Fu 2013
Fu 2013
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Sphere structures for ballistic protection have rarely been studied. In this paper a novel unit cell, called
Received 3 October 2012 Square Based Pyramid Unit Cell (SBPUC), is created as a fundamental building block of sphere structures
Received in revised form for the purpose of ballistic protection. Although it has been proved by the other authors that the
5 March 2013
arrangement of spheres in a tapered chain is an efficient way for impact energy absorption (Sokolow
Accepted 6 March 2013
A, Pfannes JM, Doney RL, Nakagawa M, Agui JH. Absorption of short duration pulses by small, scalable,
Available online 19 March 2013
tapered granular chains. Appl Phys Lett 2005;87:1e3), it is very difficult to convert this 1D concept to 3D
application in reality with arbitrary tapering angle. The adoption of SBPUCs may provide a good solution.
Keywords:
Sphere structure
In this research, the core of a sandwiched sphere structure is build with such SBPUCs and is characterized
Ballistic protection with increasing sphere diameter, decreasing sphere thickness, and increasing sphere cap thickness. From
Energy absorption the numerical simulation results with ABAQUS/Explicit, the sandwiched sphere structure can absorb at
Structure design least 11.6% more impact energy compared with the monolithic plate with the same area density. This
Numerical simulation study might provide a potential armor design platform which makes further performance improvement
possible by optimizing the large parameter space associated with material selection and structure design.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0734-743X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.03.005
Y. Fu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 58 (2013) 66e75 67
studied the energy-absorbing capacity of thin-walled shells element (type S4R) were successfully used to model the steel plate
impacted by a rigid plate. Fig. 1 shows the loadedeformation curve under ballistic impact [9]. Guo et al. [8] presented a preliminary
and the deformation modes. The energy absorption ability is related criterion to decide whether a panel-like target can be modeled by
to the wall thickness, shell diameter, impact mass and impact ve- shell elements.
locity. With the propagation of the deformation, three modes of In this study, a novel unit cell, called Square Based Pyramid Unit
deformation are observed, namely axisymmetric ring, stationary Cell (SBPUC), is created as a fundamental building block of sphere
plastic hinges, and inversion. The slope of the loadedeformation structures for the purpose of ballistic protection. The perforation of
curve is not constant. The formation of stationery plastic hinge ab- the new sphere structure with sandwich core built with SBPUCs by
sorbs most impact energy among the three failure modes. a flat-nose projectile is numerically simulated. Three representative
Experimental study could be overly expensive. Analytical study impact locations are considered and the effect of the yield stress of
may be impossible for such a complex impact problem. Numerical the target material is examined. This study may provide a potential
modeling can provide insights to understand the penetration armor design platform, which makes further performance
process. In this paper, all perforations are simulated by using a improvement possible by optimizing the large parameter space
commercial finite element code ABAQUS/Explicit. Due to the lim- associated with material selection and structure design, such as the
itation of the computational resources, most FEA perforation sim- adoption of woven fabric among spheres, polymer-coated or fiber-
ulations in the literature were performed using 2D models. In this encapsulated spheres, or the adoption of gradient at various levels
study the 3D model is used due to non-symmetric impact loadings in sphere diameter and density.
in most cases. To control the parametric study within an acceptable
time schedule, the geometry of the 3D model is scaled down.
2. Material models and validation study
Therefore, the projectile considered in this study is only 2 mm in
diameter, which is probably the smallest size of the bullet for a
2.1. Material model of the target
riffle air gun. Furthermore, the adoption of shell elements for some
3D hollow spheres can reduce simulation time significantly. Ac-
In this paper, the JohnsoneCook model (JC), which accounts for
cording to the research done by Guo et al. [8] the major difference
strain rate sensitivity and thermal softening, is used to describe the
between the capability of a 3D solid element model and that of a
behavior of the target material under high velocity impact. Ac-
shell element model lies on the stress state of the material under
cording to the JC plasticity model [10], the equivalent stress s is
consideration. Unlike the 3D stress state in a solid element, the
given as a function of the equivalent plastic strain εpl , plastic strain
normal stress along the thickness direction is neglected in a shell pl
rate ε_ and temperature T
element. As a result, shell elements are not capable of accounting
!
for the stress wave propagation in the target thickness direction. h n i _ pl
ε
When the influence of the normal stress on the target failure pl
s εpl ; ε_ ; T ¼ A þ B εpl 1 þ Cln bm
1T (1)
cannot be ignored, the solid elements have to be employed. But ε_ 0
when the perforation of a projectile through a target is dominated
by certain failure modes, shell elements are able to model the where A is the initial yield stress, B is a material constant, n is the
material failure of the targets with good accuracy. For example, in strain hardening parameter, ε_ 0 is a reference strain rate, C is the rate
the perforation simulation of a thin (0.4 mm) steel plate impacted sensitivity parameter, and m is the temperature sensitivity
by a projectile at velocities between 200 and 600 m/s, shell b is the non-dimensional homologous tem-
parameter. In Eq. (1), T
perature defined as
b ¼ T T0
T ; T0 T Tmelt (2)
Tmelt T0
h i _ pl
ε
pl
εf
pl
ε_ ; T; s* ¼ D1 þ D2 exp D3 s* 1 þ D4 ln b
1 þ D5 T
Fig. 1. The loadedeformation curve and the deformation modes [7]. (A) Formation of ε_ 0
axisymmetric ring. (B) Formation of stationery plastic hinge. (C) Formation of
inversion. (4)
68 Y. Fu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 58 (2013) 66e75
Table 3
Ballistic limit velocities versus target thickness.
The square based pyramid unit cell (SBPUC) is the basic building
block of the core of the sandwiched sphere structure. Fig. 4 shows
an image of the SBPUC. An SBPUC is consists of four small spheres
with radius r and one big sphere with radius R. The four centers of Fig. 4. The square based pyramid unit cell (SBPUC).
the small spheres form a square which serves as the base of an
imaginary pyramid with the top vertex at the center of the big
rear plate, the three caps, the boundary, and spheres in layer 2 and
sphere. Here R is two times of r (R ¼ 2 r). The five spheres are
layer 3 are meshed with 4-node linear shell elements with reduced
closely packed such that they are in touch with each other.
integration (S4R) and with the smallest element size of 0.1 mm in
Therefore, the length of the four base edges of the imaginary pyr-
the impact region. The spheres in layer 1 are meshed with 4-node
amid is 2 r, the length of the four edges from a base vertex to the
linear tetrahedron elements (C3D4) and with the smallest element
pffiffiffithe pyramid is R þ r, and the height of the imaginary
top vertex of
size of 0.1 mm in the impact region. The projectile is meshed with
pyramid is 7*r.
8-node linear brick elements with reduced integration (C3D8R) and
with 0.25 mm element size. Adaptive meshing is used to handle the
3.2. Configuration of the sandwiched sphere structure issue of large deformation and element distortion associate with
high speed perforation.
The core of the sandwiched sphere structure is characterized
with increasing sphere and cap diameters, decreasing sphere
3.3. Other possible configurations of the sandwiched sphere
thickness, and increasing cap thickness. The dimensions of the
sandwiched sphere structure are shown in Table 4. The length and structure
radius of the projectile are 4 mm and 1 mm respectively. The as-
sembly of the structure is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 (section view) and Fig. 8 shows other possible configurations of the sandwiched
sphere structure. It must emphasize that this figure is only to show
the finite element mesh is shown in Fig. 7. The front plate, rear plate
and boundary are fully clamped along their periphery. The that there are other design options. For simplicity and clarity of the
paper, these configurations are not analyzed. The simulation results
boundary is a simplified representation of outside spheres, not
shown in the figure, contacting with inside spheres, shown in the presented in this paper are for the sandwiched sphere structure
shown in Fig. 5.
figure. All spheres are bounded together with polymer, but the
bounding forces are neglected in the simulation. The front plate,
3.4. Equivalent monolithic plate
Table 4
Dimensions of the sandwiched sphere structure.
Fig. 5. Isometric full view of the sandwiched sphere structure (without boundary).
Fig. 6. Isometric section view of the sandwiched sphere structure (with boundary).
The plate is fully clamped along its outer periphery and has two
symmetric boundaries. The projectile is assigned an initial impact
velocity of 600 m/s. The plate is meshed with 4-node linear tetra-
hedron elements (C3D4) and with the smallest element size of
Fig. 7. Finite element mesh (section view) for the sandwiched sphere structure 0.1 mm in the impact region. The projectile is meshed with 8-node
assembly. linear brick elements with reduced integration (C3D8R) and with
Y. Fu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 58 (2013) 66e75 71
first layer of the sandwich core are selected as the entry point of the
projectile. One is in the center of a sphere. The second is located at
the mid-point between two neighboring spheres. And the last is at
the central point among four adjacent spheres. The locations are
depicted in Fig. 11.
4. Numerical simulations and simulation results 4.2.1. The sandwiched sphere structure
Totally 21 cases (three locations and seven yield stress ratios) are
4.1. Variables to be studied simulated for the sandwiched sphere structure. Fig. 12 shows the
example simulation for the case of location 1, a ¼ 1.5. The pene-
The effects of two control variables, the impact location and the tration process is recorded every 20 ms to help understanding the
yield stress of the target, are investigated in this study. The pro- tumbling effect of the projectile. At t ¼ 60 ms the projectile hits the
jectile’s initial impact velocity is set at 600 m/s and its residual rear plate and it has tumbled significantly and thus increases the
velocity needs to be determined for all cases. projectile’s effective contact area with the rear plate. At t ¼ 200 ms
the projectile has already penetrated through the structure and it
4.1.1. Impact location tumbles to the opposite direction, which is also helpful if another
It is important that the performance of the system is similar protection layer or subsystem is arranged within a distance just a
wherever the projectile hits. Three representative locations in the few projectile lengths behind the existing structure. For entry lo-
cations 1 and 2, after the projectile hitting the first layer of spheres
the projectile does not tumble since the symmetric reaction forces
Fig. 10. Finite element mesh of the monolithic plate and the projectile. Fig. 11. Three representative entry locations.
72 Y. Fu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 58 (2013) 66e75
Fig. 12. Side section view of penetration for the case of location 1, a ¼ 1.5.
Y. Fu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 58 (2013) 66e75 73
it received. But after hitting the second layer of spheres the pro-
jectile start to tumble because of the non-symmetric reaction force
received from the impacted curved sphere surface. Theoretically
speaking the projectile should not tumble after hitting the entry
location 3 because the projectile keeps receiving symmetric reac-
tion forces as it penetrates through all layers of spheres. But from
the simulation result, at the entry location 3, the projectile still
tumbles slightly after penetrating through the whole sandwiched
sphere structure. This is because the 3D assembly mesh is not
perfectly axisymmetric.
The density of hollow spheres and sphere caps varies gradually
within the structure - the adoption of functionally graded design
concept. Placing the hardest layer of spheres or sphere cap as the
first and the last impacted layer and the weakest layer of spheres or
sphere cap as the middle layer may have some benefits in terms of
maximum energy absorption. The energy associated with the
incoming projectile is partially dispersed toward the perimeter,
which can be seen by observing the boundary deforming as the
projectile proceeding. The energy associated with the incoming
projectile is partially dispersed to those spheres and sphere caps in
different layers; this can be seen by observing the motion of
deforming, translating, or rotating of some spheres and sphere
caps. In this design, the sphere diameters increase gradually in
different layers, such that the impacted smaller spheres in the
anterior layer can be obstructed gradually and completely from the
bigger spheres in the posterior layers. The sphere diameter in the
last layer of spheres should be a little bit larger than the length of
the projectile to provide enough room to allow the projectile
rotating after penetrating through the first and second layers of
spheres. In this design, the diameter of the spheres in the third layer
Fig. 14. Penetration at t ¼ 50 ms for the case of a ¼ 1.5.
is 6 mm, which is 1.5 times bigger than the length of the projectile.
Fig. 13 shows the velocity of the projectile, measured at pro-
jectile head, center, and tail respectively, versus time. From this case of a ¼ 1.5 at t ¼ 50 ms. No tumbling effect is observed from this
graph, the energy absorption in different phases can be roughly figure. Fig. 15 shows the velocity of the projectile, measured at
estimated. At t ¼ 20 ms, the velocity of the projectile drops from projectile head, center, and tail respectively, versus time. From the
600 m/s to about 340 m/s, the projectile reaches the third layer of velocity curve, at t ¼ 5 ms the velocity of the projectile drops from
spheres, and about 67.9% of the total kinetic energy has been 600 m/s to about 230 m/s, most part of the projectile has pene-
absorbed by the structure. At t ¼ 100 ms, the velocity of the pro- trated through the monolithic plate, and about 85.3% of the total
jectile drops to about 40 m/s, which is close to the residual velocity, kinetic energy has been absorbed by the plate. At t ¼ 10 ms, the
the projectile almost penetrates through the rear plate, and about velocity of the projectile drops to the average residual velocity
99.5% of the total kinetic energy has been absorbed by the struc- 208 m/s, the projectile completely penetrates through the rear
ture. Before t ¼ 100 ms, i.e., before the projectile completely pene- plate, and about 87.9% of the total kinetic energy has been absorbed
trates through the target, the three velocity curves, measured at by the plate. The three velocity curves, measured at projectile tail,
projectile tail, center, and head, have different fluctuating deceler- center, and head, fluctuate first at the time just penetrating through
ating rates, which reflects the tumbling effect observed in Fig. 12. the plate and then tend to converge to a fixed value. The translation
of stress wave, back and forth within the projectile in the impacting
4.2.2. The monolithic plate direction, makes the velocities different at projectile tail, center,
Totally seven cases (seven yield stress ratios) are simulated for and head. It is worth noting that before t ¼ 5 ms, i.e, the projectile
the monolithic plate. Fig. 14 shows the example simulation for the has not completely penetrated through the target, the three
Fig. 13. Projectile velocity versus time for the case of location 1, a ¼ 1.5 (measured at Fig. 15. Projectile velocity versus time for the case of a ¼ 1.5 (measured at projectile
projectile head, center, and tail). head, center, and tail).
74 Y. Fu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 58 (2013) 66e75
Table 5
Residual velocities of different cases for the sandwiched sphere structure and the monolithic plate.
250 the residual velocity is only 42 m/s. At a ¼ 1.5, the projectile can
200 New Structure, Location 1 penetrate through the monolithic plate with a high residual ve-
150
New Structure, Location 2 locity of 208 m/s. At a ¼ 1.5, the new structure can absorb about
New Structure, Location 3 99.5% of the total impact energy at location 1 (the worst location),
100 Monolithic Plate, Center
while the monolithic plate can absorb about 87.9% of the total
50
impact energy. Thus, the new structure can absorb 11.6% more
0 impact energy with a ¼ 1.5.
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Yield Stress Ratio
4.4. Boundary effect
Fig. 16. Residual velocities of different cases for the sandwiched sphere structure and
the monolithic plate. The size of the sandwiched sphere structure is
12.25 mm 12.25 mm for all simulations conducted in the last
section. To confirm that this region is large enough that the
boundary effect is minimal, A new simulation is conducted with the
boundary size of 36.75 mm 36.75 mm. Fig. 17 shows the pene-
tration process at t ¼ 80 ms for the new simulation (Location 1,
a ¼ 1.0). Fig. 18 shows the variation of the projectile’s velocity with
time. The residual velocity from the new simulation is 225 m/s,
which is almost the same as the result, 229 m/s, in the previous
section, although the analysis region is nine times larger. Therefore,
the original boundary size of 12.25 mm 12.25 mm is sufficient.
This test confirms that the boundary conditions are of minor
importance in ballistic penetration by small mass projectiles in the
ordnance velocity regime (500e1300 m/s) as long as the target
diameter is more than a few projectile diameters.
performance of the new structure is compared with the monolithic or by adding more layers of spheres. The diameter ratio of the
plate based on the same area density by numerical simulation. The spheres in the first layer of the sphere structure to the projectile
energy absorption ability of the new structure during high speed should also be an important factor that affects the performance of
impact is related to many factors. Besides those previous findings the sphere structure. Because the energy dispersion toward the
from a single sphere impact test in the literature, such as perimeter and to other spheres is directly related to the direction of
sphere thickness and diameter, impact mass and impact velocity, the reaction force received by the projectile when impacting the
the formation of stationery plastic hinge of hollow spheres, etc., curved sphere surface and the direction of the reaction force is
the significant findings in the current design are summarized as further related to this ratio. These will be investigated in the future
follows study.