| Literature DB >> 28772764 |
Yu Zhou1,2, Guoju Li3,4, Qunbo Fan5,6, Yangwei Wang7,8, Haiyang Zheng9, Lin Tan10, Xuan Xu11.
Abstract
The penetration of a 30CrMnMo ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene armor by a high-speed fragment was investigated via experiments and simulations. Analysis of the projectile revealed that the nose (of the projectile) is in the non-equilibrium state at the initial stage of penetration, and the low-speed regions undergo plastic deformation. Subsequently, the nose-tail velocities of the projectile were virtually identical and fluctuated together. In addition, the effective combination of the steel plate and polyethylene (PE) laminate resulted in energy absorption by the PE just before the projectile nose impacts the laminate. This early absorption plays a positive role in the ballistic performance of the composite armor. Further analysis of the internal energy and mass loss revealed that the PE laminate absorbs energy via the continuous and stable failure of PE fibers during the initial stages of penetration, and absorbs energy via deformation until complete penetration occurs. The energy absorbed by the laminate accounts for 68% of the total energy absorption, indicating that the laminate plays a major role in energy absorption during the penetration process.Entities:
Keywords: 30CrMnMo-UHMWPE; ballistic performance; finite element analysis; protection mechanism
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772764 PMCID: PMC5506954 DOI: 10.3390/ma10040405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic of the experimental setup.
Figure 2Initial state of the 3D FEM (finite element method) model.
Material parameters in the FEM (finite element method) model.
| ρ (g·cm−3) | 7.85 | 7.85 | 2.78 |
| E (Gpa) | 210 | 200 | 69.0 |
| G (Gpa) | 80.8 | 75.9 | 27.0 |
| PR | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.33 |
| A (GPa) | 0.507 | 1.18 | 0.554 |
| B (GPa) | 0.32 | 0.1625 | 0.351 |
| C | 0.28 | 0.058 | 0.009 |
| n | 0.064 | 0.28 | 0.37 |
| m | 1.06 | 1.15 | 1.09 |
| D1 | 0.15 | 0.123 | 1.5 |
| D2 | 0.72 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| D3 | 1.66 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| D4 | 0.005 | 0.694 | 0.0 |
| D5 | -0.84 | 0.501 | 0.0 |
| EA (GPa) | 76.6 | ρ (g·cm−3) | 0.97 |
| EB (GPa) | 0.77 | PRBA | 0.013 |
| EC (GPa) | 76.6 | PRCA | 0.0 |
| GAB (GPa) | 2.0 | PRCB | 0.5 |
| GBC (GPa) | 2.0 | - | - |
| GCA (GPa) | 0.192 | - | - |
Figure 3Simulation results showing penetration at different times (a) 0 μs (b) 18 μs (c) 60 μs (d) 150 μs.
Figure 4Backfaces of the PE laminate after the (a) FEM simulation; and (b) ballistic test.
Comparisons between experimental result and simulation.
| Results | Experiment | Simulation | Relative Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Penetration depth (mm) | 14.0 | 15.3 | 9.3% |
| Residual mass (g) | 6.2 | 6.6 | 6.5% |
Figure 5Node velocities at nose and tail during penetration.
Figure 6Simulation results at 6 μs. (a) Contours of equivalent plastic strain; and (b) node velocities and the corresponding element equivalent plastic strains.
Figure 7Node velocities and the corresponding element equivalent plastic strains at 12 μs.
Figure 8Node velocities and the corresponding element equivalent plastic strains at 40 μs.
Figure 9Internal energy and mass loss of the steel and pe laminate for times ranging from 0 to 60 μs.