Predicting the penetration and perforation of FRP laminates struck

normally by projectiles with dierent nose shapes

H.M. Wen
*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
Abstract
Simple relationships are given in this paper to predict the penetration and perforation of monolithic bre-reinforced plastic
(FRP) laminates struck normally by projectiles with dierent nose shapes over a wide range of impact velocity. The approach is
based on the assumption that the deformation is localized and that the mean pressure oered by the laminate targets to resist the
projectiles can be decomposed into two parts. One part is a cohesive quasi-static resistive pressure due to the elasticplastic de-
formation of the laminate materials. The other is a dynamic resistive pressure arising from velocity eects. Equations are obtained
for predicting the depth of penetration (DOP) in the FRP laminate targets and the ballistic limits in the case of perforation. It is
shown that the model predictions are in good correlation with available experimental data. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: FRP Laminates; Projectile; Penetration; Perforation; Ballistic limits
1. Introduction
The penetration and perforation of targets by pro-
jectiles involve highly complex processes which have
been investigated experimentally for more than two
centuries and analytically largely during the last few
decades. Accounts of this work can be found in the
reviews by Backman and Goldsmith [1], Zukas [2],
Anderson and Bodner [3] and Corbett, Reid and
Johnson [4]. Depending on impact velocity, the mate-
rial and geometric properties of both the projectile and
the target, several theoretical models (analytical and
numerical) have been proposed over the years to pre-
dict the level of the penetration in thick targets or the
impact conditions for the perforation of plates as can
be seen from these reviews. However, many of the
analytical models are single-mechanism models which
have so far enjoyed limited applications. Numerical
simulations have been successful in predicting the re-
sponse of targets to projectile impact but, unfortu-
nately, they still require considerable resources in terms
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
Notations
a projectile radius
A instant cross-sectional area of a projectile
A
0
cross-sectional area of projectile shank
D projectile diameter
E
k
initial impact energy of a projectile
F mean resistive force
G projectile mass
T thickness of monolithic FRP laminates
L projectile shank length
L
N
projectile nose length
P depth of penetration
S dened in Fig. 1(a)
V
i
initial impact velocity of a projectile
V
b
Critical impact velocity; ballistic limit
b constant, dened in Eq. (2)
g constant, evaluated by Eq. (13d)
h cone angle of a conical-nosed projectile
q
p
projectile density
q
e
p
equivalent projectile density
q
t
density of FRP laminates
r mean resistive pressure of FRP laminates
r
d
dynamic resistive pressure of FRP laminates
r
e
elastic limit of FRP laminates in
through-thickness compression
r
s
quasi-static resistive pressure of FRP
laminates
u dened in Fig. 1(a)
u
0
dened by Eq. (13c)
w calibre-radius-head, dened by Eq. (3)
*
Tel.: +44-61-236-331 ext 2403; fax: +44-0161-228-7040.
0263-8223/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 4 - 7
of computing time (CPU). On the other hand, from the
engineering point of view there is considerable interest
in the development of empirical or semi-empirical laws
for the penetration and perforation of plates as noted
in references [1,4,5].
Fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) laminates have been
considered for armour applications [6,7], glass bres
being more popular than other types of bre such as
Kevlar due to their cost advantage. The mechanics of
deformation and failure of FRP laminates subjected to
local impact loads is understood only for a few cases of
simple geometrical form [6,7]. Static indentation of thick
composites with bres in the form of woven fabrics by
conical indenters has been modelled by Rutherford [8]
(see Ref. [12]) who used an energy approach to relate the
force at a certain level of indentation to two strength
parameters representing the in-plane and through-
thickness strengths of the composites, respectively. A
similar problem was also examined by Zhao et al. [9]
who employed transversely isotropic elastic analysis and
rigid, perfectly-plastic material models. They showed
that the latter led to a formula depending only on the in-
plane strength of the material. This formula showed
good agreement with tests on Scotch-ply laminates.
The deformation mechanisms which occur during
dynamic penetration and perforation of laminates have
been examined by a number of authors [1019]. As in-
dicated in [12], Greaves [10,11] studied the deformation
mechanisms during ballistic perforation of thick S-2
glass/phenolic laminates by at-faced projectiles and
found that the failure can be divided into two phases.
Phase 1 involves compression, shear, indentation and
expulsion of debris. In Phase 2 the formation of a cone
of delaminations, bre stretching and fracture occur and
the projectile exits the back face. It was noted that the
Phase 1 indentation mechanism, said to be dominated
by the through-thickness compressive resistance of the
material, absorbed most of the impact energy and was
therefore worthy of more detailed study. To this end, an
investigation into the impact force-indentation charac-
teristics of laminates at velocities of up to 200 m/s has
been carried out by Reid et al. [12].
Zhu et al. [13] investigated experimentally the pene-
tration of laminated Kevlar 29/polyester plates by con-
ical-nosed projectiles and proposed a range of models
for the various energy-absorbing mechanisms to esti-
mate the target resistance to the projectile motion [14].
The event of ballistic impact was divided into three
consecutive stages: indentation, perforation and exit.
The global structural deformations were determined
using laminated plate theory. Dissipative mechanisms
including indentation of the projectile tip, bulging of the
back surface of the laminate, bre failure, delamination
and friction were described utilizing certain simplying
assumptions. Good agreement was obtained between
the model predictions and the experimental results.
Lee and Sun [15] carried out a combined experi-
mental and numerical study on the dynamic penetration
of clamped circular CFRP laminates by a 30 g, 14.5 mm
diameter at-ended projectile in the velocity range 24
91 m/s. The composite material examined was Hercules
AS4/3501-6 graphite/epoxy and the stacking sequence of
all the laminates was based on a basic pattern, namely
[0/90/45/)45]
s
. Three types of impact tests were con-
ducted on the graphite/epoxy laminates which had two
thicknesses (i.e., 2 mm and 4 mm) and the ballistic limits
were determined. The penetration process of composite
laminates by a at-ended missile consisted of three
stages: pre-delamination, post-delamination before
plugging and post-plugging. Based upon these three
stages, a nite element model was established to simu-
late the static punch process. The material was modelled
using eective moduli so that the details of the stacking
sequence were not included in the model. The simulated
static load-punch displacement curve was subsequently
employed in the dynamic penetration analysis, and the
displacements at certain specic checkpoints were
adopted as the penetration criteria. It was shown that
the computational results were in good agreement with
the limited experimental data.
Recently, Mines et al. [16] conducted an experimental
investigation into the high velocity perforation behaviour
of fully-clamped 200 mm 200 mm polymeric composite
laminates at impact velocities of up to 571 m/s. Woven
roving, z-stitched and through-thickness z-stitched glass
polyester laminates for a number of laminate thick-
nesses (6, 12, 24 ply), three types of impactors (i.e., at,
hemispherical and conical), and two missile masses (6 g,
12 g) were examined. The results were presented in terms
of static and impact perforation energies and energy
absorption mechanisms during high velocity perforation
were also discussed with a view to identifying improved
combinations of materials. It was found that all types of
construction behave in a similar manner.
Wen et al. [1719] carried out a comprehensive study
on the penetration and perforation of FRP laminates
and sandwich panels with such laminates as skins and
with foam cores in the context of oshore applications
as part of the UK collaborative research programme on
the Cost Eective Use of Fibre-Reinforced Composites
Oshore. The results of penetration and perforation
tests performed on composite laminates and sandwich
panels using at-faced, hemispherical-ended and coni-
cal-nosed indenters/missiles under quasi-static, drop-
weight and ballistic impact conditions with impact ve-
locities up to 305 m/s were reported. Loaddisplacement
characteristics under quasi-static loading were presented
and the energies corresponding to dierent degrees of
damage were calculated. Fracture patterns observed in
sandwich panels loaded dynamically were compared
with those observed in identical panels under quasi-
static loading. Ballistic limits and perforation energies
322 H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
were determined and a classication of the responses
was deduced from the test data. Experimental evidence
shows that projectile/ballistic impact on FRP laminates
and sandwich panels with such laminates as skins and
with foam cores can be categorized into low veloc-
ity impact (global) and wave-dominated (localized)
responses.
Simple analytical analyses using multiple-spring
models were developed [17] to predict the quasi-static
top skin failure load and the energy absorbed for
sandwich panels. Failure maps were constructed for
sandwich panels loaded quasi-statically by at-faced
punches. Empirical formulae that predict the penetra-
tion and perforation energies of FRP laminates and
sandwich panels under quasi-static and dynamic loading
conditions were derived for at-faced and hemispheri-
cal-ended indenters/projectiles [1719]. It was shown
that the model predictions are in good correlation with
the available experimental data. It was also shown that,
to a rst approximation, the empirical formula obtained
for hemispherical-ended missiles is also applicable to
conical-nosed projectiles.
In this paper, simple equations are derived for the
penetration and perforation of FRP laminates by rigid
projectiles with dierent nose shapes. The approach is
based on the assumption that the deformations are lo-
calized and that the average pressure provided by the
target materials to resist the projectiles can be divided
into two parts. One part is the cohesive quasi-static re-
sistive pressure applied normally to the projectile surface
due to the elastic-plastic deformations of the FRP
laminate materials and the other is the dynamic resistive
pressure arising from velocity eects. This latter is sim-
ply expressed as a velocity-dependent enhancement
factor applied to the static pressure term. Correlation
between the equations and the available experimental
data is presented and discussed.
2. Formulation of the problem
2.1. Assumption about the resistive pressure
It is assumed that the mean pressure (r) applied
normally to the surface of the projectile provided by an
FRP laminate material to resist penetration and perfo-
ration by a projectile can be decomposed into two parts,
one part is the cohesive quasi-static resistive pressure
(r
s
) due to the elasticplastic deformations of the lami-
nate material and the other is the dynamic resistive
pressure (r
d
) arising from velocity eects. Thus
r = r
s
r
d
: (1)
If it is further assumed that the cohesive quasi-static
resistive pressure is equal to the quasi-static linear elastic
limit (r
e
) in through-thickness compression of the FRP
laminates [6,15], i.e. r
s
= r
e
and that the dynamic
resistive pressure (r
d
) is a function of the parameter
(q
t
/r
e
)
1=2
V
i
and is taken to be r
d
= b(q
t
=r
e
)
1=2
V
i
r
e
, then
Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
r = 1
_
b

q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
r
e
: (2)
Here q
t
and V
i
are the density of the FRP laminates and
the initial impact velocity of the projectile respectively. b
is a constant which are determined empirically.
The resistive pressure is generally expected to be a
function (usually a polynomial function) of the pene-
tration velocity, as noted in [1,20]. In Eq. (2), the mean
pressure provided by the FRP target material to resist
the projectile is simply taken as a linear function of the
initial impact velocity. For bre-reinforced plastics it
has been observed in the static indentation tests [15] that
the rst term in Eq. (2) is related to the static strengths
of FRP laminates in compression in the two principal
directions, through the thickness and in-plane.
2.2. Penetration of semi-innite FRP laminates
Fig. 1 shows the geometries of rigid projectiles with
conical or ogival noses. The projectiles are assumed to
have density q
p
and mass G with diameter D (or radius
Fig. 1. Projectile geometries: (a) ogival nose and (b) conical nose.
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 323
a). L and L
N
are the lengths of the shank and nose for
ogival and conical projectiles as shown in Figs. 1(a) and
1(b), respectively. Fig. 1(a) shows the ogive prole as the
arc of a circle that is tangent to the projectile shank. It is
also common to dene the ogive in terms of calibre-
radius-head, viz.
CRH =
S
2a
= w; (3)
where S and a are dened in Fig. 1(a). If a rigid pro-
jectile has a complex conguration (for example, it is
hollow or has a sabot system) then the projectile still can
be described as one of those depicted in Fig. 1 but with
an eective density (q
e
p
) which is taken to be the ratio of
the projectile mass to the volume of the basic congu-
ration as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2 shows the impact of a rigid projectile with a
conical nose on an FRP laminate target at normal in-
cidence with an initial impact velocity V
i
. Two situations
may arise depending upon the initial kinetic energy of
the projectile, as shown in Fig. 2. One scenario is that
the nal depth of penetration has not reached the
shoulder of the projectile when its kinetic energy has
been dissipated and the other is that the nal depth of
penetration is larger than the nose length. Similar situ-
ations may occur for a rigid ogival-nosed projectile
transversely impacting an FRP laminate target. Equa-
tions are derived in the following sections for the depth
of penetration into the FRP laminate targets by rigid
projectiles with conical and ogival noses.
2.2.1. Conical-nosed projectiles
2.2.1.1. Case I, P 6L
N
. For a rigid conical-nosed pro-
jectile, the motion and the nal depth of penetration can
be calculated if the resistive forces are known. The re-
sistive force of a conical-nosed projectile penetrating an
FRP laminate target at normal incidence as shown in
Fig. 2(I) can be written as
F = rA; (4)
where F is the resistive force and r is the mean resistive
pressure provided by the target material and is dened
by Eq. (2). A is the instant cross-sectional area and can
be determined from the geometrical conguration de-
picted in Fig. 2(I), i.e.,
A = pP
2
tan
2
h
2
; (5)
in which h and P are the cone angle and the depth of
penetration, respectively. Substituting Eqs. (2) and (5)
into Eq. (4) gives
F = pP
2
tan
2
h
2
r
e
1
_
b

q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
; (6)
From energy conservation, one obtains
E
k
=
_
p
0
F dP; (7)
where E
k
is the initial kinetic energy of the projectile.
Substituting Eq. (6) into the above equation yields
E
k
=
P
3
A
0
r
e
3L
2
N
1
_
b

q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
; (8)
after using tan(h=2) = a=L
N
and A
0
= pa
2
. Here A
0
is
the cross-sectional area of the projectile shank. Substi-
tuting E
k
= (1=2)GV
2
i
into Eq. (8) and rearranging gives
P
L
L
N
3
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2
3
1 b

q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
(
P
L
N
)
2
; (9)
after using G = A
0
(L L
N
=3)q
p
.
2.2.1.2. Case II, P > L
N
. As shown in Fig. 2(II), the
penetration process can be divided into two stages. The
rst stage when P 6L
N
has been described in the pre-
vious section. For the second stage when P > L
N
, the
resistive force (F) can be written as
F = A
0
r = A
0
r
e
1
_
b

q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
; (10)
after using Eq. (2). According to energy balance, one
obtains
E
k
=
_
L
N
0
F dP
_
p
L
N
F dP: (11a)
Substituting Eqs. (6) and (10) into Eq. (11a) and rear-
ranging yields
Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams of a conical-nosed projectile impacting on
semi-innite FRP laminate targets. (I) P 6L
N
; (II) P > L
N
.
324 H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
E
k
= P
_

2
3
L
N
_
A
0
r
e
1
_
b

q
t
r
e
_
V
i
_
: (11b)
Substituting E
k
= (1=2)GV
2
i
into the above equation and
using G = A
0
(L L
N
=3)q
p
gives the nal depth of the
penetration
P
L
L
N
3
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 b

q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
2
3(
L
L
N
) 1
: (12)
2.2.2. Ogival-nosed projectiles
Similarly, Eqs. (13a)(14) can be obtained for the -
nal depth of penetration into an FRP laminate target by
a rigid projectile with ogival nose.
2.2.2.1. Case I, P 6L
N
.
q
p
(L 8w
3
ga)V
2
i
= 16w
3
ar
_
cosu
1
3
cos
3
u
u
_

1
2
sin2u
_
sinu
0
sin
2
u
0
cosu
p
2
sinu
0
g
_
(13a)
P =

4w 1
_
_
2wcosu
_
a (13b)
in which u is dened in Fig. 1(a) and the mean resistive
pressure r is determined by Eq. (2). u
0
and g are eval-
uated by the following equations
u
0
= sin
1
2w 1
2w
_ _
(13c)
g =
p
2
sinu
0
cosu
0

1
3
cos
3
u
0
u
0
_

1
2
sin2u
0
_
sinu
0
sin
2
u
0
cosu
0
: (13d)
2.2.2.2. Case II, p > L
N
.
P
L 8w
3
ga
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 b

q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _

4w 1
_
8w
3
g)a
L 8w
3
ga
: (14)
2.3. Perforation of nite FRP laminates
The ballistic limit condition for an FRP laminates
with nite thickness struck transversely by a rigid pro-
jectile with conical or ogival noses can be estimated by
the energy balance method. There are three phases of
penetration for a rigid projectile with conical nose im-
pacting on a nite plate. First, the nose enters the plate,
second, the nose is fully embedded and nally, the nose
exits the plate. The same arguments can also apply to
the rigid projectile with ogival nose. From energy con-
sideration, it is easy to show that
E
k
= pa
2
Tr
e
1
_
b

q
t
r
e
_
V
b
_
: (15)
Substituting E
k
= (1=2)GV
2
b
into the above equation and
rearranging yields
V
b
=
pb

q
t
r
e
_
D
2
T
4G
1
_

1
8G
pb
2
q
t
D
2
T
_
; (16)
where V
b
is the critical impact velocity or ballistic limit.
3. Correlation with experimental data and discussion
The equations derived in section 2 can be compared
with experimental data for the penetration and perfo-
ration of FRP laminate targets by rigid projectiles with
dierent nose shapes. The values of the parameter (b) in
the equations have been empirically determined and are
taken to be 2sin(h/2) and 3/(4w) for conical-nosed and
ogival-nosed projectiles, respectively [20].
3.1. Conical-nosed projectiles
Fig. 3 shows comparison of the model predictions
with the experimental data for GRP (S2-glass/phenolic)
laminates impacted by a 7.5 mm diameter conical-nosed
Fig. 3. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the penetration of thick GRP (S2-glass/phenolic)
laminates struck normally by a 7.5 mm diameter conical-nosed pro-
jectile : Eq. (9), ____: Eq. (12); m experiments [12].
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 325
missile with a mass of 47 g which was examined in Ref.
[12]. In the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 2200 kg/m
3
,
r
e
= 755 MPa and h = 90

and hence b = 2sin(h=2)

= 2sin 45

= 1:414. The solid and broken lines in Fig. 3

are the theoretical predictions by Eqs. (9) and (12),
respectively. It is seen from Fig. 3 that the model predic-
tions (Eqs. (9) and (12)) are in correlation with the ex-
perimental data in terms of the nal depth of penetration.
Fig. 4 shows comparison between the theoretically
predicted ballistic limits and the experimental observa-
tions for GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by a 10.5 mm diameter conical-nosed mis-
sile with a mass of 18.7 g [17]. In the theoretical calcu-
lation, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225 MPa and h = 90

and
hence b = 2sin(h=2) = 2sin 45

= 1:414. It is clear from

Fig. 4 that the model predictions by Eq. (16) are in good
agreement with the experimental data.
Fig. 5 shows comparison between the model predic-
tions (Eq. (16)) and the experimental data for the per-
foration of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by 7.6 mm diameter conical-nosed missiles
with masses of 6 and 12 g [16]. In the theoretical cal-
culation, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225 MPa and h = 90

and hence b = 2sin(h=2) = 2sin45

= 1:414. It is evi-
dent from Fig. 5 that the theoretically predicted ballistic
limits (Eq. (16)) are in good agreement with the exper-
imental data.
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between Eq. (16) and the
test results for the perforation of KFRP (Kevlar 29/
polyester) laminates impacted normally by a 12.7 mm
diameter conical projectile with a mass of 28.9 g [13]. In
the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 1231 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 145
MPa and h = 60

and hence b = 2sin(h=2) = 2sin30

= 1. It is seen from Fig. 6 that Eq. (16) is in good

agreement with the experimental results.
3.2. Flat-faced projectiles
A at-faced projectile may be seen as the special case
of a conical-nosed missile with h =180
o
. Hence, Eqs.
(12) and (16) can be rewritten as
P
L
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 2

q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _ (17)
and
V
b
=
p

q
t
r
e
_
D
2
T
2G
1
_

1
2G
pq
t
D
2
T
_
: (18)
after using b = 2sin(h=2) = 2sin 90

= 2.
Fig. 7 shows comparison between the theoretically
predicted ballistic limits and the experimental observa-
tions for GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by a 10.5 mm diameter at-faced projectile
with a mass of 20.4 g [1719]. In the theoretical calcu-
Fig. 4. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 18.7 g, 10.5 mm diameter conical-nosed mis-
sile. ____: Eq. (16); s experiments [17].
Fig. 5. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by 7.6 mm diameter conical-nosed missiles [16].
____: Eq. (16); (a) G = 6 g and (b) G = 12 g.
326 H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
lation, q = 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225 MPa. It is seen from
Fig. 7 that Eq. (18) is in good agreement with the ex-
perimental data.
Fig. 8 shows comparison between the model predic-
tions (Eq. (18)) and the experimental data for the per-
foration of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by 7.6 mm diameter at-faced missiles with
masses of 6 g and 12 g [16]. In the theoretical calcula-
tion, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225 MPa. It is evident from
Fig. 8 that the theoretically predicted ballistic limits (Eq.
(16)) are in good agreement with the experimental data.
3.3. Ogival-nosed projectiles
Fig. 9 shows comparison between the theoretical
predictions and the experimental data for the perfora-
Fig. 8. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by 7.6 mm diameter at-faced missiles [16]. ____:
Eq. (18); (a) G = 6 g and (b) G = 12 g.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/phenonic) laminates
struck transversely by a 5 g, 6 mm diameter ogival-nosed AP projectile.
____: Eq. (16); m experiments [21].
Fig. 7. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 20.4 g, 10.5 mm diameter at-faced missile.
____: Eq. (18); s experiments [1719].
Fig. 6. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of KFRP (Kevlar 29/polyester) lami-
nates struck transversely by a 28.9 g, 12.7 mm diameter conical-nosed
missile. ____: Eq. (16); s experiments [13].
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 327
tion of GRP (E-glass/phenonic) laminates struck nor-
mally by a 6 mm diameter ogival-nosed AP projectile
with a mass of 5 g [21]. In the theoretical calculation,
q
t
= 2200 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 755 MPa and w = 2 and hence
b = 3=(4w) = 3=8. It is seen from Fig. 9 that Eq. (16) is
in good agreement with the experimental data which
were reported in Ref. [21].
3.4. Hemispherical-ended projectiles
A hemispherical-ended projectile can be seen as the
special case of an ogival-nosed missile with w = 0:5.
Hence, the corresponding equations can be rewritten as
follows:
3.4.1. Case I, P 6a
P
L
2
3
a
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 1:5

q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
[
P
a

1
3
(
P
a
)
2
[
: (19)
3.4.2. Case II, P > a
P
L
2
3
a
=
q
p
q
t
_ _
q
t
V
2
i
r
e
1
2 1 1:5

q
t
re
_
V
i
_ _
1
3(
L
a
) 2
(20)
and
V
b
=
3p

q
t
r
e
_
D
2
T
8G
1
_

1
32G
9pq
t
D
2
T
_
; (21)
after using b = 3=(4w) = 1:5.
Fig. 10 shows comparison between the theoretically
predicted ballistic limits (Eq. (21)) and the experimental
data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester)
laminates struck transversely by a 10.5 mm diameter
hemispherical-ended projectile with a mass of 17.9 g [17
19]. In the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
,
r
e
= 225 MPa. It is clear from Fig. 10 that Eq. (21) is in
good agreement with the experimental observations.
Fig. 11 shows comparison between the model pre-
dictions (Eq. (21)) and the experimental data for the
perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates struck
transversely by hemispherical-ended projectiles with di-
ameters of 10 and 7.6 mm and masses of 6 and 12 g [16].
In the theoretical calculation, q
t
= 1650 kg/m
3
, r
e
= 225
MPa. It is evident from Fig. 11 that the theoretically
predicted ballistic limits (Eq. (21)) are in good agree-
ment with the experimental data.
4. Concluding remarks
Simple equations have been obtained in this paper for
the penetration and perforation of monolithic FRP
laminates struck transversely by rigid projectiles with
Fig. 10. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by a 17.9 g, 10.5 mm diameter hemispherical-ended
missile. ____: Eq. (21); s experiments [1719].
Fig. 11. Comparison of the theoretical predictions with the experi-
mental data for the perforation of GRP (E-glass/polyester) laminates
struck transversely by hemispherical-ended missiles [16]. ____: Eq.
(21); (a) D = 10 mm, G = 6 g and (b) D = 7:6 mm, G = 12g.
328 H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329
dierent nose shapes over a wide range of impact ve-
locity. The approach is based upon the assumption that
the deformations are localized (i.e., wave-dominated
response) and the mean pressure provided by FRP
laminate targets to resist the projectiles can be decom-
posed into two parts. One part is the cohesive quasi-static
resistive pressure due to the elasticplastic deformations
of the target materials, the other is the dynamic resistive
pressure arising from the velocity eects. Equations have
been derived for the depth of penetration and the ballistic
limits in case of perforation.
It is demonstrated that the theoretical predictions are
in good agreement with experimental observations for
FRP laminates struck normally by rigid projectiles with
at, conical, hemispherical and ogival noses in terms of
penetration depth and ballistic limits.
References
[1] Backman ME, Goldsmith W. The mechanics of penetration of
projectiles into targets. Int J Eng Sci 1978;16:199.
[2] Zukus JA. Penetration and perforation of solids. In: Zukus JA
et al., editors. Impact dynamics. New York: Wiley, 1982. p. 155
214.
[3] Anderson Jr. CE, Bodner SR. Ballistic impact: the status of
analytical and numerical modelling. Int J Impact Eng 1988;7:935.
[4] Corbett GG, Reid SR, Johnson W. Impact loading of plates and
shells by free-ying projectiles: a review. Int J Impact Eng
1996;18(2):141230.
[5] Wen HM, Jones N. Semi-empirical equations for the perforation
of plates struck by a mass. In: Bulson PS editor. Structures under
shock and impact-II. Southampton and Boston and Thomas
Telford London: Computational Mechanics Publications, 1992.
p. 36980.
[6] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composite materials. Appl Mech
Rev 1991;44(4):15590.
[7] Abrate S. Impact on laminated composites: recent advances. Appl
Mech Rev 1994;47(11):51743.
[8] Rutherford KL. Indentation and penetration resistance of com-
posite materials to pointed projectiles. Unpublished UK DRA
Report, 1992.
[9] Zhao Y, Pang SS, Grin SA. Force-indentation study of
transversely isotropic composite materials using a conical-tip
indenter. Comp Eng 1991;1(6):393402.
[10] Greaves LJ. Failure mechanisms in GFRP armour. Unpublished
UK DRA Report, 1992.
[11] Greaves LJ. Progress in modelling the perforation of GFRP by
ballistic projectiles. Unpublished UK DRA Report, 1994.
[12] Reid SR, Reddy TY, Ho HM, Crouch IG, Greaves LJ. Dynamic
indentation of thick bre-reinforced composites. In: Rajapakse
YDS, Vinson JR, editors. High Rate Eects on Polymer, Metal
and Ceramic matrix Composites and Other Advanced Materials.
ASME, AD-vol. 48. 1995. p. 719.
[13] Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH. Penetration of laminated
Kevlar by projectiles I. experimental investigation. Int J Solids
and Structures 1992;29(4):399420.
[14] Zhu G, Goldsmith W, Dharan CKH. Penetration of laminated
Kevlar by projectiles II. analytical model. Int J Solids and
Structures 1992;29(4):42136.
[15] Lee S-W, Sun R. Dynamic penetration of Graphite/Epoxy
laminates impacted by a blunt-ended projectile. Comp Sci Technol
1993;49:36980.
[16] Mines RAW, Roach AM, Jones N. High velocity perforation
behaviour of polymer composite laminates. Int J Impact Eng
1999;22:56188.
[17] Wen HM, Reddy TY, Reid SR, Soden PD. Indentation penetra-
tion and perforation of composite laminates and sandwich panels
under quasi-static and projectile loading. Key Eng Mater
1998;141143:50152.
[18] Reddy TY, Wen HM, Reid SR, Soden PD. Penetration and
perforation of composite sandwich panels by hemispherical
and conical projectiles. Trans ASME, J Pres Ves Techn
1998;120:18694.
[19] Reid SR, Wen HM, Soden PD, Reddy TY. Response of single
skin laminates and sandwich panels to projectile impact. In: Wang
SS, Williams JJ, Lo KH, editors. Composite Materials for
Oshore Operation- 2. Amer Bur Shipp, 1999. p. 593617.
[20] Wen HM. Penetration and perforation of targets subjected to
projectile impact. To be published.
[21] Siva K, Kumar T. Response of composite laminates on impact of
high velocity projectiles. Key Eng Mater 1998;141143:33748.
H.M. Wen / Composite Structures 49 (2000) 321329 329