Composite Structures 69 (2005) 89–94

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Optimization of two-component composite armor against

ballistic impact
G. Ben-Dor, A. Dubinsky, T. Elperin *

The Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
P.O. Box 653, 84105 Beer-Sheva, Israel
Available online 19 June 2004

Abstract
Using Florence’s model we determined an optimal design of a two-component ceramic-faced lightweight armor against normal
ballistic impact. The solution is found in a closed form that allowed us to determine the thicknesses of the plates in the optimal
armor as functions of the specified areal density of the armor, parameters determining the material properties of the armor’s
components and characteristics of the impactor.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Projectile; Ballistic limit; Ceramics; Armor; Optimization

1. Introduction pressed as functions of two independent dimensionless

Florence’s model [1] yields a relatively simple
expression for the ballistic limit velocity (BLV), and it is
actually the only model suitable for an analytic opti-
mization of two-component ceramic armors. Florence
proposed to use his model for determining an armor
with the minimum areal density and gave an example of
a numerical calculation for a ceramic/aluminum shield
[1]. Similar calculations for ceramic/GFRP shield were
performed by Hetherington and Rajagopalan [2]. Later,
Hetherington [3] considered the problem of determining
the structure of two-component armor with a given
areal density that provides the maximum BLV. He
suggested an approximate expression for the optimum
value of the front plate to back plate thicknesses ratio.
Wang and Lu [4] investigated a similar problem when
the total thickness of the armor is specified rather than
the areal density. The problem of designing an armor
with the minimum areal density for a given BLV was
investigated by Ben-Dor et al. [5]. It was shown that the
solution of the optimization problem can be presented in
terms of the dimensionless variables whereby all the
characteristics of the impactor and the armor are ex-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +972-8-647-7078; fax: +972-8-647-
2813.
E-mail address: elperin@menix.bgu.ac.il (T. Elperin).
0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.05.014
parameters. The latter solution allows to find the solu-
tion for the optimization problem for an arbitrary two-
component composite armor in a closed analytical form.
In this study we comprehensively investigated a problem
considered in [3] for an arbitrary two-component armor
and found the solution in a closed analytical form.
2. Formulation of the problem
Consider a normal impact by a rigid projectile on a
two-layer composite armor consisting of a ceramic front
plate and a ductile back plate. In this study we employ
the following model:
ae2 r2 b2 z½ ðc1 b1 þ c2 b2 Þz þ m
v2bl ¼ ;
0:91m2
2
z ¼ pð R þ 2b1 Þ ; ð1Þ
where vbl is the ballistic limit velocity, m is a projectile’s
mass, R is a projectile’s radius, bi are the thicknesses of
the plates, ri are the ultimate tensile strengths, e2 is the
breaking strain, ci are the densities of the materials of
the plates, subscripts 1 and 2 denote a ceramic plate and
a back plate, respectively. For a ¼ 1 Eq. (1) recovers the
model suggested by Florence [1] as it was re-worked in
[2]. More recently in [5] this model was generalized
slightly by introducing a coefficient a that can be
90 G. Ben-Dor et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 89–94

opt
determined using the available experimental data in A2 Aopt 1
order to increase the accuracy of the predictions. nopt ¼ opt ¼ 2
opt ¼  1 ¼ u3 ðA; c1 Þ; ð15Þ
A1 A 1 u 0 ðA; c1 Þ
The objective of the present study is to find the
thicknesses of the plates, b1 ; b2 , that provide the maxi- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
mum ballistic limit velocity vbl for a given areal density 2A
 opt
w ¼ Aw A; ; u0 ðA; c1 Þ ¼ u4 ðA; c1 Þ: ð16Þ
of the armor c1
A ¼ c 1 b1 þ c 2 b2 : ð2Þ In order to elucidate the analysis based on the
Introduce (for details see [5]) the dimensionless vari- dimensionless variables we will refer (where it is possi-
ables b1 , 
b2 , c1 , c2 , w
 , A using the following formulas: ble) to the special kind of the armor that we will call a
‘‘basic armor’’ (BA). As a BA we selected the ceramic/
m
bi ¼ bi R; ci ¼ 3 ci ; i ¼ 1; 2; GFRP armor, and used the experimental data on per-
pR
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi foration of the armors with different thicknesses of the
ae2 r2 m
vbl ¼ w ; A ¼ 2 A: ð3Þ plates by a 0.50 inch projectile reported in [3]. For BA a
0:91c2 pR transition from the dimensionless to the dimensional
Using Eq. (3), the Eqs. (1) and (2) can be rewritten as parameters, i.e., for the areal density A (kg/m2 ), the
follows: widths of the plates and the ballistic limit velocity vbl
h  i (m/s) is performed as follows: A ¼ 370A, bi ¼ 6:35 bi ,
 2 ¼ c2 
w b2z c1 
b1 þ c2 
b2 z þ 1 ; ð4Þ vbl ¼ 133w (c1 ¼ 0:060 corresponds to c1 ¼ 3499 kg/m3 ).
A ¼ c1 
b1 þ c2 
b2 ; ð5Þ
where 3. Investigation of the function w(A; b; x)
z 2
z ¼ 2 ¼ ð1 þ 2 b1 Þ : ð6Þ
pR Let us calculate the derivative
Substituting c2 b2 from Eq. (5) and z from Eq. (6) into ow
wx ðA; b; xÞ ¼ ¼ ðbx þ 1Þf ðA; b; xÞ; ð17Þ
Eq. (4) we obtain ox
 2 ¼ AwðA; b; xÞ;
w ð7Þ where
where f ðA; b; xÞ ¼ c3 x3 þ c2 x2 þ c1 x þ c0 ; ð18Þ
2
wðA; b; xÞ ¼ ð1  xÞðbx þ 1Þ½Aðbx þ 1Þ þ 1; ð8Þ c0 ¼ Að4b  1Þ þ 2b  1; c1 ¼ b½Að8b  7Þ  3
2
ð19Þ
A1 A1 2A c2 ¼ Ab ð4b  11Þ; c3 ¼ 5Ab3 :
x¼ ¼ ; b¼ ; A1 ¼ c1 
b1 ; A2 ¼ c2 b2 :
A A1 þ A2 c1 Hereafter, the parameters A and b are not listed as
ð9Þ arguments of the corresponding functions. Consider a
Thus the problem is reduced to finding x, behavior of the function wðA; b; xÞ at the interval
determined by Eq. (10). To this end let us calculate the
0 6 x 6 1; ð10Þ values of the functions w (x) and f ðxÞ at the end points
which provides the minimum w considered as a function of this interval
of x.
The solution of this problem depends only on two wð0Þ ¼ A þ 1 > 0; ð20Þ
parameters, A and c1 . If wð1Þ ¼ 0; ð21Þ
opt
x ¼ u0 ðA; c1 Þ; ð11Þ Aþ1
provides the minimum w (hereafter a superscript opt f ð0Þ ¼ c0 ¼ gðA; c1 Þ; ð22Þ
c1
denotes the optimal parameters), then the principal
dimensionless parameters associated with the optimal f ð1Þ ¼ ½Ab3 þ 3Ab2 þ ð3A þ 1Þb þ A þ 1 < 0; ð23Þ
solution (the thickness of the ceramic plate, bopt 1 , the where
opt opt
areal densities of the plates, A1 and A2 , and their
ratio, nopt , the ballistic limit velocity, w
 opt ) are also some 4Að2A þ 1Þ
gðA; c1 Þ ¼  c1 : ð24Þ
functions of A and c1 Aþ1
The curve gðA; c1 Þ ¼ 0 divides the domain A P 0,
 A
bopt
1 ¼ u ðA; c1 Þ ¼ u1 ðA; c1 Þ; ð12Þ c1 P 0 into two sub-domains determined by the condi-
c1 0 tions g < 0 and g > 0, correspondently (see Fig. 1).
opt
A1 ¼ Au0 ðA; c1 Þ; ð13Þ Consider now these two cases in more details taking into
opt account that the third degree polynomial f ðxÞ can have
A2 ¼ c2 
bopt
2 ¼ A½1  u0 ðA; c1 Þ ¼ u2 ðA; c1 Þ; ð14Þ 1 or 3 real roots.
 G. Ben-Dor et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 89–94 91

0.3 0.18
*
0.16 A > A
A = 0 .0 2
*
0.14 A = A

0 .0 1 4 8 *
0.12 A < A
0.2 f( A , β,0 )< 0
g( A , γ1 ) = 0 0.10 0 .0 1
w
0.08
γ1
0.06

0.04
0.1 γ 1 = 0 .0 6
f( A , β,0 )> 0
0.02

0.00
0.0 0 .2 0.4 0 .6 0.8 1.0
(a) x = A1 / A
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 4.5
A A = 0 .2 0
4.0

Fig. 1. The sign of AðA; b; 0Þ depending on the parameters A and c1 .

3.5 γ = 0 .0 6
1

3.0 *
A > A

Assume that 2.5 0 .1 6

w
2.0
gðA; c1 Þ < 0: ð25Þ
1.5 0 .1 2
Since f ðxÞ ! þ1 when x ! 1 and f ð0Þ < 0, the 1.0 0 .1 0
equation f ðxÞ ¼ 0 has a root at the interval 1 < x < 0 0 .0 7
0.5
and, consequently, 0 or 2 roots at the interval 0 < x < 1.
Let us assume now that 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

gðA; c1 Þ > 0: ð26Þ (b) x = A1 / A

Taking into account Eq. (23) one can conclude that  ðxÞ depending on A.
Fig. 2. (a,b) Different versions of the behavior w
the equation f ðxÞ ¼ 0 has 1 or 3 roots at the interval
0 < x < 1. Since wx ð0Þ > 0, then there exists an arbitrary where
small 1 such that wð1Þ > wð0Þ > wð1Þ and, consequently, qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a maximum wðxÞ is attained not at the end points of the Hðc1 Þ ¼ ð1=16Þ½c1  4 þ c21 þ 24c1 þ 16: ð28Þ
interval [0,1] but at some interior point where
wx ðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ ¼ 0. On the other hand, decreasing wðxÞ implies the
Numerical simulation shows that equation f ðxÞ ¼ 0 inequality
does not have roots at the interval [0,1] if Eq. (25) is qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
valid, and it has one root in the opposite case. Thus, the  ð0Þ ¼
 6w
w AWð0Þ ¼ AðA þ 1Þ: ð29Þ
maximum w  is attained at the point x ¼ 0 (the first case)
and at the point where f ðxÞ ¼ 0 (the second case). The Combining these inequalities we obtain
behavior of the function w  ðxÞ is shown in Fig. 2(a) and  < hðc1 Þ;
w ð30Þ
(b), whereas Fig. 2(a) illustrates the transition from the



where
case 1 (A < A ) to the case 2 (A > A ), where A ¼ A is pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the solution of the equation gðA; c1 Þ ¼ 0. hðc1 Þ ¼ Hðc1 Þ½Hðc1 Þ þ 1: ð31Þ
Let us consider now the case determined by Eq. (25).
Let us now estimate c1 . Substituting the mass of the
Formally, wðxÞ attains its maximum value for  b1 ¼ 0
cylindrical impactor in term of its density cimp , length L
when the employed physical model is not valid. Let us
and radius of the base R,
show that the case determined by Eq. (25) is of no
practical significance. m ¼ pR2 L; ð32Þ
The inequality given by Eq. (25) can be solved for into the second equation in Eq. (3) for c1 we obtain
positive A
R c1
c1 ¼ ; ð33Þ
A < Hðc1 Þ; ð27Þ L cimp
92 G. Ben-Dor et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 89–94

i.e., indeed c1 is much less than 1. Then Taylors series 7

γ1
expansion for small c1 yields
6 0 .0 4
2
Hðc1 Þ ¼ 0:25c1  ð0:25c1 Þ þ Oðc31 Þ; ð34Þ 0 .0 5
5 0 .0 6
pffiffiffiffi 5=2 0 .0 7
hðc1 Þ ¼ 0:5 c1 þ Oðc1 Þ: ð35Þ 4 0 .0 8
0 .0 9
Clearly, inequality given by Eq. (30) taking into account b1
opt
0 .1 0
3
Eq. (35) is valid only for very small w  that does not
correspond to a ballistic impact conditions. Thus, e.g., 2
for ‘‘basic armor’’ c1 ¼ 0:06 and Eq. (30) implies that
vbl < 17 m/s. Note that equation A  0:25c1 ¼ 0 is a 1

good approximation of the curve shown in Fig. 1.

0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
A

4. Optimal armor Fig. 4. Optimal thickness of ceramic plate vs. given areal density of the
armor.
In a case when Eq. (26) is valid, the equation f ðxÞ ¼ 0
has one real root that is the location of the maximum of
a function wðxÞ. This root can be determined using 1.8
Cardano’s formulae [6]
1.6
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffi γ 1
opt 3 3
x ¼ D  0:5q  D þ 0:5q  ð1=3Þc2 =c3 ; ð36Þ 1.4 0 .1 0
0 .0 9
1.2 0 .0 8
where
0 .0 7
3 2 1.0 0 .0 6
D ¼ ðp=3Þ þ ðq=2Þ ; ð37Þ ξ
opt
0 .0 5
0.8
0 .0 4
3c1 c3  c22 2c32 c1 c2 c0
p¼ ; q¼  þ ð38Þ 0.6
3c23 27c33 3c23 c3
0.4
The solution of the optimization problem in a
0.2
graphical form is shown in Figs. 3–6. Fig. 4. shows that 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
the dependence  bopt
1 vs. A is close to a linear function for A
every c1 . Even Eq. (36) represents the solution of the
considered problem in closed form. The family of the Fig. 5. Optimal ratio of the areal density of the back plate, A2 , to the
curves plotted in Fig. 4 can be more simply approxi- areal density of the ceramic plate, A1 , vs. given areal density of the
armor.
mated with the average accuracy of 3% in the range
0:04 6 c1 6 0:1, 0:05 6 A 6 0:35 as follows:

20
0.80

0.75 γ
1
0 .0 4
0.70 15 0 .0 5
0 .0 6
0.65 γ 1 0 .0 7
0.60 0 .0 4 0 .0 8
10
0 .0 5
opt wopt 0 .0 9
x 0.55 0 .0 6 0 .1 0
0 .0 7
0.50
0 .0 8
5
0.45 0 .0 9
0 .1 0
0.40

0.35 0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
A

Fig. 3. Values x corresponding to the optimal armor vs. given areal Fig. 6. Maximum ballistic limit velocity vs. given areal density of the
density of the armor. armor.
 G. Ben-Dor et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 89–94 93


bopt
1 ¼ u1 ðA; 
c1 Þ 5.0
pffiffiffiffi 4.5 b1
opt
¼ ð588:5c1  407:2 c1 þ 78:2ÞA  0:25: ð39Þ
4.0
γ
After substitution 3.5 1
= 0 .0 6

c1 3.0
u0 ðA; c1 Þ ¼ u1 ðA; c1 Þ: ð40Þ 2.5
A b
inf
1
sup 2.0
Eqs. (13)–(16) can also be rewritten using the function b
1
1.5
u1 . ε= 1% 3% 5%

It was noted in literature [2,7] that variation of the 1.0

BLV is quite small in the neighborhood of the maxi- 0.5

mum, i.e., the thicknesses of the plates may be changed 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
in the vicinity of the optimal values for a given areal A
density of the armor without considerable loss in the
BLV. The typical results that support this conclusion are Fig. 9. The boundaries of the segment [binf ; bsup ] for the thickness of
showed in Figs. 7–9 for c1 ¼ 0:06. Let us consider the the ceramic b1 that implies BLV, w  , inside the segment
[ð1  eÞwopt ; w
 opt ], vs. given areal density, A.
dependence of the BLV and w  on some parameter, g (for

4.5 instance, the thickness of the ceramic plate), that varies

opt within the limits specified in the formulation of the
4.0 ξ
problem. The lower, ginf , and the upper, gsup , values of
3.5 γ = 0 .0 6
1
the interval for g that imply variation of w  in the interval
3.0 ½ð1  eÞwopt ; w
 opt  for several given values of e are shown
2.5
in Figs. 7–9 for g ¼ n ¼ A2 =A1 ¼ A2 =A1 (Fig. 7), g ¼
inf x ¼ A1 =A ¼ A1 =A (Fig. 8) and g ¼ b1 (Fig. 9). The results
ξ
2.0
sup
ε=
showed in Figs. 7–9 support the above property of the
ξ 1% 3% 5%
1.5 optimal solution. Thus, there exists a broad range of
1.0
possible designs for the optimal lightweight two-com-
ponent armor among the designs with almost identical
0.5
ballistic performance.
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Fig. 7. The boundaries of the segment [ninf ; nsup ] for the parameter 5. Concluding remarks
 inside the segment [ð1  eÞwopt ; w
n ¼ A2 =A1 that implies BLV, w  opt ],vs.
given areal density, A. A closed-form solution for the two-component armor
optimization problem is found among the designs with a
given areal density when the ballistic limit velocity
0.9
(BLV) of the impactor is a target function. In addition
to the exact solution, the simplified approximate solu-
0.8
tion is proposed as well. The behavior of the BLV near
the optimum is investigated. It is shown that the thick-
0.7
nesses of the plates can be changed in a quite broad
range in the neighborhood of the optimal design of the
0.6 armor without decline in its defense properties.
inf
x

x
sup ε= 1% 3% 5%
0.5
References
0.4
γ 1 = 0.06 x
opt
[1] Florence AL. Interaction of projectiles and composite armor. Part
2. AMMRC-CR- 69-15, Stanford Res Inst, Menlo Park, Califor-
0.3
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
nia. 1969.
[2] Hetherington JG, Rajagopalan BP. An investigation into the
energy absorbed during ballistic perforation of composite armors.
Fig. 8. The boundaries of the segment [xinf ; xsup ] for the parameter Int J Impact Eng 1991;11(1):33–40.
 inside the segment [ð1  eÞwopt ; w
x ¼ A2 =A1 that implies BLV, w  opt ], [3] Hetherington JG. Optimization of two component composite
vs. given areal density, A. armours. Int J Impact Eng 1993;12(3):409–14.
94 G. Ben-Dor et al. / Composite Structures 69 (2005) 89–94

[4] Wang B, Lu G. On the optimisation of two-component plates against [6] Korn GA, Korn TM. Mathematical Handbook for Scientists and
ballistic impact. J Mater Process Technol 1996;57(1–2):141–5. Engineers. New-York: McGraw-Hill Book Company;
[5] Ben-Dor G, Dubinsky A, Elperin T, Frage N. Optimization of two 1968.
component ceramic armor for a given impact velocity. Theor Appl [7] Lee M, Yoo YH. Analysis of ceramic/metal armour systems. Int J
Fract Mech 2000;33(3):185–90. Impact Eng 2001;25(9):819–29.