Accepted Manuscript

Impact behavior and ballistic efficiency of armor-piercing projectiles

with tool steel cores

Giovanni Di Benedetto , Paolo Matteis , Giorgio Scavino

PII: S0734-743X(17)30414-1
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.12.021
Reference: IE 3051

To appear in: International Journal of Impact Engineering

Received date: 10 May 2017

Revised date: 28 December 2017
Accepted date: 30 December 2017

Please cite this article as: Giovanni Di Benedetto , Paolo Matteis , Giorgio Scavino , Impact behavior
and ballistic efficiency of armor-piercing projectiles with tool steel cores , International Journal of Impact
Engineering (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.12.021

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
HIGHLIGHTS
 The impact deformation and fracture of armor-piercing projectiles with tool steel cores, and their ballistic
efficiency, are investigated.

 The projectiles ballistic efficiency, against hardened steel armor, is, in general, directly correlated with
their core hardness.

 Tool steel cores undergo adiabatic shear banding, with ensuing plastic deformation, tip fracture, and
impact welding with target fragments.

T
 Among different tool steel grades, a smaller amount of shear bands is correlated with a better ballistic

IP
performance.

CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Impact behavior and ballistic efficiency of armor-piercing

projectiles with tool steel cores
Giovanni Di Benedetto1,2, Paolo Matteis1, Giorgio Scavino1
1
Turin Technical University, Department of Applied Science and Technology, Torino, Italy
2
Italian Ministry of Defence, Land Armaments Directorate, Rome, Italy (formerly Italian Army, Small
Arms Maintenance Centre, Terni, Italy)
Abstract: Armor-piercing (AP) projectiles generally carry a hard core within a copper jacket. Upon impact on a hard target, the

T
copper case is stripped, while the core pierces the target. The cores of the most efficient AP projectiles are built with either
tungsten alloys or depleted uranium, but alloy steels are also commonly used, because they are less expensive and less polluting,

IP
even if they are much less efficient. The impact deformation and fracture behavior of armor-piercing projectiles fabricated with
three different tool steel cores, and their resultant ballistic efficiency, are investigated, both to better understand the optimal

CR
mechanical properties of armor piercing materials, and to describe the impact fracture mechanics of the tested tool steels.
Moreover, the ballistic results of the three tool steels are compared with those of plain medium-carbon steel and cemented
tungsten carbide.

Keywords: tool steel cores. US

AN
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Armor-piercing ammunition

M

Armor-piercing (AP) ammunition, which can be fired by small caliber guns and is designed to penetrate light armor, generally
carries a hard core within a soft copper alloy jacket or case. The jacket is similar to that which surrounds lead in conventional
ED

ammunition, and performs the same function, being superficially deformed by the barrel rifling. The core is a kinetic-energy
penetrator. Upon impact on a hard target, the copper case is stripped, while the core penetrates the target. Much larger, but
conceptually similar, kinetic-energy penetrators are used in anti-tank ammunition. However, for internal ballistic reasons, anti-
PT

tank ammunition does not have a soft case and is instead propelled through an over-caliber barrel by using a sabot, which is
discarded at the barrel exit.
CE

During the impact, either the penetrator can pierce the target without undergoing any apparent damage, or it can undergo a
progressive "erosion", i.e., a progressive deformation and/or fragmentation of its tip. The onset of erosion depends on the relative
hardness of the penetrator and target materials, and on the impact velocity; all projectiles will erode at sufficiently high impact
AC

velocities. Moreover, dust, including fine inhalable particles derived from the penetrator material, is usually produced.
In the development of AP ammunition, the density and the erosion behavior of the core material are essential factors. A high
density allows the projectile to deliver more energy on the target, for the same velocity and impact area. If the core, during the
erosion process, keeps a sharp tip, it requires less energy to penetrate the target and its ballistic efficiency is higher, whereas if it
forms a mushroom tip, it requires more energy and is less efficient.
The ballistic efficiency of an AP projectile corresponds to the minimum speed which allows it to pierce a given armor plate. It
depends on the core material and shape. For the same material and mass, a long, small caliber core is more efficient than a short,
large caliber one, because the former can deliver its kinetic energy on a smaller target area. The most efficient AP projectiles are
built with cores made from depleted uranium (DU), tungsten heavy alloys (WHA), or cemented tungsten carbides. Hardened alloy
steel cores are, however, more commonly used, because they are more economical and cleaner, even if they are much less
efficient.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
For a given cartridge and barrel length, the muzzle velocity decreases by increasing the projectile mass. Therefore, for the
same dimensions, projectiles with a cemented tungsten carbide core are slower than those with a steel core, but the former can
nevertheless be more effective due to the above considerations.

1.2 Non-ferrous, high density AP projectile cores

Tungsten heavy alloys (WHA) are composite materials made by liquid phase sintering, whereby tungsten powder is bound by
a lower melting metal matrix, which contains most alloying elements [1]. Tungsten is not normally toxic, but the inhalation of the
dust generated by the impact could determine health breathing problems [2], especially in shooting ranges. Moreover, use of
WHA is limited by its high cost and its slow degradation (due to high corrosion resistance). Also for these reasons, researches are
underway to develop alternative tungsten alloys [1,3].
Depleted Uranium (DU) is a by-product of the process of enrichment of natural uranium and is classified as a chemical toxic

T
and as a radioactive waste [4]. DU was preferred to WHA for its ballistic efficiency [5,6] and pyrophoricity [7]. In both DU

IP
and WHA, the main deformation and failure mechanism responsible for the penetrator erosion is adiabatic shear banding, but DU
is more efficient that WHA because it forms adiabatic shear bands more easily, thus keeping a sharper penetrator tip [5,6,8].

CR
However, DU may cause collateral damage due to its toxicity [4]. On impact DU ignites, forming oxidized dust. More than 50%
of dust particles have inhalable size and remain airborne for hours; moreover some are water soluble. The surface contamination
initially involves an area of tens of meters, and can then spread due to wind and water streams. Once inhaled, DU dust can cause

US
long-term health damage (the target organ is the kidney). Therefore, the use of DU has become controversial, leading to a
precautionary approach to its use or even to its banishment in ballistic applications.
AN
Cemented tungsten carbide is a composite formed by liquid phase sintering, exhibiting dispersed tungsten carbide particles
within a metallic matrix, usually made of cobalt [9,10]. It is often used in armor-piercing ammunition [11,12], due to its relatively
high density, exceptionally high hardness and compressive strength, and reasonable cost (in respect to WHA), especially if DU is
M

not available or is politically unacceptable. The primary health risk associated with cemented tungsten carbide is related to
inhalation of impact dust [13], but the carcinogenic effect of cobalt [14] must also be considered, especially in shooting ranges.
ED

1.3 Steel AP projectile cores

Steels with high carbon and/or high alloy element content, after appropriate heat treatment, can achieve high hardness,
strength and wear resistance, and are widely used in the mechanical industry, especially to fabricate dies and cutting tools [15-17].
PT

Such steels are also commonly used to manufacture the core of AP ammunition [18-31], including high-speed tool steels,
cold-work tool steels, and bearing steels [19]. Although their ballistic efficiency is much lower compared to that of the above
CE

described, non-ferrous materials, steel projectile cores are widely used for their low cost and for their fast degradation in the
environment into non-polluting and non-hazardous oxides.
The impact of AP projectiles with a steel core upon either steel [18-24] or aluminum alloy [25-31] target plates, as well as the
AC

impact of other steel penetrators on similar targets [32-36], have been the subject of several studies, not least because AP
ammunition with a steel core has become a standard benchmark to evaluate new armor materials [37]. The above cited works,
however, are in most cases devoted to the deformation and fracture behavior of the target material [19,22,24,25,30-35], and/or to
the determination of the ballistic efficiency [18,21-24,26,28,29,31], and report little or no detail on both the steel core and its
impact behavior.
In particular, Ryan et al. [24] and Borvik et al. [32-34] observed the formation of adiabatic shear bands in steel armor plates
impacted by AP projectiles, and evidenced their role in the shear plugging of the same armor plate. Borvik et al. [32] also
reported that the shear failure, leading to the formation of the plug, is not usually axisymmetric, even if the impact is (nominally)
normal; on the contrary, when the plug is already completely free on one side, cracking has just started on the opposite side,
causing a rotation of the plug itself.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Moreover, Borvik, et al., by firing both standard AP ammunition and its steel core mounted on a sabot, found very little
difference due to presence or absence of the copper jacket and lead cap on the resulting ballistic efficiency, against both armor
steel [22] and aluminum alloy [26,28,29] targets; for example, against layered steel targets, the ballistic limit speed of the naked
core was only 3-5% lower, even if the total projectile mass was 50% lower.
As it regards the projectile macroscopic deformation and fracture, Paris et al. [20] examined the oblique impact of 14.5 mm
AP ammunition, with a 1.3 % C, 900 HV steel core, against armor steel plates, at about 930 m/s; two large fragments,
corresponding to the tip and the tail of the steel core, together with a few small fragments originating from the core mid-length
region, were generally formed after the impact on 3.2 mm thick target plate, whereas, by increasing the plate thickness up to 5
mm, a large number of mid-sized and small fragments were formed. Fracture of 800 HV hard steel cores, carried by standard 7.62
mm AP ammunition, into 2 or 3 pieces, or fracture of their tip, was also reported by Borvik et al., after normal impact on la yered,

T
2 x 6 mm steel armor plate, with speed larger than 920 m/s [22]. Similarly, Anderson et al. [18] found that hard steel projectiles
were generally fragmented while perforating armor steel plates with impact velocities in the 1250 - 1350 m/s range.

IP
Fragmentation of blunt 100MnCrW4 (AISI O1) tool steel penetrators, with a hardness of 53 HRC, was observed by Borvik et al.
upon normal impact at about 350 m/s on armor steel plates with target thickness equal to or larger than the projectile caliber [34].

CR
However, much less has been published in the open literature about the microscopic deformation and fracture mechanisms of
the steel cores used in AP ammunition, and about the relationship between these phenomena and the resulting ballistic efficiency.

US
More than 30 years ago, Gerlach [36] examined two 120WV4 (AISI F1) tool steel projectiles after their impact on a thick plate of
medium carbon, quenched and tempered 35CrMo4 (AISI 4135) steel, in which they were embedded. The tip of the slower
projectile (impacting at 1000 m/s) and the whole faster projectile (1800 m/s) were deformed, fragmented and welded. The
AN
deformation occurred over a network of adiabatic shear bands, whereas the material between the bands was almost undeformed;
cracks were nucleated inside the same shear bands; and, finally, fragments deriving from both the projectile and the target were
impact welded, weld zones being similar to, and continuous with, the adiabatic shear bands. More recently, Anderson et al. [38]
M

published quasi-static stress-strain curves for the core steel of standard APM2 ammunition, and Iqbal et al. [23] investigated the
mechanical behavior of a ≈ 820 HV, API (armor piercing incendiary) projectile core steel by means of quasi-static tensile tests
(with or without notches and at different temperatures) and high-strain-rate Hopkinson bar compression tests.
ED

Similarly, little open-source information is available about the comparative behavior and efficiency of different steel grades,
for the same projectile design. In particular, Anderson et al. [18] found that the ballistic efficiency of five different but
PT

unspecified types of hard steel projectiles increased with their hardness, in the 200 to 750 HV range, with impact velocities in the
1250 - 1350 m/s range.
Therefore, in this work, the impact deformation and fracture behavior of armor-piercing projectiles fabricated with three tool
CE

steels cores, and their resultant ballistic efficiency, are investigated, both to better understand the optimal mechanical properties of
armor piercing materials, and to describe the impact fracture mechanics of the tested materials.
Moreover, the ballistic results of the three alloy steels are compared with those achieved by plain medium carbon steel and by
AC

cemented tungsten carbide.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Core materials

The following core materials are examined:
 C45 medium carbon steel (approximately equivalent to AISI 1045), heat treated to a final hardness of 23 HRC;
 90MnVCr8KU cold work tool steel (AISI O2), heat treated to 57 HRC;
 X153CrMoV12 cold work tool steel (AISI D2), heat treated to 58 HRC;
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 HS6-5-2 high speed tool steel (AISI M2), heat treated to 49 HRC;
 WC-Co cemented tungsten carbide, with hardness 71 HRC.
The examined WC-Co cores are industrially produced and currently mounted into various ammunition, cal. 7.62x51 mm1;
whereas the steel cores were purposefully fabricated with the same shape from commercial steel bars and then quenched and
tempered.
The chemical composition of the examined tool steels 2 is given in table 1, and their heat treatment schedule 3 is given in Table
2. After the heat treatment, the microstructure of both 90MnCrV8 and X153CrMoV12 cold work steels exhibits tempered
martensite and retained austenite (affected by tempering); whereas the HS6-5-2 high-speed steel exhibits a tempered martensite
matrix with dispersed spheroidal carbides (figure 1).
The density and the hardness of the examined materials are shown in table 3 below.

T
Table 1: Chemical composition of the examined tool steels, wt.%

IP
Steel grade C Si Mn P S Cr Mo V W
90MnCrV8 0.88 0.26 2.04 0.015 0.009 0.25 - 0.08 -

CR
X153CrMoV12 1.52 0.3 0.27 0.023 0.009 11.38 0.73 0.74 -
HS 6-5-2 0.91 0.22 0.32 0.028 0.0003 3.99 4.86 1.78 5.92

Table 2: Heat treatment schedule of the examined tool steels.

90MnCrV8
X153CrMoV12
Austenitizing
830 °C
1100 °C
US
Quenching
Oil
Nitrogen, 7 bar
1st
270 °C, 1 h
550 °C, 1 h
Tempering
2nd
-
550 °C, 1 h
3rd
-
550 °C, 1 h
AN
HS 6-5-2 1200 °C Nitrogen, 7 bar 620 °C, 1 h 620 °C, 1 h 620 °C, 1 h
M
ED
PT

a b
CE
AC

c
Fig. (1). Microstructure of as-fabricated tool steel cores (cross section with Nital etching): 90MnCrV8 (a), X153CrMoV12 (b) and HS6-5-2 (c).

1
The examined WC-Co cores were extracted from ammunition sold by Ruag Ammotec GMBH, Furth, Germany, and by Nammo AS, Raufoss,
Norway.
2
The tool steels and their heat elemental analysis were supplied by SACMA Acciai Speciali S.p.A, Turin, Italy.
3
The heat treatment was performed by OMT Officine Meccaniche Torino S.p.A., Turin, Italy.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2 Projectile and target design

The cores, figure 2, were mounted into a case fabricated with free-cutting brass (grade EN CuZn39Pb3, approximately
equivalent to UNS C38500), which was purposefully designed, figure 3. Shorter tool steel cores, backed by sintered W-Cu rods
(consisting of 75% W and 25% Cu, with density 15 g/cm3 and low hardness) to increase the overall projectile mass, and mounted
in the same brass case, were also tested (figure 2b). The core, as well as the back rod when used, was mounted inside the case
with a nominal interference of 0.01 mm (figure 2 and 3). All projectiles exhibit a widely used gauge, corresponding to the civilian
standard caliber .308 Winchester and to the military standard 7.62 NATO (7.62x51 mm).
The target was a 6-mm thick, 450-mm wide, square low-alloy steel plate, hardened to approximately 50 HRC4.
The projectile and core mass, for each examined core material and projectile type, as well as the hardness and density of the
target material, are also collected in table 3. Hardness was measured by means of standard Rockwell C tests (with the exception

T
of the target plate, which was subjected to standard Brinell tests; values were then converted to HRC [39]). Density was obtained

IP
from literature data [40-43], for the examined steels, and was calculated from the core weight and volume, for the cemented
tungsten carbide. The mass of projectiles and full-length cores was measured, whereas the mass of short cores was calculated.

CR
US
AN
M
ED

a) b)
Fig. (2): Core (a) and short core with W-Cu back rod (b).
PT
CE
AC

Fig. (3): Brass case.

4
The steel plates were manufactured from the steelworks SSAB AB, Stockholm, Sweden, under the trade name HARDOX 500.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3: Properties of examined materials and projectiles.

Density Hardness Back Core mass Projectile

Material
[g/cm3] [HRC] rod [g] mass [g]
C45 7.85 23 - 3.23 7.50
- 3.19 7.46
90MnCrV8 7.85 57
Core materials

W-Cu 0.94 9.65

- 3.13 7.40
X153CrMoV12 7.70 58
W-Cu 0.92 9.65
- 3.29 7.56
HS6-5-2 8.10 49
W-Cu 0.97 9.69

T
WC-Co 14,5 71 - 5.91 10.18

IP
Target material 7.85 50 - - -

2.3 Firing setup and procedure

CR
The projectiles were fired in an indoor shooting range, by using a 7.62 mm (bore diameter) barrel; the pitch of the barrel
rifling was 304.8 mm. The projectile speed was measured by using a couple of light barriers, which were located at a distance of

US
0.2 and 1.2 m, respectively, from the barrel muzzle. The loss of speed between the point of measure and the target was neglected.
The target plate was 10 m away from the barrel exit end, and it was normal to the projectile trajectory within ± 3°, compliant to
the NATO standard STANAG 2920 [44].
AN
In order to obtain repeatable and comparable results, the target, the barrel and the ammunition were held at a temperature of
20 ± 2 °C and at a relative humidity of 65 ± 5% for 24 h before the ballistics test, and in the indoor shooting range the ambient
temperature was 20 ± 5 °C and the relative humidity was 65 ± 10% (compliant to [44]).
M

For each projectile type, a series of tests were carried out with different speeds, by manually adjusting the amount of
gunpowder, to determine the V50 speed, which is defined as the projectile velocity which yields a 50 % probability of perforation
of a given target [44]. V50 was determined as the mean of three perforating and three non-perforating shots, all comprised in a
ED

speed range of 40 m/s or less [44]. The corresponding translational kinetic energy, here named KE 50, was calculated from V50 and
from the projectile mass (the rotational kinetic energy was neglected).
PT

After perforating shots, projectile and target fragments were collected for macroscopic, fractographic and metallographic
analyses. The fragments were slowed and ultimately arrested behind the target by using cotton.
CE

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

AC

3.1 Ballistic efficiency

The projectile mass, core hardness, V50 speed and KE50 kinetic energy are reported in table 4. Since the target was always the
same, V50 is a measure of the relative ballistic efficiency of the different projectiles. The most efficient of the examined core
materials is the cemented tungsten carbide (V50 = 353 m/s) and the worst it the C45 steel grade (828 m/s). Among the steels, the
most efficient is the HS 6-5-2 high speed steel (662 m/s).
In general, the kinetic energy of a projectile in part is employed to deform and pierce the target, and in part is spent to deform
the projectile itself. If the projectile hardness and yield strength increase, the energy spent for the projectile deformation
decreases, thus the energy available for the target deformation and piercing increases, and the ballistic efficiency increases, i.e.,
V50 decreases [45-47].
The present results generally confirm the above rule, as highlighted in figure 4: the cemented tungsten carbide is both the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
hardest and the most efficient material, the C45 steel is the softest and least efficient, and the tool steels as a group exhibit
intermediate hardness and efficiency. However, the three tool steels are not fully consistent with the same rule; in particular, the
high speed steel HS6-5-2 is the most efficient among them, in spite of its lower hardness.

Table 4: Projectile and core properties and ballistic test results.

Core Projectile Perforating shots, Non-perforating

Back V50 KE50
Core material hardness mass speed shots, speed
rod [m/s] [J]
[HRC] [g] [m/s] [m/s]
C45 23 - 7.50 828.0 2571 844 834 834 823 821 812
- 7.46 710.8 1884 720 708 708 717 708 704
90MnCrV8 57
W-Cu 9.65 758.5 2776 778 769 765 751 746 742

T
- 7.40 672.4 1673 681 680 678 672 664 660

IP
X153CrMoV12 58
W-Cu 9.65 738.7 2633 749 747 742 738 734 722
- 7.56 661.6 1654 664 661 660 667 661 656

CR
HS 6-5-2 49
W-Cu 9.69 710.2 2444 730 722 712 703 700 694
WC-Co 71 - 10.18 353.2 635 369 364 357 349 346 334

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Fig. (4): Ballistic efficiency (as measured by V50 speed) vs. core hardness, for the examined projectiles

Moreover, by increasing the projectile mass with the heavy but soft W-Cu back-rod, while using a shorter core of the same
material, the efficiency of the tested steel core projectiles decreases (table 4 and figure 4). This loss of efficiency is probably
caused by the energy loss due to the deformation of the W-Cu back rod, which is much softer than the examined steel grades, and
thus is deformed much more extensively (see figure 5a below). Therefore, in order to pierce the target, the projectiles with the W-
Cu back-rod must carry a much higher kinetic energy: KE 50 increases by about 880 kJ, or 51 %, on average. Due to their higher
mass, they can carry the same kinetic energy with a lower speed, but overall the former effect prevails, and V 50 slightly increases
(by 64 m/s, or 9%, on average).
It should be noted, however, that the present tests were not suitable to highlight the advantage of heavier projectiles, because
they were performed at short range (less than 10 m), and therefore the energy loss due to aerodynamic forces was negligible in all
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
cases (heavier projectiles carrying the same kinetic energy are slower, thus they undergo lower aerodynamic forces for the same
shape, and ultimately lose less energy while flying the same distance).

3.2 Macroscopic analysis of projectile fragments

Representative examples of the full-length cores, and fragments thereof, which were recovered after perforating shots, with
projectile speed close to V50, are shown in figure 5, for each of the core material. Most recovered cemented tungsten carbide cores
were apparently intact, with no macroscopic deformation or fractures (figure 5b). In contrast, all recovered steel cores undergo the
fracture and loss of their tip (figure 5c to 5f); moreover, the softer C45 steel cores also undergo significant plastic deformation
(figure 5c).
The core tip fracture occurs close to the same position in all cases, and can be ascribed to bending stresses, which may be a
consequence of the asymmetrical failure of the target plate [32]. Moreover, all examined perforating shots formed a target

T
fragment, or plug, with the shape of a cylinder with a diameter close to the core diameter, and length close to the target thickness

IP
(figure 6). Careful examination showed that the broken core tip was permanently joined to the plug, probably by impact welding.
Finally, in all cases, a brass deposit was found on the target plate, forming a rim around the entry of the hole pierced by the

CR
core, thus confirming that the brass case flew together with the core, and was stripped on impact.

3.3 Fractographic analysis of core fragments

US
The fracture surfaces of representative tool steel cores, recovered after perforating shots, were examined by scanning electron
microscopy, figures 7 to 9.
AN
M
ED

a b
PT
CE
AC

c d e f
Fig. (5): Projectile fragments recovered after perforating shots: W-Cu back-rod (a); cemented tungsten carbide cores (b); C45 (c), 90MnCrV8
(d), X153CrMoV12 (e), and HS6-5-2 (f) steel cores

Fig. (6): Target fragments, or plugs, formed by perforating shots

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
a b
Fig. (7): HS6-5-2 projectile core fractured in a perforating shot. Fracture surface formed by adiabatic shear; increasing magnification. The red
lines indicate the local shear directions.

CR
US
AN
M
ED

a b
PT

Fig. (8): X153CrMoV12 projectile core fractured in a perforating shot. Fracture surface formed by adiabatic shear; increasing magnification.
The red line indicates the local shear direction.
CE

Intergranular
fracture
AC

ductile
fracture
Adiabatic
shear

a b
Fig. (9): 90MnCrV8 projectile core fractured in a perforating shot. Fracture surface formed by adiabatic shear, intergranular fracture, and ductile
fracture; increasing magnification.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In all cases, the fracture surface was formed mainly by adiabatic shear fracture. Adiabatic shear planes are evident at low
magnifications (figures 7a, 8a and 9a), and the shear direction can be deduced, at high magnification, on the basis of the
orientation of the microscopic features on the shear planes (figures 7b, 8b). However, intergranular and ductile fracture features
were also found in limited portions of the fracture surfaces, in particular in the 90MnCrV8 tool steel grade (figure 9a).

3.4 Metallographic analysis of target and core fragments

The above mentioned plugs, formed by penetrating shots with tool steel cores (without back-rods), were mounted, polished
and etched with Nital (3 vol. % nitric acid, ethanol), exposing a longitudinal metallographic plane. In all cases, both the target
plate material and the broken core tip could be identified, and it was ascertained that the they had been welded in the impact, and
that both showed adiabatic shear bands. Moreover, it was ascertained that both welding (between the target plate material and the

T
core tip) and fracture (of the core tip) occurred on shear bands, consistently with previous results [36]. This is illustrated in

IP
more detail in figures 10 to 12, in which the target plate material is on the right and the core tip on the left.

CR
Adiabatic
shear bands
US
AN

core tip
target
M
ED

Fig. (10): Etched axial cross section of the tip of a projectile core, made with the HS6-5-2 tool-steel, and of its corresponding target plug, which
were welded together after a perforating shot.
PT

Adiabatic
shear bands
CE
AC

target
core tip

Fig. (11): Etched axial cross section of the tip of a projectile core, made with the X153CrMoV1 tool-steel, and of its corresponding target plug,
which were welded together after a perforating shot.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Adiabatic
shear bands

core tip target

T
IP
Fig. (12): Etched axial cross section of the tip of a projectile core, made with the 90MnCrV8 tool-steel, and of its corresponding target plug,
which were welded together after a perforating shot.

CR
It is evident from these pictures that, while the overall phenomena are the same in the three cases, the amount of shear bands
in the target plate material and in the three different core materials is remarkably different; in particular, the HS6-5-2 tool steel
grade (figure 10) exhibits the smaller amount of shear bands in the core tip (much less than the adjacent target plate material), the

US
90MnCrV8 grade (figure 12) exhibits the larger amount of shear bands (much more than the target material), and the
X153CrMoV12 (figure 11) gives intermediate results. The latter observations are consistent with the ballistic results, since they
confirm that the tool steel grade which achieved the best ballistic efficiency (i.e., the HS6-5-2) also showed the least plastic
AN
deformation, and viceversa.
M

4. CONCLUSIONS
ED

The ballistic efficiency of the examined armor-piercing projectile core materials, as measured by the V50 perforation speed,
against 6-mm-thick hardened steel armor, is, in general, directly correlated with their hardness. The cemented tungsten carbide is
both the hardest and the most efficient material (hardness 71 HRC and V 50 = 353 m/s), the C45 (or AISI 1045) steel is the softest
PT

and least efficient (23 HRC and 828 m/s), and the tool steels as a group exhibit intermediate hardness and efficiency (49 - 57
HRC and 662 - 711 m/s). However, among the three tool steels, the high speed steel HS6-5-2 (or AISI M2) is the most efficient
(662 m/s), even though it is the least hard (49 HRC), whereas the two cold work tool steels, 90MnCrV8 and X153CrMoV12
CE

(AISI O2 and D2) have similar performance (57 and 58 HRC, and 711 and 672 m/s, respectively).
Careful examination of recovered projectile fragments permits a qualitative assessment of the ballistic efficiency results. In all
AC

cases, the brass case flies together with the core, but is stripped on impact. In most cases, the cemented tungsten carbide core
can pierce the target without undergoing any macroscopic damage, thus nearly all its kinetic energy can be used to deform and
pierce the target. In contrast, a large part of the kinetic energy of the softer C45 steel core is spent in its own macroscopic plastic
deformation. The steel cores are generally fractured close to their tip. This tip fracture can be ascribed to bending stresses, caused
by the asymmetrical failure of the target plate. All perforating shots form a target fragment, or plug, and the broken tip of the tool
steel cores is permanently welded to the plug itself. On the contrary, the cemented tungsten carbide core is not welded to the plug.
From a microscopic point of view, all tool steel cores undergo adiabatic shear banding, and this phenomenon is apparently
responsible for both the welding between the core and the plug, as evidenced by metallographic cross-section examination, and
the core tip fracture, as evidenced by the fractographic examination (even if intergranular and ductile fracture also occur in
limited areas, in particular in the 90MnCrV8 tool steel grade).
The amount of shear bands in the target plate material and in the three different cores is remarkably different; in particular, the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
HS6-5-2 tool steel grade exhibits the smallest amount of shear bands (much less than the adjacent target plate material), and the
90MnCrV8 grade the largest (much more than the target material). Therefore, the better ballistic performance of the HS6-5-2 high
speed steel can be related to the lower amount of energy spent in core deformation due to adiabatic shear banding.
Finally, by increasing the projectile mass with a heavy but soft W-Cu back-rod, while using a shorter core of the same
material, the efficiency of the tested steel core projectiles decreases, probably due to the large energy loss from deformation of the
W-Cu back rod.

REFERENCES
[1] Cury, Rafael, et al. Evolution of cobalt-free tungsten heavy alloys for kinetic energy penetrators. Powder metallurgy 56.5 (2013): 347-350.

T
[2] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Public health statement - Tungsten,
U.S.A., 2005.

IP
[3] Chen, X. W., and G. Chen. "Experimental research on the penetration of tungsten-fiber/metallic-glass matrix composite material bullet into
steel target." EPJ Web of Conferences. Vol. 26. EDP Sciences, 2012.

CR
[4] Cantaluppi, Chiara, and Sandro Degetto. "Civilian and military uses of depleted uranium: environmental and health problems." Annali di
Chimica 90.11/12 (2000): 665-676
[5] Rosset, D. E., and S. William. ―An overview of novel penetrator technology.‖ Report No. ARL-TR-2395. US Army Research Laboratory,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, 2001.

US
[6] Batra, R. C., and Z. Peng. "Development of shear bands in dynamic plane strain compression of depleted uranium and tungsten blocks."
International journal of impact engineering 16.3 (1995): 375-395.
AN
[7] Peacock, H. B. "Pyrophoricity of uranium." Report No. WSRC-TR-92-106. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States),
1992.
[8] Couque, Hervé, Guy Nicolas, and Claude Altmayer. "Relation between shear banding and penetration characteristics of conventional
tungsten alloys." International journal of impact engineering 34.3 (2007): 412-423.
M

[9] M. Rosso, G. Scavino, G. Ubertalli, Influence of structure on properties and fracture of cemented carbides, Advances in Powder Metallurgy,
1991, Pages 451-464
ED

[10] Rosso, M., Scavino, G., Ubertalli, G. (1995). Properties of hardmetals related to their constitution. International Journal of Materials and
Product Technology, 10(3-6), 279-289.
[11] Hill, R. Cavitation and the influence of headshape in attack of thick targets by non-deforming projectiles. Journal of the Mechanics and
PT

Physics of Solids, 1980, 28.5-6: 249-263.

[12] Edwards, M. R., and A. Mathewson. "The ballistic properties of tool steel as a potential improvised armor plate." International journal of
impact engineering 19.4 (1997): 297-309.
CE

[13] Sprince, Nancy L., et al. "Respiratory disease in tungsten carbide production workers." CHEST Journal 86.4 (1984): 549-557.
[14] European Union Regulation No. 348/2013, amending Annex XIV to European Community Regulation No. 1907/2006, concerning the
Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
AC

[15] Firrao, D., Matteis, P., Spena, P. R., & Gerosa, R. (2013). Influence of the microstructure on fatigue and fracture toughness properties of
large heat-treated mold steels. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 559, 371-383.
[16] M. Chiarbonello, D. Firrao et al., Comparison between traditional and innovative steels for large plastic moulds, in: A. Gokhale, J. Li, T.
Okabe (editors), Characterization of minerals, metals, and materials - Proceedings of the 2007 TMS Annual Meeting, TMS (The Minerals,
Metals & Materials Society), Warrendale, USA, 2007
[17] G. Krauss, "Steels: Processing, Structure, and Performance", 2nd edition, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, USA, 2015, chapter 24
[18] Anderson Jr, Charles E., et al. "The influence of projectile hardness on ballistic performance." International journal of impact engineering
22.6 (1999): 619-632.
[19] Demir, Teyfik, Mustafa Übeyli, and R. Orhan Yıldırım. "Investigation on the ballistic impact behavior of various alloys against 7.62 mm
armor piercing projectile." Materials & Design 29.10 (2008): 2009-2016.
[20] Paris, V., et al. "Fragmentation of armor piercing steel projectiles upon oblique perforation of steel plates." EPJ Web of Conferences. Vol.
26. EDP Sciences, 2012.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[21] Horsfall, Ian, Nadeem Ehsan, and Wilf Bishop. "A comparison of the performance of various light armour piercing ammunition." Journal
of Battlefield Technology 3.3 (2000).
[22] Borvik, T., S. Dey, and A. H. Clausen. "Perforation resistance of five different high-strength steel plates subjected to small-arms
projectiles." International Journal of Impact Engineering 36.7 (2009): 948-964.
[23] Iqbal, M. A., Senthil, K., Sharma, P., & Gupta, N. K. (2016). An investigation of the constitutive behavior of Armox 500T steel and armor
piercing incendiary projectile material. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 96, 146-164.
[24] Ryan, S., Li, H., Edgerton, M., Gallardy, D., & Cimpoeru, S. J. (2016). The ballistic performance of an ultra-high hardness armour steel:
An experimental investigation. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 94, 60-73.
[25] Holmen, J. K., Johnsen, J., Jupp, S., Hopperstad, O. S., & Børvik, T. (2013). Effects of heat treatment on the ballistic properties of
AA6070 aluminium alloy. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 57, 119-133.
[26] Forrestal, M. J., Børvik, T., Warren, T. L., & Chen, W. (2014). Perforation of 6082-T651 aluminum plates with 7.62 mm APM2 bullets at
normal and oblique impacts. Experimental Mechanics, 54(3), 471-481.

T
[27] Manes, A., Serpellini, F., Pagani, M., Saponara, M., & Giglio, M. (2014). Perforation and penetration of aluminium target plates by

IP
armour piercing bullets. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 69, 39-54.
[28] Borvik, T., Forrestal, M. J., & Warren, T. L. (2010). Perforation of 5083-H116 aluminum armor plates with ogive-nose rods and 7.62 mm

CR
APM2 bullets. Experimental Mechanics, 50(7), 969-978.
[29] Forrestal, M. J., T. Børvik, and T. L. Warren. "Perforation of 7075-T651 aluminum armor plates with 7.62 mm APM2 bullets."
Experimental Mechanics 50.8 (2010): 1245-1251.

US
[30] Jena, P. K., Savio, S. G., Kumar, K. S., Madhu, V., Mandal, R. K., & Singh, A. K. (2017). An Experimental Study on the Deformation
Behavior of Aluminium Armour Plates Impacted by Two Different Non-deformable Projectiles. Procedia Engineering, 173, 222-229.
[31] Holmen, J. K., Johnsen, J., Jupp, S., Hopperstad, O. S., & Børvik, T. (2013). Effects of heat treatment on the ballistic properties of
AN
AA6070 aluminium alloy. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 57, 119-133.
[32] Borvik, T., Langseth, M., Hopperstad, O. S., & Malo, K. A. (1999). Ballistic penetration of steel plates. International journal of impact
engineering, 22(9), 855-886.
[33] Borvik, T., Leinum, J. R., Solberg, J. K., Hopperstad, O. S., & Langseth, M. (2001). Observations on shear plug formation in Weldox 460
M

E steel plates impacted by blunt-nosed projectiles. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 25(6), 553-572.
[34] Borvik, T., Hopperstad, O. S., Langseth, M., & Malo, K. A. (2003). Effect of target thickness in blunt projectile penetration of Weldox
ED

460 E steel plates. International journal of impact engineering, 28(4), 413-464.

[35] Borvik, T., Clausen, A. H., Hopperstad, O. S., & Langseth, M. (2004). Perforation of AA5083-H116 aluminium plates with conical-nose
steel projectiles—experimental study. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 30(4), 367-384.
PT

[36] Gerlach, Uwe. "Microstructural analysis of residual projectiles - a new method to explain penetration mechanisms." Metallurgical and
Materials Transactions A 17.3 (1986): 435-442.
[37] STANAG 4569 (Edition 2) - Protection levels for occupants of armoured vehicles. NATO Standardization Agency, 2012.
CE

[38] Anderson Jr, C. E., Burkins, M. S., Walker, J. D., & Gooch, W. A. (2005). Time-resolved penetration of B4C tiles by the APM2 bullet.
Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 8(2), 91-104.
[39] ISO 18265 International standard, "Metallic materials - conversion of hardness values", ISO, 2013, conversion table B.
AC

[40] Cardarelli, François (2008). Materials Handbook: A Concise Desktop Reference. Springer Science & Business Media. Pp 640– ISBN 978-
1-84628-669-8.
[41] Bohler K720 (90MnCrV8) steel data sheet, Bohler Edelstahl GMBH, Kapfenberg, Austria, 2004.
[42] Bohler K110 (X153CrMoV12) steel data sheet, Bohler Edelstahl GMBH, Kapfenberg, Austria, 2004.
[43] Bohler S600 (HS6-5-2) steel data sheet, Bohler Edelstahl GMBH, Kapfenberg, Austria, 2007.
[44] STANAG 2920 (Edition 2): Ballistic test method for personal armor materials and combat clothing. NATO Standardization Agency,
2003.
[45] Johnson, Gordon R., and William H. Cook. "A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high
temperatures. "Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics. Vol. 21. 1983.
[46] Goldsmith, Werner, and J. T. Frasier. "Impact: The theory and physical behavior of colliding solids." Journal of Applied Mechanics 28
(1961): 639.
[47] J. A. Zukas, T. Nicholas, H. F. Swift, L. B. Greszczuk, D. R. Curran, "Impact dynamics", Wiley, New York, 1982.