0 5.19 e e e
72.0 e e e 0 e e e
69.34 e e e e 1.94 e e
66.93 29.63 25.99 e e 0 12.0 11.8
66.0 e e e e e 6.31 7.14
64.0 e e e e e 0 0
58.63 e 0 e e e e e
51.22 0 e e e e e e

disagreement regarding the efficiency of monolithic, layered and
spaced targets. The influence of projectile nose shape on target
configuration is also not clear and requires more investigation. On
the other hand there is hardly any study wherein the span of the
target has been varied to understand its effect on the ballistic limit.
The present numerical study describes the effect of target span
diameter and configuration on the ballistic limit. 1 mm thick
monolithic 1100-H12 aluminum targets of span diameters 50 mm,
100 mm, 204 mm, 255 mm and 500 mm were impacted by blunt
and ogive nosed projectiles to obtain ballistic limit. The configu-
ration of 255 mm span diameter target was also varied as mono-
lithic, double layered in-contact and double layered spaced of
equivalent thickness 1 mm. Spacing between the layers was varied
as 2 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm and 30 mm. The target with varying
configuration was also impacted by blunt and ogive nosed projec-
tile in order to obtain ballistic limit. To study the influence of target

Table 4
Experimental and numerical results for 1 mm thick monolithic target with varying span diameter impacted by ogive nosed projectile.

Target Thickness ¼ 1 mm
Ogive Nosed Projectile (Mass ¼ 52.5 g, Diameter ¼ 19 mm)

Experimental Results Axi-Symmetric 3D Numerical Results of Present Study

Gupta et al. [7] Numerical Results
Gupta et al. [7]

Span Diameter 255 mm Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter
255 mm 50 mm 100 mm 204 mm 255 mm 500 mm

Impact Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity
Vi (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s)
112.72 99.11 95.64 99.2 96.85 95.49 95.14 94.97
97.23 78.26 73.25 83.05 80.91 80.01 79.69 79.57
82.97 61.62 55.71 66.89 65.09 61.66 61.54 61.02
81.91 58.19 53.27 65.3 64.17 60.20 60.45 62.03
73.30 44.38 38.67 52.33 50.66 43.08 45.40 39.33
65.80 29.68 26.04 40.41 37.3 27.24 27.03 26.67
59.00 e e 32.64 30.83 21.34 13.96 6.24
58.85 e e 32.54 29.78 20.72 13.13 0
57.28 17.86 15.93 29.73 27.64 19.68 12.12 e
55.50 e e 27.73 24.55 14.62 6.62 e
52.50 e e 21.32 18.4 7.15 0 e
52.10 e 0 20.01 16.19 4.35 e e
51.60 e e 19.16 15.13 0 e e
51.27 8.72 e 18.2 12.7 e e e
50.0 e e 14.25 9.2 e e e
48.0 e e 5.2 0 e e e
46.5 e e 0 e e e e
45.3 0 e e e e e e
14 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24

Table 5
Experimental and numerical results for 1 mm thick monolithic target with varying span diameter impacted by blunt nosed projectile.

Target Thickness ¼ 1 mm
Blunt Nosed Projectile (Mass ¼ 52.5 g, Diameter ¼ 19 mm)

Experimental Results Axi-symmetric 3D Numerical Results of Present Study

Gupta et al. [7] Numerical Results
Gupta et al. [7]

Span Diameter 255 mm Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter Span Diameter
255 mm 50 mm 100 mm 204 mm 255 mm 500 mm

Impact Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity Residual Velocity
Vi (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s) Vr (m/s)
115.6 92.98 98.66 102.47 97.49 97.09 96.96 96.58
104.03 80.17 83.91 90.21 81.77 80.70 80.31 80.01
102.5 79.16 82.51 88.46 79.91 78.75 78.11 77.62
92.45 67.45 63.30 78.015 65.54 63.59 62.90 62.10
87.45 58.26 53.15 72.61 58.41 54.73 53.76 52.33
78.45 e e 62.61 46.34 34.02 31.22 23.74
77.50 e e 61.53 45.16 30.28 26.79 15.24
77.20 e e 61.21 44.71 29.36 25.66 0
75.0 e e 58.68 42.1 e 5.91 e
74.70 e e 58.27 41.68 18.91 0 e
73.98 43.84 40.64 57.45 40.82 13.06 e e
73.0 e e 56.27 39.66 3.8 e e
72.70 e e 55.95 39.26 0 e e
66.70 e 0 48.48 32.5 e e e
61.3 0 e e 26.08 e e e
55.23 e e 32.57 e e e e
52.0 e e e 9.35 e e e
48.23 e e 19.72 0 e e e
45.0 e e 11.21 e e e e
42.5 e e 0 e e e e

span, impact velocities of projectiles were kept identical to those
obtained during experiments carried out by Gupta et al. [7] on
1 mm thick monolithic target. To study the influence of target
configuration, impact velocities of projectiles were kept identical to
those obtained during experiments carried out by Gupta et al. [7]
on 0.5 mm thick double layered in-contact target. In general the
ballistic limit was found to increase with an increase in target span
diameter. Monolithic targets were found to offer highest ballistic
limit followed by layered in-contact and layered spaced targets of
equivalent thickness. Spacing between the layers was found to have
some influence on the ballistic limit for blunt nosed projectile.
Moreover, blunt nosed projectile experienced higher ballistic limit
velocity at each configuration and span diameter except for 50 mm
span diameter for which ogive nosed projectile experienced higher
ballistic limit velocity.
2. Numerical investigation
The present study is based on the numerical investigation of
ballistic resistance of monolithic and layered, both in-contact and
spaced, targets. 1100-H12 aluminum targets of 1 mm equivalent
thickness were impacted by blunt and ogive nosed projectiles of
19 mm diameter and 52.5 g mass. Three-dimensional finite element
model of the projectile and target was made using ABAQUS/CAE.
Fig. 1 shows a typical finite element model of the projectile and
target. Projectile was modeled as rigid and the target as a deform-
able body. To model the spaced target a predefined spacing was
given between both the layers. The contact between the projectile
and target was modeled using kinematic contact algorithm of
ABAQUS-6.7-3 [10]. Outer surface of the projectile was modeled as
the master surface and the contact region of the target as node

120 Experimental results (Gupta et al.) 120 Experimental results (Gupta et al.)
Axi-symmentric numerical results (Gupta et al.) Axi-symmetric numerical results (Gupta et al.)
3D numerical results (present study) 3D numerical results (present study)
100 100
Residual Velocity (ms)
Residual Velocity (m/s)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20
20
a b
0
0
35 55 75 95 115
35 55 75 95 115
Impact Velocity (m/s) Impact Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 2. Comparison of present three-dimensional numerical results with the previous experimental and axi-symmetric numerical studies for 0.5 mm thick double layered 1100-H12
aluminum target impacted by (a) ogive nosed projectile; (b) blunt nosed projectile.
 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24 15

120 Experimental results (Gupta et al.) 120 Experimental results (Gupta et al.)
Axi-symmentric numerical results (Gupta et al.) Axi-symmetric numerical results (Gupta et al.)
3D numerical results (present study) 3D numerical results (present study)
100 100

Residual Velocity (ms)

Residual Velocity (m/s)
80 80

60 60

40 40

20
20
a b
0
0
50 70 90 110 130
35 55 75 95 115
Impact Velocity (m/s) Impact Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 3. Comparison of present three-dimensional numerical results with the previous experimental and axi-symmetric numerical studies for 1 mm thick monolithic 1100-H12
aluminum target impacted by (a) ogive nosed projectile; (b) blunt nosed projectile.

based slave surface. Frictional effects were not considered between
the target and projectile due to small target thickness. The contact
between the contacting surfaces of layered in-contact as well as
spaced target was modeled using general contact algorithm of
ABAQUS-6.7-3 [10]. The rear surface of front layer was considered
as master surface and front surface of rear layer was considered as
the slave surface. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 was assigned
between the contacting surfaces of layered in-contact target. The
value of coefficient of friction was obtained from inclined plane
experiments, Gupta et al. [7]. Effect of friction was considered
negligible between the contacting surfaces of spaced target. In the
case of layered in-contact as well as spaced target the contact of
projectile with both the layers was assigned. The geometry, length
(50.8 mm), mass (52.5 g) and diameter (19 mm) of blunt and ogive
nosed projectiles was kept identical to those of the projectiles used
by Gupta et al. [7]. The target was restrained at its periphery with
respect to all degrees of freedom. Eight node brick elements
(C3D8R) were used in all the simulations carried out in this study.
The meshing of the target was done in such a manner that
accurate results can be obtained within the available computational
facility. Mesh was highly refined and the element aspect ratio was
kept unity in the central influenced region. A mesh convergence
study was carried out wherein the size of element in 1 mm thick
monolithic target was varied by varying the number of elements
over thickness from 3 to 7, and the target was impacted at each
mesh configuration by ogive nosed projectile at a constant velocity
of 64.46 m/s. Hence the target was meshed with five different
configurations taking element size 0.33  0.33  0.33 mm3, 0.25 
0.25  0.25 mm3, 0.20  0.20  0.20 mm3,0.16  0.16  0.16 mm3
and 0.14  0.14  0.14 mm3 corresponding to 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
elements respectively. The residual velocity of projectile was found
to be 17.92 m/s, 28.14 m/s, 29.4 m/s, 32.19 m/s and 32.41 m/s cor-
responding to 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 elements respectively. The velocity
drop of projectile decreased up to 5 elements and thereafter it
became almost constant. It was therefore decided to mesh the
monolithic target with 6 elements over thickness. Another mesh

Fig. 4. Fracture modes of 1 mm thick monolithic and 0.5 mm thick double layered target impacted by (a) ogive nosed projectile; (b) blunt nosed projectile.
16 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24

Fig. 5. Perforation of 1 mm thick monolithic target by ogive and blunt nosed projectiles.

Fig. 6. Perforation of 0.5 mm thick double layered in-contact targets by ogive and blunt nosed projectiles.

Fig. 7. Perforation of 0.5 mm thick double layered target with 10 mm spacing by ogive and blunt nosed projectiles.
 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24 17

120 120 Monolithic

Monolithic Layered incontact
Layered incontact 10 mm spaced
100 10mm spaced 100

Residual Velocity (m/s)

Residual Velocity (m/s)

20 mm spaced
20mm spaced
80 30mm spaced
80 30mm spaced

60 60

40 40

20 20
a b
0 0
40 60 80 100 120 60 80 100 120
Impact Velocity (m/s) Impact Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 8. Impact and residual velocity curves for 1 mm thick monolithic, 0.5 mm thick double layered in-contact and 0.5 mm thick double layered spaced targets impacted by (a) ogive
nosed projectile; (b) blunt nosed projectile.

Table 6 high and the residual velocity obtained for each of the three mesh
Ballistic limit of different configurations of 1 mm thick target. configurations was almost identical therefore all the simulations of
Target Configuration Ballistic Limit (V50 m/s) layered in-contact and spaced target were run with 3 elements over
Ogive Nosed Projectile Blunt Nosed Projectile
thickness.
Monolithic 56.5 74.9
Double layered in-contact 48.0 72.9
2 mm Spacing 44.9 69.3 3. Constitutive model
5 mm Spacing 44.6 68.7
10 mm Spacing 44.5 68.1 The material behavior of 1100-H12 aluminum target was
20 mm Spacing 44.5 65.0 incorporated in the numerical simulations using JohnsoneCook
30 mm Spacing 44.5 65.0
elasto-viscoplastic material model [11,12]. It includes the effect of
linear thermo-elasticity, yielding, plastic flow, isotropic strain
hardening, strain rate hardening, softening due to adiabatic heating
convergence study was carried out for layered and spaced target
and damage. The equivalent von-Mises stress s of the John-
wherein each layer of layered in-contact and 10 mm spaced target
soneCook model is expressed as;
was meshed with 3, 4 and 5 elements at the thickness. The corre-
sponding size of element was 0.16  0.16  0.16 mm3, " !#

   3_
pl h i
0.125  0.125  0.125 mm3 and 0.1  0.1  0.1 mm3 and the total s 3
p1 pl b
; 3_ ; T ¼ A þ Bð3 Þ pl n
1 þ Cln bm ;
1T (1)
3_ 0
number of elements was 199,178, 208,482 and 388,882 in the
whole model respectively. The layered in-contact and 10 mm
where A, B, n, C and m are material parameters. 3 pl is equivalent
spaced target with the above mesh configurations was hit by ogive pl
plastic strain, 3_ is equivalent plastic strain rate, 3_ 0 is a reference
nosed projectile at 64.46 m/s velocity. The residual velocity was b is non dimensional temperature defined as;
strain rate and T
found to be 40.8 m/s, 41.4 m/s and 41.4 m/s for layered in-contact
and 45.5 m/s, 45.61 m/s and 45.67 m/s for spaced target corre- b ¼ ðT  T0 Þ=ðTmelt  T0 Þ T0  T  Tmelt
T (2)
sponding to 3, 4 and 5 elements respectively. A typical simulation
for layered in-contact and spaced target with 3, 4 and 5 elements where T is the current temperature, Tmelt is the melting tempera-
took about 36, 73 and 144 CPU hours respectively on HP xW 4600 ture and T0 is the room temperature. The fracture model proposed
Xeon Workstation. As the time taken for each simulation was very by JohnsoneCook [11] takes into account the effect of stress

60 76
58
a b
74
Ballistic limit (m/s)

56
Ballistic limit (m/s)

72
54
52 70
50 68
48
66
46
44 64

42 62

Target Configuration Target Configuration

Fig. 9. Variation of ballistic limit with target configuration of 1 mm equivalent thickness (a) for ogive nosed projectile; (b) for blunt nosed projectile.
18 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24

120
Span 50 mm
120 Span 50 mm Span 100 mm
Span 100 mm 100 Span 204 mm

Residual Velocity (m/s)

100 Span 204 mm
Span 255 mm

Residual Velocity (m/s)

Span 255 mm
Span 500 mm 80 Span 500 mm
80

60
60

40 40

20 20
a b
0 0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Impact Velocity (m/s) Impact Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 10. Comparison of impact and residual velocities for varying span diameter of 1 mm thick monolithic target impacted by (a) ogive nosed projectile and (b) blunt nosed
projectile.

Table 7 model as well as the identification procedure of the material

Ballistic limit of 1 mm thick monolithic target with varying span diameter.
parameters is mentioned in our earlier study, Gupta et al. [13].
Target Span Diameter (mm) Ballistic Limit (V50 m/s)

Ogive Nosed Projectile Blunt Nosed Projectile 4. Results and discussion

50 47.25 43.75
100 49.0 51.0 The results of the present numerical study for varying target
204 51.8 72.8
configuration are shown in Tables 2 and 3 in the form of impact and
255 54.0 74.8
500 58.9 77.3 residual velocities of ogive and blunt nosed projectiles respectively.
Each projectile was impacted normally on 1 mm thick targets
which were monolithic, double layered in-contact and double
layered with different spacings.
triaxiality, strain rate and temperature on the equivalent fracture
pl Monolithic target offered highest ballistic limit followed by
strain. The equivalent fracture strain 3 f is expressed as;
layered in-contact and layered spaced targets respectively for both
" !# the projectiles. The spacing between the layers also affected the

s  h
s i 3_
pl
3
pl m b
; 3_ ; T
pl
¼ D1 þ D2 exp D3
m
1 þ D4 ln ballistic limit. However, this effect was prominent against blunt
f s s 3_ 0 nosed projectile only. The results for varying span diameter are
h i presented in Tables 4 and 5 in the form of impact and residual
b ;
 1 þ D5 T (3) velocities of ogive and blunt nosed projectiles respectively. It was
observed that the ballistic limit of target increases with an increase
where D1eD5 are material parameters, sm =s is the stress triaxiality
in span diameter. Again, the increase in the ballistic limit with span
ratio and sm is the mean stress. The material parameters used in the
diameter was more significant for blunt nosed projectile. Fig. 2
present investigation are given in Table 1. The detail of the material

130
50 mm span
120 100 mm span
90
Ogive 110 204 mm span
Energy absorbed in bending (Joule)

100 255 mm span

Blunt
80 500 mm span
90
80
Ballistic limit (m/s)

70 70
60
50
60
40
30
50
20
10
130 160 190 220 250 280 310 340
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Impact energy (Joule)
Span diameter (mm)
Fig. 12. Energy absorbed in bending for 1 mm thick monolithic target impacted by
Fig. 11. Variation of ballistic limit with the target span diameter. blunt nosed projectile.
 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24 19

120 120
ogive Ogive
Blunt
100 100 Blunt

Residual Velocity (m/s)

Residual velocity (m/s)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20
a b
0 0
50 70 90 110 130 40 60 80 100 120
Impact velocity (m/s) Impact velocity (m/s)

120 120 120

Ogive Ogive Ogive

100 Blunt 100 Blunt 100 Blunt

Residual Velocity (m/s)

Residual Velocity (m/s)
Residual Velocity (m/s)

80 80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20
c d e
0 0 0
40 60 80 100 120 40 60 80 100 120 40 60 80 100 120
Impact Velocity (m/s) Impact Velocity (m/s) Impact Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 13. Comparison of impact and residual velocities of blunt and ogive nosed projectiles impacted on targets (a) 1 mm thick monolithic; (b) 0.5 mm thick double layered in-
contact; (c) 0.5 mm thick double layered with 10 mm spacing; (d) 0.5 mm thick double layered with 20 mm spacing; (e) 0.5 mm thick double layered with 30 mm spacing.

120 ogive 120 ogive

Blunt Blunt
100 100
Residual Velocity (m/s)
Residual Velocity (m/s)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20
a b
0 0
40 60 80 100 120 40 60 80 100 120
Impact velocity (m/s) Impact velocity (m/s)

120 Ogive 120 ogive 120 ogive

Blunt Blunt
Blunt
100 100 100
Residual Velocity (m/s)

Residual Velocity (m/s)

Residual Velocity (m/s)

80 80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20
c d e
0 0 0
40 60 80 100 120 50 70 90 110 130 50 70 90 110 130
Impact velocity (m/s) Impact velocity (m/s) Impact velocity (m/s)

Fig. 14. Comparison of impact and residual velocities of blunt and ogive nosed projectiles impacted on 1 mm thick monolithic target with span diameter: (a) 50 mm, (b) 100 mm;
(c) 204 mm; (d) 255 mm; (e) 500 mm.
20 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24

compares the results of present three-dimensional numerical study target for each configuration. Petals were found to be highly sharp
with the experimental and axi-symmetric numerical studies and thin at their tip, thickness increased from the tip to the root of
carried out by Gupta et al. [7] on double layered 0.5 mm thick plates petals. Experiments [6,7] also revealed that four equal petals were
in-contact. For ogive nosed projectile the ballistic limit of this target formed in 1 mm thick monolithic and 0.5 mm thick double layered
was found to be 48.0 m/s from the present numerical simulation in-contact targets when impacted by ogive nosed projectiles.
and 46.9 m/s from the experiments. While for blunt nosed Fig. 4(b) shows the failure modes of 1 mm thick monolithic and
projectile it was found to be 72.9 m/s from the present numerical 0.5 mm thick double layered in-contact targets impacted by blunt
simulation and 59 m/s from the experiments. Fig. 3 compares the nosed projectile. The projectile failed monolithic, layered and
results of present numerical study with experiments and axi- spaced targets through shear plugging. A clean cut circular hole was
symmetric numerical simulations carried out by Gupta et al. [7] formed in the target. There was no sign of thinning of target
for 1 mm thick monolithic target of 255 mm span diameter. For material. A circular plug of diameter equal to that of the projectile
ogive nosed projectile the ballistic limit of target was found to be was also removed from the target. Thickness of plug was equivalent
54 m/s from the present numerical study and 48.2 m/s from the to that of the target, confirming the experimental finding [6,7].
experiments. For blunt nosed projectile the same was found to be Fig. 5 shows the perforation phenomenon of 1 mm thick
74.8 m/s from the present numerical study and 67.6 m/s from the monolithic targets impacted by ogive and blunt nosed projectiles.
experiments. The nose of the projectile has played a critical role in the defor-
Fig. 4(a) shows the failure mode of 1 mm thick monolithic and mation as well as fracture mode of target. The phenomena of
0.5 mm thick double layered in-contact targets impacted by ogive ductile hole enlargement and petal formation by ogive nosed
nosed projectile. The projectile caused failure through ductile hole projectile can be seen. While the shearing of target and removal of
enlargement and petal formation. This is a typical failure mode of a clear circular plug by the blunt nosed projectile is also visible.
thin ductile targets impacted by sharp nosed projectiles. Four equal Fig. 6 shows the perforation behavior of layered in-contact
petals were formed in single, layered as well as spaced targets of targets impacted by ogive and blunt nosed projectiles. The defor-
equivalent thickness. Petals were bent at 90
from the surface of mation as well as fracture mode of layered targets was identical to

112.725 m/s 12
Plate deformation (mm)

97.236 m/s 10
82.973 m/s
81.913 m/s 8
65.801 m/s
57.28 m/s 6
51.6 m/s 4
a
2
0
-102 -85 -68 -51 -34 -17 0 17 34 51 68 85 102
Radial distance from the centre of plate (mm)

112.72 m/s 16
97.23 m/s 14
Plate deformation (mm)

82.97 m/s
81.91 m/s 12
65.80 m/s
59.0 m/s 10
57.28 m/s 8
55.5 m/s
52.5 m/s 6
4
b
2
0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from centre of plate (mm)

112.725 m/s 20
Plate deformation(mm)

97.236 m/s
82.973 m/s 15
81.913 m/s
73.307 m/s
65.801 m/s 10
58.85 m/s
5
c

0
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Radial distance from the centre of plate (mm)

Fig. 15. Variation of the plastic deformation with impact velocity for 1 mm thick monolithic target impacted by ogive nosed projectile (a) 204 mm span diameter; (b) 255 mm span
diameter; and (c) 500 mm span diameter.
 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24 21

those of the monolithic targets impacted by respective projectiles.
The layers were in-contact before the commencement of fracture,
however, as the fracture started both the layers separated with each
other. The separation of layers was more prominent in the case of
blunt nosed projectile impact.
Fig. 7 shows the perforation of double layered target with
10 mm spacing between the layers. In this case also the failure
mode of target remained identical to that of the monolithic and
layered in-contact target for respective projectiles. It can be seen
that there is a contact established between the front and rear layer
as the projectile deforms the front layer. This phenomenon
occurred for 2 mm, 5 mm and 10 mm spaced target. In case of
20 mm and 30 mm spaced target the layers did not come in-contact
with each other. However, the contact between layers was defined
for all the cases of spaced targets.
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show the impact and residual velocity curves of
ogive and blunt nosed projectiles respectively as a result of impact
on monolithic, layered in-contact and layered spaced targets of
1 mm equivalent thickness. For both the projectiles the ballistic
limit of monolithic target was found to be the highest followed by
layered in-contact and layered spaced target respectively. It was
also observed that at higher velocities of blunt nosed projectile, the
layered in-contact target offered better resistance than monolithic
target. The spaced targets were found to be least effective in both
the cases. The spacing between the layers also affected the resis-
tance of the target. However, it was not significant at 10 mm,
20 mm and 30 mm spacing against either of the projectile probably
due to the lesser interaction between layers. Therefore in order to
closely examine this effect, the spacing between the layers was
further reduced to 2 mm and 5 mm and ballistic limit was obtained,
Table 6. The reduced spacing affected the ballistic limit however it
was noticeable only for blunt nosed projectile. The variation of
ballistic limit with target configuration is plotted in Fig. 9(a) and (b)
for ogive and blunt nosed projectile respectively. Both the projec-
tiles experienced highest ballistic limit velocity against monolithic
target followed by layered in-contact and layered spaced target
respectively. For ogive nosed projectile the ballistic limit of
monolithic target was found to be 17.7% and 25.8% higher than that
of the double layered in-contact and 2 mm spaced target respec-
tively. The ballistic limit of layered in-contact target was found to be
7% higher than that of the 2 mm spaced target. While the ballistic
limit of spaced target remained almost identical at varying spacing,
Fig. 9(a). For blunt nosed projectile, the ballistic limit of monolithic
target was found to be 2.7% and 8% higher than double layered in-

115.6 m/s 14
Plate deformation (mm)

104.03 m/s 12
102.5 m/s
10
92.45 m/s
87.45 m/s 8
73.98 m/s 6
72.7 m/s
4 a
2
0
-102 -85 -68 -51 -34 -17 0 17 34 51 68 85 102
Radial distance from centre of plate (mm)

16
115.6 m/s
Plate deformation(mm)

14
104.036 m/s
102.5 m/s 12
92.455 m/s 10
87.455 m/s
8
74.7 m/s
6 b
4
2
0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from the centre of plate(mm)

115.6 m/s 20
104.036 m/s
Plate deformation (mm)

102.5 m/s
15
92.455 m/s
87.455 m/s
78.45 m/s 10
77.5 m/s
77.2 m/s 5 c

0
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Radial distance from centre of the plate (mm)

Fig. 16. Variation of the plastic deformation with impact velocity for 1 mm thick monolithic target impacted by blunt nosed projectile (a) 204 mm span diameter; (b) 255 mm span
diameter; and (c) 500 mm span diameter.
22 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24

contact and 2 mm spaced target respectively. The ballistic limit of
layered in-contact target was found to be 5.2% higher than that of
the 2 mm spaced target. While, the ballistic limit of 2 mm spaced
target was found to be 0.9%, 1.2%, 6.6% and 6.6% higher than 5 mm,
10 mm, 20 mm and 30 mm spaced target respectively.
Fig. 10 (a) and (b) show impact and residual velocity curves of
ogive and blunt nosed projectiles respectively for 50 mm, 100 mm,
204 mm, 255 mm and 500 mm span diameters. Results reveal that
at higher impact velocities the increase in the resistance offered by
target of larger span is not significant. However, with decrease in
the impact velocity, targets with larger span diameter were found
to offer significant increase in resistance. This behavior was seen to
be more prominent at the ballistic limit, Table 7, which consistently
increased with increase in span diameter for both projectiles.
Increase in ballistic limit for ogive and blunt nosed projectiles may
be seen in Fig. 11. For ogive nosed projectile, the ballistic limit of
500 mm span diameter was found to be 9%, 13.7%, 20.2% and 24.6%
higher than that of the 255 mm, 204 mm, 100 mm and 50 mm span
diameter respectively. On the other hand, for blunt nosed projectile
the same was found to be 3.3%, 6.2%, 51.5% and 76.6% higher
respectively. The reason behind such behavior is the energy
absorbed in bending that is higher for a larger span diameter. In
order to substantiate these results the energy absorbed in bending
was calculated for each target span hit by blunt nosed projectile.
The blunt nosed projectile was chosen because it experienced
a larger increase in the ballistic limit velocity. It was assumed that
the major portion of the kinetic energy of blunt nosed projectile is
dissipated in shearing the target material, imparting momentum to
the plug and global bending of the target. However, there was no
sign of local stretching or thinning of the target material. The
average thickness of plug was found to be 0.97 mm. The thickness
of the target at the fractured region was found equivalent to that of
the detached plug and the same has been confirmed from our
previous experimental studies Gupta et al. [6,7]. The energy dissi-
pated in shear was acquired from the numerical results. The values
of average shear stress and the average shear strain were obtained
at the narrow shear zone (the circular target region around the
projectile) just before the occurrence of fracture. The shear strain
energy (Eshear) was thus calculated as the product of average shear
stress, average shear strain and the volume of the plug. The energy
absorbed in target bending was calculated as;
Ebending ¼ Etotal  Eresidual  Eshear  Eplug (4)

16
Plate deflection (mm)

Blunt 14
Ogive 12
10
8
6 a
4
2
0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from center of plate (mm)

14
Plate deflection (mm)

Blunt 12
Ogive 10
8
6
4 b
2
0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from center of plate (mm)

10
Plate deformation (mm)

Blunt
8
Ogive
6

4
c
2

0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from center of plate (mm)

Fig. 17. Variation of plastic deformation of target with projectile nose shape at ballistic limit; (a) 1 mm thick monolithic target; (b) 0.5 mm thick double layered in-contact target; (c)
0.5 mm thick double layered spaced target with 10 mm spacing.
 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24 23

Front plate 10
Rear plate 9

Plate deflection (mm)

8
7
6
5
4
3 a
2
1
0
-1
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from center of plate (mm)

Front plate 16
Plate deflection (mm)

Rear plate 14
12
10
8
6
4 b
2
0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from center of plate (mm)

Fig. 18. Plastic deformation of 0.5 mm thick double layered in-contact target impacted at ballistic limit by (a) ogive nosed projectile; (b) blunt nosed projectile.

where Etotal and Eresidual is the initial and residual kinetic energy of
projectile and Eplug is the kinetic energy of the sheared plug. Fig. 12
shows the energy absorbed in target bending for varying span
diameter and describes a clear influence of span diameter on the
absorbed energy. It is seen that energy absorbed in bending is
increasing with increase in span diameter. It is also seen to
decreasing with increase in projectile impact velocity except for
50 mm and 100 mm span diameter. For 100 mm span diameter the
energy absorbed in bending slightly increased initially and then
decreased with the increase in impact velocity, while for 50 mm
span diameter it was found to increase continuously.
Fig. 13(a)e(e) compares the resistance of a given target config-
uration for varying projectile nose shape. At each configuration, the
target offered better resistance against blunt nosed projectile. The
difference in the resistance of target increased with the decrease in
impact velocity. The ballistic limit of monolithic, layered in-contact,
2 mm spaced, 5 mm spaced, 10 mm spaced, 20 mm spaced and
30 mm spaced target was found to be 32.5%, 51.8%, 54.3%, 54%, 53%,
46% and 46% higher respectively for blunt nosed projectile than for
ogive nosed projectile, Table 6.
Fig. 14(a)e(e) compares the ballistic resistance of a given span
diameter for different projectile nose shapes. For 50 mm span

Front plate 24
Plate deflection (mm)

Rear plate 20 a
16
12
8
4
0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5

Radial distance from center of plate (mm)

Front plate 30
b
Plate deflection (mm)

Rear plate 25
20
15
10
5
0
-127.5-112.5 -97.5 -82.5 -67.5 -52.5 -37.5 -22.5 -7.5 7.5 22.5 37.5 52.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 127.5
Radial distance from center of plate (mm)

Fig. 19. Plastic deformation of 0.5 mm thick double layered target with 10 mm spacing at ballistic limit by (a) ogive nosed projectile; (b) blunt nosed projectile.
24 M.A. Iqbal et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 42 (2012) 11e24
diameter the target offered almost same resistance for both the
projectiles and the ballistic limit velocity of ogive nosed projectile
was found to be slightly higher than that of the blunt nosed projectile,
Table 7. However, at all other spans the target offered better resis-
tance to the blunt nosed projectile. Moreover, the difference in the
ballistic resistance offered by the target also increased with an
increase in span diameter and the decrease in impact velocity. The
ballistic limit velocity of blunt nosed projectile was found to be 4%,
40.5%, 38.5% and 31% higher for 100 mm, 204 mm, 255 mm and
500 mm span diameter respectively, while for 50 mm span diameter
it was found to be 7.4% lower than that of ogive nosed projectile.
Fig. 15(a)e(c) shows the variation in the global target defor-
mation with impact velocity of ogive nosed projectile. For each
target span the plastic deformation was found to increase with the
decrease in projectile impact velocity such that the highest plastic
deformation was found at ballistic limit. It was also observed that
the plastic deformation of target increased with an increase in
target span diameter which has also been justified earlier in this
paper. This is the fact due to which the ballistic limit increased with
an increase in target span diameter.
Fig. 16(a)e(c) shows the variation in the global target defor-
mation with the impact velocity of blunt nosed projectile. In this
case also the plastic deformation of target was found to increase
with the decrease in impact velocity and increase in effective span
diameter. While at each span diameter the deformation of target
was found to be higher for blunt nosed projectile as compared to
ogive nosed projectile.
Fig. 17(a)e(c) compare the global target deformation with
projectile nose shape for monolithic, double layered in-contact and
double layered spaced targets with 10 mm spacing respectively at
ballistic limit. For layered and spaced targets the deformation is
that of the rear layer. At each configuration the blunt nosed
projectile caused higher plastic deformation than ogive nosed
projectile. Further, the highest deformation was observed in the
case of monolithic target for each projectile.
Fig. 18 show the deformation of 0.5 mm thick double layered in-
contact targets impacted by ogive and blunt nosed projectile
respectively at ballistic limit. Mode of deformation of both the
layers was found to be identical. However, the rear layer deformed
more as compared to that of the front layer.
Fig. 19(a) and (b) show the global deformation of 0.5 mm thick
double layered spaced target with 10 mm spacing impacted by
ogive and blunt nosed projectile respectively at ballistic limit. In
this case also the deformation of rear layer was found to be higher
than that of the front layer for each projectile. Experiments [7]
revealed that the plastic deformation in the layered target
increased with each successive layer from the front plate.
5. Conclusions
Three-dimensional numerical simulations were performed
wherein ogive and blunt nosed projectiles were hit normally on
1 mm thick 1100-H12 aluminum target with varying configuration
and span diameter.
For ogive nosed projectile the ballistic limit of monolithic target
was found to be 17.7% and 25.8% higher than the double layered in-
contact and 2 mm spaced target respectively. The ballistic limit of
layered in-contact target was found to be 7% higher than 2 mm
spaced target. The variation of spacing had insignificant effect on
the ballistic limit.
For blunt nosed projectile, the ballistic limit of monolithic target
was found to be 2.7% and 8% higher than double layered in-contact
and 2 mm spaced target respectively. The ballistic limit of layered
in-contact target was found to be 5.2% higher than the 2 mm spaced
target. While, the ballistic limit of 2 mm spaced target was found to
be 1%, 1.2%, 6.6% and 6.6% higher than 5 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm and
30 mm spaced target.
The ballistic limit velocity of both the projectiles consistently
increased with an increase in target span diameter. The increase in
ballistic limit occurred due to the increase in bending energy. For
ogive nosed projectile, the ballistic limit of 500 mm span diameter
was found to be 9%, 13.7%, 20.2% and 24.6% higher than that of the
255 mm, 204 mm, 100 mm and 50 mm span diameter respectively.
On the other hand, for blunt nosed projectile the same was found to
be 3.3%, 6.2%, 51.5% and 76.6% higher respectively.
References
[1] Marom I, Bonder SR. Projectile perforation of multi-layered beams. Int J Mech
Sci 1979;21:489e504.
[2] Corran RSJ, Shadbolt PJ, Ruiz C. Impact loading of plates e an experimental
investigation. Int J Impact Eng 1983;1(1):3e22.
[3] Radin J, Goldsmith W. Normal projectile penetration and perforation of
layered targets. Int J Impact Eng 1988;7:229e59.
[4] Nurick GN, Walters CE. The ballistic penetration of multiple thin plates
separated by an air gap. In: Proceedings of SEM conference on experimental
mechanics. Albuquerque, USA; 1990. p. 631e7.
[5] Almohandes AA, Abdel-Kader MS, Eleiche AM. Experimental investigation of
the ballistic resistance of steelefiberglass reinforced polyester laminated
plates. Compos Part B Eng 1996;27(5):447e58.
[6] Gupta NK, Iqbal MA, Sekhon GS. Effect of projectile nose shape, impact
velocity and target thickness on deformation behavior of aluminum plates. Int
J Solids Struct 2007;44:3411e39.
[7] Gupta NK, Iqbal MA, Sekhon GS. Effect of Projectile nose shape, impact
velocity and target thickness on the deformation behavior of layered plates.
Int J Impact Eng 2008;35:37e60.
[8] Dey S, Borvik T, Teng X, Wierzbicki T, Hopperstad OS. On the ballistic resis-
tance of double-layered steel plates: an experimental and numerical investi-
gation. Int J Solids Struct 2007;44:6701e23.
[9] Teng X, Wierzbicki T, Huang M. Ballistic resistance of double-layered armor
plates. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35:870e84.
[10] ABAQUS/Explicit user’s manual. Version 6.7: vol. 1(2), 2007.
[11] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to
large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proc. the seventh
International symposium on ballistics. The Hague, Netherlands; 1983. p. 541e7.
[12] Johnson GR, Cook WH. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to
various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech
1985;21(1):31e48.
[13] Gupta NK, Iqbal MA, Sekhon GS. Experimental and numerical studies on the
behavior of thin aluminum plates subjected to impact by blunt- and hemi-
spherical e nosed projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 2006;32:1921e44.