Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
com
Abstract
The use of advanced ceramics for armour systems allows the defeating of the projectile and ballistic impact energy dissipation providing
adequate ballistic protection. The development of lightweight and inexpensive ceramics and armour designs is under ongoing attention by both
ceramic armour manufacturers and armour users. This paper summarizes the results of extensive studies of ballistic performance of different
armour ceramics, mostly obtained during development, as well as of the materials manufactured by other recognized armour ceramic suppliers, and
the designed ceramic-based armour systems. The studied armour ceramics include homogeneous oxide and carbide ceramics and heterogeneous
ceramic materials. Composition, structure and main properties of the considered ceramics, which affect ballistic performance, are examined and
analyzed. Only a combination of all relevant physical properties and microstructure, including the ability to dissipate ballistic energy, as well as
optimization of manufacturing processes, should be considered for proper selection and evaluation of ceramic armour. Ballistic performance of the
studied ceramics as function of their structure and properties, armour system design and type of projectile has been discussed.
# 2010 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.
Keywords: B. Composites; B. Microstructure-final; E. Armour; Ballistic performance
1. Introduction
During the last decade, intensive studies were devoted to the
development of lightweight armour systems for personnel,
vehicle, helicopter and structural applications and their ballistic
performance. Advanced ceramics is one of the most important
components of modern armour systems. As a component of the
armour systems, advanced ceramics assist to defeat projectiles
through the ballistic impact energy dissipation. The mechanisms of ballistic protection for ceramic and metal armour are
significantly different. While metallic armour absorbs the
energy of projectile by a plastic deformation mechanism, in the
case of ceramics, the kinetic energy of the projectile is
dissipated through fracture. Usually ceramic armour systems
consist of a monolithic ceramic or composite ceramic-metal
body covered by ballistic nylon and bonded with a high tensile
strength fiber lining or laminated polyethylene, such as
0272-8842/$36.00 # 2010 Elsevier Ltd and Techna Group S.r.l. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2010.05.021
2104
2105
Table 1
Ammunition used in ballistic performance testing.
Ammunition
Description
Weight, g
Velocity, g cm3
Energy, kJ
5.56 45 mm SS109
7.62 39 mm
7.62 51 mm
0.308 Win
7.62 54R LPS
0.308 Lapua
7.62 63 mm AP M2
4
8
9.65
9.7
12
11
10.8
9301000
710740
854
838859
818
860
830868
1.732.0
2.022.19
3.52
3.413.58
4.01
4.07
3.724.07
HV E
KIc2
0:36HV E c
KIc2
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
2106
Fig. 1. Microstructure of alumina ceramics. (a) AL98; (b) AL98.5; (c) AL99.7; (d) AZ.
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
Fig. 2. Microstructure of aluminamullite ceramics. (a) AM2; (b) ZAS2 (prepared in the system Al2O3SiO2ZrO2).
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
2107
Fig. 3. Microstructure of reaction-bonded carbide ceramics. (a) RBBC; (b) RBSC; (c) biomorphic RBSC.
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
Fig. 4. Microstructure heterogeneous SiC(Si3N4)Al2O3 ceramics. (a) AS ceramics made from the starting system SiCAl2O3; (b) ASN ceramics made from the
starting system SiCSi3N4Al2O3; (c) ESAS ceramics made from the starting system SiCSi3N4Al2O3Si.
2108
Table 2
Properties of the studied alumina armour ceramics.
Property
a
3
Density , g cm
Youngs modulus, GPa
Sonic velocity, km s1
Vickers hardness HV10
Fracture toughness, KIc, MPa m0.5
Flexural strength, MPa
Brittleness, B 106, m1
Ballistic energy dissipation criterion, D 1012, s1 (calculated)
a
AL97ML
AL98
AL98.5
AL99.7
3.743.76
280300
9.59.9
12301260
3.03.3
340380
1.701.95
3.783.82
325360
10.010.5
12201330
3.23.3
250350
370430
1.501.60
3.813.84
370420
10.611.3
13201420
3.33.4
270360
420460
1.801.95
3.903.91
400450
10.711.6
15201560
3.13.4
320380
525545
2.202.40
Table 3
Properties of the studied aluminamullite and aluminazirconia ceramics.
Property
a
Density , g cm
AM2
3
3.523.56
1130
11.1
90.5
2.54
8.62
237
350
408
1.3
AM5
3.523.55
1030
10.1
89
2.32
8.76
241
300
452
1.4
ZAS2
3.703.75
1180
11.6
90
3.03
9.04
275
350
347
1.1
ZAS3
3.583.62
940
9.2
85
3.08
8.38
228
275
221
0.7
AZ
4.354.39
1560
15.3
95
4.0
9.9
325
530
300
1.17
2109
Table 4
Properties of the studied dense homogeneous carbide ceramics.
B4C hot-pressed
Property
a
3
Density , g cm
Rockwell hardness HRA
2.5
9495
2.42.45
9394
20502250
2022
19002100
18.520.5
18702020
18.320
23502450
2324
22502400
2223.5
22002300
21.522.5
2.52.8
400430
420460
13.213.8
12301770
7.3
3.13.4
380400
400420
12.513.2
7601030
4.1
2.83.2
350400
400420
11.511.8
8401210
4.4
Table 5
Properties of the studied reaction-bonded carbide ceramics.
Conventional RBSCa
Property
3
Density, g cm
Rockwell hardness HRA
3.03.07
9091
Biomorphic RBSC
2.8
90
Conventional RBBC
2.52.55
9092
20002150
12501450
1650b
15501750b
23502450
13501500
2050b
17501900b
2.22.8
10.311.6
300400
190250
a
b
2.3
10.4
290
180
The data accumulated for different RBSC ceramics from several different manufacturers.
Average values; the separate testing for the major grains and for the matrix could not be conducted.
2.65
11.8
300350
180200
2110
Table 6
Properties of the studied SiC-based heterogeneous ceramics.
Property
Ceramics AS-ASN
based on starting
system SiC(Si3N4)
Al2O3
Ceramics ESS-ESAS
based on starting
system SiCSi3N4
Al2O3Si
Density, g cm3
2.73.2
2.853.05
Rockwell hardness
HRC
HRA
4055
5877
4555
6878
105155
1.862.24
240310
9.811.2
120140
260280
9.810.05
[(Fig._5)TD$IG]
2111
Fig. 5. Ballistic performance of aluminamullite ceramics AM2. (a) 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ (6 rounds to one plate, no penetration); (b) 7.62 63 mm AP
M2 (1 round, no penetration).
defeating all threats, which were used for the testing, such
as 5.56 45 mm SS109, 7.62 39 mm Russian and
7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ, 7.62 54R LPS and others
and even 0.308 Lapua and 7.62 63 mm AP M2 ammunitions
with high kinetic energy. They provided ballistic protection to
NIJ Level III or Level IV depending on the type of ceramics and
backing materials (e.g. Level IV in conjunction with a ballistic
KevlarTM vest or stand alone, i.e. without vest). Armour
systems based on the mentioned oxide ceramics for personnel
protection have satisfactory multi-hit performance (up to 67
impacts to one body-armour plate or multiple impacts for large
monolithic panels for vehicular ballistic protection). Depending
on the ammunition, each material has its own features of
fracturing connected with its physical properties and microstructure. Trauma for personnel armour plates made from these
materials occurred at acceptable levels (i.e. not greater than
44 mm deformation in accordance with NIJ Standards).
Alumina ceramics with higher hardness demonstrated less
trauma and bullet intrusion. However, in this case, a greater
degree of a crack growth is observed, probably due to lower
brittleness values. Based on the fractography studies and
comparing ballistic performance of the considered highalumina ceramics, the materials, such as AL98 and AL98.5,
provide less crack growth but larger trauma than AL99.7;
however, they are better for multi-hit performance due to
greater energy dissipation ability. At the same time, the
ceramics AL99.7 and AL98.5 are more superior for the armour
piercing (7.62 63 mm AP M2); they could demonstrate
successful ballistic performance against two AP rounds to the
armour plate with acceptable weights and thickness suitable for
body-armour applications. The ceramic AL98.5 may be
selected as very acceptable for all types of ballistic situations
when multi-hit performance and armour piercing are considered due to the optimal microstructure and mechanical
properties. It has to be noted that some alumina ceramics
obtained from other manufacturers with similar Al2O3 contents,
as the developed and considered here, demonstrate elevated
cracking, fragmentation and trauma and, therefore, are less
reliable and require a thicker backing. This is the evidence that
the Al2O3 content is not the major factor for the selection of the
proper armour material, but microstructure and physical
properties dealt with ceramic composition, appropriate grades
[(Fig._6)TD$IG]2112
Fig. 6. Fracturing of ceramics after ballistic impact. (a) AM2 ceramics, 7.62 63 mm AP M2 (some fragments were removed); (b) RBSC ceramics, 7.62 54R
LPS; (c) dense SiC ceramics, 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ; (d) biomorphic RBSC, 7.62 63 mm AP M2; (e) ASN ceramics, 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ; (f)
AS ceramics, 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ, 2 rounds to 1 tile (110 110 mm).
done not only for the developed ceramics (in order to minimize
the influence of the manufacturing issues affecting homogeneity of microstructure and properties, special process
improvement actions have been implemented), but also for
alumina ceramics with similar compositions obtained from
some other manufacturers. This data are well correlated to the
general concept related to the influence of lower homogeneity
and the presence of micro-defects on crack formation and
breakage of advanced ceramics, and they also are confirmed by
the hardness measuring (microstructure studies under indentation).
Studied heterogeneous SiC-based ceramics also demonstrated high ballistic performance. Armour systems based on
these ceramics are capable of defeating 5.56 45 mm SS109,
7.62 39 mm and 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ and
[(Fig._7)TD$IG]
2113
Fig. 7. Ballistic test results for heterogeneous SiC-based ceramics. (a) ASN and RBSC ceramics (body-armour plates), 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ; (b) AS
ceramics, 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ 2 rounds to one tile (110 110 mm); (c) biomorphic RBSC, 7.62 51 mm NATO Ball FMJ (top) and 7.62 54R LPS
(bottom); (d) biomorphic RBSC (tile 100 100 mm), 7.62 63 mm AP M2.
[(Fig._8)TD$IG]2114
Fig. 8. RBBC ceramics with structural defect (this defect may be a cause of
decrease of ballistic performance).
References
[1] C.F. Cline, M.L. Wilkins, The importance of material properties in
ceramic armor, in: DCIC Report 69-1; Part I: Ceramic Armor, 1969,
pp. 1318.
[2] R.L. Landingham, A.W. Casey, Final Report of the Light Armor Materials
Program, UCRL-57269, 1972.
[3] S.-K. Chung, Fracture characterization of armor ceramics, Am. Ceram.
Soc. Bull. 69 (3) (1990) 358366.
[4] D.J. Viechnicki, M.J. Slavin, M.I. Kliman, Development and current status
of armor ceramics, Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 70 (6) (1991) 10351039.
[5] I.Yu. Kelina, Yu.I. Dobrinskii, Efficiency of the use of silicon nitride
ceramics as an armor material, Refract. Tech. Ceram. 6 (1997) 912 (in
Russian).
[6] B. Matchen, Application of ceramics in armor products; key engineering
materials, in: H. Mostaghasi (Ed.), Advanced Ceramic Materials, vols.
122124, Trans. Tech. Publications, Switzerland, 1996, pp. 333342.
[7] R.G. ODonnell, An investigation of the fragmentation behaviour of
impacted ceramics, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 10 (1991) 685688.
[8] V.C. Neshpor, G.P. Zaitsev, E.J. Dovgal, et al., Armour ceramics ballistic
efficiency evaluation, in: P. Vincenzini (Ed.), Ceramics: Charting the
Future, Proceedings of the 8th CIMTEC, Florence, Italy 28 June4 July
1994, (1995), pp. 23952401, Techna S.r.l..
[9] E. Medvedovski, Alumina ceramics for ballistic protection, Am. Ceram.
Soc. Bull. 81 (3) (2002) 2732;
E. Medvedovski, Alumina ceramics for ballistic protection, Am. Ceram.
Soc. Bull. 81 (4) (2002) 4550.
[10] B. James, Practical issues in ceramic armour design, in: J.W. McCauley,
A. Crowson, W.A. Gooch, Jr., et al. (Eds.), Ceramic Armor Materials by
Design, Ceramic Transactions, vol. 134, American Ceramic Society,
Westerville, OH, 2002, pp. 3344.
2115
[11] B.A. Galanov, O.N. Grigoriev, S.M. Ivanov, et al., Structure and
properties of shock-resistant ceramics developed at the institute for
problems in materials science, in: J.W. McCauley, A. Crowson, W.A.
Gooch, Jr., et al. (Eds.), Ceramic Armor Materials by Design, Ceramic
Transactions, vol. 134, American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH,
2002 , pp. 7381.
[12] E. Medvedovski, Aluminamullite ceramics for structural applications,
Ceram. Int. 32 (2006) 369375.
[13] M.K. Aghajanian, B.N. Morgan, J.R. Singh, et al., A new family of
reaction bonded ceramics for armor applications, in: J.W. McCauley, A.
Crowson, W.A. Gooch, Jr., et al. (Eds.), Ceramic Armor Materials by
Design, Ceramic Transactions, vol. 134, American Ceramic Society,
Westerville, OH, 2002, pp. 527539.
[14] E. Medvedovski, Silicon carbide-based ceramics for ballistic protection,
in: E. Medvedovski (Ed.), Ceramic Armor and Armor Systems, Ceramic
Transactions, vol. 151, American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH,
2003 , pp. 1935.
[15] B. Heidenreich, M. Gahr, E. Medvedovski, Biomorphic reaction bonded
silicon carbide ceramics for armor applications, in: E. Medvedovski (Ed.),
Ceramic Armor and Armor Systems II, Ceramic Transactions, vol. 178,
American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, 2005, pp. 4553.
[16] E. Medvedovski, P Sarkar, Indentation testing of armor ceramics, in: E.
Lara-Curzio, M.J. Readey (Eds.), Ceramic Engineering and Science
Proceedings, vol. 25, 2004, pp. 589596, no. 3.
[17] J.B. Quinn, G.D. Quinn, On the hardness and brittleness of ceramics, Key
Engineering Materials, vols. 132136, Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland, 1997, pp. 460463.
[18] V. Domnich, Y. Gogotsi, Phase transformation in silicon under contact
loading, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 3 (2002) 136.
[19] M. Chen, J.W. McCauley, K.J. Hemker, Shock induced localized amorphization in boron carbide, Science 299 (7) (2003) 15631566.