Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Numerical simulation of ceramic composite armor subjected to ballistic impact

K. Krishnan a, S. Sockalingam a, S. Bansal a, S.D. Rajan b,
a
b

Hawthorne & York, Intl., Phoenix, AZ 85040, USA

Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 19 March 2010
Received in revised form 24 September
2010
Accepted 3 October 2010
Available online 8 October 2010
Keywords:
A. Plates
B. Impact behavior
C. Finite element analysis
B. Delamination
Ceramic

a b s t r a c t
Armor systems made of ceramic and composite materials are widely used in ballistic applications to
defeat armor piercing (AP) projectiles. Both the designers and users of body armor face interesting
choices how best to balance the competing requirements posed by weight, thickness and cost of the
armor package for a particular threat level. A finite element model with a well developed material model
is indispensible in understanding the various nuances of projectilearmor interaction and finding effective ways of developing lightweight solutions. In this research we use the explicit finite element analysis
and explain how the models are built and the results verified. The JohnsonHolmquist material model in
LS-DYNA is used to model the impact phenomenon in ceramic material. A user defined material model is
developed to characterize the ductile backing made of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene
(UHMWPE) material. An ad hoc design optimization is carried out to design a thin, light and cost-effective
armor package. Laboratory testing of the prototype package shows that the finite element predictions of
damage are excellent though the back face deformations are under predicted.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Both the designers and users of body armor face interesting
choices how best to balance the competing requirements posed
by weight, thickness and cost of the armor package for a particular
threat level. An armor system made of a single material may be
good enough to resist the impact of small caliber ammunition.
However a multi-component armor system such as a hard faced
ceramic armor with composite backing is necessary and is widely
used to defeat armor piercing (AP) projectiles. These projectiles
have a hard core material such as hardened steel or tungsten carbide and the ceramic face helps blunt and erode the projectile tip
during impact. The composite backing absorbs the kinetic energy
of the decelerated projectile and also catches the ceramic and projectile fragments preventing them from doing further harm.
Alumina (Al2O3), Boron Carbide (B4C), Boron Silicon Carbide
(BSC) and Silicon Carbide (SiC) are some of the ceramics that are
commonly used. The range of composite materials used as backing
and spall minimizing material include UHMWPE materials, aramid
woven fabrics such as Kevlar and Twaron, fiber glass materials
such as S2-glass and E-glass and so on.
A number of different analytical models have been developed to
model ceramic and ceramic composite armors. Anderson and
Walker [1] develop an analytical model that describes the
dwell or interface defeat of the projectile during its impact against
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.rajan@asu.edu (S.D. Rajan).
1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2010.10.001

a ceramic. Dwell or interface defeat is where the projectile erodes

with no penetration. This erosion is due to the pressure at the
interface between the ceramic and the projectile exceeding the
erosion strength of the projectile [9]. There is an inverse relationship between hardness and fracture toughness of the armor ceramics [18]. Hardness of the ceramic blunts the tip of the AP projectile
whereas high fracture toughness provides multi-hit capability to
the armor. Generally B4C ceramics have high hardness and low
fracture toughness whereas SiC ceramics have low hardness and
high fracture toughness compared to B4C. Boron Silicon Carbide
(BSC) a B4CSiC blend ceramic has light weight, high strength
and high fracture toughness which provide ballistic resistance
against armor piercing threats. It combines the high hardness of
Boron Carbide and high fracture toughness of Silicon Carbide.
Benloulo and Sanchez-Galvez [3] develop a simple one dimensional analytical model to simulate the ballistic impact of ceramic
composite armor. The penetration process is divided into three
phases. In the first phase the ceramic is intact, and the velocity
and mass erosion of the impacting projectile are described by
Tates equation. The fracture of ceramic and the damage to the
composite occurs in the second phase. In the last phase, failure of
the composite takes place.
Lee and Yoo [21] discuss the numerical modeling and experimental study of ceramic metal armor systems with a metal backing. Using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), the ceramic
(Alumina) is modeled using MohrCoulomb strength model and
linear equation of state (EOS) in AUTODYN. Lundberg [26] uses
JohnsonHolmquist (JH1 model for SiC and JH2 model for Alumina

584

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

Nomenclature
C ijkl
material (stiffness) matrix
A, B, C
JH-2 parameters
a, b, c
strain rate constants in the composite material model
M; N
JH-2 parameters
K1, K2, K3
JH-2 parameters
JH-2 parameters
D1 , D2
d4
constant used in the failure strain model
G
shear modulus
J2
second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor
P
pressure
PHEL
pressure at Hugoniot elastic limit
deviatoric stress tensor
sij
T
maximum tensile hydrostatic pressure the material can
withstand

and Boron Carbide) model in AUTODYN. The determination of transition velocity (transition from interface defeat to penetration) for
various combinations of projectile, target material and target configuration is studied. Simha et al. [31] develop and use a constitutive model for ceramic (Alumina) and implement into EPIC
Lagrangian finite element code. The model consists of strength
model based on Hugoniot elastic limit for compression, viscoelastic
flow rule, damage model for compression and tension and MieGruneisen EOS.
Nemat-Nasser et al. [29] discuss experimental techniques used
to study the performance of Alumina armor tiles wrapped with
thin layers of several different materials such as carbonfiber/
epoxy, E-glass-/epoxy, etc. Details and results from a two-dimensional finite element model using DYNA2D are presented. They
show that release waves emanating from the projectile edges reduce the pressure and increase the shear stress at a distance equal
to the projectile diameter, ahead of the projectile. Grujicic et al.
[11] analyze the performance of ceramic/composite armor subjected to AP projectile impact. They model the Alumina ceramic
in AUTODYN using a polynomial equation of state, JohnsonHolmquist 2 (JH-2) strength model [16] and JH-2 failure model along
with an erosion model. The composite material, S2-glass, is modeled using an orthotropic material model [6].
UHMWPE materials are widely used in ballistic applications because of their low weight, high tenacity and high specific modulus.
These materials have a unidirectional construction in which the fibers lie parallel to each unlike fabrics that are woven. A thermoplastic resin is used as the binding agent. Typically, the material
used for armor applications is made up of several 090 layers
(or plies). The two most popular examples of UHMWPE material
are Spectra manufactured by Honeywell [4] and Dyneema manufactured by DSM (DSM [8]). The UHMWPE fibers have a modulus
in the range of 90140 GPa and a failure strain of 2.93.8% [14].
These fibers have a very high energy absorption capability and high
sonic velocity compared to aramid, S2-glass, polyamide and similar
materials.
As stated earlier, some armor packages include ceramics and a
backing material. There are different ways of bonding the two
materials including use of spray on adhesive, adhesive tape, autoclaving/vacuum bagging, etc. Zaera et al. [34] study the effect of the
adhesive layer thickness on the performance of the ceramic/metal
armor. They show that the adhesives a soft adhesive (polyurethane) and a hard adhesive (rubbermodified epoxy) show strain
rate dependent behavior. In the follow up publication [23], the
adhesive is modeled in AUTODYN using SteinbergGuinan model
and the Mie-Gruneisen EOS. By analyzing the depth of penetration

x1 ; x2 ; x3 material coordinate directions

b
Hardening parameter
t
Poissons ratio
epeff
effective plastic strain
efp
plastic strain to fracture in JH-2 material model
_
strain rate
Dekl
incremental strain
/
yield function
ri
normalized intact strength
rf
fractured material strength
ry
yield stress
ro
initial yield stress
rij
stress tensor
HEL
Hugoniot elastic limit

and the projectile residual velocity, the authors conclude that the
thickness of the epoxy resin adhesive significantly affects the performance of the system.
A finite element model with a well developed material model is
indispensible in understanding the various nuances of projectile
armor interaction and finding effective ways of developing lightweight solutions. In this research we use the Lagrangian solver
and explain how the models are built and the results verified using
LS-DYNA [24]. The JohnsonHolmquist material model [7] in LSDYNA is used to model the impact phenomenon in ceramic material. A user defined material model is developed to characterize the
ductile backing (UHMWPE) material. The modeling and calibration
of the ceramic material model are presented in Section 2. In Section 3 we review the development of constitutive model for the
UHMWPE composite. In Section 4 we present the ballistic simulation of ceramic composite armor and compare the simulation results with tested samples. Finally, we present some thoughts on
the current work and potential for future improvements.
2. Material modeling and simulation
In this section we discuss the details of the finite element models for the three different components used the bullet, the ceramic plate and the backing material, UHMWPE.
2.1. Damage mechanics in ceramic armor
The impact of a projectile on the surface of the ceramic material
generates compressive shock waves that propagate through the
ceramic plate [19]. These stress waves are reflected back as tensile
waves once they reach the free surface. The ceramic material fractures if the magnitude of the reflected tensile wave exceeds the dynamic tensile strength of the material. Radial cracks are formed at
the bottom of the ceramic material due to the initial impact and
travel from the bottom to the top of the ceramic plate. Meanwhile
a fracture cone (conoid) is formed at the impact zone on the top of
the ceramic tile and grows towards the back face of the ceramic. In
the case of a composite armor system where the ceramic tile is
backed by a ductile material, part of the compressive waves is
transmitted into the ductile backing. The rest of the waves are reflected back into the ceramic plate. The amount of stress waves
that are transmitted depends on the mechanical impedance of
the ductile backing. The thickness of the adhesive layer, used to
bond the ceramic tile to the ductile backing, also determines the
percentage of reflected and transmitted stress waves.

585

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

Table 1
Bullet construction and properties.
Bullet construction
Bullet jacket
Bullet core
Filler
Bullet weight
(g/grains)
Bullet velocity
(ft/s)/(m/s)

Properties

Material model used in LS-DYNA

Gilding copper
Steel [5]
Lead [2]
10.8/166

MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC
MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY
MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC




2880/878

2.2. Bullet and aluminum models

The depth-of-penetration (DOP) test methodology [27] is used
to evaluate the performance of the various ceramic materials
and has been successfully used to characterize and rank armor
ceramics for vehicle protection [33]. We first use the DOP tests
to calibrate the bullet model. The properties of the bullet (0.30
caliber M2 AP) are given in Tables 1 and 2. The calibration is
performed by considering the impact of the bullet into Al
6061-T6 block of size 600  600  600 . Tetrahedral elements are used
to mesh the projectile. The finite element model and the mesh
details are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 4. Erosion strains for the
components of the bullet and aluminum are calibrated simultaneously using several metrics such as the depth of penetration,
exit velocity (for uncontained bullets), damage to the bullet
and aluminum, and the final state/orientation of the bullet. Erosion values of 1.0 and 3.0 are used for the bullet jacket and the
lead filler materials respectively. MAT_ADD_EROSION with principal strain at failure criterion is used to model the erosion of
the bullet core with a value of 0.12. The response of the target
plate (Al 6061-T6) is simulated using JohnsonCook [15] material model and the properties are given in Tables 2 and 3 (Kauffman et al., 2004).
A typical DOP test sample is shown in Fig. 2 (X-ray measurement shows bullet captured in the monolithic aluminum DOP test
sample). In this study, the average depth of penetration taken from
five tests for a monolithic block is 50.8 mm (200 ). Using the fine
mesh for the bullet, these tests are simulated using varying mesh
sizes and erosion strain values for the aluminum block. Four mesh
sizes for the aluminum block are considered keeping the aspect ratio close to 1:1 [35] eight noded solid elements with one point
integration are used in the model.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Very fine 0.5 mm  0.5 mm  0.5 mm.

Fine 1.0 mm  1.0 mm  1.0 mm.
Coarse 1.5 mm  1.5 mm  1.5 mm
Very coarse 2.0 mm  2.0 mm  2.0 mm

The finite element analysis results for the different mesh sizes
and the appropriate erosion strain values that match the DOP value
as closely as possible are shown in Fig. 3ad. Even though all the
models are able to predict the DOP, the finite element model with
a very fine mesh is able to model the material damage in the
aluminum block more accurately than other models.

Fig. 1. Finite element models (coarse, medium and fine mesh) of 0.30 caliber M2
AP.

Table 3
Al 6061-T6 JC parameters [22].

Al 6061-T6

A (GPa)

B (GPa)

0.324

0.114

0.42

0.002

1.34

Fig. 2. Experimental DOP test on monolithic aluminum.

In the numerical simulations, the JohnsonCook damage model

for 6061-T6 is not used. Rather, the erosion strain at which the
6061-T6 elements erode is calibrated for different mesh sizes. Table 4 summarizes the mesh size versus erosion strain for all the different mesh sizes. As expected, the erosion strain value that gives
the accurate DOP increases as the mesh is refined. The mesh size
versus erosion strain data (from Table 4), gives the flexibility to
chose the failure strain value for any given mesh size ranging between very fine and very coarse.

Table 2
Bullet material properties.
Parameters

Bullet jacket

Bullet core

Lead filler

Al 6061-T6

Density (kg/mm3)
Elastic modulus (GPa)
Poissons ratio
Yield strength (GPa)
Tangent modulus (GPa)

8.858  106
117.20
0.40
0.3447
0.0

7.85  106
210.0
0.33
1.40
15.0

1.127  105
17.0
0.40
0.008
0.015

2.7  106
69.0
0.29

586

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

(a) Very fine mesh

(b) Fine mesh

(c) Coarse mesh

(d) Very coarse mesh

Fig. 3. Cross-section through FE mesh showing depth of penetration.

Table 4
Mesh size versus erosion strain study for aluminum.
Very fine

Fine

Coarse

Very coarse

Erosion strain

DOP (in.)

Erosion strain

DOP (in.)

Erosion strain

DOP (in.)

Erosion strain

DOP (in.)

1.4
1.2
1

2.02
2.25
2.57

1
0.75
0.7
0.6
0.5

1.566
1.91
2.06
2.29
2.58

1
0.6
0.5
0.45
0.4

1.306
1.88
2
1.979
2.23

1
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.1

1.01
1.67
1.81
2.04
3.92

Table 5
BSC properties.
Density (kg/mm3)
2.75 (106)

Table 6
BSC JH-2 parameters.
Youngs modulus
(GPa)

Poissons
ratio

Fracture toughness
(MPa m1/2)

400.0

0.20

4.5

2.3. Ceramic material model

The JohnsonHolmquist [16,17] ceramic constitutive model
was proposed to describe the response of brittle materials to

JH-2 parameter

Calibrated value

A
B
C
M
N
D1
D2

0.94
0.65
0.005
0.85
0.67
0.001
0.50

large deformations. The constitutive model comprises of three

parts strength, pressure and damage. The model includes a

587

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

Fig. 4. Depth-of-penetration (DOP) measurement technique.

representation of the intact and fractured strength, a pressure

volume relationship that can include bulking and a damage model
that transition from an intact state to a fractured state. The strength
and damage relationships are given by the following set of equations [24].
The normalized intact strength is given by

ri AP T  N 1 C ln e

The fractured material strength is defined as

r BP M 1 C ln e

f

The hydrostatic pressure, before the onset of damage is

P K 1 l K 2 l2 K 3 l3

The plastic strain to fracture under a constant pressure P, is

e D1 P T  D2
f
p

where P P=P HEL , T  T=PHEL , e_  e_ =e_ 0 , where e_ is the actual strain

rate and e_ 0 1:0 is the reference strain rate, l q=q0  1 for current density q and initial density q0 .
2.4. Depth-of-penetration test with ceramic strike face
The DOP model used in the bullet study is used here to calibrate
the JohnsonHolmquist material constants. A fine mesh resolution
is required to capture failure involving spall and crack propagation.
There is no significant difference in the results using a uniform
mesh throughout the armor panel instead of a locally refined mesh
in the impact region. A uniform mesh is suitable when modeling
multiple hits on an armor panel [32]. The penetration into the
backing material is measured and compared with the penetration
of the projectile into a monolithic block of the backing material
as shown in Fig. 4.
As before, the DOP is measured from X-rays of the impacted cylinders. The ballistic testing for measuring DOP requires firing the
0.30 caliber M2 AP rounds at a velocity of 2880 fps. All impacts
are at normal incidence (00 obliquity). The ceramic-faced targets
are prepared by adhering a ceramic tile to an aluminum block
using 24-h-cure epoxy. The tile is pressed into the face of the aluminum plate forcing the epoxy to flow between the ceramic and
aluminum leaving a minimal layer of epoxy.

The element erosion option in LS-DYNA is used to remove the

highly distorted elements which otherwise would significantly reduce the time step and the stability of the simulation. Since the element erosion is dependent on the mesh size, a study of mesh size
versus erosion criteria is done. For each mesh size, the erosion
strain values are modified to match the experimental DOP test value. It should be noted that erosion is a non-physical parameter
and the optimal erosion strain values (Table 7) may not have physical significance.
2.4.1. Calibration of JH-2 parameters using DOP test
The ceramic and aluminum materials are modeled using 8noded hexahedron elements. A one point reduced integration
scheme is used along with hourglass control using FlanaganBelytschko stiffness formulation. The ceramic materials are modeled
using the JohnsonHolmquist (JH-2) material model available in
LS-DYNA. The material model parameters for the ceramic materials
were obtained from the Cronin et al. [7].
As a first step in the calibration process, the DOP test of
8.76 mm (0.34500 ) BSC ceramic attached to a 152.4 mm (600 ) aluminum block is used in this study. The ceramic strike face blunts and
thereby stops the projectile with no penetration into the aluminum
block. The depth of indentation on the ceramic tile is taken as the
metric to compare the effect of mesh size and erosion strain. The
indentation on the ceramic tile was measured to be approximately
4 mm (0.15700 ). Using a fixed set of JH-2 parameters, the erosion
values for different mesh sizes were determined to match this
depth of indentation. The corresponding finite element analysis results for the different mesh sizes are shown in Fig. 5ad and summarized in Table 7.
Next, using the erosion strains for the aluminum block (Table 4)
and the bullet materials from the previous study, and the very fine
mesh, the JH-2 strength and damage parameters A, B, C, M, N, D1
and D2 are calibrated such that the DOP and the extent of damage
incurred by the ceramic matches closely with the experimental results. Figs. 6 and 7 show the comparison of experimental and simulation results after the optimal values are obtained. The BSC
material properties from the manufacturer and the calibrated JH2 parameters are given in Tables 5 and 6.
As we will see later the bulletceramic interaction is perhaps
the most important component in the overall behavior of the armor package.

Table 7
Mesh size vs. erosion strain study for BSC ceramic.
Very fine

Fine

Coarse

Very coarse

Erosion strain

DOP (mm)

Erosion strain

DOP (mm)

Erosion strain

DOP (mm)

Erosion strain

DOP (mm)

1
2
4
6
7
8

33.3
18.51
6.01
4.5
4.5
4

0.5
1
2
3
4
5

33.31
27.2
8.01
6.01
4
4

1
2
2.5
3
4
5

7.51
4.51
4
3
1.5
1.5

1
1.5
2
3
4
5

5.4
3.6
1.8
1.8
0
0

588

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

(a) Very fine mesh

(c) Coarse mesh

(b) Fine mesh

(d) Very coarse mesh

Fig. 5. Cross-section through FE models (BSC ceramic plus aluminum).

(a) Experimental DOP = 39 mm

(b) FEA DOP = 46 mm

Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and FEA DOP for 0.100 thick BSC ceramic strike face with aluminum backing.

2.5. UHMWPE modeling

The failure mechanisms of a typical UHMWPE composite panel
when impacted with a bullet consisting of a lead core can be briefly
explained as follows [13,14]:
1. During the initial stage of impact where the strain rate is very
high, the failure of the material is due to fiber breakage. In this
stage, the bullet behaves as a rigid body with very little
deformation.
2. In the second stage the bullet deforms (mushrooms) losing its
kinetic energy. Very little penetration of panel takes place.
The thermopressed material starts delaminating resulting in a
bulge in the non-strike (rear) face of the panel.
3. Finally the bullet, behaving like a rigid body, starts penetrating
the panel and is eventually stopped because it has lost its
kinetic energy.
However, in the case of an AP projectile, the core remains rigid
and does not undergo a mushrooming deformation. The two primary modes of failure under this scenario are fiber breakage and
delamination. It has been reported that UHMWPE fibers undergo
brittle failure at high strain rates and ductile failure at low strain
rates [10]. Koh et al. [20] show that the mechanical properties of
Spectra Shield laminated composite roll are highly rate sensitive.

The failure stress and the stiffness increase up to a certain critical

strain rate during which the failure strain decreases. Interestingly,
when the strain rate is higher than the critical strain rate, the properties show a reverse trend. They attribute this to thermal effects as
the strain rate increases beyond the critical rate, frictional and viscoelastic hysteresis effects cause the temperature in localized areas of
the specimen failure surface to increase significantly such that the
failure again becomes increasingly ductile. They also put forward another explanation as the strain rate increases, there is less time for
filaments to align themselves in the direction of the applied stress.
This implies that filaments that are already aligned fail by brittle
fracture, while those that are not aligned fail by intermolecular slippage or shearing for strain rate less than 400 s1.
A brief review of the constitutive model for the UHMWPE material [32] is presented here. The developed constitutive model is
implemented as a user defined material model in LS-DYNA [12].
The constitutive behavior of the composite panel is modeled using
a nonlinear orthotropic model. The essential behavior is assumed
as follows where changes in the strains as supplied by LS-DYNA
are used in computing the changes in the stress.
Since sheets of UHMWPE are laid parallel to the 12 plane and
thermopressed, we assume that the material is isotropic in the 12
plane (see Fig. 8). The through thickness direction of the plate is
aligned with the x3 -axis and the behavior in the 12 plane is
decoupled from the behavior in the 3-direction. The material

589

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

(a) Experimental DOP = 8 mm

(b) FEA DOP = 6 mm

00

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental and FEA DOP for 0.2 thick BSC ceramic strike face with aluminum backing.

Table 8
UHMWPE material properties.

x2

x3
x1

Fig. 8. Material coordinate system associated with composite panel.

behavior is characterized from experimental results and include

in-plane and out-of-plane stressstrain curves in tension and com-

Parameters

UHMWPE

Density (kg/mm3)
Elastic modulus (GPa)
Poissons ratio
Yield strength (GPa)
Tangent modulus (GPa)

9.7 (107)
6.0
0.15
0.413
3.6

pression, out-of-plane unloading and reloading curves, strain-rate

effects, delamination characterization and finally, strain-based failure criteria. Experimental results show that the behavior in the 12
plane is essentially isotropic. The quasi-static properties of the
UHMWPE composite panel obtained from laboratory testing are given in Table 8.

Fig. 9. Body armor plate (a) FE model top view and (b) cross-sectional through point of impact.

590

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

2.6. LS-DYNA solver parameters

Table 9
Simulation results for various configurations of equal areal density.
Configuration
(10 in.  12 in.)

Ceramic
(%)

Composite
(%)

Undamaged
UHMWPE layers (%)

BFS
(mm)

0
1
2

70
40
30

30
60
70

40
30
13

18
22
39

1 0
Dr11
C 11
B Dr C B C
22
B
C B 12
B
C B
B Dr33 C B 0
B
C B
B Dr C B 0
23 C
B
B
B
C B
@ Dr31 A @ 0
0

Dr12

C 11

C 33

C 44

C 44

C 12

C 12

1
De11
C B De C
CB 22 C
CB
C
CB De33 C
CB
C
C B De C
CB 23 C
CB
C
A@ De31 A
10

De12

The parameters IBULK, bulk modulus and IG, shear modulus

are required for user defined materials for transmitting boundaries, contact interfaces, rigid body constraints and time step calculations. Since these parameters significantly affect the
simulation results for high strain rates they are conservatively
set to the highest possible stiffness expected in the simulation.
The solver calculates the time step using a stability scale factor
which is 0.90 by default. Since the constitutive model has a
number of strain rate dependent properties, for stability reasons
we set the scale factor to 0.50 reducing the required time step.
The second order stress updates and invariant node numbering
in the CONTROL_ACCURACY control card are turned on. Various
energy checks [25] are made to ensure that the results are stable
and makes physical sense.

Fig. 10. State of bullet at different times: (a) All models at time 0 ms. (b) Configuration 0 at time 0.049 ms. (c) Configuration 1 at time 0.049 ms. (d) Configuration 2 at time
0.049 ms. (e) Configuration 0 at time 0.15 ms. (f) Configuration 1 at time 0.15 ms. (g) Configuration 2 at time 0.15.

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

591

To gauge the accuracy of the various models, two response measures are used.

2.7. Delamination
The bonding between the sheets is represented numerically
using zero thickness cohesive elements available in LS-DYNA
[12]. The delamination can also be simulated several different
ways and the present work is based on the material model

MAT_COHESIVE_GENERAL [24]. Since density per unit area is
needed as input for the material model with zero thick cohesive
elements, the value is arrived at using trial-and-error. The properties such as peak traction and the relative displacement at which
the peak traction occur are required as input for the cohesive material model which are obtained using a regression analysis as presented in our earlier work [32].
2.8. Ballistic simulation of ceramic composite armor
The calibrated ceramic model and the developed constitutive
model of the composite material are used to help design and manufacture a certified body armor plate [28]. The plate is a doublycurved plate with approximate size as 10 in:  12 in:  1 in:. The
armor plate contains several components the ceramic plate, the
UHMWPE composite panel that is the backing material, an epoxy
resin that is used to bond the ceramic and the composite material,
and a thin polyurethane shell that provides environmental protection for the entire package. During the armor plate qualification,
the plate is strapped to a clay block and is subjected to one shot
with a .30 caliber M2 AP projectile at 2880 ft/s. The basic motivation in this design study is to see how these two basic constituents
(ceramic and UHMWPE) can be mixed to yield a cost-effective armor plate.

(a) Response R1: Percentage of original thickness that is undamaged when the bullet is stopped.
(b) Response R2: Back face signature (BFS).
The finite element model of the plate is shown in Fig. 9a and the
cross-section showing the bullet and the plate just before impact is
shown in Fig. 9b. The composite part of the plate is divided into a
number of layers with each layer representing a few layers or
sheets of thermopressed material. Zero thickness cohesive elements are modeled between two adjacent FE layers. No boundary
conditions are used since our numerical experimentation showed
no perceptible difference between models with nodes restrained
at the straps versus the model with no nodes restrained. The finite
element mesh is refined in the projectilearmor contact region.
ERODING_SINGLE_SURFACE contact definition is used for the interacting the projectile and armor.
Various configurations of ceramic and the composite were simulated keeping the areal density the same as the Configuration 0.
From amongst those configurations, two interesting ones are selected where the percentage of ceramic is progressively less compared to Configuration 0. Table 9 shows the simulation results
for all three configurations.
The results show that the performance of the armor plate
degrades as the percentage of ceramic is decreased even though
the overall areal density is constant. The analysis of the simulation
shows that the ceramic hard face blunts and erodes the tip of
the 0.30 caliber M2 AP projectile which is consistent with the

Fig. 11. Final state of the armor panel: (a) Configuration 0. (b) Configuration 1. (c) Configuration 2.

592

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

Fig. 12. Kinetic energy of the bullet core versus time (FE simulation).

Table 10
Response metrics for configuration 0 armor panel.
Response metric

FEA

Experiment

Bullet contained
Percentage of undamaged UHMWPE layers (R1) (%)
Back face signature (R2) (mm)

Yes
40
18

Yes
40
35

experiment. The very high compressive pressure generated causes

rupture of the ceramic material. The pressure wave generated in
the ceramic plate during the impact is initially positive and it

progresses radially outward in the planar (strike) face. At the interface of the ceramic composite, part of the pressure gets reflected
and it becomes negative. The negative pressure which is tensile
causes the ceramic to fail in tension.
Fig. 10 shows how the bullet is damaged as it goes through
the ceramic plate first and then through the UHMWPE backing
for all the three configurations. Fig. 11 shows the final time
snapshot of the panel. Fig. 12 shows the evolution of the kinetic
energy of the bullet core. In the Configuration 0 model, approximately 75% of the kinetic energy of the bullet core is dissipated as it goes through the ceramic. Much less energy
dissipation of the bullet takes place through the other two
models in the same amount of time. The composite backing
helps to absorb the residual kinetic energy of the projectile
and eventually stops it.
Configuration 0 is chosen as the best design for a couple of reasons. First, the configuration reduces the kinetic energy of the bullet very rapidly. This leads to minimal damage to the composite
backing and a much smaller BFS. Second, this ceramic-UHMWPE
combination leads to the most cost economical armor plate. A prototype of Configuration 0 is made using the material and geometric
details from the FE model. Table 10 shows the comparison between
the tested plate and the FE predictions. The armor plate, damage on
the ceramic plate and the damage predicted by the simulation on
the ceramic material are shown in Fig. 13.
The FE model predicts that the bullet is contained in the
UHMWPE in agreement with the experiment. The complete erosion of the bullet jacket and the filler material is well captured
along with the blunting of the core material. The BFS is under predicted by the model and a study is under way to understand the
reasons why.

Fig. 13. Using Configuration 0: (a) Tested armor plate. (b) FE prediction. (c) Close up of shot area showing ceramic damage. (d) Close up of FE prediction.

K. Krishnan et al. / Composites: Part B 41 (2010) 583593

3. Concluding remarks
In this paper, we discuss the development of a finite element
model that is used as a predictive tool in the design of a body armor system involving ceramic and high-performance polyethylene. The ceramic material is modeled using JH-2 material model
and the JH-2 strength and damage parameters are calibrated using
depth-of-penetration tests. A similar procedure is used to build the
bullet finite element model. The UHMWPE model is developed and
discussed in a separate paper [32]. The numerical results for the
ceramic composite armor were found to be in good agreement
with the experimental data.
The following remarks and observations can be made:
(a) Ceramic model: The damage evolution mechanism in the
ceramic material during high velocity impact is a complex
phenomenon and the JH-2 material model with calibrated
parameters appears to provide a reasonable avenue for capturing damage.
(b) UHMWPE model: One of the challenges is in capturing the
delamination phenomenon and the energy dissipation that
takes place in the process. Cohesive zone elements capture
the damage that takes place in the UHMWPE material similar to what is observed in the experimental specimens. The
BFS is under predicted by the simulation. Some of this can
be attributed to the temperature rise which occurs due to
the friction between the projectile and the armor plate and
also the friction between the armor plate layers. Further
research needs to be done in this area to improve the predictive capability of the model.
(c) Bond line effects: In the current research, the bond line material that is used to bond the ceramic to the UHMWPE material is not modeled. There is experimental evidence that
there is an optimum thickness of the bond line material
for which the ballistic performance of the armor plate can
be maximized [23]. The authors are currently investigating
the tools required to model this component.
(d) Formal design optimization: A trial-and-error design process
may be useful in searching for an optimal solution when a
few design parameters are involved. To better understand
the armor design process and find better solutions, it is necessary to carry out formal design optimization [30].

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank C.T. Wu (LSTC) for providing
valuable input on LS-DYNA capabilities and modeling issues dealing with Lagrangian and SPH formulations.

References
[1] Anderson Jr CE, Walker JD. An analytical model for dwell and interface defeat.
Int J Impact Eng 2005;31:111932.
[2] Barauskas R, Abraitiene A. Computational analysis of impact of a bullet against
the multilayer fabrics in LS-DYNA. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34:1286305.
[3] Benloulo CIS, Sanchez-Galvez V. A new analytical model to simulate impact
onto ceramic/composite armors. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(6):46171.
[4] Bhatnagar A, editor. Lightweight ballistic composites: military and lawenforcement applications. CRC Press; 2006.

593

[5] Chocron S, Anderson Jr CE, Grosch DJ, Popelar CH. Impact of the 7.62-mm
APM2 projectile against edge of a metallic target. Int J Impact Eng
2001;25:42337.
[6] Clegg RA, Hayhurst CJ, Leahy JG, Deutekon M. Application of a coupled
anisotropic material model to high velocity impact response of composite
textile armor. In: 18th International symposium on ballistics, San Antonio, TX;
1999.
[7] Cronin DS, Bui K, Kauffmann C, McIntosh G, Berstad T. Implementation and
validation of the JohnsonHolmquist ceramic material Model. In: LS-Dyna, 4th
European LS-DYNA users conference; 2003.
[8] DSM Dyneema; 2009. <http://www.dyneema.com>.
[9] Fellows NA, Barton PC. Development of impact model for ceramic-faced semiinfinite armour. Int J Impact Eng 1999;22:793811.
[10] Govaert LE, Peijs T. Tensile strength and work of fracture of oriented
polyethylene fibre. Polymer 1995;36(23):442531.
[11] Grujicic M, Pandurangan B, Zecevici U, Koudela KL, Cheeseman BA. Ballistic
performance of Alumina/S-2 glassreinforced polymer-matrix composite
hybrid lightweight armor against armor piercing (AP) and non-AP
projectiles. Multidiscp Model Mater Struct 2007;3(3):287312.
[12] Hallquist J. LS-DYNA theoretical manual; 2007.
[13] Iremonger MJ. Polyethylene composites for protection against high velocity
small arms bullets. In: 18th International symposium on ballistics, San
Antonio, TX; 1999.
[14] Jacobs MJN, Van Dingenen JLJ. Ballistic protection mechanisms in personal
armour. J Mater Sci 2001;36:313742.
[15] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model data for metals subjected to large
strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the 7th
international symposium on ballistics; 1983. p. 5417.
[16] Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ. An improved computational constitutive model for
brittle materials. High pressure science and technology. New York: AIP; 1994.
[17] Johnson GR, Holmquist TJ. Response of boron carbide subjected to large
strains, high strain rates and high pressures. J Appl Phys 1999;85(12).
[18] Karandikar PG, Evans G, Wong S, Aghajanian MK. A review of ceramics for
armor applications. In: 32nd International conference on advanced ceramics
and composites, Daytona Beach; 2008.
[19] Kauffmann C, Cronin D, Worswick M, Pageau G, Beth A. Influence of material
properties on the ballistic performance of ceramics for personal body armor.
Shock Vib 2003;10:518.
[20] Koh CP, Shim VPW, Tan VBC, Tan BL. Response of a high-strength flexible
laminate to dynamic tension. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35:55968.
[21] Lee M, Yoo YH. Analysis of ceramic/metal armour systems. Int J Impact Eng
2001;25:81929.
[22] Leuser DR, Kay GJ, LeBlanc MM. Modeling large-strain, high-rate deformation
in metals. In: Third biennial tri-laboratory engineering conference modeling
and simulation, Pleasanton, CA; 2001.
[23] Lopez-Puente J, Arias A, Zaera R, Navarro C. The effect of the thickness of the
adhesive layer on the ballistic limit of ceramic/metal armours. An
experimental and numerical study. Int J Impact Eng 2005;32:32136.
[24] LSTC. LS-DYNA 971 users manual; 2009 <http://www.lstc.com>.
[25] LS-DYNA support; 2009. <http://www.dynasupport.com/howtos/general/
total-energy/> <http://www.dynasupport.com/howtos/element/hourglass?
searchterm=hourglass>.
[26] Lundberg P. Interface defeat and penetration: two modes of interaction
between metallic projectiles and ceramic targets. PhD dissertation. Faculty of
Science and Technology, Uppsala University, Sweden; 2004.
[27] Moynihan TJ, Chou SC, Mihalcin AL. Application of the depth-of-penetration
test methodology to characterize ceramics for personnel protection. Army
Research Laboratory; 2000.
[28] National Institute of Justice. NIJ 2005 interim requirements for bullet-resistant
body armor; 2005.
[29] Nemat-Nasser S, Sarve S, Isaacs JB, Lischer DW. Novel ideas in multi-functional
ceramic armor design. Ceram Trans 2002;134:51125.
[30] Rajan SD, Krishnan K, Belegundu AD. A general optimization methodology for
ballistic panel design. In: International conference on engineering
optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 15 June, 2008.
[31] Simha CHM, Bless SJ, Bedford A. Computational modeling of the penetration
response of a high-purity ceramic. Intl J Impact Eng 2002;27:6586.
[32] Sockalingam S, Krishnan K, Bansal S, Dhandapani K, Rajan SD. Development of
a constitutive model for ultra high molecular weight polyethylene materials.
HYI Internal Report 2010-2; 2010.
[33] Woolsey P, Kokidko D, Mariano SA. Alternative test methodology for ballistic
performance ranking of armor ceramics. MTL TR 89-43. US Army Materials
Technology Laboratory; 1989.
[34] Zaera R, Sanchez-Saez S, Perez-Castellanos JL, Navarro C. Modelling of the
adhesive layer in mixed ceramic/metal armours subjected to impact.
Composites Part A 2000;31:82333.
[35] Zukas JA, Scheffler DR. Practical aspects of numerical simulations of dynamic
events: effects of meshing. Intl J Impact Eng 2000;24:92545.